Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Getting to the truth behind modern day mythology. Beware the tall tales coming out of Greece

The narrative now being devised in Athens to reconcile the harsh and brutal new memorandum is getting wilder by the day. The reality to what was offered, what was taken, and what could have been for Greece is much simpler and straight forward than the Athens media spinsters are now presenting.

Published

on

0 Views

Post submitted by Alexander Mercouris.

Ever since the latest bailout agreement, misinformation to justify it has been pouring out of Greece.

Much of this centres on the impracticability of supposed plans for a Grexit and of the “revolutionary” nature of the individuals who hatched them.

Varoufakis has claimed authorship of some of these plans. Others are attributed to the former Energy Minister and leader of Syriza’s Left Platform, Panagiotis Lafantzanis.

Varoufakis’s plan, which he claims to have presented to Tsipras at the last moment as the referendum results were coming in, was for the Greek government to start handing out electronic IOUs in place of a currency. This would have been accompanied by capital controls, the nationalisation of the banks and the seizure of the government’s revenue office and of the Bank of Greece.

Varoufakis claims that this plan was prepared by the five man group based within the Finance Ministry he set up back in February. Apparently this group carried out its work in total secrecy and – in a bizarre twist – even hacked into the Finance Ministry’s own computers in order to prepare its plans.

Meanwhile the Financial Times has published a lurid account of a semi-secret meeting arranged by Lafantzanis and Syriza’ s Left Platform in an Athens hotel, where there was supposedly wild talk of having the governor of the Bank of Greece arrested and of seizing the hoard of euros supposedly stashed away in the Athens mint in order to keep the economy going and to pay for essential imports until a new currency was set up.

No doubt in the desperate situation caused by the Syriza government’s failure to undertake proper and timely preparations for the launch of a new currency all sorts of wild ideas were in circulation.

Not all these ideas were wild. It is constantly overlooked that because the Greek banks were bailed out by the Greek government in 2008 (a major reason why its debt burden became so catastrophically and insupportably high) they are already 80% state owned. “Nationalising” the banks would not therefore have been an act of revolutionary confiscation or of appropriation of private property. It would have simply meant the state taking operational control of the banks by replacing their managements by new managements appointed by and accountable directly to the government.

Implementing extreme steps such as seizing the Bank of Greece and the mint and issuing IOUs would nonetheless have provoked a major crisis in Greece. The economy would have been thrown into turmoil, with much of the population and the business community refusing to accept the IOUs of a bankrupt government as a credible substitute for actual money.

Acting in such a way would also have completely antagonised the EU leaders, who would have been bound to construe such steps as a declaration of economic war, and who would undoubtedly have responded by suspending the Greek government’s participation in the EU’s central institutions on the grounds that it was in breach of the fundamental provisions of Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union.

Putting all that aside, what no one has explained is why any of these schemes were necessary.

Implicit in Varoufakis’s various “plans” and in the scheme the Financial Times attributes to Lafantzanis is the strange idea that preparing a new currency was something that needed to be done in secret and which would have had to be improvised at the last moment.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from the introduction of a new currency being something that would have been resisted across Greece and Europe, we know it would have had the backing of the German Finance Ministry, of Wolfgang Schauble and of the IMF.

According to the British writer Tariq Ali, as long ago as February Schauble was offering Varoufakis 50 billion euros and help with an orderly Grexit. Tariq Ali describes the offer in this way:

“It is now known that Schäuble offered an amicable, organised Grexit and a cheque for 50 billion euros. This was refused on the grounds that it would seem to be a capitulation. This is bizarre logic. It would have preserved Greek sovereignty, and if Syriza had taken charge of the Greek banking system a recovery could have been planned on its terms. The offer was repeated later. ‘How much do you want to leave the Eurozone?’ Schäuble asked Varoufakis just before the referendum. Again Schäuble was snubbed. Of course the Germans made the offer for their own reasons, but a planned Grexit would have been far better for Greece than what has happened.”

No one in Greece is denying this story and in fact I am told it is true.

I recently wrote a piece for Russia Insider in which I said that the claim that Putin rejected a request from Tsipras for $10 billion is – as the Russians say – pure fantasy. We now have indirect confirmation of this from what must ultimately be a Greek source (the one that gave the story to Tariq Ali). Why would Tsipras ask Putin for $10 billion to fund a Grexit when Schauble was offering him 50 billion euros to do the same?

Even as late as the latest EU summit the option of an orderly Grexit was on the table. Schauble – with Merkel’s (alas temporary) backing – actually proposed it. If the Greeks had agreed to it, it would have happened. The IMF, which has made known its complete lack of belief in the viability of the latest bailout, would have backed it.

Greece would have got its 50 billion euros to help it support the new currency, Schauble and the Germans would have ensured that the ECB provided the necessary liquidity to the banks to keep the banks operating until the new currency was ready, the banks could have been nationalised by mutual agreement – there being as I have said nothing revolutionary about this – capital controls would have been imposed until the new currency was ready (the Germans agreed to this when Cyprus imposed them, so why would they refuse it if sought by Greece?) and control of the Bank of Greece, the mint and the revenue service would have been transferred back to the Greek government as an indispensable element in an orderly and agreed Grexit. Meanwhile the Russians, as I reported previously, were prepared to help with essential imports of energy and (probably) food.

The Financial Times in its hit piece says the process of introducing a new currency would have taken 6-8 months, which is much less than the 18 months Varoufakis has claimed.

Actually that is far too pessimistic. The former British cabinet minister John Redwood has guesstimated it would have taken no more than 3 months. In my opinion, given financial help from the EU and the IMF and technical support e.g. from Russia, the whole process could have been carried out from beginning to end in the space of a few weeks.

Once Greece was out of the eurozone it could have agreed – if it wanted – a formal restructuring as part of a package negotiated with the IMF (the alternative of a default on the entire debt might have done irreparable damage to relations with the creditor countries). The conditions would doubtless have been tough but they would hardly have amounted to the psychopathic agreement we have now. With Greece outside the eurozone and able to regain competitiveness through a devaluation there would have been a real chance that whatever was agreed would succeed.

However one spins the ball, the reality has to be faced: a Grexit did not happen not because it was difficult to do but because the Syriza government didn’t want it.

All claims to the contrary are fairy tales, whilst the malicious spreading of stories about the various plans that were hatched in the desperate final hours before Greece’s final capitulation is being done purposefully by those who want to discredit the idea of a Grexit and those who support it.

As for the perennial claim that the Greek people want to cling on to the euro no matter what, I have previously said why since the referendum I no longer believe that claim despite what the opinion polls are alleged to say.

In my opinion far too many people go on giving Tsipras and Syriza the benefit of the doubt even though the extent of their incompetence and of their double-dealing is becoming simply impossible to ignore.

Varoufakis has in fact now admitted that the real Plan B if the negotiations for a debt write-off failed was not a Grexit – his claims to have prepared for one is so much smoke and mirrors – but a resignation of the government and the formation of a “government of national unity” consisting of the old oligarchic pro-EU parties to sign a bailout package in place of Syriza. In Varoufakis’s own words

“We are going to do all it takes to bring home a financially viable agreement. We will compromise but not be compromised. We will step back just as much as is needed to secure an agreement-solution within the Eurozone. However, if we are defeated by the catastrophic policies of the memorandum we shall step down and pass on the power to those who believe in such means; let them enforce those measures while we return to the streets.”

No word here of any plan for a Grexit.

This by the way surely provides final confirmation that my previous statement – doubted by some – that the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard story that Tsipras called the referendum in expectation of a Yes vote so as to give himself political cover to resign is true.

In my opinion such a resignation of a government elected just a few months before to bring an end to austerity would have been an extraordinary act of abdication of responsibility.

Regardless it is not what Tsipras and Syriza did.

Instead of resigning when they failed to secure a debt write-off they chose to remain in power and negotiated for Greece an even worse deal than the one they had previously rejected.

Instead of admitting that Schauble offered him a dignified way out, Varoufakis is now also busy spreading a fantastic story that Schauble was throughout plotting to expel Greece from the eurozone so that he could terrorise France to accept the economic medicine he suoposedly wants to impose on it. Varoufakis is actually claiming that Schauble told him as much.

Varoufakis’s precise words are:

“Schauble believes that the eurozone is not sustainable as it is. He believes there has to be some fiscal transfers, some degree of political union. He believes that for that political union to work without federation, without the legitimacy that a properly elected federal parliament can render, can bestow upon an executive, it will have to be done in a very disciplinary way,”

“And he said explicitly to me that a Grexit is going to equip him with sufficient terrorising power in order to impose upon the French, that which Paris has been resisting: a degree of transfer of budget making powers from Paris to Brussels.”

Does anybody seriously believe that if Schauble really did have such a plan he would have shared it with Varoufakis of all people?

The reality, as I have always said, is that Schauble adamantly opposes a debt write-off for Greece whilst it remains part of the eurozone not because he wants to terrorise France into submission but because of the disastrous precedent such a write-off might provide to other heavily indebted and bailed out eurozone states like Portugal, Spain, Cyprus and Ireland.

Obviously that is not sinister enough for Varoufakis – who has never shown the slightest understanding of Schauble’s position – which is why he attributes this bizarre plan to him.

Sad to say it seems Varoufakis was already spreading his fable about Schauble’s wicked plan to use Greece in order to terrorise France whilst the negotiations were actually underway – one reason surely why Schauble came to dislike him so much.

It could be that Varoufakis misunderstood something Schauble said to him. However I have to say that it also looks rather like an attempt by Varoufakis to play the French and the Germans off against each other – in much the same way that Tsipras was trying to play the Russians and the Europeans (and Americans) off against each other. Needless to say the ploy failed.

In fairness to Tsipras, Varoufakis and Syriza, though their tactics were manipulative and duplicitous, their objective was always what they said it was: to keep Greece in the eurozone whilst securing an end to austerity and a debt write-off.

Most people – including me – assumed that as it became clear this was impossible they would drop the euro in order to end austerity and secure the debt write-off.

In fairness to him, that is the position, when all else failed, that Varoufakis eventually adopted, though the plan he came up with is testament to his failure to prepare for a Grexit properly, as he should have done.

In Tsipras’s case however it is now clear he always intended the opposite – to drop the plan to end austerity and get a debt write-off so as to hang on to the euro.

I still come across from time to time a strange idea that Tsipras and Syriza are agents of Soros and of the CIA.

Nothing they have done in power is consistent with that theory, which my sources insist is untrue.

By contrast I am slowly coming round to what anyone who knows Greece well would judge an altogether more plausible theory – that Tsipras and the Syriza government were a device cooked up by a part of the oligarchy to scare the Germans into granting Greece a debt write-off whilst keeping Greece in the Eurozone. The calculation was that a “pro-Russian”, “ultra left” leader, who “might fall into Putin’s embrace” was more scary and would have a better chance of securing a debt write-off than a more conventional conservative. Once it became clear that the scare wasn’t going to work, the Syriza project was shelved.

To those who say this is too complicated, my response is that for the Greek oligarchy nothing is too complicated.

This will be my working hypothesis from now on. I am planning to visit Greece soon and whilst there I will undertake certain enquiries to see if I can find out whether or not this hypothesis is true.

In the meantime I would ask people to keep a cool head in the face of all the nonsense that is now coming out of Greece. I am afraid that it is not without good reason we are known as the land of myths, legends and wondrous tales. There are far too many of those circulating over the last few days and people should be careful before they fall for them.

References:

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Liberal Hollywood caught in sexual feeding frenzy

Asia Argento called out by a man SHE sexually abused, revealing the true nature of Hollywood’s “moral cause”.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The #MeToo phenomenon looked to the first glance a bit like a “moral snapback” in Hollywood, as it appeared that the years of hidden sexual perversity and predatory behavior was being revealed so that it might be stopped.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

However, a slightly more serious look at this began to reveal that it was far less upstanding than Hollywood’s elite wanted the adoring public to believe. Swiftly, the movement became the feminist movement’s latest salvo against men, because it provided women accusers with virtually unlimited power to defame any man – all that was needed was for her to say that man X made an unwanted advance and that man’s life would be mired in the mud of slander.

In some cases, of course the presence of sexual abuse was real, and tragic. However, as with many attacks from the dark side, a little truth mixed with the lie makes the lie much stronger, and this recipe proved a huge success for the #MeToo movement. The viral spread of this hashtag and the social “outrage” associated with it turned the lives of many people completely upside down.

However, now the truth begins to show. And what’s more, it begins to show how utterly rotten and, honestly, evil this group of people can be.

Asia Argento is an actress who was one of the early accusers of the producing mogul Harvey Weinstein, arguably the “Wanted” poster child of #MeToo. This woman is physically very beautiful, which makes her someone easy to believe by the elite and by the foolish who take her appearance as somehow proof that she is good. So, her accusations against Mr. Weinstein held, despite the fact that she continued having sexual relations with him for years afterward. She blamed Weinstein for this situation saying about this, “after the rape, he won.”

But late Sunday night on August 19th, news began to surface that Argento had herself seduced and forcibly had sexual relations with a 17 year old actor, Jimmy Bennett, when she was 37 herself. After Argento had gone public with her accusation against Weinstein, Mr. Bennett’s lawyer notified Argento of his intention to sue her for US $3.5 million for emotional distress, lost wages and assault and battery.

Asia Argento agreed to pay him off to the tune of $380,000. This was reported by The New York Times.

This is not the only damaged person in contact with Ms. Argento. Just two months ago on 7 June, her lover Anthony Bourdain was found dead in his hotel room at only 61. Mr. Bourdain reportedly suffered from severe alcoholism and its accompanying depression and suicidal tendencies.

The #MeToo movement went extremely viral in its early months, and commentator Rush Limbaugh characterized it as the latest onslaught against men by feminists:

I’m going to tell you, if you’re in politics and you’ve ever looked at a woman the wrong way, you can expect a woman at some point to go public and say so. In fact, because of the success they had with this, it’s entirely possible that men who haven’t done a single thing in terms of mistreating a woman, abusing her, or harassing her, are still, nevertheless, going to be accused of it. It has become a political tactic. We have now had — this is a point that I made yesterday — we have now had something that is a genuinely serious thing in its own right and its own contained universe. Sexual harassment, the use of sexual harassment, the treatment of women, or others, in the workplace, that’s a legitimate thing. But it’s now just been corrupted and weaponized and made to look like a political opposition research weapon, and that’s exactly what’s happened. 

And so, anybody can see, and you can see that when one of these allegations is made, the women are believed, and the men who are accused are not. Which means the men have to prove a negative and the accusers don’t have to prove anything. That is a powerful weapon the Democrats have decided to use. And believe me, as we speak, they are behind closed doors creating further strategems using this, and they are picking their targets. And you’re going to see more of it, I predict.

This present issue though with Mr. Bennett’s situation shows that this is actually much worse than just the latest outbreak of feminism.

The elite in the United States comprises the actors and musicians that have made their names everyday references in popular culture for almost the entire country. These “beautiful people” are tracked by paparazzi and now, apparently, newspapers of national and international significance. Further, the revelation of impropriety among Hollywood elite was mistakenly presented (perhaps deliberately so) as an attempt to make Hollywood look as though it were beyond reproach. The reasons for this are not clear, but speculation exists that it was a setup for an ego te absolvo moment for the Left so they could attack Trump from a “moral high ground.”

But the very prominent expression of “moral outrage” among such “leaders” in this group falls apart when one sees that this group is not at all guided by anything that is truly good. Jimmy Bennett’s case speaks most powerfully about this, because he was raped, essentially, by a woman who he had come to associate in his mind as a “mother figure.” He got a payout, but there is no outrage to speak of against Asia Argento. She made the news because of this revelation but all it appears to show is that the Hollywood elite are eating each other. This woman has some very dark liaisons, too, and the aura of death and decay surrounds her. Yet, she is still a “star.”

Perhaps a good aspect of this report is that we see it a bit more clearly for what it is.

But, that is what many of us said when Harvey Weinstein’s escapades were revealed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Doug Casey on Social Media: “Facebook enshrines stupidity”

“Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook.”

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Joel Bowman via InternationalMan.com:


Joel Bowman: G’day, Doug. Thanks for speaking with us today.

Doug Casey: No problem, Joel. It’s a pleasure to hear your Australian accent come across the ether from Mexico.

Joel: Let’s dive right in. A week or two ago, Facebook registered the largest single day loss for any one company in stock market history – roughly $122 billion. CEO Mark Zuckerberg lost around $15 billion himself, as much as the annual GDP of several resource-rich, West African nations.

Looking back to 2000, during the go-go days of the dot.com boom, Intel and Microsoft both registered staggering single-day losses, too… $90 billion and $80 billion, respectively. And we know what happened next in that case…

So, investors want to know… is past prologue? What’s next for Silicon Valley’s tech darlings?

Doug: Talking about losing multiple billions in a single day, it’s really a sign of the times. I remember when the only billionaires in the world were Howard Hughes, John Paul Getty and John Beresford Tipton– the mythical billionaire on a 1950’s-era show called “The Millionaire.”

These days, however, it seems everyone’s a billionaire. In fact, there are several thousand billionaires roaming the planet today, with new ones being minted almost every day.

Of course, much of this so-called wealth is just paper. It’s not real. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re in a stock market bubble. Which is being driven by the bond market hyper-bubble. And that, in turn, is fueling a real estate bubble, which I believe is just now beginning to deflate in major cities around the world.

None of this augurs well for the stock market. You’ve got bubbles all over the place. Except in the resource market. That’s the one place that hasn’t inflated. In fact, it’s been going down since it’s last peak in 2011.

Getting back to Facebook, I hope it goes bankrupt. I hate it as an institution. I hate what it does. I don’t like its policies. I don’t like its management. I don’t like the fact that it’s causing people to destroy whatever privacy they have left. While turning their brains to mush sending out selfies all day.

Joel: You’ve put a lot on the table there, Doug. Let’s unpack a bit of that, starting with the general tendency toward cerebral rot…

Many younger readers may not remember this, but there actually existed a time before everybody knew everything, when people had to read books and discuss them, engage in healthy debate and rigorous dialectic in order to learn and develop intellectually.

Now that everyone apparently has plenty of time to Instagram their kale salads and “like” one and other’s cat pictures, are we to assume mankind has finally reached the End of Learning…some new Age of Enlightenment?

Or might Facebook and its (anti)social media cousins represent – in addition to the potential fallout for investors – another, hidden cost to society?

Doug: Perhaps humanity is bifurcating into the Morlocks and the Eloi at this point. It’s true that people used to go to libraries. But even the Library of Congress has only a tiny fraction the world’s data available; libraries are quaint and delightful, but they’re dinosaurs.

All the knowledge in the world is now at our fingertips on the Internet. The Internet is one of the greatest inventions in history, on a par with moveable type and the Gutenburg printing press. A few people are using it to educate and better themselves—but relatively few.

Most people just use it for trivial amusement, as you mentioned. Facebook adds very little value to the equation. In fact, I can’t see that it does much that’s productive. It’s basically a vehicle for gossip and watching cat videos.

Joel: And it’s less than that. Aside from the general degradation of public discourse, social media also represents a kind of unalterable historical record of bad jokes and regrettable moments, accessible to anyone who may wish to besmirch one’s character or skittle one’s reputation.

We’ve all said things we wish we hadn’t. To err is to be human, after all. What do you make of a world in which everyone’s worst moments are readily available to everyone else – including potential enemies – at the click of a mouse?

Doug: Facebook enshrines stupidity. A heavy Facebook user is, in effect, saying: “Look at me! I’m a thoughtless person who doesn’t have anything better to do with his time”. That’s on top of the fact that users are exposing their thoughts, actions, and whereabouts to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA and any of a hundred other nefarious agencies. In fact, there are credible allegations that Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, are willing tools of these intelligence agencies. No good can come of being a Facebookista.

But that’s about whether you should use Facebook. Whether you should own Facebook stock is a different question. Even after the recent selloff, Facebook still has a market cap of about $500 billion, which impresses me as a lot for a chat site cum advertising vehicle. Especially one where most of its growth is behind it. A lot of users are getting hip to the fact they’re not customers, they’re the product.

Facebook was a clever innovation ten years ago. But you know, there’s an old saying in the stock market: High Tech, Big Wreck!

Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook. My understanding is that kids now see Facebook as something used by old people– people over 21 years of age. So if it’s going nowhere with the younger generation, where’s it’s future? Maybe it picks up a billion new users in the Third World. Ultimately, what’s that worth?

Facebook may not be a terminal short sale, but I certainly won’t be putting any of my own money into the stock.

Joel: Assuming you’re correct and Facebook 2.0 does displace the current market leader, are you hopeful that such a platform may serve to promote a heightened level of discourse? Perhaps people might find their way into “phyles,” that is, subgroups based on commonly shared values that actually have real world meaning?

Doug: I hope that, in a year or two, International Man itself grows into a community of likeminded people with above average I.Q.s, libertarian values, and real world experience. IM might, itself, even branch off to become its own kind of Facebook. A private version.

I know there’s a lot of talk about regulating FB, or breaking it up. That’s a bad idea; the government should have zero to do with business in general—and areas related to free speech in particular. I’m disgusted by the fact FB has kicked Alex Jones and others off their platform. But they have a right to do so, as a private company. Although, on the other hand, they’re almost a creature of the State.

But that’s not an excuse for the government to “step in”. What will happen is that a newer, better Facebook lookalike—or a dozen of them—will replace them. FB will self-destruct. It’s a non-problem.

To be frank, you and I don’t really have that much in common with most of the 7.3 billion people on this planet. In fact, while I like many individual humans, I despise humanity in general. The more people you put together in a group, the more they act like chimpanzees. Big groups force down the lowest common denominator.

There’s some cause for optimism, but only on a person-to-person basis. I prefer the company of people who value free minds and free markets—and I suspect most people who are reading this now feel the same way.

Joel: That’s probably a very good note to end this conversation on, Doug. Thanks, as always, for taking the time.

Doug: Meanwhile, we’ll look for something with the potential of Facebook in 2008… and stay away from Facebook today.

Continue Reading

Latest

Can America Ever Come Together Again?

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.

He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.

“Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”

Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?

CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.

Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.

Who trashed this tradition?

Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?

Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?

Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.

“Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.

Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

“Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.

Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?

The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?

And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?

If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?

We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.

Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”

When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?

Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”

Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.

In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.

Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”

What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.

Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending