Thursday, September 24, 2020

War is coming

The hunt for the right words has never hurt so much. 

What happened in Kentucky was terrifying, outrageous, unjust and infuriating. Although the grand jury's decision was racist, this problem goes well beyond race. If the police are allowed to murder an innocent woman asleep in her bed, not one of us is safe. We live in a police state. 

Although I've always advocated peace, even I felt an immediate desire to see buildings burn. 

Or rather, part of me wanted that. As before, the superego must override the Id. Violence can only help Trump. If Trump wins, the police will become even more Nazi-fied. If Biden wins, there is a good chance that reform will occur.

My gut reaction: The Trump forces arranged for yesterday's miscarriage of justice to occur, and they may be arranging further outrages before election day.

I can't prove that this conspiracy exists, but I can smell it. Trump wants violence. He wants to scare white voters into voting for a law-and-order authoritarian.

Trump has, in essence, outlined plans for a coup. Even Republicans were bothered by yesterday's statement. These words will live in infamy:

Forty-one days before the election, Donald Trump failed to affirm on Wednesday the most basic civic question any president could get. "Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" "Well, we're going to have to see what happens," Trump said from the White House press room podium. "I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster ... get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very ... there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."
The reporter who asked Trump that question was Brian Karem, who later tweeted:
This is the most frightening answer I have ever received to any question I have ever asked. I’ve interviewed convicted killers with more empathy. @realDonaldTrump is advocating Civil War.
Although Trump's deteriorating relationship with the English language makes his exact intention difficult to determine, I believe that our marble-mouthed Fuehrer said what he said because he hopes to dissuade voters from using mail-in ballots, even though he himself has voted by mail. (Or did he mean to "get rid" of all ballots? It's possible!)

Trump just validated this blog's longest-running theme: Computerized election rigging is real. Why else would he go to such lengths to prevent Americans from voting by mail? A mailed vote offers a paper trail. 

I have long argued that the only way Trump could have achieved total control of the Republican party is by threatening to reveal that party's greatest sin. He knows that pro-GOP operatives have interfered with presidential vote tabulations throughout this century.

How would this nation respond if this sin were unveiled?

Would every judge appointed by Bush and Trump have to resign? Would we nullify all Bush-era federal laws? Or would practicality force us to accept legislation signed by two anti-presidents who had no right to sign legislation? 

The Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of rites performed by priests later defrocked for grave offenses. We may have to adopt a similar stance.  

Vote by mail. Some Democrats have now begun to advise against mailed ballots. No. If Trump can use the post office, so can anyone else. 

I disagree with the conclusion of Barton Gellman's extraordinary article: Democrats must use the mail to vote. There is a good reason why Trump wants to scare you away from that method of voting. When the enemy says "Don't do that" -- that's what you do. 

The danger is this: Voting by mail means that a large "blue shift" may occur during the counting on election night. For a while, Trump will seem to be winning in Florida or Pennsylvania, but absentee ballots -- usually counted late in the game -- could shift those states to Biden. Trump wants his conspiracy-crazed followers to react with fury and violence if such a shift occurs. 

Trump wants war. He is the ultimate Boogaloo Boy. 

If war comes, our best weapon is the dollar. The red states are poor; money is blue. If we withhold our taxes, if we disrupt Wall Street, if we make commerce impossible -- we will win the coming war. Without blue money, the United States of America is out of business.  

If everything goes to hell, even the most obdurate Republican will admit through gritted teeth that Trump is not worth it. 

Trump has clearly stated that he wants a new Supreme Court to rule his way on election-related issues. He doesn't trust John Roberts. If Michael Wolff is right, Trump doesn't even trust Kavanaugh.

We must fight Trump's nominee as fiercely as the American army fought the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy. Not only that...

We must make clear to the Supreme Court that we will not accept a stolen election. 

We, not they, will decide what constitutes "stolen." Neither casuistry nor propaganda can blind us.

If Biden clearly wins but does not take the oath due to some Machiavellian machination -- there will be war. 

If that conflict ends the American experiment, so be it. Without democracy, this country has no right to exist.

Our Supreme Court justices, along with all others who hold power, must ask themselves: Is Donald Trump worth it? 

*  *  *

Here's an important thread by Asha Rangappa:

It is important to take note and be prepared for the unprecedented actions Trump says he intends to take after the election. But it is also important not to allow his *wishful* reality to *become the reality. To do that, consider Trump's psychological POV right now: 

Every time Trump spouts this kind of garbage, he is revealing that he is TERRIFIED. Ab. So. Lute. Ly. Terrified. His **existential** fear is losing. And he knows that there is a very good chance he is going to lose. And he can't do a damn thing about it. He will be a LOSER. 

