A piece from the Obama era but also helps explain what led up to Trump.
:-----:
"If the presidency of Barack Obama teaches us anything, it should be that presidents are nothing but tools of the elite to concentrate wealth and power. It should teach us that the words Democrat and Republican are absolutely meaningless.
Columnist and editor for the NY Post, Michael Gray has a phrase to describe the time period of 2008 through 2015—The Great Fleecing. It was the continuation of a great game that has played out since the rise of consumerism, a collusion of corporations and government that has squeezed the Middle Class for everything it was worth.
The vast majority toils through cycles of boom and bust, while the 1% steadily reaps the benefits of a shadow economy that siphons wealth upward. The Great Recession never hurt the elite, and the supposed recovery never helped the rest of us.
“During [The Great Fleecing], the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world occurred. Some $4.5 trillion was given to Wall Street banks through its Quantitative Easing program, with the American people picking up the IOU.”
Instead of all that money going into real, tangible things like desperately needed infrastructure improvements, those trillions were sequestered in a crony system of banks and Wall St. investors, overseen by a cartel called the Federal Reserve.
It’s not difficult to believe that the Great Recession didn’t just happen by coincidence at the end of one president’s term when everyone was distracted by phony political debates. It would follow that the next president picked right up on the game."
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The general population is a cash cow for the Real Deep State, said entity being the elites within the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex. These silos of power work to preserve themselves and the oligarch families comprising the Breakaway Civilization. They are now protected by Trump's Space Force. All that costs money they milk from the cash cow: us.
racocn8
Level 9
Apr 19, 2020
0
I couldn't agree with you more about everything you said, EXCEPT there is a dramatic difference between the two political parties, in my opinion.
The path out of this is still (for how long?) there, IF people would VOTE.
Eventually even that way out will be blocked. The door is still open, but it's closing.
The motivation of the super-rich are the usual ones, with I think some modern wrinkles:
Unlimited wealth and power of course.
World domination through absolute control of the emergent world government,
Depopulation through sterilization, designer diseases, and other means,
Quasi-immortal life by (long-term) development of androids into which they can download their consciousnesses and/or (medium-term) transplant their brains, and/or (short-term) extreme life extension,
Creation of a 'super race' through eugenics and genetic engineering.
Etc.
These are not necessarily unworthy goals, but the danger is these super-elite trillionaires may become insane with the egomania absolute power confers, with unforeseen consequences. They should be slowed down as much as possible. Stopping them? Assuming that'd be a good thing, too late.
This is why the Republicans should be stopped. They are the fast track, so to speak, to the super-elites' goals.
The Democrats, ironically, are the countervailing force, because they represent ordinary, workaday people with no transcendent, god-like capabilities, no world-scale ambitions, no overreaching historically game-changing agendas, and no runaway meglamania--a pandemic disease of people with absolute power.
There MUST be a brake on what may be a GOOD thing if democratically determined.
Storm1752
Level 8
Apr 19, 2020
1
Not my words. Quote from the article.
@WilliamCharles Why did you quote the article if you didn't agree with it?
Or DO you agree with it and just can't be bothered to defend it?
Nevermind.
Doesn't matter.
Because the quote encapsulated the gist of the article. There's no reason to presume 100% agreement with the article or the excerpt. It's meant to be a basis and/or starting point for discussion, which you seem wholly unable to engage in. Not much of a loss it appears.
Your intitial comment had worthwhile observations and questions, and before addressing those, I felt it worth making that clarification, nothing more. Your response seem a little too testy considering.
@WilliamCharles Excuse me?
What's your clarification?
I contested your assertion "the words Democrat and Republican are absolutely meaningless." Do you agree with that statement or not?
While I wholeheartedly agree with the "gist" of your post, it'd seem to me we should know who our friends and enemies are, relatively speaking.
While it is true the super-elite have managed to stack the electoral deck in their favor--our true allies thus marginalized and all but eliminated from public view--it is patently false Democrats are identical to Republicans.
To the contrary, given the conservative monopoly of AM radio (due to Reagan's demolition of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987), it's amazing Democrats survive at all. It's partially due to enormous Republican blunders Democrats are even competitive.
To ever become the dominant party again might take an actual catastrophe.
Otherwise, the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' marches on, forcing Democrats to steadily retrench and cede territory.
But to claim the Left has no allies is to cede defeat. It's to say, as a die-hard Bernie Bro might, democracy is finished and we might as well go hide in the woods.
The Democrats have had TWO candidates who were capable of weathering the Republican Attack Machine--Clinton and Obama. The rest were shamelessly dismantled. Looks like the
Dems may have done it again by choosing Biden, but that remains to be seen, given Trump's obvious vulnerabilities.
Imagine a Congress with decisive Democratic majorities...are you telling me there'd be no difference? Are you seriously saying that?
Your general "gist" is perfect. I totally agree with you. Who we REALLY need is another Theodore Roosevelt to dismantle the corporate empires which have overwhelmed the will of the people. But Uncle Joe would do just fine, because despite his shortcomings and missteps he is liberal to the core.
Unfortunately, what may seem obvious to us is lost on many who are distracted by clown shows, ephemera, side issues, and propaganda.
I take a stoic approach, and worry about things which immediately concern me and over which I have control.
No time to respond at length at the moment, but it's not my assertion. I'm quoting. However, I agree with it but with certain qualifications.
Dial it back a bit we can have a discussion.
@WilliamCharles Dial WHAT back?
I've made perfectly reasonable comments and made what I consider valid points. Either address them or don't, but don't tell me to "dial it back."
I've expressed my opinion respectfully, and I expect the same in return.
Like I said, testy (and overly defensive). You do you. My reaction to you is because you were shot out of cannon, and then immediately went into martyr mode. I still took the time to respond, though you indicated you were bailing because... reasons?
@WilliamCharles You are discussing the discussion rather than addressing the matters at hand.
Deal with it. Spent the last few days helping a friend move. Wanted to point out your misrepresentations first. Besides, you said fvck it, never mind, and that you were bailing. Now, instead of just copping to the fact you went off half cocked, you pile on all sorts of stuff I'm supposed to adress immediately. I'll look over your missives and respond to what interests me.
FYI, breaking your comments up into manageable paragraphs would certainly help.
@WilliamCharles
No representations.
Once again, you're all process, evading/avoiding content.
You know what?
Nevermind.
F*ck it.
Have a nice day.
Hope your friend is more straightforward. There are plenty of false generalists like you around.
Generalizations, yes. False? That's where discussion would have been needed. Both parties are beholden to corporate interests, with some variations as to how much larceny they'll tolerate and by whom. Don't know what my friend has to do with anything. She's a Muslim and not on this site.
Not sure how many times you're going make your exit. But I'm still going to look over your comments when I'm able, and yes, that is my process.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.