CIA Funded Google and Facebook …

… Shouldn’t Persecute Alex Jones and

by TDB

Via The Daily Bell {1}

Zero Hedge (February 25, 2017)



Google isn’t a state. It’s not a service. It’s a private company. They can censor whatever they want. Use a different company. If they want to cut off 1000s of people from their services, that’s fine. They are free to do so … This is capitalism, Google isn’t a right. Facebook and Twitter are not free speech. They are private companies.

– 4Chan



Google really isn’t a private company. If it continues to attack alternative media like Alex Jones and, it may find lawsuits headed in its direction. The same may go for Facebook too.

By portraying itself as a private company, Google can do as it chooses, when attacking companies that don’t live up to its standards from an advertising point of view.

It can help cut off companies that don’t properly advertise according to the Google rule book. The rule book is general and vague. But Google is supposedly a private company so it really doesn’t matter. Google can do pretty much as it wants. And so can Facebook.

They have both cut or helped cut alternative new websites like those belonging to Alex Jones and

Yet there is plenty to rebut this perspective. The best or most comprehensive article on Google along with the CIA and Pentagon is an Insurge Intelligence article entitled, “How the CIA Made Google”.

It shows that one of the founders of Google, Sergey Brin virtually reported to the Pentagon/ CIA while developing the project that would eventually become Google. Interestingly, later in the article, people close to the CIA and Pentagon are quoted as denying a close relationship. So obviously there is a good deal of sensitivity around the topic.

When it comes to Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg was funded indirectly by the CIA via Peter Thiel. Thiel is a cofounder of PayPal with Elon Musk of Tesla fame.

Thiel invested $500,000 into Facebook but supposedly this was a CIA investment. Thiel is very close to the CIA. His company Palanitir, supposedly worth some $20 billion, runs secret algorithms for the CIA and other intel agencies. It was just the subject of a Daily Mail story {25}. Thiel is supposedly a libertarian but we don’t see how he can be.

Later, Thiel invested 12.7 million into Facebook. Companies that owe their existence and direction to public intelligence agencies are not private. They ought not to be run as they were.

There are even larger issues surrounding Facebook and Google. Like all large companies, they have taken advantage of intellectual property rights, corporate personhood, central banking and regulationsthe more the better.

Regulations are helpful to large companies because large companies can follow them more closely than smaller ones. Over time, regulations can put smaller companies out of business. Meanwhile, Central bank fiat money is available in copious quantities to large companies like Facebook and Google.

Corporate personhood blames the company rather than the executive for problems. Thus in the case of any difficulties the company can receive a fine, but the corporate executive may escape untouched.

Intellectual property rights are the final and perhaps most important area when it comes to court decisions that have artificially expanded the might and size of corporations. Both Google and Facebook are built on intellectual property rights paid for by others.

Intellectual property rights expanded drastically post civil war. Before the war there were very few corporations but after the war, the Supreme Court handed down decisions that buttressed both corporate personhood and intellectual property rights.

More recently the Court has attacked intellectual property rights, but the basics remain pretty much untouched. Inventors are given a right to “own” their products for a long fixed period of time. This is fundamental to the wealth creation of Google and Facebook.

It shouldn’t be this way. Just because you have invented something doesn’t mean you own it for twenty or thirty years. Or if you do own it, you should protect it with your own money, not with taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, if something is not produced but is an idea, that idea is shared immediately on publication. That’s our perspective anyway. There’s no reason why the Supreme Court should protect an idea. If someone else uses the idea, he has not directly damaged you. The idea has been made available.

Without various investments and relationships, and most importantly without intellectual property rights, corporate personhood, central banking and regulations, both Google and Facebook would be a shadow of what they are now. There would be many more such companies and a good deal more progress would have been made as well.

Conclusion: Corporations are fictitious entities created basically by Supreme Court decisions. They shouldn’t exist as they do, and one day perhaps they won’t.


Also see:

“The World Needs Globalization, It Needs Trade” {3}

“Republicans Reeling in Fed?” {4}

“Trump’s Complications in Draining the Swamp” {5}
and many more, just a click away …







The West Is Finished

But Why?

by Andre Vltchek

Information Clearing House (February 09/10 2017)

Despite certain economic and social setbacks, the Western Empire is doing remarkably well. That is, if we measure success by the ability to control the world, to condition the brains of human beings on all continents, and to crush almost all substantial descent, at home and abroad.

What almost entirely disappeared from life, at least in such places like New York, London or Paris, is that simple human joy, which is so obvious and evident when it exists. Paradoxically, in the very centers of power, most people seem to be living anxious, unfulfilled, almost frightened lives.

It all somehow doesn’t feel right. Shouldn’t citizens of the conquering part of the world, of the victorious regime, be at least confident and optimistic?

Of course there are many reasons why they are not, and some of my comrades already outlined in details and in colorful language at least the main causes of depression and dissatisfaction with life, which are literally devouring alive those hundreds of millions of European and North American citizens.

The situation is mostly analyzed from socioeconomic angle. However, I think that the most important causes for the present state of things are much simpler: the West and its colonies almost entirely destroyed the most essential human instincts: people’s ability to dream, to feel passionate about things, to rebel and to “get involved”.

Single-mindedness, optimism, naivete are almost entirely gone. But those are exactly the qualities that used to move our human race forward!

Despite what is now commonly perceived in the West, it is not “knowledge” and definitely not “science” that were behind the greatest leaps forward achieved by the civilization.

It has always been a deep and instinctive humanism, accompanied by faith (and here I’m not talking about some religious faith) and by tremendous dedication and loyalty to the cause. Without naivete, without innocence, nothing great could have ever been attained.

Science was always there, and it was important for improving many practical aspects of human life, but it was never the main engine propelling a nation towards some just, balanced, and “livable” society. When employed by enlightened system, science had played important role in building much better world, but it was never the other way around.

The progress was always triggered and fueled by human emotions, by seemingly irrational and unachievable dreams, by poetry and wide scale of burning passions. The finest concepts for improvement of civilization were frequently not even logical; they were simply born out of some beautiful human instincts, intuitions and desires (logic was applied later, when practical details had to be nailed down).

Now “knowledge”, rationality and “logic”, at least in the West, are forcing human feelings into the corner. “Logic” is now even replacing traditional religions. Obsession with “facts”, with “understanding” everything, is actually becoming absurdly extreme, dogmatic, even fundamentalist.

All this fanatical fact collecting often feels unreal, “metallic”, cold and to many of those who are coming from “the outside” (geographically or intellectually), extremely unnatural.

Let’s not forget that “facts” consumed by the masses and even by the relatively educated Westerners, are generally coming from the identical sources. The same type of logic is being used, and several undistinguishable tools of analyses applied. Consuming excessive amount of news, “facts” and “analyses” usually doesn’t lead to understanding anything in depth, or to a truly critical thoughts, quite the contrary – it very effectively murders one’s ability to consider totally new concepts, and especially to rebel against the intellectual cliches and stereotypes. No wonder that the middle class Europeans and North Americans are among the most conformist people on earth!

Collecting mountains of data and “information” in most cases leads absolutely nowhere. For millions, it is becoming just a hobby, like any other one, including videogames and PlayStation. It keeps person “on top of things”, so he or she can impress acquaintances, or it simply satisfies that neurotic need to constantly consume news.

To make things worse, most Westerners (and almost all Westernized foreigners) are incessantly locked in a complex “information” and perceptions web with the members of their families, as well as with their friends and co-workers. There is constant pressure to conform while extremely little space and almost no rewards for true intellectual courage or originality.

Regimes already managed to a great extent to standardize “knowledge”, mainly by utilizing pop culture and indoctrinating people through its “educational” institutions.

People are actually voluntarily locking themselves for years at schools and universities, wasting their time, paying their own money, even getting into debt, just in order to make it easier for the regime to indoctrinate them and turning them into good and obedient subjects of the Empire!

Already for decades the system has been successfully producing entire generations of emotionally dead and confused individuals.

These people are so damaged that they cannot fight for anything, anymore (except, sometimes, for their own personal and selfish interests); they cannot take sides, and cannot even identify their own goals and desires. They constantly try (and fail) to “find something meaningful” and “fulfilling” they could do in life. It is always about them finding something, not about joining meaningful struggles or inventing something thoroughly new for the sake of humanity! They keep going “back to school”, they keep crying for “lost opportunities” because they “didn’t study what they think they really should have” (no matter what they actually study or do in life, they mostly feel dissatisfied, anyway).

They are constantly scared of being rejected, they are petrified that their ignorance and inability to do anything truly meaningful would be discovered and ridiculed (many of them actually sense how empty their lives are).

They are unhappy, some thoroughly miserable, and even suicidal. Yet their desperation does not propel them into action. Most of them never rebel; never truly confront regime, never challenge their immediate milieu.

These hundreds of millions of broken and idle people (some of them actually not stupid at all) are tremendous loss to the world. Instead of erecting barricades, writing outraged novels or openly ridiculing this entire Western charade, they are mostly suffering in silence, some succumbing to substance abuse or contemplating suicide.

If the opportunity to thoroughly change their lives really arrives, they cannot identify it anymore; cannot grasp it. It is because they cannot fight; they were “pacified” since early age, since the school.

That is exactly where the regime wants to have its citizens. It’s where it’s got them!

Shockingly, almost no one calls this entire nightmare by its real name – a monstrous crime!

People buy books in order to make sense of it all, but they hardly manage to read them to the end. They are too preoccupied; they are lacking concentration and determination. And the great majority of books available in the stores are giving no meaningful answers, anyway.

Still, many are trying: they are analyzing and analyzing, aimlessly. They “don’t understand and want to know”. They don’t realize that this path of constantly thinking, while applying certain prescribed tools of the analyses, is one huge trap.

There is really nothing much to understand. People were actually robbed of life, robbed of natural human feelings, of warmth, of passion, even of love itself (what they call “love” is often surrogate, and nothing more).

All this is never pronounced not even in fiction books anymore, unless you read in Russian or Spanish. The success of the Empire to produce obedient, scared and unimaginative beings is now complete!

Big corporations are thriving; elites are collecting enormous booty, while the great majority of people in the West is gradually losing its ability to dream and to feel. Without those preconditions, no rebellion is possible. Lack of imagination, accompanied by emotional numbness, is the most effective formula for stagnation, even regression.

That is why the West is finished.

Grotesque obsession with science, with medical practices, and with “facts”, is helping to divert attention from the real and horrific issue.

Constant debates, analyses, and “looking at things from different angles”, leads to nothing else but passivity. But taking action is too scary, and people are not used to making dramatic decisions, anymore, or even gestures.

This also leads to the fact that almost no one in the West is now ready to gather under any ideological banner, or to embrace full heartedly what is called derogatorily “labels”.

For millennia, people flocked intuitively into various movements, political parties and groups. No significant change was ever achieved by one single individual (although a strong leader at the head of a movement, party of even government could definitely achieve a lot).

To be part of something important and revolutionary was symbolizing often a true meaning of life. People were (and in many parts of the world still are) fully committed, dedicated to the important and heroic struggles. Trying to build a better world, fighting for a better world, even dying for it: that was often considered the most glorious what a human being could achieve in his or her lifetime.

In the West, such approach is dead, thoroughly destroyed. There, cynicism reigns. You have to challenge everything, trust nothing, and commit to nothing.

You are expected to mistrust any government. You should ridicule everyone who believes in something, especially if that something is pure and noble. You simply have to drag through filth any grandiose attempt to improve the world, whether it is happening in Ecuador, Philippines, China, Russia or South Africa.

To show strong feeling for some leader, for political party or the government in a country that is still capable of some fire and passion, is met with mocking sarcasm in places like London or New York. “We are all thieves, and all human beings and therefore governments, are similar”, goes deadly and toxic “wisdom”.

How lovely, really! What a way forward.

Yes, of course: if hours and hours are spent analyzing some fiery leader or movement, for instance in Latin America, at least some “dirt” would always emerge, as no place and no group of people is perfect. This gives Westerners great alibi for not getting involved in anything. That’s how it is designed. “Give up on hope for perfect world, say that you simply cannot believe in anything anymore, and go wiggle your ass in some club in London or New York”. Then, go back to school or get yourself some meaningless job. Or get stoned.

It is actually much easier than to work extremely hard to save the world or your country! It is much easier than to risk your life and to fight for justice. It is easier than trying to really think, to attempt to invent something thoroughly new, for this beloved and scarred planet of ours!

Old Russian ballad says:



It is so hard to love … But it is so easy to leave …



And with the revolution, with the movements, struggles, even governments that one full heartedly supports, it is, to a great extent, very similar as with love.

Love can never be fully scrutinized, fully analyzed, or it is not really love. There is nothing, and should be nothing logical or rational about it. Only when it is dying one begins analyzing, while looking for excuses to slam the door.

But while it is there, while it exists, alive, warm and pulsating, to apply “objectivity” regarding the other person would be brutal, disrespectful; in a way it would be a betrayal.

Only “new Westerners” can commit such travesty, by analyzing love, by writing “guides” about how to deal with human feelings, how to maximize profits from their emotional investments!

How could a man who loves a woman just sit on a sofa and analyze: “I love her but maybe I should think twice, because her nose is too big, and her behind is too large?” That’s absolute nonsense! A woman who is loved, truly loved, is the most beautiful being on earth.

And so is the struggle!

Otherwise, without true dedication and single-mindedness, nothing will ever change; never improve.

But let’s not forget – the Empire doesn’t want anything to improve. That’s why it is spreading limitless cynicism and nihilism. That’s why it is smearing everything pure and natural, while implanting bizarre “perfection models”, so the people always compare, always judge, always have doubts, never feel satisfied, and as a result, abstain from all serious involvements.

The empire wants people to think, but think in a way it programs them to do. It wants them to analyze, but only by using its methods. And it wants people to discard, even reject their natural instincts and emotions.

The results are clear: grotesque individualism and self-centrism, confused, broken societies, collapsed relationships between people, and total spite for higher aspirations.

It is not only about the Marxist or revolutionary political parties, about the rebellions or internationalist, anti-imperialist struggles.

Have you noticed how shallow, how unstable became most inter-human relationships in the West? Nobody wants to get truly “involved”. People are testing each other. They constantly think, hardly feel. Powerful passions are looked down at (emotional outbursts are considered “indecent”, even shameful): now it is suddenly all about one’s “feeling good”, always “calm”, but paradoxically, almost no one is actually feeling good or calm in this “new West”, anymore.

It all, of course, mutated into exact opposite of what love, or a true revolutionary work (political, or artistic) used to be, and just to remind you, it used to be the most beautiful, the most insane turmoil, total departure from dismal normalcy.

In the West, almost none could even write great poetry, anymore. No haunting melodies, no powerful lyrics are created there.

Life became suddenly shallow, predictable and programmed.

Without ability to love passionately, without capacity to give, to sacrifice everything unconditionally, one cannot expect to become a great revolutionary.

Of course in the passionless West obsessed with type of knowledge that somehow keeps failing to enlighten, with the applied sciences and deeply rooted egocentricity, there is no fertile ground for powerful passions left, and therefore no chance for the true revolution.

“I rebel: therefore we exist”, declared Albert Camus, correctly.

Collective rebellion culminates into revolution. Without a revolution, or without constant aspiration for it, there is no life.

The West lost ability to love and to rebel.

And that is why it is finished!

There is a good saying:



You cannot ever understand Russia with your brain. You can only believe in it.



The same goes for China, Japan and so many other places.

To come to Asia or Russia and begin your journey by trying to “understand” these places is nothing short of insanity. There is no reason for it, and no chance that it could be achieved in a few months, even years.

Neurotic and thoroughly Western approach of constantly trying to “understand” everything with one’s brain, can actually ruin all irreversibly and right from the beginning. The best way to start to truly comprehend Asia is by absorbing, by being gently guided by others, by seeing, feeling, discarding all preconceptions and cliches. Understanding doesn’t come necessarily with logic. Actually, it almost never does. It involves senses and emotions, and it usually arrives suddenly, unexpectedly.

The revolution, in fact the most sacred and honorable struggles – they are also brewing for a long time, and they also come unexpectedly, and straight from the heart.

Whenever I come to New York but especially to London or Paris, and whenever I encounter those “theoretical leftists”, I have to smile bitterly when I follow their pointless but long discussions about some theory, which is totally separated from reality. And it is almost exclusively about them: are they Trotskyists and why? Or perhaps they are anarcho-syndicalists? Or Maoists? Whatever they are, they always begin on the couch or a bar stool, and that’s where they end up, late in the evening.

In case you are just coming from Venezuela or Bolivia, where people are fighting true battles for survival of their revolutions, it is quite shocking experience! Most of them, in Altiplano, never even heard about Lev Trotsky, or anarcho-syndicalism. What they know is that they are at war, they are fighting for all of us, for much better world, and they need immediate and concrete support for their struggle: petitions, demonstrations, money, and cadres. All they get is words. They get nothing from the West: almost nothing at all, and they never will.

It is because they are not good enough for the Brits and French. They are too “real”, not “pure enough”. They make mistakes. They are too human, not sterile, and not “well-behaved”. They “violate some rights here or there”. They are too emotional. They are this or that, but definitely “one could not fully throw his or her weight fully behind them”.

“Scientifically”, they are wrong. If one spends ten hours in the pub or living room, discussing them, there would definitely arise enough arguments for withdrawing all support. The same applies for the revolutionaries and for the revolutionary changes in the Philippines, and in so many other places.

The West cannot connect to this way of thinking. It doesn’t see absurdity in its own behavior and attitudes. It lost its spirit; it lost its heart, its feelings, from the right and now even from the left. In exchange for what, brain? But there is nothing significant that comes from that area either!

And that is why it is finished!

People are now unwilling to get themselves behind anything real; behind any true revolution, any movement, any government, unless they are like those plastic and toxic looking women from glossy fashion magazines: perfect for men who lost all their imagination and individuality, but thoroughly boring and mass-produced for the rest of us.


Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel Aurora (2016) and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: Exposing Lies Of The Empire (2015) and Fighting Against Western Imperialism (2014). View his other books {1}. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo {2}. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through {3} and {4}.







