Wednesday, September 29, 2021

End of Empire, Age of Refounding


We have the mechanism within the federalist structure of our Constitution to achieve a re-founding.


Across America there is a palpable sense of disbelief in the current state of our nation. A once mighty global power founded on the precepts of liberty, impartial justice, and unassailable individual rights has become anything but. The people, once relatively united under a national identity, have splintered into the many—confused, distrustful of one another, and weary of the continuous stream of lies and abuse from America’s increasingly corrupt institutions.

Beyond America, our formerly democratic allies have succumbed to full-fledged authoritarianism—a path on which we, too, are traveling. Videos of the horrendous abuse of Australian citizens by their police and military circulate across social media creating a frightening preview of what our ruling elites have in store for us. What is now a nearly full-blown citizen uprising is marching through Australia, a key member of our intelligence and security partnership known as the Five Eyes. And things are not much better in western Europe.  How much longer will the one-sided abuse of citizens continue by these Western “democracies?” Perhaps not long.

Empires and nations fall when they no longer offer intrinsic value to their populations. They fall when they can no longer maintain the illusion of a path to prosperity for their people. They fall when their people no longer believe the nation’s institutions and leaders. And when they fall, it isn’t always a sudden disastrous apocalypse, it’s often a slow-motion decay marked by the disillusionment of the masses, incompetence of the ruling class, and the inanity of the intelligentsia. Did the Romans recognize their empire falling as it happened? Did the British comprehend their diminishment before their Suez moment? Did Americans see their end before the “debacle in Kabul?” In our case, while some try to decipher the significance of our current dysfunction, most still cannot imagine a world without America. 

The Death of Trust

Americans are a uniquely suspicious lot. They have stubborn ideas of independence and liberty based on strongly held beliefs in individual natural rights. These are not casual beliefs. They are boldly and precisely written into the founding documents of the nation via the Declaration and Constitution. 

Most Americans understand that government is made up of people, and with them, all the flaws of human nature. They have accepted our nation’s failings and have striven to correct our mistakes, whether those mistakes were allowing slavery, the genocide of native Americans, internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II, or institutionalized discrimination against various ethnic and religious groups. And perhaps because we understand these past failings, we are distrustful of those in government who now have the power to repeat these mistakes. When our political leaders and institutions squander the trust of Americans, the resulting mistrust can last for generations. It is not easily regained. It most certainly cannot be regained by the same politicians simply waving their hands and calling for unity.

Since 9/11, Americans have watched as their institutions continually, unfailingly squandered their trust. The Patriot Act, the failed Bush wars, taxpayer bailouts of the 1 percent, Trump-Russia collusion lies, and COVID-19 hysteria damaged our faith in our institutions. We have slowly but steadily been taught, by our own government’s actions, that our government officials and bureaucratic apparatchiks are pathological liars. 

Historians will look back on what happened in America and try to determine the point when the American empire died. Which point or series of events they decide to attach to that death is anybody’s guess. But most certainly they will see the debacle of our war in Afghanistan and our poorly executed withdrawal as a seminal moment. 

The decades of lies about the viability of our Afghan partners, the failed planning for our withdrawal, the abandonment of our citizens in enemy territory, the incompetent drone-strike on an innocent family of ten, the 13 American service members killed by a suicide bomber we knew was coming—the list goes on and on. And at the core, it was the constant, reflexive lying about it all that became intolerable. It was at this point that many Americans came to understand just how incompetent and dishonest our leaders are and started to wonder how we could possibly continue like this.

End of Oligarchy

Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, but too many Americans tweeted and played social justice warrior while America crumbled. As we hide our eyes from the rubble we made of our republic, we, like the Romans and British before us, imagine the never-ending span of our empire. We pretend everything we touch doesn’t turn to shit, and that our superpower is still making the world safe for democracy and womyn’s rights. But the rest of the world sees our decline. They know that the United States of America is the sick man of the Western Hemisphere. Our enemies will watch our self-destructive fall from power, and when we have neutered ourselves enough, they will come and take what they want—it is best we act to save ourselves while we still can.

The late Angelo Codevilla spent the last few years warning that we have unwittingly abdicated our republic to a ruling class of oligarchs. He spoke a hard truth—but all hope is not lost. First and foremost, we must acknowledge the state of our nation. We are no longer a constitutional republic but an oligarchy, by and for the wealthy and powerful. If we decide this is not acceptable, then the second thing we must do is immediately set about re-founding our republic. Machiavelli warned that re-founding a nation is considerably more difficult than what was required of its people at its original founding.

