The Russia Thing

I don't think I've addressed The Russia Thing more than peripherally on this site. It always struck me as stupid to be blunt about it. Russians certainly had a hand in shaping some opinions about candidates in the 2016 election, particularly Hillary, but so what? So did a lot of other interests, national and corporate, and it shouldn't matter in the larger scheme of things that Russia and Russians were also involved. That's part of the political game in this country and it has been as long as I've been alive. And no doubt it has been true as long as the US has been a nation.

When you look at it from a historical perspective, the focus on Russia's involvement to the exclusion of just about every other national and corporate involvement is distinctly odd. Not only were they not the only ones attempting to gain advantage from the election (of Trump, but it's more complex than that), they weren't necessarily the main foreign interest in the outcome of the election. Oh no, far from it.

But in order to understand what happened, we need to understand what was going on. Trump wasn't expected to win. Not even he expected to win. The outcome was a surprise and a shock to the entire electoral system including the funders, media, and candidates. The voters were largely appalled. How did this happen?

It's not easy to sort out what was happening that led to such an unexpected outcome, but among the things I was aware of was a very concerted online effort to influence the influencers. This is tricky; it isn't self evident that influencing the influencers had much of an effect, but I think it did.

"Stop Hillary" was a really big thing online. Bernie was the great white hope, but he failed miserably. Whether or not he was robbed by the DNC and Hillary's partisans is a question I choose not to get into. I'll just say from personal knowledge that the Democratic Party apparatus is tailor made for selected outcomes, and there isn't a whole lot insurgents (or Bernie) can do about it. In a lot of ways, the Party has fossilized around a set of rules and requirements that almost always ensure that a selected candidate achieves the presidential nomination, no matter what. And who does the selection? A committee of old timers, in effect a Politburo. Hillary was the foregone nominee, despite the fact that she was opposed a large minority of party voters. Realistically, so was Bernie. If they'd had their druthers, I'm not sure who the Democratic primary voters would have chosen. The problem was that none of the 2016 primary candidates really represented the interests of a majority of the party's voters. The factional split between Hillary partisans and Bernie partisans was unbridgeable. The Party apparat went with Hillary and the rest is history.

The factional split left a wide opening for "influencers" to do their thing, and I saw it happening in real time online.  Of course it had happened before, but not to the extent I was witnessing during the 2016 election. What I saw was a relatively limited anti-Hillary drumbeat -- from somewhere, initially I thought domestic, but it turned out to be generated in Eastern Europe, with a source apparently in Russia -- hammering away at her many flaws and being picked up and amplified by all kinds of online sites and eventually by the mass media. I noticed it seemed to start with apparent Bernie partisans, particularly the canard that Hillary was going to start WWIII -- which to this day is repeated as an article of faith.

I say "apparent Bernie partisans" because I don't think they really were. I think they were using Bernie's campaign as a launch pad, but they had no interest in his winning the nomination or the election. They wanted to stop Hillary. Whatever it took to do so.

When I started seeing "Macedonian teenager" memes showing up on a number of supposedly "progressive" sites, and not long after that in the mass media, I really questioned what was going on. Obviously these kids in Macedonia (which was initially where these memes were thought to be coming from) had a more or less direct line to the internet backchannels which in turn led directly to mass media backchannels. And then right out to the public.

It wasn't just the "$100,000 in Facebook ads" that the St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency purchased. Oh my no. Those ads probably had no effect at all. What was having an effect was the meme generators, wherever they were located, trouncing Hillary for "starting WWIII", for Libya, for Syria, for Iraq, for "super predators," for her devotion to neo-liberalism, for her supposed illnesses, for Bengazi, for those damned emails, etc.

Here's the thing. It wasn't coming from the Trump campaign (which was just riding a little bitty wave), and it wasn't coming from the Bernie campaign, either. There had to be some other source. It was relentless and repetitious to the point of complete predictability.

Hillary, the Arch-Bitch, had to be stopped at any cost.

By whom? Why? I think those questions are yet to be answered. "Russia" is not the Answer, though it may be part of it.

Trump of course benefited from an enormous amount of free publicity, but it was widely thought that was OK because he would come across so badly. That kind of thinking was critically in error, but it seems to have been the underlying thought process of those who were giving him so much free airtime.

On the other hand, Hillary was given no quarter, she was criticized relentlessly for everything, and she got much less airtime, even as she spent wildly to buy ads and positive coverage -- or any coverage. She was thought to be the uncatchable frontrunner. Trump was being boosted to make it a horserace, but Hillary was going to win, hands down. Everyone was certain of it. Absolutely certain.

And yet she didn't. What happened? Officially, what happened was that less than 80,000 votes in three states meant that Trump won the Electoral College while Hillary won millions more popular votes. Yet again, the Electoral College handed the presidency to the candidate with fewer popular votes.

Among the factors that led to that outcome were voter suppression in Wisconsin and Michigan, to the tune of several hundred thousand eligible voters who either not permitted to vote or whose votes weren't counted. Pennsylvania had some very hinky voting machines that could not be audited. A recount was tried in all three states, and it was shown to be impossible. Jurisdictions refused to cooperate, machines could not be audited, votes could not be verified; in some cases there were no paper trails or any trail at all. You had to take the results on faith because there was no way to verify the counts.

Then there was the issue of "interference." Prior to the election we were told that the Intelligence Community and DHS would be closely monitoring the election for any "interference." Uh oh. To me, that meant they intended to interfere. I wouldn't put it past them. They could certainly do it. As I pondered that possibility, it occurred to me that a faction of those entities would very much prefer a jocular, macho racist idiot in the White House to Hillary, no matter what we might think. Indeed, there was an obviously strong anti-Hillary streak among the macho agencies, plain as day. Particularly true of DHS, but I wouldn't say that the other three letter agencies were much in favor of her. If they were going to monitor, there would be little or nothing to prevent them from jiggering the results themselves if they wanted to.

And when the tiny number of votes in three states made the ultimate difference, I nodded sagely. When it proved impossible to fully recount or verify those votes, I figured it was obvious.

But my thinking about it is distinctly in the minority.

"Russia!" was announced as the culprit. OK. Russia and Russians did do things, yes, and Trump is in thick with Russians and (especially) Russian money, things that were almost never mentioned during the campaign. But did Russia cause Trump's success? Uh, no.

No, what was happening was much more complex. What Russians and Israelis and many other foreign interests were doing -- and are still doing as far as I can tell -- is using every tactic they can to influence the influencers, hoping to set public policy in the US favorable to themselves. The people -- we -- have almost nothing to do with it.

And I suspect the focus on Russia! is part of an influence campaign itself.

We've been in a very decadent phase of the Republic, and realistically, we're near the endgame. Trump won't be Emperor, any more than Julius Caesar was. But his successor likely will be. The Republic will become extinct. And you know what? Most people will say "Good riddance."

Power Play

The Comey Thing is without doubt an effort by the Trump regime to consolidate power and neuter any effort by the so-called "deep state" to interfere with the regime's exercise of power.

Analysts are wetting themselves trying to pin this or that meaning or significance to the firing of James Comey by Trump, but they have so far missed the bigger picture.

There have been several opportunities for a coup or coup-lite since the election, and each of them has been whiffed. Those opportunities are disappearing. The regime is learning how to consolidate and exercise power, and soon, it will be almost impossible to get out from under that power. We saw it happen in almost the same way with Bush/Cheney.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, Trump is doing what he needs to do.

From practically every other point of view, it's a disaster.

It may be a disaster we have no way to avoid.

WAR!

Yesterday marked the hundredth anniversary of the US entry into World War I, a transformative exercise to say the least.

So what does El Caudillo do? He authorizes a missile strike on a Syrian airbase while at dinner with China's Xi Jinping at the Winter Palace in Florida. Hm. Who'd a thunk?

This is supposed to be the Peace-Maker, Deal-Maker God-Emperor who will keep the US out of Syria, make nice with the Russians and preserve, protect and defend us from that horrid warmonger Hag who was just itching to engage in nuclear annihilation with Putin.

Clintons, Obamacrats, and all they represented delenda est! 

Of course it was all fantasy and bullshit, but what the hell. We saw our politics fall through the looking glass a long time ago, and there seems to be no way back. Fantasy and bullshit rule for the duration. Make the most of it.

I pointed out a long time ago that there was never much difference in the policies of Clinton vs Trump on most matters. Their rhetoric tended to emphasize differences, but when you drilled down, their policies were close, in some cases identical. Where they differed was in implementation -- whether radical and harsh (as Trump wanted)  or incremental and "softer" (as Hillary seemed to want -- it was never clear with her.)

So here we are now with Trump executing Hillary's Syria policies without a qualm, a near 180° turn around from statements out of the Regime just days ago.

Of course, things change. Assad (once again) "gassed his own people." The way he does. Ergo, something had to be done. After all, such monstrousness cannot be allowed to stand!

Never mind that Assad may not have intended any such thing, but in WAR!!! strange things happen.

Never mind the hundreds of civilians (including "beautiful babies") slaughtered in Mosul by an American air attack the other day. "Collateral damage, too bad, so sad."

Gotta root out them terrrisss.

Ya.

It's all stupid -- much as WWI was -- and follows a course of events that cannot be controlled.

We should know that by now.

And even Caudillos and God-Emperors cannot make events conform to desires.

