- EU-Turkey Migrant Deal Unravels Turning Greece Into Massive Refugee Camp
Submitted by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,
-
"It can be expected that, as soon as Turkish citizens will obtain visa-free entry to the EU, foreign nationals will start trying to obtain Turkish passports … or use the identities of Turkish citizens, or to obtain by fraud the Turkish citizenship. This possibility may attract not only irregular migrants, but also criminals or terrorists." — Leaked European Commission report, quoted in the Telegraph, May 17, 2016.
-
According to the Telegraph, the EU report adds that as a result of the deal, the Turkish mafia, which traffics vast volumes of drugs, sex slaves, illegal firearms and refugees into Europe, may undergo "direct territorial expansion towards the EU."
-
"If they make the wrong decision, we will send the refugees." — Burhan Kuzu, senior adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
-
Erdogan is now demanding that the EU immediately hand over three billion euros ($3.4 billion) so that Turkish authorities can spend it as they see fit. The EU insists that the funds be transferred through international aid agencies in accordance with strict rules on how the aid can be spent. This prompted Erdogan to accuse the EU of "mocking the dignity" of the Turkish nation.
The EU-Turkey migrant deal, designed to halt the flow of migrants from Turkey to Greece, is falling apart just two months after it was reached. European officials are now looking for a back-up plan.
The March 18 deal was negotiated in great haste by European leaders desperate to gain control over a migration crisis in which more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East poured into Europe in 2015.
European officials, who appear to have promised Turkey more than they can deliver, are increasingly divided over a crucial part of their end of the bargain: granting visa-free travel to Europe for Turkey's 78 million citizens by the end of June.
At the same time, Turkey is digging in its heels, refusing to implement a key part of its end of the deal: bringing its anti-terrorism laws into line with EU standards so that they cannot be used to detain journalists and academics critical of the government.
A central turning point in the EU-Turkey deal was the May 5 resignation of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who lost a long-running power struggle with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Davutoglu was a key architect of the EU-Turkey deal and was also considered its guarantor.
On May 6, just one day after Davutoglu's resignation, Erdogan warned European leaders that Turkey would not be narrowing its definition of terrorism: "When Turkey is under attack from terrorist organizations and the powers that support them directly, or indirectly, the EU is telling us to change the law on terrorism," Erdogan said in Istanbul. "They say 'I am going to abolish visas and this is the condition.' I am sorry, we are going our way and you go yours."
Erdogan insists that Turkey's anti-terrorism laws are needed to fight Kurdish militants at home and Islamic State jihadists in neighboring Syria and Iraq. Human rights groups counter that Erdogan is becoming increasingly authoritarian and is using the legislation indiscriminately to silence dissent of him and his government.
European officials say that, according to the original deal, visa liberalization for Turkish citizens is conditioned on Turkey amending its anti-terror laws. Erdogan warns that if there is no visa-free travel by the end of June, he will reopen the migration floodgates on July 1. Such a move would allow potentially millions more migrants to pour into Greece.
European officials are now discussing a Plan B. On May 8, the German newspaper Bild reported on a confidential plan to house all migrants arriving from Turkey on Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. Public transportation to and from those islands to the Greek mainland would be cut off in order to prevent migrants from moving into other parts of the European Union.
Migrants would remain on the islands permanently while their asylum applications are being processed. Those whose asylum requests are denied would be deported back to their countries of origin or third countries deemed as "safe."
The plan, which Bild reports is being discussed at the highest echelons of European power, would effectively turn parts of Greece into massive refugee camps for many years to come. It remains unclear whether Greek leaders will have any say in the matter. It is also unclear how Plan B would reduce the number of migrants flowing into Europe.
Thousands of newly arrived migrants, the vast majority of whom are men, crowd the platforms at Vienna West Railway Station on August 15, 2015 — a common scene in the summer and fall of 2015. (Image source: Bwag/Wikimedia Commons)
Speaking to the BBC News program, "World on the Move," on May 16, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the British intelligence service MI6, warned that the number of migrants coming to Europe during the next five years could run into millions. This, he said, would reshape the continent's geopolitical landscape: "If Europe cannot act together to persuade a significant majority of its citizens that it can gain control of its migratory crisis then the EU will find itself at the mercy of a populist uprising, which is already stirring."
Dearlove also warned against allowing millions of Turks visa-free access to the EU, describing the EU plan as "perverse, like storing gasoline next to the fire we're trying to extinguish."
On May 17, the Telegraph published the details of a leaked report from the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union. The report warns that opening Europe's borders to 78 million Turks would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the European Union. The report states:
"It can be expected that, as soon as Turkish citizens will obtain visa-free entry to the EU, foreign nationals will start trying to obtain Turkish passports in order to pretend to be Turkish citizens and enter the EU visa free, or use the identities of Turkish citizens, or to obtain by fraud the Turkish citizenship. This possibility may attract not only irregular migrants, but also criminals or terrorists."
According to the Telegraph, the report adds that as a result of the deal, the Turkish mafia, which traffics vast volumes of drugs, sex slaves, illegal firearms and refugees into Europe, may undergo "direct territorial expansion towards the EU." The report warns: "Suspect individuals being allowed to travel to the Schengen territory without the need to go through a visa request procedure would have a greater ability to enter the EU without being noticed."
While the EU privately admits that the visa waiver would increase the risk to European security, in public the EU has recommended that the deal be approved.
On May 4, the European Commission announced that Turkey has met most of the 72 "benchmarks of the roadmap" needed to qualify for the visa waiver. The remaining five conditions concern the fight against corruption, judicial cooperation with EU member states, deeper ties with the European law-enforcement agency Europol, data protection and anti-terrorism legislation.
European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans said:
"Turkey has made impressive progress, particularly in recent weeks, on meeting the benchmarks of its visa liberalization roadmap…. This is why we are putting a proposal on the table which opens the way for the European Parliament and the Member States to decide to lift visa requirements, once the benchmarks have been met."
In order for the visa waiver to take effect, it must be approved by the national parliaments of the EU member states, as well as the European Parliament.
Ahead of a May 18 debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg over Turkey's progress in fulfilling requirements for visa liberalization, Burhan Kuzu, a senior adviser to Erdogan, warned the European Parliament that it had an "important choice" to make.
In a Twitter message, Kuzu wrote: "If they make the wrong decision, we will send the refugees." In a subsequent telephone interview with Bloomberg, he added: "If Turkey's doors are opened, Europe would be miserable."
Meanwhile, Erdogan has placed yet another obstacle in the way of EU-Turkey deal. He is now demanding that the EU immediately hand over three billion euros ($3.4 billion) promised under the deal so that Turkish authorities can spend it as they see fit.
The EU insists that the funds be transferred through the United Nations and other international aid agencies in accordance with strict rules on how the aid can be spent. That stance has prompted Erdogan to accuse the EU of "mocking the dignity" of the Turkish nation.
On May 10, Erdogan expressed anger at the glacial pace of the EU bureaucracy:
"This country [Turkey] is looking after three million refugees. What did they [the EU] say? We'll give you €3 billion. Well, have they given us any of that money until now? No. They're still stroking the ball around midfield. If you're going to give it, just give it.
"These [EU] administrators come here, tour our [refugee] camps, then ask at the same time for more projects. Are you kidding us? What projects? We have 25 camps running. You've seen them. There is no such thing as a project. We've implemented them."
In an interview with the Financial Times, Fuat Oktay, head of Turkey's Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), the agency responsible for coordinating the country's refugee response, accused European officials of being fixated on "bureaucracies, rules and procedures" and urged the European Commission to find a way around them.
The European Commission insists that it was made clear from the outset that most of the money must go to aid organizations: "Funding under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey supports refugees in the country. It is funding for refugees and not funding for Turkey."
The migration crisis appears to be having political repercussions for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a leading proponent of the EU-Turkey deal. According to a new poll published by the German newsmagazine Cicero on May 10, two-thirds (64%) of Germans oppose a fourth term for Merkel, whose term ends in the fall of 2017.
