America the Arrogant

A Brief History of the United States

In 1492 Columbus rediscovered America, and the settlers, destructively exploiting its vast resources, achieved a success which they attributed to their own near-miraculous virtues, some of which they actually had: courage, rude vigor, industry, and an independent spirit. Shortly after, they emerged from WWII unscathed due to the military genius embodied in two oceans while competitors – Europe, Russia, China, and Japan – lay prostrate. America’s intact military and an economy up and running allowed the establishment of a fairly benign empire and an astonishing commercial dominance, both being attributed to near-miraculous virtues and regarded as permanent.

They didn’t see it coming.

Japan revived and began producing something it called a Toyota while Detroit, sure of its market, manufactured lousy cars that arrived falling apart, final assembly by owner. Germany revived. Communism still protected America from China, and no one foresaw that this would change. Airbus Industries appeared, but no one believed that it could compete with American know-how and engineering. It did. One by one American manufacturers of airliners took shelter in the military market until only Boeing was left, more or less equal to Airbus. But Americans knew that Europe was socialist and had no work ethic.

Before long Japan had completely devoured the market for consumer electronics, cameras, and suchlike. Shipbuilding went, except for builders catering to the captive military market. The steel industry left for foreign shores. Few noticed. Americans knew that their prosperity sprang from their near-miraculous virtues, which foreigners could never achieve.

Eventually, China gave up on communism and became 1.3 billion smart, hardworking people who saw nothing wrong with the idea of becoming the world’s dominant power. Brazil began making airliners and American airlines began buying them. Even India showed signs of life. Americans didn’t worry because they knew that these funny countries couldn’t compete with America’s democratic values.

Manufacturing jobs began flowing to Asia, first a trickle and then a torrent. Americans didn’t pay attention, not knowing exactly where Asia was. Anyway, those foreigners were comic little people with squinty eyes and ate with sticks. Who could take them seriously? Then design work and programming began emigrating eastward. American had invented the Internet and now would pay the price. Intellectual capital had broken free from physical capital. Oops.

American industry largely ceased to exist, or at least ceased to be American. The big companies became free-floating international entities, adventitiously putting down roots wherever taxes were low and labor cheap, which wasn’t America. An HP laptop now consisted of a CPU from Intel but made perhaps in Ireland, the motherboard, hard drive, power supply and case made in Taiwan, RAM and screen from Samsung, assembled in Taiwan or China, but the label said HP, so it was American.

The trade balance went sour, and then very sour. The country had long since become captive to consumerism both national and individual, “He who dies with the most toys wins” being a bumper-sticker anthem. At every level America began living on credit, but America’s credit was good, which American’s attributed to near-miraculous virtues which they no longer had if they had ever had them.

As the economy invisibly declined, the military’s budget grew and grew. The country could no longer afford it, but the Pentagon was so deeply embedded in the economy and Congress that the country couldn’t stop affording it. The five-sided money hole spent on, an aging kept woman with no obvious purpose since, with the fall of the Soviet Union, America had no military enemies.

Consequences sometimes arrive tardily. After WWII, Zionists had conquered Palestine and begun mistreating its people in the manner of white South Africans at their worst. Moslems, of whom it later turned out there were quite a few, came to hate Zionists and, by extension, all Jews. Since America supplied the bombs that Israel used to kill Moslems, these came to hate the US. Thus 9/11. This was used as a pretext for war by hawkish wimps, now called Neocons. The conflicts were embraced by the Pentagon, which needed a raison d’etre in the face of the lack of enemies. The ensuing wars were enthusiastically supported by evangelicals, more Zionists, confused patriots, imperialists, military industry, and those who just wanted to kill some Arabs, any Arabs. President W. Bush with his eternal martial priapism and yokel grasp was just the man. The military budget now was about a trillion a year in a country that owed more money than it could ever repay.

Many things had changed since the arrival of Columbus and smallpox. Americans still imagined themselves as Marlboro Man, rugged individualists, though many had never actually seen a live horse. In fact, the country had become a society of mass conformist consumerism with its tastes designed at corporate. America was still a land of opportunity if you were an Ivy techy with an IQ in excess of 180, but everybody else was pretty much screwed. Most people lived in velvet serfdom, afraid of the boss and imprisoned by the retirement system. Few young males could any longer meet the physical requirements for induction. The Army softened training so they could appear to get through. So much for Davy Crockett.

