Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 13, 2025 3:53 pm

Trump and Democrats Fuel the Washington DC Crime Panic
Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist 13 Aug 2025


Image
Image: X.com/freedomrideblog

Donald Trump’s takeover of the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department is not merely a result of his racist and authoritarian tendencies, nor is it new. It is part and parcel of a history of militarized policing against Black people and a bipartisan consensus promoting racist crime panics, which are often conducted with the help of the Black misleadership class.

“The year before, Newark, New Jersey, had been occupied by nearly lily-white units of the National Guard, sent there to quell a four-day rebellion in which 26 Blacks were killed.” Glen Ford describing the 1967 occupation of Newark, New Jersey

Donald Trump’s declaration of a 30-day public safety emergency, including a National Guard deployment, in Washington, DC was not, as the corporate media would have us believe, undertaken suddenly. The reported assault on one of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) former employees, Edward Coristine , was widely reported to be the casus belli of the federal attack on Washington, DC.

But in reality, the plan had been in place months before that incident, which Trump chose to amplify at a convenient moment. In March 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful ,” which, despite its name, had little to do with municipal beautification. Trump established a law enforcement Task Force made up of federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who were directed to work with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). “The Task Force may, to the extent permitted by law, request operational assistance from and coordinate with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, United States Park Police, Amtrak Police, and other Federal and local officials as appropriate.”

Trump’s performance at the August 11 press conference was a typical one for him as he described the nation’s capital city. “Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore.” Residents and visitors to Washington wouldn’t recognize what Trump described, but an accurate description would invalidate the entire project.

The press conference was preceded a day earlier by a police dragnet targeting the majority Black community of Deanwood , located in Northeast Washington. Resident Anthony Lorenzo Green reported in the early morning hours on August 10. “Police agencies I’ve been able to identify on the scene: MPD, MTPD, FBI, HSI, ICE.”

The outrage expressed over a president sending National Guard troops into a United States city to carry out police work is valid, but Trump is not the first president to engage in these tactics. It does little good to paint him as being exceptional when he is not. In the 1960s, rebellions took place in major cities such as Newark, Los Angeles and Detroit and they were met by National Guard troops in response. Black Agenda Report co-founder Glen Ford wrote about events in Newark in 1967. “The Guardsmen behaved like an Army of White Vengeance, joining the racist cops in savaging Black people and shooting up businesses displaying ‘Black-owned’ and ‘Soul Brother’ signs on the Springfield Avenue thoroughfare.” More recently, the National Guard in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 used terms such as “enemy forces ” to describe citizens who protested the police killing of Michael Brown.

In the 1960s, there were not yet Black mayors, even in majority Black cities. Now there are, but they are as eager to help in demonizing their communities as their white counterparts are. In 2024, New York City mayor Eric Adams joined governor Kathy Hochul in approving her deployment of National Guard troops in the subway system. As governor she was within her rights to do so, but the effort was political theater meant to quell the never ending claims of crime waves proclaimed by white residents, who complain whether crime rates are up or down. Hochul boasts about a drop in subway crime since the deployment began, but subway crime rates were already falling before the manufactured crisis took place.

Adams is not alone in justifying over policing of Black people. In 2023, the Washington, DC City Council proposed a set of modest criminal justice reforms, which were immediately portrayed as being “soft on crime” and which elicited demands from congress to stop the bill. The president at the time, democrat Joe Biden , joined in the screeds against the Council’s proposed bill and he was supported by democrats and the allegedly liberal Washington Post editorial board , which declared, “D.C.’s crime bill could make the city more dangerous.” Much attention was given to a proposal to reduce the recommended sentence for carjacking from a 40-year sentence to 24 years. Twenty-four years is a very long sentence, and the former federal prosecutor who helped write the bill pointed out that judges usually gave a sentence of 15 years. Only in the U.S., prison capital of the world, and leader in draconian sentencing, would a 15-year sentence be considered a sign of weakness.

Washington’s Black mayor, Muriel Bowser, joined in the chorus of condemnation but her veto was overridden by the City Council. Predictably, the U.S. Senate voted to disapprove the bill, with 31 democrats joining republicans in doing so. The City Council ended up approving and mayor Bowser signed the Secure DC Omnibus Crime Bill, which didn’t reduce any sentencing recommendations and which allowed for the establishment of so-called “drug-free zones” that allow for arbitrary arrests and the expansion of pre-trial detention based on vague predictions of risk.

Bowser could have strongly condemned Trump’s lies about her city, but as expected, she demurred and gave milquetoast responses, pledging to “… follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep DC safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.” Council Member Janeese Lewis George was more forthright. “Despite everything the District has done to sort of meet the president’s asks, the mayor has done to meet the president’s asks — that wasn’t enough for him. It was never going to be enough. But now, we fight.”

That sentiment is in the minority and not just in Washington. Major law firms, television networks, and prestigious universities all bow down to Trump. None put up a fight against his demands. There is no backbone among the liberal classes and Bowser is no different from wealthy colleges with billionaire board members who all choose to do what Trump tells them to do.

Neo-liberal Black mayors, all chosen in a corrupt system of rich people deciding who we do and don’t get to vote for, are no better than their white counterparts. They accede to racist demands for all Black people to be surveilled and policed and locked up. They have their positions precisely because they pledge not to rock the political boat. Trump or any other president can order them as he pleases, and not just in Washington, DC which is ultimately under federal control.

Trump sent the National Guard into Los Angeles and a federal court case will determine whether it is legal for the Guard to engage in civilian law enforcement. The outcome of that case may or may not deter Trump, however, it is decided. One thing is certain. The people cannot depend on their elected representatives to protect them as they are pledged to do. The idea that they act as the people want is a fantasy meant to stifle dissent when dissent is exactly what is needed in Washington, DC and around the country.

https://blackagendareport.com/trump-and ... rime-panic

******

Trump Announces Deployment of National Guard in Washington DC (+Homeless Crisis)
August 13, 2025

Image
Homeless people under a bridge in Washington, DC. Photo: TRT World.

US President Donald Trump said at a White House press conference on Monday, August 11, that he is deploying the National Guard to assist in restoring law and order and public safety in Washington, DC.

Trump also stated that he has formally invoked the Home Rule Act to place the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control.

“This is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back,” Trump said.

Trump noted that his administration surged 500 federal agents into the district last week, including from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Park Police, the US Marshals Service, the Secret Service, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Since Trump’s return to the White House, he has repeatedly criticized violent crime and homelessness in Washington, DC, blaming the local government for poor management and threatening a federal takeover of the district.

In an interview with MSNBC last Sunday, Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, DC defended the capital’s safety, saying “we have spent over the last two years driving down violent crime in this city, driving it down to a 30-year low.”

https://orinocotribune.com/trump-announ ... ss-crisis/

Whitewashing Pedophilia
August 12, 2025

Image
Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. File photo.

By Karim – Aug. 9, 2025

Epstein’s “Women”
When Max Blumenthal, an admirable journalist who has built his reputation on exposing Western imperial brutality, repeatedly refers to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims as “women“ rather than the children they were, we witness the power of civilizational conditioning to override even the most critical minds. This is not mere carelessness. It is the manifestation of a deeper psychological mechanism that sanitizes the crimes of our own while amplifying the depravity of the Other.

There is a peculiar alchemy at work in our discourse about sexual violence, one that transforms children into “women” and pedophilia into mere “trafficking” when the perpetrators wear suits instead of fatigues, when they operate from Manhattan penthouses rather than Damascus basements. This linguistic sleight of hand reveals something far more sinister than journalistic imprecision—it exposes the psychological architecture of a civilization that has convinced itself of its own moral superiority even as it systematically protects its most depraved.

Rapists are “The Other”
The pattern is as predictable as it is revealing. Syrian death squads are described in lurid detail, their sexual crimes catalogued with an almost pornographic precision. Libyan militias become symbols of barbarism, their violations of women and children presented as evidence of their fundamental inhumanity. But when “Israeli” forces systematically abuse Palestinian children in detention centers, when Western-backed regimes torture and rape with impunity, when our own elites traffic children for their pleasure, the language shifts. The crimes become abstract, the victims aged up, the horror domesticated into manageable euphemism.

This is not accidental. It is the product of what we might call the civilizational unconscious—a collective psychological defense mechanism that protects our sense of moral superiority by rendering invisible or minimizing the crimes committed in our name or by our heroes. We have been conditioned from birth to see ourselves as the protagonists of history, the bearers of civilization to a savage world. To confront the full horror of what we are, what we have always been, would shatter this foundational mythology.

It is the quiet economy of the self. To belong to a nation, a movement, a profession is to accept a myth of goodness. When that myth is challenged by the banal fact of domestic predation, a psychic emergency erupts. Cognitive dissonance is not abstract—it is felt in the chest. The mind reaches for tools that dull the ache: minimization, ambiguity, the refuge of process. If the harm cannot be denied, it can be diffused. If it cannot be diffused, it can be reframed as tragic but inscrutable. The result is the kind of sentence that sounds responsible while leaving no one responsible.

Systemic Complicity in Child Sexual Abuse
The case of Epstein is particularly instructive because it forces us to confront not merely individual depravity but systemic complicity. Here was a man who operated with impunity for decades, protected by intelligence agencies, celebrated by the media, welcomed into the highest circles of power. His “suicide” in federal custody was so convenient, so perfectly timed, that it became a dark joke. Yet even those who recognize the obvious cover-up, struggle to name what was covered up: the systematic sexual abuse of children by the most powerful people in our society.

The reluctance to use the word “pedophile” when describing Epstein’s clients, the insistence on calling his victims “women” rather than the children or girls they were, serves a crucial psychological function. It allows us to maintain the fiction that whatever happened was somehow less monstrous, more understandable, more forgivable than the crimes we so readily condemn when committed by our designated enemies.



Our Society is the Most Depraved
This same dynamic plays out in our coverage of “Israeli” crimes against Palestinian children. The sexual torture documented in “Israeli” detention centers, the systematic humiliation and abuse of minors, receives a fraction of the attention devoted to unsubstantiated claims about the Palestinian resistance. When it is reported at all, it is buried in the passive voice, drained of the visceral horror that characterizes our descriptions of similar crimes elsewhere.

The psychological roots of this selective blindness run deep. Edward Said understood that Orientalism was not merely an academic discipline but a way of seeing that divided the world into the civilized and the barbaric, with “us” always occupying the civilized side of the equation. This worldview requires that we minimize our own capacity for evil while maximizing that of others. It demands that we see our crimes as aberrations, their crimes as revelations of essential character.

But there is something even more fundamental at work here—what we might call the narcissism of civilization itself. Having convinced ourselves that we represent the pinnacle of human development, we cannot psychologically afford to acknowledge that our most elite institutions are often the most depraved, that our claims to moral authority rest on foundations of systematic violence and exploitation.

The media, even the independent media that prides itself on challenging power, remains trapped within this civilizational narcissism. It can expose the lies about weapons of mass destruction, it can document the brutality of our foreign wars, it can even acknowledge the corruption of our political system. But when it comes to confronting the sexual depravity of our elites, when it comes to naming pedophilia as pedophilia and children as children, it falters. The psychological cost of such honesty is too high.

Language Matters
This is why the language matters so much. When we call Epstein’s victims “women,” we participate in the very cover-up we claim to oppose. When we fail to describe “Israeli” crimes against Palestinian children with the same visceral language we use for Syrian crimes, we reveal ourselves as propagandists for the very system we pretend to critique.

The truth is that sexual violence, particularly against children, is not the aberrant behavior of isolated monsters but the logical expression of capitalist systems built on domination and exploitation. Those who accumulate vast power over others—whether through wealth, political position, or military force—often develop an appetite for the ultimate exercise of that power: the sexual domination of the most vulnerable.

This is not a uniquely Western phenomenon, but it is a phenomenon that the West has perfected and systematized while convincing itself of its own righteousness. Our failure to confront this reality honestly, our insistence on sanitizing the language used to describe it, reveals not our civilization but our barbarism—a barbarism made all the more sinister by its refusal to acknowledge itself.

Until we can speak plainly about what our elites do to children, until we can apply the same moral standards to ourselves that we apply to our enemies, we remain complicit in the very horrors we claim to oppose. The children Epstein trafficked deserve better than euphemism. The Palestinian children in “Israeli” custody deserve better than silence. And we deserve better than the comfortable lies that allow us to sleep at night while the powerful prey upon the powerless in our name.

https://orinocotribune.com/whitewashing-pedophilia/

******

Outrage grows as “racist” Confederate monuments return to US capital

Five years following the mass uprisings against police brutality and racism in 2020, Confederate monuments set to be returned to their original locations

August 12, 2025 by Natalia Marques

Image
(Photo via Wikimedia Commons)

Two monuments built in honor of the Confederate States of America, removed following the 2020 mass uprisings against police brutality and racism, are set to return to the United States capital.

The National Park Service announced August 5 that the statue of Confederate General Albert Pike, toppled by protesters in 2020, will be reinstalled at its original site near Judiciary Square in October. The next day, Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote in a post on X that a large Confederate memorial will return to the Arlington National Cemetery, the country’s most well-known military burial ground.

The Confederate monument to be restored in the Arlington National Cemetery has stirred great controversy due what some view to be racist depictions of slavery. “This structure is one the cruelest, most racist monuments in the country,” writes historian Ty Seidule in The Hill. “It depicts a tearful, overweight enslaved woman, a “mammy,” cradling the child of her Confederate enslaver, supporting him as he departs for war. The monument portrays faithful slaves and kind white masters, a historical lie. Slavery featured legal rape, torture and selling husband from wife, child from mother,” Seidule describes.

2020 protesters topple monuments to Confederacy
Confederate monuments throughout the United States have been the subject of protest for decades, viewed during the 2020 anti-police brutality uprising, as symbols of the pervasive racism in the country. These monuments were built to commemorate the leaders, soldiers, or ideology of the Confederate States of America, the group of Southern states that broke away from the US in 1861 to preserve slavery, sparking the American Civil War.

However, most of the remaining Confederate monuments were built as racist apartheid Jim Crow laws were expanding throughout the US South, from around 1890 through the 1930s. “The bulk of the monument building took place not in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War but from the close of the 19th century into the second decade of the 20th,” writes the American Historical Association. “Commemorating not just the Confederacy but also the ‘Redemption’ of the South after Reconstruction, this enterprise was part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South.”

A special report by Smithsonian Magazine in December 2018 found that “over the past ten years, taxpayers have directed at least $40 million to Confederate monuments – statues, homes, parks, museums, libraries and cemeteries – and to Confederate heritage organizations.”

These monuments became flashpoints in 2020, with protesters taking matters into their own hands and wrenching the statues down with ropes themselves. Along with the statue of Albert Pike, protesters tore down a statue of Confederate States of America President Jefferson Davis in Richmond, Virginia in June of 2020. A 75-foot-tall Confederate soldier statue was removed from downtown Raleigh following a night of protest on the day marking the official end of slavery, Juneteenth, in which demonstrators tore down parts of it and spray painted it with slogans such as “Black Lives Matter,” and “No Justice No Peace.”

In total, 168 Confederate monuments were removed in 2020 following protests, the vast majority of which were removed voluntarily by government officials rather than direct action by demonstrators.

Trump administration reverses protest gains

The Trump administration has made it a defining policy to reverse these moves, viewed by many as victories of the 2020 protest movement. In March of this year, Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” directing the Secretary of the Interior to “determine whether, since January 1, 2020, public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction have been removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history,” and to “take action to reinstate the pre-existing monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties.”

This executive order is part of a larger push by the Trump administration to promote a more so-called “patriotic” vision of US history. On May 1, top Trump advisor Stephen Miller gave a briefing about the Department of Education, declaring that “children will be taught to love America. Children will be taught to be patriots,” threatening to revoke federal funds against states whose schools do not toe this line.

In June of this year, the US army announced that it would be restoring the names of seven military bases that had been previously named after Confederate leaders. Trump made the announcement at Fort Bragg – briefly renamed Fort Liberty before being reverted earlier this year to honor Confederate General Braxton Bragg – that the administration will also reinstate the names of Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill, and Fort Robert E. Lee. “We won a lot of battles from those forts,” he said. “Now is not the time to change.”

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/08/12/ ... s-capital/

Why should the state be required to honor the losers of the morally deficient side of a civil war?

We were taught all of that phony hogwash in 60s grade school and for many the fix never took.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Thu Aug 14, 2025 3:44 pm

‘Putin Will Play Trump Like a Stradivarius’
August 13, 2025

ALASKA SUMMIT: CN Editor Joe Lauria joined Jackson Hinkle’s Legitimate Targets to discuss the Putin-Trump meeting and the Middle East.



What was once Seward’s Folly may become Trump’s as the U.S. and Russian presidents meet this Friday in Alaska. CN‘s Editor Joe Lauria was Jackson Hinkle’s guest on his program Legitimate Targets to discuss the upcoming summit as well as the continuing crisis in the Middle East.

It is to Russia’s advantage to keep Trump on side, to try to restore U.S.-Russian relations and to get Trump to understand Russia’s point of view, something severely lacking in the West. Trump said he’s just going to listen to Putin. But earlier he said he’d discuss land swaps with the Russian leader. Then he told European leaders on Wednesday he won’t offer any Ukrainian territory to Putin and if Russia doesn’t agree to a ceasefire there would be “severe consequences” — probably more sanctions.

But who can believe him? No serious leader takes Trump seriously, Lauria tells Hinkle, but Trump has to be dealt with because of the serious office he holds. Putin needs to humor and flatter Trump, to avoid sanctions and to keep Trump from giving in to the neocons and lending greater support for Ukraine, as well as to keep the Europeans in check. Putin will not give in on territory or a ceasefire and may get a non-Ukraine agreement with the U.S. to improve bilateral relations.

Don’t look for Putin to give away anything that won’t advance Russia’s goals of demilitarization, denazification and neutrality for Ukraine.

“Putin will play Trump like a Stradivarius,” Lauria tells Hinkle.

On the Middle East, the genocide in Gaza will continue despite Western governments losing patience with Israel, though Germany cutting off military aid is a very hopeful sign. And don’t look for Israel to re-engage war with Iran after it took a heavy toll the first time around and with Israel’s focus now on capturing Gaza City.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/08/13/p ... adivarius/

*****

Thomas Neuburger: Our Lawless Elites
Posted on August 14, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. Tom Neuburger continues his systematic coverage of how the US constitutional order is being revised to favor even more those at the top. I am stunned at the way the Trump-Putin summit is sucking the air supply out of reporting on Trump’s continuing power grabs, which if anyone were paying attention, can be wielded against factions in the elites that fall out of line. See the treatment of top universities and the scientific establishment as examples.


The latest is the Administration effort to take over local policing. That authority has been such an important bulwark that most commentators don’t even think much about it. From Richard Kline in Progressively Losing in 2011, debunking the idea that progressives were structurally in a weak position:

“The ‘Right’ is too strong.” The oligarchy specifically and the Right in general are far less strong in American society apart from what their noise machines and bankroll flashing would make one think. The great bulk of the judiciary remains independent even if important higher appellate positions are tainted. Domestic policing is, by tradition and design, highly decentralized, with a good deal of local control, making overt police state actions difficult, visible, and highly unpopular (think TSA). While the military is a socially conservative society in itself, it is also an exceptionally depoliticized one, with civilian control an infrangible value. Popular voter commitment to the nominally more conservative political party has never been narrower or more fragile.

Contrast the state of the US then with the latest Trump plans. From the Guardian in Trump says he’ll seek ‘long-term’ control of DC police and signals he’ll target other cities next:

Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would ask Congress for “long-term” control of Washington DC’s police department and signaled he expected other Democratic-led cities to change their laws in response to his deployment of national guard troops and federal agents into the capital…

“We’re going to need a crime bill that we’re going to be putting in, and it’s going to pertain initially to DC,” Trump said during a visit to the Kennedy Center performing arts venue in Washington. “We’re going to use it as a very positive example, and we’re going to be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can’t have 30 days.”

He said he expected to propose the legislation “very quickly”, though the Senate and House of Representatives are out of session and not scheduled to return until 2 September. Trump alluded to other options for extending control of the police department, saying “if it’s a national emergency, we can do it without Congress”.

The Libertarian Institute described another Trump scheme in Pentagon to Create ‘Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force’:

The Department of Defense is planning to create a rapid response force of National Guard troops to quickly deploy to American cities where protests or unrest are occurring.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that it obtained documents showing the Pentagon is creating a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force.”

“The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour,” the outlet explained. “They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.”

One hundred troops at each base would be on standby to deploy within an hour, while the entire quick force would begin operations within 12 hours. The National Guard will be equipped with weapons and riot gear, and the deployments will be limited to 90 days to prevent burnout among the troops.

Recall also Kline’s remark about the military being depoliticized (except in its fealty to arms pork). Colonel Larry Wilkerson saw a dark side to Trump’s bizarre birthday parade. He pointed out that those who participated had volunteered to do so. He saw that as a way to identify servicemembers who were particularly loyal to Trump and could be positioned to help Trump implemented orders that historically typical soldiers would refuse as illegal.

By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies


The Next American Constitution is being written as we speak, and rather quickly at that. The situation is stark enough that we’ve started a series. Links to other posts on this subject can be found here.

Today, I’d like to look at one element — a bipartisan one — that defines the new arrangement our country is ruled by. That element is: elite immunity and absence of rule by law, and it’s already in place. I said this would be bipartisan. The absence of rule by law is a two-party problem. We’re going to gore two cows at once in today’s sacrifice.

Part of this discussion will examine the Right’s project to make sure a muscular (read, hard-core conservative) president has no real constraint on his acts. Another part will look at the way embedded elites can act with impunity when doing embedded elite business. If you’re ready, read on.

What Law Constrains the President? Apparently None.

We’ve grown ourselves a king. What more can be said?


Image
Hyacinthe Rigaud’s portrait of Louis the Grand

Image
Perchance AI’s portrait of Donald the Bold

It didn’t happen quickly; it was a process, and as I say, very much a bipartisan one. Here, for example, is Al Gore joking away the theft of his own presidency by the Bush-partisan Supreme Court coup in 2001. He even gives a stand-up’s bow to acknowledge his applause. An awful moment for the rule of law.



Two Court Decisions that Immunized the King

This is not hyperbole, this talk of a king. Let’s look at two Supreme Court rulings through the eyes of a lawyer, Ed Walker. (You may know him as the writer Masaccio from Fire Dog Lake.) Those rulings are Trump v. United States and Trump v. CASA Inc. Walker writes this:

The Anti-Democracy Project of John Roberts

Trump v. CASA Inc., decided June 27, continues the personal project of John Roberts to enhance the power of the executive at the expense of the other two branches of government. It continues the work of Trump v. United States, where Roberts gave Trump almost unlimited power to ignore Congress as he sees fit. It follows his weakening of statutes he doesn’t like, his refusal to allow Biden to exercise the authority given him by Congress, as in the student loan case, Biden v. Nebraska, and many other cases. … [T]hese cases weaken the legislature and the judiciary while strengthening the President[.]

These cases are big deals; they give legal cover to presidential illegality, a project that goes back decades to Richard Nixon. We’ve crossed the Rubicon when it comes to elite freedom from laws. Unless a future Court reverses these rulings — unlikely, right? — the law on presidential immunity has been changed for good.

Trump v. United States

Regarding immunity from prosecution for presidential crimes, Walker points us to this summary, which tells us, in part, that according to Trump v. United States:

Immunity is absolute with respect to a president’s exercise of his core Article II powers.
Where the president’s power is shared with Congress, “Precedent necessitates at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.…[T]he President [is] immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘“dangers of intrusion on the Executive Branch.’”
In deciding whether an act is official or unofficial, courts cannot inquire into a president’s motives.
Courts may not deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
There’s a lot of focus on the last three points, but don’t you read the first point as saying that the president has the right to break the law when he acts as president? It looks that way to me, and any president worth his power-hungry salt would push that right just as far as he possibly can.

This makes, in other words, Richard Nixon correct, at least in regard Article II obligations. (Getting re-elected isn’t an Article II duty — yet — so no salvation from Watergate for him. Still, were he looking for “terrorists” in that hotel, this Court would absolve him.)

Trump v. CASA Inc.

If the first case made sure the president can act lawlessly, in this case the Court keeps the courts from blocking him. Walker:

This case is a government request for relief from nationwide injunctions barring enforcement of the obviously unconstitutional Trump executive order denying birthright citizenship to a large number of babies born here[.]

The mechanism by which the Roberts Court let Trump’s order stand is wonderfully described in Walker’s piece. It leans on a specious point about English Common Law. (Search for “Amy Coney Barrett says no” and read forward from there.)