That said, Codevilla plainly laid out the tasks without sugar-coating their requirements. Namely, “rescuing disrespected constitutions has always required and will always require undoing any number of enemies.” In other words, if we are to re-found our republic we must cut out the cancer that destroyed the original version.

Secondly, “The process of rescue necessarily consists of America’s would-be leaders convincing their followers to ignore, disdain, and resist the directions from society’s commanding heights in favor of what they believe is more consistent with what America had been and should be again.” Here we must deploy a new construct which defines the relationship between citizen and state and reinforces the deference to the consent of the governed. 

We have the mechanisms within the federalist structure of our Constitution to achieve this re-founding—they are encompassed within the 10th Amendment, the sovereign powers of the states, and the consent of the governed. To do this requires strong state governors to assert their sovereignty and authority. It means removing from the body politic the instruments and the representatives of the present oligarchy. And it means re-establishing the trust between citizen and state that was corrupted under our present ruling class. What we need now is the courage, the will, and the leadership to begin the process.


X22, Stew Peters Show, and more-Sept 29


 


Top of the evening, folks! Here's tonight's news:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/seen-skies-perry-georgia-afternoon-trump-rally/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/audit-michigan-jacky-eubanks-canvassing-efforts-raise-serious-questions-looking-18-20-irregularity-anomaly-rate-video/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/president-trump-icym-letter-arizona-assistant-attorney-general-jennifer-wright-maricopa-county-notice-preservation-evidence-litigation-hold/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/episode-tv-show-maybe-west-wing-maybe-veep-psaki-admits-biden-administration-total-joke-video/

Gotta love Karma: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/former-notre-dame-professor-said-damn-unvaccinated-dies-two-weeks-receiving-3rd-covid-shot/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/arizona-gop-candidate-kari-lake-think-katie-hobbs-going-really-hard-time-campaigning-behind-bars-video/


Milley Admits Trump Was Being Managed By Administrative State Group Who Run Government


Years of agonizing and frustrating reviews and analysis of the Trump administration activity in real-time are reconciling today.  During Senate testimony today before the Armed Services Committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Mark Milley, clarified some very painful issues to accept.  President Trump was being heavily managed by operatives of the Senior Executive Service (SES), and his inner circle was willfully participating.

What follows is in no way a defense of Milley, quite the contrary, Milley is a brutally political, manipulative, entitled and arrogant member of the United States armed forces.  His delusions of grandiosity represent the worst of our nation and can only be topped by one other, Anthony Fauci.

Yesterday, Milley was attempting to flex his power in the almost identical way we saw former FBI Director James Comey pull the same angle.   You might remember, during congressional testimony in March 2017 when Comey was questioned about why he never informed congressional ‘gang-of-eight’ oversight about the preceding eleven month FBI investigating the incoming President, Donald Trump.  Director Comey pontificated, obfuscated, dodged carefully, and then deflected responsibility by saying he informed the “national security council” under President Obama.

When General Milley attempted to justify his unilateral contacts with Chinese military officials, he made a similar, and remarkably telling, admission and deflection.

For the January 8th phone call with General Lee of China, Milley stated he informed President Trump’s Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.  Keep in mind that Kash Patel has publicly stated General Milley did not inform Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller directly; at least to his knowledge.  So, Milley’s secondary point about notifying Christopher Miller in January 2020 needs to be reconciled carefully.

Listen carefully to how Milley is describing those calls.  Specifically, pay attention to Milley saying the calls were initiated by him in response to “concerning intelligence, which caused us to believe the Chinese were worried about an attack on them by the United States.”   It is important to note what this is NOT.

The contact by Chairman Milley was not initially triggered by the Chinese contacting him or any U.S. official about their concerns.  The contact to them is justified by saying the U.S. intelligence community was generating intelligence that said the Chinese were worried.   The Chinese did not say they were worried, the U.S. intelligence community were saying they were worried.   Knowing how the Deep State, aka Fourth Branch of Government operates, keep that key point in mind.

Milley goes on to say, he was attempting to “deescalate” a situation the Chinese had never escalated.  Think about that carefully.

[WATCH from 09:00 forward, Prompted]


The first call, driven by U.S. Intelligence Community alarms, was made in October, before the election.  Then another call was requested by the Chinese on December 30, 2020, for scheduling on January 8, 2021, after the U.S. election.   Note this important statement surrounding the January 8th call: “Shortly after my call ended with General Lee, I personally informed Secretary of State Pompeo and White House Chief of Staff Meadows, about the call – among other topics.”