The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

In accordance with Title 17 USC. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

For a Society without Jobs

No More Work: Why Full Employment Is a Bad Idea

by Bernard Marszalek (February 12 2017)

To refer to economists as a priesthood has become a commonplace. Economists practice “a religion couched in the language of mathematics and statistics”, says Yanis Varoufakis {1}. Their church, to carry the symbolism further, has a magnificent gold and marble altar where they offer praise to Capital. And, as in the magnificent centuries-old churches of Europe, there are chapels off to the sides of the main altar.

Sometimes these chapels rival the center altar in effulgent splendor. To the right of the Altar of Capital is the shrine dedicated to the Corporation, where the well heeled worship. And across the nave stands a less splendid chapel – the Chapel of Work. There an unpretentious assemblage meekly gathers to worship. And there also you will find James Livingston raising his finger, hurtling verbal abuse and relieving himself of gas and maybe more.

Livingston’s abusive language against work lurks in the pages of a small book entitled No More Work (2016). Too small to do any damage if thrown, but large enough to pack a verbal blow against all those – on the Right and the Left – who continue to kneel in adoration in the Chapel of Work.

It would be inappropriate to refer to No More Work as a pamphlet, since it is stitched and glued unlike the seventeenth and eighteenth century forms. Livingston’s fervent prose, however, certainly marks him a descendent of the revolutionary pamphleteers in England, France and America {2}.

Oddly enough, his vehemence against work is not so much generated by the horrors of work, like Viviane Forrester’s eloquent, two decades-old book {3}, as it is provoked by those who persist in promoting the work ethic while refusing to recognize the disappearance of work itself. Livingston deluges us with a bucket of references to prove his point that job loss is not a new phenomenon. For example, he documents the startling fact that two million jobs were lost between 1920 and 1929.

And most amazingly, in the Nixon era, the fear of job loss propelled otherwise conservative legislators to back his Family Assistance Plan, which would have provided a modest income to all families in need. Several studies in the 1970s assuaged the conservative legislators’ concerns that “free money” would discourage job seeking. And besides, it was cheaper to administer than means-tested welfare payments. Liberals at the time objected to what they saw as another welfare program by a different name that would maintain a culture of poverty. They wanted a jobs program and full employment.

As Livingston says, this legislation was not ahead of its time, but it certainly is ahead of ours. Today, a vocal group of liberals, recognizing the reality of technological unemployment, promote what they call a Jobs Guarantee (“JG”) instead of cash now, despite the obvious fact that cash now would immediately benefit the jobless and those who have poorly paid jobs. Their proposal, based on government guaranteed jobs, at least recognizes that new jobs are not sprouting up like mushrooms simply because “new jobs always are created when technology displaces workers”, as the apologists of technocratic change blather.

We are plagued by this bit of buffoonery, when we all know that manufacturing jobs were massively replaced by low paying service sector jobs decades ago. Not surprisingly today, computerization also encroaches on this sector. Furthermore, what sort of argument is it that rests on the immiseration of the working class? What progress in employment do we have if the vast majority of new jobs created pay so poorly that the workers need to depend on state subsidies for food and healthcare?

The advocates of JG may be worshippers of the work ethic, but more to the point they appear to suffer from an elitist malady: condescension towards the jobless. The assumption that seems to prevail with the JG’ers is that without work people will be aimless and prone to anti-social behaviors. The studies in the 1970s determined that cash now was used intelligently by recipients. Soon, to extend that research, several European countries will initiate large-scale social experiments; we should have documented evidence to confirm, or refute, assumptions in the near future.

One further claim is made by supporters of JG – “there will always be socially necessary work that needs to be done”, which usually means infrastructure projects. On the face of it, this assertion seems obvious; however, complications arise when we examine it critically. Characterizing a job as socially necessary implies that it satisfies all the criteria the disciples of the work ethic preach: useful, steady work at good pay. Those who hold the view that a guaranteed job will provide for a middle class life-style can hardly define cash now as utopian.

Livingston directly confronts the issue of socially necessary work with what he calls socially beneficial work, a somewhat slippery concept The former faces the same forces of routinization, speed-up and, finally, elimination like many jobs, whereas the latter retains its desirability – as meaningful work – even though it is often valueless as a source of compensation.

The ultimate question for Livingston – “Why can’t we stop working?” Or, to rephrase it, why can’t socially beneficial work become dominant?

Livingston approaches this question by extending the discussion beyond jobs to define the larger issue here: what do we need to live full lives? He begins by referring to Freud’s statement that to be fully human we need love and work. Both propel us out of ourselves and into society where we define ourselves through relationships.

To quote Livingston in reference to Freud’s dictum:

Love and work … get us beyond the mere repression of our instincts; they move us toward the social labor that makes us human. They just are social labor. (page 93) [Emphasis in the original]


According to Livingston, “work can no longer serve this socializing purpose”. So, this leaves only love, or socially beneficial work, “the love of our neighbors.” Livingston makes this explicit in an article he wrote recently:

The labor of love, caring for one another and learning how to be our brother’s keeper – socially beneficial labor – becomes not merely possible but eminently necessary, and not just within families, where affection is routinely available. No, I mean out there, in the wide, wide world. {4}


Is Livingston using Freud to lead us back to the Chapel of Work? The labor of love sounds a lot like what I would call solidarity, which is a commendable virtue to be cultivated in society, but as an overriding value, it too easily falls prey to manipulation by the super-righteous and to self-sacrifice. Various social contexts nurture solidarity, however the most enduring, the sort that crosses cultural markers, arises from grassroots activity organized to develop camaraderie by overcoming obstacles to its realization.

In his condemnation of full employment, Livingston turns a great slogan: “To hell with full employment. How about full enjoyment?” (page 98) This was the rallying cry, unattributed by Livingston, of the 1980s of San Francisco-based journal, by and for temp workers, Processed World. {5} It was relevant then when temporary work agencies absorbed the labor of a large pool of underemployed college graduates, but it is even more relevant now when precarious work is practically the only kind available.

“Full enjoyment” comes closer to the goal of repudiating work than Livingston manages to define with his notion of socially beneficial work. However, it can be taken as narcissism and self-indulgence. “Full enjoyment” is a provocative slogan but is it a program? If it means play, it misses the mark. Play is not an alternative to work, as we know it. If by “full enjoyment” is meant “serious play” then maybe we come closer to identifying a society without jobs.

This is the problem we, including Livingston, face – we lack the vocabulary for what we need to conceptualize. How will a society beyond work develop a moral universe for us to live an ethical life – a life of virtue that is not imposed on us, but which develops from everyday life?

In No More Work, Livingston introduces us to the philosophical basis for worker cooperatives that the economist David Ellerman has formulated. While Marx defined the necessity for labor power and said it was all that the worker could sell, his only commodity, so to speak, for Ellerman, the very notion of selling one’s self, or more precisely, renting one’s time {6}, is “no less unnatural and unthinkable than slavery”. (page 49) It is, in fact, as the early labor movement said – wage slavery and it should be abolished.

Worker cooperatives remove the muddle of ownership by establishing a democratic economic structure where all who participate become members and have a vote – one member, one vote. A worker cooperative can be thought of as a commons and the members as commoners. Livingston too quickly dismisses cooperative structures as simply another endorsement of the work ethic. And undoubtedly much of their appeal is based on the internalization of the work ethic amongst the membership. In fact, adhering to the work ethic is the major means of enforcing collaboration and preventing the “free rider” problem.

However, there is an aspect of egalitarian collective effort that motivates the membership to create, if not a joyful workplace, at least a companionable one, instead of tolerating a hellhole of abuse often found in traditional businesses.

All ventures, especially economic ones, could learn the cooperative techniques of transparent communication, the possibilities of structural forms to facilitate empathy and the social skills necessary to enhance personal expression. Worker cooperatives are like social greenhouses where a crew, forced by economic circumstances, must grow together or wither and fail. These are unique institutions – not more than five hundred in the entire US – and they function as learning labs for democratic practices that transform work, as we know it.

This perspective is in the DNA of worker cooperatives, but unfortunately, it is not affirmed as a major goal of the movement. Cooperatives therefore forsake a truly radical, non-alien, potential, and instead advocate for the mainstream (and reactionary) goal of growth and more jobs.

We can achieve some clarity here if we emphasize how socially necessary work is to be done and not what work should be so classified. Work as we know it is drudgery, it’s a job. Worthwhile work as practiced by a cooperative is not a job, because not only is hierarchy gone – the worst job aspect – but also, the element of sacrifice that defines the work ethic is missing, as least as far as the boss is absent. Defining “post-work” does not mean that the expenditure of difficult physical labor has been eliminated. It means that stress, while present, becomes secondary to commitment and collectivity.

The “socially beneficial work” that Livingston emphasizes may not be lost to computerization and automation, but it relies too much on the notion that the only work available in the future will be a form of social welfare. Given the catastrophes we face with climate change and environmental devastation, it seems likely that a sector of the economy, which today is underrepresented in the workforce – environmental mitigation – will escalate beyond healthcare employment. And with cash now to support that work, since the marketplace won’t, volunteers could take on worthy tasks. Like the Hoedads {7} of the northwest who in the 1980s formed tree-planting cooperatives, we would have Livingston’s love of neighbor ideal transcended to the larger world around us. It would be ironic if the worst catastrophe humankind faces (aside from nuclear extermination) should be the force that compels us to love the earth first.










Bernard Marszalek is activist in the alternative alternative economy sector. A former worker-member of a cooperative printshop for decades and currently agitating for a society beyond jobs, where the substantial activity of society melds work and play into a new conception of personal realization collectively attained. He archives his writings at Read other articles by Bernard at

You Are Not in Control

by Dmitry Orlov

Club Orlov (February 14 2017)

My recent book tour was very valuable, among other things, in gauging audience response to the various topics related to the technosphere and its control over us. Specifically, what seems to be generally missing is an understanding that the technosphere doesn’t just control technology; it controls our minds as well. The technosphere doesn’t just prevent us from choosing technologies that we think may be appropriate and rejecting the ones that aren’t. It controls our tastes, making us prefer things that it prefers for its own reasons. It also controls our values, aligning them with its own. And it controls our bodies, causing us to treat ourselves as if we were mechanisms rather than symbiotic communities of living cells (human and otherwise).

None of this invalidates the approach I proposed for shrinking the technosphere which is based on a harm/benefit analysis and allows us to ratchet down our technology choices by always picking technologies with the least harm and the greatest benefit. But this approach only works if the analysis is informed by our own tastes, not the tastes imposed on us by the technosphere, by our values, not the technosphere’s values, and by our rejection of a mechanistic conception of our selves. These choices are implicit in the 32 criteria used in harm/benefit analysis, favoring local over global, group interests over individual interests, artisanal over industrial and so on. But I think it would be helpful to make these choices explicit, by working through an example of each of the three types of control listed above. This week I’ll tackle the first of these.

A good example of how the technosphere controls our tastes is the personal automobile. Many people regard it as a symbol of freedom and see their car as an extension of their personalities. The freedom to be car-free is not generally regarded as important, while the freedoms bestowed by car ownership are rather questionable. It is the freedom to make car payments, pay for repairs, insurance, parking, towing and gasoline. It is the freedom to pay tolls, traffic tickets, title fees and excise taxes. It is the freedom to spend countless hours stuck in traffic jams and to suffer injuries in car accidents. It is the freedom to bring up neurologically damaged children by subjecting them to unsafe carbon monoxide levels (you are encouraged to have a carbon-monoxide detector in your house, but not in your car – because it would be going off all the time). It is the freedom to suffer indignities when pulled over by police, especially if you’ve been drinking. In terms of a harm/benefit analysis, private car ownership makes no sense at all.

It is often argued that a car is a necessity, although the facts tell a different story. Worldwide, there are 1.2 billion vehicles on the road. The population of the planet is over seven billion. Therefore, there are at least 5.8 billion people alive in the world who don’t own a car. How can something be considered a necessity if 82% of us don’t seem to need it? In fact, owning a car becomes necessary only in a certain specific set of circumstances. Here are some of the key ingredients: a landscape that is impassable except by motor vehicle, single-use zoning that segregates land by residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial uses, a lifestyle that requires a daily commute, and a deficit of public transportation. In turn, widespread private car ownership is what enables these key ingredients: without it, situations in which private car ownership becomes a necessity simply would not arise.

Now, moving people about the landscape is not a productive activity: it is a waste of time and energy. If you can live, send your children to school, shop and work all without leaving the confines of a small neighborhood, you are bound to be more efficient than someone who has to drive between these four locations on a daily basis. But the technosphere is rational to a fault and is all about achieving efficiencies. And so, an obvious question to ask is, What is it about the car-dependent living arrangement, and the landscape it enables, that the technosphere finds to be efficient? The surprising answer is that the technosphere strives to optimize the burning of gasoline; everything else is just a byproduct of this optimization.

It turns out that the fact that so many people are forced to own a car has nothing to do with transportation and everything to do with petroleum chemistry. About half of what can be usefully extracted from a barrel of crude oil is in the form of gasoline. It is possible to boost the fraction of other, more useful products, such as kerosene, diesel fuel, jet fuel and heating oil, but not by much and at a cost of reduced net energy. But gasoline is not very useful at all. It is volatile (quite a lot of it evaporates, especially in the summer); it is chemically unstable and doesn’t keep for long; it is toxic and carcinogenic. It has a rather low flash point, limiting the compression ratio that can be achieved by gasoline-fueled engines, making them thermodynamically less efficient. It is useless for large engines, and is basically a small-engine fuel. Gasoline-powered engines don’t last very long because gasoline-air mixture is detonated (using an electric spark) rather than burned, and the shock waves from the detonations cause components to wear out quickly. They have few industrial uses; all of the serious transportation infrastructure, including locomotives, ships, jet aircraft, tractor-trailers, construction equipment and electrical generators run on petroleum distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, diesel oil and bunker fuel.

If it weren’t for widespread private car ownership, gasoline would have to be flared off at refineries, at a loss. In turn, the cost of petroleum distillates – which are all of the industrial fuels – would double, and this would curtail the technosphere’s global expansion by making long-distance freight much more expensive. The technosphere’s goal, then, is to make us pay for the gasoline by forcing us to drive. To this end, the landscape is structured in a way that makes driving necessary. The fact that to get from a Motel 8 on one side of the road to the McDonalds on the other requires you to drive two miles, navigate a cloverleaf, and drive two miles back is not a bug; it’s a feature. When James Kunstler calls suburban sprawl “the greatest misallocation of resources in human history” he is only partly right. It is also the greatest optimization in exploiting every part of the crude oil barrel in the history of the technosphere.

The proliferation of small gasoline-burning engines in the form of cars enables another optimization, forcing us to pay for another generally useless fraction of the crude oil barrel: road tar. Lots of cars require lots of paved roadways and parking lots. Thus, the technosphere wins twice, first by making us pay for the privilege of disposing of what is essentially toxic waste at our own risk and expense, then by making us pay for spreading another form of toxic waste all over the ground. Suburban sprawl is not a failure of urban planning; it is a success story in enslaving humans and making them toil on behalf of the technosphere while causing great damage to themselves and to the environment. Needless to say, you have absolutely no control over any of this. You. Are. Not. In. Control. You can vote, you can protest, you can lobby, donate to environmentalist groups, attend conferences on urban planning … and you would just be wasting your time, because you can’t change petroleum chemistry.

That the need to make people buy gasoline trumps all other considerations becomes obvious if we observe how the technosphere reacts whenever gasoline demand falters. When rampant wealth inequality started making owning a car unaffordable for more and more people, the solution was to introduce larger cars for those who could still afford one: minivans for the mommies, pickup trucks for the daddies, and for everyone the now common SUV. And now that gasoline demand is dropping again because of falling labor participation rate and an increase in the number of people who telecommute, the solution will no doubt be driverless cars which will cruise around aimlessly burning gasoline. Mommies may think that a minivan will keep their kiddies safer than a compact would (not true unless they have eight or nine kids). Daddies may think that the pickup truck is a sign of manliness (true if you are some sort of gofer/roustabout; pickup trucks are driven by picker-uppers, a subspecies of gofer/roustabout). But all they are doing is obeying “The Third Law of the Technosphere”, if you will: “For every improvement in the efficiency of gasoline-fired engines, there must be an equal and opposite improvement in inefficiency”.

So, perhaps you should just relax and go with the flow. After all, being a slave in the service of the technosphere is not immediately life-threatening … unless you crash into a tree or get run over by a drunk. But there is another problem: this arrangement isn’t going to last. The net energy that can be extracted out of a barrel of oil is quickly shrinking. In less than a decade the energy surplus required to maintain a car-centric lifestyle will no longer exist. If private car ownership and daily driving are required of you in order to survive, then you won’t survive. There goes at least eighteen percent of the world’s population, which will find itself stranded in the middle of an impassable landscape. Oops!

Given that you are not in control, and given that the car-centric lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end for your subspecies, what can you do? The answer is obvious: you can plan your escape, then join the other 82% of the world’s population, which is able to live car-free. Some of them even manage to live entirely outside of the reach of the technosphere. Let their example be your inspiration.

America Third

Donald Trump Is Giving the Phrase “Multipolar World” New Meaning

by Michael T Klare

TomDispatch (February 14 2017)

Note from Bill Totten: I am an admirer of Michael T Klare and I usually agree with what he writes, which I post here every month. But I strongly disagree with several parts of this article. Nevertheless, I am posting this article because (1) it is the first of Michael Klare’s articles I can recall not agreeing with and so (2) better than ignoring it, I think it best to post it with my own comments, which are at the places marked ===> below.

* * * * *

If there’s a single consistent aspect to Donald Trump’s strategic vision, it’s this: US foreign policy should always be governed by the simple principle of “America First”, with this country’s vital interests placed above those of all others. “We will always put America’s interests first”, he declared in his victory speech in the early hours of November 9th. “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first”, he insisted in his Inaugural Address on January 20th. Since then, however, everything he’s done in the international arena has, intentionally or not, placed America’s interests behind those of its arch-rivals, China and Russia. So to be accurate, his guiding policy formula should really be relabeled America Third.

Given nineteen months of bravado public rhetoric, there was no way to imagine a Trumpian presidency that would favor America’s leading competitors. Throughout the campaign, he castigated China for its “predatory” trade practices, insisting that it had exploited America’s weak enforcement policies to eviscerate our economy and kill millions of jobs. “The money they’ve drained out of the United States has rebuilt China”, he told reporters from The New York Times in no uncertain terms last March. While he expressed admiration for the strong leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he decried that country’s buildup of advanced nuclear weapons. “They have gone wild with their nuclear program”, he stated during the second presidential debate. “Not good!”