But my main point is contained in Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent. The mechanism the Roberts Court used to let Trump violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is useful everywhere, against any law. The Roberts Court claims that lower courts cannot use injunctions to grant relief to “nonparties” to a dispute, and therefore cannot issue “universal injunctions” against the government.

It works like this. The government denies Person A her Fourteenth Amendment rights — or any rights anywhere granted — so she goes to a lower court and seeks an injunction. The lower court can enjoin the government — but only to provide relief for Person A. No one else gets relief. So if you’re not Person A, the government is unconstrained until you yourself sue. This applies to everyone effected by the illegal action. A thousand affected, a thousand separate suits, each with a one-person-only injunction available.

That’s monstrous. Jackson’s dissent gets to the heart of the matter:

The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

How simple is that? How obviously true on its face?

She continues: The Court has just “endorse[d] the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes”.

A “zone of lawlessness,” enshrined by the law. A new world indeed.

‘Conservatives’ Are Doing This Why?

You may ask yourself, why would self-described conservatives do this? Don’t they think someone of the opposite stripe, like a “Sanders as we’d like him to be,” might use these same powers, which are clearly breathtakingly broad?

I’ll offer an answer, to which you might disagree: I think “conservatives” know that the Money that enables their deeds disables their opponents. Can you see a President Schumer using Trump’s new power? I don’t see him rolling it back, and I also don’t see him going so far off his Wall Street leash as to use it himself.

What about a President Sanders, or anyone who might threaten the elite power game? You saw what happened to Bernie, twice in a row, with Obama leading the charge as soon as he got close. Thanks to the Democrats, his campaign was dead by March.

My cynical side wonders, does an anti-elite Democrat have to make an elite-friendly deal to get past the primary at all? We may soon find out.

It’s All of Them, Isn’t It

I promised bipartisan rule-of-law lawlessness. So two more examples.

James Clapper

DNI James Clapper lied under oath before Congress. The year is 2013. The date is March 12. The president is Barack Obama. The question comes from Ron Wyden. It’s a Democratic Party tale from stem to stern.



Q: Does the NSA collect any kind of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

A: No, sir.

One month later, to Clapper’s surprise this happened:

Clapper’s claim to Congress was undermined by an April order of the secretive Fisa court instructing Verizon to turn over phone records on millions of Americans to the National Security Agency. Published by the Guardian, the order explicitly authorized the NSA to collect so-called metadata “between the United States and abroad; or wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.” An NSA data-mining program, called Boundless Informant and also revealed by the Guardian, further allows the NSA to sort its collected communications by country of origin. [emphasis added]

“Boundless Informant” is a little too on-the-nose, wouldn’t you say?

So was Clapper called back to Congress? No. Was he arrested? No. He evenadmitted he lied. In a June interview with Andrea Mitchell, Clapper said:

“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner, by saying no.”

Yet despite being publicly excoriated for perjury, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, said, “There is no more direct or honest person than Jim Clapper.”

He was doing his embedded elite job — spying on Americans — and just like that, immunity conferred and we move on.

Adam Schiff

This one may trouble some of the anti-Trump crowd, but several things can be true at the same time. Trump can be running strong in the race for worst president ever; and elites can also do deeply illegal things to help make him fail.

This story involves former Rep. Adam Schiff. Below is part of an FBI report in which a whistleblower from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence made damning declarations. (Note: As the “U” marking indicates, this is an Unclassified document.)

Image

Plain text (emphasis mine):

“[NAME] was called to an all-staff meeting by SCHIFF. In this meeting, SCHIFF stated the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States Donald J. TRUMP. SCHIFF stated the information would be used to Indict President TRUMP. [NAME] stated this would be illegal and, upon hearing his concerns, unnamed members of the meeting reassured [NAME] that they would not be caught leaking classified information.”

Yes, this is about Schiff, a hero to many; and yes, it’s Russiagate stuff, which is now being shushed as either old news or a blatant Epstein distraction.

But what if the report is true? Leaking classified information is a criminal offense.

Is this how we want to deal with a problematic, yet duly elected president? If so, what does that say about our next new Constitution? About how power is transferred? About who can, with impunity, annul a legal election after the oath of office is administered?

Imagine a President Sanders (the one in our minds). What if he somehow won and, say, Clapper, Schumer and their friends wanted him out. What post-election tools do they now have?

Food for thought, say I.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... lites.html

(President Sanders, no thanks. Who needs a re-play of Obama?

It is a mistake to assume that the ruling class acts in concert except when feeling existential angst.(Communism!) It is also a mistake to assume that any one ruling class faction is better than another. )

*****

Same Thrust.

My good friend Byron King penned an excellent piece about Anchorage and it is along the same lines as opinions by me, Larry Johnson, Daniel Davis, Ray McGovern and others.

Apparently, the Trump administration has wanted something like this summit for many months and summarily announced it with typical White House fanfare. Frankly, though, as an outsider looking in, this Trump-Putin summit appears to be a hastily contrived event. I won’t call it a stunt, but it’s difficult to see where it’s all headed, certainly on the Ukraine issue. For example, regarding Ukraine, what has Team Trump accomplished in the way of back-office staff work? Have American diplomats, military experts and other subject matter experts met with Russian counterparts to hash out details of a workable agreement? If any of this has occurred, it’s been kept under wraps. But okay, we’ll see. Meanwhile, it’s worth pointing out that Russia’s government has never deviated from its long-term demands and geopolitical goals vis a vis Ukraine: Russia keeps Crimea and holds the annexed eastern portions of Ukraine; Ukraine remains forever out of NATO; Ukraine must demilitarize to a relatively low level, not capable of threatening Russia; and Ukraine must “de-N@zify” in terms of its political philosophy.

Dmitry Orlov shares the sentiment:

On Friday, August 15, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are scheduled to meet in Anchorage, Alaska. This is all the news so far: the presidents of Russia and the US are to talk to each other in person; details of the conversation unknown ahead of time and confidential in any case. If you are interested in this sort of thing, on Friday you'd probably want to start paying attention to the official communiques by the Russian and the US sides that are likely to be made following the event. You might perhaps watch the joint press conference, if there is one. And then, if you were to practice proper informational hygiene, you would be advised to tune out for at least a week, to give competent analysts a chance to perform their analyses. Instead of such informational hygiene, what many people are being subjected to is full-on hysteria. Western mass media and bloggers are delivering a panicked barrage of fake news and commentary (for there is little actual news to report). It is mostly focused on who said what, ignoring the fact that the who is not relevant and the what is of no consequence. In particular, any sentence containing the name "Zelensky" is guaranteed to be pure nonsense.

Yes, about this informational hygiene, of which many of us speak and write ad nauseam--unplug yourself from Western establishment media, they provide NO useful information or anything resembling the truth. Here is an example--while human trash and whores (literally) in establishment media float out all kinds of "settlement" on territorial issues in 404, here is Russia's Foreign Ministry today, verbatim.


МОСКВА, 13 авг — РИА Новости. Территориальное устройство России закреплено в Конституции и не подлежит обсуждению на предстоящей встрече Путина и Трампа, заявил заместитель директора департамента информации и печати МИД Алексей Фадеев. "Здесь даже не нужно изобретать чего-то. Территориальное устройство Российской Федерации закреплено в Конституции нашей страны. Этим все сказано. Поэтому что касается целей российской делегации в переговорах на Аляске, то они диктуются исключительно национальными интересами", — сказал он на брифинге.

Translation: MOSCOW, August 13 — RIA Novosti. Russia's territorial structure is enshrined in the Constitution and is not subject to discussion at the upcoming meeting between Putin and Trump, said Alexei Fadeyev, Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department of the Foreign Ministry. "There is no need to invent anything here. The territorial structure of the Russian Federation is enshrined in the Constitution of our country. That says it all. Therefore, as for the goals of the Russian delegation in the negotiations in Alaska, they are dictated exclusively by national interests," he said at a briefing.

SMO will continue no matter what is discussed in Anchorage. Meanwhile, DJT is going to discuss the fate of Leningrad.

Image

Hey, Donny, YOU were the one who appointed a cuck and a treasonous coward Bolton as your National Security Adviser. You, and nobody else. He is YOUR cadre, as was and is a collection of neocons in both of your administrations.
Speaking of which, Financial Times, this British tabloid masquerading for a serious publications laments, LOL.

There was a shortage of experts on Russia in the US administration on the eve of the talks between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Usually, the National Security Council is in charge of the preparation of meetings, but it has been significantly reduced: in May, dozens of foreign policy experts were fired, writes the Financial Times (FT). According to the publication, in July, more than 1300 employees were fired as part of the government's campaign to reduce federal staff at the State Department. Among them were analysts dealing with Russia and Ukraine. Also, in the second presidential term of Mr. Trump, "a significant part of his employees" lost the US diplomatic corps.

Hey, FT retards, read my lips, again. The combined West DOES NOT have Russia's "experts", hasn't had them for a long time--what passes in the West for "Russia experts" is a bunch or brainwashed cretins from the allegedly "top" universities, who are later recruited in all kinds of orgs such as MI6, CIA or numerous "think-tanks" strictly on the merit of speaking Russian and repeating the same propaganda tropes from the Cold War 1.0. They are no "experts". It is a result of a precipitous intellectual decline of the West and a complete corruption and degeneration of its edukeishn in the so called humanities field.

Moreover, as I also repeat ad nauseam, in the US the craft of diplomacy is non-existent. The (lack of) expertise of State Department is that of providing consular service and availing its embassies around the world to CIA and Mossad for all kinds of subversive (and criminal) activities. Those 1,300 "experts" who have been fired is not a big loss, because among those not a single person is an "expert in Russia". The US simply doesn't know the world outside, period. Never really did. Per operation on Dobropolye axis I will write later--some really interesting insights from there from those ... who know what they are doing.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/08 ... hrust.html

******

With Biden or Trump, the Deep State still follows Brzezinski

Raphael Machado

August 14, 2025

The West pursues a consistent geopolitical strategy – even if it doesn’t always succeed, Raphael Machado writes.

Trump’s election is – as we know – a product of the fraying social fabric of the United States, in a context of growing contradictions between the “elites” and the “people.” But another divide is key to understanding Trump’s return.

Trump would never have been able to make a comeback without the complicity of part of the Deep State – that is, a segment of the permanent bureaucracy in the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, and federal government.

Now, considering the level of mobilization deployed to prevent Trump’s reelection in 2020 and the intensity of the campaign against him, what explains this shift in perspective toward him?

First, to support this thesis, anyone paying attention in the lead-up to the 2024 elections could have noticed that the mainstream media’s anti-Trump campaign lost steam by mid-2024, especially after the first assassination attempt against the future U.S. president.

It was as if certain sectors had acknowledged the inevitability of Trump’s victory. We didn’t see anywhere near the same level of hysteria or the funeral-like atmosphere of 2020, when The New York Times and The Washington Post warned that a Trump win would mean the “death of democracy.”

Everything was, in fact, quite placid.

Likely, some geopolitical events were pivotal in shifting the Deep State’s stance.

First, Ukraine’s failure. Predictions that the Russian economy would collapse under sanctions were wrong. The belief that Russia would run out of ammunition and missiles was equally mistaken. So was the faith in Ukrainian counteroffensives halting Russian advances.

Instead of a Russian defeat, the U.S. found itself funding a “war of attrition” where the enemy held the advantage on the ground. Biden spent $200 billion on this gamble at a time when the U.S. faces multiple domestic challenges: deficits, fentanyl, polarization, etc.

In the Middle East, Hamas forced Israel’s hand, dragging it into an asymmetric war of attrition in Gaza while also dealing with skirmishes with Hezbollah and a potential Iranian threat. A country as small as Israel would obviously struggle on multiple fronts, and the Zionist lobby would pressure the U.S. to intervene increasingly in the region until Tel Aviv’s security needs were met. To make matters worse, Israel is carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign that discredits its allies.

Also under Biden, unnecessary provocations – like Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan – accelerated China’s anti-Western pivot and strengthened Chinese support for Russia.

The real problem is that all this is happening simultaneously, with other latent conflicts potentially erupting elsewhere in the world – clearly more than Washington can handle.

Conclusion: The U.S. needs to disengage from Ukraine to focus on other theaters.

But beyond immediate concerns, this ties into the broader “grand strategy” adopted by the U.S.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has been one of the most influential U.S. geopolitical thinkers since the 1970s. A co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and National Security Advisor under Carter, his realist school of thought builds on Nicholas Spykman’s theories about controlling the Rimland to subdue the Heartland.

In many ways, Brzezinski’s worldview can be summarized as anti-Russia. He criticized post-Cold War euphoria, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and all U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the “War on Terror.”

A pacifist? Quite the opposite. To Brzezinski, there was only one enemy: Russia, which needed to be encircled and dismantled into irrelevance. Any other U.S. foreign engagement was seen as a waste of resources unless it served to isolate or weaken Russia (which is why, for example, he pushed Clinton to act in Yugoslavia).

For Brzezinski, it was all about tightening a noose around Russia and pressuring its borders until it could no longer resist. He can thus be considered one of the main architects of NATO’s eastward expansion after the Cold War.

In fact, it’s striking how his book The Grand Chessboard is the perfect counterpart to Alexander Dugin’s Foundations of Geopolitics. Their passages on Ukraine perfectly explain the geopolitical underpinnings of the current conflict.

Now, returning to the present geopolitical moment: the “Ukrainian gambit” failed, but it’s just one card in the Spykman-Brzezinski playbook. Despite Russia’s inevitable advance, the West has managed to impose a cost on its victory.

Moreover, Russia’s international alliances were crucial in preventing its defeat. It forged useful (if not always harmonious) ties with Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, China, and North Korea in its immediate strategic periphery. Further afield, Russia maintains key connections in Venezuela, West Africa, and India.

With all this in mind, we can understand why factions of the Deep State accepted Trump’s victory and smoothed his return.

Biden’s foreign policy has been disastrous and inefficient. He provoked conflicts, wasted vast sums of money, and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Thus, the U.S. must reduce its involvement in Ukraine to focus on toppling the “dominoes” that support Russia, diminishing its global influence and ability to compensate for lost ties with Europe.

While Russia wears itself out in Ukraine, the West orchestrated Syria’s downfall. Belarus remains impregnable for now. But an ambiguous Turkey under Erdoğan will likely be replaced by a “progressive” Turkey under Kılıçdaroğlu or İmamoğlu—staunchly anti-Russia. Iran has resisted U.S. and Israeli pressure, but the U.S. has secured influence in the Caucasus, expelling France while backing Azerbaijan’s Zangezur Corridor, threatening both Iran and Russia. This offsets the West’s defeat in Georgia, where its color revolution failed. Further east, the West lost ground in Afghanistan but will likely ramp up pressure in Central Asia, particularly through terrorism. Beyond that, India faces tariff pressures over its role in Russian oil trade (and has lost its “satellite,” Bangladesh). Against China and North Korea, little can be done for now.

All this demonstrates beyond doubt that the West pursues a consistent geopolitical strategy – even if it doesn’t always succeed.

And this strategy, to a large extent, was already mapped out by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... rzezinski/

I disagree with this analysis. The so-called 'Deep State' wanted no part of this erratic megalomaniac but after the 'live on TV' assassination attempt(it still looked faked to me) they were pretty much stuck with him, it was a vaccination. So they do the best they can maneuvering him in a remote fashion when possible.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Sat Aug 16, 2025 2:47 pm

CBO Confirms Trump Budget Law Will Trigger Over $500 Billion in Automatic Medicare Cuts
Posted on August 16, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. We have been telling readers in comments, who labor under the misapprehension that the big Trump budget bill cut only Medicaid, that it also whacked Medicare bigly. This development is yet another “Die faster!” scheme. It also points to the fecklessness of Team Dem, who couldn’t even rouse themselves to make a stink.

Twitter has oddly been missing in action. A few crumbs:

Image

So the media has been missing in action. Nicely played, Team Trump.

By Brad Reed, a staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams

A report released on Friday confirmed what many Democratic lawmakers have long been warning about: Republicans’ massive budget law will trigger significant cuts to Medicare.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis of the GOP’s budget package and acknowledged that it would be required to issue a sequestration, which is essentially a cancellation of budgetary resources.

The sequestration is required under the rules set out by the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 that requires spending cuts that are equal to a piece of legislation’s negative impact on the budget deficit.

The only way to avoid these cuts, said the CBO, would be for Congress to pass “subsequent legislation that would offset the deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill’s effects on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate the statutory requirements.”

The CBO said that these cuts could take as much as $45 billion out of Medicare for fiscal year 2026. What’s more, the amount cut from Medicare would increase in every subsequent year, resulting in total cuts of as much as $536 billion between 2026 and 2034.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, excoriated his Republican colleagues for passing a budget that will result in cuts to Medicare, a program that US President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged not to touch during the 2024 presidential campaign.

“For months now, I have been sounding the alarm on the devastating Medicare cuts caused by Trump’s Big Ugly Law,” he said. “Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts—and they did it anyway. American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.”

The Republicans’ budget package also took a major ax to Medicaid, as it cut spending on the program by an estimated $1 trillion over the next decade. The CBO has already projected that millions of people will lose coverage.

Medicaid cuts are already having a negative impact. Several states have said that they are slashing rates paid to medical providers, which experts have said could result in several hospitals in these states going bankrupt given that many of them were in bad financial shape even before the GOP’s budget law passed last month.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... -cuts.html

******

He Is Not War Hawk ...

... he is a chicken hawk, coward, war criminal and a stain on the US in general and South Carolina in particular. But this is a fine example of how one can manipulate the death cult known as "Christian" (it is not Christian) Zionists whose only loyalty is to Israel and not to the US.

US Senator Lindsey Graham has spoken out against any weakening of American aid to Israel, claiming the country would face punishment from God if it did so. The Republican senator made the remarks at the 58th annual Silver Elephant Gala, a major party fundraiser held in South Carolina over the weekend. Graham shared his speech on social media on Wednesday, in which he showered praise on Israel for purportedly abstaining from committing “genocide” in Gaza. “Israel is our friend. They are the most reliable friend we have in the Middle East. They are a democracy, surrounded by people who would cut their throats if they could,” Graham claimed. He added that weakening support to Israel would result in divine punishment for the US.

Nothing new, really. The US stained itself as a supporter of the genocide by Israel and she will not be able to wash it away--these things stick forever. The gravity of what is happening in Gaza is beyond the perverted minds of such soulless people like Graham or imbecile Ted Cruz, among many--they have no humanity left in them and any invocation of God is not just a blasphemy, but an act of utter evil. South Carolina, you elect this war criminal time after time, so you also bear responsibility.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/08 ... -hawk.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Mon Aug 18, 2025 2:54 pm

Image
President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House, April 2, 2025. [AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein]

A less noticed implication of Trump tariffs
By Prabhat Patnaik (Posted Aug 18, 2025)

Originally published: Peoples Democracy on August 17, 2025 (more by Peoples Democracy) |

DONALD Trump’s tariffs are being discussed in the media in a routine manner without considering their specific context. This context is one where the U.S. government is unwilling to spend the revenues accruing from higher tariffs on buying goods and services—a matter that is explained below. Other countries that may be losing the U.S. market owing to the consequences of Trump tariffs are also unable to compensate for this loss by enlarging their own domestic markets. Such enlargement can occur through larger government spending only if it is financed either by a fiscal deficit or by a tax on the rich; but both these are anathema for globalised finance capital whose writ must be obeyed by the nation-state under the prevailing neoliberal arrangement. American protectionism therefore entails a shrinking of overall world aggregate demand and hence an accentuation of the crisis of neoliberal capitalism. This fact, namely that the Trump tariffs, even if they raise domestic output and employment within the U.S., worsen the world capitalist crisis and hence reduce the level of output taking both the U.S. and other countries together, has received scant attention. Let us see how this reduction in world aggregate demand happens.

Tariffs raise the prices of imported goods in the domestic market relative to money wages, which is what makes possible, at least in part, the replacement of such imports by domestically-produced goods. Tariffs do not of course lead to all imports being eliminated, but some clearly are. On the imports that continue, the government collects a tariff revenue that is paid for by the consumers, who are predominantly the working people, through the higher prices that tariffs cause. Tariffs in other words, to the extent that they do not succeed in eliminating imports altogether and hence do garner some tariff revenue, entail a redistribution of purchasing power from the working people to the government.

Since the working people spend almost their entire purchasing power on goods and services, any such redistribution from their pockets to the coffers of the government would not reduce the level of aggregate demand within the tariff-imposing country, if its government too spends this tariff revenue on buying goods and services; but if it does not, then there is a reduction in the level of aggregate demand in the tariff-imposing country. And this is exactly what would happen in the U.S., since the tariff revenue generated by the Trump tariffs is not going to be spent on goods and services.

The Trump administration has been giving huge tax concessions to the rich and the tariff revenue would be used to bring down the fiscal deficit arising from such tax concessions. The tariff revenue in other words is supposed not to be spent at all but to bring down the fiscal deficit, which means that every dollar of tariff revenue raised by the government lowers the level of aggregate demand within the U.S. Since government expenditure in the rest of the world does not go up to offset this reduction in demand in the U.S., this means that taking the world as a whole, the level of aggregate demand goes down, accentuating the recessionary condition in the world economy. Within the U.S., despite the reduction in aggregate demand, domestic output may go up at the expense of imports. In other words, recession within the U.S. may get ameliorated because of the tariff, but taking the capitalist world as a whole, that is, the U.S. and the rest of the world together, there would be a reduction in the level of activity.

This is more than simply a case of “export of unemployment” by the U.S., that is, more than simply a case of “beggar-thy-neighbour” policy being pursued by the U.S. It is a case where if domestic output within the U.S. rises by 100 owing to tariffs on goods, then the output in the rest of the world shrinks not by 100 but by more than 100, by, say, 120 or 150, so that in the world as a whole there is a shrinkage in the level of output. It is a case in short of actually reducing the level of activity in the world as a whole while increasing the level of activity in the U.S.

This conclusion is not altered one iota if other countries retaliate against American tariffs. In fact, to the extent that these other countries also use their tariff revenue, that is raised at the expense of their domestic workers, for reducing their fiscal deficits or for making tax concessions to their rich who consume only a small part of what is given to them, the overall effect is an even greater shrinkage in world aggregate demand. Retaliation by other countries against American tariffs in other words, while shifting demand and hence output away from the U.S. back to their own economies, make matters even worse for the world economy as a whole; the crisis of neoliberal capitalism gets further accentuated.

The routine discussion on tariffs completely misses this last point. It sees tariffs merely as a means of shifting demand, and hence output, away from other countries to one’s own. But if tariffs are being imposed in a situation where the tariff revenue, raised at the expense of the working people, is not spent by the government at all but simply adds to government savings, then tariffs have the additional effect of shrinking the level of demand and output in the world as a whole, that is, of compounding the crisis of neoliberal capitalism.

The U.S. role in the context of this crisis is particularly noteworthy. As the leader of the capitalist world, it was expected according to liberal bourgeois opinion to take the lead in working out a concerted approach by the advanced capitalist countries to overcome the crisis. This is what liberal bourgeois economists would have suggested; indeed, such a concerted action by advanced capitalist countries is what J M Keynes actually had suggested during the 1930s Great Depression. What is happening today in contrast is that the U.S. is seeking to extricate itself alone from the crisis while making things even worse for the capitalist world as a whole. Trump in other words seeks to “make America great again” (MAGA) not by taking the lead in proposing some way for the capitalist world as a whole to overcome the crisis, but by arm-twisting the rest of the capitalist world, especially the countries of the global south, into accepting even greater misery so that the U.S. alone manages to extricate itself from the crisis.

This action on the part of Trump is not because he is either evil or stupid, and hence shuns an “enlightened” way out of the crisis; it is because what he is doing conforms to the nature of capitalism, unlike the rosy situation imagined by the liberal bourgeois intelligentsia. Since capitalism is not a planned system it is not amenable to any “rational” solution to the crisis it faces; the U.S. therefore is simply looking after its own interest in this crisis.

The U.S. effort to extricate itself from the crisis, while sinking the rest of the world, especially the global south, even deeper into it, is evident from the demands that it is making in its various trade negotiations. It threatens very high tariffs against countries to start with, but is willing to settle for lower tariffs than it threatens, if the negotiating country accepts a variety of American goods at zero tariff. Indeed it has reached agreement in trade negotiations with several countries along these lines.

This however can have disastrous consequences for the countries of the global south. For India for example it would mean accepting without restrictions a variety of goods such as American dairy products, fruit and nuts and so on, in order to get some concessions on the American-announced tariffs on our main exports to that country, comprising textiles, gems and jewellery, and pharmaceuticals This would bring distress to millions of Indian farmers who would not be able to withstand the competition from imported goods, not because American farmers are more “efficient” but because they are heavily subsidised by the U.S. government, subsidies which the World Trade Organisation has unreasonably and invidiously excluded from the list of proscribed subsidies.

Neoliberalism has brought the country to a pass where the choice before it is to sacrifice the interests either of the farmers or of those engaged in producing pharmaceuticals, gems and jewellery, clothing and such like. The way out however is not to make any such choice but to transcend the very system that forces the country to make such a choice, that is, to transcend neoliberalism itself.

https://mronline.org/2025/08/18/a-less- ... p-tariffs/

(The term 'neoliberal' needs to be trashed, it implies there is some other human/Earth friendly form of capitalism. Just call it Capitalism, let us be straightforward and not worry about liberal precious little flowers.)

*****

Fog of Summit and Neocon Backlash: Lindsey Graham Readies Threat of Designating Russia a Terrorist State
Posted on August 18, 2025 by Yves Smith

It would seem fitting to try to pick through the press accounts of the Trump-Putin summit, except they are abjectly awful, chock-full of obvious bogosities and spin. Exhibit 1 of the horrorshow of mainstream reporting is the Wall Street Journal’s breathless exclusive claiming that the US is willing to provide security guarantees. To Russia, that is tantamount to having NATO in Ukraine and a non-starter.

The summit was an obvious win for Putin, since he got to demonstrate in his short mini-press conference statement in clips aired on national television that he does not have hooves and horns.

More substantively, it appears, at least for the moment, that the US side has dropped its demand for “ceasefire first, deal later” and has accepted the Russia position that a settlement has to precede a cessation of hostilities.

Image

One does need to point out that the summit was truncated. It was set to run 7 hours, with an agenda for various sub-group meetings and a “working breakfast”. Instead, it ended at a bit over three hours, with Putin and Trump making short remarks. The normally press-loving Trump not taking questions was out of character.

There’s plenty of other nonsense which I do not think is helpful to reinforce by repeating it to then debunk or otherwise show considerable evidence against that. For those with sterner constitutions than mine, one good overview comes from Simplicius the Thinker in his latest post, Zelensky Drags Traveling Circus to Town for One Last Encore. You can also watch Alexander Mercoursis, staring from the top of his latest commentary, walk through the various media claims and why they are contradicted by other evidence or are otherwise sketchy.



If we want to guess where this might all be going, Trump is giving another good college try at cinching a peace pact. But as we have pointed out, Ukraine, even in its debilitated state, and the Europeans still have agency. And Trump has a tendency to be unduly influenced by whoever he spoke to last.

So what we have so far might be considered to be Peak Summit. How far can the Administration get on its efforts to create momentum? Many have speculated that the real plan is for Trump to finally pin the Project Ukraine tail on the Ukraine and European donkeys and have the US exit any meaningful role.

But even more important than the Europeans and Ukraine is that the neocons and the Blob also have agency. Admittedly there is a large cohort, as we and others have pointed out, that wants the US to disengage from our Ukraine misadventure to husband dwindling resources for Enemy #1, China. So the hawkish insiders are divided, and might not be able to form enough of a unified position to stymie the current Trump scheme….whatever it actually amounts to.

Putin has described how he has come to understandings with US presidents and had them come to naught. He gave a long-form example in the four-hour documentary series with Oliver Stone, explaining when he first encountered it with President Bush. Putin didn’t say what that agreement was about, but when his side followed up, they first got no response and then, 18 months later, received bafflegab excuses that amounted to a reversal.

He’s made the same point in other talks: (Video at link.)

Some, perhaps even many, of Russia-haters may recognize that their sanctions and secondary sanctions threats are empty. As we pointed out, the additional 25% tariffs against India for purchasing Russia energy, set to kick in shortly, have been hollowed out, with most goods excluded. The only sector meaningfully targeted is India’s diamond and gemstone industry. Modi’s family is in the diamond business and before becoming Prime Minister, he was chief minister of Gujarat, which is a diamond hub. So this sector is important to Modi personally and politically.

Even so, there seems to be perilous little in the way of public acknowledgement that the secondary sanctions on India were a monster own goal, not punitive enough (for the US’ own sake!) to change India’s behavior and serving merely to alienate India to the degree that it will severely damage US-India relations and drive India, which has leery of cooperating too much with rival China, closer to the Middle Kingdom.

We’ll know much more after the White House meeting with Zelensky and the Europeans on Monday. Politico’s European morning newsletter recaps the Administration efforts to bring Zelensky to heel versus the European full court press to get Trump to live up to the sweet nothings he told them before the Alaska session:

WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING: U.S. President Donald Trump piled pressure on his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy ahead of their crucial meeting in the White House. “President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,” Trump said on Truth Social this morning …

Trump’s terms: Trump set out his conditions for peace, saying Ukraine would not be getting Crimea back and “NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!” …

Zelenskyy’s response: “Peace must be lasting,” Zelenskyy said in his own post after arriving in Washington this morning. “Not like it was years ago, when Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and part of our East—part of Donbas—and Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack. Or when Ukraine was given so called ‘security guarantees’ in 1994, but they didn’t work.”…

DRIVING THE DAY: THE NEW PEACE POSSE
YOU’LL NEVER WALK ALONE: … Fearing Trump could try to force Kyiv to sign up to a bad peace deal that would pave the way for yet more Russian aggression, European leaders are flying in to back him up in the Oval Office….

All aboard: According to diplomats who spoke to Playbook, the initiative was put together by Finnish President Alexander Stubb and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Alongside them are European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni. Other leaders offered to join, but the guest list was deliberately kept short.

One potential stumbling block: Trump plans to face the White House press pool with Zelenskyy alone, before meeting together with the Europeans almost two hours later….

What does Zelenskyy’s backup crew want? “What we’re looking out for is the security of Europe not being compromised after all this is over,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to speak about the thinking behind the trip. “We’re making sure that we keep the pressure on Russia, ready to step up the sanctions the moment we feel that the Russian leader is stalling the negotiations. Strong security guarantees must come out of this, that’s the main thing.”…

Promises for peace: Meanwhile, allies hope they’ve gotten through about the need for deterrence against future Russian attacks. In an interview with Fox News, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said there was support for “much more robust security guarantees [and] EU admission” and even suggested “Article 5-like” protection was on the table for Ukraine, a reference to NATO’s mutual defense provisions.

However, even if the US hardliners have come to understand that going further with secondary sanctions gambit would increase US self-harm, they seem to have come up with a new ploy, that of designating Russia as a terrorist state. Lindsey Graham laid out this option in a Fox interview with Maria Bartiromo:



Bartiromo: Joining me now with reaction is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator, thank you so much for being here. Your reaction to what you heard from Marco Rubio.

Graham: I think Marco’s right that Donald Trump’s the only guy on the planet that can end this war. Putin fears Trump and he’s been a uh I think he’s been tough. Azerbaijan and Armenia has been going on for 30 years. He ended that war, Pakistan, India just by force of will. So, he’s the right guy.

The only reason Putin’s in Alaska, he didn’t come to see how Alaska was doing after he bought it. He came to Alaska because Trump threatened to put a 50% tariff on India for buying Russian oil and gas. What’s the weakness of Russia? Almost all of their income comes from oil and gas sales. If we went after the customers of Russia and said you had to pick between the American economy and buying cheap Russian oil or gas, they would pick the American economy.

So here’s what I would say about President Trump. He’s the only guy that can do this. And my advice to President Trump and Marco is if you got to convince Putin that if this war doesn’t end justly and honorably with Ukraine making concessions also, we’re going to destroy the Russian economy. We have the ability to do it.

To Europe, why don’t you put tariffs on India for buying Russian oil? To Europe, why don’t you threaten China with tariffs for being the largest purchaser of Russian oil? To Europe, you can do more. If Europe and the United States banded to Russia that if this war does not come to an end, we’re going to destroy your fossil fuel economy. This war would come to an end.

My bill to make Russia state sponsored terrorism is based on the fact that Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children taken from Ukrainian families and sent to Russia. They should be a state sponsor of terrorism, Russia, until they return their children. So any peace deal must include the return of the kidnapped children uh by Russia to Ukraine. If you don’t do that, that’s not a just end of the war.

And if Putin doesn’t return these kids, he should be a state sponsor of terrorism designation under US law. And that makes Russia radioactive.

So there’s plenty of things we can do to end this war. Donald Trump’s the best guy to do it. I’m cautiously optimistic. We’ll get there if we’re tough.

Bartiromo: I I want to ask you about getting tough on these sanctions and what other economic levers the president has. But we’re looking right now at the letter that our first lady Melania Trump sent to Vladimir Putin saying, “Every child shares the same quiet dreams in their heart. Uh they dream of love, possibility, and safety from danger.” She is referring to the children that have been taken as you just mentioned. Uh what do you want to see here? What happened here?

Graham: Russia went and took Ukrainian children and put them in camps. Yes. Yes. Uh 19,000 children according to international organizations have been taken from Ukrainian families by Putin through force of arms and sent to Russia. Some of them are being trained, 17 and 18 year old Ukrainian kids being indoctrinated in Russia to fight Ukraine. This is sick.

Our marvelous, wonderful first lady is appealing to Putin’s better nature. She cares about these kids. She has been great on this issue.

The problem is Putin could care less about children. He has sent 20,000 young Russians to their death just last month. He could care less about how many Russian soldiers die. He could care less about sanctions because he knows how to evade them. What he could not What he does care about is losing his customers.

So I just want to let everybody in the world to know. I think we have the ability to crush the Russian economy through putting tariffs on people who buy Russian oil and gas, buying cheap oil to prop up his war machine. And I intend to push that until I can’t push anymore. I intend to push the return of these children to I can’t push anymore.

If they do not return these children to Ukraine, the 19,000, then I’m going to push legislation to make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under US law, which would make Russia radioactive. I want to end this war. I want to end the killing.

I’m not out to humiliate Putin, but I’m out to end this war in a way you won’t have a third invasion. How do youprevent the third invasion? If America gives security guarantees to Ukraine and continues to provide weapons by selling them to Europe for the benefit of Ukraine, there will be no third invasion. Donald Trump is the only president that can do that, and I think he will provide those security guarantees if we get a comprehensive peace deal. When it comes to land, I’m going to leave it up to Ukraine.

But here’s the reality. You’re not going to evict every Russian soldier from Ukraine. That’s the reality. There’s Russian control and there’s Russian ownership. Be very careful aboutrewarding Putin by giving him title to Ukrainian land through force of arms. That could uh jeopardize Taiwan. And if you’re not thinking about the effect a deal in Russia, Ukraine has on China,Taiwan, you’re making a big mistake. So,

I’ve got all the confidence in the world in President Trump to our European allies. Up your game. Quit complaining about what we’re not doing in America and do more yourself. Put tariffs on every country that buys Russian oil and gas cheaply to benefit Putin’s war machine. Do what Trump’s doing.

Bartiromo: So So are you committed then to putting those sanctions on China and on any European nation that continues buying refined oil and gas from Russia indirectly or directly?

Graham: Yep. Yes, ma’am. Uh, President Trump has, I have a bill that has 85 co-sponsors that allows President Trump to put tariffs from 0 to 500%. He determines the number on countries that prop up Putin’s war machine by buying his oil and gas. Now, that bill gives all the discretion to the president. He has imposed a 50% tariff on India, thesecond largest purchaser of Russian oil and gas that will go in effect in 21 days. That’s why Putin is in Alaska. that rattled him.

And when uh uh President Trump said, “I will sell weapons to Ukraine through Europe,” that rattled Putin. If we will take it to the next level and tell China, “You’re next,” then I think we can have an end to this war.

The second most important person on the planet to end this war is President Xi in China. If he went to Putin and said, “It’s time to end this war. I can’t help you anymore because you’re putting my country at threat,” this war would end.

So the way to end this war is to make Russia believe that if they don’t end it, we’re going to destroy their fossil fuel economy. Working with Europe, we can do that if we have the will.

Bartiromo: What’s your timeline? Do you have any clarity on when you would actually see a timeline of putting these punishing sanctions on the countries you’re talking about, including China and including Europe?

Graham: My my purpose for being on this show today is to let the world know I’m working with President Trump. I’m going to let him determine that. I trust his judgment. I can’t think of a better person to be in the room with Putin than President Trump. Call these media analysts who say this was a bust. That’s ridiculous. We have progress we didn’t have before. We have momentum for peace. We’ll see where it goes. So, I’ll leave it up to Trump.

Bartiromo: Senator, thank you very much. We will be watching your work.

Since I have studiously avoided listening to Lindsey Graham, it’s possible I may be getting the drift of his gist wrong. However, despite the ritual show of fealty to Trump at the top and close, remember that Graham conducts his own foreign policy, has met often with European leaders, and no doubt has gotten reports on the Trump pre-Alaska discussions with them and will get a detailed briefing on what transpires in the White House meetings on Monday. And with now 85 anti-Russia votes in the Senate behind him, he has a bludgeon. Trump has to consider that if things got really ugly, a good proportion could vote against him were there ever to be an impeachment trial in the Senate.

So consider:

First, Graham is acting like he has not gotten the memo that the secondary sanctions on India backfired. So if Graham is Not Happy with whatever comes out of the Monday White House session with Zelensky and UK/EU leaders, he may try putting that back on the burner.

Second, as far as I know, Graham threatening to designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism as leverage with the Ukraine war is new, as is linking that scheme to issue of presumed-abducted-by-Russia Ukrainian children. Even more worrisome is that Melania Trump raised the “oh the children” matter after the Alaska summit, even though the Russian-held-children allegations were being addressed at the working group level in the continuing Russia-Ukraine negotiations.

Image

On its face, the First Lady’s letter is not at all about the Ukraine-children-in-Russia dispute. But DC outlets were quick to lard up the issue. So one is forced to wonder how the media-savvy Trump team did not know where that line of discussion would go, raising the further issue of how genuine Trump is with respect to wanting to move closer to Russia’s settlement demands. From The Hill:

First Lady Melania Trump penned a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin in which she raised concerns about the plight of children throughout Russia’s invasion of Ukraine….

More than 19,000 children were deported from Ukraine to Russia, adding that the actual number could be far higher, according to a Ukrainian government tracker….

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters on Tuesday, ahead of the Trump-Putin summit, that Moscow has been stonewalling talks on the return of Ukrainian children.

Ukraine’s leader said that while occasional transfers have taken place, with the assistance of other nations, Kyiv has not been able to strike a wide-ranging agreement with Russia on the matter.

Recall that many were sent by parents of Russian descent in Ukraine for safety; others were moved by Russia out of what were seen as hazardous areas. There has yet to be any evidence that a Ukraine parent has asked the Russian government to return a missing child and Russia has refused to do so. My recollection from the YouTube-sphere is that Russia asked Ukraine to provide a list of missing minors for Russia to investigate, and the number was vastly smaller than 19,000.

However, Russia will never be able to prove that the number of supposedly stolen children is less than 19,000, which seems likely to be the case. So Russia will be depicted as guilty regardless of the veracity of the charges.

Third, it’s simply nauseating to see a warmonger like Graham to profess concern about children yet full-throatedly back Israel’s genocide.

As far as the “state sponsor of terrorism” threat, it seems vanishingly unlikely ever to happen. We haven’t even put Iran in that category.1 Among other things, it would bar the US or US entities from buying Russian processed uranium, which the US needs and for which it has no substitute. Note also that despite Graham’s baying, that designation can only be made by the Secretary of State and is thus outside Congress’ purview. But so to are sanctions and tariffs, and yet here, Trump’s misguided action against India says that Graham and his uber hawk allies have been able to push Trump around.

One argument in Russia, which has saber-rattled about elevating the Special Military Operation to an anti-terrorist operation is that that designation would preclude any negotiations with the so-called Zelensky regime. The same issue would presumably hold with a US designation. Yes, Trump did effectively defy the US designation of North Korea by meeting Kim Jong Un in North Korea in 2019. But the existence of that stricture presumably would have greatly complicated coming to any formal agreement.

So there are many ways the neocons can sabotage either a peace initiative or a scheme to use the Alaska summit to engineer a US exit from Project Ukraine. And Lindsey Graham looks to be set to be out in front of them.

____

1 An overview from the European Parliamentary research service:

The US State Department currently lists four countries as state sponsors of terrorism, ‘for having consistently provided support for acts of international terrorism’. Syria has been on the list since 1979, Iran since 1984, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) since 2017 and Cuba (again) since 2021. Iraq, Sudan and Libya previously featured on the list. The designation has wide-ranging consequences in the area of sanctions and state immunity. Sanctions include restrictions on US foreign assistance, a ban on defence exports and sales, certain controls over exports of dual-use items, and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions. The designation has important economic repercussions for all countries that continue to engage with the designated state, as they may fall foul of US secondary sanctions. As the same time, the designation removes the immunity before federal and state courts in the US to which foreign states are normally entitled. Both houses of Congress have now introduced legislation that would see Russia added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism. If Russia were designated as a terrorist state, it would no longer be immune from suits brought in the US by US nationals, members of the US armed forces and US government employees in relation to Russia’s actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Libya, Syria, Sudan and Ukraine, some dating back decades. Successful plaintiffs could execute their judgments against frozen Russian assets. The designation of a state as a sponsor of terrorism has traditionally been reserved for states the US considers ‘pariah states’. In essence, the US has no formal diplomatic or commercial relations with any of the states it has designated as state sponsors of terrorism. Canada also has a ‘State Supporter of Terrorism’ mechanism under its State Immunity Act, with Iran and Syria listed as state supporters of terrorism since 2012.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... state.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:51 pm

WATCH: Out-Flattering a Capricious Trump
August 19, 2025

CN editor Joe Lauria tells RT News the significance of the recent flurry of high-level diplomatic activity on Ukraine may be overblown and that tangible progress depends on Donald Trump’s shaky resolve.



RT: And let’s discuss this live with Joe Lauria, editor in chief of Consortium News. Welcome to the program, sir. Trump is urging Zelensky to show flexibility in the peace talks. Apparently, that’s a hint that Ukraine must make some territorial concessions. Do you see Zelensky doing that? And what exactly could Trump be referring to? I do think, I’m of the school that not a lot happened over these days from Alaska until the White House on Monday.

Joe Lauria: There is some significance there, the ceasefire being the most important, that Trump did not backtrack when he agreed with Putin that there should not be first a ceasefire; that they have to move towards an overall settlement; that he has shown a little backbone on that is very good. And the fact is, that Trump showing that has told the Europeans who came in a weak position, almost desperate, to sit in front of his desk at the Oval Office, that they are going to have to just essentially accept what Trump decides in the end. And this is really both sides trying to out-flatter Trump, both the Russian side and the Europeans.

So will Trump continue to follow through? I don’t think Zelensky on his own, with the backing of the Europeans … doesn’t want to give up any territory, even Crimea, and he doesn’t have any interest in compromise whatsoever. But we know that they’ve lost the war, and the Europeans know that.

Zelensky knows that. It’s all up to whether Trump can stick to what he’s saying about not wanting a ceasefire. But there’s a lot more that we can’t trust about what he’ll do or not. For example, the Europeans are still insisting on peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory, with Europeans being part of that. That’s something Russia obviously will not accept.

We don’t know where Trump stands on that. Zelensky is going to have to face reality. He should have done that back at Istanbul two or three years ago. In the end, I believe that this war can only end on the basis of the draft treaty proposals that Russia presented to NATO and the United States in December 2021, which was to remove NATO forward deployments from the former Warsaw Pact countries, take out any missiles in Romania and Poland, and not expand NATO, particularly to Ukraine.

This is the basis. This is the overall security architecture that Russia tried in 2009 with a treaty proposal. They revived that in 2021. The U.S. said no. They just rejected it out of hand. It led to the invasion of Ukraine. So we’re going to have to come back to that point. I’ve been saying that all along, and I think that’s where we’re at right now, and we’re not close to that.

RT: Now, you’ve just mentioned, the ceasefire and the temporary peace, and the complete full on peace that Moscow has been calling for this entire time. And now the Kremlin has acknowledged that Washington is interested in establishing that long term peace in Ukraine as well. But what do you think about the real prospects for that, though?

Joe Lauria: That’s really the big question. I mean, Trump makes a lot of good noises. He seems to have some good instincts. But then the last person he talks to seems to convince him. He’s got neocons there. Witkoff I don’t trust, but certainly Kellogg, Rubio, and Senator Lindsey Graham, above all, are extremely Russophobic.

They are telling him that this was an invasion of Ukraine that was isolated. There’s nothing that caused that. And, of course, as the Russians continuously talk about the root causes, they’re made fun of by the American press, by people like Rubio. These root causes, I mean, there are always causes for any conflict.

This is joked about. And I think that’s really troubling that that’s not taken seriously, what the causes of the war are. Plus, the media here in the United States, probably in Western Europe as well, they portrayed Putin in Alaska as being brought in from out of the cold. He was isolated. And now Trump has made a mistake by giving him this stage.

Well, what about BRICs? I mean, the vast majority of the people, China and India, for God’s sake. And he’s not isolated. It’s such a Western-centric point of view. But I think we’re seeing some cracks in that. And this all goes back to what’s going on on the ground. It’s clear Russia’s winning. They’re about to break through. They can get to the Dnieper River, perhaps.

And this was clear for years that this was happening. So the earlier that Ukraine and the European leaders [accept that] — whose own careers are staked on this war continuing, and we’ve seen that many, many times in history where leaders know they’re losing, but they have to continue to support it. There was the meeting with Macron in Paris and the previous chancellor of Germany, in which they told Zelensky at a dinner two years ago, you better give up and you better make peace with Russia. Look, Germany and France have made peace after all those wars. And then, of course, they ditch that because they have to keep their own reputations alive and people die for that. Ultimately, the only solution is going to be those draft treaties. I don’t see Trump doing it. I don’t see a future president necessarily doing it. It’s going to be won on the battlefield unfortunately.

That’s my fear. But I hope that Trump can follow through. He’s making the right noises and he met with Putin at least. Biden wouldn’t even do that.

RT: And also Trump says that he understands that Ukraine must retain its security guarantees. A very tricky issue, by the way, because ultimately, security guarantees is what Russia has been asking for this entire time, citing the expansion of NATO.

Joe Lauria: Exactly.

RT: But yeah, but if Trump says that he understands the situation, how could he guarantee this security after his time in office?

Joe Lauria: That’s an excellent question. It’s Russian security that is at the essence of all of this. Going back since the end of the Cold War, when Yeltsin was opposed to NATO expansion. I mean, he was Washington’s man in Moscow and, of course, Putin’s Munich speech in 2007, and then that treaty proposal in 2009.

And now the 2021 treaties. And Russia said, if you don’t negotiate this seriously, you know, we will take technical/military means. I think that Biden and the US and the Europeans wanted Russia to invade so that they could put their economic, their ground war and their information war into [effect]. They thought they were going to bring down the Russian government, destroy the economy, beat them on the ground.

They lost, lost, lost. And they know that now. So there has to be a way out for them. And Trump can give it to them if he sticks to some of these ideas, and what you just mentioned, the security guarantees and Ukraine. He can’t allow … he said Americans won’t take part. He’s got to say the Europeans cannot take part.

I don’t know if there could be a U.N. peacekeeping force with Bangladeshi and Indian troops. This is the only thing that I think might be acceptable to Russia. I don’t even know if that would be, but certainly you’re never going to have NATO nations there, even if they’re not part of a NATO [operation], as a peacekeeping force.

That still was talked about by the Europeans in the White House yesterday, which was a really sorry state of affairs, because they were going to lose face. Let’s face that. That’s what’s at the bottom of the European problem. Joe Lauria, Editor in chief of Consortium News, thank you so much for joining us with this analysis.

You’re welcome. You’re welcome. Bye bye.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/08/19/w ... ous-trump/

*****

Ms Maxwell and The Art of The Deal
Raymond Nat Turner, BAR poet-in-residence 20 Aug 2025

Image

For her silence she wants the Ruby
Slippers back — along with her broomstick —
The Lolita Express … Better yet … she
Wants the jet Qatar gifted grifter Boss Tweet.

She wants all alphabet agencies who
Spy on the American People
Mobilized/weaponized to find out which
Hedge fund flipped a house on her sister.

She wants ICE rounding up a million Munchkins a month
For her pleasure. She wants scores of other peoples’ babies.
She wants impunity to work Quinceañeras, Bat Mitzvahs,
Sweet Sixteens with former father figure, Jel-Low Puddin Man.

She wants a new psyop to co-opt left language.
She wants to use “What’s the call? Free ‘em all!”
To Free Harvey! Free Diddy! Free R. Kelly! And
Allow Russell Simmons to sing, “I believe I can fly!”

She wants Slick Willy notified that honeypots and
Sandwiches will return shortly. She wants Cuomo
To know he can come and go. She wants Papa Cop
To know that he can fly— free — to Turkey.

She wants baby oil tariffs removed. She wants
Diddy as mixologist aboard the Love Boat her
Father fell from and drowned in waters off the
Canary Islands.

She wants use of some 800 plus bases run by
Greasy-thumbed generals. Preferably, those
Named for confederate traitors. She wants to erect a new
Headquarters. A station. A secure location for predation.

She wants to “steal” reich-cult blondes for weekly workouts.
Smoothie-fueled saunas, steam baths and mani-pedis in secure
White supremacist, settler-colonial, tropical paradises. Built on
Profaned bones of indigenous ancestors.
Finally, if she’s found “unresponsive.” Entangled in sheets. Tumbled from
10th floor window. Or, reciting autopsy, a coroner crows, “A little poison!”
Bury her atop her triple-agent Pop. In Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives Cemetery.
With international intelligence community elite turnout — With 21 gun salute …

© 2025. Raymond Nat Turner, The Town Crier. All Rights Reserved.

https://blackagendareport.com/ms-maxwell-and-art-deal
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 22, 2025 3:33 pm

Crimea is the size of Texas in the middle of the ocean
August 20, 2:51 PM

Image

Crimea is the size of Texas. It's a huge territory in the middle of the ocean (c) Trump

They taught me some other geography at school. Oh well. Let him recognize Crimea as Russian and go to hell.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10022056.html

Google Translator

"...very high IQ"...Trying to make Raygun and Junior look smart. Sadly many of 'mah fellow Americans' have no better grasp on geography. And that I think is one of the 'secrets' of Trump's political success, he squandered the educational opportunities available to the bourgeoise in favor of being 'informed' by TV and movies, which is too common given an educational system geared for obedience and low intellectual attainment. People know he ain't no 'smarty-pants' and like that as so many of those have shit all over them.

******

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking the invading country. It is like a great sports team that has a fantastic defense but is not allowed to play offensively. No chance of winning! This is the case with Ukraine and Russia. The crooked and completely incompetent Joe Biden did not allow Ukraine to START FIGHTING ACTIONS, only DEFEND. How did that work? Anyway, this war would never have happened if I were President - ZERO CHANCE. Interesting times ahead! (c) Trump

Sounds almost like a threat of new terrorist attacks on Russian territory.

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

******

​Trump’s security guarantees: key to a Ukraine settlement?

By Stephen Bryen, Asia Times, 8/18/25

Are we in for something like a repeat of Woodrow Wilson’s failure to achieve Senate backing for the Treaty of Versailles?

US President Donald Trump has offered Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky security guarantees that Trump describes as “like Article V” of the NATO Treaty. Zelensky has apparently signed onto the Trump offer and potentially has agreed that some “territorial swaps” will be needed to make a deal with Russia.

Trump has reported to his European interlocutors who came to the White House to back up Zelensky. He told them more or less the same thing, according to reports, and told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who pushed for an immediate ceasefire, that a ceasefire ahead of a deal was off the table.

We don’t know what security guarantees mean or how they would be implemented. The Russians will be asking a lot of questions about the idea, if they have not already done so. Trump said he would be calling Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as today, [August] 18, 2025, where it is already after midnight as this is written.

Here are the likely questions about security guarantees.

(1) Will the US send troops to Ukraine (as the European so-called “coalition of the willing” wants to do) or will the assurances to Kyiv be political in nature?

(2) Will the US set up any kind of infrastructure in Ukraine as part of the assurances to Ukraine?

(3) While Trump has ruled out any NATO membership for Ukraine, will the Europeans, or some of then, be part of the Trump guarantee?

(4) Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which is the effective collective security provision of the Treaty, requires consensus of all NATO members. Is Trump thinking of a quasi-NATO-like arrangement that also will require consensus for activation? One should note that not all European countries plan to support any troop presence in Ukraine even for security assurances. Specifically, Germany, Italy and Poland have said “no” to proposals from the UK and France.

(5) NATO is a treaty organization that was formally approved by its members, meaning the Treaty was signed and ratified by each country’s legislative authority. If Trump’s security guarantees are not under a treaty format, the deal might not be supported by a future President. If Trump wants to sign a treaty with Ukraine, he will need to convince Congress it is in the US national interest. This may not be as easy as it would seem because many will start to question exactly what would oblige the US to take military action if there is a violation of the final deal on Ukraine. It is obvious these are tricky waters, and the Trump administration will have to skip a lot of rope to sell the idea of an actual guarantee that involves the US military in a war with Russia, which is, as I am sure some have noticed, a nuclear-armed power.

In the United States a treaty, for ratification, needs a two thirds vote in the US Senate. There may well be enough isolationists in Congress to block ratification, if Trump goes for a treaty. Down the road, one is reminded of Woodrow Wilson’s failure to achieve Senate backing for the Treaty of Versailles.

There are more recent examples of treaties that ran into trouble. These include the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on Elimination of All Forces of Discrimination Against Women and the Law of the Sea Convention.

(6) The Russians have demanded a smaller Ukrainian military and a neutral Ukraine. Will this demand be honored in any way?

(7) We don’t yet have any idea on the territories Ukraine will yield, or the actual borders (since the Russians do not control all of Donbas). This will be a tough negotiation, and Putin will be under heavy pressure from his army, which, for the most part, is gaining ground in Donbas and elsewhere.

Trump faces an uphill battle selling US guarantees for Ukraine, notwithstanding whether they require US boots on the ground and if others will join the US, such as the UK and France. In one sense, with a smaller group, the Russians will regard the future risk as greater than the NATO risk because the UK and French are aggressively promoting their participation in armed conflict against Russia. A so-called coalition of some-willing looks like a non-starter for Russia.

All of this means that what looks like a success at the White House may devolve into another casualty of the Ukraine war. The offer of guarantees may fail under scrutiny, either by Russia or by the US Congress.

https://asiatimes.com/2025/08/trumps-se ... ettlement/

*****

Putin and Trump in Alaska: Do Men Make History or Does History Make Men?
Posted on August 21, 2025 by Curro Jimenez

When Trump and Putin met in Alaska, the event was portrayed as the encounter between two strong men capable of taking decisive action and changing the course of events. However, their meeting was not that of equals. One was a man shaped by circumstances; the other, a man who bent them. Or so it seems.

Trump represents the U.S. imperial state, with all the trappings of bureaucracy, interests, and compromises that characterize it. As was demonstrated during the Biden presidency, the president is the figurehead of a complex web, and the machine of the state can run without a capable executive figure at its helm.

In fact, this is something Putin has complained about, claiming it is the reason he does not trust U.S. presidents: they might commit to something, but then an army of bureaucrats and lobbyists come to tell them “how things are done.” This arrangement is typical of power structures in their later stages, where the state apparatus can override the will of its nominal head.

The Roman Republic, before Augustus, had intentionally developed a state structure to prevent a single ruler from taking over. The century of civil wars before Augustus was an attempt to change it, and the ensuing conflict brought many authoritarian leaders forward: Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, and finally Augustus.

When Augustus established the de facto empire, in what historian Ronald Syme called the Roman Revolution, power was taken from the senate and concentrated on him, but the state was still necessary to run the empire. What Augustus did could be considered a logical development: he centralized the state structure under one authority. Soon after, with the assassination of Caligula, the Praetorian Guard made Claudius emperor, relegating the figure of the emperor to secondary importance.

As in the period before Augustan Rome, the U.S. is overstretched and rife with internal divisions. In these conditions, it’s common for sectors of society, including those close to the power nexus, to call for a strong man to “establish order.” That was the call in Rome, just as it was much later in early 20th-century Spain.

In 1902, Spanish writer and politician Joaquin Costa proposed the concept of an “iron surgeon,” a man capable of restoring order amidst the instability created by the “Restoration Regime,” the republicans, and the new socialist ideas taking hold in the country. General Primo de Rivera came to power in 1923 and referred to himself as such. He also established the “National Consultative Assembly,” a sort of corporate consultative body to stand in place of the parliament, which was meant to represent the administration, society, and the party. It was tasked with creating a “New Spain.”

Trump and his administration present him as a strong man capable of “making America great again.” Some liken Trump’s second coming to a type of coup against the establishment. The theory of the unitary executive power is being pushed to the limit to further that agenda, even presenting Trump—though as a joke—as king. However, Trump is more akin to Sulla than to Augustus, even though the comparison might be disrespectful to the Roman general.

The reason is that Sulla, much like Primo de Rivera, was a representative of the optimates and hence a conservative seeking to strengthen the rule of the oligarchy, not to change the system, as Augustus did. Therefore, though Sulla was a capable general, his decisions were conditioned by the power structure he represented and wished to continue.

Trump’s decisions are equally constrained, if not dictated, by the interests he represents. These are not a homogeneous group, as shown by the fracture within the MAGA movement and his erratic behavior depending on who is influencing him. As an example, one of the reasons behind the meeting in Alaska, which some present as a bold move, was probably the trap he had set upon himself by giving Russia an ultimatum and threatening secondary sanctions—a threat that, if carried out, would have backfired.

Putin, on the other hand, is at the head of a state structure that he has rebuilt and in which he has concentrated executive and corporate power, putting much of Russia’s vast natural resources under its command. In this, and much more, he actually resembles the Roman emperor Diocletian. If we posit that there is a certain continuation of state tradition beyond the ideological rhetoric, from the Russian Empire to the USSR to today’s Russia, then the comparison to Diocletian becomes quite staggering.

When Putin came to power, the Russian state had been plundered after the dissolution of the USSR by national and foreign agents and opened to Western neocolonialism. Putin took control and rebuilt the state structure, centralized power, and put natural resources under it, in the process eliminating opposition and dissension. Similarly, during his reign, Diocletian stabilized the empire and put an end to the Third-Century Crisis. His reorganization of the fiscal, administrative, and military machinery laid the foundations of the Byzantine Empire in the East.

Both men came from humble backgrounds, rose through the ranks of the state, and were profoundly statist. They also similarly framed their ascent to power in a discourse of social and historical inevitability and a return to the true ideals of the empire.

When Trump and Putin met in Alaska, Trump had to put on a show to pretend that he commands the same personal auctoritas as Putin does, that it was a meeting between two equals. On paper, they are. One could even argue that, on paper, Trump still commands the largest economy and strongest army in the world. But they stand as heads of two states at very different stages: one aging and one renewed after the collapse of the USSR.

Putin stands at the head of a rejuvenated state and wields the power that it confers. One could argue that he has bent his personal circumstances as well as those of Russia as he found it. Proof of this is how he rose through the ranks and how he has made Russia capable of standing up to NATO and winning.

Trump, on the other hand, could be said to have been made by his circumstances, riding the wave of his social position and wealth. He has risen to power on the back of a populist discourse, which usually gains traction under social and economic conditions of later-stage power structures, and is supported by a new wealthy class allied with a nationalist industrial aristocracy, to which he belongs. In this case, it could be argued that he is the result of a set of circumstances, not its maker.

However, I’m well aware that someone could make the exact opposite argument: that Putin is the result of the Russian circumstances after the end of the Soviet Union, and that Trump has fought against the political establishment to rise above his circumstances. Though I’m less inclined to support this view, if well argued, it could be valid. This seeming contradiction exists because when dealing with the debate of man versus circumstances, it’s a matter of perspectives.

There are certain views which will undoubtedly maintain that history makes men, and they are not exclusively religious. For example, a Marxist materialist reading of history will come to that conclusion; this is then difficult to marry with the awe shown by Marxists toward certain leaders. Another example is that of neuroscientist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky, whose book, ‘Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will,‘ makes the claim—from a purely evolutionary argument—that humans are absolutely determined by their biological makeup.

Religious people have been grappling with this question since time immemorial, which, articulated differently, is the same debate as free will versus predestination. The responses vary from absolute predetermination to a compromise between that and free will, to propose that, despite God and decree, humans have free will. Later, humanism developed a faith in rational, human-centric free will, which evolutionary science then reframed as a survival tool that is simultaneously constrained by uncontrollable external circumstances.

We will not settle that debate here, but the point I’m trying to make is precisely that there is no definitive answer to the question because it will depend on the angle from which one looks at it. In support of this, I will just mention two writers—to be fair on the comparison—who hold opposite views, but there are many others.

Thomas Carlyle argued in his book, ‘On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History,‘ that ‘universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here.’ Carlyle is credited with being the first proponent of the ‘great men theory,’ though I would argue against this statement. Plutarch’s ‘Parallel Lives,‘ which compares the lives of ‘great men’ of antiquity, could be said to have articulated a similar intention first.

On the other hand, Tolstoy’s second epilogue to ‘War and Peace’ completely rejects this view. Quoting the Times Literary Supplement (only because the subheading serves the argument), it reads: ‘Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace rejected the “great man” theory of history, made fashionable by Thomas Carlyle. Napoleon, Cromwell, and Caesar were “history’s slaves,” fulfilling the will of Providence, argued Tolstoy, not its masters.’

Tolstoy argues that there are only two ways to account for the historical: ‘nations guided by individual men’ or ‘the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending.’ He dismisses the first and tries to argue for the second. Following the second view, TLS adds to the previous title: ‘So how to judge the three ‘great men’ who have presided over China’s return to the pinnacle of world power—the Communist Party leaders Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and Xi Jinping?’ That is no different from asking to account for Putin or Trump’s ascension to power.

Or, to bring it back to the departure point of this article, was the Alaska Summit a meeting between two “great men” or one brought about by circumstances? If we are to follow much of the press coverage, we would have to assume the first. Many accounts of the summit have regarded it in personal terms: “Trump lost” and “Putin won,” which also shows how much of the press is conditioned by a language favored by the power structure.

This personalized narrative is what the Trump administration prefers. They want to present Trump as a “strong man” capable of opposing the bureaucracy of the “deep state” and able to force others to his terms and achieve “deals.” According to this narrative, he is the strong leader that will “make America great again.” But the over-focus on his persona hides the enormous apparatus of the state and its private interests.

On the other hand, Putin favors a depersonalized narrative. It’s not about him, it’s about Russia, Mother Russia. There was a time when he also presented himself as a “strong man,” riding horses shirtless. That was the time when he had to establish his power over other oligarchs. Now that he holds power, he is clever enough to push for a different narrative.

For Putin, the Alaska summit was about explaining root causes, realities on the ground, and constitutional and political processes, though he knew who he was dealing with. For Trump, it was about him solving a situation and making a deal. But who was in control of circumstances and who was under them?

Man versus circumstances seems to be a matter of perspective. But which perspective is chosen seems to reveal much about both circumstances and men.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... e-men.html

******

Trump’s Tariffs Backfire: India Moves Closer to China, Strengthening BRICS Unity
August 20, 2025

Image
'Trump's Tariffs Backfire, Strengthening BRICS.' Photo: Geopolitical Economy Report.

By Ben Norton – Aug 16, 2025

The US government has long tried to recruit India for its new cold war on China. Donald Trump’s tariffs have backfired, encouraging New Delhi to improve its relations with Beijing, strengthening BRICS.

US President Donald Trump is a very contradictory leader. He constantly implements policies that go against his stated goals.

The perfect example of this is how Trump has treated BRICS, the Global South-led organization that now represents the majority of the planet.



Trump sees BRICS as a major threat to US hegemony, and, in particular, the dominance of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

The US president has openly threatened members of BRICS to try to stop them from seeking alternatives to the dollar.

In a press conference at the White House on July 8, Trump complained (emphasis added):

BRICS was set up to hurt us. BRICS was set up to degenerate our dollar, and take our dollar as the standard, take it off as the standard.

And that’s okay if they want to play that game, but I can play that game, too. So anybody that’s in BRICs is getting a 10% charge.



If they’re a member of BRICS, they’re going to have to pay a 10% tariff, just for that one thing. And they won’t be a member long.


But ironically, Trump’s attacks on BRICS countries have only strengthened BRICS, and encouraged more and more countries to join the Global South-led organization.

Trump has blatantly meddled in the internal affairs of Brazil, the “B” in BRICS. Trump is a close ally of Brazil’s far-right former leader, Jair Bolsonaro. To hurt its current left-wing president, Lula da Silva, Trump imposed 50% tariffs on the South American nation.

This has resulted in Brazil deepening its already close ties with China. And President Lula is publicly calling for BRICS countries to create alternatives to the US dollar.

Trump’s aggression is clearly backfiring.

Another example of this is how the US president has treated India, which is the “I” in BRICS.

For years, the US government has pursued a strategy of trying to ally with India against China, as part of an attempt to divide BRICS and isolate Beijing.

In recent years, especially under right-wing Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India had gradually moved closer to the United States.

But in his second term as president, Trump has attacked India, threatening it with 50% tariffs, one of the highest rates in the world.

Trump apparently thinks that India has no choice but to go along with whatever the US wants. But the world is increasingly multipolar, and New Delhi does have other options.

In response to Trump’s very aggressive tariffs, what did India do? It reached out to China with an olive branch. Now New Delhi and Beijing are improving their relations.

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

<snip>

Image

(Much more at link, but every picture tells a story.))

******

(This is amusing, and while it gratifies Trumpain't gonna help him any with the 'professionals'.)

FBI conducts search at John Bolton’s home as part of resumed national security investigation
By Evan Perez, Michael Callahan, Shania Shelton, Kristen Holmes
Updated 1 hr 50 min ago

The FBI conducted a court-authorized search at John Bolton’s home as part of a national security investigation into whether he disclosed classified information in his 2020 book, according to two people familiar with the matter.

CNN observed FBI personnel at the former US national security adviser’s house in the Washington, DC, area. They were seen speaking to a person on the porch of the house, and at least four to six agents were seen going inside.

Some of the agents took bags out of the vehicles to bring inside, but nothing was seen coming out of the residence.

FBI agents were also outside of Bolton’s office building Friday.


Reached by CNN, Bolton said he was unaware of the FBI activity and was looking into it further. His attorney didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The probe is related to the possible retention of national security information, according to the person familiar with the investigation. Bolton last served in government in 2019 when President Donald Trump fired him during his first administration.

The search at Bolton’s house was first reported by the New York Post. The FBI declined to comment on it.

Trump’s fraught history with Bolton
Trump has repeatedly gone after his former national security adviser while in office, including most recently saying this month that the media was “constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton.”

The president terminated Bolton’s Secret Service detail within hours of starting his second term in January.

During his first term, the president threatened to jail Bolton after he published a book in 2020 in which he claimed Trump was woefully under-informed on matters of foreign policy and obsessed with shaping his media legacy. The book also reported that Trump asked the leaders of Ukraine and China to help him win the 2020 election.

It’s not clear whether the current probe is related to the same book dispute or involves other material.

The book included material that initially was cleared for publication by career officials at the White House, but Trump political appointees sought to overturn that approval.

https://us.cnn.com/2025/08/22/politics/ ... fbi-search

This ain't nothing but harassment, and a warning to other potential 'turncoats'.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Mon Aug 25, 2025 2:45 pm

Image

Media in hiding from the most urgent questions of the day
By Janine Jackson (Posted Aug 22, 2025)

Originally published: FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) on August 19, 2025 (more by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)) |

Image
Common Dreams (8/12/25) noted that “many Americans are persuaded by persistent claims that crime is rising, even when they are not.”

Trump has commandeered Washington, DC, putting National Guard and local police in the streets because DC is not a state, and so it’s the only place he could take over in this way. He’s brandishing a patently false pretense that the district is facing a crime crisis. The reality—and we do remember reality, right?—is that Washington, DC, has its lowest violent crime rate in 30 years.

Stephen Prager at Common Dreams (8/12/25) pulled more stats together: Los Angeles’s Police Department says violent crime of all sorts there is on the decline, with the city looking at the lowest number of killings in 60 years. Baltimore has a historically low homicide rate, down 28% from last year, violent crime down by 17%, property crime down by 13%. Chicago has fewer homicides than in any year in the past decade, a 30% decline in shootings and homicides from last year. And New York has experienced the lowest number of murders in recorded history.

So how do you explain this to people? Well, if you’re the Associated Press (8/12/25), you lead with dryly stating that Trump

has taken control of DC’s law enforcement and ordered National Guard troops to deploy onto the streets of the nation’s capital, arguing the extraordinary moves are necessary to curb an urgent public safety crisis.

Image
Even while critiquing Trump’s rhetoric (“Conservatives have for generations used denigrating language to describe the condition of major cities”), AP (8/12/25) allows that rhetoric to frame the reality. (Trump says “the extraordinary moves are necessary to curb an urgent public safety crisis.”)

The very next sentence read:

Even as district officials questioned the claims underlying his emergency declaration, the Republican president promised a “historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.”

So you relegate reality to a dependent clause, and then recite the inflammatory hysteria word for word.

If you, like AP, are respectable corporate media, responsible for explaining the situation to people, you further note:

According to White House officials, troops will be deployed to protect federal assets and facilitate a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests. The Trump administration believes the highly visible presence of law enforcement will deter violent crime. It is unclear how the administration defines providing a safe environment for law enforcement to conduct arrests, raising alarm bells for some advocates.

So you get that, independent reporters under fascism? Lead with White House officials, and recite the claim that they’re “facilitating a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests.” That sounds very calm, very measured, and you’re not even asking, “What arrests?” The brown children snatched off the street by goons who won’t show their ID? Those are the arrests that need a safe environment?

And, OK, alarm bells are being raised for “some advocates”? Advocates of what? Democracy, due process, human decency? Why aren’t those alarmed advocates in the lead paragraph?

Corporate media are calling this kind of thing reporting, but reporting would keep at least one foot in the facts. So when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller (X, 8/12/25) tweets that “crime stats in big blue cities are fake,” would a press corps worth its salt say “some advocates dispute that,” or would they show all the actual real-world data?

Image
When Stephen Miller (X, 8/12/25) asserts that “the real rates of crime” in big cities are “orders of magnitude higher,” he’s claiming that rather than having 187 murders last year, DC really had more than 18,000.

Ideally, the blathering of a man who thinks that “the real rates of crime, chaos and dysfunction are orders of magnitude higher” than that might be met with questions about, for one thing, whether he knows what “orders of magnitude” means, but also, where is he looking for these official rates of “chaos and dysfunction”?

But the press corps we have are engaged, like the New York Times, in hiding from the most urgent questions of the day. Faced, for example, with Israel’s deliberate, acknowledged, intentional starvation of Palestinians and occupied territories, the Times musters itself to a story (7/20/25) about how the question of whether that’s happening at all is “dividing Jewish Americans.”

Nowhere does this news report say that international rights groups and statements from the Israeli leadership themselves say that, yes, starvation is happening, on purpose; for the paper’s readers, “yes” and “no” are equally credible alternatives. Elite journalists, faced with historically horrific crimes, seem to define their job as pretending not to know what’s going on. Reality evidently needs to be balanced with falsehoods.

What’s going on, as readers will know, is that, for example, the team of Al Jazeera reporters working from Gaza have all been killed. Al Jazeera correspondents Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh, along with cameramen Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal, were all killed in an Israeli strike targeting their marked news media tent in Gaza City. All of which is simply to say, look up independent news sources for information, now more than ever.

https://mronline.org/2025/08/22/media-i ... f-the-day/

*****

US intel chief fired over report contradicting Trump's claim of 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear program

His dismissal has fueled fears of a loyalty-based crackdown within the Trump government

News Desk

AUG 23, 2025

Image
(Photo credit: Leah Mills/Reuters)

The head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, was dismissed from his post after his agency reported that US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities caused only “limited damage,” contradicting President Donald Trump’s claim of “total destruction,” officials announced on 22 August.

Officials told Reuters and AP that no explanation was provided for Kruse’s removal, and he was not informed of the grounds for his dismissal.

The announcement later confirmed that two other officers, Vice Admiral Nancy Lacore, chief of the Navy Reserve, and Rear Admiral Milton Sands, who led Naval Special Warfare Command, were also fired.

Kruse’s agency had assessed that the US strikes in June set back Iran’s nuclear program only by months.

That conclusion, leaked to US media, directly clashed with Trump’s repeated assertions that the operation had “obliterated” the facilities.

A senior defense official told reporters that Kruse “will no longer serve as DIA director,” without elaborating.

