Saturday Commentary and Review #95
Germany Destroys Itself, Dutch Farmers vs. Global Elites, US Military Readies Next Purge, Atlantic Monthly Hates The Rosary, Woke CEO Gets His Comeuppance
Many people questioned my position that one of the main goals of the USA forcing Russia to react in Ukraine was to drive Moscow further apart from Berlin than it already was. This is now accepted as fact, albeit tacitly in most quarters. There’s no joy in being right about this, as I’d much rather have a Europe that can stand on its own two feet, engaging in trade with the Americans, Chinese, and Russians, while looking out for its own collective security interests.
Wishful thinking (like mine above) is for daydreams and children, so we must turn to reality….and the reality is that Europe has chosen to destroy its own economy to make their American masters happy. It’s just that simple, and it’s just that sad. There is no long-term vision in play here and that is invisible to the masses, no tricks, no strategies, no clever tactics waiting to be activated to save the day.
To add insult to injury, the US Secretary of Energy just told Europe “tough luck, figure it out yourself, lol”:
America’s allies in Europe are desperate for alternative supplies of fuel amid the Ukraine war, and U.S. producers are happy to provide what they can. So wouldn’t you know the Biden Administration now wants to limit fuel exports.
That’s the message Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm sent last week in a letter imploring seven major refiners to limit fuel exports. We obtained a copy of the letter, which the Administration didn’t release publicly. Ms. Granholm warns that gasoline inventories on the East Coast are at a near-decade low, and diesel stocks are nearly 50% below the five-year average across the region.
“Given the historic level of U.S. refined product exports, I again urge you to focus in the near term on building inventories in the United States, rather than selling down current stocks and further increasing exports,” she writes.
“It is our hope that companies will proactively address this need,” she adds. “If that is not the case, the Administration will need to consider additional Federal requirements or other emergency measures.” In New Jersey they call that an offer you can’t refuse.
“Hey Europe, cut yourself off from your best energy supplier, one that provides you oil and gas at very, very competitive rates. We need you to do this for our own security and economic interests. Don’t worry, we’ve got your back!”
The Granholm export threat is also a slap in the face to European allies trying to diversify energy sources from Russia. Fuel supplies are tight globally amid sanctions on Russia, which had accounted for 40% of Europe’s oil imports. Europe has had to look elsewhere for diesel fuel, which some manufacturers and power generators are turning to as a substitute for natural gas. U.S. refiners have recently been exporting more fuel to Europe, but Ms. Granholm is now telling them to stop.
Europe’s craven and cowardly leaders deserve this public humiliation, and inshallah they will be punished for it at the polls.
Where Germany goes, so goes Europe. And it’s going straight into the toilet.
I prefer to share text in these weekend reviews, but this interview with German economist Wolfgang Streeck (who has already made several appearances in this Substack) is too good to not share with my dear readers.
Streeck does a wonderful job explaining how Germany has found itself in this crisis, the dangers that the current situation pose to the EU existentially, the war in Ukraine and its impact, plus much more. A lot of what he says will sound familiar to you already, and he brings up John Mearsheimer as well. This is the reality that we are now living in, a sad one that was easy to predict.
I spent hours every week scanning the internet for articles of interest to share with you and to comment on, and many of you do me the honour of sending pieces my as well (please do keep it up). I feel that it is very important to try and amass as many intelligent viewpoints as possible from several different angles of approach on any issue in order to best help us understand an issue that might be under-reported in English language media.
The case of the Dutch farmer protests is a great example of this. Being extremely online, we are aware of what is going on but have difficulty in finding out the key details that make it relevant to our understanding. We are reticent in leaving the interpretation of events to mainstream media for the obvious reasons that cause us to distrust them. This forces us to go to the margins and collect information from a wide range of sources, permitting us to both sort and filter that which we come across.
The Grayzone is a hard left publication known for its anti-western imperialism stance, one that is so uncompromising that there are state-abetted efforts to de-platform them (i.e. shut them down). This makes them a rather useful source on issues, because through this state-sponsored antagonism, we can divine what precisely governments do not want us to know as we separate the wheat (cold, hard facts), from the chaff (ideological slant).
Stavroula Pabst takes a deep dive into the protests and uncovers a populist reaction against an elitist green agenda that seeks to ‘reset’ the Dutch economy (sound familiar?):
The Dutch government announced plans to slash nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions in June 2022, enforcing an ambitious agenda in the name of protecting the climate. The imposed reductions could spell devastating consequences for the country’s farming industry and add enormous stress to already chaotic global food supply chains.