Judging by such comments, you might imagine that Donald Trump would have entered the Oval Office with a strategic blueprint for curbing the geopolitical sway of America’s two principal potential great power rivals. Presumably, this would have entailed a radical transformation of the strategy devised by the Obama administration for this purpose – a two-pronged effort that involved the reinforcement of Nato forces in Eastern Europe and the “rebalancing” of US military assets to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama’s strategy also envisioned the use of economic pacts – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) – to buttress those military measures. But Trump had made known his disdain for Nato and the TPP, so it was reasonable to assume that he would arrive in Washington with an alternative plan to ensure America’s primacy on the global strategic chessboard.

===> I think Trump’s policy is not China first, Russia second, and America third but, instead, American workers first.  I think Trump was wise to abandon TPP,  because it was predominately a scheme to exploit American and Japanese workers to further enrich giant American and Japanese corporations and their executives and stockholders. See many other articles on the TPP that I’ve posted here.

As President Trump has made clear in recent weeks, however, his primary strategic priorities do not include the advancement of America’s status in the race for global strategic preeminence. Instead, as indicated by the outline of his “America First Foreign Policy” posted on the White House website, his top objectives are the extermination of what he calls “radical Islamic terrorism” and the enhancement of America’s overseas trade balance. Just how vital these objectives may be in the larger scheme of things has been the subject of considerable debate, but few have noted that Trump has completely abandoned any notion that the US is engaged in a global struggle for power and wealth with two potentially fierce competitors, each possessing its own plan for achieving “greatness”.

===> The US neocons want a unipolar world dominated by the US neocons while Trump, Russia, China, and I prefer a multipolar world dominated by no cabal nor nation.

And it’s not just that Trump seems to have abandoned the larger geopolitical playing field to America’s principal rivals. He appears to be doing everything in his power to facilitate their advance at the expense of the United States. In just the first few weeks of his presidency, he has already taken numerous steps that have put the wind in both China’s and Russia’s sails, while leaving the US adrift.

Trump’s China-First Foreign Policy

In his approach to China, Donald Trump has been almost exclusively focused on the issue of trade, claiming that his primary goal is to combat the unfair practices that have allowed the Chinese to get rich at America’s expense. It’s hardly surprising, then, that his nominee as US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, is an outspoken critic of that country’s trade behavior. “It seems clear that the US manufacturing crisis is related to our trade with China”, he told Congress in 2010. But while trade may be an important part of the US-China relationship, Trump’s single-minded fixation on the issue leaves aside far more crucial political, economic, diplomatic, and military aspects of the Sino-American competition for world power and influence. By largely ignoring them, in just weeks in the Oval Office, President Trump has already enabled China to gain ground on many fronts.

This was evident in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. While no senior representative of the soon-to-be installed Trump administration even put in an appearance, China was represented by no less than President Xi Jinping himself, a first appearance for a Chinese head of state. In a major address, denouncing (no names mentioned) those who seek to turn away from globalization, Xi portrayed China as the world’s new exemplar of free trade and internationalism. “Say no to protectionism”, he insisted. “It is like locking yourself in a dark room. Wind and rain are kept out, but so are light and air.” For many of the 1,250 CEOs, celebrities, and government officials in the audience, his appearance and remarks represented an almost mind-boggling shift in the global balance of political influence, as Washington ceded the pivotal position it had long occupied on the world stage.

Six days later, on his first weekday in office, President Trump appeared to confirm the Chinese leader’s derisory comments by announcing his intent to withdraw from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, thereby abandoning US leadership in efforts to vastly augment trade in the Asia-Pacific region. From Trump’s perspective, the twelve-nation trade deal (which included Australia, Malaysia, Japan, and Vietnam, while carefully excluding China) would harm American workers and manufacturers by facilitating exports to this country by the other participants (a view shared by some on the left). At the same time, however, many in Washington saw it as bolstering American efforts to limit Beijing’s influence by increasing trade among the prospective TPP member states at China’s expense. Now, China has an unparalleled opportunity to reorganize and potentially reorient trade in the Asian region in its direction.

“There’s no doubt that this action will be seen as a huge, huge win for China”, said Michael Froman, the trade representative who negotiated the TPP under President Obama. “For the Trump administration, after all this talk about being tough on China, for their first action to basically hand the keys to China and say we’re withdrawing from our leadership position in this region is geo-strategically damaging”.

Among other things, China is expected to encourage Asian countries to join it in an alternative trade arrangement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”). Including the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”) as well as China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and India (but not the United States), the RCEP aims to lower barriers to trade – without the environmental and labor-rights provisions incorporated into the TPP.

===> The proposed TPP clearly excluded China, but my understanding is that the RCEP does not exclude the United States; the United States merely has chosen, so far, not to join the RCEP.

On January 28th, in a phone conversation that ended abruptly, President Trump further undermined America’s geopolitical stature in Asia by berating Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia, a country that has been a staunch American ally since World War Two and which houses several US military bases. According to press accounts, Trump responded angrily to Turnbull’s plea to honor a promise made by President Obama to take in some 1,250 refugees – many from Iraq – being held by Australia in squalid conditions in offshore detention centers. “I don’t want these people”, Trump is said to have shouted before hanging up on the Australian leader. The insulting tenor of the call has provoked widespread revulsion in Australia, with many people there reportedly questioning the value of that country’s close association with the United States.

Above all, his rebuff of Turnbull is thought to be beneficial to China. “Trump is needlessly damaging the deep trust that binds one of America’s closest alliances”, said Professor Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University in Canberra. “China and those wishing to weaken the strongest alliance in the Pacific will see opportunity in this moment”.

Trump, China, and the Global Climate Fight

Perhaps the greatest gift Trump has bestowed on China, however, has been his drive to scuttle the Obama administration’s clean energy initiatives and its commitment to the Paris climate agreement. By turning the clock back on climate action and putting in office a crew of climate-change deniers, Trump has opened the door for China to emerge both as the world’s leader in green technology (while creating millions of new jobs for Chinese workers) and in international efforts to slow global warming.

Recall that in pursuing progress on clean energy, President Obama was driven not only by a concern for the future depredations of climate change, but also by a desire to ensure American preeminence in what he perceived as a global race to master the green technologies of the future, a race in which China was feared to be a likely winner. In 2013, he pointed out that, until recently, other countries had “dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it, [but] we’ve begun to change that … As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we”.

To assure American primacy in the clean-energy race, Obama channeled vast sums of money into the development and deployment of renewable technologies, including advanced solar power plants and electrical storage devices. He also assumed a leadership role in the diplomatic drive to gain approval of the Paris accord, meeting personally with Xi Jinping and with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, among others. From an international perspective, this lent the United States the aura of an enlightened, forward-looking world power.

Donald Trump aims to turn his back on all of this. More interested in pleasing his friends in the fossil fuel industry than saving the planet from ruin, he has repeatedly expressed his resolve to eviscerate Obama’s clean energy plan and withdraw from the Paris agreement. “The US will clearly change its course on climate policy”, said Myron Ebell, the climate-change denier who headed Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) transition team. “Trump has made it clear he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He could do it by executive order … or he could do it as part of a larger package”, Ebell told reporters on January 30th.

Whether or not Trump and his prospective EPA director, former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, succeed in unraveling everything that Obama achieved, the new administration has already ceded leadership in the global climate fight to the Chinese, who have been all too happy to seize the limelight. In January, Beijing’s chief climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, affirmed his country’s intention to be out front on climate issues. “China is capable of taking a leadership role in combating global climate change”, he told reporters from China Daily.

While gaining international recognition as the new leader in this area, China is also moving swiftly to assume primacy in the development and deployment of new green technologies, assuring future domination of a global market expected to grow by leaps and bounds in the decades to come. On January 5th, the country’s National Energy Administration announced a plan to spend $360 billion on renewable energy systems between 2016 and 2020. This is expected to create perhaps thirteen million new jobs. Although detailed spending plans were not disclosed, much of this largesse will undoubtedly be devoted to new wind and solar installations -fields in which China already enjoys a substantial advantage over the rest of the world.

From an economic perspective, the implications of this drive are hard to miss. Many energy experts believe that the demand for oil and other fossil fuels will begin to decline in the years ahead as consumers increasingly favor clean energy over carbon-emitting fuels. If so, the demand for renewables will skyrocket. According to the latest projections from the International Energy Agency in Paris, the demand for wind power in electricity generation will grow by 440% between 2014 and 2040, and that for solar power by over 1,100%. Given the world’s colossal thirst for energy, growth on this scale is bound to generate trillions of dollars in new business. In other words, the anti-green posture of the Trump administration offers the gift of the century to China: an extraordinary shift in global wealth.

===> What concrete progress, domestically or internationally, has the US made toward climate change or clean, renewable energy? If the US has taken and shows no signs of taking any leadership, what’s wrong with China taking the leadership?

Trump’s Russia-Second Foreign Policy

If President Trump appears determined to make China the world’s leading power, he also seems strangely intent on elevating Russia to the number two spot. In his single-minded drive to enlist Moscow’s help in fighting ISIS, he appears willing to eliminate any barriers to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s undisguised campaign to establish a sphere of influence in the territory of the former Soviet Union and other areas once under Moscow’s sway.

