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 »

US election period saw web traffic throttled

Traffic to this very blog was being choked, decreasing to about a quarter of its typical numbers of visitors, during the US regime's heavily criticized election.

Tech companies are inherently protective of the regime and its institutions, committed to every goal of the regime from police-order within the US to US victory in foreign wars. The heads of the companies are statists, seeking to augment the US state's power over citizens, the way some armed US militias are statists and want to augment law enforcement any way they can.

The election, which was won by the pro-censorship Democratic Party, was filled with calls for the suppression of points of view that differed from the heavily favored Democratic candidate using any means. Major US companies such as Twitter and Google evidently took part in suppressing criticism, using their dominance of search engines and online commentary to create favor towards the current president.

That even small blogs aimed at non-US readers, such as clubof.info, would be caught in the crossfire of pro-establishment censorship gives some insight into the tools used by Google to protect the institutions of the regime from criticism and doubt among US citizens.

Constant calls in the mainstream media for people to have faith in the regime's institutions and its elections, as well as official news networks, indicate fear at the widespread lack of trust in US officials. Despite being the result of the repeated lies of the regime with regard to every policy since at least the Iraq War of 2003, the regime seems to see this backlash and the access of its citizens to foreign media (even small blogs like this one in the UK) as a huge threat.

Walls are being put up, to stifle alternate points of view, and they are getting taller every day.

Note that some liberals and libertarians don't see the actions of private organizations as censorship, instead looking in dictionaries and only using the word "censorship" if the state can be proven to have done it (Wikipedia dissents from this view, and the fact church institutions rather than state institutions were among the biggest abusers of censorship historically also dissents from this view).

What is happening is almost state censorship. In the current censorship crusade, many of the involved individuals at Google and other companies such as Eric Schmidt are deeply involved in the state (including through actual contracts) and securing its interests, much like private military contractors (PMCs), even having visited Iraq to aid US war aims. Tech executives, like PMCs, are individuals tied to the state informally and using private means to achieve state censorship precisely to weasel out of being accused of state censorship, just as PMC outfits might be created to enable the state to get away with war crimes.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Is it okay not to vote?

The purpose of voting is to make your view heard. If your view is not represented because the candidates on offer are all rotten or you don’t believe them, you have no reason to vote. 

Some friend or family member will try to convince you that because your own interests aren’t represented by a party, you should instead cast your vote for their preferred party, at least because that’s nice to them. Don’t. Democracy works on the assumption everyone will vote based on their own self-interest, not someone else’s.

If you vote because of someone else’s plight, you are amplifying the votes of others and disregarding your own right not to vote, making it less likely your interests will ever be taken into account. If your interests are not represented, it makes sense not to vote whatsoever, as the election is fake as far as you are concerned. Abstaining denies oxygen to parties that don’t take your interests into account. It forces them to try harder and offer a real spectrum of choices next time.

More Americans vote for no-one than vote for any party platform, so you are not alone. This suggests the US is an ineffective democracy that struggles to define or represent the interests of its citizens. If we consider the narrow two-party system and legalized bribery of candidates and lawmakers (“lobbying”), the US government can’t even be defined as a republic.

Forced to consider two horrible parties, it is illogical to vote for those who don’t represent your views. And, in such circumstances, it is logical to vote for nothing. In fact, that in itself is very often the radical gesture the state is scared of.

If you were going to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, just imagine for a moment someone uncorking their bottle of champagne to celebrate having tricked you – with no real regard for you or your interests. That is effectively what you are allowing by voting that way.

Not voting sends a message to a rotten regime that its election is fake, and your interests are not represented by anyone taking part.

Yes, it’s okay not to vote. More than that, it is often the right thing to do. – ClubOfInfo

Read More »

US social media reassure Americans on the regime's dodgy election

Despite a long and sordid history of irregularities and accusations of fraud in US elections, US-based social media are desperately soothing the suspicions of Americans about their country's corrupt system.

This time, it's saying you don't trust mail-in ballots that will get Twitter all over you to hide your tweet behind content warnings and assure American voters there is nothing to worry about. The disturbing idea of "pre-bunks" has been introduced to auto-detect any suspicions about the election and flag them as false before anyone has even investigated the exact claim.

What Twitter doesn't understand is how this backfires:

(1) People who believe Donald Trump will only think this is more evidence he is being unfairly attacked by partisan media, as he claims.

(2) If any substantial fraud does actually take place by either side (which is already established to be at least possible according to politicians from both sides of the debate), Twitter will be hiding it from voters at least until they are corrected and forced to show the information. This could actually lead to legal consequences for them for defrauding the American people.

"Regime nice. Election very real. Must believe. Don't listen misinformation." - Twitter pic.twitter.com/APnAJyowix

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) October 27, 2020

Similar to previous censorship gaffes, Twitter's latest move will do nothing to ease the suspicions of Americans about their election. Desperately pleading with people to believe in the system, marking information as sensitive, and automatically stamping propaganda on content to assure people, is only going to increase distrust in the US electoral process (which is questionable in the first place).

The assumption of US elections being normally secure is very poorly founded, according to all experts. Based on concerns of US politicians themselves (both Republican and Democrat, including those who are most respected), there are almost limitless ways to interfere in the elections. They have no integrity whatsoever, and the efforts of third parties and media to try and achieve integrity look like yet more interference (a kind of counter-interference or destructive interference, effectively ruining the elections even more in an attempt to fix them). The clubof.info Blog believes this applies to Twitter's newest gaffe. - ClubOfInfo

Read More »

The case for voting for a third party

The purpose of voting is to make your view heard. It is not simply about voting for someone who then comes to power. Such a course of action is guaranteed to elect someone who doesn’t represent you, and it is better not to elect anyone at all than someone who doesn’t represent you.

There are many simpletons who fancy themselves as political campaigners, and they get a disproportionate say on social media (especially Twitter). Their message is often to vote for whoever will most likely win. Such sentiments can be dismissed as simple idiocy, but they are in fact more insidious. The vote-grubbing is an attempt to manipulate electors to vote for representatives who don’t represent them; a clear violation of democracy.

Having voted already by mail for the Libertarian Party’s candidate, Garrison Center director Thomas Knapp wrote, “So does it really matter whether I vote or not? Absent some earth-shaking development that I can neither predict nor bring about by force of will, more than nine of every 10 voters will choose “business as usual” by casting their ballots for Donald Trump or Joe Biden. They’ll vote against freedom and for an ever more authoritarian state. And yes, they’ll almost certainly win.”

If asked why voting for a candidate with no chance of success matters, Knapp will respond:

Because it matters to ME, that’s why. I have an opinion, voting is a way of expressing that opinion, and the vote total my preferred candidate gets, however small, will remain a matter of public record long after you’ve forgotten this column.

If one or two of a hundred voters choose freedom, they — WE — light a flame of hope in the deep dark night of fear and loathing that is 21st century American politics. A tiny, guttering flame, perhaps, but a flame I’d not want to see go out entirely.

Your vote is your voice. I won’t join my voice to the voices of the party of hate or the party of fear. Will you?

People whose views aren’t represented by either candidate should be actively encouraged to vote for a candidate who does represent them, even if there is no hope of such a candidate achieving office. If people are bullied into voting for one of two candidates, especially because this is patriotic or ideologically upstanding, it is no different than being forced or shamed into voting for a single dictator “candidate” and offered no alternative. – ClubOfInfo

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 »

Facebook, Twitter use censorship to protect Biden

Facebook and Twitter have made headlines by using censorship to back up US presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The decisions of Facebook and Twitter revolve around a suppressed New York Post story that won't be discussed here, for reasons of avoiding the wrath of the censors. One way or another, you're going to hear about it anyway - as a result of what's called the Streisand effect.

Censorship doesn't work, it just makes the people doing it look scared.

As stated by journalist Glenn Greenwald, the act of censorship to prop up Biden is a major historic event, far more significant than whatever story was being suppressed.

The NY Post story was a minor, largely redundant report even if the docs are real.

The extreme act of censorship by tech giants to suppress it, cheered on by journalists, is a major story of historic proportions.

They always had this undemocratic power; today they used it.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 14, 2020

Being the candidate of censorship is far worse than anything the suppressed New York Post story could possibly have contained. Facebook and Twitter should just have allowed the damage to be done, rather than going out of their own way to make Biden look bad by tagging him with censorship warnings.

When Americans vote in November, they should remember: picking Biden is less like picking a leader and more like picking to be gagged and blindfolded. It's a vote for a party that does not value freedom of speech, the free flow of information or transparency in any form and intends to close down all public discussion of anything.

Quick! Look away! Pretend you haven't read this! Vote for Biden before it's too late and you get convinced not to!

Read More »

Brain-damaged Hillary Clinton "forgets" the law

The Blog

Either for reasons of brain damage or because she is a liar, Hillary Clinton's memory is too poor for her to remember any rules on guarding sensitive government information.

