Thursday, July 30, 2020

Big SmearS. Plus: Can Trump win by losing?

By now, you no doubt have heard about Trump's signal that he would like to delay the election, an idea which the Republicans in Congress oppose -- for now. Not many months ago, rightwingers sneered when various Dems, including Biden himself, predicted that Trump would try something like this. I doubt that any apologies will be forthcoming.

Do not presume that Congressional opposition will stop Trump. I direct your attention to this thread by Seth Abramson.
(ALERT) Mike Pompeo just testified under oath that Barr will decide if Trump -- despite having no constitutional authority to do so --can announce he's moving the election.

Read that sentence multiple times and then retweet this. We're witnessing a historic threat to rule of law.

PS: America needs to understand that the issue now isn't whether Trump has the authority to move the election -- he doesn't -- but whether he can initiate a constitutional crisis and national emergency by announcing the election is being moved with the backing and support of DOJ.
Abramson expanded upon this in a long thread which I've taken the liberty of publishing below. He offers a fascinating theory: What if Trump's intent is to discourage Republicans from voting?

It's a wild idea -- and it runs counter to much of what I'm about to say. I can only beg you to consider my thoughts, and then consider Abramson. 

Mail-in voting obviously represents an obstacle to Trump's plans -- otherwise, he would not oppose the idea.

If you've followed the work of Brad Friedman -- perhaps this nation's finest advocate of clean elections -- you should know that his thinking appears to have evolved. In 2008, he definitely hated vote-by-mail schemes...
For the voters, they believe such systems offer a "paper trail" not available to voters using touch-screen systems at the polling place. Many are unaware that their mailed-in ballots will be scanned by the same error-prone, easily manipulated optical-scan machines which handle paper ballots for precinct-based voting. But even worse, ballots mailed in, if they arrive safely, and are counted at all, are usually counted "in the dark," versus ballots scanned either at the polls on Election Day, or at county headquarters after the close of polls when citizens are often there to watch.
He reiterated his opposition in 2015.
As with any voting system that is not fully transparent, proving mail-in fraud can be difficult or impossible. Once we drop our ballot in the mail, we can't verify what becomes of it, and elections become a matter of faith. Additionally, should our ballots arrive in the central aggregating location untampered, they are likely to be counted by the same private, secretly programmed electronic systems that have been proven vulnerable to rigging, hacking, and undetectable error. Central counting makes fraud on a large scale easier to accomplish and harder to detect.
The pandemic seems to have forced Brad to rethink. (Example.) He now seems to think that mail-in voting may be the least bad of the available options.

My take? If Trump is against, I'm for.

The real problem, as noted above, is not with the method of casting votes but with the method of tabulation -- the "mother machines," as John Kerry's wife Teresa put it, way back in 2004. Those tabulators are just as likely to miscount mailed-in votes as in-person votes.

The difference: A mailed vote offers a paper trail. Thus, a recount becomes much more threatening to the mischief-makers.

In 2016, there were "red" counties in Wisconsin where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. For some reason, the national media refused to pay much attention to this story -- even though it pretty much proved that Trump stole the election.

Things will be different in 2020. If there is a recount (and don't bet against the idea), the attention of the world will be on it. Fortunately, the physical existence of mailed ballots will give the recounters something tangible to count.

As you know, I've predicted that Trump will eke out a victory through a combination of truly brazen smears coupled with subtle vote-rigging. Remember, Trump need only get within three points of the 50 percent mark in key states; voter-rigging can carry him the rest of the way.

There's a limit as to how much the riggers can rig: Most specialists in computerized election fraud feel that the Republicans would not dare to nudge the numbers too far. Trump needs to get his number up to 47 percent or thereabouts -- but only in key states, or rather, key precincts. Thanks to the magic of the electoral college, he doesn't have to get anywhere near the 50 yard line nationally.

Prediction: Between now and November, Trumpists will ramp up racial tensions. Race riots help Republicans.

Expect Trump supporters to infiltrate "left" forums using assumed identities. Expect them to propagate hatred of white people incessantly. Expect to see more "All whites are born evil" opinion pieces in the New York Times, which has already published some inflammatory horrors that Roger Stone himself might have paid for. Expect to see undue attention given to the small percentage of African Americans who supported Bernie Sanders: The media will quote them as if they speak for all black people, even though they don't. (This has already happened.)

If you understand basic human psychology, you'll know that the constantly-repeated message "Hate yourself, white man" can have only one outcome: Racism will explode like a volcano.

Not long ago, I saw this comment: "The way to turn a white person into a racist is to call him a racist continually." Just so. If I place you in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation, you will probably choose do.

Robin DiAngelo is not a person; she is a machine -- a machine that makes racism.

Those who insist on the white = evil formulation are working for Trump, consciously or unconsciously. Probably the former. (Note to self: Has Robin DiAngelo ever taken Russian money? Must research.) 

Trump wants race riots. If race war breaks out in key cities, Trump will have his excuse for delaying or sidestepping the election. And lefties, being their usual idiot selves, are gonna fall right into his trap. Watch it happen.

Multiple smears. In the past, I've argued that the most powerful anti-Biden smear will arise out of the Epstein/Maxwell case.

The far right has prepared the way with a propaganda campaign that started well before the rise of Q, and even before the rise of Trump. Tens of millions of your fellow Americans now believe that every rich person is desperate to rape a child. Well, not every rich person: Affluent Trump supporters are exempt. Soros wants to fuck your kid, but Peter Thiel doesn't. That's the message, and it's spreading around the world.

The "elite pedophilia" myth is the new version of the Protocols hoax.

I remain convinced that the forthcoming Big Smear against Biden will arise out of the Epstein case. When I found out that Biden used to vacation in the Virgin Islands, I thought: "That's it. That's how they'll get him."

But that won't be the only smear campaign. Looky here: Ukraine-gate is coming back. As I warned in previous posts, Ukraine swarms with shady characters who are willing to lie for money. Several big names have glommed onto Rudy Giuliani -- Andriy Telizhenko, former diplomat, being one of them.
Telizhenko’s Ukrainian collaborators, whose names surfaced during the Trump impeachment saga, include a fugitive, a tainted former prosecutor, and the son of a KGB officer who also was trained in Russian spy techniques.

Andriy Derkach was schooled at a KGB academy in Moscow. He became a Ukrainian lawmaker and is remembered for voting for a Kremlin-like set of anti-protest laws that passed during the country’s pro-democracy revolution in 2014.

Kostyantyn Kulyk is a former military prosecutor charged with but never convicted of corruption. He has been accused of pursuing politically motivated criminal cases against his opponents and has admitted having ties to a warlord in eastern Ukraine accused of working for Russian intelligence services.

Oleksandr Onyshchenko is a gas industry tycoon and former lawmaker in the now-defunct pro-Russia Party of Regions. Accused of embezzlement in his home country, he is now on the run.

Collectively, Onyshchenko said, they comprise “Team Giuliani.”
Their names are obscure to Americans now, but that situation will probably change soon. They are already circulating faked recordings of Hunter and Joe Biden allegedly saying incriminating things.

(I warned you that Deep Fake technology would place a role in this election.)
To date, three collections of recordings have been released to the public by Derkach at sparsely attended press conferences inside Interfax-Ukraine news agency. They purport to capture phone conversations between Biden and former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko while the two were in office.

Poroshenko’s office has called the recordings fake, and Biden’s campaign has denounced what it calls a coordinated effort to smear the Democratic candidate.
More recordings are coming. Have no doubt of that.
Undaunted, the Ukrainians hope to take American media by storm before November and be taken seriously by Republicans in the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which has launched an inquiry into Biden’s Ukraine interactions even as Democrats have denounced the move as political.
More from Seth Abramson. I'm not sure what to think about Seth's most recent thread, but it's definitely a mind-expander. Do I buy this theory? No. But it's still fascinating.

Apparently, Nate Silver has had similar thoughts.

(In the interest of fairness, I should remind readers that Abramson asked for the electoral college to postpone its vote in 2016.)

The words below the asterisks are his, though I've recast them into more conventional prose style.

*  *  *

Today Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo unveiled the real nightmare scenario for the 2020 election—and the question of what Trump has legal authority to do has nothing to do with it. I hope you'll read on and retweet—as what I'm describing here is what America is heading for.

Autocracies aren't born in rule of law. They're not even primarily born in violence. Rather they arise despite rule of law—often on the strength of a benighted populism, in fact just the sort of populist movement Trump is building now over false fears of a "rigged" election.

The question isn't whether Trump has legal authority to move Election Day and thereby extend his presidency—he doesn't—but a different question: what happens if he just declares that he does have this power? And what if he can do so with a false veneer of legal legitimacy?

By October 31, Trump's decision not to combat COVID-19 (indeed to worsen the pandemic with every one of his words, actions, and decisions not to act), coupled with an incipient flu season, is likely to send America's COVID-19 data—infections, deaths—into its horrifying nadir.

Meanwhile, Trump has put a crony who's likely a witness in an ongoing federal criminal probe—a man who's a peer of perjurers (and worse) Michael Cohen, Elliott Broidy and Gordon Sondland—in charge of the United States Postal Service. Already, this crony is destroying the USPS.

If, on October 30, COVID-19 is cresting—as it likely will be—and the USPS is less able to deliver mail properly than at any point in recent history, as seems likely (and on Trump's end intentional), Trump's self-manufactured "case" for a national emergency will be at its apex.

Today, Mike Pompeo told us Trump lackey Barr—who has never refused the president anything, who appears to be a Trump co-conspirator in the Ukraine scandal, and who has already shown a penchant for violating the law—gets to decide if Trump can announce a change in Election Day.

Note that each time I use the anodyne euphemism "change in Election Day," what I'm describing is in fact apocalyptic—an artificial extension of the Trump presidency corresponding with the end of American democracy and the beginning of Trump's reign as America's first autocrat.

Barr has already instructed OLC (the Office of Legal Counsel) to produce opinions that violate all existing law (for that matter, we saw that during the prior GOP administration, Bush's, as to torture). Barr can get the OLC to crush a CIA whistleblower—or change Election Day.

I ask anyone reading this to simply play out the following hypothetical—the one I offer in the next tweet—which is "hypothetical" only inasmuch as it takes everything we know about Trump, Pompeo, Barr, COVID-19, and the USPS right now and projects it 90 days into the future:

On October 30, Trump announces, with an OLC opinion "granting" him this power in hand, that he is moving the 2020 presidential election 120 days, after which time he will review the nation's ability to safely and securely conduct an election. He announces it via tweet and TV.

Understand that this would be illegal—and wouldn't change election day. But that wouldn't be the point. The point would be to convince Trump voters not to vote.

You may have to read the preceding sentence multiple times—it's counterintuitive unless you're a metamodernist.

This thread isn't on metamodernism. All you need to know is that on the day in June 2015 Trump announced his candidacy, I published a HuffPost essay declaring that what made Trump dangerous was his ability to manipulate reality (in a way theorists connect to "metamodernism").

The way to win an unwinnable election, using the sort of powerful reframing of events a certain way of thinking Trump instinctively (not intelligently or responsibly) employs, is not to turn out your voters... but declare the election invalid once your voters don't show up.

The purpose of the pre-election Trump announcement I am hypothesizing here would not be to help Trump win the 2020 election, but to convince so many Trump voters not to vote that the results of the election favor Biden by so much the election looks wholly illegitimate.

Imagine a scenario in which, with 3 branches of government—executive, judicial, legislative—you have the executive branch declaring the election was moved, the judicial branch (as yet) silent, and the legislative branch in chaos because no one in the GOP knows what to say/do.

By convincing his voters to stay home—because he's "moved the election"—Trump will have caused every GOP member of Congress to lose their reelection, forcing them to back his play and say that the election was delayed and therefore Biden didn't actually win on November 3.

The result: an executive branch that says the election was invalid; half the legislative branch (the GOP half) saying the election was invalid; election results that look invalid (as Biden has won by 50+ points); and a judicial branch that hasn't—and can't—say anything yet.

In that circumstance, what does "rule of law" even mean? You have a separation of powers issue—a conflict between branches of government—that the Supreme Court must hear, and because it's the most complex case ever heard by SCOTUS in US history, it's impossible to expedite.

The mere fact that Trump would have enacted this constitutional crisis just 96 hours pre-election means SCOTUS can't speak on it pre-election, and the complexity of the case would throw into chaos all state election deadlines. Which is basically the point of Trump's plot.

All Trump needs in this scenario is

(a) SCOTUS to move at its usual glacial pace, and

(b) GOP-run states (states with GOP secretaries of state running their elections) to refuse to certify election results or choose electors until the Supreme Court has acted on the issue.

I'm not even sure Trump would be the plaintiff in this case—as he and his GOP allies in Congress (and GOP secretaries of state) would so adamantly declare the election results invalid they might wait to make the Democrats sue in federal court, making them look desperate.

And how magnanimous Trump will be! He and his GOP allies will offer to negotiate with Democrats in lieu of them filing a federal suit. Trump will say, "We have to wait until this invisible plague is under control. That's all anyone is asking here." It'll sound persuasive!

Know what'll make it more persuasive? Election results so insane-looking—Biden 82%, Trump 15%—they'll make Egypt's el-Sisi blush. Biden will be half-inclined to agree with Trump on a do-over—knowing his term as an "illegitimate monarch" may be marked by historic violence.

Right now I need everyone in media; everyone on "legal Twitter"; everyone who's a professional political analyst to comment on this thread—or on your own feeds, it doesn't matter—explaining why this Trump plan wouldn't work. Why it isn't exactly what he's setting us up for.

Understand that I didn't develop this thread out of some fever dream. All I did was take statements and actions by Trump, Barr, and Pompeo; the current status of COVID-19 and the USPS (and who controls each); and the way of thinking Trump has exhibited since June 2015.

[Abramson added the following series of postscripts in response to his readers.]

I understand—and empathize with, as a lawyer—those who reply, "Nah, he ceases to be POTUS on January 20th at noon."

Again, that's the view that law determines if a coup is successful, not the brute force of populism and logistics—the logic undergirding Trump's actions now.

In the scenario I've described, yes, the law would suggest Biden—having won the election 82% to 15%; with less than 270 electoral votes; and with all GOP politicians and all GOP secretaries of state and most GOP voters saying he won a fake election—is the president. So what?

What would in mean—in that scenario—for someone to be "president"? And that's the question the five ultra-conservative justices of the Supreme Court would have to decide, probably on a timeline so glacial it couldn't be concluded effectively until early January 2021 at best.

More importantly, that's the question Democrats would have to decide—and would probably be deciding in the midst of historic Republican protests and threats of violence all across the country. Would Democrats consider it their best move to accept that election "victory"?

We learned in January '20 that impeachments are about politics, not law—though they're supposed to adhere to rule of law. In January '21 we may learn elections are also about politics, not law. What happens if Dems must allow a do-over to preserve the peace of our Union?

This scenario works for Trump even if early voting depresses Biden's win to (say) 62% to 36%. It may even work without Barr aboard. It may work if the "don't vote" effort is homegrown, inspired and supported by Trump but not demanded by him. The premise itself is the thing.

The solution here is for America to publicly discuss this scenario now—and invalidate it. GOP politicians must agree to abide by the election results even if Trump convinces his voters not to show up. Barr must state clearly that Trump cannot legally "move" election day.

Constitutional law experts must play out how SCOTUS would act. Election law experts must do scenario-planning on how misconduct by GOP secretaries of state could be thwarted. Dems must educate Republicans on who's POTUS on January 20 if SCOTUS is still working on a ruling.

Democrats must announce now that there'll be no "do-over" election—and anyone who opts not to vote is making a decision they must live by. Emergency assistance must be provided to USPS. Social media should deem Trump tweets on moving election day "election interference."

It's amazing to see responses saying "the military wouldn't allow it" or "Pelosi would be POTUS." Again, this sort of coup happens through politics, rhetoric, and the reframing of reality with GOP pol/voter support—it has nothing to do with law, violence or the military.

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Thoughtcrime. Plus: The Veepstakes

I urge you to read this important piece by Matthew Yglesias about David Shor, a progressive data analyst who sent a tweet wrongly considered controversial.

Basically, Shor compiled data indicating that, in the wake of the George Floyd killing, peaceful protests would help the Democrats while violent riots would help Trump. In part, his analysis drew from previous work done on the impact of the 1968 riots which broke out after the murder of Martin Luther King. In that year, the violence alienated enough voters to insure Richard Nixon's victory in a tight election.

(Shor did not mention that those riots led to "white flight," which severely damaged the tax base in several cities -- including my adopted hometown of Baltimore. A black acquaintance told me that memories of '68 explain why the Freddie Grey "uprising" -- if you can call it that -- petered out so rapidly.)

Progressives piled on Shor, calling him a racist because he dared to offer unwelcome data. Example:
Yo. Minimizing black grief and rage to "bad campaign tactic for the Democrats" is bullshit most days, but this week is absolutely cruel. This take is tone deaf, removes responsibility for depressed turnout from the 68 Party and reeks of anti-blackness.
How the hell is it anti-Black to be concerned about re-electing Trump? This tweet reeks of pro-Putin ratfuckery. I strongly doubt that the writer speaks for all or most black people.

I will never comprehend how any black person can read this story and still insist that defeating Trump is relatively unimportant.

Actually, the writer of the above-quoted tweet has something in common with Donald Trump: They both want unwelcome data to remain hidden. Trump asked for less Covid testing, on the theory that fewer tests would somehow results in fewer cases. Unfortunately, placing the numbers behind a veil did not change the spread of the disease. Similarly, hiding Shor's data won't make that data wrong.

Bottom line: After the online kangaroo courts had pronounced him racist, Shor was fired -- even after he recited one of those humiliating forced apologies that used to be characteristic of the USSR. That cowardly act is the only point on which Shor deserves criticism. I would never have said "I'm sorry" under those circumstances, not even if someone literally held a gun to my head.
A former staffer for Bernie Sanders responded to Shor’s tweet on Progressphiles to say “we need to recognize the role data plays in this conversation.” And in particular, “using it to dictate how BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and people of color] should feel and protest is harmful.”

Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.
Something similar happened to Michael Moore after he warned that Biden could lose in 2020. Instead of countering his argument with evidence, progressives labeled him a defeatist -- a thought-criminal. Progs are also angry at him because he dared to make a deeply pessimistic film about the environmental crisis.

The left demands slap-happy optimism. The left has become Billy Mumy in that old Twilight Zone episode, forever insisting that everyone around him must say positive things: "That was a good thing you did. And it's good that you're making it snow. It's real good. And tomorrow's going to be a real good day!"

Left-wing censors have even gone after Noam Chomsky, who is now considered a reactionary. Yes: Noam fucking Chomsky. His thoughtcrime: Daring to sign the same letter that J.K. Rowling endorsed. He's also a noted opponent of postmodernism, the official religion of the left.

I myself have been banned permanently from Democratic Underground and other forums because I refuse to feign an optimism that was never part of my character.

(I've always been this way. Remember that scene in Apollo 13 when the returning spacecraft fell out of communication as it passed through the ionosphere? That really happened. At the time, I kept telling my family: "They're dead! They're all crispy critters. It's over. They're dead!" When the blackout period lasted nearly two minutes longer than predicted, I was almost giddy: "I TOLD YOU SO! THEY'RE ALL DEAD! DEAADDDD!!!")

(No, I didn't have many friends.)

My specific offense at DU was submitting a post which outlined my "Big Smear" theory. Could that theory be wrong? Of course. (You could have knocked me over with a feather when my Apollo 13 prediction turned out to be a bit off the mark.) But it is absurd to argue that airing that theory could in any way damage Joe Biden's chances. It's not as though saying "Trump will smear Biden" is controversial. It's certainly not the same thing as saying "Biden deserves to be smeared."

I have no problem with the person who says "Cannon, you're wrong -- and here's why." In fact, I welcome that response. As Churchill once said: "I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."

But the practitioners of "cancel culture" have nothing to teach anyone.

It is time to cancel the cancelers. They overestimate their power.

The Veepstakes.
Most people misinterpreted Biden's notes to himself, which were caught on camera. If you look at the entire page, he clearly was not listing Kamala Harris' virtues as a vice presidential candidate. The purpose of those notes was to remind him how to respond if journalists ask about her -- and about other topics.

Joe Biden understands, finally, that he needs to stick to a script -- because when he goes off-script, he becomes his own worst enemy. Those notes are his script.

I still think that he'll choose Tammy Duckworth. My personal choice would of course be Elizabeth Warren, but I doubt that Biden would agree.

Harris? No. I love her for this, but...no.

First: She would be more effective as Attorney General. Wouldn't you love to see her go after her predecessor? And against the Trump crime family? She would be a monster in that role.

Choosing her as VP would mean endless arguments over busing and reparations. I doubt that she favors reparations in her heart, but during the primary battle she was forced to make a few vaguely pro-reparations noises. Both busing and reparations are unpopular -- and as I keep trying to remind everyone, elections are a popularity contest.

Besides, Harris isn't terribly popular with African Americans. They had their chance to vote for her, and they went shopping elsewhere.

We've been hearing a lot about Susan Rice lately, and she has much to recommend her. She's brilliant. She's dedicated. She can do the job. She and Biden are friends and former co-workers. Apparently, they see eye-to-eye on foreign policy, which is Biden's truest passion.

But consider the drawbacks: Rice has never held elective office. She has never debated. There is no evidence that she can ignite a popular following.

However, there is evidence that she would energize a populist resistance. Choosing Rice would mean an endless rehash of BENGHAAAAAAAZEEEEEE!!!! Even though she did nothing wrong, the prospect of revisiting that tiresome pseudo-controversy is depressing.

On the other hand, maybe the public is as sick of BENGHAAAAAAAZEEEEEE as I am. I doubt that the majority of Americans believe in the weirdo Benghazi conspiracy theories that the rightwingers have been peddling for what seems like the past 500 years.

My bottom line is this: After the Big Smear hits, the Veep candidate may suddenly become the candidate. I can't see Rice playing that role. I can't see many people voting for her, though quite a few would still vote against Trump.

Duckworth? Yeah. She's a hero. A lot of people would vote for her.

Better still: Warren.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

The Madness of King Donald. Plus: More "Big Smear" foreshocks

I spoke to Milton William Cooper -- the "conspiracy king" of the 1990s -- a few times; the first occasion occurred before most people ever heard of him. The guy was a total loon. But as dangerous as he was, Cooper was sane compared to Donald J. Trump.

Trump recently yoked himself to the coronavirus theories of one Stella Immanuel. She is described here:
Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.

She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious. And, despite appearing in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress on Monday, she has said that the government is run in part not by humans but by “reptilians” and other aliens.
Hey, I've dated a couple of "endo" women. Does that make me a demon?

This blast of concentrated madness reminds me of the time I got a whiff of pure ammonia. (Damn near fainted.) Under the circumstances, I feel silly pointing out the woman's inability to use the possessive apostrophe.

She's a pediatrician? How the hell did this preposterous, wormy-brained nitwit manage to get a degree, or even a high school diploma? I wouldn't let her babysit a kid, let alone treat one.

Update: Immanuel got her degree in Nigeria, where her name was, apparently, Gwandiku-Ambe. Here she is.

She authored this religious tract, which is...memorable.
You spiritual bat and spiritual lizard that have been introduced into my head, receive the fire of God, In the name of Jesus.
The president's favorite doctor appears to have had a bat and a lizard removed from her head.
Any rod of the wicked, rising up against my family line, be rendered impotent for my sake, in the name of Jesus
Mention the organ that you know is not behaving the way it should. When you have done this begin to say: “I withdraw you from every evil altar.” Say this seven hot times
There is truth in this. If a guy places his misbehaving organ in an evil altar, the result can indeed be a hot time.
O Lord, let the blood of any animal shed on my behalf loose its covenant power, in the name of Jesus.
Um...has this problem come up often in her life?

I've decided to embed a nine year-old video of Dr. Immanuel preaching in Nigeria; scroll down. Trust me: This presentation is a must-watch. Try to imagine Donald Trump attending this sermon.

Meanwhile, on the Epstein front: Gullible journalist Julie Brown has excused Virginia Roberts Giuffre's many lies on the grounds that Virginia has experienced so much trauma in her life, she cannot be expected to know the difference between fact and fantasy -- nevertheless, we must believe whatever "truth" Virginia happens to be peddling at any given moment.

Now, Brown reports that there are a hundred new "Virginias" coming forward.
“There's a lot of women right now that are coming forward a lot and they're talking to prosecutors,” she tells Molly Jong-Fast and Rick Wilson. “There's pretty close to a hundred, from what I hear.”
Meanwhile, a judge is close to unsealing a giant pile of documents related to Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking ring. “I hope somebody is standing in Maxwell’s cell when this happens,” Brown says.
Maxwell will probably come out of this thing fine. I believe that Trump will pardon her -- if she "corroborates" any lie about Joe Biden proffered by one of these new "victims."

Infuriatingly, most people will not even consider the possibility that a "victim" might be a money-motivated false witness. Did you know that Sarah Ransome, the proven hoaxer who "corroborated" Virginia's tale, has admitted that she once frequented a website where attractive women hope to meet wealthy "sugar daddies"? Did you know that she ended her suit against Epstein when she received a generous settlement?

Virginia once testified under oath that she was raped by Epstein's partner, billionaire Les Wexner. Later, she completely withdrew that accusation. There is reason to suspect that money exchanged hands.

Look at the Bill Cosby case. Once the smell of lucre began to pervade the air, at least one false claimant came forward with a "Bill raped me" story. Here she is. I strongly suspect that some of the other accusers were equally dubious. Cosby was rich, but not ultra-rich; there's far more money circulating in the world of Epstein and Wexner, and thus far more motivation for deception.

If the previous paragraph led you to believe that I consider Cosby and Epstein innocent, read it again. And consider taking a course in logic.

The genuine crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein are outlined in Patterson's book Filthy Rich, the bulk of which tells a story differing from the tales related by Virginia and Sarah. Unfortunately, the Epstein case has become engulfed by hysteria. In this superheated atmosphere, few will demand corroborative evidence when one of these new "victims" points the finger at Joe Biden.

And now, as promised, heeeeeeeere's Stella...

Monday, July 27, 2020

The nightmare is upon us

The postmodernist nightmare that Helen Pluckrose and others have forecast is now upon us.

In the document tranch that follows, you will meet a group called ZYD, which apparently plays a role within the government of King County, Oregon. ZYD stands for "Zero Youth Detention.” Their online materials seem laudable enough — but behind the scenes, they are distributing pure anti-white racism and anti-Enlightenment propaganda. Their thinking has clearly been molded by the postmodernist race-obsessives who dominate our universities.

The following documents were uncovered by a writer/filmmaker/propagandist named Christopher Rufo. I don't know very much about him, but he seems to be a YAFL -- Yet Another Fucking Libertarian. You know how I feel about those guys.

So don't count me as a member of Rufo's fan club. That said, I strongly doubt that he concocted this evidence; the documents speak for themselves.

Apparently, there really is a plan afoot in Seattle to abolish -- not overhaul: abolish -- the justice system. I strongly doubt that this scheme has the support of the majority of black people. Most African Americans are more conservative and level-headed than the "woke" would have us believe.



Dig it: Objectivity, individuality, the written word and politeness are now considered evil -- the identifying markers of the fallen white race. (What, no reference to the insidious Dr. Yakub?) ZYD implies that Black people are not capable of politeness, objectivity, progress, or any of the other "sins" traditionally associated with Enlightenment values.

In the second paragraph of this post, I described these documents as examples of anti-white racism. Actually, these texts exemplify anti-black racism.

You may be puzzled by the reference to "defensiveness." This term means that white people may not counter any claim or argument offered by a black person or by a "Woke" thought-controller like Robin DiAngelo. If you are white, you are not allowed to speak one word which might upset your racial betters. Reality must always be determined for you, not by you. Interracial dialogue on the basis of equality is considered offensive. 

The texts also categorize "either/or thinking" and "power over others" as uniquely white characteristics, a formulation which will surprise anyone who has studied the history of, say, China -- or any other nation, for that matter. It seems to me that the "Woke" scoundrels who gave us cancel culture are the guiltiest of "either/or thinking," and they have obviously become power-mad.  

If you have followed the work of Helen Pluckrose, you'll recognize this language. These texts offer classic examples of postmodernist thought, or anti-thought.

Helen Pluckrose has been one of a handful of people demanding that the left formulate a response to this madness; other voices include Stephen Fry, John McWhorter and Bill Maher. If the left doesn't find some way to counter this attack on classic liberal values -- if the left does not stand up for free speech and against Identity politics -- the right will take on that task. Even if Trump is defeated in November, Trumpism will gain new adherents. The madness of today's pseudoleft will make the right seem like the only option.

(Being a stye-eyed pessimist, I'm still betting that Trump will eke out a win, using a combination of elaborate smears and vote-rigging.)

Thanks to the public's disgust with Identity politics, libertarians have been regaining their muscle. Only a few years ago, some observers wrote about that movement in the past tense. Now Rufo and Jordan Peterson and a growing army of right-wing intellectuals have achieved new prominence by offering this argument against the Woke: Identity Politics is "Marxist" and only unfettered capitalism can save us. Young people -- those perpetual suckers for the false dichotomy -- are being told that they must choose between Ayn Rand or Robin DiAngelo. No third option.

Here's a paranoid-but-necessary question: How much of this allegedly "left-wing" madness is actually being promoted by the Russians? And how much "left-wing" online discussion is actually the work of far-right wolves wearing sheep's clothing?

I'm not the only writer to suggest that the Trumpists invented the "defund the police" mantra. That crazy proposal serves their interests, not ours. It also serves Trump's interests when leftists attack Mount Rushmore, the Star-Spangled Banner, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and the very foundation of our democracy.

One of the founders of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors, wants "defund the police" to be part of the Democratic platform, even though that idea is hideously unpopular. In other words, she wants Trump to win.

Not many months ago, Cullors heartily endorsed Bernie Sanders -- the candidate pushed by Russia, and by Russia-friendly pseudo-lefties like Krystal Ball and Matt Taibbi. At the time, Cullors made it clear that she detested Biden.

Cullors presumes that she speaks for all black people. Does she? "The Establishment" didn't give us Biden: Black voters did.

In recent years, three inherently racist words -- "looks like me" -- have crept into our national discourse. Certain sick pseudoleftists would have you believe that nothing matters but skin color. This attitude arrogantly dismisses the actual votes cast by black people: If African Americans cared only about the "looks like me" factor, they could have chosen Booker or Harris, but they didn't.

(I would have been happier with Booker than with Biden, frankly. But the decision wasn't mine.)

I am convinced that most African Americans are less radical than are those who pretend to speak for that community. From the NYT:
“To see people standing in Portland destroying property and not actually doing the work of advocating for Black people was disturbing,” said Rachelle Dixon, the vice chair of the Multnomah County Democrats and an organizer in the Black community. “I think they’re a distraction from the everyday needs of people of color, especially Black people. My life is not going to improve because you broke the glass at the Louis Vuitton store.”
The BLM movement deserved our wholehearted support until they became a de facto arm of the Boogaloo movement, which wants to ignite a race war. Never forget that the Boogalooers support Black Lives Matter. The advocates for a second civil war believe that BLM is, or can be, a catalyst for racial separation.

Are they right? I hope not.

The Russians also have an obsession with Black Lives Matter, and not as opponents. Putin would love to see the U.S. devolve into civil war.

Did you see this?
Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials.

Protesters tore down police tape and pushed forward toward Richmond police headquarters, where they set a city dump truck on fire.

Police declared the event an “unlawful assembly” and ordered people to leave, later deploying tear gas.

Six people were arrested. The mayor of Richmond thanked the Black Lives Matter protesters he said tried to stop the white supremacists from spearheading the violence.
This is Charles Manson's "Helter Skelter" scheme on steroids.

I think that this sort of provocateur action has happened a lot, both on the internet and in real life. In certain online Democratic forums, the most intransigent apostles of Identity politics may well be white supremacist infiltrators who have learned how to speak postmodernist argot.

Postmodernism is a form of Fascism. Although "fascism" is a famously difficult word to define, I've come to understand it as an anti-Enlightenment movement which denigrates reason, science and democracy while focusing on race and tribal identity as the most important factors of human existence. The Fascist wants to see the world's real estate apportioned by genetics. Separation -- physical and cultural -- is the goal.

By this definition, postmodernism is simply another form of Fascism. Postmodernism, like Nazism, is an anti-Enlightenment movement obsessed with tribal identity and cultural purity. Postmodernism, like Nazism, is opposed to science, democracy and reason. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate advocate of Identity politics.

In normal times, I prefer nuanced argument to absolutist statements. But history proves that nuance cannot defeat the swastika. Therefore, I offer this absolute:

Postmodernism is utterly evil. Do not interact with anyone infected with this variant of the fascist virus. No advocate of postmodernism should be allowed to hold a teaching position in any American university, or to have any influence on governmental decisions. Whenever you encounter an apologist for postmodernism, visualize a swastika carved into his or her forehead. Further debate is pointless. Implacable opposition is the only moral response.

Friday, July 24, 2020

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.



This video is my favorite response to the president's bizarre boast.

My other favorite response: "That's how you activate the Winter Soldier."

My other other favorite response: "That's what Putin thought as he watched the pee tape."

Trump has challenged Biden to take the same test. I think Biden should challenge Trump to take the bar exam. This writer sums it up as well as anyone:
That Trump even took the cognitive test suggests that he, or his doctor, was concerned about his mental decline, as the neurologist who created it, Dr. Ziad Nasreddine, told the Washington Post this week. It’s hard to imagine a candidate in full command of his faculties who would make a point of publicly inviting comment on his mental capacity to do the job.
The president bragged about having "aced" a test that is a humiliation to have to take.

Here's a fairly serious question: Apparently, part of the test involves counting down from 100 in increments of 7. I had no problem accomplishing that feat. Did it in seconds. ACED IT! They said it was incredible, like nobody can do that, but I'm like a really good counter-downer. And I can do it by sixes and eights, too. But now I'm wondering: Is this challenge more difficult for younger people than for people of my generation? Trump and I both grew up in the pre-calculator era, when kids were trained to do simple math equations mentally.

I hereby challenge Trump to another contest: Counting down from 100 in increments of Pi (rounded down). 100...96.86...93.72...90.58...brain hurts...

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

A pardon for Ghislaine

By now, you probably know all about Trump's instantly-infamous "I wish her well" response, in answer to a question about Ghislaine Maxwell. This remark came as a surprise to most people, but not to me.

Here's how NOT to interpret Trump's words:

No no no no. No.

Look, if there were any possibility Ghislaine Maxwell might say something to incriminate Trump, right wing media would be pre-emptively discrediting her. QAnon and the conspiracy crazies would shun the story. The pro-Russsian pseudoleft (here's looking at you, Krystal Ball) would tell us to look away.

But that's not what's going on. It's all-Epstein-all-the-time over on the right side of the web.

Trump's seemingly-bizarre comment makes perfect sense in light of my "Big Smear" theory. Here is Trump's message to Maxwell: "Stick to the script, smear Biden, and you'll walk out of prison and into a comfortable retirement."

Trump is not telling her "Keep quiet." He's telling her "Talk."

But when the time comes, she won't be the only talker.

In several preceding posts, I have predicted that a weepy "victim" will come out with a "Joe raped me on St. Croix" story. But just which Epstein girl will be the lachrymose liar?

That role may fall to former Epstein aide Sarah Kellen, who goes by the names Sarah Kensington and Sarah Vickers. I don't have any evidence that she will take the stage -- it's more of a gut feeling. Twitter hates Sarah right now (to the extent that Twitter takes note of her), but that situation could change once the cameras roll and the tears start flowing.

The "rape victim" role could also go to Nadia Marcinko. I really don't know what she's up to these days.

The important point to understand is that, back in the day, Nadia and Sarah were young women (not girls) who procured girls (not young women) for Jeffrey Epstein. In other words, they are co-conspirators, just like Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Roberts Giuffre. They are not victims.

In the future, however, they may pretend to be victims. That was Virginia's trick, and she has done well with it.

A woman's tears are a powerful weapon. Trust me. Back in the '90s, I dealt with a number of blubbering self-proclaimed victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Don't make the mistake I made so often. The moment any woman turns on the waterworks, you must become as cold and logical as Mr. Spock.

God, I wish the Big Smear would just hit us already! I know what's gonna happen -- it's as if I had Merlin Sickness -- but the wait is a killer.

But wait we must. There are strategic considerations: The Big Smear must be unveiled at the proper time -- after Biden becomes the official nominee. Question: Will the smear-meisters strike just after (or during) the convention, or will they wait until just before the election? Timing is all: The trick may seem too obvious if the blow hits just before voting day -- however, striking the blow directly after the convention gives the Dems a chance to ditch Joe and to make Tammy Duckworth the nominee.

(Duckworth seems the likeliest candidate to get the vice presidential nomination. The pro-Trump manipulators are trying to force Biden to pick someone less popular.)

Incidentally, there's precedent for the Big Smear tactic. Do you know the story of Harvey Matusow? I may tell it at length one of these days, but in brief: Back in the heyday of McCarthyism, Harvey Matusow was an actor hired by Roy Cohn (Roger Stone's mentor) to offer false testimony against labor leaders and anyone else who ever annoyed a big capitalist. Matusow smeared them as members of the Communist Party. The scam fell apart when the actor grew a conscience.

That's a big problem with the Big Smear strategy: The actor may grow a conscience.

Roger Pebble. I honestly have no idea what to make of the story that Ghislaine Maxwell hired Jacob Wohl. I call him Roger Pebble, because he's the teensy-tiny version of Roger Stone.

Here's Wikipedia's description of Wohl:
Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997 in Greater Los Angeles) is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, fraudster, and internet troll.
By Wikipedia standards, that's pretty damned harsh. The fact that Wohl's name came up in this context indicates that my Big Smear theory is the right way to bet. I'm not sure what role Wohl may play when the Smear hits -- but his name will be kept hidden from the public, since his rep is lower than cockroach crap.

Here's an Epstein/Maxwell mystery few have discussed: Why did they allow themselves to be arrested?

Jeffrey Epstein had been staying in his incredibly posh pad on Avenue Foch in Paris. If he had remained there, he could have lived like a king for the rest of his life without fear of extradition. Some say that he didn't know he'd be arrested. How could that possibility not have occurred to him...?

The same question applies to Maxwell, who probably inherited that same Parisian pad. If she had taken up residence there, she would have gone untouched. And if she hates Paris -- well, there were plenty of other places a woman of her resources could have gone. I must therefore conclude that she stayed within reach of the FBI because she intended to be arrested.

Monday, July 20, 2020

Attack on the family of Epstein's judge. Plus: Why we cannot trust Virginia Giuffre and Sarah Ransome

The family of federal judge Esther Salas was attacked by a gunman dressed as a Federal Express delivery driver. Her 20 year-old son was killed; her husband has been critically injured. The internet has taken note of the connection to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
More recently, Salas has presided over an ongoing lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank investors who claim the company made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies and failed to monitor “high-risk” customers including convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
That lawsuit is just as likely to lead to Trump; we've all heard the allegations that Trump properties have been used to launder money. Deutsche Bank, or a shady subsidiary thereof, has lent to Trump when no other bank would do so.

Right-wing Twitterati are focused on the Epstein connection. They're practically shouting: "Clinton did it! Clinton did it!" Of course, rightists shout those same three words whenever the dog soils the rug or someone scratches the car.

Worth noting: Right-wingers do not seem to fear that this trail could lead to Trump.

Added note: In the original version of this post, I noted that the shooting increased the national paranoia over the Epstein case, and I argued that creating this outcome was the killer's purpose. We now know that the shooter was a maniacal right-wing lawyer upset over an unrelated case. Since my presumption about his motive was wrong, I've excised those paragraphs. Please accept my apologies for offering a theory prematurely; my error is not excused by the fact that many others also jumped the gun.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre and the great sexual blackmail conspiracy. I began writing about Epstein before most bloggers had heard of him. For years, I was convinced that Epstein really was party to (or mastermind of) a conspiracy to acquire kompromat on VIPs. My conviction was founded on a bedrock belief in the credibility of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the originator of the "blackmail" allegation.

In her Complaint, she referenced Bill Clinton, though she does not say that she had sex with him. Elsewhere, she mentioned Al Gore.

Actually, she did more than mention Al Gore: In an interview with the Daily Mail, she offered a detailed description of Al and Tipper Gore's supposed visit to Epstein's island in the year 2000, while Al Gore was running for president. She described seeing him walk on the beach with Epstein. Virginia -- born August 9, 1983 -- told the newspaper: "I was planning to vote for him when I turned 18. I thought he was awesome."

Yet no such visit ever took place according to Secret Service records, which also exonerate Bill Clinton. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh filed an FOIA request with the Secret Service and found no record that either man set foot on that island. (I've carefully checked Epstein's flight logs, which never indicate that Clinton went to the island. All of the flights on Epstein's jet involved public events covered by the media.)

Virginia also lied about her age. At first, she had the world convinced that she entered Epstein's world at the age of 15. She even described a "sweet sixteen" party that Epstein threw for her -- a party which culminated in unlawful sex.

But that whole tale was a lie. In fact, she took up with Epstein at the age of 17, at the earliest. According to her revised story, she did not have sex with anyone else in Epstein's orbit until she reached the age of 19. Any sex she had at that age was legal. (17 is legal in New York; 18 is legal in Florida; 16 is legal in the Virgin Islands and in the UK.)

And before you say the obvious: Yes, the idea of a man in his 50s having sex with someone so young is sickening, even if the relations were technically within the law. Nobody is making excuses for Epstein.

Nevertheless, the age of consent matters. Why? Because Giuffre described a blackmail operation involving underaged girls.

An illegal sex act is "blackmailable." A legal act is not. Not these days.

Consider: Virginia originally claimed that she had sex with Prince Andrew at the age of 15. We now know that she was 19 -- if the episode actually happened, and if we take seriously her claim to have undergone a two-year "grooming" period before being lent out. Thus, whatever your attitude toward Andrew, anything he may or may not have done with her was within the law.

Did he have sex with her? He denies it. Right now, the only evidence that he did is the testimony of Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

Here is my main point -- or rather, my main question:

If we subtract the claims of Virginia Roberts Giuffre -- and those of Sarah Ransome, an even more flagrant liar -- from the Epstein controversy, what evidence do we have that Jeffrey Esptein ran a blackmail operation involving VIPs and underaged girls?

Right now, I see none. None.

Yet many within the media continue to rationalize the many lies told by Virginia and Sarah, the two "stars" of Filthy Rich, a recent Netflix documentary about Epstein.

One of the worst "rationalizers" is the over-praised journalist Julie K. Brown. On Twitter, she has excused Virginia's lies with the usual pseudo-scientific blather: Studies prove that trauma victims have difficulty recalling details... Of course, she never cites an actual study. Neither Julie Brown nor anyone else will ever point to a single piece of academic research which adequately explains Virginia's whoppers involving Al Gore or that "sweet sixteen" party.

I heard the exact same "trauma" excuse repeatedly during the early 1990s, when I tried to write a book about Satanic Ritual Abuse claimants. For years, I convinced myself that these women were telling the truth. Eventually, I had to concede that they were fantasists, and that their advocates had fallen prey to the logical fallacy known as petitio principii.

I now find myself -- and not for the first time! -- forced to take a very unpopular position.

A sensational theory has ignited the imaginations of millions of Americans: Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ran a sex sting operation involving the underaged. Having belatedly understood the truth about Virginia, I must now sound a warning: The evidence for such an operation simply is not there. Not at present. We may receive proper evidence in the future. Or we may receive cleverly fabricated evidence. But at this writing, the whole scenario rests on the word of two fabulists.

Do I need to say the obvious? Times being what they are, I suppose I must: I am not excusing Jeffrey Epstein.

Hardly!

The original testimony gathered by Florida officials was absolutely damning. But if you read that evidence -- in Patterson's book Filthy Rich, and in the original documents available via Scribd -- you'll see no hint of a blackmail operation involving VIPs. The real victims told the cops that they serviced Epstein and Epstein only. No mention of Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton or anyone else. Also: No mention of Virginia Roberts or Sarah Ransome.

(Although the documentary Filthy Rich and James Patterson's book Filthy Rich share the same name, the book is much better.)

The truth about Virginia. The Netflix documentary accidentally lets us glimpse the truth about Virginia, although most viewers will miss it.

At the beginning of Part 4, we see footage from an interview that Brad Edwards (Virginia's first attorney) conducted with Jeffrey Epstein, who at first pretends not to recognize Virginia's name. Edwards asks: "Isn't it true you celebrated her 16th birthday with her and had sex with her on that day?" Epstein indicates that he'd love to answer the question, but his lawyers have advised him not to. When asked whether he forced her to have sex with others, Epstein momentarily forgets his lawyers' advice and blurts out: "Are you kidding?"

That "sweet sixteen rape" accusation was a key part of Virginia's original story. Obviously, Edwards sincerely believed in it. Yet at a later point in the documentary, Virginia admits that she did not hook up with Epstein until she was 17, and that she did not have trysts with Epstein's associates until she was 19.

Question: Why is Brad Edwards no longer representing Virginia Roberts Giuffre? Is it possible that Edwards wants no further association with a fantasist?

I turned against Virginia once and for all when I read the affidavit of her former boyfriend, one Anthony Figueroa -- a document included in this post. (Click to enlarge.) This document proves:

1. Virginia had complete freedom of movement. She was no "sex slave." She lived apart, in her own apartment.

2. Virginia was an adult during most of the time she worked for Epstein.

3. Virginia was a co-conspirator who procured underaged females for Jeffrey Epstein. Today, Virginia claims that she was victimized by Ghislaine Maxwell. It might be more accurate to say that she was Ghislaine Maxwell -- that is, she did the very things that Maxwell now stands accused of.

4. Virginia described meeting famous people, but not having sex with them. At no point did she describe a blackmail operation.



The truth about Sarah. I can't think of a non-vulgar way to make the following point, so I'll just say it. Despite his current status as America's most notorious perv, Jeffrey Epstein wasn't much of a fucker.

The Patterson book makes this point very clear. Testimony from the Florida victims -- the real victims -- clearly indicates that Epstein almost never became fully erect and was rarely capable of vaginal intercourse. For obvious legal reasons, the investigators paid close attention to claims of vaginal intercourse; after interviewing dozens of girls, they found only four instances. Most of the time, Epstein pleasured himself while young females massaged him. When he trusted a girl sufficiently, he would touch her private parts with one hand while using the other on himself.

And that, usually, was it. That was his idea of sex.

Victim testimony demonstrates that he lost interest in girls once they passed the age of 19. Although his actions constituted statutory rape, the victims never accused him of forcible rape. (One girl said that he grabbed her hair roughly.)

Yet Sarah Ransome, who was 22 when she met Epstein, claims that Epstein violently raped her regularly. In one particularly outlandish account, Ransome insisted that Epstein raped her three times in one day, and that she made a daring escape the same day by literally swimming with sharks. The New York Post has long possessed evidence that Ransome is a liar, but has refused to publish it.

In 2016, Ransome announced that she possessed "sex tapes" involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. She now admits that this story was a fabrication.

Ransome says that she was targeted for assassination by Hillary Clinton and the CIA. She also says that she (Ransome) was working with the KGB in 2016. Make of that what you will.

The makers of the Netflix documentary Filthy Rich knew all about the credibility issues besetting Virginia and Sarah, yet those problems remained hidden from the viewers. As a result, the film became The Virginia and Sarah Show. Unconscionable.

Sorry folks, but it is not sufficient to watch one documentary. You have to do some actual reading

Saturday, July 18, 2020

Spooks for Trump: The Israeli-Russian partnership

Even before the election of Donald Trump, a narrative took hold in Liberal-Land -- the narrative of Spooks vs. Trump, the idea that the intelligence community is, and always has been, dead-set against the rise of Trumpism. Fascism may threaten, but our spies will save us. Voices as disparate as John Brennan, Louise Mensch and Malcolm Nance have made this theory into a liberal credo.

(I will confess that it was a little shocking to see Rob Reiner -- Meathead himself! -- interviewing CIA head honchos about Trump's corruption.)

But the intelligence community was never a monolith. There is a "spooks FOR Trump" contingent within the American, British and Israeli intelligence services. The most obvious examples: Michael Flynn (former head of the DIA) and Cambridge Analytica. Largely staffed by former MI6 agents, CA often worked for the American intel community.

Here's a recent example of the "Spooks for Trump" phenomenon:

("Those who do not believe Qanon..." Yeesh. Didn't QAnon promise us that Mueller would put Hillary in jail?)

Let us continue with our "Spooks for Trump" theme: Did you know that Barbara Ledeen is on Lindsey Graham's staff? Barbara is wife to Michael Ledeen, who -- ages ago -- was identified as CIA by an Italian court. (Barbara seems to be quite the operative in her own right.) Graham wants to grill Mueller, which means that the questions will surely be prepared by Barbara Ledeen.

Now let's talk about the Israeli role in getting Trump re-elected in 2020. As we've noted in an earlier post, the Israeli right considers Trump a godsend. They know that he will acquiesce to the annexation of much of the West Bank, something that Joe Biden would never countenance.

The Israeli links to Trump's corruption are, of course, a touchy subject. Although most will prefer to avoid the topic altogether, one cannot ignore the work of Black Cube on behalf of Trump.

The barrier separating the Israeli government from a "private" spy shop like Black Cube is very thin and very permeable. This is standard operating procedure the world over: Spies often set up a "private" firm in order to pursue goals which must be kept plausibly distant from the official Powers-That-Be.

By the way: Superlawyer David Boies was the one who hired Black Cube to try to save Harvey Weinstein's ass. The more I look into Boies, the spookier he seems. Right now, he's the lawyer for Virgnia Roberts Giuffre, who falsely claims to be a "victim" of Jeffrey Epstein. Despite her many lies, our media still treats her as a goddess. Think about it: If she truly cares about the rights of sexual abuse victims, why is she represented by the lawyer for Harvey freakin' Weinstein?

But Black Cube is hardly the sole Israeli connection to the Trump story. There's much more.

Seth Abramson's Proof of Conspiracy points to the important links between Eric Prince and Israeli spies during 2016. It's a complex tale, so you may want to skim the following excerpts -- although I hope that some of you will actually try to digest this stew, as opposed to just getting a whiff of it:
As Prince licked his wounds and considered his next moves, he was developing close ties to the Israeli government as well as to strongmen across the Middle East, with Haaretz reporting that Prince’s “deep Israeli connections” came to include a long-standing business relationship with Ari Harow -- former bureau chief and chief of staff to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- and another with Dorian Barak, Harow’s onetime business partner.
Abramson describe the legal trouble that Harrow got into a couple of years ago. I'll skip that part.
From 2012 on, Prince will hold an investment stake in a company co-managed by Harow and Barak, and by dint of his association with the two men he begins investing in Israeli security companies as well. Barak also tries -- it isn’t known whether successfully or not -- to get Prince to join billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz as a major investor in a new investment project: SCL Group, the parent company of the Trump campaign’s data firm, Cambridge Analytica. Tchenguiz is known as well for being a close business associate of Dmitry Firtash, who is himself a business associate of 2016 Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Tchenguiz is also an investor in Black Cube and Terrogence, two Israeli intelligence companies that will intersect consequentially with the Trump campaign, transition, and administration (see chapters 3, 4, and 8). Black Cube, in particular, has ties to the Israeli government through many employees who are former members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and its advertising “openly” features its “ties to Israeli spy agencies, including Mossad,” according to the New Yorker.
(I know, I know -- Abramson is no easy read. Sorry about that. Proof of Conspiracy is an extremely important work, but it does make your eyes water.)

I've written about Tchenguiz before: See here and here. He was one of the key owners of SCL, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica. He's also financially entangled with Dmitry Firtash, the criminal oligarch who connects Trump and Manafort to Putin.

Tchenguiz is a British real estate tycoon, and SCL wasn't a big source of income. Some say it lost money. If that is so, then we must ask: Just why was he involved in Cambridge Analytica, a firm dedicated to subverting democracy?

Allow me to quote from one of my earlier posts:
It may be worthwhile to note here that Russian oligarchs love to park their money -- or launder it -- in real estate located in western countries.

Cambridge Analytica does very sensitive work for the western intelligence services, despite the financial links to Russia. This may be the ghastliest security hole in the history of intelligence. In order to create such a hole, the Russians would have needed to recruit western moneymen to act as fronts.
Now let's get back to Proof of Conspiracy.

Abramson's book discusses another "private" Israeli intelligence firm called Terrogence, which has not received the kind of attention bestowed on Black Cube. (Why? Probably because Black Cube involved itself in the Weinstein scandal. Hey, sex sells.) But Terrogence played a role in a behind-the-scenes maneuver that few now recall, thought it was Big News at one time:
On July 15, 2016, Soviet-born U.S. businessman Sergei Millian...contacts George Papadopoulos on LinkedIn.
On August 23, Millian sends a Facebook message to Papadopoulos -- which Papadopoulos will insist to the special counsel’s office he has no recollection of -- telling him that he wants to “share with [him] a disruptive technology that might be instrumental in your political work for the campaign.” Papadopoulos meets Millian twice more after this offer of campaign assistance, once in November 2016 and once at Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, apparently to discuss, among other things, a possible consulting partnership. The partnership -- Millian’s idea -- does not go forward.
You may be wondering: Where's the Israeli connection? Here it is:
Less than six months after his fourth and final meeting with Millian, Papadopoulos will be approached in Tel Aviv by the founder of Terrogence, an Israeli business intelligence outfit dealing in digital marketing campaigns and intelligence services that could be considered “disruptive” technologies “instrumental” to those political campaigns willing to use them (see chapter 8). Millian is later revealed to be a key source -- if an “unwitting” one -- for much of the dossier compiled by former MI6 Russia desk chief Christopher Steele in 2016 and published in January 2017 by BuzzFeed News.
As you know, I've long speculated that the Russians got wind of Steele's effort and fed him disinfo (which would be standard procedure).

The important take-away here is that it sure as hell looks like the Israelis and the Russians were working together to get Trump elected. This partnership has become The Super-Important Thing We Must Never Mention. This is not the elephant in the room -- it's a secret conspiracy to push the elephant into the room.

No, I'm not saying that Putin and Netanyahu are partners in all things. I'm simply arguing that, when it came to the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Putin's and Netanyahu's interests converged.

They still converge.

(Putin is always careful to denounce anti-Semitism in public. Nevertheless, his ultra-nationalism and his paranoia suggest that his thoughts may one day turn toward pogroms. Stalin went in the same direction toward the end.)

The spookery continued after the election. By 2017, according to Abramson, Saudi Arabia had joined the party. You really should pay attention to the following, because the implications are profound:
On June 21, 2017, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman becomes the heir apparent to the throne of his father’s kingdom, having just deposed his cousin Mohammed bin Nayef. The same month, an Israeli business intelligence company that “specializes in cyber espionage tools,” NSO Group, enters into a $55 million agreement with the Saudi government to give the Saudis Pegasus 3 -- proprietary software that will allow MBS and his father to “hack their citizens’ cell phones, and to listen to calls as well as conversations that take place near the phones.” While the NSO deal with Riyadh draws significant public attention, a November 2018 Times of Israel report will disclose that throughout 2017 “Israeli cyber spying companies [meet] several times with Saudi figures at European locations to talk about the sale of various [intelligence] technologies”—suggesting a new era of Israeli-Saudi coordination has begun, one that in short order will have substantial repercussions across the globe. That MBS intends to use such technology to destroy domestic opposition to his regime is evidenced by the fact that “in one [NSO-Saudi] meeting, Israeli representatives refused a Saudi request to identify the user behind an anti-regime Twitter account as a way of showing the ability of their technology” -- though NSO officials did agree to “demonstrate how [Pegasus 3] could take control of a brand-new iPhone [if] it was provided the phone’s number.
I put that last bit in boldface because I want you to ponder the implications. This software can control your phone. All they need is your number.

Think of it: Incriminating phone calls and texts could be made to and from your phone while you sleep. You may have child porn on your phone right now. You'd never know. With tech like this at their disposal, the bad guys can engineer all sorts of "October Surprise" scenarios.

I'm going to take the liberty of offering a huge chunk from Abramson's book. Again, you can skim this stuff -- but I'd advise you to make some coffee, sit down and pay attention. This story really does get interesting. And frightening.
The same month NSO sells Pegasus 3 to the Saudis, another -- or perhaps the same -- UAE-connected “Israeli businessman dealing in defense-related technologies who operates through Cyprus,” Charles Tawil, meets with George Papadopoulos. According to Papadopoulos, on June 8, 2017, Tawil, who identifies himself as a “pro-Trump citizen,” introduces him to Shai Arbel, co-founder of Israeli cyberintelligence company Terrogence, at the Crowne Plaza Tel Aviv City Center Hotel. As reported by the New Yorker, Psy-Group, Joel Zamel’s Israeli business intelligence outfit (see chapters 3 and 4), “emerged more directly from Terrogence” than did other spin-offs of the Israeli business intelligence pioneer, though the company’s first-in-its-field status means that not only Psy-Group but NSO is an heir to its inheritance. Per the New Yorker, “In 2008, [Terrogence co-founder Gadi] Aviran hired an Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer named Royi Burstien to be the vice-president of business development.… Burstien urged Aviran to consider using [online] avatars in more aggressive ways, and on behalf of a wider range of commercial clients. Aviran was wary. After less than a year at Terrogence, Burstien returned to Israel’s military intelligence, and joined an élite unit that specialized in PsyOps, or psychological operations.… [in 2014], Burstien founded Psy-Group.”
See? The distinction between "official" Israeli spooks and "private" Israeli spooks often looks like a legal fiction. We've seen the same trick in other countries, including this one.
Though Burstien is Psy-Group’s founder, Joel Zamel is its owner, via a Cyprus-based company called IOCO Limited. Zamel bases his company in Cyprus to make it easier for Arab states—which often eschew being seen doing business with an Israeli company—to become his clients.91 Psy-Group’s early work in 2016, which involves “mak[ing] money by investigating jihadi networks,” according to the New Yorker, is modeled on the business plan of Terrogence.

Also present at the June 2017 Terrogence-Papadopoulos meeting are several unnamed “founders of an Arabic language digital marketing company” and, according to Papadopoulos, multiple “ex-Israeli intelligence people,” raising the possibility that Papadopoulos is, as he will later say he suspects, meeting with representatives of foreign governments who are incognito. Another possibility is that he is meeting with representatives from Israeli business intelligence firms -- and perhaps their clients -- other than Terrogence. Papadopoulos will later say that the purpose of his meeting with Tawil, Terrogence co-founder Arbel, several Arab businessmen, and former Israeli intelligence officers with unclear affiliations was for the mysterious Israeli veterans to “pitch a social media manipulation operation … [that was] basically what they [the FBI] were accusing the Russians of doing regarding social media” during the 2016 presidential election.”

Papadopoulos is, at the time, so startled by the similarities between the Israeli and Russian interference operations presented to him (a similarity that in retrospect underscores the similarity between the work Zamel did for the Trump campaign and the crimes the Kremlin committed to aid the Trump campaign) that he begins to fear he will be “framed” for a crime if he agrees to go into business with the Israelis.
Whatever “deals” Tawil and Papadopoulos are working on in the summer of 2017, they clearly attract attention at the very highest levels of the Israeli government.
In retrospect, it is unclear why an Israeli business intelligence firm like Terrogence would be interested in an obscure energy consultant like George Papadopoulos, let alone for the Israeli government to invite Papadopoulos to an event that its prime minister was attending -- unless the Israelis believed or had been given reason to believe that Papadopoulos was still representing Trump’s interests long after he had officially left Trump’s employ.
Just like Roger Stone, eh wot?

There's much more, but I've already pilfered too much of Abramson's work. Inevitably, some hacks on Twitter have accused him of anti-Semitism, even though Abramson is Jewish. That claim won't wash. His citations are online, and his sourcing is both copious and convincing.

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Rachel Maddow is not normal. Plus: The latest indicators that a Big Smear is coming

Thanks to an emptywheel retweet, I ran across this thread by Russian-born writer Slava Malamud, listing several views that could result in arrest if voiced by a Russian living in Russia. First example:
Crimea is a part of Ukraine and was illegally annexed by Russia.
There was a time when I argued for the Russian position. That was before I truly understood Putin's evil.

The second example prompted today's essay:
There is nothing wrong with being gay. Homosexual and transsexual people are normal.
No. They are not normal.

Before you hit the RAGE REACTION button, let me make one thing clear: I agree with the first part of Malamud's formulation -- there is nothing wrong with being gay.

Have I contradicted myself? No. I am trying to repair an injury that many of my contemporaries have done to the English language -- an injury that Malamud, a non-native English speaker, may not understand.

There is nothing wrong with being abnormal. Normality and morality are two separate concepts, which have become infuriatingly conflated by Identity obsessives.

Normality refers to frequency. Period.

"But, but, but...!" I hear you sputter. Stop sputtering: No buts.

Words have definitions, and I refuse to rewrite the dictionary simply because doing so might help you feel good about yourself. Your neurotic self-esteem issues are your problem.

Let us look at the example of Rachel Maddow.

Rachel Maddow is a prominent lesbian. She's also brilliant. If she were my daughter or sister, I would burst with pride every day. If she ever ran for president, I'd not only vote for her, I'd volunteer to work on her campaign. History will list her as one of this era's finest Americans.

But she is not normal -- at least, not in terms of her sexual identity. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she is exasperatingly normal in other ways.) Polls differ, but this one by the CDC seems authoritative, and it says that 1.3 percent of American women identify as lesbian, while a further 2.2 percent of women identify as bisexual. If my addition skills have not completely atrophied, these figures give us a total of 3.5 percent of women who are either lesbian or bisexual.

If you are one of the 3.5 percent, you are not normal. If you are among the 96.5 percent, you are normal. I am not in a position to say whether you are good or evil -- but sexually, you are normal.

There is nothing inherently iniquitous about those who reside within Three-Point-Five PercentLand. In fact, I would counsel any young man to consider the advantages of dating a bisexual woman. Suppose a man says the following words to his bisexual girlfriend: "Winona Ryder sure was gorgeous in that Dracula movie, wasn't she?" The bisexual girlfriend will probably respond: "She sure was!" By contrast, those same words might prompt a straight girlfriend to initiate a night-long row, ending with a command to sleep on the sofa: "And I hope you and Winona are very happy together!"

You know what is very abnormal? Genius.

You know what is, by definition, the most normal thing in the world? Mediocrity.

In many ways -- some laudable, some humiliating -- I am abnormal. Speaking as a lifelong oddball -- as a queer person, as that word was used in the 19th century -- I hereby command you: Never call me normal. That's an insult.

The Big Smear is a-comin'! By this point, you may be wondering: When's it gonna hit? Well, if Biden is the target, it will hit after he is the official nominee.

The latest indicator: The pro-Trump Daily Caller -- which has given the Maxwell case a lot of play -- reports that additional "victims" have come forward. I'm sure that these new victims are every bit as credible as Virginia Giuffre and Sara Ransome.

The Daily Caller would shy away from this story if they felt that Trump could be hurt.

I have no sympathy, of course, for either Maxwell or Epstein. But I'm very suspicious of these new claimants. Having been burned by Ransome and Giuffre, who turned out to be infuriating liars, I cannot trust any new entrants into the Epstein case. Please note that Ransome and Giuffre were not part of the original case against Epstein, even though many news articles and documentaries have given the false impression that they were. During that investigation, the cops interviewed many genuine victims. The story is told in Patterson's Filthy Rich, which is a good book as long as you keep in mind the fact that Patterson wrote before the truth about Virginia came out. (The Netflix documentary of the same name is far more deceptive.)

From the Daily Caller story:
“The powerful testimony of these victims, who had strikingly similar experiences with Maxwell, together with documentary evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein,” the prosecutors wrote.
I predict that one or more of these new victims will also claim that she had sex with Joe Biden during one of his many Virgin Island vacations. Maxwell will eventually "confirm" this false story. There may even be photographic evidence (concocted).

Prepare now. Spread the word. Don't let this come as a surprise. The only way to counter the smear effectively is to have a plan ready beforehand.

And never forget: Maxwell is Mossad, according to Hoffenberg and others. Israeli rightwingers understand that they can annex much of the West Bank if and only if Trump wins re-election. 

Krystal Ball -- the die-hard Bernie supporter who works for Pro-Trump media, and who insists that she is not a Russian agent, despite all appearances -- has been prepping the way for the Big Smear. See here and here. Follow Ball if you want to track how the propagandists will sell this "Evil Dem" story to naive lefties. (I can't believe I used to like that woman!)

I'm frustrated with stories like this one from 538, which applies purely conventional metrics to the election. The article argues, correctly, that Trump is now the one who suffers from an "enthusiasm gap." Joe Biden is not universally adored by Dems, but few truly dislike him, and he does not create gut-level rage among Republicans.
Additionally, social science research suggests that antipathy toward the other side is driven in large part by racial and cultural differences between the parties — differences that Clinton and former President Barack Obama exemplify in ways that a 77-year-old white moderate male Democrat doesn’t.

As The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer astutely put it, “The notion of a Biden presidency simply does not provoke the visceral rage that Clinton and Obama did — not in Trump, and not in his supporters.” So long as Biden’s campaign does not evoke such negativity, Trump will likely be the one on the short end of the 2020 enthusiasm gap.
When a weepy "Epstein girl" goes on teevee with a "Joe raped me" story, the negativity quotient will skyrocket.

The pro-Trump forces have to resort to a Big Smear. They simply have no choice. Nothing else will save Trump. Remember: Impeachment resulted from a Big Smear attempt every bit as audacious as the one I am predicting here.

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Biden: Wow

We still hear from "lefties" (or left-impersonators based in St. Petersberg) who insist that Joe Biden is a corporatist sell-out.

OH YEAH? LOOK AT THIS.


I did not expect to see such a document. Joe Biden is going all-in on populism.

I hope that his pledge to invest heavily in infrastructure gains widespread approval. In truth, what he's saying does not greatly differ from what Trump said in 2016. Of course, Trump lied: He has done nothing about our deteriorating infrastructure, even though this is the one issue on which he would have had strong backing from Democrats. 

Biden's pledge to revive the American auto industry should resonate with many Americans. Revitalization must be a government goal; laissez-faire won't do the job. The brutal logic of unfettered global capitalism is what ruined our auto industry in the first place. We can get those jobs back only if we stop listening to the fucking libertarians.

About ten years ago, Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism reminded the world that Toyota would still be making looms (and nothing else) if the Japanese government had not decided that the country would one day become an automotive giant -- a goal which took decades to accomplish. This summary is worth quoting:
Government subsidies helped the company [Toyota] develop their first car. Decades of high import tariffs protected it from foreign competition as it grew into a serious contender. Domestic content laws both made sure the company used parts made within the country, and also guaranteed that domestic competitors would have to, thus building a strong base of domestic companies supportive of an auto industry, from tires to plastic components to precision machine tools and electronics.

In 1939 the country even kicked out both GM and Ford from sales within the country, and the nation's single wholly-owned bank bailed out the struggling textile manufacturer as it moved relentlessly forward in the development of an automobile.

That company, originally known as The Toyoda Automatic Loom Company, is today known as Toyota, and manufactures the infamous Lexus that Tom Friedman mistakenly thought was successful because the world is "flat" and trade is "free." In fact, the success of the Lexus (and the Prius and every other Toyota) is entirely traceable to massive government intervention in the markets by Japan over a fifty-year period that continues to this very day.
Looks like Biden has been reading Ha-Joon Chang.

Granted, Biden's plan is really a list of desiderata; he does not detail how he intends to bell so many cats. If the country falls into a deep recession in 2021 (as I suspect it will), he'll have far fewer resources to accomplish this vision. Still, I draw some encouragement from the fact that Biden's 2020 populist rhetoric mirrors Trump's 2016 populist rhetoric, just as I drew encouragement from the fact that Andrew Yang had fans on both the left and the right. Maybe the American public is finally starting to awaken from its Ayn Randian trance. 

I hope that some of our "woke" young people can appreciate a truly progressive economic vision. Economics is fundamental. Must the entire national dialogue continually be about RACE RACE RACE and SEX SEX SEX? We need to talk about JOBS JOBS JOBS.

We also need to talk about saving the damn planet. Joe's doing that.