Tuesday, September 22, 2020

The Continuing Incompetence Of Global Elite Governance Dwarfs All Prior FAILS!!!

dailymail  |  Prince Charles warns the coming climate crisis will 'dwarf' the impact of coronavirus as he urges 'immediate action' to 'reset' the economy to be 'sustainable and inclusive'

Prince Charles will warn that the climate crisis will 'dwarf' the impact of Covid-19

Will call for action in recorded message from Birkhall in the grounds of Balmoral

Comes months after urged nations to work together to tackle climate crisis

Prince Charles will warn that the climate crisis will 'dwarf' the impact of coronavirus and call for 'swift and immediate action' in tackling the matter.

In a recorded message from Birkhall in the grounds of Balmoral, the Prince of Wales, 71, will say that the Covid-19 pandemic is a 'window of opportunity' to reset the economy for a more 'sustainable and inclusive' future. 

The prince's comments come months after he urged nations to work together to tackle the environmental threat to the planet as he attended WaterAid charity's Water and Climate event at Kings Place in London.

In his message, to be played at the virtual opening of Climate Week on Monday afternoon, the prince said: 'Without swift and immediate action, at an unprecedented pace and scale, we will miss the window of opportunity to 'reset' for… a more sustainable and inclusive future.

'In other words, the global pandemic is a wake-up call we cannot ignore…
'…[the environmental] crisis has been with us for far too many years – decried, denigrated and denied.

'It is now rapidly becoming a comprehensive catastrophe that will dwarf the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.'

Prince Charles, who tested positive for coronavirus in March, previously urged members of the Commonwealth to come together to tackle climate change.

BLM Is Elite Mimetic Diversion For What's Around That Signpost Up Ahead....,

unz  |  Let’s assume that Black Lives Matter is not a “social justice” movement, but a corporate-sponsored public relations vehicle that’s being used to advance the agenda of elites? Is that too much of a stretch?

And let’s say that the massive protests that erupted across the country were not random or spontaneous events as some people seem to think, but part of a broader strategy to control the headlines by shifting the dominant “narrative” to race. The death of George Floyd fits perfectly with this “broader strategy”, as the incident took place 6 months before the general election, which (conveniently) gave the Democrats enough time to mount an effective attack on Donald Trump using an issue on which they feel he is particularly vulnerable. (Race)

Was it all a coincidence?

Maybe or maybe not. But it’s certainly worth investigating, after all, we’ve just endured 3 and a half years of relentless fabrications connected to the Russiagate scam, so the idea that this latest headline-grabbing fiasco might be, well, fake, is certainly within the realm of possibility.

So, let’s see if we can figure out “why” wealthy elites and their giant charitable foundations would choose to dump millions of dollars into an organization that claims to be Marxist. Could be that….
  1. They are genuinely committed to social justice for black people?
  2. They think “racist” cops are the Number 1 problem facing black people today?
  3. They think the massive protests are raising consciousness which will have a transformative effect on the country?
  4. They need a flashy social justice organization (BLM) to divert attention from widening inequality, spiraling unemployment, ballooning poverty, shrinking growth, and the savage restructuring of the economy that is creating a permanent underclass forced to scrape by at food banks, homeless shelters and tent cities that are sprouting up across the country but which are religiously ignored by our prostitute media?
If you chose Number 4, you guessed right. The protests, demonstrations and riots are all part of a spectacular “Product Launch”, the most impressive Madison Avenue-type extravaganza of all-time. BLM has exploded onto the scene just months before the election eliminating all of the 10 Top issues listed by Gallup that voters really care about, and skillfully shifting the public’s attention to race, race relations, social justice and cops. What an astonishing turnaround! In the old days we would have called this the “old switcheroo”, an art-form that has been perfected by BLM (and their Democrat handlers) who have turned the election on its head by burning down half the country, then claiming they are the victims. How’s that for twisted logic?

So, what can we say definitively about BLM? What does the group really believe and what is it trying to achieve? Having spent a fair amount of time on their website, I’m still puzzled. The website contains a number of emotive videos with pulsing background music and lively narration. But–like everything else with this shadowy group– there doesn’t seem to be much substance. The emphasis seems to be on appearances rather than policy, slogans rather than remedies, and catchy monikers (Black Lives Matter) rather than thoughtful recommendations for real change. So, where’s the beef? 

Who is Black Lives Matter and what do they want?

Who Funds Black Lives Matter?

WSWS  |  Last summer, the Ford Foundation, one of the most powerful private foundations in the world, announced that it was organizing to channel $100 million to the Black Lives Movement over the next six years.

“By partnering with Borealis Philanthropy, Movement Strategy Center and Benedict Consulting to found the Black-Led Movement Fund, Ford has made six-year investments in the organizations and networks that compose the Movement for Black Lives,” according to the Ford Foundation web site. In a statement of support, Ford called for the group to grow and prosper. “We want to nurture bold experiments and help the movement build the solid foundation that will enable it to flourish.”

In the wake of the monetary commitment by the big-business foundation network, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has explicitly embraced black capitalism. It appears the group is now well positioned to cash in on the well-known #BLM Twitter hashtag. Announcing its first “big initiative for 2017,” BLM cofounder Patrisse Cullors stated that it would be partnering with the Fortune 500 New York ad agency J. Walter Thompson (JWT) to create “the biggest and most easily accessible black business database in the country.”