In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister-party to Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), blamed Merkel for enabling Erdogan's blackmail: "I am not against talks with Turkey. But I think it is dangerous to be dependent upon Ankara."
Sahra Wagenknecht of the Left Party accused Merkel of negotiating the EU-Turkey deal without involving her European partners: "The chancellor is responsible for Europe having become vulnerable to blackmail by the authoritarian Turkish regime."
Cem Özdemir, leader of the Greens Party and the son of Turkish immigrants said: "The EU-Turkey deal has made Europe subject to Turkish blackmail. The chancellor bears significant responsibility for this state of affairs."
-
- Suicide Blonde
From the Slope of Hope: I was amused this evening to read about the implosion at Theranos, which is located right here in my beloved Palo Alto. Elizabeth Holmes has been the darling of the business press for years, what with her flowing blonde hair, big blue eyes, and slender neck peeking out of the Steve Jobsian black top. Like Holden Caulfield, I have no fondness for “phonies”, and she seemed like one to me.
The thing is, the phenomenon of attractive women leading high-tech companies is a relatively recent one. On the surface, we as a society will pat each other on the back about how progressive we are, now that we have unvarnished gender equality, even at the highest echelons of corporate power. But let me just spoil your little party and tell you something. The reason men gawk at photos like this……….
……..and this……….
isn’t because they are contemplating the strategic vision, administrative excellence, and vigorous business acumen of these long-legged, slender, blonde women. They’re thinking of other things.
And I think it stinks of hypocrisy that we as a society applaud ourselves for elevating these women so high, when I can assure you 50% of the society is doing so mostly to look up their skirts.
The more successful women in business don’t get fawned over to this degree, and in those circumstances, you can probably assume that the woman in question actually knows what the hell she is doing. Take Meg Whitman (please!), who looks like something you might buy in a live bait shop:
And, as long as we’re being gender-blind, let’s remember that the successful businessmen in our society are likewise not required to be handsome (or even generally resembling the species):
My point is this – – when you are presented with a woman at the top of the business world, and she just happens to be very attractive, you might want to take a harder look. And by “look”, I’m talking about with your head, not your eyes, because as experience has shown, that can be a fatal misdirection.
BONUS TIP: Using our same examples above, you can also use the “creepy voice” rule as an important marker. I present to you, once again, Marissa Mayer and Elizabeth Holmes. Enjoy.
- Shame On The Supreme Court For Making A Mockery Of The First Amendment
Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion… It is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”—Justice William O. Douglas, Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for making a mockery of the First Amendment.
All the justices had to do was right a 60-year wrong that made it illegal to exercise one’s First Amendment rights on the Supreme Court plaza.
It shouldn’t have been a big deal.
After all, this is the Court that has historically championed a robust First Amendment, no matter how controversial or politically incorrect.
Over the course of its 227-year history, the Supreme Court has defended the free speech rights of Ku Klux Klan cross-burners, Communist Party organizers, military imposters, Westboro Baptist Church members shouting gay slurs at military funerals, a teenager who burned a cross on the lawn of an African-American family, swastika-wearing Nazis marching through the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, abortion protesters and sidewalk counselors in front of abortion clinics, flag burners, an anti-war activist arrested for wearing a jacket bearing the words “F#@k the Draft,” high-school students wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War, a film producer who created and sold videotapes of dogfights, a movie theater that showed a sexually explicit film, and the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gay members, among others.
Basically, the Supreme Court has historically had no problem with radical and reactionary speech, false speech, hateful speech, racist speech on front lawns, offensive speech at funerals, anti-Semitic speech in parades, anti-abortion/pro-life speech in front of abortion clinics, inflammatory speech in a Chicago auditorium, political speech in a private California shopping mall, or offensive speech in a state courthouse.
So when activist Harold Hodge appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend his right to stand on their government plaza and silently protest the treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics by police, it should have been a no-brainer, unanimous ruling in favor of hearing his case.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not quite as keen on the idea of a robust First Amendment as it used to be, especially when that right is being exercised on the Court’s own front porch.
Not only did the Court refuse to hear Hodge’s appeal, but in doing so, it also upheld the 60-year-old law banning expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza. Mind you, this was the same ban that a federal district court judge described as “unreasonable, substantially overbroad…irreconcilable with the First Amendment,” “plainly unconstitutional on its face” and “repugnant” to the Constitution.
Incredibly, one day after District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell issued her strongly worded opinion striking down the federal statute, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza.
Talk about a double standard—a double standard upheld by a federal appeals court.
And what was the appeals court’s rationale for enforcing this ban on expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza? “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the…impression…of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”
Translation: The appellate court that issued that particular ruling in Hodge v. Talkin actually wants us to believe that the Court is so impressionable that the justices could be swayed by the sight of a single man standing alone and silent in a 20,000 square-foot space wearing a small sign on a day when the court was not in session.
What a load of tripe.
Of course the Supreme Court is not going to be swayed by you or me or Harold Hodge.
This ban on free speech in the Supreme Court plaza, enacted by Congress in 1949, stems from a desire to insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights, an altogether elitist mindset that views the government “elite” as different, set apart somehow, from the people they have been appointed to serve and represent.
No wonder interactions with politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant in recent decades. The powers-that-be want us kept at a distance. Press conferences and televised speeches now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents. Elected officials keep voters at arms-length through the use of electronic meetings and ticketed events. And there has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used “free speech zones” at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies and likely will do so again this year.
We’re nearing the end of the road for free speech and freedom in general, folks.
With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
Long gone are the days when advocates of free speech could prevail in a case such as Tinker v. Des Moines. Indeed, it’s been more than 50 years since 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker was suspended for wearing a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War. In taking up her case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Were Tinker to make its way through the courts today, it would have to overcome the many hurdles being placed in the path of those attempting to voice sentiments that may be construed as unpopular, offensive, conspiratorial, violent, threatening or anti-government.
Indeed, the Supreme Court now has the effrontery to suggest that the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum, justifying such censorship as “government speech.”
If it were just the courts suppressing free speech, that would be one thing to worry about, but First Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”
If Americans are not able to peacefully assemble outside of the halls of government for expressive activity, the First Amendment has lost all meaning.
If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties which we cherish as Americans.
Living in a so-called representative republic means that each person has the right to stand outside the halls of government and express his or her opinion on matters of state without fear of arrest.
That’s what the First Amendment is all about.
It gives every American the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It ensures, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”
Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps, government officials—both elected and appointed—have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials.
In the process, government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say.
Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.
Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.
We are now only as free to speak as a government official may allow.
Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.
As a result, we are no longer a nation of constitutional purists for whom the Bill of Rights serves as the ultimate authority. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have litigated and legislated our way into a new governmental framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
Without the First Amendment, we are utterly helpless.
It’s not just about the right to speak freely, or pray freely, or assemble freely, or petition the government for a redress of grievances, or have a free press. The unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.
Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance and makes independent thought all but impossible.
In the end, censorship and political correctness not only produce people that cannot speak for themselves but also people who cannot think for themselves. And a citizenry that can’t think for itself is a citizenry that will neither rebel against the government’s dictates nor revolt against the government’s tyranny.
The architects, engineers and lever-pullers who run the American police state want us to remain deaf, dumb and silent. They want our children raised on a vapid diet of utter nonsense, where common sense is in short supply and the only viewpoint that matters is the government’s.
We are becoming a nation of idiots, encouraged to spout political drivel and little else.
If George Orwell envisioned the future as a boot stamping on a human face, a fair representation of our present day might well be a muzzle on that same human face.
- Trump Leads Clinton Nationally For First Time In Latest Poll
Having recently tied her in a Rasmussen poll, Donald Trump is leading Hillary Clinton for the first time in a national poll, according to FOX News.
