by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog
During his recent meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Trump, answering a question form a US journalist, said that there was no reason to suspect Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. However, back on home soil, he said that what he meant was the opposite.
In the circumstances, there is some difficulty in assigning to either of Trump’s statements the property of truth. For the correlation between the information communicated in Helsinki and that communicated in Washington, cannot be easily established. Or rather, the correlation, if any, is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude, as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language, a heavier burden than they can be reasonably expected to bear.
Some believe that concern about linguistic matters is pedantic interference or sentimental archaism, akin to choosing land-line sets over smartphones. Perhaps the practitioners of incoherence harbor the unconscious belief that language is a natural, self-generating entity, rather than an instrument that we shape for our own purposes.
Many believe that the decline or misuse of language is due to political or economic causes, rather than to the bad influence of sundry writers. I subscribe to this view, because most newspapers are unreadable and literature is not read.
However, an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect, now stronger. A man may start to drink for feeling a failure, only to fail completely because he drinks. Similarly, language becomes ugly and inaccurate because the thoughts producing it are foolish, but slovenliness of language makes it easier to produce foolish thoughts. And the dark at the end of the tunnel of foolishness is insanity.
Unfortunately, the process is irreversible, for bad habits spread by imitation. Avoiding them requires a discipline that few politicians like to practice. And yet getting rid of bad language habits makes thinking clearer, and thinking clearly is rated as the first step for political regeneration. Assuming, but not given, that regeneration is what politicians want.
Political words are routinely abused. For example, the word ‘fascism’ has lost any meaning other than signifying something undesirable. And words like democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, etc. each has several different meanings that cannot be reconciled with one another.
On “collusion”, a word stuffed into the ears of men for the last two years, not only is there no agreed definition, but an attempt to create one would probably be strongly resisted by the very people who accuse Trump of collusion (with Russia). For any definition implies a restriction of the field where the definition applies. And just as an example clarifies a definition, so evidence proves an accusation. In the instance, there being no evidence, the accusation can be endlessly sustained, for it could never be proven. Therefore a never-ending accusation renders its victim never-endingly accused, which is probably the not-so-secret objective of the charade.
But what could have Trump replied to the question about “collusion” with Russia, posed by the MSM American journalist? He may, for example, have answered with a question, e.g. “Did you evacuate your intestine this morning?” And to whatever the journalist may have replied, Trump could have counter-replied, “Your answer is just as relevant to your readers as your question to me. Go and live unhappily ever after.” Alternatively, he could have said, “He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep,” a ditty attributed to Francis Bacon.
But if it had been me – perish the thought – I would have answered with what the French call “le mot de Cambronne”, that is, “Merde!” a term familiar even to most non-French speaking people.
Before explaining why, here is some historical background on Cambronne’s reply to the question he was asked.
Pierre Cambronne (1770-1842) was born and died in Nantes, on the French West Coast. Destined to a career in business, he was engulfed in the fire of the French Revolution. He fought in the Vandean Civil War, distinguishing himself in the battle of Quiberon against forces landed and financed by the British, to support the counter-revolutionaries.
Cambronne had courage and quickly rose to the rank of captain. By the time of the battle of Jena (1806), fought against the Prussians, he had become a colonel and shortly later a major commanding a regiment of the Imperial Guard.
In the battle of Leipzig (1813) he was a brigade general. Faithful among the faithful of Napoleon, Cambronne followed him to his first exile in the Isle of Elba (Italy), becoming the military commander of the island.
In April 2015 he was nominated Count of the Empire. Two months later he was once more fighting in the battle of Waterloo, commanding the elite unit of the Imperial Guard.
Requested to surrender by the British, Cambronne allegedly said, “The Guard dies but does not surrender.”
The British insisted that he surrender, and it is then when he responded with “le mot de Cambronne.”
The British admired his determination and did everything they could to capture him. Seriously wounded, he was finally taken prisoner after what remained of the Imperial Guard was duly massacred.
Later, Cambronne denied the longer sentence attributed to him: “I could not say ‘the guard dies but does not surrender’, since I did not die and I surrendered.” But he did not deny the paternity of the second and more famous reply.
Cambronne’s heroic rudeness inspired a play by French actor and playwright Sacha Guitry, titled “Le Mot de Cambronne.” Since it is in verse and the word in question has only one rhyme (“perde“, conjugation of the verb “perdre“), the spectators’ ears were attuned and ready for its reception.
To conclude this brief biography, Cambronne, wounded at Waterloo, was assisted in an English hospital by a Scottish nurse, Mary Osbum, whom he married.
From England he wrote to King Louis XVIII requesting permission to return to France. The king did not reply but Cambronne returned anyway. Arrested, he was tried for treason (“for having conducted an armed attack against France”). Defended by a royalist lawyer, he was absolved in April 1916, and spent the rest of his years in his native Nantes. Where the historically curious tourist can find his statue, his apartment turned into a museum, and an avenue with his name.
Returning to Trump, a response with the “mot of Cambronne” to the question by the American journalist, would be appropriate. For the nebulous, vague, unproven and undefined word “collusion,” is but a verbal fig leaf for what the deep state wishes to suggest but dares not say, namely ‘treason.’ Where ‘deep state’ is recognized at large as a euphemism for Zionists by blood or interest.
And implying or accusing the US president of treason (that is, serving the interests of an enemy) is, in the circumstances, an idea stubbornly insusceptible of rational comprehension. The same applies to Russophobia, the daughter of “collusion.”
For one thing, it is common knowledge that the American public at large is generally indifferent to geography. Or rather, geographic ignorance is not a liability but an asset. For he who nurtures ideas that do not lead to profit or immediate pleasure fosters suspicion – unless he can prove that geographical knowledge has procured him ostensive and ostentatious profit (an uneasy outcome for common mortals).
All this, in the circumstances, makes the diplomatically unconventional “mot de Cambronne” an appropriate retort to questions about “Russian collusion.”
As for Russophobia, it seems clear that history is a teacher without pupils. For in recent historical times, the late 1980s, the same deep state and/or media that now preaches Russophobia, created Gorbymania. It did it when Gorbachev was not only a Russian but also a Communist.
And given that the most vociferous promoters of current Russophobia are mostly Zionists by ethnicity, interest or mainstream-media affiliation, the issue, I think, is only partially related to the classical historical reasons. That is, Communism, Bolshevism, resentment against the Czars, Russians’ long-standing uneasiness with the Jews, etc. In fact, according to knowledgeable sources, Jews are freer in today’s Russia than ever they were before.
Here are a few but meaningful examples of Russophobia,
CIA Director John Brennan, “… (Russians) try to suborn individuals and they try to get individuals, including US citizens, to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly…. Individuals going on a treasonous path often do not realize it until it is too late.”
James Comey, ex FBI director, “They (the Russians) are coming after America.”
James Clapper (Director National Intelligence), “The Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor.”
Senator McCain “(Russia is) a gas station masquerading as a country” (proving with six words his extraordinary geographical, historical and cultural knowledge of Russia).
A Washington Post sports columnist, referring to very questionable doping allegations, described Russian 2018 medal winners as representatives of “a shamed nation.”
A media commentator, “Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is.”
…. and so on.
Given that most of the quoted characters (and more unquoted of similar opinions) hold strong Zionist views and have been pilgrims at the Wailing Wall, the naive observer is driven to ask himself whether there is a correlation.
To prevent the potential and usual accusation of anti-something, the following considerations apply only and exclusively to the neo-cons and their notorious Zionist leanings.
Why? Because few Jews, for example, were involved in the business of Saddam’s inexistent “weapons of mass destruction,” the invasion of Iraq, the massacre of Gheddafi, the destruction of Libya, the orchestration of the Ukrainian coup d’etat, the Odet-Yinon plan for the territorial extension of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Plan for the new American Century, with the need for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’, etc. The same can be said about the vociferous peddlers of the current Russophobia.
Still, Zionist Judaism functions as a Federal Reserve Bank of sorts, but applied to the mass-psychology of Jewish Americans.
The actual Federal Reserve Bank loans “fiat” money to the government, backed by nothing, literally pieces of paper or electronic transfers. “Fiat” is the Latin impersonal imperative of the verb “fieri.” It means “let it be,” implicitly followed by “because I say so.” In the instance, fiat currency refers to the scary notion that the dollar has value only because the government says it does.
The government commits itself to pay back the loan to the Federal Reserve Bank plus the interest. Statistics and number vary somewhat, but at the moment the outstanding debt is in the range of 25 trillions. This debt will never be paid back, but the government pays every year an interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve. This interest is obtained from taxes, that is, from the proverbial sweat of those who labor (and those who pretend to work but earn more than those who actually do).
I used this example because it is no secret that the Federal Reserve is under strong Zionist influence and control. In fact, and I quote from the Jewish-American magazine, Forward, “Paul Moritz Warburg, a German-Jewish immigrant who was one of the founding fathers of the U.S. Federal Reserve, had a fervent wish that his creation (in 1913), would be seen as one of America’s great monuments — like the old cathedrals of Europe.”
Continuing with the analogy, the Psychological Federal Reserve loans to the Congress and Senate the lies that congressmen and senators are charged and expected to use, diffuse and distribute, while pretending that they are true.
And like the fiat money of the monetary Federal Reserve, the lies of the Psychological Federal Reserve are backed by a baseless fabric of insubstantial nothing.
But in exchange for the popularization of the lies, the Psychological Reserve Bank will physically finance the pliant beneficiaries of the loan.
Interestingly, the first 8 major contributors to Hillary were Zionist Jews. And one, if not the major contributor to Trump, was the king of Las Vegas gambling, the arch-Zionist Adelson (rumored to have exchanged his multi-million contribution for the commitment to transfer the US embassy to Jerusalem.)
The largest overwhelming majority of Jews, though innocent of the US political, military and genocidal crimes perpetrated worldwide, function as a kind of “collateral” for the loan of the lies.
Or perhaps, more than collateral, blackmail. Said succinctly, “Be mindful, executive, to say and do what we (the Psychological Reserve Bank) tell you to do and say. Otherwise, not only you will lose the financial collateral, but we will unleash against you the phalanx of our co-religionaries.
For a co-religionary, rich or poor, practicing or atheist, to reject Judaism equates to reneging his own blood, his own DNA. Their situation has some similarities with that of the early Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and growing state in the heart of the Roman republic.
All this, on a political-planetary level, helps explain the silence, when not the support, of the most atrocious actions of their Zionist leaders. It is as if the members of the US political machine, at the highest levels, operated with a gun at their head, “Obey or face political death.”
Evidence of the above is extant, though the Psychological Federal Reserve is so efficient as to ostracize and condemn those who dare to point it out.
As for Russophobia, it does not end here. The neo-cons accuse Trump of treason, calling for more anti-Russian sanctions, NATO’s ‘defensive’ exercises at the doors of Russia, etc.
Yet, the equivalent of the New York Times in Israel, the “Haaretz” newspaper, isn’t at all “Russophobic.” And since the sanctions do not involve Israel, Haaretz writes that the sanctions are actually an excellent opportunity for Israeli businessmen.
Besides, Netaniahou visits Moscow regularly and appears to be a good friend of Putin. A friendship that, outwardly at least, Putin seems to reciprocate.
To sum up, given the situation – as regards Russia, Russophobia, Trump, hatred of Putin by the Zionist neo-cons while he is befriended by Israel, etc. – it seems that a coherent explanation or a rational judgment are impossible. But truth and reason seldom find a favorable reception in the world.
Furthermore, taking experience into account, reason teaches us that there are things unexplainable by reason. Said more classically, there are more things in heaven and earth, dear reader, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.
Superb !! Thank you.
