Truth Social app to fail, but boost Trump presidential run - blog

Donald Trump's "Truth Social", a social network planned by the businessman seemingly just to replace the role of Twitter for him after he was kicked off the platform, is likely to fail. However, it could still boost him during a bid to be elected president again in 2024.

This is the view expressed at the relatively new blog Lordre, which took over a space used to display announcements relating to the small internet dissident group Mont Order until late last year.

Elaborating on this view, the blog asserts:

Truth Social will probably be a failure, especially if it is solely for political benefit and not as an actual social network with unique selling points and adequate moderation. If it is going to actually try to compete with Twitter and accommodate hard line conservatives kicked from Twitter, it will fail, but it could still have a positive effect on a hypothetical future Trump campaign. Whether that boosting effect on Trump's attempt to get re-elected will be decisive enough to return him to the White House remains to be seen.

What might boost Trump is the expected immediate censorship of his social network, with it likely to be denied a place on the Apple App Store. Large tech companies have been almost universal in their condemnation of Trump and his supporters, which will likely translate to them not giving his app any chance and forcing his supporters to log into the website instead.

Censorship of Trump would likely be ineffective and backfire in this case, as everyone would still be able to read the content easily and be more keen to see it (the Streisand Effect). The censorship would only boost Trump's case against Democrats and "Big Tech" suppression of his supporters.

The Lordre blog also expressed regret about supposed alternative social networks failing to offer much to users, especially focusing on Gab, saying "The best analogy is that if Twitter is a park, Gab is a lunatic asylum where the inmates are able to leave their cells and do whatever they want."

The blog dismissed Gab users as mostly being neo-Nazis, an extremely narrow and bizarre section of American society that promotes intimidation and undermines freedom of speech.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Trump foreign policy continues: Hugo Turner

US aggressive foreign policy has not abated, only realigning itself increasingly against China, argues Hugo Turner, author of the Anti-Imperialist U blog.

What we see is a consistent pattern that, even if associated by many with Donald Trump, already existed and continues in the present day. Turner sums this up:

there is a realignment of priorities going on behind the scenes China is increasingly becoming the main imperial target. The Cold war with Russia continues. The war on left wing governments in latin America has continued fairly consistently from Bush II to Obama to Trump to Biden. Currently the US seems focused on meddling in Africa fermenting coups and civil wars. 

There is a "consistent imperial strategy that continues regardless of who is President although some presidents may aggressively escalate attacks on certain countries".

This evident reality makes a mockery of the views of those who saw Donald Trump as everything wrong with America. Much of what he represents pre-dated him and is now embodied by current president, Joe Biden.

Another topic addressed was the softer treatment Biden received by US news media. It may be that this is the only reason why so many impressionable American liberals believed Trump was really so exceptionally bad, despite policy being almost exactly the same as the new administration they adore.

The blogger gave these comments as part of a short email-based Q and A. The email-based Q and A forms part of a series replacing what would normally be an audio discussion of the online Mont Order group for the year 2021. The full series is available in a printout at Academia.edu, titled Mont Order November 2021 Conference Text.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

If Twitter is loyal to the US, other countries should block it

Has Twitter started to act like a leading propaganda agency of the US state after the Democrats assumed power this year? We can speculate that it is going to support deadly US foreign policy objectives while also shielding the regime at home from criticism.

Views critical of the regime may be hidden, while many label them as treasonous. Parrots who praise the regime mindlessly might be bizarrely boosted on the social network, even while being mocked on the street (this could be proven by identifying a list of such users and analysing the way they talk about their IRL experiences).

As of today, Twitter still maintains its permanent ban on the current top US opposition figure, Donald Trump. At the same time, the social network is alleged to support the opposition figure and NATO stooge in Russia, Alexei Navalny, who begged for US and EU sanctions against his own country in a letter (imagine if Trump had written to Moscow for a package of sanctions on America in response to his election defeat!)

Medvedev slams Twitterhttps://t.co/Y8S5BcezzO

— RT (@RT_com) February 1, 2021

One way that Twitter obviously filters information is by shadowbanning popular accounts so users cannot find them, and by recommending headlines from the North American regime's preferred newspapers and broadcasters instead.

Twitter's shadowban on @RT_com and @CCTV expresses how much it wants the North American regime to get away with murdering civilians without anyone seeing it in the news. Twitter represses opposition in the US. Don't be surprised when it helps the regime commit murder abroad. pic.twitter.com/1SVOubBxqJ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) February 1, 2021

Twitter's excuses for banning Trump were related to preventing violence like the chaos at the US Capitol. Even if these excuses are valid, they resemble the same national security reasons given by governments (such as Uganda) when they block Twitter itself during sensitive political periods. Twitter's pompous managers are trying to use the same arguments for blocking information as far away as Africa, while condemning the actual government authorities in Africa for using these arguments or taking any action.

The government of #Uganda is responsible for blocking things Uganda. Here is your own statement with a few corrections to it. pic.twitter.com/va94nRo3Ss

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 12, 2021

In using such poor arguments and being so glaringly hypocritical, Twitter has essentially given carte blanche for all governments in the world to block its services completely if they want. Twitter's own statements prioritising political stability and preventing interference actually support arguments for the social network to be blocked by governments during sensitive times.

And so Twitter should be blocked more regularly around the world, if it is going to be an arm of America.

Twitter deletes opposition accounts in the US and boosts opposition in Russia. It is an anti-democracy propaganda cesspit and weapon of the US government. Every country in the world should feel free to block this stupid website.

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) February 1, 2021

In conclusion, we should be tolerant of any government choosing to block Twitter, as the website now heavily overrrepresents the views of a single state entity and its elite rather than a society.

When newly introduced, a technology will set many people free and let them punch above their weight. Perhaps when it reaches its maturity and the limits of its power, we then see excessively powerful monopolies (as we see now with social media). Around this time, there often are abuses and atrocities before states inevitably have to step in and restrict everything once again.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Russia dominates US social media users as US censorship is bungled

Obsessions with Russia interfering in an innocent America (Russiagate) failed to lead to "smoking gun" evidence of anything devious. However, as American social media and tech companies bungle their attempts to censor conservative politicians and users, they may have begun really surrendering ground to Russia.

It has been reported that Parler, a platform popular with American Republicans as an alternative to Democrat-siding Twitter, may now be reliant on servers located in Russia to evade US corporate censorship. As servers are key in deciding which government controls a social network's off-button, this means the social network could be under Russian dominance to a similar extent Twitter and Facebook are under US dominance.

This may be how it can backfire. Blocking or banning things aggressively means losing all influence over them once they come back or people find a way around the block. Russia didn't have influence in the US but now it really will, thanks to US censorship. https://t.co/pMLfDoGSDU

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 19, 2021

Going by the outcry of American commentators, this is an entire social network used by Americans that the United States has lost control of and Russia captured. Given the significance of social networks to modern politics, it is a bit like Russia taking a chunk of US territory for itself, only this chunk is online.

Alaska, formerly part of Russia, had a population under one million in 2020. At the same time, Parler had a number of users well over a million.

About 70 million Americans voted for the Republican incumbent President Donald Trump. By attempting to gag and deplatform all right wing pundits with little thought, Democrat-leaning social media companies are potentially forcing their millions-strong audiences to now enlist on a social network dependent on the territory of Russia. This could give Russia real influence and inroads into US conservative political messaging that the alleged Russian-orchestrated email hacks or leaks decried in 2016 and 2020 could not provide. You can thank the overconfidence and lack of foresight by US tech companies, overconfident in their power and eager to pull the plug on people.

Of course, we can say American conservatives are patriotic and will not use a social network if they learn of its servers being located in Russia. They do try, and would continue to do so if it is up to them, but in this scenario they have no choice. The suffocating and repressive environment being newly generated by Democrat-leaning providers is forcing them.

To sum up: hamfisted attempts to stamp out imaginary Russian influence by damaging the ability of Americans to use their own country's social networks can backfire. As these millions of voices flee, they may eventually find their way to Russia, and this can provide Russia with its first real influence in the homes of millions of Americans. This would be such a favorable result to Russia that it almost appears to be by design, with US social media bigwigs taking predictable measures of repression and serving as useful idiots to the benefit of Russia, a country that lagged behind the US in "soft power".

Of course, any company can be placed under US sanctions eventually or its website blocked by the US, but such an exchange of blows is still a net loss to America as it yields to Russia the right to launch a reciprocal crackdown on a US website. Russia has potentially won a big success as a result of the US's foolish censorship crusade, and it is something the US can't win back easily.

Read More »

Violence, instability to spread in the US - election result won’t matter

In 2016, the late leading US sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote of a problem of growing instability in the US: 

We are used to thinking of instability in states as being located primarily in the global South. It is about those regions that pundits and politicians in the global North speak of “failed states” in which there are “civil wars.”

The late sociologist noted the “golden era of U.S. dominance of the world-system began to come undone circa 1970 and has been unraveling ever since, and increasingly.”

On protests and the formation of anti-government forces in the US, Wallerstein’s commentary tells us:

The problem is that both the federal and local governments are unsure what to do. They “negotiate” for fear that asserting their authority will not be popular. But when the negotiations fail, the government finally uses its force. This more extreme version of action may soon spread. It is not a question of moving to the right but of moving towards more violent protest, towards a civil war.

All this time, the United States has been truly losing its authority in the rest of the world. It is indeed no longer hegemonic. The protestors and their candidates have been noting this but consider it reversible, which it is not. The United States is now considered a weak and unsure global partner.

It should be noted that this commentary from 2016 was authored before Donald Trump was elected as president. Even during Obama’s years in office, the US was in a steep decline, falling out of favor with its allies.

The US may not be faced with civil war as a result of some specific crisis following the election this year, as suggested by many. However, there should be no doubt that the social conditions leading political violence and disintegration are growing in the United States and unlikely to be affected by any election.

In an earlier commentary in 2015, Wallerstein had concluded that the prevailing policies of a state do not change even if radicals or outsiders are elected. Referencing seemingly disruptive election results in Europe, he stated, “in the end neither the geopolitics of the country nor the middle-run economic options of the country seems to have changed”.

This does not mean people should refrain from voting, but it does mean no-one should expect real change as a result of just casting a ballot. The same pig putting different-colored lipstick on doesn’t bring about fundamental change. – ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Do Iranians want regime-change in Iran?

The top 3 most ridiculous Iranian “opposition” groups (extra points for being funded by the US government)

With Iran’s apparently sinister regime supposedly on the verge of collapse every weekend for the last 41 years, you would think people would get bored and stop listening to compromised fake Western news sources.

Also having waited very impatiently for 41 years for the regime to fall, various “Iranians” who dislike the regime are offering their support for US President Donald Trump to bomb their beloved country on their behalf. In doing so, they know Trump would kill millions of Iranians and eradicate Persia’s priceless cultural sites in the process - but it is the price they are willing for other Iranians to pay. Staying on that topic, let’s take a look at the top three most ridiculous Iranian “opposition” groups, all of which either get money off the US government or want it desperately.

#3 “Restart”

The silliest of the three, this is a strange group led by some kind of comedian. More accurately, he is apparently a radio host who believes America will defeat Iran and install him as its new leader if he begs them and posts memes about it on Twitter. Really, he is probably just hoping the US government will believe his claims and donate a lot of taxpayer money for him to live off while he stays in America.

Opposed to the MKO and the Shah-supporters, but even more obsessed with asking America to bomb Iran and magically install him as the ruler of a new Iranian regime, the guy in charge of “Restart” is only active on Twitter. He spreads a lot of spam there and appears to have no real support, but uses a number of memes about Donald Trump and the hashtags #MIGA and #MakeIranGreatAgain to pretend he has the support of Trump. He seems to have successfully duped a number of conservative Americans at least online, who don’t know the difference between him and the other two groups. He claims to have 20 million members in his “opposition” group but you can only find a few on Twitter, and their accounts are fake.

#2 Shah supporters

Unemployed US resident Reza Pahlavi (some dunce who thinks he is the king of Iran) has supporters who think he can become the puppet dictator of Iran, restoring the failed US-backed regime overthrown in 1979. If that is his goal, he seems to believe he can do it by appearing in interviews in US military propaganda, rambling about the “democracy” he doesn’t want in Iran and praising the US government’s idiotic policies and missteps in the Middle East. Although almost non-existent among Iranian expatriates, his “opposition” group is possibly bigger than #3.

If we consider the fact the original Shah was a US puppet, it is highly likely this wannabe puppet is also paid by the US government and kept as a future dictator if the US tries to forcibly change the Iranian regime. His appearances in news sources compromised by the US government seem to strengthen that possibility.

#1 MKO

Largest of the three, this one might confuse you if you are a US anti-Iran conservative. A Marxist group who originally opposed the Shah of Iran before joining Saddam Hussein’s regime in the Iran-Iraq War, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization is considered a terrorist group in Iran and hated by the population. They were even also blacklisted as a terrorist group by the US government until recently.

Its bizarre ideology mixing communism and Islam and its history of violence have not been noticed by anti-communist US crusaders, who somehow support this group as the rightful rulers of Iran if the regime falls. Led from Europe by Maryam Rajavi, the now pro-West sycophant group is cheered by neocon drone-enthusiasts who call for America to attack Iran to install its power-hungry members as Iran’s new regime. While this may be what they actively call for, it is likely that the group really just wants dole from the US government like the other two. Despite that, the organization has killed Iranian scientists and other civilians on US orders in recent years and helped the US’s policies to immiserate and oppress Iranians.

Trump administration figures like John Bolton considered the MKO to be ideally placed to rule Iran, and promised them that the Iranian “regime” would be overthrown and the MKO would be celebrating with US conservatives in Tehran by 2019. Despite the MKO continuing to kill Iranian civilians, after 41 years it is no closer to the bloodthirsty regime-change it talks about.

What happens next?

In conclusion, it isn’t likely any of these dodgy and untrustworthy groups of exiles will ever be in power in Iran. At best, their support for US action against Iran will only fuel further US sanctions that will harm the welfare of Iranians over the coming decades or culminate in limited US bombing raids against Iranian nuclear reactors, causing a huge loss of civilian lives. In such a case, these ineffective groups will only be blamed for their support of the US actions and find it even harder to continue operating.

Finally, if the US does attack Iran and force one of these groups to form a puppet government, they will most likely die on arrival in Iran or end up on US taxpayer-funded life support machines while wishing they stayed in America.

Read More »

"Liberals" side with neocons against Russia?

The Blog

Writing at the C4SS website, Kevin Carson recently criticized pro-US imperialist sentiments of journalists alleging ties between presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin

After explaining that he is not backing Donald Trump (he actually encourages voters to pick Clinton) or Putin in any way, Carson makes an argument as follows.

Self-proclaimed liberals in the US suffer from unfounded "assumptions" shared with vicious conservative ideologues when it comes to the US's place in the world. Their belief seems to be that whenever the US uses violence, it is instantly justified, and whenever someone uses violence against US interests, they are committing some form of aggression.

Whatever Russian President Vladimir Putin may have done, Carson believes, the US regime was already committing unique acts of aggression against the world and deserves a greater portion of our criticism.

In fact, Putin's foreign policy actions (not to comment on his domestic politics, which are indeed right-wing and authoritarian as Carson describes) are simply adequate measures against US aggression:

As for Putin’s aggression, it takes a unique set of blinders to call his 2008 altercation with Georgia, or his recent intervention in eastern Ukraine and occupation of the Crimea as aggression, while portraying as purely “defensive” the eastward expansion of NATO and the installation of a right-populist (and arguably neo-Nazi) regime in the Ukraine that is every bit as authoritarian as Putin’s.

The aggressive behavior of Western journalists towards Russia and other apparent enemies of the West is especially criticized by Carson, who alludes to Noam Chomsky's analysis of media control.

Carson wrote, "cable news, the wire services and major newspapers of record are every bit as slavishly subservient to the foreign policies of the American state as are the official media organs of any totalitarian regime".

When reporting on international relations, most journalists work backwards from the assumption that their country's foreign policy is correct, no matter how conflicted or catastrophic it has been. This is especially evident in current Western coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Despite the West's lack of access to any effective contacts in Syria, it insists the government of Bashar al-Assad is responsible for all the violence and denies its own role in killing thousands of people.

Link: Putin-Trump Outrage Reveals Shared Imperialist Mindset

The clubof.info Blog

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Read More »

Opinion: NATO "ought to be disbanded"

The Blog

US presidential candidate Donald Trump thinks NATO membership costs should be paid by European states rather than the US. Sheldon Richman reminds readers that NATO serves US goals, not European goals, in the first place.

NATO is often taken as some kind of protector of Europe, with American soldiers acting as knights in shining armor who do nothing but make Europe safer. This myth captures the imaginations of some European puppets eager to please their masters in Washington, despite the fact the US troops are the targets of Russian nukes in the first place.

Commenting on the misconception at the center of Trump's views regarding NATO, Richman noted in a recent analysis published by the Center for a Stateless Society that "NATO is America’s tool. The member states don’t need it". Rather, Richman says, "America’s ruling elite does. That elite got rather upset in 1966 when French President Charles de Gaulle, resenting US overbearance, withdrew his country from NATO’s military structure".

Richman concludes NATO should be disbanded. "Of course, the US should not really pay NATO’s members. Rather, the alliance ought to be disbanded", he wrote, "It was never just a defensive alliance, and the defensive mask fell away entirely when the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union disbanded. Since that time it has been openly aggressive".

Obviously referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin's military preparations against NATO, Richman notes "any sober Russian leader" would be concerned by the constant aggression, despite it being sanitized in the media as the act of concerned democracies worried about human rights.

US presidential candidates have been unable to resist the fact that the US is in decline against Russia and China and have been constantly referencing the 'old days' when the US was not weak. Richman offers the view that "American strength" has killed enough babies and a weakness would be better.

Turkish regime's "collapse" possible: The BlogDespite the triumph of the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan o... https://t.co/YoB0JvFPOQ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 5, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

GOP elites pretend to oppose Trump?

The Blog

Some in the GOP elite like Mitt Romney seem more determined to see Donald Trump fail than to see Hillary Clinton fail in the presidential race. Apparent competitors to Trump are offered, but are they really what they seem?

One is David Evan McMullin, a longtime Republican now running for president against Trump even after Trump won the Republican nomination. The effort goes under the Romney-funded campaign slogan "Better for America" with the apparent aim to give voters a third alternative.

According to Thomas Knapp at the Garrison Center, "The conventional wisdom says that he’s there to keep Trump out of the White House — even at the cost of a Hillary Clinton presidency —  by giving anti-Trump Republican voters somewhere else to go."

However, Knapp sees Republicans in fact plotting to use Trump to win the White House, no matter how much they actually dislike the man. The goal is "to help Trump get elected, but with plausible deniability so that the GOP wins the White House without #NeverTrump leaders having to lose face" considering their earlier opposition to Trump.

In his commentary addressing this issue, Knapp concludes, "The most likely purpose of the McMullin campaign is to fragment the anti-Trump vote in New Mexico, Utah and perhaps other states, allowing Trump to win those states with smaller pluralities than he’d need in a race with fewer significant opponents — and to contain the threat of a third party breakout that might carry over into, and expand in, future elections."

While it is unlikely that third party candidates will be elected to the White House in the current polarized election, for a candidate like the Green Party's Jill Stein to win widespread support would certainly embolden American voters to consider third parties the next time they vote.

Two years of posts end at Beliefnet: Harry J. BenthamMy work for the L'Ordre blog held at Beliefnet is at its... https://t.co/McQmIkClJE

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 9, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

DNC only ever intended Clinton to rule

The Blog

Extreme bias guided the Democratic National Convention (DNC) involvement in the campaigns of opposing Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks-released emails indicate that the leadership of the Democratic Party had already decided who must rule the country well ahead of any kind of democratic choice made by the people.

While the DNC is supposed to be impartial, it had instead sided wholly with Clinton and sought to derail Sanders' campaign from the beginning (as reported at TheHill), showing constant frustration with Sanders and trying to portray his campaign in a negative light at every opportunity. With the national elite managing to defeat Sanders and ganging up on Donald Trump, the US presidential election has descended even further into farce.

Apparently, only the bare minimum appearance of a farcical election is enough for the US regime to declare itself the most vibrant and successful democracy in the world.

@hjbentham @beliefnet Yep, the #2016election is garbage. #Plutocracy is a crime! #NeverHillary #NeverTrump

— Bree (@0glemedia) July 6, 2016

The leaked emails are a substantial blow to the US regime's claims of being a "democracy", and even worse for the Democratic Party's claims of being democratic.

So offended are many of Sanders' supporters, that many have pledged to vote for Donald Trump in order to only bar the dangerous and bloodthirsty foreign policy hawk Clinton from power.

'NATO failed to overthrow Erdogan': The BlogSources have indicated the recent coup attempt in Turkey was the ... https://t.co/nQWqotKM9k

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 19, 2016

The Blog

Read More »

Clinton campaign nuked by WikiLeaks

The Blog

Despite much of the political left deciding to endorse Hillary Clinton amidst exaggerated campaign rhetoric against Donald Trump, WikiLeaks hasn't held back from striking out at Clinton.

In June, WikiLeaks editor and political prisoner Julian Assange promised "enough evidence to indict" Clinton, relating to her emails.

This has been followed by WikiLeaks releasing emails to and from Clinton related to the situation in Iraq. Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2003, as well as being in favor of other military interventions. She was the main criminal responsible for the disastrous NATO aggression in Libya, which plunged the country in chaos and murder and was later described by Obama as the worst mistake of his career.

During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton also was largely responsible for decisions to escalate the conflict in Syria by illegally smuggling weapons into the conflict zone. This, she wrote in an email, was necessary to help the Israeli regime maintain security during its policies of genocide, apartheid and expansion.

Clinton continues to favor direct US military strikes on Syrian government targets, despite them being protected by Russian military forces and being the main ground opponents of ISIS.

Ecuador threatened for Assange asylum: The BlogWhile the US seems intent on regime change to overthrow its cr... https://t.co/HLFa8d7A6f

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 1, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Islamic faith irrelevant to Omar Mateen

The Blog

Commenting on the work of investigators looking at the attack by US citizen Omar Mateen that took the lives of a high number of LGBT people in Orlando, Florida, Beliefnet's Hesham Hassaballa argued it was nothing to do with Islam.

Investigators currently believe even the connection between the gunman and the ISIS terrorist group was nothing more than posing for publicity at best. The shooter had his own reasons for committing his crime. With extremist ideology not an important motivation for Mateen, his Islamic faith was even more irrelevant.

Nevertheless, many other commentators in the media are convinced the attack is just additional evidence to claim all Muslims are terrorists in waiting. The rhetoric of politicians such as Donald Trump is therefore likely to take a boost in popularity, as a result of the shooting.

In conclusion, Hassaballa writes, "it is becoming increasingly clear that this crime had nothing to do with terrorism and ISIS. Omar Mateen fit the typical profile of a mass shooter, and this time, he happened to be Muslim."

Many critics of western media and legal responses to mass murder sprees focus on how Middle Eastern attackers are quickly judged to be religious terrorists even if they were mentally ill, whereas white attackers are only ever judged to be mentally ill or incorrectly medicated.

US neocons demand aggression on Syria: The BlogHigh-ranking neocons and other war criminals within the US reg... https://t.co/iQ23MUqrLS

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) June 21, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Game over! America can't be great again

The Blog

A return to the "golden era" promised by Donald Trump when he says he will "make America great again" is not historically possible. The world has changed, and it hasn't changed to America's advantage.

Furthermore, all Trump's opponents, including Hillary Clinton, are no different than him in longing for a return to America's past glory days. America's stature in the world, in the eyes of ally and enemy alike, has degenerated and cannot be recovered

Such facts are recently articulatated by global top social historian Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein's commentary appeared at his website on 1 June 2016, and argued the top social scientist's judgment again that America has already long lost its crown as a hegemonic superpower. As asserted in the commentary:

Life in the United States is not as good as it once was. Trump has used as his slogan “make America great again.” The “again” refers to the golden era. And Sanders also seems to refer to a previously golden era in which jobs were not exported to the global South. Even Clinton now seems to look back at something lost.

Looking at escalating gun violence in America (mainly confined to Black ghettos and ignored by the national media, insofar as middle class whites aren't the victims), Wallerstein speaks of a cycle of social instability in the US that will only increase in coming years. Such violence may reach non-Black areas of US society soon on a large scale, causing a vicious circle of insecurity that panics everyone and feeds back on itself, leading to increasing numbers of people leaving America and fewer migrants entering. It also feeds into another pattern of force, already inflamed to levels that made the US government tremble recently.

Wallerstein writes of a "very small band of deeply anti-state militias, who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom (CCF)".

Unsurprisingly, the regime considers such ranchers and militiamen to be a greater "threat" than foreign terrorists, although these alleged "domestic terrorists" largely seek only to reclaim the original Republic formed by George Washington. And the biggest way the regime acknowledges the magnitude and prestige of this threat is by negotiating with them, rather than simply killing them as it does with other enemies.

Although the regime has in fact used force against homegrown militias if "negotiations fail", it has set itself on a grave path by doing so. Alluding to various standoffs between militias and the government, Wallerstein believes, "This more extreme version of action may soon spread. It is not a question of moving to the right but of moving towards more violent protest, towards a civil war".

With the paranoid regime ignoring increasing gun crime expanding beyond ghettos and threatening to inflame community tensions, together with anti-Federal militias taking matters into their own hands to restore order, the country's future as a failed state seems frighteningly certain.

It is not that left-wing sociologist Wallerstein means to endorse right-leaning militia forces like the CCF by ideology, but that he sees them playing an essential historic role in the demise of the US regime and ending its global oppression starting at home. Of that demise, Wallerstein promises we can "make the world a better place for everyone... only if we stop longing to go back to a golden era, which was not so golden for most of the world."

UK war hero declares war on schoolgirl: The BlogBritish "Colonel" Richard Kemp, who portrayed himself as a wa... https://t.co/Ty28PhaiFI

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) June 3, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

US regime "corporate rule" to continue

The Blog

With the final contest for the seat of United States President likely to be fought out between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the outcome will only be more continuous "corporate rule" by a hideous regime driven by endless greed.

This is the picture drawn by Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) writer Kevin Carson. Immanuel Wallerstein holds a similar position on electoral politics, viewing it as unavailing as any means of transforming the world-system.

Other political writers similarly diagnose the US "democratic" political system to be fake, much as its press freedom is a fraud and any meaningful criticisms of the regime's barbarism and war crimes are continuously redacted from newspaper and television by government cronies. The revolving door between all US corporations, "NGOs" and government departments makes them essentially fronts for the regime in Washington.

As concluded by Carson at the end of a clever analysis authored on 28 May:

...on all the issues most fundamental to keeping us from having [human-friendly economy of small-scale]  — the transportation subsidies, “intellectual property,” the global Empire and permanent warfare state — the two parties are almost indistinguishable. I don’t know — one party may give us a form of corporate rule that’s somewhat more bearable than the other. But either way it will be corporate rule, without a doubt.

Predicting none other than a continuation of endless war and the subsidizing of greedy corporations by the US regime no matter who wins the White House, Carson states of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, "American politics isn’t divided between a Party of Working People and a Party of Big Business. It’s always been divided between two Parties of Business that serve two somewhat different but overlapping segments of the capitalist class."

Evil, stupid US #neocon @Jeff_Jacoby wrote Obama should "celebrate" US atomic bombings https://t.co/w8BGN9YCsx pic.twitter.com/DCTZpdDWAF

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) May 25, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

GOP's stupid "third party" backup plan

The Blog

Authored on May 14, a short analysis at the Garrison Center responds to the US Republican Party elite's last-ditch effort to escape Donald Trump's triumph over them by funding a new independent candidate.

The short article questions, ostensibly from the GOP's point of view, whether such a move would suit their goals. "The draft effort’s reputed short list includes Ohio governor John Kasich and US Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE)", the piece notes.

Such a plan is a "very bad idea" if the Republicans want any chance of winning the actual election, author Thomas Knapp states. To put it shortly, "Two well-funded, ably promoted Republican candidates on the same ballots means a Democratic win". GOP elites, meanwhile, are so concerned with their own infighting that they may be unable to focus on actually winning the White House. They are worried to see Trump "displacing them in their role as Pied Pipers", Knapp writes.

Another possible reason for a Republican "third party" backup plan stated by Knapp might be to avoid real third parties such as the Libertarians or constitutionalists experiencing a boom in membership, in the wake of alienation of GOP supporters caused by Trump.

In conclusion, the post points out how artificial such a third candidate would be if the GOP elite chooses to back him as an alternative to Trump, and "A fake third party campaign won’t save the GOP".

US-Pakistan military deals unreliable: The BlogIn an analysis at the Pakistan-based Voice of East magazine, o... https://t.co/SoWzTxmArB

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) May 13, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Is the politics of job creation mistaken?

The Blog

Rejecting both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump's promises of returning jobs to America's shores, writer Jason Farrell argued at The Radical Relay in March the globalization and automation causing jobs to disappear are too powerful to stop.

Saying both of these politicians are advocating a populist view that is unfortunately "terrible, backward, and misinformed", Farrell wrote they seem to believe America can rewind itself to 1955 with "millions of unskilled laborers with profitable production jobs".

It isn't that the goal of trying to restore purpose and work to those millions who are without either in the United States is bad, however. It is simply that present developments in economics and technology are making the goal far harder to achieve than these politicians will admit. As Farrell writes:

You can’t magically make unskilled labor “worth more” by mandating a $15 wage or pressuring companies to return their labor force to the U.S. Even if those jobs came back, they’d be automated within a few years to save costs and maintain productivity. 

Bernie fans, it’s important that you understand that companies aren’t evil for doing this. To survive in a globalized marketplace they have to compete with companies from around the world with lower labor costs. Everyone has to adjust. 

Trump fans, it’s important you understand that China is not evil for using those jobs to lift their population out of unfathomable poverty. As China’s own productivity and standard of living improve, many of those jobs will likely to be turned over to automation as well.

Unemployment is a crisis separate from economic growth and competition, and an attempt to repair it by mandating higher wages and trying to cut off relations with other productive economies such as China would potentially "plunge us back into a recession and boomerang back against the people you’re trying to help".

In sum, campaign rhetoric aimed at unemployed or low-paid workers contains not a solution to America's economic woes.

Not all is gloomy, however. Farrell also writes that, with the progress towards automation and competition at a truly global level, the right path would be to implement "creative ways to make education and job training more affordable".

Veterans' political views aren't special: The BlogDiscussing the undue favor shown to veterans in US politica... https://t.co/z8Sdrd5uJJ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) April 29, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Hillary Clinton's four paths to defeat

The Blog

Mont Order brother and Garrison Center director Thomas L. Knapp recently plotted out four paths for defeat for Hillary Clinton, highlighting how unstable her prospects are as a US presidential candidate.

Whether Hillary Clinton falls prey to illness or her shady criminal dealings with the Saudi regime and major arms dealers, there are a number of ways her rival Bernie Sanders could pass her to claim the Democratic Party nomination.

Knapp explains these four possible Hillary Clinton defeats in the following commentary at the Garrison Center website:

Path #1: (HEALTH PROBLEMS) "Clinton’s health fails"- "multiple public fainting spells since 2005" - "cerebral venous thrombosis, a life-threatening blood clot condition" - "hypothyroidism"

Path #2: (SERVERGATE) "Clinton is indicted in, or otherwise dragged down over, the “Servergate” affair, in which she appears to have illegally mishandled classified information while Secretary of State."

Path #3: (CORRUPTION) "Clinton comes to big legal or political grief over apparent connections between large donations to her family’s foundation on one hand and her actions as Secretary of State on the other. For example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation and Boeing donated $900,000. Later, Secretary Clinton cleared a $29 billion arms deal involving the two parties...

Path #4: (LEAKED SPEECHES) "The texts of Clinton’s Wall Street speeches, for which she received millions of dollars in honoraria, are leaked"... "Everything comes to light sooner or later. If it’s sooner — that is, before July —  we may find out how just how damaging"...

Hillary Clinton's supporters tend to ignore her history of lying and all her vices, to believe she is the default candidate to keep the much-loathed Republican (almost-certain) nominee Donald Trump out of power. A sense of inevitability plagues their narrow vision of what may happen, unaware of all that may go wrong with Clinton's faltering campaign.

'Choose @BernieSanders over "dishonest" #HillaryClinton': @RepPress https://t.co/AH4R4pmFgF pic.twitter.com/WHNBlq2UeX

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) April 24, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

'Anti-Trumpism' over the top: academic

The Blog

Writing in a commentary at the start of April, left wing historical social scientist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote that the rhetoric against US presidential candidate Donald Trump is highly exaggerated, and Trump would not be a "catastrophe" if elected.

Donald Trump is primarily no threat to liberals or the Democratic Party, but to entrenched GOP elites, who are highly distressed by him not committing to their agenda (in fact, Wallerstein believes Trump has no ideological agenda at all, and that's why he is loathed so much). The expected GOP candidates have been cast aside by Trump in the presidential nomination race, losing all hope in their party's support base as it rallies around this loose cannon.

Dismissing any theory about Trump as a menace to human rights, women and other issues of grave concern to liberal commentators, Wallerstein's April 1st analysis, "Anti-Trumpism", points out that Trump seems to retract many statements he makes on controversial subjects. What this means, Wallerstein says, is that Trump actually doesn't care whatsoever about conservative issues such as religion, abortion or immigration. He has no particular agenda at all, although he does appeal to the Republican support base's favorite slogans and ideas with the goal to win.

Extract from the Wallerstein commentary relating to Trump foreign policy:

Look at all the hints he has thrown out about his actual agenda. He does not intend to send troops on the ground anywhere. He does not intend to support so-called free trade treaties. He does not intend to revoke the diplomatic opening to Cuba or the agreement with Iran. He is for a bi-state solution in Israel/Palestine. He will not change Social Security. He... is open to increasing taxes on the truly wealthy.

So while many in the Republican leadership have reasons to fear Trump's wrath if he is triumphant, a Trump Presidency should be of no concern to the political left and possibly even favorable to left wing forces such as the anti-war movement.

US isolated by its own savage aggression: The BlogResponding to the idea that US libertarians are "isolationis... https://t.co/auTLJB6TQY

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) April 8, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

What if US elections actually worked?

The Blog

In a recent short post, Garrison Center director Thomas Knapp suggests a way of revising US presidential elections so the outcome would be more satisfactory to voters.

Available at the Garrison Center and Medium, the post tempts readers with a better alternative to "one person, one vote" by asking:

What if you could vote for ALL the candidates you like, instead of just one, secure in the knowledge that your vote(s) would not be “wasted” on a loser, or “spoil” the chances of one of your preferred candidates, resulting in election of the “greater evil?”

That better alternative is Approval Voting, in which, "You vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. All the votes are counted. The candidate with the most votes wins. Yes, it’s really that simple." A US voter might, for example, be able to use three votes - one for your favorite independent who deserves a chance to win but is unlikely, the second for the best candidate in the party of your choosing, and a third for the candidate most likely to win in the party of your choosing.

Knapp justifies this kind of revision on the basis that most Americans end up voting for the lesser evil rather than the candidate their heart is really with. In the present US election race, many voters are likely to vote (e.g. for Hillary Clinton) more for a desire to keep Donald Trump out of power than because Clinton deserves power.

The widespread public view of Clinton is deeply negative due to her poor role as Secretary of State and track record of lying to to the public, but even she seems harmless compared to Trump in terms of her public statements. A sizable number of Americans polled have indicated that they may leave the United States if the divisive and bigoted Donald Trump is elected to power.

#Cameron is a fail during #PMQs and #Corbyn is being more direct: @MrTopple https://t.co/KasBINbVSd pic.twitter.com/mKcKUhv0Ev

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) March 16, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

'Libertarian President' vs the burqa?

The Blog

US Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson withdrew his statements that he would ban the burqa. He earlier justified his argument by saying this type of Islam-associated attire exists to cover up injuries to support violence against women.

According to Johnson, his comments were a "kneejerk response" given to Reason. However, he also gave the same response to two other publications, Politico and the New Mexico Journal. Given his consistency on the position earlier, his dishonesty is clear and there can be little doubt about his Islamophobia.

Antistatist writer Thomas L. Knapp commented on Johnson's dishonesty in a recent blog post, remarking "He wanted to dog whistle to Donald Trump's supporters." Knapp added that Johnson "thought that libertarians (and Libertarians) either wouldn't notice or wouldn't care", alluding to the obvious clash between banning the burqa and the US Constitution as well as libertarian values, establishing that freedom of religion and conscience must not be violated by the state.

Petition: Google must end its censorship

The right-wing publication Daily Beast held an op-ed by Andrew Kirell, concurring that "For 24 hours, the leading Libertarian Party presidential candidate seemed like he was to the right of Donald Trump when it comes to Muslims". Trump himself has sparked significant controversy by saying he wants to ban Muslims completely from migrating to the United States.

Catalyst: A Techno-Liberation Thesis (book)

Banning items of attire associated with Islam in the West, including the hijab and also the burqa (which are often confused by many Westerners who do not know the difference) is a common demand used by known racist organizations and political movements in the US and Europe.

Read our popular op-ed, "#Superpower suppresses #technology" from @hjbentham in 2014. http://t.co/CkwK5E2Nt7 pic.twitter.com/UBDTgsJ3mh

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) September 30, 2015

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »