What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Academic Ignorance, Malice or Primitive, but Contagious Chutzpah in Ideological Struggle

Alexandre Fedorovski

Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
Reaction score

The triggers for writing this commentary were several events: meeting with Bret Louis Stephens, “an American journalist, editor, and columnist”, according to Vikipedia (Bret Stephens - Wikipedia) during which the journalist publicly refused to answer my three questions. I made comment on this, published it here and sent it to the New York Times (Evening with Bret Stephens: a Showcase of Political Illiteracy and ... Lies...) Evening with Bret Stephens: a Showcase of Political Illiteracy and ... Lies...).


The reaction was almost immediate: I got an offer to subscribe to the newspaper :)

The second event was MSNBC’s Sunday’s “Meet the Press”, during which Chuck Todd in a completely ugly and disrespectful manner interviewed Vice President Mike Pence,” accusing the Trump administration of “gaslighting” the American people when it comes to the coronavirus. It was conducted in a manner of rudeness and frank chutzpah, by means of which, as I understand, almost the entire generation of "democratically set" journalists and political “scientists” compensate their academic ignorance and poor education in childhood, spent at the East End or in Brooklyn ( Chuck Todd to Mike Pence: It Feels Like Trump Is 'Gaslighting' American )


The third event was this Thursday’s meeting with Lawrence Mead, Professor of Politics and Public Policy at New York University presenting his new book “Burdens of Freedom”. For forty-five minutes, the professor lectured the audience about America, in which most of the people did not recognize the country they live in. And the author of these lines did not make an exception...


Professor Mead emphasized the freedom of the American people, the absence of corruption and presented the “Second Great Migration of Peoples” to Europe as “poor people fleeing from dire economic poverty” (which is completely untrue, since the average age of “refugees” from Africa and the Middle East is 21 years old) ... The professor for some reason did not explain why 99 out of a hundred women arrive, say, in Germany, with a pregnancy at the age of 7 months, while only 12 percent of them are married... 1 woman is not pregnant probably because of the fertility issues…

The progressing aging of the European population, which could lead to an economic catastrophe - a decline in consumer demand, an increase in the financial burden on the budget, the bankruptcy of insurance companies and banks due to the lack of new, young clients, the professor chose “not to notice”.

Professor was talking about “a free country like America … confident that the truth is our friend and not the enemy” and “the very moralism of American culture” not recalling the deception of the American people and the international community about the fake “attack” of North Vietnamese speed boats on the USA ships” in the Gulf of Tonkin (USS Maddox incident in Tonkin Bay), on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which cost the lives and health of millions of people all over the world… Or sex in the Oval Office, which, in fairness, I must say, did not cause any human casualties...

He also claimed that “there is NO CORRUPTION in America, because of the tough laws and “moralistic nature of the Western culture”, which shocked the audience. He added that “the government has typically been more honest and effective in Western nations than in non-Western ones” which “... deter corruption better than the less civic culture of the non-West”. The fact that, say, the Chinese government is waging, frankly, a ruthless fight against corrupt officials, publicly shooting them and quite recently dismantling the bodies of the executed "for spare parts", did not shake the author’s determination to state that the Western governments are “more effective”.

It is also unclear what the author of the book meant when talking about corruption since there is no definition of corruption, accepted by all specialists in law and psychology.

The traditional one is ‘the abuse of public office for private gain’ – is archaic because of massive public service provision by the private sector (like IRS). Since it also has a public duty to uphold probity, transparency, and fairness, Transparency International (TI) has given the following updated definition:

Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Corruption is hard to pin down. What we do know is that corruption often goes hand-in-hand with fraud and other economic crimes. It is also intimately bound up with personal failings of integrity, ethics, and leadership.

Corruption hides amongst our everyday social and commercial relationships and practices. Conflicts of interest, revolving doors, nepotism and cronyism, self-regulation, hospitality, creaking public services – all contain serious corruption risks. In plain sight (but by stealth nonetheless) they divert resources and opportunities away from legitimate recipients, concentrating power and advantage, and corroding trust.

It is this uncertainty of the concept of “corruption” that is used by the pathological, by the type of thinking and behavior, corrupt official Joe Biden.

Let's say, how to qualify the fact that after the presidency ended, the Clinton family was "leveraged in debt up to their eyeballs." When Bill Clinton finished his presidential term in 2001, he was millions of dollars in the red, thanks to legal fees. “I left the White House $16 million in debt,” the 42nd the president told NBC’s Craig Melvin during an interview that mentioned his handling of the Monica Lewinsky scandal (Bill Clinton says he left the White House $16 million in debt).


As NPR reports, “The presidential salary of $200,000 had been overwhelmed by defense attorneys’ fees for scandal investigations, the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton and action to suspend his Arkansas law license.”

While he and his wife Hillary came out of the White House “dead broke,” as Hillary put it, their millions of dollars in debt were erased in 2004, just three years later. And by the time she ran for President in 2016, Forbes estimated her net worth at $45 million.

The Clintons climbed out of the multimillion-dollar hole via paid speeches and lucrative book deals. In his first year out of office, Bill gave 57 speeches and earned $13.7 million from his “speaking and writing” business, according to their tax return. A single speech generated anywhere from $125,000, the standard fee, to $350,000 …,

That same year, Hillary reportedly received a $2.9 million installment of an $8 million advance for her book “Living History.” Bill collected a $10 million advance for “My Life.” And 2001 was just the beginning. The politicians brought home more than $153.7 million in paid speeches between 2001 and 2015.


So, how should we legally qualify this phenomenon? As magic? As luck or…as a … latent corruption???





Former President Barack Obama and billionaire Richard Branson kitesurf during Obama's vacation on Branson's Moskito island. REUTERS

There are valid reasons to be concerned by a president's earnings, including after their tenure in the Oval Office. Where a former commander-in-chief earns his or her income–and the company they choose to keep after serving as the leader of the free world–could speak to their basic values in a way policies and legislation cannot.

So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed.

How could it be that Obama, the smooth-talking Democratic candidate in 2008 who slammed Wall Street greed and resonated with the working class in a way his party has since been unable to authentically recreate, is living his post-presidential life like an elitist one-percenter?

Obama receives an annual pension of over $200,000, after vetoing a bill passed by Congress in 2016 that would have capped each former president's pension to that threshold. He raked in $400,000–the equivalent to his annual presidential salary–for a 90-minute interview in midtown Manhattan, where he spoke with a presidential historian on things like income inequality and civic engagement. He's set to earn another $400,000 for a 60-minute speech during a conference hosted by the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

And he doesn't plan on slowing down any time soon: Harry Walker Agency, which represents the former president and his wife along the speaking circuit is scheduling new appointments for the Obamas every single week.

The Obama family came from humble beginning, but now the ex-president and first lady are worth about $40 million30 times more than when they entered the White House in 2008, the Business Insider reported.

Former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama paid $8.1 million for the nine-bedroom mansion in the District of Columbia, The New York Times reports.

In fact every single president in modern American history has earned serious cash following their time in office. In fact, their years spent serving in the White House are typically their least-paid.

The Clintons, as well as former President George W. Bush, earned millions following their time in the peoples' house, receiving six-figure checks for Wall Street speeches and book tours.

But the Obamas are set to earn an unprecedented post-presidency income, and its alarming his critics, supporters and other Democrats alike.


"I was troubled by that," former candidate to the presidency Warren said when she learned Obama was charging $400,000 for his speech. "The influence of money, I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington."

Obama disagrees. He told his supporters he wasn't tied up in corporate interests or the snake-like stronghold bankers and investment firms seem to have over many elected officials in the U.S. "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama once said.

Right, in plain sight there were no “fat cat bankers” behind Obama but if we dig deeper we’ll see they were there formally acting under the umbrella of Jewish special interest groups that “sold” Obama to the nation as a first black president, hiding his Jewish origin.

It was clear that asking a question about what Mr. Mead understood by corruption, was useless, since it became clear that he was not talking about a real country – present-day America, but about something abstract, vague and "virtual" that existed only in his mind...

But an exorcised spirit forced the author of these lines to put three questions to the speaker:

- Do we not abuse the repetition as a mantra that Americans are free, which gives the impression that the rest of the world lives in slavery?

- Are there any other reasons for the influx of refugees into Europe, bearing in mind that its population is rapidly aging and the demographic the situation has led to the fact that soon there would not exist those who would actually be a financial source to pay the pension costs of an aging population. In the countries of the third and fourth worlds, robbed by the imperialists, it was ALWAYS bad, but hundreds of thousands, in an organized manner "ran" from poverty to Europe as if someone had given the command …

- Is the assertion that there is NO CORRUPTION in America right and whether the party struggle for the President’s chair is actually a struggle for access to the state budget as a form of corruption?

Of all three questions, the speaker for some reason decided to answer only the third, AGREEING that the political struggle for the Oval Office is a manifestation of the corruption aspirations of representatives of a particular party.

“More than in any other major developed country, people in America believe that rich people buy elections,” said Scott Greytak, Advocacy Director for Transparency International’s U.S. office. “When people think their government is for sale, they stop believing in its future.”

“In the US, many of our laws on campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics were written almost 50 years ago. The world has changed since then,” continued Greytak.

According to the Centre for the Protection of the National Infrastructure insider activity commonly includes process corruption, unauthorized disclosure of information, the facilitation of third-party access to assets, and physical, electronic or IT sabotage.

Corruption hides amongst our everyday social and commercial relationships and practices. Conflicts of interest, revolving doors, nepotism and cronyism, self-regulation, hospitality, creaking public services – all contain serious corruption risks. In plain sight (but by stealth nonetheless) they divert resources and opportunities away from legitimate recipients, concentrating power and advantage, and corroding trust.

The United States scored 69 points out of 100 on the 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index reported by Transparency International.

Such a detailed (within the framework of the Forum) analysis of the statements of politicians and, so to speak, some scholars, was made in order to show what a gap lies between political slogans and the real state of affairs. We tried to show how irreparable damage is caused by dogmatism, factual propaganda and ... frank, irresponsible, shameless lies, student training based on the principles of brainwashing, a superficial approach to the phenomena of life and indoctrination.

The mercenaries of corporate capitalism do not realize what they are doing with the country when they try to save the dying economic system by shuffling, hiding or biased shuffling of facts, abuse of public confidence and raising a new generation of scientists and politicians who, like in American general education. "FOR THE FIRST TIME they know LESS THAN the previous generation" ...

This destroys the unity of the nation, undermines the nation’s aggregate intellectual potential pulls us back in a race with an intellectually young and at the same time ancient, inquisitive and technologically talented, purposeful, "collectivist", "conformist," non-Western "East splits us into two irreconcilable social classes, undermines the stability of the entire social organism.

In order to understand WHAT A GAP exists between what Mr. Mead declares to us and his students and that there really is no need to fly into space or sink into the Mariinsky Depression of the oceans. He just needs to leave his cozy office, take train number 6 and go to the Bronx, walk along with its dirty, spat, streets, peer into the faces of tired and poor people, and listen to WHAT they are talking about...

Louis Brandeis, advisor to President Woodrow Wilson wrote:

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

John Gardner, cabinet secretary to President Lyndon Johnson stated:

We are treading the edge of a precipice here. Civilizations die of disenchantment. If enough people doubt their society, the whole venture falls apart. We must never let anger, fashionable cynicism, or political partisanship blur our vision on that point. We must not despair of the Republic.

This is my detailed answer to the "diamond member" of our Forum under the nickname Politchick, who a couple of days ago committed academic unconscious or deliberate indiscipline, dogmatism, and " illiteracy" aimed at misleading the Forum participants about the fundamental phenomena of human society.

Tomorrow will be published the second part of this commentary, which will analyze the allegations of this lady, who, according to her, graduated from Columbia University.
Last edited:


Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2009
Reaction score
The AL part of PA
I'm betting on PC, but your one quote at least is absolutely correct:
Louis Brandeis, advisor to President Woodrow Wilson wrote:
We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
Alexandre Fedorovski

Alexandre Fedorovski

Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
Reaction score
I'm betting on PC, but your one quote at least is absolutely correct:
Louis Brandeis, advisor to President Woodrow Wilson wrote:
We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

Your opinion is important to me, because you, like no one else, are very critical of my comments.

Unfortunately, I state the FACTS amid declarations that are generally untrue. I rely on the critical thinking of the audience, although in our society as a whole - this is a big problem today. Special interest groups have achieved the main thing: people have LOST their critical thinking ability OR these groups have developed and fixed fear of “bad news”: people do not just read newspapers, the Internet, and do not watch TV.

They just DO NOT ANALYZE what they hear, which is very dangerous:

Analysis of the surrounding reality in order to develop an adequate response that ensures the survival of the individual or a group of individuals is a condition for survival in the social environment. Moreover, a person belongs to higher animals, able to change it.

I know a lot of people who "never had" a TV (this is in the 21st century!). My goal is to convey the facts, even if someone imposes the label of “anti-American” on me. This does not make sense, as it is not a purely "American" problem. And when at the Forum someone irresponsibly “juggles” with terms and concepts, laying different eggs in one basket, I, as you see, “respond”.

My next meeting is with Newt Gingrich - "America vs. Socialism!", March 22nd, about the results of which I will inform the audience.


USMB Server Goals

Total amount

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List