Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Sunday, November 13, 2016

Reconcilation with the Bernie faction? NEVER!

As the Clinton-haters (like Robert Reich) speak of "remaking" the Democratic Party, we have to make one thing clear: This is not the time for reconciliation between the Clinton supporters and the BernieBots.

We cannot reconcile ourselves to a lie. We cannot reconcile ourselves to evil.

If the Sanders supporters take over the Democratic party, I will have nothing further to do with that party -- and I am not alone. If the year is 1944 and the place is France, you cannot ask the Gaullists to reconcile themselves with the followers of Pétain.

Bernie Sanders -- wittingly or unwittingly -- was Donald Trump's agent. 

If you cannot understand that key point, you will never understand what happened in 2016. And if you persist in the delusion that "Bernie woulda wunnit" (sometimes phrased as "polls prove Bernie woulda wunnit"), you are a de facto agent of the Donald Trump 2020 Re-Election Campaign.

I shall now prove -- and I mean fucking prove, once and for all, beyond all debate, with the kind of irrefutable argument required in higher mathematics -- that Bernie Sanders is corrupt. I shall do so using photographic evidence. If the connection to Bernie isn't be obvious at first, keep reading.

Here is photo number 1:


This is Viktor Yushchenko, president of Ukraine 2005-2010. He won that election in a revote, because the Ukrainian Supreme Court determined that there had been widespread fraud in the election of 2004.

Good looking guy, right? Many have said that he could have been a movie star.

But that fraudulent election was not the only misfortune to hit him in 2004. First, there was an assassination attempt -- and then, eight weeks before the election, this happened.


Dioxin poisoning. His great electoral rival, Viktor Yanukovych (considered a puppet of Vladimir Putin) played dirty. Really dirty.

Yes, I know that the names are confusingly similar: Viktor Yanukovich was the bad guy and Viktor Yuschenko was the good guy. Here's a good way to remember who the bad guy is: You can't spell "Yanukovich" without Y-A-N-K. As it turns out, Putin's evil puppet hired a couple of Yanks to put him in power.

Here's where the Bernie/Donnie connection comes in.

The two Yanks were Paul Manafort and Tad Devine. Manafort infamously went on to head the Donald Trump campaign, while Devine became Bernie Sanders' very own Karl Rove.

It must be understood -- it must never be forgotten -- that Tad Devine continued to work for Yanukovich until 2010, six years after the world learned that Yanukovych had tried to kill his rival.

Tad Devine was a key henchman to a killer. The preceding sentence would be actionable if untrue. But I can make that statement in public without the slightest fear of a libel suit, because my words are provable.

No one can argue that Devine did not know the truth about his client. And no one can argue that Sanders did not know the truth about Devine.

There is no counterargument. Screaming nonsense about emails and Benghazi does not constitute a counterargument. If you have any honesty at all in your heart, you will admit that if Hillary had hired That Dioxin Guy, you would have horsewhipped her. 

I need offer no further proof that Bernie Sanders is corrupt, although I have much more to say on that score. At this point, if you feel that the case against Sanders remains vague or unsettled -- well, I'd call you "brainwashed," but that term implies that you had a brain to begin with. Ego will always prevent you from admitting that you fell for a propaganda campaign.

Ego also prevents you from making another admission: You can't criticize Trump for hiding his tax returns while excusing Bernie for hiding his tax returns. Bernie's excuses were even more pathetic than Trump's. Obviously, Bernie is hiding some dirty secret that rendered him open to manipulation.

Yes, Bernie Sanders said words that pleased progressives. So what? Actions speak louder than words, and Bernie Sanders has accomplished nothing of major value in his entire political life.

Here is the first and last major item on the Sanders resume: He helped to elect Donald Trump. He spearheaded a propaganda campaign which spread stories from Breitbart, Fox News and various Alt-Right sources all across Reddit and Facebook.

The Bernie campaign criticized Hillary for giving lectures -- mere words -- at Goldman Sachs HQ. Yet the main BernieBot propaganda outlet was Salon, run by a Goldman veteran and kept financially afloat by a Wall Streeter. The BernieBots often passed along articles published by another Goldman alum, Breitbart publisher Steven Bannon. The hypocrisy was infuriating.

The Bernie campaign continually demonized "Correct the Record" (the Clinton response team) as a nest of liars. Whenever Clinton supporters made their case (invariably in calm and measured tones), they were met with the kind of vile, unthinking, over-the-top ad hominem attacks characteristic of the brownshirts who have commandeered 4chan and Reddit.

If you make an honest study of the kind of rhetoric employed by Nazi thugs throughout the 1920s (Richard Hanser's Putsch! offers an excellent place to start), you'll recognise that the followers of Bernie Sanders spoke in precisely the same fashion. We have heard the same appeals to unreason, the same relentless demonization of opponents, the same mindless mob mentality, the same false claims of victimhood. It is not an exaggeration to say that Bernie Sanders -- a Jew old enough to recall World War II -- headed up his very own version of the Nazi party.

By the way: Don't you dare quote Godwin's law to me. Fuck Godwin. We're beyond that point. Cannon's law: Any Trump-era political discussion which does NOT contain a reference to fascism is naive.

Bernie Sanders did nothing to stop his followers from their descent into fascist barbarism. How could he? He was dirty. He was controlled. He was manipulated by those who knew the secret that prevented the release of his taxes. He was always -- always -- working for Trump.

That's why trolls filled the comments section of every political website with endless accusations that anyone defending Hillary Clinton was a paid shill. (Many of those trolls, we now know, live in Russia.) The Bernie movement was founded on Alex Jones-style conspiracism. The Sanders movement inserted the poison of right-wing paranoia into the Democratic bloodstream.

The Stone factor. Donald Trump's old friend and strategist, Roger Stone, has been the King of the Dirty Tricksters since Watergate. Many people don't know that Nixon's ratfuckers funneled money to Shirley Chisolm in 1972. They funded a far-left insurgency within the Democratic party in order to weaken Nixon's opponents. The dirty tricksters wanted to force mainstream Dems to make statements critical of Chisolm, a former Communist who stood zero chance in the general election. This, in turn, would have allowed the Nixonites to stoke resentment among African Americans. (During the primaries, Nixon's secret team also funded a challenge from the Democratic right, in the form of Los Angeles mayor Sam Yorty.)

In the years since, Stone and his comrades-in-deception have frequently relied on this divide-and-conquer strategy. In an unpublished political biography, Stone described his tactics. His recipe is summarized here. Stone advocates a five-fold strategy: 1. Guilt by association (as when he created a fictitious "Gays for McGovern" group in 1972); 2. The creation of fake "non partisan" opposition groups; 3. Smearing opponents, usually via proxies; 4. Divide-and-conquer; 5. Vote manipulation.

Please heed this description of option four:
The fourth, and one of the most effective, is through fragmentation of the vote. There is, say, overwhelming support for candidate A, who will raise the minimum wage, versus candidate B, who won’t. You split this overwhelming vote by funding another candidate, who wants to raise the minimum wage even higher, and who chastises candidate A for compromising their principles and being beholden to business interests for not asking for a higher wage. Through a vote split, candidate B, the one who says he believes the condition of workers must be improved, but not through easy sounding solutions like a higher minimum wage, scores a victory.
The words which I've placed in boldface are absolutely damning -- and please remember that they were written years before the 2016 campaign. In exact accordance with Stone's example, Bernie used a minor disagreement over the size of the minimum wage increase as a cudgel against Hillary Clinton. He thereby helped to insure ultimate victory for the Republicans, who want no wage protections at all.

Forecast and fulfillment. This did not happen by accident.

Roger Stone was always a secret leader of the Trump campaign, despite his staged tiff with Trump. (One of Stone's rules: Always use a cut-out. The fake rift allowed Stone himself to act as a deniable cut-out for the Trump campaign.) And Bernie Sanders was a secret functionary of Roger Stone.

The Bernie campaign was yet another vote-fragmentation device, just like Chisolm in 1972, John Anderson in 1980 and Ralph Nader in 2000. The trick is painfully obvious, once you learn of its existence. Yet this tactic keeps working, election after election, because dimwitted young lefties -- blinded by idealism and forever trapped in the eternal Now -- never learn the necessary history.