Notice who General Milley did not inform.  General Milley did not inform President Trump, nor his national security advisor Robert O’Brien. This framework appears intentional; however, when you overlay what we previously suspected and outlined about Mark Meadows and Secretary Pompeo, it all makes sense.

Just like many other people who preceded them in the administration, Meadows and Pompeo were in place to manage President Trump.  Unfortunately, accepting that reality brings with it a bunch of very concerning issues.

We’ve long suspected Mark Meadows was introduced into the Trump orbit specifically because the Fourth Branch was exerting influence and needed to mitigate any independent action by President Trump.  This is the same scenario around introducing former CIA Director Mike Pompeo for the same purposes.

Mike Pompeo and Mark Milley worked unilaterally without President Trump’s authority on at least one situation during the winter of 2019 when U.S. strikes took place.  [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days.  There were other issues with Pompeo which looked sketchy, but that one specifically was a big red flag (or cherry on the proverbial cake).

Mark Meadows was the source of frequent leaks against President Trump including his health status during his COVID hospital stay.  Mark Meadows was also the primary source for John Solomon when Meadows was in congress.  [Solomon made this admission during a podcast.]  During the peak of the 2018 “spygate” headlines, prior to the mid-term election, it became obvious that Solomon was being managed and steered in his reporting.  It always appeared that Meadows was attempting to tamp-down outrage within the Trump base in order to manage it.  John Solomon and the tick-tock club were a big factor in the success of that approach.


Government of the Unions, by the Unions, for the Unions

 Government of the Unions, by the Unions, for the Unions


By Stephen Moore


President Joe Biden keeps boasting that all the new jobs his programs will supposedly create will be "good-paying union jobs." But, Joe, what about the 93 percent of private sector workers who are not members of unions? Does he care about them?

The Labor Department reports that in America today, 6.3 percent of all private sector workers are union members. So more than 10 of 11 private workers aren't.

The only area where unions are growing in America is in government. Nearly half of government workers, led by teachers, are unionized. And they are radicalized.

Meanwhile, nearly every policy coming out of the White House gives special-interest privileges for the labor bosses.

Some of these acts are just pure giveaways to Big Labor as a payback for the hundreds of millions of dollars organized labor spent to get Biden elected.

Here are some of the sweetheart kisses for the unions with taxpayers picking up the tab:

First, a new law requiring union workforces on nearly every federal project. Nonunion contractors need not apply. By the way, these rules add up to 20 percent to the cost of every construction and service contract.

In the Build Back Better provisions that have already passed in the Senate, there are tax breaks for renewable energy — but only if these projects are unionized.

Another absurdity is the creation of a new provision to make union dues tax-deductible. This will put millions of dollars into coffers of the unions.

The granddaddy of them all is a provision in the so-called jobs bill that would end "right-to-work" laws in 27 states, which emphasize a worker's choice to join a union and prevent them from being forced to do so.

This is an audacious power grab by the federal government that would, for the first time in American history, force potentially tens of millions of U.S. workers to join a union against their will. This overturns almost 75 years of labor law that left workers' rights up to the states.

This will force workers to have money snatched from their paychecks and rerouted to union bank accounts. Workers would also have to contribute to political advocacy efforts by Big Labor whether they support the causes and candidates or not. This is anything but "pro-choice."

Why do Democrats genuflect at the altar of the unions? Because the unions fund Democratic campaigns. For example, in 2020, the public sector unions donated $93 million to candidates, parties, and political groups. More than 90 percent of candidate contributions went to Democrats.

So what we have here is a legal form of Democrats rewarding their donors with federal favors. That's called "pay to play." Or graft.

I should make it clear that I am not against workers' rights to form and join a union for collective bargaining. The right to associate is a basic First Amendment right in America. What I am against is the government forcing people to join unions.

There are good reasons why Americans may not want to join a union. They may not agree with union policies or positions. The highest performers may want to negotiate their own wages and benefits and be paid by their performance.

Or they may be turned off by the rampant corruption in union labor halls, as in embezzlement, racketeering, inflated salaries, and theft. The indispensable website UnionFacts.com has counted 2,100 criminal cases and $156 million in penalties from 2000 to 2019. These bosses aren't saints.

The combination of Big Government and Big Labor is a witch's brew of misbehavior and corruption. Who ultimately pays the tab? The 93 percent of American private workers who aren't part of the club.


50 ‘Back To Normal’ Things I Didn’t Wait For Permission From The COVID ‘Experts’ To Do, And Neither Should You



Eighty weeks after the “experts” told America it would only take “two weeks to slow the spread,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla wants you to know that you can probably go back to living your life as normal in another 52 weeks, if you’re vaccinated.

