“Government largesse and politicians enriching themselves.” As if anything else could reasonably be expected.
“Government largesse and politicians enriching themselves.” As if anything else could reasonably be expected.
Schumer and McConnell unite to fuck over everyone else.
2008 on steroids.
The global banking cartels have been the international ruling class since the early modern era when landed wealth began to give way to monetary and merchant wealth as the basis of class rule. The old bourgeoisie of the Enlightenment/classical liberal/Industrial Revolution periods were simply the national-elites of capitalist countries during the rise of modernity. When classical capitalism collapsed in the early to middle 20th century (as Marx more or less predicted), the managerial revolution emerged to replace the old bourgeoisie as the new national-elites, while remaining subordinate to the international financier/rentier class. The state-centric movements (fascism, national socialism, communism, social democracy, Fabianism, progressivism) that comprised the managerial revolution in different industrialized countries (Italy, Germany, Russia, England, America, Japan, etc.) represented cooptations of various elitist-reformist and/or revolutionary-extremist forces for the purpose of saving the global financial system. Antony Sutton was run out of academic and respectable “conservative” circles for pointing this out.
Now available for the first time in one volume: Three of the most revealing studies showing how Wall Street financiers, international bankers, and corporations manipulated world affairs during the early 20th century. Original introduction by Global Alliance Publications, Inc. summarizes the powerful book series. In this trilogy, Professor Anthony C. Sutton presents extensive research tracing the support and financial backing of world-changing events by Wall Street including the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Franklin Delano Roosevelt s presidency, Hitler s rise to power, World War II and the beginnings of corporate socialism. Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Learn how major corporations made deals to capture huge Russian markets over a decade before the U.S. even recognized the Soviet regime. And, how closet socialism permeated the top levels of business only to later expand across many facets of society under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, all to benefit the interests of Wall Street. Wall Street and FDR Other histories gloss over Franklin Delano Roosevelt s years on Wall Street, but Sutton reveals his destructive speculation, behind the scenes use of political influence for profit, and the corporations and elite businessmen who made his rise to the Presidency possible. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler Hitler rose to power through subsidies by international bankers and Wall Street financiers. Sutton presents original documents and eyewitness accounts to show how World War II was well-planned and extremely profitable for top financial insiders. Read how the directors and executives of J.P. Morgan, General Electric, Standard Oil, International Telephone and Telegraph, Chase and Manhattan banks and many other members of the business elite all played a role in financing and promoting one of the most destructive wars in history. Throughout the 20th century, bankers and executives from institutions even more relevant today, including Morgan banking, used their resources to shape the global structure of events in order to maximize profit and maintain their level of world influence. Given that these companies still exert influence in our political system and our society as a whole, Professor Sutton s conclusions are just as relevant today as they were when he originally published his findings.
Given that “progressives” are once again a rising force in US politics, it’s a good idea to revisit the work of Antony Sutton and his critique of FDR. Bernie Sanders is really just a recycled Rooseveltian, and I’ve even heard a lot of commentators I like (Jimmie Dore, Kim Iversen, Caleb Maupin) calling for a new Roosevelt in this time of Great Depression-era class divisions and, with the present crisis, a possible Great Depression Two. FDR was not a hero who saved the working class from the Depression. He was a tool of the banksters who saved the ruling class from the working class.
Franklin D. Roosevelt is frequently described as one of the greatest presidents in American history, remembered for his leadership during the Great Depression and Second World War. Antony Sutton challenges this received wisdom, presenting a controversial but convincing analysis. Based on an extensive study of original documents, he concludes that: * FDR was an elitist who influenced public policy in order to benefit special interests, including his own. * FDR and his Wall Street colleagues were ‘corporate socialists’, who believed in making society work for their own benefit. * FDR believed in business but not free market economics. Sutton describes the genesis of ‘corporate socialism’ – acquiring monopolies by means of political influence – which he characterises as ‘making society work for the few’. He traces the historical links of the Delano and Roosevelt families to Wall Street, as well as FDR’s own political networks developed during his early career as a financial speculator and bond dealer. The New Deal almost destroyed free enterprise in America, but didn’t adversely affect FDR’s circle of old friends ensconced in select financial institutions and federal regulatory agencies. Together with their corporate allies, this elite group profited from the decrees and programmes generated by their old pal in the White House, whilst thousands of small businesses suffered and millions were unemployed. Wall Street and FDR is much more than a fascinating historical and political study. Many contemporary parallels can be drawn to Sutton’s powerful presentation given the recent banking crises and worldwide governments’ bolstering of private institutions via the public purse.
