Monthly Archives: November 2016

The Corporate Media’s Gulag of the Mind, by Charles Hugh Smith

Ironically, the recent charges of Russian influence or control of various alternative media sites closely “mimics the worst excesses of the USSR’s Stalinist era.” From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

One of the most remarkable ironies of The Washington Post’s recent evidence-free fabrication of purported “Russian propaganda” websites (including this site) is how closely it mimics the worst excesses of the USSR’s Stalinist era.

Those unfamiliar with the Stalinist era’s excesses will benefit from reading Solzhenitsyn’s three-volume masterpiece The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, The Gulag Archipelago 2 and Gulag Archipelago 3.

One episode is especially relevant to the totalitarian tactics of The Washington Post’s evidence-free accusation. Solzhenitsyn tells the story of one poor fellow who made the mistake of recounting a dream he’d had the previous night to his co-workers.

In his dream, Stalin had come to some harm. In Solzhenitsyn’s account, the fellow was remorseful about the dream.

Alas, mere remorse couldn’t possibly save him. He was promptly arrested for “anti-Soviet thoughts” and given a tenner in the Gulag–a tenner being a ten-year sentence in a Siberian labor camp.

The Washington Post’s accusation is based on a “behavioral analysis”–in other words, publicly sharing “anti-Soviet thoughts”–in our era, the equivalent is sharing anti-Establishment thoughts.

Your crime, as it were, need not be substantiated with evidence; the mere fact you publicly revealed your anti-Establishment thought convicted you.
This is the Corporate Media’s Gulag of the Mind. We’ll tell you what’s “true” and what is correct to think and believe. Any deviation from the party line is a threat and must be discredited, marginalized or suppressed.

Where is the Post’s hard evidence of Russian ties or Russian influence? There isn’t any–but like Stalin’s henchmen, the Post has no need for evidence: merely going public with an anti-Establishment thought “proves” one’s guilt in the kangaroo court of America’s corporate media (a.k.a. mainstream media or MSM).

To continue reading: The Corporate Media’s Gulag of the Mind

Populist-Nationalist Tide Rolls On, by Patrick J. Buchanan

You Say You Want a Devolution?” The devolutionary impulse gains momentum. From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

Now that the British have voted to secede from the European Union and America has chosen a president who has never before held public office, the French appear to be following suit.

In Sunday’s runoff to choose a candidate to face Marine Le Pen of the National Front in next spring’s presidential election, the center-right Republicans chose Francois Fillon in a landslide.

While Fillon sees Margaret Thatcher as a role model in fiscal policy, he is a socially conservative Catholic who supports family values, wants to confront Islamist extremism, control immigration, restore France’s historic identity and end sanctions on Russia.

“Russia poses no threat to the West,” says Fillon. But if not, the question arises, why NATO? Why are U.S. troops in Europe?

As Le Pen is favored to win the first round of the presidential election and Fillon the second in May, closer Paris-Putin ties seem certain. Europeans themselves are pulling Russia back into Europe, and separating from the Americans.

Next Sunday, Italy holds a referendum on constitutional reforms backed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. If the referendum, trailing in the polls, fails, says Renzi, he will resign.

Opposing Renzi is the secessionist Northern League, the Five Star Movement of former comedian Beppe Grillo, and the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a pal of Putin’s.

“Up to eight of Italy’s troubled banks risk failure,” if Renzi’s government falls, says the Financial Times. One week from today, the front pages of the Western press could be splashing the newest crisis of the EU.

To continue reading: Populist-Nationalist Tide Rolls On

 

FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump, by Chris Strohm

Two trends in government that Donald Trump appears set to embrace rather than oppose: the ongoing shrinkage of Americans’ civil liberties and the continuing expansion of the surveillance state. From Christ Strohm at bloomberg.com:

The FBI, National Security Agency and CIA are likely to gain expanded surveillance powers under President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, a prospect that has privacy advocates and some lawmakers trying to mobilize opposition.

Trump’s first two choices to head law enforcement and intelligence agencies — Republican Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Republican Representative Mike Pompeo for director of the Central Intelligence Agency — are leading advocates for domestic government spying at levels not seen since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The fights expected to play out in the coming months — in Senate confirmation hearings and through executive action, legislation and litigation — also will set up an early test of Trump’s relationship with Silicon Valley giants including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. Trump signaled as much during his presidential campaign, when he urged a consumer boycott of Apple for refusing to help the FBI hack into a terrorist’s encrypted iPhone.

An “already over-powerful surveillance state” is about to “be let loose on the American people,” said Daniel Schuman, policy director for Demand Progress, an internet and privacy advocacy organization.

New Hacking Rule

In a reversal of curbs imposed after Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about mass data-gathering by the NSA, Trump and Congress may move to reinstate the collection of bulk telephone records, renew powers to collect the content of e-mails and other internet activity, ease restrictions on hacking into computers and let the FBI keep preliminary investigations open longer.

To continue reading: FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump

Welcome to Hooverville, by Jeff Thomas

President Herbert Hoover was not to blame for the economic contraction that began shortly after he took office, although he was blamed by the Democrats for it. Could the same thing happen to Donald Trump? From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:

In 1928, Republican Herbert Hoover was elected as president of the US. He took office in March of 1929. The following October, the stock market crashed, heralding in the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes and/or starved in the ensuing years.

Countless people, having nowhere to live, set up shantytowns that came to be known as “Hoovervilles.” Their new residents relied for the most part on public charities or begging for whatever income they could attain.

Why was Mister Hoover blamed? Well, whenever there’s disaster, it’s human nature to want to put a face on the cause of the problem. We tend to need to have someone at whom we can point our angry finger. (Almost immediately after the shooting of John Kennedy, the public were shown a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle; the day after the destroying of the Twin Towers, the television news showed a photo of Osama bin Laden. The viewers didn’t question whether these were indeed the culprits; they simply accepted them, as their need to have someone to blame was greater than their need to have truth.)

As a Republican, Mister Hoover became an easy target for Democrats seeking to further their own careers. Although the events that led up to the depression were caused by both Democrats and Republicans, both within politics and without, Mister Hoover was a convenient target for Democrats. In fact, the term “Hooverville” was created by Charles Michelson, publicity chief of the Democratic National Committee. Democrats also came up with other pejoratives, such as “Hoover blankets” for newspapers and “Hoover leather” for cardboard used in a shoe when the sole had worn through.

To continue reading: Welcome to Hooverville

Trump Picks Vocal Obamacare Critic Tom Price As HHS Secretary, by Tyler Durden

The quicker the deranged experiment known as Obamacare is dismantled, the better. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

In a choice that confirms Trump’s intentions to dismantle Obamacare, Reuters reports that President-elect Donald Trump will shortly announce he has chosen vociferous Obamacare critic Tom Price (R. Ga), an orthopedic surgeon from Georgia, as his Health and Human Services secretary to help him overhaul the U.S. healthcare system.

Chairman of the House Budget Committee Tom Price

“Chairman Price, a renowned physician, has earned a reputation for being a tireless problem solver and the go-to expert on healthcare policy, making him the ideal choice to serve in this capacity,” Trump said in a statement. “He is exceptionally qualified to shepherd our commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare and bring affordable and accessible healthcare to every American. I am proud to nominate him as Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Price, who currently leads the House Budget Committee, has spent more than a decade in Congress and has become a close ally of GOP leadership. As a member of the House GOP Doctor’s Caucus, Price helped shape the healthcare plan that House Speaker Paul Ryan now pitches as his alternative to ObamaCare. Trump also slected consultant Seema Verma to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a powerful agency that oversees government health programs and insurance standards.

Price is a vocal critic of ObamaCare and he brings a deep background in health legislation. In 2014 as the law faced a major challenge at the Supreme Court, Price authored his own plan to replace the law.

To continue reading: Trump Picks Vocal Obamacare Critic Tom Price As HHS Secretary

READ THE REVIEWS!

cropped-prime-deceit-final-cover.jpg

From Amazon reader reviews:

“I could easily see this book as a big budget Hollywood production with an A list cast. It would need almost no alterations. It is tightly crafted, compelling, current, dramatic, and thrilling. Apart from its style, this book perfectly reflects the skepticism of the public in regards to the most powerful institutions of our day.”

“I very much enjoyed this book, and, sad to say, there’s probably a lot more truth than fiction in some of the surprising plot twists and turns.”

“The book is an easy and quick read, you’ll gain a connection to it’s characters and it’s premise will stick with you forever, wondering if it’s already played out in real life!”

“I loved this book, I made myself put it down so I could make it last a few days!! Ready for the sequel!!”

“Intriguing premise. Very professionally written. A very good read and a timely warning of what could happen with a government too powerful.”

“Finally a book that is well written fiction based on plausible characters, not caricatures, without the blatant preaching of a thinly-veiled conspiracy theory; a book to actually enjoy reading.”

“Robert Gore’s new novel has proven to be a real page-turner. An accomplished wordsmith, the author manages to evoke breathless drama and heart-stopping action while entertaining the reader with a good story line. Well worth reading.”

“He also permits more of his inherent dry wit and sarcasm come through than in his previous endeavors. Given the world’s current geopolitical and economic state, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this work, with some modifications, be turned into a successful screenplay.”

“Read it twice.”

ORDER THE AMAZON PAPERBACK

ORDER THE KINDLE EBOOK

He Said That? 11/28/16

From Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC), also known by the anglicized name Tully, in and after the Middle Ages, Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, consul and constitutionalist, Laelius On Friendship (44 BC):

Few are those who wish to be endowed with virtue rather than to seem so.

The Rediscovery of Men, by James Howard Kunstler

James Howard Kunstler opines on manhood, feminism, and politics. From Kunstler at kunstler.com:

This must account, at least in part, for the post-election hysteria among the social justice folk and their mentors at the Prog end of politics, especially those bent on suppressing or eliminating men. Of course, it’s only been the last year or so that their long-running animus became explicit, their writ against white men in particular. Before, it was all sub rosa, really just a byproduct of the campaign to uplift women, people-of-color, and the many theoretical gender categories vying for supremacy of the moral high ground. Hillary was expected to drive the final wooden stake through masculinity’s demonic heart… but something went wrong… and she was disarmed… and now this cheeto-headed monster in a red necktie is the president-elect. There must have been a clerical error.

Donald Trump was about as far from my sense of the male ideal as anything short of the Golem. His accomplishments in life — developing hotels that look like bowling trophies and producing moronic TV shows — seem as flimsy as the plastic golden heraldry plastered on his casinos. His knowledge of the world appears to be on the level of a fifth grader. He can barely string together two coherent sentences off-teleprompter. I was as astonished as anyone by the disclosure of his “grab them by the pussy” courtship advice to little Billy Bush. In my experience, it seemed a very poor strategy for scoring some action, to say the least. In a better world — perhaps even the America he imagines to have been great once — Donald Trump would be a kind of freak among men, a joke, a parody of masculinity.

To continue reading: The Rediscovery of Men

It’s not “Public” . . . and the “Mainstream” Media Isn’t, by Eric Peters

It’s easier to pull one over on people if you use—and it becomes generally accepted—sloppy, imprecise language. From Eric Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

You have probably heard someone refer – accurately – to government (rather than public) schools.

We need more such clarity.

More such honesty.

It deprives them – authoritarian collectivists – of the moral sanction they must have in order to keep otherwise decent people in thrall to them. To prevent criticism or even questioning of authoritarian collectivism by preventing any meaningful conversation about it. They use words to shut you up. To get you to accept the terms of the debate before there is a debate. So that there is no debate.

“Public” – schools or otherwise – is a shyster term. Purposely dishonest. The “public” – who is that, exactly? – owns absolutely nothing. Physical property is always – must be – owned by specific living, actual people. And ownership is defined by which living, specific people control the property.
Do you control the – not your – local “public” school? Can you enter at will? Or must you obtain permission? Are you free to use it as you like? Or are you told how you may use it? Do you have any meaningful control over the teachers – or what is taught? Can you fire a teacher? Adjust the curricula an iota?

Exactly.

Tear off the euphemism Band Aid; let’s get to the suppurating sore underneath and have a look.

A government school is controlled by the people who work for the government. Who constitute the government, by dint of having the power to exercise control over other people and other things.

To continue reading: It’s not “Public” . . . and the “Mainstream” Media Isn’t

Losers who won’t lose, by Salil Mehta

If Jill Stein’s quixotic ballot recount was a horse in a race, it would be going off at about 100 to 1 odds. From Salil Mehta at statisticalideas.blogspot.com:

President-elect Trump won 306 electoral votes versus Hillary Clinton’s 232 (24% less electoral votes). Similar to 2000, the surrendering party then reversed course and put the nation through a recount, just for the sake of it. What are the odds that such an exercise here would yield successful for Ms. Clinton? Based on statistical randomness of re-assessing voter intent, the chance of Hillary emerging as the victor is far less than 10%. Anything could happen, but these lean odds do not rise to the level of putting our peaceful democracy into the hands of a temptuous [sic) recount scheme every time a stung party loses (let alone misleadingly blame it on something else from Russia’s Putin, to sexism, to FBI Director Comey, to “in hindsight the popular vote would be reasonable”). All Americans should instead focus on how the 6 states that flipped this election, were all economically ignored and all flipped to Donald Trump. The only viable path for a Hillary Clinton victory at this stage is to astoundingly uncover a wide-spread (across three states) fraud. And that’s equally unlikely, since the basis for the voting aberrations occurred in less populated counties and anyway the three states employ three different voting mechanisms, so the fraud would have had to somehow jointly occur through different transmission vehicles (paper voting, and electronic voting) and we would require a speedy judicial resolution for states such as Pennsylvania that sidestepped back-up recordings from their direct voting equipment.

To continue reading: Losers who won’t lose