Hell Hath No Fury! Two Devils Meet A Stewart, And More

Obscure PDLisms: PDL worried he'd upset the info builder, perhaps having downplayed its surprisingly steady, rousing role; a small effort but a big ask nonetheless, circumstances and mood leading PDL to the realisation only in second week of recurrent info building. Speechless. Overwhelmed.
"Fat, hairy Bob?" thought PDL. "Must be."
A disappearance being, singularly, strangely, sorrowful, it had made searching for build info difficult, hence, the intent of an obscure request for confirmation in lieu of these current obscurities, yet, one was delivered Friday before intent could be voiced. Uncanny(?). And not some Bob, at all.
"I am blessed," thought PDL, though nearing the end of a bad flu. "Well, that's not the norm." Speechless. Overwhelmed. Joy.

.

Have You Noticed: When did two missiles into Poland turn into a single one? I'd reported two, but that appears to be wrong, everyone having settled on just one(?). That would make this an erratum?

.

Speaking of Errors: I seem to experience a glitch that occurs somewhere in between brain and typing fingers whenever specifying The Majority Report, which I instinctively always type as The Minority Report. I usually correct the error, eventually wondering if I'd made it. Apologies to Sam Seder and gang at The Minority Report.

Dang it! I know me; probably easier if they change the name.

.

Yes, by the way, that other Progressive piece is coming; this was the new intro to that one. Don't ask.

Indeed, the Problem with Jon Stewart

"You don't fight back because you think you'll win, you fight back because they're fascists." 
I got that quote from comedian and social/political commentator Lee Camp, who attributes it to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, who paraphrased someone else. I can't imagine a more fitting 'war cry'.

Video: Hillary Clinton & Condoleezza Rice on America’s Global Role | The Problem With Jon Stewart Podcast

That segment of "The Problem with Jon Stewart" that saw Jon Stewart as a passive host to two of the world's more major war criminals — pathetically so at times — boy, was that ever damn hard to watch. Without swearing, anyway.

I can't imagine that Stewart would have had much of a career had he faced such an opportunity and lobbed the beachball type of softball interview questions he served up to the pair, albeit, one is led to wonder whether, when having a chance to talk, he was doing so simply to give reason to his presence, which gave reason to a show with "Jon" in the title, which provided the two Gorgons an opportunity to reach all those liberals who are no longer surfing cable but who are worth the effort given their neocon wants surfacing should a well-packaged foe illicit the indoctrinated hate that proper consumers are constantly subjected to. A task that, incidentally, has been made harder because of the Internet, hence why Google is filled with CIA people, I'm guessing.

It certainly was sad to see. The people, the mood. All seemed off somehow; normal but unexpected. Even the interrogation-room vibe that the set was giving off, albeit very fitting considering what many think the pair of war criminals ought to undergo before being sent off to rot in a jail until their demise. Their amity and demeanor would have seemed more at home if the pair were sipping wine coolers in some tropical bar, Stewart their eager bartender, whose company they claim to enjoy but tolerate, so long as he knows his place, shuts the hell up, and keeps the drinks coming. 

I do have to ask: Is Hilary Clinton pregnant? She's no longer of age you say? I know that... I was trying to be polite and avoid asking whether she ate Bill? Think I'm exaggerating? Look again and ask yourself: Where's Bill?

Past a certain point, I think Stewart may have gotten bored and 'checked out', hence the awestruck-boy look in his eyes at times, but the empty agreements and acknowledgments he reflexively offered in show of engagement suggested none of the awkward fawning and distrait, open-ended intonation common among 16-year-old girls daydreaming their first kiss while Bob tells her how, after the football game, he and the jocks gave some freak in the changeroom such a fierce wedgie that they'd probably have to call him Cindy, permanently, had they not overswirlied and drowned him, forgetting whose turn it was to pull his head out of the toilet.

Exactly, Jon. Even little girls know better; normal little girls are smart enough to know when to run away, Jon, only the psychotic ones continue their daydreaming, not stopping to say something about Bob being a monster. True, one way to look at it is: Jon is not a little girl? But, from this interaction, I'm still unable to reach a positive conclusion vis-à-vis Stewart even via that assumption.

What's really vile here isn't that the two Gorgons are admitting to having been willing participants in despicable imperialist plans, if not their leading architects, but the casual manner with which they gloss over details to offer up a version of the power lust they played a direct role in satisfying in highly illegal ways; they aren't there to objectively address the topic identified in the title — what's America's global role and obligations — but purely to seed a revisionist history of America's evil deeds in the Middle East, re-painting a pro-interventionist, US-is-never-wrong-even-when-wrong view of the world that showcases grossly criminal acts as good intentions with an unfortunate, undesired side effect, the product of being forced into the role of Reluctant Hero of the World, a burden that the USA accepts seeing that no one else will... and, well, seriously, per White House elite Power OCDs, those who will take on a portion of that responsibility are also badly in need of being policed by US Marines and require a change in government... and a new Free Market, too.  

The empty agreements and acknowledgments that Stewart reflexively offered take on, with repeat listening, once the initial shock has subsided, a tonal colouring that betrays boredom and annoyance more than reverence, so that, assessing the whole for the impression that the pair of war criminals are clearly aiming to impart on the audience, I would have to ask Stewart what they had on him if the threat of sending the IRS his way wasn't enough to have him comply, unless he still owed some favours for aspects related to his late-night success?

Surely, doing what he'd been doing for cable — which promoted Liberal values for the rich but, at least, challenged neocon folly — returning to the game and out of retirement with an indie podcast that's promoted as being free of the corporate dog ready to sic hosts willing to explore certain topics or areas within them, to then serve up that kind of meeting with those two and somehow see that as being in line with one's professed aim, that's just ridiculous; it instantly destroys Stewart's credibility in the eyes of many likely to have been the neocons' targeted audience, softening their views on the US' interventionist ways being the main reason why anyone would produce such revisionist trash, methinks.

So far, at the time when this was written: within six days, the video has gotten 501K views and 6093 comments just on YouTube.

The episode, and Stewart, received a fair share of backlash, but it's hard to say whether the warmongering Establishment's desired effect doesn't outweigh criticism of the pair, though the impact on Stewart's podcast will certainly lean heavily in the "undesired" category.

Using set metrics concerning consumer habits and complaints, we can surmise that at least 150,000 of the 501K viewers on YouTube leaned heavily on the "displeased" side of reception, also exhibiting a strong dislike for the pair; this is far from the majority most would readily assume. The reality may be that 90% of viewers feel that way, but 30% is all that anyone should feel comfortable being certain about based on YouTube numbers.

The main complaint voiced targeted Stewart, harshly criticising his total lack of pushback, never once reframing affairs from a non-hegemonic perspective or rectifying the facts that the pair presented, which, surely — the bulk, at least — Stewart knew were BS. Yet, empty agreements and acknowledgments are all he offered?

This being, I'm certain, so far removed from what he would have set out to achieve, I'm led to wonder just how little he had to do with setting any of it up? The timing, their goal... it's safe to assume that the 'Pentagon' people called up Stewart's people; how much pressure needed to be applied? 

Only neocons brainwashed into seeing half the world as foes, doing so, boiled down to core reasons, due to the "evil" these may present to Western banks and the USD, and the threat this presents to the complete dominance the US is able to attain through economic coercion, only they can possibly find any positive in that segment.

Russia and China's real crimes? Having firmly established not wanting to operate under a US hegemonic world order.

Despite whatever impression Westerners hold, what's provable is that neither China nor Russia are attempting to impose their ways and rule over other countries — and, yes, that includes Ukraine. What they're doing is preventing the US from imposing its ways all over the world. Imagine the flip side of the situation, see the harm the US has caused across the globe, and it's not hard to see who the real foe is here, though it may not be an easy truth to accept. 

•     •     •

Things that really stick to my craw:

Listening to corrupt war criminal, white supremacist, and sociopath, Hillary Clinton, listing off who the "bad actors" are and who needed to be policed, per the bigoted idiocy she helped reinforce, for, really, could the world trust anyone else to partake in the role the US has assigned to itself, and, does the world really wish to see anyone challenge the US for the role of Supreme Moral Authority? Get this: other countries want more autonomy within their sphere of control, and, just imagine, China wants boats that'll give them access to all the same oceans that the US has access to... can't have that. The US has lots on its plate, and much to worry about, which Trump can't possibly understand or be entrusted with,  ditto for the rest of the world.    

And listening to corrupt war criminal, perjurist, and sociopath, Condoleezza Rice, speaking with the subtle, tremolo jerkiness in her voice that's common among older folks yet still brazen enough to re-spin the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie, remind everyone that unseen, evil forces in the area just seem to spark terrorists to life, and flat out lie, like the "Gaddafi wanted to kill his people with cockroaches" bit of stupidity, which is why the US better get serious and busy fighting fascism everywhere, totally oblivious of the fact that the US is fast becoming the world's premier fascist state, its economic obsessions making it the most oppressive force on earth.

Hearing greedy, amoral war criminals who've played an important role in creating the conditions for, then help bring about, the current tensions splitting the world, having done so for no noble reason, and who now believe themselves to be the moral arbiters of the world, granting themselves the right to add lies to their destructive lies with the arrogant airs that betray the icy-coldness in their hearts and the pus in their brains... wanna hear me swear? Stewart did deliver on what was needed to maximise the tonal and semantic quality of my swearing.

Between Rice and Obama I wanna say to Blacks: See, stop raggin' on white folks; apparently, given the chance, the situation reversed, you'd be the same if in power. Of course I know better. What I really wonder is how do Black folks reconcile the two's subjugation to, and complete embrace of, the eurodom/white supremacist thinking that now fuels the neocolonialism that Rice and Obama, Lloyd Austin, too, among others, not only happily play a role in — being a 'spokesperson for' means they're still in the game — but also continually twist matters and lie, willingly duping Americans about the US' real goals overseas, and, therefore, end up being true traitors to the Black cause across the globe?   

As such, two women, one of them Black, what this segment did provide, though not in a manner that may have been an obvious, focused way — oftentimes, the best argument for x isn't found in X but in Y — is solid proof that real change can only come about if all efforts are focused on "class", not on "race" or other identitarian issues.

Whatever the current and relevant groups claim, some clearly stating that class must be and is their focus, I've not seen any evidence from any of them that that is the case, unable to detach themselves from the identitarian issue that's central to their life and/or being, consequently limiting in unproductive ways the scope of the necessary efforts.

The separation is required, no matter how part and parcel one is of the other (more on this in another post).   

•     •     •

It'd be entirely false to say that the US is prepping for war; it is already at war.

I'm still blown away by the fact that a solid portion of so-called "informed" Westerners are unable to see, or admit to, the US' role and involvement in Ukraine and what this war signifies, which has NOTHING TO DO with Russian imperialism. Invading all of Ukraine to subjugate it to Russian control has never even been a part of Putin's plans as far as I can tell, for he has no grand plan. Russia's position is a defensive one, adopted in reaction to Western threats; the attack on Ukraine is preemptive, an act of aggression, nonetheless, though the savagery that's been sold to Westerners is nowhere near the reality that can be substantiated, though doing so may imply being branded a 'traitor' and banned from sites. That's not the normal behaviour of people just wanting to prevent the spread of lies.

All the details that the Western media refuses to communicate paint a whole other picture of the war than the one delivered through mischaracterizations and a misinterpretation of events, so much of it steeped in a revamped hatred with Cold War roots, and in the Russophobia its engendered in newer generations that's made anti-Russian propaganda seem so natural as it looped back to fuel the Russophobia.

Eradicating imperialism being an essential goal of any progressive agenda due to the oppressive nature of such a mindset and its policies and how these invariably impact domestic affairs as well as foreign ones, how does someone justify one's inability to readily see the US/Western imperialist goal that is responsible for the events that unfurled in Ukraine, this, in turn, implying one's inability to see the greater battle for US hegemonic control that the West has been waging, doing so by proxy, as well as through economic and info fronts? Having to discuss the subject establishes that, in regard to the latter, the info war, the West is winning. But only within the West. And those numbers continue to dwindle.

Canon, No Boom

Adding to the layers of confusion that sit between their views and their actions, the general reaction voiced by the "NATO-left" progressive outlets married irreconcilable realities into one view, providing a clear example of the firm patriotism held by these individuals toward key US institutions, which is expressed in relation to nationalist issues if these arise while the Dems are at the helm. Otherwise, the same receive disproportionate venom if occurring while the GOP is leading the ship.

Obstinately adhering to the tsarist-imperialist explanation, focusing all the blame on Putin and pointing to "that speech" made pre-invasion as the inarguable proof coming 'straight from the horse's mouth' identifies two easily proven facets that contribute to negative assumptions in regard to the 'progressive' outlets that endorse this view; these are:

1. A willingness to take on faith claims made by Establishment figures;

2. An unwillingness to investigate matters in a truly fair, openminded manner.

This leads to their conclusions invariably serving the Dems in one capacity or another, and the Military Industrial Complex all the more, especially since, long term, it reinforces a legitimizing aspect to war that it reinforces as an acceptable component of an anti-war stance, as well as having a compounding effect on the issues they regularly raise as being problematic.

As such, is it safe to assume that we can no longer expect, simply, "No War" slogans, "No War (Except...)" becoming the new anti-war norm?

Their true goal, if basing oneself on what is consistently present behind these conclusions, is to deflect attention and to target blame, bullying, done through guilt and public shaming, is their primary weapon. Groupthink and the ease of ready-made, all-inclusive arguments in a world where no one likes being wrong, how could "Putin sympathiser" not become even more popular, offered in retort to anyone that appears to be giving anyone an order?

On the other hand, "You're just repeating Putin talking points," is, I believe, the mating call of the times' idiots?

Those negative assumptions I mentioned? Well, it seems clear that one would have to be acting deliberately obtuse if not being stupidly patriotic, although the second probably generates a fair share of the first.

The distrust of corporate media that these so-called progressive individuals claim to harbour appears to be mostly talk, as what they show often betrays a deep trust, which they want their audiences to share as well, for they wouldn't sink to the instant calls of "Putin lover" and similar otherwise, basing their reaction on what's enforced by Establishment-friendly media whilst disregarding, if not denigrating, whatever comes out of certain indie outlets, even if with an excellent track record except for the fact that they consistently challenge the Establishment. So, question Establishment goals, but only if it concerns M4ALL? is that what makes those outlets 'progressive'?

Further, if one's indignation toward Jon Stewart's lack of pushback is genuine, that's because one sees clear malice through the lies that Stewart is allowing to go unchecked and unchallenged. Knowing what's at the other end of that, knowing the complicit nature of the mainstream media, and knowing that many of the same people are a part of the current White House landscape, as well as being peppered through the Big Tech and intelligence entities that control much of our information flow, I've a hard time believing that these people would be happy to regurgitate the narrative pushed by the Establishment, the forcefulness with which it is being enforced not triggering their curiosity. Something is wrong with that picture.

Yet, it's easy to confirm that Westerners were offered a bad translation, an unjustified interpretation, and out of context excerpts, and that the all that generated profound indignation and justified deep hatred had been manipulated to achieve just that.

Somehow, they feel no need to doubt the veracity of anything being put forward by the mainstream media despite all their efforts otherwise being placed on calling out mainstream media lies? Haven't they learnt any of the lessons that keep on repeati—Oh. Well, that explains that?

After the fact, once the dust has settled and the reality of some misdeeds is taken for granted, the news having shown the potential to be too lucrative to outlets to pass up reporting on, only then do the "NATO-Left" appear willing to criticise the Dems for any military intervention, but they usually end up linking the blame to a preceding GOP-led mobilization since, after all, dedicated warriors prefer enjambment in the orders that take them from one conflict to another. And a well-planned failure not only strengthens the US dollar, it's sure to span the rule of both parties.

I'm wondering if the issue is in any way similar to those that pretend to be cultured and versed in the finer arts, but are unable to explore newer forms that haven't been overly-explained and absorbed in some prevailing and identity-relevant canon that safely confirms the "greatness" of the artist in question, which, rather than admit ignorance vis-à-vis how to approach a piece and its relevance to the then and the now, learning how to free oneself to the meaning it may expose when one lets go, allowing feelings to direct thinking, and to trust one's instincts; either the artist manages to spark one's senses and intellect, or fails. But keep in mind that true appreciation demands effort, for one must properly contextualize a work and understand the artist's intent to truly judge success from failure, one's emotional reaction to a piece being the gauge of one's own understanding and approval, which should be treated separately, and not figure in any assessment made in regard to an artist or a piece's artistic merit.   

More often then not, feeling daunted, not possessing the necessary information or confidence, they, instead, attack all that falls outside of the expected, readily-recognized modes and structures as being "pretentious intellectual masturbation" and unruly, unstructured garbage... unlike the classics. Usually, it's impossible to have a discussion with these people about art if it's not centred around artists that have been dead for at least 50 years. 

Unfortunately, these people keep dead artists alive and their estates or rights owners in the money, while new artists work full time doing something else if unwilling to "sell out", packaging money-making formulas and calling that "self-expression" deemed to be worth anyone's time, for that, however vapid and fleeting the instance, is the 'artistic culture' that such individuals see value in, but mostly because it is the one that provides the security that comes with conformity, conflating profits and artistic merit, perverting artistry as one's ability to manipulate aspects of a cookie-cutter formula made available as a "Ten Musts Every Song/Story/Painting/Etc. Must Have to be a Success" two-page article, which is 1/2 of a page long with ads removed.

In essence, for reasons most probably related to competence or self-assurance — perhaps for other reasons that are specific to that person, but doubtful, if properly reduced to its essence — these individuals are unable to autonomously judge and ascertain a firm value or interpretation. marking then as a fraud of sorts, though minor ones, albeit one shouldn't discount the potential impact such individuals may have over popular opinions, as well as the detrimental long-term effects of the constant sway toward commercial modes, which tend to strangle the finer arts due to the generalized dumbing-down effect that comes with 'catering to the lowest common denominator,' as it may be a cliché but it is so for a reason when money becomes the primary aim.

Weren't You Talking About War?

And on this front, I have to admit that someone like Sam Seder puzzles me.

A "non-expert" expert is prone to BS their way through conversations concerning certain topics — you can tell who they are by the way they constantly misuse terms, deflect offering an explanations, lash out rather than respond, etc — and that's the type of person that usually relies on "what's canon". That's not Seder. 

Yet, he's far too quick to dismiss an entire line of questions, seemingly uninterested in spending even a second pondering their implications, offering some quip to diminish those who do as he waves away the topic as idiocy. Otherwise, such subjects being brought up by others, he remains silent and tight-lipped, offers a platitude if a response is unavoidable, to then divert the subject back 'on course', exhibiting a slight annoyance for having veered.  

Yet, he's shown an obsessive interest in, delving in tedious minutia of, all he's quick to dismiss when the tables are turned around and...? This isn't just true when the Republicans, or Trump, are at the receiving end.

The attention and pettiness seen in all TYT-Progressives concerning the Trump impeachment and the 6-Jan Hearings provide a good counterexample and establishes Seder's attitude for the hypocrisy it clearly is, but this behaviour toward those two events is what's expected given the tribalism that serves as context. The behaviour that's been on display regarding Ukraine and the present conflict, however, offers plenty that's atypical. And in a truly enraging manner, given what they end up endorsing, and the consequences of such. 

There's something about Seder's refusal to accept US imperialism being in any way responsible for the conflict that I find unsettling, especially since it signals this progressive group's — he provides a clearer example but he's not singular in his view of the conflict — inability to truly address the problems at their core, not fully grasping the conceptual underpinnings that give life to the issues they claim to make their focus, only ever targeting surface issues that are bound to manifest themselves in other ways if only superficially resolved.

And it raises serious questions regarding the worth of their political opinions outside of the tribal soap opera, as they seem to be applying their limiting bipolar view where it doesn't belong if geopolitics are to be treated as such.  

Further, much like the student loan affair, for which the ultimate lever lies in the hands of debtors, an aspect that no group seems willing to exploit — do they feel bad for bankers? — the Biden Bunch's position and role in Ukraine provides all that the Progressives need to wedge what they want out of the administration. Were they clued in, they wouldn't have voted for a single 'package' to be sent to Ukraine, or, they would have realized just how hellish they could have made life for all those involved in the "Ukraine Project" and used the leverage to deliver on their promises. 

But, instead, they go along with the BS, and repeat it, too, and they even attack those who don't, doing so using the most juvenile and idiotic of arguments, acting as if a braindead extension of the establishment Dems. Nothing in any of that indicates "Progressive". Especially not one's embrace of their own ignorance and of their decisions that will result in thousands of needless deaths.

The Russians are in Ukraine because of actions by the West, undertaken to get Russia into Ukraine.

Refusing to acknowledge this reality implies a refusal to:

• Admit to the US-led coup in 2014.
• Demonstrate any awareness of the US' imperialism and obsession with hegemonic control.
• Address the almost nine years of attacks on the ethnic Russians in Donbass.
• Recognize the legitimate security risks expressed by Russia, and the reasons why these were legitimate.
• Acknowledge Russia's continued efforts to reach an agreement, then, to negotiate peace.  
  
  

Do these people honestly think that the whole Taiwan debacle, and the sudden explosion of protests in Iran, the ongoing fighting in Syria, the genocide in Ethiopia, and the tensions in Kosovo, that all of these just involve the kindness of warmongers, that's the US' link? A desire to spread Democracy? Which, by the way, it has a real hard time practicing at home, an aspect that's far from being a problem just caused by the GOP, which the progressives would know if they weren't so tribally blind to half of reality.  

Thinking otherwise paints one a fool content to be a pawn in their master's lies, for their certainty stems from indoctrination and one's faith placed on those who've done nothing but lie, for they've completely failed to understand why Russia's Special Military Operation is really a war that isn't about Ukraine; Putin had never wanted to invade but, in a manner, he was forced to do so by the West, so, repeating the obsessed Tsarist-Imperialist version... at this point, given the history that establishes a clear path and the facts that negate the Western idiocy, I really don't know how to respond to that and remain polite. 

I've offered the whys piecemeal across several entries, but I'll detail key events in a straightforward manner in an upcoming post. 

This is one of the reasons why I've often stated that this group of progressives ends up doing more harm than good both to the cause and those most in need of what the cause represents. Which "one reason" do I mean? Why, all those mentioned above, of course. It's one 'package'.

Note: Although I did specify a liking for the "TYT-Progressives" label to identify the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) supporting 'Lefties' who advocate for the 'fight-from-the-inside' path (but, ultimately, end up being Dem supporters), I don't think it's a good idea for progressives to negatively typify an outlet that could potentially prove to be a true ally to the cause.

.

The Bottom Squiggle

While I was aware of the USD's "valueless" status and the synthetic worth that drives the folly of Wall Street, I hadn't realized just how hollowed out the US had become until, given the situation the US has played a major role in instigating in Ukraine and its eagerness to poke China, tipping the world ever closer to a world war, I examined that side in more depth, trying to figure out just what kind of leverage or longevity the US was playing with, and just how dependent it was on the petrodollar to sustain the value of the USD, and where was the "or else" situated after which the US may actually find itself in a way worse situation than Russia of the early 90s.

Things are, perhaps, more shocking than anyone would like to assume. At first. Let it simmer. The shock quickly transforms into anger considering that there's little more behind USA's value than what it's been able to extract from others, its current standing dependent on next month's earnings... there's not much that's tangible anywhere.

With manufacturing having been lured overseas and America’s focus having turned toward a service economy driven by the needs of those in the growing synthetic-wealth creation sector — USA’s real financial engine — all now relies on the needs of synthetic-wealth creators, since servicing them requires people with service needs who require people with service needs, and so on.

Today’s Wall Street has little to do with the one that was initially created, ditto in regard to its goals. It now has more in common with a casino than with a proper investment bank; connecting investors with businesses in need of investments has become an annoyance that doesn’t generate an income anywhere near as interesting as betting on anything, so long as there’s someone willing to bet on it.

That said, in regard to the student debt, I'd wanted to mention in my last post, but forgot:

Remember the subprime mortgage market that led to the crash of 2008? Well, the student loans have been packaged in much the same way, their version known as student loan asset-backed securities, or SLABS.

These loans are repackaged in securities made available to investors, and function much like an average bond, delivering regular payments per the established schedule (usually quarterly). This lets lending agencies spread the default risk, which lets them issue more loans and generate regular income through securitization services, as well as debt collection.

The quality of the loans that make up these packages varies, hence what minimizes the risk. In terms of rating, I've not looked into how they're spread across investment offerings, but, honestly, whether Standard & Poor or Moody's, neither can be trusted as far as I'm concerned, which is as far as they've demonstrated, having been too generous with their triple-As in order to avoid vexing connections with the big investment firms, having thus played a key role in 2008's crash, as well as in other schemes that turned out to be fraudulent. Because it's to their advantage to overvalue the quality of an investment product, they will do so. After all, Reagan paved the way so Clinton could, in 1999, defenestrate Steagall's glass with his act, which saw him take banking protections and throw them out the window of — I wanna say — the Steagall building, built in 1933?

Fine, maybe I am too lazy to Google why its called the Glass-Steagall Act. Or, maybe I, too, wanna be considered a professional and make shit up. Like facts and stuff. Even nobody bloggers can have an agenda, you know? What's that? Really?! Fine, I'll be professional on my own time.

Because I've no choice, it seems: Facts are, the whole student debt situation is far more emblematic of the rot that's weakening the empty shell that lies under the Freedom that covers the country, the result of Capitalism practiced as a cult, damn it, when what's needed, proclaims a chunk of the country, is a fully-deregulated Capitalism that can rise to a full-blown religion. Amen. May Credit be with you, and Spending fill your soul.

Not too long ago, the current US student debt sat at roughly $1.46 trillion. Not only is that shameful, placing about 46 million Americans in debt while simultaneously boasting being the richest country, hence confirming just how skewed and nearsighted US focus has become ever since they've allowed Capitalism to do their thinking, and just how quickly the country itself began disintegrating once neoliberalism became de facto policy approach and form.

Compared to other rich countries — as in cash-rich, not "on the books" rich — the US is the only one that gouges its citizens, crushing them with debt should one wish to receive the education required in order to play a contributing role in a competitive workforce, which, today, depends heavily on highly-specialized brain trust and neural capital.

Consider what precedes and the tribal fights surrounding K-12 schooling, the GOP always fanning the flames of Culture War by targeting some random cases and turning them into freak shows that, they'll have you believe, occur everyday in every school across the country — expect mega-freak shows in blue states — all of it done to continually degrade the public schools to the point where shutting them down and converting the entire education system to private schools only — here comes the voucher system — will show itself to be the logical option, the Republicans finally winning that long battle when that becomes fait accompli. And it's all at the expense of your kids' learning, theirs being enrolled in snooty private schools, unaffected by the idiotic ideology that propels them to play such destructive games, proving themselves to be worse lowlifes than one can imagine with every turn. Indeed, that's slimy scum-snot level of filth.

So, setting aside their theater, as the Dems are equally guilty in their own way — they just have better intentions that are never allowed to materialize — not only does the government not prioritize education, it's willingly partaking in sabotaging your kid's experience, which isn't likely to put them on the same footing as the elites' kids for all that follows and relies on competition, so, who cares about anything they have to say regarding "meritocracy" when so-called leaders do not even care to uphold the most basic principles required to qualify as such.

On the purely financial end of things:

Given the size of the debt and how these are spread throughout the gamut of SLABS available to investors, there are two scenarios that currently scare the hell out of everyone involved on the lending and repackaging side of student debt; they are:

1. A large enough number of debtors decide to default all at once;

2. A sufficient size of the debt is wiped clean; amounts simply "wiped off the books".

The students' debts aren't, simply, just pure abstractions the Biden Bunch can print away, as the debts aren't 'just sitting there', so to speak, and collecting interest while being paid off. There's a whole chain of money-making that trickled out of your money needs.

Number 1 has many fearing a repeat of the subprime mortgage scandal that's responsible for 2008, this being in great part responsible for what has led to young people not being able to afford to buy a home and live the American Dream, having student debts...  This also indicates the tremendous power that's in the hands of people, should they be able to organize on this front.

However, by so doing, they could be hurting normal investors, though, in this market, the majority probably aren't mom & pop investors. But how intertwined with other products, or within mutual funds, are these debts now spread?

Really, to be fair — as absurd as it may sound considering that it's Capitalism I'm speaking about — the government would have to pay out the dollar amount it cancels unless it claims a default of $10,000 on behalf of each debtor, which is to be applied to each account, the penalties going to...? By agreeing to package their debt this way, they themselves face contractual obligations, much like the debtor does to the government, per loan conditions. The paperwork and headache generated, that's gotta be costly, well in the millions. The total cost on firms as well as governmental time?

It really isn't a matter of "just cancelling" the student debt as many cry out. Otherwise, every argument for doing so — and lessening the cost of education — makes great sense, and would provide a big positive boost to the economy. Except, the US specialty now being manufacturing money-making schemes out of synthetic identifiers of anything and everything whilst having nothing to back any of it except other country's planned weapon and oil purchases, may translate into a sensible act having a far greater and immediate cost across the country, and elsewhere, than the value granted to those with student debts.

Otherwise, the Republican arguments... pure BS. From greedy BSers.

Capitalism. It always finds surprising ways to screw us over.    

But, hey! Bright side: Freedom & Democracy in all things made the rich richer. So, down with Russia; destroy China! And bend over for US Freedom™.

•     •     •

Wondering what's really behind the social decay and degraded and discarded values? You honestly think it's the Wokes or the Build Back Better bill (which was never even voted on) that have led to the present state of things — that quickly, really?! —  corroding the "traditional family", on which all decent, community-geared social life depends on, any other non-traditional mix being sure to end in an orgy and grooming party???

I should think that anyone with a brain would point to the anything-goes corporate approaches and the money-matters-more-than-mortals mantras, combined with a hearty and ongoing indoctrination regimen steeped in a glorification of violence that's delivered within an environment that can no longer fulfill — never mind sustain — the basic promise it claims as its identity, the disjointed fabric woven between what one is told to expect in a meritocracy and the reality that one faces day after day with barely a respite to provide a moment of clarity lending a reminder that the sacrifice will be worth the effort; the inevitable despair that arises out of a fatigue for which one sees no end in sight bubbling up to produce all sorts of undesired effects, granting justifications for self-centred behaviour that's detached from any shared reality other than through the isolated, uncommunicated anguish that eventually manifests itself as self-destruction, per one's natural inclinations and the influences that surround them.

Alcohol, drugs, promiscuity, shopping addiction, self-mutilation, and other modes with which one internally, silently, screams out one's pain and confusion, the sorrows and regrets, their vulnerability and bare rawness of being, seizing the completely precarious nature of all that we find security in, all of it being gambled without so much of our say so into matters; instead we are offered lies meant to illicit the consent that facilitates matters for them.

Suicide and mass shootings. A personal resolve. An end.

It isn't the lack of bootstraps or the desire to pull on them that's the problem.

•     •     •

If cheap labour is in great part what made China rich, having attracted manufacturing from all over, then what to make of free labour and the wealth that that generates? And because WWII was fought in most parts of the world except the Americas, and because the US found a way to bank on the first world war that let them stumble on a better way to cash in on the misery its badly structured loan would eventually trigger, along with the profits to be made out of an entire continent in need of rebuilding, US leaders, solidifying the 'collective/political West' seemed to have allowed circumstances to cloud their judgment, interpreting their good fortune as the product of crafty cunning and superior strategising, but the weight of the biggest army — always at the ready — purchased and maintained with the endless supply of funds gained through shameless conniving and abuses, appears to be what has kept the illusion going.

Whatever good strategising and cunning was there... seeing what's been applied since WWII, I'd say that was all circumstancial, more likely due to a lack of integrity and ethics, not a superior sense of these.

Should, after WWII, any of the allies find themselves questioning whether the US had dared take advantage of them and of Europe, an act they followed through with NATO after handling the banking situation, well, I do believe it's fair to say that these leaders have now been granted a firm confirmation, the US having established a strong willingness to do so with Nord Stream, and, as they're doing so right now through Ukraine and the economic sanctions that appear to have been a boon to Russia whilst on their way to turning all of Europe into a fully-dependent US vassal.

The US offering subsidies to companies willing to leave Europe and resettle in the US since, you know, the energy crisis thingy in Europe... that's all sorts of scummy behaviour. Europe is quietly countering with subsidies it can't afford, although the EU did send out a ripple through the media, though that felt like they were just making a show of it for the show that is. 

Should Europeans find themselves questioning whether their leaders have their best interests at heart, I'd say: You're gonna freeze and starve to help save the USD, what do you think?

And, well, that whole sanctions thing... I mean, just that... like, wow. I'm not saying that Western leaders are stupid, but I'm also not not saying it loudly. Very loudly. 

Unless Europeans wake up? Take charge.

Are leaders smart or are voters stupid?

The Unbearable Emptiness of Thin Air

In order to understand what's happening, one must accept these two perspectives as accepted truths by those involved:

1. This is an existential fight for Russia.
   1. The US-led collective West wants to break up Russia, doing the same thing it did with Yugoslavia, hence, letting it take over all industries and resources for fractions of pennies on the dollar.
   2. Remove Russia from the equation in order to take China down.
2. For the US, this is an existential fight.
   1. Given the economic reality outlined above, the US is, essentially, riding on air and other nation's riches, and the only way to preserve the power of the USD and US dominance in the world, is to enforce the USD on the world.
   2. Russia and China having expressed their desire to detach themselves from the USD, this presented a risk, should they offer a competing system and many followed suit.

Ironically, the asinine sanctions war has made sure to bring about 2.b., and doing it in an accelerated manner, solidifying the resolve of many to follow suit, and scaring away many from investing in the USD.

I hate to say it, but have you given any serious thought to what it'll mean if the US can no longer rely on its magic printing press, being forced to live within its means, and stuck holding a $31 trillion debt that the world will want to collect on? 

Should the world suffer, millions sent to their death just to preserve the way of life of tyrants. 

And, no, I didn't forget. That there's no question mark on the last is not a typo