Anyone who is familiar with my writings knows that I am a vengeful hater of the neocons. However, one thing the neocon godfather Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol, of “benevolent global hegemony” scumbaggery fame) may have gotten right is his analysis of what the called the “new class.” Kristol was an opponent of James Burham’s managerial revolution theory (because as a Trotskyist-turned-right-wing social democrat Kristol was a fan of the FDR-era managerial revolution) but advanced the view that the Great Society/New Left-era produced a “new class” (which the uber-Zionist, Russia-hating socially conservative Kristol despised) that was an insurgent force within the US state. I actually think there is something to be said for Kristol’s perspective on the new class. But I would be inclined to argue that Burnham was correct in his assessment of the managerial revolution’s dethronement of the old bourgeoise, with the new class subsequently being an insurgency within the lower strata of the managerial elite. The present-day battle between neoliberals (overlords of the managerial apparatus) and social democrats (administrators of the managerial apparatus) makes a lof sense when viewed in this context. Dan McCarthy explains Kristol’s theory in the article below.
By Daniel McCarthy
The American Conservative
Shock gave way to relief this summer as America’s political establishment—rattled by Donald Trump’s success in winning the Republican nomination—reassured itself of his inevitable defeat come November. For a moment Trump seemed to have created a new style of politics, one that threatened to mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. But in the weeks following the Democratic National Convention, as Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers remained comfortably ahead of Trump’s, pundits discounted the risk of class war.
Trump’s voters were not really so hard hit anyway, a report by Gallup claimed. “His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations,” wrote Jonathan Rothwell, a senior economist at the polling firm, “but they earn relative[ly] high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.” Trump’s voters were most strongly characterized by their “racial isolation”: they live in places with little ethnic diversity. Thus race, not class, explains the 2016 election—or so outlets like Vox and the Washington Post concluded.
But there’s another side to the Trump phenomenon that is less about Trump or his voters than about the elites they are against. Resistance to the bipartisan establishment keeps growing, and even if Trump loses to Clinton in a landslide, he has carried the rebellion further than ever before by winning a major party’s nomination.
I’m certainly not a Trumpian, but I don’t trust Fauci, either. For decades, he has always struck me as one of the High Priests of the therapeutic state’s white coat priesthood.
By Isaac Stanley-Becker
A cadre of right-wing news sites pulled from the fringes in recent years through repeated mention by President Trump is now taking aim at Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, who has given interviews in which he has tempered praise for the president with doubts about his pronouncements.
Although both men are seeking to tamp down the appearance of tension — “Great job,” Trump commended the doctor during the White House’s briefing on Tuesday — the president is increasingly chafing against medical consensus. He has found support from a chorus of conservative commentators who have cheered his promise to get the U.S. economy going again as well as his decision to tout possible coronavirus treatments not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“The president was right, and frankly Fauci was wrong,” Lou Dobbs said Monday on his show on the Fox Business Network, referring to the use of experimental medicine.
The ongoing falling out between the Left and the neoliberals is a great thing to behold. This is the real future of the Left/Right battle in the US, i.e. social democrats vs neoliberals with the neoconservative-turned-faux populist Republicans increasingly becoming a fringe right-wing party as their demographic base continues to shrink, although look for the GOP to move leftward on some issues (probably with some centrist-liberal/quasi-populist/business-labor coalition Christian Democrat-like economic gestures) as they try to play the neoliberals and social democrats against each other.
By Dana Sanchez
Some MSNBC commentators are under fire by the left for harsh criticism of Sen. Bernie Sanders, with at least one call on social media for a national TV network that serves “the actual left.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is facing calls to resign after he compared Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Nevada caucus to the Nazi invasion of France, Newsweek reported. Sanders won the Nevada Democratic caucuses with 47 percent of the vote.
There were calls for MSNBC to stop comparing the campaign of a Jewish presidential candidate whose family members were wiped out by the Nazis to the Third Reich.
This is interesting in places and funny in other places.
First, Prince Charles and, now, Bojo. Apparently, the coronavirus doesn’t like the British state.
LONDON, March 27 (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Friday he had tested positive for coronavirus and was self-isolating at Downing Street but would still lead the government’s response to the accelerating outbreak.
Johnson, 55, experienced mild symptoms on Thursday – a day after he answered at the prime minister’s weekly question-and-answer session in parliament’s House of Commons chamber.
“I’ve taken a test. That has come out positive,” Johnson said in a video statement broadcast on Twitter. “I’ve developed mild symptoms of the coronavirus. That’s to say – a temperature and a persistent cough.
By Brian Gassey
Australian photographer Brian Cassey visits Hasdeo Arand, one of the largest contiguous stretches of dense forest in central India. The area is rich in biodiversity, containing many threatened species including elephants, leopards and sloth bears. A rash of newly approved mines could further destroy swathes of the Hasdeo Arand forest – and with it the wildlife local villagers depend on for survival.
In the northern Brazilian state of Roraima, more and more illegal gold miners are invading indigenous land. This gold rush comes with the blessing of Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro. Our reporters Fanny Lothaire and Laura Damase investigated the illegal activities and met the Yanomami Indians who are fighting to defend their ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest.
“There are 20,000 invaders on our land today! We are constantly afraid,” Marinaldo, a Yanomami Indian chief, explains from his threatened reserve. His land is located in Roraima state in the far north of Brazil, right in the middle of the Amazon rainforest.
The Yanomami – “human beings” in their ancestral language – have feared for their lives since 2011 and the invasion of the “garimpeiros”, illegal gold miners who come to extract the precious metal hidden under a layer of Amazonian flora and fauna. Gold has become a major export of Roraima state, even though not a single legal mine is operating.
In Boa Vista, the capital of Roraima state, jewellery stores and shops selling raw gold are widespread. The federal police have arrested a few retailers to keep up appearances, but gold businesses are well established despite being completely illegal.
I often seek solace at the Brotherhood Church.
This may sound like an odd statement for an anarchist, but — despite its name — I am not referring to some religious cult or new-age retreat. I am talking about a Tolstoy-inspired, anarchist commune which has stood in defiance of authoritarianism, ecological decline and warfare for the best part of 100 years. It is an incredibly diverse ecological paradise, which meets the needs of people and wildlife alike. As an urban farmer, it never fails to inspire and enlighten me.
The Brotherhood Church lies in the pastoral village of Stapleton, North Yorkshire, but its story begins 300 miles away in the Northern Irish market town of Limavady. Inspired by the political views expressed in Henry George’s 1879 treatise Progress and Poverty, the well-formed utopian vision of Edward Bellamy, and the spiritual teachings of Leo Tolstoy, a young Congretionalist minister named J. Bruce Wallace began to produce a weekly publication called The Brotherhood. First published in 1887, a year after Peter Kropotkin and Charlotte Wilson stated Freedom, Wallace’s publication celebrated a range of anarchist, socialist, communist and Christian socio-economic philosophies. The Brotherhood would be the first British publication to serialise Edward Bellamy’s utopian science fiction novel Looking Backwards: 2000-1887; the book which is directly credited with inspiring Sir Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement.
One hundred years ago in Russia, thousands of workers were on strike in the city of Astrakhan and at the Putilov factory in Petrograd, the capital of the revolution. Strikes at the Putilov factory had been one of the principal sparks that set off the February Revolution in 1917, ending the tsarist regime. Now, the bosses were party bureaucrats, and the workers were striking against a socialist government. How would the dictatorship of the proletariat respond?
Following up on our book about the Bolshevik seizure of power, The Russian Counterrevolution, we look back a hundred years to observe the anniversary of the Bolshevik slaughter of the Putilov factory workers who had helped to bring them to power. Today, when many people who did not live through actually existing socialism are propagating a sanitized version of events, it is essential to understand that the Bolsheviks meted out some of their bloodiest repression not to capitalist counterrevolutionaries, but to striking workers, anarchists, and fellow socialists. Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
If you find any of this difficult to believe, please, by all means, check our citations, consult the bibliography at the end, and investigate for yourself.
By Dan Kois
Maybe it will be the hand sanitizer that finally exposes the sham.
The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that due to the coronavirus outbreak, it’s waiving the familiar 3.4-ounce limit for liquids and gels—for hand sanitizer only.* You may now bring a bottle of Purell as large as 12 ounces onto the plane to assist in your constant sanitizing of yourself, your family, your seat, your bag of peanuts, and everything else. All other liquids and gels, however, are still restricted to 3.4 ounces.
Among many shocks of the past week—school closures, Tom Hanks, the shuttering of one sports league after another—this rule change registers as major. The liquid restriction has been a key component of air travel ever since 2006. If people are now allowed to bring 12-ounce bottles of hand sanitizer onto planes, won’t the planes blow up?
One crisis chases the next. We are constantly being confronted with new threat scenarios. In our pursuit of security, we accept restrictions on our freedom all too easily and enable state and capitalist monitors to control and examine every aspect of our everyday life. Most people believe everything they read on the internet or see on TV way to easily. And “that fear pays off is an age-old knowledge” was already stated by Professor of Sociology Jörg Schindler in his book “Panikmaking”. Even the state philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli advised the powerful to spread fear rather than benefits – it was “much safer to be feared than to be loved”. A recommendation that not only the rulers follow. Too much money can be made by unsecuring the masses. Food and pharmaceutical corporations, as well as insurance companies are currently recording astronomical profits, while dozens of medium-sized and small companies have to introduce short-time work or even close it. More…
By Ahjamu Umi
Those are obviously real concerns. Its also worth repeating that millions of colonized and oppressed people across the world are forced daily to live under martial law conditions. Empty shelves at stores. Restricted movement. Lack of food and healthcare resources. In countries like Zimbabwe, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, these stark conditions result in large part due to U.S. led capitalist economic sanctions against them for refusing to tow capitalism’s line. In other parts of the world the exploitative nature of capitalist dominated production of goods and services continues to maintain this system of very few haves, and millions of have nots.
Noam Chomsky has it right when he says that “capitalism” amounts to “socialism for the rich” with austerity, “market discipline,” and bootstraps for everyone else.
By Craig Murray
Amid the COVID-19 panic, it has hardly been noticed that Carphone Warehouse went bust, with 2,900 people losing their jobs. Its co-founder, David Ross, is of course the billionaire that Boris Johnson claimed paid for his luxury holiday to Mustique, whereas Ross claimed he only organised it. Who actually paid is one of those Johnson peccadilloes, like the promotion of Jennifer Arcuri, the Garden Bridge fiasco, the Guppy conversation over beating up Stuart Collier, the Russian Influence report, the question of how many children he really has – I could go on rather a long while here – which will be discreetly downplayed by the state and media nexus.
Ross, like Branson and so many others of the “entrepreneurs” that we are taught to worship, came from a very wealthy background and had the great advantages of capital and connections to boost him up the ladder. To be fair to Ross, unlike for example Philip Green, there is no suggestion that he made his fortune from Carphone Warehouse by systematic asset-stripping. What he did do, which is typical of capitalism today, is with the other directors systematically and legally remove capital as it accumulated from the company into their own personal bank accounts. In the long term this left Carphone Warehouse unable to restructure and adapt to changed market conditions, which it needed to do, as its High Street model failed for reasons unrelated to the current health crisis. Ross also had illegally used his shares as collateral for £162 million of personal loans, for which this major Tory party donor has inexplicably never been prosecuted.