Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

The media-corporate complex has declared war on free speech and Trump mustn’t remain silent

While Donald Trump has clearly surrendered to the military-industrial complex, he still could and should fight the media-corporate complex.

Published

on

14,182 Views

Both Donald Trump’s critics and biggest supporters will admit that he is probably the most publicly outspoken President of the US in recent memory, if not in US history. His often foulmouthed campaign rallies became online hits that are still doing the rounds.

But the man who famously stated that he and his country “do not have time” for political correctness (aka censorship) is now overseeing a period in the United States when both the traditional airwaves, the once free internet and even public venues are being targeted with censorship more heavily than at any time in contemporary US history.

In less than a week one has seen RT and Sputnik banned from advertising on Twitter, Alex Jones’ InfoWars have been restricting from livestreaming material on Facebook, and just yesterday, it was confirmed that Roger Stone, a one time Trump advisor and stalwart supporter has been banned from Twitter.

Censorship as a corporate reaction to the ‘candidate Trump business model’

A common denominator between RT, InfoWars and Roger Stone is Donald Trump. Donald Trump was the first victorious US Presidential candidate to be interviewed on RT and InfoWars during his campaign. Roger Stone of course worked closely with Trump during part of his campaign and later became one of Trump’s most colourful supporters.

What started with an enhanced crackdown on political descent among ordinary Facebook and Twitter users is now being used on prominent individuals and media outlets. What’s all the more extraordinary is that this is happening under the watch of a supposedly free speech minded President.

Few US Presidents have benefited more from the US free speech laws which are enshrined as the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, than Trump. His use of social media to say what he wants, when he wants and most crucially how he wants, has earned Trump both praise and infamy. How is it then that the man who said “pussy” in private and still got elected and who said “motherfucker” on the campaign trail is overseeing the crushing of free speech in a country whose laws are supposed to protect it?

Beware the media-corporate complex

The answer lies in a sadistic alliance between Trump’s political opponents and giant corporations who now control both Wall Street and Silicon Valley. While lower Manhattan and northern California may appear to be very different places, both now have the same attitude and the same agenda. Crucially both make money off of each other, both invest in each other and both are in many cases managed by the same financiers.

Wall Street and Silicon Valley both want to promote a political agenda which is led by candidates that they fund (along with the increasingly un-powerful Hollywood which is now considerably less influential than Silicon Valley or Wall Street). Those candidates will consequently return the favours by promoting legislation as well as so-called ‘grace and favour’ measures for the leaders of firms on Wall Street and Silicon Valley and the cycle will continue for as long as possible. Below the surface, bribes, kick-backs and lump sum ‘gifts’ are flowing in all directions.

This is the real reason why Trump is hated. While Donald Trump’s foreign policy is largely controlled by the military-industrial complex, his domestic agenda is largely free of the media-corporate complex. It is in this way that a Trump Presidency differs most from his predecessors.

In 2017, ideological debates about the future of America are important to some ordinary people, are largely meaningless to objective observers and are incredibly useful to the media-corporate complex.

What better way to justify the censoring of media outlets who challenge the primacy of the media-corporate complex than to say it is being done based on the ideology of ‘not wanting to offend’? The method is both simple and effective.

Just to demonstrate how effective this method has become, below are real examples of censorship by the media-corporate complex followed by the stated reason for the censorship and then the real reason for the censorship.

What they said and what they meant

1. RT and Sputnik banned from Twitter 

What they said: RT and Sputnik need to be punished for helping Russia to meddle in US elections.

What they meant: CNN, MSNBC and other giant media corporations are seeing their old captive audience being swallowed up by RT, Sputnik and other international outlets. Let’s retain our unfair advantage by banning their advertisements.

2. Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter 

What they said: Milo’s ‘hate speech’ is offensive and should not have a platform.

What they meant: Milo’s brand is becoming popular among the 18-25 demographic and beyond. This is generally spendthrift demographic with time on their hands to consume new products. The cost of Milo making a video rant, speaking before an audience or writing a blog post is much smaller than the cost of the average MTV program or young-adult sitcom and thus Milo’s profit margin is far bigger. He needs to be curtailed.

3. Ordinary people banned from social media for spouting controversial views 

What they said: Person X used hateful speech to promote a hateful and dangerous political point of view.

What they meant: All media, including the news is entertainment. The news is just entertainment for people who are stimulated/entertained by factual information and analysis. If someone’s rants on Facebook are becoming overly pervasive, they distract from people discussing the products being marketed to them on social media. Furthermore, if ‘Person X’ has an anti-corporate agenda, he could gradually build a viral cohort of people who conspicuously avoid our products. This will scare away advertisers from our platform if repeated. He should be banned.

4. Roger Stone banned from Twitter 

What they said: Roger Stone spewed hateful remarks to a CNN host

What they meant: Roger Stone is highly entertaining. His ‘act’ consists of his personal wardrobe and a microphone. If Stone can be more entertaining by screaming into a microphone while also providing news and views on domestic issues in the US, why bother to watch multi-million dollar CNN? Better cut Stone off from a major outlet of content distribution.

A clear pattern 

At this point a clear pattern emerges, one which highlights the similarity of ‘new’ or ‘alt’ media sources and the Trump Presidential campaign. In both cases, a product that costs comparatively little to produce is going head to head with a lavishly funded product and in both cases the inexpensive product is winning.

Trump financed his campaign through a combination of personal funds and individual donations. Most of the individual donations were small pledges from ordinary people. Hillary Clinton by contrast had some of the biggest corporate backers in modern US election history and she still lost.

Likewise, most modern media outlets operate on a far smaller budget than CNN and do not rely on major corporate sponsors to fund their operations. However, the power of the web allows them to reach surprisingly high levels of audience proliferation and even build their own brand recognition.

Is it any wonder therefore that if Hillary Clinton and her compatriots have the same corporate sponsors as mainstream media, that these corporations are trying to stop both Donald Trump’s Presidency and the new/alt media movement? It’s about as surprising as learning that brushes and combs are not marketed to bald men.

International outlets

While RT and Sputnik aren’t exactly a ‘mom and pop’ operation, they still are run at a fraction of the cost of western corporate mainstream media. What’s more is that their sources of funding are as far away from Wall Street and Silicon Valley as are independent US based outlets which are funded either through donations, subscriptions or comparatively localised advertising campaigns.

In this sense, the idea of a partly ‘state-funded’ media outlet like RT is only important insofar as it means independence from Wall Street. Hence, RT and Sputnik are in the same ‘basket’ as InfoWars or smaller alt-media outlets, simply because they have the same effect of eating into the audience numbers of corporate mainstream media while being outside of the media-corporate funding loop.

If you’ve noticed that I haven’t mentioned the context of the aforementioned outlets, there is a reason for this. Few of RT’s critics ever bother to watch it. They simply adopt a fake narrative about ‘Kremlin propaganda’ in order to keep their shareholders happy. It is all about the bottom line and has little to do with the headline.

Donald’s Trump Card 

Donald Trump has shown that he is not afraid to take on any corporation that doesn’t suit his personal tastes. His ongoing showdown with the NFL, a once apolitical sports entertainment corporation, is proof positive that he is very much willing to use his office to make critical statements about a corporation’s product.

Trump also continually berates CNN, MSNBC, CBS, the New York Times, Washington Post and other corporate MSM outlets.

When will he go after social media networks who are part of the same club?

Based on precedent, he may do so in short order, especially if Twitter and Facebook continue to attack public figures and outlets who are supportive of Trump.

When this happens, there may be an even stronger impetus for people to move away from Twitter and Facebook, just as many relate Trump’s attacks on the NFL to declining ratings and audience attendance at football games.

If Trump refrains from doing this, he’ll ultimately be cheating himself. Trump’s corporate opponents have declared war on free speech and Trump frankly owes it to himself and the wider free speech cottage industry, to expose the corporate sham that lies behind the ideological phoney war against fiscally nimble new media outlets.

Products, services or honest ideology?

Some may have been ‘offended’ that referred to US Presidential candidates and news commentators as ‘products’. Of course, they mean much more than this to many people…but so do most products in the capitalist world have a higher sentimental value to the purchaser than to the seller or producer.

In order to understand the thinking the lies behind the media-corporate complex, one must understand their internalised rhetoric. For them, everything is a product and every war they fight, including the censorship war, is about money.

In a society like the United States, everyone has the right to promote a product, but a line is crossed when promoting one’s own product becomes a matter of destroying someone else’s. This is why fair trade practices legislation exists. For example, the Ford Motor Company can say “Buy the new Ford because it’s fast, good looking and fuel efficient”. However, they cannot say “Buy the new Ford because buying the Oldsmobile will cause you to die of the black plague”. The latter would not be allowed.

However, when it comes to the media war, this is essentially what the media-corporate complex is saying. They are saying that Roger Stone’s four letter words, RT’s news and analysis or someone’s political posts on Facebook are somehow bad for society’s collective mental health. This clear attempt to induce mass hysteria is just as unethical as a car company saying that their competitor’s vehicles cause one’s life to deteriorate. Most rational people realise this, but mass hysteria is defined as:

“a condition affecting a group of persons, characterized by excitement or anxiety, irrational behavior or beliefs, or inexplicable symptoms of illness”.

Every time someone actually believes that Roger Stone is causing real social harm with his foul language, someone is being brainwashed by the media-corporate complex into ‘questioning less’ and taking a crude marketing strategy at face value.

If someone really believes the myth that colourful or provocative language actually causes people real harm, then you are a useful idiot, or corporate chump and nothing more. This was true when mostly left-leaning musicians were attacked for using provocative language in the 1980s, a matter which as Frank Zappa exposed, was used to distract people from a tax on blank tapes that was being rammed through Congress.

CONCLUSION

Donald Trump ought to show the American and wider global public that he is willing to defend free speech as a matter of principle rather than just as a right he has used to further his own political career. If he indeed plans to run for re-election in 2020, he is going to need it.

READ MORE: 

‘Twitter versus RT’ will either kill alternative media or social media networks

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Turkey prepared to take Syria’s Manbij, won’t let it turn into ‘swamp’ like N. Iraq

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Ankara has “almost completed” preparations for another military operation in Syria and will launch it if “promises” made by other parties about the protection of its borders are not kept, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

Turkey still hopes that talks with the US, Russia and “other parties” will allow it to ensure its security without resorting to force but it is still ready to proceed with a military option and will not “wait forever,” Erdogan said. He was referring to Ankara’s plans for the northern Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which it seeks to turn into a “security zone”free of any Kurdish militias.

“We are on our border with our forces and following developments closely. If promises made to us are kept and the process goes on, that’s fine. Otherwise, we inform that we have almost completed our preparations and will take steps in line with our own strategy,” the president said, addressing a group of businessmen in Ankara on Monday.

He did not elaborate on the promises made. However, they are apparently linked to the withdrawal of the Kurdish YPG militia from the Manbij area and the regions along the border with Turkey. “We will never allow a safe zone to turn into a new swamp,” Erdogan said, referring to the northern Syrian territories and comparing them to the northern Iraq, where the militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – an organization that Ankara considers a terrorist group – have been entrenched for decades.

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias, which form the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well. “Our proposal for a security zone under Turkey’s control aims to keep terror organizations away from our borders,” the Turkish president said.

He went on to explain that Ankara does not seek any territorial gains in its military campaigns in Syria but merely seeks to restore order in the war-ravaged country. “We will provide security for Manbij and then we will hand over the city to its real owners,” Erdogan said. “Syria belongs to Syrians.”

Turkey also seeks to establish a “security zone 20 miles [32 kilometers] deep” into Syria, Erdogan said, adding that he already discussed this issue with the US President Donald Trump. “Those who insistently want to keep us away from these regions are seeking to strengthen terror organizations,” he added.

Ankara has been long planning to push YPG units out of the area east of the Euphrates River. Its operation was delayed by the US withdrawal from Syria. However, Erdogan repeatedly hinted that his patience is wearing thin and he is not ready to wait much longer. He warned Trump against backtracking on his pledge to withdraw some 2,000 US forces out of Syria following a suicide attack in Manbij that killed four Americans. If the US president halted the withdrawal, it would mean that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) had won, Erdogan argued.

He has also reiterated that Turkey is ready to take over Manbij “without delay.” The US military is currently working on security arrangements with the Turkish forces to create a buffer zone between Turkey and the Kurdish fighters. The Kurds, meanwhile, invited the Syrian government to take over the city and have reportedly begun to leave the area. Turkey has dismissed the reports saying its a “psyop”.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Political Knives Dull Themselves on the Rock of Brexit Article 50

The invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation:


Theresa “The Gypsum Lady” May went through an extraordinary twenty-four hours. First, seeing her truly horrific Brexit deal go down in historic defeat and then, somehow, surviving a ‘No-Confidence’ vote which left her in a stronger position than before it.

It looks like May rightly calculated that the twenty or so Tory Remainers would put party before the European Union as their personal political positions would be terminally weakened if they voted her out of office.

While there is little stomach in the British Parliament for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there is less for allowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. And that is the crux of why the incessant calls to delay Brexit, call for a ‘people’s vote’ or, in Corbyn’s case, “take a no-deal Brexit off the table,’ ultimately lead to a whole lot of political knife-fighting and very little substantive action.

The day-to-day headline spam is designed to wear down people’s resistance and make it feel like Brexit getting betrayed is inevitable. That has been the British Deep State’s and EU’s game plan all along and they hoped they could arm-twist enough people in parliament to succeed.

But the problem for them now, since the clock has nearly run out, is the invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

And I don’t see anyone on the Remainer side working towards that end. That should be your clue as to what happens next.

Why? Because they know they don’t have the time to get that act past Parliament. So, the rest of this is simply a PR campaign to push public opinion far enough to allow for an illegal canceling or postponing of Brexit.

But it’s not working.

According to the latest polls, Brits overwhelmingly want the original Brexit vote respectedLeave even has a 5-6 point lead over Remain.

And, I think Theresa May now realizes this. It is why she invited the no-confidence vote against her. She knew she had the votes and it would give her the ammunition to ignore Corbyn’s hysterical ranting about taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.

Whether she realizes that the only negotiating tool she has with the EU is the threat of a No-Deal Brexit, exactly like Nigel Farage and those committed to Brexit have been telling her for two years is still, however, up in the air.

It looks like she’s finally starting to get it.

The net result is we are seeing a similar outing of the nefarious, behind-the-scenes, power brokers in the public eye similar to what’s been happening in the US with Donald Trump and Russiagate.

May has been singularly unimpressive in her handling of Brexit. I’ve been convinced from the beginning that betraying Brexit was always her goal. Negotiating a deal unacceptable to anyone was meant to exhaust everyone into the position to just throwing up their hands and canceling the whole thing.

The EU has been in the driver’s seat the entire time because most of the British establishment has been on their side and it was only the people who needed to be disrespected.

So, after all of these shananigans we are back to where we were last week. May has cut off all avenues of discussion. She won’t commit to taking ‘no-deal’ off the table to tweak Corbyn. She won’t substantively move on any other issue. This is likely to push her deal through as a last-minute panic move.

Corbyn is still hoping to get new elections to take power, and the majority of MP’s who don’t want to leave the EU keep fighting among themselves to cock up the entire works.

All they are doing is expending pound after pound of political capital beating themselves against their own act of Parliament which goes into effect on March 29th.

By the time that date comes around the frustration, shame and humiliation of how Parliament has mishandled Brexit will make it difficult for a lot of Remainers to hold together their majority as public opinion has decidedly turned against them.

In the past the EU has had that façade of democratic support undermining any change at the political level. With Brexit (and with budget talks in Italy) that is not the case. The people are angry.

The peak moment for Remainers to stage a bipartisan political coup against May should have been the most recent no-confidence vote.

With May surviving that it implies that Remainers are not willing to die politically for their cause.

This should begin to see defectors over the next couple of weeks as they realize they don’t have a hand to play either.

And by May refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit it has finally brought the EU around to throw a bone towards the British. Their admitting they would extend Article 50 is just that. But they know that’s a non-starter as that is the one thing May has been steadfast in holding to.

On March 29th with or without a deal the U.K. is out of the EU. Because despite the European Court of Justice’s decision, Britain’s parliament can only cancel Article 50 at this point by acting illegally.

Not that I would put that past these people, but then that opens up a can of worms that most British MP’s will not go along with. The personal stakes are simply too high.

When dealing with politicians, never bet against their vanity or their pocketbook. In May’s case she may finally have realized she could have the legacy of getting Britain out of the EU just before it collapses.

And all she has to do between now and the end of March is, precisely, nothing.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending