TDS Democrats Should Move to Venezuela...

 ...and experience living in an actual 'Socialist Paradise'!

Le Pen Banned. Representative Democracy has Died in France

France now has the Liberal Globalist Equivalent of the Ayatollah Khomeini's Velayat al Fiqh, "Guardianship of the Eurozone Jurists".  In other words, a "theocracy" built upon inverted secular globalist principles where only an "ideologically acceptable" globalist/ imam/ priest can run for office.

EU Deep State Plots Moves to Remove France's Le Pen...

...ala "Lawfare".  Welcome to Romania, Marie!

Democracy Dies in Darkness.  

Continuity of Government is ALL that matters now.

Harvesting the Rotten Fruits of the War on Terror (aka Domestic Populations)

Dervish Sanders, Pathocratic DNC/ PMC Pawn...

"...cuz Black Lives MATTER!"

Speaking of Pathocracy's and Pathocrats, Hillary Clinton is Promising a Soft-Power Comeback in 2028!

Big Money Defecting from the Democratic Party...

h/t - Woodsterman

Woodsterman Instant Classics

On Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

How much do Human CO2 and other Greenhouse Gas emissions contribute to the Total Global Warming effect upon the Earth?  What "percent" is directly attributable to industrialization and human activity in general (aka AGW)?  Answer 0.28%.  The other 99.72% is completely "natural" (not the result of human activity).

On Your "Protectors" in the US Government and US Intelligence Community...

...who keep insisting that the Trump Administration is "irresponsible"...  @@

Replacing Historical Monuments

 MiniTru Momemts

How long do you think it will be before Democrats vote to replace the Statue of Freedom currently atop the US Capitol Dome with some Trafalgaresque "4th Plinth" Trans-Art Installation (in the name of Inclusivity)?  It's not like they haven't replaced and repurposed Monuments before now...

Teresa Margolles, "Mil Veces un Instante"

After All, "What is a Woman"?

The Democratic Party's Utopian Vision of the 'Perfect' Society

“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”

–Hannah Ardent, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"

---

Once the Party of White Superiority and Jim Crow (model for NAZI anti-Jewish Laws), the Democrats have Reinvented themselves and committed themselves to a new mission, atoning for their own historical bigotry.  It's the Party of White Guilt-Pride.  Guilty for its' Past History... yet Proud of it's new Mission of Redemption granted to them by their Patron Saint, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement that they once so arduously fought, succumbed to in '64, and then  re-purposed through supporting, with over-swollen "white guilt-pride Spirit" in their new-found commitment to the virtue of nondiscrimination (aka- "not thinking/ not distinguishing and finding patterns in information") with the zeal of a born-again Christian convert, using "race" as the excuse to "not-see race" (as past sin atonement), rather than simply not seeing race as a very useful "category of thought" like normal people.

from a Slavoj Zizek talk

Marx's vision of Communism remains all too much a vision of Capitalism without Capital, without Capitalism. Marx always speaks as if we have this incredible dynamic in Capitalism, but then at a certain stage of development, you drop the form of Capital, search for profit, and so on; and you will get uh self-propelled, even more crazy, wild expansion reproduction. I think precisely, and here I'm entering your topic of lack and access, I think that precisely, leaps as we are experiencing today, this will not happen. 

The greatest Hegelian Insight that we get is that something that may appear to be an obstacle to full development of a field is its' condition of possibility. So you take away the obstacle, and you lose, at the same time, what this was an obstacle to. 

Now we take an example, I apologize myself sincerely but I just don't have a better example, if it will sound slightly male chauvinist, no? It's an old story that I repeat again all the time. I was flirting, years ago with a lady. I will not tell you "where, who said, "The last lover who saw me naked told me that my body is perfect... just, it was "almost perfect", it would have been just better, if I were to lose just two pounds. And I told her immediately, "just don't do that." Because you need this imperfection to give birth to the fantasy, "My god, without that you would be perfect!" But if you take away the obstacle, she would just be bland, average, you lose it.

So, I will not lose time here, something along this, I think, happens with Marx, when he all the time says that "the form of Capital is the obstacle." Yes, but only in the form of this obstacle can the expanded self reproduction function.

The Democratic Party's vision of a perfect society is a society without any traces of discrimination.  It's prime function is to eliminate ALL and EVERY vestige of discrimination, and make every citizen exactly the same... perfect "equity", not only in an "opportunity" sense, but in a "realized" one. 

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

-Nietzsche

---

But what would happen if that mission were to be realized, if this goal were to be accomplished?  The Democratic Party's entire purpose and function would disappear, the Party would revert to being a bland, average, "Republican-style UniParty.   Anti-discrimination is the Democratic Party's very political-market discriminator.  Without the perception of rampant discrimination, and a villain perpetrating it to be vanquished (ala Hamlet's Claudius), the Democratic Party would disappear.  And so it keeps its' imaginary politically-derived-divisions of villains: racists, homophobes, trans-phobes, alive.  It see's them everywhere... even as "systemic" in nature.  It must, because without them, they would serve no purpose.

To the monsters, we're the monsters

And as the Democratic Party get closer and closer to accomplishing this goal of complete and total "equity", it needs to not only invent new categories of discrimination, but it must keep the vanquished categories of villains and incidents alive as well, lest it lose its' +50% elected majority.  It becomes a victim of its' own success, requiring ever new, petty, and ever miniscule "categories" of victims.  And so it must manufacture hate crimes, and hold them up as examples of their party's continued relevancy.  It must keep memories of the old, vanquished discriminating oppressors alive, lest they lose the votes of their formerly historically victimized and oppressed groups. They believe that their Party alone must be perceived as the Heroes and Saviours of the perpetually oppressed, and anyone who opposes them, one of the vile and perennially evil discriminating/ oppressor class.

Acta non Verba: Masculine Activism (Hamlet); NOT Ophelia in War Communism or Pallas Athena

The more perfect our society actually becomes, the more inventive of victims, the more "petty" the Democratic Party arguments justifying their intervention must become.  Vanquishing 99.99999% of the racists is never enough.  They need to relentlessly pursue and masculinely exterminate the remaining 0.00001% with NAZI-Like fascistic determination.  And if they succeed, much as with Marx's vision of Communism, the Government will *poof* disappear... and along with it, the Democratic Party itself thereby proving the adage that "What begins in tragedy, ends in farce."  The unseen problem being that not only will the need for Government disappear, but there will be nothing left of the Utopian society it envisioned either.  For the apparent obstacle to full development of a field is also its' very condition of possibility, forming a "quantum entanglement" of ideological concepts that pop into and out of conscious existence.

I feel so good about myself!  

I'm fighting FASCISTS and RACISTS and HOMOPHOBES, Oh MY!

The Revolution Will NOT Be Televised!

...all that spectators got to know about the war was in the form of propaganda imagery. The closely watched media presentations made it impossible to distinguish between the experience of what truly happened in the conflict, and its stylized, selective misrepresentation through simulacra.

- Jean Baudrillard, "The Gulf War Did Not take Place"

---

Kevin Roberts, "We are living through the Second American Revolution"

The American people are once again asserting their right to self-governance

On March 23, 1775, a month before the first shots would ring out at Lexington and Concord, Patrick Henry entered Saint John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia to deliver a bold conviction. “The war is actually begun,” he said, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Henry’s rallying cry remains one of the most iconic speeches in American history and is one of my personal favorites. Indeed, multiple times since we moved to northern Virginia in 2021, my family and I have made the drive south to see Henry’s speech reenacted. The message remains as compelling as ever, and this year, on its 250th anniversary, I believe it is especially relevant to our current political moment.

We are facing a struggle for ordered liberty. We are challenging a political regime that subverts our rights, ignores our petitions, persecutes our friends and spurns our way of life. We are, as I put it on Steve Bannon’s War Room last July, “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

When I first suggested this, the Biden campaign, MSNBC hosts and their wax-museum conservative counterparts relentlessly mocked and attacked me – just as British loyalists and “moderate” colonists no doubt did to Henry in 1775 when he correctly predicted that conflict was inevitable. But much as the subsequent victories at Lexington and Concord confirmed Henry’s prediction, President Trump’s definitive victory in November and his blitz of executive actions to cut down the deep state since taking office have confirmed my own.

The American people are once again asserting their right to self-governance. They are rejecting submission to unelected bureaucrats and slavery to technocratic government. They are embracing common sense and exercising their power to advance the common good. And the left – bereft of ideas and more concerned with maintaining the status quo than honoring the will of the American people – has responded to this popular upheaval with desperation, profanity and violence.

This became obvious to every American when President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania last July. It has only become more undeniable since.

On Inauguration Day a man in Oregon threw Molotov cocktails at a Tesla and threatened the driver with a gun. Later that month, a woman in Colorado repeatedly went to a Tesla car lot to spray paint “Nazi” on the dealership’s sign. This, it turns out, was only the beginning. Since then, the American car business has been under attack across the country, as more cars get set alight.

Meanwhile a crazed Massachusetts man came to Washington with Molotov cocktails, knives and the intent to burn down the Heritage Foundation and kill Pete Hegseth, Speaker Mike Johnson and Scott Bessent.

In February, Democrat elected representatives joined in and began pushing crazy rhetoric of their own. Representative Kweisi Mfume – whose birth name is Frizzell Gerard Tate – proposed a “street fight” to push back against Elon Musk. Ilhan Omar escalated even further, arguing that Musk’s efforts “might actually see somebody get killed.” And to make the second American Revolution analogy concrete, Representative LaMonica McIver came right out and said, “We are at war!”

This insane rhetoric only shows how out of touch Democrats are with the American people. Today their motto is effectively: give me $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala or give me death. It is the antithesis of the American spirit, and their “resistance” is as pathetic as it sounds.

That’s because the Democrats don’t represent a “resistance” at all. They are part and parcel of the Uniparty establishment that controls Washington and has been working for decades to expand its malign influence into every part of American life. Similarities between them and the overbearing British who ruled over the colonies in the 1760s and 70s abound.

The British forced Patrick Henry and his fellow patriots to quarter soldiers in their homes. Our tyrannical elite is forcing us to pay millions of dollars to process illegal immigrants into our country, house them in our communities and educate them in our schools.

Britain’s Royal Proclamation of 1763 restrained Americans’ frontier spirit by forbidding them from settling west of the Appalachian mountains. The unelected bureaucrats that rule us are restraining that same spirit through overregulation and censorship.

King George III and the British parliament unjustly taxed the colonists to pay for their incompetent management of a global empire. And if Donald Trump’s dismantling of USAID has proven anything, it is that our rulers have been unjustly taxing us to pay for their own incompetent management of a global empire.

The Second American Revolution pits this insulated elite class of managers and bureaucrats against an increasingly broad swath of the American people, whom they do not know, can make no credible claim to represent and have utterly failed. The diverse coalition that elected President Trump this November proves as much. One in four black men under 50 voted for Trump. Roughly 45 percent of Latinos voted for Trump. Voters without a college degree supported President Trump by 13 points.

These Americans have even less in common with the progressive bureaucrats ruling them than America’s founders did with their British overlords at the time of the first American revolution. Sure, it could take up to six weeks to travel across the Atlantic in the 1770s, but at least the English spoke the same language as their subjects, structured their families in similar ways and worshipped the same God. Today, our bureaucrats mock religion and are so morally bankrupt that it is oftentimes impossible to reason with them.

The only legitimate option is to defeat them. Like our founding fathers, we must be victorious.

The good news is that we are well on our way. Right now, President Trump’s executive orders and decisive actions are systematically dismantling the deep state’s hard power. On his first day in office, he terminated all remote work arrangements for federal employees. Then, he introduced an unprecedented, deferred resignation program which convinced more than 75,000 unelected bureaucrats to resign their posts. And last month he signed a new executive order requiring all federal agencies to fire at least four people for every one person they hire. Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DoGE) incredible work has undermined the regime’s soft power by exposing its waste and corruption unlike ever before.

Make no mistake, these have only been the opening skirmishes in what will be a long fight. Though President Trump’s has already delivered a major blow, the deep state remains powerful. Slowly but surely, it is forming its counteroffensive. Corrupt federal judges are blocking the President’s executive orders. Colleges and universities are disguising their DEI programs to prevent losing federal funding. Countless bureaucrats are laying low in federal agencies, waiting for the opportunity to upend the people’s agenda. Even as fewer and fewer people are tuning in, the mainstream media is still doing everything it can to disparage Trump.

Confronting such a force, there is no room for complacency. Patrick Henry understood this. In his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, he reminded his fellow patriots of the need for urgent action against the enemy, saying: “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?”

We must heed his words and ask the same question today. When shall the American people be stronger? When will the American people have a better chance to dismantle the deep state and restore their rights? When will they get another opportunity to rescue the Republic our ancestors fought and died for?

They may not get another opportunity. There is no better time than now.

We are living in the Second American Revolution. We are stronger than we’ve ever been, and we must use every moral lever of power at our disposal to restore our founding principles, recover the basic norms of Western civilization (such as the notion that men and women are different), and revive the traditional institutions of American life by restoring their original purpose.

Despite the left’s fearmongering, none of this requires violence. But it does require us to remember the promise of Patrick Henry that “millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

TRANtifa-Adjacent Kitsch Stays Public

The "Good People" @@ Resolve to Smother Baby Hitler in His Crib

...and Keep Escape-Goating into Hyper-Real DEI Bubbles

Europe's Voice of Reason...

Yanis Varoufakis, "The Case Against European Rearmament"

If we truly want to strengthen Europe, the first step is not to rearm. It is to forge the democratic union without which stagnation will continue to erode Europe’s capacities, rendering it unable to rebuild what is left of Ukraine once Vladimir Putin is finished with it.

ATHENS – Inducting Ukraine into NATO after forcing Russia back behind its pre-2014 borders has been the only strategic aim EU leaders have allowed themselves to contemplate since Russia’s invasion three years ago. Alas, well before US President Donald Trump’s re-election, this aim slipped into the realm of infeasibility. The writing had been on the wall for a while.

First, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war economy proved a godsend to his regime. Second, even Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, was terminally unwilling to push for Ukraine’s NATO membership, leading the country down the garden path with vague promises. And, third, there was strong bipartisan opposition in the United States to the idea of NATO troops fighting alongside Ukrainians.

So, in a display of breathtaking hypocrisy, the many “Putin is the new Hitler” speeches never resulted in a commitment to fight alongside the Ukrainians until Putin’s army was defeated on the ground. Instead, a cowardly West kept sending weapons to the exhausted Ukrainians so that they could defeat the “new Hitler” on its behalf – but on their own.

Inevitably, and despite gallant fighting by increasingly outgunned and outnumbered Ukrainian soldiers, European leaders’ sole strategic aim turned to dust – a reality that would have become undeniable regardless of who won the US presidency last November. Trump merely brought it forward with a brutality reflecting his long-held contempt not just for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky but also for the EU itself. And so, lacking any Plan B, a Europe weakened by a two-decades-long economic slump is now struggling to respond to Trump’s Ukraine policy.

After the Munich Agreement in 1938, Winston Churchill famously proclaimed that Neville Chamberlain had been “given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” In their angst not to make the same mistake, EU leaders are about to repeat it, in reverse: their war-until-victory approach will give way to the humiliating peace that Trump will gleefully impose on them, and on Zelensky’s government, when they eventually come begging.

While it is undoubtedly true that Europe must either rise to the occasion or disintegrate, the question is: Rise how? What’s really wrong with Europe? What is the EU missing the most?

It beggars belief that Europeans cannot recognize the answer staring us in the face: Europe is missing a proper Treasury, the equivalent of the State Department, and a Parliament with the power to dismiss what passes as its government (the European Council). Even worse, there is still no discussion of how to plug these gaping holes in Europe’s institutional architecture.

The EU has always dreaded the beginning of any Ukraine peace process precisely because it would expose the bloc’s nakedness. Who would represent Europe at the negotiating table, even if Trump invited us to join? Even if the European Commission and Council could wave a magic wand to conjure a large, well-armed EU army into existence, who would have the democratic authority to send it into battle to kill and be killed?

Moreover, who can raise enough taxes to ensure the EU army’s permanent combat-readiness? The EU’s intergovernmental decision-making means that no one has the democratic legitimacy to make such decisions.

When Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, recently announced her new ReArm Europe initiative, sad memories of the incompetent Juncker Plan, Green Deal, and Recovery Plan came flooding back. Large headline figures were again being tossed about, only to be exposed on closer scrutiny as smoke and mirrors. Does anyone seriously expect France to increase its already-unsustainable public-finance deficit to fund weaponry?

Absent the institutions to enact military Keynesianism, the only way Europe can rearm is by shifting funds from its crumbling social and physical infrastructure – further weakening a Europe already reaping the bitter harvest of popular discontent, which is fueling the rise of far-right forces across the continent. And for what? Does anyone believe that Putin will be deterred by a Europe that may have a few more shells and howitzers but is drifting further away from the prospect of the federal governance needed to decide matters of war and peace?

ReArm Europe will do nothing to win the war for Ukraine. It will, however, almost certainly drive the EU deeper into its pre-existing economic slump – the underlying cause of Europe’s weakness. To keep Europeans safe in the face of the twin challenges posed by Trump and Putin, the EU must embark on its own multipronged Peace Now process.

First, the EU must reject outright Trump’s predatory effort to grab Ukraine’s natural resources. Then, after floating the prospect of relaxing sanctions and returning $300 billion in frozen assets (which cannot simultaneously be used as a bargaining chip and for Ukraine’s reconstruction), the EU should commence negotiations with the Kremlin, offering the prospect of a comprehensive strategic arrangement within which Ukraine becomes what Austria was during the Cold War: sovereign, armed, neutral, and as integrated with Western Europe as its citizens desire.

Third, instead of a permanent stand-off between two large armies along the agreed border, the EU should propose a demilitarized zone at least 500 kilometers (310 miles) deep on each side, the right of return of all displaced people, a Good Friday-style agreement for the governance of disputed areas, and a Green New Deal for the war-torn areas, jointly financed by the EU and Russia. All outstanding issues should be addressed in negotiations held under the auspices of the United Nations.

Lastly, the EU should use the prospect of relaxing tariffs on Chinese goods (green tech, in particular) and sanctions on technology exports to open negotiations with China with a view to a new security arrangement that reduces tensions and enlists the Chinese to the goal of safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty.

If we truly want to strengthen Europe, the first step is not to rearm. It is to forge the democratic union without which stagnation will continue to erode Europe’s capacities, rendering it unable to rebuild what is left of Ukraine once Putin is finished with it.

Unveiling UK Government Sponsored Fascism...

...and How the Government-Media Censorship Industrial Complex originated out of a desiring affirmative action machine

Political Patronage Social Casting vs. Individual Merit for Success in Life!

"Politically Bestowed" not "Individually Earned"

Trans Activists ala 'Ziz' Behind Tesla Terrorism? Or just Impotent Left Black Bloc Activists of All Stripes?

The Zizian Estrogen Must be Kicking in... for the "desiring femininity" machine

The Rise of TRANTIFA - Fascistic Antifa Activism

Will Democrats Schedule a 'Night of the Long Knives'?  Or in interpreting Musk's DOGE actions as technofascist provocations simply let the Zizians 'slip the fascist-antifascist leash'?

Dervish Sanders: Anti-Fascist Fascism Influencer

The Democrat Party - Embracing AI and Becoming the New/Fascist Right

...and please, "new" aesthetic of fascism?  Kitsch has ALWAYS been the aesthetic of fascism.

AI: The Perfect 'Technocrat" (Every AI an Eichmann)

White Guilt-Pride: Sinthome for Dervy's Excessive Pavlovian Withdrawal and which allows him to both "discount/ dismiss" the claims of whites and "remove them" from his salience frame.  Got "woke" euphemisms for racial discrimination (affirmative action, diversity, equity, inclusion, "social" justice)?  Derv's got plenty!

Feminism: The Masculinization of the Female...

...and Utter Rejection of Socialism's Blessings of Fathers Normally Given to Daughters under Patriarchy by these Now "Butcher" Daughters of Eve...

...Seizing the "Means of Production" under Secular Capitalism...

...and so now ever Striving to fill their Own Purse with Water with an Unreliable and Leaky Government Siphon that travels from Each's Own Purse into Another's.

Baltimore Builds a 1965 Corvair...

I shoulda developed real estate in China....

from Wikipedia:

Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile is a non-fiction book by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, first published in 1965. Its central theme is that car manufacturers resisted the introduction of safety features (such as seat belts), and that they were generally reluctant to spend money on improving safety. The work contains substantial references and material from industry insiders. It was a best seller in non-fiction in 1966.

The book resulted in the creation of the United States Department of Transportation in 1966 and the predecessor agencies of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1970.

Theme[edit]

Unsafe at Any Speed's critique of the Chevrolet Corvair received widespread attention. It also dealt with the use of tires and tire pressure being based on comfort rather than on safety, and the automobile industry disregarding technically based criticism.[2] A 1972 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report disputed Nader's allegations about abnormal handling in sharp turns and suggested that the Corvair's rollover rate was comparable to similar cars.[3]

Each of the book's chapters covers a different aspect of automotive safety:

Corvair swing-axle rear suspension

The subject for hich the book is probably most widely known, the rear-engined Chevrolet Corvair, is covered in Chapter 1—"The Sporty Corvair–The One-Car Accident." This relates to the first models (1960-1963) that had a swing-axle suspension design which was prone to "tuck under" in certain circumstances. George Caramagna, a mechanic working on the suspension system, suggested installing a stabilizer (anti-roll or "anti-sway") bar, but was overruled by GM management.[citation needed] To make up for the cost-cutting lack of a front stabilizer bar, Corvairs required tire pressures which were outside of the tire manufacturers' recommended tolerances. The Corvair relied on an unusually high front to rear pressure differential (15 psi front, 26 psi rear, when cold; 18 psi and 30psi hot), and if one inflated the tires equally, as was standard practice for all other cars at the time, the result was a dangerous oversteer.[4] Despite proper tire pressures being more critical than for contemporaneous designs, Chevrolet salespeople and Corvair owners were not properly advised of the requirement and risk. According to the standards of the Tire and Rim Association, these recommended pressures caused the front tires to be overloaded whenever there were two or more passengers in the car.

An unadvertised at-cost option (#696) included upgraded springs and dampers, front anti-roll bars and rear-axle-rebound straps to prevent tuck-under.[citation needed] Aftermarket kits were also available, such as the EMPI Camber Compensator, for the knowledgeable owner. The suspension was modified for 1964 models, with inclusion of a standard front anti-roll bar and a transverse-mounted rear spring. In 1965, the totally redesigned four-link, fully independent rear suspension maintained a constant camber angle at the wheels. A redesign for the 1965 model eliminated the tuck-under crash tendency.

The Difference Between Guilt (feeling bad About Yourself (AY)), Pride (feeling good AY) and Performative Guilt-Pride (performative feeling good about feeling bad AY for OTHERS)...?

“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”

–Hannah Ardent, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"

Modern Day Congressional Sadducees Meet to Discuss "Trump"...

Sadducees (Elites)

The Sadducees were a Jewish sect that held power in Judea from the second century BCE until 70 CE. 

They were a political and religious elite, and were closely tied to the Temple in Jerusalem. The 

Sadducees dissolved after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.

Beliefs:

They believed only the Torah was sacred
They believed in strict adherence to the law of Moses
They believed in strict adherence to Temple worship and sacrifices
They did not believe in resurrection of the dead
They did not believe in an afterlife
They believed in the power of humanity's free will

Pharisees (Middle Classes)

The Pharisees were a Jewish group that existed in the Levant during the Second Temple period. They were known for their strict adherence to Jewish law and their belief in oral tradition.

Beliefs:

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead
They believed in a coming messiah
They believed in the reward of good and punishment of evil
They believed in the sacredness of attending the Temple
They believed in priestly purity for all Jews
They believed in providence or fate

The Ethics of Kitsch and Evil Married!

The Rest of us....

Numbers 11:18-22 (NIV)

18 “Tell the people: ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, when you will eat meat. The Lord heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the Lord will give you meat, and you will eat it. 19 You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, 20 but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the Lord, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?”’”

21 But Moses said, “Here I am among six hundred thousand men on foot, and you say, ‘I will give them meat to eat for a whole month!’ 22 Would they have enough if flocks and herds were slaughtered for them? Would they have enough if all the fish in the sea were caught for them?”

CO2 Fixations, and the cure.

The Culture Industry's Information Bubbles...

...or, Perfecting the Illusion of Choice in an Environment of Interpassive Affective Engagement Fueled by FOMO.

British Intelligence's US Rabble Rousers...

On USAID Funding & Soros Open Society Institutes in Europe/ Romania

Big Lies and Ukraine

Has the Time Come to Realize the EU or the DiEM25 Dream?

DiEM25 seeks to create a more democratic Europe. They see the European Union becoming a technocratic superstate ruled by edict. DiEM25 aims instead to make Europe a union of people governed by democratic consent through a policy of decentralisation.

So Instead, why not do as the US Colonies did and write a European Constitution along the Swiss Canton Model?

Switzerland's canton system is a division of the country into administrative regions, similar to US states. Each canton has its own government, legislature, and constitution.

How are cantons governed?

Each canton has a capital city and its own official language.

Cantons manage education, healthcare, social welfare, law enforcement, and direct taxation.

Cantons have unicameral parliaments, with the number of seats varying between 58 and 200.

The Council of States has 46 members, two from each canton and one from each half canton.

The National Council has 200 members, elected by proportional representation in each canton.

History of cantons

Before the establishment of the Swiss federal state in 1848, each canton was a fully sovereign state with its own borders, army, and currency.

Three cantons—Unterwalden, Basel, and Appenzell—are subdivided into demicantons, or half cantons, which function as full cantons.

Some notable cantons:

Fribourg was the first French-speaking canton to join the Swiss Confederation.

Appenzell is known for its scenery, traditions, and mountain inns.

Glarus is known for its serene mountain lakes.

Schaffhausen is known for its stunning towns and the Rhine.

St Gallen is known for its culture and landscapes.

Thurgau is known for its countryside, history on the river, and lakes.

Salvador Dali, "William Tell" (1930)

On the Origins of Guilt-Pride in the PMC and Capitalist Elites

Varoufakis @ DiEM25

A Blustering of Outmoded Binaries and Failed Platitudes!

Techno-Socialism Uber Alles!

The Nefarious Plotters, Exposed!

Yanis Varoufakis,"Donald Trump’s economic masterplan: He's plotting an Anti-Nixon shock"

Faced with President Trump’s economic moves, his centrist critics oscillate between desperation and a touching faith that his tariff frenzy will fizzle out. They assume that Trump will huff and puff until reality exposes the emptiness of his economic rationale. They have not been paying attention: Trump’s tariff fixation is part of a global economic plan that is solid — albeit inherently risky.

Their thinking is hard-wired onto a misconception of how capital, trade and money move around the globe. Like the brewer who gets drunk on his own ale, centrists ended up believing their own propaganda: that we live in a world of competitive markets where money is neutral and prices adjust to balance the demand and the supply of everything. The unsophisticated Trump is, in fact, far more sophisticated than them in that he understands how raw economic power, not marginal productivity, decides who does what to whom — both domestically and internationally.

Though we risk the abyss staring back when we attempt to gaze into Trump’s mind, we do need a grasp of his thinking on three fundamental questions: why does he believe that America is exploited by the rest of the world? What is his vision for a new international order in which America can be “great” again? How does he plan to bring it about? Only then can we produce a sensible critique of Trump’s economic masterplan.

So why does the President believe America has been dealt a bad deal? His chief complaint is that dollar supremacy may confer huge powers on America’s government and ruling class, but, ultimately, foreigners are using it in ways that guarantee US decline. So what most consider to be America’s exorbitant privilege, he sees as its exorbitant burden.

Trump has been lamenting the decline of US manufacturing for decades: “if you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.” But why blame this on the dollar’s global role? Because, Trump answers, foreign central banks do not let the dollar adjust downwards to the “right” level — at which US exports recover and imports are restrained. It is not that foreign central bankers are conspiring against America. It is just that the dollar is the only safe international reserve they can get their hands on. It is only natural for European and Asian central banks to hoard the dollars that flow to Europe and Asia when Americans import things. By not swapping their stash of dollars for their own currencies, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the People’s Bank of China and the Bank of England suppress the demand for (and thus the value of) their currencies. This helps their own exporters boost their sales to America and earn even more dollars. In a never-ending circle, these fresh dollars accumulate in the coffers of the foreign central bankers who, to gain interest safely, use them to buy US government debt.

And there’s the rub. According to Trump, America imports too much because it is a good global citizen which feels obliged to provide foreigners with the reserve dollar assets they need. In short, US manufacturing has been in decline because America is a good Samaritan: its workers and middle class suffer so that the rest of the world can grow at its expense.

But the dollar’s hegemonic status also underpins American exceptionalism, as Trump knows and appreciates. Foreign central banks’ purchases of US Treasuries enable the US government to run deficits and pay for an oversized military that would bankrupt any other country. And by being the linchpin of international payments, the hegemonic dollar enables the President to exercise the modern-day equivalent of gunboat diplomacy: to sanction at will any person or government.

This is not enough, in Trump’s eyes, to offset the suffering of American producers who are undercut by foreigners whose central bankers exploit a service (dollar reserves) America provides them for free to keep the dollar overvalued. For Trump, America is undermining itself for the glory of geopolitical power and the opportunity to accumulate other people’s profits. These imported riches benefit Wall Street and realtors but only at the expense of the people who elected him twice: Americans in the heartlands who produce the “manly” goods such as steel and automobiles that a nation needs to remain viable.

And that’s not the worst of Trump’s concerns. His nightmare is that this hegemony will be fleeting. Back in 1988, while promoting his Art of the Deal on Larry King and Oprah Winfrey, he bemoaned: “We are a debtor nation. Something’s going to happen over the next number of years in this country, because you can’t keep on losing $200 billion a year.” Since then, he has become increasingly convinced that a terrible tipping point is approaching: as America’s output diminishes in relative terms, the global demand for the dollar rises faster than US incomes. The dollar then has to appreciate even faster to keep up with the reserve needs of the rest of the world. This can’t go on forever.

For when US deficits exceed some threshold, foreigners will panic. They will sell their dollar-denominated assets and find some other currency to hoard. Americans will be left amid international chaos with a wrecked manufacturing sector, derelict financial markets and an insolvent government. This nightmare scenario has convinced Trump that he is on a mission to save America: that he has a duty to usher in a new international order. And that’s the gist of his plan: to effect in 2025 a decisive anti-Nixon Shock — a global shock that cancels out the work of his predecessor by terminating the Bretton Woods system in 1971 which spearheaded the era of financialisation.

Central to this new global order would be a cheaper dollar that remains the world’s reserve currency — this would lower US long-term borrowing rates even more. Can Trump have his cake (a hegemonic dollar and low-yielding US Treasuries) and eat it (a depreciated dollar)? He knows that the markets will never deliver this of their own accord. Only foreign central banks can do this for him. But to agree to do this, they need to be shocked into action first. And that’s where his tariffs come in.

This is what his critics do not understand. They mistakenly think that he thinks that his tariffs will reduce America’s trade deficit on their own. He knows they will not. Their utility comes from their capacity to shock foreign central bankers into reducing domestic interest rates. Consequently, the euro, the yen and the renminbi will soften relative to the dollar. This will cancel out the price hikes of goods imported into the US, and leave the prices American consumers pay unaffected. The tariffed countries will be in effect paying for Trump’s tariffs.

But tariffs are only the first phase of his masterplan. With high tariffs as the new default, and with foreign money accumulating in the Treasury, Trump can bide his time as friends and foes in Europe and Asia clamour to talk. That’s when the second phase of Trump’s plan kicks in: the grand negotiation.

Unlike his predecessors, from Carter to Biden, Trump disdains multilateral meetings and crowded negotiations. He is a one-on-one man. His ideal world is a hub and spokes model, like a bicycle wheel, in which none of the individual spokes makes much of a difference to the functioning of the wheel. In this view of the world, Trump feels confident that he can deal with each spoke sequentially. With tariffs on the one hand and the threat of removing America’s security shield (or deploying it against them) on the other, he feels he can get most countries to acquiesce.

Acquiesce to what? To appreciating their currency substantially without liquidating their long-term dollar holding. He will not only expect each spoke to cut domestic interest rates, but will demand different things from different interlocutors. From Asian countries that currently hoard the most dollars, he will demand they sell a portion of their short-term dollar assets in exchange for their own (thus appreciating) currency. From a relatively dollar-poor eurozone riddled with internal divisions that increase his negotiating power, Trump may demand three things: that they agree to swap their long-term bonds for ultra-long-term or possibly even perpetual ones; that they allow German manufacturing to migrate to America; and, naturally, that they buy a lot more US-made weapons.

“Trump’s vision of a desirable international economic order may be completely different from mine.”

Can you picture Trump’s smirk at the thought of this second phase of his masterplan? When a foreign government acquiesces to his demands, he will have chalked up another victory. And when some recalcitrant government holds out, the tariffs stay put, yielding his Treasury a steady stream of dollars which he can dispense with any way he deems fit (since Congress controls only tax revenues). Once this second phase of his plan is complete, the world will have been divided into two camps: one camp shielded by American security at the cost of an appreciated currency, the loss of manufacturing plants, and forced purchases of US exports including weapons. The other camp will be strategically closer perhaps to China and Russia, but still connected to the US through reduced trade which still gives the US regular tariff income.

Trump’s vision of a desirable international economic order may be violently different from mine, but that gives none of us a licence to underestimate its solidity and purpose — as most centrists do. Like all well-laid plans, this may, of course, go awry. The depreciation of the dollar may not be sufficient to cancel out the effect of tariffs on prices US consumers pay. Or the sale of dollars may be too great to keep long-term US debt yields low enough. But besides these manageable risks, the masterplan will be tested on two political fronts.

The first political threat to his masterplan is domestic. If the trade deficit begins to shrink as planned, foreign private money will stop flooding Wall Street. Suddenly Trump will have to betray either his own tribe of outraged financiers and realtors or the working class that elected him. Meanwhile, a second front will be opening. Regarding all countries as spokes to his hub, Trump may soon discover that he has manufactured dissent abroad. Beijing may throw caution to the wind and turn the BRICS into a New Bretton Woods system in which the yuan plays the anchoring role that the dollar played in the original Bretton Woods. Perhaps this would be the most astonishing legacy, and comeuppance, of Trump’s otherwise impressive masterplan.

A Russian-American Outreach Begins...

Hail to the Chief...

The Globalist Oligarchy Moves on Seizing Romania through Lawfare

Will the City of London Corporation Lose Its' Grip on Romania?

Monetarism (Wall Street) vs Real Good Production & Exchange (Main Street)

Will NATO?

Varoufakis Outraged

Inside £2bn plan for Europe's largest NATO base the size of a CITY housing 10,000 troops that even has schools & shops

Romania has multiple NATO bases, including the Deveselu Military Base and the Mihail Kogălniceanu Airbase. These bases are important for NATO's surveillance of the Black Sea and protection of its eastern flank.

Deveselu Military Base

-Located in Olt County, Romania
-Home to the U.S. Navy Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System
-The base also hosts the Naval Support Facility Deveselu
-The U.S. Navy established the Naval Support Facility Deveselu in 2014

Mihail Kogălniceanu Airbase

-Located near Constanta Port on the Black Sea
-Also known as "MK"
-The base has been used by the U.S. military since 1999
-The base is being upgraded to become a major hub for NATO operations
-The base will be able to host advanced fighter jets and drones, as well as up to 10,000 NATO troops
-NATO's presence in Romania is important for its surveillance of the Black Sea and protection of its eastern flank.

How Do You Spell U-S-E-F-U-L_I-D-I-O-T-S?

Romanian Twitter Being Blocked?

...for about 10 minutes, none of these Twitter embeds would upload...

David Strom, "Another Win for EU 'Democracy:' Leading Presidential Candidate Kicked of Romanian Ballot"

Nothing says 'democracy' like restricting who gets on the ballot.

And nothing is more democratic than banning the leading candidate because the European Union technocrats disagree with him. Nothing says "protecting democracy" better than a bunch of bureaucrats carefully vetting candidates to ensure that they will give those bureaucrats all the power to make the most important decisions. Because bureaucrats, not stupid voters, know best.

DEMOCRACY? Romania, under pressure from the EU, has disqualified Calin Georgescu’s candidacy for president as he is critical of both NATO and the EU. The previous election he was leading was annulled to prevent him from winning. Now he's being kept off the ballet despite leading… pic.twitter.com/giHA7pFklz


— @amuse (@amuse) March 9, 2025

IF that is the case, the European Union just got a lot more democratic. So democratic, in fact, that they may just decide to dispense with national elections in just the way that the European Union Parliament gets very little say in actual EU policy--it's left to the European Council which is "elected" as a slate by the Parliament and never faces the voters themselves.

Romanian protesters have taken to the streets to contest the government’s ban on Calin Georgescu’s candidacy. pic.twitter.com/iA800USA1p

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 9, 2025

I know that many dreamers out there still live in a fantasy world where the Europeans are the good guys dedicated to freedom and Western values, but that is becoming less and less true over time. Sure, the EU is happy enough to allow the population to vote, as long as they vote the "right" way. If they threaten to exceed the Overton Window set by the technocrats--the transnational elite--the elections can be canceled until the "right" candidates are put on the ballot.

Romania has banned right-wing nationalist Calin Georgescu from running for President…

He won their first round of elections, and their court quickly overturned it. He is now *still* leading in the polls, so they are simply banning him from running.

This is somehow “Democracy”. pic.twitter.com/YernnCifPJ

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 9, 2025

Georgescu is unacceptable because he goes head to head with the transnational elite. This makes him too "right wing." I can't say whether he is or isn't "right wing," is my cup of tea or the opposite, and chances are there is much to dislike about him from my point of view. Or not.

JUST IN - Italy's Deputy PM Salvini says banning Călin Georgescu from the Romanian election is a "Soviet-style euro coup" and "a serious theft of democracy."

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 9, 2025

I don't care. At least not enough to believe that Eurocrats should have a veto power over Romanian voters.

This is Călin Georgescu, the frontrunner BANNED from the upcoming Romanian election…. He was onto something: pic.twitter.com/TQpw3bdkSM

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 9, 2025

Now some people will claim that the decision wasn't made in Brussels but by a Romanian Court, but that is a nicety and fundamentally untrue. How do I know? The Eurocrats admitted as much. Just as they admitted they would do the same in Germany if AfD won.

NEW - Former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton fantasizes about a possible annulment of the upcoming elections in Germany: "We did it in Romania, and we will obviously have to do it, if necessary, in Germany."pic.twitter.com/2sYxWE4hhi

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 10, 2025

It is striking to me that many Americans love this version of "democracy" as much as the Eurocrats do, and they do because they share the same vision of governance: rule by technocracy.

As expected, Calin Georgescu is banned from the Romanian presidential elections, he was judged as being the wrong sort of candidate and he would have won. Democracy has fallen in Europe. It’s now a dictatorship. The UK is on the same trajectory under Starmer. https://t.co/J2QmhF8ZHP

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) March 9, 2025

They imagine the permanent bureaucracy to be a check on the president and hence the voters, so they accuse Trump of being an autocrat because he, as an elected official in charge of the Executive Branch, is using his powers instead of deferring to the unelected bureaucrats.

ACLU: “Not only would such mass layoffs violate federal law, but this action would undermine the important and historic check that the career civil service has had on curbing abuses by the executive branch.”

When people talk about a “Deep State”, this is part of what they mean… pic.twitter.com/dW4XH2H0RK

— Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) February 13, 2025

7
Newsflash, Deep Staters: civil servants only have power through the president, and the president has his power through Article II of the Constitution.

Here is what Article II of the Constitution says in the very first sentence.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Nowhere is there a bureaucratic power or some mythical fourth branch of government.

The transnational elite seriously believes that all power does or should rest in their hands. That there is a global technocratic elite that serves as the rightful leader of the hoi polloi and that elections should rightly be shams to calm us all down and provide "legitimacy" to their rule.

🇷🇴 Georgescu stood today in front of a massive army of supporters who came to demand their country back

We demand the resumption of the second round of elections, an end to arrests and political persecution, and no more EU and NATO interference!

Georgescu is our president! pic.twitter.com/KgpXzgNLEB

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) March 1, 2025

In Europe, the EU decrees who can be elected. In the US they tried to use lawfare to keep Trump off the ballot, but it amounts to the same thing: the elites should get to decide who can have power.

Trump has defied them, and is having to move quickly--like a bull in a China shop--because he has no choice. It is a race against time because there are millions of bureaucrats in the Deep State and trillions of dollars mobilizing to impede his retaking of power away from those who have run things for decades.

Trump is riding a populist wave, and populism is always messy and just a bit dangerous. But populism rises as the elites become so corrupt that the people have no choice but to rise up against them.

I hate that we are here. I wish we had decent and trustworthy elites, but we don't.

We have elites who do things like this: kick candidates they dislike off ballots because they might win. That is what tyrants do.