Puzzled thoughts of a self-confessed ignoramus

Unlike most bloggers, I am by no means an Egypt specialist, never been and never will be.  In fact, let me begin this post by confessing to the fact that I am a self-confessed Egypt ignoramus.  Please keep that in mind and forgive me all the nonsense I am about to write below and let me begin by saying that I am very disturbed not only by the events in Syria, but by the bizarre reactions I am observing: progressives rejoicing at the sight of a violent military coup.

So I will ask simple, basic questions in the hope that somebody will help me find the answers (I would be most interested in hearing the answers of those who are happy that the military overthrew Morsi).

Question one: what options for the Ikhwan?

Morsi was got 25% of the vote in the first round, and 52% on the second round.  Judging by the demonstrations in Egypt and by the violent clashes between pro and anti Morsi demonstrators, I think that we can safely posit that there are still "a lot" for Morsi supporters in Egypt.  Following the military coup, what are these supporters of Morsi expected to do?  Does anybody seriously think that they will just "take it" and no resist?  Are these people not forced into violent resistance?

Question two: was Morsi ever given a chance?

Morsi was elected one year ago for a four year term.  Is this past year enough not only to judge his rule, but to declare (as many do today) that "he was elected democratically, but he did not rule democratically"?  Other than Morsi, has there ever been another political leader in history who was judged so terrible as to justify a military coup against him after only one year in power? Was he not elected for four years?

Question three: who is in power now?

Who is in power now?  The military.  We are talking about a military which twice already betrayed its commander in chief, first Mubarak, now Morsi.  We know that the top command is composed of CIA puppets.  Just two years ago everybody saw Mubarak as just the tip of a "military iceberg" of corrupt pro-Zionists policies.  Why in the world is anybody buying the curious notion that these are "patriots"?!

Question four: where are the Egyptian progressives?

A lot of observers are blaming Morsi for his lack of economic policy and for his subservience to the international capitalist order.  Fair enough - Morsi is clearly no Sayyid Qutb.  But Sayyid Qutb is not an alternative today.  Today the options are folks like ElBaradei or Adly Mansour or Abdul Fatah al-Sisi.  Does anybody believe that these guys are in any way more progressive than Morsi or less dependent on the international capitalist order?!

Question five: does the democratic principle matter?

When Mubarak was overthrown, everybody rejoiced at the victory for democracy precisely because at that time it appeared that democracy had prevailed only because of the willingness of the Egyptian people to pay a huge price to obtain it.  Now Morsi is out.  But is it not rather obvious that there was no way of violently toppling Morsi without at the same time destroying democracy itself?

Please do not interpret my questions as a sign of sympathy for Morsi.  Personally, I don't like Morsi and I don't like his Ikhwan.  In fact, I am deeply suspicious of any form of Sunni Islamism which nowadays seems exclusively composed of reactionary elements rather than followers of Sayyid Qutb.  On a personal level I would probably get along much better with Egyptian secularists or Copts than with Morsi supporters. I also personally believe that if Morsi had stayed in power for another three years to complete his term this would have been an economic disaster for Egypt.

But none of that prevents me from understanding the difference between "bad" and "worse".  Neither does my dislike for Morsi and his party allow me to overlook the fact that he was overthrown by a military which really did not change much since the Mubarak era.

At this point, my gut feeling is this: Morsi, who only got 25% of the vote in the first round, was allowed to rule only long enough to get the majority of Egyptians who did not vote for him angry and frustrated enough to welcome a coup by the "heroic" and "patriotic" military.  And now that democracy itself has been tossed out of the window along with the Ikhwan, popular opinion will again become largely irrelevant, if only because it will have no legitimate way to express itself.  So its all back to square one: a US controlled military in full control.  Either that, or a long dark period of violence.

Please tell me why I am wrong!

The Saker

Fascism in Europe next?