Americans had become the Frightened People, afraid of terror, of Moslems, of an outside world they couldn’t find or, in many cases, spell. The government used this bounty from heaven to justify rapid elimination of civil liberties, telling the public that it was to protect them. They still prided themselves on their democracy, without any longer having one, and on being a light to the world, which hated them. “The whole world hates us. What is wrong with the whole world?” they asked, deeply puzzled.

The looters came. In the past, there had been an element of noblesse oblige, of concern for the nation, a sense among the upper classes that they ought to pay some slight attention to keeping the country alive while picking its bones. This changed. The country was now ruled by the tightly interlocking directorates of Wall Street, Congress, the upper reaches of the executive branch, and the big corporations, none of whose members had ever worked a night shift at Wal-Mart while living in a rented trailer. The worst and brightest went to Harvard and then into i-banking. Thus the sub-prime adventure. This catastrophe was regarded as a cyclical correction instead of as the first notes of the knell.

By this time the country was acquiring the attributes of the Third World. Impunity: financiers did not go to jail for financial crimes, nor generals for war crimes, nor congressmen for anything. National incapacity: The government handled natural disasters with the adroitness one might expect of Burundi. Intractable slums festered in the cores of its great cities. Over its age, America had achieved greatly, done much that was admirable and much that wasn’t, and now, overreaching, still convinced of its miraculous virtues, was perilously close to falling on its face.

From LRC, here.

The Dirty History of the Minimum Wage Law: EUGENICS

Listen or read the transcript from The Corbett Report here.

An excerpt:

The early progressive economists made no attempt to hide their eugenic motivations in promoting minimum wage laws.

Take Henry Rogers Seager, a Columbia economist and president of the American Association for Labor Legislation, who wrote in a key paper on the minimum-wage law published in The Annals of the American Academy in 1913:

“If we are to maintain a race that is to be made up of capable, efficient and independent individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization of the congenitally defective. Michigan has just passed an act requiring the sterilization of congenital idiots. This may seem somewhat remote from the minimum wage but such a policy judiciously extended should make easier the task of each on-coming generation which insists that every individual who is regularly employed in the competitive labor market shall receive at least a living wage for his work.”

In 1910, Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist who served as Woodrow Wilson’s U.S. Commissioner of Labor, opined that:

“It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law, even if it deprives these unfortunates of work. Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.”

Arthur Holcombe, a Professor of Government at Harvard and a member of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Commission, wrote approvingly of how Australia’s own minimum wage laws:

“. . . protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese.”

This is the real history of the minimum wage in America. By their own admission, a belief in the eugenic effect of eradicating the lower classes from the gene pool is the reason that its early progressive proponents advocated for minimum wage laws at all.

Of course, no one is suggesting that the people marching under the Fight For $15 banner are eugenicists, or that they are trying to exterminate the “defective germplasm” of the “unemployables.” This is patently not the case.

Modern-day progressives instead turn to newer economic models and theories to defend their “living wage” movement. A highly cited 1994 study by Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger, for instance, purported to find that raises in minimum wage actually had, if anything, a positive effect on employment. If Card and Krueger’s findings are true, then, modern progressives might argue, it doesn’t matter why economists originally supported wage floors; the point is that they offer the working poor a hand up.

As the Minimum Wage Study at the University of Washington and similar research being conducted across academia are increasingly discovering, however, Card and Krueger’s paper (called an “intellectual revolution” by Paul Krugman) is incorrect or at the very least leaves out important details about the minimum wage’s true impact.

Read the rest here.

The Leftist Crime-As-Condition Nonsense Applied to America’s Wars

Published time: 15 May, 2019 17:18 Edited time: 16 May, 2019 10:17
The way the mainstream media tells it, the United States never, ever ends up embroiled in wars and military conflicts on purpose — only ever by mistake, or as a result of things like ‘bad planning’ or ‘strategic missteps’.

Very often when media coverage of war is analysed, there is a focus on how hawkish pundits cheerlead for conflict and journalists parrot official narratives while dissenting voices are drowned out. Mainstream networks, for example, have been heavily criticized by media watchdogs for almost exclusively inviting pro-war guests and ex-military hawks onto their news shows to convince Americans that war is the only reasonable course of action while refusing to let anti-war commentators get a look in.

But there is another more subtle and unnoticeable way that the media deceives us. Even when they are not outright cheerleading for military action (as was the case in the lead up to the Iraq War), the language they use to describe events is designed to absolve Washington of blame.

Next time you read the news, notice how the US is always “stumbling into” war, or “drifting into” war or “sliding into” war — or even “sleepwalking into” war. To “stumble into” war seems to be a firm favorite among headline writers. The US has“stumbled” into war in Iraq and Syria and has been, at one time or another, at risk of “stumbling” into war with Russia, North Korea and most recently Iran.

According to these headlines, the US has also been “dragged into” (CNN) and “sucked into” (NI) war in Syria and Afghanistan, twice (NI, The Times). In recent weeks, the Trump administration has been “sliding into” (AP) a potential “accidental” war with Iran — and back in 2017, it was “dragged into” (FP) the disastrous Yemen conflict.

The examples of the US stumbling, blundering and bumbling its way into wars are endless — and it does raise a question that no one ever seems to ask: If it’s so easy to trip and fall into massive never-ending wars, why isn’t it happening to everyone else? Is Washington just especially clumsy?

With this narrative of the bumbling superpower, agency is always removed from the architects of war. Instead of enthusiastically banging the drums for war, we’re told the White House is always ‘reluctant’ to deploy its military, but is ‘forced’ into it. Then, once the war is in full-swing, when things are not panning out exactly as planned, the US can become the sacrificial hero, propelled into a deadly conflict not of its own making.

A recent headline in the Miami Herald framed recent US actions on Venezuela as the US being “pushed to act.” Pushed by who? The Trump administration voluntarily helped organize and instigate the attempted coups that worsened the country’s political crisis and proudly imposed the economic sanctions which have led directly to thousands of premature deaths. There was no “pushing” involved.

In April, Foreign Policy magazine even had Venezuela’s self-declared interim president Juan Guaido “stumbling toward a coup.” How do you stumble into a military coup? Surely that’s the kind of thing that requires careful, deliberate planning and execution? The Washington Post had Trump “fumbling” an uprising in Caracas, too.

Such framing obscures basic facts about Washington’s motives and predilection toward military conflict over diplomacy. Washington doesn’t get into wars by mistake. Unless a country is directly attacked, threatened or occupied, wars are quite easy to avoid getting into if you really don’t want to be in them  — but the hawks in Washington, no matter how much they pretend to not want war, are always itching for more and they will stop at nothing to get what they want, even if that means fabricating evidence (as in Iraq) or pulling off false flag attacks to use as convenient pretexts for the US to ‘respond’ to.It’s not just media pundits and journalists who employ this kind of misleading language, either. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said this week that a US war with Iran could happen “by accident.” Did Hunt take a vacation from reality and miss US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton ramping up war rhetoric against Iran for months? Maybe Trump abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal by accident and sent an aircraft carrier and bomber task force into the Persian Gulf last week to “send a message” to Iran by mistake.

 

Please stop publishing pieces declaring the US is “stumbling” or “drifting” into a war. The US goes to war because it’s by design, not by accident. If it’s not painfully clear the intentions are to goad Iran into an armed conflict, you haven’t been paying attention.

 

US military actions are designed specifically to provoke the conflicts that they believe will be of benefit to their overall geopolitical strategy. Talk of freedom, democracy and human rights are just a convenient cover. Washington is never at risk, for example, of stumbling into war with Saudi Arabia, despite Riyadh’s laundry list of crimes against humanity.

Whether this propagandistic language is always employed in a totally conscious way or not, it’s difficult to tell. Either way, it’s a psychological trick which frames the most powerful, military-minded and trigger-happy country in the world as some kind of innocent victim of events beyond its control.

Danielle Ryan

From RT, here.

כמו תמיד, מטרת הוועדה – היא לפרנס את הוועדה בעצמה

הממשלה אישרה “תכנית חרום לאומית לשינויי האקלים”. מחפשים פתרון לבעיה (לכאורה) שאיש אינו יודע מהי. האם קרה משהו לאקלים בישראל? האם צפוי משהו? מה צפוי? מתי צפוי? כמה צפוי? איש אינו יודע, אבל חברי הוועדה מתפרנסים מזה כבר 9 שנים…

רוצים לשמוע בדיחה?

הנה: תכנית ההיערכות הלאומית של ישראל לשינוי האקלים. כותב Ynet:

“תכנית ההיערכות הלאומית של ישראל לשינוי האקלים אושרה לאחרונה בממשלה לאחר תשע שנות מחקר וכתיבה. הבעיה היא שחסר בה דבר חשוב מאוד: מי ישלם עליה”.

הבעיה כמובן אחרת לגמרי – מה זה שינויי האקלים? מה הבעיה שמצריכה היערכות? האם מישהו הבחין באיזושהי בעיה? האם האקלים בארץ השתנה בכלל? האם חם יותר מאשר בעבר? אולי בקצת, אולי באיזו עשירית מעלה, האם מישהו הבחין בכך עד כה? אנו ארץ חמה ותמיד היינו. האם האקלים נעשה יבש יותר, מדברי יותר? לא! כמות המשקעים הממוצעת שיורדת בארץ לא השתנתה במאה השנים האחרונות.

האם יש שינויי אקלים כלשהם בארץ? לא. לא ככל שניתן ללמוד מכל המדדים שנמדדים על ידי השרות המטאורולוגי. אז על מה מדברים בכלל? שאלה טובה. אולי על השינויים הצפויים בעתיד? אולי. אבל מהם בדיוק השינויים הצפויים? מתי הם צפויים? ועד כמה הם צפויים? איש אינו יודע. ה- IPCC (גוף של האו”ם), האורים ותומים של שינויי האקלים, כותב במפורש שהמודלים האקלימיים הממוחשבים, שעליהם מתבססת התיאוריה של שינויי האקלים, לא מסוגלים לנפק תחזיות אזוריות, אלא תחזית כלל עולמית בלבד.

אז, לפני שהולכים ל”היערך” ולפני שעושים “תכנית היערכות לאומית” מן הראוי לשאול למה בדיוק להיערך. לפני שמחפשים פתרון לבעיה (כביכול) צריך להבין מה הבעיה. אף אחד לא הגדיר ולא מסוגל להגדיר. יכול להיות שבעתיד יהיה חם יותר ויכול להיות שלא, יכול להיות שיהיה פחות גשם (בצורת) ויכול להיות שיותר (שיטפונות). ויכול להיות שיהיה אותו דבר, כמו שהיה עד כה… אבל… חייבים שתהיה לנו “תכנית לאומית להיערכות” לכל מקרה שלא יהיה…

התכנית מדברת על יותר שנות בצורת וגלי חום יותר גבוהים בעתיד. מתי בעתיד? אולי בעוד 30 שנה… אולי בעוד 50 שנה… אין שום בסיס מדעי לתחזית הזאת. כאמור – תחזיות האקלים העולמיות (שהן בעצמן מפוקפקות) לא יכולות לספק תחזית אזורית (למשל – לאזור שלנו) ובטח לא ל- 30-50 שנה.

“הבוקר אישרה הממשלה הצהרה לפיה “ההסתגלות לשינוי אקלים הינה תהליך ארוך טווח, הדורש מחויבות, תיאום וגמישות, על מנת להגיב למציאות המתהווה ולמידע חדש המגיע ממחקר מתמשך. המטרה היא כי על ידי יישום תכנית ההסתגלות וצעדי מדיניות, מדינת ישראל תגיע למוכנות גבוהה להשפעות של אקלים משתנה, תקטין את הסיכון הבריאותי, הסביבתי והכלכלי, ותמקסם את התועלות מתוך ההזדמנויות שיעלו”.

מילים כדורבנות, מילים של שבת… אין מאחוריהן שום תוכן.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר קו ישר, כאן.