===> Russia is actively fighting the ISIS in support of its ally Syria, which has for long leased a naval base vital to Russia, while the US is financially and militarily supporting the ISIS effort to overthrow the Syrian government.

Ever since assuming the presidency in 2000, Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his determination to restore Russia’s former glory and to reverse what he and like-minded Russian analysts view as Nato’s encroachment on Russia’s legitimate security zone in eastern and southeastern Europe. This led to the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and the barely-disguised Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine. For the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – and other Eastern European countries once under Moscow’s thumb, this has, in turn, rekindled fears of a new Russian drive to subvert their independence. More recently, Putin has sought to reestablish the former Soviet Union’s ties to the Middle East, most notably through his military intervention in Syria.

===> Russia didn’t annex Crimea! After the US, led by Victoria Nuland, admittedly spent $5 billion to overthrow the democratically-elected Ukraine government and install an anti-Russian (and anti-Russian-speaking) fascist government, over 95% of Crimeans voters chose to withdraw from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Observers to that Crimean referendum included members of the European Union’s parliament, as well as MPs from various European nations, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Poland, and observers quoted regarding the conditions of the referendum corroborated claims of the referendum having adhered to international standards, with no irregularities or breaches of democracy.

In conjunction with America’s Nato allies, President Obama sought to curb Putin’s plans by imposing tough economic sanctions on Russia and by bolstering the defenses of Nato’s front-line states. Last July, at a Nato summit in Warsaw, he and the leaders of Britain, Canada, and Germany agreed to deploy reinforced battalions to Poland and the three Baltic states as a deterrent to any future Russian attack on those countries. Had she been elected president, Hillary Clinton was expected to step up the pressure further on Moscow.

For Trump, however, Putin’s transgressions in Europe and elsewhere seem to be of little consequence in comparison to his possible collaboration in fighting the Islamic State. “I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together”, he declared during the second presidential debate last October. As for Nato and the Europeans, Trump has indicated little sympathy for their worries about Moscow and has shown little inclination to increase America’s contributions to their defense. Not only did he claim that Nato was “obsolete” last March, insisting that it wasn’t doing enough to fight terrorism, but that it was “unfair, economically, to us”, because “it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share”.

Since assuming the presidency, President Trump has behaved as if Russia were indeed a key ally-in-waiting and the Nato powers were former lovers who had lost their appeal. Yes, he met with British Prime Minister Theresa May before any other foreign leader, but he remained silent when she spoke of the need to maintain pressure on Moscow through sanctions, making her look at that moment like an unwelcome houseguest.

Later, he spoke at length with Putin by telephone. From published accounts of their conversation, they avoided awkward topics like Crimea and the Russian hacking scandal of the election past, discussing instead increased collaboration in counterterrorism operations. While the Trump team had little to report on the specifics of what was said, Russian officials were effusive about the conversation. “The two leaders emphasized that joining efforts in fighting the main threat – international terrorism – is a top priority”, they indicated.

According to the Russian media, Trump and Putin agreed in their January 28th phone call to arrange high-level meetings among their senior security staff to facilitate collaboration in the anti-ISIS war. Included in many of these reports was speculation that the two leaders were moving towards a “conceptual understanding” whereby Washington would grant Moscow a “zone of influence” in the former Soviet space in return for Russian cooperation in battling ISIS. Whether or not Trump agreed to any such plan, it appears that events are beginning to proceed as if he had, with Russia evidently playing a more aggressive role in eastern Ukraine in recent weeks.

In this way, Trump’s embrace of Russia as a legitimate partner in anti-ISIS operations has given Putin what he seeks more than anything else: recognition as an equal player on the world stage with the United States and China – despite the fact that he presides over a rickety petro-state with a weakened economy the size of Italy’s.

Choosing Number Three

For all his talk of placing America’s interests first, Donald Trump appears to be advancing the interests of China and Russia, not as the result of conscious policy, but because he’s driven by such a narrow view of America’s foreign policy priorities: counterterrorism against Islamic radicalism, the exclusion of Mexicans and Muslims from the US, and an improved balance of trade. The broader dimensions of international relations do not seem to register on his mental radar screen, such as it is.

How does this affect us? The biggest danger: that China and Russia will feel emboldened by Trump’s narrow-minded approach to seek geopolitical advantage in some area like the South China Sea or the Baltic Sea region that is either important to the United States or seen as bearing on its prestige and credibility. In that case, the president, feeling personally threatened or affronted on the issue of America’s presumed paramountcy, might respond forcefully, possibly igniting a major crisis with nuclear implications. Even if such a crisis is avoided, it’s likely that American influence in such areas as Eastern Europe and South Asia will diminish, resulting in fewer trade opportunities and possibly a rollback of rights and liberties (which could, of course, happen in the US as well). Certainly, if his first weeks in office are indicative of what a Trumpian vision of an America First policy means, we are entering a period when the phrase “multipolar world” will gain new meaning.

Most important of all, the abandonment of US leadership in the struggle to slow global warming will mean both the surrender of technological preeminence in the fields most likely to dominate the world economy in the decades to come and a far greater chance of planetary catastrophe. This should be considered a betrayal of all Americans – and especially of those who voted for him in the belief that he would ensure America’s political and economic primacy.


Michael T Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left (2012). A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil (2005) is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands (2016), as well as Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead (2016), and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World (2014).

Copyright 2017 Michael T Klare

(c) 2017 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.

A Muddle of Mind and Matter

by John Michael Greer

The Archdruid Report (February 22 2017)

Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, which we’ve been discussing for the last two weeks, has a feature that reliably irritates most people when they encounter it for the first time: it doesn’t divide up the world the way people in modern western societies habitually do. To say, as Schopenhauer does, that the world we experience is a world of subjective representations, and that we encounter the reality behind those representations in will, is to map out the world in a way so unfamiliar that it grates on the nerves. Thus it came as no surprise that last week’s post fielded a flurry of responses trying to push the discussion back onto the more familiar ground of mind and matter.

That was inevitable. Every society has what I suppose could be called its folk metaphysics, a set of beliefs about the basic nature of existence that are taken for granted by most people in that society, and the habit of dividing the world of our experience into mind and matter is among the core elements of the folk metaphysics of the modern western world. Most of us think of it, on those occasions when we think of it at all, as simply the way the world is. It rarely occurs to most of us that there’s any other way to think of things – and when one shows up, a great many of us back away from it as fast as possible.

Yet dividing the world into mind and matter is really rather problematic, all things considered. The most obvious difficulty is the relation between the two sides of the division. This is usually called the mind-body problem, after the place where each of us encounters that difficulty most directly. Grant for the sake of argument that each of us really does consist of a mind contained in a material body, how do these two connect? It’s far from easy to come up with an answer that works.

Several approaches have been tried in the attempt to solve the mind-body problem. There’s dualism, which is the claim that there are two entirely different and independent kinds of things in the world – minds and bodies – and requires proponents to come up with various ways to justify the connection between them. First place for philosophical brashness in this connection goes to Rene Descartes, who argued that the link was directly and miraculously caused by the will of God. Plenty of less blatant methods of handwaving have been used to accomplish the same trick, but all of them require question-begging maneuvers of various kinds, and none has yet managed to present any kind of convincing evidence for itself.

Then there are the reductionistic monisms, which attempt to account for the relationship of mind and matter by reducing one of them to the other. The most popular reductionistic monism these days is reductionistic materialism, which claims that what we call “mind” is simply the electrochemical activity of those lumps of matter we call human brains. Though it’s a good deal less popular these days, there’s also reductionistic idealism, which claims that what we call “matter” is the brought into being by the activity of minds, or of Mind.

Further out still, you get the eliminative monisms, which deal with the relationship between mind and matter by insisting that one of them doesn’t exist. There are eliminative materialists, for example, who insist that mental experiences don’t exist, and our conviction that we think, feel, experience pain and pleasure, et cetera is an “introspective illusion”. (I’ve often thought that one good response to such a claim would be to ask, “Do you really think so?” The consistent eliminative materialist would have to answer “No”.) There are also eliminative idealists, who insist that matter doesn’t exist and that all is mind.

There’s probably been as much effort expended in attempting to solve the mind-body problem as any other single philosophical issue has gotten in modern times, and yet it remains the focus of endless debates even today. That sort of intellectual merry-go-round is usually a pretty good sign that the basic assumptions at the root of the question have some kind of lethal flaw. That’s particularly true when this sort of ongoing donnybrook isn’t the only persistent difficulty surrounding the same set of ideas – and that’s very much the case here.

After all, there’s a far more personal sense in which the phrase “mind-body problem” can be taken. To speak in the terms usual for our culture, this thing we’re calling “mind” includes only a certain portion of what we think of as our inner lives. What, after all, counts as “mind”? In the folk metaphysics of our culture, and in most of the more formal systems of thought based on it, “mind” is consciousness plus the thinking and reasoning functions, perhaps with intuition (however defined) tied on like a squirrel’s tail to the antenna of an old-fashioned jalopy. The emotions aren’t part of mind, and neither are such very active parts of our lives as sexual desire and the other passions; it sounds absurd, in fact, to talk about “the emotion-body problem” or the “passion-body problem”. Why does it sound absurd? Because, consciously or unconsciously, we assign the emotions and the passions to the category of “body”, along with the senses.

This is where we get the second form of the mind-body problem, which is that we’re taught implicitly and explicitly that the mind governs the body, and yet the functions we label “body” show a distinct lack of interest in obeying the functions we call “mind”. Sexual desire is of course the most obvious example. What people actually desire and what they think they ought to desire are quite often two very different things, and when the “mind” tries to bully the “body” into desiring what the “mind” thinks it ought to desire, the results are predictably bad. Add enough moral panic to the mix, in fact, and you end up with sexual hysteria of the classic Victorian type, in which the body ends up being experienced as a sinister Other responding solely to its own evil propensities, the seductive wiles of other persons, or the machinations of Satan himself despite all the efforts of the mind to rein it in.

Notice the implicit hierarchy woven into the folk metaphysics just sketched out, too. Mind is supposed to rule matter, not the other way around; mind is active, while matter is passive or, at most, subject to purely mechanical pressures that make it lurch around in predictable ways. When things don’t behave that way, you tend to see people melt down in one way or another – and the universe being what it is, things don’t actually behave that way very often, so the meltdowns come at regular intervals.

They also arrive in an impressive range of contexts, because the way of thinking about things that divides them into mind and matter is remarkably pervasive in western societies, and pops up in the most extraordinary places. Think of the way that our mainstream religions portray God as the divine Mind ruling omnipotently over a universe of passive matter; that’s the ideal toward which our notions of mind and body strive, and predictably never reach. Think of the way that our entertainment media can always evoke a shudder of horror by imagining something we assign to the category of lifeless matter – a corpse in the case of zombie flicks, a machine in such tales as Stephen King’s Christine (1983), or what have you – suddenly starts acting as though it possesses a mind.

For that matter, listen to the more frantic end of the rhetoric on the American left following the recent presidential election and you’ll hear the same theme echoing off the hills. The left likes to think of itself as the smart people, the educated people, the sensitive and thoughtful and reasonable people – in effect, the people of Mind. The hate speech that many of them direct toward their political opponents leans just as heavily on the notion that these latter are stupid, uneducated, insensitive, irrational, and so on – that is to say, the people of Matter. Part of the hysteria that followed Trump’s election, in turn, might best be described as the political equivalent of the instinctive reaction to a zombie flick: the walking dead have suddenly lurched out of their graves and stalked toward the ballot box, the body politic has rebelled against its self-proclaimed mind!

Let’s go deeper, though. The habit of dividing the universe of human experience into mind and matter isn’t hardwired into the world, or for that matter into human consciousness; there have been, and are still, societies in which people simply don’t experience themselves and the world that way. The mind-body problem and the habits of thought that give rise to it have a history, and it’s by understanding that history that it becomes possible to see past the problem toward a solution.

That history takes its rise from an interesting disparity among the world’s great philosophical traditions. The three that arose independently – the Chinese, the Indian, and the Greek – focused on different aspects of humanity’s existence in the world. Chinese philosophy from earliest times directed its efforts to understanding the relationship between the individual and society; that’s why the Confucian mainstream of Chinese philosophy is resolutely political and social in its focus, exploring ways that the individual can find a viable place within society, and the alternative Taoist tradition in its oldest forms (before it absorbed mysticism from Indian sources) focused on ways that the individual can find a viable place outside society. Indian philosophy, by contrast, directed its efforts to understanding the nature of individual existence itself; that’s why the great Indian philosophical schools all got deeply into epistemology and ended up with a strong mystical bent.

The Greek philosophical tradition, in turn, went to work on a different set of problems. Greek philosophy, once it got past its initial fumblings, fixed its attention on the world of thought. That’s what led Greek thinkers to transform mathematics from a unsorted heap of practical techniques to the kind of ordered system of axioms and theorems best exemplified by Euclid’s Elements of Geometry (circa 300 BC), and it’s also what led Greek thinkers in the same generation as Euclid to create logic, one of the half dozen or so greatest creations of the human mind. Yet it also led to something considerably more problematic: the breathtaking leap of faith by which some of the greatest intellects of the ancient world convinced themselves that the structure of their thoughts was the true structure of the universe, and that thoughts about things were therefore more real than the things themselves.

The roots of that conviction go back all the way to the beginnings of Greek philosophy, but it really came into its own with Parmenides, an important philosopher of the generation immediately before Plato. Parmenides argued that there were two ways of understanding the world, the way of truth and the way of opinion; the way of opinion consisted of understanding the world as it appears to the senses, which according to Parmenides means it’s false, while the way of truth consisted of understanding the world the way that reason proved it had to be, even when this contradicted the testimony of the senses. To be sure, there are times and places where the testimony of the senses does indeed need to be corrected by logic, but it’s at least questionable whether this should be taken anything like as far as Parmenides took it – he argued, for example, that motion was logically impossible, and so nothing ever actually moves, even though it seems that way to our deceiving senses.

The idea that thoughts about things are more real than things settled into what would be its classic form in the writings of Plato, who took Parmenides’ distinction and set to work to explain the relationship between the worlds of truth and opinion. To Plato, the world of truth became a world of forms or ideas, on which everything in the world of sensory experience is modeled. The chair we see, in other words, is a projection or reflection downwards into the world of matter of the timeless, pure, and perfect form or idea of chair-ness. The senses show us the projections or reflections; the reasoning mind shows us the eternal form from which they descend.

That was the promise of classic Platonism – that the mind could know the truth about the universe directly, without the intervention of the senses, the same way it could know the truth of a mathematical demonstration. The difficulty with this enticing claim, though, was that when people tried to find the truth about the universe by examining their thinking processes, no two of them discovered exactly the same truth, and the wider the cultural and intellectual differences between them, the more different the truths turned out to be. It was for this reason among others that Aristotle, whose life’s work was basically that of cleaning up the mess that Plato and his predecessors left behind, made such a point of claiming that nothing enters the mind except through the medium of the senses. It’s also why the Academy, the school founded by Plato, in the generations immediately after his time took a hard skeptical turn, and focused relentlessly on the limits of human knowledge and reasoning.

Later on, Greek philosophy and its Roman foster-child headed off in other directions – on the one hand, into ethics, and the question of how to live the good life in a world where certainty isn’t available; on the other, into mysticism, and the question of whether the human mind can experience the truth of things directly through religious experience. A great deal of Plato’s thinking, however, got absorbed by the Christian religion after the latter clawed its way to respectability in the fourth century CE.

Augustine of Hippo, the theologian who basically set the tone of Christianity in the west for the next fifteen centuries, had been a Neoplatonist before he returned to his Christian roots, and he was far from the only Christian of that time to drink deeply from Plato’s well. In his wake, Platonism became the standard philosophy of the western church until it was displaced by a modified version of Aristotle’s philosophy in the high Middle Ages. Thinkers divided the human organism into two portions, body and soul, and began the process by which such things as sexuality and the less angelic emotions got exiled from the soul into the body.

Even after Thomas Aquinas made Aristotle popular again, the basic Parmenidean-Platonic notion of truth had been so thoroughly bolted into Christian theology that it rode right over any remaining worries about the limitations of human reason. The soul trained in the use of reason could see straight to the core of things, and recognize by its own operations such basic religious doctrines as the existence of God: that was the faith with which generations of scholars pursued the scholastic philosophy of medieval times, and those who disagreed with them rarely quarreled over their basic conception – rather, the point at issue was whether the Fall had left the human mind so vulnerable to the machinations of Satan that it couldn’t count on its own conclusions, and the extent to which divine grace would override Satan’s malicious tinkerings anywhere this side of heaven.

If you happen to be a devout Christian, such questions make sense, and they matter. It’s harder to see how they still made sense and mattered as the western world began moving into its post-Christian era in the eighteenth century, and yet the Parmenidean-Platonic faith in the omnipotence of reason gained ground as Christianity ebbed among the educated classes. People stopped talking about soul and body and started talking about mind and body instead.

Since mind, mens in Latin, was already in common use as a term for the faculty of the soul that handled its thinking and could be trained to follow the rules of reason, that shift was of vast importance. It marked the point at which the passions and the emotions were shoved out of the basic self-concept of the individual in western culture, and exiled to the body, that unruly and rebellious lump of matter in which the mind is somehow caged.

That’s one of the core things that Schopenhauer rejected. As he saw it, the mind isn’t the be-all and end-all of the self, stuck somehow into the prison house of the body. Rather, the mind is a frail and unstable set of functions that surface now and then on top of other functions that are much older, stronger, and more enduring. What expresses itself through all these functions, in turn, is will: at the most basic primary level, as the will to exist; on a secondary level, as the will to live, with all the instincts and drives that unfold from that will; on a tertiary level, as the will to experience, with all the sensory and cognitive apparatus that unfolds from that will; and on a quaternary level, as the will to understand, with all the abstract concepts and relationships that unfold from that will.

Notice that from this point of view, the structure of thought isn’t the structure of the cosmos, just a set of convenient models, and thoughts about things are emphatically not more real than the things themselves. The things themselves are wills, expressing themselves through their several modes. The things as we know them are representations, and our thoughts about the things are abstract patterns we create out of memories of representations, and thus at two removes from reality.