BLM joins the ranks of prestigious JWT clientele including HSBC Bank, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, and Shell Oil. JWT also represents the US Marine Corps. CEO Lynn Power suggested that the BLM partnership would provide the advertising firm with an opportunity to “shape culture positively.” “I am really glad that our partnership with Black Lives Matter is giving us the opportunity to play a truly active role,” she enthused.

The joint project, Backing Black Business, is a nationwide interactive map of black-owned enterprises. This virtual Google-based directory has nothing to do with opposing police violence, from which Black Lives Matter ostensibly emerged. Cullors nevertheless portrayed the venture as enabling blacks to have “somewhere for us to go and feel seen and safe,” concluding, “In these uncertain times, we need these places more than ever.”

Such developments may come as a surprise to those who embraced the sentiment that “black lives matter” because they saw it as an oppositional rebuke to the militarization of police and the disproportionate police murder of African Americans. Many did not realize that the political aims and nature of Black Lives Matter were of an entirely different nature.

In fact, the election of Donald Trump has served to put even more distance between the large layers of workers and young people opposed to police violence and the privileged upper middle class layer that Black Lives Matter represents. The latter, developments have shown, are leveraging #BLM as a brand to make a name for themselves, find lucrative sinecures and, more generally, get on the gravy train.

BLM’s most recent scheme is even more crass than Backing Black Business. In February, BLM launched a “black debit card” underwritten by OneUnited Bank. “A historic partnership has been born between OneUnited Bank, the largest Black-owned bank in the country, and #BlackLivesMatter to organize the $1.2 trillion in spending power of Black people and launch the Amir card during Black History Month,” boasts OneUnited’s web site.

Monday, September 21, 2020

Trump’s Total Lack Of Respect For What Elites Pretend To Hold Dear WON MY VOTE!!!

theautomaticearth  |  I was going to make this the shortest essay I’ve ever written. “Trump Will Win Because of Energy. Period.” But wouldn’t you know, things start popping up on exactly the topic it was going to be about… The difference in energy between Donald Trump and Joe Biden should be obvious to everyone, including Biden supporters, though they will try to ignore it, as well as the role energy plays in a campaign, as it does in life in general -not just human life either-.

People recognize energy, they feel it. it’s a primal thing, directly linked to survival. It doesn’t get recognized at a rational level, but somewhere much deeper. And it’s not even so much that Trump’s energy levels are above average, for a 74-year old (though they appear to be), but that Biden’s are so far below average – or perhaps exactly what you would expect for a 77-year old, which is why so few of them are running for president of the United States, a job that I think we would all agree requires a lot of energy.

When you take out of the equation which person you like or not, when you disregard their policy proposals, and you only look at energy levels, the difference is vast. And people will catch on to this. The first debate is in 9 days, September 29, and how do you prepare Biden for that? Trump last night suggested his handlers do it by applying ‘big, fat shots in the ass’, but even that wouldn’t do it.

Trump doesn’t need to hammer this point home too hard, it will be obvious no matter what. It may even be better for him to show compassion for Biden. One of the main instructions from his team will undoubtedly be to NOT go after Joe Biden so hard it will make him stutter. Because that would make Trump look like a bully, and give Biden points on compassion from the audience.

But I doubt Trump will be able to help himself. And perhaps, at least from his point of view, he should just be and remain who he is. Because that worked four years ago. Will these be the best-watched debates in history? Quite possibly. Meanwhile, as Trump yesterday worked all day -if we are to believe the reports- and then campaigned all night in Fayetteville NC, Biden was MIA.

That by now is a pattern. As is the mysterious lack of door-to-door campaigning by the Biden team. It may not be impossible to win that way, but it certainly would be a first. And it makes the team look like they have a similar energy level to Biden himself (In another mystery, we see people talk about finding it hard to get yard signs for the Biden campaign).

That leaves you with the impression that the Biden team really has just one message: Orange Man Bad. Not: vote *for* me, but vote *against* the other guy. the racist/rapist who killed 200,000 Americans and offends “our” troops”. That in turn appears to signal that what energy there is, is negative energy. Doesn’t look like a winning formula.

Biden Is The Candidate Of The Elites, Of Everyone Who Counts In America...,

downwithtyranny |  Biden is the candidate of the elites, of almost everyone who counts in America. For them, Trump is an aberration, a mole that must be removed.

If that isn't obvious, it should be — the evidence is everywhere, from all the non-Fox news sources, to the behavior most of our public figures, even to the behavior of a great many Republican leaders.

Given this as context, let's look at the possibility of a "descent into Trump-led totalitarianism" during and immediately following the next election. In short, will Trump seize power, dictator-like, to win and rule like Mussolini?

This is the Big Fear in Democratic eyes, the one we've been hearing about, week after week after week. It's possible, of course. But consider:

1. Trump doesn't have the backing of the military; they've made that perfectly clear. Without the military, the only possible coup will have to come from the courts.

2. Trump may have the instincts of a dictator, but he doesn't have the skills or the desire to put in the work. Frankly, if he really wanted to be a dictator, he'd be one already.

He's an egocentric, relatively mindless, easily distracted, lazy, unbright narcissist whose monomania is simply himself — the incoming adoration he basks in minute-to-minute; the minute-to-minute state of his pleasure; the joy he takes in disrupting any room he's in before he leaves it.

Sure he's a person like the rest of us in many ways — he's functional, or his kids would put him away — and he has a feral understanding of interpersonal dominance.

But he does wake up each day asking, "How can I be more like Mussolini?" It doesn't seem so. From all appearances, instead he wakes up asking, "How can I enjoy myself today? Where's my fun going to come from? Let's start with a couple hours of Fox, and see where things go from there."

3. Finally, as noted above, Trump is not the candidate of the oligarchy, of the American hegemonic state and most of its "private" organs like CNN and the mainstream press. Biden is their candidate, and it's been obvious since forever.

The oligarchy wants Trump gone, and wants it badly. The military wants him gone, the CIA wants him gone, the press wants him gone, the diplomatic service wants him gone, and most of the billionaires want him gone. Yes, some are neutral and a few, like Sheldon Adelson, are rabid supporters, but most of the rest — CEOs of Google, Apple, military and security companies like Raytheon and Boeing, and any business doing business in China — are truly set against him.

Bankers are perhaps agnostic about his election, but if they have pro-Trump preferences they can easily surrender them. After all, the bankers will make bundles either way. Same with the energy giants. Biden is talking a decent climate-change game, but his actions send messages everyone understands: "Fossil fuel profits are safe in my administration."

The risk that the Democratic Party will disrupt the Establishment game has been dispatched. They kicked Sanders and his people off the Interstate months ago. Let them complain; it's back roads for all of them now. As an alternative to Trump, the Party now offers a new Ronald Reagan, their sleepy iteration anyway, and they're begging Reagan voters to vote for him.

As BLM Fades.., The Elites Roll Out Their Little Girl Climate Change Brigade

Sunday, September 20, 2020

1% Replacement Negroe Immigrants Made The Native 1% Elites EVEN MORE Medieval...,

voxeu |  It is a well-documented fact that top-income growth has been particularly stark in English-speaking countries, with incomes of the top 1% and 0.1% rising sharply over recent decades (Atkinson et al. 2011, Blanchet et al. 2019). Some scholars have argued that the shared economic and political institutions of these countries, such as lower top marginal tax rates and light touch regulation, have incentivised rent-seeking behaviour among their top earners (Piketty et al. 2011, Bivens and Mishel 2013). In addition, technical changes may have created ‘winner-takes-all’ markets where a few workers earn most of the returns. Recent technological innovations may thus have contributed to the rise of top incomes (Rosen 1981, Kaplan and Rauh 2013, Koenig 2020).

Another characteristic feature of Anglo-Saxon countries is their popularity as a destination for high-skilled migrants, particularly the cities that serve as global services hubs such as London and New York (Kerr et al. 2016, Kerr and Kerr 2018, Roarch et al. 2019). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the rich and famous are internationally mobile and favour these destinations, but this evidence is based on a few highly visible cases. So far, we know little about the magnitude of these effects and the extent to which migration-induced selection effects could drive different trends in income inequality across countries and periods.

In a new paper (Advani et al. 2020), we combine top-income records from UK tax records with new information about migrant status to analyse the link. Tax records have been instrumental in recent research on top incomes. These data provide improved coverage of the highest incomes (reviewed in Atkinson et al. 2011); however, the data include minimal information on demographic characteristics. As a result, it has been difficult for researchers to distinguish native workers from migrant workers at the top of the income distribution, or to assess the impact of migration between countries on income dynamics. We derive information on migrant status from the structure of Social Security numbers assigned to migrant workers on arrival.

Our findings suggest that migrants are highly represented at the top of the income distribution. The public debate primarily focuses on low-income migrants; however, migrants make up a higher proportion of earners at the very top of the income distribution. Among low-income groups, about one in six people are immigrants. In contrast, among the top percentile of the income distribution, one in four people are immigrants and at higher fractiles, every third person is an immigrant. A lack of data has created a perception that migration is mainly a low-income phenomenon, but these new data show that the economy relies most heavily on immigrants for extremely highly paid positions.

The inflow of high-income migrants can also help in understanding recent trends in top incomes. In the UK, an inflow of high-income finance workers can account for much of the observed rise in top-income shares over the past two decades. Immigrants make up more than a quarter of the top percentiles’ income share, up from 18% in 1997. Over these two decades, the importance of migrants thus increased by 50%, which accounts for about 85% of the rise in top income over this period (Figure 1a). 

The impact of migration is even starker at higher income levels. Among the top 0.1% and 0.01% top, migrants make up roughly a third of UK top incomes (Figure 1a). This pattern aligns closely with the observed expansion of the wage distribution at the top. Incomes in the very top fractiles of the income distribution have grown the fastest in recent decades, pulling away even from the rapidly growing incomes in the lower end of the top 1%. The data suggest that differential migration rates can rationalise this ‘fractal inequality’. The inflow of migrants into the top 0.01% was nearly twice as large as the comparable inflow into the top 1% over the past two decades. Hence, differential migration rates may have increased the gap between the incomes of the top 1% and the top 0.1% (Figure 1b).

Savage Foreign Scum Working To ReOpen The Bronx Slave Market...,

NYTimes |   This underclass status can be traced as far back as the 1800s, historians say, and is squarely rooted in racism. Domestic work was then one of the few ways that Black women could earn money, and well into the 20th century, most of those women lived in the South. During the Jim Crow era, they were powerless and exploited. Far from the happy “mammy” found in popular culture like “Gone With the Wind,” these women were mistreated and overworked. In 1912, a publication called The Independent ran an essay by a woman identified only as a “Negro Nurse,” who described 14-hour workdays, seven days a week, for $10 a month.

“I live a treadmill life,” she wrote. “I see my own children only when they happen to see me on the streets.”

In 1935, the federal government all but codified the grim conditions of domestic work with the passage of the Social Security Act. The law was the crowning achievement of the New Deal, providing retirement benefits as well as the country’s first national unemployment compensation program — a safety net that was invaluable during the Depression. But the act excluded two categories of employment: domestic workers and agricultural laborers, jobs that were most essential to Black women and Black men, respectively.

The few Black people invited to weigh in on the bill pointed out the obvious. In February 1935, Charles Hamilton Houston, then special counsel to the N.A.A.C.P., testified before the Senate Finance Committee and said that from the viewpoint of Black people, the bill “looks like a sieve with the holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

The historian Mary Poole, author of “The Segregated Origins of Social Security,” sifted through notes, diaries and transcripts created during the passage of the act and found that Black people were excluded not because white Southerners in control of Congress at the time insisted on it. The truth was more troubling, and more nuanced. Members of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration — most notably, the Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr. — persuaded congressional leaders that the law would be far simpler to administer, and therefore far more likely to succeed, if the two occupations were left out of the bill.

In the years that followed, Black domestic workers were consistently at the mercy of white employers. In cities like New York, African-American women lined up at spots along certain streets, carrying a paper bag filled with work clothes, waiting for white housewives to offer them work, often for an hour or two, sometimes for the day. A reporter, Marvel Cooke, and an activist, Ella Baker, wrote a series of articles in 1935 for The Crisis, the journal of the N.A.A.C.P., describing life in what they called New York City’s “slave markets.”

The markets’ popularity diminished in the ’40s after Mayor Fiorello La Guardia opened hiring halls, where contracts were signed laying out terms for day labor arrangements. But in early 1950, Ms. Cooke found the markets in New York City were bustling again. In a series of first-person dispatches, she joined the “paper bag brigades” and went undercover to describe life for the Black women who stood in front of the Woolworths on 170th Street.

“That is the Bronx Slave Market,” she wrote in The Daily Compass in January 1950, “where Negro women wait, in rain or shine, in bitter cold or under broiling sun, to be hired by local housewives looking for bargains in human labor.”

That same year, domestic work was finally added to the Social Security Act, and by the 1970s it had been added to federal legislation intended to protect laborers, including the Fair Labor Standards Act. African-American women had won many of those protections by organizing, though by the 1980s, they had moved into other occupations and were largely replaced by women from South and Central America as well as the Caribbean.

The Roots Of American Misery

project-syndicate |  In refreshing contrast, Anne Case and Angus Deaton, wife-and-husband economists at Princeton, offer a careful, deep, and troubling look at the America that lies beyond the Ivy League. In a study organized around the grim recent decline of life expectancy among white males and the equally grim rise of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and opioids, they demonstrate a broad range of knowledge, analytical nuance, and open-mindedness. They do not start with some certainty that will be hammered home, nor do they try to explain everything with a single trademark concept, as Putnam does with individualism and Sandel with meritocracy. Rather, their book is an exploration of historical patterns guided by a meticulous effort to reconcile statistical facts with plausible explanations.
A great merit of Case and Deaton’s approach is their blunt assault on named villains, starting with the producers and peddlers of opioids. “In the opioid epidemic,” they write:

“… the agents were not viruses or bacteria but rather the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the drugs and aggressively pushed their sales; the members of Congress who prevented the [Drug Enforcement Administration] from prosecuting mindful overprescription; the DEA, which acceded to lobbyists’ requests not to close the legal loophole that was allowing importation of raw material from poppy farms in Tasmania that had been planted to feed the epidemic; the [Food and Drug Administration], which approved the drugs …; the medical professionals who carelessly overprescribed them; and the drug dealers from Mexico and China who took over when the medical profession began to pull back.”They also single out Republican US Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, former Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, and the now-notorious Sackler family (two of whom were knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1995), the owners of Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin.

Case and Deaton christen the problem of declining white male life expectancy “deaths of despair,” a term that captures the social psychology behind the lethal abuse of booze, pills, needles, and guns. Skeptical of simple economic explanations, they examine and then rule out any direct relationship between deaths of despair and poverty, income losses from the post-2008 Great Recession, or even unemployment. This absence of economic determination is understandable once one realizes that mere income losses are, to a considerable extent, cushioned by unemployment insurance and Social Security, contrary to the Cambridge consensus.

But if not income losses, poverty, or inequality, then what? Case and Deaton describe “a long-term and slowly unfolding loss of a way of life for the white, less-educated, working class.” While unemployment rates rise and fall, and poverty can cause real pain, the decline of community that follows the loss of a major employer – reflected in small-business closures, decaying schools, and declining local services – cuts deep. Case and Deaton argue that the insecurity, precarity, and despair accompanying life in such communities are much harder to deal with than mere loss of personal income.Case and Deaton do also stress the gap between those with and without a college education. It’s a divide that runs deep, but how should it be interpreted? It is tempting to reify the diploma, to read the divide as evidence that if more people went to college, they would ipso facto lead happier, more fulfilling lives. But the US already puts more people through college than most countries, and yet, so far as we know, deaths of despair are decidedly more prevalent in America than in, say, Europe or Asia.

A more convincing analysis would lead back to those inconvenient economists: Marx, Keynes, and Galbraith père; to the early writings of Bowles and Gintis; and to Harvard’s own great mid-twentieth-century reactionary, Joseph Schumpeter – to whom Case and Deaton do pay fair homage. The lesson is that society only has a certain number of open doors to what Thorstein Veblen famously called the “leisure class”: the professions, the academy, competitive finance. College opens those doors, but does not widen the doorways. And when the industrial classes have been decimated by technology and trade, it is inevitable that millions who were once supported by industry will fall down, not climb up – irrespective of how much schooling or retraining they obtain.The services jobs that have fueled US economic growth for the past 40 years – until the pandemic began to destroy them – are numerous. But generally, they are neither well-paid nor otherwise rewarding. Often, they are what the late David Graeber memorably called “bullshit jobs.” While not typically backbreaking, they are often demanding in a repetitive, tedious, chronic-pain-inducing way. Expanding college completion without creating better jobs would merely increase the number of frustrated aspirants to the leisure class. That could be a formula for more despair, not less.

Saturday, September 19, 2020

Dignity Is Something You TAKE!!! NOT Something You Whine And Beg For...,

NPR  |  In the mid-'80s, just as his career as a writer was reaching its first ascent, Stanley Crouch presided over an attempted, unexpected, coup d'etat. Crouch wanted to return to a time when the serious Black practitioners participated in the gatekeeping. (The title of a 2000 Crouch piece in the New York Times says it all: "Don't Ask the Critics. Ask Wallace Roney's Peers.") That was all to the good, but another, more reactionary and perhaps even more commercial aspect of his proposed revolution proved impossible to implement: defining jazz as a fixed object made up of conventional swing, blues, romantic ballads, a Latin tinge... and not too much else. While executing this maneuver, Crouch rejected — by some lights, betrayed — his original peer group of Murray, Blythe and Newton, and instead embraced the latest musicians intrigued by a comparatively straight-ahead approach. (Newton complained, "A stylistically dominant agenda in jazz is like bringing Coca-Cola to a five-star dinner!")

It was an artificial conceit to begin with, and Crouch was too contrarian and combative to lead a movement. However, he did have one important acolyte: Wynton Marsalis, the man anointed as the biggest new jazz star of the era. Marsalis studied the texts of Stanley Crouch and Albert Murray the way he did the music of Jelly Roll Morton and Louis Armstrong. In what may have been an unprecedented event, a major jazz artist actually read critics, and let those critics inform his music. (Crouch also contributed liner notes to the first run of excellent Marsalis LPs.)

Between them, Marsalis and Crouch kicked off the jazz wars of the '80s and '90s, an argument about tradition versus innovation, a tempest in a teacup that played out in all the major jazz magazines, in many mainstream publications, in bars and clubs everywhere – and in the end did very little good to anybody. (The day Keith Jarrett angrily invited Wynton Marsalis to a "blues duel" in the New York Times was a notable low point.) The 2001 Ken Burns documentary Jazz, which featured Marsalis and Crouch as both off-screen advisors and on-screen commentators, was the climactic battleground. People who love post-1959 styles connected to funk, fusion and the avant-garde are still very upset about Ken Burns' Jazz

Still. When he started assembling the repertory institution Jazz at Lincoln Center in 1987, Wynton Marsalis was advocating for the primacy of the Black aesthetic at a time when the white, Stan Kenton-to-Gary Burton lineage dominated major organizations like the Berklee College of Music and the International Association of Jazz Educators. The music of Kenton and Burton has tremendous value, but their vast institutional sway and undue influence in jazz education is part of this discussion. We needed less North Texas State (Kenton's first pedagogical initiative) and more Duke Ellington in the mix, and Marsalis almost single-handedly corrected our course – although Marsalis himself would give Crouch a lot of the credit. Indeed, Crouch's long-running internal mandate to get Ellington seen as "Artist of the Century" had finally paid off on a macro level, and the free high school program "Essentially Ellington" is one of JALC's most noble achievements.

Crouch and Marsalis also strove to bury the once-prevalent idea that Louis Armstrong was an Uncle Tom, and encouraged the Black working class to reclaim the jazz greats as crucial to their heritage. (Those ready to hate on Ken Burns's Jazz should keep that perspective in mind.)

There was some bad, a lot of good, and plenty to argue about. What can be said for sure: JALC never quite pulled off Crouch's proposed coup. All these years later, JALC remains merely a part of what makes jazz interesting today. Younger practitioners and listeners comfortably see the music as a continuum that can contain anything from the avant-garde harp musings of Alice Coltrane to the electric fusion of John McLaughlin to hip-hop stylings of Robert Glasper. Crouch's definition of jazz does not dominate the conversation the way he intended, perhaps paradoxically proving the original point that jazz musicians and critics don't really have much to do with each other.

Yesterday I Heard An SJW Whine "I'd Rather Have My Dignity Than Eat!!"

gatestoneinstitute  | The US nominally enshrines the most far-reaching freedom of speech, thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yet the average number of Americans who self-censor is slowly beginning to approximate that of Germany, where... "Nearly two-thirds of citizens are convinced that 'today one has to be very careful on which topics one expresses oneself', because there are many unwritten laws about what opinions are acceptable and admissible".

It is, however, not surprising. American campuses have steered a "leftist" course for decades. The tilt has had familiar consequences: the proliferation on campus of "safe spaces", trigger warnings, de-platforming of conservative voices and a "cancel culture" aimed at professors and students who do not conform to an on-campus political orthodoxy that has become increasingly totalitarian. Most recently, the dean of University of Massachusetts Lowell's School of Nursing, Leslie Neal-Boylan, was fired by the school after writing "Black lives matter, but also everyone's life matters" in an email to students and faculty.

When citizens stop voicing their concerns in public about current events, policies and ideas out of fear that they will lose their livelihoods and social standing, it is -- or should be -- a huge problem in a democracy.

A democratic society of fearful citizens who dare not speak about what is on their minds -- often important issues of their time -- is doomed to succumb to the will of those who bully the hardest and shout the loudest.

A recent survey of 2,000 Americans by Cato Institute/YouGov found that 62% of Americans say "the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive". This is up from 2017, when 58% agreed with this statement. "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share".

People who defined themselves as staunch liberals self-censored considerably less:

The Q-Anon Doxxing Was Mild Compared To What's About To Happen To Coincidence Theorists

off-guardian  |  New rules passing in the Australian state of Victoria could see “conspiracy theorists” and those “suspected by health authorities of being likely to spread the virus” detained in quarantine centres, according to The Age
The rules are amendments being added to the Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Bill, which was first passed back in April

The proposed detention would last “for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health”

To translate that from bureaucrat into English: it means as for long as they want, or can get away with.

Legislation with this kind of vague verbiage is always a red flag, but then Victoria is currently over-flowing with warning signs of this kind.

Victoria – The World’s Fascist Test Run?

Maybe you haven’t been following exactly how bad things are getting in Australia – and most especially Victoria – but they have essentially aggressively seized their opportunity to create a fascist micro-state. A social Petri dish, in which to culture some tyranny.

They have declared both a “state of emergency” AND a “state of disaster” for a disease which has killed fewer than a thousand people in 9 months across the entire country. 

For a sense of perspective, in 2018 over three times as many people died of influenza, and the same number again committed suicide.

As of right now Australia has just 16 cases of coronavirus classified as “severe”.
And yet, among other highly authoritarian regulations in place, Victoria currently has:
  • A curfew, everybody must be home by 9pm and remain there until 5am.
  • Special work permits for “essential workers”, which must be carried at all times and presented to any law enforcement officer that asks.
  • Police check points on the roads – “leaving a restricted area” is now a criminal offense.
  • “Indefinitely suspended” all Jury trials – all criminal proceedings are now bench trials (they tried that in Scotland, too)
  • A 60 minute limit for anyone leaving their home to exercise, and a rule forbidding people from going more than 5km (3.1 miles) from their home.
  • Instituted a mandatory masks for anyone leaving the house for any reason.
Though notionally intended to be “temporary measures” which only lasted six weeks, they have already extended that timeline for a further six months. There is some planned “loosening” of these restrictions, but with such vague and mutable conditions it’s unlikely this “new normal” is going away. 

Indeed the “emergency” is so comparatively minor that this precedent means almost any future event can be designated a “disaster” or “emergency”, and used as excuse to impose authoritarian social controls.

Friday, September 18, 2020

Jim Cramer Gives Stinky Old Poodle Pelosi MUCH MORE Respect Than She Deserves....,

NYPost  |  CNBC host Jim Cramer called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “Crazy Nancy” to her face during an interview on Tuesday morning — a taunt for the California liberal typically used by President Trump.

The outlandish host of “Mad Money” and former hedge fund manager was interviewing Pelosi on stalled negotiations on a fourth coronavirus stimulus package when the insult appeared to slip out.

“What deal can we have, Crazy Nancy — I’m sorry, that was the president,” Cramer said, scrambling to fix the situation. “I have such reverence for the office, I would never use that term.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) kept her composure but looked less than pleased, telling Cramer: “But you just did. But you just did.”

“Oh come on, you know what I mean,” the CNBC anchor replied, trying to turn the embarrassing episode into a joke.

Cramer’s name immediately began trending on Twitter as clips of the exchange circulated online — with one pundit calling for the 65-year-old to be fired.
“If Jim Cramer is allowed by CNBC to speak to a woman, on tv, who is the #SpeakeroftheHouse it shows that CNBC has no respect for women in this country,” wrote actress Suzanne Cryer.

“It cannot be tolerated. She deserves his respect. Women deserve respect. Jim Cramer should be fire,” she added.

Bloomberg columnist Tim O’Brien wrote, “Stay classy, Jim Cramer.”

Chris Rock: The Effects Of The Pandemic Were Totally Up To Pelosi And The Democrats

NYTimes | You performed at one of Chappelle’s live shows in July. What was that like for you?

When you’re in the clubs, you learn the rain crowd is the best crowd. Any time it’s raining, they really want to be there. The pandemic crowd is really good. “Dude, not only do we want to be here, there is nothing else to do. There’s nothing else to watch. Thank you.”

 What did you talk about?
I talked about our political whatever. America. Part of the reason we’re in the predicament we’re in is, the president’s a landlord. No one has less compassion for humans than a landlord. [Laughs.] And we’re shocked he’s not engaged.

Did you ever see that movie “The Last Emperor,” where like a 5-year-old is the emperor of China? There’s a kid and he’s the king. So I’m like, it’s all the Democrats’ fault. Because you knew that the emperor was 5 years old. And when the emperor’s 5 years old, they only lead in theory. There’s usually an adult who’s like, “OK, this is what we’re really going to do.” And it was totally up to Pelosi and the Democrats. Their thing was, “We’re going to get him impeached,” which was never going to happen. You let the pandemic come in. Yes, we can blame Trump, but he’s really the 5-year-old.

Put it this way: Republicans tell outright lies. Democrats leave out key pieces of the truth that would lead to a more nuanced argument. In a sense, it’s all fake news.

Has Nancy Pelosi Been Gumming Tide Pods?

summit |  GOP Senator John Kennedy used a startling cultural reference to portray his belief that believes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is crazy, saying that he often thinks she has ‘is one of those people who tried Tide Pods’ laundry detergent.

Appearing with Sean Hannity, Kennedy was addressing Pelosi’s obsession with the $3.4 trillion coronavirus bill.

“Sean, with respect, there are times, particularly recently, when I think Speaker Pelosi is one of those people who tried Tide pods,” Kennedy hilariously stated.

 “I want you to think about what she proposed today, this is what the speaker is threatening to do,” he continued, adding “She is threatening to keep the House Democrats in session and prevent them from going home and running for reelection unless the Senate Republicans agree to the speaker’s $3.4 trillion coronavirus bill.”

“On the one hand we can vote for Pelosi’s $3.4 trillion bill or we can agree to allow her to put the House Democratic majority into jeopardy. That’s just bone deep down to the marrow foolish,” Kennedy urged.

Kennedy further emphasised that Nothing is going to get done while the Democrats refuse to back down over something that is never going to come to fruition.

“Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi aren’t going to agree to anything until we agree to spend a trillion dollars bailing out New York and California and that’s not going to happen in your or my natural life,” Kennedy added.

Kennedy’s assessment of Pelosi’s sanity comes on the heels of Mad Money Host Jim Cramer calling Pelosi “crazy Nanncy” right to her face, before instantly apologising

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Biden Campaign: Latinos For Trump Commence To Clowning Old GropingJoe...,


thehill |  The campaign group Latinos for Trump on Wednesday tweeted an ad bringing attention to previous claims of inappropriate touching by Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden using the Spanish-language pop song “Despacito,” referencing a Tuesday address the nominee gave at a Hispanic Heritage Month celebration in Florida. 

“Actually, ‘Despacito’ is the perfect song for Joe Biden,” the group said in a tweet, along with a video that begins with Biden playing the hit song from his phone after being introduced at the campaign event by the song’s singer, Luis Fonsi

The video then includes footage of Biden putting his arms over women at public events, along with lyrics of the song translated into English: “I want to breathe slowly on your neck” and “let me whisper in your ear.” 

The ad then cuts to a previous CNN interview with Lucy Flores, a former Nevada state legislator who accused Biden of inappropriate touching at an event in 2014

In the interview, Flores said that at the event, she could “feel Joe Biden put his hands on my shoulders, get up very close to me from behind, lean in, smell my hair and then plant a slow kiss on the top of my head.” 

After more women came forward with similar claims in 2019, Biden released a video in which he did not directly apologize for his past behavior, but said he would be more mindful of women’s personal space. 

“Social norms have begun to change, they’ve shifted, and the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset, and I get it,” he said in the video. “I hear what they’re saying. I understand it. I’ll be much more mindful. That’s my responsibility, and I’ll meet it.”

Biden Campaign Conquering Worlds In Latino Las Vegas...,

nypost  |  President Trump on Sunday made his case to Hispanic voters at a “Latinos for Trump” roundtable in Las Vegas — often at the expense of his Democratic challenger.

“While Joe Biden failed Hispanic-Americans, I’ve delivered for Hispanic-Americans more than any other president,” Trump said. “I’m fighting for you every single day, and you understand that better than anybody.”

Touting his “unwavering devotion” to the Latino community, Trump specifically cited his administration’s cuts of taxes and regulations, and the speed with which the economy has bounced back following the worst of the coronavirus shutdown.

But Trump also picked up where he left off at a Saturday night rally in Reno, Nev., slamming the record of former Vice President Biden.

“Joe Biden has spent 47 years betrayed the Hispanic-American community totally, sending their jobs to China, raising taxes on their family and small businesses, making their communities less safe, attacking their values and trapping their children in failing government schools,” Trump charged.
“He’s in his basement right now and he’s saying, ‘What do I do?'”

Biden Campaign Ratchets Up Courting Black voters, Specifically Black Men


metrotimes |  Since he left office in 2019, former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has largely kept a low profile. But on Thursday, the Republican broke his silence to to announce in a USA Today op-ed that he was bucking his party and endorsing Democratic candidate Joe Biden for president.

In the op-ed, Snyder called President Donald Trump a "bully" who "lacks a moral compass" and "ignores the truth."

"As a proud nerd, I had to deal with bullies over many years; it is tragedy watching our world suffer from one," Snyder wrote.

The thing about tragedies, though, is that they can be wrought even by nerds like Snyder.

His greatest claim to infamy, of course, is his administration's handling of the Flint water crisis, which was a direct result of Michigan's emergency manager law. The people of Michigan rejected a similar law at the ballot in 2012; when that happened, Snyder and the Republican-led Congress just rammed through a new version that couldn't be rejected by voters. Then, while under emergency management, the city of Flint made the disastrous decision to switch its water supply — which led to its drinking water being poisoned with lead, harming thousands.

Even worse, a bombshell VICE report published earlier this year suggests a coordinated, years-long cover-up of the crisis that goes all the way up to Snyder, who may have known about the crisis much earlier than he testified.

Unsurprisingly, as Snyder's public profile was soured in the wake of the crisis, he has called for a return to "civility" in political discourse. But as the statute of limitations for criminal charges in the Flint crisis passed in April, followed by Michigan announcing a massive $600 million settlement for the victims in August, Snyder remained off the hook.

Now, it seems like Democrats are intent on rehabilitating him, the same way George W. Bush became recast as a fine artist who pals around with Hollywood icons at foot

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Is The Great Reset The Hegemonic Elite Narrative To Paper Over The Reality Of Peak Oil?

Yesterday morning I read back to back dissertations on the Green Economy and the Green New Deal from the Brookings (neoliberal fascist) and Open Democracy (center left) respectively. These got me thinking about the overarching objectives of the entire Great Reset Operation, the tools it has employed over the past three years for human livestock management, and, its endlessly escalating opposition to MAGA or Brexit nationalism. 

In the area of endless escalation, the abrupt impoverishment of tens of millions via unnecessary quarantines and lockdowns, billowing political and interpersonal polarization fast approaching civil war/race war, and the use of engineered biological agents (which presumably can be ratcheted up to increasing levels of contagiousness and lethality) - all point toward an endgame that is far more drastic than anything currently countenanced in the mainstream narrative. We're not talking here about a "new normal", instead, we're talking about mass starvation, everyone against everyone ultraviolence, and when austerity gets REALLY severe, cannibalism. 

Central Banks are fighting a battle they will lose. Conventional (easy cheap oil) peaked in 2005. To compensate for that we smash rocks and suck out the oil --- we steam oil out of sand - and we drill miles beneath the ocean for oil. The EROEI from those extractive methods is very low. At the moment, we still have enough high energy return oil to subsidize those methods so civilization continues. (with greatly reduced travel, disrupted supply chains, and massive amounts of stimulus to help cope with the low EROEI oil mix.

The global economy does NOT like low energy return oil because it leaves less to run the world. In 2019 shale oil was peaking so the stop-gap, make-work party was ending. At that time, political elites began handwaving toward Universal Basic Income and Modern Monetary Theory to prep us for what we are experiencing now. They trotted out pasty and uncharismatic Greta Thunberg to exhort us about shutting down the planet.

Meanwhile and in parallel we get the MAGA man and his competing exhortations to take America back to 1954 along every politically expedient metric. At that point, in his "greatest economy ever" spiel, he could point to a periodic glut and claim 'we are swimming in oil'.  A glut does not mean we have found more oil - it simply means producers are pumping their reserves out faster.  They usually do this when prices are low as they need the cash flow to pay the bills so they need to push our more volume. The truth is that there is very little new oil being found.   What would you do if you were on your last tank of gas?   Of course you would ration it.  

Enter Covid and the Great Reset. Covid was created in a lab to provide cover for the collapsing energy availability "new normal". Covid has provided mimetic cover under authority of science for central banks to roll out MMT UBI Helicopter Money.  In addition, we are being groomed to accept lockdowns.  Anyone who resists is met with a big fine, arrest and in some countries beatings.   Your neighbour will be told by the authorities to rat on you going forward. Why?  Because when the Central Banks and their puppet politicians lose control of this situation they will enact martial law -- a total lockdown.  (the police state pincer movement)

For a time there may be food delivery pacification to those in the most extreme condition, but like stimulus checks and the MMT UBI, these will stop in fairly short order too. Politicians will promise 'the deliveries will resume in a couple of days'.  Like good sheep, you will trust these sock puppet rascals and wait... and wait... and wait...  and when you realize there is no food coming you will be too weak and exhausted to do anything. In any event there will be nothing you can do - there will be no food because the system has collapsed. 

This will be for your own good.  Resisting is futile.   Nobody wants extreme violence and cannibalism.   You and your family will lie down and wait to die from starvation.   

Reason Is Off The Table As Long As Governance Elides The Truth Of What's Really Happening

americanmind  |  Michael Anton’s new article “The Coming Coup?” went viral almost as soon as we posted it a week ago today. This is not simply because figures like Lara Logan, Mollie Hemingway, Newt Gingrich, Dan Bongino, and the editors of the New York Post took note. It spread because concerned citizens began sharing it throughout the nation. We could tell it was especially effective because so many in the mainstream media maintained studious radio silence.

But hyperventilating ruling-class supporters of the Biden/BLM/Antifa coalition did predictably lash out. The epitome of these reactions is an article in New York magazine’s Intelligencer, by political columnist Ed Kilgore, entitled “Trump Backers Make Case for Stealing Election, Before Biden Gets the Chance.”

The title itself reveals the stubborn simplicity of the Democratic Party’s coup narrative. Their elites have worked themselves and their base into a frothing lather of existential fright. In article after article, liberal intellectuals and activists have been talking for months about how Trump could steal the election or refuse to leave the White House even if he loses. But if the Right dares to point out that Democrats are actually changing the rules of the electoral process and actually speaking publicly about refusing to concede even if they lose, well, this only proves that the Right is going to steal the election and refuse to concede if they lose!