Friday, May 20, 2016

Bernie the sellout

Bernie's current "burn the Establishment" pose is pure hypocrisy. All of his political life, he has been the recipient of unearned political largesse from the Democratic Establishment -- starting with his first election 1990. That's when the Establishment was so terrified of going with a female named Dolores Sandoval that they decided to back a non-Democrat named Bernie Sanders, who had the advantage of penis-ownership.

And Bernie has been the Democratic insider in Vermont ever since. He was a member of the clique. His arrangement with the Establishment was such that they never ran a serious Democratic challenger. Go here for the full story.

Now we are told that Bernie has quietly reassured the Democratic leadership that he will get in line for the Stop Trump effort. He's lying.

Remember when he said that he would never run a negative campaign? That was a lie. He lied then; he's lying now.

Remember Mars Attacks? Remember how the attacking Martians would broadcast the message "Do not run; we are your friends" just before the big zap?

That's what Bernie is doing now. It's obvious.

All across the internet, the Bernie fanatics are still running Clinton-hate propaganda -- much of which is bought-and-paid-for astroturf. It's easy to gin up mob hysteria, if you have enough money.

We still see plenty of examples of mob activity. When Politfact demonstrated that the BernieBots lied about Nevada, the Bots respond that Politifact is a right-wing organization. If you point out that Politifact has skewered pretty much all of the Republicans, even Kasich, the BernieBots will simply mutter their usual inanities about the all-pervasive Evil Clinton Conspiracy.

Proof? They don't need proof. Fanatics don't need proof.

Remember: This is astroturf -- an online rent-a-mob. They are paid to lie.

The BernieBot astroturfers want us to believe that MSNBC is in the tank for Clinton. Yeesh. Maddow, Matthews and company have practically fellated Bernie on the air. What do the Bots want -- anal?

Going back to the Mars Attacks! metaphor: It's easy to tell that the Martians are lying when they speak of friendship -- they keep firing death rays. It's easy to tell that Bernie is lying: His maniacal followers (whom we know to be controlled from the top down) keep spewing Clinton-hate.

Mark my words. Bernie controls the BerniBro movement -- wholly and completely. And Roger Stone controls Bernie Sanders -- wholly and completely.

Roger Stone and his confreres have controlled every other "progressive" split within the Democratic movement for 40 years. It all started with Nixon -- with the Gemstone plan. Project Coal was part of that. Pursuant to that plan, the Republican party secretly funded Shirley Chisolm.

Bernie is just another Gemstone.
Mars Attacks sucked. So did Dark Shadows. Tim Burton should be ashamed of himself.
I have not seen either of those movies, so I can't judge them, but I will note that anyone capable of feeling shame will probably not do well in Hollyweird.
This isn't a post about movies, guys. If you are trying to insult me, mission accomplished.
Please don't let the left off the hook. Some of what is happening now is there's. Are you sure Stone behind EVERY split in the party? And they didn't catch on all this time. I know they aren't clean but not that stupid. Even if he financed the effort it still their corruption.
It has been a long time since I've commented here Joe but I have read your page faithfully everyday.
Keep up the great work in exposing this "Con Man" and his University bankrupting wife Jane!
It's refreshing to know that the Sect of the Saint Bernie hasn't infected everyone!
Red Dragon? Believe it or not, I've been thinking a lot about you. Where the hell have you been, dude? Keep in touch!

Anon: Maybe "all" is an exaggeration. I mean, Jerry Brown's insurgency in 1996 was probably clean. Although Stone WAS running Doe's campaign....

And then there's the Ted Kennedy challenge to Jimmy Carter. I was very enthusiastic about that. But now it looks fishy. Can't prove anything. But it seems odd that Ted ruled out a White House bid just days after Nixon quit -- a time when he stood a good chance -- and then mounted a campaign only when doing so hurt a Democratic incumbent.

You know, that plane accident was awful suspicious. You know about that, right?

Here's something you probably don't know. In the White House tapes, Colson tells Nixon that he was up to dirty tricks in Boston that he could never talk about and would take to his grave. Later, a convicted murderer in Boston claimed from behind bars that he had been approached by Nixon's men to kill Wallace and Ted Kennedy. This guy apparently was an intelligence operative posing as a leftist; he shot a cop (by accident, I think) during an SLA-style bank robbery.

I just went off on a tangent, didn't I? Point is, Ted acted like he was on a leash -- and he was allowed off the leash only when he harmed Jimmy Carter.
Where is Clinton in all this? I mean, she's not an idiot. I'm sure she knows all about Stone and more about Sanders than any of us. And Obviously she's the one with everything to play for. So what is she doing about it?
I heard a rumor about the Ted/Jimmy tangle years ago and discounted it. Now you've gone and printed it. Hmmm. It just gets curiouser and curiouser. 1) I thought Mars Attacks was fairly funny-- I mean yodeling causes heads to explode (maybe bagpipes would've been funnier) 2) Clinton is in familiar territory, damned is she does, and damned if she don't. I think, at this stage, it is better for her to low-key everything and let the heathen rage. If necessary, she can roll out the nuclear weapons in early October. It worked for Ali; I hope it works for us.
Good question, Stephen. Controversy focuses on Trump and Sanders but not on the pollsters' and bookies' favourite. In some circumstances that might be great from the aloof candidate's point of view, but not these circumstances.

Another angle that's not getting looked at is Russia. To judge from articles published by e.g. Chatham House, many in British intelligence and British military intelligence believe there is large-scale Russian infowar afoot in several NATO countries. They believe Russia has the upper hand in cyber in particular and in infowar, the fifth domain of warfare, more generally. Are they only pushing for contracts? I doubt it. The consensus is that the infowar stage of WW3 has already begun, an attitude I don't recall being present during "Cold War 2" under Reagan. I don't think it prevailed in the real US-Soviet Cold War either, which ended in the early 1960s.

Kremlin influence is allegedly significant in the French National Front and the British UK Independence Party. Its being well-known that all you need to do to create a flap in Britain and certain other countries is mention Hitler, I thought it was interesting that that's exactly what Boris Johnson did right after David Cameron called him a "Putin apologist". The meaning of that phrase must have been crystal clear in higher spook and military circles, even if Cameron's accusation got swamped out of the news by Johnson's mention of the German chancellor of the 1930s and early 1940s. Cameron was calling Johnson a Russian asset.

Trump has written that "pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually." Just saying. "The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use. Our allies don't seem to appreciate our presence anyway." Admittedly that was in 2000, and also it would be damned good if the US did pull back from Europe (and from Asia, Africa, the antipodes, and the rest of the New World too). But consider how Trump is viewed from the Kremlin. Do they own a big share in him? They probably do, and if so it will be worth more than some petty five-figure scam pulled by Bernie Sanders's wife. The backdrop is that a military conflict between NATO and Russia is viewed as inevitable, and it will probably break out during the next US presidential term whoever actually wins the presidency.

My hunch is that the campaigning for the EU referendum in Britain is going to get ferocious and it wouldn't surprise me at all if war and terror take front stage in it.

Interestingly, the Kremlin doesn't seem to have a big polling company in its stable yet, although it has some British newspapers. (Hello Alexander Lebedev.) The common view that the pollsters are objective and honest is just fucking ridiculous.

This isn't off-topic, because it goes to the question of what a Trump presidency will be used for. Moreover, the reason why many people will vote for Britain to leave the EU is similar to the reason why many people will vote for Trump.

How, without unacceptably threatening Kaliningrad, can NATO step up its presence in the three Baltic states to a level at which it could resist a sudden Russian invasion?

Russia’s ‘New’ Tools for Confronting the West: Continuity and Innovation in Moscow’s Exercise of Power, by this guy.
I can't speak for Gary, but I was not trying to insult Joe.

I was trying to insult the entertainment industry.
A Trump, Trump Escort, Russian Ladies. Russian angle sure seems plausible. Maybe Russia is feeding Trump info so that if he strikes first, opponents back off of trying to find dirt on him since the realize he'll just come back with more.
Putin called Hillary Clinton an "Imperialist" just before the New York Primary.
Sorry b, but I'm not convinced about your Russia analysis.

"Another angle that's not getting looked at is Russia. To judge from articles published by e.g. Chatham House, many in British intelligence and British military intelligence believe [want to believe, would prefer to believe] there is large-scale Russian infowar afoot in several NATO countries. They believe Russia has the upper hand in cyber in particular and in infowar, the fifth domain of warfare, more generally. "

Which could perhaps be more accurately paraphrased as "Russia has the upper hand in cyber in particular and in infowar...because we couldn't sell our crap narratives about what was actually happening in Syria, Ukraine and Crimea."

And as for the Keir Giles article from Chatham House, he hits all the current anti-Russia propaganda buttons quite nicely thank you -- and where the actual facts stand markedly against his 'analysis'.

He cites the "invasion" of Crimea as a cunning example of Russian information warfare -- as if the basically peaceful occupation by Russian forces was not welcomed by the locals who everwhelmingly chose to secede from Ukraine. Since the real events don't reflect the Western narrative then it's far better to invent a fictional one where dark forces are used. The whole "weaponized propaganda" crap gets repeated, an idea originally put by Peter Pomerantsev, Senior Fellow, Legatum Institute, the bright and shiny UK think tank dedicated to Russian regime change. On April 5 Pomerantz and Giles sat on the same discussion panel entitled "How Russia Gets Its Way." They're buddies.

"Hybrid warfare" gets a go with Giles. Apparently, if Russian generals do any strategic or operational planning then its sinister and overpowering. Seriously, this is propaganda, right in line with the Phillip Karber nonsense from The Atlantic Council -- that the Russians employed Chechens in Ukraine to slit the throats of any captives, they used thermobaric bombs, and no Russian tanks were sighted crossing the border because they had been railed in on flatbed train carriers!

The Giles article is loaded with politicized crap parading as serious 'analysis', all talking up the Russian 'threat'. Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, the energy pipelines history, Minsk2. He gets all his facts wrong. It's just fear-mongering, projectionist BS, a narrative upon which NATO can hang its hat.

See here, here. Maybe I'm wrong, b, but I just don't see the Russian threat.
I expect Putin would much prefer to face President Trump than President Clinton.

Putin looks at Trump and thinks: "I've broken better men than this posturing blowhard."
I think Putin is a troll. Even so, I don't think he's involved in this election. Trump's links, according to Daniel Hopsicker's research, are to the Russian mafia. And the American mafia, too.
@Fred - Thanks for the links. Sure, Giles's "West good, Russia bad" attitude is annoying, his article is propagandistic, and he associates the Guardian newspaper with "liberal extremism". But far from running with the notion of "hybrid war", he rejects it. He says the notion doesn't feature in Russian doctrine at all, except when they are looking at western conceptions of that doctrine. He's right too that the Gerasimov article doesn't say what many western analysts, post-Ukraine, say it does. Gerasimov advocates learning from the US-led ops that comprised the string of "colour revolutions" and the subsequent "Arab Spring". I guess the analysts can't admit that the Arab Spring was a western job even if they can grit their teeth and admit it about the colour revolutions. Also Giles has a record of talking up contracts, which he did when the Ukraine conflict was hot, in the area of theatre communications if I recall correctly. But I still think he's essentially right about the extent of the Russian infowar effort.

There's an awful lot of Russian money in London, and oligarchs from Russia have documented high-level links in the US, Britain, Germany and France. As well as owning Gerhard Schroeder, Russian money funded Marine le Pen. And Nigel Farage appears an awful lot on RT. I'll read that report by Peter Pomerantsev. But can you point to any specific facts that Giles gets wrong? I mean Giles himself, not those with whom he may or does associate. It's not accurate to say he refers to the "invasion" of the Crimea - he doesn't.

(Giles get called a Putin asset here, by what he seems to be calling a false flag effort.)

@Stephen - I'll look up the Hopsicker stuff. It sounds interesting. But the Russian mafia is in no way separate from the Russian state network.
For those interested, Vineyardsaker has a terrific analysis of any NATO v Russia military conflict within the context of current geopolitics. It's a useful commentary to read alongside NATO's latest military buildup.
This is a test comment. My other one keeps getting blocked.
(part 1/2)

One of Giles's recommendations, in a way the conclusion of his piece, is that NATO should bolster its forces in the Baltic states. Otherwise, in the event of hostilities, he says on p.67, they might find - in the absence of help from pressurised Sweden and Finland - that they have to fight their way past Kaliningrad to be able to get to those states. He actually says exactly that.

And there seems to be growing support in western military circles for doing what he recommends. Why the existing US nuclear deterrent wouldn't work to deter a snap Russian takeover of those states isn't explained.

See in particular former NATO deputy commander (DSACEUR) Gen Richard Shirreff's book, 2017 - War with Russia.

Review: "His scenario is specific, naming Latvia as the first of the Baltic countries to be invaded, in May next year. Such specifics open him to potential ridicule. [ ¶ ] At the book launch at London’s Royal United Services Institute, he heavily caveated the scenario by saying it was still avoidable provided Nato took the necessary steps to pre-position forces in large enough numbers in the Baltic states. Nato is planning to make a start on just such a move at a Nato summit in Warsaw in July."

I'm old enough to remember Gen John Hackett's book The Third World War, but he wrote that 10 years after he retired, whereas Shirreff only retired as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe two years ago. I don't believe for one moment that Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond - now Foreign Secretary, and a possible future prime minister - tried to have Shirreff court-martialled for publicly opposing navy cuts. Britain is trying to do some fancy-footy psychological warfare here.

Here's the bottom line: to put sufficient force in the Baltic states to prevent a snap Russian takeover would also be to put sufficient force in those states to cut Russia off from getting to its territory in Kaliningrad. Giles and Shirreff know very well that the action they recommend would trigger a military conflict between NATO and Russia. They aren't trying to get concessions from Russia. They view WW3 as coming in the near future and they want to fight it. Giles doesn't mean what he says when he write on p.65 that such a western "demonstration" would make Russia "back down - just as it always has done". His examples - Turkey and Iran - are specious.
(part 2/2)

And if Shirreff was a pariah, he wouldn't get his book launched at RUSI.

Richard Norton-Taylor in the Grauniad, two days ago: "Britain is not at war with Russia, nor is it at peace".

Personally I think terms such as "cyberwar" and "infowar" can get confusing. What we're talking about is psychological warfare in a changed technological environment. Psywar starts before a military conflict. It is in its nature that you can't put your finger on it; not even the practitioners on one side can successfully analyse all its lines of development as used by the other side. WW3 is already being fought. Sure, Giles and Shirreff are projectionists. They are warmongering scum. I don't deny that for a moment. The erosion of the boundary between peace and war, it seems, may be about to become the dominant politico-military doctrine, at least in the short space we've got before the military conflict starts.

Who knows whether the year in which the military stage of WW3 starts will be 2017? Shirreff isn't an astrologer. But the change from Obama to his successor looks as though it will be comparable to the change from Bill Clinton to George W Bush, and for that reason I reckon it's Trump who will be the next US president. Rather than "neo-conservativism" the ideology will soon rip off its mask and show itself: it is the ideology of war.
FWIW, the above comment, which I've now sent in two parts, kept getting blocked. I tried sending it using three different browsers and also using Tor to mask my IP, and still it got blocked. I even tried changing my handle to something like "b again". Every time, I got a message from Blogger saying "whoops" and advising me to clear my browser cache, which didn't work. This has never happened before. The comment is properly formatted. Its length is also within the 4096 character limit, and anyway whenever in the past I've tried to post a comment of greater length, I've got a message saying it's x characters too long. So I've no idea why I was able to post this latest comment only after breaking it into two.

I'm just saying this in case anyone else has experienced problems, given that we know that attacks are ongoing against this blog.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?