Destroying the Economy to Destroy Trump By Charles Taylor
I have no doubt that one of the many agendas behind the corona lockdowns, and the destruction of the economy, was to take down Trump, who was building his re-election solely on his big beautiful economy, not on promises such as the wall. Here is what one major liberal thinks:
“Bill Maher said Friday that he is "hoping" for the bottom to fall out of the economy and for the country to enter a recession so we can "get rid of Trump." He said one way to do that is a "crashing economy." Maher said he is "sorry" if it hurts people, but rooting for a recession is a prevention measure to losing democracy. "Can I ask about the economy because this economy is going pretty well? I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point. And by the way, I'm hoping for it. Because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So, please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy," Maher said on the Friday broadcast of his HBO show Real Time. "Trump is doing everything you can possibly do to screw up the economy," guest John Heilemann declared. "It's like everything is going great. This is the great thing -- you watch Trump's rhetoric. He says this is the lowest unemployment ever, African-Americans are doing great, we're all doing fantastic, best ever." "But also, 'It's a disaster, we have to change everything. America is getting robbed blind by the foreigners.' It's like what the fuck are you talking about? Are we having a good economy or a bad economy? If we have a good economy, why not just say let it ride. If we have a bad economy, we'll have another conversation, but he's making no sense with his refrain," the political commentator also said.”
Yes, they are that crazed. And, least there be any doubts about the scale of the economic collapse we are going to go through, let another liberal have his say:
“This is what the end of the end of history looks like. We had asked ourselves how it would appear and when. These questions mattered, and not only incidentally. They matter less now as we prepare for what I suspect will be at least a decade of immiseration on a scale unimaginable to at least three generations. It is important to observe that this has happened because of the lockdown, not even proximately because of the virus for which the median age of death is higher than the American life expectancy. In the last century, the upheavals of the interwar period were the result of a worldwide economic depression, not of a barely remembered pandemic, serious as it might have been. We are not witnessing the long-rumored revenge of nature, but a way of life that was always unsustainable extinguishing itself. Numbers will be sought to explain the world around us. What does it mean to say that the present crisis is somehow twice as bad as that of 2008, that a fifth of the country is out of work, that the only industry now hiring is debt collection? How are we to respond to predictions that over a hundred thousand Americans may die from what sociologists’ call "deaths of despair"? How can we even begin to make sense of the fact that the consequences of two and a half months will be with us for five times that many years, that a child born today will be a teenager before we return to anything that resembles even externally the precarious equilibrium to which we had been accustomed in January? Was all of this inevitable? Is it now? It is always possible to insist that we should seek another way, a path of shared work, shared purpose, and shared wealth, as our great-grandparents did long ago. But this is naive. All the problems — alienation, exploitation, addiction, despair — exacerbated during the lockdown have long been hiding in plain sight. A political system that during what we told ourselves were ordinary times could not solve the simplest of challenges (passing a federal budget in a timely manner), much less address what the president once referred to as "American carnage," will not rise to the present occasion. Instead Americans will muddle on, looking after ourselves and our families and friends as best we can, helpless in the face of transformations that we will barely notice.
As always, George Soros, who is seemingly immortal, never claimed by death, but just keeps getting warmed up, sees this as the crisis of civilisation, and how lucky we are to live in such interesting times:
“GEORGE SOROS: No. This is the crisis of my lifetime. Even before the pandemic hit, I realised that we were in a revolutionary moment where what would be impossible or even inconceivable in normal times had become not only possible, but probably absolutely necessary. And then came Covid-19, which has totally disrupted people’s lives and required very different behaviour. It is an unprecedented event that probably has never occurred in this combination. And it really endangers the survival of our civilisation.”
What the future holds though is shown in the test case of South Africa, which is well advanced in moving into police state mode. Most Western countries went in this direction during the lockdowns, as a test run of sorts for the elimination of liberty.
“In attempts to limit the number of people exposed to contracting the virus, many countries have restricted activities such as the congregation of large numbers of people. South Africa’s government has followed suit with its own set of regulations. However, it has been criticised for measures which are seemingly out of touch with international standards. For example, whereas restrictions in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand still allow for the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, South Africa has placed a total ban on these items. These countries also allow for online shopping to continue, in addition to public exercise. Ecommerce in South Africa is limited to the delivery of certain goods, while exercise in public was banned under level 5, and is now limited to between 06:00 and 09:00 in the morning under level 4. The government has also introduced legislation which includes the tracking of phone user locations and the criminalisation of coronavirus-related fake news.
Challenge the ban
Jonker said the prohibition on the sale of alcohol and tobacco products should be challenged. “It is extremely paternalistic to ban them, and they create an environment conducive to black markets,” Jonker stated. He explained there is historical evidence that the ban on liquor is a bad idea. “History has taught us that prohibition doesn’t work. The prohibition probably also does not pass constitutional muster in terms of section 36 as the harm it causes might well be greater than any possible benefits that could accrue from it,” Jonker noted. Another factor which the government has neglected to consider is the ban’s effect on people who are addicted to the substances, Jonker said. He noted that the plight of addicts must be considered, as a sudden inability to consume alcohol could be extremely detrimental to their health. “Experts have warned that forced cold-turkey withdrawal, especially as it pertains to alcohol, can itself cause health problems, even death, and also lead to violence,” he stated.
Fake news measures
Jonker said making the spread of fake news unlawful impedes the right to freedom of expression. According to the Disaster Management Act regulations amended in March, anyone who creates or spreads fake news about COVID-19 could be prosecuted. Guilty parties face a fine or imprisonment of up to six months. “It is impossible to overstate how dangerous it is to allow the government to determine what may be said and what may not, in any context,” Jonker stated. He said a requirement in the regulations that the content must be made with the intent to deceive is not very comforting. “The door is still open for the state to become the final arbiter to determine what constitutes fact and what does not, which is a very worrying prospect in a liberal democracy,” he explained. Jonker said that attempting to control the flow of information in this manner could indicate an attempt to avoid criticisms of its policies. “The issue is that the models used by the government to predict the effect of the virus were flawed by their own admission, and also did not include modelling of the economic effects concomitant with the lockdown.” The fact that the government is refusing to release the models it uses to justify the lockdown measures for independent analysis indicates it is “hellbent on centralising information”, Jonker said. “The rule of law requires clarity, and citizens have a right to know on what basis their rights are being limited.”
Governments of the West, who had for some time been moving away from liberty and democratic principles, have received a transfusion of black blood from exercising newly created powers in the corona crack down, and having tasted blood, will not be reverting back to civilisation anytime soon.