Kushner’s Bribe of the Century

Parts of Jared Kushner’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ have been made public and the reception has been poor. Focusing on aid and GDP growth of all things, the deal is silent on the most important political issues – such as the military occupation, human rights, and access to land – things that Jarden Kushner says only technocrats are interested in, not the people at grassroots. This deal is so amateurish it’s as if it was drafted as a joke – ‘The bribe of the century that no one is going to take,’ as Peter Lavelle described it. And it’s an awkward bribe too, since Washington hopes that the wealthy Sunni Gulf states will pay most of the advertised 50 billion dollar aid package. Well, they might be happy to pay for it, provided they could station military bases and troops inside Palestinian borders – something that obviously will never happen…

The scheme is completely biased against the Palestinians and pro Israel, particularly the Netanyahu faction. Even the two Bush administrations and that of Barrack Obama had a more respectable stance towards the issue and didn’t expect the Palestinians to give up their birthright in exchange for a lottery ticket. De jure and de facto, the long-proposed two state solution is dead.

Dem Primary, Sick People

by Serban V.C. Enache

On the subject of Health Care… None of these despicable democrats say that Insurance Companies DON’T produce a product or a service that treats illnesses or injuries. Insurance Companies DO NOT create wealth, they are wealth EXTRACTIVE.

These grotesque democrats are stressing how important health care is, but they don’t talk about mental health, they don’t talk about cancer, they don’t talk about viruses, they don’t talk about prosthetics – but the one thing they do talk about and talk about religiously is the “reproductive right and freedom” of women to kill fetuses irrespective of context. It’s not just about pregnancies as a result of rape, or if the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, or if the fetus has life-threatening mutations [cases that Medicare For All should indeed cover], if you’ve been a dumb, careless, slut, the State is going to pay for the consequences of your hedonistic lifestyle, including late term abortion. What these sick liberals and sick progressives want is for the State to subsidize the consequences of hedonism, which is infanticide, in effect sponsoring the growth of the aforementioned phenomenons; and their wet dream is for the State to subsidize it at 100 percent.

The liberals and the progressives and the hypocritical pro-lifers before you’re born & anti-lifers once you’re out of the womb are demented to the extreme, and sadly, there is no cure in sight…

Huawei vs The Rest

In the West we have a cartel system, a few corporate giants who were and are backed by Western states and the business model of these giant firms is the “shareholder” model, while that of Huawei – who also has [Chinese] state backing – employs the “cooperative” business model. And no, Huawei’s employees [who are also stockholders] aren’t paid peanuts. Watch the RT video to learn more.

Politely debating Abortion? Dream on…

by Serban V.C. Enache

These pro-choicers [in the vid] can’t have a polite and calm discussion on the matter, not even with their fellow women. On the contrary, verbal aggression is the default mode. And they’re youngsters too… that speaks volumes of how bad the future will be in terms of [lack of reasonable] dialog. The more extreme one side gets, the more it pushes the other in the same extreme direction. The most ‘vigorous’ among the liberals want the State to fully subsidize abortions irrespective of circumstance [Forbes estimated in 2015 that the State and Federal Governments together subsidize about a quarter of all abortion costs in the US], de facto making this practice a preferred method of birth control. And they also want late term abortion to be legal and in case the abortion is botched [i.e. the baby gets birthed and is alive], they want the infant’s life terminated. I’m not very knowledgeable on biology, but up to the third moth of pregnancy, the fetus is no more developed than an ant? Surely abortion should be legal up to that point [at least] and if the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life.

In my opinion, pro-lifers would win much of the debate if they [at least] tolerated contraception and actually put the money [economic policy] where their mouth is. If they truly believe a fetus is a human being, then they should want the State looking out for that human being after it comes out of the womb as well. If only they supported Government investment in education, in health care [medicare for all], in employment schemes [particularly for the disadvantaged, the long term unemployed, and former convicts], in the social and physical infrastructure of communities, instead of preaching the Bible version of social-darwinism “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.” (Matthew 25: 29). So long as they cling to this primitive and inequitable philosophy, they’ll remain hypocrites, pseudo-Christians, and will never have the moral high ground.

“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. For listen! Hear the cries of the field workers whom you have cheated of their pay. The cries of those who harvest your fields have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for the day of slaughter.” (James 5:1-5:5)

US Establishment working to rig 2020

by Serban V.C. Enache

The [conservative] investigative group, Project Veritas, did a probe into Google’s new “safeguards” to prevent another Trump presidency. It includes interviews with a whistle-blower from that company, and two secretly filmed conversations with a Google executive and a Google engineer. Unsurprisingly, Youtube, a subsidiary of Google, took down the video, claiming it violated privacy rules.

Jen Gennai, head of ‘responsible innovation,’ says the following… “Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her, but she’s very misguided; like that won’t make it better, it will make it worse – ’cause now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, […] a small company can’t do that. […] We got called in front of Congress multiple times. […] They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.”

Let’s briefly dissect the above paragraph. Breaking up a company – one that has a de facto monopoly in several fields, monopoly obtained through preferential relationship and access to technology from specialized US Government institutions and anti-competition practices – is a political choice. Unless she wants to become a politician or a lobbyist, the head of the “responsible innovation” department of Google should refrain from emitting such obviously biased and self-serving, political opinions. More to the point, she should not manipulate the audience by conflating her political preference with what is and isn’t technologically and logistically feasible. Multiple companies policing reprehensible behaviors online is not akin to having multiple companies digging up the ground and planting their own pipe and sewer systems underneath a city, a task which is neither economically nor environmentally feasible. We’re talking about the digital realm, where the constraints are vastly different. And if we’re talking about a lack of financial resources for these smaller companies, that’s a red herring too. So long as there’s demand for a service, there is profit to be made, and investors and business loans can be secured. But of course, this
Jen Gennai wasn’t talking about any sort of reasonable standard of content policing [child pornography, human trafficking, terrorist cells etc] she was referring wholly to Google preventing the reelection of Donald Trump. In short, this Google executive is full of it.

Another hallucinating aspect raised by Project Veritas in their probe on Google is “algorithmic unfairness,” as the company understands it. A passage from this document, under the sub-title “If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?” reveals the following… “Yes. For example, imagine that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men… even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness.” Google software engineer, Gaurav Gite, is secretly caught on camera stating that, “So they’re trying to modify the model, such that even if the data for female CEO is low, it still balances out.” This is social-engineering gone berserk. Instead of depicting actual reality and striving to promote equality of opportunity, not just de jure, but de facto, while also taking merit into consideration, without which the outcome cannot be just, Google is trying to deform reality to suit its fantasy, however progressive it may be. The goal doesn’t justify the means; but the mantra of the ‘PC police’ is ‘judge us by our motives, not our methods.’

These type of secret and invisible filters to its algorithms are unacceptable in a society that’s supposed to be free and democratic. Ultimately, the fate of this society depends on the will of the citizenry to be informed and stay informed, not on shady, corporate giants, who are unelected and accountable to none. A state and a press that fears the people, or I should say, the groups in control of the state and the press who fear the people must be brought down from these institutions – initially through democratic exercise at the ballot box, and if they refuse, then by force of arms. To quote Abraham Lincoln, “The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”

Meanwhile, the Establishment’s mouthpieces, those ‘woke’ intellectuals, whose hearts bleed for the fate of immigrants and Muslims in the US, who manufacture crocodile tears on air, and who – prior to Trump’s election – were criticizing the Donald’s potential “isolationist” foreign policy and were bemoaning the possible demise of US internationalism were in fact fearing that the next POTUS might shed away the empire in favor of the nation state. I hope it’s evident by now, to the average spectator who still has a soul in his or her chest, that all of these internationalists and bleeding-heart intellectuals are in fact political prostitutes, mercenaries, and war profiteers, and in no way, shape, or form do they serve the national interest of the United States. And when I say national interest, I mean the national interest defined in Westphalian terms: nations forgiving and forgetting past transgressions among and between them, while working to “further the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other.” The Westphalian national interest should be the cornerstone of any civilized country, especially for those countries which claim to be Christian. For more on this, please read my articles The Sovereign Nation State and The Globalists of Left & Right.

What have these mainstream commentators [tories and libs] done during the Trump presidency? They’ve applauded every belligerent action taken by the Government and condemned every sensible and diplomatic action as “weakness,” as evidence of “Russian meddling,” as “gross disorganization” because Trump didn’t launch military attacks. Isn’t it ironic that the vast majority of these elites are the most rabid for military confrontation? Of course, they’d never want to be in the front lines or to have their kids there, just the plebs recruited by the Military, because who cares about them? And isn’t it also ironic that the far right, to an increasingly larger and vocal degree, doesn’t share the same affliction? Quite the opposite, it condemns former and future military involvements and opposes US soldiers going abroad to kill and be killed on behalf of foreign interests. But the pro-peace voices [no matter their political color] are being denounced as out of touch, isolationist, extremist, and militant. So what are these elites telling us? That censorship is freedom, secrecy is accountability, might is right, and war is peace.