Orwellian Sanders Started Trump’s Wall

One of the most interesting aspects of ‘establishment’ politics is the Orwellian language politicians use to keep their voters down working for them. Case in point: Sanders. I focus on him because  Hillary is not running as the ‘revolutionary socialist’.

The Minute Men issue (from Univision debate):

Sanders: There was a piece of legislation supported by dozens and dozens of members of the House which codified existing legislation.

That’s it.

  • He didn’t provide the name of said “piece of legislation”.
  • From which party were the “dozens and dozens members of the House” supporting the bill?
  • Is the fact that ‘two dozens’ of nameless members supported it a reason for us to believe that it was a good legislation?

But this is the Orwellian part: it “codified existing legislation”; the implication being that the amendment to the bill is harmless. Is it?

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.”

That’s no  “codification”.

In law, codification is the process of collecting and restating the law of a jurisdiction in certain areas, usually by subject, forming a legal code, i.e. a codex (book) of law.

That amendment to the  Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007  focused on a particular area of our nation: only to the jurisdiction bordering with Mexico, not to Alaska or Canada.

But he said

A: I voted against that piece of legislation because it had guest-worker provisions in it which the Southern Poverty Law Center talked about being semi-slavery.

That is how Sanders covers his true conservative heart: he uses deceptive language, language that makes his racists and anti-working class legislation look as if it were “a stand for the oppressed”. He relies on the SPLC to ‘confirm’ that the law is about making guest-workers “semi-slaves”.

What he actually voted for was to prevent the US from notifying Mexican authorities  about Minutemen activities at the border. If that’s his way of preventing ‘slavery’, by sending KKK fanatics to hunt the ‘semi-slaves’…

As shown in the quote below, he was more concerned about white workers, his base.

And, as the effective pro-establishment conservative that he, not only he pits the working class against each other based on nationality. He uses that tactic to cover his racist goals. One could argue that his excuse to vote against the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 started the argument later effectively used by Trump for his wall.

Sanders prepared the table for the Donald’s wall.

the plan

Sanders on voting against anti-immigration reform bill 2007: “What this legislation is not about is addressing the real needs of American workers,’ Mr. Sanders said in a speech on the floor of the Senate in 2007. ‘It is not about raising wages or improving benefits. What it is about is bringing into this country over a period of years millions of low-wage temporary workers with the result that wages and benefits in this country, which are already going down, will go down even further.”

You put together his quote above, voting against the Immigration Reform, and the quote from the “codification bill” and you can see how it makes sense that he did vote to protect the Minute Men. The Minute Men were (are, in their new form) not taking a stand for the American working class. If anything, they are standing for the white working class, Sanders ‘base’.

Progressives understand that  the globalists’, in their  pursue of cheap labor, are terrified of the possibility of  a revival of international working class solidarity. Globalism affects the world working class, it functions to gobble up human productive activity and spitting them out as squeezed oranges.

Sanders, with his Orwellian language, works stealthily for the globalists by portraying himself as a ‘socialist’ “against the billionaire class”, while in actuality he is working for them.

Another example of Sanders’ Orwellian language is when he protects giving welfare for war armament corporations because they “produce jobs at home”. And on that account he arrested progressives, when he was a mayor, who were protesting against a war armament company in his city. He arrested them for interfering in job creations. There’s no need to expose how un-progressive his stance was; you can do the math.

Sanders is more dangerous to the progressives than HC, precisely because he is successful at hiding his duplicity and appearing as a ‘hero’ of the “oppressed”.





Origin of MSM Love Affair with Sanders: at The Brookings Institution

Sanders Capitulation
The ‘Conversation’
Dispelling Their Fears
Conclusion: Third-party is the real revolution


I have been ‘bitching’ in this blog about how the MSM has given Bernie Sanders a pass (up to now) on his daring in-your-face socialist-revolution themed presidential primaries campaign.


I have given examples of him ‘passing’ but no evidence of the ‘ticket’  itself. Well, I found the pass ticket!!


It solves the mystery of why, why has the MSM abstained from unfurling on Sanders the traditional red-scare fear-mongering flag we all expect to be unfurled on anyone who dares to barely whisper the word ‘socialism’, let alone together with the word ‘revolution’.

It all starts at The Brookings Institution, a preeminent influential elitist’s (the ‘10%érs’) think-tank  where all presidential candidates are vetted by the representatives of the oligarchy. Long-shots candidates like Obama and Sanders go through the same ‘investiture’ ceremony as regular  establishment candidates do. Get Brookings blessings and you have a real shot at the presidency; and to get their blessings all you have to do is promise them that, if you win, you will work for them.

In this post I deconstruct the ‘conversation’ that served as  the official public ordination of Sanders at Brookings with the representatives of the elite and the elite MSM, E.J. Dionne as moderator. The conversation is an outstanding example of Orwellian language hiding the ‘Wall Street revolution’ behind Sanders’ populist ‘revolution’.  Yes, for them suspicion breeds confidence.

At the end of the conversation you will see that Brookings finds Sanders to be a valuable partner they can count on to defend WS when they need it the most.  Also, consistent with E.J. Dionne’s admiration for Sanders, every time you read an article of him about the primaries in the MSM, rest assured it is in Sanders favor, whether the headline has Sanders’ name or not. That is payback to Sanders in MSM currency for his vote and defense of the Stimulus Package bill, the bailout of WS.



The Hamilton Project is an economic policy initiative at the Brookings Institution.

Sanders Capitulations

You will see in this post, among other things, how Sanders and Dionne ease Wall Street’s angst about him, how Sanders qualifies his ‘socialism’ as low as “somewhere where Pope Francis is,“; he dispels fears that he may want to take “the means of production”; you’ll see him telling them how PROUD he is of  defending his vote for the  Stimulus Package bill that saved the WS crooks. You’ll see Sanders asking for the MSM support. As you have seen so far, WS has been happy to abide by his petition. Also, the Keystone Pipeline? He promised them, if he wins, it will not be “a priority” of his administration.

Note: This is the same investiture process I discussed   in 2008 to show Obama’s promises to the elite.

The ‘Conversation’

On Monday, February 9, 2015, The Brookings Institution hosted Sanders for a ‘conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders” (transcript).

While the activity was promoted as part of “our ongoing conversation on the future of our economy and of shared economic growth“, its real goal was to 1) dispel any concerns among its members about Sanders’ ‘socialist’ trappings, and 2) to let the MSM elite selected for the activity ask, for their clarification, the questions that will not be asked in public about his ‘ideology’. These people know the right questions to ask, as opposed to the little people trained to follow lovable  personalities and to not ask questions.

Those goals were clear from (Senior Fellow at Brookings) E. J.’Dionne’s very first words introducing Sanders (highlights by me):

…it is a pleasure to welcome a self-described proud democratic socialist here to Brookings. These days the word “socialist” is thrown around as an epithet, and the socialists I know are insulted when President Obama’s called a socialist because they argue he is too moderate to be a democratic socialist, but the thing we forget is the vibrancy of the democratic socialist tradition in the United States, and bear in mind we’re talking democratic, small “d” socialist, i.e., Scandinavia, not the old Soviet Union, and that in the American tradition we are talking about people from Eugene Debs to Norman Thomas to Michael Harrington to people today like Barbara Ehrenreich. This is a lively American tradition that has influenced policy in our country in a great many ways, and so it is refreshing to have a senator who doesn’t run away from a particular part of our American tradition.

Holy moly! That was the mother of all whitewashing. I didn’t know the oligarchy was proud, PROUD! of  this nation’ “socialist tradition of democratic socialism” and of Eugene Debs – the same guy they sent to  die in prison (released shortly before dying) for being a “proud socialist”. I didn’t even know there was a “tradition” of socialism here. Live and learn, people; live and learn. I had to read it at the Brookings Institute. Now, let’s analyze the rest of E.J.’s introduction.


This is what Debs was fighting against and for which he was sent to prison. When The Brookings Institute says they are “proud” of that history, they mean they are proud of having won over the socialists and of sending Debs to prison. It was the beginning of the very successful red scare bait.

First: This is the Brookings presenting Sanders to its members and the select MSM workers. That means they had already vetted Sanders at closed doors and found him kosher to be consumed by its group. They then fed the members a scripted ‘conversation’ to dispel any fears and to cast their approval on Sanders, not only as non-threatening ‘pinko’, but actually as a highly palatable presidential material.

Dispelling Their Fears

Thus Dionne’s intro, “it is a pleasure” is code for ‘we like him a lot, don’t be scared of the socialist’.  For him, the word socialist is an “epithet‘ to describe a person, not a philosophy, and gives Obama (accused of being a socialist in the 2008 primaries) as an example of how safe that type of socialists are. Dionne artfully dispels the fears of ‘socialist” candidates by referencing  Obama’s socialist detractors  to qualify him as not–a-socialist.  Dionne doesn’t have to say it himself and the Brookings is not on record saying that Obama (and Sanders) are not  socialists; socialists themselves did the work for the elite when they undressed Obama of his ‘socialist’ garment. Dionne knows his craft: he doesn’t have to be on record admitting that Obama and Sanders are no threat to the ‘establishment’.

Small ‘d’ and Big ‘c’

(Still on that first quote.) Then, don’t be afraid of Sanders’ socialism: it comes with “small ‘d’“, meaning small democracy, nothing they can’t handle with their big ‘c’ for ‘big capitalism’. By mentioning Debs, they remind their membership, in masterful Orwellian fashion, that they know how to handle unruly socialists. This is not the Soviet Union, here socialism is a “lively tradition”, is…like fun.  Do you really think that Dionne and Brookings elite have admiration for Debs? It’s high quality spin.

A  socialist “lively tradition” means the traditional class wars that are part and parcel of  capitalism. And as with all class wars, it is very lively indeed, action packed with marches and police  beatingswhere the labor movement loses most of the time. So, it is “refreshing‘ for Brookings to have Sanders, who doesn’t run away from a PARTICULAR part of that tradition. Which ‘part’ is that? That was very cryptic, wasn’t it, with no specification of what Dionne meant by it. Also, we all know how the lively class wars have influenced our policies: Taft Hardly and other policies to restraint the working class demands.

You see, they don’t have to clarify how the labor movement (‘socialism’) has ‘influenced our policies’ because they know. Language allows them to not be specific when a group of people share the same values. You are thinking “influenced our policies” means, for example, good labor policies (8 hrs shifts), but they are thinking Taft Hardly. Do you think they are proud of the labor movement achievements in labor policies, or proud of the Taft Hardly anti-labor policies? Our angry youngsters who have seen the video of this ‘conversation’ think that Dionne was truly praising  socialism in the USA. Reading between the lines is important when you are dealing with the oligarchy. But let’s continue.

Then E.J. continues approvingly of Sanders’ record in COngress, and to make sure you don’t leave with doubts about on whose side Sanders is , he (Brookings through E.J.’s mouth) said this:

…so when we have Senator Sanders and Senator McCain working together, we can produce miracles in public policy.

McCain is code for the republican party. It’s not ‘I can work on both sides of the isle’; it’s more like ‘I have your back’. You’ll see below.

Are you scared that he is an atheist socialist? No need to worry:

And while Senator Sanders will not be talking about miracles today, I will close by saying that he is a fan of Pope Francis.

Should the elitists worry about how far to the left he is, or how big his…’d’ (democracy) is? Nope. This interaction between him and E.J. is VERY telling:

[Sanders] “Sorry, government in this country is going to work for all of us and not just the top 1 percent.” Thank you very much. (Applause)
MR. DIONNE: Thank you, Senator Sanders, for that carefully hedged, cautious, political (laughter) speech.
SENATOR SANDERS: I was very quiet. This is the Brookings and I didn’t want —
MR. DIONNE: Yeah, this is a moderate version of this speech.
SENATOR SANDERS: That’s right.

He doesn’t want to…scare them, is what that interaction means. Dionne saved him from saying the words.

Are they afraid he is going to nationalize the means of production? NOOOOO WAAAY.

[E.J.] In this long list of proposals you do not propose public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and you are very critical of the way capitalism works, but what is your view of the market economy in general and capitalism in particular? 
SENATOR SANDERS: Well, in that regard I think I come down somewhere where Pope Francis is, who I think, by the way, has played an extraordinary role in the last several years in raising issues internationally that have not been raised by such a prominent figure.

Mother of God!!!! His socialism is based on Pope Francis!!! That’s all he has. People:it can’t get any safer for them than that, unless he speaks approvingly of capitalism.

[Sanders] so, E. J., capitalism does a lot of good things. It creates wealth.

Wealth?! For who? He doesn’t have to say it because they all get his drift.

Wait! It’s not over. How ’bout the economy and Wall Street? They are scared. Should they be? Nah. You see, while Sanders has been harping publicly about how bad the economy is, he eases the oligarchs by saying that he believes the economy is better now than six years ago, no need to ‘redistribute’ or change anything at the root:

[E.J.] you do say that we are better off economically than we were six years ago,…

And this ‘harping’ is acknowledged and dismissed for what it is: political posturing.

[E.J]…you have a pretty tough litany of what’s wrong with the economy as it exists…Yet you voted for a number of programs to try to get the economy moving including [there were others] the Recovery Act, otherwise known as the Stimulus.

[Sanders] So I am proud to defend it.[!!!]

Now, that was music for Wall Streets representatives’ ears there. You see, the Sandernistas refuse to ask the right questions, instead they find excuses when confronted with his pro-Wall Street votes. You can be sure that WS doesn’t forget what he did for them. It’s payback time people.

Other quotes:

MR. DIONNE: Is there a place for something like Wall Street in a Bernie Sanders economy?

SENATOR SANDERS: Well, look, banking plays an important role, obviously, in our society, and in that I’m pretty conservative.

Avoiding the question of whether he wants the Working Families (socialists) endorsement.

SPEAKER: Do you view the Working Families Endorsement of Elizabeth Warren as a setback?
SENATOR SANDERS: Well, I’m not sure that Senator Warren is going to be running for office.

About wars, another version of Obama’ “stupid wars”, which means he will continue the wars, not ‘for ever’, of course:

[Sanders] I do not disagree with the air attacks that the United States is coordinating, for example. What I just don’t want to see is a ground presence and never-ending war.

The Keystone Pipeline: not a priority for his administration if he wins.

[Sanders] …but if you were the Republican Party or any group of people you really think that you would put up the Keystone Pipeline as your first order of business? I’m against the Keystone Pipeline; fought it very hard, but there are people who disagree with me. [WS, for example, whom he will have to listen to]. Do you really think that a Canadian pipeline which will provide 35 permanent jobs is the most important issue facing America…?

The way the ‘conversation’ ended is telling too. Sanders asks, in not so veiled manner, for the MSM support in exchange for him running on the democratic side and not being “a spoiler”.  And E.J. makes a subtle quote of Lenin, showing that they, the capitalists,  know their communists.

[Sanders] [[Asking for help from the MSM]] Will the media cover you if you run as an Independent?  So, these are some of the issues that I’m wrestling with.
MR. DIONNE: I just want to close by saying that the late Mike Harrington used to say that he was for the left wing of the possible, and I think that Senator Sanders is pushing the definition of the possible, and I thank him and all of you for a very enlightening exploration of what can be done [for Sanders and Wall Street], and if I may use the phrase what is to be done. Thank you very, very much. (Applause)


I’m not telling you NOT to vote for Sanders. All I’m trying to do is making you aware that a vote for Sanders is NOT a vote for revolution nor for socialism. Considering that the Sandersnistas don’t ask the right questions, they don’t know which of the many definitions and tonalities of ‘socialism’  Sanders has in mind. The Brookings are clear, though.

Also, Sanders is very clear that he speaks about the “1%”, and some times the “0.1%”. In other words, all those WS honchos who are big millionaires but not billionaires, the ‘10%’, are part of the group his ‘revolution’ is going to protect. But they are part of the problem too. It is highly improbable that anyone with over 20 million bucks has the interests of the unemployed and poor in his or her mind. And yet, that person is not technically part of the 1%. Sanders is more a neo liberal than a socialist.

If you want to know how acceptable a politician is to the elite, see if the Brookings invite him or her and what he or she says to them. Again, I researched this for Obama in 2008, I can see that Sanders is following the same path of his lukewarm socialist predecessor.

I don’t speak about Hillary here because she is not the one running promising a revolution. We all know what to expect from her, she is in the system.

So there. Voting for Sanders means pushing the real revolution back another 20 years.

If you want a revolution, you must leave the two-party system and create a truly progressive third-party or join those already there. Also, I consider more important getting seats in Congress than the presidency. Progressives don’t have to get caught up in the presidential elections.