They also possess an endless ability to convince themselves that disaster is preferable to even the slightest compromise of their political purity. They can never comprehend the simple fact that the views held by their Facebook friends are not shared by most voters.

And now they have wedded themselves to the truly insane delusion that the "red" counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Michigan secretly yearn to vote for a socialist.

Would Bernie have won a head-to-head match-up against Trump? Of course not. As I've argued at great length previously, Bernie Sanders would have lost all 50 states -- including Vermont. I speak literally.

Polls which suggest otherwise are deceptive, because they do not take into account the kind of opposition that Sanders surely would have faced. The rightists never employed their formidable weaponry against Sanders. They had no reason to do so -- and they had every reason to stoke anti-Clinton resentment among the fanatics who felt the Bern.

(End Part One. More to come.)
Comments:
Didn't you support Yanukovich, back when you were on Team Putin? That was well after 2011.
 
I never had any illusions that Yanukovich or Putin were good guys. However, I was and am scared as fuck by the Azov battalion. I did not approve of the coup. I despise intervention in places where we have no business. I hated the idea of a new Cold War -- hell, I hated the FIRST Cold War.

That said, the Putin/Trump alliance -- along with the Putin/Le Pen alliance -- have opened my eyes to the dangers posed by Vladimir Putin.
 
Not a big fan but Tom Green has a rap music video about Trump on YouTube worth watching once. It is not particularly clever but it is entertaining and it offers your POV straight up as the fascist imagery is not diluted. Funny that he was on celebrity apprentice but got kicked out after a night drinking with Dennis Rodman. It's a Mad Small World. Disney meets Tears for Fears indeed.
 
A comment about Prof. Reich's remarks. The big money he wants to get out of the party is closer to home like in Silicon Valley. I call it the "California ATM" Democrats show up on a regular basis to get that money. And the party is going to give that up for small contributions while the Rs rake in that cash??? Don't think so. The valley is the true wrecking ball of the old American economy. Yet there is no real criticism of Valley culture, except to complain about the lack of diversity in boardrooms and the high rent prices. The Trumpers need to realize that Apple is not going to build iPhones in the USA and the progressives need to realize that the tech companies will not tolerate unionization of their American workers. And the Dems aren't giving up Valley money to be good, moral and pure.
 
ust like Chisolm in 1972

Why are you singling out Shirley Chisholm??? There were 13 announced candidates for the Democratic nomination in '72. Wilbur Freaking Mills ran for the nomination, if you'll recall. Chisholm came in fourth at the convention. Humphrey, who had gotten more primary votes than any other candidate, came in sixth. Why aren't you railing about the Scoop Jackson (sixth in the primaries, but second at the convention) voters who defected to Nixon?

You fail to mention that McGovern himself chaired the committee that rewrote the convention rules after 1968, and therefore had nobody but himself to blame if the process fragmented the party and prevented it from launching an effective challenge to Nixon.
 

It was pointed out to Nader during his 2000 campaign that the Republican Party was funding him. He was then asked why they were doing that, what were they thinking, what did they hope to gain, and he replied, "I don't care."

Sergei Rostov
 
The issue was never that Clinton spoke to Goldman-Sachs - the issue was that she charged them $225,000 a pop to do so, accumulating nearly $22 million in speaking fees in less than 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/).

That's just unseemly. Certainly not illegal or even (unfortunately) atypical, but definitely unseemly.

And it's hard not to wonder just how diligent a Clinton Administration would be in prosecuting offenses by those who were so very generous to her.


 
Jewish literature is replete with Rabbis inveighing against internecine warfare, from Jephthah to the destruction of Jerusalem, fighting amongst ourselves has led to disaster. There is a lesson there.
 

P. - Here's a few facts about those speeches: of those 92 speeches, only 3 were for GS; her GS fee was $10k lower than her average fee; she gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (oof!); book sales and speaking fees are how they make their living when they are not in office; $11 million/yr is pretty average for them; and funny, to the best of my knowledge no one had a problem with those fees when she was running for The Senate (twice), ran for President in 2008, or was going through her Sec. of State confirmation process. One has to wonder why they only became an issue after 15 years. (Actually I don't wonder: her enemies didn't have anything substantive on her, so they had to find something they could insinuate - remember how Bernie Sanders couldn't name even one thing she changed her mind on as a result of receiving speaking fees, even though he was asked multiple times by her to put up or shut up? - but he kept on insinuating nontheless)

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, after taking only $10,000 from the NRA, went back on his principles to first weaken the Brady Bill in the 90s and then, in 2005, to facilitate and expand the domestic illegal arms trade.

As for me, on the issue of any quid-pro-quo, that never concerned me one bit. I note that the Clintons have been under intense scrutiny for 25 years, and if the numerous rabidly-hyperpartisan investigations have revealed anything about them, it's that they are squeaky-clean: they really do believe in government as a force for doing good for the people, and not as something to benefit corporations or personally enrich themselves. Given their history in and out of government, why would they suddenly do a total moral and ethical flip-flop after 45 years of serving others? So I was never worried.

One example off the top of my head: Bill Clinton took Big Tobacco's money in the 90's, then turned around and successfully sued it for $200 billion plus imposed regulations on it which were expected to reduce its future revenue by 90% within 20 years (it didn't turn out that way, but that was the expectation).

(But ok, let's use GS as an example. Hillary's Wall St. reform plan was touted by Elizabeth Warren herself to be the strongest and most comprehensive one to be proposed since the 1930's. She didn't have to put out something, but she did anyway, long before the speaking fees became a thing (and you can bet your ass EW would have held her feet to the fire every day until it was done, which makes the insinuations even more laughable).)

This is actually a pattern with liberal Dems - they take the money, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't keep them from doing the right thing.

(Another example off the top of my head: JFK took the help and money of the mob to get elected, then a few years later his brother (as AG) put them all in jail.)

So the whole paid-speeches thing I knew would turn out to just hot air (so to speak).



Sergei Rostov
 
People seem to forget that Hillary Clinton's hands were tied after she left her SOS position. If she tried to do anything politically over the last four years, it would come across as upstaging Barack Obama during his second term in office. However, I do wonder if Hillary Clinton could have worked on the Clinton Foundation to help those in need in America, with Barack Obama's blessing.
Maybe she did take too many speaking gigs on wall street when she could have been doing more on main street?


 
I'll let Joe properly take you apart on the bogus "oh she took money for her speeches" (all that was donated to charity by the way) whinge and note that her voting record and decisions at the State Department shows that she remained sensibly firmly progressive across the board. No one she ever gave paid speeches to ever influenced her votes. But your buddy Bernie was completely beholden to the NRA- voted no on many progressive bills because the NRA didn't like them, then gave pathetic lies as to the reason why he voted no.

On Shirley Chisholm, while she might have taken the money, she always made it clear she knew she couldn't win. Her candidacy was a true issue campaign about pushing the DNC to recognize civil rights and women's issues.
 
Bye, Felicia.
 
Prop: You seem to be under the impression that my topic was the 1972 election generally. Not true. Read it again. My topic was the Roger Stonian tactic of vote fragmentation -- and by the way, he has been quite open about this. This is why I mention Chisolm but not Jackson: The money went to Chisolm for that purpose.

Specifically, the idea was to force the mainstream candidates to criticize Chisolm. This would have allowed the CREEP forces to peel black voters away from the eventual nominee: "Look at the insulting things he said about Shirley Chisolm, simply because she's black! Don't vote Democratic in '72!"

small j -- I dunno. None of that stopped the Essenes from saying, in essence, "Screw this. The whole system is corrupt. Let's just live in the desert, apart from this corrupt system, until things are back to where they should have been and the Zadokites are running the temple and all of that."

I'm not seriously advocating a "Let's retire to the desert" strategy. But the idea is starting to seem tempting.
 
I'm not sure the Essenes ever existed http://www.haaretz.com/scholar-the-essenes-dead-sea-scroll-authors-never-existed-1.272034
 


If Bernie Sanders is corrupt, why isn't he rich?

If Bernie Sanders is corrupt does that mean everybody who voted for him is corrupt?

If fighting Donald Trump is the No. 1 priority, shouldn't that mean uniting everyone who is opposed to Donald Trump, including Sanders supporters?


 
Ah, Phil -- I see that your pride is at work here. Pride prevents you from admitting that you fell for the oldest trick in Roger Stone's book.

1. He's got money. And he's obviously done something that has rendered him manipulable.

2. Corrupt or stupid.

3. In the fight against fascism, we can no longer tolerate the stupid.
 
If Bernie Sanders isn't rich, why won't he release his tax returns?

However, even the Gaullists were happy to work with the Communists against the Nazis.
 

Well, she didn't give all her speech money to charity, only ~80% (how disgraceful!)

Bernie Sanders IS corrupt - he just sells himself too cheap.

(A Socialist bad at capitalism - who'd'a thunk it?)

He did release one year's worth of tax returns, : it showed that in that year all of his income came from his Senate salary and his (maxed) Social Security benefits (earned mostly from 'working' in Congress) - I think it totaled ~$240,000.

So if we look at his Senate and House activities (or lack thereof), we sadly see he is the Socialism-critic's stereotype: the guy who sits around all day and collects a government check.

Actually, now that I think of it, he's more like The-Jetsons-meets-Socialism: sit back in your chair all day, punch an occasional button ("Aye" or "Nay"), collect a government check.

Except that George Jetson had to at least go to work every week.


Sergei Rostov

 
Phil: If Bernie Sanders is an Independent, why did he join the Democratic Party for the sole purpose of running for President under the banner of a party he has never before joined?

Sorry, this bullshit about Sanders' Special Snowflakes wanting to make nice, unify, and lead the Democratic Party to a glorious future has to stop. Go ahead and quit the nasty old Dems, and join Bernie's Independent Party. What's that? There is not actually a party called the Independent Party? Bernie has no structure there to run a campaign? Because he needed -- what? Money? Oh, really? Well, hell's bells, y'all can just kick in $27.00 each and voila! Bernie has another summer home.

tle

 
I've always thought Godwin's law appealed exclusively to fuckwits who can't argue properly, who don't even want to try, and who prefer to use a one-line reference to this fool's "law" in order to dig themselves further into their idiotic cocoons because they're scared that thinking might hurt them. Godwin's law is shit now and it's always been shit. Michael Godwin is a dickhead.

A friend of mine once called some Stalinist arseholes "brave" as if that meant they were good, and another friend pointed out that some of the Nazis were brave. His unspelled-out but obvious argument was that bravery doesn't make someone good, since some of the Nazis, a group of people who weren't good, were brave. As far as I am concerned, that syllogism makes a very strong and proper argument. To answer it by saying "don't mention the Nazis" is to stick one's head in the sand.

As for Clinton and Sanders, well they've both said give Trump a chance. We have to say FUCK ANYONE WHO SAYS GIVE TRUMP A CHANCE, whatever good stuff they may have done in the past. We have an URGENT situation here. It is absolutely fundamental that that be understood.

I fear that a "Million Woman March" the day AFTER the inauguration may turn out to be one of the most spectacular "moderate", safety-valve, recuperative, de-energising stunts that has ever been pulled in any country during my lifetime. Trump OUT. Trump NOT TO BE president. How hard is that for people to understand? THEY SHALL NOT PASS. "Bearing witness" is fine. I'm all for it. But by itself it's nothing. It must be targeted, together with other forms of struggle, at removing this man from the picture a) by any means necessary and b) as a matter of urgency. WHATEVER WORKS.


 
@Stephen - Gaullists happy to work with Stalinists? I'm doing that pulling down my eyelid gesture at you now. They were prepared; I wouldn't say they were happy :)
 
Sanders: "To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

Clinton: "We must accept this result and look toward the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."

 
So what, b? One statement is no purer or stronger than the other. Clinton didn't say how long we need to give him a chance or how many. She's also since said, "It’s up to each and every one of us to keep working to make America better and stronger and fairer." Would you prefer that she undercut the Democrats in government by giving the media and the Republicans the chance to frame the comments of the Democratic nominee as subversive of the Constitution? You know they would.
 
Can you rewrite this into a new article, just focusing on Manafort, Devine and Putin and the dioxin aspect. I would like to link to this article but it needs to be choppier and to the main thrust.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?





























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind