Liz vs. Bernie -- female vs. male

By now, you all know about the report that Bernie Sanders privately told Elizabeth Warren that a woman probably could not win in 2020. Sanders has denied the report, while Warren has confirmed it.

“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate,” Warren said in a statement. “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”

Did Sanders actually say it? Of course he did. Don't be naive. His current disavowals are lies.

That said, I profoundly disagree with the oft-heard prog presumption that Sanders' words during that private meeting were sexist.

NO. THEY. WERE. NOT.

What we have here is another example of the ludicrous mangling of language which progs insist upon -- the kind of verbal gamesmanship and supremely-annoying sanctimoniousness that alienates the average voter and transforms otherwise-decent human beings into Trump supporters.

Look, I'm no Sanders fan. If you've ever visited this blog before, you probably know that I cannot stand that guy. Moreover, Elizabeth Warren is my favorite of the Democratic candidates. (Here's why.) So please do not presume that a pro-Bernie attitude compels me to exculpate him from the charge of sexism.

It is not sexist to opine that a woman cannot win in 2020. You may disagree with that opinion, but the opinion itself is not sexist.

Progressives should pop open a dictionary and learn the profound difference between the words "can" and "should." Any attempts to elide this difference are devious and manipulative, and can succeed only in making the average person hate progressives.

Suppose you ask a mechanic: "Can my old car make it all the way to Montana?" Suppose he answers: "No, I don't think it can." He is not telling you that you should not go to Montana, as if the state has cooties. He is simply making a realistic assessment of the vehicle's condition.

Suppose you ask a doctor: "Do you think Grandpa can live long enough to see me graduate?" Suppose the doctor answers: "I'm sorry, but I don't think he can." Obviously, the doctor is not telling you that Gramps should die. He's not telling you that he wants the old man out of the picture ASAP.

Sanders's statement offers a cynical assessment of the American public, but says nothing about women.

I'm a noted cynic myself, and part of me agrees with Bernie on this issue, although I hope he is wrong. Frankly, I fear that things are getting worse -- that the public is more sexist now than it was in 2016, and that people were more sexist in 2016 and 2008 than in previous years. Compare the level of hate directed against Geraldine Ferraro to the level of hate directed against Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand: It is inarguable that Sanders is deluding himself, or at least deluding his supporters. Every poll I've seen indicates that the bias against the word "socialist" is far more formidable than is the bias against women.

This 2015 Gallup poll shows that eight percent of the electorate would refrain from voting from an otherwise-qualified woman, based purely on sex. We must be realistic: An eight percent deficit is a serious matter -- and that number probably underestimates the problem, since poll respondents may not have been honest with the pollsters or with themselves.

So, yes, it is true that an "accident of birth" bias against Warren does exist, and I strongly suspect that the bias has worsened since 2015. It should be noted, however, that Obama won twice even though this Gallup poll indicates that voters have roughly the same degree of prejudice against a black candidate (seven percent vs. eight percent).

However, it should be noted that the most formidable bias of all is the one burdening Bernie Sanders: The dreaded S-word. Forty-seven percent of the country would consider voting for a self-identified socialist, while fifty percent say that they would never vote for such a person.

If you're the sort who loves to engage in otiose wordplay, you may now be chomping at the bit to quibble about the various definitions of socialism, and about whether the public likes socialistic ideas better than it likes the actual label. Wanna have those debates? Fine. Do so. But take it elsewhere, because I will not publish your comments -- not now. In a future post, we can talk about such things.

Right here and right now, I am focusing on the objective fact -- and it is a fact -- that there is an overwhelming prejudice against the S-word. The American public simply hates that word, and there is no pretending otherwise. This prejudice will not fade any time soon. The Bernie Bros are being disingenuous if they think that they can "educate" half the public into giving up on this deeply-ingrained view. 

Bernie, who embraces the S-word, is therefore unelectable in a national contest. Elizabeth Warren, who rejects the word, is electable. The S-word is the decisive factor. 

Here are a couple of other considerations: The same Gallup poll indicates that seven percent of the American population won't vote for a Jew, which means that the "accident of birth" bias against Bernie is pretty much the same as the "accident of birth" bias against Warren (or Obama). Moreover, forty percent won't vote for an atheist. Does anyone truly believe that Bernie believes in God? I don't.

(I also doubt that Al Franken, who should be running right now, has any deep emotional investment in the idea that God exists. However, during his first senatorial campaign, he was politician enough to mutter a few sentences offering some vaguely religious notions. You gotta do what you gotta do.)  

By any measure, the odds against Bernie Sanders are far worse than the odds against Elizabeth Warren.

Wanna see some real sexism? When Elizabeth Warren confirmed the report which started this controversy, the Twitter response included some utterly disgusting comments. Many seem to think that in any "He said, she said" controversy, she must be lying -- if only because she is, in fact, a she.

I always liked Warren overall and even though she wasn’t my preferred candidate, I believed her to be well intentioned. Now I see she’s more sinister and cynical than I could have imagined. What a massive disappointment.

I don't think she's sinister. I think her ambition overrules her decency.

She's like Hillary, minus 60 pounds and 50 corpses under her.

You can find a lot more (as in a LOT more) commentary along these lines carpeting the length and breadth of Twitter. I presume that some of this carpet was manufactured in St. Petersburg, or wherever the bots and trolls do their dirty work these days. Some of it -- but not all of it.

Obviously, the presumption that Evil Elizabeth has slandered Saint Bernie is, in and of itself, sexist. Here we encounter a paradox, since the sexism now evident on Twitter proves the validity of what Bernie Sanders said to Elizabeth Warren at that meeting: A female candidate does face a serious obstacle.

But a socialist candidate undeniably faces a worse obstacle.

Does modern feminism beget sexism? Earlier, I opined that sexism has worsened over the past decade. I don't have numbers to back that opinion; it's more of a gut reaction. But I'd wager that many of my readers have guts similar to mine. 

Why has sexism worsened? My suspicion is that sexism ticked up when feminism changed: What was once an honorable and necessary egalitarian movement has devolved into something much less attractive -- into puritanism, into the reflexive hatred of all males, into the absurd demand that all women be considered beyond question or criticism. In short, feminism has become a unceasing series of rationales for unreason.

Once again, I direct your attention to a brilliant essay titled "Why I no longer identify as a feminist," by Helen Pluckrose, one of the true geniuses of our age. For her, feminism went wrong when it became infected by the philosophical movement called postmodernism.

Very simplistically, it was an academic shift pioneered by Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard which denied that reliable knowledge could ever be attained and claimed that meaning and reality themselves had broken down. It rejected large, overarching explanations (meta-narratives) which included religion but also science, and replaced them with subjective, relative accounts (mini-narratives) of the experiences of an individual or sub-cultural group. These ideas gained great currency in the humanities and social sciences and so became both an artistic movement and a social “theory.” They rejected the values of universal liberalism, the methods of science and the use of reason and critical thinking as the way to determine truth and form ethics. Individuals could now have not only their own moral truths but their own epistemological ones. The expression “It’s true for me” encapsulates the ethos of postmodernism. To claim to know anything to be objectively true (no matter how well-evidenced) is to assert a meta-narrative and to “disrespect” the contrary views of others which is oppressive (even if those views are clearly nonsense.) The word “scientism” was created for the view that evidence and testing are the best way to establish truths.

In social theory, postmodernists “deconstructed” everything considered true and presented all as meaningless. However, having done this, there was nowhere else to go and nothing more to say. In the realm of social justice, nothing can be accomplished unless we accept that certain people in a certain place experience certain disadvantages. For this, a system of reality needs to exist, and so new theories of gender and race and sexuality began to emerge comprised of mini-narratives. These categories were held to be culturally constructed and constructed hierarchically to the detriment of women, people of color and LGBTs. Identity was paramount.

Liberal feminist aims gradually shifted from the position:

“Everyone deserves human rights and equality, and feminism focuses on achieving them for women.”

to

“Individuals and groups of all sexes, races, religions and sexualities have their own truths, norms and values. All truths, cultural norms and moral values are equal. Those of white, Western, heterosexual men have unfairly dominated in the past so now they and all their ideas must be set aside for marginalized groups.”

Liberal feminism had shifted from the universality of equal human rights to identity politics. No longer were ideas valued on their merit but on the identity of the speaker and this was multifaceted, incorporating sex, gender identity, race, religion, sexuality and physical ability. The value of an identity in social justice terms is dependent on its degree of marginalization, and these stack up and vie for primacy. This is where liberal feminism went so badly wrong.

I apologize for quoting at such length. Please read the rest of this essay: Pluckrose is absolutely brilliant. Before I encountered this monograph, similar views had been burbling in the back of my own brain for a number of years, although I never knew how to express those thoughts. Pluckrose found the words that I had hunted but could not capture.

Elizabeth Warren must attack Trump FROM THE RIGHT

Elizabeth Warren has discovered that Bernie Sanders is a made-in-Moscow backstabber -- half Roger Stone, half Jeremy Corbyn.

“I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me,” Ms. Warren, of Massachusetts, said. “I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.”

After months of studiously avoiding any negative words about Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren went on to cite the divisiveness of the 2016 primary race between Mr. Sanders and Hillary Clinton, implying it had helped President Trump. “We all saw the impact of the factionalism in 2016, and we can’t have a repeat of that,” she warned. “Democrats need to unite our party and that means pulling in all parts of the Democratic coalition.”

Sorry, Liz. You can't expect anything from a pig but a grunt. Bernie won't change because dividing the party is his raison d'etre. And never forget: He's the candidate that Trump wants to face.

Many pundits believe that Warren, like Sanders, is too far to the left. I would like to suggest a strategy which would instantly deep-six that perception -- a strategy which, if enacted cannily, would not alienate Warren's progressive fans.

Attack Trump from the right. Attack him on the economy.

This is, in fact, the mode of attack that every Democrat should pursue, not just Warren. The Republicans have taught us that the best way to win is to attack an opponent's perceived strength.

The term "swiftboating" came into common parlance in 2004, when an astroturf group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" assailed John Kerry's war record. George W. Bush had dodged Vietnam, so it was pretty damned audacious for his backers to attack a veteran like John Kerry. But the trick worked.

A similarly audacious trick worked in 1988, when the elder Bush (a plutocrat if ever there was one) pinned the "elitist" label on Michael Dukakis (the working class son of an immigrant family).

Trump's greatest strength right now is the economy. Instead of changing the subject, Dems should pound him on that score.

And how can they do that? Look to the Vice Presidential debate of 1988, when a questioner asked Lloyd Bentsen (Dukakis' running mate) how the Dems could hope to prevail in the face of rosy economic news. Bentsen offered this classic answer:

"If you let me write $200 billion of hot checks every year, I could give you an illusion of prosperity, too."

Lloyd Bentsen attacked Reagan and Bush from the right, and his words were inarguable. Dan Quayle had no real riposte, and neither did the Republican talking heads who tried to spin the post-debate debate.

Reagan had come into office promising fiscal responsibility. Bentsen reminded the country that Reagan had actually run up a national debt which greatly exceeded the sum total of debt accumulated by all of his predecessors put together. In 1988 -- as I recall well -- most citizens (even the conservative ones) had an uneasy feeling that the economy rested on an illusion, that we were living on an ever-expanding pile of credit cards.

If only Dukakis had sounded the same theme! Throughout the rest of that campaign season, I practically screamed at the TV every time Dukakis' face appeared: "C'mon, Mike. Lloyd showed you how to do it. HOT CHECKS. HOT CHECKS. Keep using the term HOT CHECKS."

After Bentsen got in that memorable shot, Bush the elder did not run on the slogan "We're the party of prosperity." Instead, he ran on Willie Horton, "family values" (remember that one?) and -- sweartagod -- the Pledge of Allegiance. (If you weren't alive in 1988, you don't know just how inane that election was.)

I believe that Warren should resurrect Bentsen's line of attack.

In fact, she should use the exact same words: HOT CHECKS. Maybe that phrase is a little dated, because fewer people write checks nowadays, but I believe that Bentsen's words still possess the power to instill a sense of psychic unease.

Yeah, the job numbers are pretty darn good right now. But does anyone feel truly secure? We're all living on HOT CHECKS -- and deep down, everyone knows it. With the recklessness that marked his approach to business (and resulted in five or six bankruptcies), Trump has run up the most dizzying debt in history. Four trillion dollars' worth, last I looked. Trump has dwarfed the figure that Bentsen cited when he shocked the nation.

Even this president's most fervent supporters understand that the debt has skyrocketed, although the Trumpkins will never admit it.

The only modern president who kept the economy booming while simultaneously taking the government out of the red was Bill Clinton. Clinton ran a yearly surplus, and he put this country on a course which would have eradicated the debt altogether. Doing so would have resulted in much lower taxes, since so much of the budget is dedicated to paying the interest on the debt. Unfortunately, most young people don't know about Clinton's most important accomplishment. We've allowed the Republicans to toss an all-important piece of economic history down the memory hole.

Warren is the best person to attack Trump from the right precisely because she has been decried as a big spender. The Republicans will accuse her of hypocrisy: "How dare YOU call US spendthrifts?"

Her response should begin with the sentiment she has already made famous: "I am a capitalist to my core." Then she should say words similar to these:

"I have put in many long hours figuring out how to pay for every program I have proposed. If these calculations are wrong -- if it turns out that the budget won't allow for these programs -- then I just won't do them. I refuse to do what Trump has done. I refuse to endanger the future by running up reckless debts. Prosperity is an illusion if our children have to pay for it. Trump is just another Bernie Madoff."

Neither the Republicans nor Warren's progressive supporters will have an easy time finding grounds for complaint about this statement. Nobody wants to argue in favor of recklessness.

That statement will deliver a body blow to the "I gave you prosperity" argument. Moreover, this mode of attack will play to our collective memory of Trump's history of overspending and live-for-the-moment risk-taking.

Best of all, the Republicans will defend themselves they way they always do -- by arguing that the best way to eradicate debt is not to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy but to restrict entitlements. The acolytes of Ayn won't be able to stop themselves from going after Social Security. They're like dogs chasing after squirrels; they can't restrain themselves.

That's just what we want them to do. We want to see libertarians on Fox News railing against the evils of Social Security and Medicare.

The moment that happens is the moment I'll start believing that the Dems have a serious chance of winning in 2020.

To sum up:  

1. The best strategy is to attack Trump's greatest strength. 

2. Use the phrase HOT CHECKS HOT CHECKS HOT CHECKS. 

3. The best person to launch that attack is Elizabeth Warren. (But all the other Dems should follow suit.)

Hyper-paranoia! Or: Did you know that Roger Stone and Lyndon LaRouche were friends?

Political cult leader Lyndon LaRouche died less than a year ago, aged 96. It doesn't seem likely that a deceased criminal (he did time for credit card fraud) could still be relevant. And yet he is -- for three reasons:

1. We live in the age of the cult. Trumpism is a cult. Evangelical Christianity is a cult. The worshippers of Ayn Rand and Hans-Hermann Hoppe are very cult-y. On the Democratic side, two religious cult leaders -- Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson -- continue to seek the nomination. Postmodernism and feminism have become (in my unpopular opinion) dangerous cults.

In short: Our current political moment is LaRouche-ism writ large.

2. The LaRouche movement lives on, and they are all in for Trump. As we saw in a recent post, William Engdahl -- a former LaRouche lieutenant -- spread some Ukraine-gate disinformation which, in all likelihood, originated in Russia. (The Engdahl connection is what sent me down my current research trail.) The more you examine the Alt Right, the more LaRouche connections you'll find.

3. LaRouche exemplifies the right's manipulation of the left. We're only just beginning to comprehend the level of deception involved.

In his public persona, Lyndon LaRouche was all over the place -- pushing Marxism, praising FDR, advocating liberal causes (unions, stronger bank regulation), opposing Ronald Reagan, working with Ronald Reagan, working with the Klan, working with Mitch WerBell, allying himself with Alex Jones, hobnobbing with Nazis, advocating the nuclear annihilation of the USSR and promoting racism. The consummate shape-shifter, LaRouche pretended to be a Democrat even though his money came from the right.

It's important to understand one key fact: LaRouche lied constantly. He took whatever stance he needed to take in order to infiltrate liberal-ish movements and to ratfuck his political opponents. At his core, he was a Germanophile devoted to militarism, elitist rule and the destruction of democracy -- an early Alt Rightist.

LaRouche's schizy attitude toward Trump derives in part from the cult leader's '80s-era war against Roy Cohn, mentor to both Trump and Stone. As LaRouche biographer Dennis King wrote:

It was a classic case of Freudian reaction formation -- LaRouche, the Red-baiter of the 1980s, going after Cohn, the former aide to Joe McCarthy; LaRouche, the propagandist for organized crime, going after Cohn, its attorney and fixer; LaRouche, who lives like a millionaire but last paid income tax in 1973, going after Cohn, who evaded the IRS through similar tactics for most of his adult life. No two antagonists ever deserved each other more.

In 1979, King wrote an article which exposed LaRouche's ties to Nazis. LaRouche sued the magazine, only to discover that the publisher's attorney was Roy Cohn. Since Cohn was both gay and Jewish, it was natural for the homophobic and anti-Semitic LaRouche to conclude that Cohn had instigated the attack as part of a "Zionist" plot. He also accused Cohn of helping to mastermind the JFK assassination, a canard lifted from an infamous piece of samizdat called The Torbitt Document.

LaRouche joined forces with a former Cohn lover named Richard Dupont, who had fallen out with Cohn over a failed business arrangement. Madness ensued: Dupont and LaRocuhe launched an elaborate smear campaign involving faked interviews published in ersatz versions of real periodicals. (Of course, it's easy to denigrate someone like Cohn, who really was vile.) It all ended up with Dupont facing charges and Roger Stone -- who had recently helped Reagan get elected -- making sure that the judge threw the book at him.

Throughout this period, LaRouche publications assailed Cohn's friend Donald Trump. The attacks continued until early 2016. This example appeared on the LaRouche website in 2015:

We begin with the case of Donald Trump. He is, as Lyndon LaRouche points out, a product of J. Edgar Hoover’s New York circles, a coterie which included mobbed-up businessmen like Lewis Rosenstiel, along with Cardinal Spellman of the New York archdiocese, and various Wall Street establishment and media figures...

Hoover? Spellman? The scattershot nature of these accusations would now be considered...well, Trumpian. At the beginning of 2016, the cultists offered this ditty: "Don't be a chump for Trump: He's a festering pustule on Satan's rump!"

Yet before the year was out, LaRouche would declare Trump's win a "victory for the universe." If you go to YouTube and type in the name "LaRouche," you'll confront all sorts of pro-Trump videos. (Example.) As noted above, Engdahl has been laundering Russian disinformation in an effort to smear Trump's foes. 

The Stone factor. Does this switcheroo indicate the elasticity of LaRouchian thought, or was something more sinister afoot? Recall the cognate cases of H.A. Goodman and Cassandra Fairbanks, two alleged "leftists" who did everything they could to elect Trump. I believe that the LaRouche cultists disingenuously mouthed anti-Trump slogans in order to infiltrate the left.

How else can we explain the fact that Roger Stone -- king of the dirty tricksters -- considers LaRouche “A friend of mine, a good friend of mine, and a good man.” Even more tellingly, Stone also claimed that LaRouche played an "important backstage role" in Trump's election.

A little more than a year ago, this Mother Jones investigation looked into the Trump/LaRouche connection. The piece reminds us of an aspect of the Steele Dossier which nobody likes to discuss:

Buried in Christopher Steele’s dossier on Trump’s possible links to Russia was an August 2016 report with this allegation: A “Kremlin official involved in US relations” had claimed that Russia facilitated a LaRouche delegation’s trip to Moscow, offering members of LaRouche’s group assistance and enlisting them in an effort to disseminate “compromising information” as part of the Kremlin’s 2016 influence campaign. A lawyer with ties to both Stone and LaRouche’s network has claimed that he introduced Stone to a key LaRouche aide in early 2016, as Trump began to secure the Republican nomination.

When did Stone first link up with LaRouche?

This July, Stone delivered a video address to a LaRouche gathering in Germany, where LaRouche, who is in declining health, and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, now live. Stone seemed eager to embrace LaRouche and win over the crowd, recounting how he had “evolved” to embrace the “extraordinary and prophetic thinking” of LaRouche. Stone said he first met LaRouche in New Hampshire in 1980 during one of LaRouche’s many failed presidential campaigns, while Stone was working as an aide to Ronald Reagan. Noting he was a more “conventional conservative” at the time, Stone remarked that he then believed that “Dr. LaRouche’s views were somewhat exotic."

Frankly, I don't care what one man thinks of the other man's views. The important question is this: Did the two men form a tactical alliance?

One of Stone's rules is "Always use a cut-out" -- and LaRouche, with his ability to ingratiate himself into both far left and far right circles, would have been spectacularly useful to Stone's clients. LaRouche's well-disciplined political cult could do things to elect Reagan -- and subsequent Republicans -- that no-one else could do, and none of their dirty tricks would trace back to the GOP. In 1988, for example, the LaRouchies spread false reports that Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis had been treated for clinical depression.

Infiltration. LaRouche helped the Republican cause despite his proclaimed disdain for the Bush clan. LaRouchite Webster Tarpley wrote a very hostile biography of "Poppy" Bush -- a book embraced by progressives, who foolishly ignored the poorly-sourced conspiracy theories and worshipful attitude toward Lyndon LaRouche. Yet LaRouche aided the 2000 election of George W. Bush: Evidence indicates that his movement infiltrated and manipulated the Ralph Nader campaign, which siphoned enough votes from Gore in Florida to toss the contest to Dubya.

Tom Weiss -- a quirky New York left-leaning activist and occasional candidate -- gave the below-embedded interview some fourteen years ago, when the political world was a very different place. Many of his points now seem prescient. Naming names and offering many examples, Weiss accuses the LaRouche cult of adopting "more left than thou" tactics in order to split the opposition to Republican candidates. His basic theory: Fascists will always aid Republican candidates -- even the ones they personally despise -- since corrupt politicians are likely to weaken democracy. The worse things get, the better things are for those who want to subvert the system.

Weiss also asserts that Bloomberg owed his rise to a couple of political cultists, Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman, both of whom have LaRouche links. I may have more to say about that, if Bloomberg becomes a major factor in the 2020 election.

Weiss made similar assertions in his Up Front News website, which ceased activity in 2016. Although some of his language seems over-the-top, I must confess that Weiss has observed radical politics on the ground and on the scene, while I rarely venture out of my attic. Thus, it is possible that his views aren't so hyperbolic as they may seem at first. (I wouldn't mind it if a New York activist chimed in to confirm or to dispute Weiss' views.)

Here's a sample of what he has to say about LaRouche and Nader:

As far as I am aware, only UP FRONT News reported the fact that the Ralph Nader campaign was essentially controlled by a number of ultra-"left" political extremists, mostly in New York City, known as "Newmanites", some connected to the quite notorious ultra-left/ultra-right/ultra-left megalomaniac racist and convicted felon "intellectual" dictator-wannabe Lyndon LaRouche. The strategy of "social therapy" cult leaders LaRouche-"educated" "Dr." Fred Newman and his anti-Semitic protégé Lenora Fulani was to bash the Democrats and the Republicans as "the same", while weaning votes away from the Democrats (to Nader), thereby helping the Republicans.

From a 2008 Weiss post:

In recent years LaRouche has been actively fifth columning his way into the left via embedding his people in the peace movement and the Green Party. Key operatives, all loyal to Lenora Fulani (who won't talk about LaRouche), include outwardly articulate and recurrently rational frauds such as Paul ("Zool") Zulkowitz, who got himself deeply embedded in the peace movement, the Ralph Nader for president campaigns, and with the extraordinarily politically gullible peace mom Cindy Sheehan.

The LaRouche split-the-left-strategy was played out to politically lethal effect in 2000 when the Nader candidacy helped to elect Cheney/Bush. Nader is apparently a slow learner as he ran again in 2004 and 2008, each time drawing fewer votes. UP FRONT News, noting that the excremental Kann served as Nader's voice in New York, vigorously opposed Nader's candidacies.

Weiss himself was, and probably still is, "extraordinarily politically gullible" on the topic of Bernie Sanders. As readers know, I came to despise Sanders, whom I consider the ultimate exemplar of the "split the Dems" methodology. Throughout 2016, Bernie Sanders and his obnoxious zombie followers (backed by Russia) tirelessly spread anti-Hillary smears. Was anyone truly surprised when Bernie spokeswoman Cassandra Fairbanks was photographed with Roger Stone, or when Bernie's campaign manager turned out to have strong links to Manafort's party in Ukraine?

Stone has never made any secret of his fondness for fracturing the Democratic opposition. As I wrote in an earlier post:

Y'see, I learned from my mistake back in 1980. That was the year of the John Anderson "third party" campaign which crippled Jimmy Carter. At the time, the progs all adored John Anderson because he was endorsed by Doonesbury and Saturday Night Live. If you didn't support Anderson, you couldn't join Club Hipster.

Guess what? The Anderson campaign was just another Roger Stone scheme. Bet you didn't know that. At the time, nobody would have believed that assertion.

Every election season, the purists join the latest cult of personality -- Anderson, Nader, Obama, Bernie -- and the progs get pluperfectly pissed off whenever I refuse to swig the same Kool-Aid to which they've become addicted.

The Third Position. LaRouche's mad dance between opposite sides of the political ballroom should be seen as part of a larger strategy (or philosophy) called the Fascist Third Position. Most Americans have never heard this term. They should acquaint themselves with it: In the future, we're likely to hear much more from the Third Positionists, who defy conventional right/left categorizations.

(As they say in Europe, anyone who claims to be beyond right and left is usually on the right -- the far right.)

In short and in sum: If you are politically active, you have to be very careful in your associations, because you never know when your progressive pal may actually be a deeply closeted fascist.

Most would be astonished to learn how many Randroids and "Pepe people" have put out feelers to the quasi-socialist left. Steve Bannon has made no secret of his plans to work with left-wing parties in Europe. There is a strong area of overlap between the racist right and those "postmodern" progressives who espouse Identity politics, mostly because many "intersectional" po-mo thinkers harbor fantasies of racial and gender separation.

Never forget: Hitler was a pioneer in the politics of Identity. Never forget: Guy Lincoln Rockwell and Elijah Muhammed got along famously.

If you're brave enough to explore the wilder terrain of political paranoia, start here: "An Investigation into Red-Brown Alliances: Third Positionism, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and the Western Left." I don't know who wrote this anonymous monograph which, at 70,000 words (!) cannot be called an "article" or a "post." Obviously, I don't share the writer's anarchist stance; moreover, I'm wary of the latter half of this essay, which devolves into damnation-by-association. Nevertheless, the first half offers a gripping history of the ways in which the far right has infiltrated and manipulated the left -- a strategy which traces back to the 19th century.

Don't be surprised to see lefties and and righties kiss and make out like teens at a drive-in. They have something in common. They both consider democracy an impediment to the realization of their utopian fantasies.

What the hell is going on?

I don't claim to know what's going on right now. But it looks to me as though there was collusion between the Americans and the Iranians, allowing Iran to appease their own populace without inflicting too much actual damage on the Americans.

The Iranian missile strike on American locations in Iraq on Tuesday was a calibrated event intended to cause minimal American casualties, give the Iranians a face-saving measure and provide an opportunity for both sides to step back from the brink of war, according to senior U.S. officials in Washington and the Middle East.

If Iran and DC are secretly working together to keep this conflict from blowing up into war -- what about the Bolton factor? That's what matters, in terms of the politics of impeachment. In this situation -- a situation in which everyone lies -- only one thing is certain: Bolton wants regime change in Tehran. And he's willing to whatever it takes to accomplish that goal.

But perhaps Bolton is realistic enough to understand that the goal is best achieved after Trump wins in 2020. (Which he will.)

It's now being reported on CNN that the strike on Soleimani was done to appease Pompeo, who has been somewhat obsessed with the guy for years.

Maybe. But there has to be something else going on here -- a factor which everyone is missing.

Meanwhile...

Wow.

Fox just aired Republican Senator Mike Lee ripping into the briefing that he just received on Iran.

He calls the idea that Trump’s approach should not be debated “absolutely insane.”

pic.twitter.com/14j9vHMjTT

— Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) January 8, 2020

For more, see here.

"It was probably the worst briefing I've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said.

Lee said he left the briefing "somewhat unsatisfied" with the information given "outlining the legal, factual and moral justification for the attack."

"I find this insulting and demeaning," Lee added, saying that he now plans to vote in favor of a new war powers resolution from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. "That briefing changed my mind," Lee said.

Rand Paul shares this view. Something is afoot behind the scenes: As bad as the briefing no doubt was, I think that this has to do with a split within the Trump faction. One side wants to give Bolton and the neocons what they desire: War with Iran. The other does not.

Remember...?

Remember 2016? Remember when the BernieBros (and their propaganda-pushing pals in St. Petersburg) assured us that if Hillary won the election, war would inevitably result?

Well....

For years, Trump has managed to take two positions at once. Position one: "The Dems are war-mongers." Position 2: "The Dems are weaklings afraid to fight." Trump has now shifted entirely to Position 2, and his brainwashed followers will never admit that his contradictory stances are, in fact, contradictory. Such is the power of rationalization.

The Republicans are going to try to convince the nation that all opponents of Trump's new war must be fans of Qassem Soleimani. Remember 2003, when Republicans painted all Iraq war opponents as apologists for Saddam Hussein?

Here's another flashback: Remember when Trump accused Hillary of being too close to the Saudis? Right now, Trump is doing exactly what the corrupt Saudi royal family wants.

War, Trump's Iran links, and QAnon

We still have no details about the alleged attack that Soleimani was said to be planning. Obviously, if a real attack had been in the works, we would have been given that information days ago. Apparently, they've finally briefed members of Congress about the intel that led to the assassination; those who received this briefing were persuaded that the action was justified.

Trump says that he killed Soleimani to prevent a war, and I'm sure that this is true -- if by "prevent" one means "ignite."

People allied with this administration (and right now, I include John Bolton in that group) seem to have convinced themselves that the killing of Soleimani would spark a rebellion against the Iranian government. In the real world, the man was enormously popular with the Iranian people; even government critics loved Soleimani. The cry for vengeance is a genuinely populist sentiment and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

When Iranian retaliation comes (as it must), we will have to retaliate against the retaliation. The likely result: A war resulting in thousands of civilian deaths -- a far more atrocious war than the Iraq misadventure. Outside the combat zone, the region will explode with anti-American sentiment, which may take the form of an ISIS resurgence. (In a sense, Trump may heal the ancient Sunni/Shiite rift, since both factions could unite in their hatred of us.) I would not be surprised to see a humiliating withdrawal of American forces -- even from places like Kuwait and Qatar -- resulting in the ceding of the entire region to Russian influence.

Did Bolton really think that this assassination would cause the Iranian regime to fall?

Being ancient, I can't help thinking of Allen Dulles' assurances to JFK that the Bay of Pigs invasion would spark a Cuban counter-revolution. Then as now, the question is: Do these guys actually believe their own bullshit? The evidence now available strongly suggests that Dulles was not naive -- that he deliberately tried to manipulate Kennedy into war.

Is something similar occurring today? And if so, who now plays the Dulles role? Is it Bolton? Or someone else?

Trump and the Iranians. Not long ago, Trump set up a deal to build a hotel in Azerbaijan, an oil-rich former Soviet state bordering Iran. His local partners were in cahoots with, of all people, Qassem Soleimani. Check out this investigation.

Trump's local partners were relatives and close associates of Ziya Mammadov, the corrupt transportation minister of Azerbaijan. The guy somehow became a billionaire even though his salary was supposed to be only $12,000 a year.

Between 2004 and 2014, Mammadov family businesses spent more than half a billion dollars on large construction projects. They also poured money into a major construction-materials company, an insurance firm, and a new headquarters. It’s not clear how the Mammadovs funded such enormous investments while spending so much on themselves. They may have received loans, or secretly owned profitable businesses that supported the flurry of spending. Another explanation is that some of the investment money came from the Revolutionary Guard...

Of course, the Trump family would claim that this was simply one of those licensing deals, and that Trump shouldn't be held accountable for Mammadov's unsavory practices and associations. Turns out Ivanka took a particular interest in this deal and oversaw all of the little details of construction. How could she not know that the funding came from the Iranians?

In the words of an ancient Roman whose name I forget: Pecunia non olet. Money don't stink. That should be the Trump family motto.

The QAnon Qrazies. Someone ought to do a proper study of the popular hallucination that all members of "the elite" are desperate to rape a child while chanting "Hail Satan." Paranoia junkies define an elitist as "Anyone worth more than a million bucks who didn't vote for Trump." This belief has overrun the American brain the way weeds have overrun our backyard. (In warm weather, it looks like Day of the Triffids out there.)

This thread from journalist Kyle Clark, which I have taken the liberty of translating into something closer to normal prose, outlines the latest manifestation of this insanity.

Police say they broke up QAnon plot to kidnap a child in Denver's suburbs. An arrest affidavit outlines a plan for a QAnon "raid" to seize the child from what believers think is a Satanic pedophilia cabal of Democratic politicians and Hollywood stars.

The child being targeted is in the child protective services system. The child's non-custodial mother, Cynthia Abcug, was arrested in Montana last week on kidnapping and conspiracy charges.

An arrest affidavit says Abcug was living in Parker with a man she identified as a QAnon "sniper" and had told someone that she expected there would be injuries when QAnon believers carried out the "raid" to seize the child.

Abcug said child was with "evil Satan worshippers" and "pedophiles," according to an arrest affidavit. QAnon is a conspiracy theory that claims President Donald Trump is engaged in a secret war against a global child trafficking ring of prominent Democrats and celebrities.

Parker Police say the FBI has "identified QAnon-driven extremists as a domestic terrorism threat, the first time a fringe conspiracy theory has been labelled as such." Parker PD says the FBI memo points to previously undisclosed QAnon arrests.

Abcug's supporters had previously reached out to President Trump and his family for help in the custody case. Abcug is out on bond and due to appear in court in February. Our attempts to reach her have been unsuccessful.

Clark links to this local news account.

Abcug's daughter said her mother "had gotten into some conspiracy theories" and was "spiraling down," the warrant says.

She also said that Abcug was "planning a raid" where they "intended to kidnap" her other child, according to the warrant.

Abcug's daughter believed the raid would be carried out by members of the QAnon group. According to the warrant, QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory detailing a supposed secret plot by an alleged deep state against President Donald Trump and his supporters.

She expressed concern that "people would be injured in the raid" because "those people are evil Satan worshipers," the warrant says.

According to the warrant, Abcug was known to the PPD from a prior case where she was investigated for "factitious disorder imposed on another and medical child abuse." The victim, in that case, is redacted and the outcome of the investigation is not known.

"Factitious disorder imposed on another" refers to what used to be called Munchausen syndrome by proxy -- faking or causing the illness of a family member in order to gain sympathy.

People with this disorder present another person as sick, injured or having problems functioning, claiming that medical attention is needed. Usually this involves a parent harming a child. This form of abuse can put a child in serious danger of injury or unnecessary medical care.

In the past, I've argued that the popularity of the "occult pedophilia" meme among the Alex Jones crowd is a form of projection. Contrary to popular misperception, pedophiles are likely to be low in IQ, income and social status. In other words, the kind of lowbrows who take QAnon and Alex Jones seriously are also likelier than others to feel a sexual attraction to children.

As for occultism: I know from experience that conspiracy buffs -- especially the ones who prattle on and on about Jesus -- tend to have a secret fascination with horoscopes, charms, divination and other forms of magical thinking. I could write a whole book about that.

The current case proves my point. Abcug is a child abuser who insists that others are the real child abusers.

Projection.

Naturally, the QAnon crazies have responded by accusing the journalists involved -- including Kyle Clark -- of being part of the Satanic child abuse conspiracy.

I’m sorry the plot got broken up to save the child from a Satanic pedo group. Who wouldn’t be.
We know now what we all suspected about @KyleClark

— WeCanDoItMAGA⭐️⭐️⭐️WWG1WGA (@Cookie4TRUMP) January 7, 2020

These cranks are hopelessly sick. And they are legion.

The truth about Bolton. Plus: The Protocols of Soros

After sidestepping his moral responsibility to testify during the House impeachment inquiry, John Bolton now says that he wants to testify before the Senate. Why the change? His stated reasoning is as weak as coffee made from thrice-used grounds. Obviously, something else is going on.

It doesn't take more than a moment's thought to comprehend what that "something else" might be: Iran.

For ages, Bolton has been itching for regime change. He wants war the way a baby wants Mama's teat. And now Trump is giving him just what he craves.

Clearly, a deal has been cut; another quid, another quo. Trump is fulfilling Bolton's great desire, and in return, Bolton will fulfill Trump's great desire. What Trump wants is exonerative testimony designed to make the Dems look horrible.

I predict that Bolton will shout "Liar!" at Bill Taylor, Fiona Hill, Marie Yavonivitch and the others. Not only that: I predict that he will endorse a particularly nasty little conspiracy accusation that the Russians and the Alt Rightists have been cooking up. (More on that in a moment.)

I tried to listen to MSNBC's coverage of the Great Bolton Turnaround, but Ari Melber's show was so infuriating that my ears started to emit steam. Ari's guests -- even David Corn! -- were all stupefyingly naive. They all spoke as if Bolton's testimony was something Pelosi should consider desirable -- as if Bolton would feel compelled to tell the whole truth and nothing but.

Are these fools out of their gourds? Can't they foresee how this thing will play out? Don't they have any pessimism in their souls? Christ on a cookie, I've met five year-olds with more cynical attitudes!

On days like this, I want to scream at every teevee pundit: "There's a giant custard pie hurtling toward your face at this very moment. Wake up and smell the whipped cream." The only observer with sufficiently captious instincts is, of course, Marcy Wheeler:

Response to Bolton's announcement he'd comply with a Senate subpoena seems like a Rorschach largely divorced from consideration of what an asshole he is.

Her readers seem to have a pretty good grasp on how the world works:

Bolton is gaming us and the media is falling for it.

I find it suspicious it comes after he gets what he wants in Iran.

Why do we assume he would tell the truth?

The Protocols of Soros. To get a rough idea as to what sort of Big Lie we can expect Bolton to tell, start here. It's a story from last month describing the conspiracy theory that Evil Soros is the secret power behind the Ukraine scandal. Yes, Evil Soros somehow forced Fiona Hill and the others to testify against Trump.

Many on the left do not yet realize is that this conspiracy theory has been backstopped by a trove of fake documents, which take the form of hacked emails. Well, to be honest, I'm assuming that these texts are faked, or at least seriously yanked out of context. "Tyler Durden" at Zero Hedge accepts these "hacked emails" at face value. Do we need any further confirmation of their falsity?

The above-linked piece was actually written by one William Engdahl. Engdahl is a German-based, Texas-born climate change denier who writes about "Geopolitics and Tradition." (As noted in an earlier post, whenever you see the word Tradition written with a Capital T, you're probably dealing with a fascist-in-disguise.) Tellingly, he used to belong to the neo-fascist LaRouche organization. Back in the day, the LaRouchies spent their time concocting one fascist falsehood after another; why should I presume that any of those people have changed?

"Third positionists" like Engdahl are a slippery lot: By critiquing wealthy bankers, the CIA and the east coast Establishment, these writers have often managed to gain readers on both the right and the left. This article should give you some necessary background. You may also want to see this blog on "Third Position" fascism and the various Red/Brown alliances that have popped up over the years.

By the way, the illustration to your right does not represent my view. I include it here to summarize the viewpoint promulgated by Trump's defenders: That simplistic graphic tells you all you really need to know. Although the "Blame Soros" theory hasn't yet received a massive amount of publicity, I expect that situation to change soon. 

So that's how things will play out: The Trumpers will argue that Soros engineered both Russiagate and Ukrainegate, and they will "prove" the point with bogus documents I call the Protocols of Soros.

Let's not make the error of presuming that only Trump's most gullible rubes could fall for such a ploy. Rudy "More Jewish than Soros" Giuliani has already proven that he's on board.

Don't be surprised to see John Bolton tell the Senate something which will prove very helpful to "Protocols of Soros" conspiracy theory. Again: Read this. Although I could be wrong, I think it offers a preview of Bolton's testimony.

If Trump does not embark upon a crazed, massive anti-Bolton Twitter rampage tonight, you'll know that Johnnie and Donnie have reached a secret agreement. Sure, Trump may make a few anti-Bolton noises just to keep up appearances, but those tweets probably won't be touched with the kind of madness we see when Donnie get truly ticked off.

If Pelosi is smart, she will never send those articles of impeachment to the Senate. As a face-saving excuse, she should demand that McConnell recuse himself, which he would never do. The goal should be to prevent a Senate trial and testimony by Bolton.

Billboards, Bumper Stickers and Bloomberg

Cannon here: This is a guest post by David Jay Morris. He addresses a problem which has troubled me for years: How to "deprogram" the hard-core Trump supporters who constitute somewhere between thirty and forty percent of the population?

Progressives often fall into the trap of presuming that such people are beyond reach, that the Trumpers are like the boys-become-donkeys in Pinocchio -- no longer human, no longer capable of reason or comprehensible speech.  It's hard not to agree with that pessimistic conclusion after one has read a story like this one about a pro-Trump evangelical rally.

They came to pray with their president, though in truth many came just to worship him.

But the fact that such a rally has become necessary indicates that even these voters may, in fact, be open to independent thinking. Christianity Today editor Mark Galli has recently made the same point. Asked about the reaction to his famous editorial, he noted:

I was a little surprised that Donald Trump and then Franklin Graham thought it was worth commenting on. And it did strike me as a bit ironic that they both said that it wasn’t significant or going to make any difference. It makes you immediately think that they do think it’s significant, or they wouldn’t comment on it.

You may have decided -- as I did, some years back -- that a back-and-forth dialogue with Trump's evangelical supporters is pointless, since right-wingers have become so wedded to bizarre conspiracy theories that they no longer recognize "normal" points of reference. Nevertheless, clever tactics might be able to penetrate the protective force fields surrounding their brains.

Finding a way to communicate with these robots is an extremely important endeavor. To accomplish that end, the few billionaires who favor our side should give up their self-important quests for personal glory. Instead, they should fund campaigns intended to liberate the minds of their fellow citizens. The goal should not be conversion to liberalism but an increased receptivity to new thoughts.

Again: The words below the asterisks were written by David Jay Morris.

* * *

At long last, the obvious truth that the Republican Party under Trump has become an out-and-out cult is starting to break though into America’s mainstream consciousness. Along with this, the realization is growing that we are far, far beyond the realm of normal politics and that American democracy now faces an existential threat unlike any we have known since the Civil War.

The possibility that we could lose this thing is real.

And that’s not even the worst of it – if four more years of Trump are somehow rammed down our throats, democracy and majority rule in the U.S. will not be the only thing to go. Any real chance to derail a runaway climate catastrophe in our or our children’s lifetimes will die as well.

To say that the very survival of civilization as we know it – if not the human race itself – is at stake sounds so crazy that I hesitate to write it.

But that is where we are.

The question – the only question – is how do we stop it?

Put another way, how can 35 percent of the U.S. population be deprogrammed, especially when they live in a walled-off propaganda-based information universe in which up is down, night is day, and people seriously believe that Donald Trump is the second coming of Cyrus the Great?

A small ray of hope came recently with the Billy Graham founded Evangelical Christian Magazine Christianity Today’s editorial supporting the impeachment and removal of President Trump from office for the obvious reason that he lacks the basic morality the office requires.

While an isolated action unlikely in itself to have much impact, this break from the lockstep white Evangelical support for Trump is important because these are his shock troops – the true believers without whom the cult of Trump would be nothing. And while any objective observer can easily see that no one could be further removed from the teachings of Jesus in their words, deeds and thoughts than Trump, his WETS (White Evangelical Trump Supporters) do actually believe themselves to be Christians. Anything that shakes this self-image – that causes people in the movement to start to recognize the fundamental incompatibility of these two positions – represents a huge threat to the cult of Trump, and the power it lets Trump wield over what was once the Republican Party.

Where Christianity Today’s editor-in-chief Mark Galli’s Trump criticism might fall short, however – along with that of other serious and rational believers such as Pete Buttigieg – is in failing to recognize the strength of the lizard-brain fear state that has taken hold of the WETS. Theirs is not the well-considered Christianity of Thomas Aquinas. It’s pro-wrestling Protestantism – simplistic, bombastic and fake to the core – The perfect match for Trump’s pro-wrestling presidency.

So how do we break through that?

One answer might lie not in rational, well-considered arguments, but in fighting fear with fear. Don’t question the wakadoodle theology, use it. In simplistic terms, frame Trump for what he ought to be in the fundamentalist pantheon – the Deceiver and agent of the Antichrist. Stress how following Trump endangers not just the country and the planet, but the fate of their souls.

Okay, you might be saying, so far, so good, but how do we get these ideas into the constant view of the people who need to see them? They aren’t exactly going to be promoted on Fox News or the Christian Broadcasting Network, so what can be done?

This brings us, at last, to the title of this article – Billboards, Bumper Stickers and Bloomberg.

Do you really want to save our country – and the world – Mr. Bloomberg? How about taking a chunk of your vast fortune and using it flood the purple and red states with hard-hitting billboards painting Trump and his friends in exactly the way they ought to be framed if one accepts the theology and vocabulary of fundamentalist Christianity.

For example, imagine a large billboard on the upper left side of which is an image of Jesus ministering to the poor and in the lower right unflattering images of Trump and various prominent proponents of the so-called “prosperity gospel.” The large caption could read, “Do you worship the Messiah…or the modern-day money-lenders?” In smaller letters at the bottom of all the billboards would be, “Follow the Divine, not the Deceiver. It’s not just your country that’s at stake. Visit www.TrumpTheDeceiver.com” (A supporting web site which could be created to document the myriad ways Trump and his cronies are anything but Christian.)

Another one might show an image of a wise and compassionate Jesus in the same position in the upper left with a picture of a ranting Trump on the right with Jared Kustner’s 666 building in the background. The large caption could read, “Do you worship the Divine or the Deceiver?” Smaller text under Jesus might say, “Brought God’s Good News to the world.” Under Trump could be, “Fined $2 million for operating a fraudulent charity. Settled fraud lawsuits against Trump University for £25 million. Lied to or misled the American people more than 15,000 times since becoming president.”

A rather different one could show a large picture of Trump and Putin sitting together with the simple caption, “Putin and Trump are not your friends.”

Others could focus more on the bogus theology underpinning the whole Christian right enterprise. For example, there could be a billboard divided in half by a vertical line. On the left at the top, there could be a picture of Jesus teaching and underneath it the caption, “What Jesus said about abortion:” Underneath that would, of course, be nothing, since Jesus is never reported to have said anything on the subject – although both abortion and infanticide were common practices in his day. In the top right area could be an image of Jesus throwing over the tables of the money changers in the temple, under which would be the caption, “What Jesus said about the greedy rich:” followed by choice biblical verses such as, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed.” “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” “Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap.” And of course, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

A similar one could focus on homosexuality vs. concern for the poor.

You get the idea. More clever folks than I could easily come up with dozens more.

Needless to say, the life-span of most of them would probably be quite short, which is another reason why it would be ideal for this project to be backed by someone like Mr. Bloomberg. As soon as one was burned down, shot up or painted over, a new one would need to go up in its place.

As everyone knows though, Mr. Bloomberg isn’t the only billionaire throwing millions and millions of dollars at the Democratic Party nomination, so I have a suggestion for Mr. Steyer as well. With an estimated net worth of some $1.6 billion, he is a very, very wealthy man…but not quite in Bloomberg’s league. Instead of billboards, why not spend a few million on a really tough bumper sticker campaign?

Some of them might use the same themes as the billboards:

“Do you worship the Divine or the Deceiver?”

Trump is NOT your friend!

“Do you worship the Messiah or the Money Changers!”

Trump is NOT your friend!

Others might go in a little different direction. For example:

“Trump worships greed. Do you?”

“Jesus wasn’t white!”

“A brown man died for your sins.”

Why do you hate them?

How about it, Michael and Tom?

According to the New York Times, Trump is now overtly telling his WETS that God is “on our side.” What are you going to do about it?

About the author: Now semi-retired, long-time believer in progressive causes David Jay Morris is a former international news editor and columnist for the Guam Daily Post and has worked for the New York Daily News and Long Island Business Review. Holding British-American dual nationality, he now lives in the UK with his wife and dogs and works part-time as a teacher, Japanese – English translator and editor

Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.?

I had a wonderful Christmas vacation -- a vacation from writing, from the news, from Trump, from everything depressing. I'd have preferred to stay on vacation for a while longer (maybe forever). But as always, something came up -- a reminder that we all have to do what we can, however small, to fight the forces of villainy. Even a seemingly-pointless gesture of defiance carries more honor than silent acquiescence.

The killing of Soleimani could well be the pretext for a war that the neocons have demanded since the W administration. However, I do not agree with Jonathan Chait: I do not believe that Trump believes that war with Iran will insure re-election. In order to gain the power he seeks, Trump needs to do something far more audacious.

In my view, taking out the General was only step one of the plan.

Step two may include the staging of a terrorist event in the United States -- probably directed against one of Trump's properties. For reasons suggested in several previous posts, I have tentatively predicted an attack (possibly using a portable nuclear device) on Trump's troubled tower in Chicago.

A terrorist attack within the borders of this nation -- an attack attributed to Iran -- will allow Trump to declare emergency powers. God help us.

Are you now tempted to accuse me of being an Alex Jonesian conspiracy theorist? So be it. One of the advantages of being a "fringe" writer is that I can put my worst fears on the record -- and my worst fears have sometimes proven prescient. Fears similar to mine have no doubt popped into the minds of many "respectable" pundits, but they aren't allowed to say what I can say.

Pompeo has claimed that Soleimani did an unspecified something which posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans -- probably American diplomats. (Wait. This administration now likes diplomats?) This absurd assertion deserves to be classified alongside Bush's big whopper about Saddam's WMDs.

Think about it. Why would Soleimani engage in a plot to "kill many more Americans," as Trump claimed on teevee a short while ago? Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a provocation.

The Iranians know full well that the neocons have spent the last fifteen years trying to gin up an American invasion of their country. Why would the Iranians choose this historical moment to give their enemies the pretext they have long sought?

Iran spent years fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. More than any other single individual -- and certainly more than Trump -- Soleimani deserved to be called "The man who conquered ISIS." As a result of this struggle, Iran had finally gained everything it wanted in Syria: The withdrawal of the Americans, the abandonment of the Kurds, and end of the threat to Assad. Iran had become the de facto power within Iraq, where Soleimani basically called the shots.

Why on earth would Iran do something now to invite the Americans back into the region?

Simple logic forces us to doubt Trump's claim that Soleimani had planned an attack on American diplomats. Simple logic tells us that no such threat existed. It's another Big Lie from the biggest liar in the history of American politics.

I'm sure that the Trumpers will eventually backstop this Big Lie with just enough pseudo-evidence to intimidate the Democrats. We must pressure the Dems to treat this pseudo-evidence with the contempt it defers. Let's not repeat the mistakes of 2003.

If an "imminent threat" existed, we all would have heard specifics already.

If, as Trump has claimed, the government caught Soleimani "in the act," the public would already know what that act was.

More importantly, Congress should have heard the details in closed hearings.

The claim that there was not enough time to notify Congressional leaders is still another lie, easily proven as such. Trump managed to give a heads-up to Lindsey Graham, who is not one of the so-called "Gang of Eight" required by law to be notified. Lindsey received word of the coming strike on Soleimani while playing golf with Trump out at Mar-A-Lago -- a trip which lasted from December 21 to December 29.

If Trump had enough to time to blab everything to Lindsey, he had enough time to inform the Gang of Eight as the law dictates. All members of that group would have treated national secrets as secrets. They have always have in the past.

Most telling of all was a New Year's Eve tweet from Eric Trump, a towering intellectual who always knows when to play it subtle.

Lindsey Graham was in Florida from December 20-29th, and he was briefed on this operation then. So tell me again, why is @EricTrump's tweet, which took place on the 31st, definitely not about this? pic.twitter.com/5ADT5QLc9m

— Shrouded☠Sciuridae (@ShroudSciuridae) January 3, 2020

Eric offered nothing but gleeful, sniggering childishness. If he had learned about an imminent attack on Americans, his tweets would have taken a very different tone.

You may also want to take into consideration this tweet from Mark Ames:

Been hearing for awhile that Trump Admin seriously believes the DC think-tank brainslop that Iran is on the verge of a youth-led color revolution, just needs one last push to bring about a pro-NATO Maidan revolution in Tehran. We're ruled by dumb psychos. https://t.co/l3wIfnX0qK

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) January 3, 2020

Ames is hardly my favorite person. He's a YAFL (Yet Another Fucking Libertarian), and he's close to the vile Taibbi. But sometimes you have to chat with a demon if you want to learn the latest rumors from Hell.

In that light, you may want to check out this tweet:

Like clockwork, here come the troll and bot accounts with the @.word12345678 usernames that were created literally *today*, to spread propaganda defending the US war of aggression against Iran and call for regime change

This is so obviously a gov-backed disinformation operation pic.twitter.com/jokpd0yQj9

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 3, 2020

Follow-up tweets:

Tens of thousands of bot accounts spread mountains of propaganda to support the US-backed fascist coup in Bolivia

These fake accounts flooding social media with disinformation have become a standard feature of US hybrid warfare against independent nationshttps://t.co/4kTCwz5JJE

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 2, 2020

Finally, you really have to see the brief, boggling video embedded in the following tweet. Trump said these words during the Obama administration...

This Donald Trump video on Iran is going to rip a hole right through the space/time continuum. pic.twitter.com/0sUICmfbJV

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) January 3, 2020

Message to the Dems: Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq, coupled with the economic disaster of 2008, should have ended the GOP once and for all. But that didn't happen.

Why didn't it? Because the mightiest propaganda machine in history managed to convince millions of people that the Dems bore co-responsibility for Dubya's insanity: "Hillary voted for the authorization of force! Therefore, she made Bush invade Iraq! She made Colin Powell lie about WMDs!" That message was blasted all over the right and the left side of the web.

The dolts who now blame that evil war on the Dems are the same dolts who, throughout 2003, chanted thought-stopping cliches like "Freedom isn't free!"

Fact: In 2003, only lefties mounted large-scale anti-war protests. Yes, I know full well that not all liberals marched in, or approved of, those protests -- but nobody on the right did so, although there were a few ineffective anti-war murmurs on the libertarian and paleocon blogs. (They opposed the invasion for reasons of their own.) Rightwingers of that era manipulated the Dems mercilessly by screaming "TRAITOR!" at anyone who questioned Dubya's honesty and wisdom. In 2004, Ann Coulter wrote an entire book which pushed the idea that liberals were in the secret pay of Saddam Hussein.

Seventeen years later, the history of that period has received an Orwellian rewrite. Trump got away with portraying himself as an early opponent of the Iraq war, even though he was no such thing. The Republican party has suffered almost no consequences for engineering America's most disastrous conflict.

Such is the mind-warping, history-twisting power of the right-wing media.

If there is war with Iran, the situation will go south very quickly. Bank on it. When war happens, before it happens, the public must understand that the sole responsibility for this coming debacle lies with Trump and the Republican party. Elizabeth Warren's initial response is pretty good, but she must be more forceful. So must all of the other Dems.

The best way to prevent further wars is to de-fang the right.