They say the cable news nets are wetting themselves with delight over WAR!!! frenzy. Not surprising. It is their stock in trade. They enjoy slaughter for its own sake, for the ratings boost, for the patriotism of it all.

But no.

This won't end well.

Any more than WWI did.

What a whirled.

The Nuclear Annihilation Gambit

One of the most frequently retailed "truths" during the presidential campaign was that Mrs. Clinton would surely get us into a nuclear war with Russia -- and Mr. Trump would save us from it.

I find that this "truth" is still being widely retailed as a defense of Trump. Some commenters maintain that this "truth" alone was sufficient reason to vote for him and to cleave loyally to him, come what may.

It's completely irrational. It's still being promoted as if it were established fact, but there never was any truth to it. It is no more true that Mrs. Clinton would get us into a nuclear war with Russia than Mr. Trump  saved us from it.

I've tried to briefly explain why that is so in other fora, but it's not an easy concept for some people to grasp. They are so convinced of the "truth" they've been fed about the certainty of Mrs. Clinton's nuclear warmongering and the salvation of Mr. Trump's lack of belligerence toward Russia  that they  simply can't wrap their minds around the idea that neither of them were advocating or trying to start nuclear war with Russia, and that there is a constant and inherent risk of nuclear war regardless of who is in the White House. It's simply a fact that the United States and Russia are not the only nuclear players on the face of the earth.

It is particularly difficult for those who didn't live through the Cold War to recognize what was going on with all the Putin-bashing and Russia blaming from the Clinton campaign. Its devolution since the election is frankly bizarre.

First: based on their campaign rhetoric, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump was likely to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia.

Second: there was no sign whatever that anyone in the Kremlin, least of all Tovarich Putin, was in any way inclined to launch a nuclear attack against the US.

Third: the anti-Russia/anti-Putin campaign rhetoric and propaganda used by Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates was transparent, often ridiculous, over the top, ill-advised and potentially very dangerous.

Fourth: on the other hand, it was a tried and true tactic directly out of the Cold War play book. It's called Brinkmanship. Dr. Kissinger was one of its chief practitioners back in the day. Dr. Kissinger and Mrs. Clinton were/are buddies.

Fifth: Brinkmanship was practiced throughout the Cold War. The threat of instant incineration and mutually assured destruction over both the Soviet Union and the United States was used as a negotiating tactic in order to establish and sustain a certain dynamic tension and world order. So long as the Soviet Union was able to project strength and wisdom as a counter to US imperialism and greed, neither side was able to fully dominate the other. It was in the interests of both to find accommodation. They did so, over and over again.

Sixth: Mrs. Clinton was not about to launch a nuclear first strike against anyone; Mr. Trump showed no interest in launching a nuclear first strike against Russia.

Seventh: if there is a nuclear first strike, it would more likely be launched by Israel or Pakistan, both of which are under increasing social, political, economic and emotional strain and both of which have governments that perceive an existential threat to their national existence -- from both internal and external forces.

Eighth: if a nuclear attack is launched by one of the other nuclear armed states, it would present a clear and present danger and an almost insoluble dilemma for both the US and Russia. I'm sure it's all been gamed out by both governments, but what would be done in the actual event is an open question.

Ninth: a US president does not have independent authority to launch a nuclear first strike. It would be incumbent for anyone receiving such an order to disobey. Mrs. Clinton could not launch a nuclear first strike on her own, and she knows it. Mr. Trump may or may not know it. He may not care.

Tenth: Brinkmanship as practiced by the Clinton campaign and as is still being retailed by neocons, parts of the government intelligence community and the media is stupid, counter productive, and borderline insane. But it never meant that Mrs. Clinton would launch a nuclear attack or that Mr. Trump would prevent one.

The idea that she would and he wouldn't is an article of faith. It has no basis in reality or truth.

Here's part  of the reason why:

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump and I all grew up during the Cold War. Mr. Trump is two years older than Mrs. Clinton and I, and his educational and social experience during the 50s and 60s particular is very different than those of us who were students in public school -- like Mrs. Clinton and I were.

Public school students all over the country were conditioned to fear and loathe the Soviet Union and Communism and to anticipate nuclear annihilation at any time. Because the Soviets were Evil, we were told to believe that they wanted to conquer and exterminate us. Were it not for the strength and resolve of our leaders in Washington and our firm belief in our system of capitalism and democracy, they would win.

Of course this was all propaganda. My fifth grade teacher essentially said as much after we were exposed to yet another anti-Soviet propaganda film in the cafetorium. He was, of course, investigated for Communist sympathies and other purported crimes... that's the way things were then.

We weren't told and we weren't supposed to know what was actually going on in the world. But as we got older, we learned more and more of what lay behind the curtain.

Our rulers were playing a game with the Soviet Union, a game which the Soviets were playing as well. It was a game of dominance, but the intent was stalemate. In other words, the point was to keep a certain level of threat and tension between the two superpowers without leading to nuclear holocaust.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, that game of necessity stopped. Without a Soviet threat, without a Communist enemy, the US governmental premise itself came close to collapsing. There was no purpose to much of the US government anymore.

It took the designation of Iraq and Iran and ultimately most of the Muslim Middle East, South Asia and North Africa as Enemies du Jour to restore in confidence in the intelligence and military sectors that they had some purpose and meaning.

And it's been a shit - show ever since.

When the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia were sufficiently wrecked, attention turned to Russia as the next target for the wrecking crews. There have long been plans in the MIC/Intelligence community to dismantle the Russian Federation and loot whatever remains of state and private wealth, in order -- they say -- to prevent the rise of any rival to US hegemony. I understand that China is also on the list for dismantlement.

Supposedly any potential rival will face the same treatment in the by and bye.

While some of our ruling clique are convinced that a nuclear war is desirable and survivable, most clearly are not. Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton both have nuclear survivalists in their policy shops, but there never was any sign that those men and women were in charge of policy.

A complicating factor with Russia is Edward Snowden's asylum there. Until that happened, Russia and Putin were at least nominal "partners" with the US in world affairs. Maybe it was at arms length, maybe it was a tense relationship, but it was not overtly hostile most of the time.

When Snowden was granted asylum and provided a highly public internet platform by his hosts, all that changed.

And so here we are.

If the Ukrainian Nazis had access to nuclear weapons, I have little doubt they would have glassed Moscow and Leningrad long ago. Provided of course that Kiev hadn't been turned into a radioactive ruin first.

The danger of nuclear annihilation is a constant. We are not free of it no matter who is in the White House, but the likelihood of either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton launching a nuclear first strike against Russia -- or provoking the Kremlin into launching a first strike against the US -- has always been next to nil.

The Follies

Looks like Trump sent his Harpy Kellyanne Conway out to the Twitterverse and the Sunday Shows to denounce and disparage the Clintooon Recount that is being promoted and funded by the Green Party and Jill Stein, who are no friends of the Clintons.

Ah well, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the very idea of a recount be delegitimized in the eyes of the public, but oops. When (apparently) Himself insisted that "he woulda won" the popular vote too if it weren't for all the "millions" of illegals who voted for The Hag, he blew the whole thing wide open.

Now he and Kellyanne have boxed themselves in. The only way to find out what happened is if there's a nationwide recount.

Of course, that's highly unlikely, but they have thrown shade on their own side by claiming something essentially impossible about the other. We'll call it projection, because that's what it is. It's a bind I don't think they can get out of, and if calls for a nationwide recount are picked up, the consequences could be very interesting indeed. Since both Hillary and Trump made wild claims about election rigging and foreign interference, they've both set up a dynamic that requires a recount.

At this point, I'll lay even odds that there won't be an inauguration on January 20, 2017, regardless of the outcome of the first three recounts (assuming they even take place.) What looks at least possible is that the EC will be unable to reach 270 for either candidate, and the matter will be thrown to the House, but the House won't be able to do anything about it before January 6 when the new congress is supposed to be seated.

They won't be likely to pick Trump or Hillary. They might go with Their Good Friend Pence, but they might not have that option. Then what?

Who knows? Chaos ensues.

But then we have that already, and Our Fearless Media is scrambling to normalize it. Good lord, their cartwheels are impressive. Let them laugh while they can, though, this is not a sustainable situation.

Something like this level of chaos was taking place during the recount in 2000; armed militants were gathering at state capitols and public squares demanding that their boy Bush be declared the winner, and it was Scalia who took up the call and scared the rest of the Court into doing just that. Even though they had no real jurisdiction, and they knew it. The excuse was that if they hadn't intervened there would have been a civil war.

Well, maybe. I actually don't think so. Most of the threats were empty, but just the chance that there might be "civil disorder" was enough to goose the system to find a solution. So what if it was outside the bounds of law and custom? It worked, didn't it?

Such may be the case this time, too. I don't expect the Court to intervene again, at least not like they did in 2000 (for one thing, there isn't a majority for one side or the other). Some other kind of intervention, though, is more than possible, and I'm sure TPTB are gaming it out. What can they get away with without triggering wholesale insurrection by one side or another?

What can they get away with this time?

I dunno.

Whatever happens, I suspect one of the consequences down the line will be a greater level of state autonomy. The South and parts of the West have been demanding it for a long time, and they're liable to get their wish. The coasts are likely to demand autonomy as well, regardless of the election outcome. That could mean the Mountain West where I live is left to fend for itself, though some wags have proposed that we rejoin Mexico. Na ga happen, but still the idea is out there. We haven't really heard that notion since the days of Aztlan, though I thought that was always supposed to be independent of Mexico.

Will we see the republic suspended ? That actually seems more likely every day, and if that happens, it would almost require a General in charge and the institution of quasi- or actual martial law. Oh it could happen. The mechanisms exist. And they could be triggered by... elite fear of the masses?

We'll see won't we?

Overturning Myths and Expectations

If nothing else, this election has kicked the complacent in the butt. The complacent have had a number of these kicks lately, but it's not entirely clear the lesson has been learned. This is quite a different country, it seems to me, than conventional wisdom would have us believe, and as all the hue and cry and schadenfreude and what have you over the outcome continue unabated -- no, no, they're redoubling! -- it doesn't appear that many observers or opinion leaders have the least clue to what is really going on. It's all about confirming bias and believing falsehood, in other words being willingly conned. And that goes for pretty much all "sides" in the "national conversation" about what happened and where we go from here. I'm as guilty of that as anyone, though of course I see myself as a font of wisdom and objective reasoning. Of course. Don't we all?

I've been through these kinds of elections many times -- going back to Ronald Reagan's California gubernatorial victory over Pat Brown in 1966. The shock then couldn't have been any greater than the shock is now,  I didn't notice at the time, but I've heard that there was a similar shock nationally when JFK defeated Richard Nixon in 1960. The whole Nixon impeachment/resignation drama was certainly shocking at the time, but previously the shocks of the assassination of President Kennedy, and the undermining of LBJ's administration by anti-war fury among other things, followed by the multiple assassinations of 1968 acted as one shock after another. Nothing has been the same since.

Perhaps the most appalling shock of a presidential (s)elecction was the elevation of G W B thanks to the lawless intervention of the Supreme Court in 2000. Nothing like that had ever happened before. A naked power grab, quite simply, with the open connivance and participation of a faction of the sitting government. It was a coup, right before our eyes, and nothing was done about it.

The popular rebellion that tried to get going several times from the beginning of the Bush2 Regime fizzled out, partly because the media ignored it, being as it was fully in the tank with the usurpers. And the media was in the tank until the whole appalling mess unraveled when the economy collapsed.

The Obama elections and administration haven't been particularly shocking -- except to the white supremacists who never accommodated the notion of Negroes in the White House as anything but doormen and butlers and such -- it's been mostly a pause, a breathing space, before the next set of outrages and shocks, and here they come!

Oh yeah baby. Reversion time it will be. Reversion to America's Greatness, with White Men in charge the way they're supposed to be. You betcha. Hillary wouldn't have been a White Man (damn her all to hell!) and she wouldn't have undone the diversity progress that's been made in the government for a generation, but I have to agree with some observers that her administration, the permanent US government, and US society as a whole would still be dominated by White Men, and that white supremacy, while more or less subdued, would still be the dominant belief of many, perhaps most Americans.

Trump merely makes it explicit. Oh boy, does he.

Assuming he takes office -- and there is still some marginal doubt that will happen -- he will govern as a White Supremacist without a doubt in my mind. However, so would Hillary. And to a great extent, so has Obama.

They pretty much have to because it's baked into America's "Greatness." The US wouldn't be what it is and what it wants to be without White Supremacy.

A reversion to White Supremacy as it was as recently as the 1950s looks to be in the cards, and that's not a good thing in my mind. To many white people, the way White Supremacy operated outside the South in the 1950s was very benign and benevolent, and even in the South, as long as the colored didn't get uppity, it was tol'able.

As long as the colored and other inferiors didn't cause trouble, so the story went, they didn't get trouble.

Of course it wasn't true, but that's the myth of the era.

That's the era that Trump came up in. He's a little older than me, so he got a headstart. Of course he was born into wealth and raised in privilege (white privilege supplemented by the privilege of wealth) and was educated in private boarding schools at a time when the people who went to them were considered the offspring of the cream of the crop. He got in trouble, though, for misbehaving at one school and was then placed in a military boarding school connected with West Point to learn discipline and correct behavior. As far as anyone knows, the lessons didn't take, in part because the New York Military Academy saw his misbehavior -- particularly his bullying and "persuasion" -- as an asset rather than something to be trained out of him, and he was pretty much allowed his head.

I didn't have anything like that background. No. Not much. I was raised by a single working mother in California (who at one point said she wanted to send me to military school to train the rebellion out of me), and until I was ten years old, we always lived in lower or working class mixed race neighborhoods. When I was ten, I encountered middle class and upper middle class and then upper class "all white" society for the first time, and I recoiled -- still do, really.

It was crazy, and the beliefs that insulated white people had of their inferiors (and make no mistake, in all white society, the colored are most definitely considered inferior) were ridiculous and wrong. But since they only knew them as servants and field hands, how were insulated white folks to know that? They couldn't, right? And they didn't. And they had no better beliefs about lower and working class white folks, either. This was in the late 1950s, so I experienced it at its apogee before its fall. Or rather, its retreat. It never fell.

This is not to say that some of the white supremacists I encountered and knew weren't in many ways "good people." They were. some of them. They had no open animosity toward their inferiors -- but they didn't mix with them, either. Some employed Asians, Blacks, or Hispanics as servants, without any sort of conscious prejudice toward them, but many who had servants at the time only employed white people. Again, there was likely no conscious prejudice involved, it was just the way things were. They were following the precedent set by their parents and grandparents and the expectations of their class. That's all.

For the most part, these white-rightist-supremacists were ideological Progressives. I've tried to clarify the nature of Progressivism in other posts, but I don't think I've quite hit the spot. California was, until Reagan's terms as governor, as fully a Progressive state as there has ever been in the United States, and it still echoes some of that past, despite Reagan's successful efforts to dismantle Progressivism as California's governmental operating system.

Progressivism was a Republican innovation to counter the spreading threat of Populism that the Democratic Party was utilizing for political purposes. The basic Progressive theory was "rule by managerial elites" with the "consent" of the ruled. Experts in many fields would be called in, they would study problems and make expert recommendations regarding solutions, the public or their representatives would be given a chance to say yay or nay -- always under the assumption that they would say yay, which is what they usually did when allowed to opine -- and the expert cadres would be set to work. Previously intractable problems were indeed addressed and many were solved to the benefit of all. On the other hand, democratic principles were subverted, the "consent of the governed" part was often skipped in practice, and in operation, Progressivism was deeply intertwined with white supremacism. It was taken for granted without question. "Everyone knew" whites, particularly Anglo-Saxons and so called Nordics, were superior. Not only were they superior to the colored races, they were inherently superior to other whites, and they were meant to rule.

The reason for the withdrawal of consent for the continuation of Progressive Rule in California was simple enough to understand. By 1966, there had been numerous student rebellions in public colleges and universities (there was even a walk out in my high school) and there had been spectacular uprisings of the disincluded in urban environments, just then becoming known as "ghettos." And of course, the hated Hippies were arising.

Pat Brown, who had been a very successful Democratic and Progressive governor for two terms, was unable -- and perhaps unwilling -- to bring various rebellions under control. He was seen as feckless and ineffective against the urban blacks and rebellious white students. Both groups were seen by many Californians as "undeserving" of the privileges and benefits they had been granted by their Progressive overlords.

So the voters rebelled and installed a nonentity in the Corner Office, a nonentity who proceeded to crack down on the rebels as harshly as he and his cohorts felt necessary, to the cheers of many. Meanwhile he was instituting policies and programs to cripple public education, starting at the top and moving downwards, and insofar as possible eliminating the state hospital system for the mentally ill and insane. In the process his administration began the dismantlement of the Progressive operating system of government, substituting an advance on a prior form of government which was typical before the Progressive Revolution (essentially re-opening government to rule by corporate interests for their pecuniary benefit.)

Democrats, to their undying shame, largely went along with it. It was all based on a theory that government existed primarily to punish the lower orders and to reward the rich and powerful.

That set the pattern for what was to come nationally under Reagan when he became president, but under Democrats, too.  And here we are.

Trump in some ways is the natural culmination of that theory of governance.

But Hillary, had she been able to capture the prize, wouldn't have been so much different. She wouldn't have the trappings and the glitter that Trump brings with him, but essentially their politics and policies are very similar, they just have different targets for their "wrath" as it were.

The key difference between them, I think, is that he was always sheltered and showered with the privileges of his wealth and whiteness, and she was not. He started out on third base, as they say, and succeed as a conman and gangster to reach the top of his field -- and then (apparently) become president. She worked her way up from next to nothing -- she wasn't poor, but she was brought up in a very abusive household -- and she made many indelicate compromises along the way.

What I've said about the two of them is that he is a crude and rude representative of his class, and she is the model of those who work for them.

Sigh.

I don't expect him to be any less destructive of the public good than his predecessors, but I wouldn't have expected much good to come from Hillary's reign had she succeeded. As I say, they had different targets, but in the end they both favor the already rich and powerful.

It's a complete myth that she would start WWIII; just as it's a myth that he will prevent it. It's one of the more pernicious myths of the election season, and it's unshakable among believers.

But there are many others. There's been a great deal of projection onto both candidates, most of which has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the unmet needs of the hoi-polloi. Neither candidate would actually meet those needs, however. Both would try to bamboozle their way along.

I believe the plug was pulled on Hillary primarily because she showed she was not much of a bamboozler when it came to the end when she might have turned Comey thing around. She didn't, she blew it.

Trump, on the other hand, showed himself to be 1) a master entertainer; 2) a master conman. Those are two absolute necessities in the Post-modern Presidency. Hillary just didn't come up to snuff.

Well, enough of that. We'll get through this one way or another.

Round Three: Creepy Clown vs The Hag -- a Draw

Once again, the "debate" was on the TeeVee while I was doing other things. So I didn't see a whole lot of it and I heard somewhat less than I did of previous installments.

Once again, Trump's facial tics and contortions made him look more and more like a Creepy Clown without makeup (though he was strangely pink this time rather than his more typical orange) and Herself appeared botoxed and made up to look 20 years younger.... oh dear. The Hag she is not! Whatever.

Chris Wallace actually did very well, I thought, asking substantive questions and cutting through some, not all, of the bullshit. I didn't much care for his Pete Peterson "Grand Bargain" hooey near the end, but even that was well crafted and provided each candidate with an opportunity to present their notions of how to deal with the Entitlement Problem (on the assumption that there is one, of course.)

Hillary had an approach -- raising the cap and increasing benefits at the lower end of SS -- that should appeal to a segment of Bernie supporters (assuming they believe her, HA!) while Trump literally had nothing. The problem would solve itself because of his glory and magnificence. OK. Sounds good.

I thought Hillary had an interesting modification of her previous call for a No Fly Zone over Syria. Wallace noted -- to his credit -- that generals and others say that establishing a No Fly Zone would in effect be a declaration of war against Russia and Syria -- and for my money that might not be the wisest course of action. What say the candidates?

Hillary said it would have to be (or would be) negotiated with Russia, it would take time, and it would take place once an agreement was reached. In other words, it would not be a unilateral Imperial imposition -- ergo, one would assume, no declaration of war.... How interesting.

For a moment, at any rate, the sabers stopped rattling. Trump for his part had previously mentioned that it would be a Good Thing to get along with Russia. He's been pretty consistent about that.

Hillary's campaign has been pretty consistent about accusing Russia and Putin of all manner of perfidy, and yet we can be pretty confident that Washington and the Kremlin are in fairly constant communications, that they engage in negotiations all the time, and that they can and do cooperate on any number of mutual objectives, despite the often ridiculous propaganda campaign against Russia/Putin that has been all but universal in the West.

This is very similar to the situation during the Cold War, when sabers were rattling all. the. time. Wild accusations against the Soviet Union and relentless anti-Soviet propaganda were daily injected into the US and NATO public bloodstream, and yet backchannel communications, negotiation, and accommodation between Washington and the Kremlin were nearly constant. The propaganda was not particularly related to the reality.

So when Hillary mentioned "negotiating" a Syrian No Fly Zone with Russia, I had a real "Ah ha!" moment. It's probably already in the pipeline. And that will be a steady as she goes resolution -- at least temporarily.

In other words, the idea is to have a safe-haven within Syria for civilians trying to flee the conflict which for a while will be under the joint protection of Russia and the United States.

Gee, could have done something like that long ago....

Trump again had nothing. He was challenged on his claim that "Aleppo has fallen,"  but his response was completely chaotic and nonsensical.

As for the rest of it, truly it's a blur. When they go off on one another's failings, or they repeat talking points and campaign boilerplate, I tune out. There's no there there.

Every sign is that Trump will lose the election badly, perhaps a historic loss on the level of Goldwater's loss to Johnson back in the day, or Carter's loss to Reagan. However, even historic losses on that scale provide opportunities for the losing side to eventually become dominant. Our political system has been set up that way. It's not clear what will happen to the congress, though many are predicting an R House and a (barely) D Senate. That seems to be what TPTB want. We'll see.

This will mean an almost certain Hillary impeachment the minute she assumes office, and that will provide endless entertainment for the masses and a huge ratings boost for the media. Trump TeeVee included. The bonanza will be incalculable.

Just like the last time...

My predict-o-meter is typically on the fritz, but my sense is that the SCOTUS will be allowed to wither away, as three more justices retire or die and are not replaced. It will maintain a "conservative" majority without really trying. Win-win (for TPTB) right?

Every Important measure will get through Congress and be signed by Hillary, including some kind of Grand Bargain, several trade agreements, various matters to do with War and Empire and such, budget reforms, and so forth. In other words, the idea that there will be "gridlock" is a crock. No gridlock on the Important Things, far from it.

The Impeachment Follies will probably go on in the House for a year or more, and then the Articles will be sent to the Senate for disposition. The "trial" will last, oh, I don't know, a few months, but whether the Senate chooses to convict Herself will depend a great deal on how well she performs for the Owners under pressure and how much the Senators would prefer her to sit in the Big Chair rather than Kaine. I predict they'll stick with her. But you never know.

Meanwhile, she might wind up one term or less for any number of reasons, including her health. While medical science can no doubt keep her animated indefinitely, there are other issues that might make her wish to "retire" before even the end of her first term.

As for Trump, he'll make a bundle marketing his patented brand of nonsense, but it won't matter because he'll be fringified as will nearly all of his "issues." This is the advantage (to TPTB) of someone like him claiming to be the King of What's Wrong. A good deal of his criticism of Hillary and the Government is valid, but because he is the critic, it will be dismissed. It's like Alex Jones with a (much) bigger audience. Jones is right about some things, but it doesn't matter because he's fringe. And what he's right about is therefore ignored.

The advantage of having a Trumpian fringe is that those inclined to share his views are fringified just like him. Win-Win again for TPTB.

In the meantime, I've suggested that this will be the last "genuine" presidential election. I know, I know, there's all this stuff about how it's being rigged in favor of Hillary. Well, every recent and many (most?) past elections were similarly rigged, But the votes were genuine, and for the most part they were genuinely counted -- where they were fudged, the numbers were mostly very small, just enough to change certain results without raising more than a few suspicions.

Following this election, however, I suspect that we will never have a genuine presidential election again, that the votes and the counts will be predetermined and they may vary greatly from what the electorate chooses, and there will be no way to check. Our Rulers will be chosen for us, and we will have nothing whatever to say about it.

Cf: Roman elections following Augustus. They took place for hundreds of years after the establishment of the Empire, even after the Fall of the Empire, but they were essentially fraudulent and meaningless, and no one voted for or against the Emperor, he was chosen by the palace faction with the greatest power.

And so it will go in our own revised government.

We have reached the final end of the Republic.

Transition compete.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

The Hillary Speeches Hoo-Hah

I've held off saying much about the Hillary Speeches Doc Dump because there isn't really a whole lot to say about it. I have read a few of the docs that have appeared or been linked from elsewhere. It's all but impossible to search WikiLeaks' archives itself (I tried "Podesta emails", for example, and came up with 62 of supposedly thousands of hacked emails.)

Anyway, what's in these emails and the partial transcripts of speeches Hillary gave to the High and Mighty for Big Bucks strikes me as pretty benign. She even tries to inject a modicum of social conscience into people and institutions that have none. No wonder this isn't getting a lot of traction in the media or much of anywhere else. Despite the headlines, there's very little there there.

There's so little there there that Lambert over at NC, always one of the most inciteful (heh) analysts of Things Clinton ("Clintoooon!"), had to say: "Reading these, I’m thinking the $675,000 had nothing to do with the actual content…."

We know from endless prattle of the likes of Lambert and many others that all things Clinton ("Clintoooon!") are the definition of corrupt. There is no political corruption on the face of the earth unless it is smeared with Clintoon shit. None. And these emails, according to Julian Assange would be filled with smoking guns of Clintoon corruption that would, somehow or other, destroy her campaign.

Well. No. Not so far anyway. 

They show her getting along with the Mighty-Mighty titans and malefactors of great wealth to be sure, but in every one of the ones I've seen, she's telling them to their faces that they need to get a soul and start treating the rest of humanity -- like all the millions who've been harmed by their shenanigans --  better. Sometimes there are details of what she expects of them -- such as lending to Main Street to get the economy going again -- and sometimes there aren't, it's just a moral(ish) declaration. "It's your obligation to do better for the Little People."[Paraphrase.]

So the question has been raised, "Why the hell didn't she just release this stuff when Bernie asked? 'Cause it sure doesn't look like there was anything worth hiding in what's been hacked."

Of course these aren't the whole transcripts, they're excerpts, but there's nothing shocking or more than modestly ear-grating in them. She doesn't have a way with words, let's put it that way. She's no great orator to the Great and Worthy or to the Rabble. But there's an inner coherence to what she has to say, and gets across her points relatively well. One of which is, "I'm your friend, and I want you to behave better."

Gee. Alert the media! Get this to Olbermann, stat! (An old joke, but sometimes it's fun...)

Her positions -- so far as I can make out -- are pretty much the same as Obama's when it comes to those people. Which has been arm's length but relatively friendly. Enough so that they're rolling in money while the rest of us have continued to struggle with little or no help from Our Betters.

I think it's Greenwald who has proposed that though the emails are not particularly damning or devastating, they do show how She (Who Must Be Obeyed) would govern, and it's not pretty. 

Well, no. It never is.

With Hillary it is perhaps less pretty because of her nature and background and her absence of oratorical power -- particularly problematical is her legal training and experience. I'm convinced it destroys otherwise good people who want to do right, but once they learn about the Law, they're lucky to do anything unless it conforms to custom and can be parsed to mean what it doesn't.

I come from a family of attorneys. I don't recommend their ways as a general thing. It's nuts making.

Big Dog has had many of the same problems of excessive legalism as Hillary does. 

I think it's interesting that it's called "corruption" when it is really something else again. Let's call it an excess of moralism based in flawed understandings of law and propriety. Or maybe it's inner defiance....

Anyway, it's gotten the Clintons in trouble more than once.

These emails don't show the kind of corruption that Hillary is incessantly accused of. The accusation of "pay to play" quid pro quos between Herself and the myriad High and Mighty interests she's dealt with don't fly in the end because there's no direct sign of a quid let alone a pro quo. Well, I should say, there's more than a few quid, in that many tens of millions of dollars have gone into hers and Bill's pockets and into the Clinton Foundation, but other than a "fair hearing" it's not clear that anything has been delivered to those interests that they wouldn't have already received anyway.  They didn't have to pay her for what they got on the other end. They would have gotten it anyway.

In other words, the charges of "corruption" are based in a fantasy understanding of how government is supposed to work.

Not an understanding of how it does work.

So what did they pay her for?

It's always a question, isn't it? Why do ex-officials, it doesn't matter who they are, cash in so heavily on the speaking-lecture circuit or gain multi-millions from legal partnerships or from sitting on boards of directors once they leave office? How does that work, exactly, and what are the parameters?

What do the speakers-partners-board-members provide the payers?

You can't get a clear understanding of this System from all the yapping going on about it, particularly not from all the puerile insults being thrown around: "Clintoooon!!!!" Etc.

Yes, it is a System, fully formed long ago, by which those who once served in high government office (and sometimes not so high) can profit mightily and legally once they leave the marble halls of government, and by which they can thence return to the Hallowed Corridors of Power, rich as Croesus, to start the cycle over again. It is the custom of the tribe. Dick Cheney, anyone?

We may disagree with it -- I certainly do -- but it is legal, and it is all but impossible to prove a direct pro quo for the quid, so legally it's not corruption. No, not really. Really!

It's especially so the higher you go up the ladder of the System. Lower ranks can and do get in trouble or sometimes go to jail for relatively minor indiscretions in squeezing the teats of the System, but the higher the rank, the less likely one is to have one's tits put through the wringer.

The System itself is corrupt, but we don't hear about that, and passions rarely rise over the whole damn thing. No, it's individuals like Hillary who are pilloried for working the System to their advantage, for profiting legally (or sometimes not) from the opportunities on hand.

That someone else does likewise, say Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice to pull two names at random out of a hat, is not a problem -- they're not running for office of course -- but they're profiting from the same System Hillary has. The list of profiteers is almost endless.

That Hillary has worked the System better than many must be galling to her rivals who are convinced she's just not that smart, but the emails show her with a clear grasp of issues and the interests of the people she's speaking to, and the interests of those who have been left behind, a fuller grasp than I would have expected. She may not express herself artfully -- far from it -- but she's no slouch or dullard when it comes down to it.

I suspect she suffers from being "too smart for her own good."

What she seems to lack is good judgment. This has led to some catastrophic misjudgments and utter horror for millions of people in the Middle East, North Africa, Central America and elsewhere. Her husband suffered from some of the same problems of poor judgment Hillary has though perhaps on a different plane...

Yet strangely, or perhaps not, Hillary's poor judgment seems to be right in line with the theories of how things ought to be as they are the accepted consensus among the Ruling Class. In other words, even her moral scolding -- and moral failing -- is taken by them as right and proper.

They should be doing better by the Lower Orders. But they don't. Aww, such a Pity so many have to suffer...

All the Hag-Hate in the world is not going to change that. It will have no affect on the System at all. It's a diversion. Perhaps even an engineered one to ensure that nothing will interfere with the System as it is.

Trump, too, seems to be a diversion.

Keep the Rabble entertained enough and at one another's throats enough, and Wah-Lah! Their impotence for another cycle is assured.

That is key to keeping the Overclass on top and the Rabble incapable of doing anything about it.

Part of the President's job assignment is to soothe or tame the Rabble. Obama is a master at it; there hasn't been anyone as skilled at it since FDR. Hillary is not skilled at it, not at all, and Trump's apparent goal is to rile them up so much they commit mayhem or even a Revolution from the Right.

TPTB cannot tolerate that, of course, but they must be disappointed in Hillary's failure to connect with, let alone tame the Rabble who might well rise up on their own against what they see as an inappropriate continuation of an unacceptable status quo.

The situation puts the Overclass on the spot. Clearly they have decided on Hillary for the White House, but as she is incapable of properly taming the masses, something or someone will have to supplement her rule. I don't see Mr. Kaine being much help in that regard. Certainly Bill will face the same sort of difficulty he did when he was president. Nor would Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress do her any favors. In fact, given the historic fecklessness and misrule of the Democrats, and their lack of interest in progressive policy solutions to domestic and international problems, I can easily imagine a Democratic majority in either or both houses of Congress would be even worse for Hillary than it was for Obama when he had a Democratic majority.

If the Rs keep the House -- likely but not certain -- who would be surprised if articles of impeachment are filed within minutes of her taking office? Who would be surprised with endless "investigations," scandal mongering, hysterics even greater than when Bill was in office? The media will eat it up, just as they have with the sex-accusations against Trump.  They don't care about other aspects of his history, though, do they? The man is a gangster and a con man, and he is a representative of his class, but none of that matters when there is sex on the table.

Nothing matters except The Sex.

It strikes me that there's a revenge drama running through all this nonsense, "get back" for past slights and mistakes. How all that works is a topic for another day.

Right now, though, the Hillary Speeches Hoo-Hah is a lot of sound and fury signifying almost nothing.

The Second Contact Between Hillary and Trump

Always one for a good time, I had the second "debate" between the Presidential contestants on last night while I busied myself with other things.

My, wasn't it nasty, though.

Jeebus.

They seem to have picked up energy from the VP set-to, or something, and the accusations flew fast and furious. Trouble is, we've heard them all before and they no longer resonate. Yes, he's a misogynist and liar; yes, she skirts the edges of legality and may cross over from time to time; yes, Bill is a serial philanderer (or was, anyway).

I didn't know about Trump's press availability with The Women Who Accuse Bill (and One More) just before the "debate"" until after the event. How interesting. Yah, it was a good deflection from his own "locker room banter," but ultimately, it's a nonstarter. Everyone knows -- too much -- about Big Dog's randiness and they long ago made of it what they would. Nobody's mind will be changed by trotting out The Women again. On the other hand, we're just getting used to the notion of Trump the Serial Assaulter (though why it should have been a mystery until now is anyone's guess.) His peccadilloes will play for a while until people get bored with them.

Ultimately, though, they don't stain Hillary. She's  blameless -- well, more or less -- in all of this, so the point of bringing up Bill's indiscretions (or the Other Accuser that I'm still somewhat mystified by) is more of a distraction than a Thing. Hunh?

I didn't watch much of it, but I heard plenty. All the same accusations we've been hearing on and on, about taxes, emails, Russia, Muslims, yadda yadda, almost all of it completely meaningless.

Mention was made of the Wikileaks release of partial transcripts from the high-paying Clinton speeches to People Who Matter. The issue that's been glommed onto is Hillary's "public" vs "private" positions. OK, so?

Or rather it would have been a meh if it weren't for Hillary's hooey about the Ruskis hacking; what the FFF? Another tailspin into the gutter.

The point of course is that she didn't even try to deny she said what she's reported to have said, doesn't discount the truth of what's been released, but she blames it on the Russians, which is stone stupid.

But then Our Rulers never were known for their smarts, I think.

Meanwhile, I looked over some of the Wikileaks leaks of what she said to the High and the Mighty, and my initial impression is that she was trying -- probably unsuccessfully -- to inject some concept of social consciousness into the realm of Those Who Must Be Obeyed.

In other words, if she had a brain -- or her people were actually thinking things through -- they would realize these leaks are better for her than opponents make them out to be.

But then, who ever said they could figure things out without a focus group?

Her baroque and legalistic excuses for the Email Thing are wearing thin, but Trump's continued yapping about it doesn't help his cause in the least. Saying she should be in jail because of it, while red meat to his fans, is one of many disqualifications for high office Trump has exposed throughout this mess of a campaign. I'm sure that a tit for tat could be used -- no, YOU should go to jail! -- but it's just stupid. If Trump were running a  serious-revolutionary campaign and he didn't have so many vulnerabilities and skeletons in his own closet, I'd say go for it, jail them all and hang the rest of them, but that's not what he's doing. He's trying to finagle a neo-Republican ascendancy with Himself in the driver's seat. It's not revolutionary, it's just more of the same bullshit, with an extra dose of cruelty.

So in the end, I'm more convinced than ever that he's a ringer, meant to lose and to split the R Party in the process. Revenge, let's say, for the impeachment. Yes, of course, Our Rulers are just that obsessed with Get Back. This tells me that when Trump loses, he will be rewarded handsomely. Oh, very handsomely indeed.

It's all as phony as a three dollar bill.

Yep.

So I'm thinking that when they gamed this thing out, they discovered that Hillary couldn't win the White House unless the R candidate were someone like... Trump, who I'm given to believe has been a family friend of the Clintons for years, and perhaps was.... induced to run with the proviso that he lose and throw a monkey wrench into the R Party to boot.

Signs are sure pointing that way.

I think I'll skip the next one.

Historic Political Realignment?

The backstory of what is going on with the Trump campaign must be absolutely fascinating for political junkies of all stripes. This year's elections will be fodder for political scholars for decades to come. Nothing like this has happened in our lifetimes, perhaps ever. We're in a political never-never land. A circus. A goon-clown show. A WTF moment every day. Hunh? You've got to be kidding!

Something's happening here, but we don't know what it is.

Time to dredge up the Buffalo Springfield for the umpteenth time...



Yep, here we go again. We're living in Interesting Times.

I read in some newsfeed that Trump was lustily cheered yesterday when he made an appearance at the front entrance to the Trump Tower. He is mighty-mighty and his loins are heavy with seed. I mean come on... And his partisans have flooded the Intertubes to tell us all how mighty-mighty he is and how heavy his loins must be. This is the Man who ought to be King! Yay!

Something similar followed on revelations of Bill Clinton's infidelities, so I'm not at all surprised at Trump's partisans standing with him today. Of course they will; they must. They do not see the randiness of Boss Men as a fault. They see it as an Attribute. A Good and Necessary Thing. It is one of the ways to separate the Strong from the Weak.

But the Trump campaign, such as it is, appears to be falling apart. Rs of all stripes are "distancing" themselves from the candidate for his indiscretions, not his actions. They've never had a problem with his actions, nor in fact, so far as I can find out, have the members of his class, the Billionaire and Would-be Billionaire Boys Club, ever had a moment's problem with Trump's personal or business behavior.

Why should they? It's standard for men of his status.

Standard.

Maybe he's a bit cruder and ruder than many of those in his class, but what he does -- never mind what he says -- is what nearly all of them do. They are no friend to the weak or downtrodden. They have little use for women except for what they can get from them. They are exploiters and oppressors. It is their emblem of Strength.

The pro-forma denunciations we're hearing are just that -- pro-forma. They don't mean anything but they are meant to bamboozle the weak-minded, to shift the story from one of outrage over what he said (never mind what he does) to one of Puritanical holiness on behalf of everyone else of his status. Bollocks and Bullshit. They're all like this. All of them. Every one. Well, nearly...

I've said many times that Trump is a particularly boisterous representative of his class; he is no aberration, he is an avatar of who they all are. For whatever reason, that insight has gained no traction, in part, I think, because most people simply don't want to believe the worst about Our Betters. They can't be that bad. Well, they are.

Many others see Trump's badness for what it is and celebrate it. Whoop dee doo, we're goin' to the Rodeo now! He liberates the badness in others. That kind of liberation, the removal of any requirement for restraint, leads to violence of course, but more than that, it redirects social energies.

He's been called a fascist, and in a classic sense he is. But our governance has been inwardly fascist for a long time, and every now and then it is outwardly and openly fascist as well. He is not, therefore, aberrant. He fits right in. Where he diverges from the right and proper way of doing things is in his demagoguery, his populist cant and rhetoric. No, no, no, no, no. This is not the way things are supposed to be done. A leader doesn't whip up populist sentiment -- you never know where it will go after all -- one suppresses the urges of the Rabble, and convinces them that their Betters know better, and in the end, the right and proper Leader governs contrary to the interests of the Public and disregards the People's Will. That's how it's done.

Trump violates these principles over and over again, and that -- to the oligarchs and kleptocrats who rule us -- is unacceptable.

However...

Trump's campaign may indeed fall to pieces, and Herself may indeed be installed in the White House come January, partly because she is more acceptable to the oligarchs and kleptocrats, but also because her world-view is more in line with the conventions of the neoLibCons who have been so right about everything over the post-modern course of history (save me), and she has made clear she will follow their lead over the cliff if so ordered.

But... Trump has shown there is a future in his way of whipping up sentiment. There is no ultimate need to mask it. Our Betters can be just as bad as they want to be without the necessity of Bernays-ian bamboozlement and enough of the Rabble will go along with them, cheering them on, that the Others, sticks in the mud, won't matter. The mild form of populism, represented by St. Bernie (bow down) is simply too weak, you see, for consideration.

That's the lesson of Trump. A billionaire being openly bad is hailed a hero by enough of the Rabble to be electable. Ah ha! The light bulbs are going off all through the political class, make no mistake.

I've said he's a gangster and a con-man -- which he doesn't even try to hide, btw -- and I've been shocked that so many people want that kind of rule, but I can see how frustrated many people are with the status quo. Of course.

Millions upon millions of Americans have been forced into poverty by the economic unpleasantness of the last decade. No one who should be held responsible for it has suffered in the least let alone been brought to justice. In fact, they've been rewarded over and over again, while Rabble continues to be oppressed and looted. The status quo, represented by Herself, Ms. "No You Can't", will ensure that the way things are will continue without let up. And indeed, will ensure that conditions will worsen for the Little People indefinitely.

That's the post-modern, neoLibCon way. There is no alternative.

I'm not so worried about her warmongering. I see most of it as pretense. The implicit threat against real and imagined foes runs throughout the ruling class -- Trump and his familiar Pence express it just as strongly though against slightly different targets -- and it is part and parcel of their approach to global domination.

Hillary ("The Hag") is probably less likely to act on her warmongering than her opponents want you to believe, in part because the Obama Wars have been such complete clusterfucks, following as they do the regime-change pattern set under the Bush-Cheney regime, than which no clusterfucks have been greater. While it seems that neoLibCons are incapable of learning (they're worse than the Bourbons in that regard) as the misrule and anarchic "liberations" pile up, they've eased off adding more bungling and disregard to their litany of horrors. What they've done doesn't work for long-term imperialist gain in any case. The Hegemon suffers too much to keep doing the same things over and over. On the other hand, you never know...

What she's doing though, is perhaps more important in the long run. She's consolidating political power and the parties under her (or rather her owners') purview. The Republican Party elite is being absorbed by the borg of the Dems. I've never seen anything like it in the open, though it's been obvious as sin that the Democratic Party is for all intents and purposes a Rockefeller Republican Party in every way but name. This transformation has been going on since Clinton I. Perhaps it started under Carter but was temporarily aborted by Reagan's intervention. At any rate, the Dems are nothing at all like a leftist party. They are a "less evil" rightist party, whereas the Rs, to escape, have become the "most evil" rightist party. There is no genuine Left in American politics.

But Hillary is going much farther than I've seen any politician in my lifetime toward bringing in the opposition (supposed) under her wing. And it's working spectacularly. Her ostensible Republican support is essentially greater than her nominal Democratic support. At least it's more powerful.

She's in the process of transforming the Democratic Party into a consolidated Democratic Republican Party (of Unity?) that can be something like a permanent ruling party, serving the interests of Oligarchy against the popular will.

It is a historic political realignment.

Of course all the attention on Trump and his follies obscures it.

Of course.

Le sigh.

That Was More of a "Debate" Than I Thought It Would Be -- Snurf, Sniffle, Cackle

[Cross Posted at NC and Ian's Place]

To the extent I watched — I do have what’s known as a “life” after all — I thought the thing was less surreal than, say, Chuck Todd declared it to be.

As long as you could cut through the posturing and bullshit, it was easy enough to see that Trump’s criticisms of Hillary’s policies were mostly on point as were her criticisms of his practices (just “business”). From that perspective, it was all very polite and genteel. After all, these people travel in some of the same circles, know and admire many of the same people, and work for similar political and economic objectives. Their “debate” is more about mechanics and process than it is about goals.

Trump clearly is out of his political league, but that’s hardly news. That’s a known quantity that some consider to be to his advantage. If the polls are correct, something is obviously working in his favor — and would be, I think, even if the Clinton Hate weren’t so strong.

The closest comparison I can think of is the Reagan phenomenon of 1966 when it was axiomatic that this actor/spokesmodel for GE didn’t have a chance against seasoned pro/master politician Pat Brown, incumbent Governor of California.

The shock waves that ran through the state the morning after the election and tsunami that overwhelmed the political establishment in California is hard to grasp today. Nearly sixty years of Progressive rule in California was set to be dismantled, beginning with public education and not stopping to this day.

The shock was that Reagan was elected at all. It was widely considered to be impossible. Yet it happened in part because of the rise of the hippies, the riots in the ghettos, and the nascent student rebellion against the war and so much else that had gone wrong in the country.

The election of Reagan was seen by the voters as a slap in the face to a failed (Progressive) status quo, and it didn’t matter who was harmed as voters lashed out at their rulers.

Much the same dynamic took place in the 1980 election for president which Reagan won handily — but not so shockingly. The antipathy toward Carter’s failures was enhanced by media such as nightly “America Held Hostage” reports on the teevee.

Will a similar dynamic lead to a Trump election this year? I don’t know, but I’ll say this: the dissatisfaction with the establishment is almost as strong today as it was in 1966 in California and 1980 nationally. The reasons for it are different, but the dynamic can’t be denied.

Trump would be a disaster on many levels for many Americans, and his stable of neoLibCon warmongers and looters would be let loose to spread their misery and destruction far and wide.

Clinton’s ascension, however, would mean no improvement in the lives of most Americans, and her stable of neoLibCon warmongers and looters would have a festival of misery and leave their own trail of destruction in their wake.

How voters choose between them, I have no idea. They are both ultimately monstrous. And that is emblematic of the government they seek to oversee.

Strap in, it’s gonna be a rough ride…

The Essentials of Disruption/Destruction

I've said I'm not much interested in the presidential campaign this year largely because the two main candidates are.... simply appalling. That's not to say that one or the other doesn't have some positive qualities, that's not the point. The point is that both of them represent ideals of the State and society that are loathsome. They are both ideologically neoLibCon. They are both exploiters and oppressors. Neither has a shred of faith in or genuine interest in the well-being of the masses.

Hillary is the avatar of the perpetuation of the status quo, and under other circumstances, that might be enough to get her back into the White House all by itself. After all, we've been propagandized for years that "everything's fine," the world is a better place, the economy is steaming along nicely, everyone who wants a job can find one, and now we are learning that incomes for the Lesser People are rising for the first time since 2007!!!! Yay!!!!!

Whut? Think about it. Household incomes are rising for the first time since 2007... what does that imply? Obvious, isn't it? Household incomes have been declining or flat since 2007. Ah, now that makes sense, because that's clearly the case. Actually, statistically, the median household income has been in decline since 1997. There may -- or may not -- have been a slight uptick in 2015 over 2014, but the overall trend is downward, and that hasn't changed.

Think. When was Obama elected on a promise to halt/reverse the Great (for the Rabble, the Endless) Recession? Ah. 2008. And guess what? He hasn't done it. At least not for the Rabble, not even close. The High and the Mighty, however, have made out like the bandits they are.

For many of them, there never was any Recession at all.

And Obama made sure that situation was institutionalized.

Hillary represents the continuation of, indeed the intensification of, the policies that make it so.

Thus, of course, the majority of the Highest of the Mighty support her candidacy over that of one of their own class, Donald Trump.

At least they have until recently.

Now after Hillary's Unfortunate Incident at the 9/11 Memorial, they seem to be hedging their bets. Trump may not be The One -- yet -- but if Herself craps out, who they gonna turn to? And after all, Trump has long been One of the Tribe and he seems to be picking up steam among the Ignorant Rabble, soooooo.... why not?

After all, he is a Disruptor/Destructor. And that's important to the success and well-being of his class.  Part of their culture is the disruption and destruction of rivals below them. Trump is a master at that. He showed it on his TV show for years and years, and he is certainly adept at it in life. Not only does he disrupt and destroy, he often gets his victims to like it. Now that is a highly desirable skill among the rich and powerful. In fact, it is a necessary one given the ideological foundations of the modern political economy.

Obama has that skill too, though he's far more subtle about it than The Donald. He's been soothing the savage beast of the Rabble throughout his entire reign at the top, and he's better at it than any politician I know of.

Hillary simply does not have that skill, though her husband does, though that can't overcome some of his other qualities that we need not get into here.

Hillary inspires resistance, not so much because she's The Devil Incarnate (as she's been characterized by a large segment of the Internets) but because she tends to scold rather than uplift, tends to negatively characterize her opponents, tends to be less than inspirational in large gatherings, tends to be so wedded to preserving and extending the status quo, she's all but unable to recognize that the status quo hasn't worked for the majority for a generation or more.

She can see discreet elements of failure, but not the whole, basically because she's wedded to the whole picture, a picture which from below is horrendous.

She doesn't seem to see that, nor can she grasp it.

On the other hand, Trump sees it clearly -- because he's profiting from it -- and seeks to exploit the Rabble to the maximum degree he can, first by being elected, and then who knows what will follow?

No one.  No one can be sure, and that is a big part of his appeal. This was also part of Reagan's appeal. There were lots of dog whistles for those who were attuned, and there was his (suddenly forgotten and ignored by the media) governorship of California that clued some people into what his governance as President would become, but it was an era of hailing the hero, in contrast to the "failed" status quo represented by Carter, and in the public eye, a celebrity is almost always Heroic, no?

But nobody could be sure what Reagan would do, anymore than they could be sure what  Trump will do in the White House.

Hillary, like Carter, they already knew all about -- too much about. And they could anticipate policies that would do little or nothing on their behalf, or would actually make things worse for the many while ensuring that things would get better and better for the few.

Trump on the other hand can play the Rubes like a room full of marks much like the hucksters who sell real estate courses do. They dazzle the Rabble with the promise of getting rich! rich! rich!. But when it comes to it, the only one who really gets rich! is the course promoter. Gee, who'd a thunk?

Trump is pure show business, pure con-man. But that's what it takes anymore. Obama is more cerebral, but he's just as much a con-man, as too many people found out after he was elected. The con was that he held out such promise to the Rabble, but he delivered mostly  to the High and the Mighty whom he served.

Trump is a different kind of con-man; he serves no one but himself. No one. The concept of "public service" is anathema to him -- something he makes clear if you cut through his gobbledygook. He's in this for himself alone, period. End of discussion.

OK. So why does that appeal to anyone else? Well, why are gangsters often held in high esteem? Because, at least for those on their side, they hold out a promise of well-being, even prosperity, so long as you don't cross them. In other words, if you're on their side, you'll be OK -- until you aren't.

Gangster rule works, at least it can, but it is also disruptive and destructive of the Established Order.

Gangster rule is a rival and a threat to the Establishment. And the Establishment has to make deals with the Gangsters or be uprooted and destroyed by them. "Deals" are what Trump promises. "Deals".

Hillary offers essentially nothing new at all. She started her campaign with the implied slogan: "No you can't," and she really hasn't budged an inch since then. It's still a "No you can't" campaign, and it's hard to see any resonance among the People. She offers the Rabble nothing but a long-hard slog to gain marginal improvements -- eventually. "Stronger together," indeed, but to what object, when ultimately her message is that "nothing can be done," and "there is no alternative." (h/t Baroness Thatcher, may she burn in Hell.)

Further, Hillary posits that she knows best, and the rest of y'all need to go along with it. It's for your own good after all.

Sigh.

Trump promises to upend and overturn all that, sweep t all away, and in the end rule as a dictator, strongman, gangster. This is the ideal of his class after all. Whether this is the time for that, I can't say, but I was shocked to the bone in 1980 when Reagan won against arguably one of the nation's best presidents -- one who was, however, incapable of controlling the pile on of negative forces that undermined his authority and ability. Reagan just swept all that aside. This is what Trump promises to do as well.

If the status quo doesn't work for the majority -- and arguably it doesn't -- then a quasi or literal revolution is required.

But as I've long maintained, if the Revolution is to come, it will come from the Right.

I didn't think it would be quite as openly gangsterish, but that's what it looks like is in the offing.

Oh boy.

Who Is Scott Adams and Why Does Anybody Listen to Him?

So I've been running across this name "Scott Adams" over and over again in connection with the defense of Trump and his campaign. Adams is mentioned as if he were a guru, a super-knowledgeable man of savvy honesty who finds in Trump what America Needs Now.

Interesting. But who the hell is he, and why does anybody listen to him?

I tracked him down via a link at NC and wandered over to his site wherein his latest cogitation proclaims him not to be a Trump supporter after all, or at least not an enthusiastic one, because he's doing well in his life and therefore rationally, he is -- or at least ought to be -- a Clinton supporter, but when it comes down to it, so he says, it doesn't really matter because in the end, he's fine, just fine, with either one of them in the White House.

Got that?

Oh, and he is the creator of "Dilbert."

I thought his latest cogitation on Trump's "risk assessment" was savvy as heck because it had nothing whatsoever to do with anybody's risk but his own. We learn that in Trump's view the only important interest is that of Himself; what happens to anybody else is solely their problem. Too bad, so sad if things aren't going well for the losers and moochers.

Now if you are seriously contemplating electing someone to the Presidency, you might want someone who at least says and now and then acts as if there were other people in the world for whom they have an interest or concern.

That's not Trump, not by Scott Adams assessment, not by a long shot.

One can and should question or criticize Hillary's sincerity, for it is in my view that of a lawyer working for a client, not that of an activist intent on bettering the lives of anyone but herself and her clientèle. This is pretty straightforward. On the other hand -- and this is where I think it gets important -- she seems to understand that her clients' interests are served better over the long run by relenting somewhat on the squeeze they put on the Lesser People.

Trump has none of that. Even according to one of his chief online defenders, Scott Adams, Guru.

It's all and only about him, all the time. If someone else benefits from his self-absorption, so be it, but their well-being is not his interest or concern.

He's not interested in the public good, he's interested in his good. Solely and entirely. And that's just fine with a large enough segment of the electorate -- including Scott Adams -- that they would seriously consider him for President (or King-Emperor, whatever ... caudillo, Leader, Fuhrer...).

It's all there in Scott Adams' consideration of Trump's "risk assessment."

And Scott Adams, Guru, seems utterly blind to what he's saying. Particularly blind to the fact that his defenses of Trump and denunciations of Clinton are objectively pro-Trump, much as many other internet media political pontificators have been. Even when they profess to be... something else.

Within Trumpism, they see something desirable for them to gain no matter what happens to anyone else, whereas within Clintonism, they see something for them to fear, no matter what happens to anyone else.

How exactly they expect to gain under a Trump regime remains a mystery. Perhaps they believe that by "persuasion" -- a term Scott Adams uses a lot with regard to Trump's abilities -- they, too, can gain riches and power, just as Trump has done.

Of course, as described, Trump's "master persuader" shtick is that of a gangster. He can "make it so" because of the implicit threat that if it is not so, he'll break your legs (metaphorically or literally) or he'll have one of his people do it.  Or he'll ruin you. No doubt at least some of his supporters believe in their own persuasive abilities...

In other words, you exist solely to serve his/their interests. And all this is being normalized during the present Grand Guignol. No one is really questioning it. Not even Herself, Mrs. Clinton.

She doesn't question it in part because these are the people she's serving and would be serving if she is elected to the Presidency.

Both of these candidates primarily represent the interests of a cruel and thieving gang of thug-aristos who happen to run the country in their own interests. Difference is that Trump is one of that thieving gang, where as Herself works for them.

So We, the Rabble really have nothing to choose between in this electoral season.

That will drive down turn out, something that always pleases Party apparatchiks, and that is likely to mean that whoever wins the popular vote will do so by a plurality rather than majority. Those who do vote -- and I'm not sure I will -- for president will be more likely to choose either Johnson or Stein rather than Trump or Hillary than would otherwise be the case, and that vote is likely to be sufficient to deny either of the major candidates a majority. Whatever the case, the candidate who wins will no doubt rule as if with a mandate -- just as Bush-Cheney did.

I've felt all along that the fear of Hillary unleashing nuclear holocaust is exaggerated, just as the belief that Trump wouldn't do so is silly. These things are not decided by presidents alone. There can be no nuclear or other war without the active participation of the military, and the military has its own set of interests and means of persuasion. The lies that got us into the current set of conflicts were generated within a certain faction of the military-surveillance state, one that was given its head under the persuasive power of Cheney, primarily, and with appalling, disastrous, monumentally catastrophic results. Our rulers may be dumb as bags of hammers, but they seem to be able to learn on occasion from their failures. I sincerely doubt they will be getting into something as horrific as the Bush-Cheney regime was allowed to any time soon again.

On the other hand, the fear of nuclear holocaust -- accidental or deliberate -- is real, certainly for anyone of my generation. The risk is as real no matter which of the major candidates is eventually installed in the Big Chair, in part because the act of nuclear war is driven from outside their own power.

Scott Adams' defenses of Trump and denunciations of Clinton seem to be driven by the kind of corporate interest libertarianism that is really unconscious of any interest but self-interest. It's akin to the libertarian motto: 'I demand the liberty to impose my authority on you.' Because Clinton is not all in with that notion, but Trump is, there is fear that if Clinton were elected, she might put some additional curbs on those demands, whereas Trump would make it easier for the impositions of free authority on the Lower Orders. Just so long as it doesn't interfere with his freedom and authority, right?

How this devolves in the end, I dunno. But whatever the case, it's not going to be good for the many, only for a faction of the few.

Reversals of Fortune

Though I've pretty much boycotted this year's Grand Guignol Political Spectacle, some of the reversals that have taken place and the incidents leading up to them have been kind of interesting.

For example, the Hillary Hysteria over her (apparent) pneumonia seems to have marked a turning point in the presidential campaign. She's back, yes, but seemingly subdued, perhaps even chastened (what? Hillary chastened? Nah!) at being caught out sick as a dog, unable to function at least for a time, and hauled around like a sack of potatoes by her "detail."



Jeeze, bad optics, right? [Note: there aren't actually 3 different angles. It's the same video, three different ways. There's only that one video -- so far -- of her apparent collapse.]

Terrible, really. But only in the sense that the Spectacle was momentarily interfered with. That was not supposed to be seen. At least not yet. Or was it?

Suddenly, there was this "body double" eruption, as if on cue, but no one ever questioned whether the "Hillary" who was unable to walk to her waiting armored car (is that really what she travels in? Whoo.) was the "double." Did it not occur to them, at all, that the incident was staged? Is it that their imaginations fail, or is there a narrative at work, one that requires a "double" for PR purposes only? Ie: when she emerged from Chelsea's $10.5 million pad all cheery and chipper with her hair combed and her face smoothed. That was the double, so goes the widespread rumor. "Proof" of which is all over the InterTubes.

Got to love the InterTubes, no?

I came to think that perhaps the "double" was the "Hillary" waiting for and then tossed into the van because we never saw her face, only the back of her head and her dragging feet. I know enough about movie making to know that they do this kind of thing all the time. It's routine to have a double in distant shots or back of the head shots so that the principal can take care of other scenes or take some time off.

The Internet bought it without a pause. Easily manipulated, aren't they? And then there's the whole lack of critical thinking thing...

The "double" accusation may well be due to something real -- it's been a fairly common practice at high levels of politics for many a long year -- but maybe the "double" doesn't appear where and when most people think.

So there was that.

The diagnosis of pneumonia can't be assessed by us groundlings, though it is certainly plausible. All those saying Nay seem to have no clue about the effects of pneumonia or they're being deliberately obfuscatory, either of which wouldn't surprise me a bit, for lies and cultivated ignorance are both a big part of the Spectacle. Cultivated ignorance and lies asserted with supreme arrogance and authority, let it be said.

Wait. That's the definition of the Trump campaign, no?

Well, think. Is it? Or rather, is it so in contradistinction to the Hillary campaign?

Ah. They both do it, in other words, perhaps Trump more assertively than Herself, but she's no slouch in the cultivation of ignorance and the propounding of lies department. They do it differently -- Trump all bluster and bullying, She-Demon (so Hillary has long been characterized by the Internet) does it through legalistic mumbo-jumbo and parsing.

Oh, the Parsing! Ah, the Clintons are back, aren't they?

Hillary talks like a lawyer and parses like a lawyer, lies like a lawyer and relies on the rubes' ignorance of the facts like a lawyer. It's pretty obvious to any of us who are familiar with the customs and culture of the Legal Profession. She's just carrying out her duties to her clients...

He, on the other hand, Trump "has no filter," and just says whatever pops into his coiffed and bleached blond head, much of it (most of it?) utterly false. Amusing, but false. No parsing and legalist mumbo-jumbo from Trump, heck no. Just in your face lies and falsehoods.

Wow.

When I see this, I think of him as a representative of his tribe, the ultra rich who actually work for a living rather than living off of inheritance and dividends. Trump isn't Leisure Class, but he is Upper Class, rough-edged nobility in a way. Trump's offspring would be Leisure Class if he'd let them, but it seems he forces them to work for him, just like all his other dependent employees.

These people are, as a rule (in my personal experience) mean, expolitative, deceptive, cruel, destructive, unrepentant, bullying, thieves, liars and con-(wo)men. It's a whole subculture at the top of the pyramid, one that is largely responsible for the economic and political mess we've been in for so long now. They are surprisingly successful agents of Chaos, and they are as American as apple pie.

You can trace the ilk back to the beginning of European -- ie: British -- settlement on this continent.

And you can trace it back in Britain for many a long year before their American Imperial Adventure. There are many similar examples throughout Europe's former aristocracy, and present in its current ever more vicious/Fascistic power-structure.

Hillary and her tribe work for and curries the favor of people like that.

Get the picture?

So we come to the sudden and almost unbelievable reversal of her fortunes subsequent to the 9/11 Incident. Suddenly and inexplicably, the polling reversed, and her trendline started falling, collapsing really, and Trump was declared to be "surging," as only he can.

A repeat of the primaries, no? Where he was thought to have no chance, and one by one, he slew the competition until he was the last man standing and would face off against the Hildabeast, only to slay her too, or so it would seem.

In fact, at the moment Trump is President-presumptive, no need of an "election," just declare him the Victor Over Hitlary and have done with it.

She seems to have retreated into her shell and all but conceded.

Of course there can be and probably will be a couple of more reversals before this thing plays out -- the media need them for the horserace narrative and all -- but if Trump is ultimately to be crowned King-Emperor, this has already been gamed out by the PTB, and his coronation is intended to advance a particular faction's agenda, which they have decided Hillary cannot do, or perhaps has refused to do.

The role of the President, after all, at least in modern times, is to keep the Rabble in line while the real power behind the throne advance their own pecuniary and power interests. Obama was installed obviously because of his ability to hold the Rabble in thrall, even when they fussed and fretted, while the looting and exploitation of same went into hyperdrive. Neither of his presidential opponents had even a tenth of his persuasive ability.

Same thing seems to be going on with this Trump-Hillary contest. He seems to be able to keep enough of the Rabble in thrall (if only by setting loose their worst instincts) while she faces nothing but brick-bats and contempt even if her abilities and policies are, in her masters' view, both better and more useful to their ultimate designs.

If she can't control the Rabble, she can't be president.

Not in this country, not during this era.

If Trump can keep only half the Rabble enthralled, that may be sufficient, since the other half has repeatedly demonstrated that they won't -- can't -- do anything to interfere with the interests of the PTB. Trump will rally his half to cheer on the exploitation and looting by the High  and the Mighty. Hillary can't-won't do that. But she won't interfere with it, either.

She may have a couple more chances to pull this thing out of the fire, but I suspect They have made their decision, and She won't do for the next phase of the neoLibCon adventure in Global Domination. Whereas Trump maybe a loose cannon, at least he's one of the tribe. He can be controlled or eliminated as needed, but he's probably been told what his role will have to be, and he's agreed to it for it will not only make him richer than his wildest dreams, but will give him at least the illusion of infinite power as well. Who could object to that?

On the other hand...

Well, we just don't know, do we?