The FOX News poll shows the trend quite clearly with Hillary'snumbers falling consistently and Trump's rising given him a 3pt lead – his first national lead of the campaign.
The breakdown exposes just how divided America is during this election cycle…
Clinton is ahead by 14 points among women (50-36 percent). Yet Trump leads by a larger 22 points among men (55-33 percent).
He also tops Clinton by 37 points (61-24 percent) among whites without a college degree (working-class whites).
Overall, Trump is preferred by 24 points among whites (55-31 percent). He’s even ahead by nine among white women (47-38 percent).
Clinton has a commanding 83-point lead among blacks (90-7 percent), and is up by 39 among Hispanics (62-23 percent).
Overall, RealClearPolitics smoothed trend of polls shows Clinton's lead now at its smalled since the beginning of March…
Clinton has a net negative honesty rating of -35 points. That’s because a new low 31 percent say she’s honest, while a record 66 percent say she isn’t. Trump does better on this measure, although he is still underwater by 17 points: 40 percent think he’s honest and 57 percent say he’s not.
Ironically, as The Clinton campaign pushes for Bernie to "know when he's beaten," the same FOX News poll finds Sanders polling well above both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Which is exactly what Liberty Blitzkrieg's Mike Krieger explained previously, following a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think it’s entirely accurate.
One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who don’t identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. Forget the fact that I know a few personally, I’ve noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot them mean it.
Mr. Robinson’s article is a brilliant deep dive into what a real life Trump vs. Clinton matchup would look like, not what clueless beltway wonks want it to look it. What emerges is a convincing case that the only person who could stand up to Trump and defeat him in November is Bernie Sanders. I agree.
So without further ado, here are a few excerpts:
Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate, whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont. Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters. Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament “I like Bernie, I just don’t think he can win.” And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate.
But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.
Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it’s too late.
Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, she’s acknowledged as “awkward and uninspiring on the stump,” carrying “Bill’s baggage with none of Bill’s warmth.” New York magazine described her “failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.” Last year the White House was panicking at her levels of electoral incompetence, her questionable decisionmaking, and her inclination for taking sleazy shortcuts. More recently, noting Sanders’s catch-up in the polls, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said that she was a “rotten candidate” whose attacks on Sanders made no sense, and that “at some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clinton’s campaign woes.” Yet in a race against Trump, Hillary will be handicapped not only by her feeble campaigning skills, but the fact that she will have a sour national mood, a poor staff, and a brilliant opponent.
Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.
It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.
Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.
Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:
“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”
Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.
Here’s another example. If Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks “super predators.”
Nor are the demographics going to be as favorable to Clinton as she thinks. Trump’s populism will have huge resonance among the white working class in both red and blue states; he might even peel away her black support. And Trump has already proven false the prediction that he would alienate Evangelicals through his vulgarity and his self-deification. Democrats are insistently repeating their belief that a Trump nomination will mobilize liberals to head to the polls like never before, but with nobody particularly enthusiastic for Clinton’s candidacy, it’s not implausible that a large number of people will find both options so unappealing that they stay home.
Yep, many Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. In fact, more than a few will vote for Trump.
Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.
Trump can’t clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.
Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals. She will attempt to go after him. She will, in other words, feed the troll. Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans. Putting such genuine dignity and good feeling against Trump’s race-baiting clownishness will be like finally pouring water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary Clinton cannot do this; with her, the campaign will inevitably descend into the gutter, and the unstoppable bloated Trump menace will continue to grow ever larger.
Of course, the American people are still jittery about socialism. But they’re less jittery than they used to be, and Bernie does a good job portraying socialism as being about little more than paid family leave and sick days (a debatable proposition, but one beside the point.) His policies are popular and appeal to the prevailing national sentiment. It’s a risk, certainly. But the Soviet Union bogeyman is long gone, and everyone gets called a socialist these days no matter what their politics. It’s possible that swing voters dislike socialism more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, but in a time of economic discontent one probably shouldn’t bet on it.
But even if it was correct to say that Sanders was “starting to” lose (instead of progressively losing less and less), this should only motivate all Democrats to work harder to make sure he is nominated. One’s support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to one’s fear of Trump.
And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who can’t win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people. So much depends on stopping Trump; a principled defeat will mean nothing to the deported, or to those being roughed up by Trump’s goon squads or executed with pigs’ blood-dipped bullets.
Trump vs. Clinton will appear to most Americans as a choice between something new and risky, and something old and corrupt. In 2016, who do you think the public will choose?
If Democrats foolishly nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be the only ones to blame for a Trump Presidency.
- China Sends Hawkish Fed A Message – Devalues Yuan Near 2016 Lows
Just as we warned was probable, The PBOC sent a message loud and clear to the newly hawkish Fed following today’s surge in the dollar after the minutes were released. With the 2nd biggest daily devaluation since the August collapse, China pushed the Yuan fix against the USD down to its lowest since early February – barely above the January lows. As we warned earlier, the China-Panic trade looms loud now as turmoil appears all that is left to stop The Fed unleashing another round of liquidity-suckiong rate hikes sooner than the market wants.
All eyes have been firmly focus on the Yuan’s move against the USD but in fact the Yuan has been falling non-stop against the world’s major currencies…
The critical issue now is that the U.S. dollar is appreciating again. The
Bloomberg Dollar index is up 2.8% in the last two weeks and another 2%
wouldn’t be an unreasonable consolidation in the context of it dropping
more than 7% in the previous three months.That previous dollar slide distracted from the fact that yuan depreciation never abated. Against the basket, it’s been weakening at an average rate of almost 1.2% per month for the last five months.
The market’s single-minded focus on USD/CNY is crucial and it’s also why disaster can still be averted. It will require the PBOC to temporarily suspend their yuan-weakening policy for as long as the dollar is climbing.
Otherwise, prepare to batten down the hatches for the coming storm.
It appears that it is the USD’s turn to face The PBOC once again… The 2nd biggest daily devaluation of the Yuan fix against the USD since August’s collapse.
Simply put, China does not want The Fed sucking the liquidity lifeline out of world markets right as it embarks on another round of desperate credit reflation.
Given The Fed’s comments today, the only excuse left for Yellen and her friends (unless they are willing to lose all credibility due to short-term fluctuations in macro-economic data from now to June meeting – as opposed to their mandated long-term view) is if markets turmoil enough to warrant some level of conservatism. As we have warned before – bullish stock market investors should be careful what they wish for – the higher stocks go, the higher the chances of rate hike, and the more likely China pre-taliates with some turmoil-inducing events to stall the unwind… the last time traders panicced about China, bad things happened to stocks…
- NATO Announces War Policy Against Russia
Submitted by Eric Zuesse, investigative historian and author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
NATO Announces War Policy Against Russia
On May 18th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “West and Russia on course for war, says ex-Nato deputy commander” and reported that the former deputy commander of NATO, the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff (who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 2011-2014), expressed outrage that Britain isn’t urgently preparing for war against Russia, and also reported that “He describes Russia as now the west’s most dangerous adversary and says Putin’s course can only be stopped if the west wakes up to the real possibility of war and takes urgent action.” … In a chilling scenario, he predicts that Russia, in order to escape what it believes to be encirclement by Nato, will seize territory in eastern Ukraine.” (That’s the Donbass region, where there has been a civil war.)
This encirclement by NATO is, apparently, about to be expanded: Shirreff will now be satisfied by NATO, even if not by its member the UK, of which Shirreff happens to be a citizen. New Europe bannered the same day, “NATO lays down the cards on its Russia policy”, and reported that, “In two distinct pre-ministerial press conferences on Wednesday [May 18th], the General Secretary of NATO Jens Stoltenberg and the US Ambassador to NATO, Daglas Lute, introduced the Russia agenda to be covered. Both NATO leaders said that the Accession Protocol Montenegro is signing on Thursday is a strong affirmation of NATO’s open door policy, mentioning explicitly Georgia. ‘We will continue to defend Georgia’s right to make its own decisions,’ Stoltenberg said.” Georgia is on Russia’s southwestern flank; so, it could be yet another a nuclear-missile base right on Russia’s borders, complementing Poland and the Baltics on Russia’s northwestern flank. (The U.S. itself has around 800 military bases in foreign countries, and so even Russia’s less-populous eastern regions would be able to be obliterated virtually in an instant, if the U.S. President so decides. And President Obama is already committed to the view that Russia is by far the world’s most “aggressive” enemy, more so even than international jihadists are.)
According to the New Europe report, Stoltenberg announced that where the 1997 NATO-Russia Agreement asserts that
The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO’s nuclear posture or nuclear policy — and do not foresee any future need to do so. This subsumes the fact that NATO has decided that it has no intention, no plan, and no reason to establish nuclear weapon storage sites on the territory of those members, whether through the construction of new nuclear storage facilities or the adaptation of old nuclear storage facilities. Nuclear storage sites are understood to be facilities specifically designed for the stationing of nuclear weapons, and include all types of hardened above or below ground facilities (storage bunkers or vaults) designed for storing nuclear weapons.
the agreement is effectively terminated, and, “Largely as a result of the Crimean annexation, the repeated violations of the Minsk ceasefire agreement, and the demands of eastern flank member states, boots on the ground will increase considerably in the region, if not ‘substantially’,” along Russia’s northeastern flank, in Poland and the Baltics. Furthermore, “Poland has already said that it regards this agreement ‘obsolete’.” So, General Stoltenberg is taking his lead on that from the Polish government.
According to both Russia and the separatist Donbass eastern region of the former Ukraine, the violations of the Minsk II agreement regarding Donbass are attacks by Ukrainian government forces firing into Donbass and destroying buildings and killing residents there, however NATO and other U.S. allies ignore those allegations and just insist that all violations of the Minsk II accords are to be blamed on Russia. That is also the position advanced by Shirreff, who thinks that Russia has no right to be concerned about being surrounded by NATO forces.
Consequently, regardless of whether or not the Minsk II violations are entirely, or even mainly, or even partially, due to Ukrainian firing into Donbass, NATO appears to be gearing up for its upcoming July ministerial meeting to be an official termination of its vague promises, which NATO had made in the 1997 NATO-Russia agreement (technically called the “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France, 27 May 1997”). That document said “NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation.” In this regard, it was — though in public and written form, instead of merely private and verbal form — similar to the promises that the West had given to Soviet then Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, which have already been rampantly violated by the West many times and without apology. The expectation and demand is clearly that Russia must allow itself to be surrounded by NATO, and to do this without complaint, and therefore also without taking military countermeasures, which NATO would call yet more “aggression by Russia.” Any defensive moves by Russia can thus be taken by the West to be unacceptable provocation and justification for a “pre-emptive” attack against Russia by NATO. That would be World War III, and it would be based upon the same accusation against Russia that the Republican candidate for the U.S. Presidency, Mitt Romney, had stated when he was running against Barack Obama: “This is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.” Perhaps the West here intends the final solution of the Russian problem.
- Elizabeth Holmes Admits Theranos' "Technology" Is A Fraud: Restates, Voids Years Of Test Results
The billion dollar baby has now, officially, gone bye bye.
Just when you thought that the biggest ever "multi-billion" private company that also happens to be an utter fraud, would quietly disappear before it risked attracting even more unwarranted attention from regulators, enforcers, and criminal investigators which could potentially lead to prison time for "billionaire" Elizabeth Holmes, here she comes again reminding everyone of her fallen from grace presence, in this case with what should be the terminal news for this company, namely that as the WSJ reports (and as the company confirms) Theranos has told federal health regulators that the company voided and revised two years of results from its Edison blood-testing devices and has issued tens of thousands of corrected reports to doctors and patients.
As a reminder, the basis for Theranos ludicrous $9 billion valuation which it appears was achieved without anyone doing any actual due diligence, were the "Edison" machines which were touted as revolutionary – not just by Holmes but by the fawning media and even the Clintons. Theranos has now told regulators that it threw out all Edison test results from 2014 and 2015, effectively confirming it has no proprietary technology, and also validating that its valuation should be zero.
Worse, Theranos has told regulators that it used the Edison for 12 types of tests out of more than 200 offered to consumers and stopped using the devices altogether in late June 2015. In other words, Theranos' insane "valuation" was achieved on the basis of doing only 6% of blood tests in house (all of them erroneously we now learn), and outsourcing 94% to companies whose products actually worked and many of whom likely had a far lower valuation than the one at which a bunch of idiot billionaires "valued" Holmes' worthless company.
In the process of commiting fraud and building up her valuation, Holmes repeatedly gambled with people's lives, sending them clearly wrong results. As a result some patients have received erroneous results that might have thrown off health decisions made with their doctors, the WSJ reports. All this is needed is one death and there is a criminal case.
So why come clean now?
The move is part of Theranos’s attempt to persuade the agency not to impose stiff sanctions it threatened in the aftermath of its inspection of the company’s Newark, Calif., laboratory. The voided and revised test results are one of the most dramatic steps yet taken by Theranos.
Company records reviewed during the inspection showed that the California lab ran about 890,000 tests a year. The inspection found that Edison machines in the lab often failed to meet the company’s own accuracy requirements.
In other words, Theranos may have put as many as 890,000 lives per year in jeopardy with its fake technology.
The good news, this is now officially game over for if not Elizabeth Holmes, then certainly her company:
“There have been massive recalls of single tests in the past, but I’m not aware of one where a company recalled the entirety of the results from its testing platform,” said Geoffrey Baird, associate professor in the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle. “I believe that’s unprecedented.”
The company also commented:
In response to questions from The Wall Street Journal about the blood-test corrections, Theranos spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said: “Excellence in quality and patient safety is our top priority and we’ve taken comprehensive corrective measures to address the issues CMS raised in their observations. As these matters are currently under review, we have no further comment at this time.”
That's rich, pardon the pun. Less rich, if only on paper, will be Holmes who will have ample opportunity to make numerous comments during trial.
* * *
Finally, the question everyone should be asking is who enabled this fraud for so many years? The simple answer: everyone, and especially those who have an agenda to conduct one endless infomercial for a product that ended up being an epic fraud. Here is a sample (courtesy of Bruce Quinn).
August 30, 2013
"Theranos: The Biggest Biotech You've Never Heard of."
San Francisco Business Times. By Ron Leuty. Here.September 8, 2013
"Elizabeth Holmes: The Breakthrough of Instant Diagnosis."The pivotal Wall Street Journal article, by Joseph Rago. HereA Stanford dropout is bidding to make tests more accurate, less painful – and at a fraction of the current price.September 9, 2013"Secretive Theranos emerging partly from shadows."SF BizJournal, SF/Biotech, by Ron Leuty, subtitled, "The biggest biotech you've never heard of." Here.October 9, 2013
"Just a Drop Will Do."
Pediatric News. By William Wilkoff. Here.November 6, 2013"What Heath Care Needs is a Real Time Snapshot of You."WIRED, By Daniela Hernandez. Here.November 13, 2013.
"One Small Ow-eee."
PediaBlog. By Ned Ketyer MD. Here.November 18, 2013
"Creative disruption? She's 29 and Set to Reboot Lab Medicine."MedPageToday. By Eric Topol. Here.February 18, 2014"This Woman Invented a Way to Run 30 Lab Tests on Only One Drop of Blood."WIRED again, by Caitlin Roper. Here. WIRED revisits Holmes, with an interview.February 28, 2014"Stanford Dropout Revolutionizes Blood Tests"Take Part, by Liana Aghajanian. Here.June, 2014Hematology Reports (Open Access Journal). Full article PDF: Here.Chan SM, Chadwick J, Young DL, Holmes E, & Gotlib J (2014). Intensive serial biomarker profiling for the prediction of neutropenic fever with hematologic malignancies undergoing therapy: a pilot study. Hematology Reports 6(2).Pubmed Central, here.June 12, 2014"This CEO is Out for Blood."June 17, 2014"Elizabeth Holmes, Who Wants To Shake Up The Blood Testing Industry, Is A Billionaire At 30."Forbes [blog], by – Zina Moukheiber. Here.July 2, 2014"Bloody Amazing."Forbes [blog 7/2, and Issue, 7/21], by Mathew Herper. Here.June 3, 2014
US Patent: "Systems and Methods of Sample Processing and Fluid Control in a Fluidic System."
PDF, Patent 8,742,230 B2, 80 pp.. Here.
"This invention is in the field of medical devices…portable medical devices that allow real-tie detection of analytes from a biological fluid…for providing point-of-care testing for a variety of medical applications."June 20, 2014
"Theranos: Small Sample, Big Opportunity."
Decibio [Consultancy blog]. By Eric Lakin. Here.July 8, 2014"Nanotainer Revolutionizes Blood Testing." VIDEOUSA TODAY. Here.July 15, 2014
"Meet Elizabeth Holmes, Silicon Valley's Latest Phenomenon"
San Jose Mercury News, by Michelle Quinn. Here.July 15, 2014
"Theranos bringing 500 new jobs to Scottsdale's SkySong."
Phoenix Business Journal. By Angela Gonzales. Here. [SkySong is an ASU-affiliated tech park].July 21, 2014
"Meet Elizabeth Holmes, the Youngest Female Self-made Billionaire Changing the World with Medical Technology."
Women's ILAB, by Katherine Melescuic. Here.August 11, 2014"Ignoring Lab Industry, Theranos Goes Its Way.""My Visit to Walgreens for Theranos Lab Tests." DARK REPORT (Paper by subscription only). Table of contents here.September 8, 2014September 8, 2014"Elizabeth Holmes takes Theranos' blood test to tech movers, shakers."Biotech SF / Bizjournals – by Ron Leuty. Discussion of TechCrunch presentation. Here.September 29, 2014
"This Woman's Revolutionary Idea Made Her A Billionaire — And Could Change Medicine."
Business Insider. By Kevin Loria. Here. See also June 4, 2015.September 30, 2014"Queen Elizabeth: Mystique of Theranos founder grows with Forbes' richest ranking."Biotech SF / Bizjournals – by Ron Leuty. Here.October, 2014
"Health Plans Deploy New Systems to Control Use of Lab Tests."
Managed Care. By Joseph Burns. Here.
Does not directly cite Theranos. Cites contrasting viewpoints on the value of direct easy inexpensive test access:October 1, 2014
"How One Entrepreneur is Transforming Blood Testing."Slate – by Kevin Loria. Here. [Reprint from Business Insider, 9/29, above.]October 16, 2014
"She's America's Youngest Female Billionaire – And a Dropout."
by Rachel Crane. CNN/Money. Here. [Text & Video.]October 27, 2014
"Theranos Due Diligence: Company Profile, SWOT Analysis, Market Opportunity."
Decibio. Consulting group profile of Theranos and its valuation and market position (73 pages; $850). Here. Table of Contents, here. Additional description here.November 7, 2014TEDMED – Youtube – Elizabeth Holmes at TEDMED. VIDEO.
Here.,For further details, see here.November 7, 2014
"Major Upside for Walgreens Stock"
InvestorPlace. By John Divine. Here.
"The single biggest catalyst for WAG stock in the future may be the company’s decision to partner with the privately held health-tech firm Theranos."December 8, 2014Fortune/Youtube – Theranos Billionaire Founder Talks Growth. VIDEO.Video interview with Pattie Sellers. Here.
For further details, see here.December 8, 2014
"Here's How the World's Youngest Self-Made Female Billionaire Shows People She's In Charge."
Business Insider. By Richard Feloni. Here.December 8, 2014
"The New Yorker on the Promise, the Secrecy, and the Challenges of Super-Startup Theranos."
MedCityNews. by Meghana Keshavan. Here.December 12, 2014
"Behind the Curtain at Theranos."
NBC News. (Video). Interview with Ken Auletta. Here.
For more detail, see here.December 14, 2014
"Blood Test Innovation: Less Cost, No Big Needle"
Information Week/Healthcare. By Larry Stofko. Here.January 28, 2015"Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos: Transforming Healthcare by Embracing Failure."Youtube. Stanford Graduate School of Business. Here.February, 2015"Top 10 Most Innovative Companies in Health Care, 2015: #7, Theranos"Fast Company (staff), here.February, 2015"Vetting Theranos"Laboratory Economics [trade journal, subscription]. By JonDavid Kipp. Here.February 2, 2015."CEO Q&A: Craig Hall."Real Estate Daily. By Christina Perez. Hall was early investor in Theranos. Here.February 3, 2015"Breakthrough Branding: Theranos, with Walgreens, Revolutionizes Healthcare."Brand Channel. By Sheila Shayon. Here.February 3, 2015"Will Theranos Turn the Lab Industry Upside Down?"February 6, 2015"Ten Things to Know about America's Youngest Female Billionaire."Business Insider. By Koa Beck. Here.February 5, 2015"Disruptive Technology Main Focus at Clinton Health Conference."California Healthline. By Lauren McSherry. Here.President Clinton, Fourth Annual Health Matters Activation Summit. "Access to health information is a basic human right," said Elizabeth Holmes, a young Silicon Valley entrepreneur who founded Theranos, a blood analytics and diagnostics company. [President] Clinton, who applauded her work to provide low-cost testing to the general public, said the company is valued at $9 billion. See also at Clinton Foundation.org, here.February 10, 2015"Elizabeth Holmes – Theranos"Upstart. By Teresa Novellino. Here.February 10, 2015"Theranos CEO: Avoid Backup Plans."INC (from Stanford Business School.) By Deborah Peterson. Here."I think that the minute that you have a backup plan, you've admitted that you're not going to succeed."February 17, 2015"Stealth Research: Is Biomedical Innovation Happening Outside the Peer-reviewed Literature?"JAMA. By John P.A. Ionnanidis. Here."Theranos is just one example among many for which major efforts and major claims about biomedical progress seem to be happening outside the peer-reviewed scientific literature…stealth research creates total ambiguity about what evidence can be trusted in a mix of possibly brilliant ideas, aggressive corporate announcements, and mass media hype." See comment at Healthnewsreview.org here (February 23, 2015).February 27, 2015"Tech company Theranos pushes consumer lab-testing bill."Arizona Republic. By Ken Tucker. Here.For legislative text, here. For a blog on the topic, here. For cloud version of the legislative text, here. Article in March 2015 Laboratory Economics [subscription, here.]February, 2015"Theranos: Blood Tests that Need Just a Tiny Sample."Walgreens website, "At the Corner of Happy and Healthy," accessed 2/17/2015. Here.March, 2015"Secret Shoppers Disappointed by Theranos."Laboratory Economics. By Jondavid Klipp. Here (subscription).Summarizes experiences of "secret shoppers" from Piper Jaffray, an Arizona lab, The Dark Report, and a California lab. Most reported 3-day results and many reported standard venipuncture.March 2, 2015"Meet the Most Impressive Woman on Forbes' Female Billionaire List."Identities.Mic. March 2, 2015. By Julie Zeilinger. Here.March 5, 2015"Millennials and Money: New Kids in the Forbes Billionaires Club."National Center for Business Journalism. By Rian Bosse. Elizabeth Holmes noted. Here.March 6, 2015"Theranos Files Comment In Support Of Food and Drug Administration Oversight Of Laboratory-Developed Tests."Theranos Press Release. Here.The comment letter, dated 3/1/2015, 4 pages, here.March 7, 2015."Health care in America: Shock treatment. A wasteful and inefficient industry is in the throes of great disruption."March 9, 2015"Theranos and Cleveland Clinic Announce Strategic Alliance to Improve Patient Care through Innovation in Testing."Press release. Here.March 9, 2015"Cleveland Clinic Taps Theranos, Bets on Cheaper Diagnostics."Healthcare Finance News. Anthony Brio. Here.March 9, 2015.Fox News Cleveland Clinic/Theranos Interview. VIDEO.March 9, 2015"Cleveland Clinic Enters 'Long-Term Strategic Alliance' with Theranos, Inc."Crain's Cleveland Business. By Timothy Magaw. Here.March 9, 2015"Elizabeth Holmes: 2015 Horatio Alger Award Winner."March 13, 2015"Theranos Seeks FDA Approval for Early-detection Ebola Test: George Schultz."Silicon Valley Business Journal. By Ben Soriano. Here.March 17, 2015"Mark Cuban Talks Healthcare Investing: Soon Our Bodies Will Be Big Math Equations."MedCity News. By Stephanie Baum. Here.“Sensors are the next opportunity,” Cuban said. He also voiced his enthusiasm for companies like 23andMe and Theranos.March 23, 2015"Boies Schiller Set to Open Palo Alto Outpost."The Recorder. By Patience Haggin. Here.April 7, 2015"Patients Can Soon Get Lab Tests Without Doctors' Orders."Arizona Republic. By Yvonne Wingett Sanchez & Ken Alltucker. Here.April 8, 2015"Theranos One Step Closer to Consumerizing Health."Decibio [Blog]. By Eric Lakin. Here. [Arizona consumer test law.]April 9, 2015"Arizona Health Law Could Boost Theranos' Biotech Prospects."USA Today [America's Markets]. By Marco Della Cava. Here.April 16, 2015"Elizabeth Holmes."TIME [100 Most Influential People.] By Henry Kissinger. Here.April 17, 2015."How Elizabeth Holmes became inspired to transform blood testing." VIDEOApril 20, 2015"The Doctor is Out: LabCorp to Let Consumers Order Own Tests."Bloomberg. By Cynthia Koons. Here., Also: In slightly different version, same author, Bloomberg Business Week, 4/27/15.April 20, 2015"What News at Theranos? Lab Firm Expands in AZ.""In Arizona, New Consumer Direct Access Law is a First Win for California-Based Theranos.""Theranos: Many Questions, but Very Few Answers."Dark Report (subscription). Here.April 27, 2015"World's Youngest Billionaire – Another Steve Jobs?"CNBC. By Abigail Stevenson. Here.April 27, 2015"Occam's Razor and the Secrecy of Theranos. A Bunch of Crock? No."Medcitynews. By Meghana Keshavan. Here.April 28, 2015"Guest List, State Dinner, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan."Washington Post. Here. (Including Ms. Holmes.)May 5, 2015"Theranos Sticks It to Critics, Plans Expansion of Lab Services."San Francisco Business Times. By Ron Leuty. Here."Can Theranos Disrupt the Clinical Lab Testing Market? An Objective Look at Advantages, Liabilities, and Challenges That Must Be Addressed."
[Pathology] Executive War College. By Dr. Robert Boorstein. [Deck] Here.May 7, 2015"Theranos Jump Starts Consumer Lab Testing."Fortune. By Ron Parloff. Here."My last routine blood tests, drawn at my physician’s office…cost me $433 out of pocket, even after application of my “gold”-level insurance….Had I not been insured, the lab’s price for those tests would have been $2,411, according to the explanation of benefits sent me. The same tests, according to Theranos’s price menu, would have cost me $75."May 7, 2015"New Laboratory Testing Firm Seeks to Shatter Old Diagnostic Testing Model."Genomeweb. Here.May 7, 2015"Silicon Valley Lab Testing Startup Hires Clinton Advisor."May 11, 2015"Our Editor Describes Visit to Theranos Test Center."Dark Report. (Subscription). Here.Sidebar: "Comparing Patient Visit with Advertised Benefits."May 11, 2015"Airbnb Chesky, Theranos Holmes among presidential entrepreneurs."USAToday. By Marco della Cava. Here.Winners met with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and President Obama.May 11, 2015"Elizabeth Holmes on Joining the Presidential Ambassadors for Global Entrepreneurship Initiative."Theranos/news/posts. By Elizabeth Holmes. Here.June 2, 2015.Elizabeth Holmes: Charlie Rose. VIDEO.Here. Comment, Kevin Loria, June 4, 2015.June, 2015"Collecting More Dollars From Patients: Why It’s Time For Clinical Labs and Pathology Groups to Move To The Retail Model."Dark Report [Trade journal, white paper]. Here.This white paper does not mention "Theranos" but covers the topic of retail access to laboratory tests.June 19, 2015"Personalized Technology Will Upend the Doctor-Patient Relationship."Harvard Business Review. By Sundar Subramanian et al. Here.June 21, 2015"The Benefits to Your Brain of a Work Uniform."Providence Journal [Chicago Tribune]. By Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz. Here.June 22, 2015."With Carlos Slim, Billionaire Elizabeth Holmes Brings Innovative Blood Testing Method To Mexico."Forbes. By Dolia Estevez. Here.June 23, 2015"Theranos' New Deal with Billionair Carlos Slim May Take It to Another Level."Biz Journal SF. By Ron Leuty. Here.July 2, 2015"Controversial Multibillion-Dollar Health Startup Theranos Just Got a Huge Seal of Approval from the US Government."Business Insider. By Laren F Friedman. Here.July 2, 2015"Disruptive Diagnostics Firm Theranos Gets Boost from FDA."Fortune. By Roger Parloff. Here.July 3, 2015"Theranos Blood Test: The Insanely Influential Stanford Professor Who Called the Comapny Out for its 'Stealth Research.' "Washington Post. By Ariana Eunjung Cha. Here.July 24, 2015"Biden Visits Theranos Lab as Part of Healthcare Innovation Summit"USAToday. By Marco della Cava. Here.July 24, 2015"Theranos Pushing Direct to Consumer Blood Testing."Health IT Outcomes. By Christine Kern. Here.July 30, 2015"Theranos’ Holmes Marks 50th Anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid with Vision for Next 50 Years."Business Wire [press release]. Here.August 11, 2015"Nickles Takes On Theranos."O'Dwyer PR Inside News, here. (Nickles is a Washington policy group).August 17, 2015"A Good Month for Blood."Laboratory Equipment. By Michelle Taylor. Here.August 19-20, 2015"Leveraging Pharmacies for Rapid Diagnostics."7th Annual Next Generation Diagnostics Summit (Two-Day Track on Pharmacies).While not specific to Theranos, a two-day meeting on lab tests in the pharmacy space.August 24, 2015"Labcorp is Reaching Past Doctor's Office to the Patient."Investors Business Daily. By Gillian Rich. Here.October 5, 2015"Elizabeth Holmes on Using Business to Change the World."Forbes. By Sarah Hedgecock. Here.October 6, 2015"Self Made Billionaire on Re-inventing Blood Tests: It's Like Cocaine."Vanity Fair. By Emily Jane Fox. Here.October 6, 2015"How Theranos is Disrupting the Health Care Industry."Bloomberg. [VIDEO 6:38 min.] Here."A cholesterol test is $2.99, whereas it could cost hundreds in other locations…The response from the lab industry, they have so aggressively seeded false information about us into the press, into journalists, into physicians in the market we are in."October 7, 2015"Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes to Deliver Keynote Address at 2015 Medical Innovation Summit."Craigs Cleveland Business. Here.October 12, 2015"Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes Call on Women to Help Each Other."Fortune. By Michael Lev-Ram. Here.October 12, 2015"CME Group Announces Elizabeth Holmes as the 2015 Melamed-Arditti Innovation Award Receipient."MarketWatch. Here.* * *
Finally here is Draper ssociates' Tim Draper – board member and first investor in Theranos – explaining why "the company is fantastic…I believe 100 % in Elizxabeth Holmes and her company," blaming the recent turmoil on media backlash and the status quo pushing back against someone who is 'disrupting' – which we now know is entirely 100% false as Holmes' just admitted her company's 'product' is a fraud…
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get to be worth $9 billion on a "technology" that was nothing but fraud.
