La République En Marche and Macron, in the pages of The Financial Times. Almost Marx comments

Headline:Problems for Macron as defecting MPs believe the party is over

Sub-headline: French president’s La République en Marche is losing ground ahead of elections

Unreported in the pages of this newspaper, The General Strike since its inception in December 2019, has had a devastating effect on M. 37%’s putative ‘landslide victory’ as declared with numbing regularity.
Why is Macron M. 37% ? In the final round in the election 36.5% of voters rendered their ballots ‘spoiled’ or otherwise uncountable.

M. Mallet’s reporting touches in the briefest  possible way on the gilets jaunes/gilets noirs and the General Strike that has been blacked out by the Financial Times editors, except when it is usable to provide political context. Call it by its name Stalinist erasure, practiced in the political present. With the caveat that it will  fail, in a world as diverse as our own, in terms of  propaganda masquerading as ‘news’, while other sources of  information are readily available for those who choose to seek it out!

More than 15 months of demonstrations by the gilets jaunes — the movement began with motorists complaining about a green tax on fuel, but later developed into broader anti-government protests — have been followed since December by disruptive public sector strikes and marches against Mr Macron’s pension reform. Trade unions have announced another big strike day for Paris on Monday.

What is utterly unavoidable as the almost primary reason for Macron’s political erosion? Besides the open rebellion of not just the Lower Orders, but of Fireman, Teaches, Lawyers, Doctors even Students.

What is primary in M. Mallet’s argument? He constructs a Political Melodrama, about the disenchantment of the politicians that are the members of En Marche. A large cast of characters, that takes its power from its profusion of ‘walk-ons’ , aided by brief speaking parts.

Some LREM MPs, who joined the movement in the wave of enthusiasm for a new style of politics that accompanied Mr Macron’s rise, are uncomfortable with party discipline on unpopular laws. As hostility to the president has grown, they are also facing harsh realities of day-to-day political life — including personal abuse in the streets and attacks by militants and vandals on MPs’ constituency offices.

Both M. Mallet, and the En Marche office holders, fail to realize that their time is waning: M. Mallet exhausts the reader’s patience, the En Marche office holders now face the contempt of the French people, who have seen enough of Police Violence committed against their fellow citizens, under the orders of a ruthless enarque: he acts as if he were a Bourbon!  Or the Police attacking striking Fireman. The videos of these crimes are available on twitter, Kant’s words echo: dare to know!

Almost Marx




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My reply @Cpl. Jones

Cpl. Jones, thank you for your, brief ,but thought provoking comment.

To ignore Corbyn’s catastrophic stand on Brexit in all its wishy-washyness is the very crux of his defeat in the election. If Corbyn had only had the courage of his convictions, and been Pro-Brexit, instead of courting political respectability of another ‘referendum’, his campaign would have made sense, to those who voted for the Posh Boy dullard Boris.

Corbyn is and will remain a Left-Wing Social Democrat, in sum, fully a part of a long and valuable political tradition, except in the Age of Neo-Liberal Tony Blair, which, in sum, has evolved into the cherished notion of ‘Moderation’.  Blair’s actual mentor Mrs. Thatcher and her Hayekian political/social psychopathology, in a more carefully massaged and packaged version: see Edward L. Bernays ‘public relations’ bible    ‘Propaganda’.

Here is Samuel Brittan, in the pages of this newspaper, circa 2013, explicating Mrs. Thatcher’s inherent personal/political nihilism.

Headline:Thatcher was right – there is no ‘society’

Sub-headline: Aid for the poor, or distressed regions, must come from the citizens of the country concerned



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

‘Unchained Donald Trump’ in the pages of The Financial Times! Old Socialist comments

With the collapse of the Clinton/Clapper/Brennan ‘Russian Interference’ in the 2016 Election, almost receding into the back ground? except for die-hard New Democrats and their Corporate Media allies. ‘CrowdStrike’ was the only organized investigative agency to examine the Clinton servers and e mails, the FBI deferred to its report: when has the FBI ever ceded its investigative prerogative?
The watershed of the Mueller Report,and its star witness, who seemed to be disconnected from the investigation he headed , in his appearance before the House, was utterly, even completely unimpressive. Both Mueller and Comey appeared as near comic figures, in this exercise in political theater: Schiff’s status as dramaturge/ringmaster was not yet in doubt or a state of collapse, the Impeachment in the Senate, would offer that opportunity.

But the undaunted New Democrats, under the leadership of the Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler troika, launched an Impeachment inquiry, with two weeks of ‘secret hearings’ which enabled Rep Schiff to cobble together his narrative of Trump’s political crimes, and its cast of characters : that passed in the New Democratically controlled House, that after Pelosi’s flat-footed machinations, was referred to the Republican controlled Senate.

The only Republican to vote to convict Trump was Sen Mitt Romney!

The above just the political background to this Financial Times editorial:

Headline: An unchained Donald Trump poses a threat to the US republic

Sub-headline: The Senate has given its judgment, now it is the turn of the American people

Roula Khalaf and the others editors at The Financial Times proclaim that Trump is not a political gentleman. But the political intent of these ‘Editors’ is presented here:

It is hard to overstate the danger a re-elected Mr Trump would pose to America’s system of checks and balances. Most pressing is what he could do in the eight months before the election to influence the outcome. This week showed there are no penalties for doing so. As a divided Democratic field heads to its first primary in New Hampshire, candidates should keep this top of mind.

Whatever their differences, which are in some respects deeply ideological, the priority should be to preserve the US constitutional order. They must nominate a strong and credible rival to Mr Trump. This week Mr Romney displayed principle and courage. History will celebrate those who follow his example.

The above might just be a not so covert restatement of Mr Caville’s recent polemic in these pages?

Carville is a New Democrat, and as such, presents Sanders as clear and present danger to ‘Centrist candidates’, who in his opinion are the only real chance of the New Democrats to wrest the Presidency from Trump. ‘Centrist candidates’ is the term of art for Neo-Liberal conformists, who tow the Party Line of the Clinton/Obama Coterie.

The very notion that Vulture Capitalist and political opportunist Mitt Romney represents ‘principle and courage’,  instead of unslakable presidential ambition, clearly demonstrates that both the Financial Times editorial board, the Republicans and New Democrats are representative of the bankruptcy of the whole of the American singularity of the Property Party, and its two wings.

Old Socialist






Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Democrat James Carville on the mortal danger of Bernie Sanders. Political Observer comments

It’s not just New Democrat James Carville, political expert and fixer who helped Bill Clinton to win in 1992: forget Bush looking at his watch, during the debates, and the prescient Ross Perot’s interjection into the campaign, that fated Clinton’s victory?  Now Carville is having a hissy- fit about Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton’s been at its for years, and its has just intensified as he moves closer power. The Squad and Tulsi Gabbard are just his natural allies. Note that the New Democrats have political friends in the Neo-Cons, Bret Stephens and on the Right, Rich Lowry :

Headline: Bernie’s Angry Bros

Sub-headline: The Sanders online army resembles President Trump’s most ardent supporters in more ways than either side might care to admit.

Barbara Boxer minces no words when it comes to describing the people usually known as the Bernie Bros — a subset of Bernie Sanders supporters who hope to take over the Democratic Party and remake it in their image.

“There is so much negative energy; it’s so angry,” says the former four-term Democratic senator from California. “You can be angry about the unfairness in the world. But this becomes a personal, deep-seated anger at anyone who doesn’t say exactly what you want to hear.”

I ran into Boxer earlier this week and got to talking about a superb report in The Times by my colleagues Matt Flegenheimer, Rebecca R. Ruiz and Nellie Bowles: “Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army.” The piece briefly mentions a 2016 incident in which Boxer went to Nevada to try to unify the party after Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the state’s caucus.


Rich Lowry his column of January 19, 2020, the last two paragraphs are instructive

Headline: Rich Lowry: Bernie a clear danger to the public welfare

His foreign policy bears the stamp of soft spots for the communist regimes in Nicaragua and the Soviet Union. He called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani an assassination. He condemned the ouster of Bolivia’s leftist autocrat Evo Morales, who has called Sanders “brother.” He won’t call Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro a dictator, but slams Benjamin Netanyahu as a “racist.” He has said his vote to authorize the war in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks was a mistake.

Sanders does indeed have his charms. He is sincere, consistent and inarguably himself. He now has a step on frenemy Elizabeth Warren in the leftist lane in the primaries because he is not as painfully calculating as she is. But make no mistake: Sanders is a socialist continuing his takeover attempt of the Democratic Party to forge what he aptly calls a political revolution. He may be more polite than Trump, but he is wildly outside the mainstream and a clear and present danger to the public welfare.

The notion of ‘the public welfare’ in the rhetoric of Lowry is heretical.

A report on John Kerry’s Anti-Bernie remarks, reported on February 02, 2020:

Headline:’Sanders taking down the Democratic Party’: John Kerry overheard talking about potential 2020 bid

Former Secretary of State John Kerry was overheard talking about the potential steps he would have to take to enter the 2020 presidential race.

Kerry, who has been campaigning for former Vice President Joe Biden, cited “the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole” as the reason for potentially entering the race. An NBC News analyst overheard part of the conversation while Kerry, 76, was talking on the phone in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sunday.

“Maybe I’m f—ing deluding myself here,” Kerry said, explaining that he would have to step down from the board of Bank of America and stop making paid speeches.

The Left is the favored target of both the Neo-Liberals, Carville, The Clinton’s, John Kerry and a host of fellow-travelers, the Conservatives like Rich Lowry and the Neo-Cons like Bret Stephens.

The pressing question for 2020: will the New Democratic Party and its Clinton loyalists subvert the Reform Wing of the Party, Sanders, The Squad and Tulsi Gabbard? We already see the evidence of the Iowa Caucuses, as the demonstration of the inept and mendacious  Clinton apparatchiks.


P. S. Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton might offer what?





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment on ‘Conspiracist fans of Mr Sanders’ and other pressing political questions. Political Observer comments

Mr. Ganesh gives the game away with his first sentence:

‘Excuse the postmodernism here but the Iowa caucuses did not happen.’

What Mr. Ganesh ‘knows’ about Post-Modernism is a matter of conjecture, but does provide an au courant opening for his political chatter. This ‘hipster’ loves to salt his essays with what reads like a knowledge that spans the breadth of the zeitgeist.

But not content to travel, merely on his immediate knowledge of that zeitgeist, he offers this :

Still, Iowa was useful insofar as it put one idea to rest. There is no conspiratorial elite of political centrists. Or at least not a competent one. If liberals really were the knaves of socialist and conservative demonology, they would not allow their vote to splinter so inefficiently among duplicate candidates.

Ganesh presents his myth of a conspiratorial elite of political centrists as indicative of what?  What in fact is a cadre of Neo-Liberals led by Clinton and her political minions: Buttigieg declared himself the ‘winner’ of Iowa with 62% of the ballots available for count, using the ‘Shadow’ app created by Clinton and Obama loyalists! A New York Times report of 02/05/20

Headline: Iowa Still Unresolved, 2020 Candidates Move On to New Hampshire: Live Updates

The Iowa Democratic Party released a new set of partial caucus results late Tuesday night, but it didn’t change much from the first wave of numbers it put out earlier in the day. With 71 percent of precincts in, Pete Buttigieg still held a narrow lead over Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren was in third, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. was in a distant fourth.

This followed by some political embroidery that presents preliminary data as definitive of political viability of  that ‘centrism’. Not content with this he presents the case for the triumphalism of this centrism:

Because it was so imperious for so long, centrism did not have to define itself. It was whatever the government of the day was doing, whether led by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in the US, Tony Blair or David Cameron in Britain, Romano Prodi or Matteo Renzi in Italy. Once it found itself in opposition, the centre had to set out what it believed from first principles. And there were no spoils of power with which to finesse any differences.

Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tony Blair were and are Neo-liberals, the Italian context I’ll refrain from comment. Mr. Ganesh is the fellow traveler of the above leaders. So his ‘Centrists’ are in fact Neo-Liberals, the subject of historical/political re-write.

But Mr. Ganesh can’t resist this pronouncement:

Conspiracist fans of Mr Sanders read into Iowa’s delayed results obvious chicanery by the Democratic elite. Would that it were so feline. An establishment that cannot settle on a favoured candidate of its own, or even two, is unlikely to have the rest of the party on marionette strings. If its problem were just a lack of guile, it might be fixable. But beneath that is genuine confusion over the meaning of moderation today. Is it closer to liberalism or to social democracy?

‘Conspiracy Theorist’ was the weapon of choice used by the CIA, to attack the credibility of the critics of the Warren Report. Its was terrible day when the Church Committee found that there was more that one assassin in the Kennedy Murder. Mr. Ganesh is, of course, unaware of that, and many other inconvenient facts of American political history. Or that Clinton loyalist Debby Wassermann-Schultz is to lead the ‘investigation’ into the Iowa. The caucus was small enough to use a manual count of votes, why was ‘Shadow’ used instead?

Political Observer



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Argentine/IMF Economic Melodrama never ends in the pages of The Financial Times. Political Observer comments ?

Can there be any doubt that Macri’s ‘Neo-Liberalism Lite’ has been an utter failure! Was the peso in near free fall the first indicator, that de Kirchner would be returning to office, in her very adroit political trompe l’oeil as vice-president? The ‘judgement’ of the ‘technocrats’ at the IMF has proven to be in the category of the non-existent.
Or should the reader look to the firing of Alfonso Prat-Gay in 2016, as the signal, ignored by those very ‘technocrats’?

Headline: Argentina finance minister axed on economic uncertainty

Sub-headline: President requests resignation of Prat-Gay due to ‘differences’ in department

The ‘experts’ that Mr. Mander presents are impressive, except that the current employers of his coterie might offer a clue as to the economic/political loyalties?

‘said Fernanda Vallejos, an economist and congresswoman for the province of Buenos Aires,’

‘said Martín Redrado, a former Argentine central bank governor.’

‘said one veteran observer.’

‘warned Daniel Marx, a former finance secretary’

Political Observer



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Andy Divine prays for a Miracle. Political Observer comments

Headline:America Needs a Miracle

Andy Divine long ago lost the privilege of commenting on ‘race’ with his publication of this essay adapted from ‘The Bell Curve’ :

Andy’s surmise is that his contemporary readers , in the provincial world of New York Magazine, haven’t read it, and are probably indifferent on the matter. This audience addicted to being seen at the latest restaurant, becoming ‘fans’ of the ‘hottest’ television programs, the latest gossip or photos from the utterly vacuous world of the Kardashian’s, and the Sex Diaries essays, that proves that we can all can aspire to be our own Candace Bushnells! At the time of my reading of Mr. Divine’s commentary had 50 comments, some of which were quite impressive but here is my favorites:

dptrue 5 HOURS AGO

@andrewsullivan. How did “the Civil Rights Act upend the Constitution”?

Andy has made many self- reinventions -from Thatcherite, to Neo-Conservatism, to Neo-Liberal. But its always the same arrogant pronouncements. This time he presents the  possibility of redemption:

Headline: America Needs a Miracle

Hope comes from two books: Ezra Klein’s ‘Why We’re Polarized’ and Christopher Caldwell’s ‘The Age of Entitlement’ . As a former reader of Mr. Caldwell at The Financial Times:

I found his columns, if not just incomprehensible ramblings , a complete muddle of free floating chatter , in sum without argumentative anchor. But his book ‘Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and The West  is reviewed at The New York Review of Books: The Big Muslim Problem! by Malise Ruthven (Pay Wall) is revelatory of Mr. Caldwell’s, what to call it?

The Big Muslim Problem!

Mr. Kline is not ‘Left’ but is a Liberal, in sum the kind of ‘guest’ always welcome on Corporate Media. And because of that, the perfect stand-in for the ‘Left’ in Andy’s World. While Andy has spent his time proselytizing  about these books, offering the mirage of redemption, he has missed the momentary ascendance of the Romney/Murkowski/Collins political alliance, that was about to render the solid Republican Majority in the Senate Impeachment Trial moot?

Political Observer




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment