"Morning Joe" says those who reported on Russia errors are a "joke" and might be "on Russia's payroll." MSNBC should break its four-year freeze-out and invite a skeptic to respond
You are not correct -- once the scam of the century, Russia-gate hoax, breaks into corporate media the entire corrupt entity will start to collapse.
I agree that Trump was incompetent and silly amateur president who luckily for us voted himself out -- but the DNC leadership, WS, MSM, US security apparatus, HiTech monopolies, etc. joint 5-year and ongoing efforts to remove US president are hugely dangerous and must be addressed.
Wishing and faith are nothing alike because what is faith, Heb 12 faith is the substance of things hoped(prayed) for, and the evidence of things not seen. The very real tangible provided by something you can’t see, unless of course He has something to say or you, and I’ve experienced them all. ✝️
Brother it’s part of the the machinations put into play In The Beginning. Anyone who has ever read the book of Revelation should have immediately noticed this “trump” due to their importance. It wasn’t him, a complete pos but a clear sign for those who’re watching world events play out, and I’ll even add this that everything in my heart tells me that at least we’ve suffered through our last presidential election because times up. 80% of people right now don’t have access to clean drinking water and nobody cares, but Father does and His hand is not idle. Did you know the Romanov deaths were written about 2000 years in advance in Amos 2: ?
You are writing pure religious BS -- like some of the worst Trump's religious fundamentalists, charlatans and grifters... ;-))
Insufficient media coverage is on the extent of just how much evangelical fundamentalists (the Rupture End-Time Christians) dominate ALL levels of US government. Corona virus human and economic catastrophe in the US will likely end up being called – the Trump virus.
• Evangelical anti-science idiot, Trump’s VP Mike Pence, has been installed to lead the pandemic fight as Corona virus tsar
• Evangelical Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State insane clown who considers Trump as the coming Christian King
• Evangelical Jerome Adams, now US Surgeon General was the state health commissioner under Governor Mike Pence during AIDS epidemic (he acts like he already “Ruptured” to another world
• Evangelical Bible idiot Ben Carson, Housing Secretary – famous for stating that Egyptian pyramids were built by St. Joseph for wheat storage; always reassuring when he stands next to Trump during our Great Leader blabbers
• Evangelical Robert Redfield, installed to run critical organization CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) as its director in 2018 (he immediately increased his salary to almost $0.5M) decided to develop an American, hence superior test kit (despite that Chinese scientists in a record short time provided full virus genome and Germans and others developed a test kit adopted by WHO).
The new “superior and our” test kits failed and much delayed testing – resulting that in the entire February only 256 people were tested?!? – the crime of a century. Redfield was on a board of the largest evangelical anti-gay organization while for a decade unsuccessfully developing AIDS vaccine (and fabricating results)….
• Evangelical Deborah Birx, White House Corona virus response coordinator managed anti-AIDS international $6.3B fund – like Redfield focusing on – abstinence
• Evangelical Betsy DeVos, Education Secretary and a sister of evangelical Eric Prince (founder of Blackwater – runs Trump’s private army)
• And an endless number of government and military evangelical officials financed by now almost limitless government resources
You are right about Pompeo and the Pence of idiots but not they thought ever thought that scumbag heathen was anything other than a useful idiot. It was a bizarre freak show indeed. Moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was clearly an act to create trouble, plus the Arab world will not just do nothing about the Palestinian situation either and that’s a fact. Israel the chicken shits they are just in the last couple days closed off the creek into Jordan, it’s only source of water, despicable, but you also must realize there are players in the game who are not as they claim. They’re called Kenites and they are the progeny of Cain the very first murderer and they work behind the scenes and they sure as hell believe in God because He created Cain’s real father and that was none other than Satan himself as called the serpent. That was the original sin in Eden, Eve was wholly seduced by the devil and then Adam knew her as well and you’ve got paternal twins from different fathers, I happen to be an identical twin. This is scripturally brought forth many times in both OT and NT. They were in the scribes responsible for instigating the crucifixion carried out by the Romans, there wasn’t one Israelite hand involved but because because of the Roman translators that worked on the KJV biblle the Jews are left holding the bag.
I guess enough is enough I’m sure there’s something that we do agree on, my spiritual life aside.
You’ve apparently haven’t read a word I said with any understanding whatsoever which of course is your prerogative. But I belong to none of the biblically illiterate masses of hypocritical religionists, period. Am I Christian yes, and an ordained minister of the independent Christian church, not an evangelical Lutheran Catholic or baptist. I’m a student of the texts and I use the tools available to all to back to the original Hebrew Chaldean and Greek. This earth as stated is in fact billons of years old and there’s also a reason why it was destroyed to begin this age, unlike the illiterate who think the earth was created in days, same as the lie of Eve the apple and a snake, the pagan worship of Easter which actually comes from Ishtar a Babylonian goddess of fertility hence the bunny and the eggs it’s a blasphemous disgrace how people have allowed themselves to believe in these religionists lies, same as the mythical rapture which Pompeo and pence tried ever so hard to create enough chaos to trigger it, but it’s a total fabrication with out any scriptural backing. I know that most people don’t want or care to hear the truth especially when there’s been so many lies infused into it that they can’t even see the truth. I’m not a preacher but more a teacher and most times I keep those things to myself just because of reasons like this. I’ve always been someone that looked for things that unite us and leave it at that there’s already enough hate mongering without feeding into that nonsense.☮️
In his note on Rush Limbaugh's death, Matt explained the dynamic set up by feeding your audience the red meat that gets it most excited. The only way to keep the game going is to up the intensity. Eventually you end up in la-la land. I don't understand why Matt wants to engage with that.
It's frightening how they simply lie with impunity now. There's nobody who can stand up and stop them, they just keep lying. And if you point how they are lying, you might get unpersoned.
The Ministry of Truth will be knocking on your door shortly. I suggest that you willingly bend over and cough or they will go with the full body cavity search. Don't ask me how I know.
So true. Maybe the biggest lie is that they mostly got it right. Really?! Was there a SINGLE Russia-gate story that turned out to be true? Is so, I don't remember it.
For the time being. But longer term I doubt the game is sustainable. If they keep ramping up the crazy, as they must to maintain audience, the destination is a credibility level like Alex Jones.
Trying to engage anyone on MSNBC on the substance of their allegations is futile. They're not here to engage. They will take morsels from your writings to scream mockery, unopposed, to their viewers. Sadly, that's all their viewers want. I always go back to laying blame at the feet of the viewers who actively seek out and support slanted "reporting."
Remember when Scarborough was a Republican congressman? lol.
Remember when Scarborough was a proud, respected man? A Republican Congressman? Remember when he joined MSNBC as the moderate/conservative voice? Remember when he was married, with a family? Remember when he divorced to marry his co-host? Remember when he changed sides in the debates, became a liberal, attacking Republicans? Remember when he started believing and repeating the lies? Remember when Scarborough was a proud, respected man? Yeah, but that was a long time ago.
And there was large amounts of cocaine involved as well.....
Joe has had a pretty rough time being Joe after dodging all those charges hasn't he ? Makes you wonder if someone(or some agency) is pulling his strings now doesn't it ?
It is also very futile to engage any of MSNB viewers. They just tune you out, put the fingers in their ears and go la-la-la-la-la. They cannot stand their bubble burst. They can't handle any cognitive dissonance. They can't handle any truth.
I'd pay a fair amount of cold, hard cash to see Matt Taibbi or Aaron Mate debate Joe Scarborough. Is that ever gonna happen? Of course not! Smug, ill-informed, overpaid clods like old Joe would rather have their teeth pulled out with pliers.
Me too. Death Cage match on pay-per-view. Tag team with Scarborough and Adam Schiff taking on Taibbi and a second of his choice. May as well get the source of many of the stories - Schiff - on the card.
I believe management and staffers at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, et al, rationalize their ineptitude and duplicity as follows:
Yes, we intentionally misled our audiences with lies and fake news with our reporting on the _________________________ story (insert Russiagate or any other Trump era fake news scandal), however, Trump was such a threat to our democracy and Western Civilization that we had to use all means necessary, including creating and/or perpetuating false narratives, to keep Trump from being reelected.
Curiously, MSM reporting of false narratives has not slowed down or stopped since Trump left office, which proves the adage once you start telling lies it's very hard to stop!
You're kidding, right? Contradictory viewpoints must not be heard. Dissenting voices must be eliminated. That is the raison d'être of the old media and the national intelligence apparatus (but I repeat myself).
When I read this thread from time to time, I see a few glaring errors from posters.
One of which happens to be confusing Democratic Party Leaders with being left, liberal in the general sense or having much connection to the masses of people who've taken on the progressive identity. These leaders put on this identity like it is a costume, but in no way is it reflected in their most important policy initiatives.
Do you think here in this space, we could agree to quit calling the Bidens, the Obamas and the Clintons of the world leftist liberals? It is inaccurate and contributes to division.
I say this because in almost every category one can evaluate a President (distinguishing it from political candidate), they are uniquely Neoliberal. This means that they support the war machine, defense department policies. They are led by their scrotums to nominate Goldman Sachs executives into the White House as their Treasury advisors, and have been responsible for:
3. Ignoring Popular Progressives & Labor Initiatives (M4A, Min Wage $15, Free College)
The number of wars, their financial allies, their vacuous pandering at election time, their disgust for the average working person, their absence during and contributions to our worst national events home and abroad would lead me not to think of these people as left or even right, but attached to the billionaire class in discernible ways, which makes party affiliation as we, the people, tend to use it errant--- it is more of a mask they put on when they need to belong and one they quickly take off when they get to where they are going.
Neoliberals are known for having one foot in the culture when it suits, and one foot attached to power making our labels inaccurate --- and destined for the pleabs to argue over.
Biden, Obama, the Clintons are NOT leftists --- once you get a net worth near $50 million, your political affiliation goes from the traditional pick a side 50/50 Left or Right theatre to the gaming both sides 100 (whichever party does what I want) side where they win whomever wins.
The really insidious part of the neoliberals being passed off as liberal, and even worse, left, is that they become the leftward limit of acceptable US political discourse. This is the inside the Beltway two step; the Dems exclude from the left and the Repubs then calling the Dem insiders leftist/socialists, the real target for them both being the already weakened US left, which if it's headed by Sanders and even worse, that complete fake AOC, is already toothless.
There are a few things we can thank Trump for, but to me his drawing out just how far right the Dems have moved, especially as it pertains to US foreign policy and their jingoistic militarism, is most noticeable. While it's true they did at times attack Trump from the left, mostly along performative lines, they always seemed more heartfelt when coming at him from the right, especially as it pertained to Russia or anything relating to military affairs.
Nice response Michael. I wrote that not to pick at some of the more conservative members or the left-right theatre in the posting area here, but more of a support of Matt's thesis that we have to start getting accurate information to people because "getting it right more than not" is really an indifferent and damning indictment of the media and the public too for consuming it.
There is a theory, if people are interested in it, called Transtheoretical theory, often used with people who have addictions (like so many in our society) and their therapists. This theory structures change in 5 stages of individual development (I think it would be great to look at this at higher levels too family and community development etc..).
These 5 stages are:
Pre-contemplation:
an individual has no current plan to change their problematic behavior at all in the next 6 months. They are happy to be where they are. This begs the question. How does someone begin to know what it is they do not yet know? People in this stage often deny the existence of problematic behavior or place too much emphasis on the negatives that will result from trying.
Contemplation:
an individual recognizes their behavior is problematic and begin to actually wrestle with idea of (pros and cons) changing one's behavior. This stage is defined by taking something that was unconscious and bringing into thinking, talking about, and consideration. It is still passive --- and many who reach this stage are still unresolved about changing their addiction, behavior, or approach to a new behavior.
Preparation:
an individual moves from thoughts to action with a plan. A healthier life is visualized and targeted, so they start making space in their physical and relational environments for change. Individuals tend to exhibit a great deal of determination in this stage.
Action:
an individual targets the problematic behavior directly - moving beyond past behaviors to explore new ones. Repeat changed behavior enough to where it becomes a part of a solution to their old problematic behaviors.
Maintenance:
an individual or family actively work to prevent any relapse of the problematic behaviors or celebrate the new behaviors in such a way to honor the person's work in creating change.
**** Reminder here: the problematic behavior here is our inability to uncover the truth via mindless media consumption to the purposive distortion of events, especially those that divide us. ex. Clinton is a lib, or Obama is a lib etc.. let's get it correct.
In my experience as a therapist, Contemplation is almost always triggered by an emotionally significant event. The actual theory of Dunning-Kruger isn't that many people think they know more than they actually do, it's that those who most loudly boast of their knowledge are usually the most ignorant; those who most loudly boast of their abilities are usually the least capable.
Dunning-Kruger's work is absolute rubbish. These 'scientists' results have only been replicated once, and that was by loading random data. It is entertaining, though. For them to move to Contemplation would require someone close to them being evicted from a prominent position on claims that their behavior is Dunning-Kruger. To move a sheep to Contemplation will require actual fascism, military invasion, or national bankruptcy.
Then, the sheep is only at Contemplation. It's like the unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence path. Most people get stuck at conscious competence and think they've arrived.
Interesting Bill. Agree with you contemplation is often a triggering event for the self to grapple with emotions of the past, outcomes that did not work out or random emotional waste mixed in with the current patterns of behavior.
And I like how you bring in the work of D-K here, as well as contextualized it as being less significant for people other than how it has been bastardized or reoriented and aimed at people's/demographic groups's differences. Well done. And your last sentence tops off a wonderful post by uncovering what is the hidden truth in this idea (a spectrum of changes need to occur).
In fact, if you'll allow me to build upon your post, I might even suggest that "movement" forward in these stages (with respect to how we consume information) or mobility is what we need versus the current stasis and lethargy of left-right slugging it out paradigms. I win You lose type stuff changes nothing but creates more rigid thinkers.
Rather, all of the stages working and meeting people where they are at:
1. Getting more people to self-examine (Pre-Contemplation)
2. Helping those who are thinking reduce obstacles (Contemplation)
3. Having a series of helpful supports as people commit (Preparation)
4. Watching and validating the changes accomplished (Action)
5. Keep re-examining and helping others to do so as well (Maintenance)
The more people moving through the various stages, even regressing or struggling with making a change is a positive piece since it is the very polar opposite of indifference and "getting right more than not" type of thinking.
Getting it right more than not --- wear masks (oopsy); tell that to the dead
Getting it right more than not --- $1400 is better than nothing
Getting it right more than not --- Parliamentarian said no; so no $15 MW
Getting it right more than not --- WMD's in Iraq; Bernanke on Housing 2006
Getting it right more than not --- Russiagate, Syria and Venezuela 2016-20
Getting it right more than not --- Sacklers & Purdue Pharma - Oh my bad.
Getting it right more than not --- Martin Shkreli - Pharma Bro Rate Hijacked
Getting it right more than not --- Iowa Caucuses DNC App Fail (PB wins?)
Getting it right more than not --- Donna Brazile's book on DNC Hacks
Getting it right more than not --- CARES Act - Prop up the stock markets
Getting it right more than not --- Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela (regime change)
Getting it right more than not --- Fill in the ______________________________
We need new behaviors folks. And for me that the end of television, beyond a few sporting events. Read more, think more, move to change old behaviors that do not work, and try to build a community around people who want the same things.
I largely agree with you, especially on points two through five. We diverge significantly on point one. People willing to put any resources into self-examination don't need to be encouraged. People unwilling to put any resources into self-examination, typically because they're already perfect. Dunning-Kruger.
It sounds like it is time for Democrats to show up for the primaries and show every last neoliberal the door. Until then, it doesn't really matter about what anyone calls them because they will continue to be a stain on the legacy of the Democratic Party and these United States.
It seems a lot of people see the word liberal in neoliberal and misinterpret the meaning of neoliberal. You get this head-scratcher commentary from some attacking neoliberalism and supporting the Republican party.
Perhaps, as with the word progressive, its meaning is being changed to suit the culture war players of the moment? I'm afraid your thoughtful comment will fall on deaf ears.
Philip Mirowski (academic at Notre Dame) writes about the meaning of the origins of Neoliberalism - in his book with Dieter Plewe called the Road to Mount Pelerin.
He has a few lectures as well on Youtube one could find easily.
He often cites a German colleague named Thomas Briebricher who describes the different variants of Neoliberalism as well. Anyhow these meanings have not changed in 30 years --- it is a difficult topic (Neoliberalism) precisely because the different movements across Europe and the US made a conscious decisions not identify as Neoliberals publicly or any configuration often pointing their diversity of thought - many of the original thinkers deny this label - neoliberalism. Nonetheless, they contributed to its dominance in hidden ways to the lay public.
And when you learn about the history of who they are why behave the way they do, you'll understand why no one actually claims to be a Neoliberal (it is much easier because of the policies to hide in the recesses of the two parties, pretending).
So I’m coming at this from a left-libertarian perspective (LTV, free-market in the classical sense as a means to trade goods, “corporate” organization as worker cooperative or self employed, property rights to be held in common or if privately owned require occupancy and use as a requisite), but I don’t understand how he is counting Hayek into the neo-liberal world, or how he thinks that somehow any of this invalidates the LTV and the critiques of Marx.
The LTV in equation form as stated by Marx is just ridiculous - valueless things don’t just magically have value because someone produced them. They have value because it’s a good that requires some marginal disutility to obtain and because someone wants it. Even if you agree with the marginalists (like me) and think value is subjective, you can still work backward and say the value that someone is willing to pay just determines the value of the labor once you subtract the cost of capital, and that the LTV still holds. We have all heard the arguments about making mud pies and what not... I don’t really see why everyone spends so much time arguing about value theories and how those concepts are mutually exclusive; it’s largely a waste of time. Profits above cost of capital and labor are exploitation because the capitalist is getting something for nothing; this doesn’t require one to believe in strict LTV as Marx stated it and throw away marginalist claims of value. The right claims it’s not exploitation because they think you should get rewarded for the “risk” of investment. It’s simply a different definition of what profit is and I don’t think neo-liberal assumptions about markets as information or something lie that changes these basic definitions.
Also, on Hayek being the start neo-liberalism, I have never been able to find any concrete evidence of this. Of all of the Hayek I have read, he seems to be honestly lassiez-faire with a new, almost post-modern style analysis of why we need a free market. It seems the defining aspect of neo-liberals is pretending to be a classical liberal caring about enlightenment values then just tweaking the market to your own ends. Yes, hayek does conclude the market is a way of moving information, but the information of prices not all value in life. It’s more a statement that nobody can fully understand the market, so we need to let it work itself out instead of doing the central planning thing. I can see how this plays into neo-liberal agenda and though process and I do know he was a big influence on people like Reagan, but all of the neo-liberals have attempted to interfere with the market in ways that are certainly not lassiez-faire, so it’s hard to think that any of them actually really put much stock in his work. I suppose he is assuming they use the guise of being his follower as a cloak for what they are doing, the same as they lie about actually desiring a free market in the classical sense?
I’m no expert on Marx or Hayek; I’ve never read their works more than once and not all of them (they both have loaaads of material and have what I find to be off-putting writing styles), so I could be off base here... Just my thoughts from watching the videos, and my understanding from reading the primary two economists being discussed.
The Road to Mount Pelerin and Never Let a Serious Crisis go to Waste are the two books you want if you want to make connections between the original founders of the MPS (Mount Pelerin Society - writers of Neoliberalism's origins) of which F Hayek was an important founding member (often cross-pollinating his ideas on classic liberalism at LSE, U of Chicago, and Freiburg).
Hayek rejects Marx and the socialist point of view, that is why he is valuable to the US empire - as a social scientist and economist for "free market" capitalism, but then we actually get into the meat of both their ideas -- and its ironic that the capture of the US governmental apparatus (corporatism led by finance) originated from the MPS (with the help Hayek).
A key defining feature here is that he and his colleagues (eventually Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys) were looked upon as outsiders for much of the 20th century (weird to the profession --- cult like and often ridiculed by the mainstream successes of Keynesian economics and the Golden period of economic growth in the US 1947-1970 or there about.
Neoliberalism can be defined as a series of different theories used in conjunction to take over state power by using the purposeful rhetoric (Free markets, there is no alternative, supply side tactics to redistribute wealth), the power of the state, and corporations to seize back power for capital and away from the balance between capital-labor. This is a global phenomenon using the elite in the different world economies to work together to generate cheap labor and reduce wages.
Their strategies are:
Neoliberal Manual of how to extract wealth (home and abroad
1. Sell free markets on the front end (free market capitalism - fantasy)
2. Assess profitability or scout out new revenue streams (natural resources)
3. Align with business classes to deregulate markets (open up; change rules)
4. Align with political class to cut social supports (reduce public resources)
5. Align with industry stakeholders to privatize resources (Private Gains)
6. All losses that come from deregulation/privatization (Socialized Losses)
The central facet is that Neoliberals use every conduit to their advantage often infiltrating organizations and institutions to carry out their policies:
A. Thinktanks, NGOs
B. Large regulatory bodies or World Banks (IMF)
C. Chamber of commerce, National Association of Manufacturing
D. Political Appointees, Ambassadors, College Presidents (Ivy League)
E. Media (Operation Mockingbird) - CIA plants editors into industry
F. Wall Street - Financialization, legislation, and preferred legal status
G. Federal Reserve Policy (Greenspan put) - inflation boogyman
H. Scientists, Universities, Administrators - pay to play (rainmakers)
I. Physicians, Pharma and Patents
J. Gutting of Federal Regulators (S&L, Rating agencies, Anti-Trust abuses)
K. Key Legislation (GLB 1999, CFTC Act, ACA, CARES Act)
**** Each little piece won the group grows the base of support and more of the followers go get MBA's at Harvard or Uni of Chicago and go to NY to make their way, susceptible to being an agent for neoliberalism. And by 1990s to 2004, almost all of the levers of power were taken over by corporate hands. This allowed them to make huge changes to compensation, take huge risks in the market place and profit off of the transition to a global capitalist system (with few rules, and a militant bent to protect monopolies).
Marx is helpful to us Americans, not because of his theory for what to do next (i.e. socialism), but more so for having the singularly greatest critique of capitalism that has ever been done. There are no utopia "free market" rebranded tropes to repair capitalism here, but just the hard plain facts that capitalism eats itself -- when you factor in that all of the levers of power have succumb to corporations.
I agree with you that Marx has a spectacular critique of capitalism, and that the value is in the critique not in the solution. I do not agree with his solution or with most socialists that markets themselves are the problem. I do not believe the tool of markets requires capitalism, or that communism should be the end goal. With all of the intellectual hazard that comes with quoting dead anarchists, I will reference Proudhon on this one “Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak.”
In the spirit of this comment on properly defining terms, I will stop rambling and take your answer on neoliberalism and Hayek’s part in it. Thanks for the great response; I’ve got a book or 2 to read.
Except that we have a long history of socialism in this US, mostly hidden from view; socialism for the wealthy and corporations, and capitalism for everyone else (TBTF 2009 Bailouts, Estate Tax Sunset Provision, Failure to prosecute Bankers/Banks responsible).
And we also have an example of FDR putting government to work for people (legislation, social security, and a whole of host of infrastructure and public good programs), which could be described as social spending. In fact, they were so wildly popular that the business class tried to have FDR killed and have spent the last 70 years after his death trying to unwind what his administrations accomplished for the people.
So, your beliefs of how things should be --- need to be informed with what works and the historical tendency for capital to erase the gains of labor.
Dave, in reading your last parts here --- you are throwing around too many things. It is a fun conversation though.
Back at it. Communism is not an experiment that would fly in this country. Plus, Marx gets unfairly blamed for the Russian & Chinese experiments. We would not blame Jesus Christ for the worst behaviors of violent Christians, so why would we blame Marx for the practitioners abroad --- which led to totalitarian regimes?
The reason this happens is because the US is a hyper-capitalist country and would rather dismantle Marx than give him credit. See Allen Dulles' work on the issue, especially Indonesia.
Back home here, even some of the most ardent socialists believe capital has a role to play in society (private industry).
The problem that exists now is not one of a teeter tottering over to communism; that is an impossibility. But at hand, the current issue is that Neoliberal capitals have captured all of the levers of power and corrupted it -- just like Marx predicted. The obvious solution is to rebuild/grow the public sector, unions, schools, and other institutions in the mould of non-neoliberal worker driven enterprises, but the TPTB are not going to let that happen. They have a monopoly on the economy/power hubs - so they make the rules just like Marx said -- its the death of democracy.
Inviting Matt on the show would not contribute a single additional advertising dollar. And while there is a small chance that Joe could humiliate his guest, I suspect everyone at MSNBC recognize in their hearts of hearts none of them are intellectual giants exactly, and there is a not insignificant chance the humiliation would run the other way.
I have to believe that some of these people worked their way up the greasy pole on merit and brains. That they are not stupid, but cunning and deceptive. I HAVE to.
Otherwise, I have to realize 50% of the people are under the thrall of morons.
You're just realizing that now? As for Biden, I thought everyone understood what he is. There was actually a good reason for voting for Biden (and the organization or AI program that runs him): Trump looked like he was going to provoke civil war, whereas Biden will start foreign wars, and civil wars are closer to home and more destructive than foreign wars, at least in the US experience. I'm not saying this is definitively provable; team Biden might well turn out to be worse than we imagine, much worse, where Trump's incompetence somewhat neutralized his particular brand of evil.
But, yeah, morons led by morons; morons by choice. It's a style very much in fashion.
A huge number of people are in thrall of morons because they stopped reading in the 1980s, and raised their progeny to imitate them. These people breed and vote.
I feel sorry for Joe. He's been a party man all his life, and there was no way for the Democrats to beat Trump, no matter who ran. The pandemic was a godsend. If they could put Trump on the defensive, they might win. Then Trump snuck into Minneapolis and murdered George Floyd, probably on his way back from China where he was spreading the virus. Now it became possible.
Every candidate was for M4A, meaning not one understood what that meant. Nobody could criticize Elizabeth "Running Drool" Warren, so the impact of her CFPB was never brought up. There were no debates, so nobody could skewer any of them. Then the party called on Biden, told him it would be one last one for the Gimper (stet). He'd only have to give a few speeches, everybody would drop out, and he'd be president. All his work would be done for him. Make $400,000 a year by working from home, max eight hours a week. But wait, there's more.
Hunter and Jim and the rest of the Family would be protected. And, he could retire after a few months with honors. Just sign here, no need to read it.
Joe Biden is a victim of elder abuse.
I just realized that the Joe you're describing is Scarborough. I'm too tired to copy the post, put it elsewhere, then delete this. It's past my bedtime.
My point has nothing to do with his mental acumen. However, you did say you disagreed with him "sometimes" which implies that you agreed with him much more than I would have expected, considering his penchant for creating a polemic of discord and a subversion of any overtures toward peace.
Brzezinski had a hard-on for the Soviets. I agreed as far as Europe was concerned, and agreed when applied to Africa and South America. The evil empire polemics were much more valid when applied to Stalin than to Brezhnev, Khrushchev or Gorbachev. Yet, it's easy to forget that they were doing lots of naughty things in the third world that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The brushfire wars of the 60s, 70s and 80s would not have happened in the absence of the Soviets.
I broke with him on the arming of jihadists. Idiotic move. These people hated and hate us as much as they did the Soviets, if not more. The Soviets were more in their face at the time, but they were coming for us afterward.
Brzezinski was easy to understand if one considered where he came from. He was lucky to escape wartime Poland and had a visceral hatred of totalitarian governments. Kissinger also was easy to understand, considering his flight from the Nazis as a youth and his up close exposure to a concentration camp during his Army service.
I appreciated both of their frankness about their views and their adherence to same through their careers.
There was no Marshal Plan for the Soviets( as promised at Yalta) despite the Russians taking the brunt of the Axis attacks prior to the allied landing in Normandy. Stalin had good reason to feel betrayed when FDR died and Truman took over handing all foreign policy issues to the Dulles brothers( see David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard). Allen Dulles hired a bunch of unrepentant Nazis to propagate his anti-communist front which was backed by the same powerful faction that that plotted the 1933 coup against FDR and exposed by Smedley Butler.https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Navigation/Community/Arcadia-and-THP-Blog/September-2018/Smedley-Butler-and-the-1930s-Plot-to-Overthrow-the
Although Brzezinski was President Carter's NSA advisor I have little doubt that he was chosen by the CFR( Council on Foreign Relations) because he had no foreign policy experience, thus giving the CFR virtual control over foreign policy.
As with Brzezinski, I have only loathing for Kissinger who ruined countless lives. Not all fascists harangue, some of the most insidious are smooth talkers.
I'd like to share some entries from the Newspeak Dictionary, 12th Edition: "Media screw-ups" means shabby government propaganda efforts which failed. "Useful Idiots on Russia's payroll" means, courageous critics of power who are well worth the top Substack subscription fee. And "misinformation/disinformation" means attempts to get at the truth and expose power's crimes & misdeeds.
Not included? Hannity, Carlson and Bartiromo, who were accurately reporting on TONS of the fake Trump-Russia collusion story (via sources) WAY early on, and putting the pieces together. Because they're employed by Fox, so none of Scarborough's viewers would even think of hearing them out.
It's the otherwise left-leaning really and for true journalists who betrayed the party by telling the truth who get singled out.
I don't know how you have the patience and energy to deal with the 'Fun Police' types. But it is great reading. You're the only 'Karen' I enjoy seeing these days...
I actually have to wonder whether TFP is more than one person, given his output.
The other day, he typed a giant wall of text, I responded to the first thing he said, then my husband was like, "it's late, come to bed," and I told TFP I'd get to the rest of his comment (which I hadn't even read yet) in the morning.
I wake up, and I am now the topic of a circle jerk between TFP and another commenter about how I'm obviously avoiding responding because I have no response.
Responding to everything he says in his scattershot walls of text is next to impossible for anyone with adult responsibilities. Meanwhile, he bitches and moans if you don't link sources, even when you provide specific enough details to make a google search quick and easy.
The guy is almost as annoying as my teenage son who, after a year of NEET finally got a part time job and now acts like his free time is valuable or some shit.
The part that's crazy is that, in theory, this guy pays to do this. Signs up to MT's substack and pretends it's Facebook. I deleted my FB account and got kicked off of Twitter, and then I come here and see the Fun Police and his types doing their thing. Unreal.
You're a name player, but even a small fish like myself catches flak. I was called an NSA agent by someone recently, and insulted with smarmy nonsense. Luckily I've been working as a teacher in the violent inner city neighborhood and I suggested some anatomical impossibilities to my interlocutor. Good times here on Substack KS. You should write here now that I'm thinking about it... I'd subscribe.
Rather see you on Rachel Maddow since Maddow desperately needs to be subjected to a soul crushing "have you no sense of decency?" style calling out live on the air, given her betrayal of her journalistic integrity spreading the Russiagate lies like she did.
Colbert is a modern day Glorious Godfrey, spewing the anti-life equation while engaging in some of the most blatantly homophobic behavior not seen by mainstream media since Rush Limbaugh made fun of AIDS victims on his radio. But since Colbert a courtesan of the DNC, he gets a pass on being an anti-gay bigot and spewing lies like crazy on his late night show.
This is great stuff, Matt. The fact that there are so few of you doing this work--and that you've been totally sidelined by MSNBC et al--confirms how vital it is.
“Suckage visible from space”. What a great line.
The problem is you are taking this seriously while Scarborough and CNN are not. They don’t give a fuck about anything but ratings and money.
I would try Ashleigh Banfield and her new show/network. She wants a conversation. Give her one.
You are not correct -- once the scam of the century, Russia-gate hoax, breaks into corporate media the entire corrupt entity will start to collapse.
I agree that Trump was incompetent and silly amateur president who luckily for us voted himself out -- but the DNC leadership, WS, MSM, US security apparatus, HiTech monopolies, etc. joint 5-year and ongoing efforts to remove US president are hugely dangerous and must be addressed.
I hope you are right but that is wishful thinking
Wishing and faith are nothing alike because what is faith, Heb 12 faith is the substance of things hoped(prayed) for, and the evidence of things not seen. The very real tangible provided by something you can’t see, unless of course He has something to say or you, and I’ve experienced them all. ✝️
Brother it’s part of the the machinations put into play In The Beginning. Anyone who has ever read the book of Revelation should have immediately noticed this “trump” due to their importance. It wasn’t him, a complete pos but a clear sign for those who’re watching world events play out, and I’ll even add this that everything in my heart tells me that at least we’ve suffered through our last presidential election because times up. 80% of people right now don’t have access to clean drinking water and nobody cares, but Father does and His hand is not idle. Did you know the Romanov deaths were written about 2000 years in advance in Amos 2: ?
You are writing pure religious BS -- like some of the worst Trump's religious fundamentalists, charlatans and grifters... ;-))
Insufficient media coverage is on the extent of just how much evangelical fundamentalists (the Rupture End-Time Christians) dominate ALL levels of US government. Corona virus human and economic catastrophe in the US will likely end up being called – the Trump virus.
• Evangelical anti-science idiot, Trump’s VP Mike Pence, has been installed to lead the pandemic fight as Corona virus tsar
• Evangelical Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State insane clown who considers Trump as the coming Christian King
• Evangelical Jerome Adams, now US Surgeon General was the state health commissioner under Governor Mike Pence during AIDS epidemic (he acts like he already “Ruptured” to another world
• Evangelical Bible idiot Ben Carson, Housing Secretary – famous for stating that Egyptian pyramids were built by St. Joseph for wheat storage; always reassuring when he stands next to Trump during our Great Leader blabbers
• Evangelical Robert Redfield, installed to run critical organization CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) as its director in 2018 (he immediately increased his salary to almost $0.5M) decided to develop an American, hence superior test kit (despite that Chinese scientists in a record short time provided full virus genome and Germans and others developed a test kit adopted by WHO).
The new “superior and our” test kits failed and much delayed testing – resulting that in the entire February only 256 people were tested?!? – the crime of a century. Redfield was on a board of the largest evangelical anti-gay organization while for a decade unsuccessfully developing AIDS vaccine (and fabricating results)….
• Evangelical Deborah Birx, White House Corona virus response coordinator managed anti-AIDS international $6.3B fund – like Redfield focusing on – abstinence
• Evangelical Betsy DeVos, Education Secretary and a sister of evangelical Eric Prince (founder of Blackwater – runs Trump’s private army)
• And an endless number of government and military evangelical officials financed by now almost limitless government resources
You are right about Pompeo and the Pence of idiots but not they thought ever thought that scumbag heathen was anything other than a useful idiot. It was a bizarre freak show indeed. Moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was clearly an act to create trouble, plus the Arab world will not just do nothing about the Palestinian situation either and that’s a fact. Israel the chicken shits they are just in the last couple days closed off the creek into Jordan, it’s only source of water, despicable, but you also must realize there are players in the game who are not as they claim. They’re called Kenites and they are the progeny of Cain the very first murderer and they work behind the scenes and they sure as hell believe in God because He created Cain’s real father and that was none other than Satan himself as called the serpent. That was the original sin in Eden, Eve was wholly seduced by the devil and then Adam knew her as well and you’ve got paternal twins from different fathers, I happen to be an identical twin. This is scripturally brought forth many times in both OT and NT. They were in the scribes responsible for instigating the crucifixion carried out by the Romans, there wasn’t one Israelite hand involved but because because of the Roman translators that worked on the KJV biblle the Jews are left holding the bag.
I guess enough is enough I’m sure there’s something that we do agree on, my spiritual life aside.
You’ve apparently haven’t read a word I said with any understanding whatsoever which of course is your prerogative. But I belong to none of the biblically illiterate masses of hypocritical religionists, period. Am I Christian yes, and an ordained minister of the independent Christian church, not an evangelical Lutheran Catholic or baptist. I’m a student of the texts and I use the tools available to all to back to the original Hebrew Chaldean and Greek. This earth as stated is in fact billons of years old and there’s also a reason why it was destroyed to begin this age, unlike the illiterate who think the earth was created in days, same as the lie of Eve the apple and a snake, the pagan worship of Easter which actually comes from Ishtar a Babylonian goddess of fertility hence the bunny and the eggs it’s a blasphemous disgrace how people have allowed themselves to believe in these religionists lies, same as the mythical rapture which Pompeo and pence tried ever so hard to create enough chaos to trigger it, but it’s a total fabrication with out any scriptural backing. I know that most people don’t want or care to hear the truth especially when there’s been so many lies infused into it that they can’t even see the truth. I’m not a preacher but more a teacher and most times I keep those things to myself just because of reasons like this. I’ve always been someone that looked for things that unite us and leave it at that there’s already enough hate mongering without feeding into that nonsense.☮️
In his note on Rush Limbaugh's death, Matt explained the dynamic set up by feeding your audience the red meat that gets it most excited. The only way to keep the game going is to up the intensity. Eventually you end up in la-la land. I don't understand why Matt wants to engage with that.
True enough, ratings and money are a goal to simply lie. But also getting political power for the Democratic Party is also a prime goal.
"ratings and money" as in ad revenue... seems Matt went into this in some detail a few months back, presented with distinct clarity.
He did but didn’t copyright it
It's frightening how they simply lie with impunity now. There's nobody who can stand up and stop them, they just keep lying. And if you point how they are lying, you might get unpersoned.
The Ministry of Truth will be knocking on your door shortly. I suggest that you willingly bend over and cough or they will go with the full body cavity search. Don't ask me how I know.
That was obviously my cat jumping on the keyboard up there. I meant to say "I've always loved big brother!"
Cats are seditious little fuckers. Mine has been stockpiling ammo.
damn, thought that was only happening to me.. plus he surfs porn on my computer and never wipes the browser history.
So true. Maybe the biggest lie is that they mostly got it right. Really?! Was there a SINGLE Russia-gate story that turned out to be true? Is so, I don't remember it.
It is good to be an oligopoly. All the money, all the power. None of the downside.
For the time being. But longer term I doubt the game is sustainable. If they keep ramping up the crazy, as they must to maintain audience, the destination is a credibility level like Alex Jones.
I think you do him an injustice.
Trying to engage anyone on MSNBC on the substance of their allegations is futile. They're not here to engage. They will take morsels from your writings to scream mockery, unopposed, to their viewers. Sadly, that's all their viewers want. I always go back to laying blame at the feet of the viewers who actively seek out and support slanted "reporting."
Remember when Scarborough was a Republican congressman? lol.
Remember when Scarborough was a proud, respected man? A Republican Congressman? Remember when he joined MSNBC as the moderate/conservative voice? Remember when he was married, with a family? Remember when he divorced to marry his co-host? Remember when he changed sides in the debates, became a liberal, attacking Republicans? Remember when he started believing and repeating the lies? Remember when Scarborough was a proud, respected man? Yeah, but that was a long time ago.
Remember when his healthy young intern had her brain bashed in on his desk in his office?
And there was large amounts of cocaine involved as well.....
Joe has had a pretty rough time being Joe after dodging all those charges hasn't he ? Makes you wonder if someone(or some agency) is pulling his strings now doesn't it ?
He doesn't even remember any of that himself.
A question - perhaps you know:
-- Other than Fox News -- has ANY of the mainstream "elite" media published Matt's challenge to JimS?
-- Any of the coopted/corrupted "independent" media a la The Intercept, TYT's Cenk or Ana, Democracy Now -- any?
Many thanks to all in advance (and with link please).
PS: I love the "suckage visible from space" -- propose for Nobel prize in literature
I remember the image, but can’t say when it was.
So despite all of the years (and changes noted), he hasn't really changed much.
It's akin to directing outrage ad the puppets Punch and Judy for reading their lines.
Joe may be one of the puppets as well. How else do you skate away from an office full of cocaine and a dead intern ?
I’m sure he knew Ted Kennedy well from his Senate days-got pointers from him!
It is also very futile to engage any of MSNB viewers. They just tune you out, put the fingers in their ears and go la-la-la-la-la. They cannot stand their bubble burst. They can't handle any cognitive dissonance. They can't handle any truth.
I'd pay a fair amount of cold, hard cash to see Matt Taibbi or Aaron Mate debate Joe Scarborough. Is that ever gonna happen? Of course not! Smug, ill-informed, overpaid clods like old Joe would rather have their teeth pulled out with pliers.
Joe Rogan should invite both of them on his podcast for the debate-it would get way more eyeballs/ear holes than Morning Joe!
I'd pay for Spotify for that show!
Me too. Death Cage match on pay-per-view. Tag team with Scarborough and Adam Schiff taking on Taibbi and a second of his choice. May as well get the source of many of the stories - Schiff - on the card.
OMG. Schiff makes me positively queasy. But yeah - watching the two of them being pummeled into the carpet would be pretty darn great. :)
Pfff Joe Scarborough would never invite anyone on his stupid show because A: He's just a television personality and B: He's an ignoramus.
He's like a younger Wolfe Blitzer. A talentless hack.
Fuck these douchebags.
I believe management and staffers at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, et al, rationalize their ineptitude and duplicity as follows:
Yes, we intentionally misled our audiences with lies and fake news with our reporting on the _________________________ story (insert Russiagate or any other Trump era fake news scandal), however, Trump was such a threat to our democracy and Western Civilization that we had to use all means necessary, including creating and/or perpetuating false narratives, to keep Trump from being reelected.
Curiously, MSM reporting of false narratives has not slowed down or stopped since Trump left office, which proves the adage once you start telling lies it's very hard to stop!
Yep, and it's easy to delude oneself into believing that none of the crazy stuff you were yelling about happened BECAUSE you were so vigilant.
You're kidding, right? Contradictory viewpoints must not be heard. Dissenting voices must be eliminated. That is the raison d'être of the old media and the national intelligence apparatus (but I repeat myself).
When I read this thread from time to time, I see a few glaring errors from posters.
One of which happens to be confusing Democratic Party Leaders with being left, liberal in the general sense or having much connection to the masses of people who've taken on the progressive identity. These leaders put on this identity like it is a costume, but in no way is it reflected in their most important policy initiatives.
Do you think here in this space, we could agree to quit calling the Bidens, the Obamas and the Clintons of the world leftist liberals? It is inaccurate and contributes to division.
I say this because in almost every category one can evaluate a President (distinguishing it from political candidate), they are uniquely Neoliberal. This means that they support the war machine, defense department policies. They are led by their scrotums to nominate Goldman Sachs executives into the White House as their Treasury advisors, and have been responsible for:
1. Creating Shitty Neoliberal Policies (NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, ZIRP, Drones Warfare)
2. Substituting Shitty Neoliberal Policies (Affordable Care Act, Prison Pipeline, WS Bailouts)
3. Ignoring Popular Progressives & Labor Initiatives (M4A, Min Wage $15, Free College)
The number of wars, their financial allies, their vacuous pandering at election time, their disgust for the average working person, their absence during and contributions to our worst national events home and abroad would lead me not to think of these people as left or even right, but attached to the billionaire class in discernible ways, which makes party affiliation as we, the people, tend to use it errant--- it is more of a mask they put on when they need to belong and one they quickly take off when they get to where they are going.
Neoliberals are known for having one foot in the culture when it suits, and one foot attached to power making our labels inaccurate --- and destined for the pleabs to argue over.
Biden, Obama, the Clintons are NOT leftists --- once you get a net worth near $50 million, your political affiliation goes from the traditional pick a side 50/50 Left or Right theatre to the gaming both sides 100 (whichever party does what I want) side where they win whomever wins.
Thank you for reading.
The really insidious part of the neoliberals being passed off as liberal, and even worse, left, is that they become the leftward limit of acceptable US political discourse. This is the inside the Beltway two step; the Dems exclude from the left and the Repubs then calling the Dem insiders leftist/socialists, the real target for them both being the already weakened US left, which if it's headed by Sanders and even worse, that complete fake AOC, is already toothless.
There are a few things we can thank Trump for, but to me his drawing out just how far right the Dems have moved, especially as it pertains to US foreign policy and their jingoistic militarism, is most noticeable. While it's true they did at times attack Trump from the left, mostly along performative lines, they always seemed more heartfelt when coming at him from the right, especially as it pertained to Russia or anything relating to military affairs.
Nice response Michael. I wrote that not to pick at some of the more conservative members or the left-right theatre in the posting area here, but more of a support of Matt's thesis that we have to start getting accurate information to people because "getting it right more than not" is really an indifferent and damning indictment of the media and the public too for consuming it.
There is a theory, if people are interested in it, called Transtheoretical theory, often used with people who have addictions (like so many in our society) and their therapists. This theory structures change in 5 stages of individual development (I think it would be great to look at this at higher levels too family and community development etc..).
These 5 stages are:
Pre-contemplation:
an individual has no current plan to change their problematic behavior at all in the next 6 months. They are happy to be where they are. This begs the question. How does someone begin to know what it is they do not yet know? People in this stage often deny the existence of problematic behavior or place too much emphasis on the negatives that will result from trying.
Contemplation:
an individual recognizes their behavior is problematic and begin to actually wrestle with idea of (pros and cons) changing one's behavior. This stage is defined by taking something that was unconscious and bringing into thinking, talking about, and consideration. It is still passive --- and many who reach this stage are still unresolved about changing their addiction, behavior, or approach to a new behavior.
Preparation:
an individual moves from thoughts to action with a plan. A healthier life is visualized and targeted, so they start making space in their physical and relational environments for change. Individuals tend to exhibit a great deal of determination in this stage.
Action:
an individual targets the problematic behavior directly - moving beyond past behaviors to explore new ones. Repeat changed behavior enough to where it becomes a part of a solution to their old problematic behaviors.
Maintenance:
an individual or family actively work to prevent any relapse of the problematic behaviors or celebrate the new behaviors in such a way to honor the person's work in creating change.
**** Reminder here: the problematic behavior here is our inability to uncover the truth via mindless media consumption to the purposive distortion of events, especially those that divide us. ex. Clinton is a lib, or Obama is a lib etc.. let's get it correct.
In my experience as a therapist, Contemplation is almost always triggered by an emotionally significant event. The actual theory of Dunning-Kruger isn't that many people think they know more than they actually do, it's that those who most loudly boast of their knowledge are usually the most ignorant; those who most loudly boast of their abilities are usually the least capable.
Dunning-Kruger's work is absolute rubbish. These 'scientists' results have only been replicated once, and that was by loading random data. It is entertaining, though. For them to move to Contemplation would require someone close to them being evicted from a prominent position on claims that their behavior is Dunning-Kruger. To move a sheep to Contemplation will require actual fascism, military invasion, or national bankruptcy.
Then, the sheep is only at Contemplation. It's like the unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence path. Most people get stuck at conscious competence and think they've arrived.
Interesting Bill. Agree with you contemplation is often a triggering event for the self to grapple with emotions of the past, outcomes that did not work out or random emotional waste mixed in with the current patterns of behavior.
And I like how you bring in the work of D-K here, as well as contextualized it as being less significant for people other than how it has been bastardized or reoriented and aimed at people's/demographic groups's differences. Well done. And your last sentence tops off a wonderful post by uncovering what is the hidden truth in this idea (a spectrum of changes need to occur).
In fact, if you'll allow me to build upon your post, I might even suggest that "movement" forward in these stages (with respect to how we consume information) or mobility is what we need versus the current stasis and lethargy of left-right slugging it out paradigms. I win You lose type stuff changes nothing but creates more rigid thinkers.
Rather, all of the stages working and meeting people where they are at:
1. Getting more people to self-examine (Pre-Contemplation)
2. Helping those who are thinking reduce obstacles (Contemplation)
3. Having a series of helpful supports as people commit (Preparation)
4. Watching and validating the changes accomplished (Action)
5. Keep re-examining and helping others to do so as well (Maintenance)
The more people moving through the various stages, even regressing or struggling with making a change is a positive piece since it is the very polar opposite of indifference and "getting right more than not" type of thinking.
Getting it right more than not --- wear masks (oopsy); tell that to the dead
Getting it right more than not --- $1400 is better than nothing
Getting it right more than not --- Parliamentarian said no; so no $15 MW
Getting it right more than not --- WMD's in Iraq; Bernanke on Housing 2006
Getting it right more than not --- Russiagate, Syria and Venezuela 2016-20
Getting it right more than not --- Sacklers & Purdue Pharma - Oh my bad.
Getting it right more than not --- Martin Shkreli - Pharma Bro Rate Hijacked
Getting it right more than not --- Iowa Caucuses DNC App Fail (PB wins?)
Getting it right more than not --- Donna Brazile's book on DNC Hacks
Getting it right more than not --- CARES Act - Prop up the stock markets
Getting it right more than not --- Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela (regime change)
Getting it right more than not --- Fill in the ______________________________
We need new behaviors folks. And for me that the end of television, beyond a few sporting events. Read more, think more, move to change old behaviors that do not work, and try to build a community around people who want the same things.
Cheers.
I largely agree with you, especially on points two through five. We diverge significantly on point one. People willing to put any resources into self-examination don't need to be encouraged. People unwilling to put any resources into self-examination, typically because they're already perfect. Dunning-Kruger.
Bill (triggered by an event) - edit :)
Nonsense. Some religous traditions practice it (daily) weekly
It sounds like it is time for Democrats to show up for the primaries and show every last neoliberal the door. Until then, it doesn't really matter about what anyone calls them because they will continue to be a stain on the legacy of the Democratic Party and these United States.
Nicely put!
A question -- perhaps you know:
-- Other than Fox News -- has ANY of the mainstream "elite" media published Matt's challenge to JimS?
-- Any of the coopted/corrupted "independent" media a la The Intercept, TYT's Cenk or Ana, Democracy Now -- any?
Many thanks to all in advance (and with link please).
PS: I love the "suckage visible from space" -- propose for Nobel prize in literature
Thank you for posting.
Not too bad
It seems a lot of people see the word liberal in neoliberal and misinterpret the meaning of neoliberal. You get this head-scratcher commentary from some attacking neoliberalism and supporting the Republican party.
Perhaps, as with the word progressive, its meaning is being changed to suit the culture war players of the moment? I'm afraid your thoughtful comment will fall on deaf ears.
Philip Mirowski (academic at Notre Dame) writes about the meaning of the origins of Neoliberalism - in his book with Dieter Plewe called the Road to Mount Pelerin.
He has a few lectures as well on Youtube one could find easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I (Life & Debt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBB4POvcH18 (Neoliberalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsiT9P87J4g (How NL survived)
He often cites a German colleague named Thomas Briebricher who describes the different variants of Neoliberalism as well. Anyhow these meanings have not changed in 30 years --- it is a difficult topic (Neoliberalism) precisely because the different movements across Europe and the US made a conscious decisions not identify as Neoliberals publicly or any configuration often pointing their diversity of thought - many of the original thinkers deny this label - neoliberalism. Nonetheless, they contributed to its dominance in hidden ways to the lay public.
And when you learn about the history of who they are why behave the way they do, you'll understand why no one actually claims to be a Neoliberal (it is much easier because of the policies to hide in the recesses of the two parties, pretending).
So I’m coming at this from a left-libertarian perspective (LTV, free-market in the classical sense as a means to trade goods, “corporate” organization as worker cooperative or self employed, property rights to be held in common or if privately owned require occupancy and use as a requisite), but I don’t understand how he is counting Hayek into the neo-liberal world, or how he thinks that somehow any of this invalidates the LTV and the critiques of Marx.
The LTV in equation form as stated by Marx is just ridiculous - valueless things don’t just magically have value because someone produced them. They have value because it’s a good that requires some marginal disutility to obtain and because someone wants it. Even if you agree with the marginalists (like me) and think value is subjective, you can still work backward and say the value that someone is willing to pay just determines the value of the labor once you subtract the cost of capital, and that the LTV still holds. We have all heard the arguments about making mud pies and what not... I don’t really see why everyone spends so much time arguing about value theories and how those concepts are mutually exclusive; it’s largely a waste of time. Profits above cost of capital and labor are exploitation because the capitalist is getting something for nothing; this doesn’t require one to believe in strict LTV as Marx stated it and throw away marginalist claims of value. The right claims it’s not exploitation because they think you should get rewarded for the “risk” of investment. It’s simply a different definition of what profit is and I don’t think neo-liberal assumptions about markets as information or something lie that changes these basic definitions.
Also, on Hayek being the start neo-liberalism, I have never been able to find any concrete evidence of this. Of all of the Hayek I have read, he seems to be honestly lassiez-faire with a new, almost post-modern style analysis of why we need a free market. It seems the defining aspect of neo-liberals is pretending to be a classical liberal caring about enlightenment values then just tweaking the market to your own ends. Yes, hayek does conclude the market is a way of moving information, but the information of prices not all value in life. It’s more a statement that nobody can fully understand the market, so we need to let it work itself out instead of doing the central planning thing. I can see how this plays into neo-liberal agenda and though process and I do know he was a big influence on people like Reagan, but all of the neo-liberals have attempted to interfere with the market in ways that are certainly not lassiez-faire, so it’s hard to think that any of them actually really put much stock in his work. I suppose he is assuming they use the guise of being his follower as a cloak for what they are doing, the same as they lie about actually desiring a free market in the classical sense?
I’m no expert on Marx or Hayek; I’ve never read their works more than once and not all of them (they both have loaaads of material and have what I find to be off-putting writing styles), so I could be off base here... Just my thoughts from watching the videos, and my understanding from reading the primary two economists being discussed.
Is there something I’m missing here?
The Road to Mount Pelerin and Never Let a Serious Crisis go to Waste are the two books you want if you want to make connections between the original founders of the MPS (Mount Pelerin Society - writers of Neoliberalism's origins) of which F Hayek was an important founding member (often cross-pollinating his ideas on classic liberalism at LSE, U of Chicago, and Freiburg).
Hayek rejects Marx and the socialist point of view, that is why he is valuable to the US empire - as a social scientist and economist for "free market" capitalism, but then we actually get into the meat of both their ideas -- and its ironic that the capture of the US governmental apparatus (corporatism led by finance) originated from the MPS (with the help Hayek).
A key defining feature here is that he and his colleagues (eventually Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys) were looked upon as outsiders for much of the 20th century (weird to the profession --- cult like and often ridiculed by the mainstream successes of Keynesian economics and the Golden period of economic growth in the US 1947-1970 or there about.
Neoliberalism can be defined as a series of different theories used in conjunction to take over state power by using the purposeful rhetoric (Free markets, there is no alternative, supply side tactics to redistribute wealth), the power of the state, and corporations to seize back power for capital and away from the balance between capital-labor. This is a global phenomenon using the elite in the different world economies to work together to generate cheap labor and reduce wages.
Their strategies are:
Neoliberal Manual of how to extract wealth (home and abroad
1. Sell free markets on the front end (free market capitalism - fantasy)
2. Assess profitability or scout out new revenue streams (natural resources)
3. Align with business classes to deregulate markets (open up; change rules)
4. Align with political class to cut social supports (reduce public resources)
5. Align with industry stakeholders to privatize resources (Private Gains)
6. All losses that come from deregulation/privatization (Socialized Losses)
7. Protectionism (thin layer of free market rhetoric) (Oligopoly & Monopoly)
The central facet is that Neoliberals use every conduit to their advantage often infiltrating organizations and institutions to carry out their policies:
A. Thinktanks, NGOs
B. Large regulatory bodies or World Banks (IMF)
C. Chamber of commerce, National Association of Manufacturing
D. Political Appointees, Ambassadors, College Presidents (Ivy League)
E. Media (Operation Mockingbird) - CIA plants editors into industry
F. Wall Street - Financialization, legislation, and preferred legal status
G. Federal Reserve Policy (Greenspan put) - inflation boogyman
H. Scientists, Universities, Administrators - pay to play (rainmakers)
I. Physicians, Pharma and Patents
J. Gutting of Federal Regulators (S&L, Rating agencies, Anti-Trust abuses)
K. Key Legislation (GLB 1999, CFTC Act, ACA, CARES Act)
**** Each little piece won the group grows the base of support and more of the followers go get MBA's at Harvard or Uni of Chicago and go to NY to make their way, susceptible to being an agent for neoliberalism. And by 1990s to 2004, almost all of the levers of power were taken over by corporate hands. This allowed them to make huge changes to compensation, take huge risks in the market place and profit off of the transition to a global capitalist system (with few rules, and a militant bent to protect monopolies).
Marx is helpful to us Americans, not because of his theory for what to do next (i.e. socialism), but more so for having the singularly greatest critique of capitalism that has ever been done. There are no utopia "free market" rebranded tropes to repair capitalism here, but just the hard plain facts that capitalism eats itself -- when you factor in that all of the levers of power have succumb to corporations.
I agree with you that Marx has a spectacular critique of capitalism, and that the value is in the critique not in the solution. I do not agree with his solution or with most socialists that markets themselves are the problem. I do not believe the tool of markets requires capitalism, or that communism should be the end goal. With all of the intellectual hazard that comes with quoting dead anarchists, I will reference Proudhon on this one “Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak.”
In the spirit of this comment on properly defining terms, I will stop rambling and take your answer on neoliberalism and Hayek’s part in it. Thanks for the great response; I’ve got a book or 2 to read.
Except that we have a long history of socialism in this US, mostly hidden from view; socialism for the wealthy and corporations, and capitalism for everyone else (TBTF 2009 Bailouts, Estate Tax Sunset Provision, Failure to prosecute Bankers/Banks responsible).
And we also have an example of FDR putting government to work for people (legislation, social security, and a whole of host of infrastructure and public good programs), which could be described as social spending. In fact, they were so wildly popular that the business class tried to have FDR killed and have spent the last 70 years after his death trying to unwind what his administrations accomplished for the people.
So, your beliefs of how things should be --- need to be informed with what works and the historical tendency for capital to erase the gains of labor.
Dave, in reading your last parts here --- you are throwing around too many things. It is a fun conversation though.
Back at it. Communism is not an experiment that would fly in this country. Plus, Marx gets unfairly blamed for the Russian & Chinese experiments. We would not blame Jesus Christ for the worst behaviors of violent Christians, so why would we blame Marx for the practitioners abroad --- which led to totalitarian regimes?
The reason this happens is because the US is a hyper-capitalist country and would rather dismantle Marx than give him credit. See Allen Dulles' work on the issue, especially Indonesia.
Back home here, even some of the most ardent socialists believe capital has a role to play in society (private industry).
The problem that exists now is not one of a teeter tottering over to communism; that is an impossibility. But at hand, the current issue is that Neoliberal capitals have captured all of the levers of power and corrupted it -- just like Marx predicted. The obvious solution is to rebuild/grow the public sector, unions, schools, and other institutions in the mould of non-neoliberal worker driven enterprises, but the TPTB are not going to let that happen. They have a monopoly on the economy/power hubs - so they make the rules just like Marx said -- its the death of democracy.
Cheers
Check this out -- came out today https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-would-be-44-per-hour-if-it-grew-at-wall-street-bonus-rate-2021-3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rURGjAjNQq4&t=1s
Matt Stoller on Useful Idiots - ("No such thing as free unregulated markets")
Why would MSNBC invite on someone who would shatter the carefully constructed narrative they've spend years fabricating?
That would be like Lincoln buying theater tickets for John Wilkes Booth.
Inviting Matt on the show would not contribute a single additional advertising dollar. And while there is a small chance that Joe could humiliate his guest, I suspect everyone at MSNBC recognize in their hearts of hearts none of them are intellectual giants exactly, and there is a not insignificant chance the humiliation would run the other way.
In short, there's nothing in it for them.
I have to believe that some of these people worked their way up the greasy pole on merit and brains. That they are not stupid, but cunning and deceptive. I HAVE to.
Otherwise, I have to realize 50% of the people are under the thrall of morons.
You're just realizing that now? As for Biden, I thought everyone understood what he is. There was actually a good reason for voting for Biden (and the organization or AI program that runs him): Trump looked like he was going to provoke civil war, whereas Biden will start foreign wars, and civil wars are closer to home and more destructive than foreign wars, at least in the US experience. I'm not saying this is definitively provable; team Biden might well turn out to be worse than we imagine, much worse, where Trump's incompetence somewhat neutralized his particular brand of evil.
But, yeah, morons led by morons; morons by choice. It's a style very much in fashion.
Well, if it walks like a duck . . .
A huge number of people are in thrall of morons because they stopped reading in the 1980s, and raised their progeny to imitate them. These people breed and vote.
Go get them, you magnificent son of a bitch.
A question -- perhaps you know:
-- Other than Fox News -- has ANY of the mainstream "elite" media published Matt's challenge to JimS?
-- Any of the coopted/corrupted "independent" media a la The Intercept, TYT's Cenk or Ana, Democracy Now -- any?
Many thanks to all in advance (and with link please).
PS: I love the "suckage visible from space" -- propose for Nobel prize in literature
What a terrible human being Joe is. Despicable cheating lying moron married to a brain dead twit. Pathetic.
I feel sorry for Joe. He's been a party man all his life, and there was no way for the Democrats to beat Trump, no matter who ran. The pandemic was a godsend. If they could put Trump on the defensive, they might win. Then Trump snuck into Minneapolis and murdered George Floyd, probably on his way back from China where he was spreading the virus. Now it became possible.
Every candidate was for M4A, meaning not one understood what that meant. Nobody could criticize Elizabeth "Running Drool" Warren, so the impact of her CFPB was never brought up. There were no debates, so nobody could skewer any of them. Then the party called on Biden, told him it would be one last one for the Gimper (stet). He'd only have to give a few speeches, everybody would drop out, and he'd be president. All his work would be done for him. Make $400,000 a year by working from home, max eight hours a week. But wait, there's more.
Hunter and Jim and the rest of the Family would be protected. And, he could retire after a few months with honors. Just sign here, no need to read it.
Joe Biden is a victim of elder abuse.
I just realized that the Joe you're describing is Scarborough. I'm too tired to copy the post, put it elsewhere, then delete this. It's past my bedtime.
Her father was a smart guy. Disagreed with him sometimes, but bright.
Genetics is a funny thing. Maybe IQ skipped a generation. When asked she said her favorite founding father was Abraham Lincoln.
Are you seriously talking about this guy, Dick Cheney's mentor? https://theantimedia.com/real-story-zbigniew-brzezinski/
Point me to where in there it said he was dumb. Otherwise completely irrelevant.
My point has nothing to do with his mental acumen. However, you did say you disagreed with him "sometimes" which implies that you agreed with him much more than I would have expected, considering his penchant for creating a polemic of discord and a subversion of any overtures toward peace.
Brzezinski had a hard-on for the Soviets. I agreed as far as Europe was concerned, and agreed when applied to Africa and South America. The evil empire polemics were much more valid when applied to Stalin than to Brezhnev, Khrushchev or Gorbachev. Yet, it's easy to forget that they were doing lots of naughty things in the third world that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The brushfire wars of the 60s, 70s and 80s would not have happened in the absence of the Soviets.
I broke with him on the arming of jihadists. Idiotic move. These people hated and hate us as much as they did the Soviets, if not more. The Soviets were more in their face at the time, but they were coming for us afterward.
Brzezinski was easy to understand if one considered where he came from. He was lucky to escape wartime Poland and had a visceral hatred of totalitarian governments. Kissinger also was easy to understand, considering his flight from the Nazis as a youth and his up close exposure to a concentration camp during his Army service.
I appreciated both of their frankness about their views and their adherence to same through their careers.
I can remember believing the Cold War propaganda about Stalin, and I wouldn't say he wasn't ruthless but considering what he was up against there was plenty of reason to be vigilant. Not only Nazi Germany but Churchill was always trying to undercut him(although his spies were aware of Churchill's double dealing). https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-war-ii-operation-unthinkable-churchills-planned-invasion-of-the-soviet-union-july-1945/5451842
There was no Marshal Plan for the Soviets( as promised at Yalta) despite the Russians taking the brunt of the Axis attacks prior to the allied landing in Normandy. Stalin had good reason to feel betrayed when FDR died and Truman took over handing all foreign policy issues to the Dulles brothers( see David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard). Allen Dulles hired a bunch of unrepentant Nazis to propagate his anti-communist front which was backed by the same powerful faction that that plotted the 1933 coup against FDR and exposed by Smedley Butler.https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Navigation/Community/Arcadia-and-THP-Blog/September-2018/Smedley-Butler-and-the-1930s-Plot-to-Overthrow-the
Although Brzezinski was President Carter's NSA advisor I have little doubt that he was chosen by the CFR( Council on Foreign Relations) because he had no foreign policy experience, thus giving the CFR virtual control over foreign policy.
As with Brzezinski, I have only loathing for Kissinger who ruined countless lives. Not all fascists harangue, some of the most insidious are smooth talkers.
I knew Zbig back at Columbia. He was a jerk then. For all the people around Jim’s’ sake I hope he changed.
I'd like to share some entries from the Newspeak Dictionary, 12th Edition: "Media screw-ups" means shabby government propaganda efforts which failed. "Useful Idiots on Russia's payroll" means, courageous critics of power who are well worth the top Substack subscription fee. And "misinformation/disinformation" means attempts to get at the truth and expose power's crimes & misdeeds.
No question that JoSco intended the swipe at Matt...
The funniest part is that the colossal prick thinks he was punching down the whole time.
Matt and Glenn.
Not included? Hannity, Carlson and Bartiromo, who were accurately reporting on TONS of the fake Trump-Russia collusion story (via sources) WAY early on, and putting the pieces together. Because they're employed by Fox, so none of Scarborough's viewers would even think of hearing them out.
It's the otherwise left-leaning really and for true journalists who betrayed the party by telling the truth who get singled out.
I don't know how you have the patience and energy to deal with the 'Fun Police' types. But it is great reading. You're the only 'Karen' I enjoy seeing these days...
I actually have to wonder whether TFP is more than one person, given his output.
The other day, he typed a giant wall of text, I responded to the first thing he said, then my husband was like, "it's late, come to bed," and I told TFP I'd get to the rest of his comment (which I hadn't even read yet) in the morning.
I wake up, and I am now the topic of a circle jerk between TFP and another commenter about how I'm obviously avoiding responding because I have no response.
Responding to everything he says in his scattershot walls of text is next to impossible for anyone with adult responsibilities. Meanwhile, he bitches and moans if you don't link sources, even when you provide specific enough details to make a google search quick and easy.
The guy is almost as annoying as my teenage son who, after a year of NEET finally got a part time job and now acts like his free time is valuable or some shit.
The part that's crazy is that, in theory, this guy pays to do this. Signs up to MT's substack and pretends it's Facebook. I deleted my FB account and got kicked off of Twitter, and then I come here and see the Fun Police and his types doing their thing. Unreal.
You're a name player, but even a small fish like myself catches flak. I was called an NSA agent by someone recently, and insulted with smarmy nonsense. Luckily I've been working as a teacher in the violent inner city neighborhood and I suggested some anatomical impossibilities to my interlocutor. Good times here on Substack KS. You should write here now that I'm thinking about it... I'd subscribe.
"Marvelous" Matt Taibbi vs. Joe "Blow" Scarborough. TKO at he weigh-in if you ask me.
The Bad Orange Man tormenting the living crap out if this fool and his wife was priceless entertainment.
Rather see you on Rachel Maddow since Maddow desperately needs to be subjected to a soul crushing "have you no sense of decency?" style calling out live on the air, given her betrayal of her journalistic integrity spreading the Russiagate lies like she did.
Or Colbert; by God, I'd pay good money for SOMEONE to destroy Colbert on live TV and make it so we never have to see that shitstain on TV ever again.
You don't like smarmy weasels?
Colbert is a modern day Glorious Godfrey, spewing the anti-life equation while engaging in some of the most blatantly homophobic behavior not seen by mainstream media since Rush Limbaugh made fun of AIDS victims on his radio. But since Colbert a courtesan of the DNC, he gets a pass on being an anti-gay bigot and spewing lies like crazy on his late night show.
He was called out for it, albeit gently
nice Fourth World reference
He tries too hard.
You have options, change the channel. Use your remote if you can find it in your ass.
This is great stuff, Matt. The fact that there are so few of you doing this work--and that you've been totally sidelined by MSNBC et al--confirms how vital it is.