Thursday, March 19, 2020

Bloodshed Ahead? - Bank Runs For Cash - Lockdown - The Coming National Labor Movement

Ed.'s note: The deployment of the national guard isn't about assisting in "fighting the coronavirus," not when secessionists, militia groups, veterans groups and organized labor converge and organize for a new America. Two stories ran: one on bank runs and the other on avoiding taking large amounts of cash out of the bank to avoid coronavirus. The "lock down" will probably prevent people from getting to the banks to withdraw cash.

The Impact of a Bank Run on Banking Institutions

Do NOT take a bunch of cash out of the bank because of coronavirus

Covid-19 Global Lockdown

National Guard activated to combat coronavirus spread in six states, more to follow

Source: Fort Russ

FLORES: Rage And Bloodshed Ahead: Democrat Betrayals And The Coming National Labor Movement

By Joaquin Flores | March 19, 2020

Future historians employed in institutions not yet founded, or perhaps in lands far from here, will no doubt record that it was the flagrant betrayals of the Democrat Party against its own working class base that led to the festival of violence that characterized the implosion now threatening the United States. Its origins though complex, are not complicated. Will this inevitable and bloody social violence serve as the mid-wife for a truly justice-based system?

There will be a new militant labor movement on the rise, but it will be born from bloodshed and social violence. It will make the 1930's look like a walk in the park and it will have nothing to do with the Democrat Party. It will be led by men and women with nothing left to lose, and it will bring together a united front of fighters and movements which today merely have the appearance of ideological disparity. We are on the edge of a new paradigm beyond left and right.

This is probably tomorrow's most important story – one we can start telling today

How the DNC constructed and coerced the candidacy of Bernie Sanders was only the final chapter along a whole history of betrayals. Sanders' candidacy could not succeed on the course it forged, and is certain to finally collapse this week. His attempt at a fireside chat was poorly executed, poor aesthetics against a cold white wall, and rambling answers.

His pledge to support Joe Biden is only further evidence of Bernie's compromised candidacy, yet the movement behind Bernie isn't his, just as the movement behind Trump isn't his either.

At the end of 2015 this author accurately predicted exactly why Trump would win a year later, while America's left was certain that despite the problems of Clinton as a candidate, she would prevail. Here we will use that methodology to explain why today, with the betrayals of the DNC, all that lies ahead is – to put it frankly – bloodshed in the streets. While we engage with the present news cycle, what's presented will remain relevant for years ahead.

The foundations of these brother populist movements of the hard-left and alt-light (populist right) will necessarily coalesce into the coming extra-electoral struggle, an extra-legal conflict, and will be predominated by its nationalist and socialist characteristics. To do this is to understand how secessionist and militia movements, veterans groups, and organized labor will solidify together.

Contrary to the speculation of some, the betrayal of Sanders of which Sanders himself took an active role, will not lead to a demoralization among the base of the Democrat Party who overwhelmingly support Sanders. The base supports not Sanders in particular, but supports just two things – his platform and his credibility. This is the truth of the matter despite misinformation in the press accompanied by electoral fraud on the part of the party itself, which has attempted to simulate support for Biden.

Likewise with Trump, whose base required of him an entire re-organization of America's relationship to the global economy to produce meaningful work and the foundation for hope, they too will believe that no change can come from the electoral process. On the roundabout course of this realization they will quickly encounter the betrayed base of Democrats which had discovered the same.

Sanders and Trump are losing support as their personal credibility deteriorates. This doesn't mean that folks are simply going to go home. Instead, they are going to go big.

Rather than demoralization in the sense of a resigned complacency, this dynamic will transform into something far more radical than ever seen before in the history of the United States. Complacency is a luxury for those for whom things can still get worse. The median balance in the bank of Americans is a meagre $2,900, but it's worse: about 65% of Americans don't have $500 to their name.

The luxury of complacency is a relic of bygone days. The US is no longer a powerful empire with a national oligarchy, rather its elites today are entirely transnational very much like semi-nomadic bankers have always been, as they have been for over a thousand years, as explained in the rich, detailed, documented history of Europe – a history where these bankers and usurers were kicked out of European states hundreds of times. If this or that society collapses as a result of these parasites finally killing the host, the parasites simply move on. That is why the nationalization of banker assets will be among the most prominent demands of the coming American insurrection. It will be chief among the demands of America's coming social nationalist labor movement.

For millions of Americans, these are times of despair. And despair leads to radicalization where whole social movements are born.

This is not a time characterized by the kind of complacency that the baby boomer generation could, for their part, afford. These are not times characterized by some sense of middle-class charity towards the 'down-trodden' minority that fell through the cracks. These are times where most American people are themselves the down-trodden. The coming American labor movement is not based on lofty policy ideals and charity, but on life or death questions of survival for the majority.

How did we arrive at this impasse?

Such a question requires a thorough answer incompatible with a brief of this type. But we can summarize at the cost of generalizing. We can go back to the 1940's – labor was weakened by legislation passed during the Truman administration known as the Taft-Hartley Act, betraying the efforts of labor backed by FDR. Think-tanks and institutes from elite universities and funded by deep-pocketed lobbyists under the moniker of 'philanthropy', instilled a culture of liberalism not meant to empower people but to placate them. Of course some degree of empowerment could have also placated the teeming masses, but the sociopathology of the oligarchy was such that even this was intolerable.

What was the result? The Democrat Party, backed by the ruling class, infiltrated organized labor with the aim of derailing it. But the post-war prosperity (read empire) mitigated the gradual decline of labor.

Then in the 1970's, there was a failure to institute a UBI during the Nixon years despite it being championed by libertarian economist Milton Friedman. Martin Luther King Jr. had also expounded on its necessity in the decade prior. This was to be a trade-off to the exportation of manufacturing work to the Orient and Latin America, as well as a necessary component of economic justice and growth. This could have been a reasonable component to the otherwise ridiculously revised terms of the fractional-reserve banking system as the US abandoned a currency backed by precious metals.

As a consequence, the desired outcome forced upon the people by the bankers then 'required' the use of credit lines for the boomer generation to stimulate the same level of consumption that UBI would have. But unlike UBI, this came with the inflation and psychological slavery which results from profit-driven credit systems – where interest rates produce an upwards redistribution of the people's earned wealth, into the hands of the oligarchy. That credit ride didn't last long before bubble after bubble was created only to burst. Each round of 'bursting' led to the further upwards redistribution of wealth. The wealthy never saw better days than when the economy was 'weak'. Home foreclosures only meant asset forfeiture; whatever was paid on a mortgage simply lined their pockets. They were then free to sell the same homes at full-pop.

Did no one see that the upwards redistribution of wealth was one of the leading causes of inflation?

Please go to Fort Russ to read the entire article.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at