“Democrats”, Plutocrats, & Plutophiles

Clearly, we are not in democracy. The Clintons made more than one hundred million dollars out of politics, just telling (financial) plutocrats that they deliver, and can deliver even more, again. Indeed, the Clinton gave financial plutocrats… the world. (With the help of Bushama since.) The official American  “left” is presently ready to select those world famous corrupt politicians as their leaders. (That does not mean I prefer Ted Cruz to Clinton; not at all, just the opposite. I stay faithful to the Lesser Evil Principle.)

“Socialist” Senator Sanders is running close behind plutocrat Clinton in Iowa, first state to vote, tomorrow. Some people may object that Clinton is no plutocrat, because her fortune is not yet in the billions, and only multi-billionaire qualify as plutocrats. That lack of imagination arises from a very narrow, low dimensional, naïve, obsolete, culprit definition of what “plutocrat” is.

Is There Anyone In The World More Officially Corrupt For All To See Than The Clintons? Give Me The Name! I Want To Know! Is That Stench The Best “Democrats” Can Do? These Are Serious Questions.

In truth lots of money provides with lots of power. It is this power on others which is intrinsically evil, intrinsically corrupting. Clinton has it, and she proved it aplenty since she controlled the White House.

Rants of the .1%, and their clients to explain why being ruled by the Clintons is best, are all over. The plutophile New York Times included. In “Plutocrats and Prejudice”, the excellent professor and Ubermensch Krugman claims, with Hillary, that there is a multidimensional causality of evil: racism, sexism, etc. play a role. They have to be fought. And if that leaves no time to fight big money exclusively, claims Paul Krugman, that’s only “realistic”. He denounces the “naive” Sanders and his supporters:

Krugman: “Like many people, I’ve described the competition between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as an argument between competing theories of change, which it is. But underlying that argument is a deeper dispute about what’s wrong with America, what brought us to the state we’re in.

To oversimplify a bit — but only, I think, a bit — the Sanders view is that money is the root of all evil. Or more specifically, the corrupting influence of big money, of the 1 percent and the corporate elite, is the overarching source of the political ugliness we see all around us.

The Clinton view, on the other hand, seems to be that money is the root of some evil, maybe a lot of evil, but it isn’t the whole story. Instead, racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice are powerful forces in their own right. This may not seem like a very big difference — both candidates oppose prejudice, both want to reduce economic inequality. But it matters for political strategy.

As you might guess, I’m on the many-evils side of this debate. Oligarchy is a very real issue, and I was writing about the damaging rise of the 1 percent back when many of today’s Sanders supporters were in elementary school.”

Krugman can write all he wants, he did, and acted, differently. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was viewed as an extreme rightist (now he is viewed nearly as a leftist!). Paul Krugman went to serve Ronald then-an-extreme-rightist. At the time, Reagan’s economic theory was “trickle down”: make the rich richer, they in turn, will enrich the 99%.

Instead, what happened is that now the .1% are the only people the president of the USA listens to, and worries about. And so it has become around the world, in consequence.

Krugman was always a little Hillary, no wonder they like each other: splurging at the trough of big money and big oligarchic power, while talking, and posturing left. Actually, Krugman was a predecessor: he was helping Reagan, before Bill Clinton helped Ronald Reagan with Iran Contra (a complex conspiracy to sell weapons to Iran secretly and illegally, and using the profits to finance a guerilla in Central America). Governor Bill Clinton provided Reagan with Mena airport in Arkansas. Planes full of CIA employees brought weapons to Nicaragua, came back with drugs. One was shot down over Nicaragua, another crashed in Arkansas. (Thanks to sufficient assassinations, not too many people are minding the subject anymore.)

As Krugman was economic adviser to Reagan inside the White House, he was obviously co-responsible with “Trickle-Down”. So we see history demonstrates that Krugman-Reagan-Clinton-Trickle-Down-Cult of the .1% is all the same universe. The roots of G. W. Bush: then W. Bush was just a playboy making money thanks to his bin Laden connections and the like. (Ex) president Bush and (the brother of Osama) Bin Laden met in New York, on 9/10/2001, the day before 9/11.

OK, ready for another bout of disinformation? Krugman: “But it’s important to understand how America’s oligarchs got so powerful.

For they didn’t get there just by buying influence (which is not to deny that there’s a lot of influence-buying out there). Crucially, the rise of the American hard right was the rise of a coalition, an alliance between an elite seeking low taxes and deregulation and a base of voters motivated by fears of social change and, above all, by hostility toward you-know-who.”

So here Krugman is claiming that it is racism against Obama which made people vote to the right, and that this caused plutocracy. No, lies, lies, lies.

Clinton deregulating finance, destroying FDR’s work was the main engine of today’s plutocracy. (And I don’t like FDR, but I recognize what was, because that’s what is.) Even under Obama, the supposed victim of racism, tax rates on the 400 richest went down 20%. So clearly it’s rich democratic politicians who passed laws favorable to plutocrats.

Krugman:  “Yes, there was a concerted, successful effort by billionaires to push America to the right. That’s not conspiracy theorizing; it’s just history, documented at length in Jane Mayer’s eye-opening new book “Dark Money.” But that effort wouldn’t have gotten nearly as far as it has without the political aftermath of the Civil Rights Act, and the resulting flip of Southern white voters to the G.O.P.

Until recently you could argue that whatever the motivations of conservative voters, the oligarchs remained firmly in control. Racial dog whistles, demagogy on abortion and so on would be rolled out during election years, then put back into storage while the Republican Party focused on its real business of enabling shadow banking and cutting top tax rates.”

Disinformation again: the flip in question, while real, does not explain the rise of plutocracy, which mostly went ballistic under the rule of Clinton-Goldman-Sachs.

At a time when the biosphere is faced with extinction, the sort of dance the Clintons and Obama did, with Bush laughing in the middle, goes nowhere: the middle class has not progressed in the last 25 years. The Clintons freed the financial sector and its “money changers” (FDR) and now those dragons of the apocalypse roam the world.

A bushel of wheat is bought and sold 2,000 times (two thousand) between the Middle West and Africa. That’s fine with Clinton, let her have one to one dinner with the head of Goldman-Sachs again: her husband did what Goldman-Sachs’ Rubin told him to do. How melts, and wheat is bought and sold, to infinity?

Krugman persists. In “Pre-Iowa Notes“, he claims that:

“For those who were joyful and uplifted on inauguration day 2009, the years that followed have been a vast letdown: American politics got even uglier, policy progress always fell short of dreams. Now comes Sanders…. some people really want to hear that message, and don’t want to hear that they’re being unrealistic.

But there’s something else, which I keep encountering, and which I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice: even among progressives, the two-decade-plus smear campaign against the Clintons has had its effect. I keep being told about terrible things the Clintons did that never actually happened, but were carefully fomented right-wing legends — except I’m hearing them from people on the left.”

Krugman is smearing us by claiming we are smearing the Clintons. He is also disinforming us. Well the Clintons, or at least Bill Clinton, gutted the “Banking Act of 1933” (“Glass-Steagall”). When Hillary gets 675,000 dollars from Goldman Sachs for speaking a few hours, what’s the difference between that and a bribe?

There Are Countless Pictures Of Hillary Clinton Apparently In Love With The Chair Of Goldman-Sachs (Left)

I am not exaggerating: I have dozens of these. What’s going on guys? Bernie Sanders has raised concerns over the $675,000 she made from Goldman Sachs. Asked if she would release the content of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, Hillary just laugh with her fabulous goat laughter.

In 2011, Chelsea Clinton, then a 31 year old graduate student, was installed on the corporate board of Barry Diller’s Internet media holding company. When she was barely twenty years old, she was made a “hedge fund manager” by other family friends. Undoubtedly, for her outstanding talent in financial matters, and vast experience in media management. Chelsea then got an annual salary of 600,000 dollars from NBC (as a “special correspondent“). She is a high multimillionaire in her own right, and now an “investment banker”. Chelsea recognizes a personal net worth of 15 million dollars (1916). We should all become “investment bankers”, and then become presidents and get the Nobel Prize, for whatever.

[Mr.Diller is Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC/InterActiveCorp and Expedia, Inc. and the media executive responsible for the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company and USA Broadcasting. He stands number 268 on Forbes 400 list with a net worth of $ 2.3 Billion. Obama reduced the tax rate of the Forbes 400 by 20% in his first term, no doubt because they suffered a lot in the 2008 crisis they had set-up.]

During These Sumptuous Dinners, The .1% and Their Leading Plutocrats Can Plot In Public. Breathing Together, That’s What “Conspiring” Means

[Hillary and the Chair of Goldman-Sachs, again!]

Asked by the Des Moines Register on Thursday if she regretted to make money from speaking to plutocrats, Clinton compared herself to President Barack Obama, noting that significant campaign donations from Wall Street did not stop him from passing the Dodd-Frank reform law. Disinformation again: this “reform” is much weaker than the Banking Act of 1933 which the Clintons demolished. The Obama administration went easy on Wall Street by refusing to criminally prosecute the major financial institutions responsible for the 2008 economic crisis, or laundering drug money, or financing terrorist networks, etc.

The two Clintons made speaking fees totaling over $125 million since 2001. Obviously payments for services rendered. Maybe payments for future services.

Not to say Hillary Clinton is monolithic. Maybe that’s why she sent classified information over non official channels (a crime). Maybe she knew she was an evil which cannot be stopped, but by devious means. Her ambition, she knew, could not be stopped, nor her greed. But, deep down, in the greatest depths of her soul, twinges of remorse and decency wanted her stopped. So they flattered the brazen side of her who wanted to flaunt her power, and suggested she use her email for top secrets.

Democracy the way we are supposed to enjoy it, is just one letter away from demoncracy. Clearly, to feel that those, the Clintons, following directions from the CEO of Goldman Sachs (Robert Rubin) who destroyed president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s work to limit financial plutocracy, are best to lead the nation, means the present “Democratic” Party is way right. Way, way right. The Roosevelt family (Teddy and FDR, whom he helped bring up) was itself one of the oldest plutocratic family in the USA. So the plutocrats of the 1930s are now viewed as dangerous leftists.

The first American billionaire and financial plutocrat, Carnegie was for a tax on income of at least 50% and punishing inheritance tax. Why? To help the state, which makes entrepreneurship possible, and to prevent heirs, those no-good people to have too much power (I am paraphrasing). Now, no-good people are running for an encore, and We The People who-know-nothing are applauding the ever more amazing ascent of those who gave us the chop.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: Clinton, Krugman, Sanders