Democracy and the Trump Legacy

 Sharing this letter I wrote to friends:

Being Woke to the Praetorian Guard - Version 2

This post is an update to a previous version: Being Woke to the Praetorian Guard, Version 1

A version with a further update is available here.

Being Woke to the Praetorian Guard, Version 1

This post has since been superseded by Version 2, and a Version 3.

I've just written an epistle or two which I want to save for possible future reference.  Here they are:

This I Believe

Introduction

In recent years, and more frequently since I retired in spring 2018, I've pondered and written down some of the things I believe to be true that are not common knowledge. This is somewhat similar to, but more controversial than, the essays you will find from the National Public Radio show This I Believe.

My core belief system is based on the idea that biological and cultural evolution are shaped and directed by win-win interactions, as expressed in the book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright.  This leads to my valuing Getting to Yes, a guide to interacting with others.   

This essay goes beyond these core beliefs and values to look at specific theories and facts -- 

1. What do I know? (believe to be true, though I could be wrong)
2. What don't I know?

I expect the list to change over time.

An overriding lesson I have learned is to look at controversial issues using my own common sense.  In case after case, the conventional wisdom defies common sense.  Once common sense is applied, then the pieces fit together reasonably.  Common sense consists of considering both sides of an issue, along with the motives involved.  With respect to the cases below, one side of the issue has won the day with regard to the mainstream media and the conventional wisdom.  Thus, I am questioning "the facts" and recent history as widely accepted across the U.S. global empire.

Common sense leads me to consider the reason why only one side of some issues is considered legitimate.  Most people do not have the time to dwell extensively on such matters.  It is convenient to accept a well established narrative and move on.  I have done that most of my life, but in retirement and with access to the Internet have had time and capability of looking at both sides of confusing episodes.  I learned that it is valuable to weigh circumstantial evidence in forming an accurate mental model of the world.  While there may be no proof for the things "I know" which are listed below, consideration of the likelihood (Bayesian probability) of certain matters based upon circumstantial evidence leads to a more robust mental model.

Government and Empire

The bottom line is that the U.S. empire is overextended, yet it is politically difficult to cut back.  For example, political support for Israel makes it difficult to cut back in the Middle East.  Support for the U.S. led empire by many Ukrainians, Afghans, east Asians, and Latin Americans makes it difficult to cut back in these areas.  Political control of the empire, though centered in Washington DC, is subject to immense pressure from many places around the world.  Intelligence agencies, which are above the law to a large degree and insulated from political pressures, have the job of protecting the empire.  Buttressing the empire around the world is proving difficult, especially when political direction is uncertain.  Thus, the task of buttressing the empire has evolved into solidifying the political direction.  Whether or not this is a good thing for people such as myself is secondary, in this essay, to ascertaining the truth of selected items of conventional wisdom.  Once we have a better handle on the facts, then we can better use the democratic process to find a constructive way forward.

Russiagate

The widely reported Russia-Trump conspiracy is perhaps the most significant event of my adult life in shaping my current worldview, as expressed in this essay.  My view is that this was a conspiracy theory unsupported by facts, yet widely believed by Democrats and widely reported as fact in the mainstream media.  Over the last 4 years, I've written extensively about why I feel this way and discussed this with Democratic friends, family, and strangers on the Internet.  I believe very strongly that the Democratic / intelligence community / mainstream narrative of Trump - Russia collusion has been disproven yet not acknowledged by Democrats.  Moreover, the narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election seems similarly unfounded, yet to question said interference is considered grounds for censorship and almost treasonous.  

My certainty on this matter is such that I've lost faith in the government and mainstream media to accurately report the truth in many other matters. A lifetime of belief in American institutions has been thoroughly eroded. Matters that I previously saw as unknowable, such as the John Kennedy assassination, now seem to clearly fit a pattern that has lasted throughout my lifetime.

UPDATE 1/21/2022: Matt Taibbi reporting clarifies origin of FBI Trump-Russia investigation -- It was  Steele after all (not Mifsud / Papadopolous).

January 6

Added 1/3/2022:  It's now clear to me what happened with regard to the riot on January 6.  I am indebted to Darren Beattie of Revolver News for providing a coherent explanation with a ton of supporting evidence including video from the capitol area on January 6 and in the days leading up to the riot.  Informants and operatives connected to the FBI removed the barriers around the capitol and herded people leaving a Trump rally into the capitol building.  This was captured on video and the leaders have been disappeared from public view, including one who was on the FBI most-wanted list until his identity was revealed by Beattie.  The people were unarmed and had no intention of overthrowing the government, despite widespread news reports to the contrary.  There may have been other legal, political, and military intrigues about, but the riot was designed to discredit these, not implement them.  

Ukrainegate / Impeachment

I know that the "whistleblower" was a CIA insider and firmly in the Biden camp.  This has not been reported by the mainstream media but is common knowledge elsewhere.  I know that Biden did an explicit quid pro quo as VP and lead Obama Administration official on Ukraine policy.  The video of this has been widely seen and discussed outside of the mainstream media, which has not denied its validity.  The mainstream media has made blanket assertions that Biden did nothing wrong, which may be true in the sense that his actions are in line with the preferences of "the empire" -- i.e. the intelligence agencies and careerists in the State Department.  

Similar to Russiagate, the impeachment on the basis of opposition to Trump by professionals in the intelligence community was set in motion right at the beginning of the Trump Administration. 

Syrian Chemical Weapons

I know that the U.S. and Britain have subverted international institutions such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  They lied about Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, then covered up the whistleblowers who leaked the truth.

UPDATE 12/16/2021:  A lot more evidence has come in supporting this.  

Skripal / Navalny

I know that the so called novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal is a fabrication of the U.S. and British intelligence services.  This is obvious nonsense, yet is accepted uncritically by the mainstream media.  The Navalny incident is in the same vein.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

In reading about this on Wikipedia, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region accidentally shot down this passenger airplane. Apparently, Netherlands and Australia have concluded that Russian rebels are responsible. However, given the amount of Cold War lying I've witnesses in this time period, I don't trust Wikipedia or the mainstream press or U.S. allied governments in matters of this nature.  So I'll have to put this one in "don't know".  

Here is a documentary short film presenting the pro-Russian side: SUNDAY SCREENING: ‘MH17: Call for Justice’ (2019).  See also The Official and Implausible MH-17 Scenario.