Remember that in pretty much every instance Trump has faced like this in the past, he's had an exit strategy. He walks away. But he can't get out of the election. He's like a mail-order bride who has to go through with it. Except in his case, if he loses, he may end up in jail 

This situation is like the coronavirus. He understands the reality, he knows he can't escape it, so his only option is to create an alternate reality. Reality, however, caught up with him with COVID. So it is up to YOU to make sure the same happens with the election. 

I and @davidashimer wrote about various possibilities in this piece. An important way to empower ourselves, in addition to VOTING, is for commentators and media to manage expectations.... 

To wit: We have a process in place for elections. That process will be followed, whether he likes it or not. Every vote will be counted. Due to the high volume of mail-in votes, there will be delay in reaching a final result, which is proof that our process is WORKING. 

Empirical research shows that lies travel faster than the truth, especially on social media. Therefore, the previous tweet needs to saturate the information space, by everyone, starting NOW. Also, we WILL have a peaceful transfer of power, as we have for 231 years. Pass it on. 

Finally, this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. As long as the Constitution exists, we have peaceful means to resolve disputes -- like our judiciary -- and our voice. We retain the power of peaceful protest.

In short, this thread is a reminder that what Trump *says* is NOT a fait accompli. His goal is, as @RepSwalwell said in our #JusticeLeague event tonight, to sap you of hope. He does not have the power to do that. Don't let him. He is weak, and afraid. You are not.

Please try to be more rational and realistic, Joseph. The "money power" (yeah, I know that's a code term, but hey, you know it's accurate) will never let Trump stay in office one day past his usefulness to them, and they're already mighty disgusted that he hasn't done a full-scale invasion of Syria and Iran or an irrevocable war provocation with China despite the all the slimy promises that shadow-president Kushner made to the mega-donors, "defense" contractors and foreign banks during the last campaign.

If the Orange Oaf recklessly rambles much further out of the control of his true masters, why they'll simply give the go-ahead for whichever of the many on-the-shelf contingency plans for termination looks easiest (at the moment) for diverting suspicion and blame.

Truth be told, all of Donnie's likely replacements, on both sides of that illusory isle, have made similar covert commitments to the "money power" anyway, or they would never have risen to the lofty political heights where they currently perch -- like the buzzards they are at heart... waiting, watching and hoping... for Trumpy Dumpty to have his great fall.
Gellman's article was speculative bullshit, and The Atlantic never should have printed it. Glad you took him to task regarding mail-in ballots. That set my bullshit detector right off because I KNOW it is a great way to vote with little chance of fraud. I live in a state which has had it for TWENTY years, and nobody of either party wants to go back to the old system. Note Gellman never talked about the tampering of the electronic voting machines or tabulators. That to me was a giant red flag right off the bat regarding his article. His motive seems to be to depress voter turnout since according to him, Trump is going to rig the election or the outcome anyway. The article is completely irresponsible.
Anon, I don't like your use of that code term. This is an ANTI-Nazi blog.

I meant something different. As I've pointed out pretty relentlessly since this blog's founding (back in 2004), the red states are leech states: They take more from the federal government than they contribute in taxes. The blue states are producer states: They give more than they receive.

Financially, this country can live without Alabama or Mississippi. It can't live without New York or California or Illinois or Washington. The United States needs Silicon Valley tech gurus; it doesn't need hillbillies who blow up their trailers making meth.
Pick your points of outrage more carefully before gushing with all you've got. The Louisville grand jury received evidence and testimony (which they must have found credible) that although those cowboy-cops planning the pre-dawn drug raid did get a "no-knock" warrant, one of them decided to announce their presence anyway and, understandably, the gal's current bedmate then grabbed his pistol and fired first. Scared sh*tless, the fuzzy boys, of course, started blasting away but had such lousy aim, perhaps in dim light, that the poor woman got drilled by mistake.

The mainstream media's incessant, stir-the-pot repetition of the bare-bones details of the grisly story too infrequently mentioned the first shot or the fact that the EMT lady's previous live-in main-squeeze was the actual target of the drug-hunting goons' raid but their way-out-of-date "intelligence" missed the crucial fact that he'd skedaddled weeks earlier.

It was a colossal screw-up, not an intentional murder, and whoever the fascistic superior officer and/or judge are who requested and issued that reckless, unconstitutional warrant deserve, IMHO, much more blame and charges (criminal as well as civil) than those fecklessly pitiful officers who were obligated to carry it out or risk demotion or dismissal.
The matter should have gone to a jury. SOMEONE screwed up. I agree that the cops who entered the home did not intend to commit murder, but they shouldn't have been sent in there like that in the first place. If you pop into someone's house, chances are good that someone will pull a gun on you.

I've lived in some pretty iffy places, and I've seen cops in L.A. nab genuine bad guys. We're talking large operations with SWAT guys monitoring every possible means of escape. It was pretty fascinating. I respected those cops. They knocked on the door, they waited, they negotiated, they did everything they could to avoid weapons being discharged.
Joseph has already taken you to task, but the following observation is of some use.

You wrote “The "money power" (yeah, I know that's a code term, but hey, you know it's accurate)...” well, it is a code term for antisemites and the out-and-out Nazis, who used to be scarce. Maybe they still are, but riots and use online forums to appear more than they are.

If it were my blog, your post would go straight to the bit bucket, but Joseph is a good editor and discussion has it’s value. Just so that You know that We know what you are, and are not buying it.

The further problem is money power” is so vague as to be meaningless. We’re not little kids here, and we know that money makes the world move. But that hardly begins to explain the messy situation we are in. Indeed, the use of the term tends to obscure more than it reveals.

Joseph has provided a fair amount of information, suggested books, etc to point the way to understanding the sources of our corruption. Fundamentally, it’s the usual cabal, which cares nothing of religion or nation, of the secret police and the oil industry and their associated thugs.
"The usual cabal" eh? Well, a dangerous, power-mad and ultra-wealthy group by any other name can still purchase politicians left AND right, start false-flagged wars at will and commit mass murder by a quantum factor -- as endlessly repeating history sadly shows. The Nazis did tell the truth about the dangers of Communism, and the Communists were spot on about Nazism.

BOTH were eventually recognized as ghastly butchers and dire enemies of humanity (sometimes financed out of the same deep pockets) but it's the "free market, freedom-loving" United States, 75 years out from the horrors of WWII, that now stands as the current invasion-mad and bomb-happy, world champion mass murderer, with that "usual cabal" still calling the shots and shoveling the cash.
“Financed out of the same deep pockets...”
Antisemite, I’ll not engage much longer with yoy.

This is anon 7:56 again. I had meant to add a bit to my previous comment.

I’ll admit to glibness regarding the phrase “usual cabal.” For which I apologize. But there are stealthy groups and conspiracies that operate, and some of them seem to share noticeable patterns.

Hannah Arendt saw that Stalin and Hitler represented the same system, es explained in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Main points:
Personality cult of leader.
Strong secret police.
State terror aimed at any perceived enemy group or person.
Judicial system that served only the leader or his party.
Secret camps into which people disappeared.
Many killings.*

But two very different countries. In Germany, the financial backers of Hitler were those with most to fear from the communists. That is, wealthy industrialists, including Henry Ford, who was a raging antisemite.

Of great interest, another source of support Hitler found in Germany were some communists who thought that not fighting the Nazi takeover would result in Hitler taking power, doing damage which would certainly, as per their much vaunted theory would of dialectical necessity, bring about the extreme necessary to make the revolution. That was delusion. Stalin had his own reasons for thinking Hitler trustworthy, hence the pact. More delusion.

As far as who backed the Communists: no noticeable number of actually wealth would have: they had everything to lose. That is one of the more obvious conspiracy stories ever told.

To sum up. The big money interests backed Hitler because they saw him as the most effective bulwark against the Red Peril, communism.

And instead of the only the state being vulnerable, there are many other entities en to committing malfeasance.

In the parlance of our day, there are many rooms (due in part to privatization of formerly government tasks), many adults who should be doing something (but aren’t acting to protect the rule of law). And there is no single 800 pound gorilla throwing its weight around.

So, to corrupt a government and society takes money. The industry with the most money is petroleum, an industry known for its thuggish ways and connections to CIA. No action on climate change

The situation with NSA and its allies in big date, as well as the privatized companies like DeLoitte, Palantir etc, indicate a growing secret police threat. No action on privacy or data security.

Big pharma and insurance have huge money. Hard to make improvements in health insurance.

And, as ever, the military... The list could go on.

In sum, we’ve nearly lost our Democracy, and a certain code-worded religion plays only a peripheral role. There are so many sources of corruption.

Absence of transparency and accountability form a fertile ground for the mind-dulling conspiracy stories of days long gone.

* Sound familiar?
"As far as who backed the Communists: no noticeable number of actually wealth would have: they had everything to lose. That is one of the more obvious conspiracy stories ever told."

If you are totally ignorant of the prodigious research findings of Anthony Sutton, I understand your position and do not fault you.

But if you are, and instead maintain that they are but foolish works of fiction and fantasy -- please link to where they have been factually (not ideologically) debunked.
I read Sutton's book on Skull and Bones, which was hilariously under-researched crackpot bullshit. That's all I need from HIM.
That's not a fact-checking rebuttal, Joseph. That's just the kind of emotional, vulgar, schoolyard-taunting dismissal a Trumper would come up with. And you, of all people, know (and are) better. Kerensky's fall and Lenin's rise were very well-financed indeed, but the "court historians" you grew up reading knew not to go there.

Sutton's dangerous (to his career) revisionism, in the earlier works you haven't read, meticulously documented Wall Street's hedged bets on BOTH of those grossly distorted and ultimately mass-murderous versions of Socialism -- Nazism AND Communism.

As Sutton found out, it can be mighty lonely out there when you "don't please either side".
Anon7:56 here again.

I had been unaware of Sutton’s historical works. I was somewhat aware of his book “War on Gold,” which struck me as all such works do. The author hates Keynesian economics. But Keynesian economics work very successfully. So, it’s like trying to argue that the hammer won’t drive the nail.

I had to go to Sutton’s Wikipedia page, after being reminded by Joseph of a vague memory of the Skull & Bones book. So, I can’t say much more about him specifically. But, in general, this: if what is reported there is an accurate summary, it seems wrong. The Russians have a rich tradition of excellence in the mathematical sciences, which would include engineering and, now, computer programming. Their skills at espionage are also a matter of record. They could buy on the open market and reverse engineer. But they went further. Their military electronics were designed and built to withstand an EMP event, which would result from a nuclear blast (those of the US were not). It’s not that they were or are perfect, but it would be unwise to so greatly underrated them by presuming that they had to rely on the US and Europe for their technology.

Back to gold. The libertarians seem to dislike central banking (and fractional reserve banking) for various reasons that can be found on any of their websites (friendly hint: none of it makes any sense, so Do Not Waste Time trying to follow their arguments*). Their cure for the problems they imagine is gold, which in their thinking guarantees solid value. Well, does it?

Back in the days before central banks, the gold standard was said to define value. There were frequent panics, runs on banks, and depression. It is very hard to see evidence for success in that record. So, no, value is not guaranteed by the gold standard system.

Furthermore, if there was only so much gold in the country’s treasury, strictly controlling a limited number of dollars, how much economic growth could occur? Dollars would be scarce, much more scarce than they are in our reality. So economic growth would be severely constrained.

*For a solid treatment of how standard economics works, there was a very good book written by Robert Guttmann, “How Credit Money Shapes the Economy.” Clear and non-polemical.

True, that book written in the 90’s is getting to be a bit old. And I’m not sure if anyone is really able to understand the possible results of the extreme of Quantitative Easing that has become our reality today. But economics in a historical science, and we’ll know more in a few years, if we’re lucky. Yet, it is a very good book which does explain why commodity money, like gold, is unworkable.
Leave it to the fucking right-wing conspiracy theorists. With all that's going on the world right now, they want to change the topic to the crackpot ideas of a pseudo-scholar like Anthony Fucking Sutton.

It was the Germans who inflicted Lenin on Russia in order to knock that country out of WWI. Everyone knows the story. Later, the Nazis invented the conspiracy theory that powerful Jewish bankers were behind the rise of communism. This idee fixe was later taken up by the John Birchers, a movement founded largely by people who had been pro-fascist before the war. The Birchers spent decades trying to convince the world that the cold war was a fake, and that Jewish bankers (although the Birchers usually tried to avoid saying the J-word out loud) were behind both Wall Street and the Kremlin.

Look, my beard is grey, I started paying attention to politics when Nixon was in office, and I've been fascinated by various fringe movements since the 1970s. (Arguably even earlier. I read my first book about the JFK assassination while Ruby was still alive.) In other words, I'm not a naive kid, and I can't be bamboozled THAT easily. And I don't have to read every fucking book by Anthony Fucking Sutton to get an good idea as to what that creep was all about.

Fun has been fun, but enough is enough. I'm going to shut the door on further outbursts of Birchism in these pages. This site is my HOME -- far moreso than my physical home -- and Birchers (and their kin) are not welcome here.

You have a big damned internet in which to romp and scamper and do all sorts of mischief. Don't come round HERE any more.
Well, then, there is the editor’s judgment.

I’m fine with that. I think that a bit of discussion is valuable, to a point. But right wingers don’t really argue and libertarians engage in sophistry which is designed to confuse the unwary and to waste time. They are both cults, which is why their rhetoric is so bizarre: if you want in, just buy in, believe that “Wall Street” (and who might that be a code for?) funded the Bolshevics.

By a funny chance, last night, I came upon Gaeton Fonzi’s story about Marita Lorenz and Frank Sturgis. Rather prolix, yet compelling. It’s a chapter from his book “The Last Investigation.” It is as rich in detail with plenty of implications for further speculation and questions that might have been but never were asked. But then, the whole point is that it was designed to go nowhere. Link:
I love that book -- and I met Gaeton. Great guy. One of the best books about the assassination you can over hope to read.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?