THE NEW LEFT is indeed THE NEO-MARXISM group and both have a US headquarters at far-right wing global banking 1% Bush neo-conservative STANFORD UNIVERSITY------with WORLD BANK 'Roosevelt Institute' as the think tank for 'NEW LEFT'----NEO-MARXISM----
STANFORD, YALE, JOHNS HOPKINS ALL FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% BUSH NEO-CONS ARE THE SOURCE OF 'NEW LEFT' -----NEO-MARXISM.
This is why Condi Rice went back to STANFORD with her friend STIEGLITZ of WORLD BANK---global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA PARTNERED WITH TRIBE OF JUDAH working for Foreign Sovereignty of Malta -----not AMERICAN.
Stanford Report, January 28, 2009
Condoleezza Rice on returning to campus
By Adam Gorlick
L.A. Cicero Condoleezza Rice, Stanford’s provost from 1993 to 1999, plans to return to campus in the next few months and resume her roles as a political science professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
After serving two terms in the Bush administration—first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state—Condoleezza Rice plans to return to Stanford in the next few months. It's a welcome homecoming for the country's former top diplomat, who started teaching political science at the university in 1981 and also served six years as provost.
But her post-political life won't be entirely Stanford-centric. Her plans include writing books, making lecture appearances and pursuing philanthropic and business activities. She recently signed a deal with the William Morris Agency for representation.
In her first interview since leaving office, she spoke from Washington, D.C., with Stanford Report about her plans to resume her roles as a political science professor and the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. Just as comfortable discussing professional football as foreign policy, she also talked about the books she plans to write, how she'll handle her critics and her prediction for the Super Bowl.
What was so attractive about returning to Stanford?
I've always assumed I would come back to Stanford. It really seemed like the logical choice for me, and it provides an opportunity for me to put my books together in a good, strong research environment like the Hoover Institution and also to start to reconnect with the academic policy communities that I've been involved with the last 30 years.
How will your political experience translate into academic lessons, and how will you share what you've learned in Washington with the Stanford community?
I may not teach formal classes right away. But when I do, I hope to go back to teaching some of the courses on international politics, with a focus on decision-making and hard choices in decision-making. I taught a lot when I was at Stanford before by the use of decision simulations. I thought decision simulations pressed students really to think about not just the abstraction of policy but the actual operational questions and choices that you have to make.
It's just not the case that there are any perfect policies. You're always trying to balance complicated factors; you're trying to balance competing interests. You're doing it under time pressure. Very often you're doing it with very imperfect information. I found before that the best way to communicate that was to have students participate in simulated decision-making. I expect that any course I teach I would do that.
How hypothetical are those decision simulations?
I did one in 1997 or '98 on Kosovo and Kosovo independence, then I got to participate in bringing Kosovo to independence as secretary of state. So they're not really theoretical at all. I really try to draw from cases that are likely to occur or sometimes go back and actually use a historical case. But I prefer to challenge students with cases that might come on to the horizon.
It would be very interesting to teach a simulation on this past summer's Russian invasion of Georgia and the events that led up to that and the pressures of trying to put together a coalition to resist it, and the imperfect information that we were all dealing with.
How public a presence will you have on campus? Do you think it will be difficult to interact with the community because of security issues or other reasons?
Well, I hope not. I really don't know what to expect, but Stanford is my home. I'm comfortable on the campus. I hope pretty soon to get out among students. I love going over to the houses or the dorms and having dinner and having a question-and-answer session afterward. I think that would be a very good way to re-engage with the campus. Seminars and being able to guest lecture might be another way. I really hope I could do it informally. Stanford has a wonderful tradition of the after-dinner, however-long-it-goes engagement with a faculty member. I used to love those, and I hope to do some of those pretty soon.
Some students and faculty members have criticized your tenure in the Bush administration. Will you engage with your critics on campus and be open to debate surrounding the ideas you promoted and decisions you made in Washington?
Absolutely. It's perfectly legitimate to be critical of what's been a complicated and sometimes controversial and always consequential last eight years. The only thing I ask is that people be respectful of listening to the views and what we faced and how we went about it. But I have no problem with criticism. I'm an academic—debate is natural. Criticism is natural. It won't be the first time that policies we pursued were not popular or were not supported. But that's what academic institutions ought to be about.
From your newly resumed academic perspective, what influence do you expect—or want—to have on how international policy is shaped?
There I'm going to take a pause. My successor and our successors deserve a chance to do this their way now. I have worked very hard for eight years dealing with situations and circumstances that were wholly unforeseen and really unprecedented in American history. We did some things very well. There are certainly a lot of things I would've done differently.
When they would ask me in the press here, "Well, what would you do differently, or what mistakes have you made?" I would say that I'm sure there will be dissertations written on that subject, and many of them I'll oversee at Stanford University.
In terms of commenting on current events unfolding in the Middle East or unfolding in North Korea—no, I'll keep my counsel on those things. I really don't believe it's appropriate for a former secretary of state or someone who just left the job to be in a position that may be viewed to be second-guessing my successor.
As you return from Washington, some Stanford faculty are heading to jobs in the White House. What advice do you have for an academic about to play a role in the new presidential administration?
Stay true to what you believe. Never stop questioning. Academics are given—and almost take an oath—to seek, to know the truth, to really question things and to ask hard questions. That's extremely important in government. The other thing is to realize it's an enormous honor and a privilege to serve in these administrations. It's hard work, but it's an honor and a privilege.
Talk about the books you plan to write.
I will write a book on foreign policy, of course. I think every secretary of state does. But I would hope that it would be a book that tries to put the last eight years into a context that is more of an analytic framework. I don't want to write a book that is just repeating a series of incidents and a series of anecdotes. There will be anecdotes. I'm sure I'm going to tell some of the more interesting stories and discuss the characters I've met over the last eight years.
I also, as an academic, will want to step back and really look at how the international system was impacted by the events of 9/11 and what new constraints and what new opportunities the United States faced as a result. I'm going to try to make this a book that's analytic and not just storytelling.
OH, MORE BUSH FAMILY REVISIONIST HISTORY----FAKE NEWS FAKE DATA.
I also want to write a more personal book about my parents, who were those kinds of extraordinary ordinary people. They were educators. They believed just fundamentally in the value of education. They gave me every opportunity they possibly could. But they also are people who can be situated in the great historic sweep of the civil rights struggle, from their own segregated background all the way through the civil rights movement and moving to Denver, Colorado. In that sense, telling a little bit of the history—the story of African Americans in Birmingham, Alabama, who didn't let segregation become a millstone around their necks but rather, in a sense, managed to beat the odds—that's the story I want to tell about my parents. People often say to me, "How in the world did you get to be who you are?" Well, the answer is John and Angelena Rice, and I think I want to write about that.
What types of public appearances and endeavors are you planning, and how will you balance that work with your role at Stanford?
I'm going to do some private speaking, but I don't have any public appearances really scheduled yet. That will come. I'm going to try to take a little bit of February off if I can and play the piano and maybe play golf. The job of secretary of state and before that national security adviser—when people say 24/7, they have no idea what it really is like. There isn't a moment when you're not in a position of maximum responsibility. It takes a little while to exhale, and I want to have a little time to exhale.
I'm a good juggler. I'll manage to do it all. I'm being careful in what responsibilities and what obligations I take on, and I think I'll fit it all in.
You join George Shultz and William Perry as a former presidential Cabinet member to settle in at Stanford. Have they given you any tips or advice for your transition back to campus?
I was provost when Bill came back [from serving in the Clinton administration], so I know a little bit about what he faced. George is one of my dearest friends, and I have watched him and worked with him over the years. The most important thing is to spend your time moving on to the next chapter, not trying to live in the past. I've never been a "former" anything, and I don't really plan to be a "former" anything again. I'll be a "future" something else. And that future is at Stanford as a professor at Hoover, writing and speaking.
But also, I started in 1992 with a very strong interest in K-12 education. I started a program in East Palo Alto called Center for a New Generation. There are five of them now in the Bay Area. I'd like to see if that model--which is really a Strivers program for kids who are trying hard but don't really have the opportunities that so many kids do--can give them an after-school and summer academy experience that helps them to reach their full potential educationally.
As an educator, it really does bother me when our children—particularly in public schools—are not getting a good education. As secretary of state, it's really troubling—almost terrifying. If America doesn't really educate its people, then we're going to turn inward and protect. And we won't compete. And we'll also lose what I have come to see as I've represented the United States as our great strength, which is that everybody really believes that America is a place where you could come from humble circumstances and do great things. The key to that is a really good education. I'll return to and extend my activities in support of K-12 education.
You're an accomplished concert pianist. How do you plan to fold that and any other personal interests into your post-political life?
I've had a chamber music group that I've played with here in Washington. We performed at the British Embassy and a couple of other places. I'll look to get into playing chamber music and practicing piano again, maybe with actually a little bit of time to learn new music this time. I've just been playing the same thing over and over again. I also look forward to getting back to playing golf. I learned how to play golf while I was out here, and I'll be back in time to see at least a little Stanford basketball.
Who do you like for next week's Super Bowl?
It's a question of who do I like and who do I think will win. I would love to see the Cardinals win, because what a great story! But unless [wide receiver] Larry Fitzgerald is Superman, I kind of have to go with [safety] Troy Polamalu and the Steelers to win it. But I want to be clear—I would like to see the Cardinals win.
We see Roosevelt Institution was founded during BUSH ERA--------------
We discussed this corruption of US REAL left social progressive policies from NEW DEAL FDR -------capitalism not MARXISM. Obama's TRANSFORMATIVE years killed that LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE capitalism and is MOVING FORWARD far-right wing industrial corporate MARXISM using all our left social progressive icons and policy stances. When we see the term CULTURAL MARXISM-----when we read about how ZOROS is making the US MARXIST------this is the structure inside our US Foreign Economic Zones killing our US sovereign government and societal/cultural norms. MULTI-CULTURALISM was a REAL left social progressive policy is now ONE WORLD ONE CULTURE while global banking 1% PRETEND they are protecting our 99% new to America immigrants.
So, NEW LEFT----NEO-MARXISM in US all tied to far-right wing Bush neo-conservative institutions.
These are the NGOs filling US communities with FAKE MARXISM just as they did overseas in LATIN AMERICA-----in Southeast Asia----in ARABIA and Africa.......
VIVE LA REVOLUTION MARXIST REBELS.
#RESIST #FIST ---you know all those ROMAN SALUTES TO THE BRUTAL DICTATOR.
So, national media and global banking 1% political groups pretend there is a fight between the SOROS cultural MARXISM and the KOCH Brothers LIBERTARIAN global corporations doing anything they want for profit----but of course they are the SAME PEOPLE.
Roosevelt was founded at Stanford University and Yale University following the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.  Its name is a counterpoint to the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford.  The Roosevelt Institution, now the Roosevelt Institute's Network, was founded in 2004 by ... '
Roosevelt Institute Campus Network
The Roosevelt Institute's Network, formerly the "Roosevelt Institute Campus Network" and the "Roosevelt Institution", bills itself as the first student-run policy organization in the United States. It is a part of the Roosevelt Institute, an organization focused on carrying forward the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt.
WE ALL KNOW FDR WAS LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM----HOW DID THAT BECOME GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCIST MARXISM?
Individual chapters on college campuses conduct research and write policy regarding various public issues. In addition, chapters use Roosevelt's policy positions as a tool for systematic change in local communities across the country. Roosevelt also runs a paid summer internship program, publishes a yearly undergraduate journal series and undertakes state specific policy work.
The Roosevelt Institution, now the Roosevelt Institute's Network, was founded in 2004 by disillusioned young progressives seeking a stronger voice in American policy-making. Quinn Wilhelmi, one of the organization's founders, often told students that "the three pillars of politics are money, bodies, and ideas."
Soon after the 2004 election, Kai Stinchcombe was trying to figure out what to do next. He had worked for the Kerry presidential campaign. After the election, he returned to Stanford and emailed a few list-servs suggesting they form a progressive student think tank to fight the influence of Stanford's conservative Hoover Institution. The email soon reached Dar Vanderbeck at Bates College and Jessica Singleton at Middlebury and they responded, proposing that such an organization could exist on campuses across the country.
The Roosevelt Institute awarded the Roosevelt Institution its first major endorsement and a blessing from the Roosevelt family.
Though Roosevelt's policy model initially favored extended in-depth research, it soon evolved to include more succinct legislative proposals that cater to busy politicians and staffers. In 2006, Roosevelt experimented with narrowing the scope of its agenda by voting on three annual "Roosevelt Challenges": improving socio-economic diversity in higher education, making America work for working families, and increasing energy independence.
In 2007, the Roosevelt Institution merged with the Roosevelt Institute.
There are six national policy centers that are consistent year-to year: defense and diplomacy, economic development, education, equal justice, energy and environment, and health care. Each center has a lead strategist who is responsible for working with individual students on policy ideas, writing preemptive policy analyses on national legislation, and guiding the organization’s policy focused initiatives.
As of 2012, Roosevelt ran three concurrent programs: The Washington Academy, The Chicago Academy and The New York City Academy. The Washington Academy placed twenty students at the Roosevelt Institution's national office as well as at organizations such as the Center for American Progress, the Economic Policy Institute, the AFL-CIO, National Security Network, NDN, and Center for Community Change. The Chicago Academy placed ten students with different Chicago City Agencies where they worked on energy and environmental policy in an urban setting.
Keep in mind------global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH are not AMERICAN----they are the colonizers of the AMERICAS -----coming back to re-colonize America. So, these are not SOVEREIGN NGOs------just as they were not sovereign inside LATIN AMERICA----inside ARABIA----inside AFRICA -----and they are directly tied to this last century's GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL MARXISM partnered with brutal dictators bringing continuous civil unrest, sacking and looting, with a PATRONAGE CHARITY from those doing the sacking and looting.
Below we see what REAL left social progressive Democrats have shouted these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----the groups below are NOT LEFT------they work for FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1%. There is AFL-CIO-----Center for COMMUNITY CHANGE-----global militarized policing and security----NDN
'As of 2012, Roosevelt ran three concurrent programs: The Washington Academy, The Chicago Academy and The New York City Academy. The Washington Academy placed twenty students at the Roosevelt Institution's national office as well as at organizations such as the Center for American Progress, the Economic Policy Institute, the AFL-CIO, National Security Network, NDN, and Center for Community Change'.
So, when global banking 1% sends out all those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT civil unrest civil war 5% players to pretend they hate FASCISM-----these are those FAR-RIGHT WING CORPORATE FASCIST institutions that somehow never see PROTESTS from ANTIFA for goodness sake.
We are not going into detail about FAKE LEFT groups like ANTIFA we are simply tying them to ROOSEVELT INSTITUTION/STANFORD/WORLD BANK FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL MARXISM. The civil unrest is used to create reasons to install MARTIAL LAW----to pass laws killing civil liberties---and to create FEAR.
ANTIFA would be the CHE of several decades ago in Latin America.
Antifa members in Berkeley smash windows of US Marine Corps recruiting office during protest
An Antifa protest in Berkeley turned violent Sunday when one masked group member sucker-punched a detractor and other agitators smashed the windows at a Marine Corps recruiting post, cellphone video showed.
Authorities arrested 20 people during the dueling California demonstrations between Antifa and individuals affiliated with the so-called "alt-right." Three people suffered minor injuries after a group of "extremists" threw "explosives" -- believed to be fireworks and flares -- at police and the Alameda County Sheriff's officers. No members of law enforcement were hurt.
In a series of photos posted to Twitter by filmmaker Ford Fischer, members of Antifa can be seen smashing the windows of the U.S. Marines Corps recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue.
"No police were around as the black bloc traveled down the street, and a handful used hammers to smash the windows of Shattuck Ave US Marine Corps Recruiting office," Fischer wrote in a tweet.
He added: "After I filmed the antifa break the Marine Corps office window and throw a torch into a dumpster, one of them called a few over to confront me. They basically told me to leave, implying attack if I didn't. I left. 'Get the f--- back. Cops aren't here. They won't help you."
BERKELEY POLICE ARREST 20, SEIZE 'DOZENS OF WEAPONS' AT OPPOSING PROTESTS
Besides the damage to the Marine Corps post, Berkeley police also said "an extremist element among a large group" damaged 21 city vehicles, setting one on fire, and slashed their tires. The group also set fires in trash bins, which were extinguished quickly. Officials did not identify the "extremist element."
The incident began percolating days earlier when two groups announced plans for a "No to Marxism" rally at the city's Civic Center Park, an announcement that prompted plans for a "Sweep Out The Fascists" march. A counter-rally drew hundreds of people downtown.
City officials said neither group had sought or obtained a permit for their respective rallies. On Friday, police issued rules prohibiting masks and items that could be used as weapons.
Police said the list of banned items at Civic Center and Ohlone parks included metal pipes, baseball bats, glass bottles, pepper spray, knives or daggers, shields and slingshots, KTVU reported. Police also banned people from wearing masks, scarves or bandannas or anything covering their faces except for religious or medical reasons. Multiple videos taken of the demonstrations, however, showed several people -- mostly Antifa-aligned -- wearing masks.
Sunday's protests in California came one day after police in Portland, Ore. clashed with demonstrators.
PORTLAND POLICE IN RIOT GEAR CALLED IN TO CLEAR CLASHES BETWEEN PROTESTERS
Protesters aligned with Patriot Prayer and an affiliated group, the Proud Boys, met in a park at a rally organized by their group leader, Joey Gibson. But they were met by Antifa protesters carrying signs saying “Nazis go home” and “Alt right scum not welcome in Portland.”
Police reportedly ordered the counter-protesters to disperse, then moved in behind a volley of stun grenades. One of the rounds hit a counter-protester in the head, becoming embedded in his helmet and injuring him, reports said. One woman was taken to a hospital after being hit in the arm and chest with a "flash-bang" grenade.
Another video showed an Antifa member wearing all black sucker punching someone as he was having a heated conversation on a sidewalk.
We understand that those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players tied to US ROBBER BARON sacking and looting for the Foreign Sovereignty of MALTA and TRIBE OF JUDAH -----DON'T CARE-----that they worked to dismantle all of what was REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE policies advancing civil rights and liberties for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our new to America immigrants-----we understand they are going to keep DOING WHATEVER GLOBAL BANKING 1% TELLS THEM-----they PLEDGED after all----
The Democratic Party has a voting base of over 80% of voters who ARE REAL LEFT social progressives whether tied to civil rights----labor rights----women's rights, veteran's rights----rights of disabled-----small business free market rights. Actually, the 99% of right wing voters are really LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES as well.
'The “Leftist Civil War”
The only way to fight back against this is for the Real Left and its sincere, genuine activists in North America, the EU, and Mideast to come out in vocal and unceasing opposition against these Fake Leftist tools of Western neo-imperialism in order to win back the respect of their ideology and free it from American hijacking'.
When global banking 1% sends out it GLOBAL POLLING CORPORATIONS to say 56% of Democrats LOVE SOCIALISM------that is FAKE DATA---FAKE NEWS. When national media sends out global polling corporations to say 56% of right wing voters want LAW AND ORDER supporting NEO-MARXISM------that is FAKE DATA---FAKE NEWS.
Here is global banking 1% neo-liberal media outlet----THE HILL using SOCIALISM as if it means LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM. Why do US DEMOCRATS love NEO-MARXISM? Well, they DON'T. Democrats are left social progressive and MARXISM is far-right global industrial enslavement and brutality.
BERNIE SANDERS is simply the same global banking 1% FAKE MARXIST seen in GERMANY promoting HITLER as left socialist when HITLER was always far-right wing global corporate MARXIST. Bernie Sanders is simply that same global banking 1% TROTSKY collectivizing pretending all this was left socialism when global banking industrial MARXIST STALIN was next in line.
So, whether BERNIE SANDERS or TRUMP ----both working for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH------and the Foreign Sovereignty of MALTA-----NOT AMERICAN.
NO, our US young adults are NOT MARXISTS-----they are trying to bring back last century's REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE capitalism.
Why do Democrats love socialism?
By Jenny Beth Martin, opinion contributor — 08/17/18 12:00 PM EDT
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
“Democrats more positive about socialism than capitalism,” blares the headline on a new poll by Gallup this week. According to the survey, 57 percent of Democrats and left leaners surveyed have a positive view of socialism, compared to just 47 percent of Democrats and left leaners who have a positive view of capitalism.
What the heck? There is only one way to read this: Way too many Democrats are simply uninformed. I am not saying they are stupid. I am not saying they are ignorant. I am saying they are uninformed. Sadly, that is not surprising, given the tripe that passes for “education” in our public schools. And it is even worse for those who go on to college. Most four-year universities and colleges in this country are populated by left-wing professors whose hatred for America is only surpassed by their sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people’s labor.
Well NO----that would be far-right wing global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberals in colleges today------left wing professors were pushed out during CLINTON ERA.
The typical graduate of the typical four-year college in this country thinks better of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh than he or she does of Ronald Reagan. They simply do not know, or understand, that socialism is but one step removed from communism, and communism kills. Ask the survivors of Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields (where upwards of two million out of a population of just eight million were killed), or the survivors of Stalin’s purges (where upwards of 20 million were killed) what they think of communism and its “softer” cousin, socialism.The Democrats (and Democrat leaners) who said they have a positive view of socialism clearly do not understand the link between economic freedom and political freedom. History shows you simply cannot have one without the other. That’s why the United States was able to leapfrog over the older, more established, more socialistic nations of Europe to become the world’s dominant power in the middle of the last century. Risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and property rights are the very heart of capitalist societies. They are the engines that drive economic growth and innovation, the “sine qua non” of economic dynamism.
Economic growth and dynamism lead to a higher standard of living. More money in your pocket means more control over the decisions that affect one’s own life. And that leads to more political power. Individualism is the heart of the American experiment. Risk-taking is what allows the son of a Syrian immigrant to build the world’s most valuable company. Entrepreneurialism is what allows a college kid building a software solution for rating girls to turn his idea into a multibillion-dollar company in less than a dozen years. Capitalism is what allows an entrepreneur to build an online bookseller into a company whose sales will surpass $200 billion this year.
Do any of the Democrats and left leaners polled in the Gallup survey think Apple, or Facebook, or Amazon — or any of literally thousands of other companies that provide value to their customers and employees — could have been birthed in Sweden? Capitalism is, at its core, inextricably linked to the American experiment. Ours is a nation of risk-takers, not risk-avoiders. For those who insist that capitalism is inherently selfish, and ignorant of the challenges faced by poor people around the world, keep this in mind – our capitalist system has done more to pull people out of poverty both here and abroad than any other economic system in the history of the planet.
But Democrats — at least an awful lot of them, according to Gallup — seem not to understand this link between economic freedom and political freedom, without which they cannot enjoy personal freedom. They don’t understand that if we yield our economic freedom to government, to let government take more of our resources and make spending decisions for more of our money, we will also be yielding our political freedom, and, in doing so, reducing our personal freedom.
It is not surprising to learn that so many Democrats don’t get the connection. This is a political party, after all, with a major leader — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who just said “We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” Surprising? No. Disappointing? Yes. Fighting words? Most definitely.
Here we have the right wing media telling us DEMOCRATS LOVE SOCIALISM when in fact it is far-right wing global banking 1% BUSH NEO-CONS who love INDUSTRIAL MARXISM and yes, CORTEZ in this photo is that INDUSTRIAL MARXIST ---the #RESIST #FIST Roman salute FAKE left social progressive DEMOCRAT.
We highlight what global banking 1% have done with continuous wars using FAKE MARXIST REBELS as populist to destroy civil societies in CORTEZ'S LATIN AMERICA-----as ARABIA and ASIA so our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE know what MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% with its global corporate campus SOCIALISM filling our US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will look like. We WILL have these same continuous civil unrest civil wars just as soon as that coming ECONOMIC CRASH/ECONOMIC COLLAPSE is allowed to hit controlled by US FED.
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IS THE NEW LEFT IS NEO-MARXISM IS FAR-RIGHT WING INDUSTRIAL MARXISM COMPLETE WITH ALL THOSE CORPORATE FASCISTS HITLER, STALIN, MAO.
Why Democrats Love Democratic Socialism
By Samuel Hammon
September 13, 2018 11:12 AM
It sounds like ‘social democracy’ but is very different -- and very dangerous
On the night of June 26, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the Democratic primary against incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district, online searches for “democratic socialism” spiked dramatically. The 28-year-old Bronx native had done the improbable. Not only had she risen from total obscurity to knock out a ten-term incumbent and likely successor to Nancy Pelosi; “AOC,” as many call her, demonstrated that an unabashed socialist can secure a high-profile position within the national Democratic party. Months later, search interest in her anti-capitalist moniker remains elevated around the country.
The Ocasio-Cortez result was simply the most prominent victory to date in a string of wins for nominees at the state and national level endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the United States. Thanks to the attention generated by Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign, DSA membership has surged from around 5,000 to just under 50,000, transforming it from a peripheral educational organization into a political force in two short years. It wasn’t long ago that Glenn Beck required a blackboard and a box of chalk to prove that a Democrat was a socialist. Now, increasingly, they tell you so themselves, with pride.
Actress Cynthia Nixon all but begged for the DSA’s endorsement in the New York gubernatorial primary, declaring democratic socialism to be the future of the Democratic party. And with 61 percent of surveyed Democrats reportedly having a positive view of socialism -- a disposition that skews heavily towards Millennials — she may have a point. Julia Salazar, the DSA’s pick for the New York state senate’s 18th district, in Brooklyn, is only 27 years old. The political awakening of the cohort born after the fall of the Berlin Wall is arriving right on time, with the horror that a word like “socialism” inspires in older generations safely beyond living memory.
Yet as evidenced by the number of Americans turning to Google for a clear definition, what democratic socialism entails is anything but obvious. “If being a democratic socialist means that you believe health care, housing, education, and the things we need to thrive should be a basic right, not a privilege, then count me in,” said Nixon. Ocasio-Cortez somehow managed to be even more vague, declaring democratic socialism to be the view that “in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live.”
AND YET AFTER SEVERAL DECADES OF CORTEZ-STYLE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE FASCIST MARXISM 99% OF LATIN AMERICA IS STILL IMPOVERISHED.
Who could disagree with that? The DSA’s website, on the other hand, is more specific and far more candid. Democratic socialism, it explains, means nothing short of the abolition of capitalism. This is not New Deal liberalism redux — don’t be so insulting. Under democratic socialism, the private sector is to be replaced top-to-bottom by state-owned enterprises and worker-controlled firms. Even the family will be subject to democratic control, to rid it of any semblance of hierarchy. As Jared Abbott, a member of DSA’s steering committee, put it, “Socialism is the democratization of all areas of life, including but not limited to the economy.”
In other words, democratic socialism is just regular old Marxism, diverging from the Bolsheviks more in means than in ends. Rather than stage a revolution, today’s democratic socialists believe in taking the scenic road to serfdom, working through existing democratic processes and political parties. Of course, the DSA’s vision of a “participatory economy,” composed of thousands of decentralized, worker-run cooperatives, is not something Congress could simply pass through reconciliation. No society has ever attempted to “abolish capitalism” without descending into unspeakable chaos and violence. Venezuela is just the latest example — a country that, not long before descending into dictatorship and humanitarian crisis, was held up by democratic socialists as a model regime.
Whether politicians such as Nixon, AOC, or Salazar understand the first thing about the fellows they’ve chosen to travel with or are just trying to be au courant is not immediately clear. To hear Sanders talk, socialism apparently means becoming more like Denmark — an embarrassing conflation of “democratic socialism” with “social democracy,” presumably thanks to the large number of letters they have in common. It’s a distinction with a difference. While democratic socialists seek to abolish capitalism through worker control of the economy, social democracies are countries that supplement capitalism with redistribution and the public provision of certain goods or services — such as health insurance — that markets often fail to provide effectively.
Denmark’s prime minister made this point directly on a visit several years ago, not-so-subtly chiding Sanders in the process. “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he told his audience at the Harvard Kennedy School. “Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
IMAGINE----A 'SOCIALIST' WILLING TO SPEAK AT THE WORLD'S MOST RAGING GLOBAL BANKING 1% NEO-LIBERAL CORPORATION---HARVARD. THAT'S FAKE LEFT.
And not just any market economy. Nordic social democracies routinely rank at the top of indexes designed to measure economic freedom, making them some of the freest markets in the world. Without the productive powers of unfettered capitalism, it’s hard to imagine them affording their generous welfare states in the first place. And where the Nordics have gone a more democratic-socialist route, it’s not been pretty.
In Austria and Denmark, for example, “social housing” projects comprise over 20 percent of the housing stock — an enduring legacy of their respective socialist movements. Ethnic enclaves have since formed in both countries, referred to bluntly by the Danish government as ghettos (“ghetto” has somewhat different connotations for your typical Austrian). Recent research suggests that non-market housing is a key driver of anti-immigrant sentiment in both countries, spurred by the zero-sum conflict it creates with natives over occupancy of the limited supply. This has led the current Danish government to consider privatization, among a series of other housing reforms. Meanwhile, the People’s Policy Project (3P), an American think tank founded in 2017 to put meat on the bones of the democratic-socialist policy agenda, released a paper earlier this year calling for the construction of 10 million government-owned municipal housing units, citing Denmark and Austria as positive examples.
HMMMM, SOUNDS JUST LIKE 3P------THESE FEW DECADES OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS HAVING TIED GLOBAL CORPORATIONS TO ALL OUR US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES---BUT NOW IT IS A PEOPLE'S PROJECT-----
For holders of a supposedly dialectical ideology, Marxists are surprisingly bad at incorporating the lessons of history. Take 3P’s other brilliant idea, the creation of a sovereign-wealth fund built on oil revenues and modeled after Norway’s trillion-dollar pension fund. But instead of using the fund to manage the “resource curse” of economic stagnation that can be created by enormous oil revenues (a problem the U.S. doesn’t have), 3P proposes using it to socialize the American economy by steadily buying up the stock market. 3P founder Matt Bruenig brushes off concerns about public ownership by pointing to a number of well-managed Norwegian and Finnish state-owned enterprises, neglecting the vast literature on the poor governance of state-owned enterprises overall. For this very reason, Norway’s pension fund has a policy of limiting investments in individual companies to a maximum 5 percent of shares.
For what it’s worth, several democratic socialists have called out Bruenig’s plan as misguided, but for curious reasons. Writing in Jacobin magazine, the sociologist Michael A. McCarthy laments that Norway’s sovereign-wealth fund isn’t socialist enough, since it retains its profit-maximizing orientation. Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute echoes the same concerns, arguing that a sovereign-wealth fund would undermine the deeper goal of worker control of firms (thus implicitly acknowledging the wealth destruction that true democratic socialism entails).
The intra-socialist squabble du jour is illuminating as an example of what the economist Thomas Schelling called the “Titanic puzzle.” Schelling explains (apocryphally) that the Titanic had only enough lifeboats for first- and second-class passengers. As a condition of their less-expensive tickets, steerage passengers were expected to go down with the ship. So when the unsinkable ship sank, the story goes, so did its poorest passengers — to the outrage of anyone with even mild egalitarian intuitions. (In reality, the rule was “women and children first,” and steerage happened to be mostly men. The patriarchy strikes again.)
According to Schelling, no egalitarian intuition is elicited when two different boats, with different fares, offer different levels of safety. It occurs only when the differential is within one boat. This poses a problem for egalitarians, who must somehow reconcile the “macro” equality of society as a whole with the “micro” inequality within any given organization. Thus if your goal is to flatten the organizational structure of every firm, it may come at the expense of efficiency and wealth creation that could be used to equalize incomes at an even higher level. Which bullet one chooses to bite is one way to understand the democratic-socialist/social-democratic divide.
To the extent that Democrats running under the democratic-socialist banner are simply confused social democrats (a not unlikely scenario), the incredible dynamism of America’s private sector may be under no immediate threat. But that does not obviate the need for vigilance. The left flank has co-opted social-democratic parties in the past, only to spur catastrophe (in Venezuela’s case) or otherwise spark a multi-decade-long process of course-correcting liberalizations (in the case of countries such as Sweden).
The good news is that the new wave of democratic socialists appears to be repeating some of the worst mistakes of the conservative Tea Party movement. With their focus on “abolishing ICE,” reforming the criminal-justice system, opposing foreign wars, and expanding urban development, it’s often hard to distinguish DSA members from your typical Cato Institute libertarian. In other words, the DSA seems destined to stay young, idealistic, and on the periphery of actual policymaking. Ocasio-Cortez has even floated the idea of establishing a smaller socialist-only congressional caucus, an analogue to the House Liberty Caucus, thus giving herself all the legislative clout of a left-wing Justin Amash.
When all is said and done, despite their solidaristic rhetoric, the socialist proclivity remains towards factionalism. Leaderless movements grow only so far. Indeed, if anything, the Democratic party’s nascent socialist wing, whatever its potential dangers, seems poised to give the American public a lesson in hierarchy’s deeper virtues.
SALT HOUSES is a novel by a global banking 1% freemason STAR writing for ARABIC readers-----again, always an entertaining read with good characters but as with all global banking 1% LITERARY STARS ----there is a FAD or message tied to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE returning to 1000BC DARK AGES.
We see SALT HOUSES much as we see LES MISERABLE during the French Revolution ----as a warning directed at the middle-merely rich of citizens to BEWARE trying to lead a civil revolt against OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. Remember, LES MIS took the one French revolution that FAILED making the story of failure leading to deaths of those middle-merely rich merchants trying to get rid of French royalty. SALT HOUSES begins with that same FAILED revolution having drawn in characters exiled from Palestine being those merely rich able to escape the Israeli imperialism. It introduces that HERO wanting to STAND UP against OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS--being tricked and imprisoned ---killed for STANDING UP.
The continuous wars by global banking 1% whether in southeast Asia---or Arabia---or Africa---or Latin America always have those CONSPIRATORS inside those nations ready to partner with global banking OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS when sacking and looting and NEW WORLD ORDER MOVES FORWARD.
The first part of the novel has an exiled young man lured into being revolutionary and betrayed by what the author hints as being a MARXIST from Palestine.
When our US global banking 5% freemason/Greek players allowed to gain some wealth in being ROBBER BARON sacking and looting CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA -----they need to think of this novel---where those able to escape MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD are pushed and pushed and end losing both money and happiness.
Alyan’s debut novel explores a Palestinian family caught between present and past, between displacement and home.
On the eve of her daughter Alia’s wedding, Salma reads the girl’s future in a cup of coffee dregs. She sees an unsettled life for Alia and her children; she also sees travel, and luck. While she chooses to keep her predictions to herself that day, they will all soon come to pass when the family is uprooted in the wake of the Six-Day War of 1967.
Salma is forced to leave her home in Nablus; Alia’s brother gets pulled into a politically militarized world he can’t escape; and Alia and her gentle-spirited husband move to Kuwait City, where they reluctantly build a life with their three children. When Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait in 1990, Alia and her family once again lose their home, their land, and their story as they know it, scattering to Beirut, Paris, Boston, and beyond. Soon Alia’s children begin families of their own, once again navigating the burdens (and blessings) of assimilation in foreign cities.
Lyrical and heartbreaking, Salt Houses is a remarkable debut novel that challenges and humanizes an age-old conflict we might think we understand—one that asks us to confront that most devastating of all truths: you can’t go home again.
Praise“In her debut novel, Alyan tells the story of a Palestinian family that is uprooted by the Six-Day War of 1967 and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. This heartbreaking and important story examines displacement, belonging, and family in a lyrical style.”
—The Millions, “Most Anticipated: The Great 2017 Book Preview” “Salt Houses illuminates the heartache and permanent unsettledness experienced by refugees all over the world, reminding readers of the burdens and the blessings of home.”
—Bustle, “15 New Authors You’re Going To Be Obsessed With This Year” “[Salt Houses is] for those who understand the importance of family and culture, and how easily both can be riven.”
—Shelf Awareness“This timely historical does for the Palestinians what Khaled Hosseini did for the people of Afghanistan. By placing readers inside the hearts and minds of one Arab family scattered from Paris to Boston to Lebanon, she beautifully illustrates the resilience of the human spirit.”
—Library Journal“Alyan’s impressive first novel tracks the dispersal of four generations of a Palestinian family…The Yacoubs’ distinctly personal experiences will mirror the experiences of immigrants and refugees around the world and the Palestinians’ dislocation in particular…. Unexpected, deeply moving…this journey is well worth taking.”
—STARRED Kirkus “The war may have only lasted six days, but its impact echoes through generations of a Palestinian family in this ambitious debut novel…This is a moving story about a family’s battle to salvage what remains when their home is taken away.”
—Booklist“Reading Salt Houses is like having your coffee grounds read: cosmic, foreboding and titillating all at once. In this magnificent debut, Alyan’s powerful and poetic voice guides us into the dark recesses of history and leads us right up to the present tensions between East & West, the modern & ancestral, the hopeless and the hopeful.”
—Aline Ohanesian, author of Orhan’s Inheritance “Hala Alyan’s Salt Houses flies like a searchlight between history and fiction, unearthing the life of a single displaced Palestinian family among the rubble and illuminating it so deeply, so brilliantly,we cannot help but connect the story’s richly imagined past to our very real present.”
—Mira Jacob, author of The Sleepwalkers’ Guide to Dancing“Salt Houses is a piercingly elegant novel that registers Palestine with deep resonance for what it is: a once beloved home, known, lost, and re-imagined into life. A place where families decide between security and happiness, religion and heritage, where war is constant, yet peace is found. In the exquisite prose of a poet, Hala Alyan shows how we carry our origins in our hearts wherever we may roam, and how that history is calibrated by the places we choose to put down roots. This is a book with the power to both break and mend your heart.”
—Ru Freeman, author of On Sal Mal Lane“As accomplished a poet as she is in her excellent collections of poems, Hala Alyan exceeds those measures of brilliance in her moving, deeply felt, powerfully realized first novel, Salt Houses. I can’t think of many writers, older or younger, who have so adeptly written of family relationships—spanning five generations here, between all manner of older and younger, between siblings, cousins—all, at different ages and stages of life, and all against a vividly rendered backdrop of exile and migration. From Palestine to Jordan, Lebanon to Kuwait, Boston to New York, and back to Palestine again, this is a story of people losing, finding, and making their way. Salt Houses gives voice, body, and love to people whose lives in this country tend, at most, to be featured anonymously in news accounts—and at that, in the negative. This is real life, beautifully written, graciously enlarging the sense of who we are.”
—Rick Simonson, Elliott Bay Book Company“A striking debut of the disruptions and dispersals of exile, Salt Houses is a heartfelt portrait of the Palestinian diaspora. Powerful, lyrical, and deftly layered with multiple voices, Hala Alyan has done the near impossible: illuminated a half-century of wrenching history with great intimacy.”
—Cristina García, author of King of Cuba and others