Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

The Road to Political Masochism

Nearly a year and a half into his presidency, Donald Trump continues to hold his base and maintain an approval rating of around 40% – close to the same percentage he polled at just after his inauguration. Let’s try to figure out why.

It can’t be because he lies as a matter of daily routine. It can’t be because he’s giving away our store to big business – engaging in crony capitalism, creating more tax loopholes for corporations, shredding corporate crime enforcement, knowingly exposing Americans to more toxic pollution, committing more business fraud, adding more hazards to the workplace, cutting access to health insurance, and thereby making America dread again.

It can’t be because he’s taking your tax dollars away from repairing your infrastructure back home – schools, public transit, bridges, highways, airports, power grids, drinking water systems, etc., and pouring money into the bloated Pentagon budget beyond what even the Generals requested. (The huge “infrastructure project” he promised has yet to be proposed to Congress.)

It can’t be because he is soiling our society’s moral and ethical fabric and breaking the Golden Rule. (Trump is a peerless Oval Office bully, lashing out against the weak, powerless and defenseless.)

It can’t be because he is openly holding onto his business interests and enriching himself from foreign vendors in unconstitutional ways, violating the Emoluments Clause (cases challenging his personal gains while in office are now in federal court).

Maybe it is because he is expediently against a woman’s right to choose and common-sense gun regulation, selects corporatist judges, and keeps saying he loves his country (what politician doesn’t?).

President Trump’s words and deeds have not changed the minds of 40 percent of people polled. What else is going on here?

One answer is Slogan Voters. I’ve spoken to many people who are still for Trump despite all of his lies and misdeeds. They don’t pay much attention to politics. When they do, they reveal themselves as Slogan Voters. They are content with Trump’s rhetoric and rarely look beneath the surface at the details. That is, they are not bothered by being fact-deprived in political matters.

Here is what they tell me: They hate Hillary. They like Trump. They repeat the three slogans: Make America Great Again, Drain the Swamp, and Lock Her Up! Over and over again.

When I politely ask whether they are specifically aware of what Trump and his heads of departments and agencies are doing, they draw a blank. They explain that President Trump is shaking up Washington and draining the swamp. They believe that’s the reason why he generates such an uproar from the swamp-dwellers. In a bizarre way, the more outrageously false and nutty Trump’s tweets and actions are, the more these people feel that all the outrage is because he is draining the swamp and the swamp is lashing back at him.

Slogan Voters stress their belief in self-made men and women. They are often college-educated. They are not seen as bigots by their co-workers. They believe if you fail at something, it’s your own fault.

They agree there are bad things going on in government, but it’s not Trump’s fault. Their reaction to bad things that are openly, brazenly, and admittedly Trump’s fault – such as shutting down a consumer agency designed to stop Wall Street and the financial/credit industry from cheating you, crashing the economy, or crippling environmental health protections — is: It’s all part of draining the swamp.

Trump has become homeostatic — whatever goes around, comes around to his advantage for the Slogan Voters. Evidence against Trump is turned around to justify Trump. More than anyone else, Trump has understood this and fed these strange conclusions by inattentive minds.

What would the eminent philosopher of science, Aldous Huxley, think now? He said in 1927: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” But they do for Trump and his Slogan Voters. He creates his own web of delusion, and his supporters say he is draining the swamp and making America great again.

It wouldn’t matter a whit were they to receive critical articles, books, DVDs, or even Trump’s own self-contradictory words and record through the years. Recall his boastful sugarcoating as his giant casinos went bankrupt while he profitably escaped their draining impacts on others (e.g. the employees and unpaid contractors he hired to build them).

Unless someone comes up with a secret key to awaken the minds of Trump’s Slogan Voters, the best response is to draw some of the more than 100 million eligible non-voters to the polls for the crucial November elections. There are far more than enough votes to surpass the choices of the Trump Slogan Voters for the Congressional races.

One thing you have to credit these Slogan Voters for: THEY VOTE!!

Yeah, “Making America Great Again, Drain the Swamp, and Lock Her Up!”​

The Libya Model is a Distraction

On Fox News Sunday, United States national security advisor John Bolton brought up the Libya model as a template for the denuclearization of North Korea.

Following up, president Donald Trump noted, “In Libya, we decimated that country. That country was decimated.” However, Trump did assure North Korean chairman Kim Jong-un that he’d remain in power after denuclearization.

Then came US vice-president Michael Pence on Fox News:

There was some talk about the Libyan model last week, and you know, as the President made clear, this will only end like the Libyan model ended if Kim Jong Un doesn’t make a deal.

When told that such a comparison could be viewed as a threat, Pence instead considered: “Well, I think it’s more of a fact.”

History tells a tale. After Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi gave up Libya’s nuclear weapons program, he was eventually deposed by NATO bombing in support of rebels who brutally murdered Gaddafi in cold blood. Hillary Clinton gleefully cackled about it on CBS News afterwards.

What kind of dunderhead would Kim have to be not to realize the behind-the-curtain machinations Washington has planned for him and his government. The US simply should not be believed or trusted.

But there seems to be an apparent wrench in the works of Washington’s scheming. Kim, after all, has a nuclear bomb. It makes one wonder: what do Donald Trump and the US military establishment not understand about nuclear deterrence? There are no winners in a nuclear war.

All the blather about a Libya model merely reinforces the correctness of the North Korean decision and the necessity to develop a nuclear deterrence. It must be emphasized that — despite wild proclamations from Washington1 — what North Korea possesses is a nuclear deterrence and not a nuclear threat. Obviously, to initiate a nuclear attack would be sheer folly and a suicidal act for Kim Jong-un and his government. However, North Korea is on record as asserting a no-first-use policy for nukes.2 This is a rational stance.

Contrariwise, the US does not reject its first use of nukes. Thus, the US nukes exist as other than a deterrence factor.

Is the US an irrational actor?

The bigwigs in the Trump administration are not dunderheads either. There is a method to their madness — a desired outcome. The US, despite administration declamations to the contrary, is quite aware that North Korea would not start a nuclear war. The North Koreans are known to be rational.

Yet the strategizing of the military-industrial complex is also based in rationality when its capitalistic motivations are considered. When it comes to warmongering, the greater the number of enemies the US is faced with, the more opportunities for weapons deals to replenish homeland armories and supplying fearful allied countries. Moreover, there are the opportunities created for morally challenged investors to seek profit from war.

The military-industrial complex’s lust for war profiteering motivates it to maintain a hostile posture to designated enemies like North Korea. This is rational in the pecuniary sense. It is rational for the military-industrial complex to assume a hostile posture to Iran. It is logical to support war crimes by the Jewish State against the civilian population of Gaza and also to support the siege of Gaza in hopes of fomenting a violent uprising. It’s rational to keep Syria in conflagration.

It is even rational to poke the Russian bear and prod the Chinese dragon. The more formidable the designated enemy, the greater the potential for evoking fear among home populations and crank over the wheels of the military-industrial ever more.

In this manner arms sales are stimulated, share prices for armaments are sent rising, and thus it happens that the undiplomatic bombast and war crimes committed by military industrialists is rewarded with ensanguined lucre.

Nonetheless, all the money in the world means nothing come a nuclear winter.

  1. Michael Pence in his recent interview stated that the US “is not going to tolerate the regime in North Korea possessing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our allies…”
  2. A translation of the North Korean news agency KCNA quotes Kim saying, “As a responsible nuclear weapons state, our republic will not use a nuclear weapon unless its sovereignty is encroached upon by any aggressive hostile forces with nukes.”

The Donkey Did It More: Russian Collusion in the Age of Delusion

Schiff Is a Shill for the Russians
Mark Levin

Lamenting Germany’s WW1 defeat at the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, Joseph Goebbels acknowledges a hard lesson learned:

While the enemy states produced unprecedented atrocity propaganda aimed at Germany throughout the whole world, we did nothing and were completely defenseless against it…Just as we were militarily and economically unprepared for the war, so also with propaganda. We lost the war in this area more than in any other. The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. (My italics)

History repeats even its most odious chapters. Today, the cleverest trick against President Trump in the current high-stakes establishment war is to accuse him of what his enemies, mostly Democrats, are already up to their donkey-ears in: Russian collusion.

                                    *****

The term Russian collusion sounds like it walked off a Tavistock Institute clipboard with the usual aim of promoting fear and avoiding mass enlightenment. Knowledge is power. Enlightenment is the coveted reserve of the Few. Not surprisingly, power favors misdirection (ignorance) over enlightenment (empowerment). Dumb down and frighten — divide and conquer.

This is why the plebeian class is often referred to as the disorganized masses. Buffeted by successive waves of misdirection, society becomes a de-articulated echo chamber of movements, ideologies and belief systems. Horizontalized incoherence averts vertical assaults on those who preside on high. The Internet alt-narrative, a bottoms-up constellation of knowledge simultaneously disseminated and protected by its distributive architecture, is climbing the enlightenment ladder slowly. It needs to hurry.

We find an early Russophobic send-up in the zany 1966 movie The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! Trying desperately to stay under the radar of state actors (with their penchant for international incidents and Independent Counsels) a Soviet sub and its crew, having run aground on a Cape Cod sandbar, enlist the support of sympathetic Cape Cod villagers to regain open waters. Their Russian nationality is initially hidden (isn’t it always?) behind the guise of Norwegian fishermen. Everyone has the presence of mind not to call CNN. The movie instructs that, when encountered in everyday interactions, Russians are people too. Imagine that! This humanizing touch was a real coup in Cold War America.

The visceral and reflexive fear of a prior era is being resurrected. But as prelude to what? More on that later.

Russian collusion is also calculated to stoke primate fears. In essence, the colluders have acquired an infection from the main doctrinal source; Russia being a sort of Typhoid Mary. The resultant false doctrine (revived nationalism, multilateralism, Eurasianism, post-Bolshevism, Christian renewal) has the potential to visit a cognitive plague on the larger group, or should we rather say their doctrine poses a health threat to the prevailing narrative, the latter being an illness in itself that seeks the preservation of the Few at the cost of the Many.

So, a pervading illness erects the strawman of a secondary ailment in order to defend the primacy of its own pathology. Never mind that, for Americans, this secondary ailment is exactly what the doctor ordered. The truth is disguised as a disease. The emanation point is Russia.

Keeping the masses both joined to a common moral cause (the Straussian baton of Greatest Present Evil has clearly passed from Terror to Russia) and trained on their potent enemy (for what appears to be an imminent conflict), our Managers find the prospect of We the People—in our militarized permutation—inflicting a deathblow on Russia, while getting death-blown ourselves, a very tempting two-for-one proposition.

For the moment, until a cure is found (or a war is started in earnest) we are urged to please wash our hands thoroughly after handling all things Russian. Russian flags on Olympic grounds could spark an outbreak. Ban them. If you encountered a Russian-sponsored ad on Facebook during the election be aware the contagion may have survived on your PC screen for weeks, causing some to waste their vote even on the likes of Jill Stein. Now that’s sick! The political valence of the click ads–Trump or Clinton—didn’t matter either. Germs are agnostic and airborne. They can travel for miles disguised as competing worldviews.

Sometimes the drumbeat can carry us into the most surreal byways. Take the positively eerie instance of a CNN correspondent venturing onto an elderly pro-Trump Floridian’s front lawn to question her patriotism and Russian sympathies.  Throwing caution to the wind, he fails to don the official CNN gloves and surgical mask. What is he in this instance: a journalist, a stalker, an ideological ambulance-chaser, a proto-Soviet Precinct Captain?

More linguistic mischief. We encounter the nefarious The dozens of times a week as in The Russians. Deployment of the definite article as preface to an ethnic group, people or tribe is another tactic aimed at suggesting members of a particular group can no longer be referenced as autonomous individuals, having become hive-minded Stepford Wives lashed to an agenda injurious to the larger group. The The’s are behind the recent ramp-up of crime! No sooner do the The’s move into the neighborhood than property values take a dive. The The’s control the world!

The perils of ethnic scapegoating are a matter of historical inspection. Why then are they being so systematically courted? The indignation of our nation’s 2.9 million Russian-Americans is entirely too muted, certainly under-televised. Perhaps Wolf Blitzkrieg can look into this.

In a recent tweet, Hillary Clinton stoops yet again to Russia-baiting. Then there’s the thirteen Facebook trolls who happen to be Russian nationals engaged in a strictly business venture with no evidence of a state actor role and no overt political leanings. None of this prevents Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein from alluding by sly inference to the Russians during his press conference (here at 3:19) as though King Bee Putin himself was supplying the company with kitty and puppy clickbait pics from the depths of the Kremlin’s basement.

How does national origin warrant even a cursory mention unless a larger point is being made? The indicted will never see a court of law anyway. The slur was the thing. It was lodged. Mission accomplished.

*****

This essay would be remiss if it didn’t acknowledge another deep reservoir of Russian antipathy, one rarely cited in realpolitik analyses.

Americans can scarcely imagine the elemental hatred unreconstructed Bolshevism still harbors for the Russian people, even less so that the current anti-Russian mania reprises a century-old conflict in a far-off land. The depth and context of this hatred overflows America’s rather provincial and TV-centric intellectual boundaries. Russia’s defeated Bolsheviks are America’s resurgent ones.

Bolshevism is a secular expression of the Spirit of Antichrist. Like a noxious fume seeking a crevice of entry, it presses cultural nihilism everywhere God isn’t. Sadly, America is ripe for invasion. Christian leader Chuck Missler identifies America’s fate as an instance of God’s abandonment judgment. Missler lays this harsh heavenly verdict largely at the unclean feet of abortion. The Creator is particularly jealous of His creational prerogative. Human interlopers armed with forceps anger Him like few other things.

Some will ask, but wasn’t Bolshevism forever consigned to the ashcan of history? Not universally.

America’s aversion to introspection permitted it to circumvent the dialectical process (that the disintegrating Soviet Union had no choice but to pass through) by audaciously claiming one-sided victory in the First Cold War. This undigested Hegelian synthesis goes on to become a catastrophe for the world:

Refused her duly earned ticker-tape parade, America was presented instead, at war’s end, with the preposterous Neocon invocation to beat her sword into yet another sword. The interminable loop of permawar (itself an indigestible bit of ahistorical mischief) became America’s ‘way forward’. As for our supposed adversary, ‘terror’, it offers an inexhaustible emotional response to perils of the real, imagined and endlessly manipulated kinds. The Neocon catastrophe is now a matter of global record. The peace dividend was purloined by a unipolar will-to-power that metastasized into a monomania worthy of Ahab himself.1

The mere passage of time—days stacked on days—carries neutral historical content. History measures itself in the birthing and discarding of ideas. In Hegelian terms, because historical synthesis in America was not allowed to happen, Bolshevism is free to renew itself on American shores like a new, old plague. Certainly the appearance of Trump impedes this process. Whether Trumpism can, in the long term, avert Bolshevism (essentially, collectivization and centralized control) altogether runs counter to the eschatological necessity, within Abrahamic traditions, for a climactic and unassailable evil.

If Russia’s post-Bolshevik Christian revival is a matter of record, surely the demise of Christianity in America is equally documentable. Since America is a God-vacated public space, albeit peopled with a large and besieged Christian population, the nation can reacquire God’s manifold blessings, one suspects, only after a protracted period of civil strife and turmoil comparable to Russia’s near-century-long struggle.

Paul’s Principalities of the Air, Good and Evil, are no less aware of what renewed Russian ascendance portends. The forces of evil, armed with what Joel Skousen has called, ‘revelatory demonic content’, have every reason to resist Russia at every turn. The point is the Russian Collusion delusion comports a supernatural component. I have spoken elsewhere about Russia’s strange and special mission with regard to a global Christian revival, certainly in its Orthodox form. Numerous mystics and thinkers have asserted the same:

Acting as an agent of restraint on the spirit of Antichrist (a phenomenon Paul in Thessalonians calls katechon), Russia can influence—and work to brake–a world hell-bent on godless chaos. Oswald Spengler spoke of the Russian soul coming of age at some future propitious time.2

Russophobia expresses a spiritual aversion to which geopolitics acts merely as frontispiece. The stakes are existentially high, transcending empires and ideologies. No wonder our Gatekeepers sputter and fuss. Armed with the most tepid forensic evidence of Russian influence, they are charged nonetheless with pressing a spiritual war on ostensible geopolitical grounds, loath (for tactical reasons) to expose their dark, first-order spiritual affiliations. Invisibility indeed!

If, as Nicolas Berdyaev claimed, “independent Russian thought was awakened by the problem of the philosophy of history”, America’s purveyors of wickedness glossed our version of the history problem by consigning us to a deep sleep of irresolvable terror. 3

Into this bewildering spiritual-geopolitical nexus tumbles the Trump phenomenon as though God Himself delivered the former reality TV star to an especially propitious moment in history. Actually Trump arrives as an emissary and change agent from the tippiest-top of human society in its current arrangement.

For, with all due respect to Alex Jones, the elite is not simply a monolithic invective to be invoked between vitamin appeals. Both George Orwell and Ferdinand Lundberg recognized a tripartite class structure; the Inner/Outer Party and the FinPols/PubPols respectively, with the Proles languishing beneath their bicameral overlords. Recognition of this structure is imperative to understanding the machinations occurring overhead, particularly during moments of inflection.

The Outer Party (what I’ve taken to calling the Janusian Class) is always, by the latter phase of empire, existentially corrupt and irredeemably evil. Beholden to the empire-of-the-moment, this class is typified by Bill and Hillary Clinton: proles-by-birth, striving, venal, amoral, grasping, highly acquisitive and power-hungry. Outer Party corruption grows as the empire becomes more sclerotic. Influence-peddling and trading off past empire glories overtake bold new action.

American foreign policy has been of the self-harm variety in recent years. Take the myriad sanctions regimes and their strange internal contradiction: By hurting ourselves we will hurt you more. Petulance is a weird master. Each chastisement of the outside world is met with greater strides by the latter to extricate itself from the Empire yolk. Global retreat from petrodollar recycling accelerates. You call this success?

Unlike the transnational and multi-generational Inner Party, a genus apart, the Outer Party administers the prevailing empire on the former’s behalf while feigning attentiveness to the proles. In the waning days of every empire (a point we find ourselves at with Pax Americana), the Outer Party must be disabused of its false sense of entitlement. The privileges it enjoys are far from inalienable, though many may be ‘compartmentalized away’ from a full understanding of their own ephemeral, second-tier status.

Dispatched from the highest strata of society to organize the masses behind the ostensible banner of populism (yes, a seeming paradox), Trump’s task is to retrieve and restore America the Nation from the vacating, century-long mandate of America the Empire.

Therein lies the Trump paradox as he serves both the Upper Party and the Proles with material assistance from the former and cheers from the latter. His war is with the Outer Party, a confluence of Democrats, Republicans and Deep State operatives whose end is near. Though their potential to inflict great damage (in the manner of thermonuclear war) remains potent.

It is America’s Outer Party—not the Transnational Inner Party—that detests and fears Trump and Putin. Nor are these leaders saviors-for-all-seasons it must be understood. The nationalism they champion is but an interim step to a full-on advance of renewed globalism.

Whether they fully comprehend the provisional status of their respective movements is hard to say. The boundaries of compartmentalized knowledge are difficult to ascertain. Some actors are more conscious than others.

Suffice it to say the world is in a normalizing phase. The ultimate equilibration during this phase involves establishing a trade-balanced parity between the US and China. To the disappointment of many, the Eurasian Century, the One Belt One Road (OBOR) and AIIB initiatives are not born of exogenous processes, but rather unfold within the rubric of the Transnational Inner Party.

The monism required of the Antichrist system allows for no partition. Cultural Marxism, a soul-destroying collectivist paradigm, is in service to the Transnational Inner Party. With the able assistance of this Luciferean vanguard, the world is being staged for the Final Days, but not before an eclipsing Panopticon runs the full length and breadth of the planet.

*****

The insistence that Trump is a Russian agent (against an avalanche of absent facts) is simply untrue. Nothing has been produced to substantiate the charge. As this essay is being typed, CNN is en route to interview a female escort in Thailand who may be sitting, not only on her livelihood, but on the key to unlocking the Trump-Putin secret relationship. Very shortly, Wolf Blitzkrieg will be issuing parental warnings. The escort is a former paramour of Russian oligarch and Putin confidante Oleg Deripaska who we’ll be getting to in a minute.

What Trump and Putin are are co-agents of strikingly similar conceptual frameworks that are at odds with the ultimate globalist plan for eviscerated national sovereignties. The Outer Party fights them as though their lives depend on it. And they do. The Inner Party are using both men as transitional cleansing agents on the way to a culminating globalist regime. The current ‘Globalist’ vs. Nationalist struggle is an orchestrated conflict. (There’s much talk of ‘false dialectics’ these days. Lucifer is the Prince of this World and the purveyor of intellectual confusion. All dialectics are false, though God works mysteriously to guide His eschatology through.)

Trump and Putin are thus wed, neither by treasonous acts nor shared paramours, but by worldviews that happen to align. The collusion narrative neatly ties both leaders together in the pejorative image of partners in crime. Exactitudes such as these hardly matter to those who would like nothing better than to see an end to both of them by any means necessary.

The Democratic Party version of Russian collusion, which we’ll be hearing a lot more about in the coming weeks and months, is a much seedier brand. Traditionally a globalist stalking horse and Deep Swamp entity and possessing greater latitude than the currently hamstrung Republicans (with the disliked Trump at their helm), the Party of the Donkey views Russia as a source of enrichment. As long as it fulfills its globalist work-list, the usual graft and corruption is permitted to occur simultaneously.

Thus Trump’s ‘collusion’ is an unfairly earned and intentionally misleading depiction of his geopolitical intentions. Whereas the Democrat’s ‘collusion’ is the old-school, under-the-table form of corruption implicating business interests rather than state actors. Oddly enough, neither is collusion in the proper sense of the word.

The truly grievous miscalculation arose when such a whirling dervish of a topic was injected into a Presidential campaign. For that, we turn to Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta.

The Trump collusion delusion—impudently put into play by Podesta during the 2016 election—is the Goebbels Doctrine brought back to wretched life. The trick, again, is to identify one’s most glaring vulnerability (Uranium One, Podesta Group), then ruthlessly attack the enemy with it.

One of alt-media’s indispensable websites The Conservative Treehouse connected some fascinating dots recently regarding Oleg Deripaska. While hardly a household name, the Russian aluminum magnate has popped up more than once in the collusion saga. The trouble is his appearances never fail to tear away the Goebbelian veil behind which we invariably find a donkey-bride with puckered lips.

As Tablet Magazine reported:

A release last week of texts showed that Christopher Steele, the former British spy whose memos regarding the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia are referred to as the Steele dossier, reached out to Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, through a Russian-linked Washington, D.C., lobbyist named Adam Waldman. Among Waldman’s clients is Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a text dated March 16, 2017, Waldman texted Warner, “Chris Steele asked me to call you.”4

The article goes on to suggest that:

If Steele worked for a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin, it is likely to change prevailing views of the Russia investigations of the past year and a half.

Understatement duly noted.

If the universally discredited Christopher Steele anti-Trump dossier is, in fact, a faux-Opposition Research piece jointly commissioned by the Clinton Campaign and Deripaska, then perhaps the nation’s media complex has been barking up the wrong collusion narrative. Goodness, how’d that happen?

Then there’s the recently announced aluminum tariffs. Either Trump is mounting an insurrection against his ‘Kremlin handlers’ with aggressive tariffs targeting close Putin confidante Deripaska’s company, Rusal or we’ve been diverted yet again from the real Russian corruption within our political process.

Cementing the Democratic brand of Russian collusion even further, we shouldn’t forget Senator Mark Warner’s (D-Va.) attempts to make secret off-the-record communications with Christopher Steele in November 2017.  Warner’s intermediary was the same lobbyist (Adam Waldman) retained by, are you ready? Oleg Deripaska. Heehaw!

Interestingly, Deripaska announced just last week his decision to step away as head of Rusal. A 23.6% levy, the aluminum tariff is no glancing blow. Listed on the Department of Treasury’s ‘Kremlin list’, Deripaska may be distancing himself as part of a sanitization exercise as prelude to Russia’s formal filing of a trade complaint with the WTO.

Of course, the Russian Oligarch’s connections to the Democrats is but a minor collusive thread in a much larger fabric where the common preoccupation is money. Its renewed newsworthiness derives from the tariff announcement just this week by the ‘soft on Russia’ Trump administration.

As the President is routinely pilloried by Democrats for his failure to implement the last round of Russian sanctions, surely Senator Warner and his colleagues should be sprinting to the mic to applaud Trump’s shoving it to one of Russia’s wealthiest and most notorious oligarchs. For all we know, Warner has already messaged his regrets directly to the Russian source. He has the number.

But back to Podesta, who had at his back a propaganda apparatus the Weimar Germany would have envied: The Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, et al, et al. According to The Media Research Center, network press coverage of Trump logged an astonishing 91% negative slant in the September-November 2017 period.

The Bernaysian narrative prefers to work the room in jealous monotone. Dissonance distracts the masses from their marching orders. Sometimes things can go haywire such that the proles vote for what the Outer Party deems an unvetted, exogenous candidate. Managed Democracy fears the insurrectional energies posed even by a 9% dissident narrative. (Nursing a 2-strike Youtube count, Alex Jones should take note.)

Now a word on hubris.

Podesta had every reason to believe Clinton would win thereby allowing his disinfo project to slink, unexamined, into the mists of time.

Of course, Trump, no limping Kaiser, is a TV-savvy guy with uncanny media instincts. (Witness his ringside, bone-spur-defying, mano a mano victory against WWE owner Vince McMahon.  Professional wrestling is a pioneer in the belief-suspension biz.. This makes it a forebear of Fake News and a potential uncle of Wolf Blitzkrieg. See kayfabe.)

So yes, in terms of propaganda firepower, Trump is badly outnumbered. However, to Twitter management’s continued exasperation, he’s far from toothless. Early on, he elects to sidestep the gatekeeper’s media prism altogether, weathering the simpleton accusations and conveying his policy initiatives in 280-characters or less.

Much like Wile E. Coyote at the bottom of the U-shaped gorge, we find today the collusion-boulder gazing down upon Podesta et al from the peak of Mt. Trump. Curiously enough, Lady Lynn de Rothschild perceives all that is portended for The Valley of the Dems below. She intuits the fatal turn very early on too.

Releasing on February 21, 2017 what in hindsight appears to be a twitter overshare, Rothschild publicly castigates Podesta as ‘pathetic’ and a ‘loser’. Nothing subtle there. As Tom Jones might say she’s a Lady even when she slips.

Nonetheless her foresight is both telling and foreboding as, from her vantage, nothing less than the ‘destruction’ of the Clinton family lies ahead. At first blush, one thinks Milady fretheth a bit much. After all, Girlfriend just lost an election. The utter cessation of the family crest seems excessive given all that is known, certainly by us, in February.

Or maybe not.

Rothschild’s exasperation and concern, palpable in the tweet, is directed at one man. How could that idiot Podesta have been so reckless?

Indeed his out-of-touch arrogance succeeds in activating a realm of inquiry that is destined to brush past Trump on its way to decimating the real Russian collusion culprits, the Democrats. Podesta proves himself a passable acolyte of Herr Goebbels in all but one crucial metric: his candidate fails to win. Loser!

I cite Milady’s prescience not to belabor hackneyed Rothschild conspiracy theories, only that she is a close, wealthy, and influential confidante of Hillary Clinton. To minimize her insight and access is as equally implausible as it is to proffer one-eyed pyramids in the Valley of Illuminati Kings. The tweet stands as an astute predictor of dark days to come for the Democrats.

Post-election, we move into a far more perilous phase for the Democrats and their Deep State patrons as they decide to inflict the hopelessly self-referential collusion narrative on a sitting President. Fortuitously (or is it providentially?), there’s a stalwart Constitutionalist to contend with in NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

A mere two days after the latter’s November 17 2017 trip to Trump Towers where it is strongly presumed he tips the cards to Trump regarding the building’s bugged status, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are baying in the Washington Post for Rogers’ firing (see below). One of the pressing reasons given? Rogers’ ‘gruff personality’. The day after Rogers’ visit, Trump relocates his entire transition operation to Bedminster, New Jersey.

Thus Rogers’ termination is proposed in hurried fashion during the waning, post-election days of the Obama administration. Understandably, the President elects not to cloud his final days with an oddly-timed and controversial firing. Wisely (or not), he declines Carter and Clapper’s recommendation. The coup-plotters (for we are very much in a coup phase now) must content themselves with the hope that, between the media’s frenetic arm-waving, the future appointment of a Special Counsel Inquisitor by a compliant DOJ and a cooperating Comey at the FBI, soon-to-be President Trump can still be thwarted via impeachment, resignation or worse.

Not enough can be said by the way for Rogers’ courageous intervention on behalf of the President-in-waiting, and indeed on behalf of the rule-of-law and the orderly transition of power. In fact, the video below suggests Admiral Rogers may be the Hero-Savior of the Republic. It’s worth a watch.

In short order, Trump’s National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn gets shanghaied via process crime entrapment, which may yet turn to rancid, poisoned fruit before this opus sounds its last note.

Slowly but surely, we’re converging upon the million dollar question which is really the trillion dollar question. Why did the Democrats, in league with certain Deep State actors, persist in a brazen plot to unseat a duly elected President? Because it is a trillion dollar question, that’s why. The stakes are exponentially high, and not because of the Russians either. Because of the money.

By all rights, CNN has held up its end of the bargain. Wolf Blitzkrieg and Jake Wire Tapper can barely manage a shift in their chairs without lashing Trump to Russian Collusion. Down in the media trenches, 24-7 drummed-in false consciousness is a tedious affair where repetition is king. Someone’s got to do it. Wolf seems intellectually well-suited for the task.

Once again, The Conservative Treehouse reminds us why the Facebook bobble-heads wake up every morning in a diversionary funk regarding all things Trump. And no, it’s not because he has funny hair:

For the past 30 years the U.S. has lost jobs, wages have been depressed, and the middle-class has suffered through the implementation of economic trade policy that destroyed the U.S. manufacturing base. None of this is in question – the results stare us in the face – yet the Wall Street and multinational corporate club(s) [U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief among them] now demand a continuance of the same.

The economic and trade policies of the Trump administration are adverse to those interests. As we have shared for several years, candidate Trump, now President Trump is an existential threat to the multinational program.

All opposition to President Trump is about the underlying financial and economic policy of America-First. There are trillions at stake. [My italics]

With a GDP half that of the UK’s, Russia is still economic small potatoes. Nonetheless a double-bang is achieved (for the Military Industrial Complex) with a renewed Cold War directed at the Bear. Conceivably, that’s the quid pro quo presented to Trump for acquiring the military as Praetorian Guard as a counterweight against intelligence agency hostility. The military is an institution with naturally strong nationalist affinities. The antagonism between the Pentagon and the CIA is longstanding and culturally embedded.

As Voltaire might allow by way of paraphrase, “look to the behemoth you’ve barely broached for there you will find the puppet-master extraordinaire.” That behemoth is China.

China’s hidden hand (with, it must be said again, the Inner Party’s active assent and participation) has been evident in America’s establishment parties since at least Bill Clinton, with Western banking interests active since at least 1972, probably earlier. Should Congress not deliver (on continued sedition against America-First interests and prolongation of NAFTA), the extortion screws will begin turning in earnest.

Might this explain the recent spate of announced Congressional Republican resignations? The easy money has been made selling the nation out for decades with duopolistic abandon and mutually-assured cover. Faint-hearted traitors are moving for the exits.

For today, we have a wily gate-crasher in the White House. Under him, the People are tasting the early, tangible fruits of a renationalizing economy: full employment, rising property values, an anticipatory stock market rise and re-equilibrating food and consumer prices (ultimately to revise downward for America consumers) when China’s backdoor entry to the American market via camouflaged proxy points Mexico and Canada is appreciably closed. Again, this is all part of an equilibration process sanctioned from above.

The fiction of Trump as Putin stooge is a threadbare pretext. Manafort and Podesta are prior working colleagues after all, hardly diehard ideologues for their respective Red and Blue. Both hail from the Outer Party’s Great Purple Swamp, an environ intent on the de-industrialization of America, the delivery of productive primacy to China and the ascent of Wall Street over Main Street forevermore. The Red-Blue horizontal divide is Carroll Quigley’s kabuki theatre in full false swing.

In yet another instance of Goebbelian misdirection, the Democrats’ Russian collusion narrative is all about neutering Trump for the greater good of China and its stateside patron, Wall Street. Russia is but an expedient globalist cudgel to be wielded against MAGA comeuppance. Democratic leaders only ask that you not examine the collusion narrative’s internal contradictions too closely as the whole gravy train could come crashing down in a cloud of sedition and jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

For thirty years or more, China was the chief beneficiary of this Great Game of Treachery. Then Mr. Trump came to Washington. This re-nationalization (de-empirization) of America involves normalizing trade, defusing the Triffin Paradox, extracting the dollar from reserve currency status and petrodollar primacy; i.e., smoothing the potentially bumpy road back to nation-among-nations status, all without WW3 being instigated by a power-mad Outer Party in precipitous decline.

That’s the balancing act. Importantly, this walk-back—while ostensibly nationalist—expresses the desire of some of the most powerful forces on earth. A peaceably requited US will then create the parity required to install a proper globalist super-state. The US is the last empire to emerge from nation-state auspices. Although its presence will be greatly felt (already it is asserting a repressive hand on the global Internet) China will not assume the empire mantle from America, thereby averting the enormous dislocations caused by the Triffin Paradox. A global currency (the SDR) unbeholden to destabilizing trade imbalances will become the coin of the global realm.

Thus while the American Outer Party’s decades-long capitulation to Chinese interests joins the usual earthly vices—greed, corruption and power—with a globalist endgame of Cultural Marxism, the active promotion of Russophobia unfolds on two diametric planes: diversionary politics and deep-seated spiritual opposition.

Human history is intended as a gradually narrowing process wherein divine light is progressively obscured as Lucifer consolidates everything of earthly value first, for a select few, then ultimately for himself. Therein lies the resonance of the pyramidic metaphor. Things will darken appreciably before lightening climactically. God will win.

  1. “War of Imposition: This Is Not America (Any More Than It Was Russia Once Upon a Time)”, Full Spectrum Domino, Norman Ball, September 25, 2017.
  2. In “Spiritual Roots of Russo-American Conflict“, Kerry R. Bolton offers an authoritative and fascinating examination of this subject matter.
  3. “War of Imposition: This Is Not America (Any More Than It Was Russia Once Upon a Time”), Full Spectrum Domino, Norman Ball, September 25, 2017.
  4. Was Christopher Steele Paid by Russian Oligarch and Putin Ally Oleg Deripaska?’, Lee Smith, February 12, 2018.

Possessed! Europe’s American Demon Must Be Exorcised

Europe is suffering the tortures of the damned as it struggles with split-personality psychosis.

Here in the center of Western Europe one can tune in Germany’s national public broadcasting networks any day of the week and hear scornful diatribes against Trump, outrage over his withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, shock and anger regarding his threats against our German automobile industry in his incipient trade war, calls for more EU independence and self-sufficiency.

Every Washington Post CIA-funded-Big-Breaking-News-Report about Mueller’s latest move to impeach and bring down the Orange Menace is always the top headline here: “The Washington Post reports that …”  No mention of Jeff Bezos and his relationship to the CIA. If the Post says Trump is on shaky ground and cruisin’ for a bruisin’, Europe gets excited. They wanted Hillary here, badly.

Europeans knew Hillary. They trusted Hillary. They associated her with that good-looking, smooth-talking young President Barack Obama. Sure, he blew it with the NSA stuff, but nobody cares about that anymore, either here or in the USA. All forgotten. Obama talked a good game on Europe. Polite young man. Went to Harvard.

I want to tell you that there was some serious panicking and freaking out going on here in Europe the morning after election day 2016. Europeans don’t often run around shrieking their fears in public, a cool façade is the preferred mode here, but they did that day, and for many weeks afterward.

They had just spent more than a year sneering and raising their eyebrows and scoffing at the ludicrous orange-cartoon-figure-come-to life, both physically and in print. They had reassured each other and the public in endless columns and debates and editorials that he didn’t have a chance to (first) win the nomination and (then later) to become President. They were already doing a major freak over Brexit. Trump winning was just too much. The sky was falling.

And he has not disappointed them in putting into effect the catalogue of horrors they had anticipated. Pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. Refused to pay even lip service to gun control (lip service goes a long way here in the EU, actual progress is less important). Continued to flaunt that ridiculous comb-over that looks as though it’s deliberately designed to show his contempt for fashion and good taste. Threatened to pull out of the nuclear treaty with Iran, which is very popular here – and practically the only way in which the EU has ever been willing to go against Israel, otherwise we are World Champion Israel-Ass-Kissers here. Trump ranted against Muslims and foreigners, defended white racists (here we mostly just pretend they don’t exist, although they carried out 1,000 attacks on Muslims last year in Germany alone), created new legal hurdles to immigration. Of course, the EU does all of that last bit with immigrants too, except for the ranting part. One does these things quietly, don’t you see, while simultaneously claiming to care about refugees and wanting to help them.

No-sirree, the new man in the White House is near the bottom on the European Hit Parade of Favorite Americans. What is the dang DEAL with these Americans?  How could they elect such a monstrous ambulatory joke? Time to stand up and get independent and show the world that Europe will not sit still for just any old nonsense. Most of us highly-progressive and politically conscious Euros agree about that.

Therefore one might think the EU would be ready to go cold turkey from that highly addictive CIA-Neocon Brand Evil Russia Kool-Aid … right?

(extended silence)

Well, uh …  on the other hand … I mean, now let’s not get TOO carried away with this independence business.

As a matter of fact, all of these American military bases here in Europe, specifically all of these NATO nuclear weapons here in our allegedly once-again-sovereign Germany (a sovereignty which is often called into question by smartasses peddling conspiracy theories, who assert Germany is still controlled by the USA), make some of us feel a whole lot safer from the wicked Lord Sauron aka/ Vlad the Impaler just a few hundred kilometers to the east.

While the government has agreed in principle to gradually increase German military expenditures to 2% of the gross domestic product – thereby almost doubling military spending – in the coming years, mostly under pressure from the USA, it doesn’t want to get nailed down too firmly to that unofficial commitment. There are other things it would rather use that money for. And as long as the USA maintains its military outposts and missile installations in Europe, EU countries feel as if there’s no big rush.

There is also the fact to consider that NATO already outspends Russia on military matters by 900 billion dollars per year to 60 billion dollars per year. But that imbalance rarely comes into the “aggressive Russia” debate, any more than does the fact that Russia (and China too for that matter) is encircled by US military bases. A real extremist who did not understand Russia’s evil nature might go so far as to say that NO ONE needs to increase military spending, and that if anyone is a threat, it is NATO, in particular its leading nation which has already laid to waste much of the Middle East and overthrown numerous governments around the world – often installing nasty and brutal authoritarian rulers as puppets to do its bidding.

But we Europeans never mention such nuances in our advocacy of a Weltanschauung (“way of looking at the world”) which has to be kept very black and white, good versus evil, if the empire is to function properly. And if we want to keep the USA in Europe, in charge of the nuclear arsenal and continuing to give EU nations the luxury of not having to put any of this to the test, then there must be some terrifying menace to justify having those troops and atomic weapons here. We are very nervous about Trump’s threats to force Europe to stand up on its own, but we fervently hope that in a few years he will disappear and our good old Democrats or more moderate Republicans – yes, of course, they still exist, they must — will return to pamper us.

No, for us here in Europe it’s not the USA that is the problem, it’s Trump. As psychotic and bizarre as America is, with its mass shootings and its primitive death penalty, its shocking refusal to enact a reasonable national healthcare program, its police killings of unarmed blacks, its warmongering and overthrowing of foreign governments, its drone massacres of wedding parties, drone massacres and assassinations which we generously allow to be controlled from here on German soil — we would have happily continued to overlook all of that if the USA had only elected another head of state who pretended to care about those things, or at least put a noble and urbane mask on them. Someone like Obama, like Hillary. The way we here in the EU pretend to have noble values while deporting helpless refugees into war zones, turning them back over to Libyan torturers and slave traders, etc., intoning solemn avowals of “European Democratic Values” all the while. Presidents like Obama, or like Hillary would have been — make it so very much easier to get away with our pretense of innocence. It’s embarrassing having Trump as an ally. It’s painful and frightening too.

It’s like being possessed by a demon.

It Is Us

The war mentality represents an unfortunate confluence of ignorance, fear, prejudice, and profit. … The ignorance exists in its own right and is further perpetuated by government propaganda. The fear is that of ordinary people scared by misinformation but also that of leaders who may know better but are intimidated by the political costs of speaking out on such a heavily moralized and charged issue.

— Gabor Mate, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, 2009

The manufacturing of Russia as the arch enemy of not just the U.S. but mankind in general has reached levels of absurdity and pathology. This is all sort of obvious, though, I think. The yellow journalism of the creepy Max Boot at the NY Times is emblematic of the current toxic demand for war. I do wonder what these people are thinking. I mean, do they know something I don’t? And the list of propagandists, both in media and governments throughout the west, is quite long. In fact, finding someone who objects to this war mongering is much harder. There are some, of course, but they are largely invisible in mainstream media.

What does the ruling class want? Almost every major government official who propagates the anti Russia rhetoric is wealthy. Or at least affluent. Why do they want to promote conflict? To make more money? If so, what can that extra money buy them? What does John Bolton not have that he wants? What does Rachel Maddow want that she can’t afford? This has always troubled me. When I ask such questions I usually get an answer like “they want power” or “they want control”. But why? What does more power bring you? The ability to create institutions in your own image, in accordance with your ideological leanings? Is that it? If this is correct, for some, what does being able to shape institutional authority actually bring you? What benefits? Is it some moral demand for change?

Is Mike Pompeo driven by moral or ethical issues? What do the Clintons want? Are they motivated by a moral calling? What does Chuck Shurmer want, or Nancy Pelosi? They lead extraordinarily comfortable privileged lives. What would an even limited conflict with Russia or China bring such people? Are the Koch brothers concerned with the happiness of the people of the world? Of course not. They are, in their minds, concerned with their own happiness. But does promoting their irrational ideology bring them a feeling of well being? But then I am not at all sure what happiness looks like to Charles Koch. Not what it looks like to you or me I’d venture to guess.

No, the answer is more complex. It is maybe even, in considerable measure, unconscious. It is resentment and fear, it is ambivalence and narcissism. For the reality is that nobody benefits from a nuclear war. NOBODY. But tens of millions die. And maybe everyone dies.

Is this not something the propagandists know? Do they want to die? All month I’ve been thinking of Wilhelm Reich’s small book Listen, Little Man!

This is why I am afraid of you Little Man, deadly afraid. For on you depends the fate of humanity I am afraid of you because there is nothing you flee as much from as yourself. You are sick, very sick, Little Man. It is not your fault. But it is your responsibility to rid yourself of this sickness. You would have long since shaken off your oppressors had you not tolerated oppression and often actively supported it.

Anyone not angered is not well. But I think many are angry, but they feel unable to formulate ways to express this anger. Dissent is an unpopular position. It might cost you work. It might get you fired. And for many, they think of their families. Their children must eat. So they stay silent. They use pseudonyms when they do protest. But it is hard to blame them, really. And yet, and yet, the world is hurtling toward extinction. In the United States there are working families living under freeway bridges and in shelters and living off food stamps. The affluent liberal in America is OUTRAGED at gun laws. And yet they are indifferent to the massive violence visited upon countries like Yemen or Libya or Honduras or Iraq. They claim not to like war but they will salute soldiers and thank them for their service. Nothing is quite so ridiculous as that ‘thanks for your service’ meme. Service to what? To whom? I really do want to know. What is being served? What good does the military do for anyone? The answer, if you ask most people, is to protect them from foreign invasion. In today’s case that means Russia. They are OUTRAGED Putin tried (or succeeded, depending on who they believe) meddling in the US elections. Are they not aware their own government has meddled in dozens of foreign elections? Or worse, have orchestrated coups and propped up dictators. Do they not know Mobutu was a US invention? Do they know their own government trained SAVAK, the secret police of The Shah? They do remember it was the U.S. who labeled Mandela a terrorist ? Do they remember Vietnam? Do they care?

Do they believe Muslim terrorists are on the verge of attacking America? They remind you of 9/11 …three thousand died….but that body count is about what Yemen suffers each day, and has suffered for the last year or two each day. How many Iraqis have died at the hands of the US military? Do they know what happened at Fallujah? Many are angry at Trump. Which is fine, but they are not angry at Obama or Hillary or Bernie. Do they believe Trump is some significant sea change in governance? Do they realize all his Pentagon advisors were advising Obama, too. And George Bush. Why do so many people regard US foreign policy as coherent? The answer is the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t think about US foreign policy at all. They might know of Kim Jong Il, but they know nothing of the history of US/Korean relations. And they have no idea just how extensively the CIA has funded the very same Muslim jihadists they fear are ready to break into their homes. They hear some mainstream media story, often with a celebrity front person, about stopping this or that genocide (invariably caused by the United States) and decide yes, *we stood by* in Rwanda. Or, *we HAD to go into Yugoslavia to stop the Serbs*, etc. The reality is always diametrically opposed to the one manufactured by the U.S. State Department. The reality of Kagame or Milosevic, or Hezbollah, or China, or Venezuela is obscured and mystified. And the “white saviour” narrative remains the most popular. Posit that the third world NEEDS western help and you have a winner in the minds of most Americans.

And any opportunity to ridicule and demean other cultures, so it seems, is readily embraced. Americans are, by and large, an astoundingly mean-spirited people. At least white America. Snarky, snide, suspicious, vainglorious and provincial; THAT is the great USA, as well as Puritanical, prudish, narcissistic, and generally xenophobic.

On twitter, certifiable retired general Barry McCaffrey tweeted the following:

Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that is he, for some unknown reason, under the sway of Mr. Putin.

Now this is not in, and of, itself unexpected but what is unexpected is the number of Democrats and liberals re-tweeting it approvingly. The bourgeoisie is aligning itself openly with the most fascist elements in the authority structure of the US military. One conclusion that is reached from all this is that Trump is indeed a very useful tool of the ruling class. The sheer revulsion he elicits in most people is being harnessed, quite consciously, to the propaganda machine of the US state — it is as if the personal repugnance of Trump helps to pull focus from historical precedent and actual material policy implications to the subjective feelings of disgust Trump the man brings out in people. And I get it, I really do. Having to watch Trump and his damaged family and various hangers-on and cronies on a daily basis is enough to cause a certain genuine palpable nausea. But this use of Trump is effective because of the basic fundamental narcissism of the bourgeoisie. What matters is how THEY feel. Not the death of children in Gaza, or slavery flourishing in Libya, or mass rape by the Cedras Junta in Haiti back under the Clinton regime — let alone cholera in Yemen and massive displacement of hundreds of thousands in Syria — no, it is the personal *feelings* of liberal Americans. They don’t *like* Trump. And as I say, I get it. Nobody likes Donald Trump. Just as nobody likes Jeff Sessions. Nobody likes Mike Pompeo or John Kelley or John Bolton or H.R. McMaster, or Betsy DeVos or Jared Kushner. It is literally as distasteful an assemblage of humanity as it’s possible to imagine. But then who liked Rahm Emanuel, or Joe Biden? We know NOBODY likes Hillary Clinton. But the optics were managed. It’s almost as if Trump wants people to recoil in disgust. Why would that be?

Look at the United States today. In Oklahoma the Corrections Department came up with a new way to execute people (cost saving benefits) — they force the oxygen out of them (by forcing in Nitrogen.). This innovative new experiment in death is the result of a shortage of the usual drugs used in lethal injection. This sort of logic is apparently perfectly acceptable in Oklahoma. Mike Christian (sic), the former highway patrolman who came up with the idea, is quoted in The Intercept article on the topic, as saying…one way or another “we will put these beasts to death”.

I think the average person in the US has lost touch with just how barbaric and compassionless the culture is today. How insensitive and sadistic. People take refuge psychologically in small circles of friends — many of whom might in other contexts be just as sadistic as society overall– and manage the engagements with these friends so as to not have to discuss unpleasant topics. The so called Chinese wall (sic) that has migrated from the legal and political professions to people’s personal lives. As a sort of psychic safety valve they simply ignore the rest of the country they live in.

Remember that Trump’s moronic reality TV show was a big hit. It ran for six years I believe. So many of the same people who recoil in horror at Trump the President were happy to watch, with feelings of superiority, the cartoon millionaire exercising meaningless edicts. It was kistch schadenfreude. I guess, anyway. The entire Trump political narrative is fraught with temptation to imagine just who is or was pulling the strings. Who wanted him as President? Whatever the story behind the story the fact is that the people running the United States, and these are people largely invisible to the public, operate from motivations I simply cannot fathom.

Yes, to make MORE money, I get it, I get it. But this is a loaded sort of thought experiment. I understand this. Why does anyone want more than they can use or need? Let alone a thousand times more than they can use in a lifetime, or in their children or grandchildren’s lifetime. Why does anyone want to live in bizarre five hundred room mansions full of expensive furniture and with multiple swimming pools and tennis courts? What do people feel as they stroll around their estate? Do they feel deserving? Does it not occur to them that most of global humanity live in dire soul deadening poverty? I remember Barbara Bush during a photo op tour of post Katrina New Orleans commenting about not troubling her beautiful mind about such things. Does she really believe she has a beautiful mind? So one question has to do with the subjective mind of the ruling class. The second has to do with the people who vote FOR their own oppression. Who actively support inequality.

There is a new TV reality show where celebrities take part in trying to run a 5 star hotel. They don’t take part in trying to run a homeless shelter, no, for that isn’t very fun now, is it? Why does anyone care about who the British royal family is going to marry? But people do care, and they spend money following this sort of news. Even people living week to week, working two jobs and hanging on by a thread — often even they are consuming the same cultural product as the more affluent populace. Why are people not angrier? Why is there not far more social unrest and open revolt? Is it simply fear? I can understand that in a nation that incarcerates over 2 million people. The last growth industries are prison construction and private security. Both relate to a growing underclass that looms as a threat to the very wealthy. Remember that the policing apparatus of the US, on both federal, state, and local levels is draconian and operates with almost total impunity. City police departments trace their origin back to *Slave Patrols*. I think many sense that it is not far fetched to imagine being arrested and then subjected to years of both custody and legal expense.

And behind all this is Hollywood and the endless stream of jingoistic and racist TV and film. In fact, Russia is now a plot point in nearly all TV drama. If you think that is an exaggeration, then you haven’t been watching. The extraordinary xenophobia of American television is mind numbing, honestly. From shows like Designated Survivor to Madame Secretary to stuff like The Shooter or Chicago PD or SEAL Team — the message is uniform. There are no TV dramas with socialists or politically radical protagonists. No shows questioning the virtue of the military (thank you for your service). An Oscar for the portrayal of Churchill, a war criminal racist colonialist. Who wins Oscars for portraying Lenin or Toussaint L’Ouverture? But then those films don’t get bankrolled by Hollywood. Do screenwriters simply instinctively know that back stories that feature ‘tours in Iraq’ or the like as the accepted character foundation for heroism? It is breathtaking how alike most Hollywood product really is and how nakedly reactionary.

Meanwhile the US lurches toward military conflict with nuclear powers. Conflicts that would wipe out humanity. At the least the US is manufacturing a new Cold War. Perhaps that provides a certain comfort. People are given an external enemy to hate, an enemy on which to focus their frustration, resentment, and aggression. The system encourages managed protest about issues that are themselves of little consequence. Gun control for one. Nobody talks about the MILLIONS of dead at the hands of the US military over the last twenty years. Nobody protests 900 military bases globally. What are those bases there for? Oh, to protect us….from *enemies*. The US needs its enemies.

Identity issues are fine to argue about, just don’t argue about class inequality. Argue about gender and racial identity. About multiculturalism but not about a hierarchical social structure where 1% of the populace own 90% of the wealth. Why is there such poverty if America is so special? A bridge collapses the other day in Dade County, Florida. The infrastructure is falling apart, literally, as I write this. It won’t be the last bridge to fall down. Infant mortality is the same as that of Peru, last I looked. And Peru is seen as an inferior nation in the eyes of most Americans. Don’t raise the issue of military pollution, military rape, military economic waste, or military sadism. Funny how those photos of Abu Ghraib have mostly disappeared from the collective memory of the U.S. The 50th anniversary of My Lai passed without much comment. Vietnam is being given a revisionist re-narration. “Mistakes” were made. etc. Ask about Israel and you get a lot of either hostility or discomfort. Did Russia attack one of our navel vessels? No, that was Israel. Greg Barrett has an article out now pointing out similar realities…

The Russians, therefore, are not responsible for the destruction of the Iraqi state, for the more than one million civilian casualties since the invasion, for the massive waves of terrorism and sectarian violence and refugees entering Turkey and Europe which have resulted, or for the birth of ISIS in the US-controlled Abu Ghraib prison — the same ISIS which was formed by former Saddam military officers imprisoned there.  The Russians did not join together with the UK and France in 2011 to destroy the Libyan state in a major bombing campaign which killed an estimated 30,000 civilians, following US/UK support for Libyan rebels designed to set up the “revolution” in Africa’s most prosperous nation. The Russians then did not abandon the country to its fate, which soon turned out to be rival governments and militias, a growing ISIS presence, actual slave markets where helpless refugees are sold like cattle, and thousands of refugees drowning in the Mediterranean after paying human traffickers to take them to Europe in tiny, overloaded boats. The Russians did not respond to a question about the death of Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi — by sodomization with a long blade — by laughing maniacally and loudly on national US television and proclaiming, “We came, we saw, he DIED! Ha ha ha!

And on and on. It was not Russia who bankrolled Osama bin Ladin and it wasn’t Russia who supported ISIS as they targeted Assad for removal. It wasn’t Russia who just helped Saudi Arabia from day one in their genocidal assault on Yemen. Nor did Russia annex Crimea, for the record (as Greg points out “unless a vote of 98% of the population to return to Mother Russia, of which they had always been a historical part until the 1960s, is considered invalid. No responsible party has challenged those numbers.”) Nor does Russia engage in assassination by drone. That is the USA. In fact, most of the Muslim world (save the puppet regimes in the KSA, Jordan, and the UAE) aligns with Russia and feels nothing but anger toward the US. And the people in the streets of Jordan and the UAE et al are also aligned against the US, not with it, despite what their corrupt leaders say. Wasn’t Russia who orchestrated the destruction of the former Yugoslavia either. But the public does not engage in such discourse. It is not allowed, for all intents and purposes. The public today, in the US, knows what to say and what to believe. And they rarely go off script.

Which brings me back to what these people want, the ones manufacturing this wave of anti Russian propaganda. Is it war? I don’t honestly know if they are that crazy or not. Some are, lunatics like John Bolton or Robert Kagen or his brutish wife Victoria Nuland. Does anyone ask during presidential debates about Ukraine and the US support for an open Nazi Party? One answer is that they want *global hegemony*. But what does that mean? Why do they want that? What does that provide for them personally? Millions dead and they get what? Power? And what does power give you? Does it provide peace of mind? Happiness? A rich sense of self worth? I honestly don’t know. Maybe I am just dense. But I have never understood the idea of seeking privilege unless everyone can have it. I don’t want to fly first class if anyone is flying coach. It makes me uncomfortable. I don’t feel special. Why do so many Americans fawn over the rich? Why are the wealthy so admired? I know some partial answers; I know Americans, or American white males, in particular, see the world through a lens that lumps everyone into two categories: winners and losers. On social media the other day there was a story about a man who has lived in the US for forty years but is being deported. The comments were astounding and yet utterly predictable. Men said he was a ‘dumb ass’ for not getting his citizenship. Compassion? That’s for sissies. For losers. And people wonder at the spate of school shootings? Oh, it must be guns, too many guns. No, it is the psychology of Capitalism that creates such violence. Competition against your neighbour, not cooperation. Hoarding not sharing. It is a culture of violent scapegoating and stigmatizing and shaming. All reality TV is really the same show and that show is humiliation. Vicarious voyeuristic sadism.

Your life will be good and secure when aliveness will mean more to you than security; low more than money; your freedom more than party line or public opinion; when the mood of Beethoven or Bach will be the mood of your total existence (you have it in you, Little Man, buried deeply in a corner of your existence); when your thinking will be in harmony, and no longer at variance, with your feelings; when you will be able to comprehend your gifts in time and to recognize your ageing in time; when you will live the thoughts of great men instead of the misdeeds of great warriors; when the teachers of your children will be better paid than the politicians…
— Wilhelm Reich

Being cut off from our own natural self-compassion is one of the greatest impairments we can suffer.
— Gabor Mate

Perhaps Mate is right. It is a self hating nation that internalized the ethos of Puritanism and produced Manifest Destiny. It was a slave owning nation. It was, at its inception, a genocidal nation. A nation founded on those sorts of psychic wounds is a nation that is repressing and sublimating at extraordinary rates and degrees. It is this self loathing America, the only real failed state in the world, as far as I can see, that is now a dire threat to the survival of humanity. The one core truth for me today, at least politically, is one must resist western Imperialism. You don’t have to agree with the rest of the world that resists it, but you must stand with them. It is only white privilege, hubris, that allows for a westerner, an American, to criticise Maduro, or Assad, or the DPRK. Or Iran. Yes, Iran was a conservative revolution, but they are part of a bulwark against the nightmare of Western capital today. Self determination. America has never wanted to save anyone. Ever. America has always had ulterior motives. The self loathing American. The Ugly American. We have met the enemy, and it is us.

The Myth of “The Left” in America’s Distorted Political Culture

A few years ago, anarchist philosopher Crispin Sartwell argued that “the left/right or Democrat/Republican split—which turns American politics into a hyper-repetitive, mechanical set of partisan bromides about free markets versus government programs with egalitarian results—depends on a historical mistake.”1 While Sartwell was pretty much on point with this assessment, we haven’t yet been able to cast aside these self-imposed political blinders. Americans by and large still see politics through the left/right prism, without realizing that our perceptions of what constitutes ‘the left’ in particular are intrinsically flawed. In modern American political culture, the descriptor ‘left’ is commonly used with reference to Democrats, liberals, progressives, and even moderates. However, there are barely any truly leftist currents in our mainstream political landscape. In addition to being guilty of having committed Sartwell’s collective ‘historical mistake,’ this erroneous delineation of ‘the left’ not only defies political realities in the rest of the world, but it also perpetuates the deception we have created in our own political understanding of ourselves.

American claims to being exceptional among the civilizations of the world are in many ways an overblown nationalistic myth. But there is one particular strand of American exceptionalism that has long been a mainstay in our political culture and in the vernacular we employ within it. On a daily basis media outlets, politicos, pundits, thinkers, and commentators – and thus, by virtue of information consumption, the general public – fall into an all too common trap of political misperception, myopia, or willful misappropriation when it comes to the concept of ‘the left’ in American politics. In their narratives, liberals and Democrats are commonly seen and referred to monolithically as ‘the left.’ But put into context, this is a fundamentally false equivalence. Let’s establish one thing right off the bat: There really is no tangible ‘left’ in America’s political mainstream today. Except for a few growing and increasingly influential yet still relatively fledgling movements and organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America or the Black Lives Matter movement, there is very little leftist thought and action at work in America’s two-party landscape. What many commentators – liberal or conservative alike – often refer to as ‘the left’ is but a poor excuse for actual leftist political philosophy.

The primary reason for this misconception is rooted in the anomaly that is our political system and our political culture, which inherently gravitates further to the right than most other advanced contemporary democracies. In addition to this basic conundrum, the political climate of the past four decades – marked by acquiescence and concessions to neoliberalism, a continuation of militaristic-imperialistic foreign policy, reactionary culture wars, a preoccupation with reductionist identity politics, as well as the preservation of privileged self-interest – have effectively eviscerated what modicum of ‘leftist’ thought may once have existed in Progressive Era and post-New Deal American politics. Since then our political system has shifted so far to the right that most Americans today seem to fully accept as a given the simplistic binary political pancake in which liberals and the Democratic Party make up ‘the left,’ conservatives and Republicans constitute ‘the right,’ and independent voters and non-voters alike occupy a space somewhere in-between.

As a volunteer and activist for Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in late 2015 and early 2016, I knocked on countless doors, called and texted voters across the country, and had many a conversation with a wide variety of people. I spoke with many other activists, groups, members of political organizations, and legions of potential voters of all sorts of political persuasions. Out of all of these conversations, two particular encounters stand out to me to this day. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that both interlocutors were fellow academics, but even more than that, these conversations serve as exemplary manifestations of America’s political blinders.

One of the two conversational partners, a fellow historian in her late twenties – and a die-hard supporter of Hillary Clinton – noted in late 2015 that she had been observing some “strange behavior among liberals” during this election cycle. She was referring to the growing support for Senator Sanders, and the equally growing mistrust and criticism toward Secretary Clinton. From her perspective it appeared almost inconceivable that anyone who was seriously committed to meaningful progress could support Sanders over Clinton. Getting big corporate money and special interests out of politics or working toward a universal single payer healthcare system seemed to be at best secondary, if not at all irrelevant, to her rather narrow and strongly gendered conceptions of modern politics, in which breaking the symbolic glass ceiling of having a female chief executive appeared to trump (no pun intended) any other argument. The notion, that a considerable share of Sanders’s supporters may actually hold deeper political convictions that are further to the left of modern American liberalism, did not seem to fit her political worldview.

The second conversationalist was an aging mathematics professor, who seemed relatively open to some of the more leftist items on the agenda of many ‘Sandernista.’ Yet he, too, displayed an almost dogmatic adherence to the old blue dog Democrat view of American politics that seems to revolve only around liberals vs. conservatives, blue vs. red, left vs. right. As we were talking about coordinating our political activism to support the campaign of a challenger to the incumbent in our congressional district, the septuagenarian mathematician asked me about my own political views, by which he meant party affiliation. When I told him that I considered myself a leftist independent who is not affiliated with any party, he encountered, visibly concerned I might add, that “if you’re an independent, you are somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans.” As a relative novice to all out boots-on-the-ground political activism, this statement shook me to my political core. I wondered if this was indicative of the political worldview in America, and where this would leave true leftists on America’s political spectrum.

Just a few months prior to these encounters, I was struck by a realization that had been hiding in plain sight all along. At one of our Bernie rallies, a local activist leader argued in his speech that there is no ‘left’ in American politics, and that there hadn’t been one since Debs. He was, of course, referring to Eugene V. Debs, the iconic union organizer and multi-time presidential candidate of the American Socialist Party during the first two decades of the twentieth century. As a historian of American politics during the late Gilded Age and early Progressive Era, I was, of course, very familiar with Progressive insurgencies in both parties, as well as third party challenges to the established two-party system, but perhaps I had been looking at things from a decidedly liberal vantage point up until then. It was only through careful revision of the works of William Appleman Williams, Martin Sklar, Jeffrey Lustig, and most importantly my re-reading of Gabriel Kolko’s seminal “The Triumph of Conservatism,” that I realized the false pretenses in my own thinking.

In the early 1960s, Kolko had broken new ground when he argued that the Progressive Era was really an era of conservatism. Instead of exploring alternative options, Kolko argued, American Progressives deliberately opted for the preservation of the existing hegemonic political, economic, and societal structures, or in Kolko’s words, the “basic social and economic relations essential to a capitalist society.”2 Though often hailed as the lynchpin of reform, Progressive policies and regulation by and large served as a rationalization of the market, with the intention of safeguarding long-term profit. America’s business leaders and ‘Corporate Caesars’ realized that only control of and collusion with federal and state governments, especially under the purview of increased regulatory power vested in government, could protect their interest from either haphazard legislative policies or true radicalism emanating from the populace.

This was by no means an American phenomenon. Imperial Germany saw similar ‘reforms’ in the later nineteenth century, when the staunchly pro-monarchical Bismarckian government had implemented universal male adult suffrage and a system of social insurance which would become the foundation for later models of the modern welfare state. However, Bismarck did not implement these reforms out of kindness, humanitarian spirit, or because of genuine empathy with the laboring classes. Quite the contrary. Bismarck was concerned about the growing discontent among the German people over the fallout from rapid industrialization, the long-term effects of Enlightenment democratization, and the simmering of class-conscious sentiments. In an effort to preserve the Kaiserreich and its existing power structures, Bismarck had remarked early on that “[i]f there is to be revolution, we would prefer to make it than to suffer it.”3

American political leaders at the turn of the century shared similar convictions. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt characterized his own policies as a preservation of the “conservative class,” to which he himself belonged, with the intention to provide “a safety valve for the popular unrest and indignation” among a sizable section of the populace, and to avoid state ownership or “other drastic measures against corporations.”4 Thus, working closely with America’s ‘captains of industry,’ many Progressive lawmakers devised and implemented policies that sought large scale reforms – many of which resulted in great leaps forward such as railroad regulation, food and drug regulation, a graduated income tax, or women’s suffrage – but most of the policies that Progressives pursued did not actually seek to fundamentally address America’s structural biases, blind spots, and inequalities. Thus America’s national Progressivism during the first quarter of the twentieth century, Kolko concluded, was essentially a “defense of business against the democratic ferment in the states.” However, unlike developments in Europe, Progressive politics in America, as Kolko notes further, effectively “sidetracked European socialism” and thus stymied a “truly radical, articulated alternative economic and political program capable of synthesizing political democracy with industrial reality.”5

This may be a sobering realization, but mainstream American Progressivism was never truly leftist, and neither of the two major parties during the height of the Progressive Era constituted an actual left wing in American politics. As historian Alan Dawley points out, Progressives were not the left, but merely “drew many ideas from the left”. The actual left, as Dawley argues most convincingly, is best defined “as the political stance, whether Marxist or not, that blamed inequalities in wealth and power on the workings of the capitalist system.” This ought to be the primary consideration in helping us “distinguish leftists from progressives, who, for the most part, did not see capitalism behind every wrong.”6

A truly leftist space existed merely on the fringes, and it was occupied by individuals such as Eugene Debs or Emma Goldman, or by organizations such as the American Socialist Party or the International Workers of the World. While this fringe left did most certainly influence broader political conversations, it did not permeate the political mainstream enough to create a viable left-wing mainstay in American party politics. As a result, the Democrats and the GOP, both of which experienced Progressive insurgencies at the time, and both of which would recalibrate several times throughout the twentieth century, eventually developed into today’s center-right and right-wing parties, respectively.

And this is where so many American liberals, center-leftists, conservatives, and reactionaries get it wrong today. Looking at our two-party system under the premise of a ‘left/right’ duality essentially creates the fallacy of equating ‘liberal’ or ‘Democrat’ with ‘the left.’ While populist liberals like Elizabeth Warren – herself a former Republican – undoubtedly consider themselves to be a part of ‘the left,’ far right commentators, such as the folks at Breitbart, deride “her ideological left-wing purity,” while at the same time branding her as a “liberal icon.”7 Unfortunately, both viewpoints equally conflate liberals with ‘the left.’ Moreover, such invocations of ‘the left’ seem oblivious to the fact that liberals only occupy a space to the relative political left when they are juxtaposed to individuals, movements, or positions on the far right. The effect on our national political culture is disheartening. Not only do we appear to be in the dark about the political anatomies and philosophies of the world we live in, but we seem to lack an understanding of political culture outside of the American context.

Such myopic perceptions of ‘the left’ permeate almost our entire mass political consciousness. The headlines and front page stories of major news outlets provide ample proof. One such example is a New York Times piece from January 2016, titled “Democratic Race Will Test Where the Left Stands.” This headline alone seems to equate the Democratic Party with ‘the left.’ While this an omnipresent trope in American political language and media narratives, it is an inherently false and inadequate exposition. Yet, the misleading headline is not the sole element of concern here. Not unlike the above-mentioned Breitbart piece on Elizabeth Warren, this article similarly characterizes Senator Bernie Sanders as both a “liberal” and as “far-left,” while seemingly using these terms interchangeably. This conflation is amplified further when the author ponders over whether Sanders could energize “the liberal wing of the party,” again, conflating ‘liberal’ with ‘left.’8

In this potpourri of political nomenclature, the otherwise solid article at best blurs and at worst ignores the considerable distinctions between the Democratic Party and modern liberals on the one hand, and ‘the left’ on the other. Another New York Times headline from January of this year goes even further, suggesting that “The Left Mulls How to Resist Trump.” The author clarifies his frame of reference as to what sort of political figures constitute the ‘left’ by discussing the deliberations of Democratic establishment figures such as DNC Chair Tom Perez or CNN contributor and Clinton confidant Donna Brazile, neither of whom are remotely representative of the political left.9

But the constant reproduction of the misnomer that is ‘the left’ in reference to the Democratic Party or mainstream liberals is not just an issue in our corporate news media. On an episode of NPR’s Here and Now on September 13, 2017, Republican strategist Paris Dennard rejected questions about whether the Trump administration’s tax cuts (which have since been enacted) would primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans as mere “talking points from the left.” As if this wasn’t platitudinal enough, Dennard then proceeded to comment on the issue of healthcare reform, stating that “single payer is not working in Canada or in Europe,” and thus spreading a definitive falsehood.

What is perhaps more disconcerting, however, is the fact that NPR’s Meghna Chakrabarti then followed the established but erroneous trope of misusing the term ‘the left.’ In what was obviously a subtle reference to existing criticism toward single payer healthcare coming from some liberals and establishment Democrats, Chakrabarti noted that “there are some people on the left who are worried that Medicare-for-all could backfire because it possibly could reduce the coverage that people already have.”10 This is yet another example of the casual, widespread, and politically myopic trigger-happiness that misidentifies mainstream liberal and moderate viewpoints as distinctly ‘left.’

Sadly, National Public Radio, of all places, seems to be particularly susceptible to misappropriating the term ‘left.’ On a recent episode of Here and Now, host Robin Young spoke with former NPR CEO Ken Stern about his new book, in which Stern reflects on his travels and experiences when he left his Democratic “liberal bubble and learned to love the right.” Stern’s subtext and discussion of his book undoubtedly set the parameters of the conversation, and even though Young tenaciously pressed the former CEO on his arguments on political bubbles and confirmation biases, asserting that NPR provides “views from all sides,” she, too, slipped into the fallacy of equating the liberal vs. conservative dichotomy with the left vs. right divide, when she asked her listeners to share their impressions, especially if they themselves were trapped in a bubble either on the left or on the right.

As we can see, commentators and correspondents in both corporate and public news media outlets across the board continuously use the qualifier ‘left’ in their publications and broadcasts when, in fact, they are referring to mainstream liberals or Democrats. In doing so, they are not only communicating a false narrative, but they are perpetuating a part of our political culture that is deeply flawed. The conflation of equating Democrats and liberals with ‘the left,’ and juxtaposing them in opposition to conservatives and Republicans as ‘the right,’ may be a convenient and utilitarian tool in our soundbite media landscape, but the downside to this practice is that it only reinforces our national Manichean worldview of wrong and right, black and white, left and right, which severely limits our political discourse and stifles our possibilities.

The argument I am making here is far beyond semantics or labels. If Americans want to be understood politically by observers from all socio-political spheres and spectra, if we want to create a more vibrant democracy in which to engage our citizenry, if we want to open our possibilities, if we want to effectively integrate our growing foreign-born population into our political discourse, and if we want to communicate effectively and meaningfully with people and cultures abroad, we need to rethink our own political culture and language.

So, how then should we look at the political language of ‘left’ and ‘right’? Some international context might be beneficial. In their modern political capacity, the descriptors ‘right’ and ‘left’ originate from the parliamentary seating arrangements in post-Revolutionary France, referring to pro- and anti-monarchists respectively. While their exact meaning and connotation are contingent upon the specific temporal and societal context in which we locate them, core conceptualizations of the political left generally encompass an egalitarian socio-political and economic character; i.e., a clear rejection of a capitalist economic model with its inherently parasitic nature and the limitations it imposes on true human liberation.

Conversely, the political right is defined by a more individualistic, pro-capitalistic, free market calibration. In modern political science, manifestations of left and right are usually measured on bi- or multiaxial spectra. Let me elaborate my point using the bi-axial Political Compass. In this model, the horizontal axis depicts the full range of economic matters, ranging from the total absence of private property (not personal property!!!) on the far left, to an economy based entirely on private property and free markets on the far right. The vertical axis, on the other hand, charts the range of political and social liberty, from fully authoritarian statism and state-sanctioned social and racial suppression at the top to entirely unimpeded individual autonomy at the bottom. Of course, political ideologies are inherently non-static, and they can and do indeed intersect or overlap, particularly on the extreme fringes of the spectrum. In other words, since varying degrees of statist-authoritarianism, for instance, are conceivable on both horizontal ends of the spectrum, the very notion of a definitive terminus is debatable. For this purpose, a three-dimensional spherical model could perhaps serve as an alternative to a conventional two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, but within the context of discussing the left in American political culture, the Political Compass is more than adequate to chart manifestations of ‘left’ and ‘right.’

Compared to the multi-party democracies of many European countries, which cover a broader range of ideologies and policies on the political spectrum, mainstream political discourse in the United States occurs almost exclusively between the center and the far right. The following charts depict the major political entities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France in their respective general elections over the past year. It becomes apparent that, even in the context of growing uncertainty as reflected in more recent developments in Europe — such as the refugee crisis, anti-globalization forces, or increasing anti-EU sentiment — European political cultures still include a far greater space for decidedly left alternatives and counterweights to the prevalent right and conservative trajectories in recent years.

When we apply the aforementioned criteria that define ‘the left’ to the political realities of modern America, however, there appear hardly any readings on either left quadrant of the Political Compass. In the 1940s and 1950s America was defined by New Deal reforms and post-war prosperity, but many of these developments structurally and deliberately excluded women and people of color. While the Civil Rights movement successfully paved the way for a whole host of different people and interest groups in their pursuits of greater liberty and equality, America’s political reordering since the late 1960s — which was in many ways a response the social and political upheaval and challenges during that decade — saw an assertion of neoliberalism wedded to a revival of conservatism and reactionism.

Since the 1970s the Democrats have effectively positioned themselves at the center-right. Rather than having been overrun by the resurgence on the right, the Democratic Party was an active part and parcel of the conservative swing in American politics. Enjoying a majority in the House of Representatives during both of Ronald Reagan’s presidential terms, the party of FDR and Lyndon Johnson had essentially shed its post-war progressivism, and now became complicit in the deindustrialization and deregulation of the American economy, huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, the ‘war on drugs,’ and the rise of the prison-industrial complex.

The 1990s only saw an extension of this ‘Reagan Democrat’ calibration. Bill Clinton’s ‘welfare reform,’ trade deals, and his administration’s continuation of Reaganite ‘tough on crime’ and anti-drug law enforcement initiatives only exacerbated the rightward trend of the party, which again disproportionately targeted people of color. And, finally, when the dust had settled on the initial hype over our nation’s first African American president, Barack Obama’s legacy was quickly defined by his ‘signature’ healthcare reform – which is really a tremendous gift to big insurance and big pharma – along with his prolonged military operations, and the continuation of disastrous trade deals. Therefore, the bar had been set low enough – or should we say far enough to the right – for Hillary Clinton’s lackluster campaign which promised at best incremental progress, and which was a significant part as to why we ended up with Trump, not to mention her mitosis from a one-time healthcare reformer to a center-right establishment candidate who is convinced that single payer “will never, ever come to pass.”11

All this contortion of ‘the left’ is reflected in the issues we debate in our political climate, and more importantly, how we discuss them. Many Europeans generally take for granted provisions such as universal healthcare, strong employment rights, inviolable civic rights, strong consumer and environmental protections, or efficient systems of public infrastructure – just to name a few. In comparison, such issues are always hotly contested in America, to the point that proposals such as Medicare for all, affordable and debt-free education, limiting the influence of special interests in policy-making, or reducing our overdependence on fossil fuel not only seem all but destined to perish at the whims of the corporate oligarchy and its networks of wealthy donors and lobbyists that control the political process, but these ‘leftist’ policies are also dismissed as ‘pipe dreams’ or ‘pie in the sky’ by many liberals and moderates.

Herein lies the kicker. For all their alleged commitment to social justice and political equality, American liberals and moderates (you know…the folks who supposedly make up ‘the left’ in American politics), are still often beholden to or imbued with national myths about America’s role as the global exporter of democracy and economic prosperity. Put differently, American liberals are caught in their own delusions and safe logic, in which our protracted involvement in foreign wars just means that ‘our troops are fighting for our freedoms,’ and in which America’s large corporate enterprises are justified in their accumulation of wealth and power (read: in the continuous exploitation of workers and people of color, both at home and abroad, and hence the proliferation of grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality), as long as they continue to be the drivers of research and innovation.

This misappropriated version of ‘the left’ in American politics then is a strange phenomenon. Many Americans, both liberal and conservative, often seem to care very little if human beings are being exploited in Asia, Latin America, or the Middle East, as long as folks here at home enjoy artificially low gas prices, get to shop for cheap at Walmart, or get to have their sugar-laden dessert coffees at Starbucks. White liberals in particular often proclaim solidarity with and empathy for disadvantaged and disenfranchised people of color in America as well as in the developing world, but yet too many of them confine themselves to the privileged seclusion of a sheltered suburban life, which was only made possible on a grand scale by racially exclusive big government programs and an economic prosperity that hinged on wartime production and the vast expansion of what Eisenhower called ‘the military-industrial complex’ on the heels of the second World War.

It is one thing to call for greater equality for the marginalized and the disadvantaged in society, but it is quite another thing to come to terms with the fact that much of one’s own behaviors and consumption patterns contribute to the factors that create and perpetuate these disparities in the first place. Until Americans truly awaken to the realization that most of our mainstream social justice campaigns and our cyclical bouts and assertions of American progressivism cannot be effectively reconciled with our existence within a pseudo-democratic corporate capitalist system, there will be no tangible left wing in mainstream American politics. As James Baldwin has once remarked elsewhere, the future of America depends on the question whether Americans are able to come to terms with their own distorted “sense of reality.”

  1. Crispin Sartwell. “The Left-Right Political Spectrum Is Bogus“, The Atlantic, June 20, 2014.
  2. Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 (New York: The Free Press, 1963), 2.
  3. Otto von Bismarck, Die gesammelten Werke (Friedrichsruher Ausgabe), 19 vols in 15 (Berlin, 1924-35), vi. 120, Bismarck to Manteuffel, 11 August 1866.
  4. “Jar at Gridiron Dinner,” Baltimore Sun, January 29, 1907; TR to Paul Morton, January 2, 1907, in Roosevelt, Theodore, The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Vol. 3-7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951-1954, 5:535-536.; Unreasonable Men 84-90.
  5. Kolko, Triumph of Conservatism, 286.
  6. Alan Dawley, Changing The World: American Progressives in War and Revolution. (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003, 3).
  7. Adam Shaw. “Elizabeth Warren, Supporters Making Big Bucks from ‘She Persisted’ Merchandise“, Breitbart, August 13, 2017.
  8. Patrick Healy. “Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Battle for Party’s Future”, New York Times, January 24, 2016.
  9. Jonathan Martin. “When He Goes Low, They Go …Where? Democrats Mull How to Confront Trump“, New York Times, January 14, 2017.
  10. Trump Meets With Lawmakers On Tax Overhaul“, Charlottesville, Here and Now, September 13, 2017.
  11. Hillary Clinton, Campaign Rally in Des Moines, Iowa, January 29, 2016.

Will The Conspiracy Against Trump and American Democracy Go Unpunished?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.

— Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

The American people do not realize the seriousness of the Russiagate conspiracy against them and President Trump. Polls indicate that a large majority of the public do not believe that Trump conspired with Putin to steal the presidential election, and are tired of hearing the media prostitutes repeat the absurd story day after day. On its face the story makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, the leaked emails are real, not fabricated. The emails show exactly what Hillary and the DNC did. The public knows that these transgressions were pushed out of news sight by the false story of a Trump/Putin conspiracy. The fact that the entirety of the US print and TV media served in a highly partisan political way to bury a true and disturbing story with a fake news story—Russiagate—is one reason some polls show that only 6% of Americans trust the mainstream media. All polls show that large majorities of independents, Republicans, and youth distrust the mainstream media. In some polls about half of Democrats trust the media, and that is because the media is servant to Democratic Party interests.

Russiagate is a dagger aimed at the heart of American governmental institutions. A conspiracy involving top officials of the Obama Department of Justice, FBI, and other “security” agencies was formed together with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, the purpose of which was to defeat Trump in the presidential election and, failing that, to remove Trump from office or to discredit him to the point that he would be reduced to a mere figurehead. This conspiracy has the full backing entirely of the mainstream media.

In other words, it was a coup not only against Donald Trump but also against American democracy and the outcome of a presidential election.

There is no doubt whatsoever about this. The facts are publicly available in the declassified Top Secret Memorandum Opinion and Order of the FISA Court—and in the declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee—given by the presstitutes the misleading name of the “Nunes Memo,” as if it is Nunes’ personal opinion and not the findings of months of work by an oversight committee of Congress.

All of this information has been posted on my website for some time. If you have difficulty following my explanation, former US Attorney Joe DiGenova explains the felony actions by the FBI and Obama Justice (sic) Department here.

Briefly, the National Security Agency discovered that the FBI and DOJ were abusing the surveillance system. As a favor of one security agency to another, NSA Director Adm. Rogers permitted the FBI and DOJ to rush to the FISA Court and confess their transgressions before the NSA informed the Court. The FBI and DOJ pretended that their deception of the Court in order to obtain surveillance warrants for highly partisan political purposes was not due to their intent but to procedural mistakes. The FBI and DOJ told the Court that they were tightening up procedures so that this would not happen again. The FISA Court Memorandum and Order clearly states:

On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.

What this legalese jargon is saying is the the FBI and DOJ confessed to obtaining warrants under false pretexts. These are felonies.

The FISA Court Memorandum and Order is about resolving these deficiencies and returning the FBI and DOJ to legal practices. For example, the Court Memorandum and Order says:

On January 3, 2017, the government made a further submission describing its efforts to ascertain the scope and causes of those compliance problems and discussing potential solutions to them. See January 3, 2017, Supplemental Notice of Compliance Incidents Regarding the Querying of Section 701-Acquired Data (“January 3, 2017 Notice”). The Court was not satisfied that the government had sufficiently ascertained the scope of the compliance problems or developed and implemented adequate solutions for them and communicated a number of questions and concerns to the government.

In other words, the FBI and DOJ were attempting to make corrections to their “compliance problems” in ways that would allow them to continue to mislead the FISA Court, and the Court wasn’t letting them.

The FISA Court Memorandum and Order was released prior to the House Intelligence Committee report and has been completely ignored by the utterly corrupt press prostitutes. The FISA Court Memorandum and Order, relying on the confessions of the FBI and DOJ, verifies the House Intelligence Committee report that the FBI and DOJ illegally obtained spy warrants for partisan political purposes.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat who is a disgrace to the voters of his California district, to the Democratic Party, and to the House of Representatives, knows full well that the FBI and DOJ deceived the FISA Court. Schiff is so partisan that he lies to the hilt in the face of hard documented evidence from both the FISA Court and his own House committee. Schiff is so totally devoid of all honesty and integrity that he is the perfect leader for a shithole country, something that he and his ilk are turning the United States into.

The honest left—not the Identity Politics left, which is a collection of deranged idiots—does not believe a word of the concocted Russiagate conspiracy against Trump. They object to the Russiagate conspiracy not because they like Trump, which they most certainly do not, but because they understand that it is a lie directed against truth. They understand that the American mainstream media has deserted factual, truthful reporting and serves as a propaganda ministry for the war/police state that American is becoming.

For example, Eric Zuesse holds The Atlantic and its presstitute writer, David A. Graham, to account for lying about the House Intelligence Report.

Andre Damon writes on the World Socialist Web Site:

The Democratic Party was thrown into disarray Friday after the publication of a classified memo exposing as a factionally-motivated witch hunt the investigation by leading intelligence agencies into the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with Russia. . . . The release of the memo once again underscores the fact that the US intelligence agencies have massively intervened in US politics.

The real left, as opposed to the fake left, understands that the people have no chance when the highest officials of the Department of Justice and the security agencies join in a conspiracy against a democratic outcome. When the justice and police authorities have no respect for the truth, as the Russiagate conspiracy proves, the people are doomed. If the FBI-DOJ-DNC-presstitute conspiracy goes unpunished, The Lie will have prevailed over The Truth and all of us will be endangered.

The important question before us is: will the treasonous criminals in the FBI, DOJ, and DNC be indicted and held responsible? Or do high government officials get a pass as do the police who rob and murder citizens and never face justice for their crimes?

From the sound of things, it looks like they will get a pass. Rep. Nunes felt compelled to say on TV how much he likes Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is a party to the deception of the FISA Court. President Trump says he will not fire the conspirator against him, Robert Mueller, even though both Trump and Mueller know that the Russiagate investigation headed by Mueller is a concocted conspiracy against American democracy and the President of the United States. It seems that high government officials, like state and local police and executives of “banks too big to fail,” are above the law.

What about the FISA Court, readers ask, why did the FISA Court let the FBI and DOJ get away with their illegal acquisition of spy warrants? Once the Court knew about it, the Court did not let them get away with it, as the Memorandum and Order makes clear. The FISA Court does not have prosecutorial power to indict and bring a case against the FBI and DOJ criminals. That has to be done by the DOJ, and the DOJ is not going to indict itself.

Former US Attorney Joe DiGenova believes that continuing investigations will result in high officials being indicted, convicted, and sent to prison. If the US is to have any future as a country in which government is accountable to law, it is essential that DiGenova be correct. However, I will believe it when I see it.

A Tale of Two Tale Spins: Managing America Through Its PTSD Collapse

The teeth-rattling cognitive dissonance that awaits half the nation (and it’s still fair to ask which half) is going to send some folks into therapy for years. This essay, as you will see, is predisposed to one narrative. The human mind cannot entertain both.

In fact, the reset for many will arrive in begrudging half-measures. They will grumble that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy finally prevailed on poor Hillary. Psychologically, that will be about the best they can do. Patience, not partisan recriminations, will be the most suitable response.

I have an 80-something year old mother who will not walk on grass if the authorities have placed a sign on the approach to City Hall. She’s far from stupid and yet she has been socialized into an unquestioning belief that what appears on the TV news is an accurate rendition of what transpired in the world that day. Why would it be otherwise?

Morbid as it may sound, I would like her Christian naiveté to depart the planet unmarred before her go-to source, CNN, has little choice but to report on the most depraved aspects of what so many of us have already come to accept.

There may not be blood, but there will be psychological carnage which can create equally grievous wounds. Then there may be blood.

Already, microcosmic civil wars are being waged across America’s dining tables. It seems a new nation is being conceptually birthed one car pool and barbershop at a time. For better or worse, the alt-narrative is going mid-speed viral, which may be just fast enough. Perhaps the nation is better left ingesting seedy revelations in increments at a cellular level — friend helping friend — until a New Consensus can construct itself from the bottom-up, couched as a People’s directive for a new paradigm of leadership.

For the moment I’m having limited success reaching consensus with many in my social and family circles on even the most rudimentary fact patterns, as I’m sure many others are too. I think most Trump supporters have endured some level of social ostracism, even if it amounts to little more than de-friending on social networks. I know I have.

Red Pill/Blue Pill? I prefer Red Capstone/Blue Abyss. But there I go giving away my bias again.

If you believe the darkest tributaries of the Clinton/Globalist machinations, it takes on a Goebbels-esque Bigness that, by its very ambition, resists ready comprehension. Mass incredulity is a tactic. These people have (allegedly) drifted so far from the norms of human behavior that their aberrance serves as its own sinister camouflage. Our humanity implores us to deny the worst of what we hear, especially as it relates to children. I, for one, will be ecstatic if, in a surfeit of investigatory zeal, we’ve inferred an inky blackness where there is mere darkness. But like many of you, I’ve read too many bone-chilling accounts for too long.

I particularly want to acknowledge the Conservative Treehouse site. The analytical homework that has gone on there over the last few months is breathtaking. Kudos to the folks behind all that.

Due to the mass cognitive dislocation that may loom just around the corner, I believe people will benefit from graspable handles into this story, a conducted bread-crumb trail through the Dark Forest. Reminiscent of Sheldon Wolin’s inverted totalitarianism, the apparent totalism (Wolin’s term) of the corruption lends it a disembodied, ubiquitous colorless and odorless quality. Like Rosemary’s Baby, it can feel like everyone, every institution, is in the coven. We desperately need a redemptive figure.

Enter NSA Director, Admiral Mike Rogers.

The Conservative Treehouse largely fashioned the Rogers narrative, or at least I encountered it there first in its most comprehensive form. I simply attempted to propagate it and other relevant insights in the video (below) to spread the gospel within my own circle. Rogers presents a White Hat which decent people can sink their teeth into (not to mention that he seems to me a very credible Q Anon candidate; I follow Jerome Corsi’s lead on the latter’s veracity). The Admiral may be just the narrative float we need. I know I’m glad I found him.

The other advantage of the Rogers Handle is that, depicted correctly, it can neatly sidestep the elephant in the psych ward, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). TDS is a real pathology.  No doubt you’ve encountered it in the more afflicted Trump-haters. Some examples of TDS in walk-around life:

It’s raining today. Damn that Trump!

California is engulfed in flames –Ooh I could strangle Trump!

My cat got hit by a car –Where’s that scoundrel Trump?!

In fact, The Chicago Manual of Style recently deemed our Rorschach President a new hybridized form of punctuation –something between a period and an exclamation mark. This means all petulant American bitches and moans (of which there are many) can now end in Trump without running afoul of grammatical syntax.

Years ago, my son asked me for an example of an ad hominem fallacy. Sure, I said. Charles Manson looks out the window and says “It’s raining.” A guy on the other side of the room says, “It can’t possibly be raining. Your mass murderer Charles Manson.” Trump has become the universal butt of all ad hominem attacks. You encounter this ‘mode of argument’ a dozen times every day in the mainstream press.

But seriously, the egregious and fascistic Constitutional abuses routinely practiced by the prior regime — both to preserve Clinton’s candidacy and then later, in phase two, to attempt a palace coup on the fledgling Trump administration — need not belabor the Trump name.

Call Trump simply Victim One if you like. Would you interrogate or blame a victim for being a compulsory party to a crime? Of course not! Then leave Trump out of it. Do your best Tom Jefferson and keep to the rarefied heights of Constitutional rectitude. (Please watch the video to get a keener sense of the frightening FISA 702 abuses and the Deep State/Obama Administration collusion that sought to usurp the People’s Choice. Trump is blessedly incidental to the core abuses.)

Finally (just because it pays to be paranoid and cynical all at the same time) there have been rumblings of a conciliatory ‘hand-across-the-aisle’ State of the Union address. I note too a rather buoyant Hillary at the recent Grammy’s. She doesn’t give off the vibe of someone expecting a swarm of US Marshals at any moment. Are we being punked again? I think Trump the Master Negotiator is too politically smart –and too covetous of his populist street cred– to stop short of shackles for these treasonous miscreants, but you never know. And who put the cement in Sessions’ shoes? Will the System, even with a comparatively exogenous Trump at the helm, rush in to save itself? It’s possible.

What I’m suggesting, with some trepidation, is that a Grand Bargain may yet emerge from the backrooms of power. Boy, it would have to be a kick-ass quid pro quo. The populist in me could never swallow such a betrayal –and make no mistake, it would be a betrayal. Only time will tell.

It is Time for Progressives to Support the Trump-Putin Efforts at Rapprochement

Should progressives support the efforts of Trump and Putin to bring about rapprochement between Russia and the U.S.? Or to use Trump’s terminology, should progressives support the effort to “get along with Russia”?

This might seem like a no-brainer.  After all Russia and the U.S. are the world’s major nuclear powers.  A war or a mistake resulting in a nuclear exchange would reduce much of the planet to radioactive rubble, ending civilization as we know it, and perhaps even putting the continued existence of the human race at risk.  And yet there are virtually no voices in the progressive community calling for support of Trump’s call to “get along with Russia.”  Almost no voices speaking in favor of his contacts with Putin, for example after their meeting in Hamburg last July with its considerable achievements. What is going on?  Have the progressives gone mad?

Let us be very clear.  Support for the Trumpian rapprochement with Russia does not mean support for all Trump’s policies or even one other policy of his.  The election of 2016 is long behind us now. In that election as in all elections, it was necessary to weigh the policies of the opposing candidates and then to make a choice.  One cannot vote for only one policy of a given candidate and against other policies.  It is an all or nothing matter.

But the situation post-election is another story.  Trump is now President, and it is possible and quite normal to oppose some policies and support others.  In the case of Obama, many progressives opposed his continuation and expansion of Bush’s wars but supported ObamaCare. (As a Single Payer advocate and antiwar campaigner, this author supported neither.)  Similarly, in the case of Trump, one may oppose his tax legislation and his health care policies – I certainly do – and yet support the policy of rapprochement with Russia.  Is this not the grown-up thing to do?  Should one not seize on an opportunity to get something worthwhile out of a situation that did not go one’s way – if that is the way one views the election of 2016?  In point of fact, given the danger of nuclear holocaust, it is not only infantile but potentially suicidal to do otherwise.

The crumbling narrative of “collusion” between Putin and Trump in the 2016 election is the major obstacle to the US-Russia rapprochement.  Indeed some progressives have done yeoman’s work in exposing the lies of the media, the Intel agencies and the Democratic Establishment in concocting the Collusion Myth.  Two standouts are Robert Parry and his colleagues at Consortium News and Stephen F. Cohen of The Nation and his colleagues at American Committee for East West Accord. Parry, for example, meticulously examines and exposes the web of lies, deceit, unsourced stories and downright gossip coming out of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN on a daily basis.  Cohen, Professor emeritus of Russian history at Princeton, in his weekly 45 minute discussions with John Batchelor on WABC radio out of NYC has given an insightful look at developments, especially in the light of Russo-American relations and Russian history.

And there are many other progressive bloggers and writers who do the same.  That is very much to their credit.  But debunking the Collusion Myth, sometimes called Russiagate, is as far as it seems to go. If the Collusion Narrative is in reality a Big Lie, then one purpose of exposing it should be to correct the path it has put us on.  That path is confrontation with Russia. The next logical step would be to back Trump’s attempts at rapprochement with Russia in the face of daily vicious assaults from the imperial press. But none of that is done.

When one queries progressives about this strange behavior, the first response is to change the subject to tax policy or immigration policy or health care policy.  But except in some pretty woolly “theories of everything,” such policies are readily separable in non-electoral circumstances as discussed above.

The next response is to deny the danger of war that such tensions create.  But everyone familiar the history of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis knows that the risk of miscalculation is greatest when tensions are highest.  The story of Stanislav Petrov and his role in preventing an accidental nuclear exchange should be known by every school child in the US.

One must conclude either that most progressives are blinded by their hatred of Trump or that they are sympathetic to treatment of Russia as an enemy.  The latter is an abandonment of the progresssive commitment to non-interventionism and peace, but neither is a very good sign.  And the deeply devious part of the Elite’s Russiagate strategy is that it presents a giant roadblock to rapprochement since any moves to decrease tensions with Russia will be used as “proof” of Trump’s “collusion” with Russia.

If one presses the question further with progressives who know that Russiagate is a fraud, the response is that to support Trump’s policy is to risk one’s credibility.  Some progressives are quite frank about this and will express fear of being shunned by friends.  Some will even tell you that they have lost friends for so much as hinting that they might support rapprochement – simply because Trump has advocated it. (If you have your doubts about that, read Win Bigly, a book by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert.  Learn what happened to Adams, not for supporting Trump, but merely for predicting a Trump win in 2016!)

It seems that it is time for progressives, even while disagreeing with some things Trumpian or even all other things Trumpian, to stand up and back his moves toward rapprochement with Russia. Many are already inching in that direction much to their credit. But the Democratic Party Elite, their neocon partners, the GOP Elite and the servile media will do everything they can to prevent it.  It is time to defy them.

We are rolling the nuclear dice daily.  And time may be running out.

It is Time for Progressives to Support the Trump-Putin Efforts at Rapprochement

Should progressives support the efforts of Trump and Putin to bring about rapprochement between Russia and the U.S.? Or to use Trump’s terminology, should progressives support the effort to “get along with Russia”?

This might seem like a no-brainer.  After all Russia and the U.S. are the world’s major nuclear powers.  A war or a mistake resulting in a nuclear exchange would reduce much of the planet to radioactive rubble, ending civilization as we know it, and perhaps even putting the continued existence of the human race at risk.  And yet there are virtually no voices in the progressive community calling for support of Trump’s call to “get along with Russia.”  Almost no voices speaking in favor of his contacts with Putin, for example after their meeting in Hamburg last July with its considerable achievements. What is going on?  Have the progressives gone mad?

Let us be very clear.  Support for the Trumpian rapprochement with Russia does not mean support for all Trump’s policies or even one other policy of his.  The election of 2016 is long behind us now. In that election as in all elections, it was necessary to weigh the policies of the opposing candidates and then to make a choice.  One cannot vote for only one policy of a given candidate and against other policies.  It is an all or nothing matter.

But the situation post-election is another story.  Trump is now President, and it is possible and quite normal to oppose some policies and support others.  In the case of Obama, many progressives opposed his continuation and expansion of Bush’s wars but supported ObamaCare. (As a Single Payer advocate and antiwar campaigner, this author supported neither.)  Similarly, in the case of Trump, one may oppose his tax legislation and his health care policies – I certainly do – and yet support the policy of rapprochement with Russia.  Is this not the grown-up thing to do?  Should one not seize on an opportunity to get something worthwhile out of a situation that did not go one’s way – if that is the way one views the election of 2016?  In point of fact, given the danger of nuclear holocaust, it is not only infantile but potentially suicidal to do otherwise.

The crumbling narrative of “collusion” between Putin and Trump in the 2016 election is the major obstacle to the US-Russia rapprochement.  Indeed some progressives have done yeoman’s work in exposing the lies of the media, the Intel agencies and the Democratic Establishment in concocting the Collusion Myth.  Two standouts are Robert Parry and his colleagues at Consortium News and Stephen F. Cohen of The Nation and his colleagues at American Committee for East West Accord. Parry, for example, meticulously examines and exposes the web of lies, deceit, unsourced stories and downright gossip coming out of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN on a daily basis.  Cohen, Professor emeritus of Russian history at Princeton, in his weekly 45 minute discussions with John Batchelor on WABC radio out of NYC has given an insightful look at developments, especially in the light of Russo-American relations and Russian history.

And there are many other progressive bloggers and writers who do the same.  That is very much to their credit.  But debunking the Collusion Myth, sometimes called Russiagate, is as far as it seems to go. If the Collusion Narrative is in reality a Big Lie, then one purpose of exposing it should be to correct the path it has put us on.  That path is confrontation with Russia. The next logical step would be to back Trump’s attempts at rapprochement with Russia in the face of daily vicious assaults from the imperial press. But none of that is done.

When one queries progressives about this strange behavior, the first response is to change the subject to tax policy or immigration policy or health care policy.  But except in some pretty woolly “theories of everything,” such policies are readily separable in non-electoral circumstances as discussed above.

The next response is to deny the danger of war that such tensions create.  But everyone familiar the history of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis knows that the risk of miscalculation is greatest when tensions are highest.  The story of Stanislav Petrov and his role in preventing an accidental nuclear exchange should be known by every school child in the US.

One must conclude either that most progressives are blinded by their hatred of Trump or that they are sympathetic to treatment of Russia as an enemy.  The latter is an abandonment of the progresssive commitment to non-interventionism and peace, but neither is a very good sign.  And the deeply devious part of the Elite’s Russiagate strategy is that it presents a giant roadblock to rapprochement since any moves to decrease tensions with Russia will be used as “proof” of Trump’s “collusion” with Russia.

If one presses the question further with progressives who know that Russiagate is a fraud, the response is that to support Trump’s policy is to risk one’s credibility.  Some progressives are quite frank about this and will express fear of being shunned by friends.  Some will even tell you that they have lost friends for so much as hinting that they might support rapprochement – simply because Trump has advocated it. (If you have your doubts about that, read Win Bigly, a book by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert.  Learn what happened to Adams, not for supporting Trump, but merely for predicting a Trump win in 2016!)

It seems that it is time for progressives, even while disagreeing with some things Trumpian or even all other things Trumpian, to stand up and back his moves toward rapprochement with Russia. Many are already inching in that direction much to their credit. But the Democratic Party Elite, their neocon partners, the GOP Elite and the servile media will do everything they can to prevent it.  It is time to defy them.

We are rolling the nuclear dice daily.  And time may be running out.