Strategic Culture Foundation
31 October 2017
Another
year has passed with no one from a Wall Street bank going to jail for
the criminal behavior everyone knows helped cause the financial crisis.
Fines against Wall Street banks are reaching $100 billion, but all will
be paid by stockholders. Bank CEOs and managers pay no fines and face no
prison.
There
has been no reform — zilch, nada — of the credit-rating agencies. They
are right back rating securities from issuers who pay them for their
ratings.
If
you still can’t trust the credit-rating on a bond, and if Wall Street’s
bigs still stand immune from the law even after the 2008 crash they had
played a huge role to cause, then in what way can the US Government
itself be called a ‘democracy’?
Kaufman
tries to get the American public interested in overcoming the US
Government’s profound top-level corruption, but few US politicians join
with him on that, because only few American voters understand that a
corrupt government (especially one that’s corrupt at the very top)
cannot even possibly be a democratic government.
However,
America’s aristocracy are even more corrupt than Wall Street itself is,
and they control Wall Street, behind the scenes. And their ‘news’media
are under strict control to portray America as being still a democratic
country that somehow lives up to its anti-aristocratic and
anti-imperialistic Founders’ intentions and Constitution. Maybe all that
remains of those Founders’ intentions today is that Britain’s
aristocracy no longer rules America — but America’s aristocracy now
does, instead. And, this isn’t much, if any, of an improvement.
Although
the US aristocracy — America’s billionaires and centi-millionaires —
are the principals, and Wall Street are only their financial
representatives (rather than the aristocracy itself), Wall Street was blamed by liberals for the 2008 economic crash; and, of course, Wall
Street did do lots of dirty work deceiving outside investors and many
home buyers and others in order to extract from the public (including
those much smaller investors) the hundreds of billions of dollars
that the US aristocracy and its big-finance agents drew in pay and
bonuses and other ways, from these economic extractions. But the
aristocrats themselves emerged unscathed, even in their reputations, and
were mainly financially enriched by the scams, which had been set-up by
Wall Street in order to enrich the investment-insiders (the aristocrats
themselves) at the expense of investment-outsiders, and of the
public-at-large. Conservatives blamed the Government for the crash (as
if the Government didn’t represent only the aristocracy, but
instead represented the American public). However, liberals blamed Wall
Street (the financial agents of America’s aristocracy). And, nobody blamed the aristocracy itself.
America’s
entire political system, the liberal and the conservative politicians
and press, thus hid, from the public, the role that the principals, the
aristocrats themselves, had played, demanding these crimes from and by
their agents. In other words: the top people who had caused the 2008
crash, didn’t only — and all of them did — avoid prison entirely, but
the worst that some of them suffered, was only that the financial firms
that some of them had headed, became hit by wrist-slap fines, and that some
of their lower-level employees who had actually executed or carried out
the scams are being prosecuted and might someday be fined or even sent
to prison. But neither the aristocrats nor their financial agents
who run Wall Street were punished, either by the law, nor by their
personal reputations. They still are treated in their ‘news’media as
sages and ‘philanthropists’, instead of as the nation’s most-successful
organized gangsters.
US
President Barack Obama himself protected the top Wall Street people,
but, because he was a liberal — i.e., a conservative who is hypocritical
enough to damn conservatism in public; or, in other words, a
conservative who misrepresents what he is — he publicly condemned, in
vague terms, “the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis”, even while he had his Administration prosecute none of them,
and even while he assured Wall Street’s top people privately “I’m
protecting you.” Obama had told the Wall Street bigs, near the start of
his regime, on 27 March 2009, in private, inside the White House: “My
administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m
not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you. … I’m going to shield
you.” And that’s what he did. To him, the public were just
“pitchforks,” like the KKK bigots who had chased Blacks with pitchforks
and lynched them during the early 20th Century were. The heads of Wall
Street firms that were being bailed-out by US taxpayers were persecuted
victims of the public, in that US President’s eyes. To them, the public
are merely a mob.
And, on 20 September 2016, Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America’s Future, headlined “Banks Used Low Wages, Job Insecurity To Force Employees To Commit Fraud”;
so, there was no way that the employees could keep their jobs except to
do the crimes that they were being virtually forced by their bosses to
do. The criminality was actually at the very top — even above where
Obama had promised “I’m protecting you,” which was directed instead only
to the Wall Street bigs, and not to the billionaires they served. And
even those people mainly weren’t billionaires at all; they were mainly
just top financial agents for the billionaires, grasping to join the
aristocracy. Obama, like they, represented the billionaires, though as a
politician; and, so, he talked publicly against some of these agents,
basically against Republican ones, in order to keep the votes of
Democrats — he just kept suckering the liberals, the Democratic Party of
the US aristocracy’s voters.
The
aristocracy’s ‘news’media present the storyline that the billionaires
and centi-millionaires were merely among the many victims of the scams
that had produced the 2008 crash; but there is a problem with that
storyline: the Government bailed-out those giant investors, because
those were overwhelmingly the investors in “Strategically Important Financial Institutions” — not in medium and small-sized ones, not in merely community banks, but in the giant banks and insurers.
These
mega-investors were the controlling interests in America’s
international corporations. They consequently controlled US Government
politics and political fundraising.
Cheated investors, and illegally foreclosed home-owners, were nominally protected in the laws, but even
the federal Government’s own studies of actual results showed that
almost all of these people, the real direct victims, were simply being
ignored — even while Wall Street and its mega-investors got bailed-out
by taxpayers.
The
entire system, both private and public, was thus controlled by the
aristocracy; and, so, even now a decade after the crash, the responsible
aristocrats remain at the very top, both financially and in terms of
prestige, and the statutes-of-limitations on possible prosecutions of
decisions they had made which had actually produced the crash, have
expired, so that these individuals can’t be prosecuted, not even if an
honest person were elected to the White House and were to become
supported by an honest Congress. “Equal Justice Under Law” — this
certainly isn’t that, nor anything close to it. In fact, America has the
world’s highest percentage of its population in prison of any country,
but aristocrats never end up there unless the aristocrat is a
drug-kingpin, and even those are rarely prosecuted, even though their
underlings are. And, how can such a nation as this, be called a “democracy”? But it’s not only a dictatorship; it is an imperial one: Obama himself said many times, such as on 28 May 2014, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” which means that every other nation
was “dispensable” to him; and, any foreign aristocracy — and any
democracy (if such any longer exists) — will therefore be either a
vassal-nation, or else “the enemy,” and thus be destroyed, at the sole
discretion of America’s (and its allied) aristocracies.
For
example, to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was “the enemy” and Iraq was
“dispensable” (to use Obama’s term); and, to Obama, Muammar
Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych, were “enemies,” and
those nations also were “dispensable.” During earlier eras, Mohammed
Mosaddegh, and Jacobo Arbenz, and Salvador Allende, were “enemies,”
whose governments were, in their own times, “dispensable,” and so the US
aristocracy replaced them by US-Government-selected tyrants. (Assad,
however, was able to stay in power, not only because he had the support
of the majority of Syrians, but because Russia decided to protect
Syria’s national sovereignty — to make its firm stand, there, not allow
that ally, too, to fall by means of an American invasion, as Ukraine had
fallen by means of an American coup in 2014.) Trump seems to think that
Iran and North Korea are especially “dispensable” (again, using Obama’s
term).
Trump
came to power promising opposition against the US aristocracy; but,
instead, he’s on the attack against Obama’s least-bad policies, while
trying to out-do Obama’s worst policies (such as by his cancelling the
Iran deal, and by his trying to destroy Obamacare and the Paris Climate
Agreement). If Obama turned out to be a Democratic George W. Bush, then
perhaps Trump will turn out to be a Republican Barack Obama, and this
will be the ‘bipartisanship’ that US voters say they want. But the polls don’t show that America’s electorate actually want
the type of ‘bipartisanship’ that the US aristocracy are delivering,
via the nonstop neoconservatism of Bush, and then of Obama, and then
(perhaps too) of Trump. The aristocracy are neoconservative (or
“imperialistic,” to employ the Continental term for it); and, though the
public don’t even know what that means, bipartisan neoconservatism
always bring on yet more invasions and wars, which lower the welfare of
the public, even while the welfare of the aristocrats goes up from it.
The public just don’t know this.
A
good example, recently, of how the US aristocracy deceive the US
public, to accept such a barbaric Government (a neoconservative regime)
is the uniform neoconservatism of both the Democratic and the Republican
Parties, and of their respective ‘news’media, this uniform
neoconservatism that’s being reflected by the almost simultaneous
publication in the Establishment’s own Foreign Affairs (from the Council on Foreign Relations), and from the British Guardian that’s
now controlled by George Soros and US and-affiliated international
corporations, and also from the US military-industrial complex’s
bipartisan neoconservative propaganda-organ The Atlantic, and also from the neoconservative Vox online ‘news’-site.
In all of these ‘news’media, almost on the very same day, are being
published articles by, and interviews of, Ms. Emma Sky, a thoroughly
undistinguished and undistinguishable neoconservative “intellectual”
(CFR, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Officer of the British Empire, etc.), who,
with no demonstrated outstanding abilities, but only with the hypocrisy
and callousness that aristocrats tend to seek out in those whom they
select to execute their dirty-work, graduated from an elite college and
then (without needing to obtain any higher academic or other degree, and
with no record of personal achievement at anything) went virtually
straight into advising governments and serving as the US invading and occupying General David Petraeus’s (the US torture-meister’s) right-hand political advisor in Iraq, with the title of “Governorate Co-ordinator of Kirkuk for the Coalition Provisional Authority, 2003-2004”, and, then, ultimately, as “advisor to the Commanding General of US Forces in Iraq from 2007-2010,” before becoming
widely published in the US empire’s various ‘news’media, with not only
these hypocritical articles from her that were linked-to at those four
publications, but also books, all of them being standard discreet
neoconservative fare, ‘compassionately’ gung-ho on the US empire, and
especially rabid against Iran, because Iranians in 1953 had voted for
Mohammed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, who promptly passed a land-reform
act, and nationalized the UK aristocracy’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company,
after which the US CIA engineered a coup overthrowing him, grabbing
Iran’s oil, and establishing in Iran the Pahlevi Shah’s brutal
dictatorship with torture-chambers, which dictatorship Ms. Sky evidently
wants restored in some form to Iran, perhaps as punishment to the
Iranian people, for having stood up against the American invaders and
occupiers, in 1953. Such people are PR agents, not really journalists or
historians — of anything. But, apparently, readers find their
misrepresentations to be tolerable; so, at least her propaganda isn’t
amateurish. If only readers would just ask themselves the type of
question that the victims of these invasions might likely ask, then the
true character of such writers would become horrendously and immediately
clear: “What right do you have to be invading and occupying our land?”
No
one can understand the reality on the basis of the West’s honored
‘historians’ and ‘journalists’, because they’re propagandists for the
imperial system, which used to be British but now is American. The
neoconservative New York TimesSunday Book Review section
published, on 12 July 2015, a review from the neoconservative
Christopher Dickey, the Foreign Editor of the neoconservative The Daily
Beast ‘news’-site, of the neoconservative Emma Sky’s book The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq.
He presented Iran as being America’s enemy-in-chief, and presented
especially “Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, the section
of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for covert and overt operations
in Lebanon, Syria and, above all, Iraq” as being America’s enemy; and he wrote that:
the
betrayal of the Sunnis by the Baghdad government the Americans left
behind has been crucial to recruiting by the self-proclaimed caliphate.
Many of those who had helped crush Al Qaeda in Iraq eight years ago
have concluded that no one except ISIS will protect them from
Suleimani’s fighters and flunkies.
To
counter Iran in Iraq and prevent the alienation that created ISIS would
have required a better ambassador than Hill and a more attentive State
Department than the one run by Hillary Clinton. It would have required,
perhaps, a thousand Emma Skys. But there was only one of those. And it
would have meant many more years of enormous involvement on the ground,
but the American people had no taste for that.
Even Hillary Clinton wasn’t enough of a neocon to suit him; but Emma Sky was.
Neoconservatives
support Israel, and support the Saud family who rule as absolute
dictators over — they own — Saudi Arabia. And, both Israel and the Saud
family have labelled Iran as an “existential threat” to themselves,
without ever providing any reasonable evidence to indicate it to be
that, neither against the Saud family nor against a non-apartheid Israel
(though some Iranian leaders have indeed damned the existing apartheid
Israel). The US aristocracy are in bed with both the Saud family and the
Israeli Government, to conquer Iran — yet again, to control it, like
during 1953-1979. The three aristocracies — the Sauds, America’s
aristocracy, and Israel’s aristocracy — are perpetrating a Long War
against not only Iran, which is the leading Shia-majority nation, but
also against Shia Muslims in all countries.
One cannot understand US foreign relations without, as I titled this matter in a previous article, “Understanding the Power-Contest Between Aristocracies”.
That article opened, “At the core of global power stands the conflict
between the Sauds and their Sunni clergy, versus the Iranians and their
Shiite clergy. One can’t understand US-Russian relations, nor much else
of what is happening in the world, without knowing the relevant
historical background; and the origins and nature of the Sunni war
against Shia are arguably the most essential part of that.”
This
is more important to the US aristocracy than is anything that concerns
the welfare of the American public. And, in order to understand why we
invaded Iraq in 2003, and Syria subsequently — not to mention invaded
Libya in 2011, which was run by the Sunni moderate, Muammar Gaddafi, who
wanted good relations with both Iran and Russia — one must understand
the US-Israeli-Saudi obsession to reconquer Iran, and to wage wars
against Shia everywhere. The US, and Western publics, are in the thrall
of these three aristocracies; and writers such as Emma Sky and
Christopher Dickey are propagandists for those masters. Only in this
light do their writings actually make sense — as propaganda. Why do
people pay good money to read or hear propaganda?
Comments
Post a Comment