Connecting a few dots between elections and deposed leaders … and even holding out a ray of hope


Denmark is doing something very strange. They are enforcing their laws, even when it goes against the USA-leftist agenda

Lise Ramslog …70-year-old grandmother…found …exhausted asylum seekers who had arrived on the ferry from Germany only to be stranded without access to public transportation. Some had begun to walk along the highway in desperation.
Ramslog decided on the spot that she would help: She ended up giving two young couples, a small child and a newborn baby a 120-mile ride in her cramped sedan to their destination in Sweden. “When we crossed the border, they rejoiced and cried,” she recalled.
In another context, Ramslog might be known as a good Samaritan.
But the Danish government has a different term for her: convicted human smuggler.

The decision by authorities to prosecute Ramslog — and to charge hundreds of other Danish citizens with a similar crime — is to many here just the latest evidence of a society that, when faced with an unparalleled influx of migrants and refugees, has taken a nasty turn.

What would happen if suddenly, the Europeans realized that they could enforce Europeans laws against illegal aliens?

Right now, the USA left makes that impossible – or close to it – by pulling the strings of the EU. But what if some country in Europe – perhaps Denmark, for example – actually decided to stop believing that the USA was a hyperpower?

'Everything's a tradeoff - now that I can walk upright, I can't wiggle my ears any more.'

‘Everything’s a tradeoff – now that I can walk upright, I can’t wiggle my ears any more.’

Well, there might be some trade-offs with any paradigm shift.

Outside the USA, the USA state can depose democratically elected leaders:

Inside the USA, 400 hippies got arrested to protest in the name of democracy and nobody on TV seemed to care:

THE DEMOCRACY SPRING, a protest movement calling on Congress to “end the corruption of big money in our politics” and “ensure free and fair elections,” converged on Capitol Hill on Monday, staging a nonviolent sit-in that resulted in over 400 arrests — a massive number by Washington sit-in standards.

While the action, dubbed #DemocracySpring, garnered wide coverage on social media and over 136,000 tweets, cable news programs found little time to cover the political protests, instead focusing largely on horse-race coverage of the presidential candidates for most of the day.

During daytime and afternoon news segments, CNN did not devote any coverage to the actions. MSNBC mentioned the protests for approximately 12 seconds, while Fox News mentioned the arrests and discussed the protests for about 17 seconds.


The USA seems to have gotten a lot more violent in the past few decades.

Max Weber defined the successful modern state as something that “successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence [Gewaltmonopol] in the enforcement of its order.”

It is against this illusory ideal, subscribed to by most political scientists, that many states have recently been judged to be weak states (if the monopoly is successfully challenged) or failed states (if its claim can no longer be sustained).

My own thinking is that Weber’s definition falsely invests the public state with a structural coherence that in fact it does not possess, never has possessed, and possesses even less as democracy develops. Even in America, one of the more successful states, there has always been a negative space in which overworld, corporate power, and privately organized violence all have access to and utilize each other, and rules are enforced by powers that do not derive from the public state.

Perhaps the most striking example of such non-state rule was the city of Chicago after World War II. A 1962 murder conviction, after an FBI investigation ordered by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, marked the first Chicago conviction in an organized crime slaying since 1934—a period of almost three decades marked by about a thousand unsolved murders.

Several major “legitimate” fortunes of national scope, had their origins in Chicago mob-based corruption, and the mob’s domination of Chicago City Hall created a climate of selective nonenforcement in which the best-connected private capitalists thrived.

One of the first acts of the newly created National Security Council in 1947 was to launder “over $10 million in captured Axis funds to influence the [Italian] election [of 1948].” (28) This use of off-the-books financing for criminal activities was institutionalized in 1948 with the creation of a covert Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), whose charge was to engage in “subversion against hostile states.”

As a consequence, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, which in 1952 absorbed the OPC, has become accustomed to the routine breaking of foreign laws on a daily basis.

Deep History and the Global Drug Connection, Part 3: A Deadly Bureaucracy




Inside the USA, PCR has written that the oligarchy will not change, except by violence:

Some Americans are waking up. As the hardships they suffer intensify, perhaps a movement will arise that can force through changes. However, as former president Jimmy Carter says, America is no longer a democracy; it is an oligarchy. Elections are manipulated in order to strengthen the oligarchy. As the electorate has no presence in Washington, violence is emerging as the only possible method of change.

If Americans elect Hillary president, the One Percent’s control will be complete — Paul Craig Roberts

I think PCR is being a little bit too gloomy.

The Fourth Turning is upon us, and it is not a lot of fun for most of us.

However, I don’t think violence inside USA borders is going to wake people up. Occupy Wall Street accomplished nothing, as far as I can tell. They would have accomplished even less if they had rioted. There are enough cops to keep shooting guys like Lavoy Finicum every week, and it will only cement the oligarchy in place.

Violence has been co-opted as another opiate of the masses. Spurdos see police shooting citizens and cheer for the police. That mentality will keep the USA together as more violence is applied.

Outside the USA, the USA power-brokers can run coups to suit their purposes

A coup, in which a small number of people take control of a state, … can be the usurping of power without violence. Last week has seen what amounts to the latter unfold in Libya.

Reinforcing this coup reality, seventy three members of the Tripoli parliament, the GNC, agreed this week to reform themselves as the State Council, designed by the UN as part of the legislature of the Serraj government. However, most of the 73 were not elected to the GNC, as the UN rules stipulate, but are Libya Dawn acolytes added to the GNC after it captured Tripoli by force two years ago.

The breakup of Libya is imminent, along an east-west fault line, and the irony is that Western powers will have been the orchestrator.

It seems to me that the West’s plan for Libya is now in final meltdown.

So the Western powers encouraged the coup, but they’re just making another failed state. That might be a big loss for the USA and a big win for Israel, so “the West” – ultimately Israel – might end up counting it as a win. Also, one of the commenters at the link above mentioned TNCs – probably Trans National Corporations – who might hope to make money from the chaos.

But how much chaos can the world take before it leads to paradigm shift?

Maybe the proles will get a boot to the face and just become brain-damaged and passive.

Or maybe they will try to get up off their backs and start trying to dodge the kicks.

What might crack the USA is a paradigm shift. I think mental liberation has a better chance than violence to end the USA’s oligarchy.

Islamic extremism has been a power that made Israel stronger for decades. Israel and the USA have stirred up Islamic extremists, to the point where the L.A. Times claims that CIA-backed muj shoot at Pentagon-backed muj.

Some people disagree:

The non-Pentagon-backed SDF are fighting the CIA-backed northern Aleppo rebels, who are fighting alongside Pentagon-backed train-and-equip rebels against the Islamic State. The CIA-backed rebels are not fighting the Pentagon-backed SDF. They are fighting a different faction that does not enjoy U.S. support (and may have actually recently enjoyed Russian support). And the Pentagon-backed SDF is fighting the Islamic State in eastern Syria, half a country away.

Are CIA-backed Syrian Rebels Really Fighting Pentagon-backed Syrian Rebels?

Maybe there is some kind of connection between the “gangster” mentality, the Deep State, and how the CIA and the Pentagon fund so many rebels. I can’t quite connect those dots.

Maybe, while the CIA thugs are fighting the Pentagon thugs and the Danish humanitarians are convicted of human trafficking, a black swan will flap down in front of us and start honking.


This entry was posted in political economy. Bookmark the permalink.


Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.