Notice also that from this point of view, the self is simply a representation – the ur-representation, the first representation each of us makes in infancy as it gradually sinks in that there’s a part of the kaleidoscope of our experience that we can move at will, and a lot more that we can’t, but still just a representation, not a reality. Of course that’s what we see when we first try to pay attention to ourselves, just as we see the coffee cup discussed in the first post in this series. It takes exacting logical analysis, scientific experimentation, or prolonged introspection to get past the representation of the self (or the coffee cup), realize that it’s a subjective construct rather than an objective reality, and grasp the way that it’s assembled out of disparate stimuli according to preexisting frameworks that are partly hardwired into our species and partly assembled over the course of our lives.

Notice, finally, that those functions we like to call “mind” – in the folk metaphysics of our culture, again, these are consciousness and the capacity to think, with a few other tag-ends of other functions dangling here and there – aren’t the essence of who we are, the ghost in the machine, the Mini-Me perched inside the skull that pushes and pulls levers to control the passive mass of the body and gets distracted by the jabs and lurches of the emotions and passions. The functions we call “mind”, rather, are a set of delicate, tentative, and fragile functions of will, less robust and stable than most of the others, and with no inherent right to rule the other functions. The Schopenhauerian self is an ecosystem rather than a hierarchy, and if what we call “mind” sits at the top of the food chain like a fox in a meadow, that simply means that the fox has to spend much of its time figuring out where mice like to go, and even more of its time sleeping in its den, while the mice scamper busily about and the grass goes quietly about turning sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into the nutrients that support the whole system.

Accepting this view of the self requires sweeping revisions of the ways we like to think about ourselves and the world, which is an important reason why so many people react with acute discomfort when it’s suggested. Nonetheless those revisions are of crucial importance, and as this discussion continues, we’ll see how they offer crucial insights into the problems we face in this age of the world – and into their potential solutions.


John Michael Greer is Past Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America {1}, current head of the Druidical Order of the Golden Dawn {2}, and the author of more than thirty books on a wide range of subjects, including peak oil and the future of industrial society. He lives in Cumberland, Maryland, an old red brick mill town in the north central Appalachians, with his wife Sara.

If you enjoy this blog and can handle discussions of Druidry, magic, and occult philosophy, you might like my other blog, Well of Galabes {3}.



{2} http://www.druidical-


Liberals Beware

Lie Down With Dogs, Get Up With Fleas

by Mike Whitney

CounterPunch (February 22 2017)

The New York Times is currently engaged in one of its most ambitious projects: Removing a sitting president from office. In fact, Times columnist Nicolas Kristof even said as much in a recent article titled “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”

Frankly, it’s an idea that I find attractive, mainly because I think Trump’s views on immigration, the environment, human rights, civil liberties and deregulation are so uniformly horrible, they could destroy the country. But the Times objections are different from my own. The reason the Times wants Trump removed is because Trump wants to normalize relations with Russia which threatens to undermine Washington’s effort to project US power deeper into Central Asia.

Trump’s decision to normalize relations with Moscow poses a direct threat to Washington’s broader imperial strategy to control China’s growth, topple Putin, spread military bases across Central Asia, implement trade agreements that maintain the dominant role of western-owned mega-corporations, and derail attempts by Russia and China to link the wealthy EU to Asia by expanding the web of pipeline corridors and high-speed rail that will draw the continents closer together creating the largest and most populous free trade zone the world has ever seen.

This is what the US foreign policy establishment and, by inclusion, the Times are trying to avoid at all cost. The economic integration of Asia and Europe must be blocked to preserve Washington’s hegemonic grip on world power. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.

So don’t be fooled, the Times doesn’t care any more about the suffering of immigrant families who have been victimized by Trump’s extremist policies than they do about the three million refugees that have fled America’s wars in Libya and Syria. The fact that the Times continues to mischaracterize this vast human exodus as some sort of natural disaster instead of the predictable spillover from persistent US aggression, just confirms the fact that the Times is not a reliable source of unbiased information at all. It is a political publication that crafts a political narrative reflecting the views of politically-minded elites whose strategic objectives cannot be achieved without more brainwashing, more coercion and more war.

Let’s consider, for a minute, the Times article that precipitated the current furor over Trump’s alleged connection to Russian intelligence. This is the article that’s been held up by numerous members of congress and the media as ironclad proof of Trump’s collusion with Moscow. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election. {1}

There’s no reason to read any further, because the entire article follows this same basic pattern, that is, the article is shaped to create the impression that the Trump camp teamed up with the Russians to torpedo Hillary’s campaign. Unfortunately, the Times presents no hard evidence that the “call logs and intercepted communications (that) are part of a larger trove of information that the FBI” even exist. Nor have they proved that anyone in the Trump camp ever communicated with people in Russia (excluding Michael Flynn, of course) let alone, collaborated to undermine the presidential election. It’s all 100% uncorroborated fluff.

So what’s going on here? Why would the Times run an article alleging impeachable offenses – which has sharpened the attacks on Trump by his critics in the media, the congress and in foreign capitals – without providing any evidence that their claims are true? None of the intelligence agents cited in the article have come forward and identified themselves (as one might expect when the charges are this serious), and as the Times admits, “The FBI declined to comment”.

So they have nothing, right?

One can only conclude that the real intention of the article was to generate as much suspicion as possible – in order to damage to Trump as much as possible – without really saying much of anything, that is, to create the impression of wrongdoing without providing any proof of wrongdoing. And, in that regard, the Times certainly succeeded. It has been a very impressive smear campaign.

(By the way, in a Sunday morning interview on Fox News White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said that top intelligence officials told him that their was no collusion between Trump’s people and Russia. Priebus said that “top-level people”, in the intelligence community told him “that that story in The New York Times is complete garbage. And quite frankly, they used different words than that.” Not surprisingly, Fox News host Chris Wallace demanded that Priebus reveal his sources, a demand that Wallace never made of the Times.)

Here’s more from the Times piece:



The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T Flynn, Mr Trump’s former national security adviser, and Sergey I Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In those calls, which led to Mr Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December.



More disinformation. So far, all we know about Flynn’s conversations was that he said that the administration would “review” the newly-imposed sanctions when after Trump was sworn in as president. There’s no evidence at all that Flynn did something illegal or in violation of the Logan Act. None. The media has used the incident to suggest that illicit activities had taken place when in fact, there is no evidence of wrongdoing at all. As far as we know, Flynn was just doing his job.

What’s more interesting is the fact that Obama decided to impose the new sanctions on Russia in late December (after Trump had already been elected) knowing that Trump probably wouldn’t support the sanctions.

That seems strange, don’t you think? Why would Obama do something so disrespectful at the eleventh hour unless he had something else up his sleeve? Was Obama setting a trap to get rid of the man (Flynn) who was the driving-force behind better relations with Russia?

I don’t know, but the facts are pretty suspicious. First, Obama imposed the sanctions in late December knowing that Trump would oppose them.

Second, Obama knew that Russia would want to discuss the sanctions with Flynn, right?

Right. So was it a trap set by Obama to trip-up Flynn?

Maybe “yes”, maybe “no”. It’s hard to say. But what we know is that seventeen days before Obama left office, he issued an executive order expanding the powers of the NSA “to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s sixteen other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections”. (New York Times)

Why does that matter?

It matters because Flynn had already had his conversation with the Russian ambassador, so if the Intel agency that illegally gathered the information wanted to escape prosecution, the best way to do that would be to spread the information around to other agencies making it impossible to hold any one agency accountable. Simply put: They were taking the precautionary step of removing their bloody fingerprints from the murder weapon.

Check this out from Zero Hedge: “According to civil rights expert and prominent First Amendment Supreme Court lawyer, Jay Sekulow, what the agencies did by leaking the Trump Administration information was not only illegal but ‘lmost becomes a soft coup’, one which was spurred by the last minute rule-change by Obama, who intentionally made it far easier for leaks to propagate, and next to impossible to catch those responsible for the leaks …”

This is his explanation:



There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama seventeen days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to sixteen other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office.

Why did the Obama administration wait until it had seventeen days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important. They hadeight years, they didn’t do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until seventeen days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3 2017, they decide that now sixteen agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government. You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump’s position, so it just festers more leaks.

If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn’t they do it eight years ago, four years ago, three years ago. Yet they wait until seventeen days left.

One potential answer: They knew they had a “smoking gun”, and were working to make it easier to enable the information to be “leaked” despite the clearly criminal consequences of such dissemination. {2}



It’s an intriguing twist to the larger story, but it is not one that I can independently verify. Besides, what really concerns me is the emerging alliance between the Dems, the agenda-driven media, the deep-state agencies, the all-powerful foreign policy establishment and the progressives that are desperate to get rid of Trump by hook or crook. Glenn Greenwald summed it up perfectly in a recent post at The Intercept. He said:



I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous … They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them … (But) if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls … But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. {3}



In other words, if you lie down with dogs, you’ll get up with fleas. Leftists should avoid the temptation of aligning themselves with groups and agencies that might help them achieve their short-term goal of removing Trump, but ultimately move them closer to a de facto 1984 lock-down police state. Misplaced support for the deep state Russophobes will only strengthen the national security state’s stranglehold on power. That’s not a path to victory, it’s a path to annihilation.