- The Best US Cities For Jobs… For Now
The top cities are dominated by the tech community, with San Jose, CA and San Francisco, CA taking the top two spots in the overall ranking.
Here is the list of top 25 cities based on their overall ranking – Bloomberg points out that San Jose has risen from No. 7 to No. 1
As Bloomberg reports, Glassdoor Inc., a career website, published its list of the top 25 cities for jobs based on factors such as salary, job satisfaction, and cost of living.
Breaking down the details, here is the list for the median salary component – again led by tech heavy cities such as San Jose and San Francisco.
Job satisfaction…
And cost of living… note how incredible the cost of living is in San Jose and San Francisco, surely indicative of the run up in tech companies over the past few years in Silicon Valley, as those high wages and overzealous cash infusions by venture capitalists led to higher cost of living.
We assume this excludes living in a box in someone's front room.
Established tech communities such as San Jose, San Francisco, as well as up and coming tech cities such as Seattle, Boston, and Austin dominate the lists. "This demonstrates why so many people are looking to move to the San Francisco Bay area: Job satisfaction, work-life balance, and hiring opportunities are unparalleled compared to anywhere else in the country. It's not a surprise to see cities like Seattle and Austin at the top since they all have rising technology communities, great institutions for higher education and research, as well as affordable neighborhoods." said Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor.
While we're happy for all of these tech heavy cities making this list, we would caution those reading not to pack up and head to the West Coast just yet. While Silicon Valley has undoubtedly had a good run, the reality is that the second great tech bubble has popped, and impacts are only just beginning to be felt.
* * *
As a refresher for those who are curious, here is a quick timeline chronicling the bursting of the second tech bubble. We first pointed out back in January of 2014 when venture capitalists first started to grow overly speculative and began to pour large sums of money into tech start-ups that the second tech bubble had arrived – at that time there were more than 30 companies in the US, Europe, and China that were valued at $1 billion or more by the private markets.
Our analysis was confirmed a year later when investment bankers had to deliver the news to Dropbox that there was no way it could IPO at its $10 billion private valuation, let alone provide any upside to recent investors.
Then in January of this year we pointed out that as markets were crashing, more and more "unicorns" (companies with a private valuation in excess of $1 billion) were going to be forced to raise capital at lower valuations, and these down rounds would eventually lead to firms having to admit that they'd have to go to market at a much more humble valuation than once thought.
Only one month later, we showed that the bursting of the bubble had made its way to the real economy by way of mass layoffs at all of these once up and coming technology companies. One executive recruiter said at the time "I think what we're seeing is bigger than a small correction. Everyone thinks it will be different this time, but it never is."
And finally, just today we reported that the aggregate of all of the aforementioned events has now made its way into Silicon Valley's real estate market. Luxury homes are now staying on the market longer, and the reality is finally starting to hit home: "The peak is behind us, and that's becoming clearer and clearer to builders and buyers" said an agent of real estate consultancy John Burns.
- Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood?
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com,
I recently received requests from two different readers, one asking for articles covering the “mindset” of globalists (why they do what they do), and another request for articles covering globalist “occultism.” I find that these two topics are very difficult to pursue with a large number of people for a few reasons:
1) Many people do not accept the reality that a group of financial elitists colluding (conspiring) to obtain total global power even exists. Therefore, in order to delve into the topic of the globalist mindset with these “skeptics,” I would first have to re-cover page after page of evidence showing that they not only exist and collude, but that they openly boast about their plans on a regular basis. This is time consuming, to say the least.
2) For some of the people that do eventually accept the reality of a globalist cabal, the argument eventually arises that “yes, there is collusion, but it is merely driven by greed and profit motive,” and not as nefarious as we conspiracy tin-foil mad-hatters imagine.
3) For others, there is a full acceptance of the reality of an organized globalist cult, but they argue that these people are simply a product of a corrupt and ill-structured socio-political system. That is to say, they think that the globalists are a symptom of the troubles that plague humanity, rather than a cause.
This argument is often made by people promoting their own collectivist agenda in one form or another (socialists, communists, scientific dictatorships controlled by people supposedly much smarter than the rest of us, one world-one mind spiritually unhinged theosophic weirdos, etc.). They claim a new system, their system, is the solution rather than getting rid of the globalists, which they say would only leave a “power vacuum” for more tyrants to take their place.
4) Finally, there are the evangelical revelations seekers obsessed with Armageddon. They fully accept that the globalists exist, that they conspire internationally to gain power and influence towards the goal of a “new world order” and that they are essentially evil minded in their intentions. However, they argue that it is either futile to fight against such people because they are supported by power from somewhere beyond, or they even argue that to fight against the globalists is wrong because it is in defiance of the plan put forward in the Bible.
So, as you can see, it is a veritable circus of horrors whenever I write on the subject of who the globalists really are and what they really want. Beyond that, it is very difficult to examine this subject matter, even with ample evidence, without coming off like a wackaloon.
It is hard enough convincing people of the obvious economic crisis facing America and the rest of the world and convincing them to put in minimal effort to prepare, let alone convincing them of the psychopathic and cult-like nature of the elite behind that crisis. In other words, if you approach someone new to this information cold and hit them right away with tales of luciferians, Washington D.C. child pedo-rings and gay romp power-club parties in the California Redwoods with a giant stone owl called “Molech,” you probably aren’t going to get your foot in the door.
That said, I’ll address the inevitable arguments above very quickly before I begin my analysis of the Globalist mind.
1) Psychopaths tend to naturally gravitate towards positions of power, and despite some foolish assumptions out there that these people are too volatile to play nice with others, they do in fact work together as long as there is a guarantee of mutual benefit.
Elites have conspired throughout history, this is well documented fact. I find it amazing that some folks cannot grasp the idea that they might also be conspiring today. If you need evidence of such collusion, you are welcome to read my articles The Fall Of America Signals The Rise Of The New World Order and Order Out Of Chaos: The Doctrine That Runs The World. If you want to know where to find these people simply look at the memberships of institutions designed specifically to promote globalism – Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, The Club Of Rome, Rand Corporation, the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, ect. Though they often obscure their more malicious intentions, globalists are relatively easy to find.
One might argue that the problem of organized psychopathy cannot be dealt with unless one confronts individual psychopathy. I’m sorry to say that at least 10% of the population (according to psychologist Carl Gustav Jung) at any given time has elements of inborn latent psychopathy and at least 1% is actively psychopathic. You will NEVER remove psychopathy from humanity. It is an inborn quality. What you can do, though, is disrupt or destroy organizations of people that foster and elevate psychopaths. Organized psychopathy is the real and pressing problem.
2) If you need convincing that the globalists are not just “greedy capitalists” out to make a buck at the expense of the world, check out my article Global Eitism: The Character Traits Of Truly Evil People and read some of the quotes directly attributed to them. Their goal is to gain as much power over the masses as possible. They see themselves as modern Pharaohs, not as businessmen. Wealth is a side-note.
3) There have been only fleeting instances of societies without the all-pervasive influence of organized elitism in history. From these minor instances, though, we can see bursts of human potential, productivity and invention, as well as greater respect for inherent conscience and justice. Sadly, no one in the past has ever taken the action of removing elitist groups entirely as a factor of influence.
Anyone who claims that the globalists are nothing more than a “symptom” is probably trying to sell you on an ideology rather than a real solution. The fact of the matter is, we have never lived in a world without the influence of globalist conspiracy. They are like a cancer that has turned psychopathy into a religion. Removing the globalists should be a top priority. NO system is going to succeed, regardless of how brilliantly conceived, unless the elitists are out of the picture.
