Category Archives: Liberty

Mueller And Atta: Fake Intel Runs Through … Prague, Part 1


By ©ilana mercer

No, the moral of the Mueller inquisition is not that the Left is incorrigibly corrupt and morally and intellectually bankrupt, although this is certainly true.

And, no. It’s not that the Republicans are meek, more eager for swamp-creature tenure than to save the country. However much state power flaccid Republicans capture, they quickly come to heel when Democrats crack the whip.

The moral of the Mueller inquisition, at least one of them, concerns the alphabet soup of acronyms that stands for the Permanent Security State—FBI, DOJ, DIA, DHS, CIA, NSA, on and on. That this intractable apparatus’ impetus is liberal is hardly new. What is counterintuitive to many is that the Permanent Security State’s modus operandi comports perfectly well with both Republican and Democratic administrations, alike.

When it comes to subverting an “America First,” sovereignty-centered, populist platform—the duopoly acts as one. Have not fans of Mr.  Mueller kept reminding us that the man is a loyal Republican? And he is—Mueller’s a Republican stalwart of the managerial class. (By the way, Mueller fans can find “Mr. Mueller-face earrings and Mueller devotional candles on Etsy, the e-commerce equivalent of a hippie grandmother’s attic.”)

To make sense of the Russia Monomania and the Mueller time we all served, it is essential to grasp the anatomy of American state power.

In particular, to comprehend the mass hysteria that is the war on Trump, it’s crucial to trace the contours of that other war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and the way it was peddled to the American public.

The manufacturing of Fake News by the Deep State, circa 2017, is of a piece with the anatomy of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, in 2003. Except that back then, Republicans, joined by many a diabolical Democrat like Hillary Clinton, were the ones who dreamt up Homer Simpson’s Third Dimension in Iraq.

Fact: The Steel Dossier, which launched the Mueller inquisition, was as fantastical a fabrication as were the documents that fed the Bush administration’s will to war.

As it is, intelligence report-writing is more art than science; more flare than fact. It’s executed by many of the same, tinny, dogmatic, ex-CIA feminists whom we see plonked in CNN studios, ponderously pontificating about Our Russian Enemy.

From the CIA to CNN, the youthful talking heads (and their shapely keisters) have only ever gone from a swivel chair at the Langley headquarters to a seat in a CNN studio, in New York City.

It’s not at all unfair to conclude that the “intelligence” these cartoon characters produced as CIA or FBI agents is as intelligent as their commentary in the TV studio.

PRAGUE AGAIN?

Did no one but this writer have PTSD-related flashbacks when Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, was floated during the Mueller madness?

During his testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the bewildered Michael Cohen—a tragic figure, really—was asked in all seriousness whether he had liaised with “Kremlin officials” in Prague. “I’ve never been to the Czech Republic,” Cohen shot back.

Curiously, Prague is umbilically linked to another notorious intelligence hoax.

According to manufactured American intelligence, a putative meeting between Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of Sept. 11, and Iraqi intelligence, was said to have taken place in … Prague.

Atta and the Iraqi assets never met in Prague. (At the time, Iraq had been 95-percent disarmed and was in possession of no weapons of mass destruction, an assessment backed by many an expert in strategic studies BEFORE THE WAR.)

The Prague apparition is a thread that runs through the Iraq and Mueller mythology.

Is Prague a figment of an intelligence officer (a female enterprise?) who had just read her first Milan Kundera novel? Inquiring minds have to wonder.

Seriously, Prague is the witches brew you get when you fuse the FBI’s highly-strung anti-Trump brigade with Christopher Steele’s “research” team.

Certainly, the publicly available CIA reports, offering “irrefutably” incriminating evidence against Iraq—the one I had perused in December of 2002—had novel-like qualities.

UNINTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE

Hardly sober and scholarly, the bafflegab that convinced Republicans to destroy the balance of power in Iraq and the region went something like, “Saddam will probably”; “Give him time and he will eventually”; “With sufficient weapons-grade fissile material, he’ll doubtless”; “He doesn’t have the capability to develop enriched uranium or plutonium to fuel a nuclear bomb, but just you wait …”

This is obviously not the letter of the texts that convinced everyone (except a few of us) to destroy Iraq. But it’s close enough to its spirit.

How the CIA cobbled together evidence for an “interest in acquiring” or “an effort to procure”—considering that these WMD-related purchases never seemed to materialize—isn’t clear. What proof did we have that they were even initiated? None.

I hazard that much of the compositions masquerading as intelligence and continually cited by political actors in privileging their policies are in language that is manifestly intended to exempt the writer from having to substantiate much of the claims.

Be it against Iraq or Russia, the political storyline du jour is manufactured by America’s gilded elites. To this—to heading a principate like Rome—Republican Karl Rove famously confessed during the era of Bush II:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”  Not coincidentally, Karl is currently urging Republicans to “move on from Robert Mueller,” nothing here to see.

MANUFACTURING CONSENT

To manufacture consent over Iraq, elements in the intelligence community worked with neoconservative counterparts in Bush 43’s administration, in particularity with “the Office of Special Plans.” And while Fake News babes did wonders to sex up, stateside, the cause of senseless killing—the dissemination of Fake News, vis-a-vis Iraq, was hardly the exclusive province of Fox News. With some laudable exceptions, Big Media all was tuned-out, turned-on and hot for holy war in the cause of democracy, WMD, whatever.

Now, it’s all-out war on Trump. Then, the same Machine aligned against Iraq.

Salient in 2003, as in 2017, was the monolithic quality of the cheer-leading coming from the networks; an unquestioning uniformity that spoke to a slutty sell-out throughout the media establishment. For journalistic jingoism, it’s impossible to best the coverage of the high-tech media extravaganza known as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Embedded with the military turned out to be a euphemism for in bed with the military. Practically all network embeds focused exclusively on the Pentagon’s version of events, to the exclusion of reality on the Iraqi ground. Yet reporters who slept with their sources were treated as paragons of truth. Those of us who refused such cohabitation were labeled “unilaterals,” deniers, unpatriotic, and worse.

Reporting hearsay as truth and failing to verify stories were all in a day’s work on cable and news networks. A Geiger counter that went off in the inexpert hands of a young Marine, stationed in Iraq, became “Breaking News,” possible evidence of weapons-grade plutonium. Every bottle of Cipro pills located was deemed a likely precursor to an anthrax factory. Anchormen and women somberly seconded these “finds,” seldom bothering to issue retractions.

When you’re the most powerful entity in the world, as the U.S. government still is—you get to manufacture your own parallel universe with its unique rules of evidence and standards of proof. What’s more, as the mightiest rule-maker, you can coerce other earthlings into “sharing” your alternate reality by hook or by crook, abroad or at home.

More than anything, the moral of Mueller is that the Security State is dangerous to all Americans, Republicans, Deplorables—even Democrats.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Advertisements

On Politics and Psychopathy


Neil’s Note: This is an updated, and greatly improved, version of an essay I published here a few years ago.

There’s been a meme going around, for some time now, that politicians are psychopaths. Or, at least, have mental disorders. It seems this meme was first sowed in 2003 by neurophysiologist Paul Broks, who suggested, on the evidence of conduct leading up to the Iraq war, that Tony Blair was a “plausible psychopath.” It was spread in 2012 in an article by James Silver in the Atlantic Magazine. The meme is still around today in the blogosphere, and every so often I catch new echoes of it.

So, today I’ll take a look at how much of a link there may be between politics and psychopathy.

Read more

Online Harms – A Bill of Rights for the Censor


Online Harms – A Bill of Rights for the Censor
Alan Bickley
8th April 2019

Perhaps the most overlooked effect of the Brexit Crisis is that new legislation of any kind in Britain has dwindled from a flood to a trickle. Since new laws and bad laws amount to much the same, this is to be celebrated. For this reason alone, I might hope for the crisis to continue at full tilt until at least 2022. It will not, but the respite has been welcome.

Something particularly nasty that will now have to wait its turn in a long queue is any Bill inspired by the Online Harms White Paper published on the 8th April 2019. This proposes that Internet sites should be fined or blocked if they fail to tackle “online harms,” such as terrorist propaganda and child abuse. To achieve this end, here are the suggested means: Read more

Diabetes: Facts About This Modern Epidemic


Dr Mercola
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/04/07/xdjm18-diabetes.aspx
Diabetes: Facts About This Modern Epidemic

According to research conducted in late 2016, life expectancy in the United States has declined for the first time in two decades, leaving the researchers baffled as to what the exact cause is.1

One of the primary perpetrators of this decline is believed to be drug overdose. But there is another major factor that has been pinpointed by a supporting study: diabetes, specifically Type 2 diabetes.2

There’s no doubt that diabetes is steadily growing to be an epidemic, particularly among Americans. According to data from the American Diabetes Association, at least half of all adults in the U.S. are either in a state of prediabetes or already have diabetes.3

Researchers also noted that it is actually “an underreported cause of death on death certificates” and should be considered the third leading cause of mortality in America, right after cancer and heart disease.4

Unfortunately, there is a growing amount of misinformation surrounding this common health condition. And, in some cases, it is the physicians themselves who are perpetuating this misinformation. But what exactly is diabetes? Why does it manifest, and more importantly, how can you protect yourself from falling victim to this growing epidemic?

Diabetes: An Illness Rooted in Insulin Resistance

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines diabetes as “the condition in which the body does not properly process food for use as energy.”5 When you eat, the food you consume is transformed by your body into sugar to be used as energy. For glucose to enter the cells of your body, it needs a hormone called insulin.

The pancreas, an organ found near the stomach, is responsible for releasing this hormone into your bloodstream. However, if you have diabetes, either your body fails to produce enough insulin or it does not use insulin as well as it needs to. This causes glucose levels to build up in your blood.6

There are three well-known types of diabetes: Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes. However, there are other lesser known types or classifications of this illness.

Many people think that diabetes is a disease of blood sugar – but it is not. Rather, it is a disorder of insulin and leptin signaling. Insulin acts as a source of energy for your cells. In other words, you NEED insulin to live. In healthy people, the pancreas does a wonderful job of providing your body with just the right amount.

But in some, risk factors and certain circumstances put the pancreas at risk of not functioning properly. This causes insulin and leptin resistance, which then evolves over a long period of time. It starts as prediabetes and if left untreated, goes on to become full-blown diabetes.

The Good News: Diabetes Is Preventable AND Reversible

The reason why conventional medicine fails to treat diabetes is because the solutions they put in place address the insulin deficiency through insulin shots or pills. In short, they are addressing the symptom and NOT the root cause, which is insulin sensitivity.

What many fail to realize is that diabetes, particularly Type 2 diabetes, is preventable and reversible. All it takes is proper attention to your lifestyle, especially your diet. In fact, in the majority of cases, diabetes does not need any type of medication.

Learn More About Diabetes

Many diabetics usually find themselves falling down a black hole of helplessness, as they’re clueless on how to reverse their illness. But there is a way out, and the first step is to be informed.

Visit these pages and learn everything you need to know about diabetes: common risk factors, its hallmark symptoms, the different types, and how to effectively reverse this condition. Find out how your diet and lifestyle play a role in the occurrence of this illness.

Diabetes now affects people of all ages and from all walks of life, so this is crucial, must-know information. Share these pages with someone you know who’s struggling with this illness. Who knows, you just might save them from the perils of this disease.

Next >

What Is Diabetes?

Next
What Is Diabetes?

More About Diabetes

aggbug.aspx?PostID=930173

The Japanification of the World


Charles Hugh Smith
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/04/charles-hugh-smith/the-japanification-of-the-world/
The Japanification of the World

Zombification / Japanification is not success; it is only the last desperate defense of a failing, brittle status quo by doing more of what’s failed.

A recent theme in the financial media is the Japanification of Europe. Japanification refers to a set of economic and financial conditions that have come to characterize Japan’s economy over the past 28 years: persistent stagnation and deflation, a low-growth and low-inflation economy, very loose monetary policy, a central bank that is actively monetizing debt, i.e. creating currency out of thin air to buy government debt and a government which funds “bridges to nowhere” and other stimulus spending to keep the economy from crashing into outright contraction.

The parallels with Europe are obvious, but they don’t stop there: the entire world is veering into a zombified financial, economic, social and political status quo that is the core of Japanification.

While most commentators focus on the economic characteristics of Japanification, social and political stagnation are equally consequential. If we only measure economic/financial stagnation, it appears as if Japan and Europe are holding their own, i.e.maintaining the status quo via near-zero growth and near-zero interest rates.

But if we measure social and political decay, the erosion is undeniable. Here’s one example. Few Americans have access to or watch Japanese TV, so they are unaware of the emergence of the homeless as a permanent feature of urban Japan. The central state propaganda media is focused on encouraging tourism, a rare bright spot in Japan’s moribund economy, and so you won’t find much media coverage of homelessness or other systemic signs of social breakdown.

If you watch Japanese detective/police procedural dramas, however, you’ll find constant references to homeless people and homeless encampments: detectives seek witnesses to a crime in the nearby homeless encampment; a homeless man living in an abandoned warehouse is found murdered, etc.

Here’s the core dynamic of zombification / Japanification: the top 25% are doing whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo because it works well for them, but the system is failing the bottom 75%, who must be politically, socially and economically neutered so they can’t upset the apple cart.

Depending on the economy/society in question, one could argue that it’s the top 40% defending the status quo and disenfranchising the bottom 60%, or it’s the top 20% disenfranchising the bottom 80%. The exact ratio doesn’t matter; what matters is the status quo no longer works for the majority, but they are powerless to change the system because it’s controlled by the minority who benefit so greatly from it being locked in its present setting.

The other dynamic of zombification / Japanification is: past success shackles the power elites to a failed model. The greater the past glory, the stronger its hold on the national identity and the power elites.

And so the power elites do more of what’s failed in increasingly extreme doses. If lowering interest rates sparked secular growth, then the power elites will lower interest rates to zero. When that fails to move the needle, they lower rates below zero, i.e. negative interest rates.

When this too fails to move the needle, they rig statistics to make it appear that all is well. In the immortal words of Mr. Junker, when it becomes serious you have to lie, and it’s now serious all the time.

The necessity of neutering the majority politically, socially and economically manifests in two destructive ways: young people who opt out (or are frozen out) of the failed status quo do not mate and have children, do not buy houses, new cars, etc. This sets off a demographic time bomb that guarantees the implosion of the financial promises made by the self-serving status quo.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Japanification of the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brexit: confusion and muddle


Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87200

There is currently very little sign that May will travel to next week’s emergency European Council with the coherent plan the EU says will be necessary to grant the UK a further delay to Brexit, which is currently scheduled to happen on Friday. So says the Guardian, telling us nothing we didn’t know already.

As to the May/Corbyn talks, shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, who has been part of the Labour delegation, says the mood of the talks had been “quite a positive and hopeful one”, but little has been achieved.

But then, this is Rebecca Long-Bailey, who confided in Andrew Marr about his party’s ambitions for a customs union. It’s important, she said, “to state that the reason we’re calling for a customs union is to protect vital supply chains. Manufacturing particularly. So we can have that frictionless trade”.

That, three years into the Brexit process, is the best a senior Labour MP can manage, one who is a key member of the party’s team – someone who believes that a customs union can deliver “frictionless trade”.

But, on the other side of the divide, there is Andrea Leadsom, and things there are not much better. Asked by Andrew Marr what her reaction would be to the prime minister agreeing a customs union deal with the Labour Party, she said:

I think the Prime Minister’s proposal is an excellent proposal and it has a customs arrangement within it to ensure completely tariff-free and non-tariff barrier free customs arrangements for agrifoods and industrialised goods. So that is a type of customs arrangement.

Both sides are talking gibberish. The idea that “frictionless trade” is a consequence of a customs union is absurd, yet Leadsom’s assertion that a “customs arrangement” – whatever that actually means – can ensure “completely tariff-free and non-tariff barrier free customs arrangements for agrifoods and industrialised goods” is just not in the real world.

The elimination of the non-tariff barriers comes with a regulatory union, otherwise known as the Single Market – something entirely distinct from anything directly to do with customs, and something which, under normal circumstances, brings with it freedom of movement.

But if that is confusing enough, Leadsom goes on to say that, “Jeremy Corbyn originally said he wanted a customs union with no free movement and with the ability to negotiate our own free trade deals”. Now that, she adds, is “what the Prime Minister’s own customs arrangement offers”.

There is no linear relationship between the claims, and now way of tying together the terms being used. They are jumbled together in a way that defies coherences and speaks of nothing but the most profound intellectual confusion.

To this, there is no remedy – not the slightest chance of any improvement. In August 2015, I wrote a blogpost entitled “the naming of parts”, alluding to the poem by Henry Reed on the ritual of learning the parts of a rifle, one of the first steps in marking the transition from callow civilian to soldier.

But, I wrote, this is a ritual that applies to every trade and profession – one of learning its special vocabulary, knowledge of which distinguishes the practitioner from the outsider. Clarity and precision in the use of words, I asserted, was vital. Sloppy use of vocabulary leads to confusion and muddle.

At the time, I was writing about migration but the sentiment is every bit as appropriate to Brexit. And here we are in the depths of a political crisis where the principal actors don’t even understand the basic vocabulary, or mean the same things when they use the same words. This can do nothing but spread confusion and muddle.

One would not have thought that the politicians – to say nothing of the hacks – could make such a mess of this, but it seems that their capacity to get it wrong is endless.

Yet, for a thing such as a customs union, the concept is remarkably simple. As defined, it is a trade agreement where the parties agree to remove tariffs and quantitative restrictions between themselves, and apply a common external tariff, so that all members apply to same tariffs to third countries.

The customs union, therefore, deals exclusively with tariffs and quantitative restrictions (quotas). It has no impact on regulatory standards and does not in any way relate to customs procedures, of define parameters for customs cooperation, which is an altogether different thing.

That anyone should even have to think of clarifying such issues at this late stage of the Brexit process illustrates just what a dire position we are in. I was writing about this on the blog in October 2016, and even by then the issues should have been settled.

It gets even worse when the customs union is elided with trade policy and the ability to conclude free trade agreements. For instance, it is widely held – for instance, by issue-illiterates such as Liam Halligan that membership of the EU’s customs union is what prevents us from making separate trade deals with third countries.

This, of course, is not the case. The provisions which prevent this relate to Articles 206-207 TFEU, which define the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), and Article 3 which makes it an exclusive EU competence. These Articles, and not the customs union, gives the EU exclusive powers to make trade deals on behalf of members.

In theory, and indeed practice, there is nothing to stop members of a customs union making their trade deals with non-members, where agreements relate to non-tariff matters, and flanking policies – as is the case with Merosur.

There can even be allowances made for separate tariff deals. When a member imports goods at a rate lower than the external tariff, on re-export to a member, the difference between the two is added by the destination country. For made-up goods, rules of origin may apply.

But there are further complications in considering the difference between membership of the EU’s customs union, and a customs union with the EU. Outside the EU, the UK cannot be a member of the customs union, which amongst other things requires 80 percent of tariff income collected by members to be remitted to the EU budget.

We can only become members of a separately negotiated customs union, which would be a distinct agreement between the EU and the UK. How this would be financed would be a matter to be negotiated between the parties. Most likely, each party would bear its own costs.

For the UK, the downside of customs union membership is that it would tie us into the common external tariff, which would restrict our flexibility to make tariff deals with other third countries – depending on the nature of the agreement we had with the EU. This might also have a long-term impact on our foreign policy.

For the most part, though, customs union are an antiquated form of agreement that long-predate the WTO and were primarily used as a precursor to political integration. That was the great attraction for the EEC, which saw it as the first step in the creation of a United States of Europe.

There is, therefore, enormous political symbolism in being members of a customs union with the EU. Turkey and the EU negotiated a customs union which came into force in in 1995, essentially as a pre-accession measure to signal its determination to join the EU.

For the UK, it is an entirely unnecessary measure. By agreeing even a conventional free trade agreement, we can eliminate tariffs, and unilaterally adopting the EU’s WTO schedules – which we have done – has the effect of a customs union without the formality of a treaty.

In all senses, the customs union is a complete red herring, which is what I was writing in The Times in December 2016. Yet, one way or another, the political classes seem obsessed with the concept – even if most don’t know what it means or entails – and have wasted a colossal amount of time and energy in pursuing it.

If we want frictionless trade, of course, we have to look to the Single Market, which is an entirely separate legal entity. And yet, not only do so many politicians fail to understand the concept of the customs union, they readily confuse it with the Single Market – as seems to be the case with Rebecca Long-Bailey.

There is no excuse for this, and the inability of politicians (and, indeed, the media) to master the basics is contemptible. Their failures represent a colossal dereliction of duty and are responsible for much of the situation in which we find ourselves. And yet, to this day, is there any one of them who shows the slightest bit of shame?

If They Lose, They Lose. If They Win, They Lose (2019), by Sean Gabb — SEAN GABB


If They Lose, They Lose. If They Win, They Lose Sean Gabb 6th April 2019 I see no point in writing more about the European Union. If we shout and wave our fists, that may or may not be taken into account. Words are useless. Nothing remains to be said that has not been said.…

via If They Lose, They Lose. If They Win, They Lose (2019), by Sean Gabb — SEAN GABB

« Older Entries Recent Entries »