Saturday, March 04, 2017

Obama and Kerry requested Ecuadoran interference in the 2016 US presidential election

It's time for a new Anti-Imperialist League that is as ideologically and politically diverse as the one that opposed America's experiment in the Philippines over a century ago. It included bedfellows as strange as railroad magnate Andrew Carnegie and labor leader Samuel Gompers.

There is a bipartisan Establishment effort to reignite the cold war with Russia. Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham want it. The Hillary wing of the Democrat party wants it. The CIA wants it. The taxpayer-fed defense industries want it.

These people are so used to getting what they want by following the prescribed formula they've run for years that their sloppy approach leaves them vulnerable. It's a vulnerability that has been exploited--with the help of the god-emperor himself--again here. Almost immediately after it came out that US senator Jeff Sessions had communicated with Russian diplomats, the proverbial fools who have to say something rushed in to pile on and ended up getting knocked silly in the process:




Who? Whom? Know the answers to those questions, and you'll know everything you need to about whether an action or behavior is perfectly reasonable or unthinkably scandalous. Put in another way by the ineffable Z-Man:
We have reached a point where it is heads they win, tails we lose. The game has been rigged to make reforming the system within the rules an impossibility. When a majority of the people favor a policy that the managerial class opposes, the policy gets hamstrung by the rules of the game. All of a sudden, the process is sacred. When the managerial class wants something for their masters, they change the rules so it either flies through or simply happens without anyone noticing. The process is not all that important.
The pretense for a renewed war--that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential election--is absurd. The US regularly interferes with elections in other countries, most notably those in former Soviet countries where we've sponsored various "colored" revolutions over the last several years.

Unless it involves hacking voting machines, this "interference" is merely countries conducting foreign policy in an attempt to influence events so that they play out in a way most beneficial to the actors doing the influencing. Putin wanted Trump to be elected because Russia doesn't want war with the US. Mexico wanted Hillary to be elected because illegal immigration to the US is a great thing for Mexico (they export their social problems northward and get billions in remittances in return).

WikiLeaks--an organization with a far, far better track record than the CIA--reported that the Obama administration via John Kerry asked Ecuador to interfere in the 2016 election, and that the US interfered in the 2012 French presidential election. The US government is constantly interfering in elections all over the world.

There's common ground here for Trumpian America Firsters and the Bernie Sanders wing of the left, and it's ground we'll have to share if we want to avoid a military confrontation with a country that can't compete with the US using conventional military means but that does have thousands of nuclear warheads. This is the most important foreign policy question the Trump administration is likely to face.

16 comments:

Feryl said...

The thing about nukes "leveling" the playing field is that, well, without a country like Russia possessing that kind of obvious skull and crossbones deterrent, America would've declared war on/invaded even more territories at this point.

Absent nukes, America at this point would even more so resemble in practice the later stages of previous arrogantly aggressive empires.

Ya know, I think the majority of Silents and Boomers fall into two categories: those who feel idealistic and hopeful about domestic and international expansion of post WW2 Western mores based on well-codified individual rights and dignity, versus those who feel that our efforts to instill these things have been less than optimal at home so we have no business meddling with other cultures. Note that the goals aren't really attacked per se, as much as the methods to achieve them.

It precisely is the cult of the individual that shames people into not noticing the corrosive effects of not honoring or caring about your family/race/nation. Furthermore, modern Westerners who've bough totally into classical liberalism become clueless about how such an ideology is profoundly offensive to much of the world, who may not have the temperament or intelligence to positively adjust to a modernity so plastic and hedonistic that it strikes spiritually conservative people (who comprise most of the world) as nihilistic. And perhaps overdosing on individualistic ways as Boomers in particular did has soured everyone in the world of a younger generation on the prospect of a world in which one was free to move, work, play, date, party, etc. as one wished.

This why we're seeing X-ers and Millennials throughout the world engaging in:
- ethnically motivated terrorism and territorialism
- ideological sorting
- intense selectivity regarding sex and especially dating/marrying (whereas Silents married young in the 50's and 60's before becoming unfaithful in the 70's, and many Boomers avoided serious relationships and children even though they possessed the economic means to facilitate family formation)

Reading about terrorist incidents on Wiki, it seems like a lot of post 9/11 terrorists especially in America kinda just snap out of anxiety and hatred toward Western modernity. The post WW2 pinball machine was owned and built by G.I.s and Silents. Boomers are still playing it and trying to get higher and higher scores. X-ers and Millennials are the balls, nervous that any second they'll be fired into action and frantically bounced around the machine.

To focus on the much older set being conservative misses the point. Of course older people are more conservative and find our current society's instability and corruption distasteful. But who planted the seeds for these things? What did they expect, when they spent decades complaining about authority, rules, standards, traditions, and expectations. Picking fights as often as possible, rarely accompanied by good faith or a willingness to bridge divides.

As much as ever, we see Boomers continue to judge and question everyone, Trump included. The X-ers on MPC keep telling Boomers and Millennials to just chill out. The light is growing and uncovering more skeletons that Team Trump will publicly do forensics on. Count on it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I'm currently listening to Dan Carlin's most recent podcast about nuclear weapons. It is so very timely.

That fourth paragraph is the WEIRDO problem, explained. We are emphatically not globally normative, we are an aberration. WEIRDO 'solutions' are not welcome outside of WEIRDO countries, and increasingly they're not welcomed in WEIRDO countries--many in the process of becoming former WEIRDO countries--either.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I don't really see the Trump-Russia connection resonating with the public. Democrats are fighting and dying on this hill at their own peril. Traditionally the incumbent party loses in the midterms but I see just the opposite happening: the GOP continues to build strength as Democrats virtue signal and invent narratives about Trump being a Russian puppet. I see the GOP building more and more strength in upcoming elections until it becomes obvious even to the DNC that what they are doing isn't working. This will take a long time. The Democrats underwent something similar in the 1980s where they kept running unelectable candidates who had ideological purity. Bill Clinton ran as a moderate but even he wouldn't have won if Ross Perot didn't run. The Democrats are very slow in turning their ship around. We can expect 2020 and maybe 2024 to be a disaster for them.

Sid said...

"Traditionally the incumbent party loses in the midterms but I see just the opposite happening: the GOP continues to build strength as Democrats virtue signal and invent narratives about Trump being a Russian puppet."

The Democrats will probably lose Senate seats, because so many of their members will be up for re-election in 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/03/the-senate-map-just-cant-get-much-better-for-republicans-in-2018/

Barring a major self-induced disaster on Trump's part, the Democrats are set to take a beating in 2018.

The election of 2020 is presently too far away for us to be making solid predictions. Still, there really aren't that many dynamite Democratic politicians ready to lead. As I've said on this blog a number of times, the Democrats being the anti-white male party means they've killed their ability to generate national leaders.

Unless Trump proves to be an absolute disaster, the "Trump-is-Hitler" narrative will be bust. I also expect that if Trump continues to be tough on immigration, the Democrats will have a harder time garnering votes.

That said, American politics tends to act according to eight year pendulum swings, so I expect the Democrats will win big in the Senate in 2022 and will win the White House in 2024. But these things are too far off for anyone to be making accurate, detailed forecasts.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

I've seen a lot of people--well, white people--throwing around Joe Biden's and Bernie Sanders' names for 2020. These guys will be in their late 70s by then. Elizabeth Warren is another one, but she'll be like a Mondale, less broad appeal than Sanders and nothing extra to compensate. Warren will be 70 by then as well, yet she is the spring chicken among top-tier white Democrats.

Sid,

Exactly. The class of senators up for reelection happen to work out advantageously for us. My neighboring state of Missouri is vulnerable--the state has become reliably red the last decade and went big for Trump. McCaskill has been doubling down in her opposition to him (as noted above!). Trump has four years to push. No reason to be anything other than on the offensive.

Black Death said...

I'm not exactly sure what the Russians are alleged to have done. Did they file fake ballots or rig the vote counts? Nobody is claiming that. The major allegation seems to be that the Russians were behind the DNC-Podesta email hacks. Well, again, I doubt it, but even if it's true, we should be grateful to them. Just what did these emails reveal (and no one says that they aren't genuine)? That the DNC holds ordinary Americans in contempt, controls big chunks of the MSM (who are mostly just their propaganda arm) and rigs the primary election process in favor of Hillary Clinton and against the pitiful Bernie Sanders. Americans should be thankful for this information, and many are.

By all means, let's have a special prosecutor to look into these charges. But we certainly don't want to limit the prosecutor's purview. Here are some other topics (besides the ones you mentioned, such as the Kerry-Ecuador thing) that the prosecutor should consider: Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the VA scandal, Solyndra, the Obamacare roll out, the Animas River disaster, Eric Holder, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton emails and whether the Obama administration spied on Trump's campaign. So let's fire up the grand juries and get to the bottom of all these messes.

The neocons and their fellow travelers in the military, the defense industries and the media have never quite gotten over the end of the Cold War. They are clearly trying to restart a conflict with Russia. Well, Russia isn't exactly our friend but she certainly isn't our enemy. I've visited Russia a couple of times and speak the language at the so-so level (it's quite difficult), and one thing I've learned is that Russians are paranoid, especially about invasions. The Mongols, the Turks, the Swedes, the French and the Germans have all taken their shots at Russia, and all have ultimately failed. To most Russians, this is a central truth of their history. Now most of their former Eastern European client states are members of NATO, and there is a push to take in the Ukraine and Georgia as well. Russians know that, in terms of population, GDP and military strength, they cannot compete with the NATO-EU-USA megalith, but they no longer control their buffer states, and NATO forces are in Estonia near the Russian border. If Georgia and the Ukraine come in, Russia will be encircled by NATO in the west and south and China in the east. They won't like that, to put it mildly.

As I said, Russia isn't a friend but doesn't have to be an enemy. The US and NATO should make every effort to avoid provoking Russia. After all, how would we feel about Chinese tanks on the Mexican border? A pragmatic relationship has benefits for both sides. Russia could be a useful ally in places such as the Middle East. Is Putin an angel? Of course not. But is he as bad as Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev or Andropov? Yet we sat down and made deals with all of them. The major struggle of the Trump administration may be defanging the neocons. The Sanders Democrats would seem to be natural allies, especially after the way the DNC treated them.

Feryl said...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/fox-news-poll-majority-says-move-on-from-protesting-trump.html

Nearly half of women say that we shouldn't "give up" on protesting Trump. Really? What's the point? You lost. Get over it.

Do we need more proof of how immature women are absent the encouragement of normality? Starting with Reagan, there's been so much faggy pettiness from the Left when there isn't a Dem in the White House. Ironically (as some in the Bernie Sanders wing acknowledge), Clinton and Obama were in some ways worse than Reagan. At least Reagan prosecuted some of the Wall Street bandits. Who oversaw the mid 90's telecom dereg. act that's shrank the number of companies and and jacked our phone/cable/internet bills way up?

Feryl said...

"I've seen a lot of people--well, white people--throwing around Joe Biden's and Bernie Sanders' names for 2020. These guys will be in their late 70s by then. Elizabeth Warren is another one, but she'll be like a Mondale, less broad appeal than Sanders and nothing extra to compensate. Warren will be 70 by then as well, yet she is the spring chicken among top-tier white Democrats."

Warren hasn't the charisma or conviviality of Sanders. The incredibly grueling schedule of US Pres. campaigns, the frequent and sometimes combative debates, interviews, townhalls etc., really test the nerves of candidates. Warren is a screeching early Boomer harpy at all times. Imagine how unglued and obnoxious she will be if she runs.

People who lament the inability of a woman to get in often claim that we are turned off by them trying to do what men are expected to do. But I think that our system rewards the ability to project resilience, confidence and optimism, which women struggle to do (remember, they're built for empathy not leadership).

With so many other countries experimenting with women rulers, why has America defied the trend? Being the greatest responsibility in the world, we've made becoming president an incredibly demanding process that asks a person to bear their soul and test their mettle. Obama is a pansy who wouldn't have won in either election if the GOP had ran a candidate with balls who didn't obviously represent globalists.

When Ted Kennedy was in the running in 1980, he famously fumbled when questioned just why he was running. It was enough to make him forget about a possible campaign.

Audacious Epigone said...

Black Death,

Well put.

Russia needn't be an enemy. There is little overlap in territorial interests and the problems Russia faces are the same sorts of problems the rest of the Western world is facing. That European civilization would be involved in internecine fighting while the barbarians, swollen in numbers, are not just at the gates but already inside them, is tragic and stupid.

Feryl,

If the silent majority is already tired of the perpetual whining less than two months in, where is that going to leave these clowns in a year? In three years?

Do you see a serious white contender in 2020, then? If it's Elizabeth Warren, she'll lose the black vote badly to someone like Corey Booker, and you don't win the Dem nomination without winning the black vote. Or if you do, the Coalition of the Fringes has already come apart.

Sid said...

It wouldn't surprise me if the Democratic presidential nominee in the future will essentially be a position for an African-American who graduated from Yale, Harvard, or Stanford Law.

As you noted, black people supported Obama in 08 and Hillary in 16, regardless of how white Democrats wanted Hillary and Bernie respectively in those election cycles. To make matters worse for Democrats, black turnout for Hillary was relatively low, so blacks in large part spoiled the election for white Democrats.

This isn't nice to say, but African-Americans as a group are poor citizens when it comes to voting. They vote for Democrats as if they lived in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and they vote for their preferred Democratic candidate as if they lived in Fidel Castro's Cuba.

In this election, Bernie Bros got fed up with this arrangement. You have to wonder what happens when Cory Booker trounces Elizabeth Warren, whom every unsuccessful progressive loves, and Kirsten Gillibrand, whom feminists working in corporate HR departments will love.

Unless, of course, Oprah storms in. The nomination is all hers if she starts working the DNC now.

I doubt deeply liberal white women will ever bring themselves to vote for Trump, but once it's clear Trump isn't Literally Hitler, then I expect Trump's share of the white women vote will shoot up.

The compromise following Obama vs Hillary was that we'd have a black male president, then a white female president, and then probably a Hispanic one, followed up by a gay with a demeanor like Anderson Cooper. What happens when the Democratic Party never moves past black candidates?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Right, blacks are remarkably monolithic in their voting behavior and have been so for decades now. Blacks are the top of the victimization pyramid. Additionally, they tend to have more charisma than other more taciturn groups of non-whites like East Asians and Hispanics.

Oprah would unite SWPLs and blacks, just like Obama did (albeit she'd do so during the primaries--Obama only got halfway there before sealing the nomination). That's probably the Democrats' best formula going forward. But it'll always be a black candidate who is better able to do that because blacks will vote black no matter what while SWPLs are more difficult to determine. The outcome of that sort of black determination compared to SWPL open-mindedness means blacks will always come out on top.

Feryl said...

Obama was a weak candidate but his competition played not just down to Obama, but beneath Obama. Hell, at times it seemed like McCain and Romney were actively trying to throw the election.

Oprah has a troubled personal history with drugs and relationships. Remember that she got popular with prole women by not hiding her faults. That's not statesmanlike, though. You build a career in politics (and in crime) by distancing yourself as far as possible from foibles and sins that opponents want to stick to you.

Trump is vain and brash, but he also never did drugs or booze. And rather than living a lie by philandering while sticking with an earlier wife, he's broken off several relationships and moved on. It's interesting that this was supposed to make him toxic to conservatives, but Trump's lower middle class base (esp. the younger generations) is familiar with divorce and understands that Boomers have never shown commitment to marriages like earlier generations. Actually, there may even be a sort of respect based on the fact that Trump didn't cynically go all-in on a loveless marriage for "respectability".

I think a lot of Rust Belters have buyers remorse about Obama and it's up to the GOP to advance policies and candidates that reassure Trump voters (or fence sitters) that sticking with the GOP in the future is the right move. Against a Booker or a Warren, the GOPer need only remain firmly to the right on immigration/AA/set-asides/crime while going against multi-nationals on trade/H1-B Visas etc. to keep the Rust Belt in Dem hands.

If the Dems let invaders and blacks push them around, that's their problem. Which the GOP can only exploit by refusing to apologize for defending law abiding and native-born Americans. As long as the Dems refuse to be straight about lowered wages, cultural continuity, and crime, it isn't that hard for the GOP to unveil the Dems as the "populist" poseurs they are, for the hinterlands to see.

If Trump policies continue, and also if we can break up the Deep State, the media monopoly, etc., how many white people outside of SF/LA/Portland/Boston etc. really want to remain in the Dem party that sticks up for Mexican gangbangers and corporate globalists?

Feryl said...

BTW, Trump's ex-wives were uniformly resistant towards (presumed) attempts to get them to speak out against Trump.

Rather than resenting Trump, it seems like these women were happy to have kids that inherited Trump's resolute leadership qualities and productivity. Not being able to hang onto an alpha winner was a fair trade for being able to produce 1st tier off-spring. Reagan got divorced too, and ala Trump, his earlier wife didn't begrudge him or otherwise gripe to a media that would've lapped it up.

The media went on a fishing expedition against Reagan and Trump to find friends/lovers/acquaintances who would bash them. With Trump, the best they could do was sleazy Machado.

Feryl said...

The Red Star Tribune had a revealing article today about MPLS area business groups advocating better enforcement of "nuisance" crime and disturbance laws. Business owners and their allies have noted that greater problems with drunks, bums, addicts, dealers, whores, etc. have been apparent since the spring/summer of 2016. Needles and passed out losers intimidate people from walking near and/or entering businesses in the city's business districts. The police crime tracker reports that one particular district has seen a 23% rise in crime since 2013.

One cucked doofus says that he wants more done to clean the streets up, but at the same time he knows it's going to lead to more poor and black people being rounded up, so he feels reluctant to cheer on the cops.

Unless Trump can quickly uncuck everyone, we're gonna have another crime wave. Or rather, a growing crime wave since one seems to be happening already.

Audacious Epigone said...

Against a Booker or a Warren, the GOPer need only remain firmly to the right on immigration/AA/set-asides/crime while going against multi-nationals on trade/H1-B Visas etc. to keep the Rust Belt in Dem hands.

I assume you mean *out of* Dem hands here.

Yes, there's an enormous paper/video trail on Oprah. However, she checks the right boxes, has star power, would unite most of the Coalition of the Fringes, and Trump has said on multiple occasions that she'd be a great president. He even joked about having her run as his VP.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> I've seen a lot of people--well, white people--throwing around Joe Biden's and Bernie Sanders' names for 2020. These guys will be in their late 70s by then. Elizabeth Warren is another one, but she'll be like a Mondale, less broad appeal than Sanders and nothing extra to compensate. Warren will be 70 by then as well, yet she is the spring chicken among top-tier white Democrats

I have my doubts that we'll ever see a white candidate again for the Democrats. As we saw in 2016, the black vote just won't turn out anymore if the candidate doesn't match their skin color. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are being pushed but yet they have baggage and history that Barack Obama was able to suppress. We still don't know much of anything about our last president but Booker and Harris have had long political careers where their numerous blunders can be brought out. Besides I don't think there is much social cachet for voting for the second black president.

The DNC's anti-white platforms make it clear what direction they want to go. Warren has been totally tarnished thanks to Trump's trolling; she will never be able to claim Native American ancestry with a straight face, that bridge has been totally burned. Most other white potential candidates got flushed out in 2010-2014 thanks to Obama's unpopularity. I could see another white candidate channeling Bernie Sanders but considering how the DNC did whatever they could to shut Bernie down, an even more non-white DNC will do even more to keep a white candidate down.

In the end I see 2020 being a totally bland ticket with maybe some throwaway black guy with maybe someone like Gillibrand as VP. Nobody will get excited and Trump will win handily.