The Washington Post, whose sole owner is a CIA contractor, has published yet another anonymously sourced CIA press release disguised as a news report which just so happens to facilitate longstanding CIA foreign policy.
True to form, at no point does WaPo follow standard journalistic protocol and disclose its blatant financial conflict of interest with the CIA when promoting an unproven CIA narrative which happens to serve the consent-manufacturing agendas of the CIA for its new cold war with Russia.
And somehow in our crazy, propaganda-addled society, this is accepted as “news”.
The CIA has had a hard-on for the collapse of the Russian Federation for many years, and preventing the rise of another multipolar world at all cost has been an open agenda of US imperialism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed it is clear that the escalations we’ve been watching unfold against Russia were in fact planned well in advance of 2016, and it is only by propaganda narratives like this one that consent has been manufactured for a new cold war which imperils the life of every organism on this planet.
There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is “probably” happening, meaning those making the claim don’t even know.
None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and NBC. And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:
America is so screwed up right now that the CIA has determined that Putin is directing efforts to interfere in the 2020 election against Biden, and a collective shoulder-shrug is all we can muster. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The CIA-to-pundit pipeline, wherein intelligence agencies “leak” information that is picked up by news agencies and then wildly exaggerated by popular influencers, has always been an important part of manufacturing establishment Russia hysteria. We saw it recently when the now completely debunked claim that Russia paid bounties on US troops to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan first surfaced; unverified anonymous intelligence claims were published by mass media news outlets, then by the time it got to spinmeisters like Rachel Maddow it was being treated not as an unconfirmed analysis but as an established fact:
If you’ve ever wondered how rank-and-file members of the public can be so certain of completely unproven intelligence claims, the CIA-to-pundit pipeline is a big part of it.The most influential voices who political partisans actually hear things from are often a few clicks removed from the news report they’re talking about, and by the time it gets to them it’s being waved around like a rock-solid truth when at the beginning it was just presented as a tenuous speculation (the original aforementioned WaPo report appeared on the opinion page).
The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.
The way mainstream media has become split along increasingly hostile ideological lines means that all the manipulators need to do to advance a given narrative is set it up to make one side look bad and then share it with a news outlet from the other side. The way media is set up to masturbate people’s confirmation bias instead of report objective facts will then cause the narrative to go viral throughout that partisan faction, regardless of how true or false it might be.
US Intelligence: If Trump Wins Russia Did It, If Biden Wins It Was China And Iran
“Lastly, the dumbest thing about believing foreign nations are interfering in American democracy is believing America has any democracy to interfere with.“https://t.co/1BatXPtUut
The coming US election and its aftermath is looking like it will be even more insane and hysterical than the last one, and the enmity and outrage it creates will give manipulators every opportunity to slide favorable narratives into the slipstream of people’s hot-headed abandonment of their own critical faculties.
And indeed they are clearly prepared to do exactly that. An ODNI press release last month which was uncritically passed along by the most prominent US media outlets reported that China and Iran are trying to help Biden win the November election while Russia is trying to help Trump. So no matter which way these things go the US intelligence cartel will be able to surf its own consent-manufacturing foreign policy agendas upon the tide of outrage which ensues.
The propaganda machine is only getting louder and more aggressive. We’re being prepped for something.
Quants Discover A Guaranteed Source Of Alpha: Just Trade Based On The Growth Of The Fed’s Balance SheetTyler DurdenSun, 09/27/2020 — 17:14
It was almost 9 years ago in January 2012 when- in a world that was becoming increasingly centrally-planned by central banks and disconnected from fundamentals — we first recommended to readers that the simplest way to generate alpha and outperform the broader market was to do the opposite of what Wall Street’s professionals were doing, and go long the most hated stocks. This is what we said one year later, in 2013, when reviewing and doubling down on this very strategy:
… in a world in which nothing has changed from a year ago, and where fundamentals still don’t matter, what is one to do to generate an outside market return? Simple: more of the same and punish those who still believe in an efficient, capital-allocating marketplace and keep bidding up the most shorted names.
Fast forward to early 2019 when none other than Bank of America confirmed that we were correct: as the bank’s chief equity strategist Savita Subramanian wrote last April, “over the last several years, buying the most underweight stocks by large cap active funds and selling the most overweight stocks by large cap active funds has consistently generated alpha.”
As the bank added, the 10 most neglected stocks had outperformed the 10 most crowded stocks by an annualized spread of 8.4% on average during the first 15 days of each quarter since 2012. This is shown in the chart below which reveals that buying the 10 most underweight stocks and selling the 10 most overweight stocks by active funds has generated alpha every year in the past five except 2017.
Ok fine, as we said nearly a decade ago, going long the most shorted names has been a source of incremental alpha for much of the past decade (a time when most hedge funds had abandoned alpha generation altogether, and instead focused on levered beta strategies in hopes of halting the melting of the ice cube that is the “2 and 20″ model).
But what if there is an even simpler strategy to beat the market and generate alpha? According to SocGen quants including Solomon Tadesse, Andrew Lapthorne and others, who last week penned a note titled “Can quants make money by tracking the Fed books?” there is, and it involves that other strategy we have been pounding the table on for much of the past decade, namely to trade alongside the Fed’s balance sheet which has become the dominant price setter in this bizarro, upside down market.
Before we get into the details of the proposed trade, here is some background which we provide solely for the benefit of the handful of remaining idiots who still claim the Fed does not influence stock prices:
The Fed balance sheet and the stock market
Monetary policy historically dictates asset price dynamics, with low interest rates and accompanying expansionary monetary policy supporting risk asset rallies and monetary contractions by contrast driving market retreats. This has increasingly been more obvious since the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, where financial market reactions appear to have become increasingly aligned and dependent on central bank actions.
Indeed, with the advent of QE programmes as monetary policy tools in the wake of the 2008GFC, the trajectories of market performance and the Fed balance sheet appear to have converged into lock step.Total assets on the Fed balance sheet have expanded from $2.24tn at the end of 2008 to the current level of about $7tn, for 216% growth, while the S&P 500 rose from 903.25 to about 3340, netting cumulative growth of about 270% during the same period. Over the course of the current pandemic, the Fed balance sheet has increased from $4.67tn on 18 March 2020 (a week before the market bottom) to $7.01tn, growing by 50%, while the S&P 500 has risen by 42% during the same period.
This broad view of the relationship between Fed actions and stock market performance appears to suggest a causal link going from central bank policies to asset prices. The question then is how predictable are asset returns based on prior Fed actions, and whether such predictability can be utilised in enhancing investment performance?
How predictable indeed, and has the Fed forcibly made its policies so transparent yet market-moving to ensure that everyone can partake in the market “upside”? Before we get into the experimental specifics, here is a summary of the simple strategy proposed by the SocGen quants — to trade in lockstep with the change in Fed’s balance sheet:
Since the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, financial markets appear to have become increasingly aligned with central bank actions and increasingly less connected to economic fundamentals. So, should you simply follow the Fed? The above observation is now generally expected, and there is a plethora of charts circulating showing the relationship between the size or the growth of the Fed balance sheet and a variety of risk assets. But can we use this information systematically to inform our investment decisions?
The sheer scale of these unconventional measures does seem to have also made asset returns more predictable, and performance appears increasingly contingent on central bank actions. This provides a potential opportunity for investors.
And with the Fed committing to maintain its asset purchase programmes “at least at the current pace to sustain smooth market functioning”, and with ultra-low rates expected to at least until 2023, according to the Fed, it is clear these unconventional monetary policies are going to remain a key driver of markets for some time.
To help confused Gen-Z investors (and other hedge funds), the SocGen note introduces a simple tactical alpha strategy that uses the growth of the Fed balance sheet to measure the degree to which monetary expansion is supporting risk-asset rallies.The strategy, implemented in the context of the classic long-only equity/cash decision, “provides supportive evidence of market predictability and the potential to utilize measures of unconventional monetary policies in designing systematic strategies.”
In short, all one needs to outperform the market is to front– or even back-run the Fed’s balance sheet growth.
More importantly, “the simulation generates a sizable outperformance with a reasonable success rate” and while illustrative, the strategy provides a framework to extend to analogous risk –on/-off cases involving other asset classes,as well as the design of more complex long/short strategies with leverage.
Some experiment observations. As Lapthorne, Tadesse et alwrite, to check if these contemporaneous correlations might suggest causality, the figures below present the correlation of weekly growth (log differences) in total Fed balance sheet assets with lagged and subsequentreturns of the S&P 500 index. It shows the correlation between the Fed’s asset expansion/contraction in week tand stock market returns in week t + k, where correlations at negative values of k indicate the Fed’s response to lagged stock returns, and correlations at positive values of k show stock market’s reactions to the Fed’s actions.
The negative correlation between lagged stock market performance and current growth in Fed assets (left-hand chart) means that stock market declines increase the likelihood of Fed action in the form of balance sheet expansion.On the other hand, the positive correlation between subsequent stock market performance and current Fed asset growth means that Fed balance sheet expansion leads to positive stock market performance. The impact of Fed asset growth on equity markets lasts, on average, for the subsequent four weeks.
Consistent with economic priors, balance sheet expansion leads to stronger positive market returns, and our analysis shows that this lasts for up to four weeks, following the policy change (left figure), with a peak observed at three weeks. On the other hand, and contrary to expectations, Fed balance sheet contractions are also followed, on average, by market rebounds, although the strength of these correlations were much weaker in the initial three weeks, with a stronger bounce on the four-week mark.
As the strategists explain, while there appears to be a small announcement effect at week 0, the market reaction appears gradual.This is consistent with the notion that Fed asset purchases primarily impact the stock market through liquidity spill-overs from the other asset classes that are the target of the direct asset purchases(i.e. Treasuries, MBSs, and corporate bonds). It may also reflect the impact of subsequent equity repricing from lower cost of capital due to the Fed actions.
How to trade these observations?
As SocGen’s strategists lay it out, the design of investment strategies that utilize Fed actions need to consider the distinctive lead-lag correlations between Fed expansion and Fed contraction.As a broad illustration, the bank quants design a weekly tactical alpha strategy based on Fed asset growth that aims to boost investment returns by selectively overweighting riskier assets during Fed monetary expansion regimes. To that end, the quants used weekly Fed balance sheet data over the period of 2009 and Sep. 2020 – a period of intensive use of unconventional monetary policy tools.
The strategy consists of using a classic equity-cash allocation with the goal of generating excess returns by systematically tilting towards risk opportunistically following expansionary monetary policy. As an illustration, a long-only portfolio with a strategic allocation of 75⁄25 between equity and cash was constructed, with a 25% risk budget allocated for tactical alpha, but this can easily be adapted to an equity/bond mix or a long/short strategy.
The evidence shows that the impact of Fed asset growth lasts on average for four weekswith the lead-lag correlation to cumulative S&P returns peaking at around the fourth week. The input to the strategy is the weekly growth rate in the Fed total assets, and the strategy seeks to allocate more to equities (from safe asset holdings) during periods of monetary easing as reflected in the growth in Fed assets.
Table 1 below summarizes the performance of this simple tactical tilting strategy. It should come as no surprise to almost anyone, that a systematic tracking of the Fed balance sheet adds value, with the strategy generating annualized excess returns of about 250bp per annum with a tracking error of similar magnitude,providing a risk-adjusted alpha of one, at hit rate above 60%.
Comparing the performance of the “tactically-boosted” portfolio against the traditional 75⁄25 benchmark, total returns would have gone up to 12.9% from 10.4%, while the Sharpe ratio improves only modestly as overall volatility would also pick up.
As laid out in the next chart below, the positioning of the strategy shows that the portfolio broadly tracked the monetary policy stance, as reflected in the Fed balance sheet during the period. During the winding down of QE and quantitative tightening in 2017 and 2018 all through half of 2019, the portfolio largely took off its equity bet, staying with its max cash positions, only to get go back to equity starting in the latter part of 2019 as monetary easing began.It was also heavily tilted towards equity in the heyday of QE in 2010 through 2014, with periodic shifts to cash during moments of a lull in asset purchases.
To conduct the above analysis, SocGen’s quant used the growth in the total assetsof the Federal Reserve to design the tactical alpha strategy. A large part of the strategy performance and of market predictability seems to come from the QE-laden SOMA component of the Fed balance sheet (table below), though with higher volatility. There is also evidence that changes in the defensive holdings of the balance sheet (which includes repo and the dollar-swap facilities, which are largely used during crises) may contain some information. Finally, despite the small (realized) size and sporadic nature of the back-stop facilities component, the symbolic role of these programs — which include the Corporate Credit, Main Street, Commercial Paper, Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity, Municipal Liquidity, Term Asset-Backed Securities and other facilities that were introduced during the current crisis — to instil market confidence cannot be overemphasized. Thus, as the quants conclude “using the overall Fed assets may provide signal diversity across the three pillars, aggregating information on unconventional policies across all domains of Fed activities.”
* * *
In summary, to generate scare alpha in the current environment, one can either be a die-hard contrarian and repeatedly go long the most hated/shorted names, or can pursue an even simpler tactical alpha strategy that uses information on the growth of the Federal balance sheet as a signal of the degree of monetary expansion that generally supports risk-asset rallies.
As SocGen concludes, the strategy implemented in the context of a long-only equity/cash decision provides some evidence of the potential to utilize measures of unconventional monetary policies in designing systematic strategies. The simulation generates a sizable outperformance with a reasonable success rate, which one would naturally expect in a world where trillions in Fed balance sheet expansions lead to record stock market rallies.
That said, unlike the “go long the most hated names” which is a pure alpha trade, the Fed balance sheet-tracking strategy proposed by SocGen is implementable as an overlay through trading on futures or other derivatives, and is meant to add an incremental 2.5% or so to overall returns. As Lapthorne et al wrap up, “while illustrative, the strategy provides a framework to extend to analogous cases of risk –on/-off cases involving other asset classes, as well as the design of long/short strategies with leverage.Given the multitude of factors that bear on asset performance, the Fed balance sheet signal could also be blended with other factors in multi-factor settings to enhance portfolio performance.”
“69% of Americans say they are more concerned about bias in the news other people consume than its presence in their own news (29%).”
In other words: 69/29, or 2.38 times, as many Americans are closed-minded (prejudiced) regarding information-sources which don’t fit their ideology, than are not. Overwhelmingly in America, only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats, and only Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans. Each side distrusts the other’s information-sources. Gallup’s news-report aptly noted the important fact that “This plays into the political polarization in the U.S. national discourse.”
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can become exposed to the other side’s evidence and arguments unless they see those — the other side’s evidence and arguments, both for its own case and against the opposite side’s case (i.e., against the case that oneself believes). Not to see the opposite side’s viewpoint is to be blind to it, and thus to become locked into whatever oneself believes. This 69⁄29 is like a jury’s rendering its verdict and nearly three quarters of the jurors having not listened to — and thus not considered — the opposite side’s presentations. That’s a frightening situation to exist in any court of law, and it is an equally frightening situation to exist in any nation’s electorate.
As a consequence of Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded, America’s politics are, to a very large extent, driven more by prejudices than by the realities that the public are actually facing.Individuals are seeking for sources that will likeliest confirm what they already believe, and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest to disconfirm their beliefs. This is consequently a population that’s highly vulnerable to being manipulated, by playing up to, and amplifying, the given Party’s propaganda, to which the given individual already subscribes. Republican Party billionaires (by their use of their conservative newsmedia and think tanks, etc., which they control) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters, and Democratic Party billionaires can, likewise, easily manipulate Democratic Party voters, by their liberal media, think tanks, etc. That’s billionaires, on each of the two sides, guiding each of the two Parties’ voters; and, therefore, the nation is an aristocracy — a country which is controlled by its wealthiest few — instead of an authentic democracy (which is controlled not by the numbers of dollars, but actually by the numbers of residents, each one of whom is independently and open-mindedly seeking for credibly documented facts). An aristocracy rules any such land.
The public are not the rulers in such a nation. It’s not a democracy; it is a collective dictatorship, by its billionaires (its aristocracy).
Both of the two Parties’ voters vote in accord with their billionaires’ agenda, but especially in accord with whatever is on the agenda that’s shared by both liberal and conservative billionaires — billionaires fund both of the national Parties: Democrats and Republicans, and thereby control both Parties. Billionaires, in each Party, have their very golden, very heavy, thumbs, pressing down hard upon the scale of any such ‘democracy’, such that regardless of which group of billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election, the public inevitably will lose, because it’s really just a contest between billionaires, who are stage-managing the nation’s entire political proceedings. This is like two boxers fighting in a ring, in which the selection-process which placed them there was corrupt; and, so, even if the ultimate winner is not equally corruptly pre-determined, the final result has nonetheless already been rigged (during the primaries). When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process, the ultimate outcome cannot be a democracy.
This happens not only regarding elections, but regarding particular issues. For example, in 2002 and 2003, “regime-change in Iraq,” and “Saddam’s WMD,” were just as much agendas of liberal billionaires’ media and think tanks as they were of conservative billionaires’ media and think tanks (and were thoroughly based on lies); so, a closed-minded public were actually trapped, into the lies that were agreed-upon by both sides of the domestic American political spectrum — the sides that are funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires, and by the conservative billionaires. The nearly $2 trillion cost of the invasion and military occupation of that country, and the consequent destruction of that country, were done for America’s billionaires, and produced nothing for the American people except that enormous public debt and those injuries and deaths to America’s soldiers and to Iraqis. And that’s typical, nowadays, in this (just as in any) aristocracy: the aristocracy are served; the nation’s public serve to them. (In the U.S., this has caused “U.S. Satisfaction at 13%, Lowest in Nine Years”, as Gallup headlined on 4 August 2020; and it has caused Americas’ satisfaction with their Government to have ranged from its all-time low of only 7% in 2008, to its all-time high of only 45% at the very start of 2020 — well below 50%, for as long as Gallup has surveyed this.)
What all of the billionaires want is what the American public get as their Government. It’s bipartisanship amongst its billionaires. That’s what produces this Government’s policies. It’s what determines the Government that Americans get. However, what is basic in making it a dictatorship of the aristocracy-type (such as this America is) is that the population is very prejudiced, not open-minded — not each individual constantly seeking solid evidence to change one’s mind about how society works (what the reality in the nation actually is), so as for one’s view to become increasingly accurate over time. Instead, one’s myths are constantly being fed. Such a public, as this, are not individuals, in a democracy, but more like mobs, very manipulable.
Often, America’s bipartisan views are based upon lies that virtually all billionaires want the public to believe. In such cases — and these instances are frequent — the truth is being simply ignored, or else outright denied, by both sides (and by the media, for both sides). Individuals’ prejudices are thus being increased, instead of reduced, by what the public see and hear in “the news.” Everyone has prejudices, and truth can predominate only if people are constantly skeptical of the sources that they are relying upon — constantly trying to root out and replace whatever false beliefs they have. This is the essence of scientific method. Democracy depends upon it. Aristocracy requires the opposite. America has the opposite.
Change away from this present situation, to a democracy, would be difficult. On both of America’s political sides, there needs to be far less trust of the Establishment (including its politicians, its media, its think tanks, etc.), in order for any real democracy to become able to exist. It’s not even able to exist now. And, therefore, it does not exist.
But what is even more depressing is that America’s educational system, most especially its colleges and universities, are encouraging, instead of discouraging, this situation, this closed-mindedness. The more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person becomes — as is further shown in this same September 11th Gallup news-report:
“Whereas 52% of Americans with a high school education or less are more concerned about bias in others’ news than in their own [and 45% of that minimally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased], the figure is 64% among those with some college education and is even higher among college graduates (73%) and those with postgraduate education (77%) [and only 22% of that maximally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased].”
The most-educated Americans are the most-manipulable (the most closed-minded) Americans.
No finding in this Gallup report was as extreme as the finding that the more highly educated an American is, the less open that person is likely to be to changing his or her mind (outlook) about the situation. In other words: the more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person tends to become. Higher education in America increases, instead of decreases, an individual’s closed-mindedness. However, other contrasts which were almost as extreme are:
“Those who identify as liberal (80%) are more concerned than conservatives (68%) and moderates (65%) with other people’s media bias.”
In other words: liberals are 80⁄65 or 1.23 times as closed-minded as are moderates, and are 80⁄68 or 1.18 times as closed-minded as conservatives are.
“While 58% of Black adults are more concerned about bias in others’ news than in their own, fully 73% of Asian Americans and 72% of White adults say the same.”
Thus, African-Americans are 58/72.5 or 80% as closed-minded as are Euro-Americans and Asian-Americans.
This is the worst combination possible: it’s a closed-minded population, which is especially closed-minded amongst its most educated segment. The leading segment is also the most closed-minded segment.These are crucial agents of the billionaires, and they crucially inculcate into the next generation of Americans the aristocracy’s values.
This means that the leaders keep themselves, conceptually, inside a cocoon.They have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, which is the less-educated members. That enhances inequality of opportunity, throughout the society. Since the most-highly-educated Americans are the group that are the most-closed to opinions which are contrary to their own, it’s easy for the most-highly-educated Americans to view individuals who disagree with those persons’ views as being simply a “basket of deplorables.” Their disagreement then becomes their contempt.
‘Facts’ about politics are — for those persons, highly educated persons — more derived from their values and priorities, than their values and priorities are derived from the political facts. Scientific epistemology is being turned upside-down, regarding political issues, in such a country. Overwhelmingly, some sort of faith, instead of any sort of science, determines what individuals in such a country believe about politics. In every aristocracy, this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general public who oppose themselves: they’re viewed as being a “basket of deplorables.” It’s the very essence of elitism — on both sides. (For prominent examples of this: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had contempt for each-others’ voters — blotted them out.)
The leadership’s minimal contact with the public makes exceedingly unlikely the leadership’s compassion, concern about the sufferings that they, themselves, are causing down below. Actually, though every aristocracy claims to want to improve conditions for their public, the reality is that whenever doing that would entail their own losing power, that claim becomes exposed to be sheer hypocrisy — a lie; often a self-deception, and not merely a deception against the public. Deceiving themselves about their own decency is easy, because they have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, the very people whom they claim to care the most about (and to be working in politics to help). Fakery is built into each and every aristocracy. Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded causes the aristocratic con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth. (Again: the “WMD in Iraq” con was a good example of this — the aristocracy’s media just blocked-out the reality.) Scientific studies have even demonstrated that the wealthier a person is, the less compassion the individual tends to have for people who are suffering.
Furthermore, since the less-educated persons aspire to be more-educated, they are — even without knowing it — aspiring to become less open to contrary views, instead of to become more open to such views. One bad consequence of this is: it strangulates imaginativeness, openness, and creativity, in favor of being rote, rigid, and bureaucratic. Another bad consequence of it is that the authority-figures, in such a society, are, in some important ways, actually inferior to the rest of the population. Moreover, America’s colleges and universities are not increasing their students’ open-mindedness (as they should) but the exact opposite — they are reducing their students’ open-mindedness. Even if professors are teaching some truths, the professors are training their students to be authoritarian, instead of to be open to a more truthful, comprehensive, and deeper understanding, which encompasses those truths, but also many more — which the majority of professors either ignore or else deny, because such deeper understanding violates the existing Scripture, or standard viewpoint (shaped by both sides’ billionaires). At least in the United States, this is now the normal situation. That Gallup poll showed it not merely weakly, nor even only moderately, but extremely.
This is a perverse situation, which bodes ill for the future of the entire nation.Any country which is like this is not only an aristocracy instead of a democracy, but it is greatly disadvantaged, going forward. It will be disadvantaged both in the arts and in the sciences. Its future will be stultifying, instead of dynamic. Aristocracies tend to be this way. Also, because it will remain highly polarized, its internal ideological frictions will waste a large proportion of the nation’s efforts. As a nation, its forward-motion, its progress, will thus largely be crippled, by its internal discord and distrust, between the two warring factions of its aristocracy — and friction between the respective followers on each side.
This describes a declining culture — a nation that is in decline.
That’s what this poll-report, from Gallup, indicates, as clearly as any poll-findings can.
It indicates a nation in decline.
During the Presidential primaries in the Democratic Party, a major point of difference between the two major candidates, Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders, was whether billionaires are bad for the country: Biden said no; Sanders said yes. (This was a major reason why the billionaires made sure that Sanders would lose.) In any country where wealth-inequality is so extreme, there can be no authentic democracy. America’s extreme inequality of wealth makes democracy impossible in this country. America’s other problems follow from that. In reality, it’s a one-party state, and that party is controlled not actually by the counts of voters, but by the counts of dollars. It is an aristocracy; and its decline — to what has been documented here — follows from that fact. Whatever democracy America might once have had is gone now. It has become replaced by a land of mass-deceptions, which are bought and sold.
I actually downloaded this video as a file just in case YouTube removed it. So where is it you might ask! Well that should not be your question, your question should be where was I when it was posted! But to answer that question, I made an error, which was downloaded it to my Windows computer which just happened to get a corupted partition table out of no where. Nuff Said!
So I can’t give you that information until I restore the files from the corupted drive however, I may not be able to give you some information, that is, direct you to it!