Opulists v. Populists

The Kim-Trump meeting seems to have already been and gone. Ron Paul comments on it:

When President Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, on October 11, 1987, it helped put into motion events that would dramatically change the global system.A line of communication was fully opened with an enemy of decades and substantive issues were on the table. Though the summit was initially reported as a failure, with the two sides unable to sign a final agreement, history now shows us that it was actually a great success that paved the way to the eventual end of the Cold War and a reduction in the threat of a nuclear war.

A year later Gorbachev and Reagan met in Washington to continue the dialogue that had been started and the rest is history. Success began as a “failure.”

We are now facing a similar situation with President Trump’s historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. As with the Reagan/Gorbachev meetings, detractors on all sides seem determined to undermine and belittle the opening of a door to diplomacy and peace.

The neocons demand that North Korea give up all its bargaining chips up front in return for vague promises of better relations with the US. Yet in the post-Libya era no serious person would jump at such an offer. Their biggest fear is that peace may break out and they are doing everything to prevent that from happening. Conflict is their livelihood.

I also find it disheartening that many Democrat opponents of President Trump who rightly cheered President Obama’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran are now condemning Trump for opening the door to diplomacy with North Korea. Did they genuinely support President Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, or did they just prefer the person who happened to occupy the Oval Office at the time?…

There seems to have been a Bilderberg conference that’s just finished. No idea what was said. But then it’s all secret, isn’t it? But it seems the elites are as worried about populism as Jean-Claude Juncker.

According to the group’s official website, the number one topic of conversation at this year’s secretive meeting will be “populism in Europe”.

As I was typing the paragraph above, I generated an interesting typo while typing “populism”. I have to press firmly on my Dell keyboard’s keys, largely the result of about 15 years of cigarette ash inside it, and so I missed of the “p” off  the front, and got “opulism” instead. But it immediately struck me as a very apt word in the context. After all, wasn’t this Bilderberg conference one where the opulists were talking about the populists?

opulentˈɒpjʊl(ə)nt/ adjective

ostentatiously costly and luxurious.
“the opulent comfort of a limousine”
luxurious, sumptuous, palatial, lavishly appointed, lavish, deluxe, rich, lush, luxuriant, splendid, magnificent, grand, grandiose, costly, expensive, fancy;

“his more opulent tenants”
wealthy, rich, affluent, well off, well-to-do, moneyed, cash rich, with deep pockets, prosperous, of means, of substance;

Latin: opulens, opulentem.

So “opulists” are ostentatiously rich people of substance meeting in magnificent grand palaces. Isn’t that what Bilderberg conferences always are?

Also due out on Thursday, the much delayed IG Report, around which rumours have been swirling for months. Fox:

Department of Justice Inspector General (“IG”) Michael Horowitz’s report will finally be made public on Thursday of this week.  After an investigation that’s lasted well over a year, I’m cautiously optimistic that the report will answer many questions about the Federal Bureau of Investigation under former Director James Comey and Acting-Director Andrew McCabe and the Justice Department under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The Hill:

President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday that he thinks former FBI Director James Comey could be prosecuted as a result of a report from the Justice Department’s (DOJ) internal watchdog that is expected to be released next week.

“I think the report of Horowitz, the [inspector general], and the Justice Department will confirm that Comey acted improperly with with regard to the Hillary Clinton investigation,” Giuliani said an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis.

Infowars is going to run a 34-hour marathon broadcast about what it’s billing as The Fall of the Deep State:

Hailing the IG report release, Infowars is hosting a special 34-hour broadcast starting at 8AM CST on June 14 through the 15th at 6PM.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Opulists v. Populists

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    I think the ‘opulists’ are very much the global elite. That is oligarchs and plutocrats that extract wealth from the masses. To do so they must exercise control. Smoking bans are the epitome of their totalitarian control. The controlling class imposed smoking bans through manipulating data (that is through lies and ruses) resulting in increasingly restrictive smoking bans. ASH enforcer Deborah Arnott accurately called this tactic a ‘confidence trick’.

    Another confidence trick used by the tobacco controllers was (is) the lie that smoking bans don’t hurt business. That lie has been discredited many time but that doesn’t stop the endless stream of propaganda and false studies concocted to support the lie. In the tastes example of reality bars i Arlington, Texas (which recently imposed a smoking ban) are losing business–despite tobacco control claims that smoking bans don’t hurt business. This news story sums it up: “Many Small Bars in Arlington See Drop in Business After Smoking Ban Kicks In”. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Many-Small-Bars-in-Arlington-See-Drop-in-Business-After-Smoking-Ban-Kicks-In-485198171.html

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think it’s the opulists rather then the populists who are the controlling elite.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Frank good catch. I meant Opulists! Could you change for me?

        I think the typo is the result of autocorrect. The current populist movements are a reaction to “Opulist” overreach. As seen in my argument, I described the controlling class as oligarchs and plutocrats which best aligns with your definition of “opilists”.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    An interesting article at the American Thinker disputing the common belief that smoking bans are about health. Check it out: “Smoking bans and mirrors: Is it about health? Or control?” https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/smoking_bans_and_mirrors_is_it_about_health_or_control_comments.html#disqus_thread

  3. John says:

    Off topic, BUT – Harley would have been ALL OVER THIS ONE – if he was still alive. On American Thinker, well read, conservative leaning, website/blog in US – article comes up today entitled:

    Smoking bans and mirrors: Is it about health? Or control?


    It goes on with the author debunking smoking bans as irrational and unnecessary and cites a few facts but does not go into detail.

    Meantime, 199+ comments suddenly appear and it’s the smoke-haters spewing venom about their rights to clean air and that SHS kills – with some provocative back and forth from anti-smoking ban people.

    But nowhere has anyone posted clear cut evidence such as the Kabbat? & Enstrom? study out of UCLA that PROVED SHS was NON harmful and the story of how after PROVING it, they were FIRED and had to sue UCLA, Kabbat did, to get his job back – and how that is IDENTICAL to the Climate Change pseudo-“science” which these same ones who hate smokers and love smoking bans, who call themselves “conservatives”, on this site – are totally UNinformed of the fact they are embracing the same fallicious “science” in regard to SHS, which is then used AGAINST them in the SAME modus operandi in regard to them losing the debate on Climate Change.

    They remain. Totally. Ignorant. Of. The. Fact.

    This is where Harley, God bless his soul, would have been on this website like greased lightning, posting exactly those facts to make it clear how even among the “conservatives”, their being anti-smoking hate filled is only feeding the same arguments going to be used against them later on in the Climate Change debate.

    Link above if anyone with more knowledge and links handy than I have, wishes to pursue a point of argument so that this can spread out among some of the so-called conservatives there in the US.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      John, Check the comments Vinny Gracchus did in fact post a reference to not only the the Enstrom and Kabat findings but also to those of Boffetta. I think thy may be easily overlooked given the volume of antismoker responses but they are there.

  4. Clicky says:

    • waltc says:

      Please correct my analysis but here’s what I get: The entire sample of 2000 subjects all has memory problems severe enough that they went to a clinic about them. Only a fifth of them had (unknown and likely varying levels of) calcification. They admit that calcification per se did not effect the degree of memory loss. But since an again unknown percentage of 2-pack a day smokers were to an unknown degree more likely to evince said calcification, they conclude that smoking causes memory loss and Alzheimers??

  5. Pingback: Ellen Judson | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.