Witty and enjoyable read — thank you, Jimmie Moglia. You wrote:
”But what could have Trump replied to the question about ’collusion’ with Russia, posed by the MSM American journalist? He may, for example, have answered with a question, e.g. ’Did you evacuate your intestine this morning?’ And to whatever the journalist may have replied, Trump could have counter-replied, ’Your answer is just as relevant to your readers as your question to me. Go and live unhappily ever after’.”
May I respectfully put forward the idea that there is an answer to any malevolent insinuations about Russian collusion which, if Trump were to use it, would have the MSM absolutely gobsmacked and stupefied:
— Correct. What’s the problem?
But Trump knows of course that there are limits to what people can put up with. The esteemed MSM presstitutes won’t have to worry.
For anyone that missed it, the second paragraph is a tribute to Chief Cabinet Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby of the excellent BBC series Yes, Prime Minister. Recommended viewing for everyone! Thanks, Mr. Moglia.
“…fiat currency refers to the scary notion that the dollar has value only because the government says it does.”
More exactly: the value of the dollar lies in the fact that it alone is accepted by the federal gov’t in payment of federal tax obligations. The gov’t promises it will accept dollars in payment for taxes, on the one hand, and it requires that taxes be paid, on the other hand.
All currency is issued exclusively by the US government. It is the sovereign issuer of the currency.
This isn’t the place for an exposition of this very ill-understood system, so I recommend here a few brief readings. An important point to keep in mind, to avoid emotional reactions, is the distinction between an objective description and the political purposes by which it is used or abused.
The great problem in the US is not the so-called Federal “debt” (usually and ignorantly conflated with the term “deficit”), but the debt in the private sector–individuals and companies and states–who are all users of the currency. That is the result of a flagrant abuse of the system on the part of the financial elite–well-explained by Michael Hudson.
Short readings:
7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Monetary Policy
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism
http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html
Debt, Deficits, and Modern Monetary Theory
http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=2853
—————————–
For those who want to learn more:
https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/index/
All currency is issued exclusively by the US government. It is the sovereign issuer of the currency.
That is untrue, and it’s a common mistake.
Look at any U.S. dollar bill: do you see “Federal Reserve Note” printed on it? “United States Note” used to be displayed there, but not since 1913. Indeed, the U.S. currency is issued by a private organization, the Federal Reserve.
The federal reserve is hardly a private enterprise. You’re parroting the fringe element. Why not study exactly what the Federal Reserve is? So many combox comments are so irresponsible and glib.
The Fed is not really “owned” by anyone, although it is a kind of hybrid entity. It’s essentially a clearinghouse, and hence it serves both private bank interests as well as the US payments system which is in the public interest.
“Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District’s Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.” [https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm]
I wish the idea that the US is the sovereign issuer of its currency were “a common mistake.” On the contrary, the significance of this is extremely uncommon. Not long ago, Obama absurdly declared that the US was “running out of money.”
Ah, another Federal Reserve troll.
If the Fed is so controlled by the government, has it EVER been independently audited? That is, audited by an organization that was not hired by the Fed itself?
In 1910, Aldrich and executives representing the banks of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., secluded themselves for ten days at Jekyll Island, Georgia….
So, what you are saying is that the Fed Reserve is a non-profit organization owned by the banks.
Saying that an operation is a ‘non-profit’ is irrelevant to its ownership. A privately owned non-profit is still privately owned.
I’d gladly take a deal where I was giving any “profit” to someone else after my expenses were paid. That would be a very lengthy and creative expense sheet I’d turn in. :) Especially if I knew that I would never be audited on those expenses!
@ Sasoon
If you would care to elaborate on your comment here, I’d be curious to hear more, thanks.
This is perhaps the best piece of commentary I have read in a decade (I have a PhD in English Literature; have spent most of my life as a business journalist listening to the betrayal of language, endless barbarisms). Sadly, the problem is intractable, and our humanness is reduced because of it. As Vargas Llosa said, we live in an audio-visual age; literariness has died. But it is a delight to read someone draw attention to it.
David you confuse me. I do not have a PhD in English unlike yourself. I am just a worker who did not go to university. However even humble little me can detect what seems to be your “illiteracy.” Did you invent the word “literariness”? I rejoice in your humanness. For myself I prefer “humanity.” Perhaps you are being cute!
Reply to Snow Leopard on July 30, 2018 · at 7:13 pm EST/EDT
What is literariness? Three components of literary reading David S. Miall & Don Kuiken
Pages 121-138 | Published online: 11 Nov 2009 Abstract :
“It is now widely maintained that the concept of literariness has been critically examined and found deficient. Prominent postmodern literary theorists have argued that there are no special characteristics that distinguish literature from other texts. Similarly, cognitive psychology has often subsumed literary understanding within a general theory of discourse processing. However, a review of empirical studies of literary readers reveals traces of literariness that appear irreducible to either of these explanatory frameworks. Our analysis of readers’ responses to several literary texts (short stories and poems) indicates processes beyond the explanatory reach of current situation models. Such findings suggest a three‐component model of literariness involving foregrounded stylistic or narrative features, readers’ defamiliarizing responses to them, and the consequent modification of personal meanings”. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01638539909545076
“Literariness is the organisation of language which through special linguistic and formal properties distinguishes literary texts from non-literary texts (Baldick 2008). The defining features of a literary work do not reside in extraliterary conditions such as history or sociocultural phenomena under which a literary text might have been created but in the form of the language that is used. Thus, literariness is defined as being the feature that makes a given work a literary work. It distinguishes a literary work from ordinary texts by using certain artistic devices such as metre, rhyme, and other patterns of sound and repetition”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literariness
What is Literariness? https://www.paris-iea.fr/fr/evenements/what-is-literariness
I do find it amusing to see an empirical analysis of literariness. It is an epistemological mismatch. Science methods applied to the humanities resulting in an ineviitable reductiveness. As for post modernists that is relativism riddled with contradictions or the self evident. “All meanings are possible except for what I write; the author is dead except for me.”
@ Snow Leopard
In defense of David, “literariness” is indeed a word. It does have an academic ring, but it is generally used by Humanists, who believe it still important to defend human values in age of avarice, relativism, and nihilism. Cheers.
I would add that my comment applies to the first half. The irony is that paying attention to the meaning of words can lead you astray in the financial sphere. Government fiat only applies to cash and givernment debt. That is only a small portion of the total ‘money’. Most is debt issued by banks, private entities, and then there are the hundreds of trillions of derivatives, which us not fiat it is gambling. The debt is unpayable globally; the pattern goes back thousands of years and usually leads to debt forgiveness. Goodness knows how that would work now because banking would collapse. But fiat money is over, killed by 3 decades of financial ‘deregulation’
Prisoners of words! Magical. We all are prisoners of words. How beautifully Jimmy Moglia manipulates them
to show the deep abiding humour using words with deliberate skill releases, as if from prison!
“Returning to Trump, a response with the “mot of Cambronne” to the question by the American journalist, would be appropriate. For the nebulous, vague, unproven and undefined word “collusion,” is but a verbal fig leaf for what the deep state wishes to suggest but dares not say, namely ‘treason.’ Where ‘deep state’ is recognized at large as a euphemism for Zionists by blood or interest.”
Actually, trump, and everyone in his zionazi quisling regime are fanaticly zionazi. He was netanyahoo’s choice. His recognition of Jerusalem as israeli, etc., confirms his personal alegiance. These israelis, whom trump works for, the likud and related foamers, are the far right of the far right zionazis in israel, literally the descendents of the zionazi freakshow that aligned themselves with both the nazis and fascists prior to, and during WW2. Such as the stern gang critters and jabotinsky.
Yes, indeed vot, but Clinton would have been just as much a creature of the Zionists, too. Heads they win, and tails they win also.
There was a joke about Sacha Guitry.
“Un jour qu’il visitait en compagnie d’une femme la ville de Macon, celle-ci dit :
Je me demande bien pourquoi on a appelé cette ville Ma con ?
Ben, dit-il, on m’appelle bien Sa cha !
I live to the readers the pleasure of finding the meaning.
But it is actually very illustrative of the ambiguities of the language. Of the incorrect use of words. It was actually the major preoccupation of philosophy. Chinese called it ‘Rectification of Names’ (Chinese: 正 名; pinyin: Zhèngmíng; Wade–Giles: Cheng-ming), the Greeks ‘orthotes onomaton’- Platonic theory that investigates the correct usage of words and names, Indians Nirukta – “explanation of a word.”
In the words of Confucius (Analects, 13):
“Tsze-lu said, “The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?”
The Master replied, “What is necessary is to rectify names.” “So! indeed!” said Tsze-lu. “You are wide of the mark! Why must there be such rectification?”
The Master said, “How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
“When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
“Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”
The basis of all education was the Trivium, the study of grammar, logic, and rhetoric since Antiquity until gender studies took over. Try a Google search for Trivium. 5,720,000 results for Trivium ‘American heavy metal band from Orlando, Florida, formed in 1999’. I confess that I did not went through all.
The New Speak:
https://www.newenglishreview.com/Emmet_Scott/Orwell,_Huxley_and_the_Emerging_Totalitarianism/
” During his recent meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Trump, answering a question form a US journalist, said that there was no reason to suspect Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. However, back on home soil, he said that what he meant was the opposite. ”
Trump acts here as a chameleon! In a tree close to Russia ( Helsinki ) he speaks the truth,in the trees in his own country he speaks the lies. It is a matter of adaptation and survival.
The war to come is not necessary about the Anglo-Zionist empire,or Russia ,or the absolute power and control…the problem is we are all dying,we get expired,there is no future in the future,the world is like a 145 years old man:
” Our days may come to seventy years,
or eighty, if our strength endures;
yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.”
The Indian sage Patanjali wrote three major treatises on grammar, yoga and medicine. In ancient sanskrit the vibration of a word corresponded with the vibration of the object named, as I understand. Similarly when Adam named all the animals, even when taken metaphorically, the vibration of the name would have corresponded to the animal named. Words have great power when used in alignment with reality.
“The actual Federal Reserve Bank loans “fiat” money to the government, backed by nothing, literally pieces of paper or electronic transfers.”
This is how they transfer the wealth of 99.(9) of the world to the very few left.And how they control governments.
It is useless to have over production if there is nobody to buy it cos there are no money.So debt is also a marketing tool.
The only risk: the countries indebted with fiat money to invest them in research,education,industry,agriculture,infrastructure,etc. The solution:useless skyscrapers everywhere ( as tall as the tower of Babel ),weapons worth of billions that sit in warehouses and slowly become obsolete,wars,expensive prestige constructions,corruption…to name a few.
Sherlock, no that is not “how they transfer the wealth of 99.(9) of the world to the very few left.And how they control governments.” That is rather like saying “they” put this thing called an engine on a metal body with wheels, and that is “how” people travel in what they call automobiles.” What you’ve said has no explanatory value.
The truth is that all modern countries are fiat regimes and, unless they peg their currencies to a foreign currency, are soveriegn issuers of their currency. The financial powers that be controlled their governments even when their money was “backed” by gold.
Anyway, if you want an interesting account of how “they” rigged the markets after 2008, read Nomi Prins’ book
“Collusion.” [https://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Central-Bankers-Rigged-World/dp/1568585624/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1533039219&sr=1-1&keywords=Nomi+Prins#customerReviews]
Very instructive is the way politics are baked into financial instruments in the sales packages of the banking institutions.
Sasoon ,i think it is too complicated for me to understand Nomi Prins’ book ,thanks anyway.But i return you the favor with a link to a short interview,pretty sure you gonna get it.
https://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
” Sherlock, no that is not “how they transfer the wealth of 99.(9) of the world to the very few left.And how they control governments.” That is rather like saying “they” put this thing called an engine on a metal body with wheels, and that is “how” people travel in what they call automobiles.” What you’ve said has no explanatory value. ”
Sorry man,i don’t know how I missed that explanatory value,i was sleepy,it was very late in the night when i wrote the message.
Jimmie, yet another wonderful article. And yes, once the word is out you can never stuff it back in the bag.
Hence the Greek saying and I translate “The tongue does not have bones but it breaks bones”.
So, no matter how the media and politicians try to play the word games, what’s done is done. The bird has left the nest.
When one person says two opposite things, then the one thing you know for sure is that they are a liar. Both can not be true, so one is a lie, which means the person is a liar. And when dealing with a known liar, it is unwise to believe anything they say. Thus, it is highly likely that both statements are lies, and in fact that is probably the safe position to take with a known liar. That is likely to be a better stance to take towards a known liar as opposed to trying to reason out which statement is true and which is a lie.
If there is Russiaphobia, then I suppose there is Jewaphobia.
I’m sick of hearing “the Russians did it”.
I am equally tired of hearing “the Jews did it”.
In my lifetime, neither as shown to be a useful and always accurate guide to the real-world. There seems to be a similar thought process underlying both.
Reply to : Anonymous on July 31, 2018 · at 12:34 pm EST/EDT
Judeophobia – Not Your Parents’ anti-Semitism Is a new hostility toward Jews emerging in Great Britain ?
Barry Kosmin, Paul Iganski 03.06.2003 00:00 Updated: 11:49 AM https://www.haaretz.com/1.5474610
Reviewing a compilation of essays by “a cross-section of Jewish thinkers in Britain” the above article dates from 2003. We’ve moved on a wee bit since then. Notably since the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn have intensified. As attested by the following exchanges between Gilad Atzmon and Tony Greenstein, umpired by the ineffably English Briton Tony Gosling of Bristol (Cf. infra).
Entre judaïtes et goyim «le torchon brûle». Les deux communautés sont à couteaux tirés. It remains to be seen how long the ‘proles’ are prepared to remain supine and take their punishment from their ‘lords and masters’ lying down. Recently sued for libel, Gilad lost his High Court case at a carefully rigged ‘pre-trial’ hearing, on a techicality with the verdict smacking of judicial collusion. In French we say “le poisson pourrit toujours par la tête”.
Montesquieu’s “separation of powers”, as a model for the governance of a state, died the death long ago. Gone are the days of ‘family values’. The “Mother of Parliaments” is now a breeding ground for faggots, dikes and pedophiles. In this ‘parlous state’, fragile victims of childhood sexual abuse turned whistleblower, like Melanie Shaw, are tried in utter secrecy behind closed doors and rot in gaol, victims of a régime recalling the ‘lettres de cachet’ of yesteryears. Truth is indeed a stranger to fiction, when the phantasmagorically humourous insanity portrayed in Monty Python’s Flying Circus now features as a humourless-long-drawn-out fact of daily life …
Is it Zionism or Jewishness? You decide July 30, 2018 / Gilad Atzmon
At last, Tony Greenstein and Gilad Atzmon debate whether it is Zionism or Jewish ideology that drives the barbarism of the state that calls itself “the Jewish State”? Greenstein vs. Atzmon – a radio debate moderated by Tony Gosling Read More : http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/7/30/is-it-zionism-or-jewishness-you-decide
You should be tired when one said ‘Russians did it’ when they didn’t do it.
You should be sick when one said ‘Jews didn’t do it’ when they did it.
“During his recent meeting with Putin in Helsinki, Trump, answering a question form a US journalist, said that there was no reason to suspect Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. However, back on home soil, he said that what he meant was the opposite.”
We must, really must, in my-not-so-humble opinion, be far more precise. Trump was asked wheher he had confronted Putin about Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Trump said he had brought up the subject (leaving it to the wild imagination of the journalist whether he had challenged Putin, “confronted” him) and Putin had denied meddling. Trump then said “I see no reason why it would be Russia.” Repeat: “*I see no reason*…”, Sol *do you see a reason*? If you do, cough it up: tell us what the reason could, would, should, might be. Repeat again: “I see no reason why *it would be Russia*”, subjunctive. “It” might be some other suspect: Did “it” happen? Some people still say yes, “it” happened. How you they know, do they know, or do they just not like the results?
“In the circumstances, there is some difficulty in assigning to either of Trump’s statements the property of truth. For the correlation between the information communicated in Helsinki and that communicated in Washington, cannot be easily established. Or rather, the correlation, if any, is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude, as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language, a heavier burden than they can be reasonably expected to bear.”
Well, there is a problem assigning truth *if* Trump had made assertions of truth. As it happens, he did not do so. Having returned to Washington, welcomed by the hysteria fully expected, even possibly planned, because Trump did not do what no one would expect him to do, i.e., pull an Obama-esque “You did X-shit, now don’t do it again!” There was general hysteria, and, for the sake of the planned drama, also spillover at the White House. Possibly John Kelly could be pinned down as being disappointed that his boss did not pull an Obama-stunt, but, in any case, — and I watched several professional commentators saying Trump “buckled” — Trump pulled off his
“correction”-presser: he supposedly had intended to say “I see no reason why it would *not* be Russia… double negative, you know?”
So Trump pulled his own stunt, something many, perhaps even people reading here, would not and still do not expect or accept: think logically, if I say “Putin denied meddling and I see no reason why it would be Russia”, I may play with the lingo — which Trump was obviously doing — and attach a negative to “would”, yielding “would not”, but before we worry about assertion of truth or not, let’s ask whether Trump *said* what is said he said when it is said that “he said that what he meant was the opposite.” In order to even come close to saying the opposite, Trump would have had to change something else in the first statement: he would have to say “*but* I see no reason why it would *not* be Russia.” In that case, Trump would be saying that he does not believe Putin’s denial of meddling, but his correction as it stands was no such denial, which is equivalent to saying that it is *not* the opposite of what he had said at first.
French ior no, Trump was pulling legs and enjoying every moment. I am enjoying the Helsinki meet and the aftermath also.
Thank you Goerge. Very nicely said. Well for me this all goes to show how much we all live our own myths in politics. In what way does Trump activate my own mythologies? Did he lie? So we all make up our own stories and turn them into political judgements. Asking if Trump lied is an ungrounded question in my opinion.
He is entitled to have the population realize for itself that the first statement was closer to his heart, because he had been saying that all along. The retraction is obviously a politically necessary pandering to enormous outside pressure, a pressure he has been criticizing from the beginning. But that does not mean he had the power or the means to ignore it. But he can bring his mockery of it out into the open. That is how I read his retraction. Open mockery in the form of deception. He is entitled to have us see for ourselves what is real there. Grounding is called for, as well as precision. Maybe my own story is revealed here also.
I agree with you both. This was a rather shallow take on the situation in my opinion, but then I had been hoping for the analysis that you and George provided – thank you!
This guy must to have been the first centenarian plus! “Defended by a royalist lawyer, he was absolved in April 1916, and spent the rest of his years in his native Nantes.”
Basically, trump said in Helsinki what he thought would play to the crowd. Then on return to pindoland, he again said what he thought would play to the crowd. This is the same thing his zionazi handlers have been having him do since he began his run for the post of israel’s american colonial governor. Nothing new here. I don’t see the point of obfuscating that fact with a bunch of long drawn out pedantic nonsense about language useage. The role of trump is to sell what is unsellable to normal people*.
My experience with zionazi/right wing bs merchants is first they blind you with irrelevant pedantry to confuse you, then dazzle you with wikipedia derived expertise.
*By normal people I mean not zionazis, nazis, fascists, necrophiliacs, rapists, war criminals, other criminals, child abusers, sadists/masochists, psychopaths…I missed a few, it’s an incomplete list, but you get the picture.
is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude, as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language, a heavier burden than they can be reasonably expected to bear.
haha
Yes Minister
Although Jimmie doesn’t mention Orwell in this very fine article, I’m guessing he must also be thinking of Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language“. Recommended reading, for all !
Russia is also accused of interfering in American elections. I suppose two Russians having a conversation with an American in Moscow could be counted as interfering.