Yesterday we took a look at the way in which the Zhou Baiden regime is marshalling all the resources at its disposal to wage war against domestic enemies (We Will Crush You). Those resources include government resources--Congressional inquiries, prosecution through DoJ that will focus on conservative dissidents, and a purge of the military to ensure that our armed forces will be a loyal arm of the regime. The resources also include non-governmental entities that are being charged with the all important task of controlling the flow of information and of public discussion. After the fact government measures by means of law enforcement and prosecution working through the courts are too little and too late in the information war--non-governmental social media and tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon can act more efficiently and flexibly without the delay involved with working through the courts. In that regard we quote Caitlin Johnstone regarding the Corporatist model of the regime:
In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship
In all this we saw the consistent twin focus of the regime and its proxies, a focus that tells us that their immediate concerns are
1) to safeguard instruments of social control represented by the Covid regime and its vaxxing campaign, and
2) to safeguard the legitimacy of the regime by suppressing all questioning regarding Election 2020.
It's worthwhile to turn to anti-war activist Johnstone's prescient 2018 article for a reminder of how this works and, especially, for the role of the Deep State:
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the ability to control the US government’s policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the US unquestionably has a corporatist system of government. Large, influential corporations are inseparable from the state, so their use of censorship is inseparable from state censorship.
This is especially true of the vast megacorporations of Silicon Valley, whose extensive ties to US intelligence agencies are well-documented. Once you’re assisting with the construction of the US military’s drone program, receiving grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, or having your site’s content regulated by NATO’s propaganda arm, you don’t get to pretend you’re a private, independent corporation that is separate from government power. It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they’ll work with your competitors instead of you.
And yet every time I point to the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all new media political discourse with an iron fist, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands. “It’s not censorship!” they exclaim. “It’s a private company and can do whatever it wants with its property!”
Tied to these efforts to safeguard the twin pillars of the regime is the strategy of branding all dissent as inspired by "white supremacy." The reasoning is transparent. In 21st century America 'racism' is the thought crime than which there is nothing worse. The mere accusation of 'racism' is enough to silence virtually all dissenting voices, and so the irresistible cover of 'anti-racist' education is being used to introduce progressive indoctrination into government schools. The obvious target of all this is conservatism and, especially, the anti-globalist agenda of Trumpism.
Today we see that the SecGen of the UN, the socialist António Guterres, is lending his voice to this progressive campaign. Guterres is calling for--what else?--a "global coordinated action" to counter the "grave and growing danger" of--what else?--white supremacy. Note the coordinated memes. According to Guterres these devilish white supremacists have used the Covid hoax to advance their "transnational threat." The allusions to Trump are only lightly veiled. Guterres urges "these extremist movements represent the number one internal security threat in several countries”:
GENEVA (Reuters) - United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned on Monday that white supremacy and neo-Nazi movements are becoming a “transnational threat” and have exploited the coronavirus pandemic to boost their support.
Addressing the U.N. Human Rights Council, Guterres said the danger of hate-driven groups was growing daily.
“White supremacy and neo-Nazi movements are more than domestic terror threats. They are becoming a transnational threat,” he told the Geneva forum. Without naming states, Guterres added: “Today, these extremist movements represent the number one internal security threat in several countries.”
In the United States, racial tensions simmered during the turbulent four-year presidency of Donald Trump. His successor Joe Biden has said the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters was carried out by “thugs, insurrectionists, political extremists and white supremacists”.
“Far too often, these hate groups are cheered on by people in positions of responsibility in ways that were considered unimaginable not long ago,” Guterres said. “We need global coordinated action to defeat this grave and growing danger.”
This, conveniently, brings us to the globalist perspective, inspired by Tom Luongo's latest (working off Pepe Escobar): Merkel’s War for Germany is Nearly Over. Here I'll basically only present my speculative conclusions
I've made no secret of my view that much of what we've been looking at in our politics and our foreign policy is driven by George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. Soros, headquartered now in Berlin, is the puppet master behind such globalist outfits as the Atlantic Council and Klaus Schwab's World Economic Form (WEF) in Davos.
Of course, Soros is not alone with his think tank strategists in his grand strategy of pulling off a Great Reset that will establish his model Open Society. He has the backing of what Luongo terms the
bunch of eugenicist oligarchs trying to pull off something so monumentally stupid as The Great Reset?
By "eugenicist oligarchs" I'm quite sure he's referring to the likes of Bill Gates--Big Tech, "the California Multibillionaires who intend to conquer the world." (Please follow this link for three previous posts that outline the agenda of these "eugenicist oligarchs.") Soros also has the backing of a major part of the US government--the Deep State, the higher reaches of the Dem party, many of our legislators, our ruling elite both in government and in culturally dominant institutions of education and entertainment.
The globalist foreign policy agenda runs something like this. In order to establish a global Open Society it is necessary to bring major power centers under coordinated control and in line with Open Society goals (again, follow that link in the previous paragraph) through institutions like the UN, the WEF and the EU, and the US government. The main opponent of this agenda has been Vladimir Putin in Russia, who persists in a more or less traditionalist view of Russia as a Great Power but also as a Great Civilizational Center with fundamentally Christian and human values--such as those of the traditional family, as Putin pointedly stated in his recent address to the WEF. The American Empire has served as the stick in the carrot and stick globalist attempt to bring Putin in line--through sanctions, color revolutions, etc. Ultimately, if Russia can be pressured into submission, the bloc of the US, the EU, and Russian Eurasia--coordinated by the Open Society Foundation and the WEF--will work to bring China into the globalist fold.
You can read more about this globalist agenda in a series of earlier posts at this link, but here are three separate titles:
The American Empire And Its Enemies
Who Paid For The Russia Hoax?
The Russia Hoax: Who Benefits?
Putin's resistance was serious enough, given his control of vast energy resources crucial to key Open Society players--such as the German government. However, the opposition of Donald Trump threatened the entire project. Trump's vision of a resurgent America as a nation state looking out for its own interests--rather than subject to the globalist eugenicist oligarchs--was bad enough. Worse was that Trump also saw Putin in Russia as a potential partner in a realist world order constructed along traditional foreign policy lines, rather than the utopian, eugenicist, ideology of the Great Reset and the Open Society. This is the explanation for the globally coordinated War Against Trump--to include the Covid Hoax--that culminated in the Great Steal.
To conclude, let me draw attention to the third post linked just above: The Russia Hoax: Who Benefits? I begin that post with this observation:
Over at Zerohedge there's a perceptive piece that raises the obvious question. If the Russia Hoax is so transparently bogus--and it is--then the only reason it has shown so much staying power must be because someone or some group derives a substantial benefit from it. And so the author asks: Cui Bono? RussiaGate As Organized Distraction. The author is Oliver Boyd-Barrett at ConsortiumNews.com, and he focuses largely on actors in the global influence sphere. However, he then moves on to note the effect the use of an inherently implausible hoax has had on the free exchange of information in the US.
I then go on to offer an extended quote from the cited blog. I requote that passage here because, in combination with the above observations as well as the previous posts also linked above, Boyd-Barrett ties together important aspects of what we're now seeing under the Zhou Baiden regime, showing how deeply rooted they are in both US as well as international institutions:
Why then does the RussiaGate discourse have so much traction? Who benefits?
RussiaGate serves the interest of a (No. 1) corrupted Democratic Party, whose biased and arguably incompetent campaign management lost it the 2016 election, in alliance (No. 2) with powerful factions of the U.S. industrial-military-surveillance establishment that for the past 19 years, through NATO and other malleable international agencies, has sought to undermine Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership, dismember Russia and the Russian Federation (undoubtedly for the benefit of Western capital) and, more latterly, further contain China in a perpetual and titanic struggle for the heart of EurAsia.
In so far as Trump had indicated (for whatever reasons) in the course of his campaign that he disagreed with at least some aspects of this long-term strategy, he came to be viewed as unreliable by the U.S. security state.
A further beneficiary (No.3) is the sum of all those interests that favor a narrowing of public expression to a framework supportive of neoliberal imperialism. Paradoxically exploiting the moral panic associated with both Trump’s plaintive wailing about “fake news” whenever mainstream media coverage is critical of him, and social media embarrassment over exposure of their big-data sales to powerful corporate customers, these interests have called for more regulation of, as well as self-censorship by, social media.
Social media responses increasingly involve more restrictive algorithms and what are often partisan “fact-checkers” (illustrated by Facebook financial support for and dependence on the pro-NATO “think tank,” the Atlantic Council). The net impact has been devastating for many information organizations in the arena of social media whose only “sin” is analysis and opinion that runs counter to elite neoliberal propaganda.
The standard justification of such attacks on free expression is to insinuate ties to Russia and/or to terrorism. Given these heavy handed and censorious responses by powerful actors, it would appear perhaps that the RussiaGate narrative is increasingly implausible to many and the only hope now for its proponents is to stifle questioning. These are dark days indeed for democracy.
The coming struggle will be truly titanic.
We're back to racist white supremacists again?ReplyDelete
Sorry I must'a missed that memo. I can't keep up with whatever god awful thing I'm supposed to be on whatever week I'm supposed to be it on, I'm just not good at this self loathing guilt thingy.
I'll try better next cycle...
Reading the Boyd-Barrett article was like floating an inner tube down a shallow stream in August. At every turn by rear end bumped and dragged along the bottom. In the first paragraph he leads with several assertions that would normally result in me hitting the browser back button, pronto. He starts off with a bang about Trump gutting environmental protections (citing a ludicrous NYT slant), moves on to an ignorant article in MSNBC about jettisoning the INF treaty, and wraps up the tendentious trifecta by accusing Trump of exacerbating tensions with our vile, implacable foe Chy-nah. If you’re not pissing off the NYT, MSNBC, and China you are definitely doing something wrong.ReplyDelete
So, where does B-B go from there? Why, he says, “U.S. electoral procedures are profoundly compromised by an Electoral College that detaches votes counted from votes that count.” And, “Right-wing administrations reach into a tool-box of voter-suppression tactics that run the gamut from minimizing available voting centers and voting machines through to excessive voter identification requirements and the elimination of swathes of the voting lists.”
Okay, now I’m hovering over the X on the browser tab to banish this moron—but I say to myself, “Mark recommended this article so I’ve got to give it a third chance.” So I did. And he makes some excellent points, the final being that in July 2019 (when this was written) there were, indeed, dark days ahead for our republic.
LOL. I read it and picked the good parts so you wouldn't have to.Delete
The whole “white supremacist/domestic terrorist” is a straw man argument meant to keep gaslighting the American people. In my entire experience in right-of-center politics the only people I ever heard use the N-word were blacks & democrats.ReplyDelete
One thing unique to totalitarian regimes is there’s ALWAYS a “crisis”, they move from one “crisis” to another, all of it BS. North Korea especially has been operating this way since the 1953 armistice, warning every week “THE AMERICANS ARE GOING TO INVADE!!!!” & whipping everybody into a frenzy.
They keep pressing the panic button to keep the people distracted so that they don’t see what the other hand is doing.
Just re-read Caitlin Johnstone's article again as I make my way through Mark's longer post.ReplyDelete
As I've noted elsewhere, that old rascally radical, Dwight D. Eisenhower, predicted this.