“Within a year, I think we will be able to come back to normal life,” Bourla said on Sunday, as if the country has been holding its breath for his permission to go back to living. He was also sure to add the caveat, “I don’t think this means that we should be able to live our lives … without having vaccinations” like the one that has brought his company hundreds of millions of dollars.

Bourla was echoing a similar comment Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel made last week, that he “assumes” life will be back to normal “as of today, in a year.” Like many self-appointed experts, Bourla and Bancel clearly don’t realize that no one outside of their self-affirming echo chamber is listening to them.

Whether because they’re vaccinated or simply because they decided the risks of the coronavirus didn’t merit putting life on pause in the first place, most Americans are already “back to normal” — or trying to as best they can, under dragged-out mandates and closures from political powerbrokers who don’t follow their own rules.

I can easily list 50 normal-life things I’ve already done without waiting for the elusive permission of “experts” like Bourla. Their attempt to control your life shouldn’t stop you from doing activities like these, either.

  1. Graduate college, in person, without a mask
  2. Finish school in person
  3. Go out for drinks with friends after work
  4. Go to an apple harvest festival
  5. Attend a friend’s wedding (actually, four)
  6. Fly across the country for an aforementioned wedding
  7. Enjoy a potluck breakfast at church
  8. Watch a soccer game
  9. Go to a dance
  10. Shop an artisan market
  11. Take a road trip (or several)
  12. Attend bridal showers
  13. Go thrift shopping
  14. Take off my mask in an airport
  15. Throw a graduation party for someone
  16. Hit a farmer’s market (in three different states)
  17. Enjoy a concert
  18. Dance at the concert
  19. Ride a trolley
  20. Eat fried shrimp at a beachside bar
  21. Go to the gun range
  22. Celebrate at an office Christmas party
  23. Explore a new city
  24. Enjoy a bonfire
  25. Throw a charcuterie picnic (no prepackaged nonsense here)
  26. Watch a rocket launch
  27. Go to the beach
  28. Go to church in person without a mask
  29. Sing in church
  30. Take communion
  31. Shake hands
  32. Hug people
  33. Go to the movies
  34. Celebrate the holidays with family
  35. Meet strangers
  36. Meet strangers’ dogs
  37. Go to the pool
  38. Catch up with friends over coffee
  39. Spend quality time with elderly relatives
  40. Greet my neighbors
  41. Meet strangers’ babies who toddle over to me in public
  42. Ride the Metro
  43. Babysit
  44. Strike up conversations with people
  45. Watch a play (or two)
  46. Start a job
  47. Explore a museum
  48. Hike a mountain
  49. Listen to a street musician
  50. Eat inside at a restaurant

Those are just the first 50 things that pop into mind, not to mention the countless other things that are so unremarkably normal I didn’t even think to include them. If you’re like most of the country, you could check off many of these things and more.

Conversely, if you’re still holding out for permission from out-of-touch bullies like Bourla to go on living, don’t hold your breath. It’ll be the longest “two weeks” of your life.


Who Would Hide a Jew if Nazis Took Over America?

 Who Would Hide a Jew if Nazis Took Over America?

(Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay)

There is something about most Jews that few non-Jews know: We Jews often ask ourselves if a non-Jew in our lives would hide us in the event of a Nazi-like outbreak.

I don’t know if young Jews think about this, but nearly all Jews who grew up in the decades following the Holocaust often wondered: Would this non-Jew hide me?

I have thought about this all my life because the question, “Who hid Jews?” is one of the most important questions anyone — Jew or non-Jew — needs to think about. That question is far more important than “Who didn’t hide Jews?” because great goodness is rarer than great evil and even rarer than simple moral cowardice. Yet, a vast number of books have been written attempting to understand evil, while relatively few have been written attempting to explain good.

The reason for this is simple: Since the Enlightenment, i.e., since the decline of Judeo-Christian thought, most secular people have believed, and nearly all secular thought has been predicated on, the reality-denying idea that human nature is essentially good. As a result, scholars regard good as the norm and evil as the aberration. So, they study evil far more than good.

That is why the question, “Who rescued Jews?” should be of overwhelming importance to humanity as a whole. If people are interested in increasing good and in decreasing evil, what question could be more important?

A lifetime of study of this question has led me to the following answers:

No. 1: Sam and Pearl Oliner, two professors of sociology at California State University at Humboldt, were the authors of one of the most highly regarded works on altruism, “The Altruistic Personality.” The book was the product of the Oliners’ lifetime of study of non-Jewish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. They themselves had been hidden by non-Jews in Poland, and I had the privilege of interviewing them.

I asked Sam Oliner, “Knowing all you now know about who rescued Jews during the Holocaust, if you had to return as a Jew to Poland and you could knock on the door of only one person in the hope that they would rescue you, would you knock on the door of a Polish lawyer, a Polish doctor, a Polish artist or a Polish priest?”

Without hesitation, he responded, “Polish priest.” And his wife immediately added, “I would prefer a Polish nun.”

I should note that neither had a religious agenda, as both were secular Jews.

Of course, most Christians in Europe failed the moral test of the Holocaust, but so did nearly all secular intellectuals. And few Christians today deny this. But any honest person would still bet on a priest before a doctor, artist, lawyer or professor. It is one reason I believe that the decline of Judeo-Christian religions is a calamity: We will produce fewer people who will do great good.

No. 2: Another study of rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust offered four characteristics of rescuers. I read this book about 40 years ago and I do not remember the name of the book or three of the four characteristics. But I remember one of them because it struck me as an original insight and because it made so much sense. According to this study, individuals who were considered “eccentric” prior to the war were disproportionately represented among those who hid Jews.

Now, why would that be? Why would people regarded as eccentric be more likely to risk torture and death to hide a member of a persecuted group they weren’t part of?

The answer is obvious: Eccentrics are, by definition, people who march to the beat of their own drummer, who are nonconformists, and who don’t seek social approval.

That should give us some major insights into who would save Jews — or any other group targeted for death (such as landowners in communist countries) — if our society were taken over by Nazis or communists.

If this theory about eccentrics is correct, it should give us pause.

When I observe Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and, for that matter, the citizens of most countries at this time, this observation about who would risk their lives to hide a Jew leaves me pessimistic with regard to how any of these groups would act under a Nazi or communist regime.

We have seen herdlike behavior and an unquestioning obedience to authority that few expected to witness in previously free countries such as the English-speaking ones. Worse, we have seen unquestioning obedience to irrational authority.

Wearing masks outdoors is irrational. Yet a vast number of Americans have, sheeplike, obeyed irrational government demands to wear them. Telling people who have had COVID-19 to take a vaccine against COVID-19, when natural antibodies are longer lasting and more effective, not to mention safer, than a vaccine is irrational. Telling people who have been vaccinated or had COVID-19 to wear masks is irrational. Prolonged lockdowns of healthy people are irrational.

Yet tens of millions of Americans are unquestioningly obeying irrational orders and castigating those resisting or even questioning them.

It was “eccentric” Christian pastors who kept their churches open and an “eccentric” Catholic priest who sued the state of California for denying him his constitutional right to minister to his flock — and who prevailed against the state. Except for these clergymen and a handful of eccentric restaurant owners, almost all other Americans obeyed the state’s irrational orders.

That is frightening because people who obey irrational orders and despise those who do not are precisely the type of people who didn’t hide Jews.

So, then, here are two questions for American Jews to ponder:

If a Nazi-like doctrine took over America, and you could knock on the door of someone who obeyed all government orders regarding masks, regardless of their rationality, or someone who questioned government authority and obeyed few or none of its mask orders — on whose door would you knock? If you were given the choice between knocking on the door of an atheist professor and the door of an Evangelical pastor or a Catholic priest — on whose door would knock?


Sports Fans Aren’t The Only Ones Ramping Up Their ‘F-ck Joe Biden’ Chants



LOUDON, N.H. — Outside a home near Gilmanton, New Hampshire, a rural area just 20 minutes or so from the capital city of Concord, is a political sign by the side of the road. It’s less of a sign, actually, and more of a whole handcrafted scene.

Up top in their own frame, a posse of “socialist” handlers are positioned, each holding a string connected to a limp and befuddled character below them. It’s President Joe Biden, of course, emasculated behind a surgical face covering. He’s their puppet.

More than 1,100 miles west in Haven, Wisconsin, on Lake Michigan, tens of thousands of fans gathered to watch the biennial Ryder Cup, a much-anticipated golf competition between teams from Europe and the United States, where videos captured by attendees show chants of “F-ck Joe Biden” rising from the crowd.

It’s a phrase that’s been repeated frequently in recent days. Just the first week of college football, the crass chorus broke out during a handful of games, with the same sentiment expressed every football weekend since.

It bled into baseball too, with fans blasting Biden during a Yankees-Mets game. Luke Bryan fans made their Biden displeasure known during a concert in Ohio. Also, of course, protesters have shouted it, including during a New York anti-vaccine rally and a demonstration in the middle of a food court.

But although riled-up sports fans and boisterous mall demonstrators seem a little more eager to yell out their frustrations verbally in four-letter-word form, the rowdy crowds and the silent roadside puppet theater are all saying the same thing: F-ck Joe Biden.

It’s the same thing millions of Americans say every day in their small acts of protest. OK, maybe you’d throw in a “screw you” instead of the French, but your message is the same: You might have the White House, but you don’t have my respect.

It’s what your mom says when she looks squarely at the “masks required” sign on the door of the Post Office or grocery store and walks in maskless. It’s what your dad says when he hears Jen Psaki spout yet another lie about censoring COVID “misinformation” and rolls his eyes.

It’s what you say when you think critically about vaccinations, gather with friends and family for events without inquiring about everyone else’s personal medical decisions, and yank your kids out of government schools because the teachers unions that are in bed with the Democrat administration put the interests of you and your child last.

Every one of those small acts sends the same message to an administration that hasn’t been shy about its ambitions to expand federal power as much as possible — including even by enlisting private companies and Big Tech monopolies to aid them: You think you can control me? Watch this.

It’s comical to see stadiums week after week erupt with derogatory and profane chants about the president who has plunged our economy into turmoil, launched a character assassination on the discerning unvaccinated, literally turned his back on Americans at the mercy of the Taliban, and can barely stay awake during a press conference — just to name a few.

But you don’t have to go to a college football game to get the “f-ck Joe Biden” message. Just look around.

🕃

Inflation-Loving Governments Are Now Blaming Private Businesses for Inflation

 Inflation-Loving Governments Are Now Blaming 

Private Businesses for Inflation


Tags Money and Banks

Last week, Ned Davis Research published a note titled “Turns Out, Growth Looks like It Was Transitory—Inflation Is More Sticky.” There are many factors that show us that consumers and salaries are being eaten away by inflation, leading to an abrupt halt in the recovery. Autos and new home sales plunged, real disposable personal income has plummeted, and real median wage growth is lower than inflation.

Policymakers have pushed inflation at any cost with the most aggressive monetary policy in decades and it took a normal recovery after the reopening to prove why inflation is always a monetary phenomenon: in 2020 G7 central banks increased money supply well above demand and faster than ever since 2009. This led to massive inflation spikes in essential goods and services. The rhetoric of “transitory” inflation and “supply chain disruptions” has been rapidly debunked. We have seen three Consumer Price Index (CPI) prints after the so-called base effect ended, and prices continued to rise. Furthermore, the price of commodities where there is overcapacity has risen as fast as others. Inflation is always more money chasing scarce assets and that is the reason why we see shipping or aluminum rise to all-time highs when there is ample capacity in the segment, even excessive capacity.

Monetary history shows that policymakers always resort to the same excuses when it comes to printing money and monetary mismanagement: first, say there is no inflation; second, say it is transitory; third, blame businesses; fourth, blame consumers for overspending; and finally present themselves as the “solution” with price controls, which ultimately devastates the economy.

In the United States median wage growth has been more than offset by inflation, and in the eurozone wage growth plummeted in July. In fact, the risk in the eurozone is higher, as average hourly wages fell in year-on-year terms in the second quarter.

Consumers see the prices of the goods and services they buy every day rise significantly faster than the official CPI shows and this, in turn, derails the economic recovery that was supposed to come from a less-than-likely consumption boom and services boost to above-trend growth in 2021. None of those Keynesian miracles happened.

As policymakers continue to implement massive financial repression measures into the winter, the problem is likely to get worse. No government or central bank seems willing to reduce the speed of fiscal or monetary imbalances, because they benefit from rising inflation. Does anyone believe there will be strong policies to reduce inflation from the same central banks that have pushed trillions into the economy to attract inflation and the same governments that would benefit from inflation to dissolve a bit of their rising debt?

We are now in the step where governments blame businesses. Biden blamed rising gas prices on “profiteering” and one of his main economic advisors at the National Economic Council, Brian Deese, said pork, chicken, and beef prices rose faster than normal because four companies control the supply.

In Spain, the government blamed electricity producers for a rise in power prices that came from higher CO2 costs—a tax from which European governments will collect around €20 billion in 2021—thus the government was effectively profiting from the rise in CO2 prices and at the same time blaming businesses for it. This was also part of the heated debate in Germany. Power prices soared due to high natural gas and CO2prices and political parties blamed speculation and power companies.

This is what will likely intensify into the third quarter: governments blaming businesses for causing the inflation that policymakers have fueled and then presenting themselves as the solution and imposing price controls, destroying the business fabric, particularly small enterprises.

Keynesian policies always destroy what they pretend to protect. In this case, middle classes, real wages, and small businesses are being wiped out by the inflation tax and the increase in other taxes, as governments reap the benefits of inflationary policies increasing the size of the public sector on the way in and inflation and taxes on the way out.


The Most Dangerous Man in America

 


Article by Declan Leary in The American Conservative


The Most Dangerous Man in America

Gen. Mark Milley is ambitious, incompetent, progressive, and wildly self-assured.

 

Four-star General Mark A. Milley, 20th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and highest-ranking officer in the United States Armed Forces, is a walking answer to the unasked question, “What if Jim Mattis were fat and dumb?”

With his fellow four-star and President Trump’s first secretary of defense, Milley shares a powerful but muted arrogance, a strong but less than rabid hawkishness, a clear political ambition that nonetheless defies immediate identification, and the obvious desire to be seen as a 21st-century warrior-scholar. He does not share with Mattis the requisite intelligence to uphold these delusions of soldier-sagehood, nor the basic capacities required to competently lead men and fight wars.

Milley’s warfighting incompetence—shared by almost all the top military brass—was on full display in the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal executed last month, and the chairman, along with CENTCOM commander General Kenneth McKenzie and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin (himself a retired four-star), was called yesterday before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee to answer for the failure.

While granting an equivocal admission that “it is clear, it is obvious, the war in Afghanistan did not end on the terms we wanted, with the Taliban now in power in Kabul,” Milley left it unclear whether he would have let the war end on any terms at all, if it were up to him. After suggesting that he had played a part in killing President Trump’s initial order to end the war by January 2021, Milley recounted:

On 17 November [2020], we received a new order to reduce levels to 2,500, plus enabling forces, no later than 15 January [2021]. When President Biden was inaugurated [on 20 January] there were approximately 3,500 U.S. troops, 5,400 NATO troops, and 6,300 contractors in Afghanistan with the specified task of train, advise, and assist, along with a small contingent of counterterrorism forces. The strategic situation at inauguration was stalemate.

In other words: Either deliberately or through a fundamental inability to carry out their basic responsibilities, the chairman and other military leaders had failed to meet the president’s ordered drawdown target by a full thousand troops. (It seems no senator noticed this discrepancy, as none pressed the general further on the matter.) Further, Milley, McKenzie, and Austin all testified repeatedly that they had continued to advise in favor of that residual force of 2,500—the reduction to which they had spectacularly failed to execute the first time it was ordered by their commander-in-chief—up to the bitter end, and apparently in perpetuity.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pressed Secretary Austin on what exactly this meant. To Warren’s questioning on what another year in Afghanistan would have looked like, Austin answered simply: “If you stayed there at a posture of 2,500 certainly you’d be in a fight with the Taliban and you’d have to reinforce yourself.” That is, the safe, modest presence for security and support has always been a lie; any presence past the withdrawal deadline would have meant renewed war with the Taliban, revamped deployment of American service members, and further combat casualties in America’s longest and most fruitless war.

Senator Warren also drove home that fruitlessness, pointing out the fact that the Taliban takeover was well underway long before the withdrawal of American troops, and that neither the Afghan nor the American people had anything to show for two decades of nation building. What’s more, she effectively forced Austin to admit that the failure to execute the withdrawal safely was entirely the fault of military leaders, and not the civilian authorities.

And yet, speaking to that botched withdrawal, Milley managed to simultaneously pat himself and his buddies on the back and pander to patriotic impulse with the dead American troops as props:

Although the NEO [noncombatant evacuation operation] was unprecedented as the largest air evacuation in history, evacuating 124,000 people, it came at an incredible cost of 11 marines, one soldier, and a Navy corpsman. Those 13 gave their lives so that people they never met will have an opportunity to live in freedom.

Maybe Milley really is that much of a naive idealist. But it seems much more likely that the general knows those 13 Americans gave their lives because he and his peers could not, or would not, do their jobs properly. Abstractions about some universal “opportunity to live in freedom” in a homogenized global liberal order are what got us into this mess in the first place.

But Milley is predictably hesitant to take much of the blame:

Over the course of four presidents, 12 secretaries of defense, seven chairmen, ten CENTCOM commanders, 20 commanders in Afghanistan, hundreds of congressional delegation visits, and 20 years of congressional oversight, there are many lessons to be learned. Two specific to the military that we need to take a look at, and we will, is [sic] “Did we mirror-image the development of the Afghan National Army?” and the second is the rapid collapse, unprecedented rapid collapse of the Afghan military in only 11 days in August.

Many lessons to be learned from two decades of war, two trillion dollars spent, and thousands upon thousands of lives snuffed out; of those lessons, exactly two must be learned by Milley himself and dealt with in his job. Two. Don’t hold your breath for any meaningful reform.

Milley then pivoted to pander once again: “However, one lesson must never be forgotten: Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who served there in Afghanistan for 20 consecutive years protected our country from attack by terrorists, and for that they should be forever proud and we should be forever grateful.” Of course, this sentence does more to legitimize the misadventure directed by Milley and his ilk (on the grounds that it hypothetically might have “protected our country from attack by terrorists,” thus justifying the human and financial costs) than to actually thank the men and woman whose lives and wellbeing they sacrificed. (Nor was this the only pseudo-sentimental piffle the general trotted out on Tuesday; asked why American intelligence and military leaders failed to predict the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and military, Milley answered, “You can’t measure the human heart with a machine.”)

Perhaps the most significant part of Milley’s testimony, though, was his answer to allegations in the media—taken from the Bobs Woodward and Costa’s forthcoming book Peril—that he had promised to warn China if the president ever ordered an attack against them, and that he had made senior military officials swear an oath not to take orders from the commander-in-chief unless Milley himself was involved.

Regarding China, the Princeton-educated Milley assured the committee that he was merely taking necessary steps to prevent conflict between “great powers that are armed with the world’s most deadliest weapons.” He insisted that the two calls in question were well within his routine responsibilities as chairman, but simply neglected to comment on the allegations that he had promised to warn his Chinese counterpart of any U.S. action—which, of course, had been the most concerning part of the report by far.

As far as the extra-constitutional oath supposedly extracted from other officers, Milley said that the meeting in question was routine and that he had gone over communication protocols, but did not comment on whether any such oath had taken place. Concerning his January 8 call with Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Milley suggested that he had disagreed with the speaker where he could, or perhaps tried to stay above the fray, without addressing one of the key lines from the transcript: “I agree with you on everything.”

All in all, the general’s congressional testimony reinforced what many have speculated ever since reports emerged that SecDef Esper had in fact known about the “secret” calls to China: That in talking to Woodward, Costa, and others, Milley exaggerated his own role as a Resistance hero, perhaps underestimating the blowback from the right and others interested in civilian control of the military.

It’s worth considering why he might have done that. The American Enterprise Institutes’s Kori Schake was quoted in the New York Times on Monday pointing out: “I have yet to read a book about policymaking in the Trump administration that doesn’t quote General Milley directly, or quote friends of Milley casting his actions in the best possible light.” By all appearances, the chairman of the joint chiefs has been actively courting the media, and carefully (so to speak) curating his public political image.

The Times‘ explanation for this is that the soldier simply wants to make up for crossing Lafayette Square with President Trump on June 1, 2020. Even as late Monday, the paper was republishing the long-discredited lie that “troops had used chemical spray to clear the area of protesters so that the president could walk, untroubled, through the park to St. John’s Church.” Thus, Milley “is still trying to make amends” for appearing to dabble in politics, and in a less than opportune moment optically. (The park had actually been cleared in accordance with a preexisting plan to push the security barrier back further from the White House, but images of protestors being pushed out soon before the president, the general, and others crossed the square—and the false narrative crafted around them—stuck.)

But why was the general participating in a fundamentally political photo op to begin with? (Worth noting briefly: alongside Milley in the infamous pictures from that day, President Trump looks thin, Bill Barr looks bulimic, and Jared Kushner simply disappears—another key testament to the general’s inadequacy as a soldier.) It cannot have had anything to do with his job as the chief military advisor to the president. But it can be easily understood as a bungled installment in a balancing act between perceived neutrality and perceived Trump loyalism. His presence on June 1 only makes sense if we assume he wanted to curry political favor with the right.

Characteristically, he failed. But now, in light these latest revelations, Milley has become a darling of the neocon and NeverTrumper media. Those who despise the previous president have come to consider Milley something of a hero, the sole “adult in the room” who managed to counteract the commander-in-chief who had appointed him. To those interested in extending the United States’ overseas commitments, Milley can be counted on to ensure that endless war stays that way.

These are two very powerful constituencies, and the long-converging combination of neoconservative money with popular anti-Trump sentiment on the center-left and center-right could prove formidable in the future. This could be worth keeping in mind, given that the general’s activity—courting powerful factions of the race-obsessed left, appending himself to key politicians of both parties, chasing media attention left and right—suggests he does not intend to pursue the quiet life of military-industrial complex sinecures automatically reserved for retiring four-stars.

At 63, Milley’s days in uniform are numbered—but 2024 is just around the corner.

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/ 

 







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage