Downstream Layoffs Expected to be ‘Catastrophic’, in the Multiple Thousands Within DC, as a result of USAID Pause
WASHINGTON DC – […] Some of these anticipated layoffs have already begun. According to an email obtained by POLITICO, early last week development group Credence Management Solutions sent formal emails to contractors in its global health bureau laying off around 400 employees.
The CEO of DT Global, one of the world’s leading development contractors, reportedly told employees last week that 2,000 to 3,000 positions would likely be eliminated in the sector the first week of February. Both Credence Management Solutions and DT Global did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A director at a leading USAID contractor who spoke with POLITICO said that more than two-thirds of their company would be furloughed by the end of the week, describing the future of the sector as “bleak at best.”
“This is starting to look like an industry crash,” a different person in the aid sector said.
In addition to companies facing crisis, individuals who work in foreign aid in Washington say the job market is about to be oversaturated with thousands of newly unemployed people with no clear path forward. One person who spoke with POLITICO had been due to begin a job in the foreign aid space but had their offer rescinded because the job no longer exists. (read more)
Glenn Greenwald and Mike Benz discuss USAID in theoretical principle and real-world practice.
Greenwald asks, ‘why do these USAID officials seem so entitled’?
The answer to the tone of the officials goes back to the past 20-years of a mindset that has permeated U.S. government.
After the Patriot Act was created in October 2001, DHS was created to monitor American behavior; the TSA was then created to scan American travelers, and the FBI was enhanced with resources to conduct surveillance despite Fourth Amendment protections within our Constitution. All of this was done under the larger dynamic of preserving the “continuity of government.”
Instead of the U.S. Govt protecting U.S. citizens from foreign threats, the Patriot Act changed the mission of government to protect itself from potential citizen threats.
By the time the 2016 election arrived, We the People had already been defined by the Patriot Act as a threat to government.
If we the people did not select the right kind of candidate, approved by the continuity system, then our selection would be rejected by all of the operators of that administrative system. Following the outcome of the 2016 election, that’s what happened. The system activated to repel the threat President Trump represented. Worse yet, supporters of the threat were defined, isolated, marginalized, attacked, deplatformed and removed from every system they could control.
Every move by the U.S. federal government, from 2016 to now, has been contrast against the backdrop of a newer awakening and more visible understanding of how that Patriot Act inflection point changed our relationship with government.
We the People are the threat, and those who control the DC power centers that determine the continuity of government will not accept any modification or diminishment of their mission.
This sentiment of being more important is how the DC operatives justify their conduct in very real terms, including through application of law.
This outlook is also why the people who operate these systems are very visible with their conduct and do not have any reservations about showing their omnipotent mindset.
From their perspective, they are doing what they do, running government how they run government, maintaining the continuity the system was designed to protect. We The People are what they consider futile and irrelevant voices, and ironically when we speak against them, we are attacking “their democracy.”
This is the same mindset that weaponized liberty and freedom. Remember the examples from COVID? During COVID your demand for freedom was considered a threat. Your unwavering support of liberty made you “selfish” in the eyes of those who believe they control society.
If you did not wear a mask you were putting people at risk, the larger society and government in general was being challenged.
If you did not take the “vaccine”, you were putting the nation at danger.
In essence your liberty was defined as selfish, and our freedom was considered a “threat” to the order of government.
In a way you were threatening the “continuity of government” through your non-compliance.
That’s the mindset we are now up against.
Post a Comment