I would even venture to say that the people who argue that the globalists are nothing more than a symptom are in fact HELPING the globalists by distracting activists away from the real task at hand. Playing at philosophy and theoretical society building will not change the existing power structure in any way, nor will it remove the muzzle of a rifle from the back of your head as you stare down at the ditch that is to become your final resting place.
4) The majority of the Bible is composed of stories of good standing against evil, and I simply cannot take anyone seriously who argues that the Bible demands we sit idle in the face of despotism. I don’t believe in the modernized “Left Behind” interpretations of “apocalypse” and even if I did, different groups have been saying that the end times are right around the corner for ages. Frankly, no one knows or will know if such an event of metaphysical proportions is taking place anyway.
Now, I do believe in full-spectrum crisis and societal collapse, because these events have happened over and over again and can even be reasonably predicted according to past indicators. I also believe that current events are rife with such indicators and that a collapse is taking place in stages today. I also know that there are groups of elites engineering this collapse and I know exactly why because they have openly admitted their goals (read my article The Economic End Game Explained). Apocalypse is not my concern. Right and wrong, justice and tyranny are my concerns. I’ll leave the rest to more omniscient and omnipresent beings.
The Problem We Face Is Organized Evil
Now that the above questions are out of the way we can jump into the core of the problem. And no, the core of the problem is not the “system” we live in per say, or our methodology of living and progressing as a species. Again, there are too many eggheads in the liberty movement that like to pretend they have grand and ingenious new ways of looking at the world, and if only we would just “listen to their brilliant vision” everything would change for the better. When you boil down their philosophies you often find they have no new ideas whatsoever, or that their ideas cannot be implemented because they have not dealt with the elephant in the room — the globalists.
Philosophy without tangible action and verifiable results is ultimately useless in the face of true evil. Intellectual warriors rarely win wars, but they do often die horribly as a result of their naivety and defenselessness.
To answer the question in the title of this article, yes, the globalists are in fact evil and the only misunderstandings are on the part of wide-eyed skeptics that have bought into the idea that “evil” is a moral conception created by religion rather than an inherent quality of human beings.
As Carl Jung discovered in his studies on the collective unconscious, people are born with inherent and conflicting conceptions and traits, or “dualities.” Good vs. Evil is an important duality we all come in to the world dealing with, it is not a mere product of environment or religious influence. That which is “good” is often dictated by what we call “conscience,” which again is an inherent idea or “voice,” and is only partly influenced by environment. The fact of inherent character traits and universal moral codes is present in anthropological studies as well as psychological studies beyond Jung’s very extensive work.
To define evil, we would have to look at those ideas and actions that are opposite inherent conscience. The globalists have basically constructed a festering belief system around everything that is contrary to our moral compass. I will attempt to dissect some elements of that belief system from a secular point of view. Wish me luck…
Occultism
Occultism in itself is not necessarily “evil,” it only means “secret knowledge.” But the history of occultism is plagued by rather evil deeds and attitudes. John F. Kennedy once warned of secret societies and secret proceedings, and with good reason. For thousands of years, occult groups often withheld valuable knowledge from the masses as a means to influence behavior and control the direction of society. This did not have to be “magical” knowledge, whatever that means. Usually, it was scientific or psychological knowledge.
Say for example that a group of elitists withheld detailed knowledge of an impending economic collapse because this knowledge gave them a feeling of superiority and an advantage that they could exploit to gain power over others. Often, occult knowledge, secret knowledge, is driven by the selfish desire of one group to maintain a sense of dominance over another. Is it evil to withhold knowledge that could save lives for the sake of self-elevation? I would say absolutely.
Occultism can also lead to temptations of ever increasing criminality. If groups of people in positions of power maintain a well-oiled machine of secrecy that draws a dark curtain on their behavior, a machine that allows them to cover for each others actions to ensure no repercussions from outsiders, it is only a matter of time before the lack of transparency opens a door to greater evil. One act of evil left unpunished tends to breed many future acts of evil practiced with impunity.
Luciferianism
So yeah, it’s almost impossible to broach this subject without sounding crazy to people who aren’t already familiar with it. But as requested, I’ll take a stab at it.
Do globalists really believe in a devil with a pitchfork and hooves and horns? I really don’t know. What I do know is that many of them believe in the ideas behind the mythology of the figure (even Saul Alinsky dedicated his book ‘Rules For Radicals’ to Lucifer).
The Lucifer mythology is one of rebellion, a rebellion against the the Christian God. But how would this translate to elitist behavior? They define inherent conscience and moral compass (checks and balances put in place by God?) as a “restriction” or imprisonment of the individual, and they seem to only esteem individuals as those seeking their own “Godhood.”
The way liberty proponents value individualism is very different from the way elitists value individualism.
Lucifer as an archetypal figure represents a rebellion against almost EVERYTHING, including nature. Of course, nature is not a toy to be played with selfishly because catastrophe inevitably results. Moral compass is a guide that keeps humanity from destroying itself, and without it civilizations fall. Luciferianism, at the very least, fosters destructive tendencies and rebellion against the very fabric of humanity. With such people at the helm of entire nations, millions if not billions of innocents will suffer in the scorched path of elites seeking to revolt against inherent moral and natural boundaries as they role play in an ignorant daydream of satanic hero worship, and this is without a doubt evil.
Do What Thou Wilt
Attributed to Aleister Crowley, a self-professed satanist, you will see this ideology pop up in globalist circles and pop-culture icons alike. Crowley apologists often argue that the quote it is taken from refers to the “law of love.” But the love of what? The love of others, or the love of one’s self? Do what thou wilt as long as it does not hurt others, or do what thou wilt regardless of the consequences?
The latter interpretation is clearly the one globalists have taken to heart. Since elitists consistently treat the lowly masses as vermin that need to be exterminated for the good of the planet (and their own amusement), I see little indication that they have the ability to conceive of love, let alone adopt a philosophy of love. Do what thou wilt, however the idea was originally intended, has become a rationale for the globalist propensity of crushing others in the name of “greatness”.
Moral Relativism
Evil people are not as immune to the judgments of others as you might think. In fact, many of them become a bit obsessive about people accepting or even praising the things they do. I can only theorize that if in their minds everyone else subscribes to an evil behavior then it is no longer evil, but normal.
Moral relativism is the act of rationalizing a destructive or evil process by claiming that a positive end result or intention washes away responsibility. The ends justify the means. Globalists could not care less about the consequences of their actions to others, but they do feel the need to justify those actions in a way that people will embrace. From my observations, the majority of globalist propaganda revolves entirely around the concept of moral relativism and the lie that good is only about perception while evil is a “gray area,” or an illusion. As Kevin Spacey says in the movie 'The Usual Suspects', “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist…”
The Solution
As stated earlier, it really does not matter what brand of social system we implement. It really does not matter what kind of economic model we employ. It really does not matter if we somehow find a way to promote enlightened thinking on a massive scale. None of it matters if we do not also confront the organized evil of the globalist cabal.
It is interesting how many people strive so hard to avoid acknowledging the fight that is coming by clinging to the notion that the globalists are “misunderstood” or “not important” in the grand scheme of things.
While I work to promote alternative trade models through localism and alternative-security models through community preparedness teams, I also accept that these efforts are a half-measure; mere preparation for an unavoidable conflict between people who hold the contents of their conscience dear (those who view the non-aggression principle as an integral part of a free and healthy civilization), and the globalists, who hold nothing dear accept themselves, their cult and their ambitions.
Evil is a part of every human being, just as good is a part of every human being. It is a battle we all struggle with until the day we die. But organized evil is something else entirely. It is not something we have to tolerate, and it is something we can change. Until it is expunged from our society, no other solutions can be fully enacted. Therefore, the solution begins with the end of organized evil, and it is a solution I plan to enact in my own way. The solution begins with the eradication of the globalists.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...