James O'Keefe is now at OMG News, having been booted from Project Veritas. In the following video, one of O'Keefe's people secretly records Serge Varlay, a Recruiter at BlackRock. Varlay sings like a canary. Listen to him describe who is in charge of the U.S. Government. Hint: It is not the voters or the elected officials.
Some might wonder how it is that so many of our purported leaders who lied us into waging war against Iraq aren't still universally disgraced and ejected from government jobs and public influence. But no, in fact, they were responsible for leading us into war in Ukraine. This list of neocons includes Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, and William Kristol.
Glenn Greenwald recently commented on the bizarre situation that all of these neocons not only remain in power and influential. Even worse, their warmongering views are embraced by modern day Democrats. What follows is the transcript of an excerpt from Glenn's System Update show, Episode 102:
One of the most extraordinary, alarming and baffling developments to witness in American politics is the complete rehabilitation of neoconservatives. Most Americans who know this term first learned of it in 2002 during the run-up to the American and British invasion of Iraq. The neocons were the most vocal and vehement advocates, not just of the invasion of Iraq, but more importantly, of the warmongering framework undergirding that attack, namely that the world is better off when the United States rules it, and especially the Middle East, through the application of superior military force, in essence, ordering all countries to do the bidding of the United States, always under the threat that failure to obey will result in attacks, invasions, bombings, regime change, coups and much more. This imperialistic and militaristic mindset was not exactly new.
This imperialistic and militaristic mindset was not exactly new. The U.S. fought wars, imposed tyrannies, and engineered coups all over the world, on every continent, during the Cold War and after but what distinguished neocons from standard warmongers and militarists were two qualities:
First, they have no other politics beyond their quest for endless war. Many neocons in fact began as liberals or even leftists and were willing to morph into anything they needed to be as long as doing so served the only issue they really cared about: placing the US in a state of endless war, almost always fought by other people's families and children rather than their own. Starting with the war in Iraq, a war they were craving and loudly demanding long before the 9/11 attacks – that attack became the pretext for the war in Iraq – they have supported every new and proposed American war since then. "Neocons" is a polite euphemism for "bloodthirsty, sociopathic warmongers."
Why isn't there a single solitary anti-war voice among Congressional Democrats? Not even among the supposedly far left wing of the Democrats, "The Squad." This is disgraceful. Meanwhile we have rampant drug addiction, homelessness, shitty schools and crumbling infrastructure that is ignored in American cities.
But now, $6.2B of found money will pour into the coffers of American military contractors and their lobbyists. We have an endless military budget to pay for 800 American military bases around the world and for endless war that has increased the risk of annihilating everyone we know in a nuclear holocaust. I'm not making that up. I'm referring to the October 7, 2022 statement by Joe Biden, who admitted that there is a "direct threat" of nuclear weapons being used in the Ukraine war. Biden further stated, "We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
All of this to unnecessarily take sides in a territorial dispute over the Donbass, to maintain our control over Ukraine, a country in which the U.S. deposed Viktor Yanukovych, the duly elected leader, in 2014, to install its own puppet leader. Current "foreign policy regarding Ukraine is a neocon wet dream and it offers absolutely no benefit for ordinary Americans.
As Robert Fulghum stated, "It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber." [More . . . ]
Glenn Greenwald dedicates most of this episode of System Update extolling the heroism and moral integrity of Daniel Ellsberg, who died yesterday of liver cancer.
[More . . . ]
New study by Bernstein, Zambrotta, Martin, & Micalizzi on political tribalism. Disturbing and not surprising to anyone who has eyes and ears. Title is: "Tribalism in American Politics: Are Partisans Guilty of Double-Standards?"
Here is the discussion section:
Across experiments, we found strong evidence for the existence of political tribalism and the application of double-standards. In Study 1, we found that tribalism occurs for the perceived legitimacy of hypothetical election outcomes. When asked whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden would be the legitimate president under three different scenarios, Republicans viewed Trump as more legitimate than Biden while Democrats viewed Biden as more legitimate than Trump. Similarly, in Study 2 Part 1, Republicans supported identical presidential policies and actions more under Donald Trump than Barack Obama while Democrats supported identical policies and actions more under Barack Obama than Donald Trump.
A noteworthy element this study is that each item was, in fact, true under both Presidents, which highlights the study’s real-world importance and is an important contribution over prior experiments. In Study 2 Part 2, we showed that Republicans viewed identical statements attributed to Bill Clinton as more bigoted than those attributed to Donald Trump while Democrats viewed the statements as more bigoted when attributed to Trump instead of Clinton. Further, Republicans viewed a statement advocating colorblindness to be generally not racist when attributed to either Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK) or Donald Trump (though racism scores were slightly higher in the latter condition); Democrats also viewed the statement as low in racism when attributed to MLK, but the racism score increased drastically when attributed to Trump. Taken together, these studies suggest that tribalism permeates many aspects of political life and discourse. Policy agreement differs according to the person enacting the policy. Perceptions of racism and xenophobia depend on the person who utters the statement. Alarmingly, even the perceived legitimacy of elections is dependent upon the winner; that is, people assign different standards for election legitimacy depending upon whether their preferred candidate wins or loses. Moreover, some of these effects are rarely seen in the social or cognitive sciences (e.g., Fs>250 when sample size <150), which suggests that tribalism plays a large role, at least in certain contexts.
Our main interest was in documenting if bias exists among each side of the political aisle. However, the study does invite us to ask which side exhibits greater tribal bias . . . To the degree that our results can help weigh in on this question, there was some indication that bias is higher among Democrats, which we call “left-leaning asymmetry”