30 Comments
founding
Apr 6, 2023·edited Apr 7, 2023Liked by Bill Astore

The Realities that America needs to face ~ and that Americans need to confront, acknowledge, accept, and either act upon or simply meekly accept ~ are:

That the American Empire has entered the “Decline” phase that all empires eventually reach on their way to the “Fall” phase.

That as that Decline unravels into Fall, America is transitioning from being merely a Flailing Nation-State to a Failing Nation-State.

That as that transition from Flailer to Failure unfolds, America’s system of government and governance is becoming increasingly authoritarian enroute to eventually totalitarian as the Ruling Political Class seeks to shield itself from the effects of the Decline and Fall of their empire.

Expand full comment
founding

[Revised] Another Reality that Americans need to confront and either do something about or simply meekly accept is the fact that their government ~ and its politicians, bureaucrats, and anointed appointees ~ LIES to them about virtually everything.

Especially when it comes to getting into new wars [Hot and Cold], having so-called financial “¢rise$,” and anything else that ultimately leads to the increase in political, economic, social, and cultural power and its attendant wealth by that government’s owners and operators, America’s Ruling Political Class.

And it, of course, is very ably aided and dutifully abetted in marketing and selling those Lies as Mis-, Dis-, and/or Mal-Information to the American People [and the World] by America’s Media, main stream, blogosphere, and/or social.

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2023Liked by Bill Astore

The general problem is that so much of government is about, 1) more power to the government, and 2) more money to the special interest supporters of the government. I would say a lot of opposition to green energy items stems from this viewpoint of government actions. Of course the promoters of green new deal type stuff (like Chomsky) won't see it that way. They will explain that the political opposition (the Republicans) want to see the earth doomed. In the same way the promoters of the military state will accuse the opposition of wanting to see Putin win. It's the same dynamic.

Expand full comment
founding

That isn’t “the general problem,” Alex. That is the Specific Problem.

Specifically: That America has a system of government and governance in which Vested Special Interests [individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions] have access to this government’s legal power, bureaucratic authority, and especially its spending capability so as to advance the agendas of those VSIs.

And that access is gained by successfully playing America’s $ 1 = 1 Vote system of buying and selling the elected politicians who direct where that power, authority, and capability is to be used ~ and by whom ~ to advance the highest bidders’ agendas.

Expand full comment

Well as Churchill once said, Democracy is a lousy system of government, but it's still better than all the others. I would add the US Constitution was envisioned to distribute power among various governmental groups competing with each other. Unfortunately even that system has fallen to special interests. It just took a while.

Expand full comment
founding

Special Interests wrote that Constitution, Alex. And the only reason it was ratified was because the agendas of those Special Interests was written into that Constitution, specifically and particularly those agendas of the slave owners of the south.

All that has changed since then are the identities, agendas, and locations of those Special Interests.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Obviously, Dennis, you need to be more special in your interests.

Expand full comment
founding

Heh. Well, Dennis, look at it this way: That provides You with the perfect opportunity to spend less time internetting, which You declared a day or so ago was "going to kill You."

i have never had anything to do with Facebook or any other social media rag, so maybe You can tell me: What has been lost by anybody but You by the fact that all Your "contributions to their videos disappeared"?

And i don't know for a fact, but my strongest hunch is that if You look around at other social media platforms, i'm sure You can find a rag or two where Your "contributions" will be most heartily welcomed, "liked," and so forth.

And if and when You do find a Dennis-friendly, "pro-Putin, anti-American" echo chamber news silo/platform, what good will it do anybody but You? It certainly won't do the people of Ukraine or Russia any good.

And finally: It is not the government that is censoring You on YouTube; it is YouTube. Big, BIG difference.

Expand full comment
deletedApr 7, 2023·edited Apr 7, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
founding

i'm curious, Alex: What did Churchill know about "democracy," product that he was of a monarchial Colonial Empire where democracy was in short supply? Especially out there among all them colonists out there in that Empire?

Expand full comment

He learned about democracy when he got defeated in an election. Like they all do. Ha.

Expand full comment

The reality?

This absurd war.

Expand full comment

"[E]ssential stories about climate change and Armageddon-enabling nuclear weapons are mostly ignored."

That's a stand-alone sentence. Doesn't matter what's going on in the news cycle.

This is a long read if you use the transcript, and a fairly long video, but Carter lays it out here in stark terms exactly where we are, in terms of climate change.

https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2023/04/06/peter-carter-theres-no-incentive-to-use-warfare-if-you-have-a-renewable-energized-planet/

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2023·edited Apr 6, 2023

Obviously we never did an environmental impact study before we started pressing Russia with NATO expansion or before we put sanctions on Russia. I wonder if they could sue. (sarc)

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2023·edited Apr 6, 2023

At its root the left's discussion of climate change is this: the earth is in real trouble and we're doomed unless you give us more power. That's it. And if we heed that call and give them more power then in 20 years they will have even more power and they will be singing the same tune about climate change. So why would I assent to that? Why would anyone assent to that who doesn't stand to gain more power?

Expand full comment
author

Alex, I couldn't care less about what the "left" wants here. The fact is that the climate is changing, oceans are rising, and the consumption of even more fossil fuels isn't helping.

The solution isn't to give "the left" more power. The solution is common sensical. For example:

1. Less consumption, more conservation.

2. More fuel efficient cars, trucks, buses, etc.

3. Investment in cleaner energy sources wherever possible.

4. Infrastructure prep for the inevitable effects of climate change.

5. Investment in clean water for all.

And so on. It isn't about pandering to the left. It's about preparing for a new reality that isn't going to go away just because we'd like it to.

Expand full comment

So far the climate change bills have been more tax credits so that California millionaires can buy electric vehicles on the cheap. And public funding of new companies that then kick back campaign donations to the politicians who passed the funding bills. Al Gore is a good example: having lost the 2000 election he decided to get even by becoming rich off of climate change. So now, apparently, his wealth is in the hundreds of millions. I'm sure he's working on an even billion and with enough government assistance I'm sure he'll get there. My tax dollars at work.

Expand full comment
author

I agree, Alex, that many of the so-called remedies for climate change do very little while enriching a fairly small number of people.

Expand full comment

It's always a good idea, whether w/r/t legislation, international relations and actions (like blowing up Nord Stream, of taking out some nation's leader) to ask , 'Cui bono?'.

It's also worth noting that the U.S. gives MASSIVE subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and its close allies; whose lobbyists / lobbies have successfully killed any interest in curtailing such subsidies. And I'm not speaking of just the direct subsidies (like oil depletion allowances), but also the indirect ones- i.e. the externalities like damaged air quality that is deemed in places like mine dangerous for asthmatics, the public costs for same; let alone for the buildup of atmospheric CO2 levels that are higher than at any time in recorded history - the highest in millions of years; or for methane, a greenhouse gas with ~80 times the warming power of CO2. All such costs and impacts are 'externalized'; so this represents an additional massive subsidy.

We might argue this point, but for good or bad, governments DO by nature have significant influence over the economy and decisions of people. The reason cigarettes were taxed so high was because it was learned (quite a time before government acted, in fact) that cigarette smoking was both very addictive and also very lethal for very many people. So taxes were imposed as a disincentive- and some of those additional revenues were supposed to go to public health education and other 'mitigation' efforts.

In my view, governments SHOULD support accurate information, and, where the 'free market'* fails to meet generally accepted public needs (protection of the environment / public commons, a system of laws and protection of basic rights, etc.), then it behooves our (theoretical) 'representatives' to act on our behalf. That's the basic notion of representative democracy ... admittedly, we're far from that.

(* In my observation, the 'free market' is a myth, given that government policies by nature (i.e. when and where to build roads and other public infrastructure, deploy emergency services, etc.), create public parks / open spaces, etc. already significantly shape the economy and society. ) *

So we'd hope that governments would, instead of creating policies that benefit special interests (i.e. private profits and financial benefits), would use their authority to address common public needs. In my book, a livable planet- and preferably, one with at least some semblance of the biodiversity I got to take for granted - is one such need.

Expand full comment

The oil depletion allowance allows expenditure for decay of a long term asset. In the same way that depreciation of a factory, for example, allows expenditure for decay of a long term asset. It's really nothing special. But I agree that "free market" is largely a myth, what with governments having such a heavy hand.

Expand full comment

Actually, neither oil nor other fossil fuels are treated the same as factories. The laws / reg's are full of accounting tricks. Some of this is explained here, if interested: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs#1 . As for any 'free market', at least as far as I can see, concentrated capital has always tended to tout it from one side of their mouth while actively undermining it on the other. The latter is accomplished, of course, by buying politicians and policy, as well as by active efforts to gain monopoly power and eliminate competition ... sometimes using that same political power.

But I should apologize, it wasn't my intent to go into a long tangent that might detract from the author's succinct points.

Expand full comment

Yes, they certainly make it complicated. Thanks for the link.

Expand full comment
founding

Heh. Well, if it makes You feel any better, Alex: A LOT more of Your tax dollars have been hard at work making a whole bunch of people a lot richer than Gore. i'm talking, of course, about all those folks who armed, equipped, supplied, and sustained America's Escapade Crusade into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, etc, and now Ukraine.

And pretty soon Your tax dollars will be getting even more opportunity for being just as busy enriching those who will arm...etc America's dance with China.

Expand full comment

Agreed. It seems that government is mostly about spending tax dollars to benefit certain groups, the MIC being foremost among them. Although I tend to fault our government uni-polar devotees more than I do the defense corporations.

Expand full comment
founding

Those uni-polar devotees are the grease that keeps that MIC profitably busy with something new always to do.

Expand full comment
founding

America’s Media likes to claim itself as the so-called “Fourth Branch” of the government, after the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches. The plain, simple, ugly fact of the matter is that the Fourth Branch of that government is the Federal Reserve System, and the Media is nothing but a bunch of errand and messenger boys and girls. Any who doubt this are invited to read the following. As Captain Willard put it in APOCALYPSE NOW, “The bullshit is so deep you need water wings just to stay afloat.” …:

US BANK BAILOUT BENEFITTED BILLIONAIRES, EXPOSING CORRUPTION by Ben Norton / Geopolitical Economy Report 041023

When current US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen served as chair of the Federal Reserve in 2017, she confidently predicted that there would not be another financial crisis “in our lifetimes”.

Less than six years later, in March 2023, three US banks collapsed in just one week.

Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were the second- and third-largest banks to go under in US history. And after they crashed, the government immediately bailed out their wealthy depositors.

Among the main beneficiaries of this bailout were billionaires and big corporations.

The government’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures US bank deposits up to $250,000 per customer.

More than 93% of Silicon Valley Bank’s deposits and 90% of Signature Bank’s deposits exceeded this FDIC-insured limit.

The average deposit at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was around $5 million.

The 10 largest accounts at SVB, together, held a staggering $13.3 billion.

Despite the fact that these billionaire accounts were thousands of times larger than the FDIC-insured limit, the US government paid all of the uninsured deposits.

The oligarchs and huge corporations who knowingly held billions of dollars of uninsured funds in the banks were not forced to take a haircut; they didn’t lose a cent.

Geopolitical Economy Report previously noted how the US Federal Reserve printed $300 billion in one week to stabilize the banking system. According to the Associated Press, $143 billion of that $300 billion was borrowed by FDIC-managed holding companies for SVB and Signature Bank and used to pay their uninsured depositors.

On March 28, a hearing organized by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs provided even more information about this scandal.

In written testimony for the hearing, the chairman of the FDIC, Martin Gruenberg, revealed:

“At SVB [Silicon Valley Bank], the depositors protected by the guarantee of uninsured depositors included not only small and mid-size business customers but also customers with very large account balances. The ten largest deposit accounts at SVB held $13.3 billion, in the aggregate.”

The FDIC estimates that the cost to the DIF [Deposit Insurance Fund] of resolving SVB to be $20 billion. The FDIC estimates the cost of resolving Signature Bank to be $2.5 billion. Of the estimated loss amounts, approximately 88 percent, or $18 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at SVB while approximately two-thirds, or $1.6 billion, is attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits at Signature Bank.

As journalist David Dayen noted, this means that more than $13 billion of the $18 billion (over 72%) that the US government paid to bail out uninsured Silicon Valley depositors went to these 10 huge billionaire accounts.

Continued at https://scheerpost.com/2023/04/10/us-bank-bailout-benefitted-billionaires-exposing-corruption-i-understand-why-americans-are-angry/

Expand full comment
founding

Anybody who has any doubts that America has begun its transition from a merely Flailing Nation-State to a Failing Nation-State needs only to consider the following fact:

That the leading candidates to be the next President of the United States are Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

All the more reason to seriously doubt whether the United States will survive long enough to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026, 1,184 days from today. Or if it does survive, that it will be in any condition or mood to celebrate anything.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Bill. Well said, and high in importance.

I have lived a fairly long time, and been fairly awake for most of it; but I've never seen the extent of 'narrative control' and perhaps even 'thought control' as I now see. And it appears to get worse with every passing day / year. Those whose motives are the further consolidation of both wealth and power use all the channels of 'information' to achieve those ends. Unfortunately, hardly a day goes by in which I don't see further evidence of their success.

People I know from the environmentalist side somehow fail to see the nexus between the seemingly limitless 'defense' spending and our nation's (and others') unwillingness to treat climate destabilization with the urgency and changes needed; and happily cheer-lead for more war-making to put down the demon(s) they are convinced by media to hate.

So please keep sharing your excellent, clear observations about such things.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
founding

Like i said earlier: Anybody who doubts that this nation is in serious trouble need only consider the fact that the leading candidates to be the next President of the United States are Donald Trump and Joe Biden. If that doesn't demonstrate that America is on a collision course with Reality, nothing will.

Expand full comment
author

How true.

Expand full comment