Assassinations in USA

Here I am referring to the assassinations of JFK (1963), MLK (1968), and RFK (1968).  

JFK Assassination

I am now prepared to say that I know that U.S. intelligence agencies were involved in the JFK assassination.  This comes 57 years after the event, including my entire adult lifetime.  Previously I have considered the truth behind this assassination to be unknowable.  I am now prepared to declare US intelligence agency involvement as something that is knowable, even if the precise details are hidden.

It has always strained my credulity to believe that Oswald acted alone.  Yet, there have been numerous investigations and seemingly no concrete evidence to prove that he was part of a conspiracy.  I've had a Eureka moment, not through any one astounding revelation, but rather in the form of a straw that breaks the camel's back.  I recently read an account of the JFK assassination which claims that Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent.  "Of course he was", I thought to myself.  I was only able to make sense of this after I had learned not to trust the mainstream media.

• He was a U.S. marine.  How many communist Marines have you ever encountered or even heard of?  What are the chances that the Marine Corps would permit an openly avowed communist to serve in its ranks? While Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps, he became fluent in the Russian language. How is that possible?
• We know the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services recruit agents, and that it is a difficult job with high risk.  Oswald seems like an obvious candidate:  
  "he was placed in juvenile detention at the age of seven for truancy, during which time he was assessed by a psychiatrist as "emotionally disturbed", due to a lack of a normal family life. After attending 22 schools in his youth, he quit repeatedly, and finally when he was 17, to join the Marines. Oswald was honorably released from active duty in the Marine Corps into the reserve and defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. He lived in Minsk until June 1962... After leaving the Marine Corps, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, walked into the U.S. embassy, renounced his citizenship, and stated that he intended to give any secrets he learned while serving in the military to the Soviet Union. Later, when he stated his desire to return to the United States, with a wife with family connections to Soviet intelligence, Oswald was given the red-carpet treatment on his return... Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S. government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger"
• Oswald was murdered after he shot Kennedy by a sketchy figure with ties to organized crime.
• The CIA was working with organized crime around that time in attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro.
• The CIA at that era was engaging in political assassinations in countries around the world:
  "Following World War II, the United States became secretly engaged in a practice of international political assassinations and attempts on foreign leaders. For a considerable period of time, the U.S. Government officials vehemently denied any knowledge of this program since it would be against the United Nations Charter... In 1975, the U.S. Senate convened the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Res (D-Idaho). The Church Committee uncovered that CIA and other governmental agencies employed a so-called tactic of "plausible deniability" during decision-making related to assassinations. CIA subordinates were deliberately shielding the higher-ranking officials from any responsibility by withholding the full amount of information about planned assassinations."
• "From the start, the Warren Commission proceedings were shrouded in “national-security” state secrecy, including a top-secret meeting of the commissioners to discuss information they had received that Oswald was an intelligence agent. When Warren was asked if the American people would be able to see all the evidence, Warren responded yes, but not in your lifetime.  Does that make any sense? If the assassination was, in fact, committed by some lone nut, then what would “national security” and state secrecy have to do with it? ... In April 2018, President Trump issued an order to the National Archives to continue keeping thousands of CIA records relating to the John Kennedy assassination secret from the American people."
• "Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, and the JCS had the perfect excuse to shut down the investigation and pin the crime only on Oswald: If they instead retaliated, it would be all-out nuclear war... when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade alleged from the start that Oswald was part of a communist conspiracy, Johnson told him to shut it down for fear that Wade might inadvertently start World War III."  
• The conventional wisdom, which is obviously contradictory, is thus:
  • Oswald acted entirely alone (the finding of the Warren Commission)
  • Details must be kept secret because they would reveal Russian involvement, and thus risk nuclear war.

I don't know why people in the U.S. national-security business assassinated Kennedy.  I've just picked up an Audible book on this topic, which is very favorably and convincingly reviewed.  It appears that there was a consensus that he was soft on national security from a cold war perspective.

UPDATE 12/16/2021:  My belief that JFK was assassinated by Deep State has been reinforced since this was initially written.

RFK and MLK Assassinations

I don't know if there were conspiracies regarding the assassinations in 1968 of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.  It seems possible given the probable culprits in the JFK assassination and the opposition of both RFK and MLK to the Vietnam War.  I would have to do the hard work of researching outside of the mainstream media, and revisiting widely accepted "facts" to come to a definitive conclusion.

UPDATE 7/9/2021: I've recently "read" (Audible) books about these 2 assassinations and it seems likely that both were CIA/FBI directed conspiracies.  

January 6, 2021 ("insurrection")

UPDATE 10/25/2021:  The capitol riot was an FBI-led operation.  The documentation / explanation here is convincing: Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol

The Future

Obviously, I don't know what will happen in the future, but I'm hoping it will be helpful to give some thought to the future in light of what I've learned.  

As with perhaps most governments in the history of the world, the U.S. government is ruled by force more than by democratically elected leaders.  At the national level, at least, the politicians are subservient to the "security" professionals.  The national mythology concerning civilian control may be losing sway, yielding chaos such as we have seen with the Trump presidency. 

The most likely way forward, in my opinion, is for more blatant rule by force.  The Democrats have already dropped the veil which previously disguised there reliance upon the security establishment for power.  The next logical step would be for a leader to step forward who recognizes this and declares it necessary for national stability.  As much as we dislike the Chinese and Russian models, we secretly realize that they are more successful.  

The next U.S. political strongman could come from either the Democratic or Republican parties.  Republican leaders have long given only weak lip service in support of democracy.  Democrats effectively went the same way in 2016, and the incoming Biden Administration has the support of the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex.  Such a solid front could enable a faction to take control of the country, and lead to the breakup of the Republicans.  The main destabilizing factor would then be internal to the Democratic party with competing vested interests such as between the military and business.

Culture

Media

As documented above in what I know about government and empire in the contemporary United States, the mainstream media is extremely unreliable when it comes to reporting facts in any way related to "national security", which includes politics on the national level.  The Internet, however, has made it much easier to uncover the truth.  Thus, there is already considerable pressure to censor the many independent outlets which report facts and opinions contrary to establishment narrative.

Other powerful nations such as China and Russia censor the press, including the Internet, and it is not clear if the U.S. can continue to be exceptional in this regard.  

In sum, I distrust the mainstream media and trust various alternative media journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and Robert Wright.

Economics

In the decade since I first learned about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), it's become more widely accepted as an accurate description of how national monetary systems work.  Conventional economics has been exposed as superstitious dogma similar to Medieval Age Christianity.  I know that MMT accurately describes the monetary economy.

I don't know what the best economic system is.  I lean toward socialism, as it has worked well, in combination with capitalism, in Nordic and other European countries.  These mixed economies tend to have the best track record.  But the pressures of human technological development on the environment seem unsustainable and lead me to believe that capitalism must be reined in more than is done today by the U.S. and its allies around the world.  A Chinese model, with greater governmental control over the capitalist process, may be necessary for sustainability.

Labels such as capitalist and socialist seem counterproductive.  Specific issues and specific industries need to be handled differently.  For example, I know health care works best with a more socialist approach.  And it's clear that capitalism has worked best in industries such as autos and cell phones.  On the other hand, the auto industry has created a lot of negative side effects and cell phones may not be far behind in this regard.

Science and Technology

Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, Green Energy

• Global warming is a fact, which is what one would expect based upon the carbon cycle and the enormous amount of human activity and burning of hydrocarbons in the past 100-200 years.
• We don't know if all oil and gas comes from fossil fuels.  There is a possibility being investigated by the Deep Carbon Observatory, that some of the oil and gas we use is abiotic -- i.e. not a by-product of photosynthesis in ages past.
• Green energy is hugely important, but it is unrealistic to expect that we will be able to maintain our use of energy at current levels while phasing out fossil fuels.

Human Mind 

"the interaction between facts and theories is bidirectional. Your facts may eventually determine what theory you have. But your theory also determines what facts you see and notice. Nor do contradictory facts immediately change a theory. The process of theory change is complicated, fiercely resisted by hard-to-describe factors, and based on some sort of idea of global tension that can’t be directly reduced to any specific contradiction."

Covid Severity

• Covid is more serious in old and medically at-risk people than is the common flu.
• Covid is much less dangerous than portrayed by Democrats and the mainstream media.
• Covid vaccines are promising.  However, for those of us in the low risk population, the risks from the initial, poorly tested, vaccines may be higher than the risk from the Covid virus itself.
• Covid severity and treatment have been highly politicized by both Republicans and Democrats, with the media joining the Democrats and much of the scientific community in distorting the science.

COVID, Lyme Disease Origins

• COVID escaped from the Wuhan Lab.
• Lyme disease escaped from the secret biological weapons program on Plum Island, an island in Long Island Sound near Lyme, Connecticut.

COVID Transmission and Treatment (added 7/9/2021)

The Medical/Pharmaceutical/Scientific establishment is corrupt, ineffective, and socially toxic:

• COVID leaked from a lab in Wuhan.  Those who pointed out this possibility were condemned as conspiracy theorists by insiders with vested interests.
• The WHO and CDC were wrong on how SARS-Cov2 is transmitted.  They gave out bad advice and condemned those who turned out to be right.
• The WHO and CDC have been downplaying effective treatments such as ivermection and early treatment with anti-clotting and anti-inflammatory drugs.  Millions of lives have been lost as a result.  Those who have promoted safe, effective, and affordable treatment have been vilified and censored.  

For further discussion see: My Comments on Taibbi Post about Ivermectin

UPDATE 12/16/2021:  In addition to hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and Vitamin D, there are other effective early treatments (and prophylactics) that have been advocated by the FLCCC and like minded doctors, but have been downplayed, ignored, or actively discourage by the CDC/WHO/Pharma complex.  These include cochicine and fluvoxamine (here, here, here, here, and here).  

Rationale for not encouraging use of cheap, safe, and effective drugs:

The Rev Kev

December 16, 2021 at 7:24 am

“Ancient Greek drug could cut COVID-19 deaths – Israeli scientist”

Considering the fact that this stuff has been in use for at lest 3,500 years, perhaps the FDA do not consider that it has had time to pass its initial trials for safety. Went looking for info on why it had become so expensive and came across an article that said ‘As part of its Unapproved Drugs Initiative designed to remove unapproved drugs from the market by means of a “risk-based enforcement program” that concentrates on products that “pose the highest threat to public health and without imposing undue burdens on consumers, or unnecessarily disrupting the market,” the FDA in September 2010 ordered a halt to the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of unapproved single-ingredient oral colchicine.’ This sounds like something that Fauci did during the AIDS epidemic when in 1987, the FDA changes its regulations, making any unapproved drug illegal. You read that article and find that it was all about giving a Pharma corporation an exclusive over this stuff. Why am I not surprised-

https://www.hcplive.com/view/why-is-colchicine-so-expensive-now

Also, this pre-covid (2016) article demonstrates that the dysfunctional covid response is a matter of chickens coming home to roost following years/decades of public health politicization:   U.S. Public Health Professionals Routinely Mislead the Public about Infectious Diseases: True or False? Dishonest or Self-Deceptive? Harmful or Benign? (Peter Sandman article)

And this: 

In a move that will come as a shock to absolutely no one, YouTube is censoring clips of Joe Rogan’s interview with cardiologist Peter McCullough wherein the doctor laid out how early treatment of COVID is being actively suppressed by governments and big-pharma in favour of a blind pursuit to vaccinate everyone.

Black Holes, Higgs Boson, etc.

• I don't know if black holes exist.  
• The field of quantum physics is filled with incomprehensible and untestable mumbo jumbo.  I don't know which concepts may eventually be tested and prove useful.  

Quantum Computing

I don't know if quantum computing will ever prove to be possible or practical.  The Case Against Quantum Computing, The proposed strategy relies on manipulating with high precision an unimaginably huge number of variables

Update 1/26/2024: A Skeptical Perspective on Quantum Computing, or how to game the funding system

X-Ray Crystallography

I know that the science of physics has yielded remarkably practical technologies such as computers.  Similar in nature to quantum physics, molecular and atomic physics is often obtuse.  However, various concepts have proven testable and controllable.  One example is x-ray crystallography, used in detecting and describing DNA, as well as in mineralogy and metallurgy. 

Self-Driving Cars

I know that autonomous vehicles have been vastly overhyped and are unlikely to prove economically viable or socially efficient in the foreseeable future.  They are possible, like supersonic jets and maglev trains, but not cost effective.  Hyperloops fall into the same category.

The Future

Is science slowing down?  We seem to have plucked a lot of the low hanging technological fruit, and are chasing improbable dreams. Limitless, green energy, autonomous vehicles, and quantum computing are examples.  Moreover, we may need to intentionally slow technology down if we are to attain an acceptable level of civilizational stability and sustainability.

Summary

Things I Know

1. Russiagate is a conspiracy theory unsupported by facts.
2. The attempted impeachment of Trump over events in the Ukraine was a creation of the U.S. national security state to fight back against investigation of their own misdeeds in Russiagate.
3. The U.S. led global empire supports biased international institutions such as the Organization for Prohibiting Chemical Weapons which has lied on behalf of U.S. interests, and against Russian interests, in Syria and in the U.K. with regard to the Skripal affair.
4. JFK was assassinated by elements of the U.S. security apparatus.
5. The mainstream media is not to be trusted on issues related to national "security", including national politics.
6. Alternative media are more reliable sources of the truth, and are threatened by the security state.
7. MMT provides an accurate model for contemporary monetary systems.
8. Labels such as socialist and capitalist are used as epithets to distract from constructive thinking about economic issues.
9. Global warming is real.
10. Green energy is hugely important, but it is unrealistic to expect that we will be able to maintain our use of energy at current levels while phasing out fossil fuels.
11. The human mind works by the formation of mental models.  These models are checked when sensory data is received.  When the data does not match the model, the issue may be escalated to a higher level for model revisions.  The conscious mind is the highest level.  Mental models do not change easily.
12. Covid is a serious disease, but its severity has been exaggerated by the mainstream to stigmatize Trump Republicans.
13. The covid virus escaped from the Wuhan Lab. 
14. Lyme disease escaped from the secret biological weapons program on Plum Island, an island in Long Island Sound near Lyme, Connecticut. 
15. Atomic physics has made possible enormous technological achievements such as computers and x-ray crystallography.
16. Autonomous vehicles have been vastly overhyped and are unlikely to prove economically viable or socially efficient in the foreseeable future.  

Things I Don't Know

1. Who shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine?
2. Were there conspiracies related to the assassinations of RFK and MLK?
3. Will the first covid vaccines be more likely to save or cost lives?
4. Do black holes, with event horizons that nothing can escape, exist?
5. The usefulness of quantum physics?  
6. The possibility and practicality of a quantum computer?
   UPDATE 1/26/2024: I putting this into the "Things I Know" category.  Quantum computing will not prove practical anytime soon.

Dear Diary

Die Gedanken Sind Frei

Die gedanken sind frei
My thoughts freely flower
Die gedanken sind frei
My thoughts give me power
No scholar can map them
No hunter can trap them
No man can deny
Die gedanken sind frei

I think as I please
And this gives me pleasure
My conscience decrees
This right I must treasure
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator
No man can deny
Die gedanken sind frei
Tyrants can take me
And throw me in prison
My thoughts will burst forth
Like blossoms in season
Foundations may crumble
And structures may tumble
But free men shall cry
Die gedanken sind frei

As with many people these days, I fear that society is going mad.  My friends and family are horrified to learn what I truly think, and the only way to get along is to keep some thoughts to myself.  But what do I really think?  I've found that writing down my thoughts is helpful.  It forces me to organize them and thus gives me confidence in what I believe and why.

I'm conflicted as to who to vote for in the presidential election.  I've founded that suggesting I might vote for Trump is disruptive to my personal life, since family and friends then cut off all conversation with me, at least for a time until it's clear that I won't say anything more on the subject.  On the other hand, a vote is a statement to friends and family as much as it is a means of electing our national leadership.  Self-censorship is probably not good for the country, but probably is good for me personally.

So what is best for the country?  I'm convinced that the media is toxic and curing this illness is more important than getting rid of Trump.  After all, on many things Trump is right and the mainstream media is wrong:

• Russia did not have a big influence in the 2016 election in favor of Trump.
• The intelligence community was wrong in their 2017 "intelligence community assessment".
• Adam Schiff was wrong in promoting the Steele Dossier and indicating that there is proof that Trump colluded with Russia.
• Hydroxychloroquine is not dangerous.
• Trump did not seriously suggest that people drink bleach to ward off covid-19.
• The covid pandemic is overblown.  It is not anywhere near as deadly as portrayed by the conventional media.  The lockdown of society for the last 7 months has been overdone.
• The Biden family behaved in a corrupt manner in Ukraine.
• Trump's behavior with Russia (Mueller investigation, etc) and Ukraine (impeachment) has been misrepresented.  
• The woke movement and continual shouting of "racism" in a crowded theater has resulted in much harm to the country and to minority communities in particular.
• Identitarian politics are immoral and racist, and mostly stupid as in Robin De Angelo's book "White Fragility".
• Putin is not the devil.  Trump is not Hitler.
• The U.S. foreign policy (Republican and Democratic) is driven by lies and immoral double standards.  See Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela.

In spite of all this, I love my country and my friends and family.  Without these, I am nothing.  Politics aside, I love my relationships and do not want to harm them.

I want to acknowledge the legitimate issues underlying Trump Derangement Syndrome:

• American society is deeply unfair and has been so since its racist founding.
• Trump and the Republicans deny global warming and sensible measures to prevent our civilization from destroying the planet.
• Trump and the Republicans have a long history of lying and cheating to maintain and enhance the unjust status quo.
• Trump himself is a blustering narcissist who sets a bad model for the country.

How can so many intelligent people see only one side of the story?  We seem to be witnessing mass hysteria and self-delusional groupthink.  Perhaps this was what it was like in Nazi Germany?  Or Soviet Russia where the state media came to be disbelieved, yet to openly challenge the media was treasonous?  Maybe this was what America was like at the time of its founding, with the racist patriarchy unquestioned by the conventional wisdom?  Perhaps most countries are this way most of the time as the elite control the range of acceptable thought?

If I were to publish this and someone were to read it and ridicule me publicly for thinking out loud, would that be justified?  

Democracy or Empire?

In the news this past week:  CIA Director Haspel Blocking Declassification Of Russiagate Documents and Haspel Blocking Declassification Of Russiagate Documents To Protect CIA's Reputation

"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between Washington and London," Davis said.

"As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will show the American people the truth of what actually happened."

For four years, our national discourse has been dominated by the question of whether or not our president treasonously conspired with Russia. Even if there was no treason (as now is clear), the Trump presidency is viewed by many as illegitimate because it was determined by Russia. On January 6, 2017, just before Trump took office as president, the Directory of National Intelligence issued a report claiming with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. As the New York Times put it: 

In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters...   

Six months later, the New York Times blasted Trump in an article entitled Trump’s Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies:  

The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.

The Times was wrong about this as they admitted 2 weeks later -- Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree:

President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin...

Mr. Trump was also correct about inaccurate news reports. Some, including an article in The New York Times, incorrectly reported that all 17 American intelligence agencies had endorsed the assessment. 

The Times was again wrong in reporting that "all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin".  As the Times itself had reported on January 6:

the N.S.A. was less certain than the other agencies that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump

So this is confusing.  As the years went by, a special prosecutor led by Robert Mueller was empowered to investigate the Russian interference and possible treason by Trump.  Mueller found nothing treasonous, but continued to support the notion that Russia interfered in the election.  However, there was a great deal of controversy regarding the finding that Trump did not conspire with the Russians, and the Democrats and mainstream media contended that was likely because Trump obstructed the investigation.  The partisan divide deepened and hardened.

Since the release of the Mueller Report, the original intelligence tied to both Russian interference and possible Trump collusion has continued to unwind, along with our domestic political fabric.  From How CIA's Brennan Overruled Dissenting Analysts Who Concluded Russia Favored Hillary:

The ICA, which was hastily put together over 30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures from past tradecraft.

It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.  His claim that Putin had personally ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.

“Some of the FBI source’s [Steele’s] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the assessment,” stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written by Brennan loyalists. “The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin ‘feared and hated.’ “

Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department’s inspector general as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several allegations have been debunked, even by Steele’s own primary source, who confessed to the FBI that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from Steele.

Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department’s watchdog that the Steele material, which he referred to as the “Crown material,” was incorporated with the ICA because it was “corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment “The IC analysts found it credible on its face,” Comey said. 

So our democracy is coming unraveled on the basis of intelligence estimates which have been reported as the truth by the New York Times and other mainstream outlets, yet do not stand the test of time.  We could clear up the matter by releasing the evidence used to formulate the intelligence estimate, but this would apparently embarrass the CIA.  Our elite media passes on the work of the intelligence community as truth even when the evidence cannot be verified because of security concerns.  Protecting intelligence sources in the new cold war is thus seen as more important than having a viable democracy based upon truth.

Claims, by the mainstream media and Democratic party leadership, of Russian interference in our elections have been used to discredit the legitimacy of Trump's presidency.  In the interest of democracy, the evidence for the Russian interference should be declassified.  Restoring faith in our system of government is more important than protecting in our sources in the new Cold War, especially now that there is good reason to suspect that the sources have not been accurate.

Thouights on the Mainstream Media

 I'm writing this post in response to a friend who wrote the following:

I think that part of the problem is that we are not on the same page about major institutions that provide enlightened investigative reporting and editorial positions.  For me the New York Times and the Washington Post and similar newspapers have top notch reporters who have specialized skill sets that allow for in-depth analysis of important issues.  This is overseen by an editorial crew who assure that high levels of journalistic integrity are maintained.  I myself have less confidence in blogs because there is a lack of careful attention, and there certainly is no editorial review.  So--we are ending up getting our news from different sources.  And, this could have the effect of taking us in different directions. 

My feeling is that The New York Times and Washington Post and similar newspapers have deeply compromised reporters that follow the editorial imperatives of their elite sponsors.  They do not practice journalistic integrity, but rather have risen to positions of prominence because they are willing to spout the company line.  Ultimately, the bulk of the media money goes to large organizations that support the United States led global empire against perceived enemies such as Russia, China, Iran, and socialists at home and abroad.  Honest reporters have to work elsewhere, and there are many alternative outlets which provide more balanced and factual reporting and analysis.  

My opinion is not based upon inherent distrust of the establishment.  I have gone back and forth throughout my life as to the degree that I trust establishment media outlets.  Generally, I have been trusting.  But I've noticed that the major media outlets have been broadcasting information from unspecified "intelligence sources" and that this information has been proven faulty in many instances, leading to horrible mistakes both at home and abroad.

Here are some of my previous writings on the subject, along with some analyses from other sources:

• The NY Times is a Propaganda Outlet for the White Supremacist Chauvinist U.S. Empire
  (my blog, 9/5/2020)
• Media, Military Intelligence Complex, and Other Ramblings  (my blog, 2/22/2020)
• Masks, Hydroxychloroquine, and a Reason to Vote Green  (my blog, 8/4/2020)
• The Post-Objectivity Era (Matt Taibbi, 9/19/2020)
• Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies, The New York Times, 1917–2017 (Edward Herman in "Monthly Review", 7/1/2017)
• Politics is an American Industry (Steve Randy Waldman, 9/17/2020)
• The World: What is Really Happening (Craig Murray, 5/25/2019)
• Our Press Sucks (my blog, 6/10/2019)
• The Intelligence Community Tells Us What's Happening (my blog, 5/19/2019)
• The Terrifying Rise of the Zombie State Narrative (Crain Murray, 1/2/2020)

This is certainly an important topic.  Our country is horribly polarized due largely to a polarized media landscape.  From Matt Taibbi

We live in a time of incredible political division. Many of us have had the experience of talking to someone whose idea of reality seems to be completely alien to our own. It’s become difficult to have an argument in the traditional sense. People with differing opinions no longer seem to be working from commonly-accepted sets of facts. It’s a problem that has a lot to do with changes in how we receive and digest information, especially through the news media...  

Fundamentally, this means the press has gone from selling a vision of reality they perceive to be acceptable to a broad mean, to selling division. For technological, commercial, and political reasons this instinct has become more exaggerated with time, snowballing toward the dysfunctional state we’re in today...

Audiences are completely siloed. A Pew study that just came out showed that of the people who say Fox is their primary news source, 93% describe themselves as Republicans. For MSNBC, the number is 95% Democrats. The New York Times is 91% Democrats. Even NPR is now 87% Democrats:

So one channel is talking almost exclusively to one group of people, while other channels are talking almost exclusively to another group of people.

So it's understandable 

2 Views on Biden and Democrats

1. Our country is deeply and dangerously polarized.  Biden represents the moderation we need if we are not to tear ourselves apart.  He is inclusive and open to conservatives, as demonstrated by the support he has received from Republicans, and will therefore defuse the tension while advocating for better policies in areas such as the environment, education, and economic equity.
   
   
2. The Democrats have been the weaker party since 1980 when Reagan was elected.  In 1980, the Democrats controlled the presidency and had large majorities in both chambers of Congress.  The only Democratic presidents during this time frame have been Clinton and Obama, and the Republicans were particularly contemptuous of Obama, openly declaring that they would make his presidency unsuccessful.  Beginning with the election of Trump or slightly before, the Democrats began responding to the Republicans in kind, openly opposing Trump, regardless of facts, including an unfounded accusation of treason.  It is this movement that has driven the Biden candidacy and plunged the country into deep and dangerous polarization and nationalist madness, employing various spy agencies to set the national discourse.  The election of Biden would validate this dangerous and disturbing turn by the Democrats.  Biden must be defeated to provide space for a more intelligent and moral leadership.

2 Views on Trump and Republicans

1. Trump should be fought tooth and nail because he brings out the worst in Republicans.  For example, there are racist and violent elements in the Republican base, and Trump legitimizes these elements and brings them to power.  Get rid of Trump and people will see that such behavior cannot be successful in our country.
   
   
2. The country indeed has racist and violent people, and the Republicans have been playing with fire for decades in courting and encouraging these people.  Trump is a particularly inept figurehead for the Republican party and exposes their weaknesses.  Get rid of Trump and we may get something worse, especially if the replacement is weak and of questionable legitimacy.

The NY Times is a Propaganda Outlet for the White Supremacist U.S. Empire

I don't generally like the term "white supremacist" as it has come to be used as a reference to any injustice in our current system of governance.  "Capitalist" is better, but still too broad.  So here's a stab at a better title:

The NY Times is a Propaganda Outlet for the Chauvinistic U.S. Empire

Chauvinism is a form of extreme patriotism and nationalism, a fervent faith in national excellence and glory. It is an irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak or unworthy.

That's better, in my view.

Here's an example that recently caught my eye:

RUSSIAGATE: NYT, FB & FBI Say Anti-Trump Site, Now Shutdown, Was Russian Effort to Help Trump Win – Consortiumnews

Misgivings about who ran this site, however, can co-exist with legitimate alarm about the combined attacks by the FBI, the Times and other corporate media on the political nature — and not the accuracy — of the published content. That presents the spectacle of a leading news outlet and two social media companies joining a state security agency in an effort to trample press freedom...

PeaceData was accused of being funded by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which the Times says “was very active in the 2016 presidential election, and a recent bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report detailed Russian interference in support of Mr. Trump’s election.” In fact, half of IRA’s Facebook ads were purchased after the 2016 election and half of those before the election supported Hillary Clinton, and the other half, Trump. The IRA spent about $100,000 on the ads, compared to the $6.5 billion spent by the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

“Now Facebook and Twitter are offering evidence of this meddling,” the fourth paragraph of the Times story begins, although nowhere in the rest of the article is any evidence presented. The Times says Facebook made its decision based on a report — which the Times does not link to — written by a company called Graphika.

While spotlighting PeaceData’s purported links to the Russian government, the Times fails to provide readers the same service when it comes to Graphika’s own official connections, in this case to the U.S. government.

This pattern of lockstep chauvinism on the part of the U.S. establishment, including many mainstream Republicans as well as Democrats, is why I consider Democrats the bigger threat to the downtrodden of the world than I do Trump and his supporters.  The world is a big place, and there is tremendous institutional and legal support for the rights of black Americans.  This is great.  But the militarized chauvinism of Republicans and Democrats which destroyed the Middle East is on the loose, with the NY Times leading the charge.  

Putin was right about Iraq WMDs; Mueller and the New York Times were wrong. The pattern has continued and intensified in recent years, in my opinion.  I could be wrong, as only the secretive intelligence agencies know the truth of such matters.  But my best guess is that our intelligence agencies have been on the wrong side of critical stories related to war in the Middle East, domestic U.S. politics, and relations with Russia.

Accuracy matters.  And that's why I've used the term propaganda in the title of this post.  

Propaganda is communication that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis 

I believe in the enlightenment ideals upon which the U.S. was founded, and which have been improved upon through the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, and granting of legal rights to other minorities.  The world is a cold, cruel place in terms of power politics, and I appreciate that the NY Times and other establishment institutions are trying to spread the enlightenment, and fight back against Trumpian efforts to diminish enlightenment ideals. 

I'm a humanist and look forward to engaging constructively with as many people, whatever background or political persuasion, as possible.

Empire as the Lens for Politics

I find that the concept of "empire" provides a meaningful context in which to view the current political scene.  In my view, the United States presides over a neoliberal empire whose tentacles encircle the globe.  China, Russia, Iran, N Korea, and a few other places stand outside the empire, while urban ghettos, war zones, and sparsely populated remote landscapes are loosely controlled areas on the fringes.  At the center of the empire in places such as Washington DC, vicious battles take place for power.  

While this may seem to be an unusual point of view, it seems to be to be typical when looking at historical empires.  Certainly the Roman Empire, for example, was engaged in continual warfare on the fringes, while intrigue and power struggles were common in the capital and other power centers.  The current political situation in the U.S. comes with the "territory" that we have carved out in becoming the world's primary superpower.

Within empires, there is an inherent tension between the control and expansion of the outer zones, and the care and nurturing of the heartland.  Thus, in the U.S. today, Trump has come to power as the politician who wants to focus on the heartland, as opposed to spending resources consolidating and extending gains in far away places.  Biden is the candidate of the most powerful forces of the empire who are determined to keep the empire strong not only at home, but around the world.  The empire's success depends upon people of different ethnicities working together.  Thus, Biden represents the forces promoting diversity, as opposed to Trump's focus on the traditional ethnic heartland.

Two factors strike me as interesting in this context:

1. The emergence of identity politics as a thorn in the side (cancer?) of the empire.
2. The association of empire foreign enemy Putin with empire domestic enemy Trump.  

The U.S. empire is built on the foundation of the western European enlightenment along with the industrial revolution.  Identity politics, as now embodied via Black Lives Matter, has become an enormous distraction to the establishment.  Originally deployed by the empire in the service of diversity and against the Trumpian forces opposed to empire, BLM has spun out of control and now promotes ethnic hatred.  The empire, led by Biden, still supports BLM but is rapidly losing credibility as BLM undermines the enlightment / capitalist ideological and practical foundations of the empire.  The empire no doubt hopes that sidelining Trump will defuse the more radical aspects of the BLM movement, but it is unclear to me how this might play out in college campuses and Democratic politics.  Until race, and other identity characteristics including gender, sexual orientation, and religious background, are diffused as animating forces at the heart of the empire, the forces of instability will remain potent.  The empire has been playing with fire in playing the race card against Trump and his supporters.

Closely related to these identity politics is the association of Trump with Putin as regressive agents of evil.  Putin has successfully pulled Russia away from the sphere of influence of the U.S. neoliberal empire, and so is a natural enemy of the U.S. empire.  In demonizing Putin, agents of the U.S. empire including both mainstream Republicans and Democrats, have associated Putin with the anti-empire forces at home, who are currently led by Trump.  This reinforces the BLM / identity politics narrative against regressive patriarchal politics.  Radicals who question the foundations of the empire, as established by white men, are aligned with those who seek to spread and strengthen this empire (e.g. neocons).  

The heart of the matter is the extent to which the old cultural order must be overturned.  Is Putin doomed to failure as an old white man clinging to his guns and old school conservative culture?  Or has the west  moved too quickly to invalidate traditions that ungird the empire?  In my view, Putin has the stronger position in this debate.  He has moved, in something of a Trump like fashion, to bolster traditional values,  He enjoys great domestic popularity as his rule has been accompanied by greatly increased stability in the newly downsized Russian empire.  He needn't worry so much about identity politics because:

• Russia does not have a legacy of black slavery
• Seventy years of Communist rule in Russia shattered many of the traditions related to gender identity and religious background.  So Putin's Russia is not that of the old patriarchal school.

Putin is, in a sense, consolidating Russian society following revolutionary cultural changes that were enforced via Communist dictatorship.  Much the same is taking place in China.

The U.S. led empire, on the other hand, is so diverse that cultural upheavals leave us with much more of a struggle to consolidate society.  The neoliberal empire is founded on the twin ideals of European enlightenment and capitalist / technological expansion.  The enlightenment principles are faltering in the face of the race card, for example, which has been played to control the MAGA faction.  The capitalist / technological imperative has been undercut by the outsourcing of vital economic activity to fire flung allies and enemies (China) alike.

So even as the empire lashes out at Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, N Korea, etc. (we have sanctions on countries representing one fourth of the world's population), the world increasingly rejects the sole superpower.  Wars in the Middle East have failed to extend the empire to that region.  Both Russia and China openly defy the empire and provide support and hope for other outcasts such as Iran and Venezuela.  Most strikingly, the U.S. is losing its allure as the shining city of the hill, a beacon of prosperity and peace in a troubled world.  Rioting has spread across the country, while immigration is restricted in the face of both Trumpism and pandemic control.  The American dream is being assaulted, and thus our appeal to would be immigrants is diminished.  Universities are hobbled by politics, as are international corporations.  Financialism has run amok and a crash is a near certainty, which will exacerbate these trends.

Still, perhaps a majority of voting Americans believes that getting rid of Trump will somehow turn things around.  Blacks will be happy to see the face of historic racism (MAGA) unceremoniously booted from power.  Immigrants will once again feel welcome.  Universities will feel less need to consciously intervene to protect minorities.  Foreign affairs will once again become more reasonable and amenable to international diplomacy.  These things are all true.

Yet the problem with empires is that entrenched interests get in the way.  The military industrial complex will still be around, as will the health care vested interests, and the diversity administrators at universities.  Domestic labor will still resent the outsourcing of jobs around the globe.  Countries on the fringe of empire will begin to demand autonomy commensurate with their increased productivity vis a vis the empire's homeland.  Cultural resentments that led to Trump will continue unabated. 

In other words, the internal contradictions of the empire will continue beyond Trump in the direction of instability.  Just as Trump resolved nothing, getting rid of him will resolve nothing.  Or, more optimistically, the election of Trump and potential removal of Trump may be steps in the direction of a new world order that is not centered on the United States.  In this best case scenario, we are freed from American exceptionalism and come to terms with the common humanity with share with others in the world regardless of race, creed, or nationality.

Church In-Person

 I ran across this anecdote today, which makes me feel more confident in our decision to not yet resume in-person church services:

On June 14, a man with COVID-19 attended a church service in an Ohio County.

Following that service, 91 additional people from five countiese developed symptoms of COVID-19.  This graphic shows how far the disease had spread by July 4.

Among the notable observations, children 6 to 16 years old are in the chain of transmission, passing SARS-CoV-2 infection on to other kids as well as to adults 

See also We Need to Talk About Ventilation:

Super-spreader events occur overwhelmingly in indoor environments where there are a lot of people... But it’s not only COVID-19’s super-spreader events that are indoors. The rest of the pattern of spread of COVID-19 —when it is spreading slowly, in small numbers—is also overwhelmingly through indoor transmission. 

Getting to Yes -- 2020 Election Edition

I think it's good if we can discuss politics, so I appreciate the linked article about the forthcoming election, and the responses from Steve and Darlene.  My approach is to try to find a sweet spot for constructive discourse, where we can share impressions and learn from one another.

I agree that "it will be a mess" and "a very challenging environment".  On the hopeful side, perhaps such an environment will be an opportunity to change the national trajectory.

I am generally a humanist, and my personal priorities are to lessen tribal and identity politics in both domestic and foreign affairs.  We are all in this together, regardless of race, geographic region, ethnicity, or nationality.  Of course, I am closer to Americans than to people in other countries, and closer to my circle of friends, family, and church than to the Trumpian universe.  But I think the road to success involves broadening our base of support and trust.  (The main other thing I worry about is technology combined with capitalism destroying the human environment.  We have weapons of mass destruction capable of destroying human life on earth if we're not careful.  And we're disrupting the earth's carbon cycle by releasing hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.)

So how can we take advantage of the unfolding mess?  My idea is to be constructive.  As Michelle Obama said, 'When They Go Low, We Go High'.  For those of us who dislike Trump, the danger has been to overreact as described by Matt Taibbi in The Press Cries Wolf (full article behind a paywall).  Excerpt:

By this week, images of mailboxes became synonymous with voter suppression, and the postal service supplanted the Muslim ban, “kids in cages,” Muellermania, the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, the campaign to save the job of Jeff Sessions, the Ukraine whistleblower, and a dozen other episodes to become the latest all-consuming Media Fire That Never Dies.

In the Trump years, the news has been covered as an ongoing emergency, borrowing from techniques pioneered by Fox News and perfected through episodes like Benghazi. That story was blown into a frenzy for years, as Fox created the impression that litigating every detail of the Libyan mission narrative was at least 95% of what the average person should be caring about at any given moment.

CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post are now following the same script with the Trump panics. The pattern is consistent. Day one involves spectacular claims of corruption. By day two, placard-bearing protesters are hitting the streets (“You can’t fire the truth!” a protester in Times Square proclaimed in the Sessions affair), celebrities are taping video appeals, and experts are quoted suggesting Trump is already guilty of crime: OPEN TREASON in Helsinki, “bribery” in Ukraine, or in this case, election interference (some are already speculating that Trump could get a year for the mail slowdown).

Almost always, by day three or four, key claims are walked back: maybe there was no direct “promise” to a foreign leader, or the CIA doesn’t have “direct evidence” of Russian bounties, or viral photos of children in cages at the border were from 2014, not 2017. By then it doesn’t matter. A panic is a panic, and there are only two reportable angles in today’s America, total guilt and total innocence.

The problem with all of these round-the-clock, crash-style coverage schemes is that commentators end up reaching for rhetorical extremes early. Trump’s genuinely abhorrent “zero tolerance” border policy right away morphed into the Holocaust (“Trump’s Concentration Camps,” as Charles Blow put it); revoking John Brennan’s security clearance made him a “dictator”; for making that phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, pundit after pundit insisted Trump was guilty of treason, a death penalty offense; it was the same for the Helsinki summit, where Thomas Friedman said Trump’s buddy-movie act with Putin marked a “historic moment in the entire history of the United States.”

This is another technique borrowed from Fox coverage of Barack Obama, who was constantly compared to Hitler and derided as a fascist with “third-world dictator-like arrogance.” The strategy initially galvanized audiences for some shows, but ended up fracturing the conservative audience overall. This type of coverage exhausts audiences, who either become addicted to the cycle of rhetorical highs or repulsed by the relentless maximalist formulations.

As I've said before, I'm not a fan of "both sides do it" in general, such as in comparing Obama and Trump.  In my opinion, Obama genuinely tried to reach out to Republicans and broaden the base.  I could do another post on why that didn't work, using Getting to Yes as a framework.  For now, I'll just say that separating the people from the problem can be useful.  Trump's narcissistic personality, in my opinion, is a real and important problem worthy of discussion and criticism.  (The same could be said about Biden, who is truly comparable to Trump in a number of respects.)  Perhaps the coming crisis will enable more of us to join together in addressing substantive issues, in addition to problematic personalities and media outlets.

It's easy to imagine the election becoming a constitutional crisis, with the Supreme Court becoming involved.  (This would be a continuation of the 2016 election where many Democrats refused to accept the result, and various investigations and legal battles have played out over the last 4 years.)  It's also easy for me to imagine the military getting involved with the support of a bi-partisan group of leaders who realize the need to ensure an orderly resolution of the constitutional issues.  The rules of the game may change.  Politics makes strange bedfellows (adapted from Shakespeare).  Ultimately, I pray for a peaceful resolution of issues and win-win relationships with as many fellow Americans and fellow humans as possible.

Hugs,

Dan

313-580-7082

Biden: Anachronism for the Status Quo

I stayed up late last night watching Thomas Frank on Anti-Populism, Plus Biden's Most-Stoned Moment Ever | Useful Idiots.  This is a regular YouTube show hosted by Matt Taibbi and Katy Halper.  The bulk of the episode was the interview with Frank, but there was also a powerful segment discussing Biden's apparent dementia.  There was another brief clip of Bill Clinton speaking at the recent John Lewis funeral.  

The episode highlights some contradictions in the current political environment:

1. Biden has some remarkable similarities to Trump.  He blusters incoherently.
   
   
2. Bill Clinton was arguing against Black Lives Matter anti-police rhetoric during the 2016 presidential campaign.  Speaking like that today would get most white people "cancelled".  Yet, in being against Trump, many BLM supporters are now allies with the Clinton-Biden camp of the Democrats.  Democrats such as Biden and Bill Clinton are allies with traditional black civil rights leaders such as Clyburn and John Lewis.  Biden and Clinton pushed the 1994 crime bill that symbolizes the get tough on crime attitude that is resisted by BLM.  Mainstream Democrats across the country proclaim solidarity with BLM.  
   
   
3. Mainstream Democrats have become vigorous defenders of the status quo, seeing Trump as the problem since he refuses to accept the validity of the mainstream media and other "experts".
     
4. Mainstream Democrats have embraced the demonization of Russia based upon "leaks" from intelligence agencies.   This is consistent with the anti-populist tactics of the 1890s and 1930s. "Liberals" defend and promote the "experts" even as they have been proven wrong again and again, in matters ranging from hydroxychloroquine to Russiagate to the 2003 Iraq War to the repeated financial bubbles and the 2009 Great Recession.

The mainstream discourse across the American empire is dominated by anti-populist hysteria, even as our technocratic society falls apart due to its own failings.

Personally, I approve of what Bill Clinton has stood for since becoming a major public figure and representative of mainstream Democratism.  He's stood for common sense, for the most part.  However, the times have changed and the current imperative is for the country's leadership to change accordingly.  Most crucially, we need more class based politics, with government support for those who need it the most including especially the working class.  We need less identity politics and international bullying.  These are my personal opinions.

So Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are anachronisms -- politicians who represent issues from a different time.  The current time demands action on labor, the environment, and peaceful/lawful international relations, as well as simplified universal health care, infrastructure, and social services.  Bill Clinton is fine as an elder statesman who has much wisdom and perspective to share.  But what in God's name is Joe Biden, who is older than Clinton, doing as the Democratic presidential candidate?  He's a demented figurehead put up to stop the populists.  He has no coherent policies on labor, identity politics, or foreign relations.  He's solely a marker for the status quo, and hence is supported by moderate Republicans as well as moderate Democrats.

His supporters see him as providing a bridge to a new generation of leadership.  I see him as a tool of the status quo, intended to prevent change until such time as the elite can regain some sort of coherence.  However Biden is so weak that he may not win the election, which will undoubtedly be heavily contested via the legal system.  Even if he does somehow take office, the contradictions noted above will still be around, and chaos may prevail until such time as the military takes control.  A best case scenario, perhaps, is that someone like Gretchen Whitmer emerges as a Putin like figure who leads the nation with a firm grip out of the chaos into which we have fallen.  (Update 9/1/2020:  It's more likely to be a military or "intelligence" person who is in the right place at the right time to lead us out of chaos.)