Garrison Center director Thomas L. Knapp wrote about Clinton's "comedienne" excuse about why she couldn't protect secret data entrusted to her as Secretary of State.

During her time in the job, Clinton "ignored the briefings she received on handling and safeguarding of classified information, choosing to illegally use a private server for transmission and storage of that information instead of following the rules".

Knapp called Clinton's "I forgot" reaction the "Steve Martin defense", in reference to a 1979 standup album. Concluding on Clinton's excuses, Knapp asked readers if they are "a strong advertisement for Hillary Clinton’s credibility and qualifications as a candidate for president of the United States".

Clinton's poor health and possible brain disorder were earlier cited by Knapp as reasons she may have drop out of the presidential race or resign from office if elected.

Garrison Center site: Hillary Clinton, Servergate, and the Steve Martin Defense

US must 'surrender its sovereignty to the world': The BlogThe US talks of its responsibility to "lead the wor... https://t.co/PAvpReb9B0

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) September 6, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

US must 'surrender its sovereignty to the world'

The Blog

The US talks of its responsibility to "lead the world" but has failed to let the world vote in its elections.

Writing for Dissident Voice and the Mont Order society website, L'Ordre criticized the US for its keenness to rule over foreigners without asking their permission by conducting a vote.

The US calls its global dominance "democracy" but denies foreigners the right to take part in its political process. Americans will have to first "surrender" their sovereignty to the rest of the world if they want to justify ruling the world, the post argues.

Slamming US hypocrisy and "cavalier" behavior regarding democracy, sovereignty and national security, the L'Ordre article demanded:

On the basis of the arguments given here, a call goes out for the United States to allow foreigners, especially those impoverished people living in US-occupied countries like Afghanistan, to register to vote as US citizens in the US election. The next President should not just be chosen by Americans, but by the billions of people whose lives it tries to govern without a democratic mandate.

The article reflects the intended position of the Mont Order to criticize the US and other western democracies for their role in starting wars and suppressing the political rights and destinies of others. It also singles out the US for being more dangerous than the small dictators and warlords it endlessly accuses of abusing human rights.

Full analysis: Let Foreigners Vote in the US Election

Saudis accompany their ISIS allies in Yemen: The BlogThe Wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia is overtly aiding its... https://t.co/WeCR8aiAdU

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

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Whistleblowers chilled by DNC deaths

The Blog

WikiLeaks sources are "concerned" by the murder of a Democratic National Convention staffer who may have been the source of leaked emails from the DNC. 

The leaked emails had shown the Democratic presidential primaries to be a scam, as Hillary Clinton's win over Bernie Sanders was planned by the organizers.

Wikileaks editor Julian Assange made the comment in an interview with a Dutch television station prior to August 9 2016. When prompted to reveal whether the murdered man was a WikiLeaks source, Assange declined, but continued to reiterate that the staffer's death is of concern to WikiLeaks sources.

To date, Assange has not actually confirmed that the murdered DNC staffer was a WikiLeaks source. Opponents of Clinton's campaign, in contrast, have pointed to a growing number of other shady murders of critics, describing it as the "body count" of Clinton's campaign.

US propaganda mouthpiece The Washington Post responded that Assange's belief a DNC staffer might have anything to do with DNC emails is "a nonsensical conspiracy theory" promoted by "Russia".

Such claims only prove how damaging the truth is to the US political system, with Putin apparently using it to melt Washington DC without nukes. US leaders are allegedly mulling cyber-attacks and sanctions if "Russia" fires more truth and transparency at Washington. Meanwhile, there is no evidence Russia even did anything.

GOP elites pretend to oppose Trump?: The BlogSome in the GOP elite like Mitt Romney seem more determined to s... https://t.co/xEkQg7lPq5

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 12, 2016

The 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 »

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 »

Rep Press shames Clinton's dishonesty

The Blog

Amidst the heat of battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Representative Press urges Democratic voters to choose Sanders over the "dishonest" Clinton.

Appealing to Clinton supporters to change their minds before it is too late, and not vote for the vicious neoconservative Clinton, political conflict reporter Tom Murphy at the YouTube channel Representative Press commented as follows.

Showing a video of Clinton laughing off Sanders when he accuses her of supporting destructive wars such as the US aggression in Iraq and Libya, the playlist description reads as follows:

Hillary Clinton has a track record of a being dishonest, disrespectful and arrogant politician who accepts money from powerful interests like Wall Street and sells out the working class by voting against legislation that would help us.

She gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches for the rich and powerful and then she does the bidding of the rich and powerful.

Representative Press is best known for candidly discussing the real motive of the 9/11 attacks against the United States using YouTube and other services - US support for the Zionist Israeli regime.

Watch the new playlist at YouTube to see Representative Press coverage of Clinton's history of deceit.

#MontOrder February discussion featured @monyprice, @DHelene42, @LOrdreNet, @QudsiaMashhadi https://t.co/6Ba9VEenjx pic.twitter.com/1zE7i6Bkn8

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) April 19, 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 »

Democracy is fake, totally illegitimate

The Blog

Political scientist Robert Higgs has offered a compelling breakdown of why democracy is fake, and elected "representatives" are actually illegitimate.

In countries with millions of people with disparate interests, Higgs writes, representative democracy is a "practical impossibility". This casts serious doubt on the claims of western states that they are legitimate and that others, led by "dictators", are illegitimate.

Politicians are "inveterate liars" who prove democracy is fake

Higgs offered the following powerful analysis that should be seen by anyone with an interest in criticisms of democracy:

So, what possible intelligence can voters exercise in casting their ballots? They can vote in accordance with the appeal a particular candidate’s promises hold for them, but relying on candidates to carry out their promises would be childishly foolish. Anyone who pays the slightest attention to politics knows that politicians are inveterate liars; many would sooner lie than speak truthfully even if the truth did not thwart their purposes, because lying would be more congenial to their true, dishonest character. Thus, voters can do nothing more than throw ideological darts, casting their ballots for the candidate who makes the most appealing noises, has the handsomest face, or displays peacock-like the most fabulous partisan posturing.

Full analysis: The Hot-Air Barrier (Independent Institute)

Democracy is fake, and highly prone to start wars due to mass ignorance

Explaining that the promises of politicians are consistently broken, Higgs also wisely argues that elected politicians lie biggest when it comes to foreign policy. Citing that members of the public have some grasp of domestic affairs and are less prone to fall for lies on domestic issues, Higgs contrasts this with the fact there is "no practical limit to the enormousness" of the lies politicians can tell about foreign countries.

Politicians trying to start wars often have an easy time, Higgs points out, due to "the general public’s near-complete ignorance of foreign lands and the political, social, and economic conditions that prevail there". Thus, democracy is fake in its present form, and is used to legitimize the murder machine the west has become when dealing with oppressed countries.

Violent western governments repeatedly cite spreading their fake and insulting democracy as the reason they are going to war, even when the goal of their wars is to install dictators and put millions of people under the threat of arrest or torture.

Demo-skeptic chorus shouts out that our democracy is fake

Praising Higgs' analysis, antistatist writer Thomas Knapp said Higgs always "tells it exactly like it is" (KN@PPSTER).

L'Ordre: Democracy is fake

The Mont Order, to which Thomas Knapp is a friend, also acknowledges western democracy is fake in its code and encourages people observing the Mont Order code to have no faith in it. This view can be called demo-skeptic, a rarely used term denoting a simple lack of confidence in liberal democratic institutions and states.

People saying #newworldorder or #nwo are misusing IR phrases without training @hjbentham https://t.co/SgJQAJOfz3 pic.twitter.com/z3HMo7jY6k

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

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Sanders biography recommended

The Blog

Thomas Knapp, head of the Garrison Center and a member of the small Mont Order* from where this blog makes many reports, recommends a major biographical book on US Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Knapp posted the recommendation on his KN@PPSTER blog on Wednesday, including a link the Amazon purchase page.

Bernie, authored by Darcy Richardson who is a friend of Thomas Knapp, is an immense 400-page work. Knapp encourages followers of Sanders and of the US Presidential race in general to read the book, because "You think you know Bernie Sanders, because you've half-attentively followed the Democratic presidential horse race. But you probably don't know Bernie Sanders at all."

He acknowledges, however, that the biography is only likely to reinforce whatever people have thought about Sanders, whether good or bad. This particular book stands out from other works relating to Sanders, due to its length and its detail.

* The Mont Order itself does not actually embrace any political figure, as its code requires it to only support critiques and narratives in the media rather than any electoral platform

#MontOrder's @naughteeismaxim, @WaveChronicle and others: #Oregon militants should #gohome https://t.co/qz1HCDjyZM pic.twitter.com/ekGsNjyz68

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

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »