SOTT Focus:

US Wars Fund The Welfare State Which Finances The Liberal March Towards Totalitarianism

Pierre Lescaudron
Sott.net
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:25 UTC

Most people reading this will have heard of the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC), a state within the state that wages wars everywhere, has bases all over the planet, plunders poor nations and seizes their resources for the personal profit of an elite few. But if this definition is accurate, we would expect to have seen a dramatic increase in the US federal spending on defense over the course of the last 70 or 80 years, when the modern American MIC has been active. Is that the case?

A Grain of Truth

Decades ago defense was indeed the largest part of the federal budget. In the 1950s it represented about 2/3 of federal spending, which was 15% of US GDP.

This is a high proportion and was in line with a capitalist country at the time where state spending was restricted to two core priorities: defense and infrastructure, while all other sectors of activity were left to private initiatives. But things have changed a lot since then:

Defense spending as percent of US GDP (1954-2016)

As shown in the graph above, over the past 60 years, the defense budget has shrunk from 15% of the GDP to less than 5%. As a result, the defense budget (in constant dollars) has been stagnating since the 1950s:

US defense budget (1946-2008)

This stagnation is all the more striking in that the federal budget has dramatically increased over the same period of time:

US federal budget (inflation adjusted)

The graph above shows that the US federal budget jumped from $500 billion in the 1950s to almost $3.5 trillion in 2010. In 2017, following two Obama administrations, it reached $4.2 trillion. That's more than an 800% increase.

One factor that enabled this dramatic increase in federal spending was the increase in GDP, which can be partly attributed to profits from wars waged by the US in numerous countries over the past six decades:

USA bombing list (1950-2015)

Those conflicts and their aftermaths generated huge profits not only for weapons manufacturers, but all companies involved in 'rebuilding' the target country - which usually involves US tax dollars being funneled to US corporations - and the appropriation of the target nation's most profitable resources.

This process is clearly explained in Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine'. But what is not explained in Klein's book is that the companies that dramatically increase their profits thanks to war, end up expanding, recruiting more employees and remunerating contractors and suppliers, and that all those economic agents will, in turn, end up paying more taxes that fund the federal budget.

Cui Bono?

If, as shown above, the US defense budget did not increase while the federal budget sharply increased, then where did all this extra federal money go? It appears that most of those funds, and here we're talking about trillions of dollars every year, went to the same place - the welfare state:

US Federal budget as share of GDP

As depicted in the graph above, spending on the two traditional missions of the federal government - defense (red) and infrastructure (green) - have been dramatically shrinking. In the 1950s, it represented about 90% of federal spending while the welfare state (entitlement programs - blue) was virtually non-existent.

Today, the situation is reversed, with defense and infrastructure representing a mere 1/6 of total spending, while entitlement programs get the lion's share with 2/3 of the federal budget:

US federal spending in 2015

In terms of absolute numbers, the rise in social spending is even more staggering. It has reached almost $3 trillion, and now dwarfs defense spending by a factor of five. Notice also that it follows a hyperbolic trajectory that screams unsustainability:

Trend in social service spending

Social programs already consume 2/3 of the federal budget and, at this frenetic pace, by 2030, they will consume all of it:

Federal social program VS federal revenues

Despite the extra revenue generated by wars and increased taxation, federal spending (mostly composed of social programs) already exceeds total federal revenue (hence the massive US public debt):

Federal revenue vs spending (1965-2011)

As shown in the graph above, federal revenue is increasing steadily but spending is rising much faster. Since 2002, spending far exceeds revenue and thus contributes to an unsustainable level of public debt. Since 2012, US public debt is larger than US GDP and, not so coincidentally, it follows the same unsustainable hyperbolic trajectory as that of social program spending:

Real GNP VS. federal debt (1950-2015)

The Welfare State Funds The Implementation of Liberal Totalitarianism

The above shows that it is too simplistic to claim that wars waged by the US are exclusively designed to profit the Military Industrial Complex. While it's certainly true that agents from the military and industrial complex benefit from wars, it is clearly not the sole beneficiary, and not even the main beneficiary.

Rather, the main beneficiary of US wars is the welfare state. But war profits, no matter how frequent and large, aren't sufficient to fill the welfare black hole; on top of war profits, gigantic debt levels are also necessary to fund today's sky-high social programs.

From the above, one can reasonably conclude that one of the fundamental reasons for the US to wage wars around the world - and to embrace toxic levels of debt - is the funding of the welfare state. The next question is, where does this welfare money go?

The graph below shows that individuals with an annual income lower than $25,000 are the main beneficiaries of tax and transfer benefits:

Tax and transfer benefits relative to wage level

And who are the individuals who make less than $25,000 a year? Is there a strong predictor like poverty, race, age, sex or geographic location? None of those criteria are as strong a predictor of poverty as marital status:

Marriage/wealth correlation

Single parent households are much more likely to be poor, and the number of single parent households has never been as high as it is today. The situation has reached the point where the normal family is not the norm anymore. A child born in 2018 has less than a 50% probability of growing up with both his or her biological parents:

Unwed childbearing (1929-2008)

Unwed childbearing has reached epidemic proportions in the US, with about 14 million single parents in 2011 raising more than 20 million children.

Statistics convincingly show that single parenting is not a good environment for children. It dramatically increases the probability that such children will engage in criminal behavior, take drugs, go to jail, drop out of school, suffer from depression, be obese and, of course, end up poor.

Negative effects of single parenting

But 'poverty' in a socialist country like the US doesn't mean the same as poverty in a third world country. Today, a single parent with one or more children is eligible for more than 100 different social programs. On average, a single parent with two children will receive between $35,000 (in Illinois) and $49,000 (in Hawaii) in social benefits. The intervention of the US welfare state has reached such proportions that, in many cases, it's more profitable to be a non-working single parent than a working married parent. The welfare state encourages single parents not to work:

A 2013 Cato Institute study in which I participated found that total welfare benefits - counting not just TANF, but also food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, WIC, emergency food assistance, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) - exceeded the minimum wage in 35 states. In the eight most generous states, those benefits could exceed what an individual would earn from a $20-an-hour job in 2013. While certainly not every poor family receives all those benefits, it is clear that the welfare system can still create a strong disincentive to work.

In exactly the same financial way, the welfare state encourages single parents not to re-marry:

Given the effectiveness of marriage in reducing poverty and other social problems, you would think that strengthening marriage would be a top priority for the welfare state. Wrong. The welfare system does the opposite. Welfare actively penalizes marriage by reducing benefits when low-income couples do marry.

For example, a single mother with two children who earns $15,000 per year will generally receive around $5,200 per year from the Food Stamp program. However, if she marries a father with the same earnings level, her food stamps would be cut to zero. A single mother receiving public housing benefits would receive a subsidy worth on average around $11,000 per year if she was not employed. But if she married a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits would be cut nearly in half.

The federal government runs more than 80 welfare aid programs; nearly all of them provide very real financial incentives for couples to remain separate and unmarried.

- Robert Rector, How the Welfare State Penalizes Parents Who Marry

By lavishly supporting single parents and destroying the institution of marriage through 'no-fault divorce', the welfare state actively supports what has come to be known as the feminist/liberal agenda. The welfare state has de facto expelled and replaced men from the nucleus family. Today it is the state, not fathers, that educates children (day care, schools, counseling), today it is the state, not husbands, that financially supports the wife.

The intrusion of the state on the family nucleus is also deeply affecting the nature of the relationship between single mothers and their children. Single mothers are effectively 'married' to the state, which supports them financially, while their children have increasingly become a financial tool to maximize this financial support:

The replacement of the father by the government, which is the current trend in the West, will undermine maternal sentiments, alter the very nature of motherhood from an emotional tie into a form of waged employment with money as an intermediary between mother and her love; motherhood then is no longer a bond, but a paid employment. It is obvious that this process would lead to the destruction of the family.

- Baskerville, The New Politics of Sex

The Family Was The Last Bulwark Against Leftist Totalitarianism

It would be a grave mistake to think that the destruction of the family by the liberal ideology and its welfare state is a victory for single parents.

Everyone stands to lose from the destruction of the family: the expelled father finds himself a debt slave as a direct result of his divorce and the subsequent loss of his assets and the seizure of his income. The single mother is slave to the financial support of the state and the children are slaves to the education system of the state.

More importantly, the family nucleus was the very last stronghold of privacy and freedom in the face of the totalitarian liberal ideology. It was the last place where individuals could make personal choices, where the state could not interfere with personal decisions, where individuals were free to transmit to the next generation their culture, moral values and knowledge.

The rise in single parent households has shrunk the number of traditional families while new laws that regulate every aspect of a family's private life - including domestic violence, decisions on child-rearing, education, sexuality, religious beliefs, the food children are fed, and the use of alternative medicines - enable state interference in the life of the family.

Notice that we're touching here the very core definition of totalitarianism:

Totalitarianism is a political concept where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life.

- Conquest, Robert (1999). Reflections on a Ravaged Century

The liberal ideology has killed the family and now nothing stands in the way of totalitarian control of every citizen, even in his very home. But the destruction of the family is only one of numerous nefarious objectives pursued by the progressive ideology and those that espouse it. Of course, those objectives are carefully hidden behind a politically correct facade:

multiculturalism: politically correct for the destruction of nations
anti-racism: politically correct for the emergence of privileged minorities
clericalism: politically correct for the destruction of religions
sexual freedom: politically correct for the promotion of promiscuity
equality: politically correct for the destruction of personal freedom
modern art: politically correct for the destruction of beauty
gender fluidity: politically correct for the destruction of identity
postmodernism: politically correct for the destruction of truth
fight against fake news: politically correct for censorship
liberty: politically correct for the removal of responsibility

The promotion of these nihilistic policies occurs in every area of our modern society: in education, from kindergarten to postgraduate; in academia, with the politicized funding of orthodox topics and researchers; social workers who complement the education system in enforcing the ideology; minority groups lavishly funded and protected; the mainstream media that daily spreads liberal lies; law courts where cohorts of judges enforce ideologically-driven decisions; lobby groups that influence decision-makers; politicians that support laws serving the liberal agenda; experts and researchers that publish biased studies supporting liberal ideologies.

Notice that, today, the promotion of a totalitarian liberal agenda is not carried out by a clearly identified group led by a single public leader, as was the case with Lenin's Bolsheviks in Russia or with Hitler's Nazis in Germany.

Today, totalitarianism has manifested through a sort of ideological hydra, and only its heads are visible under the guise of many 'activist' groups, all of which define themselves as 'oppressed'. Despite their apparent diversity, all such 'activist' groups belong to the same ideological body: liberalism/progressivism.

The Hypocrisy of Liberalism:

Feminists and liberals despise the military because it is a male-dominated environment, one of the last places where healthy aggressiveness can, ideally, serve a positive or protective purpose. At the same time, these people seem to be fully aware of how appealing the military is from a social/political perspective:

1/ Finance: they need the military to fund their totalitarian plan.

2/ Social engineering: feminists and liberals have fully realized that the level of coercion in the military - where the soldier must obey orders even if they go against his conscience - makes it a perfect ground for indoctrination. In the military more than anywhere else, it is possible to apply extreme social engineering.

What happens to soldiers - and there are many - who disagree with women and homosexuals in combat units? Are they to be punished? Court-martialed? Do their religious and political views - that in other citizens would be protected by the First Amendment and other guarantees for freedom of expression - constitute disobedience to orders? If so, this means using the severe standards of military discipline to enforce a political ideology and punish doctrinal heterodoxy, even when it is nothing more than traditional beliefs and has no bearing on military effectiveness.

- Baskerville, The New Politics of Sex

3/ Domestic conflict: The furthering of the liberal/feminist plan is giving rise to a growing number of opponents who can see the absurdities, the contradictions and the destructiveness of their ideology. In recent years we have seen a growing number of violent confrontations between the enforcers of the liberal ideology (SJWs, Antifa, Black activists) and people who oppose it.

The military intervening directly to enforce ideological orthodoxy among citizens seems like a remote Orwellian nightmare. This drift is, however, already very real within the US military:

Military officials have begun targeting American citizens on American soil as "hate groups" because of their religious convictions. In military briefings, officials labeled groups of law-abiding citizens like the American Family Association (AFA) as hate groups because of their sexual morality.

"Why is the military training their personnel about domestic organizations, about what's going on here inside the United States? Isn't the purpose of the military to fight wars overseas?" asks Tim Wildmon of AFA.

"It's kind of troubling to think that the US Army is focusing on groups like the American Family Association." In effect, the military is taking sides in domestic political issues to the point of making religious convictions grounds for military intervention.

"It's spooky and in fact dangerous to see the US military even involved in policing pro-family groups on American soil," says Bryan Fisher of AFA. "Their job is to fight al-Qaeda, not their own citizens."

- Dave Bohon, 'Pentagon's True Take on Pro-family', The New American

Liberals and feminists are aware of this trend and have long realized that, in such a context, it is the one who has the guns that usually wins. This is one of the main reasons why, for years, feminists have focused on the military and aim to control it.

On the one hand, feminists and liberals point the finger at male aggression exemplified by the military - on the other, they use the military to further their toxic goals. And the hypocrisy doesn't stop there; consider the willingness with which feminists send men to die at the 'front' while condemning the slightest male sexually-suggestive word or look at women.

Feminist hypocrisy towards women is equally striking. At home, feminists (both the male and female varieties) treat women as fragile creatures who are the never-ending victims of sexual harassment and violence, but these are the same feminists who lobbied for the feminization of the army, which basically means using women as cannon fodder.

Conclusion

In order to reconcile two mutually exclusive values: wars and equality, leftists have been busy developing twisted narratives: war for 'freedom', war for democracy, war or equality, humanitarian war. It should be no surprise then to see that many feminists support wars against foreign nations in the name of stopping the 'oppression' of women in the very same foreign nation targeted by the neoliberal elite.

"We are not advocates for war, and conditions did not have to reach this dire point, but we believe that withdrawing troops means abandoning 15 million women and children to madmen who will sacrifice them to their lust for power."

- Esther Hyneman, board member of Women for Afghan Women

Released prisoner of war Lt. Col. Robert L. Stirm is greeted by his family at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, Calif., as he returns home from the Vietnam War, March 17, 1973.

Prisoner of war Robert L. Stirm is greeted by his family as he returns home from the Vietnam War.

Ironically the wars fought by men overseas have ended up funding the welfare state at home which, in turn, funds a domestic war where the husband is the enemy.

The welfare state is in the process of removing the husband from the family thanks to a simulacra of justice: no-fault divorce, private courts, false accusations, biased judges, lower standards of evidence, no due process for defendants, and by broadening the definitions of rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

For centuries wars have been fought by men to provide resources for their household and local community or nation. There is nothing new under the Sun - it's just that today, when the soldier comes back from the front, he's not welcomed with banners, smiles and kisses. Rather, he's kicked out of his house, has to pay alimony for the rest of his life, another man is in his bed, and the state has taken ahold of his kids:

As one Army spouse writes to me, soldiers have been evicted from their homes, had vehicles repossessed and were forced to take out loans just to survive. One soldier in particular deployed to Iraq and, although he was divorced from his spouse and child support had been set and he was up to date with payments, she was able to successfully petition the court to increase support even though he had joint custody of their children and the Army allowed for him to maintain quarters for them. This increased his support to over $3,000 per month for two children, and when he returned from war he was forced to file for bankruptcy. But bankruptcy offers no protection against arrest.

- Baskerville, The New Politics of Sex

In sum, the Military Industrial Complex is a convenient scapegoat used by liberals and feminists to fund the American welfare state and its totalitarian drift.

Pierre Lescaudron

Pierre Lescaudron (M.Sc., MBA) pursued a career in executive management, consulting and post-graduate teaching in high tech fields.

He then became an editor and writer for SOTT.net, fulfilling his dream of researching science, technology and history.

Pierre is the author of "Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection" (2014), "Cometary Encounters" (2021) and "Mass Extinctions, Evolutionary Leaps and Viral Information" (TBP)

Reader Comments

DelamerDuverus · 2018-02-19T19:01:06Z

Great article! Pierre

As we are a positive people, we need a negative government for opposition, for it is opposition which strengthens us. A negative government only does what the people and states cannot do better themselves, and this was reflected in the Constitution of the United States. Now that we have a positive government, the positiveness of our people will come against the positiveness of the federal government and there will never be any peace.

graeme15b · 2018-02-19T19:45:40Z

Brilliant article Pierre!

Well written and connects a lot of dots.

[This is all about the destruction of everything human]. These liberals, feminists, and what not are just useful idiots. They cannot even grasp something like this; "no due processes for the defendant, broadening of the definition of rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence" ...and..."lower standards of evidence"...which serves them some self serving agenda, all the while, paedophilia is becoming normalized/legalized, and not a peep out of them?. So, where are the SJWs here?, ah, silly question... out to lunch, out for power, out for revenge, out for themselves . Some progress, eh?

stranger · 2018-02-20T20:14:55Z

graeme15b LIBERAL (Definition):

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

Joe · 2018-02-20T20:28:25Z

stranger Sorry stranger, liberal has been appropriated by the radical left. Please find another moniker.

stranger · 2018-02-21T02:14:08Z

Joe in your mind, perhaps, in what is becoming a bubble of alt right "thinkers" on this website, perhaps, yet I am a liberal and am not what you'd describe as radical, other than believing the US citizenry should dismantle the evil empire and have universal healthcare.

Niall · 2018-02-21T22:47:19Z

stranger We're not alt-right.

This is alt-right: [Link]

Notice this part: "He could have been a radical..."

Bl4ckhawk666 · 2018-02-19T22:17:25Z

UTTER NONSENSE...THERE IS NO LEFT OR RIGHT ...ONLY THE DELUDED...Also this article is utter propaganda for permawar...and blames the victims as always....farewell amerikan idiots...

lysna · 2018-02-19T23:46:42Z

Bl4ckhawk666 A rare & mature thinker on sott these days... ..And not too many pretentious intellectual mixed salad words needed where even the writers of them don't know what they actually mean...Well said..

Ron_Doe · 2018-02-22T10:56:04Z

Bl4ckhawk666 As Mark Twain said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

Unfortunately, in the case of the author of this article, he presents all three in the one article.

pounamuknight · 2018-02-19T23:20:00Z

Lol, you guys have swung so hard to the Trump that you're blaming the US elites (left, right & inbetween's) historical & rapacious hunger for war and ultimately domination over "others" that your blaming "da liberals"

N ice infographics, by the way xD

stranger · 2018-02-19T23:23:12Z

These tired old war-horse arguments are misleading to the extreme.

Let's put aside the fact that for starters government exists in civilized society primarily to smooth out the rough edges of human nature: police the psychopathic, the crooked and the greedy and prevent their excesses, as in the much maligned "redistribution of wealth" system of collecting taxes to ensure everyone can see a doctor when they are sick, and all children receive an education. Anyone who doesn't recognize those basic rights and refuses to see that they fuel and sustain economic growth as well as quality of life for everyone in society, the rich and the greedy included, is myopic to the extreme and needs to educate themselves. Maybe start by reading "The Spirit Level".

"Entitlement programs" are an investment and pay dividends in the future. Blowing things up do the opposite.

Besides, most people on the street aren't interested in paying taxes to sustain a global military empire, it's just not on their agenda. People like you need to work overtime to try to convince them it's a good idea. The economic arguments, however, war for profit and the good of the economy..., are definitely the most sickening reasons.

Now, back to the gist of this article.

There are many line items of "defense spending" that are deceptively missing/reported under the categories of discretionary and mandatory spending, meaning they not only are not included in the above figures under defense spending, but some of these defense expenses are sometimes mistakenly included under entitlement spending, things such as veteran's benefits, including veteran's retirement benefits (huge item, who else gets to retire when they've only worked 20 years?), veteran's and soldier's medical expenses... Then there are the state military departments, tax breaks for companies with Pentagon contracts, defense support & assistance provided by the US state department, Pentagon accounting tricks that hide/defer inflated costs and kick the can down the road so expenses aren't reported, and of course the Department of Energy which handles procurement and development of the US nuclear arsenal, Defence-related nuclear waste disposal, sea-borne military nuclear reactors, aspects of stockpile security, and various less-defined “weapons activities” and “defence activities”...all included in Dept ofEnergy’s budget, not "Defense". Then there are the actual costs of war - the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund is not part of the Pentagon’s base budget - this is basically a slush fund and a mechanism for selectively avoiding the caps on defense spending. It pays for US military operations overseas, is not subject to spending limits imposed under sequestration and is considered separately from the Department of Defence’s budget request and covers hardware procurement, personnel, facilities maintenance, research and development, and other operational costs. OCO expenditure since 2001 easily passes the 2 trillion mark. Then there are black budget/black ops, and of course the missing trillions in the Pentagon's own accounting which calls into question all of the self-reported figures used in the nice colorful graphs used for this article. I could go on & on about spending not included in your "defense" spending, but I'll call it quits there for brevity.

Of course there's also the misleading fact that social security for instance in 2016 took in 1.1 trillion yet paid out only 910 billion (CBO figures), so the total cost of a program that paid for itself and also made a net gain for the government's books is reported here as an entitlement program....very tricky, Mr. Lescaudron .

Here's the kicker, though: You see, blowing things up and killing innocent people all over the world so we can have cheap oil for a few decades comes at a cost: how many Einsteins & Mozarts have been sacrificed for Dick Cheney's & GWB's Carlyle Group stock price?

How much will our grandchildren pay in lost social capitol & opportunity & inheriting a war ravaged environment because of the US's evil and sinister & murderous ways? Who has added up that figure and inserted it into the "Defense" spending?

Anyone who props up the evil empire at the expense of humanitarian policy, the only thing that truly lifts all boats, is a war criminal apologist and hence complicit in their war crimes and crimes against nature.

Get on the right side of history, your grandchildren will be proud of you, instead of being sickened and ashamed.

HVACTech · 2018-02-20T02:06:06Z

stranger perchance, thou art missed the summary.?

did you know sir. that our founders had a strong disdain for a " Standing Army "? fact is, they did not allow for one. and when they did. it was only for two years.

in the 1700's our founders understood the dangers that a ' Standing Army ' presents.

one would do well to understand your own heritage sir.

HVACTech · 2018-02-20T02:23:15Z

HVACTech for the cognitive dissonance impaired.

"standing army" is the age of enlightenment term for " military industrial complex "

stranger · 2018-02-20T04:38:19Z

HVACTech 90% of the article is a simplistic right-wing rant against the "welfare state", a right wing propaganda term used to denigrate the only useful function of government - keeping the psychopaths in check and taking away their wealth when they've cheated & stolen too much. You show me a billionaire and I'll show you someone with some nasty skeletons in their closet. The article is chock-full of full of false and misleading budgetary information, the figures used are all right out of the Pentagon playbook, twisted and inaccurate, hiding the true cost of the insane global military empire US citizens have unwittingly yet foolishly paid for for so long.

All you have to do is look to other more humane democracies that don't spend more than the rest of the planet on killing people, and voila! they have plenty in their coffers to make sure everyone has a roof over their head, enough to eat, is well educated, and can see a doctor when they are sick. It's a balancing act and vigilance is necessary so there's not too much overreach, but it is possible.

That is the secret right-wing psychopaths are terrified people will realize: there is enough to go around if we don't spend a gazillion dollars on bombs, bullets and bases. They're terrified of people realizing that because when that happens, when people wake up and stop letting the right-wing psychopaths scare and terrify them into flying all over the earth to murder mostly brown helpless people to "defend our way of life", then the man behind the curtain will be exposed and their murderous reign of terror will be over.

And articles like this one confuse and obfuscate the truth with bullshit information, nicely packaged in colorful graphs and charts, serving the purposes of the peddlers of death & destruction.

cope2 · 2018-02-20T10:17:17Z

stranger When i grew up 40 years ago, the future looked great. We were inventing ways to do things more efficient, so everybody would need to spend less time gathering means for survival, leaving more energy to think and make the world nicer. What happened? Everything is monetized, and then the money disappears. Even the rich don´t really have it. Difficult to spend a billion.. And now even we are quarreling about money.

Icarus · 2018-02-20T12:27:33Z

stranger Hello, stranger, remember me? I'm Eduardo from the other day/thread (about a month ago or so). I have given up on trying to comment on sott.net for the reason that I will explain, but wanted to come back and let you and other readers know, even if it is likely that Joe will ban me again: I WAS BANNED !! Banned from posting comments and they even changed my description on my profile and they did it all without a good reason, as I did not troll and was simply posting dissenting comments and presenting a differente (more liberal) perspective. Does that sound authoritarian to you? yet they claim liberals are authoritarians and they are heroes of freedom. Furthermore, doesn't it sound extremely SNOWFLAKISH to you ?? I mean, banning people for expressing opinions they disagree with?? yep... Please remember that next time they post one of their "SNOWFLAKE ALERT" biased news because THEY'RE THE BIGGEST SNOWFLAKES!

What's worse, they banned me in the middle of the discussion and did not inform that to the other readers at the comment section, and they did it just so that they could have the last word and make it look like I was there (able to reply), but didn't because didn't have any response to them. I did not reply because they BANNED ME!

That's it, just wanted to get this off my chest. I don't know if they have the power to delete this comment or if they're just going to ban this second profile from commenting again, as authoritarians normally do... but I'm hoping you (stranger) and other readers will be able to read it first.

Adeus! (Goodbye)

LindaMay · 2018-02-20T14:52:50Z

I hear you Eduardo! You are not the first!

Be well, hugz

stranger · 2018-02-20T19:56:33Z

Icarus Thanks Eduardo, I am not at all surprised considering the childish opinions being bantered around lately on this board and some of the articles.

All these Johnny-come-lately-self-proclaimed world affair experts need to brush up on their history and learn the definition of liberal: it is not an insult.

Pandering for the war criminals and lying about (ignorance is no excuse if you're publishing you have a responsibility to get the facts correct) the obscene amount of money spent on war, horror and destruction is disgusting, no mater how hard they squirm to put themselves in some kind of heroic light regarding "freedom" or whatever other abused libertarian cliches they trot out in their defense.

I live in a country with sensible gun laws, national health care, state housing & support for people down on their luck, and I am glad to pay taxes to support it all. I actually pay less tax than many in the US, who then have to pay for their own health insurance despite the fact they will possibly be dropped should the become critically ill. Our politicians are not even on the same scale when it comes to cynical self-interest, many are actually out for the public good.

stranger · 2018-02-20T20:08:52Z

cope2 believe me, the rich have it, billions & billions & billions & billions...

Joe · 2018-02-20T20:25:36Z

Icarus Dear Eduardo, you're a snowflake. Yes, you trolled better than anyone. Grow up, stop lying, and maybe we'll let you keep commenting. Yes, we changed your bio because you seem to be slightly deranged. Your bio stated in no uncertain terms that you hated all the content on Sott.net. Why anyone would choose to stay and comment on a web site that they absolutely hated is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that you were determined to change the minds of Sott editors and all readers to YOUR way of thinking. And you have the gall to complain about 'free speech'. You sound like a Nazi to me. So, play nice, or it'll be bye bye for you again.

Joe · 2018-02-20T20:26:07Z

LindaMay LindaMay, you might try discriminating between people now and again. Not everyone is your homie.

Joe · 2018-02-20T20:27:04Z

stranger Stranger, we appreciate it when readers provide some coherent evidence for their assertions, rather than just asserting things for the LOLZ.

lysna · 2018-02-20T21:08:39Z

Icarus I'm well aware of the (imagined) polarized right wing thinking & wining here and people that think the left has nothing to offer. Inflexible unbalanced views, people that react with unconscious bias & melt as soon as presented with a different view/opinion...I hate the banal use of the term...SNOWFLAKES...but you're correct...plenty of them on this site too unfortunately.

People please get away from the divisive political herding of left or right wing identity politics. There's no such thing. You've been conned. Stay away from this, or other, fanatical group think.

Icarus · 2018-02-20T22:54:31Z

Joe You banned me from commenting on Sott.net because I presented dissenting opinions. I never banned you anyone else from doing anything in my entire life. So I'll leave other readers to judge who among the two of us is the snowflake.

And as proof that there was no trolling, I am leaving here the two links involved. so that other readers can verifiy what an authoritatian snowflake you are:

Link 1:

The American Dream has become the American Scheme: The rich get richer and the poor go to jail

"It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones." ― Nelson Mandela This...

Link 2:

SOTT Focus:There Is No Such Thing As 'The Poor'

Knowledge is a curse. Having even a rudimentary understanding of anything is guaranteed to spoil any kind of fun and community you might have. The current time is marked by collectivism of a...

On top of snowflake, we will have to add LIAR to your list of qualities as my profile DID NOT cIaim I "hated all the content on Sott.net". On the contrary, I made compliments on the Health and Wellness and on the Science of the Spirit sections saying they were "fantastic", but added that the politics section sucked due its insane right-wing bias... At that point, I was still not aware that sott.net admins could not take criticism.

I mean, you write entire articles warning about the dangers of authoritarianism, snowflakism and thought police and then you turn around and do what? precisely that which you spend all of your days whining about!!! If there is a bigger hypocrite in this world, I haven't met him yet.

I wonder what Laura and the Cassiopaeans would have to say about that!

And as for the ban threat, go ahead and fulfill your inherent authoritarian snowflake nature (again), because I have no interest in staying in this digital North Korea were the only opinions allowed are the ones Joe Quinn aproves of.

Niall · 2018-02-20T23:43:54Z

Icarus

You banned me from commenting on Sott.net because I presented dissenting opinions.

No, we banned you because you were being an obnoxious, entitled, abusive, repetitive, puerile troll.

I never banned you anyone else from doing anything in my entire life.

That's because you've never been in a position to ban anyone in your entire life.

So I'll leave other readers to judge who among the two of us is the snowflake.

Oh yes, please do!

HVACTech · 2018-02-21T00:50:17Z

stranger "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years".... Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 [Link]
you don't seem to understand the US Constitution. they did not allow for a standing army. only the ability to raise one in time of need.

why do we need one anyhow. are Mexico and Canada gonna invade us?

why we have a national Guard.

"The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..." . Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 [Link]
all we have to do, to stop all of the things that you are on about . is to make them obey the existing law.

if it has not been amended, then it has not changed.

only the Navy has legitimate Constitutional existence.

LindaMay · 2018-02-21T01:34:47Z

Say what Joe?!?

Homie? What does that mean Mr-Above-Everyone-Else?

Potatoes and Tomatoes · 2018-02-21T08:36:38Z

Niall Niall...such a shame. You ban because you can...wow, power trip much? You didn't like Eduardos comments? Tough shit, suck it up boyo and grow a pair. It's not up to you to moderate for others, be offended for others, judge for others. You're no longer a snowflake Niall...you've melted and become a drip.

Niall · 2018-02-21T20:13:49Z

Potatoes and Tomatoes Niall...such a shame. You ban because you can...wow, power trip much? You didn't like Eduardos comments? Tough shit, suck it up boyo and grow a pair. It's not up to you to moderate for others, be offended for others, judge for others.

Uh, yes, actually, it is. This isn't a democracy, and it certainly isn't a communist uptopia. You'd be wise to consider what you post before insulting people.

Niall · 2018-02-21T20:31:30Z

stranger All these Johnny-come-lately-self-proclaimed world affair experts need to brush up on their history and learn the definition of liberal: it is not an insult.

Liberalism is a political theory/ideology, not history.

LonSabbatical · 2018-02-21T22:09:47Z

As much as it's nice to see our dear editors being called up and pushed against the wall... one must remember that it is they who make this platform possible.

Some assertions are being made about them which simply aren't true e.g.

- They don't know history --> I think going by the evidence of their interests and that of the owner of this website, history is an obsession. So that assertion is simply not true.

- They advocate for war and military spending ---> again, an assertion that I think the evidence to show as not true. I mean they are against psychopaths and write articles against american imperialism etc

It seems to me that one should not let a little bit of disagreement make them lose all sense of perspective and proportionality.

If you disagree with their articles, say so and say why.... leave it at that. Don't get personal and abusive - observe good etiquette and behaviour. In short, try and be a decent human being even in times of turmoil.

Potatoes and Tomatoes · 2018-02-22T01:27:30Z

Niall Goodness me. I'd be wise, eh? Hope you're liking your position Niall? I'd call you a jumped up pipsqueak, but you're old enough to know better. Although...you're a bit Mary Poppins so it's kind of endearing.

anartist · 2018-02-22T04:36:34Z

stranger You could widen your horizons instead of remaining trapped in the US Empire viewpoint. your choice. One thing you don't mention, and Coreys article

SOTT Focus:American Energy Dominance And The Rise of The Petro-Yuan

Russiagate, gun control, terrorism - a new deception for every day. But while Western populations are increasingly at each other's throats over political and social ideologies, a radically...

reminded me, is that the Empire is propped up by the petrodollar. When that bubble pops...

Ron_Doe · 2018-02-22T11:30:57Z

LonSabbatical Well said.

Chill out folks.

One of the most endearing aspects of this website and other similar "alternative" news sites is the comments section.

I always look forward to see what other readers have to say, particularly to see if their point of view is presented well enough to challenge whatever perceptions or conclusions I may have come to from reading the article.

As LonSabbatical points out, by all mea ns disagree, but don't fall into the Facebook type of reply and slag off just because you disagree..........have a go at trying to persuade us as to why you disagree.

Try it! You may even find that it clarifies your own point of view.

Joe · 2018-02-22T12:13:20Z

LindaMay I think I was pretty clear, but if I wasn't, I was suggesting that it's not a good idea to support someone who is being an obnoxious troll. There seem to be a lot of people on here with an inferiority complex.

stranger · 2018-02-23T20:28:22Z

Niall more info backing up my posts below.

This article is full of pentagon propaganda false economic BS about cheap war, should have been fact checked/rejected.

stranger · 2018-02-23T20:32:28Z

anartist There is nothing new in this article, you have been duped, war is not cheap, the problem is not the few insignificant crumbs the US gov't throws to it's poor. Right wing has long falsely framed the argument that way to divide & distract people from the true cost of their rapacious horrific crimes against humanity.

This article is full of pentagon propaganda false information, as I have documented.

New article below further detailing missing trillions from the gov't & Defene's budget.

Heosphorus · 2018-02-24T03:30:13Z

stranger Where do you live, Stranger?

Heosphorus · 2018-02-24T03:54:10Z

Icarus I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't give a damn, actually. I believe those who predict the U.S. will fall within decades and become a broken-up melange of outlying territories where the strongest dominate and a few unions of former states who negotiate with other nations for independent nation status and defend their borders from the outlying territories. (If nothing else, we all acknowledge that 22 trillion in national debt is unsustainable.) However, I, out of curiosity, read your first link...carefully. You, my friend, were the first one to start a fight with:

Billionaire boot-licking right-wing think tanks Rand Corporation and MIses Institute certainly try to convinve [sic] everybody of that, but Sottnet was supposed to see through obvious bullshit.

Yep. You. Joe had been diplomatically responding to you. You started an emotional argument, and I saw nothing in Joe's comments to provoke you.

If SOTT's graphs are wrong, put up alternative graphs. If you believe SOTT's editors have incorrectly drawn assumptions to conclusions, then find evidence and research to show them wrong.

What I see is a hot-headed flaming when facts would have sufficed.

stranger · 2018-02-24T05:27:10Z

LonSabbatical thanks for the kumbaya lecture, but when BS statistics right out of the cooked books of the Pentagon are disguised as reasonable discourse, then held up in a false dichotomy and compared to bogus statistics for "entitlements", (as I pointed out, social security, which more than pays for itself, is here in this article falsely counted as an entitlement "expense") I'm taking the gloves off, because frankly, with such blatant hypocrisy and lying, the fight has already moved beyond gloves/polite discourse.

The right-wing has had a continuous hard on for gutting "entitlements" (otherwise known as helping your neighbor/fellow citizen in need) ever since they were instated.

Overly enthusiastic/foolish proponents of the libertarian wing of the right wing, whether naively or cynically, are serving the interests of the horrendous nightmare that is the global US military empire when they parrot Pentagon propaganda.

Anyone who can't see through their lies is blind to the past, present, and we all will continue to suffer the consequences into the future as long as they prevail, regardless of how civilly or politely you or I behave.

HVACTech · 2018-02-20T01:36:33Z

heh, seems some folks don't like hearing the truth.

HVACTech · 2018-02-20T02:30:19Z

While the opponents of the Constitution, who came to be labeled “Anti-Federalists,” opposed standing armies vociferously, they weren't the only ones. The Father of the Constitution himself, James Madison, and many of his fellow Federalist supporters of the Constitution also feared and loathed standing armies.

[Link]

HVACTech · 2018-02-20T02:43:01Z

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. ~ James Madison

these things were both known and well understood in the 1700's.

what needs to happen in America. is to push the reset button on our Constitution. all the way back to the 10th amendment. if you do not know why I say that. read it. and get hot.

[Link]

davidcarswell · 2018-02-20T03:02:00Z

Well let’s axe “entitlement programs” and due to the high cost of living let’s move everyone who can’t afford rent into tents-oh wait that’s illegal across the country. Hell feeding is illegal too. They’ve had money taken out of every check they ever earned-told it’s the insurance to make ends meet after retirement. The jobs - the good ones are all gone, pensions stolen, 401k defunded raided and emptied. Damn - let’s just put them in death camps since we’ve completely thrown everyone under the bus and only a few have a life worth living. The richest nation on earth and my mother killed herself after her pension was stolen after working for Georgia Power for 40 years-she got nothing but a lousy SSi check that she discovered wasn’t enough to pay for an apartment in a safe neighborhood where there weren’t gangs rapes and robberies. She decided to live in her car so she might feel safe and could eat something besides cat food. Well her car got stolen and she gave up. Entitlements?! Damned right my mom was entitled for to have the government in the richest nation be sure she could live for a decade that would be representative of a lifestyle that she paid the richest nation on earth to insure just that. She paid to live her last days with some fucking dignity and if you don’t see that she was “entitled” to that then fuck off.

I’ll agree about the family and needing a mother and a father. My parents stayed together until all the kids were raised. They divorced and when dad came down with skin cancer she remarried to get him on her insurance. Few years later he beat it and they divorced again. My mother was an angel and she got thrown under the proverbial bus because of people that speak of the entitled.

Thank God I’m a faggot and don’t have to much deal with raising kids and could give a rats ass about marriage and SJW régressive progressive bullshit. And fuck the right they are even worse. Since now there are no jobs left and the masses have gone psychotic it’s started to look better every day that perhaps my mom was right and maybe I’ll just join her. Maybe we can get all the entitled to join in and we could have it go viral and solve all the problems caused by the entitled. That’s make ya happy and the elite could just take everything for themselves since they are so less entitled.

Jade · 2018-02-20T04:04:35Z

Regarding your family situation, I have been helping my single mom since I could ride a bike.. age 4 to be exact, you cant perplex yourself.. do your best and it just goes by. I know your mom must have been doing her best and you should know how proud ppl are but the pride isnt the kind you are expressing. My mom was beat up twice by her husband when I was 4, she has epilepsy and the meds slowed her down. He drugged her and beat her. The second time he threw her out the front door, so I broke his back. So when you say you just arent what you seem, you need to do be uncomfortably aware of things.

Jade ·

Sorry to hear.

· 2018-02-20T03:32:33Z

Jade · 2018-02-20T03:49:32Z

Well, I’m a the guy who does shit their way.. and never have time or money to do anything for my wife or build anything for myself. So whatever who cares.

anartist · 2018-02-20T04:33:10Z

Thank you Pierre. The details may be off, but the broad stokes feel correct. My only quibble would be the use of the word liberal. Totalitarian is Totalitarian, whatever its mask, be it fascist, communist, liberal, ... I suspect you only wanted to make the point that this time the mask is liberal, or alt-left. Totalitarian is also a stand in for those control freaks, psychopaths of the criminal mind.

stranger · 2018-02-20T05:36:40Z

anartist the devil is in the details, literally in this case.

Niall · 2018-02-20T23:26:16Z

anartist Russians call them ultra-liberals after seeing first hand in the 90s what destruction they're capable of.

anartist · 2018-02-22T04:59:49Z

Niall Yes, understood. Methinks that's where the term "Neo-Liberals" comes from also.

whitecoast · 2018-02-20T05:42:44Z

Nice article!

"- clericalism: politically correct for the destruction of religions "

If you think of clericalism as the act of brokers of official truth passing onto peasants information from an institution that tells people what to think, you could almost characterize the rise of progressivism since the New Deal (and the rise of "policy science" at universities and western governments) as the establishment of a (neo?) clericalism of its own. A lot of much of what get's smeared as provincial "anti-intellectualism" is often better understood as a reaction to this phenomenon.

lysna · 2018-02-20T06:44:40Z

The Welfare State & Austerity explained for Americans & Dummies...[Link]

Gaby · 2018-02-20T07:20:07Z

Excellent analysis! And very shocking too. The truth often is.

A parasitic implosion to say the least.

Extremely Woolly · 2018-02-20T10:04:01Z

Excellent analysis! And very shocking too. The truth often is.

A parasitic implosion to say the least.

Yes a good summary, when presented correctly stats and charts stand by themselves and have no hidden agenda and are absolute. The whole world pays for Americas never ending wars on everybody, being the defacto reserve currency the sweat of every labourer in developing countries pays for this endless war on all humans (to a lesser extent, twinned fiat currencies like the pound/euro also get a partial 'free ride'). This is only paid for by debt creation, in days of olde, the lords and kings would have a whip round and collect some gold and silver coins and this would pay for the wars with their neighbours, often leaving them in debt at the end(eventually the gold would always run out). I suggest another chart where the debt creation is subtracted from the real US GDP, the net result is then subtracted from the entire world's GDP, hence a calculation could be made of what each person in the world pays to keep the Evil Empire/MIC going on indefinitely( John William at shadowstats does charts to enable this). The fall of the petro dollar may be the only thing to stop it, the Saudis are being forced by China to accept the Yuan instead of the dollar, steadily countries like China and Russia are exciting the dollar hegemony (creating their own swift equivalent). The free ride won't last forever, but could see a potential divergence in the 2 money systems between the east and west where they are not easily exchangable or are expensive to do so..

stranger · 2018-02-20T20:05:47Z

Gaby "Execellent analysis"...except the figures supporting it are all wrong.

The US does not spend more on "entitlements" (otherwise know as taking care of less fortunate) than on war & destruction.

I pointed some of the specifics regarding that above, but all you really have to do is look at more civilized countries that actually do take care of their citizens and don't have a global military empire to see the lie.

The US has some of the worst inequality and poverty in the world while maintaining a military stranglehold on the whole planet, so it is a joke to say they spend more on "entitlements" than War, killing and destruction.

Get on the right side of history.

Joe · 2018-02-20T20:32:23Z

stranger

The US does not spend more on "entitlements" (otherwise know as taking care of less fortunate) than on war & destruction.

Feel free to provide evidence for the above. Evidence that contradicts it is in the article. You do realize that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true right? Unless all truth is relative, in which case

stranger · 2018-02-20T21:10:30Z

Joe I outlined several defense costs that are not included in this article's figures for "Defense spending" in a post above.

I didn't even get into Dept of Homeland Security which as a post 9/11 empire building agency should arguably also be included as "Defense spending".

It is naive to swallow hook, line and sinker the Pentagon's own accounting.

I take strong exception to the idea that the US, which has some of the worst inequality and worst social services in the western world, spends more on "entitlements" (helping other human beings) than their global military empire, 1000+ overseas bases, multiple wars and proxy wars.....

Joe · 2018-02-20T21:27:33Z

stranger Fair enough. Although the point in the article still stands. The US is not really a 'capitalist' country anymore. It's increasingly socialist, and in a rather totalitarian way that implies pretty negative results for personal freedom. And who doesn't like personal freedom?

Niall · 2018-02-21T21:13:39Z

stranger The US does not spend more on "entitlements" (otherwise know as taking care of less fortunate) than on war & destruction.

Yes it does, actually.

I pointed some of the specifics regarding that above, but all you really have to do is look at more civilized countries that actually do take care of their citizens and don't have a global military empire to see the lie.

Not so fast. Name your example. Which are these 'more civilized countries'? They wouldn't happen to fall under 'the NATO umbrella', would they?

The US has some of the worst inequality and poverty in the world while maintaining a military stranglehold on the whole planet, so it is a joke to say they spend more on "entitlements" than War, killing and destruction.

Almost none of that is true. The US has some of the worst RELATIVE inequality, while it has almost no absolute poverty; pretty much everyone in the US is in the top global 1% (including prisoners in US jails).

It does have a 'military stranglehold'... but it doesn't logically follow that this auto-magically disqualifies us from considering that it spends more on its welfare state than on its military. In fact, what that tells us is just how ASTRONOMICALLY high US welfare spending is.

Get on the right side of history.

Oh we did. You shoulda been here in 2016.

stranger · 2018-02-23T20:33:39Z

Joe more evidence below.

You guys failed on this one, better fact checking next time please.

RMMu · 2018-02-20T10:11:51Z

Thank you for a very hard-hitting article.

And you are right, these feminists, with their contradictions, are the worst enemies of women.

In Sweden, in 2017, "an average of about 20 rapes a day was reported in Sweden with the world's first 'feminist government,' bringing the annual total to 7,230." [Link]
And not a peep from the feminist gang - even when "Police admit that rape cases are piling up without being investigated because resources are being drained by gang violence and shootings."

And this takes place under a "feminist government"!

Clearly feminists are more interested in destroying the family and assaulting society than protecting women...

C-dog · 2018-02-20T13:10:48Z

Figures lie and liars figure...

Canne · 2018-02-20T14:36:55Z

I feel like very few commenters read this article in totality. The charts and graphs are probably a bit misleading, but besides that what did you actually take away from it? It's a thought and research provoking article aimed at, what i took from it, the dangers of war and military spending creating an all inclusive American welfare state with all the lovely, scary, personal freedoms stealing bits that go along with it. Not to say the poor are not entitled to benefits from the very large government, taxation of the people, but that instead of sustaining our country and economy in a sustainable economical way we've created a country where most will soon be dependant on full government welfare. I think the point was "beware, be aware," not "be offended." And don't drink the kool-aid.

TBoris · 2018-02-20T15:58:18Z

Agree with the Stranger's comments that the money isn't going to the welfare state participants in any meaningful way(see corbettreport film "9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money" https://youtu.be/n3xgjxJwedA). And I also agree with Pierre (the author of this article) that the policies the government is employing are anti-family, anti-anything that challenges the states oppressive powers, And the State(ultimately the one world government) aims to isolate all of us to be individuals only with only one family member the State. And this is being done in a very sneaky way. Each of us is provided with a poison which matches our indoctornated world view. Its the color revolution that Soro's does does all over the world. The state controls all the money because it hands out money to those who support its decisions on how money is spent and penalizes those who question it. And it bankrupts all of us literally to get us to tow the line. As anartist says its just totalitarian. Each of us needs to "divorce" ourselves from being married to the State weather we are a male defense contractor working for a tech company that develops "smart" bombs or a feminist who has been taught to hate men.

Divide By Zero · 2018-02-20T16:41:27Z

Funny how the graphs show huge entitlement spending, yet the US SSI and medicare are a joke compared to western European countries. Some countries even pay you to go to school to train for a new job, or have long term unemployment benefits... While we have 26 weeks of unemployment at half or less than half pay, which is also taxable.

So where is the money going? I would guess the medicaid programs which pay overpriced health care that we have compared to Europe's cheaper system. It ends up being corporate welfare for the pharmaceuticals, etc

stranger · 2018-02-20T20:17:18Z

Hey liberal-bashers, bash this:

LIBERAL (Definition):

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

Niall · 2018-02-20T23:45:44Z

stranger The words remain the same, but over time new meanings are slipped in behind them. Here, read this book to learn how it happens:

[Link]

ORION · 2018-02-20T21:08:53Z

Great definitions on paper, unfortunatly it has become something else over time and the list is much longer on the dark side !

stranger · 2018-02-20T21:18:41Z

ORION though some seem to want to put liberals in a box with antifa, nazis, and whatever other extremists to suit their fancy, (apparently to serve their own political agenda), true liberals don't have to accept that re-definition any more than when if someone were to call you an a$$hole you don't have to accept that.

After all, as I pointed out, the reigning definition on paper has yet to change.

Words do change, but it takes time, and push-back is allowed.

Joe · 2018-02-20T21:30:19Z

stranger Push back is super allowed. So fire away. But understand that when we use the word 'liberal', we really mean the radical lefty liberal types. You can still be a traditional libertarian that likes to keep himself to himself and doesn't like overweening government interference in private life, especially government that is run by psycho nutjobs.

HVACTech · 2018-02-21T01:47:16Z

Joe what I have learned, or observed if you will. is that our founders were Min - Archists.

meaning, that while they abhorred "government" they also learned the need for it. Anarchy produces a vacuum. that is why it has not worked.

our own Declaration of Independence was the ultimate Anarchist document. they struggled with that.. and monetary policy, and produced a Confederation.

when that did not work.. they made quite a production of going "federalist" and produced the federalist papers. replete with many anonymous characters.. too much fun! but I digress..

most of the folks that produce the obfuscation here. are Anarchists.

therefore, I submit for review.. how long, or short.. is the distance between Anarchy and Min Archy?

stranger · 2018-02-21T02:33:20Z

Joe I said liberal, not libertarian.

I don't want to be trapped in an insufferable, sophomoric Ayn Rand bad B movie script.

anartist · 2018-02-22T04:12:27Z

stranger Well, just to add my twigs to the fire. I remember a new appellation that came out in the 80's I think, it was "Neo-Liberal", essentially from what I could see at the time, they were similar to "Neo-Cons"(New Conservatives). I haven't heard the term Neo-Liberal that much recently. So Neo-Liberals to the right of Liberals, and SJW to the left of Liberals.I'd rather not use the word Liberal actually, to much baggage (in Canada we have a Liberal party, so I associate that word with them, not with your definition list) I like Jordan Petersons term, Openess. It cuts through the false verbiage and get to the essence. Gosh I hope someone doesn't start up an "Open" party or an "Orderl" party!, that would really polarize the waters.

Joe · 2018-02-22T12:17:06Z

stranger You should redefine yourself as libertarian. It's only a few extra letters.

stranger · 2018-02-23T20:37:01Z

Joe like I said, I believ people got together and formed goverments to protect themselves from the excesses of the psychopathic criminal classes.

They do this by regulation, an imperfect partial solution, but no regulation favored by libertarians has already been tried and didn't work out so well: rampant child slavery, sweat shops...

We still have these problems, but giving up and giving the robber barons free reign is no solution.

Eventide · 2018-02-24T02:09:00Z

stranger "I said liberal, not libertarian. I don't want to be trapped in an insufferable, sophomoric Ayn Rand bad B movie script."

OMG! · 2018-02-21T01:51:08Z

It’s a good article, though my cognitive dissonance is acting up, and my gut is telling me there’s more than just malignant feminism and ultra-liberal cognitive dysfunction at work... (yes role eyes)

Some years back if I’m remembering correctly, a lot of what passed as liberal in politics seemed to be moving more to a conservative mind-set... Maybe I’m having my own cognitive issue... reference Dr Bob Altemeyer, (retired) Canadian professor... though maybe I remembering some of his research incorrectly, if not it might be the enabling factor, as being conservative, is a bit like being feck all of any use.

Anyway The Total Federal Spending for 2015 alone should frighten anybody regardless of any identity politics, though perhaps not if one identifies as a worm, though they should consider environmental budget spending especially if you’re any class of a self-respecting worm, you live in the dirt don’t you.

And the government private partnership plan, depending on how it’s implemented, could make living quiet unbearable... and I’m always impressed at the American work ethic, though it might seem like working in an open air continental gulag in the not so distant future, with feminists cracking a whip, though I suspect they won’t be at the top of the pyramid, though maybe not.

parallax · 2018-02-21T05:45:12Z

Read this when there were only 5 comments last night, and now there are 56 (maybe more). Provocative articles tend to do that, so thanks for writing it, Pierre, nice to look at things from all angles to see where it goes, and realize you were looking at a large view whereas some views in the main are more narrow and distracted - oh, like identity politics. There are issues of variability built into many things too, so you acknowledge these if you can without getting hung up in them for the purposes of seeing a bigger canvas.

So, also send this to a military buddy and he was eyebrows up on the article - indeed, he said, social engineering 101 starts there under the cover of situational dominance. The stories are endless. As for coming home (long tours), yeah, many come home to empty homes, however, he did say it's hard on the wife and kids too, so sometimes you can't blame them - more could be said here.

On the GDP front, that often seems a tricky one to get your head around - how it is used and interpreted.

The ol Wiki says of its history:

William Petty came up with a basic concept of GDP t o defend landlords against unfair taxation during warfare between the Dutch and the English between 1652 and 1674 .[6] Charles Davenant developed the method further in 1695.[7] The modern concept of GDP was first developed by Simon Kuznets for a US Congress report in 1934.[8] In this report, Kuznets warned against its use as a measure of welfare [1] (see below under limitations and criticisms). After the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, GDP became the main tool for measuring a country's economy.[9] At that time gross national product (GNP) was the preferred estimate, which differed from GDP in that it measured production by a country's citizens at home and abroad rather than its 'resident institutional units' (see OECD definition above). The switch from "GNP" to "GDP" in the US was in 1991, trailing behind most other nations. Crucial to the development of GDP was its role in the wartime effort .[10] A crucial role was played here by the US Department of Commerce under Milton Gilbert where ideas from Kuznets were embedded into governmental institutions. The history of the concept of GDP should be distinguished from the history of changes in ways of estimating it. The value added by firms is relatively easy to calculate from their accounts, but the value added by the public sector, by financial industries, and by intangible asset creation is more complex . These activities are increasingly important in developed economies, and the international conventions governing their estimation and their inclusion or exclusion in GDP regularly change in an attempt to keep up with industrial advances. In the words of one academic economist "The actual number for GDP is therefore the product of a vast patchwork of statistics and a complicated set of processes carried out on the raw data to fit them to the conceptual framework ."[11]

The other thing about it (or many things) is that negative aspects tend to boost GDP rise (it does not sound intuitive), for instance, commercial drugs and vaccines; kind of obvious with spin-off services in healthcare's revolving door and everything else intertwined - it has the appearance of making people well: long term sales, service and products, and it makes people sick: long term sales, service and products - many jobs. Well people are a drain on the index. Illegal drugs on the other hand provide for poverty, broken lives and families and the administration thereof (as you discuss with those hundreds of outlets), police, lawyers, judges, prisons etc. all helping out the GDP. Offshore interdiction, military drug supply protection (Columbia/Afghanistan), distribution networks, shipping and transportation, banking etc. all aid in its growth. Natural disasters and oil spills etc. can do this also; and I'm sure the C02 AGW crowd will aid and abet the GDP numbers somewhere, short term.

Petrodollars and printing dollars out of thin-air (same) have changed the game, and 1970's 'changes' out of gold reflects on some of your charts in a steep curve, or damn close. It's complex (roll out the economists on the nightly news complex), yet probably a simple shell game of transfers, which you try and pry open some of it I think.

Niall · 2018-02-21T12:12:03Z

Totalitarianism, here we come:

[Link]
Religious parents lose custody of transgender teen for refusing hormone treatment

A Hamilton County, Ohio, judge took a transgender teen away from her parents on Friday because they refused to allow the 17-year-old to undergo hormone treatments as part of a female-to-male transition.

Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon awarded custody of the teenager to her grandparents, who will be allowed to make medical decisions for the minor and legally change her name.

The parents objected to the transition procedures because of their religious beliefs and refused to call their daughter by her chosen, male name, court records show.

OMG! · 2018-02-21T16:11:17Z

Haven’t read the article, it’s too depressing a prospect...

Can’t get my head around all this binary stuff and what not... what is manifesting this phonema.

Part of me thinks, that some children are being traumatised by porn sites... and dissociating when it comes to anything gender related and later having some YouTuber who has all the life experience of a tadpole tell them how it is.... you are a zee or a zonkey or something.

And there’s that plastic particles found in fish, that can’t be the best for hormones...

I don’t know, it’s all a bit too much, and people are rolling over, no study, no science, what gives.

Have the inmates have taken over. Maybe I’m over reacting?

Pythagoras · 2018-02-22T08:25:35Z

Amazing to see so many extensive comments. I go back to the pre-"Wave Series" era with LJK, C's, et. al., I have to say I'm pleased that the major voices of SOTT try to be objective about Trump and the bizarre rise of the "Liberal Fascism" that Reagan prognosticated. I sympathize with the 'classical Liberals' here who feel disenfranchised by the polarization to extremes in US politics, catalyzed perhaps by the death throes of the fiat banking regime and its World Police monopolar enforcer state. Those familiar with Jacques Ellul may recognize "la technique", his notion of a self-reinforcing escalation of efficiencies, where scientific and technical means become ends in themselves, an autonomous dynamic that challenges our very humanity and free will.

Lately I've pondered the 'mystery of iniquity' mentioned in the New Testament--the subtle but pervasive transcendent driver for mundane ponerology? So many indications of plans, schemes in play to enthrone a luciferian messiah, and then perhaps the final cull of those who demur, who refuse the collective worship and acclaim of the Man of the Big Lie?

Highland Fleet Lute · 2018-02-22T10:40:33Z

"I sympathize with the 'classical Liberals'".

I don't. If the cap fits, wear it.

I won't give myself one. I seem to be a lot more conservative than a lot of folk that 'self-identify as conservatives', whilst simultaneously a lot more leftist than folk who 'self-identify as leftists'. This is not because I'm confused, but rather, 'cause these headers 'liberal', 'conservative', 'left wing', 'right wing' are at the present time subject to rapid kaleidoscopic cultural mutation, and doubtless they'll mean something entirely different next year to what they do this year.

Pythagoras · 2018-02-23T17:54:56Z

Highland Fleet Lute I was just saying I can see they are in shock from exposure to the dialectical "mutation" process you very eloquently described. I'm sympathetic as a fellow human being navigating the maze of psycho-spiritual and intellectual experience, not ideologically.

frann · 2018-02-22T17:22:28Z

All the charts are wrong in this article as they use Social Security as an entitlement paid for by the state. Social Security is paid into a trust by the workers and employers. The State does not add a dime!

The Trust Fund represents a legal obligation of the federal government to program beneficiaries. The government has borrowed nearly $2.8 trillion as of 2014 from the Trust Fund and used the money for other purposes! They have no plan to reimburse the fund for what I consider their theft.

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-23T09:22:37Z

frann Thank you. The only 'entitlement' going around is the 'entitlement' that the pathological banksters and those who serve them, have. They feel 'entitled' to take what we paid into the fund all of our lives. We are owed that return now. We are entitled to collect what we have already paid through lifetime deductions from salary. The term 'entitlement' has been used pejoratively by the rabid-right who seek to claim what is not theirs.

That issue and the weird charts above... you know we have no idea how much that briefly mentioned black budget is. The spooks.. cia, nsa, odni, dia, fbi.. all 400 agencies (snark)... use money ginned up by the drug trade, child and organ trafficking, porn, gambling... the part that the mafia doesn't get. Cia set up the drug routes through, first, the Corsican mob (using Turkey, Bulgaria, Corsica), and later, groomed drug lords in SE Asia and Afghanistan and have financed entire WARS and coups, internal conflicts, provocations of USSR and then other countries to get THEM to start something (everywhere in Central America, Afghanistan in the 1980s, now in the borders of Iran, China, North Korea/South Korea.. etc) in order to keep the flow of arms going. Hell, the cia has even sold to both sides - at the the same time! Check out the front business called Stibam in Milan. Even nukes were in the pipeline to ME countries in the 1980s. The misery created also helps to sell more drugs...

There is so much info about the use of banks to funnel and wash all this money - BCCI, Nugan Hand, Banco Ambrosiano, Vatican bank (see P2 lodges)... the nazis were partners in most of this.. helped set up and organize the coke drug labs in So. America. Our entire cia network is based on 1500-1600 mostly SS officers .. Allen Dulles' work. The SS/nazi connection.. we kind of morphed into them after 1947-48. There is so much info out now about all this. Doug Valentine, David Talbot, Peter Dale Scott, Dave Emory to start with.

So when you talk about the 'defense' budget (haha Offense Budget maybe)... you have no idea. Probably trillions... how much did Rumsfeld admit to 'losing' on Sep 10, 2001? 1.6 trillion or such.... We spend a pittance of our great wealth on our people.. especially the ones that unregulated capitalism (aka oligarchy) has run over. The oligarchs expect them to die. This is what ppaths do.

Pythagoras · 2018-02-23T17:52:14Z

frann Politicians have inflated the benefits, to an extent, beyond the capacity of the trust fund as designed, so maybe partial "entitlement" but more like vast ponzi scheme. And since the Trust so wisely invested in the "risk free" bonds of an entity that may go mammaries-up at some point (or at least go through an Argentina-style currency debacle), you are still making a very astute point. But as "eyesoftheworld" lays it out, the whole thing has gone so far south from corruption and elite ponerology that we'll be lucky if Trump can finagle a good enough deal out of the BRICS that the USA won't slide into the abyss that Deagle.com implies in its 2025 projections. It may take a little martial law and eating canned food for several months to get there, depending on the extent to which ObamaComm/ ClownsInAmerica/ deepstateLuci sleeper cadres are able to create chaos and intimidate municipal authorities when the SHTF. Nice summary there Eyes'.

stranger · 2018-02-23T20:39:57Z

This article is full of false economic pentagon propaganda.War is not cheap, it is not good for the economy, most of the real costs of a war machine economy are hidden and not figured in this article. The problem is not the very few entitlements the US gov't pays out, which are far less than other countries which don't have the huge military empire costs...

Here is more evidence of their evil cunning, open your eyes, people:

$21 Trillion Missing from US Federal Budget – Validated Independent News[Link]

Niall · 2018-02-23T21:28:23Z

stranger That's for DoD and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). How much would they find is unaccounted for if Fitts and her colleagues looked into other govt sectors? Medicaid? Can you imagine?! I bet it's trillions also.

Also, that's $21 trillion missing over 17 years, with 'just' $6.5 trillion 'lost' from through the DoD. Spread over that timeframe, that still leaves military spending puny compared with welfare state spending.

stranger · 2018-02-23T22:11:44Z

Niall You bet? That's the best you can do?

Pretty good method.

This is just the Army, we have yet to hear about the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force...

OK, point taken, you're exposed as a cynical apologist for the rapacious murderous US military empire, enjoy that reputation. I personally am not impressed.

BTW, HUD money lost in the pit of financialization/real estate bubble profits for developers had no bearing on housing for the poor.

Do you really think there is no homelessness crisis in the US?

" Let them sleep in cars, let them eat cake..."

You are in good company, Niall Antoinette.

stranger · 2018-02-23T22:14:12Z

Niall what part of "$2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5trillion in year end JV adjustments1 made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement " do you not understand, by the way? $9.3 trillion for 2015 alone and counting.

Niall · 2018-02-23T23:43:15Z

Niall You are in good company, Niall Antoinette.

That's the essential point we're making; people like you are channeling the energy of the 'revolution' that will destroy everything.

stranger · 2018-02-24T02:31:18Z

Niall The Antoinette analogy is a warning from history:

Ignore the suffering of the less fortunate at your own peril, it will come back to bite you in the derriere.

And you will have deserved it.

Niall · 2018-02-24T13:28:34Z

stranger Please! As if you care about the suffering of others. The revolution and the terror will produce more suffering than you can imagine.

stranger · 2018-02-25T01:35:00Z

Niall "Please! As if you care about the suffering of others. "

and the cynic of the year award goes to...

re the terror and suffering - couldn't agree more, hence we should do what we can to forestall it, like provide for the sick and the poor, as opposed to debating/denying their existence.

stranger · 2018-02-23T20:59:46Z

Pathetic state of criminally negligent Defense Dept accounting, right out of the war horse's mouth:

"The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management &Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFASIndianapolis) did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5trillion in yearend JV adjustments1 made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation.

As a result, the data used to prepare the FY2015 AGF thirdquarter and yearend financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. Furthermore, DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions. Until the Army and DFAS Indianapolis correct these control deficiencies, there is considerable risk that AGFfinancial statements will be materially misstated and the Army will not achieve audit readiness by the congressionally mandated deadline of September 30, 2017..."

[Link]

Niall · 2018-02-23T21:31:43Z

It's all a bit academic really. The US, as The Donald blurted out on the campaign trail, just prints whatever money it needs.

Entitlement, it's been the American Way since 1973 (or thereabouts).

OMG! · 2018-02-23T21:40:15Z

And Ex US-government member Catherine Austin Fitts says it’s not a PROBLEM, it’s a PLAN.

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-24T00:22:30Z

Wow. I don't recognize the group that used to work at sott in these ideas anymore. The paltry amount the US spends on it's PEOPLE instead of its weapons and toys is well known and VISIBLE in the state of the welfare of the average person. To say nothing of the state of the state... crappy roads, bridges falling down, ancient infrastructure... people sleeping on the streets.. dying without adequate (and sometimes, ANY) medical care. Yeah, blame it on the poor people... not the war machine. Black budgets...money gotten from criminal activities by the US agencies... while people suffer and die. I really can't believe that the sott people have been taken over by Pod-people but it sure looks that way. I can't recommend this digest to anyone anymore. It's almost like they have intentionally undermined themselves. Why would that be? I started noticing this a year or so ago when some of the commentors on sott broadcasts started sounding like Rand acolytes. Oh well.. there is plenty of good info and data available ... we lost Bob Parry but we have many solid voices of compassion and deep understanding who don't attack the victims of this war machine country but understand where the evil comes from.

lysna · 2018-02-24T01:30:05Z

eyesoftheworld The gods honest truth. No one wants it. Well said ...!!!

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-24T02:03:12Z

lysna Thanks, Lysna. Wish I could figure out what happened to this site. It's depressing to see it morph into something that purports to be informed by wisdom and compassion but shows neither.... They used to be.. where are they now? How can you describe psychopathy over and over again and then slide into this misinformation... What gives???

stranger · 2018-02-24T02:29:55Z

eyesoftheworld Yes, well said.

Sad, but change is the only constant.

Still lots of good alternative websites out there.

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-24T05:34:48Z

stranger Let's list some of them. I'll go first:

Global Research . ca

Alternet

Truthdig

Guns and Butter w/Bonnie Faulkner

everything on nolies radio

Peter Dale Scott

Dave Emory archives and current

Sibel Edmonds

James Corbett and the Corbett Report

Black Ops Radio

Red Ice Radio

TUC radio (Time of Useful Consciousness)

Please add to the list....

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-24T23:38:44Z

eyesoftheworld I'll add to my own list... I keep finding more good sources...

Information Clearinghouse IC

The Jimmy Dore Show videos... this comedian has a clearer picture of the truth than most writers I read... he has had a crash course in realpolitik in the last year or 2

William Engdahl like this one [Link] or this one [Link] or this one [Link] what a BRILLIANT thinker...

stranger · 2018-02-25T02:36:14Z

eyesoftheworld just saw your reply, I was going to suggest the same. You've listed most of what I would put (esp Corbett, Global Research, Information Clearinghouse) and some others I haven't looked at yet, so thanks.

Black Agenda Report has a good perspective on many fronts: politics, economics, education, international, foreign affairs, war & empire...Glen Ford & Cornel West contribute among many others.

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-27T01:26:57Z

stranger Hi Stranger - I too like Glen and Cornel.. especially the outrageous eloquence of Cornel. You're going to love Engdahl... his take on our 'revolution' is very different! It was waged to KEEP the slaves! Ha! The english were getting rid of that pathological construct in all their colonies.. just banning it! .. the people just wouldn't support it anymore, but the north american colony would NOT give up their slaves.. after all, it's the only reason that colony prospered. You didn't think it was the whites from Europe that did all that heavy labor, did you? So we have re-written reality so many ways and for so long, when you hear the truth, it not only resonates instantly but puts a lot of the puzzle pieces into their proper place. What a rotten country it's been from the start.... ugh.

Richie Allen from UK is a good listen too. His youtube site was just taken down.. that tells you a LOT. If they are speaking truth, they get taken down, killed or silenced somehow. Almost a sign that you want to pursue these people....

stranger · 2018-02-27T04:48:06Z

eyesoftheworld Yes, I've come across William Engdahl on Information Clearinghouse, never went to his website, thanks for the links.

Boston Review is very good also, [Link]

Pythagoras · 2018-02-24T04:22:29Z

Would it shock anyone to find out that a very "material" percentage of the missing loot slipped through various classified projects into deeper gray programs hidden behind them, and may be tooling around in the form of an anti-grav space fleet operated by a nascent "breakaway civilization"?

"We're going to wind the money righter, tighter, and higher." G H W Bush, circa 1985.

eyesoftheworld · 2018-02-24T05:15:18Z

Pythagoras absolutely no shock there. I have assumed for a long time that TONS of it went into obscure black ops... not just the political overt ones. But we're talking about a huge amount of money... we know that a lot was used for running arms into various places to start wars so the claim that the Congressionally allotted funds are the only money that gets used this way is just wrong. We haven't even touched on the Gold Mountain of Indonesia and such. Places in the world where vast resources have been mined for the use of covert ops. Besides the drug running, the child sex trafficking may be the most lucrative. The same resource can be sold/used over and over (until it dies or gets killed) whereas drugs require more logistics and are a one-way street... once snorted, shot or otherwise ingested, the drug needs to be replaced with fresh supplies. Odd that you would mention a GHWB quote - the mastermind of the last 60 years with all this corruption. Some claim he is the head of the satanic cult behind all of this insanity....

GqSoul · 2018-03-11T06:10:20Z

The essence, the vital truth of what has been presented here seems to have escaped the grasp of many, and the deliberate obfuscation of the matter by obvious trolls exacerbates the problem. Commentators on this thread are ostensibly "seekers", students of life on a quest of perpetual growth in knowledge and being. If this is indeed the case, how is CONTENTIOUS DEBATE based on emotionally triggered arguments -- citing fragmentary and speculative knowledge of the activities and motivations of shadowy world masters -- helping to achieve those aims. I don't see intellectual discourse here in the many reactionary posts of those who must fancy themselves "in the know." As someone famous was quoted saying, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." It might be pointless to express this sentiment, but I do so in hopes that it might stir our thoughts and engage dormant faculties that, once awakened, can help us better navigate our immediate social context, make decisions that are congruent with our unfolding destiny, and above all inspire and equip us to be of SOME GODDAMN USE to anyone else but ourselves. If I wanted to be USEFULLY critical of the article, here is what I'd need to do:

1.) Grasp the premise/hypothesis of the author's presentation. What is being asserted? I think the very descriptive title lays that out pretty explicitly. Is it asserted or even implied anywhere that war is good or cheap? Is there anywhere a sentiment expressed that the poor be damned and single mothers deserve the suffering they endure? Any "students" who start their critique with these arguments will be required to reread the assignment, work with a tutor, or regress to material that is within the limits of their current apperception.

2.) Submit an article in response: Conduct and present research that cogently refutes or expands on the central question or themes being considered. By this criteria, 100% of the so called "criticism" here has to be dismissed as a vehement expression of opinion, which turns out to be pretty useless to all involved as far as learning is concerned. Here are some questions to consider and study:

-How is the Welfare State beneficial/detrimental

-What historical trends can be observed regarding the levels of relative poverty/socio-economic disparity in a given society and the overall effectiveness of social programs to reduce those numbers

-Can the Welfare State be demonstrated to serve political ends. What might these purposes be? Can these claims be substantiated?

-Given a historical examination of "radical political ideology" and radical governments, what are some of the observable characteristics of these movements? What cases can be cited with overall positive outcomes? What cases with overall negative outcomes. Where outcomes are overwhelmingly negative, what classes of people suffer the most?

-If an axiomatically malevolent One World Shadow Government does indeed exist -- whose motivations, actions, and resources are practically inscrutable by us -- is it rational to assume that government programs and political maneuvers are unquestionably and sincerely altruistic?

3.) Avoid the error of hubris; in a spirit of collegial and open minded inquiry, pursue a discussion of these ideas while recognizing my incalculable ignorance of true reality.

If this process has led to any learning and growth, I will then ask, "what can I do, now that I know."

Just an observation: No one's giving out badges for who can regurgitate the most half ASSimilated pseudo knowledge.

IncenDiary · 2018-03-22T10:58:27Z

GqSoul Wow, thank you, I really needed that. Very, very well put. I don't know what else to say, except

Yossarian · 2018-06-22T00:24:38Z

Thank you for connecting some disparate dots for me! Bravo.

The depopulation agenda is clear. The globalists/Kabal will slowly starve out the majority of the population. Presently, most of our food comes...

Spur

It is a fact of physical existence that everything eats everything, any part of life needs all the other parts of life in order to flourish......

PedroCarpintero

How do they know it is an attack, rather than a system failure?

ReRan

I look forward to hearing the results of this enquiry, especially if it is done honestly.

ReRan

Meteor/Comet airburst overhead, heard it myself. If you think that you can bend or change reality to your will, you will get obliged by the...

Gee

SOTT Focus:

US Wars Fund The Welfare State Which Finances The Liberal March Towards Totalitarianism

Reader Comments

The American Dream has become the American Scheme: The rich get richer and the poor go to jail

SOTT Focus:There Is No Such Thing As 'The Poor'

SOTT Focus:American Energy Dominance And The Rise of The Petro-Yuan

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk