Covert neoliberals

leave wins 07Faux-leftists are covert neoliberals, as I shall explain below. They are paid by the rich and powerful to advance neoliberalism from the “left.”

Faux-leftists are now weeping that they lost in the Brexit referendum. They are crying because David Cameron, George Osborne, the City of London, Wall Street, Hillary, Obama, big banks, the Koch Brothers, global corporations, and all the other lying, thieving, warmongering neoliberals lost the vote.

Faux-leftists camouflage themselves by adopting labels such as “far leftist,” “socialist” and “anti-fascist.” The corporate media outlets help in this, calling far right coalitions “far left” (e.g. SYRIZA in Greece) and populist anti-neoliberal groups “far rightists” (e.g. the Golden Dawn in Greece, or the National Front in France).

Faux-leftists promote covert neoliberalism by steering public attention away from poverty, austerity, and financial inequality (and Israeli atrocities). They steer attention by chattering about “xenophobia,” “homophobia,” “fascism,” racism, and “anti-Semitism.”

Some faux leftists are simply morons. Others are self-righteous miscreants who love to condemn people as “racists,” “homophobes,” and so on.

Still others are ultra-right-wing neoliberals like Hillary and Obama, or like the SYRIZA coalition in Greece, whose member Dimitris Papadimoulis said of the Brexit result,

“Britons decided to endorse xenophobia and isolation, preferring to avoid fighting inside Europe to change political and economic balances in favor of economic and social convergence.”

Nonsense. “We can better escape our prison from inside it than from outside it!” Or, “We cannot escape to the outside unless we remain permanently trapped inside!”

SYRIZA, as I said, is faux-leftist and covert neoliberal. Greece must borrow all its money from bankers, since Greece has a trade deficit, and the Greek government cannot create its spending money out of thin air. Therefore, because of the euro, Greece will have ever-increasing debt, poverty, and inequality. SYRIZA says that the way to offset austerity is to keep the euro. (The way to offset cyanide is to gulp down more cyanide.)

In the U.K. the Left Unity Party and the Labour Party are both faux-leftist, and covert neoliberals. Both parties opposed a Brexit. Both are militaristic, and want to destroy the Syrian government. Both claim to oppose austerity, while they echo the lies that “justify” austerity — e.g. the false claim that the U.K. government has a “national debt crisis.” Both parties said that a vote for “Leave” was a vote for racism and “xenophobia.” Both parties favor globalism, which they call “internationalism” (which benefits only the bosses, not the workers).

Both promote covert neoliberalism by supporting the unelected, anti-democratic, neoliberal European Commission (EC) in Brussels, and European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt.

NOTE: In addition to the EC and ECB there is also a European Council and European Parliament. Both of these consist of people who are indeed elected in their respective nations. However they have no power to initiate legislation. Only the non-elected Troika can do that. The neoliberal Troika is anti-democracy, and therefore can never be reformed or opposed from the inside. To support the Troika in any way is to engage in covert neoliberalism.

leave wins 10This brings up another way that faux-leftists camouflage themselves. If you don’t agree with their covert neoliberalism, then they condemn you as an overt “neoliberal.” This is like Muslim jihadists who work closely with Zionists, while they condemn each other as “Zionists.”

Speaking of the Left Unity Party, they are furious that that the “Leave” vote won, and they have issued a statement:

leave wins 06

Left Unity deplores the Leave outcome of the EU Referendum. This referendum came from pressure from the far right – driven by anti-immigration sentiment, and fueled by racism. This has been the most reactionary national campaign in all of British political history, resulting in an open emergence of the extreme right.

If you disagree with the covert neoliberalism of the faux-leftists, then you are a “far right fascist / racist / sexist.”

leave wins 08Left Unity claims to care about immigrants, while they support the military and economic wars that create immigrants. They claim to oppose racism, while they support the (covert) neoliberalism that worsens racism. They claim to oppose “xenophobia,” while they hate people who are different (i.e. are heterosexual). This is not mere hypocrisy. It is a campaign to keep the masses divided so they remain helpless before the neoliberal juggernaut.

In Brexit Britain, we still face austerity, poverty and extreme inequality: the rotten policies of our government are still here. Brexit will not be a loosening of the shackles of neo-liberalism as some on the left have argued. It will be an unmitigated compounding of the same policies by the British ruling class.

Austerity, poverty, and inequality. How would these have been changed by staying in the EU? The faux-leftists never explain this. A Brexit is no magic cure, but it is a step toward a cure.

We will now work tirelessly to oppose those who would divide us further. We will fight to defend the rights of working class communities and rebuild support for socialist ideas.

leave wins 09LIARS! For the faux-leftist and the covert neoliberal, “socialist ideas” include adopting the euro currency, which leads to neoliberalism, which is the exact opposite of socialism. This is why rich people support faux-leftist leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, head of the neoliberal Labour Party.

The EU scam was mapped out by Friedrich Hayek in a 1939 article called “The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism.” There Hayek called for an EU-type body that would be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, so that voters would never be able to resist neoliberal enslavement (which in Hayek’s day was called the “market order”). And indeed, the European Commission in Brussels, and the European Central Bank in Frankfurt are both part of the “Troika,” which promotes neoliberalism.

We will step up the fight against neo-liberalism here – opposing all cuts, defending the NHS, fighting for decent housing – and across Europe, because the problems we face cannot be solved on a national basis.

There it is again. Covert neoliberals claiming to oppose neoliberalism.

Note, by the way, how faux-leftists say that socialism cannot be achieved at the national level; only on a global scale. In this way the faux-leftist checkmates socialism everywhere. This is yet another form of covert neoliberalism.

We call on all those who reject this disastrous turn in British politics to unite to oppose racism, to defend the rights of migrants and to fight to protect and extend workers’ and other rights that are now under threat.

Once again, if you oppose covert neoliberalism, then you are a “racist.” British fisherman voted for “Leave” because the E.U.’s Common Fisheries Policy has devastated the British fishing industry. To call fisherman “racists” is false and insulting, but that’s what faux-leftists do in their self-righteousness. There are valid environmental concerns about overfishing, but to impose a limit on fishing with no attempt to find alternative employment for fishermen is not acceptable. So much for faux-leftists’ “concern for workers.” 

We reject the ‘divide and rule’ methods of our ruling class, setting one worker against another, wherever they come from, and turning one community against another. The problems we face result from the neo-liberal, deregulatory, anti-working class policies imposed by successive British governments, not from immigrants and refugees – our fellow working people.

How would staying with the non-elected and anti-democratic EC and ECB have changed neo-liberal, deregulatory, anti-working class policies? Faux-leftists never explain this, except to say that workers need solidarity worldwide. However workers won’t have solidarity while they live under the heel of neoliberal, non-elected and anti-democratic bureaucrats.

And note again the standard faux-leftist tactic of inversion. If you don’t agree with their covert neoliberalism, then you are an overt “neoliberal.”

We may be heading out of the EU, but it is more important than ever to work in solidarity with other workers and communities. Movements and left parties throughout Europe are mounting their own massive political opposition to neo-liberalism, against austerity and poverty. We stand a better chance of defeating our own ruling class by working together with the people of Europe with shared strategies in common campaigns.

Agreed, and workers will have an easier time developing solidarity without the EU’s choke-hold on them.

We watch the advance of the left in Europe – particularly where there is newfound cooperation and unity in Spain and Portugal – with our hearts filled with hope. We send our solidarity and best wishes to Unidos Podemos in Spain for success in their election this weekend. We see the struggles of the French workers against the imposition of the new labour laws. We convey our solidarity to these and other struggles. But we also watch with grave concern the rise of the far right across Europe as well as in Britain. We need urgently to consolidate our forces against this growing tendency.

If you don’t agree with covert neoliberalism, then you are with the “far right,” no matter how leftist you actually are. You are “xenophobic” no matter how pro-refugee you actually are. You are a “racist,” no matter how anti-racist you actually are.

Paul Craig Roberts is correct:

The Brexit will hopefully lead to a breakup of the EU and NATO, and thereby to an avoidance of World War III.

The EU and NATO are evil institutions. They are mechanisms created by Washington to destroy the sovereignty of European peoples. They give Washington control over the Western world and serve both as cover and enabler of Washington’s aggression. Without the EU and NATO, Washington could not force Europe and the UK into conflict with Russia. Washington could not have destroyed seven Muslim countries in 15 years without being isolated as a hated war criminal government, no member of whom could have travelled abroad without being arrested and put on trial.

The British, or a majority of them, understood that the EU is a dictatorial governing mechanism in which power is in the hands of unaccountable people. Washington, in an effort to save its power over Europe, presented the effort to preserve British liberty and sovereignty as racism. Washington regards every assertion of democratic rule as a barrier to its hegemony. Washington demonizes every democratic impulse. Washington asserts that only Washington and its terrorist allies have the right to choose the government of Syria, just as Washington chose the government of Ukraine. The British people, or a majority of them, gave Washington the bird.

But the fight is not over. It has barely even begun. Here is what the British can likely expect: The Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, and George Soros will conspire to attack the British pound, and terrorize the British economy. We will see who is the strongest: the will of the British people or the will of the One Percent.

Leave supporters such as Boris Johnson say there is “no need for haste” in exiting the EU. They are wrong. The British economy is about to be attacked, and the longer it takes for the British to escape from the authoritarian EU, the longer Washington and the EU can inflict punishment on the British people for voting to leave. And the more time the presstitutes will have to convince the British people that their vote was a mistake.

Cameron should step down immediately, not months from now in October. The new British government should tell the EU that the British people’s decision is implemented now, not in two years, and that all political and legal relationships are terminated as of the vote. Otherwise, in two years the British will be so beat down by punishments and propaganda that their vote will be overturned. (They will beg to be re-enslaved. – E.H.)

The British government should immediately announce the termination of its participation in Washington’s sanctions on Russia and hook its economy to the rising nations of Russia, China, India, and Iran. With this support, the British can survive the Washington led attack on their economy.

A member of the British Army said that 90% of the lads in his unit voted to leave because they did not want to fight Washington’s wars. He said that the soldiers were “taking their own pen” to the ballot box, because the polling stations “only use pencils at the polls, and our votes could be erased and changed.”

The British people might think that they are out of the EU, but they are not. They have a long hard fight ahead. The British political and media establishments that serve Washington will not let them leave.

Looks like it’s time for another false flag “terrorist attack.”

leave wins 11

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Covert neoliberals

    1. Thanks for the link. At long last PCR understands that monetarily sovereign governments create their domestic spending money out of thin air. However he makes some errors, which I shall correct below. If a nation’s currency is not widely accepted outside the nation’s borders, then the nation needs foreign currency in addition to its domestic currency.

      If a Russian car dealer wants to buy German cars, then the dealer must convert his rubles into euros, since Germans want to be paid in euros. The Russian car dealer converts his rubles at a Russian bank, which gets its euros from the Russian central bank. The Russian central bank gets its euros from the sale of Russian exports such as oil and gas.

      Let me break it down further…

      Suppose I own a private Russian company that sells oil to foreign nations in exchange for foreign currencies (euros, dollars, pounds, or whatever.) When I get my foreign currency, I can deposit it in a foreign bank, where I earn interest that is payable in a foreign currency. Or I can deposit my foreign currency in a Russian bank for a much higher rate of interest that is payable in rubles. If I do the latter, then my foreign currency flows to the Russian central bank. I still have credit for my money in the Russian bank, but now my credit is in rubles. Each Russian business must decide how much euros (or dollars or whatever) to deposit in foreign banks, and how much to deposit in Russian banks for a higher rate of interest.

      The point is that Russia must buy imports, since Russia is not fully self-sufficient. (No country is.) In order to buy imports, Russia needs foreign currency.

      Now let’s tie all this into the video above…

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: Let me come back to what you were saying about the Russians being hurt by the banking sanctions. They most certainly are not being hurt.

      PETER LAVELL: I agree, but with domestic borrowing, not international—-

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: No, particularly international. MMT says that the central bank can create all the credit a country needs.

      EH: Incorrect. Roberts’ assertion applies only to domestic transactions. The Russian central bank cannot create foreign currency, nor issue credit that is denominated in foreign currency. PCR is in error.

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: Russia doesn’t need any foreign investment. Not one cent. The trouble is, Russia has an incompetent central bank.

      EH: Roberts is oversimplifying the situation. Russia needs foreign investment in the form of foreign currencies, and in the form of expertise that Russia may not have. Suppose an American company knows how to get natural gas out of the Russian seabed cheaper and quicker than any Russian company can. In that case the Russian government can invite in the foreign company to come and get the gas. The foreign company divides the profits with Russia, and the profits are denominated in a foreign currency.

      Roberts calls the Russian central bank “a bunch of neoliberal idiots.” This is a different topic, and I agree with him to a point. The Russian central bank is focused more on serving the Russian financial economy than on serving Russia’s real economy. But it’s not as bad as Western central banks.

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: All the Russian central bank has to do is finance the government. The money will be created anyway.

      EH: Again, this only applies to domestic transactions. The Russian government and economy need rubles, but they also need foreign currencies, which the Russian central bank cannot create out of thin air. Of course, none of this is applicable to the USA, since U.S. dollars are accepted worldwide. The U.S. government and economy do not need foreign currencies.

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: The money will be created anyway, but why let some foreign bank create it?

      EH: Roberts mistakenly thinks that Russians borrow rubles from foreign banks. What Russians borrow from foreign banks is foreign currency.

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: People say that if the Russian central bank creates more money, it will cause inflation. By why don’t they think that there will be inflation if a foreign bank creates the same amount?

      EH: Again, Roberts is forgetting the difference between rubles and foreign currencies.

      He says that “Russia is hurt by the economic policies of the central bank.” I presume he means that the real economy is hurt, not the financial economy. If so, then he is referring to a global phenomenon. Russia is not a savior. Russia is a competitor.

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: The Russian government is talking about privatizing some pubic assets.

      EH: This is partly because of neoliberalism, which exists in Russia, but it is not as severe as in the West. In some cases Russia wants to sell percentages of things like railways to foreigners in exchange for foreign currency. But when Russia privatizes something, Russia sells a maximum of a 50% interest, minus one share, so that the Russian government remains the final authority. In most cases Russia sells only a 10-to-15% share. This is how Russia acquires foreign partners. However Western sanctions block the foreign purchase of Russian assets, in order to starve Russia of foreign currency.

      PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS: Russia could break up NATO by refusing to sell gas to NATO countries.

      EH: No, that would starve Russia of foreign currency, which would be disastrous for Russia. Moreover competitors such as Qatar would move in. One reason why the West is destroying Syria is so the West can eventually build pipelines for Qatari gas across Syria. If Russia stopped selling gas to Europe, then Europe could even buy natural gas from Iran.

      Russia’s oil and gas give a lot of clout to Russia, but the clout is not absolute. Russia and Europe need each other.

      I’m glad that PCR no longer believes the lies, and that he has finally grasped the basics of MMT. He no longer believes that Social Security is “unsustainable.” He just needs to think things out a bit further.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s