Yes, we’re worse off now than we were eight years ago.
We’re being subjected to more government surveillance, more police abuse, more SWAT team raids, more roadside strip searches, more censorship, more prison time, more egregious laws, more endless wars, more invasive technology, more militarization, more injustice, more corruption, more cronyism, more graft, more lies, and more of everything that has turned the American dream into the American nightmare.
The American people are being guilted, bullied, pressured, cajoled, intimidated, terrorized and browbeaten into voting. We’re constantly told to vote because it’s your so-called civic duty, because you have no right to complain about the government unless you vote, because every vote counts, because we must present a unified front, because the future of the nation depends on it, because God compels us to do so, because by not voting you are in fact voting, because the “other” candidate must be defeated at all costs, or because the future of the Supreme Court rests in the balance.
The predatory financial institutions on Wall Street will trash the economy and loot the U.S. Treasury on the way to another economic collapse whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Poor, unarmed people of color will be gunned down in the streets of our cities whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. The system of neoslavery in our prisons, where we keep poor men and poor women of color in cages because we have taken from them the possibility of employment, education and dignity, will be maintained whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Millions of undocumented people will be deported whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Austerity programs will cut or abolish public services, further decay the infrastructure and curtail social programs whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. Money will replace the vote whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is president. And half the country, which now lives in poverty, will remain in misery whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes president. This is not speculation. We know this because there has been total continuity on every issue, from trade agreements to war to mass deportations, between the Bush administration and the administration of Barack Obama.
As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the nation is firmly under the control of a monied oligarchy guarded by a standing army (a.k.a., militarized police. It is an invisible dictatorship, of sorts, one that is unaffected by the vagaries of party politics and which cannot be overthrown by way of the ballot box.
“Total continuity” is how Hedges refers to the manner in which the government’s agenda remains unchanged no matter who occupies the Executive Branch. “Continuity of government” (COG) is the phrase policy wonks use to refer to the unelected individuals who have been appointed to run the government in the event of a “catastrophe.” You can also refer to it as a shadow government, or the Deep State, which is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who actually call the shots behind the scenes.
Whatever term you use, the upshot remains the same: on the national level, we’re up against an immoveable, intractable, entrenched force that is greater than any one politician or party, whose tentacles reach deep into every sector imaginable, from Wall Street, the military and the courts to the technology giants, entertainment, healthcare and the media.
This is no Goliath to be felled by a simple stone.
This is a Leviathan disguised as a political savior.
This article that appeared recently in the Financial Times is a perfect summary of both elite memes and their increasing malfunction.
Here’s the crux paragraph:
The populist credo replaces patriotism with nationalism and promotes contempt for traditional institutions. Anyone styled an “expert” is in cahoots with the elites. Everyone has a right to produce their own “facts”.
Brexit Politics: Elites Set Up New Conflict Between Populism and Globalism as Chaos Looms …
Did we ever think we would see the day when the New York Times would willingly acknowledge a battle over globalization? And it not just the New York Times.
The mainstream media usually doesn’t acknowledge globalism as an issue. Like central banking it is simply asserted as a fact, as natural as the air we breathe.
But now all of a sudden we are finding out it is a policy after all – something made by the hand of man and not descended from on high. And thus what may be a new dominant social trend: Globalism versus Populism.
The rise of populism and contempt for experts, according to the Financial Times, is leading to active dislike for big business, the banks and globalization.
We too have problems with populism. But as we’ve pointed out, globalism is being set up as an alternative to populism.
Western elites obviously have in mind contrasting the smooth technocracy of globalism with the raucous simplifications of populism in order to make a case for continued, robust internationalism.
The “expert” meme is part of this larger, putative, pitiful celebration. Technocratic experts march hand-in-hand with globalists to create a better, “new” world.
Experts are a bottom-line necessity because they support central banking. If one grants that foretelling the future is impossible, then central banking itself becomes unjustifiable.
Central banking provides the war-chest for globalism. Without the ability to print money at will, internationalism is de-funded.
The propaganda that is in place is intended to drive internationalism.
But with the advent of the Internet, the propaganda has become exposed. The 21stcentury is much different than the 20th in terms of how these elite memes are regarded.
And so we have FT lamenting that people are increasingly disgusted with their promoted untruths.
Experts, globalism, big business – all have lost credibility not because the world is mysteriously becoming a Hobbesian place but because people are increasingly finding out the unfortunate and even shocking truth about their lives.
The so-called SDR are an IMF construct of actual currencies, right now the euro, yen, dollar, and pound. It made news last year when the Chinese renminbi was also admitted, although it won’t formally be part of the basket until October 1st of this year.
How much? Nikkei Asian Review reports the volume will be between $300 and $800 million and some Japanese banks are interested in taking up a stake. According to Nikkei some other Chinese banks are also planning to issue SDR bonds. One of them could be the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) according to Chinese website Yicai.com.
The IMF experimented with these M-SDRs in the 1970s and 1980s when banks had SDR 5-7 billion in deposits and companies had issued SDR 563 million in bonds. A paltry amount, but the concept worked in practice.
The G20 finance ministers confirmed they will push this issue, despite private sector reluctance to use these instruments. In their communiqué released after their meeting in China on July 24:
“We support examination of the broader use of the SDR, such as broader publication of accounts and statistics in the SDR and the potential issuance of SDR-denominated bonds, as a way to enhance resilience [of the financial system].”
They are following the advice of governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), Zhou Xiaochuan, although a bit late. Already in 2009 he called for nothing less than a new world reserve currency.
“Special consideration should be given to giving the SDR a greater role. The SDR has the features and potential to act as a super-sovereign reserve currency,” wrote Zhou.
Seven years later, it looks like he wasn’t joking.