Trump has consistently denounced the DIA findings, accusing outlets such as CNN and the New York Times of publishing “fake news” to demean what he called “one of the most successful military strikes in history.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has called the strikes "not significant, while the International Atomic Energy Agency also said that claims of total destruction were “overblown.”

Trump's insistence on total destruction was bolstered by Israeli claims that Fordow had been “completely destroyed,” though even Israeli officials later admitted the outcome was “really not good.”

European intelligence assessments, as reported by the Financial Times, likewise indicated that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium survived the attack, undermining Trump’s narrative.

The purge of Kruse comes in the context of a broader ongoing restructuring that, since February, has seen Trump remove General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chiefs of the Navy and Coast Guard, the head of the National Security Agency, and several other top officers. Earlier this week, the Air Force chief announced his early retirement.

News of Kruse’s removal also follows Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s decision, under Trump’s orders, to revoke security clearances for 37 intelligence officials and cut staff in her office by more than 40 percent.

https://thecradle.co/articles/US-intel- ... e_vignette

******

Trump’s Intel Deal: Knowing the Price of Everything, and the Value of Nothing
Posted on August 25, 2025 by Yves Smith

Trump’s was able to leverage attack on Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, based on the false idea that the Malaysian/Singaporean was a Chinese operative, into a controversial 9.9% stake by converting CHIPS grants into equity precisely because the once-dominant semiconductor company is in a world of hurt. As we’ll explain, this agreement does nothing to improve Intel’s wobbly fundamentals and at the margin, weakens it financially. This deal is best thought of as yet another dominance display by Trump, attempting to demonstrate his acumen by acting as a chiseler who retrades deals to squeeze more from weak parties.

But this arrangement is not socialism, as many decry. The bare facts of this agreement are not even being properly reported. The Associated Press stated that the US is getting non-voting shares. That is not correct. From Intel’s site:

Under terms of the agreement, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock…

The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.

Sports fans, this is a loss for Intel. It either had gotten or was due to get the cash.1 It has instead had to issue more common stock, which dilutes current shareholders and at the margin would make it more costly to raise new equity. And even though (as we’ll soon explain), Intel’s problems are operational, not financial, and can’t be solved by money, any more than throwing more funds at Project Ukraine can magic new weapons into existence.

And Intel was downgraded by Fitch on August 4 to from BBB+ to BBB with a negative outlook. S&P had already downgraded Intel to BBB in December. Moody’s still has Intel a notch higher, at BBB1, just downgraded from A3 on August 8. Regardless, BBB is the last major ratings grade above junk level. So it might behoove Intel to sell shares at some point before its rating condition becomes more perilous.

Much of the breathless coverage gives the impression that the Federal government got the sort of extra rights that a large shareholder by virtue of a one-time investment might extract, such as board seats or veto rights. Nope. Again from Intel:

The government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.

The government will receive a five-year warrant, at $20 per share for an additional five percent of Intel common shares, exercisable only if Intel ceases to own at least 51% of the foundry business.

Intel also stopped paying dividends over a year ago.

So the government got no more influence over Intel than it already possessed due to Trump’s very active use of bullying and name calling. Keep in mind that those alone are the reason Nvidia and AMD capituled to the demand that they agree to pay a probably unconstitutional 15% “export tax” on sales to China.2 The business press also attributes Trump demands that companies eat tariffs as a big reason why major retailers have passed through only a small portion of those new costs to customers.2

It’s not a secret that Intel’s woes are deep seated. Like Boeing, its decline is the result of Intel’s once great engineering being subordinated to rule by MBA. Bill Lozaonick, who has been a long critic of stock buybacks, has written extensively about Intel. Consider how far Intel’s decline had progressed as of his and Matt Hopkins’ 2021 article How Intel Financialized and Lost Leadership in Semiconductor Fabrication:

For a half-century after the invention of the integrated circuit at Texas Instruments (TI) and Fairchild Semiconductor in the late 1950s, the United States was a leader in global semiconductor fabrication….

Meanwhile, from the early 1980s, “fabless” semiconductor companies – firms that designed, but did not fabricate chips themselves – proliferated, creating products for varied segments of the memory and logic markets…

Responding to the opportunity to manufacture chips for fabless firms, in 1987 Morris Chang, a Taiwanese native with electrical engineering degrees from MIT and Stanford and 25 years of work experience at TI, launched Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) as the world’s first “pure play” foundry…

Larger, however…. as a semiconductor fabricator is Samsung Electronics Corporation (SEC), the flagship company of the Korean Samsung chaebol, with estimated 2020 foundry revenues of $14.7b..As an IDM [integrated device manufacturer], SEC was second globally to Intel, which had $77.9b. in 2020 semiconductor revenues. Among the fabless firms competing with Intel at the high end of the processor market are U.S.-based Nvidia (2020 revenues: $16.7b.) and AMD ($9.8b.)….

The most advanced chips are produced for smartphones as “system-on-a-chip” (SOC). The leading designers of SOCs are Apple (USA), Qualcomm (USA), SEC (South Korea), and MediaTek (Taiwan). HiSilicon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huawei Technologies (China), was also a SOC leader until U.S. trade sanctions, implemented from August 2020, terminated its access to TSMC’s fab output.[4] TSMC and SEC use 7nm and 5nm process technology to manufacture many of these mobile processors along with the most advanced AMD computer and Nvidia gaming SOCs. According to TSMC, compared with 7nm, 5nm offers 15% faster speed, 30% less power consumption, and 1.8 times the logic density…

Intel still leads the global semiconductor industry in total revenues. But, as an IDM, Intel manufactures almost all its CPUs at 14nm, and its 10nm capacity has been stuck, with limited output, since 2018. Meanwhile, Apple is abandoning Intel processors for its Mac computers, turning instead to TSMC to fabricate Apple’s own designs. Intel itself already contracts with TSMC and UMC to produce 15-20% of its non-CPU chips. Moreover, later this year, TSMC will commence production of intel’s Core i3 processors, inside advanced laptops, at 5nm.

So stop a second and note the importance of that last paragraph. The bulk of Intel’s output was of much older, workhorse 14mm chips; it wasn’t even much of a player at 10mm chips and was having to outsource the manufacture of its 5mm chip designs.

Lazonick and Hopkins soon observe:

Why has Intel fallen behind TSMC and SEC in semiconductor fabrication, and why is it unlikely to catch up? The problem is that Intel is engaged in two types of competition, one with companies like TSMC and SEC in cutting-edge fabrication technology and the other within Intel itself between innovation and financialization. The Asian companies have governance structures that vaccinate them from an economic virus known as “maximizing shareholder value” (MSV). Intel caught the virus over two decades ago.

The authors documented the extent of Intel’s payouts, both via dividends and buybacks, but pointed out that is it not money per se but financialization that was driving Intel’s decline:

The foundation of financial commitment is retained earnings. In the case of Intel, as shown in Table 1 above, in recent years the company has made substantial allocations to P&E and R&D, even as it has distributed almost all its profits to shareholders.[20] But Intel has been able to tap other cash flows to make, simultaneously, large-scale productive investments and shareholder payouts. For the decade, 2011-2020, these other cash flows included depreciation charges of $87b., long-term debt issues of $45b., and stock sales (mainly to employees in stock-based compensation plans) of $12b.

Given the availability of these sources of funds, the vast sums that Intel has wasted on buybacks have not thus far imposed a cash constraint on its investments in semiconductor fabrication. Rather, it has been a deficiency in organizational learning—the essence of the innovation process—that has hampered Intel’s implementation of process technology. The generation of high levels of productivity from P&E and R&D expenditures requires, as a second social condition of innovative enterprise, organizational integration, working in combination with financial commitment. Organizational integration mobilizes the skills and efforts of large numbers of people in a hierarchical and functional division of labor into the collective and cumulative learning processes required to transform technologies to generate a higher-quality product and, then, access markets to attain economies of scale.

The root of Intel’s failure in organizational integration lies in the financialized character of a third social condition of innovative enterprise, strategic control. Accepting stock yield as the measure of enterprise performance, in recent years Intel’s senior executives who exercise strategic control have lacked both the incentive and, increasingly we would argue, the ability, to implement innovative investment strategies through organizational integration.

Matt Stoller, in an important August post, brought the story of Intel’s fall up to date:

he answer is that Trump is a more authoritarian version of the same finance oriented leadership style we’ve had since Jimmy Carter…

If Trump were different than his predecessors, he’d try to save Intel, and be disdainful of Nvidia and Apple. So far, he isn’t. He cut deals with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who he sees as a winner. Same with Apple CEO Tim Cook. He humiliated Intel’s CEO Lip-Bu Tan, precisely because Intel is doing the dirty physical work that Wall Street hates….

The best way to understand how Trump is running a more authoritarian version of the same playbook is to look at how he treats the three most important semiconductor firms in America. The first is artificial intelligence firm Nvidia, which makes a monopoly software platform called CUDA, and outsources the production of physical chips to run its software to Taiwan Semiconductor. Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world by stock price. The second is Apple, which is the biggest buyer of semiconductors in the world and an important designer of chips. It too offshores its production of chips and electronics, and it is the third most valuable company in the world by stock price. Finally there is Intel, which is the only major American fabricator of high-end semiconductors, producing physical product in the United States. Its stock price has gotten killed since 2020, and now the company itself is dying…

But in 2005, the company pulled a Boeing. The board hired its first non-technical CEO, Paul Otellini, who moved the company away from investing in continued technological leadership and focused the company on anti-competitive practices, like using rebates to stop customers from buying from smaller rival AMD….

Image

The clearest strategic misstep was missing out on supplying the chip for the iPhone, which Apple released in 2007…

Apple soon decided that the iPhone required a new kind of logic chip, one that could balance performance with the efficiency needed for a small battery-run device. To make acquire such a chip, Apple bet on restructuring the entire chip industry, designing chips in-house but having them produced by a partner whose sole focus was running foundries, Taiwan Semiconductor. So-called fabless chipmaking at scale wasn’t industry standard; one expression among chipmakers had been ‘real men have fabs.’ Also, nothing on the scale of the iPhone had ever existed.

Apple and TSMC eventually became a Wintel-style partnership…

Intel had always been an engineering-driven firm that took big risks when industry dynamics shifted, but under Otellini, it financialized and ossified. And so it missed multiple key turns in the industry – mobile, process leadership, and later on, the turn to a different kind of chip with AI. Former Intel principal engineer Francois Pidnoel said that the company’s culture resulted in “no innovation, no aggressive road-maps, and no people driven because they are are discouraged because the MBA’s are the only ones rising.” The Chair of the Board today is Frank Yeary, a private equity guy, and the board even has a VP from Boeing on it. The mirage of Intel’s strength has long since dissipated, but the company’s board members have not been held accountable.

Stoler also argues that policymakers played a big role in Intel’s decline. The company was the target of anti-trust cases over its use of rebates, but Chicago-school free market loving judges ruled for Intel.

And he posits that the fabless model, which now posed a threat to Intel, is the direct result of fabless customers commanding monopoly rent. In other sectors, like memory chips and analogue chips, vertical integration rules.

Stoller contends that government financial support cannot solve Intel’s woes (even if the money was ideally directed) because it could never be enough:

But the CHIPS Act, while it did spur some domestic production, did not fix the fundamental problem in chip markets. Government money is very limited compared to the actual demand from big customers. For instance, Apple, the largest chip buyer in the world, “has spent $458 billion since 2018 on dividends and share buybacks, an amount equal to nearly ten CHIPS Acts.” And it has no incentive to see Intel succeed, because it benefits from TSMC’s fabrication monopoly.

The comments section of the Financial Times story on the Trump-Intel agreement was overwhelmingly skeptical of the notion that Intel could right its ship, much the less that the US share acquisition would be of any benefit. Some examples:

Confabulator
The company has been going in the wrong direction since at least 10 years ago, and even longer if we include the debacle of missing out on the smartphone market. With AI, that’s 2 major innovations they missed out on. And now they’re increasingly less competitive in their traditional market segments too. Plus, their manufacturing has fallen behind the likes of TSMC whom they used to lead by a generation.

Eclair

The question is « Does Intel have it anymore or are they completely lost »? They seem to be destined to manufacture the commodity chips but nothing too complex. This investment is at best shaky it seems. It certainly confirms Intel is in trouble.

Strix technica
Poach TSMC’s talent? It’s worth a try, but their knowledge of TSMC’s processes alone (unless they got lucky and the individuals helped solve for TSMC specific problems similar to those that node 18A has) probably wouldn’t help much except insofar as they’re employed by TSMC because they’re smart people who know what they’re doing.

Earlier this month, three TSMC current/ex-employees were arrested on allegations of IP theft. I forget where I read this now, but it was said that this stolen information was of limited use to the recipient, though how anyone could know that (especially in so short a time) I don’t know.

Still, ex-TSMC employees — provided they’re not the alleged thieves, of course! — could well be of help to solving Intel’s node 18A problems.

TwistedElegance
It’s very sensible for government to own a stake in key industries. However Intel’s trouble comes from the fact its latest processors are terrible compared to AMD. AMD delivers more cores, more performance, and lower power requirements. 2 years ago I built a new PC based on Intel (I don’t really game on it.) 18 months later, I find out that there is a bug in the processor firmware that means its slowly destroying itself by requesting too much voltage from the motherboard! A bios update has supposedly fixed this, but who knows the damage done up to that point?

I don’t think I’d buy Intel again.

So what do we make of this “deal”? At a minimum, it’s yet another example of Trump’s default of violating the Sun Tsu warning: “All tactics and no strategy is the noise before the defeat.”

It also demonstrates Trump’s bizarre fixation with trying to extract monetary wins when there’s nothing, or almost nothing, to be had. As one Financial Times reader put it:

Armagheddon
Pro: at least the taxpayer gets something for their money, 10% in a failing business is better than nothing.
Con: this is still a bad use of money. Intel is saying “we should stop, we can’t find customers for this product”. US Gov: “do it anyhow, we like the optics on this one”.

Bonfire of taxpayer money.

And this scheme is yet another demonstration of Trump engaging in bad faith behavior, here of pressing Intel to give up stock to get previously Congressionally-approved grant funding. Members of the Trump Team seem either to defer to his extremely transactional posture or actually believe in it. They seem unable to grasp that many things that governments normally do yield payoffs that Wharton MBAs find hard to put in spreadsheets, such as social cohesiveness and trust in institutions, and soft power.

This episode reminds me of the bigger row between Trump and Zelensky over the “raw earths” deal. Ukraine had opened this door by suggesting a natural resources partnership to induce the US to continue to fund the war. As Fortune then explained:

US President Donald Trump said on Saturday he was trying to get money back for the billions of dollars sent to support Ukraine’s war against Russia….

Trump told delegates at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) near Washington: “I’m trying to get the money back, or secured.

“I want them to give us something for all of the money that we put up. We’re asking for rare earth and oil, anything we can get.

“We’re going to get our money back because it’s just not fair. And we will see, but I think we’re pretty close to a deal, and we better be close because that has been a horrible situation.”

As readers may recall, Zelensky dug in his heels and refused to sign many highly extractive US sets of terms, finally accepting something less unreasonable.4

The whole idea was quickly shown to be a big joke when, shortly after the signing, Russia secured territory that included the biggest lithium deposits in Ukraine….one of the prizes the US sought.

Admittedly, with Ukraine having gotten the US to wrangle hard over an empty bag, there is the risk we warned about at the time, that the mere execution of this pact created US interests in having Ukraine survive, holding as much territory as possible, as opposed to focusing on the bigger prizes of normalizing relations with Russia and cutting Project Ukraine losses.

This US stake in Intel analogously runs the risk of committing the US to the Mission Impossible of saving the ever more troubled Intel. But it will take a while for Intel’s unraveling to advance to a crisis point, and that could easily occur after Trump’s watch. So the question of whether Intel is too essential to fail or merely list badly will remain in play.

_____

1 One might try to argue that the conversion of the $2.2 billion CHIPS Act grant eliminated claw-back and profit-sharing provisions is a benefit to Intel. Perhaps. But profit sharing provisions pre-suppose profit, so having to pay that would not be a hardship.

The bigger arguable issue was that CHIPS Acts disbursements were held up by red tape. Recall that this bill had bi-partisan support and was an attempt at industrial policy, both to reverse the US’ loss of dominance in the semi-conductor business, and reduce supply chain/procurement vulnerability. However, as a new Wall Street Journal article makes crystal-clear, Intel’s CEO Tan ran to see Trump after Trump aggressively attacked his loyalty. This deal had nada to do with Intel wanting to get its hands on the outstanding CHIPS Act funds. Intel already had $22 roughly in cash and equivalents before the Trump and Softbank infusions.

Wikipedia gives further detail about the CHIPS Act:

The CHIPS and Science Act is a U.S. federal statute enacted by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022. The act authorizes roughly $280 billion in new funding to boost domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors in the United States, for which it appropriates $52.7 billion. The act includes $39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing on U.S. soil along with 25% investment tax credits for costs of manufacturing equipment, and $13 billion for semiconductor research and workforce training, with the dual aim of strengthening American supply chain resilience and countering China.: 1  It also invests $174 billion in the overall ecosystem of public sector research in science and technology, advancing human spaceflight, quantum computing, materials science, biotechnology, experimental physics, research security, social and ethical considerations, workforce development and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at NASA, NSF, DOE, EDA, and NIST.

The act does not have an official short title as a whole but is divided into three divisions with their own short titles: Division A is the CHIPS Act of 2022 (where CHIPS stands for the former “Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors” for America Act); Division B is the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act; and Division C is the Supreme Court Security Funding Act of 2022.

By March 2024, analysts estimated that the act incentivized between 25 and 50 separate potential projects, with total projected investments of $160–200 billion and 25,000–45,000 new jobs. However, these projects are faced with delays in receiving grants due to bureaucratic hurdles, shortages of skilled workers, and congressional funding deals that have limited or cut research provisions of the Act by tens of billions of dollars.

The clawback provisions sound as if they were mere eyewash. Again from Wikipedia:

In October 2022, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin and Representatives Sean Casten, Jamaal Bowman, Pramila Jayapal and Bill Foster sent a letter to Secretary Raimondo urging her to detail how the Commerce Department would enforce the law’s provisions preventing companies from using CHIPS Act money directly on stock buybacks (they noted the law does not prevent recipients from using the money to free up their own funds for stock buybacks), as well as whether the department would claw back misused funds and resolve conflicts of interest.

2 In the Intel case, there’s a similar question of the legality of Trump running roughshod over the CHIPS Act, which was intended to be generous to semiconductor players and boost their US operations and competitiveness generally, by the “grants become equity” extraction.

3 Some analysts also contend that tariff costs are turning out to be lower than originally estimated.

4 Details are sketchy. However from PBS:

The deal covers minerals, including rare earth elements, but also other valuable resources, including oil and natural gas, according to the text released by Ukraine’s government.

It does not include resources that are already a source of revenue for the Ukrainian state. In other words, any profits under the deal are dependent on the success of new investments. Ukrainian officials have also noted that it does not refer to any debt obligations for Kyiv, meaning profits from the fund will likely not go toward paying the U.S. back for its previous support.

Officials have also emphasized that the agreement ensures full ownership of the resources remains with Ukraine, and the state will determine what can be extracted and where.

It does not mention any explicit security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression that Ukraine has long insisted on.

The text of the deal lists 55 minerals but says more can be agreed to…

The agreement establishes a reconstruction investment fund, and both the U.S. and Ukraine will have an equal say in its management, according to Svyrydenko.

The fund will be supported by the U.S. government through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation agency, which Ukraine hopes will attract investment and technology from American and European countries.

Ukraine is expected to contribute 50 percent of all future profits from government-owned natural resources into the fund. The United States will also contribute in the form of direct funds and equipment, including badly needed air defense systems and other military aid.

Contributions to the fund will be reinvested in projects related to mining, oil and gas as well as infrastructure.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... thing.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Tue Aug 26, 2025 3:02 pm

PATRICK LAWRENCE: Trump & the Russophobes
August 25, 2025

The extent to which Trump’s démarche toward Moscow succeeds will be the extent to which the U.S. can transcend a long, regrettable history and finally embrace the 21st century.

Image
Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump on Aug. 15 in Anchorage, Alaska, after their summit. (Kremlin.ru/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 4.0)

By Patrick Lawrence
Special to Consortium News

There is no saying yet whether Donald Trump will succeed in negotiating the end of the Ukraine war, or a new era of détente between Washington and Moscow, or new security relations between Russia and the West, or cooperation in the Arctic, or all the goodies to come of reopened trade and investment ties.

All this remains to be seen. Trump’s mid–August summit with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage may or may not turn out to be “historic,” a descriptive all presidents in the business of great-power diplomacy long for.

There are all sorts of reasons to harbor doubts at this early moment. Can Trump promise the Russian president peace given the policy cliques, the Deep State, the military-industrial complex, and other such constituencies that have so long and vigorously made certain no such thing breaks out?

Those who craft the Deep State’s subterfuge ops viciously destroyed Trump’s better policy initiatives during his first term — his initial attempt to reconstruct relations with Russia, those imaginative talks — too promising for their own good — with North Korea’s leader. The record suggests we had better brace for the same should Trump and his people do well in negotiations as the weeks — and it will be weeks at the very least — go by.

And so to the question of Trump and his people. Marco Rubio at State, Pete Hegseth at Defense, Steve Witkoff taking time away from his real estate ventures in New York, all subject to the president’s orders, none with any experience in statecraft: Is the Trump regime competent to navigate through a diplomatic process this complex and of this potential consequence?

Let us not count these people out, but it is hard to see it.

And finally to the Russophobia that Trump brought forth as soon as he came to political prominence during the 2016 campaign season. I consider this the most formidable challenge Trump now takes on as he attempts to end a proxy war and bring relations with Russia into a new time.

I say this because Russophobia is about more, much more, than near-term geopolitical strategies and policy choices. This is a question that goes to the ideology that makes America America, to the collective psyche, to Otherness and identity (which are intimately related in the American mind).

It was interesting to hear Trump make reference to the Russiagate rubbish during his post-summit remarks in Anchorage. Here, according to the Kremlin’s transcript, is part of what he had to say as to the disruptive effects of the Russiagate years:

“We had to put up with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. He knew it was a hoax, and I knew it was a hoax, but what was done was very criminal, but it made it harder for us to deal as a country in terms of the business and all of the things that we would like to have dealt with. But we will have a good chance when this is over.”

This is fine, true enough so far as it goes. But behind Russiagate there is a century of history — two if you go back to the beginning. Trump may not understand this as he pursues his démarche toward Moscow — almost certainly he doesn’t, actually — but this is the magnitude of his project when viewed in the large. This is the history, in the thought he might accomplish something “historic.”

Can Trump put a long, regrettable past thoroughly into the past, or at least set America on a path such that it may finally embrace the 21st century instead of continuing to fall behind in it?

Of all the questions I pose here, this is by a long way the weightiest.

History’s Ebb & Flow

Image
Putin getting red-carpet welcome by Trump at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage earlier this month. (DoD photo by Benjamin Applebaum)

This may seem a frivolous line of inquiry given the unrelenting prevalence of anti–Russian fervor abroad among America’s power elites. There is no faction in Washington on either side of the aisle — if, indeed, any such aisle any longer matters — that does not nurse one or another measure of Russophobic paranoia.

But the history of America’s Russophobia is to be read two ways. Animosity toward Russia, from the Czarist Empire to the Soviet Union and now to the Russian Federation, is a sort of basso ostinato in the history of U.S.–Russian relations. But we also find a top-to-bottom ebb and flow among Americans, in policy and popular sentiment alike.

Speaking straight into the poisonous state of U.S.–Russian relations, Putin went to considerable lengths in Anchorage to note the many occasions in the past when Russians and and Americans took harmonious and constructive relations more or less for granted.

This story begins in the first decades of the 19th century, when the United States was but a half-century old and the West began to take note of the modernizations Peter the Great set in motion a hundred years earlier. Here is the ever-perceptive de Tocqueville in the first volume of Democracy in America:

“There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time …. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.”

Apposition from the first, then — if not opposition. Indeed, the idea of “the West” as a political construct arose during de Tocqueville’s time precisely in response to the rise of Czarist Russia. It was, thus, a defensive reaction from the first.

Seven decades later America swooned into the first Red Scare in response to the Bolshevik Revolution. And two more decades after that, what? With the World War II alliance against the Axis Powers, F.D.R., clever man, had Americans referring to Stalin as “Uncle Joe.”

Alas, the extraordinary powers of media and propaganda. No sooner was World War II over (and Roosevelt in his grave) than America plunged into the second Red Scare, a.k.a. the McCarthyist 1950s. And after that the détente of the late 1960s and 1970s, and after that Reagan’s “evil empire” nonsense.

Image
Sen. Joseph McCarthy, center, confers with Roy Cohn, chief counsel for House Un-American Activities Committee, Aug. 23, 1953. At right is G. David Schine. (Los Angeles Times/UCLA Library/Wikimedia Commons)

After the Soviet Union’s collapse we had the Russia-as-junior-partner years, when the inebriated Boris Yeltsin stood aside while Western capital raped the formidable remains of the Soviet economy. And then to the Putin years. What we live through now would amount to a third Red Scare apart from the fact Russia is no longer Red.

Looked at another way, U.S.–Russian relations are back where they more or less started. “Putin’s Russia,” as the phrase goes, is again America’s great Other, and by easy extension the West’s, just as it was two centuries back. Then as now, the project is to “make Russia great again,” as we might put it; then as now the West drifts into irrational reaction in response to the emergence of a nation of another civilizational tradition.

There is no missing the fungibility inherent in the U.S. stance toward Russia over the years, decades, and centuries — the extent, I mean, to which it is changeable according to changing geopolitical circumstances. It is not merely possible that the reigning Russophobia of our time will at some point pass. History’s lesson is that this is probable — maybe even inevitable.

But one man’s horse-trading and dealmaking will not make this happen, and I would say this is so especially if the man is Donald Trump. History itself will do this work. Its wheel will turn such that America’s alienation from Russia, and by extension the non–West, will prove too costly. This is already the case, providing one is willing to look instead of pretending otherwise.

At a certain point, to put this another way, refusing to accommodate the emergence of the new world order that stares the West in the face as we speak will come at a higher price than accommodating it.

In so many words, Donald Trump proposes an accommodation of just this kind. The extent to which his démarche toward the Russian Federation succeeds will be the extent to which America proves able again to transcend the Russophobia into which it has once more fallen.

Trump may not, once again, understand this, but I don’t see that this matters overmuch. He has taken a step on a path. For now it remains to see how far down America is prepared to go.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/08/25/p ... ssophobes/

This can only work if Trump washes his hands of the Ukraine debacle, which I cannot see happening because Trump would rather drag us into WWIII than be perceived a 'loser'. Solipsism in it's highest form...

******

Trump’s dreams of Nobel Peace Prize face resistance from Norwegian committee: Report

The Norwegian public and committee members remain opposed to giving 'peacemaker' Trump the prize

News Desk

AUG 25, 2025

Image
(Photo credit: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
At least three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee have spoken out against US President Donald Trump, casting serious doubt over his chances of securing a Nobel Peace Prize, the Washington Post reported on 25 August.

Committee chairman Jorgen Watne Frydnes singled out Trump in December for what he called “the erosion of freedom of expression even in democratic nations,” highlighting the president’s repeated verbal assaults on the media.

Former Norwegian education minister Kristin Clemet wrote in May that Trump was “well underway in dismantling American democracy” after just over 100 days in office.

Another committee member, Gry Larsen, posted in 2017 that Trump was “putting millions of lives at risk” with cuts to foreign aid and later mocked his campaign slogan with a “Make Human Rights Great Again” hat.

Two other members, Asle Toje and one unnamed colleague, have not been openly hostile.

Toje previously wrote sympathetically about Trump’s legal struggles under the Biden administration, leaving open the possibility of support.

Still, the balance remains against the US president.

Trump himself has acknowledged the opposition. “A lot of people say … no matter what I do, they won’t give it up, and I’m not politicking for it,” he said this month while signing a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Trump pointed to his work on Ukraine, including outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as central to his case, with some western diplomats conceding that his emphasis on direct talks could make sense given Putin’s control of the war effort.

Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani was shortlisted for the 2025 Peace Prize for his “efforts to mediate peace in Gaza.”

Meanwhile, Trump said that Israeli hostages would be freed only after Hamas is “destroyed,” voicing clear support for Israel’s move to seize Gaza City.

Previously, the US president had floated a plan for Washington to “take over” the Gaza Strip and forcibly displace its people, to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” – an idea widely condemned as a violation of international law.

Despite this, some foreign leaders have amplified his push for a prize, with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev asking, “Who, if not President Trump, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize?”

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan echoed the sentiment, joking with Trump about front-row seats at a future ceremony.

Nonetheless, with the Norwegian public polling overwhelmingly against him and three committee members on record as critics, Trump faces an uphill battle for the award.

https://thecradle.co/articles/trumps-dr ... e_vignette

******

Trump as ‘Myth’ is understood in Moscow. They reciprocate

Alastair Crooke

August 26, 2025

It seems that Putin has indeed succeeded in finding an exit out from the imposed western cordon sanitaire.

Trump’s ascent to a portion of the ‘Mythic’ has become only too evident. As John Greer has observed:

“It’s becoming difficult even for the most dyed-in-the-wool rationalist to go on believing that Trump’s political career can be understood in the prosaic terms of ‘politics as usual’”.

Trump the man, of course, is in no way mythic. He’s an elderly, slightly infirm, American real estate oligarch, with lowbrow tastes and an unusually robust ego.

“The ancient Greek word muthos originally meant ‘story’. As the philosopher Sallust wrote, myths are things that never happen but always are”.

Later, myth came to mean stories hinting at a kernel of inner meaning. This doesn’t imply a requirement to be factual; yet it is this latter dimension that gives Trump “his extraordinary grip on the collective imagination of our time”, Greer suggests. He comes back literally from everything thrown to destroy him.

He becomes what Carl Jung called ‘the Shadow’. As Greer writes:

“Rationalists in Hitler’s day were consistently confounded by the way the latter brushed aside obstacles and followed his trajectory to the bitter end. Jung pointed out in his prescient 1936 essay Wotan, that much of Hitler’s power over the collective mind of Europe came boiling up out of the realms of myth and archetype”

Wotan in myth is a restless wanderer who creates unrest and stirs up strife – now here, now there – and works magic. Jung thought it piquant to a degree that an ancient God of storm and frenzy – the long quiescent Wotan – should come to life in the German Youth Movement.

What has this to do with the Alaska summit with President Putin?

Well, Putin seemingly paid due attention to the psychology underlying Trump’s sudden request to meet. The Russians treated Trump in a very respectful, courteous and friendly fashion. They implicitly acknowledged Trump’s sense of an inner mythic quality – which Steve Witkoff, his longstanding friend, has described as Trump’s deep conviction that his ‘commanding presence’ alone can bend people to his will (and to America’s interests). Witkoff added that he agreed with this assessment.

As just one example, the White House meeting with Zelensky and his European fans produced some of the most remarkable political optics perhaps in history. As Simplicius notes,

“Has there ever been anything like this? The entire pantheon of the European ruling class reduced to snivelling children in their school principal’s office. No one can deny that Trump has succeeded in veritably ‘breaking Europe over his knee’. There is no coming back from this turning point moment, the optics simply cannot be redeemed. The EU’s claim to being a geopolitical power is exposed as sham”.

Less noticed perhaps – but psychologically crucial – is that Trump seems to recognise in Putin a ‘mythic peer’. Despite the two being poles apart in character, nonetheless, Trump seemed to recognise a fellow from the pantheon of putative ‘mythic beings’. Watch again the scenes from Anchorage: Trump treats Putin with huge deference and respect. How unlike Trump’s disdainful treatment of the Euros.

In Anchorage however, it was Putin who displayed the calm, composed, dominating presence.

Yet what is plain is that Trump’s respectful conduct towards Putin has exploded the West’s radical demonisation of Russia and the cordon sanitaire erected versus all things Russian. There is no coming back from this other turning point moment – “the optics simply cannot be redeemed”. Russia was treated as a peer global power.

What was it all about? A pivot: Kellogg’s frozen conflict paradigm is out; the Putin long-term peace plan is in; and tariffs are nowhere mentioned.

What is clear is that Trump has decided – after some reluctance – that he has to do “do Ukraine”.

The cold reality is that Trump faces huge pressures: The Epstein Affair stubbornly refuses to fade away. It is set to rear up again after Labor Day in the U.S.

The western Security State narrative of “we are winning”, or at least, “they are losing”, has been so powerful – and so universally accepted for so long – that it, of itself, creates a huge dynamic, pressing for Trump to persist with the Ukraine war. Facts regularly are twisted to fit this narrative. This dynamic has not yet been broken.

And Trump is trapped too, into supporting the Israeli slaughter – with the images of massacred and starved women and children turning the stomach of the younger, under 35, electoral demographic in the U.S.

These dynamics – and the economic blowback from the ‘Shock and Awe’ tariff attack to fracture BRICS – together threaten Trump’s MAGA base more directly. It is becoming existential. Epstein; the Gaza massacre; the threat of ‘more war’, and job worries is roiling not just the MAGA faction, but American young voters more generally. They ask, is Trump still one of ‘us’, or was he always with ‘them’.

Without the base behind him, Trump likely will lose the Midterm Congressional elections. Ultra rich donors pay, but cannot substitute.

What emerged from Anchorage therefore is a meagre intellectual framework. Trump minimally decided to no longer stand in the way of a Russian-imposed solution for Ukraine, which is, in any case, really the only solution there can be.

This framework is not a road map to any ultimate solution. It is delusional therefore, as Aurelien outlines, to expect that Trump and Putin were going to ‘negotiate’ an end to the war in Ukraine, “as though Mr Putin were to pull out a text from his pocket and the two of the them were then to work through it”. Trump anyway is not strong on details, and is wont to meander discursively and inconclusively.

“As we get closer to the endgame, the important action is elsewhere, and much of it will be hidden from public view. The broad outlines of the end of the military part of the Ukraine crisis have been visible for a while, even if the details could still change. By contrast, the extremely complex political endgame has only just started, the players are not really sure of the rules, nobody is really sure how many players there are anyway, and the outcome is at the moment as clear as mud”, Aurelien opines.

Then why did Trump suddenly ‘pivot’? Well it was not because he has had some ‘Damascene conversion’. Trump remains a committed Israeli Firster; and secondly, he can’t resile from his pursuit of dollar hegemony because that aim, too, is becoming problematic – as the American ‘bubble economy’ begins to unravel, and the under-30s fidget, living in their parents’ basement.

It is to Trump’s advantage (for now) to let Russia to ‘bring’ the EU and Zelensky to some negotiated ‘peace’ – through force. The U.S. ‘China hawks’ are increasingly agitating that China is close to an exponential lift-off – both economically and in tech – after which, the U.S. will lose its ability to contain China from global pre-eminence. (It is however probably already too late to stop this).

Putin too, is taking a big risk in offering Trump an off-ramp, through accepting to work towards a stable long-term relationship with the U.S. It is not Finland of 1944, where the Soviet army did force an Armistice.

In Europe, the élite believe that Trump’s peace outreach to Putin will fail. Their plan is to ensure it fails by playing along, whilst ensuring through their conditionalities, that no such agreement materialises. Thus proving to Trump that ‘Putin is not serious about ending the war’. Thus impelling American escalation.

Trump’s part of the bargain with Putin clearly is that he will shoulder managing the European ruling strata (mainly by flooding the info-sphere with contradictory noise), and through containing the American hawks (by pretending he is wooing Russia away from China). Really? Yes, really.

Putin too, faces internal pressures: From Russians convinced that ultimately he will be forced to enter into some form of interim Minsk 3-type outcome (a series of limited ceasefires that would only exacerbate the conflict) rather than achieve ‘victory’. Some Russians fear that the blood that has been spent so far may prove to be but a down-payment on more blood to be expended in a few years ahead, as the West rearms Ukraine.

And Putin faces too, the hurdle of Trump viewing his relationship with him through narrow New York real estate ‘lense’. He still does not seem to understand that the key question is not so much Ukrainian territories as it is about geo-strategic security. His enthusiasm for a trilateral summit seems to rest on the image of two real estate tycoons playing the board at Monopoly and swapping properties. But it is not like that.

It seems however, that Putin has indeed succeeded in finding an exit out from the imposed western cordon sanitaire. Russia is acknowledged as a great power again, and Ukraine will be settled on the battlefield. The two great nuclear weapons powers are talking to each other. That is important, in itself. Will Trump be able to secure his base? Will ‘game over’ in Ukraine (if it happens) be enough for MAGA? Will Netanyahu’s next genocidal rampage in Gaza explode the Trump ‘cope’ vis-à-vis MAGA? Very possibly, yes.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... ciprocate/

Melania’s libel case against Hunter Biden could be Trump’s Icarus moment. Part One

Martin Jay

August 26, 2025

The depravity of Epstein’s parties in the 90s are about to be examined in grotesque detail giving the world’s media a gift they could hardly dream of. But is Trump setting his wife up to be his scapegoat?

The depravity of Epstein’s parties in the 90s are about to be examined in grotesque detail giving the world’s media a gift they could hardly dream of. But is Trump setting his wife up to be his scapegoat?

It could be the most controversial libel case in U.S. history but if Melania Trump goes ahead with her case against Hunter Biden – who repeated the claim that it was the disgraced financier Jeffry Epstein who introduced her to the U.S. president – history could be written not by the victors as Churchill once espoused but by the swamp itself in Washington which is out for Trump’s blood.

In barely a matter of days after sensational new allegations are published in a book by a British author about Prince Andrew’s sexual deviancy and his almost Stockholm Syndrome attachment to Epstein – which alleged that the prince was also close to Trump and that it was Epstein who introduced Melania to him – the first lady has threatened to make U.S. libel history by suing for defamation in a USD 1bn case.

In fact, days after the book hit the shelves, Andrew Lownie’s bombshell expose’s publishers had a swift rethink about how libel laws on both sides of the Atlantic could play into Trump’s hands and have the book pulped. They removed the key section which made the link between Epstein and Melania.

Critically, there is one simple, yet unadorned difference between U.S. and UK libel laws which forced them to do this. The book, The Rise and Fall of the House of York, originally claimed that it was Epstein himself who introduced Melania to Donald which, under English defamation law, its publishers would be obliged to prove, if contested. The claim is impossible to stand up and the publishers wisely didn’t give the Trumps an easy victory in having the book pulped entirely and possibly bankrupting both Lownie and his publishers. Lownie must be kicking himself now that he didn’t allude to Epstein’s tawdry circle of friends whose degenerate parties provided the opportunity for Melania to be introduced to the U.S. president.

That negligible point may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in the U.S. courts, given how U.S. libel law puts all the emphasis on the victim to prove the contrary to what is being thrown at them.

And this is where Melania’s case against Hunter Biden is far from clear cut and may well backfire on the Trump’s with Donald already drenched in gaudy allegations involving young girls from Epstein’s circle and his frequent trips to the former financier’s island – the epicentre of Epstein’s honey trap operation which filmed scores of celebs and international politicians fulfilling their most repugnant needs with teenage girls who were recruited and manipulated into acting as child prostitutes.

Until now, Trump’s real worry was that an unredacted FBI tome would have affirmed his trips there which Trump foolishly to this day still denies, despite the considerable evidence stacked up against his claim. Yet Melania’s threat to Hunter Biden could open up a whole new tin of wriggling miniature serpents which collectively could destroy the Trumps.

Under U.S. law it will be down to her to prove that it was not Epstein himself who introduced her to Trump, yet the arduous process that this will entail will be excruciatingly embarrassing and harmful to the first lady as her whole story of how she arrived in the U.S. and what her links were to Epstein will have to come out. Her real story will almost certainly be more damaging to her when it becomes public knowledge, lined up against the somewhat trivial truth of who specifically it was who introduced her to Donald. Everything from the still unanswered question about whether she worked in the U.S. illegally right through to her somewhat overzealous ambitions to marry an American billionaire will be placed under the spotlight for the first time with ‘absolute privilege’ for journalists to write it all up in grotesque detail. ‘Gold digger’ is going to be a term used by the tabloid press a lot. Melania’s story will break all records and dwarf all previous Trump scandals as the entire world’s press will go overboard on this nude model’s character and distasteful allegations made about her conduct. Think Death of Diana 2.0. It’s a publisher’s dream which even comes with nude photos to accompany salacious kiss-n-tell stories of vice, under-aged girls and debauchery that perhaps conservative America isn’t quite ready for – and can’t take when presented as an unpalatable sex scandal which rocks the entire political establishment, making the Monica Lewinsky triste with Bill Clinton look almost endearing.

The 90s in the U.S. were like the 60s in the UK in terms of political hedonistic liberty. While Clinton was enjoying the carnal offerings of a White House intern in 1995, this is where Melania Knauss’s story begins when she arrives in NYC and it is suggested works illegally without a work visa.

Around that same period it was Ghislaine Maxwell who was linked to a modelling agency run by a Paulo Zampolli whose outfit would play a focal role in the whole Epstein saga as it was a supply line of attractive women who attended parties hosted by both Epstein and Trump. Some may claim that Zampolli holds a number of potentially damaging secrets about Melania and Donald perhaps explaining why he was given a highly paid position in Trump’s administration announced back in March. Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence is likely to be pardoned by Trump as it would seem that she has agreed to testify that the U.S. president had no contact whatsoever with underage girls and behaved impeccably whenever she saw him at the parties – a shocking and barely believable whitewash which, during a two day interview, gets Trump off the hook but also notably Prince Andrew who Maxwell claims didn’t have sexual relations with Virginia Giuffre.

to be continued

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... -part-one/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Wed Aug 27, 2025 3:39 pm

Mythic Trump: The Incendiary Narcissus
Pepe Escobar • August 27, 2025

Image

Mythic Narcissus, depending on his mood while facing his reflection in the pool, may at any moment authorize Kiev hits on Moscow and St. Petersburg with long-range missiles.

Alastair Crooke’s remarkable analysis of Trump in the context of myth as geopolitics has left us with much to ponder. There’s no escape from Trump’s “extraordinary ability to dominate the discourse”, globally, as well as his capacity for “bending people to his will” – and thus wreak havoc on the geopolitical chessboard.

Alastair stresses how Trump is skillfully “using mythic imagery” – actually crude archetypes – to always impress his (italics mine) narrative. The only narrative.

Yet Trump may not be straight-up Dionysian, compared to Apollonian Putin; he’s more like a Narcissus Drowned (in a pool of his own making). And when it comes to pop iconography, he’s certainly not The Godfather of Soul James Brown; more like the Village People – which were themselves a parody.

The most disturbing aspect of Trump the Self-Made Myth is what grip that death cult in West Asia holds over his imagination. Trump’s absolute normalization of genocide has made the whole – Wild – West civilization complicit. Alastair once again reminds us that “the bloodlust in Gaza”, awakened by the Torah, is driving “messianic, extreme Zionism” all the way “to barbarism”. That’s where we are now – with a License to Kill provided by a vicious, intolerant God: Yahweh.

Way below the mythical spheres where Trump does not fear to tread, rascals posing as the European political “elite” have created another myth: Putin as a “cannibal needing to eat” (copyright Le Petit Roi). He’s “The Beast at the Door”, with Russia framed as anti-Europe and anti-West, an existential threat: Putin and Russia morphed as The Anti-Christ.

Well, these intellectual midgets are obviously unaware that it was the Byzantine empire that survived the Roman Empire in the West for no less than a thousand years. Byzantium resisted everything: Goths, Avars, Arabs, Bulgars – until they could not resist the Ottomans. Still, they managed to evangelize the Bulgars and Kievan Russia, and even provided a state model to the Ottomans.

If we draw a line from Danzig to Trieste, going through Vienna, we can check out how Western Europe in medieval times was in fact “protected” from periodic nomadic onslaughts (the exception is the Hungarian plains, the final stop for nomadic waves from Asia).

And that explains why Europe knows next to nothing about Russia, Central Asia, Eurasia, the Heartland for that matter. Europe never had to face Mongol or Ottoman rule. They might have learned a thing or two – from Pax Mongolica and Ottoman inclusiveness. And that may also have tamed their superiority – civilizational – complex, borne out of splendid isolation.

I love a man in uniform

A ghastly Ariadne’s thread connects the current, appallingly mediocre European political elites – aspiring mini-Minotaurs lost in their own labyrinth. The BlackRock Chancellor in Germany comes from the British occupation zone of Germany, the grandson of a Nazi. The Nazis were successfully built up by Britain to position Germany as its proxy in a perpetual war against Russia.

The appalling Toxic Medusa in Brussels also comes from the British occupation zone of Germany: a noble family with Nazi background. Her “noble” husband is even worse, descending from war criminals.

Le Petit Roi in France, universally despised, is a lowly messenger of Banque Rothschild, financier of British kings and queens since the 18th century.

The Intermarium – Poland, the Baltic dwarves, Ukraine – always had governments staffed and controlled by Britain.

As for the opposition to the war on Russia in Romania, it was couped away.

The bottom line is that the Brits are on Totalen Krieg against Russia, on steroids, so they can snatch the Big Prize, unemcumbered: total control of Europe, or dismissively, “the continentals”. Their 18th century mindset imperial/feudal planners are looking way beyond rump Ukraine, towards a Forever War to weaken and tighten their total control over a discombobulated Europe.

The only counterpower comes from the former Austro-Hungarian empire states, plus Serbia: they refuse this Forever War, which will inevitably destroy Europe for the third (italics mine) time in a little over a century. Their pressing need is to get their act together and form a coalition against a new Balkan War.

The current absurdity peddled by the Forever War front is that European troops need to be sent to Ukraine before a much hyped ceasefire, and not after, so Anti-Christ Putin is kept “under pressure” to, well, capitulate while he’s winning.

Translation: the Europeans do not want a peacekeeping force. They want a deterrence force capable of advancing whenever they see fit – as in a false flag proving the evil Russians broke the truce.

This stupidity is mirrored by European “thinking” – as, for instance, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) publishing a new strategic handbook with proposals for the “disempowerment” of Russia.

EUISS poses as analytical experts on Russia’s “hybrid warfare”: that’s pathetic, as Hybrid War is an American concept. Still, the EUISS goes for broke on establishing hegemony on five strategically important latitudes: China, Asia–Pacific, the southern Mediterranean, southeast Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. In sum: the same old shtick, NATO as Global Robocop on crack.

Apollo vs. Dionysus, remixed

Alastair sustains that Putin, in the Anchorage summit, “understood the psychology of Trump”. Trump “seems to recognize Putin as a fellow in the pantheon of putative mythic leaders”. Once again, the distance between Apollonian Putin and not-so-Dionysiac Trump should be the equivalent between Timur and a nondescript MMA fighter.

It’s open to vast speculation whether Trump in Alaska might have agreed with Putin to invert the planned Russian foreign asset theft by the EU – and instead force the funds to be invested in the US. Now that would be prime “offer you can’t refuse” territory.

So far, what we do know for sure is that Steve Witkoff – that real estate Bismarck – did not understand anything of what he heard directly from Putin, setting the stage for Alaska.


Witkoff hit the US networks full tilt, blabbering that Putin on August 15th had reversed his ultimate red line, No NATO for Ukraine. And it looks like Trump followed the real estate Bismarck’s massive fake news – as Witkoff himself spun the Russians made concessions “almost immediately” in Alaska.

Well, Witkoff must have been smoking something. Or not. Because his “lost in translation” gimmick in fact conditioned the whole subsequent tawdry spectacle on “the peacekeepers”.

So now Mythic Narcissus is saying that the Empire of Chaos won’t send any troops to Ukraine, but will support a “security guarantee”, allegedly with spy planes (well, they are already operating them anyway) and “back up” as in ISR, air defense and air cover. In practice, there will be no imperial “security guarantees” to the Ukrainian black void. But the myth of tens of thousands of EU/NATO troops stepping into Ukraine will persist.

Next week, the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok carries the enticing possibility of US-Russia deals being discussed. As in ExxonMobil maybe returning to the Sakhalin-1 mega gas project (already there have been secret talks with Rosneft); selling American equipment for LNG projects to Russia, including the Arctic LNG-2; and the purchase of Russian nuclear icebreakers by the US. Now that will be something to watch.

Meanwhile, no illusions in Moscow – as required. Mythic Narcissus, depending on his mood while facing his reflection in the pool, may at any moment authorize Kiev hits on Moscow and St. Petersburg with long-range missiles. Why not? “I have the right to do ANYTHING I want to do – I’m the President of the United States.”

Narcissus actually believes he’s Theseus – slaying every Minotaur in sight, and yet always incapable of leaving the Labyrinth. No wonder Moscow needs to be ready, 24/7, for some sort, any sort of irrational slaying.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... narcissus/

******

The President’s “Firing” of Lisa Cook Is Illegal
Posted on August 27, 2025 by Yves Smith.

Yves here. Trump’s efforts to bring the Fed to heel has escalated into a market-roiling battle royale with his “firing” of Fed governor Lisa Cook. As some watchful Twitterati point out:

Dear journalists:

The President has not fired Lisa Cook. The President is *trying* to illegally fire her.

Your words shape people’s reality. Please be accurate in your reporting.


As readers likely know by now, Cook is filing suit to contest Trump’s effort to oust her.

Georgetown law professor, mortage/banking expert and sometimes running buddy (back in the foreclosure fraud days) Adam Levitin has weighed in on the validity of Trump’s removal scheme. Levitin starts with arguments that will likely be voiced in the mainstream media by other legal mavens, that even if Trump’s unproven allegations were true, they do not amount to “cause”. But Levitin makes additional arguments based on the accusations of fraud impropriety. He carefully parses what her representations on the relevant instruments would have amounted to, and in particular, that most observers are confusing “primary residence” with “principal residence” in that a borrower can have only one “primary residence” but can have multiple “principle” residences.

By Adam Levitin, Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Originally published at Credit Slips

President Trump fired Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook tonight based on unproven allegations by his politically motivated henchman that Cook engaged in mortgage fraud. The President’s actions are illegal. He currently has no legal basis to fire Cook. Instead, he disregarded even a modicum of due process in order to achieve a political goal.

It is clear that the President can remove a Federal Reserve Board Governor “for cause.” Unlike some other federal statutes, “cause” is not articulated in the Federal Reserve Act, but presumably it falls within the ambit of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance” or the like. Whether engaging in mortgage fraud would falls into the scope of “cause” is doubtful, as it is unrelated to the execution of Cook’s office. It’s really no different than conviction for assault and battery arising from a bar brawl. At most, one might claim that the fraud indicates a lack of integrity or some general moral turpitude, but that isn’t what “for cause” removal is about. Just because someone is a rotten human being does not create legal grounds for removal.But even if mortgage fraud were actually an adequate basis for “for cause” removal, Trump has no basis for concluding that Cook actually engaged in mortgage fraud. The only thing the President has to go on is the evidence adduced in FHFA Director Bill Pulte’s criminal referral letter. That evidence would not, standing alone, be grounds for a prosecution.

The only evidence Pulte presents is that (1) Cook took out mortgages on two properties within a couple of weeks, (2) the security instrument for each contains a covenant stating that she intended it to be her “principal residence” for one year hence, and (3) one property was briefly listed by someone as being available to rent. None of that evidence is sufficient proof of mortgage fraud.

Let’s consider the statutes that Pulte referenced in his referral. First, he referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which criminalizes false statements in loan applications. The covenants in the security instruments are not “statements.” They are promises, not representations of current fact, so they cannot be false. A misrepresentation about intended occupancy on the Uniform Residential Mortgage Application could trigger 18 U.S.C. § 1014, but the representation there, that property will be the borrower’s “primary residence,” is very narrow given that no duration is specified. That vagueness cuts against a criminal prosecution.

Second, Pulte referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which criminalizes “knowingly” defrauding a financial institution or obtaining credit “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” That provision could encompass the promises made in the security instrument about the property serving as the borrower’s “principal residence,” but it is far from clear that Cook knowingly made the promise or that it was in fact false.

Most borrowers do not read their security instruments, so it is entirely possible that Cook had no idea what she was promising beyond that she would pay the mortgage note when installments came due. While contract law readily tags consumers with constructive knowledge of the terms and conditions of their prolix form contracts, criminal law doesn’t work like that.

Moreover, even if Cook did know that she was promising to have both properties be her “principal residence,” it isn’t clear that she was making a false promise. The term “principal residence” is not a defined in the security instruments, but it is not the same phrasing as “primary residence” (as used in the UMRA). “Principal” is more capacious than “primary,” and is capable of covering multiple residences. Imagine someone who has an co-op in NYC, a house in the New York suburbs, and a condo in Florida and splits time among all three depending on seasons and days of the week, spending roughly a third of the year at each. That person might very well consider himself to have more than one principal residence. (Pulte also referenced the wire fraud and mail fraud statutes, but those are lard-one statutes that require an underlying predicate fraud, which takes us back to the two statutes already discussed.)

The key thing here is that Trump’s only basis for action is Pulte’s referral letter, and that is not an adequate basis for concluding that Cook actually engaged in any wrong doing. Neither Pulte nor Trump have no idea whether Cook knowingly made the occupancy promise or what she interpreted the promise to mean.

We have a system in which people are innocent until proven guilty, and there is not even a prima facie case of fraud here, only a scant bit of evidence that is consistent with fraud. What’s more, that evidence is basically fruit of the poisonous tree, the result of a politically motivated fishing expedition by Pulte. To my knowledge the FHFA has never previously directed the GSEs to produce the loan files for specific individual borrowers, much less without any prior cause for concern about those borrowers. Instead, it seems that Pulte gave the GSEs a hit list of folks whose mortgages files he wanted to review because of their politics. (The fact that he’s only found three targets says a lot about how his fishing expedition is going.) Yet the President is all to happy to use the inadequate result of his toady’s dirty work to advance his own goal of taking control of the Fed. Whatever “for cause” dismissal means, the President cannot be the sole arbiter of “cause” or else the restriction is meaningless. And if it is to have any meaning, the President would have to, at the very least, give the official in question an opportunity to be heard.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, we have a President disregarding due process in order to achieve a political goal. That’s not how America is supposed to work.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... legal.html

******

The CIA, Mossad & Epstein
August 26, 2025

As speculation mounts about the possibility of Trump pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, Alan MacLeod unravels the intelligence ties of the Maxwell family.

Image
Mug shot of British convicted sex offender and former socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, taken at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, undated. (Federal Bureau of Prisons/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

By Alan MacLeod
MintPress News

With speculation mounting that U.S. President Donald Trump could pardon her, MintPress profiles the family of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. From her media baron father who acted as a high-level spy for Israel; her sister, working to push Tel Aviv’s interests in Silicon Valley; her brothers, who founded a dubious but highly influential anti-Islamic extremism think tank; and nephews in influential roles at the State Department and White House, the Maxwell clan have wide-ranging ties to U.S. and Israeli state power. This is their story.

Releasing Ghislaine, Burying the Epstein Files

Speculation is growing that Ghislaine Maxwell could soon be freed. Despite campaigning on the promise to release the Epstein Files, there are increasing signs that the Trump administration is considering pardoning the world’s most notorious convicted sex trafficker.

Last month, Trump (who contemplated the idea in his first term in office) repeatedly refused to rule out a pardon, stating to journalists that “I’m allowed to do it.”

[The transcript of a DOJ courthouse interview released on Aug. 22 shows Ghislaine Maxwell saying Trump and other famous figures were not involved in the pedophile ring in what might well be a quid-pro-quo: I’ll say Trump and other powerful people weren’t involved and you’ll set me free.]

Just days later, Maxwell was transferred across states to a minimum-security facility in Bryan, Texas — a highly unusual practice. Neither women convicted of sex crimes nor those with more than 10 years remaining on their sentences are generally permitted to be transferred to such facilities. The move sparked equal measures of speculation and outrage.

The decision to relocate Maxwell came after somebody — potentially a source within her team itself — began leaking incriminating and embarrassing evidence linking Trump to Epstein. This included a birthday card Trump sent Epstein, featuring a hand-drawn nude woman, accompanied by the text:

“Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Image
Federal Prison Camp — Bryan, in Texas, where Ghislaine Maxell has just joined the list of notable inmates. (U.S. Bureau of Prisons/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

For years, Maxwell aided her partner Jeffrey Epstein in trafficking and raping girls and young women, creating a giant sex crime ring in the process. Epstein’s associates included billionaires, scientists, celebrities, and politicians, including Trump, whom he considered his “closest friend.”

In 2021, two years after Epstein’s mysterious death in a Manhattan prison, Maxwell was found guilty of child sex trafficking offenses and was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The news that Trump may soon free such an infamous criminal sent shockwaves through his base and drew charges of blatant corruption from the media. “Is there any reason to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell except to buy her silence?” ran the headline of one article in The Hill.

Meanwhile, Tim Hogan, senior Democratic National Committee adviser, denounced what he claimed was a “government cover-up in real time.” “Donald Trump’s F.B.I., run by loyalist Kash Patel, redacted Trump’s name from the Epstein files — which have still not been released,” he said.

Robert Maxwell: Media Tycoon & Israeli Operative

While many of Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes have come to light, less well-known are her family’s myriad connections to both the U.S. and Israeli national security states. Chief among these are those of her father, disgraced media baron and early tech entrepreneur, Robert Maxwell.

A Jewish refugee fleeing Hitler’s occupation of his native Czechoslovakia, Maxwell fought for Britain against Germany. After World War II, he used his Czech connections to help funnel arms to the nascent State of Israel, weapons that helped them win the 1948 war and carry out the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of nearly 800,000 Palestinians.

Maxwell’s biographers, Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, write that he was first recruited by Israeli intelligence in the 1960s and began buying up Israeli tech corporations. Israel used these companies and their software to carry out spying and other clandestine operations around the globe.

Maxwell amassed a vast business empire of 350 companies, employing 16,000 people. He owned an array of newspapers, including The New York Daily News, Britain’s Daily Mirror and Maariv of Israel, in addition to some of the world’s most influential book and scientific publishing houses.

With business power came political power. He was elected to the U.K. Parliament in 1964 and counted U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev among his closest friends.

He used this influence to advance Israeli interests, selling Israeli intelligence-gathering software to Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and many other countries. This software included a secret Israeli backdoor that allowed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, to tap into classified information gathered by governments and intelligence agencies around the world.

Image
Robert Maxwell, at right, during the Global Economic Panel meeting in April 1989 in Amsterdam. From left: Dutch businessman Wisse Dekker, Dutch politician Hans van den Broek and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. (Rob Bogaerts, ANEFO, Nationaal Archief NL, Wikimedia Commons, CC0)

At the same time as it was expanding its espionage capabilities, Israel was developing a secret nuclear weapons program. This project was exposed by Israeli peace activist Mordechai Vanunu, who, in 1986, leaked evidence to the British press. Maxwell — one of Britain’s most powerful press barons —spied on Vanunu, passing photographs and other information to the Israeli embassy — intelligence that led to Vanunu’s international abduction by Mossad, and his subsequent imprisonment.

His death was also surrounded by controversy, similar to Epstein’s. In 1991, his lifeless body was found in the ocean, in what authorities ruled a bizarre accident whereby the tycoon had fallen from his luxury yacht. To this day, his children are split on whether they think he was murdered.

The rumors that Maxwell had, for decades, been acting as an Israeli “superspy” were all but confirmed by the lavish state funeral he received in Jerusalem. His body was interred at the Mount of Olives, one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the spot from which Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven.

Virtually the entirety of elite Israeli society – both government and opposition – attended the event, including no fewer than six living heads of Israeli intelligence organizations. President Chaim Herzog himself performed the eulogy. Also speaking at the event was Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who stated that “Robert Maxwell has done more for Israel than can today be said.”

In the United Kingdom, however, he is remembered less fondly. A man with a fearsome reputation, Maxwell ruled his media business with an iron fist, in a similar vein to Rupert Murdoch (another individual with extremely close links to Israel). After his death, it transpired that he had stolen more than $500 million from his employees’ pension fund to bail out other failing companies in his empire, leaving many of his workforce’s retirement plans in tatters. As the newspaper, The Scotsman, remarked 10 years later in 2001:

“If [Maxwell] was despised in life, he was hated in death when it emerged he had stolen 440 million [pounds] from the pension fund of Mirror Group Newspapers. He was, officially, the biggest thief in British criminal history.”

Isabel Maxwell: Israel’s Woman in Silicon Valley

Image
Isabel Maxwell addressing a panel in Marrakech, Morocco, at the World Economic Forum as president of Blue World Alliance, USA, on Oct. 27, 2010. (World Economic Forum/Flickr/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Even before it had been published, Isabel Maxwell – Robert’s daughter and Ghislaine’s older sister– managed to obtain a copy of Thomas and Dillon’s biography. She immediately flew to Israel, The Times of London reported, where she showed it to a “family friend” and deputy director of Mossad, David Kimche. These actions did little to beat the book’s central allegation that her father was indeed a high-level Israeli “superspy.”

Isabel has enjoyed a long and successful career in the tech industry. In 1992, along with her twin sister, Christine, she founded a company that developed one of the internet’s first search engines.

After the pension scandal, however, she and her siblings shifted their focus to rebuilding every facet of their father’s collapsed business empire. The sisters sold the search engine, netting enormous profits.

As Israeli outlet Haaretz noted, in 2001, Isabel decided to dedicate her life to advancing the Jewish State’s interests, vowing to “work only on things involving Israel” as she “believes in Israel.” Described by former MintPress journalist and investigative reporter Whitney Webb as “Israel’s back door into Silicon Valley,” she has transformed herself into a key ambassador for the country in the tech world.

“Maxwell created a unique niche for herself in [tech] as a liaison between Israeli companies in the initial development stages and private angel investors in the U.S. At the same time, she helps U.S. companies interested in opening development centers in Israel,” wrote local business newspaper, Globes. “She lives intensively, including innumerable flights back and forth between Tel Aviv and San Francisco,” it added.

Israel is known to be the source of much of the world’s most controversial spyware and hacking tools, used by repressive governments the world over to surveil, harass, and even kill political opponents. This includes the notorious Pegasus software, used by the government of Saudi Arabia to track Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, before assassinating him in Türkiye.

Isabel built on her father’s political connections. “My father was most influential in my life. He was a very accomplished man and achieved many of his goals during his life. I learned very much from him and have made many of his ways my own,” she said. This included developing intimate ties to a myriad of Israeli leaders, including Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest associates.

During the 2000s, she was a regular participant at the Herzliya Conference, an annual, closed-door gathering of the West’s most senior political, security and intelligence officials, in addition to being a “technology pioneer” at the World Economic Forum.

She was also placed on the board of the Israeli government-funded Shimon Peres Center for Peace and Innovation and the American Friends of the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies, two organizations closely associated with those former Israeli prime ministers.

In 2001, she became the CEO of iCognito, taking the job, in her words, “because it [the company] is in Israel, and because of its technology.” The technology in question was aimed at keeping children safe online — highly ironic, given that her sister was actively trafficking and abusing minors throughout that period.

Isabel was a much more serious and accomplished individual than Ghislaine. As Haaretz noted:

“While her younger sister, Ghislaine, makes the gossip columns after breakfasting with Bill Clinton or because of her ties with another close friend, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Isabel wants to show photos taken of herself with the grand mufti of Egypt, or with Bedouin in a tent, or of visits to a Gaza refugee camp.”

In 1997, Isabel was appointed president of the Israeli tech security firm, Commtouch. Thanks to her connections, Commtouch was able to secure investment from many of the most prominent players in Silicon Valley, including Bill Gates, a close associate of both the Maxwell family and Jeffrey Epstein himself.

Christine Maxwell: Funded by Israel?

Isabel’s twin sister, Christine, is no less accomplished. A veteran of the publishing and tech industries, she co-founded data analytics firm Chiliad. As CEO, she helped oversee the production of a massive “counterterrorism” database that the company sold to the F.B.I. during the height of the War on Terror. The software helped the Bush administration crack down on Muslim Americans and tear down domestic civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act. Today, she is the leader and co-founder of another big data corporation, Techtonic Insight.

Like her sister and father, Christine has a close relationship with the State of Israel. She is currently a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), where, her biography states,

“She works to promote innovative academic research that leverages enabling technologies to empower proactive understanding and combatting the great dangers of contemporary antisemitism, and enhancing the ongoing relevance of the Holocaust for the 21st century and beyond.”

ISGAP’s board is a who’s who of Israeli national security state officials. This includes Natan Sharansky, former minister of internal affairs and deputy prime minister of Israel, and Brigadier General Sima Vaknin-Gil, the former chief censor for the IDF and director general of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Diplomacy. Also on the board is Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz.

The think tank was a key player in the U.S. government’s decision to repress the 2024 Gaza protests on university campuses nationwide. The group produced reports linking student leaders with foreign terrorist organizations and promoted dubious claims about a wave of anti-Semitism washing over American colleges. It met frequently with both Democratic and Republican leaders, and urged them to “investigate” (i.e., repress) the leaders of the demonstrations.

Image
Sign on Columbia University campus in New York in April 2024, during the student pro-Palestine encampment. (Pamela Drew, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

ISGAP has continually warned of foreign influence on American campuses, producing reports and holding seminars detailing Qatar’s supposed stranglehold over the U.S. higher education system, and linking that with growing anti-Israel sentiment among America’s youth.

Yet if ISGAP wished to investigate other foreign government influence operations, it would not have to look far, as its own funds overwhelmingly come from a single source: the Israeli state. In 2018, an investigation found that Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs (then headed by Brigadier General Vaknin-Gil herself) channeled $445,000 to ISGAP, a sum representing nearly 80 percent of its entire revenues for that year. ISGAP failed to disclose that information to either the public or the federal government.

At the height of the concern over foreign interference in American politics, the news barely registered. Since then, the Israeli government has continued to bankroll the group to the tune of millions. In 2019, for example, it approved a grant of over $1.3 million to ISGAP. Thus, in her role as a fellow at the organization, Christine Maxwell is the direct beneficiary of Israeli government cash.

Third Generation Maxwells: Working In US Government

While Robert Maxwell’s daughters were close to state power, some of the family’s third generation have taken up positions within the U.S. government itself. Shortly after graduating from college, Alex Djerassi (Isabel Maxwell’s only son) was employed by Hillary Clinton on her 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Djerassi drafted memos, briefings, and policy papers for the Clinton team and helped prepare her for more than 20 debates.

The Clinton and Maxwell families are closely intertwined. Ghislaine vacationed with Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, and appeared prominently at her wedding. Both she and Jeffrey Epstein were invited multiple times to the Clinton White House. Long after Epstein was jailed, President Bill Clinton invited Ghislaine to an intimate dinner with him at an exclusive Los Angeles restaurant.

Image
U.S. President Bill Clinton with Jeffrey Epstein after an event of White House restoration donors, September 1993; Ghislaine Maxwell on right. (White House, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

Although she failed in her bid for the White House, President Obama named Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, and one of her first actions was to appoint Djerassi to her team.

He quickly rose in the ranks, becoming chief of staff at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. In this role, he specialized in developing the United States’ policy towards Israel and Iran, although he also worked on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and accompanied Clinton on visits to Israel and the Arab world.

While at the State Department, he served as the U.S. government representative to the Friends of Libya and the Friends of the Syrian People Conferences. These were two organizations of hardline, hawkish groups working towards the overthrow of those two governments, and their replacement with U.S.-friendly regimes. Washington got what it wanted. In 2011, Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown, killed and replaced by Islamist warlords. And last December, longtime Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, fled to Russia and was replaced by the founder of al-Qaeda in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani.

Djerassi was later appointed an associate at the U.S.-government-funded think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. While there, he again specialized in Middle East policy, his bio noting that he “worked on matters relating to democratization and civil society in the Arab world, the Arab uprisings, and Israeli-Palestinian peace.” Today, he works in Silicon Valley.

While Djerassi’s fortunes were tied to the Clinton faction of the Democratic Party, his cousin Xavier Malina (Christine Maxwell’s eldest son) backed the right horse, working on the Obama-Biden 2008 presidential run.

Image
Joe Biden and Barack Obama after the presentation of Biden as the vice presidential running mate in Springfield, Illinois, in August 2008. (Daniel Schwen/Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 4.0)

He was rewarded for his good work with a position in the White House itself, where he became a staff assistant at the Executive Office of the President. Like his cousin, once his time in office was over, Malina also secured a position at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace before pursuing a career in the tech world, working for many years at Google in the Bay Area. He currently works for Disney.

While the actions of parents and grandparents should not determine the careers of later generations, the fact that two individuals who come from a multi-generational family of unrepentant spies and operatives of a foreign power secured positions at the center of the U.S. State is at least worthy of note.

The Maxwell Brothers: From Bankruptcy to Counterterrorism

Much of the Maxwell clan is most influential in American and Israeli politics. However, brothers Ian and Kevin also hold considerable sway over affairs in their native Great Britain. Although being acquitted of charges over widespread allegations that they helped their father, Robert, plunder over $160 million from his employees’ pension fund, the brothers kept a low profile for many years. Kevin, in particular, was known for little more than being Britain’s largest-ever bankrupt, with debts exceeding half a billion dollars.

However, in 2018, they launched Combating Jihadist Terrorism and Extremism (CoJiT), a controversial think tank pushing for a far more invasive and heavy-handed government approach to the question of radical Islam.

In his organization’s book, Jihadist Terror: New Threats, New Responses, Ian writes that CoJiT was set up to play a “catalyzing role in the national conversation,” and to answer “difficult questions” arising from the issue. Judging by the content of the rest of the book, this means pushing for even more extensive surveillance of Muslim communities.

Image
Jonathan Evans in 2019. (Roger Harris/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 3.0)

Within Britain, CoJiT was a highly influential organization. Its editorial board and contributors are a who’s who of high state officials. Individuals participating in its inaugural conference in London in 2018 included Sara Khan, the government’s lead commissioner for countering extremism, and Jonathan Evans, the former director general of MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency.

Like so many Maxwell projects, CoJiT appears to have wrapped up its affairs. The organization has not updated its website or posted anything on its social media channels since 2022.

In fairness, in the past few years, the brothers have had other priorities, leading the campaign to free their sister Ghislaine from prison, insisting that she is entirely innocent. In a manner reminiscent of Robert Maxwell, however, it appears that Kevin may have failed to pay the defense team; in 2022, Maxwell’s lawyers sued him, seeking unpaid fees of nearly $900,000.

The Infamous Mr. Epstein

For years, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ran a sex-trafficking ring that exploited hundreds of girls and young women. They were also connected to vast networks of the global elite, including billionaire business owners, royalty, star academics, and foreign leaders, among their closest acquaintances, leading to intense speculation about the extent of their involvement in their many crimes.

It is still unclear when Epstein first met with the Maxwells, with some alleging that he was recruited into Israeli intelligence by Robert Maxwell. Others state the relationship only began after Robert’s death, when he saved the family from penury following its financial problems.

Image
Mug shot of Jeffrey Epstein from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department following his indictment for soliciting a prostitute in 2006. (Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

Only one month after his 2019 arrest, Epstein was found dead in his New York City prison cell. His death was officially ruled a suicide, although his family has rejected this interpretation.

Perhaps the two most powerful individuals in Epstein’s circle of confidants were Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton, already infamous for the numerous accusations of sexual misconduct against him, is known to have flown at least 17 times on Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” and was accused by Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre, of visiting Little St. James Island, the multimillionaire’s private Caribbean residence, where many of his worst crimes took place.

Trump, arguably, was even closer to the disgraced financier. “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” he said in 2002,

“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it.”

Like Clinton, Trump flew on the Lolita Express. Epstein attended his wedding to Marla Maples in 1993, and claimed to have introduced him to his third wife, Melania.

Unfortunately, while Epstein’s ties incriminate the entire political spectrum, coverage has often been framed as a partisan issue. A MintPress study of over one year of Epstein coverage on MSNBC and Fox News found that each network downplayed his connections to their preferred president, while emphasizing and highlighting the links to the leader of the other major party. As a result, many in the United States see the affair as an indictment of their political rivals, rather than of the political system as a whole.

There also remains the question of Epstein’s links to intelligence, something that has been openly speculated about in the media for decades, even years before any allegations against him were made public. Throughout the 1990s, Epstein’s biographer Julie K. Brown noted, he openly boasted about working for both the C.I.A. and Mossad, although the veracity of his claims remains in doubt. As Britain’s Sunday Times wrote in 2000, “He’s Mr. Enigmatic. Nobody knows whether he’s a concert pianist, property developer, a C.I.A. agent, a math teacher or a member of Mossad.” It is possible that there is at least a grain of truth to all of these identities.

Image
Ghislaine Maxwell with Jeffrey Epstein in 1993. (Ralph Alswang, White House/Wikimedia Commons/ Public Domain)

Epstein met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns three times in 2014. Burns would later be named director of the C.I.A. Burns’ proximity to Epstein, however, pales in comparison to that of former Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Between 2013 and 2017 alone, Barak is known to have traveled to New York City and met with the convicted criminal at least 30 times, sometimes arriving at his Manhattan mansion incognito or wearing a mask to hide his identity.

Image
President Bill Clinton, center, with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak on left, the Palestinian Authority’s Yasser Arafat on right at Camp David, July 1, 2000. (White House/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

Numerous sources have commented on Epstein’s connections to Israeli intelligence. A previous girlfriend and victim of his, referred in court documents as Jane Doe 200 to hide her identity, testified that Epstein boasted about being a Mossad operative and that, after he raped her, she could not go to the police because his position as a spy made her fear for her life.

“Doe genuinely believed that any reporting of the rape by what she believed to be a Mossad agent with some of the most unique connections in the world would result in significant bodily harm or death to her,” reads the court filing.

Ari Ben-Menashe, a former senior official in Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, claimed that Epstein was a spy and that he and Ghislaine Maxwell were running a honeytrap operation on behalf of Israel. Four (anonymous) sources told Rolling Stone that Epstein had directly worked with the Israeli government.

Unlike much of the Maxwell family, however, his Israel and intelligence connections are based largely on testimony and unverified accounts. His only known trip to the country was in April 2008, just before his sentencing, a move that sparked fears he would seek refuge there.

Nevertheless, there has been intense public speculation that he could have been working for Tel Aviv. At the Turning Points USA Student Action Summit 2025, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson stated that there is nothing wrong, hateful or anti-Semitic about asking questions about Epstein’s foreign connections. “No one’s allowed to say that the foreign government is Israel, because we’ve been somehow cowed into thinking that that’s naughty,” he said, before expressing his exasperation about the media’s silence on the issue.

“What the hell is this? You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house, you have had all this contact with a foreign government, were you working on behalf of the Mossad? Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of a foreign government?”

Carlson’s comments drew harsh condemnation from former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. “The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false. Epstein’s conduct, both the criminal and the merely despicable, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mossad or the State of Israel,” he wrote.

“This accusation is a lie being peddled by prominent online personalities such as Tucker Carlson pretending they know things they don’t,” he added, concluding that Israel was under attack from a “vicious wave of slander and lies.”

Whatever the truth about Epstein, it is indisputable that the powerful Maxwell family holds wide-ranging connections to U.S., British and Israeli state power. It is also beyond doubt that if the full story of their activities were ever to reach the public, it would incriminate a significant number of the world’s most powerful people and organizations. Perhaps that is why Trump has, in short order, gone from promising to release the Epstein Files to potentially releasing his accomplice.

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/08/26/t ... d-epstein/

I find it hard to believe that Mossad would be allowed to 'get the goods' on so many important Americans by the CIA without permission, connivance. Was Mossad a 'sub-contractor' in this? I suspect so, and that's why we'll never see 'the list', too much 'collateral damage'.

******

Denmark summons US envoy over report on covert American ‘influence operations’ in Greenland
By Catherine Nicholls and Henrik Pettersson

Image
Sources from Denmark, Greenland and the United States told Danish public broadcaster DR that at least three Americans have attempted to "infiltrate" Greenlandic society. Sean Gallup/Getty Images

The US envoy to Denmark was summoned by the Danish foreign ministry on Wednesday, after the country’s public broadcaster reported that a number of American men have attempted to conduct “influence operations” in Greenland.

According to an investigation by Danish public broadcaster DR, at least three Americans with “ties” to US President Donald Trump are conducting active operations in Greenland, sparking concerns that they could be working to shift public opinion and push Trump’s desire to make Greenland a part of the US.

Greenland, a huge, resource-rich island in the Atlantic, is a self-governing territory of Denmark. Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to annex the island, claiming that this is needed for security purposes. Both Greenland and Denmark are staunchly opposed to the idea.

“We are aware that foreign actors continue to show an interest in Greenland and its position in the Kingdom of Denmark. It is therefore not surprising if we experience outside attempts to influence the future of the Kingdom in the time ahead,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said in a statement Wednesday.

According to the DR investigation, which was based off conversations with eight sources across Denmark, Greenland and the US, the three men are conducting the operations in an attempt to “infiltrate Greenlandic society.”

One of the American men involved has made a list of Trump supporters in Greenland, with the goal of later recruiting them to establish a secessionist movement on the island, according to the broadcaster.

The two other men have made contact with politicians, business people and other citizens, causing authorities to be concerned that they could be used to support Trump’s goal of annexing the territory, DR reported.

The broadcaster was unable to determine whether or not the men were acting under orders. CNN has reached out to the White House and the government of Greenland for comment.

“Any attempt to interfere” in Denmark’s internal affairs is “unacceptable,” Rasmussen said in Wednesday’s statement.

“The cooperation between the governments of Denmark and Greenland is close and based on mutual trust, just as there is close cooperation and dialogue between the relevant Greenlandic and Danish authorities,” he continued.

https://us.cnn.com/2025/08/27/europe/de ... nland-intl

Trump wants Greenland as a refugia for the ruling class as climate change becomes catastrophic because of that ruling class. He foresees a real estate bonanza...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Donald Trump, Avatar of his Class, Capitalism & the Decline and Fall of Bourgeois Democracy

Post by blindpig » Thu Aug 28, 2025 3:10 pm

Melania’s libel case against Hunter Biden could be Trump’s Icarus moment. Part Two

Martin Jay

August 28, 2025

Who was introduced to whom? It seems a trivial point but one which Melania Trump and her husband are obsessing over as it determines who was instrumental in the making of Trump’s wife. Prince Andrew also has the same obsession.

Who was introduced to whom? It seems a trivial point but one which Melania Trump and her husband are obsessing over as it determines who was instrumental in the making of Trump’s wife. Prince Andrew also has the same obsession. You can read Part One here.

According to the Daily Mail, Zampolli claims he introduced Melania to Trump at a NYC venue called the Kit Kat Club in 1998. This may well be correct and can be corroborated but it shouldn’t be considered in any way a solid base for a libel case against Biden’s son.

For one, it will be Melania’s lawyers who will have to decouple the link between Zampolli and Epstein’s circle which, as Michael Wolff, the author of a number of books about Trump, explains in a recent podcast with the Daily Beast.

Wolff says the first lady’s relationship with Epstein was “very involved” with his social circles, which could potentially, The Daily Beast argues, be very damaging to Trump with the financier’s pedophile ring which he has always claimed he was never part of, despite a report claiming that his name is in the FBI’s probe, revealed by the Wall Street Journal on July 23rd.

Wolff seems to suggest that the lurid Epstein cohort of young girls, which today is acknowledged as being a honey trap aimed at benefiting Mossad, included Melania who leading up to when she met Trump had a failing career as a model, according to reports sourcing a former flat mate who claimed that she couldn’t get top shoots with magazines like Marie Claire. Indeed, the attraction to Trump, some might argue in any defamation case which arrives, was that he gave new life to her modelling career which took off the moment they met, albeit with Trump helping with gimmicky, tasteless nude photoshoots in his own private jet. The attraction was mutual and not complicated to understand.

What exactly was the arrangement of this relationship? Did Trump help not only her career but also her immigration status? Was the marriage one which lawyers call a ‘sham’? Recent years have shown many examples of the couple no longer being close but defamation lawyers representing Biden will argue that her character and her motivations towards Trump were not genuine at best, or even immoral at worse. Melania’s character and how close she was to Epstein will be critical in such a libel case as, fundamentally both in the UK and U.S., defamation laws are all about protecting someone’s reputation. If you are claiming your reputation has been damaged, then you also have to prove that you are someone of high moral fibre. Prove that the ‘victim’ had no real reputation in the first place to ‘protect’ and the libel case that she initiates collapses.

This is at the heart of what is vexing Melania. She doesn’t want any of that period between 1995 and 1998 being put under public scrutiny and examined in the bare light of day. And she has good reason to avoid any kind of investigation or public opprobrium of her character and behaviour.

For Wolff, his assertions about her character are not very kind, as, according to his book and his interviews she was very much part of the Epstein operation which she penetrated to gentrify herself though meeting wealthy men.

Yet in the podcast, he confirms that, technically speaking, it was probably Zampolli who actually made the introduction.

“She’s introduced by a model agent, both of whom Trump and Epstein are involved with,” the author told Joanna Coles. “She’s introduced to Trump that way. Epstein [knew] her well.”

If Trump and Epstein basically controlled Zampolli and were instrumental in his modelling agency flourishing, it could easily be argued that in fact, the ‘introduction’ was made by Epstein himself who would profit from being a match maker to the U.S. president. A more reprehensible possibility might be that Epstein even had a blackmail angle on Trump over Melania’s activities and who she had relations with previously, perhaps even Epstein himself – which may well explain the real reason why Trump fell out with him, rather than the one presented.

If blackmail was so central to the whole Epstein operation, then it is hardly surprising if even the players themselves resort to the same tactics. Maxwell, in her interview with prosecutors, claims that Virginia Giuffre’s allegations of being used as a teen sex worker, forced to service Prince Andrew’s needs was all about making money from a book. She claims that Guiffre didn’t have sex with Prince Andrew in the bath of Maxwell’s London flat as it was too small and that the infamous photo of Guiffre and Prince Andrew is faked. She explains that Giuffre was paid handsomely though for entertaining the British royal and did admit, at least, that she was at Maxwell’s house in 2001 with both Epstein and Prince Andrew.

Just as Melania Trump is obsessed about the allegation that she was introduced to Trump by Epstein, it would seem Prince Andrew is also as vexed by the allegation that Ghislaine Maxwell introduced him to Epstein. As part of the blatant whitewash worked out between Maxwell and Trump, she also stated that it was in fact Sarah Ferguson, his ex-wife, who introduced Andrew to Epstein.

In Woolf’s book, published in 2017, just two years before Epstein finally died mysteriously in prison, he claims that Melania and Trump had their first sexual encounter on board the Lolita Express – a claim that naturally infuriates both of them, but perhaps Melania more as the Mile High Club encounter hardly paints her as pristine Jacky Kennedy first lady material but more of an eastern European model down on her luck needing a break.

The recent press reports about Ghislaine Maxwell being very cooperative with investigators should worry Trump although as there can be little doubt now that a deal has been struck between her and the U.S. president as her reluctance, reported on social media platforms, for the so-called ‘file’ to not be made public is interesting. Few in America doubt that Trump’s name is in the dossier many times over, as even Pam Bondi has stated this. What is the real issue now is how the Trumps prepare to face the media as it is their reputation and character which is under scrutiny, if Melania goes ahead with her case. If Trump is planning on allowing Ghislaine to name and shame the 100 or so characters who she believes drank from the Epstein fountain of depravity whether on his Island or his opulent Manhattan town house – but to tone down Trump’s activity in return for a plea deal – Trump will have those 100 individuals and the legal clout they can buy to destroy him. Or does he figure that if he protects Bill Clinton – which Maxwell does as she hilariously claims he behaved entirely above board and only used the Lolita Express to make trips to Africa – that he might buy enough capital to protect himself from that baptism of fire?

The hold he has on them, until now, will be severed placing him and his wife in the most vulnerable position they could be in. Trump’s only real forte or skills seems to be when he was working as a reality TV star so he will have to draw on those experiences in media management. But one has to wonder if he has thought through the implications of Melania’s trial or is his own vanity foolishly drawing him to the media spotlight, like a moth to the flame. Would it be so far-fetched to think that the public court of opinion might see her in a poor light at those Epstein parties while, by the same token, viewing him more of a vulnerable, lonely middle-aged man? The Maxwell whitewashing stunt may not be nearly be enough to pull off Trump’s greatest bluff to date if his wife enters a courtroom with Hunter Biden and faces the heat.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/ ... -part-two/

******

Image
President Donald Trump waves while meeting with members of law enforcement, including National Guard soldiers, in Washington on Thursday, Aug. 21, 2025. | Jacquelyn Martin / AP

Like dictators of the past, Trump is building a private army
Originally published: People's World on August 26, 2025 by C.J. Atkins (more by People's World) | (Posted Aug 28, 2025)

Not since the days of Hitler’s S.A.—the “Brownshirt” stormtroopers—has a leader in an advanced capitalist country wielded a private political army outside the regular military and police forces that is answerable only to them. But if a new scheme hatched by President Donald Trump and his top adviser Stephen Miller comes to fruition, that may be exactly what the MAGA mogul will have.

A new executive order signed by Trump on Monday grabbed headlines for its creation of special “law and order” National Guard units that can be called out by the president and the Defense Secretary without having to go through state governors—who by law are the commanders of the Guard—for the purpose of “quelling domestic disturbances.”

Image
Not since the days of Adolf Hitler’s S.A.—the “Brownshirt” stormtoopers—has a leader in an advanced capitalist country wielded a private political army outside the regular military and police forces which is answerable only to them. But if a new scheme comes to fruition, that may be exactly what President Donald Trump will have. Here, Hitler is seen with his Brownshirts in the early 1930s. | Bundesarchiv

The move is raising serious questions about legality, the separation of powers, and civil liberties, but another part of the same executive order potentially poses even more dangerous possibilities.

It authorizes a Trump-created task force to start recruiting civilian volunteers “with law enforcement or other relevant backgrounds and experience” to work alongside established federal law enforcement entities to carry out Trump’s orders in places he designates as facing a “crime emergency.”

D.C. was first on that list and would see the initial deployments of both the Trump-controlled National Guard units and the private MAGA army. His executive order explicitly says, however, that these troops could be sent “whenever the circumstances necessitate” to “other cities where public safety and order has been lost.”

It will be at the president’s sole discretion to make the call as to when the order has been lost. Chicago stands as the likely second target for this new vigilante unit.

‘Maybe we like a dictator’
It can be expected that the private Trump army will be flooded with “volunteers” from the ranks of the president’s political base. Ex-cops, former soldiers, and others eager to help round up immigrants and repress Trump’s political opponents and the people’s movements will likely be among the first to sign up.

Members of groups like the white supremacist Proud Boys and others who played the role of shock troops during Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt will have a new outlet for their violent propensities.

The order mandates the Miller-led task force, along with Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice, to “immediately create and begin training, manning, hiring, and equipping” this “specialized unit.” There are no indications where the funding will come from, but recruitment is to start immediately via the creation of an online application and intake portal.

The establishment of such a private armed body outside regular law enforcement channels—along with the takeover of the National Guard under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—takes the U.S. further down the road toward fascism.

After signing the orders Monday, Trump himself injected the idea of a dictatorship into public conversation. Purportedly responding to those opposed to his actions, Trump claimed he’s not a dictator but said that Americans may actually like to have one. “They [critics] say: ‘We don’t need him. Freedom, freedom, he’s a dictator, he’s a dictator,” Trump told the television cameras. But, he then alleged,

a lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we’d like a dictator.’

It is not the first time Trump has dismissed criticism of his dictatorial moves while also signaling his interest in unlimited power. In December 2023, while running for another term, he said he would not be a dictator “except for Day 1.” He later said he was being sarcastic but that “a lot of people” liked the idea of him being dictator, and he regularly muses about running for a third term, even though it’s unconstitutional.

There is nothing sarcastic about Monday’s executive orders, though. They carry the country headlong down the road toward the establishment of a presidential dictatorship.

A poll from earlier this year showed that many Americans could already see what was coming. Conducted in February and March 2025, an Axios poll showed 52% of people in the U.S. saw Trump as “a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.”

Almost half a year later—after the deportation blitzkrieg, the damaging trade war, the undermining of the courts, the gerrymandering of electoral districts, the campaign to destroy all labor laws, the military occupations of L.A. and D.C., and now these newest executive actions—certainly even more people would agree.

Monday’s executive orders also take other steps to strengthen executive branch control over D.C., presumably previewing what is planned for other Black- and progressive-led cities across the country.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is empowered to investigate “non-compliance with crime-prevention and safety requirements” by the District of Columbia Housing Authority or HUD housing landlords and to call out the police to deal with them. This sets the stage for an assault on the residents in public and subsidized housing, who are overwhelmingly poor and working-class people of color.

Similarly, the door is opened to a crackdown on those who rely on public transit in D.C., with the Secretary of Transportation given power to “take appropriate remedial action” if crime is determined to be an issue on trains or buses. As with other parts of the order, determining when crime is a problem is the sole prerogative of the executive branch.

The National Park Service is ordered to hire more U.S. Park Police officers to patrol the parks and presumably kick out any unhoused people looking for a place to rest or demonstrators looking for a place to protest.

Image
Trump’s private army will likely be flooded with ‘volunteers’ from the ranks of the president’s political base. Ex-cops, former soldiers, and others eager to help round up immigrants and repress Trump’s political opponents and the people’s movements will be among the first to sign up. Members of groups like the white supremacist Proud Boys, seen here participating in Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt, will have a new outlet for their violent propensities. | AP

It’s a ramping up of militarism in all areas of public life.

Democracy in danger
Taken as a whole, the executive order creates a double-sided framework for unrestricted presidential control over “law and order” nationwide: Hegseth’s federalized National Guard and Trump’s private MAGA army. Using the fake excuse of a crime emergency, it lays the foundation for domestic military operations throughout the United States.

The takeover of the Guard violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which made it illegal to use federal troops for policing purposes except in times of a complete breakdown of local or state governments. None of the cities on Trump’s hit list—not Los Angeles, not D.C., not Chicago—face such a situation. This is purely a power grab with dangerous consequences.

As for Miller’s civilian volunteers, they are nothing more than a presidential paramilitary that can be deployed at will wherever Trump wants to assert control or silence dissent.

The current Republican-dominated Congress is, of course, no bulwark against what’s happening; under Speaker Mike Johnson, it is an accomplice. Despite that, the House and Senate must be bombarded with messages of opposition from the public.

The courts are one outlet to challenge these actions, but even there, MAGA control has already extended far and wide, including to the Supreme Court.

The midterm elections of 2026 stand out as the first chance to establish a legislative beachhead against Trump, but U.S. democracy—already so compromised—may not make it until then. It’s time for action now.

On Aug. 28, there will be a March on Wall Street to demand economic justice. On Labor Day, there will be hundreds of protests around the country. The people and labor movements have to participate in them all.

The danger to democracy is undeniable, but its further decline is not inevitable. If ever there was a time that demanded a united front against fascism, that time is now.

https://mronline.org/2025/08/28/like-di ... vate-army/

(These measures d not make a "private army". Abuse of authority, undoubtedly, probably illegal in many cases, sure. Now if a 'Proud Boy Army' was organized in his name, started engaging in 'brownshirt' activities without government intervention, in anything seriously above their actual numbers, then we are looking like brownshirts.

If he keeps talking that shit there will be a Brutus, 'assassination vaccination' or not. Some people actually believe that crap about the USA being a republic of laws.)

*****

Trump’s Intel Move Looks Like Performance, Not Policy
Posted on August 28, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. It is remarkable how Trump seems to need to have his name in the hot lights, um, the headlines, all the time and is able to do so. Admittedly, liking bold gestures for their own sake, as opposed to whether they make any sense, helps by giving way more degrees of freedom. As more experts weigh in on Trump’s extraction of equity from Intel, they are confirming our hot take that this holding was if anything a negative for Intel. And by not improving Intel’s prospects (its problems are strategic and operational, not financial), the government has made itself arguably responsible for how Intel fares going forward.

Below, William Lazonick and Matt Hopkins react to the Intel “deal” and conclude it amounts to flashy optics, incoherent strategy, and a creeping politicization of economic policy. And mind you, they make clear that they don’t oppose to government investment in key industries as a way to implement industrial policy. But Trump’s flailing about to show his power is not even remotely that.

By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

Intel, once dominant in semiconductors, has flailed amid manufacturing problems, leadership changes, and fierce global competition. And unfortunately, it matters because in a world where chips are the new oil, controlling them means controlling power — economic, military, and geopolitical.

As the company stumbles through global tech wars and Washington photo ops, two economists deeply familiar with the company suggest that the latest CEO shake-up and Trump’s government share deal may have less to do with industrial policy and more to do with political theater dressed up as strategy. In conversations with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, William Lazonick, a prominent critic of stock buybacks, and his colleague Matt Hopkins express skepticism over what Hopkins describes as Trump’s “shotgun” approach to the economy and his erratic decision-making.

“It’s pretty clear to us that [Pat] Gelsinger was pushed out because he became the face of Biden’s CHIPS Act push,” Lazonick said. “Intel’s big investment and turnaround strategy was supposed to cost $100 billion. Unfortunately, Intel had already wasted $145 billion on stock buybacks over the previous two decades. The $8 or $9 billion from the government was just a fraction of the total investment required, but it was still important.”

The whole point of CHIPS Act funding was to put Intel back in the front lines as a manufacturing leader in advanced chips, the kind that power AI, smartphones, and national security. “The big challenge was catching up with TSMC and Samsung – developing the industrial capabilities necessary for advanced chips, microprocessors for smartphones, AI, that kind of thing,” Lazonick said. “It’s going to be hard no matter what. If Intel doesn’t do that, the U.S. essentially loses domestic capacity in those areas.”

While TSMC and Samsung have built plants on U.S. soil, Lazonick cautioned that “it’s not the same as having a strong American-owned player.” In his view, domestic control matters, particularly when geopolitical risks are involved. “TSMC already took a big geopolitical risk cutting off Huawei in 2020, and that showed how fragile those supply chains are,” he noted. “But here’s the problem: the U.S. government doesn’t really have a structure for aligning corporate and national interests.”

Lazonick observed that Trump’s latest maneuver, snagging a 10% government stake in Intel using already-allocated CHIPS Act funds, looks more like a headline grab than a power move, noting that “while the government has 10% of the shares, there’s no taxpayer representative on the board – and frankly, who would want one put there by Trump?” Meanwhile, he noted, “hedge fund activists, for instance, can buy 1–2% of shares, and they can line up institutional investors, pressure companies into buybacks, and accomplish other items on their agenda.”

In short, “if Trump’s aim was leverage, this isn’t it. It feels more like a symbolic gesture, a PR move. There’s no coherent policy behind it.”

Hopkins added that “if we want to save American semiconductor manufacturing, the shareholding doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with that.”

And it could be worse than useless. “If I were an Intel shareholder, I’d be pissed,” Lazonick said. “Suddenly there are 10% more shares in circulation, which dilutes your stake. Yes, the stock price went up, but that’s just speculative. Fundamentally, shareholders are now getting less for each share.”

So who benefits? “He [Trump] gets to spin it as a win, like he’s doing something for American industry,” said Lazonick. “But in reality, it’s performative. Shareholders lose. There’s no clear industrial strategy. And it creates more uncertainty for Intel’s leadership.”

That lack of strategy, Lazonick argued, is the real issue. “In theory, there could be [an upside] if this were part of a broader plan — if the government said, ‘We’re going to help Intel succeed, invest more if needed, and take a stake to give taxpayers upside’ — that could be viable. But there’s no consistency. No policy. Just Trump winging it.”

Hopkins also expressed concern that the government’s shareholding, while framed as a national security investment, lacks a clear strategy or accountability: taxpayers could profit if Intel rebounds, but they could also lose big if shares are dumped at a loss or the company goes bankrupt. He draws a cautionary parallel to Tesla’s 2010 DOE loan, which helped avert bankruptcy and bring the Model S to market. When Tesla repaid the loan early in 2013, the government’s warrants to buy Tesla shares were cancelled. The option to get shares of Tesla, had it been exercised, could have yielded taxpayers hundreds of millions, or today, tens of billions. Hopkins warned that Intel’s deal offers no clear upside for taxpayers—and worse, a similar option to purchase more Intel shares included in the deal is contingent on Intel giving up majority control of its foundry, arguably undermining the very intent of the CHIPS Act.

Hopkins cited the 2009 General Motors bailout as a cautionary tale: “The government stepped in, provided a bailout, and took an equity stake in GM. But once the company began to recover, Wall Street — the same voices that had mocked GM as ‘Government Motors’ — urged the government to sell its shares. And they did, at a loss. Taxpayers ended up losing $11 billion. At the very least, we could have held onto the shares until we broke even.”

If anything, the latest Intel move signals déjà vu: “There’s no policy that says, ‘Here’s how we build capacity, retain talent, and ensure national competitiveness,’” Lazonick said. “It’s all short-term politics.”

The deeper risk is that short-term politics dictate Intel’s future. “The risk is that Trump’s involvement introduces chaos,” Lazonick said. “Gelsinger was building trust with government, emphasizing the national security role. Now, Intel’s in limbo — the board’s reacting to politics, not strategy.”

He noted that despite purchasing the most advanced EUV machines from ASML, Intel still faces a long road ahead. “It takes years to ramp up, train staff, and reduce defects. It’s not plug-and-play,” he said. “And if they don’t invest aggressively now, they fall even further behind.”

So does Trump’s move help? “Almost certainly not”, Lazonick said. “If you’re making investment decisions based on what pleases Trump rather than what’s good for long-term competitiveness, you’re heading in the wrong direction.”

Hopkins added that “with Trump pushing chaotic tariff policies and demanding Lisa Cook’s removal from the Fed, we’re seeing a politicization of economic policy that could further destabilize already fragile efforts to rebuild U.S. chipmaking.”

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08 ... olicy.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply