Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump by neocons and DemoRats
(also sometimes called Purple revolution)
Looks like Trump surrendered after just 100 of anti-Russian smear campaign launched by neocons,
but they still want to finish him
Two third of US population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk
of the major war
First let's discuss the historical origins of the term “color revolution”. The latter
is a new subversive tactics which was successfully used as a means to triggering “regime change”, which have emerged in a large number of countries
in the course of the last decade, especially in xUSSR space (Georgia, Ukraine, Modlova, Russia, etc).
But the key methods of "color revolution" coup d'état can be traced to Chilean coup d'état or even
The “color revolution” is a US intelligence operation which consists of covertly supporting as well
as infiltrating protest movements with a view to triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy
template. The objective of a “color revolution” is to manipulate or delegitimize elections (if the
in nor desired candidate), foment social unrest and use the protest movement to topple an existing
legitimate government. After that install a compliant pro-US government (or “puppet regime”). This
"outsize" role of intelligence agencies is what we observe in the current campaign to
de-legitimize and depose President Trump. As James Petras observed (Imperial
Power Centers, July 24, 2017) :
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly
contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the
democratically elected regime.
While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is riven by rival power centers. At
the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
In the first place, the strategically placed security apparatus is no longer under
Presidential control: They operate in coordination with insurgent Congressional power centers,
mass media and extra-governmental power configurations among the oligarchs (business,
merchants, arms manufacturers, Zionists and special interest lobbies).
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking
damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They
publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial
allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt,
many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President
will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some
active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others
oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing
of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state
militarists in and out of Washington.
Engineered protest movements are carefully planned. Again the key feature of all color
revolutions us that they are essentially intelligence ops performed
via NGO and similar organization, with huge role of the US embassy as the coordinating center. They
use non-governmental organizations and opposition meddia to recruit protesters. Creation of
powerful opposition media is the necessary prerequisite step in preparation of the color revolution.
The protest need to be televized in order to amplify their significance and create a critical mass
of discontent among the population. Corruption is the davorite deliigtimization tacktics in such
events. As if it can be stopped by a regime change. Often even more corrupt oligarchs come to
power as a result, only more subservent to multinational corporations. And BTW its
multinationals such as GE which control the US media too. How convenient.
The color revolution usually precede a "quite period" in which "professional protesters" are
and financed, but no mass street protest occur:
In August 1999, the CIA set up a training program for a Serbian NGO entitled OTPOR which subsequently
played a key role in the engineered protest movement conducive to the downfall of president Slobodan
Milosevic. A few years later, OTPOR established a training and strategizing outfit entitled
The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies
(CANVAS).CANVAS became a consulting outfit specializing in “Revolution” on contract
to the CIA.
... ... ...
What is at stake is a “color revolution” Made in America which is marked by fundamental
rivalries within the US establishment, namely the clash between competing corporate factions, each
of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency.
model is nonetheless relevant. Several foundations involved in funding color revolutions internationally
are involved in funding the anti-Trump campaign.
Moreover, while CANVAS’ mandate is to oversee “color revolutions” internationally, it also has
links with a number of NGOs currently involved in the anti-Trump campaign including
The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWSlaunched by Adbusters was funded
via the Tides Foundation which in turn is funded by a number of corporate foundations and charities,
including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known
to have historical links to US intelligence.
It is worth noting that the raised fist logo first launched by OTPOR in 1999 as a symbol of CIA
sponsored color revolutions (including Egypt during the Arab Spring), also constitutes the symbol
of several organizations involved in the anti-Trump engineered protest movement.
The Inauguration Disrupt Campaign: Disruptj20
... The Disruptj20.org campaign is calling
for the disruption of the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:
#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective
of experienced local activists and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re
building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump
and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like
housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.
The actions contemplated include “setting up blockades at checkpoints to prevent people from gaining
access to the inauguration proceedings”. A spokesperson confirmed that #DisruptJ20 campaign
would be “creating a framework to support mass protests and direct action to shut down the
inauguration of Donald Trump” .
This could potentially lead to violent clashes with tens of thousands of Trump supporters, which
is the ultimate objective of an engineered “Color Revolution” style protest movement supported covertly
by US intelligence. It’s part of the logic of a “color revolution” scenario (e.g. Kiev-Maidan, Cairo-Tahir
Square) which is predicated on triggering confrontation and urban violence.
Is the Disrupt Campaign committed to deliberately staging violence on January 20?
“The idea is to shut down access to the parade as much as possible and slowing it down to a
crawl,” said DisruptJ20 organizer Legba Carrefour. “Then there’s the broader goal of shutting
down the entire city around it and creating a sense of paralysis that creates a headline that
says, ‘Trump’s inauguration creates chaos.’” (NBC,
January 17, 2017)
The organizers of the engineered protest movement are funded by powerful corporate interests,
they are supported by US intelligence. The objective is not to undermine the racist right wing agenda
of Donald Trump as conveyed in the video below. Quite the opposite.
John F. Kennedy was entirely right about the CIA … and that was back in 1961. Imagine how
much worse the global CIA-run tyranny is in 2017, 56 years later. In addition to brutally murdering
the American president, how many other heads of state have been summarily assassinated by the Central
Not only did the C.I.A. frame Lee Harvey Oswald because he was actually working for Attorney General
Bobby Kennedy, they also killed John F. Kennedy, Jr. to maintain the ongoing cover-up
… after they killed Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968.
It’s true that JFK, Jr. was very close to outing George H.W. Bush as the CIA’s point man in Dallas
on the day of President Kennedy’s Assassination. He even named his iconic magazine — GEORGE
— after the elder Bush assassin.
Now the world knows why President Kennedy was so determined to “splinter the CIA in a thousand
pieces” as his own son would eventually be murdered by the same rogue elements in The Company,
as would his brother be conspiratorially killed by them.
How the Brass Talked Another President Into a Losing Strategy Despite tough talk, Trump
approach on Afghanistan is no different than 2009. By
August 22, 2017
President Donald Trump walks with U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Michael Howard, commander of Joint Force
Headquarters, at Arlington National Cemetery, May 29, 2017. Behind them are Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis and U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Flickr/CreativeCommons/DOD
photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley)
The American people don't like long wars with uncertain outcomes!and never have. That was true
in 1953, when the U.S. accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North Koreans,
and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious defeat and 58,000 dead at the
hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North Vietnamese army. "Never fight a land war in Asia,"
General Douglas MacArthur famously said, and for good reason: in both Korea and Vietnam, the enemy
could be endlessly supplied and reinforced.
The solution, in both cases, was to either widen the war or leave. In Korea, MacArthur proposed
expanding the war by taking on Chinese military sanctuaries in China (which got him fired), while
in Vietnam, Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia and mined North Vietnam's harbors, an
expansion of the war that sparked a genocide and merely postponed the inevitable. America's adventures
in Iraq and Afghanistan have been as unsatisfying. A troop surge retrieved America's position in
Iraq, though most military officers now view Baghdad as "a suburb of Tehran" (as a currently serving
Army officer phrased it), while the U.S. has spent over $800 billion on a Kabul government whose
writ extends to sixty percent of the country!or less.
Given this, it's not surprising that opinion surveys showed that the majority of the U.S. military
supported Donald Trump in the last election; Trump promised a rethink of America's Iraq and Afghanistan's
adventures, while Clinton was derided as an interventionist, or in Pentagon parlance, "cruise missile
liberal." Trump had the edge over his opponent among both military voters and veterans, especially
when it came to ISIS: "I would bomb the shit out of them"
he said, a statement translated
in the military community as "I would bomb the shit out of them!and get out." A headline in
The Military Times two months before the election said it all: "After 15 years of war, America's
military has about had it with 'nation building.'"
As it turned out, the military weren't the only ones who'd "had it with nation building"!so too
did Donald Trump. Back in January 2013, two years before he was a candidate for president, Trump
made it clear what he would do if he ever occupied the White House. "Let's get out of Afghanistan,"
tweeted. "Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense!
Rebuild the USA." Three days later, Trump was even more outspoken, explicitly endorsing Barack Obama's
Afghanistan strategy!which amounted to a troops surge, followed by a troop drawdown. "I agree with
Pres. Obama on Afghanistan," he wrote. "We should have a speedy withdrawal. Why should we keep wasting
our money – rebuild the U.S.!"
addressing the American people Monday on his "new strategy in South Asia" (a purposeful trope
used to signal his intention to shape a broader, regional policy), Trump appears to have embraced
the military's anti-nation building sentiments, while adopting a policy of "winning," though without
saying exactly how that would happen. The policy! which also includes not saying how many troops
"winning" will take, or setting a timetable for victory!includes a pledge of help from America's
allies, and a new focus on Pakistan. Trump was also intent to signal that his new strategy (the war
will be left in the hands of warfighters, he announced, and not "micro-managed from Washington")
is much different than the one adopted by his predecessors who, as he all but said, got it wrong.
In fact, though he would almost certainly deny it, what Trump has proposed is a reprise of what
Barack Obama did in January of 2009.
Back then, one of Obama's first decisions on Afghanistan was to assign Bruce Riedel, a 30-year
CIA veteran and South Asia expert, to study the conflict and come up with ways to fight it. The following
March, on Air Force One, Riedel briefed Obama on his conclusions. Afghanistan would be a big problem
for a long time, he said, but the situation in the country was getting worse. The Kabul government
was corrupt, its leaders were out-of-touch with the Afghan people and the Taliban and al-Qaeda were
gaining strength. But even with that, Riedel added, the real problem wasn't really Afghanistan, it
was Pakistan. "That's the real challenge," Riedel said.
Obama agreed with Riedel's sobering assessment and, on March 27, 2009, he announced his decision
to the American people. "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor
Pakistan," Obama said in a nationally televised address. "In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaeda
and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier."
Put more simply (though Obama did not mention it), the same problem that the U.S. had faced in Korea,
and again in Vietnam and Iraq!its failure to destroy the sanctuaries where its enemies could be reinforced
and resupplied!it was now facing in Afghanistan. To deal with that problem, Obama appointed super-diplomat
Richard Holbrooke to serve as a special envoy to the region (and to work with Centcom commander David
Petraeus "to integrate our civilian and military efforts"), launched a drone war against Taliban
and al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan, urged Congress to pass a $1.5 billion aid package to Pakistan that
would make American strikes more palatable and then, the following May, replaced General David McKiernan,
the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with Stanley McChrystal.
It didn't work.
In 2012, reporter and author Rajiv Chandrasekaran (whose book Little America: The War Within
the War for Afghanistan remains the authoritative source on the Obama plan) concluded that while
the Taliban was "pushed out of large stretches of southern Afghanistan," and the "influx of U.S.
resources accelerated the development of the Afghan security forces"
did not achieve its objectives . In effect, the Obama administration threw good money after bad:
Afghan president Hamid Karzai never bought into the strategy, the Pakistanis failed to "meaningfully
pursue" the Taliban and the Afghan army hung back!allowing the U.S. to do the fighting. What the
U.S. should have done, Chandrasekaran wrote, was "go long." Afghanistan is not a sprint, he concluded,
but a marathon!and America "got winded too quickly."
James Mattis and H.R. McMaster have digested these lessons, a senior Pentagon official told me
just hours before Trump's national address, and "have spent the last weeks trying to convince the
president that the 'three yards and a cloud of dust' approach," as he termed it, will work. Roughly
translated, what that means is that in adopting a more modest increase in American troops, as McMaster
and Mattis told Trump, the president would be signaling that while the U.S. was willing to help the
Afghan government fight the Taliban, the numbers would not be significant enough to defeat them!that
would have to be done by the Afghan Army. In truth, the McMaster-Mattis approach (what one senior
Pentagon officer described as "doubling down on a war that is going nowhere") has some support in
the U.S. diplomatic community, and particularly among those civilians who have spent years working
in the country.
Among these is David Sedney, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, who is the former acting president of the American University of Afghanistan and served
as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. For Sedney,
it's the uncertainty of the American commitment that has been the problem. "We've been ambivalent
about Afghanistan for the last fifteen years," he told The American Conservative , "and
this has given hope to the Taliban and Pakistan. The message that they've taken is that all they
need do is wait the U.S. out. Bush focused on Iraq and Obama put in troops caps." One of the keys,
Sedney goes on to say, is that the U.S. "has failed to strengthen the Afghan state in fundamental
ways, but the most important is to make a commitment and keep it. That's the key."
Sedney also has little use for the views retailed inside the White House by outside experts, like
Frontier Services Group president Eric Prince, who advised the administration (in a Wall Street
Journal op-ed back in May, and then in a personal meeting with McMaster) to increase the number
of contractors in the country, thereby allowing for a drawdown in U.S. troops while also, as Prince
argued, saving the U.S. money. While some Pentagon officials speculated as late as last week that
secretary Mattis "was not as opposed to the Prince's ideas as was originally thought," more recent
reports say that the idea "was dead on arrival in the Pentagon, almost from the minute it was mentioned."
Sedney dismisses the idea out of hand, citing his experience with his students in Kabul. "My students
don't want an American proconsul," he says, "they want an Afghan government that knows how to do
the job, and that should be our focus."
But while Trump has apparently nixed Prince's contractor idea (and it went unmentioned in his
speech), Pentagon officials tell The American Conservative that he has quietly bought into
claims that the U.S. can help revive the Afghan economy by exploiting the nation's mineral resources.
While Trump did not mention the program in his speech, and the claim remains debated in the White
House, the president (a senior Pentagon civilian told TAC) "is intent to explore ways for this war
to pay for itself"!which apparently includes a review of whether Afghanistan's resources can be exploited
sufficiently to put the Afghan government on a sound footing. Will it work?
"It's a pig in a poke," a former Pentagon official who worked in Afghanistan on identifying the
deposits told The American Conservative , "don't believe a word of it." The archaic "pig in
a poke" phrase, which denotes that a buyer should beware of buying a pig that couldn't be seen (because
it was in a "poke," or bag), denotes the common belief that while Afghanistan may contain the mineral
deposits numerous mining surveys have identified, they remain elusive. Then too, as the former Pentagon
official with whom we spoke says, the idea that American companies will realize a windfall on the
mineral scheme (to which, as a businessman, Trump is particularly attracted), is simply not in reach.
"American companies no longer do the kind of mining that it would take," this former Pentagon
official says, "security is bad, and commodity prices have collapsed. Why would companies invest
in mineral deposits in Afghanistan when they won't make the same investments in Australia." Which
is to simply say that the Afghanistan problem is now, under Trump, what it was under George W. Bush
and Barack Obama!an intransigent challenge whose resolution is dependent on fighting and winning
a war against an enemy who can fight, retreat, resupply and reinforce and fight again. The key to
that victory is now what it has always been: Pakistan. Trump, and McMaster and Mattis, realize this
of course, which is why tonight the president focused on providing a strategy for "South Asia"!a
phrase the defense secretary, in particular, has used over the last weeks.
"I have hope for Afghanistan," CSIS's Sedney says. "The Afghan military is fighting better than
ever before. When I went to Kabul in 2002, Kabul looked like Dresden, but now it's a vibrant city.
Yes, the Taliban can kill people, but most Afghanis are moving ahead with their lives in spite of
this. The problem is that, as we've seen over the last decade, a small minority can keep the country
destabilized. That's what we have to stop. We have to come up with a way of stopping that."
In the wake of Trump's address, credit for its opening paean was given to new White House chief
of staff John Kelly, the retired Marine Corps general who, TAC was told, insisted that Trump use
the speech to walk back the controversy of his remarks on Charlottesville!a suggestion that both
McMaster and Mattis readily agreed to when Trump's national security team met on Friday at Camp David.
In the end, however, it was McMaster and Mattis who had the greatest influence on Trump's thinking.
"There was all this speculation that maybe, just maybe, the president would somehow come around to
getting out," the senior Pentagon civilian with whom we spoke said, "but that was never going to
happen. Jim Mattis wouldn't let it happen. You can see his fingerprints all over this."
Another Pentagon observer had a much different take. "This is Joe Biden's plan, all the way,"
he said, referring to the then-Vice President's recommendation to Obama back in 2009. "Biden said
that we should increase counterterrorism operations, draw down U.S. forces in the provinces, increase
pressure on Pakistan and make a deal with India. Obama said 'no' to the idea, but you can bet Mattis
was listening. This is his plan all the way."
Almost everyone at the Pentagon agrees, though key senior military officers who have been privy
to James Mattis's thinking over the last weeks (but who remain unconvinced by it) provide a cautionary,
and nearly fatalistic, note. "This Trump plan, at least so far as I understand it, sounds a lot like
the kind of plan we've come up with again and again since the end of World War Two," a senior Pentagon
officer says. "We're going to surge troops, reform the government we support and put pressure on
our allies. In this building [the Pentagon] there's a hell of a lot of skepticism. And that's because
we all know what this new strategy really means – and what it means that the only way we can get
out of Afghanistan is to get further in. You know, it seems to me that if there's one thing we've
learned, it's that that doesn't work."
Buchanan demonstrates very superficial understanding of the result of the USSR collapse.
Afghan war was just one contributing factor. It was never the primary reason. Soviet
people understood pretty well that they actually faced the USA in Afghan war. Or more
correctly the combination of the USA has technological superiority, Saudi money and
political Islam. The fact that the USA supplied Stingers portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers.
Which later will shoot down some US helicopters. The fact the the USA fe-factor put
political Islam on front burner later will bite the USA several times.
Also Buchanan does not understand the role of neoliberal revolution (or coup d'état if you
wish, called quite coup) of 80th in the current US troubles. Trump was the first ever presidential
candidate, who companied and managed to win the elections on promises to tame neoliberal
globalization. The fact that he was crushed in six month of so is not surprising, as he
faced very well organize Trotskyite militants (aka deep state) - neoliberalism is actually
Trotskyism for rish. Russiagate witch hunt with its Special Prosecutor is a replica of
Stalin processes. As Marx used to say history repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill. and this is the essence of Trump betrual of his
"... Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country. ..."
"... Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action." ..."
"... Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze. ..."
"... Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war. ..."
"... America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars. ..."
"... This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda? ..."
"... Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election. ..."
"... For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance. ..."
"... I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base. ..."
"... Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. ..."
"... Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy. ..."
"... Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises. ..."
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in
November 1942. True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation. When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began
the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the
process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever
seen had vanished.
While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made mo re
humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and
bankrupted his nation. At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching
bemused contempt. War is the health of the state, but the death of empires. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War
II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after.
The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.
Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council,
Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan
to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its
longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we
failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating
the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a
Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.
Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a
strategy? "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged
indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years? Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the
certainty as to what will follow when we leave.
When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition
of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus. When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of
being loyal to the Mother Country. When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets,
concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final
resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has
been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures
of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.
Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the
West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an
alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely.
Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."
If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not
ruling out preventive war.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that
would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.
America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder
more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay
out of future wars.
America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the
NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China. America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal
Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda,
This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he
tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together
economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he
quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda?
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This quote is so
well-known that almost everyone knows it, except perhaps the politicians and the generals.
Afghanistan has been called the deathbed of empires. The two recent empires to go down are
the British and the Soviet. For almost 200 years the British tried to tame the Afghan tribes
but couldn't. The devastation they caused did not deter the natives. It is all there in the
history books for everyone to read. The Soviet empire didn't even last ten years. It cut its
losses and ran.
The lack of teaching of history and geography in American schools is quite evident when
one looks at the performance of American forces in Afghanistan after 17 years. Add the
arrogance of the Presidents and the generals to this lack of knowledge and one can understand
the disasterous results of the Afghan war. One other subject that is missing from the modern
presidency is diplomacy. War over diplomacy seems to be the order of the day.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he
has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the
failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain
the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the
main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased
out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness
can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed
him in the election.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war
that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
It is never going to happen. Not only the Middle East would be set ablaze, but America
will lose its European allies as well. The relations with Russia are already confrontational
and heading fast towards an ultimate war. European allies are also confused about the US
foreign policy or lack thereof. Trade war is brewing with China. The only country which is
happy with this chaos is Israel.
For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very
simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys
home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these
soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have
been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the
process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance.
No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan why would America think it can? Likely
just throwing a bone to the neocons. As for Iran, Trump has been beating his chest all over
the World and doing nothing, again with the Neocon feeding, I don't think he has any intention
of getting into anything larger than a skirmish with anyone, he's a lot smarter than he looks
Well while Mr. Buchanan is not an expert in Balkans history, or politics, as I've argued
here, he is excellent in American history and politics. An article somewhat short, because he
is not connecting his sharp analysis to ongoing First Amendment disaster. It comes along,
obviously, but still an excellent piece.
To be copied and saved in my personal archives, anyway. I do not believe that even this site
will last long.
Greetings from Serbia, suicidal country controlled from that feudal fortress (US Embassy)
where our Scott-Pasha resides.
It was the eclipse that swept across America to change it forever.
We now know we are on our own, there is no political solution for this war.
The eclipse marks the end of a war, our war, we lost.
Trump extends Afghan swamp war on the very day.
Eclipse was conjunct Trumps Mars, he was castrated.
Doesn't mean we won't win, but it won't be via the rigged ballot box and the DC swamp.
I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in
the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for
him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
But if it prevents tens of thousands of knuckle dragging Afghans steeped in a culture of
violence, pedophilia and pederasty from entering America as refugees then I guess there's a
think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the
oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him
in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the
Democratic email releases, but The New York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine
can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible
outcome were not a nuclear conflagration and maybe the end of life on planet
A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page
article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was
linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow
the whistle on Russian hacking."
Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by
Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins contained one important admission (buried deep inside the
"jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially for those Americans
who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.
The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a
different reality: that the Russia-gate "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU
military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary
"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that
connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian
government," Carr said.
Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers
whose thinking has been fattened up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat
fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies, however, have
been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."
The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark
although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt
about Russia's guilt.
"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic
break-in of the Democratic national Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion
that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then another reminder that
"Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."
By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that
any deviant views on this subject must be slapped down promptly and decisively.
A Flimsy Assessment
But that gets us back to the problem with the Jan. 6
"Intelligence Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims
-- was not
the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, but rather the work of a small group
of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau
of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of
President Obama's political appointees, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who called them
Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they
acknowledged was not a determination of fact, but rather what amounted to their best guess
based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.
The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that
we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and
Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network
RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012 presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded
from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, and reporting
on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on
But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other
mainstream news outlets – treated it as gospel and pretended that it represented a
"consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly, the
Times slipped in a
correction to that falsehood in one article although continuing to use similar
language in subsequent stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how
shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly
that the Russian government was the source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via
WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge. (This is not to
say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include
relevant denials from parties facing accusations.)
The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the
Times reported that the hacker, known only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents
inside Ukraine.President Barack Obama and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to
the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland,
June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective
investigative standards. The Ukrainian government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as
engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.
Ukraine's SBU security service also has been implicated
in possible torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to
Ukrainian government detention facilities housing ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the
violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme
nationalists and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into
the July 17, 2014 shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored
evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible – not even
addressing a Dutch/NATO intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile
batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of the Ukrainian military
– and instead tried to
pin the atrocity on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.
In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy
Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged Russian government hacking operations –
The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a
specific mission like just another military unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have
operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like coding is
outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."
Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that
no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to its lair has so far proved impossible, not least
because many experts believe that no such single place exists."
The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery
– so to the rescue came the "reliable" regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging
from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian government
The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the
Russians albeit without any real evidence.
The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken
report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently
implicated the government authorities in Moscow."
The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look
like an official Ukrainian election graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro
Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly sent this "spoof"
graphic to Channel 1, which used it.
But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results,
suggests an effort to discredit Channel 1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship
between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made this example a
cornerstone in its case against the Russians.
Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the
case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have every motive to send U.S. investigators in
directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.
So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel
truth by the Times and much of the U.S. government – and anyone who dares ask
inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper
into the status of laughable but also malicious clowns?
Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT --
The only group maintaining any respectability within these entities is the VIPS group.
Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may
nuke you --
You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of
the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights for his pet project by any means and he is beyond
himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria and thus
stopped the dissolution of Syria.
The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea
of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.
And he wants to see Iran
obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide
the best living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see
profits, even if his profitable fake-news business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess.
He is not aware that the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable
life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface. Would not this planet be better
without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?
JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about
the "peasants" they trample. They are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or
other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem. At the center of
that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and
thereby the media and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military
machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and
the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better
journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of
potential or lost subscribers.
j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm
The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to
President Trump, first published on this site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has
rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening message to The
Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now?
Shift the tactic to playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods,
and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged event in Charlottesville, being all
too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of
Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm
I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia
defies any objective investigative standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch
investigators confirm a Russian-blaming narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent
that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian)
I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis.
Those who fell for the Bre-X scam some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the
disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done an independent
collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and
people may have just assumed such an independent collection had taken place.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm
It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian
government, are considered reliable sources in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing
international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of
simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a
hacker somewhere else to make absurd claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe
this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes all others to be
The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and
totally disavowed all forms of racism, white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon
did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from the Wall Street
gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting
base.) Perhaps the glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out
next? "Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives
Matter and Antifa are the real threat" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/ "Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children
after Israeli generals)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm
Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address in Tel Aviv Israel,
and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of
I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies,
servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy
and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have its servers in
Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its
servers could be anywhere. So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.
Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter
anti-Russia views on both fronts, it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers
by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must be a real growth industry
in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.
Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm
This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to
publish "evidence" of malfeasance on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in
2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's weapons of mass
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm
At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the
office of VP Cheney, who would later cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD,
completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff were pressured
by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance
germinated in the mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and
abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs with that administration.
Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm
There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA
Director to wage a war against Trump. Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy?
Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable
suppositions as to who put this mess in motion and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it.
He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's
ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made
some kind of deal, reached some kind of accommodation.
Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm
It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM
is unwilling to ask the same hard questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing
that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in their desperate desire
to bring down Trump.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the
flimsy Russia-gate distraction when there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize
the Trump administration.
*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm
Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and
NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow, FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc)
that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm
But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with
neocons to bring Trump down.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.
Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I
believe this is what Drogon was saying, and I also believe it's a valid point.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC.
But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said
some pretty factual things that made sense, you had to go find something to make a negative
comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish I'll bet your
working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look
If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't
bring any class, or anything worthwhile to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you
probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last couple of
days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation,
but as I can see I shouldn't take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter
what what is wrong with you man.
Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm
All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think
Russia-gate will, but it is obviously that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore
than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over Russia when they have
much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is
real AND impeachable, but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect
attention from their internal problems and many among their number are guilty of similaar
crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it
doesn't advance their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help
mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if he is ever going to be impeached.
turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm
That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian
connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline of factual events. Tells the story better for
anyone with an open mind.
Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and,
as such, he almost certainly has corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty
much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical, these
connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there
currently any evidence that he collaborated with the Russian government to throw the
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has
I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:
"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case
that she had acted wrongly in Libya "
Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent
woman on that account. Obviously nobody would have commented if it had been a MAN with the
same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's email
The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being
they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- -- -- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most
of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't
held to somewhat different standards than men.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for
me, now it's just the place for Trump and Putin apologists.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS
himself, who pretends to be a former supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS
himself, who pretends to be a former supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers
Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association
tool again. Anyone critical of the Official Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian
bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from you
automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm
He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm
I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and
claim to have refuted. That's not winning an argument, it's just being loud and
LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am
So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the
chain of events. Very illustrative. Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm
The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC
corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption, is that Russia interfered with the 2016
election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with
Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which
you're pushing here. There is no evidence on the specific accusation that Trump worked with
Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association, give
us a heads-up on where and what it is.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm
WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than
consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections to Russian (and Italian) organized
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm
That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.
Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to
influence the election. Two different animals.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy
from foreign vulture capitalists, only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies,
as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies. It's shockingly
Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for
the corporate intelligence network not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with
right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist and often
advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he
starts out by "poisoning the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never
really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA is all the rage among
Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil
Putin's maneuvers but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion
was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually read it).
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm
BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New
York, and London too. They were lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too
Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the West. That is how our
British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the
West they are, never really learnt the art you are describing.
May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting
Russia in a big way. But they have not dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these
intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm
If your mind is open like a sieve.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm
The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information.
A dam on the other hand prevents the flow. Most here have built dams against anything
implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from many sources.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists,
especially with respect to Charlottesville e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm
guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat alone in standing
up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in
disputing the 'official' narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as
well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight to the American empire, it
doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist
authoritarian into the presidency.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made
sure that he didn't stand a chance to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton
means she cheats.
Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your
selling. She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to
almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of a person .now go
mimic me you clown.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
"Bernie would have won"
"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to
You should get your money back for the ESL course.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm
BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on
the carcass of the USSR and the state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts
with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the most unrestrained crony
capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me
wonder who these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am
What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm
Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate
propaganda is intended solely to distract from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So
you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of accusations of
the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS
is. I guess you find it easier to ignore dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona.
And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking of our election
and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like
"Russiagate" is a cheap parlor trick.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am
BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and
apparently you know it. I demand your evidence, not propaganda.
DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am
"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well
All that's missing is evidence.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm
I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself
out of the market, as have many other newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking
out even the meanest of livings.
It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump
hysteria in general, to which has been added the charge of his being a white nationalist
Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in conjunction
with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide
so-called progressives while casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as
sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite a challenging
environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the
conventional wisdom being touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very
fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks
to Trump for defending them.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents
their views. This includes what would be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and
Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5%
threshold they are represented in the legislature and may even participate in forming a
government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties is closer to their
own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't
mean that Trump is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate
from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump,
because you are still living the 2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances,
how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain) orchestrated the coup in
Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?
Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with
me, but it does mean you are an ignorant know it all, if you don't answer me with some common
Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who
whether they agreed with you or not, at least the use of good manners did lead to our
learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person, with your
little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule
the way you do. In other words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that
way with your words and actions when you do the silly things you do with your rude
It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge
builder. So, when your ready to grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I
will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm
Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed
to be merely mistaken – he's simply not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT
employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from some stolen
land in Israel.
Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy
As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were
as bad as they seem. But how to test this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what
they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted sinking of
the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.
Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".
According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT
site within the past 12 months. Double checking, I went to the site and entered the term into
the search there. Nothing.
They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to
get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of
the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out of Syria. The
professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do
everything they can to disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is
becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The deliberate chaos created by
these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.
By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written
which is notable in any way whatever? I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with
them as well.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am
Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is
comforting. No, I'm actually honored that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day.
Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.
You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here
it is in case you haven't, or for the others who may find interest in it as well.
I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm
You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he
acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in conjunction with a politically
charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly
clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt
about his sentiments.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white
supremacist has nothing to do with reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach
to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What we have is people who
want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a
president. Since the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is
still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is now being milked for everything it has.
It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing to
do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it.
People may be making idiots of themselves, but for them, the ends justifies the means.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are
laid out. It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require
mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they might actually be
doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and
embrace both. The world and people are complex, not neatly black or white.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm
I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came
out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had
no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that if their misdeeds
were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump
should he win the election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war,
already well underway under the Obama administration. It's basic science that you can't come
to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed
their lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in
pushing this lie while the American public, and in this case the so called
liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally
scary is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes
to impeach Trump. Our President is a crook, as well as a racist.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm
I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or
Cheney called a racist, or if they were, did the American people buy into it the way they
have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations which are
predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of
innocents with drone warfare? Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are
we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries were predominately
Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these
countries? What about those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to
conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention our sense of entitlement to
practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right
in. Take a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and
never get a fair trial, and most of the prison population is black although they constitute a
small minority in this country.
I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but
she refused to visit an elderly, and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in
and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.
"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and
accurately, in my opinion) criticizing Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white
supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood
and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect
someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could -- you could say
that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a
secure homeland that's for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he
avoided addressing Spencer's point.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to
point a finger at someone's perceived racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too
often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration policies and
deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million
immigrants. Many Americans don't place what is going on now within an historical framework,
not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there is an attempt to undermine the
people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but
more then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on
lies and innuendo. I really don't think that's a good thing --
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm
Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.
You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in
pushing this lie while the American public, and in this case the so called
liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally
scary is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."
By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing
left in the country as free and fair Media which informs public. And all these agencies you
mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives are like most
of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm
My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical
over the Trump presidency, as is she. He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point
of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and will define himself as a
liberal thinker. Bah humbug --
"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark
although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no
doubt about Russia's guilt."
The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS.
It's almost as if the NYT's suffering under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on
their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they resort to repeating
over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel
agencies' assurances. They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and
sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval and uncertainty.
To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to
do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize
fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan who's out
of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the
Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY
Times , it would be fair to assess it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington
propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets to claim the
Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm
Too close to call.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm
From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies
"lack a solid evidentiary foundation."
What would that evidentiary foundation be?
Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to
fix the election, starting with hacking the DNC.
Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I
wouldn't doubt it."
Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.
Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this
story is true.
Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says
it's true so it must be true.
Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.
Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:
Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–
"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as
well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.
Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ
from a high assessment–was some of the logic–since the statement indicates no
proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?
He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this
Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what
this "high" meant, based on what?
Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC
computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike, shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian
source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.
This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM
to which we citizens are now either a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.
"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.
The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there
(Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel
like I have to wash off.
John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm
America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media
soon the spark of hate will become an uncontrollable wildfire
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm
It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If
you don't think the USA has powerful IT divisions who can forensically determine source and
method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction. If you
believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument
that they don't know anymore than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of
the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to protect us in this case from
enemies foreign and domestic.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm
No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when
tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove of hack methods including false-flagging methods on
the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations of Russia from
a Ukrainian hacker.
If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give
testimony, after some reasonable period, where grave accusations must be either discredited
or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."
The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm
What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter
espionage investigation that has been in progress for over one year, and these take years to
conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and intel, but you cannot
simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you.
There are reasons to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am
Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to
the public, with immediate political implications, especially conclusions that serve
immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public even after a
month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations"
on "high confidence" has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel
I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are
critical secrets might be revealed with the evidence, although it appears that the secrets
could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure method, such as
disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues
to direct other safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy
well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny, a product of excessive spying, and
must be discounted by the public.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm
By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of
the office of special counsel. I wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in
progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and useful to flip for a
leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it.
It's merely the chronological presentation of factual events.
That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be
persuaded to show it.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm
I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it
gets the treatment.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix
the election. Point to anything in this time-line that offers evidence.
Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.
Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that
shows something to be a fact."
This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these
assessments, in which "what we want to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote
Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.
Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official
government reps over many years now, as well as your swerving aside to an irrelevant
"time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.
I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm
That's why I'm outraged.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you
say you were outraged, because your squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will
you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the
NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates? To selected politicians, including executive
bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits
twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm
Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt
Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm
"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National
Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"
Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New
York Times erroneously made this claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER
been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think your piece would be
strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid
confusion, if you will.
Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:
This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad
more dire than the title of the book):
This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America
and probably the world-very long but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments
in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of perusing:
We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though,
that the conversation should be had, but not without looking at the type of individuals who
flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read regarding these
young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry
over the rise of minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote,
they complain that we spend to much time worried about bathrooms over them having a decent
job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not the
various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is
themselves for not being able to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They
need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority losing any of their
rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they
are their own best hope .attitude is altitude.
I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am
Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS
making a difference. Long time ago, when there was an abundance of factories churning out all
sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into the country to
fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to
With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a
need for the same amount of "unskilled" labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into
the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell curve supposed to
do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?
It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make
any sense to you, that it's about the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make
you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start banging your head
against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of
people? So some corporation can maintain a cheap labor force?
Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that
when things are reduced to words, you miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the
sincerity in a person's voice.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am
You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.
For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require
us to pull together. You see, I don't believe that all these problems should be remedied with
racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all I'm saying. If only
our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If
only this country's political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall
St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her historical bio. You see
backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain
Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for
our leaders to reach out or down, which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us
together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful nation God ever
put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with
that? I'll tell you what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this
leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced this ever distant leadership with
ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.
Thanks for your response. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am
Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe.
I think they get angry that they are not being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say
doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially in the
MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No
time now, Joe. Thanks.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way.
You more than likely may have a point that these young white men are not racist, that for
many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out their
What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as
unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric they can find to say how they are going to create
many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing, as they go
on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians
seem completely oblivious too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they
Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most
cases it does prove that to those who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians
were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country, then why don't they
do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and
food for 25 of your guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a
sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with enough new jobs to fill the quota of
the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe
they just didn't care enough to do something about it.
So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because
they were neglected by the very people who said they would help them. I don't know about you,
but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their back on you.
I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you
at least get a peek of what is going on inside my head, with these important issues.
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am
"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same
words to backwardsevolution with whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar
examples of respectful debaters.
I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that
most Americans, especially most Southern Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of
the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump is the king of all
racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on
a racist agenda thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The
whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously contrived to me to distract from
other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him).
I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.
Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both
factions by professional agitators. They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if
there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared, fearing they might
lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and
a viable future. Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate
blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They can see how disadvantaged those
people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the
situation, certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political
rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My
parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half the country
does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do
not want to confront agitators in the street.
Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world
view. We contributors to this site do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully
ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't have enough time
to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I
doubt that many of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally
oblivious to will change their lives in any way and they certainly don't want to devote the
time or energy to fighting about them.
If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will
take some kind of action to bring back jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that
require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes alike. I
thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is
everything still in grid-lock in Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who
opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs in and even bring back
jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to
the idea stopped? If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of
contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers than the few idiots who buy the
When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first
term, he had devised a lengthy detailed plan of action called the "Contract for America." I
was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better with the public
than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another
election, in fact, we'll kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll
tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring peace and harmony to the streets."
If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me),
racism will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and
economically secure and optimistic about our futures. (I've had two black families and a
Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race
family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No.
Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect
my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am
Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and
immigration resistance among US workers. This is a great concern to those who advocate
international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.
The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations
that provide a standard of living that compares well with the lower middle class of the US,
and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be cheaper elsewhere,
so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US
worker is matched by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is
reduced by development assistance.
It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed
workers, without you or I being able to help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt
in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing decisions
without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am
" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am
Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of
steel mills. If you were a young apprentice sometimes on your first day on the job, no one
seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened that you were
to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and
inducted into the group. We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because
what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the existing work force. This
comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame
for this new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job,
was the big lie. Corporate profits override human necessity, and with that we all lose. I
don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to Amazons
convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown
society just cannot afford it.
Good comment as always Sam. Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm
You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from
such a divide and conquer tactic? The robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term
because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race goes back to before
the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving
race (and ethnicity) and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just
as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage following all the sturm und drang, all
the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one
will even remember we personally ever existed.
Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named
after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall) will still persist though, just like the confederate
statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this era and the players
who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even
happen here, not to honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the
purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve as a lesson rather than hero
worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E.
Lee, U.S. Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears
possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive, so insane?"
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am
I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what
you wrote here. I also think that our government should build right next to the Holocast
museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations who the U.S. had
destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a
Sunday teaching the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the
curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's beloved citizens will never know
to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to
itself. Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every
lie you ever told yourself.
The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how
our American culture is changing. What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by
today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead we should understand
that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart,
but I do believe that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are
witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know
Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that weren't
known then become known.
It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but
your right, at least the masses at his time in office thought the economy was what it was all
about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office, but your point is well
Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political
parties will need to accommodate the voter, if anything is to get better.
Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I
could not write what you had wrote any better. Your words are excellent to what we are
I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many
here who share such understandings.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am
Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out
and intelligent posts. They provide class and depth to the conversation. I, on the other
hand, do not really belong on this site.
Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am
Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am
Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm
Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong.
I personally look forward to reading your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and
that's no lie. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am
Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're
always very considerate. What I mean by "I do not really belong on this site" is that I just
see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll hang around a
while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm
"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"
With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am
Realist – excellent post. Thank you.
exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am
At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer,
was executed based on the crime of propagandizing for war. This article provides further
evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda lies. Since the
logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity
to that which was published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines
put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied to US war propagandists, their status as
war criminals would be apparent.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am
exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere,
and not just little ones, but huge mothers used to sway public opinion. These guys really
need to be in jail.
Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His
remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia State Police, but if you happened to hear what
McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you probably
would have believed McAuliffe.
"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter
activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe claimed the white nationalists who streamed into
Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.
"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed
around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.
McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to
find a line of militia members who "had better equipment than our State Police had." In
longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe said that up to 80
percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia
walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."
All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?
To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of
free speech, human rights and democracy, all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is
something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians should
wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am
Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am
Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in
Chicago and is very knowledgeable about these things. After reading The Nation article by
Patrick Lawrence, he said:
"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The
second part of the statement, however, is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with
either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.
When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the
slowest link in the middle.
There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second)
speeds. But you would need such pipes end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be
relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.
What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most
"pedestrian" operating systems do not handle well at all.
In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an
issue with the maximum realistically obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's
sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can be tuned for if
you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems --
specifically, server-class operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine
pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert knowledge to do so. [ ]
But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack."
The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data
directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack" at all: It's an inside
job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the
documents later to make it look like Russians.
And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.
PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an
SD card or external USB device plugged into the machine there is an event log from said
machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached. Find that log
(or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match
it against the metadata times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or
access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did it with near-certainty,
proved by the forensic evidence.
Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take
custody of said logs and go through them to perform this investigation -- which would have
pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."
Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been
repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered.
And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing
exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell,
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am
"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am
Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has
evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back
when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read that book,
and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the
many conversations which him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our
civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar may read 2017, but make no
mistake about it we are living in 1984.
I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that
would be a great loss. Although, these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every
crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings with it new restrictions.
It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event
brought us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece
of information, is covered over with conspiracy nut paper, and there go I.
Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us
with our own hard earned taxpayer money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any
Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe
Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo
op session with his new found friends the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your
taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain against your
government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that
paying your taxes, is your ticket to the complaint window.
What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to
delegitimize the results of any election, which would result in the world not honoring your
country's election results.
As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.
Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you
make believe you have made bobs.
Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.
Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am
Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back
to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal
investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian
interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with
Junior and offered him DNC "dirt". DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via
Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more than I am prepared
to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information
or from whom. The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do
this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?
Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all
that happened is that a PR flak (not in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to
arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.
That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic,
Trump is not Putin.
And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a
LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping tree-hugger.
Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm
A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non-
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with
each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.
Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false
information was fed to the public, large portions were revealed after the election, indicates
that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election, but rather intended as
use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed
she would win. You can read original piece here: https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get
But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the
Deep State, probably the CIA, for Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was
supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never consider that the
powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would
insinuate themselves into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest
that another article, another one from the New York Times, which tries to explain Hillary
suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the
article doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she
attended the Republican convention. After that she worked as an intern in Congress that
summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing
the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense,
sending wave after wave of B-52s over Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the
civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.
Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war
Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if
not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back then in
operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black
Panther trial in New Haven. Then a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law
office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.
In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on
the Yale campus, which holds out the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage
made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted and expected her to be
leading the charge in 2017.
As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.
Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds
and require mutual exclusivity "
Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and
location are critical secrets might be revealed with the evidence "
So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has
not yet reached the level at which the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public
any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough to force our leaders
with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.
That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more
dysfunction in govt and more people dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic
event that will put us over the line. Or not
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient
information after a month or so at only moderate loss of intelligence asset value, both on
the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after this
time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss
and reveal it, otherwise citizens may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are
deceiving them for political purposes.
Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible
source, email intercept, or recently dismissed employee or defector already protected; if
that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real source
must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or
location or capability, then modify them enough to make it look like another technology or
location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim
that the info comes from a distinct source or location, etc.
If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope
will improve, then the source is not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be
stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy making.
Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked,
you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog -- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating
Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the internet repeated the
evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing
as news anchors. The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the
sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the timing of the statue removal shit
stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must
go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation
and other web sites were starting to publish truth about "Russia gate"
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM
released info on trumps son meeting with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with
Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran it to "punish" trump
for the Putin meeting.
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor
..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact he is bothering to muddy these waters is both
flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.
Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am
President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media,
politicians in both parties, and monied folks but the way he was attacked and its effects
will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder how mindless
lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is
happening and will likely happen to them.
Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it
look like a Russian hack with some "credible" evidence that at least MSM and the masses can
swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
GR Editor's Note
This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on
Global Research in 2014.
In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth
recalling the history of US sponsored military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.
In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of
interfering in US politics.
This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military
coups, acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, covert ops in support of regime
In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime
change in Venezuela and Cuba
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign
government since the Second World War.
(* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Afghanistan 1980s *
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.
Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am
Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth)
HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying)
about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling a record
of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative &
ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth
Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."
– Crooked Hillary
Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm
There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the
information was another one of that countries 'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing
else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game
attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real
money – 'bitcoin'.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.
All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This
also applies to the other two infosec companies who weighed in on the evidence –
Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC servers,
the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a
That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either
circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore the only thing the FBI can see on that
"certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.
And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who
hates Putin and Russia, someone who sees Russian under every PC.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm
I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the
events unfolded last summer. In fact, from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking
Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any
way connects directly back to ANYONE, let alone the Russian government.
Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during
Moscow business hours." If you look at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one
hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business hours in Ukraine
– and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a
The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC
emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE for someone to access high-speed Internet.
Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has access
to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points
out, it's hard to get that kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe
where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.
Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally
from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator specially disavows that requirement. What is
important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking from
Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times
(which he acknowledges could be faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so
or even think of doing so.)
The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis
of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0
is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an entity inserted
into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.
And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he
has seen or had read to him an FBI report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff
Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC documents. And that
Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those
documents or using it to transfer them to Wikileaks.
Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier
articles will bury the "DNC hack" story completely.
Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:
1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is
no real reason why Russia would hack the DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the
If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the
entire "Russia influencing the election" story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump
collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.
Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may
still have hacked the DNC at some point. I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd
never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet because of
the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second,
they wouldn't have left any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to
Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network
(easily done as demonstrated by US penetration testers all the time) or used a wireless
connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's
assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a
DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails. In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack,
and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence except perhaps some
evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.
Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was
REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the
FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal
hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame
Russia for a hack.
It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract
basis either to perform hacks or to buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely
that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC hackers had to be
incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political
party in the US.
You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking
everything in the US connected to the election, and 2) that they are so incompetent as to
leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.
In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is
merely attribution to a collection of hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole
exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building in China, which
if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no
individuals or agencies can be reliably identified by attribution.
Instead, what we get is the following:
1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility
that the hacker of said target MUST BE a "nation state actor."
2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to
target a similar target is ASSUMED to be either the same hacker or associated with the same
hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE entities – APT28
and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)
3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the
subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."
An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack,
and that is now used as justification for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group,
when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET of the hack they
"assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.
In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge,
and/or 2) that it will be interesting, and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally
Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the hacker
underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.
The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the
tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive". Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he
spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.
Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained
offline that specifically identifies a given organization or individuals, attribution of a
specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.
Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor
operational security and allowed email addresses and other identifying information that
connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get
away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a
At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial,
non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have
been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of the
alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm
Correction to my post:
"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"
now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its
current issue that reads like a doctoral thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a
hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing trump..
hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be
convincing to readers of political gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as
you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.
To a certain extent Bannon firing was the sacrifices that converted Trump into Bush
II. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory. the problem that brought Trump
to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable
within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version
of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff. And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks
doomed to be failure.
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump
can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells
us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote
in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough.
But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in
his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?
It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when
it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a
battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.
Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it
in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that
cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about
accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself
into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter
and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence
than the current White House occupant.
Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize
his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion
to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy
was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility
would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care
mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.
He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House,
the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's
white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial
base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis,
and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.
Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for
years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed
in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider
some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.
Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge
as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border,
and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all,
according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship
or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans.
But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and
illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe.
He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and
seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President
Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies.
He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and
he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In
all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed
to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital
Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an
automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly
China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the
country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that
had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.
The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what
allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but
only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing
He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed
way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied
his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's
nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro,
his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement
in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction
of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.
In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans
to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative
is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan
had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program).
And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.
What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president
to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion
a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where
he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In
a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness
for a game of political checkers.
And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented
Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies
during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment
message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the
Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these
people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful
It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such
a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path
to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within
West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency
But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top
of the global power structure, is winging it.
Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.
If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to
improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some
time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more
prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde
meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.
Oracle of Kypseli
Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are
starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend
into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but
perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.
The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of
political correcteness and feel good predisposition.
The history of western investment in third world resources does not
make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver
mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused
of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.
The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and
British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the
resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but
a degraded environment and mammoth debt.
The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at
cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.
"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the
actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with
it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have
all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they
now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,
True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult
period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US independence etc).
...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through
industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications,
ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...
This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted
in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre
war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to
oust Brit influence.
edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"
all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning
experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."
This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical
capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental
universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the
West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love
to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than
USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.
My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the
Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country
back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want
nor understand the concept of moving forward.
Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.
Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM
Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there
would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.
The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than
the coming century.
The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is
huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to
be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so
far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far,
with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still
have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.
But back to the topic at hand..
Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.
The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources.
Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move
The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature.
Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.
Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in
peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already
in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.
"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair
intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized,
these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth.
They couldn't have been more wrong..."
Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World
Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that
the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold
fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout
Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's
best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation
through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless
"shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern
John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...
Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --
I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,
'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains
that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.
Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have
worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"
This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling
of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets,
followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.
This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.
I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??
Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native
criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and
pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of
like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom
from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.
You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant
at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from
the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology,
astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......
Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.
Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world
and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....
August 19, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating.
Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now
literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy
too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction
outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.
Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine
does, you're doing something wrong.
By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter:
@Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at
On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist
counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer
rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national
crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist,
neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.
As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the
so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often
outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in
the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential
or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions".
The most egregious example is
Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch
most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people,
with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals,
events and institutions) be investigated.
Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant
and Jim Ludes of
the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost
word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia."
These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections"
or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that
they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials
and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply
for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.
Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although
in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select
group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's
presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated
and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.
So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations
of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a
divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was
once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is
unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD
from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure
in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media
where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon",
this connection is often enough to be declared the
smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .
Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground
occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a
radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor"
and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed
his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't
accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.
In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology
of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific,
obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students
mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw
was Dugin's interview where
he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages
of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department,
were promptly fired after a major media scandal.
Later, Dugin was quite
unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing,
reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with
the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared
from the network's website.
Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations,
it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings
are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just
wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes
against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early
20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with
Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.
Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their
brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These
have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as
Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught
in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies,
intensified efforts to strengthen those links .
In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting
its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like
Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious
Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a
major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint
Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist"
Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement,
and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly
shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned
above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power
enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities
banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily
sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.
There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events
in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown
issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil
-- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded
Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian
influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It
distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated
Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming
the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same
thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.
Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise. The war veteran
has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a
series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.
The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.
By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr.
Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the
deadly violence needed to be amended.
Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more
contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press
corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr.
Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down
on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.
"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr.
Watching the last Presidential debate was a rather depressing experience. I thought that
Trump did pretty well, but that really is not the point here. The point is this: no matter who
wins, an acute crisis is inevitable.
Option one : Hillary wins. That's Obama on steroids, only worse. Remember that Obama himself
was Dubya, only worse. Of course, Dubya was just Clinton, only worse. Now the circle is closed.
Back to Clinton. Except this time around, we have a women who is deeply insecure, who failed at
every single thing that she every tried to do, and who now has a 3 decades long record of
disasters and failures. Even when she had no authority to start a war, she started one (told
Bill to bomb the Serbs). Now she has that authority. And now she had to stand there, in front
of millions of people, and hear Trump tell her " Putin outsmarted you at every step of the
way " (did you see her frozen face when he said that?). Trump is right, Putin did outsmart
her and Obama at every step. The problem is that now, after having a President with an
inferiority complex towards Putin (Obama) we will have a President with the very same
inferiority complex and a morbid determination to impose a no-fly zone over Russian forces in
Syria. Looking at Hillary, with her ugly short hair and ridiculous pants, I thought to myself
"this is a woman who is trying hard to prove that she is every bit as tough and any man"
– except of course that she ain't. Her record also shows her as being weak, cowardly and
with a sense of total impunity. And now, that evil messianic lunatic with a
deep-seated inferiority complex is going to become Commander in Chief?! God help us all!
Option two : Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total,
repeat total , control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From
Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three
letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid
" crazies in
the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from
actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned
their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an
easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose
and they will fight to the very last one. What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if
he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team?
How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he
is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump
will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he
will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has
both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence.
Et voilà !
I see only one way out:
The (imperfect) Putin model
When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as
the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the
Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most
Russians led miserable lives. The big difference is that, unlike what is happening with Trump,
the Russian version of the US Neocons never saw the danger coming from Putin. He was selected
by the ruling elites as the representative of the security services to serve along a
representative of the big corporate money, Medvedev. This was a compromise solution between the
only two parts of the Russian society which were still functioning, the security services and
oil/gas money. Putin looked like a petty bureaucrat in an ill fitting suit, a shy and somewhat
awkward little guy who would present no threat to the powerful oligarchs of the semibankirshchina
(the Seven Bankers) running Russia. Except that he turned out to be one of the most formidable
rulers in Russia history. Here is what Putin did as soon as he came to power:
First, he re-established the credibility of the Kremlin with the armed forces and security
services by rapidly and effectively crushing the Wahabi insurgency in Chechnia. This
established his personal credibility with the people he would have to rely on to deal with the
Second, he used the fact that everybody, every single businessman and corporation in Russia,
did more or less break the law during the 1990s, if only because there really was no law.
Instead of cracking down on the likes of Berezovski or Khodorkovski for their political
activities, he crushed them with (absolutely true) charges of corruption. Crucially, he did
that very publicly, sending a clear message to the other arch-enemy: the media.
Third, contrary to the hallucinations of the western human rights agencies and Russian
liberals, Putin never directly suppressed any dissent, or cracked down on the media or, even
less so, ordered the murder of anybody. He did something much smarter. Remember that modern
journalists are first and foremost presstitutes, right? By mercilessly cracking down on the
oligarchs Putin deprived the presstitutes of their source of income and political support. Some
emigrated to the Ukraine, others simply resigned, and a few were left like on a reservation or
a zoo on a few very clearly identifiable media outlets such as Dozhd TV, Ekho Moskvy Radio or
the newspaper Kommersant. Those who emigrated became irrelevant, as for those who stayed in the
"liberal zoo" – they were harmless has they had no credibility left. Crucially, everybody
else "got the message". After that, all it took is the appointment a few real patriots (such as
Dmitri Kiselev, Margarita Simonian and others) in key positions and everybody quickly
understood that the winds of fortune had now turned.
Fourth, once the main media outlets were returned back to sanity it did not take too long
for the "liberal" (in the Russian sense, meaning pro-USA) parties to enter into a death-spiral
from which they have never recovered. That, in turn, resulted in the ejection of all "liberals"
form the Duma which now has only 4 parties, all of them more or less "patriotic".
That's the part that worked.
So far, Putin failed to eject the 5th columnists, whom I call the "Atlantic Integrationists"
(for details, including their names, see here ) from the government itself.. Even the
Kudrin was not fired by Putin, but by Medvedev. The security services succeeded in finally
getting rid of Anatolii Serdyukov but they did not have
power needed to put him in jail. I still think that a purge will happen while
disagrees . Whatever may be the case, what is certain is that Putin has not tackled the 5th
columnists in the banking/finance sector and that the latter have being very careful not to
give him a pretext to take action against them.
Russia and the USA are very different countries, and no recipe can be simply copied from one
to another. Still, there are valuable lessons from the "Putin model" for Trump, not the least
of which that his most formidable enemies probably are sitting in the Fed. One Russian analyst
– Rostislav Ishchenko – has suggested that Trump could somehow force the Fed to
increase interest rates, which would result in a bankruptcy domino effect for US banks which
might be the only way to finally crush the Fed and re-take control of US banking. Maybe. I
honestly am not qualified to have an opinion about that.
What is sure is that for the time being the USA will continue to look like that:
A homeless man, possibly a veteran, has built a "corridor of flags" to get people to give
him money. Florida, October 2016.
Rich on cheapo patriotism and otherwise poor.
Hillary thinks that this is a stunning success. Trump thinks that this is a disgrace. I
submit that the choice between these two is really very simple.
To those who are saying that there cannot be a schism in the AngloZionist elites, I will
reply that the example of the conspiracy to prevent Dominique
Strauss-Kahn from becoming the next French President shows that, just like hyenas,
AngloZionist leaders do sometimes turn on each other. That happens in all regimes, regardless
of their political ideology (think SS against SA in Nazi Germany or Trotskists against
Stalinists in Boshevik USSR).
Of brooms and body parts
Leon Trotsky used to say the Soviet Russia needed to be cleansed from anarchists and
noblemen with an "iron broom". He even wrote an article in the Pravda entitled "We need an iron
broom". Another genocidal manic, Felix Derzhinskii, founder of the notorious ChK secret police,
used to say that a secret police officer must have a "burning heart, a cool head and clean
hands". One would seek weakness, or even compassion, in vain from folks like these. These are
ideology-driven "true believers", sociopaths with no sense of empathy, profoundly evil people
with a genocidal hatred of anybody standing in their way.
Hillary Clinton and her gang of Neocons are the spiritual (and sometimes even physical)
successors of the Soviet Bolsheviks and they, just like their Bolshevik forefathers, will not
hesitate for a second to crush their enemies. Donald Trump – assuming he is for real and
actually means what he says – has to understand that and do what Putin did: strike first
and strike hard. Stalin, by the way, also did exactly that, and for a while the Trotskyists
were crushed, but in the years following Stalin's death they gradually bounced back only to
seize power again in 1991 (not Trotskyists in a literal sense of the word, but russophobic Jews
who had nothing but contempt for the Russian people). I think that the jury is still out on
whether Putin will succeed in finally removing the 5th columnist from power. What is sure is
that Russia is at least semi-free from the control of these people and that the US is their
last bastion right now. Their maniacal hatred of Trump can in part be explained by the sense of
danger these folks feel, being threatened for the first time in what they see as their homeland
(I don't mean that in a patriotic sense – but rather like a parasite care for "his"
host). And maybe they have some good reason to fear. I sure hope that they do.
I am rather encouraged by the way Trump handled the latest attempt to make him cower in
fear. Yesterday Trump dared to declare that since the election might be rigged or stolen he
does not pledge to recognize their outcome. And even though every semi-literate person knows
that elections in the USA have been rigged and stolen in the past, including Presidential ones,
by saying that Trump committed a major case of crimethink . The Ziomedia pounced on
him with self-righteous outrage and put immense pressure on him to retract his statement
(which, by the way, contradicted Pence's stance). Instead of rolling over and recanting his
"crime", Trump replied with this:
Beautiful no? Let's hope he continues to show the same courage.
Trump is doing now what Jean-Marie Le Pen did in France: he is showing the Neocons that be
that he dares to openly defy them, that he refuses to play by their rules, that their outrage
has no effect on his and that they don't get to censor or, even less so, silence him. That is
also what he did when, yet again, he refused to accuse the Russians of cyber-attacks and,
instead, repeated that it would be a good thing for Russia and the USA to be friends. Again, I
am not sure that how long he will be able to hold that line, but for the time being there is no
denying that he is openly defying the AngloZionist deep state and Empire.
The United States are about to enter what might possibly be the deepest and most dangerous
crisis of their history. If Trump is elected, he will have to immediately launch a well-planned
attack against his opponents without giving them any pretext to accuse him of politically
motivated repressions. In Russia, Putin could count on the support of the military and the
security services. I don't know whom Trump can count on, but I am fairly confident that there
are still true patriots in the US armed forces. If Trump gets the right person to head the FBI,
he might also use that agency to clean house and deliver a steady streams of indictments for
corruption, conspiracy to [fill the blank], abuse of authority, obstruction of justice and
dereliction of duty, etc. Since such crimes are widespread in the current circles of power,
they are also easy to prove and cracking down on corruption would get Trump a standing ovation
from the American people. Next, just as Putin in Russia, Trump will have to deal with the
media. How exactly, I don't know. But he will have to face this beast and defeat it. At every
step in this process he will have to get the proactive support of the people, just like Putin
does. Can he do it?
I don't know. Honestly, I doubt it. First, I still don't trust him. But, more relevantly, I
would argue that to overthrow the deep state and restore true people power is even harder in
the USA than it was in Russia. I have always believed that the AngloZionist Empire will have to
be brought down from the outside, most probably by a combination of military and economic
defeats. I still believe that. However, I might be wrong – in fact, I hope that I am
– and maybe Trump will be the guy to bring down the Empire in order to save the United
States. If there is such a possibility, however slim, I think that we have to believe in it and
act on it as all the alternatives are far worse.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"... Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk". ..."
"... The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective. ..."
"... It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked. ..."
"... In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility. ..."
"... Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax. ..."
"... The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". ..."
August 18, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The political
opponents of President Trump have found a new lever for sabotaging his presidency – his
alleged embrace of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. He is now being labelled a "sympathizer"
of fascists and bringing America's international image into disrepute. Cue the impeachment
Notably, the same power-nexus that opposed Trump from the very outset of his presidency is
vociferously condemning his alleged racist leanings. Pro-Democrat media like the Washington
Post, New York Times and CNN can't give enough coverage to Trump "the racist", while the
intelligence community and Pentagon have also weighed in to rebuke the president. Former CIA
chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security
This is not meant to minimize the ugliness of the various Neo-Nazi fringe groups that have
lately rallied across Southern US states. Trump's wrongheaded remarks which appeared to lay
equal blame on anti-fascist protesters for deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville,
Virginia, were deplorable.
However, the concerted, massive media campaign to nail Trump as some kind of new Fuhrer
seems way over the top. The media frenzy smacks of Deep State opponents scouring for a handy
new pretext for ousting him from office.
The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because
the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven
months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and
anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian
interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him
out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective.
Back in January, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, the US intelligence agencies claimed
that Russia had interfered in the presidential election with the aim of promoting Trump's
victory over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. But seven months on, no evidence has ever been
produced to support that sensational claim.
Despite this absence of "killer evidence" to damage Trump as a Russian stooge, the Congress
continues to hold investigations into the vapid allegations. And, separately, a "special
prosecutor" – former FBI chief Robert Mueller – continues to expand his
investigation, forming a grand jury and this week opening enquiries into White House staff.
Thus the whole Russia-gate affair is in danger of becoming a giant farce from the lack of
evidence. With so little to show for their herculean efforts to trap Trump as a "Russian
patsy", his political opponents, including prominent media organizations, are at risk of being
seen as ridiculous hoaxers.
A telltale sign of how bankrupt the Russia-gate story is was the publication of a lengthy
article in Wired earlier this month. The California-based online magazine proclaims to be a
cutting-edge technology publication. Wired is published by Condé Nast, a global American
company, whose other prestige titles include Vogue, Vanity Fair and New Yorker . With a claimed
monthly readership of 30 million, and an editorial staff of over 80, Wired is supposed to be a
global leader in new technology and communications.
According to its advertising blurb, "Wired is where tomorrow is realized", adding: "It is
the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant
Therefore, as a US technology forum, this publication is supposed to be the elite in insider
information and "nerdy journalism". With these high claims in mind, we then turn excitedly to
its article published on August 8 with the headline: "A guide to Russia's high tech tool box
for subverting US democracy".
On reading it, the entire article is a marathon in hackneyed cliches of Russophobia. It is
an appalling demonstration of how threadbare are the claims of Russian hacking into the US
election last year. Citing US intelligence sources, the Wired article is a regurgitation of
unsubstantiated assertions that Russian state agencies hacked into the Democratic National
Committee last July and subsequently used whistleblower site Wikileaks to disseminate damaging
information against Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.
"According to US investigators", says Wired, "the hack of the DNC's servers was apparently
the work of two separate Russian teams, one from the GRU [military intelligence] and one from
the FSB [state security service], neither of which appears to have known the other was also
rooting around in the Democratic Party's files. From there, the plundered files were laundered
through online leak sites like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks Their impact on the 2016 election was
sizable, yielding months of damaging headlines".
Nowhere in the Wired article is any plausible technical detail presented to back up the
hacking claims. It relies on US intelligence "assessments" and embellishment with quotes from
think tanks and anonymous diplomats whose anti-Russia bias is transparent.
Wired's so-called Russian "tool box for subverting US democracy" covers much more than the
alleged hacking into the DNC. It accuses Russia of using news media, diplomats, criminal
underworld networks, blackmail and assassinations as an arsenal of hybrid warfare to undermine
Wired declares: "And they are self-reinforcing, because in Russia the intelligence
apparatus, business community, organized crime groups, and media distribution networks blend
together, blurring and erasing the line between public and private-sector initiatives and
creating one amorphous state-controlled enterprise to advance the personal goals of Vladimir
Putin and his allies".
This is an astoundingly sweeping depiction of Russia in the most slanderous, pejorative
terms. Basically, Wired is claiming that the entire Russian state is a criminal enterprise. The
Russophobia expressed in the article is breathtaking – and this is in a magazine that is
supposed to be a leader in technology-intelligence.
Wired tells its readers of Russia having a "Grand Strategy" – to undermine Western
democracies, and multilateral alliances from NATO to the European Union.
With foreboding, it warns: "[T]he Putin regime's systematic effort to undermine and
destabilize democracies has become the subject of urgent focus in the West the biggest
challenge to the Western order since the fall of the Berlin Wall".
The salient point here is that despite its grandiose professional claims, Wired provides
nothing of substance to support the narrative that Russia hacked into the US election. If a
supposed cutting-edge technology magazine can't deliver on technical details, then that really
does demonstrate just how bankrupt the whole Russia-gate story is.
Moreover, another nail in the coffin for the Russia-gate narrative was recently provided by
a respected group of former US intelligence officers called Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). Last month, the group wrote to
President Trump with their expert analysis that the DNC incident was not a hack conducted via
the internet, but rather that the information came from a DNC insider. In other words, the
information was a leak, not a hack, in which the data was transferred by person out of the DNC
offices on a memory disk. In that case, Russian agents or any other internet agents could not
have possibly been involved. The key finding in the VIPS analysis is that the information
obtained from the DNC computers was so vast in file size, it could not have been downloaded
over the internet in the time period indicated by meta-data.
It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence
and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig
Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the
dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not
In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for
seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility.
Even a supposed top technology publication, Wired, is embarrassingly vacant of any details
on how alleged Russian hackers are supposed to have interfered in the US election to get Trump
into the White House. As if to compensate for its dearth of detail, the Wired publication pads
out its "big story" with hackneyed Russophobia worthy of a corny James Bond knock-off.
Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible
former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a
The Deep State and other political/media opponents of Trump are inevitably scrabbling for
alternative means of sabotaging his presidency. They are finding that the Russia-gate ploy to
get Trump out of the White House is in danger of collapsing from lack of evidence and from the
emergence of a plausible explanation for the DNC breach that damaged Clinton's election
campaign. The bottomline is: it wasn't the Russians, so all the hype about Trump being a
Russian stooge is a case of fake news, just as Trump has long maintained.
The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated
campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi
sympathizer". Trump's nationalistic America First views may be suspect, even reprehensible in
their wider association. That's not the point. The point is the concerted, orchestrated way
that the Deep State will rail-road the new campaign to oust Trump in place of the failing
Russia-gate ploy. The contempt for democratic process raises the question of who the more
dangerous American fascists are?
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
"... Trump making more and more room for neocons, deepstate, warmongers with these completely irrational moves kicking out he's closest friends and advisors! Now MSM, deepstate will be even stronger, I wouldnt be surpised if Trump step down himself eventually and hand over the presidency to Pence, either that or Trump will more and more tone done his views, policy and go along what msm/deep state wants. ..."
"... These moves clearly show how isolated he really is ..."
"... We could throw away that improvement of Russia/US relationsship, we will see more Nato supporting Trump, more wars and covert ops. in the middle east and elsehwere. Very tragic and bad situation. ..."
"... The US has a military junta in control These are people Trump picked - they were not imposed on him. The people that got Trump elected out lived there usefulness ..."
"... If Bannon turns out to be smarter than I credit him for, things could become interesting. Mainly with strong Bernistas on the other side (they may think they are polar opposite, but they are basically calling for the same thing – no more wars, jobs, education, etc). ..."
"... The war we feared Clinton would bring is now on the horizon. Apparently it was only delayed, not prevented. ..."
"... So what is going on here? Trump in order to physically survive had to dig up allies in the senior military who had the guns, frankly, to keep him in office. The ouster of Bannon may be a "good" thing if we understand that the chief attribute of Washington since Obama was elected for his second term was the power struggle between various gangs within the power-elite exhibited by Ash Carter's mutiny against the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on Syria almost a year ago. So the power struggle appears to have been simplified. The permanent war state is once again in the driver's seat now we'll see where they choose to go. ..."
"... Bannon engineered the ascent of Rex Tillerson at State despite the fact that Tillerson's patron and chief influence is non-other than Condoleezza Rice, the neocon former Bush NSA Director and cheerleader for the Iraq war. Documents which leaked from the Presidential transition proved that Rice was Tillerson's advocate and that several other staffers she recommended where quickly hired at State. Perhaps this is why Politico correctly tabbed the rise of veteran Romney-ites at State. The Trump State Department has failed to excise the Soros control of a number of U.S. embassies and is currently leaning on the Hungarian government not to impede Soros toppling of that democratically elected government. Bannon delivered the Trump State Department into the hands of the Globalists. ..."
"... Trump getting swallowed up and neutered by the Washington establishment makes a complete mockery of anyone who made the asinine claim of a populist lone hero walking into office and 'draining the swamp'. ..."
"... A presidential administration requires years, even decades, to build up the people and relationships that are needed to hit the ground running on day one. The mass of experienced people who can act as the foundations of the new administration. ..."
"... With Trump getting elected by the unique combination of traditional populism and the Democratic part establishment thinking they had enough power to ram a complete piece of shit candidate like Hillary Clinton down the country's throat have managed to put someone in office who completely lacks the tools to effectively operate an administration. ..."
"... Obama deliberately lied to us in 2008, it was all a con. I know this because the instant he was elected, he fired all his liberal economic advisors and brought in Goldman Sachs. I know this because of reports that during his campaign his agents were privately telling his wealthy patrons that he didn't mean a word of it. ..."
"... Trumps started his presidency like he really meant to do what he promised during the campaign. THEN, after enormous pressure, even he started to bend. The inflection point was the missile strike on Syria. Now he's just sailing on, being president, and the promises of the campaign are like the promises of a car salesman... ..."
"... The 2nd bad mistake was H-ikki Haley. - Internationally. Trump had much potential support that was destroyed by this woman. He burned SO many bridges.. ..."
"... Bannon was probably the only non warmonger in the whole Tronald team - including the boss. Although I strongly oppose everything else he believes in his political course would have been much healthier for the rest of the world. ..."
"... Bannon's removal opens wide the door to neo-cons, war mongers and the pro-jewish lobbies that only think of "making america great" through wars. The neo-cons are much more right-wing than Bannon. Without Bannon, Trump is becoming another puppet just like Bush jr. We will come to regret the last anti-Israel voice in the White House. ..."
"... This article totally ignores his position on China. Like the Bush adminstration had planned to destroy 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), Bannon said: "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face - and you understand how important face is - and say it's an ancient territorial sea." ..."
"... Trump's troubles are phoney (Russia, statues) but Trump hasn't been effective in countering them - sometimes shooting himself in the foot (suggesting that he had tapes of Comey; drip-drip-drip of the Trump Jr meeting with Russians; etc) ..."
"... I call him the Republican Obama. Apologists and critics of Trump won't dont like this view. ..."
"... if i thought exxon, goldman sachs, lockheed martin and all these corps that have a huge say on the direction of the usa today, had any other clue then their 'bottom line' or recognized at the whole game is in jeopardy of being lost, i doubt any of them would have the guts or character to say anything about it.. it is not only that the usa is rudderless at this point.. the whole planet looks in much the same point, especially the usa poodles, which would include canada, the country i live in.. no naomi klein book or anything is going to change it either.. ..."
"... firing Bannon mean getting rid of people that think like Trump, so this is quite bad because instead comes pure neocons filling up the WH, and then Trump will be very isolated with his ideas on detente and so on. ..."
"... I highly suggest MoA barflys read Pepe Escobar's analysis of Bannon's departure, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708191056603401-steve-bannon-white-house-trump-war/ ..."
"... Obama was heavily backed by the billionaire Pritzker family. One of them was put in charge of the treasury. One of them is a gender-bender, once a he, now a she. Hence the gender wars. Ever feel you've been had? ..."
Bannon was the "Make America Great Again" guy in the White House. The strategist who had the populist
ideas that brought the votes for Trump. Jobs, jobs, jobs, infrastructure investments, immigration
limits, taxing globalists were his issue.
Trump is no young German Emperor and Bannon is no chancellor Bismark. (Both would probably have
liked those roles.) But with Bannon leaving, the Trump presidency is losing its chief strategist,
the one person which set priorities and could set an alternative course for the ship of state under
The racist Huffington Post headline implies that Bannon prioritized the wrong country.
Trump making more and more room for neocons, deepstate, warmongers with these completely
irrational moves kicking out he's closest friends and advisors!
Now MSM, deepstate will be even stronger, I wouldnt be surpised if Trump step down himself eventually
and hand over the presidency to Pence, either that or Trump will more and more tone done his views,
policy and go along what msm/deep state wants.
These moves clearly show how isolated he really is , he could have been strong instead
he backs off ASAP it seems.
We could throw away that improvement of Russia/US relationsship, we will see more Nato
supporting Trump, more wars and covert ops. in the middle east and elsehwere. Very tragic and
I doubt that it will help Trump to implement what Bannon and Trump himself intended to do.
It won't. These globalists, Goldman Sachs lobbyists and MIC/Pentagon vultures are too firmly
entrenched in the immediate vicinity of the Oval office to be uprooted that easily. On the other
hand, the anti-war, America-First, get-the jobs-back Trump voters can be made into a whole frigging
mass movement which could multiply peaceful protest actions and, as they say, " rock the boat
It would take brains and planning, but it can be done.
If Bannon turns out to be smarter than I credit him for, things could become interesting.
Mainly with strong Bernistas on the other side (they may think they are polar opposite, but they
are basically calling for the same thing – no more wars, jobs, education, etc).
I wouldn't mind to see Pence taking over at some stage. The two real faces of the White power
in the US for everyone in the world to contemplate. Might get their lackeys sober. Let the Titanic
drowns to the bottom so the rest of the world can breathe.
Staying with the caricature you show, b., Trump will start a war. Yeah, Bannon talked of
infrastructure. Hitler built the Autobahn and got rid of unemployment, one way or the other, "economic
nationalism" is a relabeling of fascism.
This here is what Trump's presidency has been about right from the start - a
capitalist raid on government. Bannon's role has been - and looking at Breitbart still is
- to sell Trump to the stupid little people.
At school in Australia in the 1960's our regular theme was the inevitability of 'hegemonic ' struggle
. I noticed it vanished as a theme from history and social studies, 70's onwards.
Used to think it was deliberately done to subconsciously underline the newness and completeness
of the Anglo/ American empire . A product here to stay ! The old forces of struggle - of victory
and defeat no longer patterns at play .
Ridiculous! You are using Hitler fallacy blasting Trump, Bannon, their policies, why dont you
go to CNN instead and comment? Whiny Trump, Bannon is nazis, fascist is the liberal propaganda
fake-news, meanwhile in the real world:
Great analysis. This internal power struggle is not over. Yes, the generals are now in charge
as I once predicted long ago when we first started seeing the decline in the polls at all levels
of the state except for two major institutions: 1) the military; and 2) the police. The logical
conclusion was that, eventually, these institutions would hold most of the political power since
they are the most popular.
It's fascinating how martinets who continually lose wars are still considered "heroes" (thank
you for your service). So what is going on here? Trump in order to physically survive had
to dig up allies in the senior military who had the guns, frankly, to keep him in office. The
ouster of Bannon may be a "good" thing if we understand that the chief attribute of Washington
since Obama was elected for his second term was the power struggle between various gangs within
the power-elite exhibited by Ash Carter's mutiny against the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on Syria almost
a year ago. So the power struggle appears to have been simplified. The permanent war state is
once again in the driver's seat now we'll see where they choose to go.
Bannon engineered the ascent of Rex Tillerson at State despite the fact that Tillerson's
patron and chief influence is non-other than Condoleezza Rice, the neocon former Bush NSA Director
and cheerleader for the Iraq war. Documents which leaked from the Presidential transition proved
that Rice was Tillerson's advocate and that several other staffers she recommended where quickly
hired at State. Perhaps this is why Politico correctly tabbed the rise of veteran Romney-ites
at State. The Trump State Department has failed to excise the Soros control of a number of
U.S. embassies and is currently leaning on the Hungarian government not to impede Soros toppling
of that democratically elected government. Bannon delivered the Trump State Department into
the hands of the Globalists.
Recommend people follow twitter.com/ezilidanto. Trump has already re-instated Clinton's people
to continue the UN occupation of Haiti. Trump is getting blindsided when all he needs to do is
up his twitter game and ignore the lame stream bilderberg media.
Trump getting swallowed up and neutered by the Washington establishment makes a complete mockery
of anyone who made the asinine claim of a populist lone hero walking into office and 'draining
A presidential administration requires years, even decades, to build up the people and
relationships that are needed to hit the ground running on day one. The mass of experienced people
who can act as the foundations of the new administration.
With Trump getting elected by the unique combination of traditional populism and the Democratic
part establishment thinking they had enough power to ram a complete piece of shit candidate like
Hillary Clinton down the country's throat have managed to put someone in office who completely
lacks the tools to effectively operate an administration.
Trump has been effectively reduced to a who might as well just be sitting in the Oval Office
jerking off to porn and watching to cat videos.
It is also laughable to see people crying about the country stumbling into a 'civil war'. The
Trump base is a bunch of clowns who still believe they won a presidential election with 'meme
Their 'god emperor' has become the ultimate 'cuck' and they have nothing in response other
than crying in their echo chamber forums about how they are 'winning'.
I have always thought that Obama was a con artist, and Trump, a salesman.
Obama deliberately lied to us in 2008, it was all a con. I know this because the instant
he was elected, he fired all his liberal economic advisors and brought in Goldman Sachs. I know
this because of reports that during his campaign his agents were privately telling his wealthy
patrons that he didn't mean a word of it.
Trump, however, is a salesman. He will simply tell you what you want to hear at the moment
to close the deal. 'Oh yeah, that model car is great, no the seats in the other model are exactly
the same..." just making it up on the fly, trying to read the customer. A salesman probably doesn't
really think of it as lying. And when the deal is made, they won't deliberately stab you in the
back - they just maybe won't be too concerned if it doesn't work out quite like they said.
Trumps started his presidency like he really meant to do what he promised during the campaign.
THEN, after enormous pressure, even he started to bend. The inflection point was the missile strike
on Syria. Now he's just sailing on, being president, and the promises of the campaign are like
the promises of a car salesman...
Trump lost the vote. If it weren't for the moronic Electoral College crap Trump wouldn't be president.
So when Bannon tries to posture as the genius who won the presidency for Trump, Trump knows better.
Everyone who talks about Trump winning the election is lying. Trump knows this, because that's
the bottom line. Trump doesn't need a loser for an adviser. It's Trump who may now create a significant
fascist movement by his support. It is not Bannon who will bring the fascist masses to Trump,
because the masses aren't fascist.
As for delusions about Trump's non-imperialist foreign policy? The man ran as a conqueror,
not a peacemaker. Trump is an owner. The US economy relies on the dollar and the dollar is backed
by blood. Its role is not commensurate with the US' real economy, much less gold. The Soviets
could give up their alleged empire because it wasn't an empire, it was an expense. The owners
of the US rely on their empire. They can't give it up and they don't want to. Trump is one of
them. He's about trashing old politics. Nazis in Charlottesville is the new politics, but he doesn't
need Bannon for that.
Trump would not have been elected without him. -Bannon. b's top post.
Wondered about this, probably correct... though Trump, DT - Bannon are a sort of meeting of
the minds so who what? etc. DT did veer pragmatically away from Bannon-type core positions on
'Muslims', in the infamous Clash of Civilzations line, as DT relegated religion to the lower drawer,
to use violence as a no. 1. criteria - "ISIS", "terrorism", etc. (Campaign.)
DT clarioned the obvious, MAGA was for all Amrikis - LGTB, muslim, black, anyone, etc.
That is why he won! (Bannon would of course have understood this.) On Iran DT has also been a
little more 'tempered' imho but who knows really, e.g.:
I posted about Trump's VP pick at the time saying it was a terrible sign. Response, he had
to pick a Rep. estab. figure. NO. That was his first capitulation that led to all the others and
those to come. And it will be his downfall. He could have picked a nonenity, anybody really, a
woman would have been ~+ (not S. Palin, that type or top Rep. F figures at the time), a young
man of Hispanic origin, someone sympathetic with stage presence, etc. Why not, Bannon himself?
The bold move would have been to offer it publically to B. Sanders as a challenge.
DT is from the biz world and his intuitions about 'breaking molds' are constrained by the profit
motive, which operate in a regulated field, he does not understand politics where 'anything goes.'
The 2nd bad mistake was H-ikki Haley. - Internationally. Trump had much potential support
that was destroyed by this woman. He burned SO many bridges..
It is a fascist road map. Weimar street fights - check. "Wenn das der Führer wüsste"- problems
are the people around the leader, not the leader himself. The leader is a saint. - check. "We
will have to crash them" ie the Röhm mob who did the street fights - check. Infrastructure projects
against unemployment, no matter the conditions of forced labor - check. "Buy German" - check.
War against economic competitors - check. Find an interior race to unite against - Jews, Black
lives matter - check
If Bannon is going back to Breitbart then I'm very confident that The Swamp will soon be in deep
do-do. He can disrupt their schemes, smear them 24/7, and make them look stupider, from Breitbart,
than he ever could have done from inside the White House.
Bannon knows that the Swamp believes
ALL of it's own bullshit. With Bannon pointing it out, it won't be long before everyone on Earth
The White House is also getting support for its tax-cut plan from the political network of
billionaire brothers Charles Koch and David Koch, who didn't support President Donald Trump
during his 2016 campaign. Short and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are set to appear on
a tax panel hosted by two Koch-funded groups Monday in Washington.
Since the IRS found in 2010 that a complicated banking method used by Renaissance and about
10 other hedge funds was a tax-avoidance scheme, Mercer has gotten increasingly active in politics.
According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, he doled out more than $22 million
to outside conservative groups seeking to influence last year's elections, while advocating
the abolition of the IRS and much of the federal government.
Richard Painter, chief White
House ethics adviser under President George W. Bush, said the optics surrounding the Mercers'
political connections and the IRS case "are terrible."
"The guy's got a big case in front of the IRS," said Painter, now a University of Minnesota
law professor who is also vice chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
"He's trying to put someone in there who's going to drop the case. Is the president of the
United States going to succumb to that or is he not?"
"Are we going to have a commissioner of the IRS who aggressively enforces the law and takes
good cases to Tax Court or (somebody who) just throws away tax cases so billionaires don't
have to pay their taxes and the rest of us can pay more taxes?"
You recognize you are in the middle of a psychological war yet do not act accordingly.
The "two sides" in this war shoot their weapons in the direction of the "other side" but the
aim is strictly at the boobs in the middle. You should know this but yet you insist on being the
boob in the middle.
Why is that?
Printing is pretty cheap these days. Pamphlets work wonders. Go forth and publish. While you
What I did say was - if you dress like a Nazi, if you shout Nazi slogans, if you act like Nazis
did, if your political programme is that of Nazis, there is a strong likelihood that you are a
Of course there is a cultural difference, these US billionaire backers of potential mass movements
are after a "
disruptive " tax and regulation free oligarchy, competitive advantage plus the profits of
war, whilst German (and US) industrialists of the time were after an authoritarian corporate state,
competitive advantage and the profits of war.
The difference between industrialists who depend on a work force and money made by speculation.
What Bannon is selling to the little people is the protection of an authoritarian corporate
The neocon and neolib warmongers are in full control. The US now marches in one direction: WAR.
Millions (billions?) more will suffer more death and destruction. The US and its Anglosphere and
EU vassals are nothing but vile and despicable. All my remaining hope is in the Eastern powers
Bannon was probably the only non warmonger in the whole Tronald team - including the boss.
Although I strongly oppose everything else he believes in his political course would have been
much healthier for the rest of the world.
The deep state and Wall Street have long run the ship, and now Big Oil's hand is on the rudder.
The personality/reality show cast changes but always diverts attention; i.e., grabs eyeballs for
the mainstream media.
Bannon's removal opens wide the door to neo-cons, war mongers and the pro-jewish lobbies that
only think of "making america great" through wars. The neo-cons are much more right-wing than
Bannon. Without Bannon, Trump is becoming another puppet just like Bush jr. We will come to regret
the last anti-Israel voice in the White House.
trump at this point looks very weak and not in control..
Posted by: james | Aug 19, 2017 1:01:13 PM | 43
That makes an assumption that Trump has some goals, program or whatever. I always had serious
doubt, because he never showed some coherent program. Trump does not really think in terms of
abstract ideas, but in terms of people that he knows. Bannon is a favorite of a billionaire lady
that has an apartment in Trump Tower and who bankrolled recent Bannon's project. Who knows, with
Rebeccah Mercer as a president, USA would have more coherent policies? But Trump hobnobbed with
a lot of "good people" and his views seemed to be some incoherent mishmash.
Not that coherence is always a virtue. Probably all his acquaintances believed that "Obamacare"
was a terrible idea, and none of them had any notion how to "fix it", so Trump probably projected
a consensus "get rid of it, and if you can, replace it with something marvelous". And we all know
that getting a "bipartisan consensus" in Congress, with 98-2 vote, requires some profoundly stupid
legislation. And dinosaurs of American foreign policy may be pretty consistent.
Bannon was just another loudmouth for hire as far as Trump is concerned, something that he
himself did for a living when casinos etc. were less rewarding. Trump is good at repeating stuff
heard from acquaintances, but apart of letting the compatriots bask in his greateness, I am not
sure if he really wants something.
What I miss in this Bannon praise is a clear picture on how the globalist neolibcons got rid of
Trump's key strategist. What I see is sanctification of Bannon, a far right ghoul who used his
power and influence to move the political zenit further to the right.
This article totally ignores his position on China. Like the Bush adminstration had planned
to destroy 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), Bannon said: "We're
going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," "There's no doubt about that. They're
taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on
those. They come here to the United States in front of our face - and you understand how important
face is - and say it's an ancient territorial sea."
Let's hope the rudderless ship hits an iceberg and sinks to the bottom of the sea.
It's sad to see all the defeatism here at MoA right now. Look, I too wish Trump hadn't fired Bannon
-- or Flynn. And I wish he hadn't fired missiles at Syria or signed the new sanction bill. But
consider this: a mere month after firing those missiles (apparently, after warning the Russians
and Syrians in advance so they had time evacuate their troops), Trump agreed to the deconfliction
zones in Syria, and then a month after that, he ordered the CIA to pull the plug on their jihadi
freak-show there. Two weeks ago, all my liberal friends (yes, I still have some, but it's getting
harder and harder to reason with them) over his tweets on N. Korea. And then what happened? Nothing!
Trump is well south of a hundred percent, I grant; but he's definitely more than zero.
As far as Bannon is concerned: please don't fall for the MSM propaganda about Bannon having
been 'Trump's brain'. No. If you'll recall, Bannon only joined Trump's campaign toward the end,
in August of 2016. And yet Trump never changed his fundamental policies or campaign strategy at
all. Détente with Russia was NOT Bannon's idea; it was Trump's from the start. Dropping 'régime
change' in Syria was NOT Bannon's idea; it was Trump's all along.
So have some faith, people. The worst has still not happened. There's a chance -- just a chance
-- that we may still avoid a nuclear war.
Trump's troubles are phoney (Russia, statues) but Trump hasn't been effective in countering
them - sometimes shooting himself in the foot (suggesting that he had tapes of Comey; drip-drip-drip
of the Trump Jr meeting with Russians; etc)
His response to Charlottesville is a case in point: he didn't explain what each group had done
wrong so his "many mistakes on all sides" was read as a reluctance to denounce right-wing hate
groups, then he flip-flopped (denounced white supremists) and flip-flopped again (returned to
his earlier position) after out-cry from the right. I call him the Republican Obama. Apologists
and critics of Trump won't dont like this view.
@46 piotr... i hear what you are saying.. trump is in it for trump... the guy is all about what
corporations are about - branding, logo, etc. etc.. trump inc. and making money... as i was saying
to a friend earlier today, if everything is about money - the bottom line of so many - when these
folks no longer have a planet, there ain't gonna be no bottom line to look after either...
if i thought exxon, goldman sachs, lockheed martin and all these corps that have a huge
say on the direction of the usa today, had any other clue then their 'bottom line' or recognized
at the whole game is in jeopardy of being lost, i doubt any of them would have the guts or character
to say anything about it.. it is not only that the usa is rudderless at this point.. the whole
planet looks in much the same point, especially the usa poodles, which would include canada, the
country i live in.. no naomi klein book or anything is going to change it either..
if correct, and i haven't read the link @50 vannok post is further confirmation of it..
Great points, although if I could add - firing Bannon mean getting rid of people that think
like Trump, so this is quite bad because instead comes pure neocons filling up the WH, and then
Trump will be very isolated with his ideas on detente and so on.
He is dissociating from the Nazis in a left wing publication, why do you think that is? Because
his Nazi friends have become toxic but don't read left wing publications. He did not say that
Now what does Breitbart say: "CNN normalizes Antifa - Leftists seek peace through violence".
Now, again, who was violent in Charlottesville? What do the videos show?
It is obvious that Mercer/Bannon did not split with Trump. Bannon is now firing up the base
whilst Trump does what he has to do to satisfy his billionaire friends ie get rid of regulations
Whilst Bannon pretends Trump is hostage to Republican elites that have to be removed by his
Bannons "War with China" is not non interventionist.
Bannon is a paid tool.
Those Nazis have been filmed from all sides and are being identified online, losing their jobs
because of it.
I suggest people send them Bannon's interview in the American Prospect.
The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently
chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership
but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice,
always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention
away from it.
An orange sash is what the President of the Galaxy traditionally wears.
On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has
ever had. He spent two of his ten Presidential years in prison for fraud. Very very few people
realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very
few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly
believe that the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't be more
1. "I never said Trump voters were Nazis, they were anti-Hillary. Including the non-voters."
No they voted because of his economic policy.
2. "He is dissociating from the Nazis in a left wing publication, why do you think that
is? Because his Nazi friends have become toxic but don't read left wing publications. He did not
say that in Breitbart."
Lol you are making up stupid conspiracy theories, he said something about Charlottesville because
he was asked to obviously.
You cant accept what Bannon is saying you are making up things in your head. If you cant accept
reality, what matter is our discussion? But keep those conspiracy theories coming because those
3. "Now what does Breitbart say: "CNN normalizes Antifa - Leftists seek peace through violence".
Now, again, who was violent in Charlottesville? What do the videos show?"
Yes they sure do, the videos show violence on both sides, apparently you and CNN see the world
in such bad/good sides. You have become blind by the liberal MSM apparently.
As far as violence in europe,
On other threads, the need for solidarity's been raised by myself and others. I believe what
I'll call the Hate Resistance or Anti-Hate forces could provide the foundation for the required
rise of a Progressive-Populist Movement,
Now, I understand that those with the money behind these counter protests are anything but Progressive
or want to see Populism rise; however, the required solidarity's been generated, so all that's
needed is for Direction to be supplied for a bottom->up Movement to grow and become a new political
force that could even tap into some of the issues Bannon will certainly raise.
Night of the Long Knives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation).
Night of the Long Knives
Ernst Röhm (right) with Kurt Daluege
and Heinrich Himmler
June 30 – July 2, 1934
Location: Nazi Germany
Also known as
Operation Hummingbird, Röhm Putsch (by the Nazis), The Blood Purge
Type: Coup d'état and purge
Cause: Conflicts between Strasserist and Hitler
Schutzstaffel (Hitler faction)
Sturmabteilung (Röhm faction)
Unorganized regime opposition
Adolf Hitler's supremacy confirmed
Elimination of opposition to the Nazi Government
85 officially and upwards to 150–200 total
The Night of the Long Knives (German: Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)), also called Operation
Hummingbird (German: Unternehmen Kolibri) or, in Germany, the Röhm Putsch[a] (German spelling:
Röhm-Putsch), was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934, when the
Nazi regime carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate
Hitler's absolute hold on power in Germany. Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung),
the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the
SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies.
Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with
its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis
(such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr,
who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt
leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public
that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics.
The similarities go on and on, it's plain ridiculous, almost embarrassing to even point them
Bannon is a dangerous ideologue. I have no idea if Trump himself has any political beliefs,
probably not - but he loves and needs popular support. And if he doesn't manage to create 'jobs,
jobs, jobs', what will he do?
T. is pretty alone now, that's true. Having no political standpoints, this makes him an easy
target for others to drive into a corner and manipulate - and afterwards, they'll say: "Trump
is crazy, we told you so, this war was all his fault and his alone!"
Yeah, sure. And of course, the blame for WW2 lies entirely with a few 'crazy Nazis', the German
(and international) capital elite had nothing to do with it, they didn't want the Nazis to destroy
the Soviet Union, no no...
Yes, this was the crucial moment: Those Nazis who actually believed their own anti-elite propaganda
had to be eliminated, so the rest could serve as a popular figurehead for pro-elite policies.
H. had the support of the masses, but what he did served the interest of the '1%' - including
the war on Soviet Russia, which they wanted. Of course, afterwards the German money elite had
nothing to do with it, it was all done by those 'crazies', and that's what the history books still
tell us today...
"trump at this point looks very weak and not in control.. "
That's exactly what I wrote more than a year ago, and why I didn't want him to be president:
He may not be an 'evil person' (I have no idea), but he's weak and prone to doing 'stupid stuff'
when in a difficult situation.
I do hope Russia and China understand this, and act accordingly/ offer him a face-saving way
Friday's Camp David talks on Afghanistan appear to have ended without a final decision by President
Trump on troop levels, as he continues to resist pressure from top cabinet officials to sign
off on a massive escalation of the 16-year-old conflict with thousands of fresh troops.
Trump had initially delegated the decision to Defense Secretary James Mattis, but Mattis
found a cap limiting his maximum deployment too restrictive.
Now, Vice President Pence and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster are also taking up
the cause of large-scale escalation, pushing Trump to accept the recommendations of the commanders.Pence
and McMaster were at the Camp David meeting, but Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who has been
pushing a "privatize the war" initiative, was blocked, apparently at the behest of McMaster.
Trump aide Steve Bannon, another skeptic of military escalation, was sacked outright.
What's the purpose of the "escalation"?
Why escalate in Afghanistan?
What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?
(Nothing, as far as I can see)
So why "escalate?
As far as I can see Trump is no longer in charge of any of the several wars the US is currebtly
waging. If he ever was in charge in the first place.
As far as I can tell, the purpose of any escalation would simply be: "to escalate". With all
the increase in expenditure that such an escalation would naturally require.
Throughout the Obama era troop levels in afghanistan were raised and lowered without any rhyme
or reason, with no connection to events on the ground, that I could see.
Nothing has changed in that regard since Tronald took charge.
If anything this confirms Orwell's theory, espoused in his "Theory and Practice of Oligarical
Collectivism", that the purpose of war is: "To wage war".
Thus filling the coffers of those who profit from waging war. And more importantly emptying
the treasury of funds that could be used to improve living conditions for the proles. Proles of
all different skin colours.
Nothing has changed in that regard since the Obama era.
Except: the circus has a new show on, to distract the " stupid little people". Instead of "gender
wars" the show at the local theatre changed to "race wars"
But at the end of the day, it's still just a show, just like it was under Obomber, designed
Bread and Circuses.
Since nothing has changed, claims of Nazism aimed at Trump are nonsense, unless the person
making the claim was making the exact same claim regarding
Which they weren't
Which brings us back to the "stupid little people"
Obama was heavily backed by the billionaire Pritzker family. One of them was put in charge
of the treasury. One of them is a gender-bender, once a he, now a she. Hence the gender wars.
Ever feel you've been had?
There are a few assumptions that are driving the Trump is doomed story. The first; he is unthinking,
borderline stupid. The second: he is isolated. The third; he has no plan.
I think they are wrong
on all counts. I believe he is shrewd, his business dealings show that. He is not isolated as
he trusts very few people and relies on his family and only his family. He has few people close
to him by choice. Finally he clearly has plans and surrounding himself with military give you
a glimpse into his thinking. He has just announced an upgrade to the cyber security agency and
it may take over NSA responsibilities.
The Pentagon has long been at war with the CIA/State Dept and the NSA. He is backing the Pentagon
and with their help can decimate his and their enemies. As for congress, he has been assembling
a war chest and in the 2018 elections will support those who are loyal to him. He will bury the
Republicans who failed to come up with a healthcare plan, he will bury the Republicans who failed
to support him. He was a leading developer worldwide, dealing with some of the world's biggest
business sharks do you seriously think he can't take on Congressional sycophants?
The U.S. appears ungovernable at this time, the hysterical temper whipped up on all sides, no
reasoned thinking. I guess we're now getting a look at the big show Obama was able to put on for
us, when in actual fact things were ungovernable all along - it's just so, so exposed now under
Trump. He's being bitten by the people closest to him. Repeatedly.
There would be a way for a country to escape such internal capitulation if there were a visible
rule of law, or maybe some code of ethics on show. Rule of the rich should look this way, paying
for the pleasure of watching other people watch monkeys to throw shit at one another daily.
Trump is probably best known, amongst the proles, as host of the show "The Apprentice". The
premise of this show was that he gathered together a whole bunch of asshats and then one by one
fired all of them.
Fast Forward to 2017 and the Trump presidency.
He gathered a whole bunch of asshats around him and one by one fired all of em . . . . .
Say what you like about the man, but at least he's consistent ;-)
Americans who simply ignore President Trump's occasionally hints of brutality ( that police should
be even rougher or more brutal in their dealings with criminal suspects), are citizens proceeding
at their own peril. President Obama, in his heyday, made public statements, in which he pronounced
Army private Bradley (Chelsea) Manning guilty of treason;--a young soldier who had been held in
brutal detention in a military stockade,--when no trial had even begun. The law is found to be
expedient when it serves political ends, and is otherwise ignored.
In preemptive violence they trust: glorification of abusive power and coersion, and demonization
of the Other. It's truly a bi-partisan thing we are seeing: the last links to sanity being removed.
No one is sure what the little extra nudge it might be, that could hurl us down into social chaos.
Whether Trump proves himself more or less dangerous than Hillary Clinton would have been, simply
shrinks into insignificance, compared to the US Congress, and the bi-partisan consensus for irrational
global dominance that keeps pushing us toward destruction.
But some liberals have decided that the Day of Antifa is not such a bad thing; meaning we should
duke it out in the streets with crazier right wingers, hoping that the contagion of hate will
spread throughout the land. Mark Bray, a lecturer at Dartmouth College, is giving the necessity
of preemptive violence his academic blessing. With the flood of adrenaline, the blood thickens
and grows hot, and eventually spills out on the paving stones and the curb.
On the other hand, the inchoate lunges and political retractions, the firings and shuffling
of personnel in the administration, is not at all inspiring. If Trump brings any more generals
into the National Security Council, people will have even more reason to worry. Bannon's departure,
in and of itself, will probably not change the trajectory that the US government is locked into.
Bannon is not the pilot of Trump's soul, nor is he the Mephistopheles whispering into the ear
What keeps me awake at night is the knowledge that the only time Congress rallies to Trump,
is when they are confident that he is about to start pushing out the borders of the empire, economically
strangling small countries,--or better still, when he proves his mettle by bombing and killing
folks. Does this president have the grit to resist foolhardy military adventures, or improve diplomatic
relations with countries that view the US with alarm, or to put people back to work and rebuild
the domestic economy? It's hard to say how.
Can Trump do any more to show the rest of the world what a craven puppet the US has become to
the God of Mammon folks?
I believe that all this strum and drang are the prelude for war or a major shift in geo-political
focus on war as an economic engine of society. The next step in the prelude is either war or economic
war, both about maintaining global private finance control or away from that model. The propaganda
and fear mongering escalate so that rational discussion of the paths forward are obfuscated and
Trump may have dropped a pilot but it is foolish to think that those who have piloted global
private finance for centuries have let down their guard.
Are you one of those rare infallible gentlemen who never has made a mistake? Why are you making
it personal? I can only guess that you are trolling. No one born in this world can pass through
it free of error. But I guess you have pardoned yourself, given that you are an exception.
@ fast freddy who didn't credit any with the tool of Rational Thought
Below is a recent quote from Lord Rothschild that you can analyze keeping in mind that his
organization reduced its US holdings from 62% to 37% of it portfolio in the past 6 months....
The period of monetary accommodation may well be coming to an end. Geopolitical problems remain
widespread and are proving increasingly difficult to resolve. We therefore retain a moderate exposure
to equity markets and have diversified our asset allocation towards equity investments where value
creation is driven by some identifiable catalyst or which are exposed to longer-term positive
Hey, he is being "upfront" about it........I wonder when the music stops?
Thanks for the HHG reference. Sometimes we need some comedy to temper our outrage.
Yes, I agree Trump is now surrounded by Goldman Sachs, military types, and pro-Israel Jared.
Nothing good can come of this. SecDef Gates resisted the warmongering of Team Obama but ultimately
he went along with it. So even if there is some common sense among the generals, that doesn't
mean they can prevent another warmongering misadventure. Tillerson has shown some restraint but
it's hard to trust anyone in govt anymore.
We Americans have a problem: the USA is not performing as it should . We Americans have
not solved the problem of how to satisfactorily staff a two man team capable to manage the white
household, nor have we Americans done any better seating old 100 gents to rule the Senate, worse
among us we seem unable to supply 425 jugglers, dancers, and actors the house of dancing confusion
needs to sell its show time tickets. This staffing problem is an American problem, not a USA problem.
Its time Americans set their minds to solving it.
Its disappointing to see that Trump may have a problem supporting people that pledge their
reputations, futures, and positions to help Trump. In business I have seen many persons with this
psychological problem, its not about the hired person, its about imperfection : even the
slightest non-conforming misstep by the supportive employee is sufficient to bring about
a vilification, a firing, and the like. It nows seems possible that the surround sound family
in the white house was a defensive move designed to overcome a known-to-Trump problem that probably
has plagued Trump his entire life. I put a short-run fantastic performing employee in charge of
a significant managerial position; within a year he had fired nearly everyone in the place, some
fired had 20 years of relevant experience. Five years later the same person repeated the performance,
within a year everyone in the new place had been fired. Later, another person, this time an expert
with 20 years experience in a particular line of business was bathed in venture capital and tasked
to establish a new business within his expertise; he fired nearly everyone that he hired; some
made it a year, but that was it. He ended up trying to run the business all by himself.
This will likely only hasten the inevitable: either the liquidation of cucks and neocons
as the GOP becomes the implicit party of white nationalism, or the liquidation of the GOP as such
at the hand of white nationalists.
The sooner either of these occur, the better it is going
to be for the majority white population in the US. Probably for the black and brown populations,
@ fudmier who posits that Americans have a problem.
I dare say that the problem Americans have is shared by the rest of the species. Society is
stuck in feudal mode at its core with its fealty to the powers of global private finance and those
who own it and have for centuries. The model of a few, unaccountable people, perpetuating the
God of Mammon religion of private property, inheritance to insure continuation and that some humans
are better than others inherently is a sick measure of what we think of as civilization.
All this shit going on is proxy manipulations like have been pursued by the elite for centuries.
Humanity needs to lose its private finance pilot and set sail with a commonly piloted future.
I think our solution is as simple or complicated as we want to make it.....its all about a
I have posited before here that the sewage treatment plants and water systems of the world
are not the problem. Those things represent social advances that have been built to support towns
and cities by governments.
I posit that government, by definition, is socialistic in purpose....and I further posit that
we have forgotten this and/or this definition has been twisted by others. I grew up in Tacoma,
Washington and had an uncle who was an engineer for the regional water/power SOCIALIST organization
that is still in existence today.
The reason I make that point is that I believe that by "simply" evolving the private finance/property/inheritance
component of our form of social organization we will immensely improve the incentives we live
We need to kill the God of Mammon. Who believes in this religion? Will humanity evolve past
fealty to this god?
Thanks for the Escobar link. The story makes great sense. It's good to know about Mercer and
to see that Trump and Bannon are tight. Oddly, it did seem that with all the jackals circling
around Trump's neck, in this one case, Bannon is more use outside the tent pissing in than inside
pissing out. And Breitbart has now received a massive profile lift, it'll become a national player
in the narrative, one would expect.
By the way, I was pondering lately this whole aspect of a grass roots movement. Funny you should
bring it up. The only question here about the US is, will the people actually get a voice in this
society? If the electoral system keeps bringing liars and betraying promises, then it's time to
Occupy the Ballot and have new movements. This is happening I think, with Trump actually being
one of the precursor litmus tests.
As for the generals, what does a ruler need except the people and the army? Trump has them
both. It makes him harder to take down with all those generals around. Of course, Caesar will
have to accord with his praetorian guard or the guard will get a new Caesar. But the US is a banana
republic now, this is how it's done - and I'm serious about this, these are real dynamics I think.
Surely the generals will end up being more conservative in action than in rhetoric? And if
they get a little giddy and actually send their soldiers out into the real world, they'll quickly
receive more of those globally public humiliations that are lowering the empire to the ground
so effectively. What can go wrong, that couldn't always go wrong anyway, regardless of who's in
charge, or thinks they're in charge?
Reflecting that b's post is actually about who's steering the ship.
Personally, I don't know - or give much weight to - whether Trump is driving his own train
here. The man shows an extraordinary plasticity, which is useful in the whirlwind that buffets
him. He can afford to entertain a million ideas, players and plans. He will outlive them all,
I suspect. Despite enormous gaffes, he stays afloat. It's not a Teflon thing, it's a buoyancy
thing, or something. Maybe it lies in the country being seen as so crazy and screwed up right
now that no one can claim the high ground, and meanwhile he is, after all the elected president,
and keeps showing up for work every day as if he's in charge.
I don't see the country as broken, unless the people accept this false narrative concocted
by the media about sides split by division. Admittedly, from all the arguing and attacking going
on in this thread, one could guess that maybe the false narrative will win.
But we could draw much comfort from the words of this young black woman, Red Pill Black, in
a 5 minute YouTube essay that has a quarter million views so far in the last 2 days. She makes
stunningly good sense - it's worth 5 minutes or your money back:
I Don't Care About Charlottesville,
the KKK, or White Supremacy
And I have some respect for the tide of history, and would challenge the notion that anyone
was ever really in charge anyway. And this is the great promise that I think Trump still holds.
I believe he will bend with the prevailing winds, within his belief system - and there are winds
stirring that no one controls, I think. History again. I can't prove it, or even point to it at
this stage, but I'm happy enough to wait.
Given that Trump's Inauguration speech included a promise to challenge the abusive power of the
Swamp/Deep State, anyone who expected something other than a Magical Mystery Tour, or imagined
that he would behave predictably, is utterly clueless about Leadership, Power, and the predictable
consequences of "throwing down the gauntlet."
Ever heard of the enclosure acts ? Do you know which wealthy propaganda artist and lobbyist
placed Art. I, Sec. 8, (8) in the US constitution? The Congress shall have the power ...to promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." ?
Any idea how the patent and copyright clause has been used to force on the people of the world
the crime of kill and take, lie and steal everything from whomever capitalism? Imagine the monopoly
power the Wall Street Bandits can insert into corporations by raising enough money to enable the
corporation to acquire monopoly rights in any & all great ideas [THEY CAN OWN the marketing rights
and make the profits from ANYTHING ANYONES MIND CAN THINK UP]that can be reduced to objects than
can make money.
MONOPOLY POWER is a requirement of SUCCESSFUL CAPITALISM?
Patents and copyrights produce a great portion of the faults we are all so upset about. Americans
have a problem, the USA is not performing satisfactorily because those in charge of the USA respond
only to the global capitalist who have sufficient funds to purchase what they USA is selling.
Most Americans cannot afford to buy what the USA is selling?
"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's
last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. "We are
grateful for his service and wish him the best."
... ... ...
On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job security
but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend." "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr.
Trump said. Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with
whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect.
In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical:
"Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't
die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's
no military solution here, they got us." He also bad-mouthed his colleagues in the Trump administration,
vowed to oust a diplomat at the State Department and mocked officials as "wetting themselves" over
the consequences of radically changing trade policy.
Of the far right, he said, "These guys are a collection of clowns," and he called it a "fringe
element" of "losers." "We gotta help crush it," he said in the interview, which people close to Mr.
Bannon said he believed was off the record. Privately, several White House officials said that Mr.
Bannon appeared to be provoking Mr. Trump and that they did not see how the president could keep
him on after the interview was published.
"... Mr. Bannon had been aligned with Mr. Kelly's predecessor, Reince Priebus, who was forced out in late July. More significantly, Mr. Bannon has been in a battle with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, since the spring ..."
"... Mr. Bannon, whose campaign against "globalists" was a hallmark of his tenure steering the right-wing website Breitbart.com, and Mr. Kushner had been allies throughout the transition process and through the beginning of the administration. ..."
"... But their alliance ruptured as Mr. Trump elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration official who also worked on Wall Street... ..."
"We gotta help crush it," he said in the interview, which people close to Mr. Bannon said he believed
was off the record.
Mr. Bannon's departure was long rumored in Washington. The president's new
staff, John F. Kelly , a retired Marine Corps general who was brought on for his ability to organize
a chaotic staff, was said to have grown weary of the chief strategist's long-running feud with Lt.
Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser.
Mr. Bannon had been aligned with Mr. Kelly's predecessor,
Reince Priebus, who was forced out in late July. More significantly, Mr. Bannon has been in a
battle with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, since the spring.
Mr. Bannon, whose campaign against "globalists" was a hallmark of his tenure steering the
right-wing website Breitbart.com, and Mr. Kushner had been allies throughout the transition process
and through the beginning of the administration.
But their alliance ruptured as Mr. Trump elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic
policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration
official who also worked on Wall Street...
"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party
documents he published during last year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional
helpful information about the leaks in the near future."
Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta
emails, despite the intelligence community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir
Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges to this view have
emerged in recent days,
including from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the
idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with. "Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents,"
says The Hill ,
"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also
indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email
incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."
What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current
status as a political prisoner: he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many
years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave and his rendition to the United States
to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how he got
his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?
Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear
campaign due to his unwillingness to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in
Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece calling him "Putin's favorite
congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian"
views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."
It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato
Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia bandwagon. Cato
cut their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the
War Party's line on the US-sponsored Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected
chief of state. But it gets worse.
Here 's Cato senior
fellow Andrei Illarionov saying we are already at war with Russia:
"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is
not an accident, this is not a mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This
is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is up to you what choice you will make."
And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:
"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved
without serious adjustments made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful,
but by itself it does not deter the use of force."
While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in
Washington the craziness is pandemic. Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne
Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's initiative: "We'll take
the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."
The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior
epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions ! and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point
where it is unthinkable for anyone to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree
with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be supported.
Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails,
allowing the CIA/NSA to claim that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving
them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin. This meeting with Rohrabacher,
and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we
are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.
We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's
line from the very beginning. That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming
the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked." We don't accept government pronouncements
at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either. We always
ask the question: "
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the
culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first
National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.
Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely
framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.
Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially
conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between
them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff,
General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.
In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who
continuing to tighten his control of the White House.
Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is
completing his purge of the remaining Flynn hold-overs on the staff of the National Security
Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist.
It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be
an ideologist and an intellectual.
I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual
too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological
positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent
platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated.
Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the
President or of his famed political skills.
Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders.
I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself.
If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's
own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent
execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges
The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping
the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.
I have already
made known my views
of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians
at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit
However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took
office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.
As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President
from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's
electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration.
In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make
any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from
his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway.
It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success
or failure as President – that the events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.
The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.
The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements
of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working
in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring
down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.
All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions
of the US government, which since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and
unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.
The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which
appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically
speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.
It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do
not immediately run into bitter opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special
case – senior soldiers.
Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of
the US government to an extent that has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies
of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.
The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the
state had become so dysfunctional that the military as the only functioning institution left ended
up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's policies – was in Germany in the
lead up to the First World War.
Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executivve order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired--requested to
resign--at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deepstate figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
Nah...don't quite agree on this one. The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
print here or as an e-book (from
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation ! an America made "great again" ! is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s ! plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era ! Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama ! put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature
of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring
its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its
person of the year
. In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group ! all
those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.
Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself
the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of
American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric
at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of
, his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine,
and Death will just have to wait.
The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be
this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective
sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded
! and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him.
Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed
him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him
in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to
bemoan the injustice of it all).
Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy
lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status
quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his
promise of salvation ! an America made "great again" ! is not going to materialize.
Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves.
To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump
is not cause, but consequence.
For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama
staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing
as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those
worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.
How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox
News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a
more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum
on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying
consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members
of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of
the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.
Rabbit Poses a Question
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle
was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century
, pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory
consultation, did his fellow citizens.
The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it
turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have
matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to
keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist
takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a "
superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was
for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.
Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade
of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held
the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning
norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of
personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States
held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.
Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness:
these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the
1990s ! plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution,"
gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce
that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.
The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new
modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet,
however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only
as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information
technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions.
Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.
More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and
reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels
of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking
to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself
something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information
revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities.
That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted;
that they would, in due course, align everybody ! from Afghans to Zimbabweans ! with American values
and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.
The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era ! Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama
! put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our
42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities
greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they
presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War
consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing
so, however, it greatly
exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working
class and underclass.
The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to
discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair
pervading a society suffering from epidemics of
chronic substance abuse ,
morbid obesity ,
, and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's
highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for
, urban school systems
mired in permanent crisis, and
mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than
the profile of a healthy society.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting
richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United
States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As
for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been
at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being
offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.
In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus
signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture
motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S.
military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the
election of Donald Trump.
The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the
extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting
government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing
military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained
in their recently unveiled (and
instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum
wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed
will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.
In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally
bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis
in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.
First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the
circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California
and New York will elect our President well into the future.
If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.
I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman
who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is
anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings
The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish
Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss
and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides.
Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and
California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive
of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against
it. What does that tell you?
Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along
with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media
that feed that lies 24/7.
What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus
processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals
to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic
minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.
AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about
what she intended to do ."promote world peace".
Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding,
but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with
the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never
do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"
Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being
an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children
and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for
Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment.
Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined
freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may
win a lawsuit against Google.
Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut
its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined.
Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs
to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget
even more than Trump!
It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used
a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds
to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in
2020 to prove that is simple.
@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College
by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate
their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.
"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of
the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal)
majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to
the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision
can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and
I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the
game, so to say.
Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many
more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are
picking up litter or emptying bed pans.
More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results
as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake,
and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating
for those who do not achieve them?
Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain
societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in
their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through
employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.
Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees
and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which
will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.
Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any
of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than
fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.
Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.
I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran,
Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult
for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another.
As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis
of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.
Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians,
Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the
same people that Obama had to hate.
In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't
have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes
or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE
whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse
others of hate.
@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by
3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their
role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is
interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their
leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.
But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided
by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral
college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?
Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .
1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening
the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;
2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public
financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)
3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and
restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader
of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..
@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two
Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population.
This is a good thing.
@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives.
"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators
Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less
populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes
for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.
@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same
as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect
of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of
543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per
cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent
author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure
"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal
branches of government."
Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.
No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how
often the phrase is repeated.
The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united
and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.
The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers,
but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution,
is very limited indeed.
In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways
to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution
has none of that.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.
@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same
essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either
a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.
@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively
only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.
Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically,
and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed
The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for
power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").
What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution.
It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes
all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.
Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.
Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state,
county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed
so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even
the commodities themselves–but brands of them.
Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion
research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies,
forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.
The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that
go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those,
among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas,
then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of
value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence
is drowned in a sea of mass communications.
If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access
to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative
sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.
And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully
selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.
Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these
people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The
Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.
The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government
solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that
all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global,
they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have
their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major
metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating
the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their)))
doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really
think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who
are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites
have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today.
There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question
at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets
If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from
the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off
the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation
occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed
in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this
task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a
lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus
from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that
has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected
children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges
in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their
fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way
to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their
present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.
Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W
Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his
opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney.
Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the
"slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic
Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's
wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who
could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White
House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently,
with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while
producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.
@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman
became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as
the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but
perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions.
Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.
The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else
to the extent possible.
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times . ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria. ..."
"... In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow. ..."
"... The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong. ..."
"... The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a
President elect), John McCain is more at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain
was directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding President-elect
Donald Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the
This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI nominee
Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell on a
fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian lawyer had sought a
meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton,
admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following :
" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody
suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us
all to call the FBI."https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s
But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is
the one who was fooling around with a foreign intelligence organization.
Gubarev , a Cypriot based chief executive of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed
suit against Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation over their
role in the publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald
Trump's purported activities involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during
last year's U.S. election.
The businessman, Aleksej Gubarev , claims he and
his companies were falsely linked in the dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of
Democratic Party figures. Gubarev , 36, also is seeking
unspecified damages from Buzzfeed and its top editor, Ben Smith,
in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami. Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business
Intelligence in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court. Rowan Scarborough
obtained a copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both
illuminating and damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in April). This is
like a statement under oath and it presents the following facts: 1. Orbis Business Intelligence
was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential
memorandum based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential
election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June
2016). 2. Fusion GPS is run by three former Wall Street Journal reporters: Glenn Simpson; Tom
Catan; and Peter Fritsch. (
According to the New York Times, Fusion GPS was originally hired by a Republican donor –
who has not been publicly identified – to dig up dirt on Trump in 2015. After Trump won
the nomination, the firm began working with Democrats and honed in on Trump's links to
Russia.) 3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator
McCain's Institute for International Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis,
former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher
Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier. 4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele
met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos. 5.
Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for
Fusion GPS to provide Senator McCain hard copies of the memoranda. 6. After Donald Trump was
elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that
made the following claims:
Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin
Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg
SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked
in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various contingencies for
covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more
In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the
operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the
Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's
team and the Kremlin.
[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in Prague.]
7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national
security official and to Fusion GPS (via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard
copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this
salacious material to FBI director, James Comey.
As I pointed out in my previous piece (
Trump Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . . ), the Steele Dossier now stands completely
discredited because the Trump Jr. emails provide prima facie evidence that there was no
regular, sustained contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was no need to
meet with an unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier,
already had been delivered to the Trump team.
The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Circumstantial evidence opens them to charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they
did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks. Spreading a lie
that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed
over the last six months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.
McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed
Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a
foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after
the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his
advisers, a Politico investigation found.
You can read the full story here . The
hysteria on the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the Trumps
shows a growing potential for blowback. As more actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets
receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater
the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated
allegations. Such a development would leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.
I agree that Birtherism was an unethical strategy (e.g., when did you stop molesting
children). I would point out the Hillary Clinton used this as an issue against Obama in 2008.
She published photos of him in native african garb and had her surrogetes us this against up
through the Democrat Convention. It was a strategy of both Trump and Clinton.
Slightly OT but mentioned by Steve & Iowa Steve above. I watched an hour or so long You
Tube video 3 or 4 months ago about how Sheriff Joe Arpio (??sp) had got a couple of
investigators to look into the Obama birth Cert brouhaha & to try & put it to bed,
one way or another. The result was what I considered to be (I am not any expert in document
forensics) a pretty convincing explanation of how the Birth Cert that the White House put
forward was a forgery & how it had been falsified.
They even had tracked down (&
named the woman) the birth cert that Obamas had been based on. It was convincing.
thing that sold the investigation to me as being genuine was there was nothing - nothing, in
the MSM about it. I took that to mean that they didn't want to try & debunk it as it
would attract attention to the video. I didn't pay over much attention to the scandal back
when, & only watched the vid as I was laid up that day. Since then I've also come across
a "Barry Soetoro" foreign student I.D. card from Columbia U with a young Obama pictured on
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted
by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first
term is up. That is the plan.
I understand that foreign governments -- and probably mostly Russia -- try desperately to
influence our elections in their favor. Just as I understand that our government officials do
the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone who really, really
believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a
Pollyanna in that regard.
But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human
nature. At my age, the reality of human nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to
Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this
issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted
for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold my nose and vote
for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but
I was fully aware of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I
despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible. I could go on, but
The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the
beginning. I was originally flabbergasted by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person.
But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working, Americans who
live in the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of
the world" people. Their votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he
wanted to "drain the swamp." We knew what that meant. We know now that avoiding the
machinations of swamp people is harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give
the Trump boys some grace, but not the smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.
Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the
swamp drained and the leaks plugged and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take
the NYT and WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage liners, shredded
packaging stuffing, even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any
news story about it. Heck, don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to
the commentary. Write your senators and representatives about your views of the issues; then
go on with leading good American lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who
is in charge.
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."
This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by
Nekrasov), and, by association, to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years
together" by Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west for their harsh
critique of the Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov).
No publishing house
in the US and UK dares to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares
to show "The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not
fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects
from the Fusion GPS garbage. As for Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his
election platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president pretty much gets
to decide foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?
Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama
and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and
how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated
force" of those responsible for 9/11.
Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian
oligarch who was sanctioned as a result of the Magnitsky Act. That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried
to cut a deal back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230
million fine was later reduced to only $6 million days before his case was set for trial this
" In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is
usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the
appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. "
This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the
judiciary always gives a pass when the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect
legal doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance and misfeasance.
There's a reason why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the
What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?
I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks
by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt
investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing
Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in
Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the
request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence' in the
London suit to which you linked.
Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until
recently a senior barrister at the BBC is of any relevance I do not know.
There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is
absolutely basic journalistic 'tradecraft' to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before
publication. The question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'
A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I
think have almost certainly said that the memorandum on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a
'fair business risk.'
Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been
omitted from the published version of the dossier – particularly as this would not have
materially reduced the 'information operations' impact of the document.
As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his
suing to zero, and again, would not have materially reduced the impact of the dossier.
Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those
who run Fusion – and one of the company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former
'Financial Times' journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky wicket
without needing to consult a lawyer.
At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons,
including the possibility that they could make people for the first time actually notice that
Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up.
Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of
contradictions, what would seem reasonably clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating
proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in
the back. So Steele is trying to rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not
intended for publication at all, and that the reason for their publication was a violation of
a confidentiality agreement by Fusion.
Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly
contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that, contrary to what it says, he was never an
'associate' of Orbis.
In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually
possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate
degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this
substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry
into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its
present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow.
The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new
heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting
the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other
outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I
could be wrong.
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government.
Here we have a documented case of a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence
organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives" (including McCain and
the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems
that their wish was heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.
"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long time ago."
Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism.
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the
The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a
nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any
attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts
of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far
more dangerous line.
Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my
vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary.
"... Those with an interest in political economy will need to bend a little and admit that to some degree, beneath the workings of large macro forces of class and transnational capital, personal factors also play a role. Idiosyncratic characteristics, personality, and family life cannot be excluded. Nor can we ignore the role of the media, the new Cold War atmosphere that dominates US politics, the entrenched bureaucracy, the role of elite class prejudices, and a Trump support base divided into factions. ..."
"... Others have looked at institutional factors, such as Trump's insufficient number of loyal personnel with experience in government, to legislators acting as hostage-takers in holding up a large number of nominations. Another form of institutional explanation, one common in alternative media, is that there has been a coup by the "deep state". ..."
"... However, what they refer to as the deep state in most cases is just the state -- without anything particularly deep or mysterious about it. They refer to the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the military, Congress, which are all very much the state . ..."
"... There were disturbing signs that Trump had begun to shed his campaign skin from the first days after his electoral triumph. First, there was his inexplicable need to ingratiate himself with his enemies, with those who worked assiduously to demonize him personally, and to demoralize and stigmatize his base. On prosecuting Hillary Clinton, after revelling in chants of "lock her up" at campaign rallies, after nearly promising she would be in jail if he were president, and explicitly vowing he would appoint a special prosecutor -- Trump instead told CBS' 60 Minutes on November 13: " I don't want to hurt them [the Clintons] , I don't want to hurt them. They're, they're good people. I don't want to hurt them". ..."
"... Trump misled people if he implied that his days of being a Clinton golf partner and patron were in the distant past. On Barack Obama, who had repeatedly mocked and berated him, Trump would then turn around and say about the man he said was virtually a founder of ISIS, "We get along. I don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. I like him ". When Trump visited Obama in the White House at the start of the transition, he seemed almost obsequious and unnecessarily generous in his flattery of Obama. ..."
No single definitive explanation has been provided by any others analyzing Trump's
malleability, and at best I am offering a draft of an explanation. What we have is a bundle of
possible influences, pressures, constraints, mixed in with opportunism and class prejudice.
Those with an interest in political economy will need to bend a little and admit that to
some degree, beneath the workings of large macro forces of class and transnational capital,
personal factors also play a role. Idiosyncratic characteristics, personality, and family life
cannot be excluded. Nor can we ignore the role of the media, the new Cold War atmosphere that
dominates US politics, the entrenched bureaucracy, the role of elite class prejudices, and a
Trump support base divided into factions.
Others have looked at institutional factors, such as Trump's insufficient number of
loyal personnel with experience in government, to legislators acting as hostage-takers in
holding up a large number of nominations. Another form of institutional explanation, one common
in alternative media, is that there has been a coup by the "deep state".
However, what they refer to as the deep state in most cases is just the state -- without
anything particularly deep or mysterious about it. They refer to the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the
military, Congress, which are all very much the state .
My concern is that "deep" state might mystify knowable actors and processes, shrouding them
in a conspiratorial pall under which they operate with seemingly limitless power and with the
independent ability to reproduce and fund themselves. Put another way, I have yet to read a
"deep state" explanation for Trump's course changes, that does not sound like it is handing an
alibi to Trump.
Next, let's review some of the main course changes charted by Trump after his electoral
Trump's Deference to Obama and the Clintons
There were disturbing signs that Trump had begun to shed his campaign skin from the
first days after his electoral triumph. First, there was his inexplicable need to ingratiate
himself with his enemies, with those who worked assiduously to demonize him personally, and to
demoralize and stigmatize his base. On prosecuting Hillary Clinton, after revelling in chants
of "lock her up" at campaign rallies, after nearly promising she would be in jail if he were
president, and explicitly vowing he would appoint a special prosecutor -- Trump instead told
CBS' 60 Minutes on November 13: "
I don't want to hurt them [the Clintons] , I don't want to hurt them. They're, they're good
people. I don't want to hurt them".
Trump misled people if he implied that his days of being a Clinton golf partner and
patron were in the distant past. On Barack Obama, who had repeatedly mocked and berated him,
Trump would then turn around and say about the man he said was virtually a founder of ISIS, "We
get along. I don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. I like him ".
When Trump visited Obama in the White House at the start of the transition, he seemed almost
obsequious and unnecessarily generous in his flattery of Obama.
Then there was the endless parade of visitors to Trump Tower in New York, invited by Trump
as he possibly considered them for cabinet roles -- including the leader of the "Never Trump"
campaign, and arch neoliberal Mitt Romney. Various familiar neoconservatives were also
considered for key posts -- and each time a name was floated, such as that of Elliot Abrams, it
was left to his legions of supporters to frantically try to change Trump's mind, well trained
as they were by the experience of trying to clean up his messes over and over again during the
The uncertainty seemed to leave many of them desperate and worried about the strangely
wavering Trump. In voting for Trump, his supporters certainly got neither
what they asked for , nor what they deserved.
This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of
the coup against Trump. The hypothesis that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American
Imperialism and neoliberal globalization it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of
arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic banners is mostly
immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR
occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into
barbarity and head chopping should not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and
the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make the USSR occupation of
Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA
political laboratories as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying
ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown by the forces of neoliberalism
in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is
hall mark of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a
threat, or a tool for the US led global neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of
Hillary Clinton email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for
neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist it. This is the question.
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar,
Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden, the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their
yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed Shah
Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.
Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:
The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.
Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would
both have Constitutions placing those Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would
be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the
Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the
Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar
Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war
rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.
Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION
courtesy of the U.S. government while Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in
Indonesia and in South America.
Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other
European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable Islamic immigrants who reside in
"no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare
benefits paid for by the citizens of those counties.
The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the
Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other
atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including
open FBI cases in all 50 states.
U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not
Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism is considered racism.
National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of
Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood
If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would
be the outcome in just 15 short years, do you think they would believe you? Do you think
that they would think that their side is winning?
When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side,
but they find forty, what do they do?
Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably
wouldn't be a smart move to hang around for the answer. Not smart at all.
Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical
pause and that is basically what Donald Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on
After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened.
Was their information wrong? Did they go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give
them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need to be
A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from
politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism"
narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful
sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which
had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the
enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic
At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a
tactical pause and a strategic reassessment. This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or
ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.
Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified
programs for Special Operations Command. He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International Security
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Donald Trump is guilty of something, guilty as sin. Nobody outside his innermost circle knows
yet what he is guilty of, and all the evidence is circumstantial. But guilty he surely is.
Is it that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton? That is the
story line that corporate media take for gospel truth. It is not out of the question that some Russians,
some of whom had some connection with the Russian government, hacked into something. Even if they
did, however, the Russian meddling story is ridiculously overblown – for reasons that are politically
self-serving and irresponsibly, if not criminally, dangerous.
If catastrophic outcomes can somehow be avoided, that story will eventually go the way of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. Before that happens, however, count on Vladimir Putin's affront to the
"integrity" of American democracy being used to justify devastating, potentially catastrophic, diplomatic
and military adventures ! in much the way that Saddam Hussein's WMDs once were.
By the time the dust settles, it will likely become clear that either there never was any reason
to accept the party line on Russian meddling or that, even if there was something to it, there was
never any reason to get all worked up about it.
This is not to say that "Russiagate" investigations should be opposed; quite to the contrary,
there is every reason to support them fully.
If nothing else, investigations like Robert Mueller's and the ones underway in the House and Senate
help keep Trump and the people he has brought into his administration from executing their nefarious
agendas. Better yet, they are likely, before long, to bring Trump himself down – in ways that would
make it harder for Trump's appointees and, when the times comes, for Mike Pence to turn many of the
progressive gains of the past hundred or so years around.
But the fact remains: the election meddling furor is, at best, a red herring – about which all
one can honestly say, for now, is: Who knows? Who cares?
Who knows – because the only reason to think that there was Russian meddling is that "the intelligence
community" says there was. But, as everybody knows or ought to know, they are inveterate liars. Lying
is in their genes and in their job descriptions.
Moreover, if history is a guide, they are just as likely to be wrong as to be right, even when
they aren't deliberately telling lies.
Everybody also knows that the CIA in particular is not above politicizing intelligence when it
serves some institutional purpose.
Who knows too – because liberal and not-so-liberal media have been pressing the case for Russian
election meddling so vigorously for such a long time that the idea has become almost second nature
to all but the most circumspect consumers of news. In cases like this, the wisest course of action
usually is to become more, not less, skeptical.
It is hard to say which media outlet is the most at fault; the competition is so intense.
The Washington Post and The New York Times are serious contenders, though it must be
said, in fairness, that the Trump menace seems to have reignited a taste for real investigative reporting
– about Trump ! in both of them. For that, one could forgive a great deal.
But they are still, on the whole, a servile lot. My vote for the worst of them all is MSNBC, with
Joy Reid leading the way and Rachel (take twenty minutes to make a twenty second point) Maddow close
A character in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" advised believing
only half of what one sees and nothing that one hears. Inasmuch as most of what one sees and hears
about Russian meddling in the 2016 election are breathless repetitions of claims originating in the
intelligence services, this is good advice in the case at hand.
The problem is not "fake news," news reports that are deliberately deceptive. Trump blathers on
endlessly about that – in his usual, self-serving, bullying way – using the term so loosely as to
void it of meaning. On this as on so much else, what comes out of Trump's mouth and what one reads
in his tweets is sheer nonsense.
It is true, of course, that, under his aegis and inspiration, there has been an up-tick in deliberately
false news stories, mainly in "alt-right" media outlets. But there is little, if any, genuinely fake
(deliberately false) news in mainstream media. This side of Fox News, and sometimes even there, most
journalists do try to maintain journalistic standards. They are not pathological liars, little Donald
What they are, wittingly or not, are propagandists – in the sense discussed long ago by Noam Chomsky
and Ed Herman in Manufacturing Consent (reprint edition, Pantheon, 2002). Ï
Through the workings of the several mechanisms described in that book, they fashion and reinforce
narratives, story lines, that accord with the interests of the owners of the corporations they work
for and, when the need arises, with the interests of the entirety of what C. Wright Mills called
the "power structure." At the same time, they derogate and marginalize counter-narratives that have,
or could have, effects detrimental to the interests of the people and institutions they serve.
Their express intention, of course, is to report the news, not to maintain the status quo; they
don't set out to deceive. More often than not, they believe the stories they tell. Why would they
not? The system they are part of incentivizes compliance with the power structure's interests; and,
when tensions arise, it is generally easier to go along than to be a stickler for plausibility.
For getting mainstream media to sign on to the election meddling narrative, it would be difficult
to underestimate the importance of the role played by a key component of the power structure in the
United States today, the Democratic Party.
That is how desperate Democrats are to make sure that Clinton's stunning, self-inflicted defeat
last November will not be Clintonism's (neoliberalism's, liberal imperialism's) last hurrah. To that
end, they have been willing, even eager, to revive Cold War demons that had lain dormant for decades
! bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.
Ostensibly the less noxious of the two neoliberal parties that dominate our politics, Democrats
today have sunk so low that were Republicans still no worse than they were, say, when they fell into
line behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, or even before Obama's 2008
electoral victory made many rank-and-file Republicans bat shit crazy, it would now be an open question
which party actually is the greater evil of the two.
The consensus view in mainstream media lately, in the Democratic Party, and increasingly in the
Republican Party as well, is that Trump is doing grave harm to the office of the Presidency and to
many of the institutions, both domestic and international, through which the United States has dominated
the world since 1945.
This is certainly the case. But, contrary to what is assumed throughout the power structure, it
is at least debatable whether Trump's effect on these institutions – and the negative effect his
presidency is having on the GOP itself – is, on balance, a good or bad thing.
Instead of rallying around the Democratic Party, a genuine Left would itself be taking aim at
the bastions of empire and class rule that Trump is mindlessly but inexorably undoing. Trump's way
is nihilistic and thuggish; and the only alternatives he or his cabinet secretaries and agency heads
have in mind are odious even by Republican standards.
This is why the Trump presidency is, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster – no matter
how much damage Trump does to the old world order or to some of the more disabling institutional
arrangements afflicting the political scene.
Democrats can be and, for the most part, actually are, monumentally awful, but Republicans who
support Trump are worse. This would not be so plainly the case, if the comparison was with pre-9/11
Republicans or even with the Republican Party before the 2008 election.
After all, if the appropriate metric is damage to world peace, geopolitical stability, and the
wellbeing of humankind, Bush is still the worst President ever. Of course, if Trump mentally decomposes
more than he already has, or if he starts acting out in exceptionally lethal ways, he could surpass
even the standard Bush has set. For now, though, six months into the Trump era, W remains Number
One How revealing, therefore, that the very media that, to their credit, have nothing good to say
about the billionaire buffoon, are now welcoming Bush, and his underlings, back into the fold.
In polite society nowadays, Obamaphiles, including Obama himself and his First Lady, even seem
to regard Bush the Younger as one of the good guys; and miscreants from his administration are featured
in all the leading media outlets. How pathetic is that!
To his credit, however, Bush, unlike Trump, was not blatantly racist or nativist in his public
pronouncements; and notwithstanding the fact that he and Cheney waged war on the Muslim world, he
wasn't overtly Islamophobic either. The party he led generally followed suit.
However, once he was gone, Tea Partiers and Tea Party fellow travelers didn't have anything holding
them back. With Obama at the helm of the empire, it didn't take long for them to make the Party over
in their image.
For appearance sake, the Republican Party became the Party of No, but what they really were was
the anti-Obama-for-all-the wrong-reasons Party. Republicans had no principled reason to turn Obama
into Public Enemy Number One; his political views, which he did little to advance in any case, were
more or less in line with those of pre-2001, or even pre-2008, Republicans.
Obama's rival in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, was essentially a pre-2008 Republican; politically,
he and Obama were cut from the same cloth. Tea Partiers didn't like that one bit, but even the most
"deplorable" of them never hated Romney the way they hated Obama. What set their hatred off was the
color of Obama's skin.
How else to account for eight years of "repeal and replace Obamacare" sloganeering? In substance
and genealogy (its origins in the Heritage Foundation, the implementation of something very like
it in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney) Obamacare is essentially a Republican program. Had
it not come with Obama's name attached, doctrinaire free-market theologians of the Rand Paul or Ted
Cruz variety would still not like it, but neither would they or any of their co-thinkers get especially
worked up on its account.
Nevertheless, it was opposition to Obamacare, more than anything else, that kept the GOP's several
factions together during the Obama years. How ironic that all those "repeal and replace" Republicans
are now floundering because when they finally got their chance to do what they said they wanted to
do, they were unable to do anything at all. It is tempting to say that they outsmarted themselves,
but the word "smart" grates when applied to them.
Democrats are generally nicer than Republicans, and many times more civilized. Were their self-exonerating
anti-Russian, anti-Putin campaigning not so dangerous, they would plainly be the good guys still,
Even with their hysterical Russophobia, they probably still are. But being comparatively less
awful than the GOP is no reason to buy into the election meddling story that Democrats are so assiduously
It is possible, of course, that despite all the reasons to be skeptical of their narrative, there
is some truth in what they say. Even if there is, however, why make such a big deal or it? Who cares?
Evidently, pundits with venting privileges on ostensibly liberal cable networks do and Democratic
Party sore losers, but their concerns are misdirected. No one, not even the worst of the worst on
MSNBC, claims that those dastardly Russian meddlers affected the outcome of the election in any significant
way. Russians didn't defeat Hillary Clinton; she defeated herself.
It is not for want of trying that no one has been able to make a plausible case for the claim
that, but for Russian meddling, Clinton would have beaten Trump. But, alas, no one has been able
to maintain that Russians had anything to do with collecting or counting votes, or that they interfered
with the workings of the electoral process in any other way.
The idea instead is that they depressed Democratic turnout by diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton.
They did this, supposedly, by providing evidence of the Democratic National Committee's efforts to
rig the election for Hillary and against Bernie Sanders, and by demeaning Clinton in ways that Democrats
and their friends in the mainstream press don't even bother to try to spell out.
If only the Democrats and their media flacks would evince half as much self-righteous indignation
over past and on-going Republican efforts at voter suppression! There is no doubt that they were
real and that their consequences were significant. Neither is the case with alleged Russian voter
suppression efforts last year.
Moreover, even if the Russians did do all that our propagandists claimed they did, they did nothing
worse than what countless homegrown political operatives do when they sell candidates to voters in
more or less the way that commercial advertisers sell the wares they peddle to targeted audiences.
The difference is morally significant. If the Russians actually did suppress voter turnout in
2016, it was through one or another form of persuasion. Republicans suppress votes by making it difficult,
or impossible, for likely Democratic voters ! African Americans and other "persons of color" mainly,
but also students, and many elderly citizens ! to exercise their right to vote.
The consensus view notwithstanding, the Russian election meddling narrative is short on compelling
evidence, and is grounded in a patently defective rationale. Even so, it could still have merit.
But even if there was meddling as charged, nothing much came of it. This has always been obvious,
and it too is significant.
Sanders supporters didn't need Russians to tell them that the Democratic Party wanted Bernie to
lose and Hillary to win. Everyone paying attention knew that already. Clinton's shortcomings were
also evident for all to see.
Therefore, if the story line being pushed by our "manufacturers of consent" is on track, it would
only show that those Russians are not nearly as clever as the propagandists vilifying them would
like people to think. By documenting the obvious, what they did made about as much sense as throwing
buckets of water into the ocean.
Why then is Trump putting the extent of his ineptitude on display by acting as if he is about
to block the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling? Trump may not be the magisterial dealmaker
his remaining fans believe him to be, but he is surely not as self-destructively stupid as his actions
The answer must be that he really does have something to hide; something more damaging than anything
the mainstream media narrative suggests.
Trump doesn't know much, but he surely does know that Congressional investigations and Justice
Department investigations involving special prosecutors take on lives of their own, even when, in
the first instance, they are much ado about nothing. Watergate was only "a third-rate burglary,"
He is also shrewd enough to realize that his business machinations give Congress and the Justice
Department plenty to investigate. There is sleaze galore out there, waiting to be uncovered.
Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead, if Trump is still around – or even if he returns to
the gilded monstrosity on Fifth Avenue that he had built to glorify himself, leaving arch-reactionary
Mike Pence in charge ! we will have loads of well-corroborated reports of shady (artful?) deals with
Russian oligarchs and, insofar as there is a difference, Russian mobsters, making the news interesting
This is sheer speculation, of course; and the evidence, what there is of it so far, is circumstantial.
Much of it consists of idiotic tweets that suggest nothing more damning than an acute consciousness
of guilt. Ì
Nevertheless, I would bet the ranch, if I had one to bet, that honest and determined investigators
with subpoena power scratching beneath the surface, will find incontrovertible proof of legal, moral,
or political infractions so egregious that even the fools who still refuse to admit that Trump conned
them into thinking that, as President, he would somehow make their lives better, will find it impossible
to keep on standing by their man.
Trump is guilty, a hundred times over; and it is plain as day too that whatever it turns out to
be that he is guilty of, that his over-arching cupidity and vanity made him do it.
Finding out what he is guilty of should be at the top of every competent authority's to do list.
It should also become a consuming passion of journalists who, for their own good and the good of
the public they serve, no longer want to propagandize for the beneficiaries of the status quo.
Because the power structure is so thoroughly and uniformly intent on dumping Trump – not for wholly
creditable reasons, but, for a matter of such urgency, that hardly matters – opportunities for doing
authentic journalism, even in the face of the propaganda mechanisms Herman and Chomsky identified,
now exist to a degree that would have seemed unimaginable before November 2016.
It is a complicated business, however because the same anti-Trump animosities that make it possible
to mobilize the press against the government also enable the Democratic Party to enlist support,
in media circles and more generally, for the demonization of Putin and his government, with all the
dangers that ensue.
So, by all means, investigate, investigate, and investigate some more – taking care, however,
not to be sidetracked onto false paths where perils of Clintonite design threaten to spin out of
control in ways that even competent statesmen, like Putin and Sergey Lavrov, would have a hard time
diffusing, if they still had reasonable interlocutors in Washington to work with.
Those are, to put it mildly, in short supply. With Trump in the White House and a bipartisan (but
Clinton inspired) neocon consensus in Congress, reasonable interlocutors in Washington are about
as numerous as genuine progressives in the Democratic fold.
debate on Facebook More articles by:
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone
involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a
Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC
staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC
staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made
to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from
swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty
"... Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism." ..."
"... Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were
bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be
unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against
unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their
Looks like Bezos has some interesting connections ;-)
"... The Washington Post has obtained transcripts of two conversations President Trump had with foreign leaders: one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. ..."
The Washington Post has obtained transcripts of two conversations President Trump had with
foreign leaders: one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
use2beadem, 9:47 PM EDT
Publishing the content of these calls is bad for our country, our democracy and the glue
that binds us together.
The Post's disdain of this President is clearly overtaking judgment. Publishing calls of
any President with other world leaders is part of the coup the Post is waging and
participating in against the President.
(I don't remember a single call transcript between Obama and another leader being
published in the Post). The Left surely won't like it when the tables are turned on them.
In this occasional series, we will bring you up to speed on the biggest national security stories
of the week.
On Thursday, The Washington Post
published previously undisclosed transcripts from President Trump's conversations with Mexican
President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The two heated exchanges
provided extraordinary insight into Trump's approach to diplomacy. Trump went back and forth with
the Mexican president on which country will pay for the border wall, telling him that the best solution
is to stop discussing the issue. Trump became exasperated with Australia's prime minister when Turnbull
insisted that Trump would have to honor a deal signed by President Barack Obama that the United States
would accept refugees detained by Australia.
But perhaps one of the most fascinating takeaways from the conversations was Trump's focus on
his political successes and image, not the policy issues the two foreign leaders attempted to steer
the conversations toward.
This looks like attempt of Republicans to placate DemoRats (Neoliberal democrats) at the
expense of Russia... A lot of internal politics involved.
"... And while he clearly had big problems with the bill, he signed it anyhow, saying he plans to work with Congress to "make the bill better," even though it's already the law of the land now. After struggles within Congress to get the bills through, there is little appetite to re-negotiate it. ..."
"... The bill imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and limits the president's ability to remove sanctions without Congressional permission. Russia and Iran have threatened retaliation over the bill, as has the European Union, which fears the bill is going to target German energy companies. ..."
And while he clearly had big problems with the bill, he signed it anyhow, saying he plans to
work with Congress to "make the bill better," even though it's already the law of the land now.
After struggles within Congress to get the bills through, there is little appetite to
In reality, Trump didn't have a lot of choice on the matter, as the overwhelming majorities
in the House and Senate meant they could've easily overridden a veto if he'd offered it, which
would've been politically embarrassing, particularly on a Russia-themed bill.
The bill imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and limits the president's
ability to remove sanctions without Congressional permission. Russia and Iran have threatened
retaliation over the bill, as has the European Union, which fears the bill is going to target
German energy companies.
The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct
characteristics of "show trials".
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of
Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose
theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his
unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever
rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting
to share together in that idyllic "
Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now,
waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan"
for sins and improprieties.
This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's
direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another
example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale
of a government lawyer in search of a crime.
Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory
from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all
the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.
Rather than setting specific parameters
for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with
President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal
regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice
and witness intimidation.
As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like
Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search
of a guilty man.
Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory
army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as
much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something
is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the
Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly)
recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal
laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed
to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.
What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal
and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets
his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing
the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel
The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets
for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome.
As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits
on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance"
and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of
homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date.
"That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent,"
writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite
arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."
At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if
that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West
Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the
real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life
envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger ! then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger ! then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and
increasingly less interested in the twists and turns of who's investigating whom and why and
what are the likely consequences.
I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria:
"Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
The likeliest and most obvious choice for
Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting a war in
the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings.
Engineering a war with Iran would fit the bill perfectly.
With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic
war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his
generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that
could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.
McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate
Russia and to secure Hillary win. One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected
and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad state of DNC internet security needed to
be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished
by Wikileaks and designed to imitate that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China,
North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it
was a hack NSA knows who did it and what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I
always think that thye can dictate that they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before
they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words
"Deep State." and explaining machinations to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but
still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words
Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing
to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.
Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not
take down the election over small nothings.
Peace --- Art
... ... ...
Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the
moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they
get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike.
This is the most unexplainable fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there
was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically
John O. Brennan behaviour.
Brennan's 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief
in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the
main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war
with Russia or nothing was avoided with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian
border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice and law in the USA would be
over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump
is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch
the fake MSM. And no the NSA has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.
The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern
is wrong ....everyone knew HRC was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy.
A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill Stein or HRC were elected their would
be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment.
Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside
DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence
is way to high. He is wrong.
Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand
various levels of confidence. Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very
High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based on Actual Fact
The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.
Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike,
and FBI was completely excluded, falls in place.
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of