In 2007 I wrote several pieces warning of the arrival of overt Fascism in the USA (see: "Rudy Giuliani - the face of American Fascism", "The only thing which can prevent a Fascist President in 2008" and "When is the use of the "F" word appropriate?").  Now, five years later, I would say that what I observe in the USA is some form of "creeping Fascism" which has succeeded in avoiding the type of overt full-spectrum crackdown on the US general public mainly thanks to the artificial but nonetheless semi-effective way a full-scale economic collapse of the US economy has been avoided.  Basically, the laws are in place, the repressive apparatus ready to go in high gear, but the plutocrats in power have managed to avoid using these instruments, at least on a noticeable scale.  A great deal of the credit for this goes, I sincerely believe, to the US general public who have shown many signs of push-back against some of the most ridiculous excesses of the TSA, the Border Patrol, the FBI, the Pentagon and other agencies.  Still, I believe that all it would take is one "bank holiday" for the curtain to come down and the repression to start.  But that is a topic for another day, today I want to turn my attention to Europe and what is taking place there, in particular in regards to Cyprus.

What has happened in Cyprus is almost irrelevant to the EU's economy.  As one economist aptly put it, the magnitude of the economic crisis in Cyprus is basically one of a rounding error in the EU's overall economy.  As far as Europe is concerned, Cyprus could vanish from the face of the earth overnight, and it would not even notice it.  Same deal, by the way, for Russia.

In political terms, however, what happened in Cyprus is, I believe, an event of truly apocalyptic nature: the political suicide of Europe.  Why?

Think of it in the simplest of terms:

Bank robbery in Cyprus

Some Cypriot banks were told that they had to reimburse their creditors.  These banks admitted that they did not have the means to do so.  Then, the so-called "Troika" met.  What is this "Troika"?  A tripartite committee composed of the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission (EC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Now please keep in mind two crucial things about this "Troika":

a) Nobody has ever elected the "Troika" itself or even any of its constituent parties (ECB, EC, IMF).
b) Neither the Cypriot people nor the Cypriot banks, are represented at this "Troika".

The Troika basically decided to reimburse the creditors of the Cypriot banks by seizing the money deposited in the Cypriot banks.  Now, just to make things clear, please keep in mind that if you are in investor or a shareholder in Bank X your fortune does depend on how well this bank is managed and how it performs.  However, if you deposit your money in Bank X this money still remains yours, it might be trusted to the care of the bank, but the bank does not own this money which is strictly and only yours.  And yet, the "Troika" ordered the Cypriot banks to simply seize the money which had been deposited in (not invested in) their banks and hand it over to their creditors.

Now, the "Troika" really has zero democratic credentials, this is just a product of the will of the EU bureaucracy.  It has no legal right to force the Cypriot banks to do anything.  Furthermore, the Cypriot banks have no legal right at all to seize the money which has been deposited in them.  To take something which does not belong to you is called *theft*.

Marx wrote the private property generates capitalism, and he was right.  But what remains of capitalism if its most important aspect, its ideological cornerstone, is suddenly abolished?  Does that not mean the end of capitalism itself?

Hitler as a European knight

All the political evolution of Europe since the past three or four hundred years has had as its goal to secure each individual's private property not only from the arbitrary seizure by bandits and thugs, but also by kings and governments.  I can think of only one example in the history of western Europe when a government decided to overly seize the property of private individuals by force with no other justification than "because we say so" and that is Kristallnacht in 1938.  Yes, the Nazis did dare to openly do what the "Troika" is doing now.  And, of course, in the East, the Bolsheviks "nationalized" pretty much all the private property of the Russian people.  But at least the Nazis and the Bolsheviks more or less had some kind of argument to be acting on behalf of at least one part of the population of their country.  Not so the "Troika" which has no national or electoral mandate or legitimacy.

What does all this really show?

It shows that in Europe the rule of law is a big fat joke.  Yes, the big players such as Germany will insist on the respect of the rule of law as long as it is beneficial to them, but as soon as it is not, to hell with it - they will use the same methods as the mob.

That, by the way, should surprise nobody.

The rule of law took a big hit in Europe when the Europeans let the US invade Bosnia under the cover of UNPROFOR and it completely died when NATO attacked Serbia in complete illegality.

Turns that that all these oh-so-respectable European politicians and ideologues are nothing more than your garden variety mobsters, with exactly *zero* respect for the rule of law.

This also means that all the money now deposited in Europe is potentially at risk.  Though the EU bureaucrats denied it, it is absolutely clear even to the dullest of idiots that what happened in Cyprus sets precedent, that from now on the very method of seizing money deposited in banks has now the "respectability" of having been used by the ECB, the EC and the IMF.  I would even argue that the fact that the IMF was part of this decision makes it an international precedent which now has applicability worldwide.

Furthermore, having acted in complete violating of national and international laws, having arrogantly disregarded banking regulations and laws, and having also condoned the illegal use of force (against Serbia), the EU is now showing its true face: a transnational Fascist cartel run by bankers and plutocrats which does not give a damn about what the European population thinks, or what the law says.  The real motto of Europe has now clearly become "might makes right", and that is true in Libya, Syria and Cyprus, but that also means that this is true throughout the EU.

Somewhere I welcome that.  "Bas les masques!" (off with the masks) as the French say.  At least all of the West - USA and Europe - are done playing cute games about democracy, freedom and human rights.  Now, finally, we can see beyond any doubt that the entire western political system is about one thing and one thing only: pure, unfettered, greed.  Greed and nothing else.

All this take about lofty ideals of individual rights, private property, freedom, representation, democracy, human rights, etc. was just a load of propaganda aimed at masking the true nature of the beast.  Most of us already understood that, but now even the dullest of the doubleplusgoodthinking "democrats" will see that there is nothing real at all in the entire edifice of western political thought besides greed served by violence and lies.

Yet another proof that Fascism was a genuine expression of European civilization.  Let's remember here that European Fascism has two very different roots: a southern one - the Papacy (Petain, Franco, Pavelic, Mussolini) and a northern one - the Protestant bourgeoisie (Hitler).  Or look at the anti-Fascist resistance in Europe: what are the countries which really gave the Germans a determined resistance?  Serbia, of course.  Who else?  The Netherlands, the Poland and the Greece had major resistance organizations.  As for the rest of Europe, it did very little real resistance - they Nazis were certainly not loved, but they were accepted in most countries.  After WWII the newly imposed elites tried to turn Hitler and Mussolini into some abject monsters and their ideologies into some satanic creation of a few mad men, but the fact is that Fascism and National-Socialism had deep religious, political and cultural roots in Europe and that both the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists very much saw themselves as people who are reviving the true traditions from the European past.

The situation today is different, of course.  We are often told that what is taking place is a struggle between the European "core" represented by Germany against the European "periphery" sometimes referred to as PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).  But I would argue that what is taking place is even far bigger than that - its not only the PIIGS which are a target of the European plutocracy, but also France, which is far bigger and whose "explosive potential" is far more threatening to the international financial system.  A top analyst for a hedge fund in NY has recently confirmed to me that if France collapses so would the entire US banking system (courtesy of the crazy system of CDS put in place since the 1990s).  There are plenty of signs that the entire French economy has come to a standstill and that it is literally running out of cash (Max Keiser and Pierre Jovanovic have been warning about this for many years).

So I ask myself a basic question: if the Troika has had the nerve to basically act like a gang of mobsters in the case of a tiny economy such as the Cypriot one, what will it do if, say, the economies Portugal, Spain or, God forbid, France collapse?  What will the European rulers such as Merkel do if mass unrests begin in these countries?  France, in particular, as a long tradition of uprisings and civil unrest which could re-ignite in just a few hours given the right circumstances.  The government of Francois Hollande is already the most despised of the French 5th Republic even though the man has been very recently elected.

Finally, the anti-EU movements are still active throughout Europe and the current crisis will only strengthen then.  What will the (always submissive and pliant) European governments do if they are told by the top EU bosses to crack down on local separatists/sovereignists?  Will they hesitate?  I think not.

The bottom line is this: all the European elites, the entire European ruling class, are deeply committed to the Single Europe ideology and they will never, ever, let go of it.  The loss of face resulting from a global collapse of the EU project would inevitably result in a loss of power for all those who put their reputation and authority behind this ideology.  Nevertheless, the EU is collapsing, and each effort of the European elites to conceal this fact only make the real situation worse.  Given a choice between facing the consequences of a popular revolt and the implementation of a Fascist rule there is no doubt in my mind at all that the European elites will chose the latter, with plenty of empty words about "provisional", "exceptional", "temporary" etc.

By now it is becoming undeniable that Europe can have democracy or the EU, but not both.  The actions of the "Troika" in the case of Cyprus show, I think, which choice has been made.  Fascism might well come to Europe even before it comes to the USA.

The Saker

A cliffhanger? Hardly....

And now, in my own words

In 2008 I wrote a piece entitled The only two choices for the 2008 Presidential election: Nader vs Solzhenitsyn in which I concluded with the following words:

If you have any faith left at all in the American democracy, then, by all means, vote Nader as any other vote is a vote against the American Republic (and for a Fascist Empire). If you, like myself, believe that the system cannot be reformed no matter what, then stay away from it. Limit yourself to an "internal exile" and follow Solzhenitsyn's advice to live not by lies. This method brought down the Soviet Union and it will also eventually bring down the American Empire.

Now, four years later I will argue that after 4 years of the Obama presidency the first option has now vanished and the only logical, pragmatic and moral choice is to look at reality and act accordingly.  Here are some of the key features of the reality we live in:

1.  There is no correlation whatsoever between what a presidential candidate promises to do and what he then actually does.  While Obama is probably the worst liar in US history, he is far from being alone:  from Papa-Bush's "read my lips, no knew taxes", to Clinton's "liberalism", to Baby-Bush's "modest foreign policy" to, finally, Obama's mega-orgy of broken promises and lies, the undeniable fact is this: there is absolutely no correlation between what you vote for and what you get.

2. Interestingly, US policies, internal and external, are remarkably consistent.  Yes, they are flexible in their tactics, but their strategy and goals do not change: external imperialism internal plutocracy.  Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that the outcome of elections influences US policies.

3. The choice between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats is, obviously, a false choice.  For the vast majority of Americans that "choice" is as meaningless as the choice between the SA and the SS in Germany: yeah, there are nuances and the two camps hate each other, but they are fundamentally of the same party.

4. No change in US history has ever been achieved by the ballot box.  All the changes in US history have been achieved in the streets and through social movements.

5.  The US regime is not a "one man one vote" democracy but a "one dollar one vote" plutocracy.  Considering that the top 1% own more than the bottom 90%, it is easy to see why voting in the USA makes absolutely no sense at all and, worse, no difference either.

6.  The primary purpose of elections in the USA is to give an illusion of pluralism, of choice, of democracy.  It is to stupidify the people and make any talk of regime change look subversive and un-American (even though even the Founding Fathers did foresee a situation in which the People could overthrow an anti-people regime).

7.  The secondary purpose of elections in the USA is to give the regime a thin but indispensable veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

8.  The third purpose of elections in the USA is to make each person voting a de-facto accomplice to the evil deeds of the US regime.  How can a putatively innocent American say "not in my name" when, in fact, he/she gave his seal of approval to the regime itself (by voting) and possibly to the administration in power (by voting for the winning candidate)?

Bottom line: if you go and vote next Tuesday, you will not only act with a total disregard for undeniable facts and basic logic, you will soil your soul by becoming an accomplice to all the actions which the regime in power will commit in your name.  This is why today I will be far more blunt and direct than in 2008 and tell you this: if even the election of Barak Obama - the worst liar in US history - did not convince you of the futility of voting, nothing else will.  If even after Obama you are capable of seriously seriously believing that by voting for the lesser evil you are not voting for evil nonetheless, you are morally bankrupt.  Make no mistake, voting for evil, any evil, is still a vote for evil.

Voting in these upcoming Presidential elections is both terminally stupid and deeply immoral.

What is the alternative?

It is rather obvious: do not vote and, even more importantly, tell all your friends not to vote.  Help them take the Red Pill and bring them back to the real world, not the media-induced illusion they live in.  And then, with your friends, fight the regime itself, the puppeteers rather than their puppets.  How?

Not through violence, no need for that at all.  All that is needed is to follow Solzhenitsyn's advice: live not by lies.   Make sure that the regime does not survive through you, through your vote, for example.  Make fun of it, humor is a devastating weapon.  Never voluntarily show any respect for the regime's symbols.   Sever all your voluntary exposure to the regime's mass propaganda machine otherwise known as the "corporate media". Do not own a TV or a radio, never subscribe to a newspaper, always get your information pro-actively, through the Internet, and only from sources you have good reasons to trust.  Last, but not least, use this once-ever-four-years opportunity that the regime gives you to tell it to go and screw itself, it ain't much, but it sure is better than sheepishly playing it by the rules and, like a dumb and obedient robot, drop your ballot in the box.

We, as individuals, cannot change the world we live in (although united with others we often can).  But what we can do is safeguard our own dignity and honor by denying our participation in, or assistance to, the regime which oppresses us all.

The Saker

A good take on the voting charade

Submitted by The Needle Blog on ZeroHedge

Why I Don't Vote



Democracy has become a religion and anyone who criticises it is labelled a heretic.

How many times have you heard the mantra that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain’? Whereas, actually, the opposite is true, ‘if you do vote, you can’t complain.’ It is no coincidence that the emergence of the philosophical concept of the ‘Social Contract’ runs parallel to democratic development in the modern era.

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

Source

Democracy legitimises authority.

Every time you vote you sign the Social Contract.

If you vote and your ‘favoured’ candidate does not win, you have absolutely no right to complain because by voting you have accepted the process and are bound by it’s result. It is not a coincidence either that you are asked to put a cross, also used as a replacement for a signature for a person who is illiterate and thus cannot write their name, next to your choice on the ballot.

The policy differences between different candidates are exaggerated. This encourages you to sign the Social Contract by making you believe that you have a real choice. But the choice is an illusion because the true policy differences are slight and 99% of leadership is management, keeping the bureaucratic apparatus of state moving and reacting to events.

For the overwhelming majority it makes little difference which candidate wins any election. Only the wealthy and powerful who can expect some kind of reward, in the form of patronage or largesse, Government contracts etc, for their financial, political, and media support have a dog in the fight.

Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption.

Democracy encourages short-termism. Instead of our leaders planning for a sustainable future they pander to a selfish and fickle electorate who only want jam today and who will punish any politician at the polls who does not give it to them. As a consequence the farsighted, fairminded and responsible leadership that the world needs in the 21st century, is completely absent, made obsolete by an evolutionary process which rewards the shortsighted, corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and vain.

This is a genuine story, In 1974 in the UK there were two general election. The first in February was inconclusive and it led to another in October. In the run up to this second election the leaders of all the main political parties made the most extraordinary undeliverable promises to buy the votes of the British electorate.

I was six years old, and attending my local infants school, when the teaching staff there taught me one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned. They decided to hold their own school election at a special assembly at which all the parents were invited to attend, though only the children would vote. Before the assembly they took myself and a young girl into separate classrooms, to the young girl they explained the needs of the school and what changes would be beneficial to the pupils education,. To me they just gave one simple instruction “Just get elected.”

The young girl addressed the children, parents, and teachers and made a very sensible address, “more books, longer school hours, and a healthy diet”.

I, on the other hand, decided to stand on a very simple platform of “Chips (fries) everyday, and longer break times.”

The result will come as no surprise, I won by a landslide. As I grew older and began to reflect more on this the lesson became clearer. The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need. The electorate are no better than a cohort of infant school children.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Aristotle would have disagreed with Winston Churchill. Aristotle thought that democracy was a perverted form of Government which served the indignant (or capricious) mob at the expense of the broader interests of the state and it’s citizens.

Voting for Libertarianism is oxymoronic. You can not vote for your freedom because the ballot is a signed contract which binds you to a democratic system specifically designed to defraud you of any choice. Only by not voting can you opt out. This does not mean that you will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority but you will be free.