Today, the Netherlands is Europe’s top exporter of meat and the second largest agricultural exporter overall in the world, right behind the US. The tiny nation’s agricultural success is the product of its traditional dependence on generously sized farms that use nitrogen-rich fertilizer to produce heavy yields. Such methods were encouraged by the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, which prioritized the growth of cattle lots, incentivized the use of chemical fertilizers, and pushed many smaller family farmers out of operation.
In 2019, a Dutch court order declared that nitrogen-compound fertilizer was a top threat to the climate and biodiversity, and mandated a 70-80% decrease in its use. If implemented in the country, the proposed reductions could destroy a full third of its farming output and eliminate somewhere between 30 and 50% of Dutch livestock. The stage was set for open conflict.
Once the pro-EU coalition government of Dutch PM Mark Rutte took steps to implement the restrictions in June 2022, local farmers responded immediately with ferocious mass protests that have blocked roads, airports, and grocery distribution centers. Since the outbreak of demonstrations, supermarkets shelves have gone empty as the farmers’ cry of “No farms, no food” reverberated nationwide.
The Dutch farmers offered up a compromise, but it was rejected out of hand:
The farmers were not only angry with the sweeping emissions mandates, but with the less-than-democratic process through which the policy was handed down. They insist they support efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and complain that bureaucrats have ignored an alternative proposal by the main farmer’s lobby, the Netherlands Agricultural and Horticultural Association, known as the LTO, to reduce nitrogen-oxide output by 40% over the next decade.
An elite-driven agenda during a period of collapsing faith in governing institutions can only spell political trouble:
Firemen and fishermen are now joining the farmers’ protests, forcing ferry services to shut down. When farmers blockaded streets and highways with their tractors, tow truck drivers showed solidarity by refusing orders to remove them. In a flagrant show of contempt for the ruling establishment, farmers have even dumped manure on government buildings.
State repression of the protests has similarly intensified. Dutch police shot a 16 year old farmer during one demonstration and opened fire on a tractor at another. When not deploying live fire, Dutch security forces have promiscuously teargassed demonstrators, unleashed dogs on crowds, and pummeled demonstrators with truncheons.
The elites will persist in trying to repurpose national economies:
From their position within institutions such as the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and a bevy of transnational corporations considered “stakeholders” in this closely-knit network, unelected figures have influenced government policy in supposedly sovereign states across the globe.
While these organizations claim to act in the interest of the planet, they are almost entirely unaccountable to the popular masses who will be most severely impacted by their planned “reset” of the international food system. Having already upended the global supply chains and informal industries that once sustained the developing world with their internationally-prescribed response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the next item on their agenda threatens to exacerbate the economic pain of working people from Amsterdam to Colombo and beyond.
Hidden agendas?
De Sain believes an ulterior motive lies behind the government’s contradictory policy: it wants the farmers’ land to address the country’s severe housing shortage, as the government needs to build 845,000 homes by 2030 to meet expected population needs. There are “17 million people in Holland. They say that we will have in 2040, 30 million people in Holland. So then, the farmers are in their way [of building] houses and industry,” de Sain stated.
The Netherlands’ housing shortage is severe indeed, and Dutch farmers own a significant portion of the country’s land, with about 54 percent as of 2018. Yet these figures do not fully explain the government’s move towards expropriation.
Further, the Dutch government’s stringent regulation of nitrogen emissions has driven housing shortages by forcing residential construction projects to meet difficult environmental standards before building, even shelving 18,000 prospective housing developments in 2019 as nitrogen mitigation expectations tightened. Buying out farmers, therefore, would not necessarily alleviate the housing shortage even if it did free up land.
And as the Irish Farmers Journal illustrated, the land the Dutch government obtains from farmers through buyouts may instead be transformed into nature reserves where building is forbidden.
Suspicions are growing among Dutch farmers that their land could be used for something more novel. A 2021 DutchNews.nl report about the now-proposed cuts stated that farmlands bought out by the government would then be used for “sustainable agriculture” – apparent code for lab-grown meats and other scientifically confected foods.
The Great Farmer Replacement?
Rudy Buis, a spokesperson for the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality, emphasized to The Grayzone that the buy-outs of farmland would be voluntary “for now,” but stated explicitly that “replacing farmers” was an ultimate objective.
Buis explained that plans for land acquired were up in the air, but that a combination of uses, including nature reserves, housing, and sustainable farming, were all under consideration.
“If the government has the [farmers’] ground it can be used for an extra nature area, or maybe a project for energy, or building houses,” said Buis, who insisted 25 billion euros allotted by the government for the buyout scheme would also establish and normalize sustainable farming practices and reduce the country’s nitrogen emissions via “green investments in innovation.”
“The money is going to buyout voluntary farmers,” the spokesperson explained. “Also for innovation for agriculture, for replacing farmers to make [the farming sector] a more natural way, a more sustainable way.”
When asked what “sustainability” would look like in practice, Buis described the government’s vision as follows: “A farmer… often has 200 or 300 cows, and it’s our ambition to have the farmer making enough money for himself and his family with, well, shall I say, 60 or 70 cows. What that means: we have to pay more for biological food. That means we have to help [farmers] and give them money for sustainable agriculture. So, that’s a process [involving] a lot of parties and organizations and the government. We are working on it now.”
They are going to want us to eat plant-based shit. As ridiculous as it sounds, the next generation’s act of rebellion will be to eat a ‘trad hamburger’.
Back in February of 2021, I wrote a piece entitled “The Desquamation of America” that explains how the USA is moving from a strictly mercantilist empire towards that of an ideological one. In order to effect an ideological state, purges are required to expel that (and those) which run counter to the prevailing ideology.
The US Military is happy to prove me correct by using the January 6 pretext to launch a housecleaning within its ranks, targeting ‘racists’ in particular by blurring the lines between actual threats and opinions:
Worried, Austin has tightened the rules regarding political speech within the military. The new rules prohibit any statement that advocates for “violence to achieve goals that are political … or ideological in nature.” The ban applies to members of the military both on and off duty.
Also, for the first time, the new rules prohibit statements on social media that “promote or otherwise endorse extremist activities.”
While the intent behind the new rules is laudable, political speech – even of an offensive or distasteful nature – goes to the core of US democracy. Americans in uniform are still Americans, protected by the First Amendment and afforded the constitutional right of free speech.
Tighter rules for the military caste:
While soldiers and sailors are certainly not excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, it is fair to say they operate under a diluted version of it.
As one federal judge observed, the “sweep of the protection is less comprehensive in the military context, given the different character of the military community and mission.”
The “right to speak out as a free American” must be balanced against “providing an effective fighting force for the defense of our Country,” a federal judge noted in a separate case.
These and other federal judges point to the military’s need for good order and discipline in justifying this approach.
While never precisely defined, good order and discipline is generally considered being obedient to orders, having respect for one’s chain of command and showing allegiance to the Constitution.
Speech that “prevents the orderly accomplishment of the mission” or “promotes disloyalty and dissatisfaction” within the ranks harms good order and discipline and can be restricted.
In 1974, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Army can punish an officer for encouraging subordinates to refuse to deploy.
The officer’s comments included: “The United States is wrong in being involved in the Vietnam War. I would refuse to go back to Vietnam if ordered to do so.”
Retweeting and liking certain views is out (depending on how the rules are interpreted):
The US military’s revised approach to political speech prohibits retweeting or even “liking” messages that promote anti-government or white nationalist and other extremist groups.
Does a restriction this broad comply with legal precedent?
As a law professor who has served more than 20 years in the US military, I believe the broader rules will probably be upheld if challenged on First Amendment grounds.
Wide latitude:
The military has wide latitude in deciding who is deserving of the “special trust and confidence” that comes with military employment. Military officials are free to consider political and social beliefs that are “inimical to the vital mission of the agency” in making hiring and firing decisions, the Blameuser decision said.
Social media posts expressing support for violent political activities will likely be treated in the same way.
As the Seventh Circuit said in Blameuser, by liking or retweeting an extremist message, a service member’s actions are “demonstrably incompatible with the important public office” they hold.
Can the US Military be trusted to apply this new criteria fairly and objectively? Of course not. Loser conservatives will whine about fairness and hypocrisy as the Armed Forces get repurposed for the next leg of American Empire.
I like to refer to Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic Monthly, as “Woke IDF Prison Guard” based on his current and previous jobs. Goldberg has never passed up an opportunity to argue for US intervention and/or invasion abroad, while castigating wrong-thinkers at home for being extremists of various stripes.
This absolute piece of shit decided to commission a hit piece on The Rosary on the same day that Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, labeling it an “extremist symbol”. Extremism is to Mr. Goldberg devotion to the Mother of God, while proper liberal democracy is bombing and droning hundreds of thousands of foreigners to death for the sake of Empire. He is beneath contempt.
The author was an "online hate researcher" named Dan Panneton. He argued, in a piece originally titled "How the Rosary Became an Extremist Symbol," that "radical-traditional Catholics" and other "far right" forces have blurred the lines between the Rosary as a spiritual weapon and a symbol of physical violence.
The idea that the Rosary is a weapon against Satan and demonic forces has a long pedigree in Catholic theology. Panneton concedes as much. He argues that "radical-traditionalist Catholics" have appropriated the spiritual-warfare concept "literally to demonize their political opponents and regard the use of armed force against them as sanctified." He claims that these Catholics want to enact "righteous violence" on "secularists, progressives, or Jews."
His proof of these extraordinary claims includes anonymous "influencers" and "radical traditionalists" whose social-media pages feature images like "rosaries draped over firearms."
more
Consider what he means by "ultraconservative Catholicism." Panneton describes the belief that "Catholics alone adhere to the one true Church"—the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church—as a "hard-line position" held by "radical traditional Catholic men." He explicitly and implicitly indicts Catholics who "campaign against LGBTQ acceptance in the Church" (that is, changing the Church's 2,000-year-old teaching on sodomy), believe "other forms of Christianity are heretical," are hostile "toward liberalism and secularism," and "idealize the traditional patriarchal family." At least two of those four positions represent the official teachings of the Catholic Church. He claims the Rosary has been appropriated by traditionalist Catholics to serve these ends, but it is clear that the opposite is true: Panneton dislikes traditional Catholicism, and associates the Rosary with traditional Catholics.
and
Indeed, Panneton uses the word "extremist" as an epithet four times in his piece. He should consider what the Rosary is: Catholics ask for the intercession of a first-century virgin whose son, believed to be God, was executed by the state, buried in a tomb, subsequently appeared to His followers, ascended from their midst, and will, they believe, return to variously admit to eternal beatitude or condemn to unending torment every human being who has ever lived. The Rosary attracts "extremists" in part because the Rosary itself—and the faith it expresses—is "extreme."
I’ll make it even simpler: “Whatever we don’t like is extremist, and we therefore should use the state and its monopoly on force to quash it.”
We end this weekend’s Substack with a hilarious piece about the Woke CEO who turned out to not be such a good guy after all. How boringly predictable.
Five years earlier, Mr. Price had propelled himself to an unlikely position for the head of a 110-person payment processing company when he told his employees that he was raising their minimum pay to $70,000. His announcement was covered by The New York Times and NBC News. Esquire did a photo shoot. He made appearances on “The Daily Show” and at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
By the time Ms. Margis discovered him, his reputation and following online had grown even more. His self-styled role as a C.E.O. speaking truth about corporate greed resonated with a wide audience. His posts on social media had been liked tens of millions of times. He joked with Kelly Clarkson on her daytime talk show, with Lionel Richie looking on. He introduced Andrew Yang to a Seattle crowd during Mr. Yang’s presidential campaign. He video chatted with former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who called him “the one moral CEO in America.”
Mr. Price was a young, handsome executive whose worldview spoke to her; a real live influencer on social media who criticized the excesses and arrogance of other business leaders. He posted a seemingly endless stream on Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn, saying the right things about inequality. About mental health. About women.
After Ms. Margis liked one of his Instagram posts in 2020, Mr. Price, who was 35, messaged her: “Happy Valentine’s Day beautiful!”
Ms. Margis, who was 27, ignored the message initially but replied back early last year, after friends in a group chat once again shared one of his tweets.
“You’re wonderful,” she wrote.
Soon, they were talking regularly. Mr. Price visited her near San Diego and flew her to Seattle. But what started as a whirlwind courtship ended three months later with an accusation of rape.
On Monday, the police in Palm Springs, Calif., said they had referred Ms. Margis’s case to local prosecutors, recommending a charge of rape of a drugged victim. Prosecutors in Seattle earlier this year charged Mr. Price with assault in another incident.
After responding to questions earlier in the day from The New York Times, Mr. Price tweeted that he had resigned on Wednesday evening as chief executive of his company, Gravity Payments. He wrote that he had become a “distraction” and needed to “focus full time on fighting false allegations made about me.”
Thank you once again for checking out my Substack. Hit the like button and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment below if the mood strikes you. And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already done so.
Hit the like button and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you (be nice!), and don't forget to subscribe if you haven't already done so.
Next entry in the HIV/AIDS series should be up tomorrow or Tuesday.
That Price guy was omnipresent on my Facebook feed as naïve, entitled and lazy people I knew from High School spread his crap all over it a few years back.
Reminds me of Jonathon Bowden's line that left wing politics attracted only three types of people, sociopathic misanthropes, a few dweebs interested in "theory" and the numbers flushed out with airhead women with the "Vicar's Daughter" personality, who just believed if we loved each other more the world's problems would go away. Looks like Price was the former and Ms. Margis the latter.