Category Archives: Old Media Delusion

Judge Kavanaugh – It’s Only A Man’s Life After All

Like most of America, I find myself riveted by the situation surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. More than anything else, it should be the latest and perhaps most striking example of a point I’m fond of making – that is there is a real fight going on, and at stake is the essence of the United States of America. Even the most Principled, Decorum-Obsessed, Tone Policing conservative has to see it now, and if not he or she has no business commenting on these matters ever again. Kavanaugh, remember, isn’t some John Birch Society type of conservative, but a standard Bush GOP man. That the situation is happening to his sort highlights the fact that there is a real street fight going on in the political realm that threatens to further consume the social realm.

As of this writing, the allegation brought forth by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault at the hands of Kavanaugh, some 36 years ago, has been subjected to further investigation by the FBI. This process has been completed, and a report returned to the US Senate for analysis. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is poised to take a full vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the end of the week. Whatever the result, this confirmation process will have a lasting impact on our society.

In truth, much more than even a Supreme Court seat hangs in the balance here. This is a matter of whether due process, the rule of law and common decency will succumb to the politics of personal destruction, the female driven anarcho-tyranny that is now gender relations, and the death of Heritage America by any means necessary.

The New York Times is a standard bearer for the latter set. So naturally its Editorial Board viewed the pivotal Kavanaugh-Ford Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, called last week to discuss the allegations, as totally damning for the Judge. Its analysis provides a distillation of the “intellectual” forces arrayed against such seemingly basic values like due process, so it is worth going through. The Editors write of the spectacle:

What a study in contrasts: Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough, he was openly contemptuous of several senators; most important, where she was credible and unshakable at every point in her testimony, he was at some points evasive, and some of his answers strained credulity.

Christine Blasey Ford made an allegation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party some 36 years ago, when they were both in high school. However, she cannot narrow when the alleged assault occurred down to the month, let alone any sort of date. The best she can do is say it was in the summer of 1982. She cannot pinpoint where this occurred, apart from saying it took place a few miles away from a country club she swam at. She cannot pinpoint how she got there, or who exactly was there. In fact, there is no one who has stated that this gathering occurred as described by Ford. At least 3 of the people Ford claims were attendants, as well as Kavanaugh, have stated the gathering did not happen.

Ford describes the alleged assault in detail. She seemingly knows the precise floor plan of the alleged house, but after making her escape from the assault which she claims nearly killed her, indeed describing in detail her escape route, her memory suddenly stops. She seemingly cannot remember what happened after she emerged into the fresh air of that summer night. She does not know where she went to next, how or when she eventually got home, or who brought her home.

The aforementioned is essentially the sum of the sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, of all of the parties involved.

Not one piece of Ford’s allegation is corroborated by anything other than Ford’s own account. Rachel Mitchell, the independent prosecutor drafted by the Republicans to question Ford, stated in her summary that the case was even weaker than a “he said, she said” case which itself is near impossible to prove. Yet this is what passes for “credible” according to the New York Times editorial board, a proxy for the views of polite society.

This artificial inflation of Ford’s charge extended to the vast majority of the press, as well as the majority of lawmakers, who constantly ascribed to Ford herself and/or her allegation a veneer of legitimacy it does not deserve. She was constantly described as “compelling,” “believable,” and of course “credible,” even by Republicans.

This in turn made Kavanaugh “credibly accused.” The mere existence of Ford’s allegation, as well as others from Debora Ramirez and Julie Swetnick which have proven to be equally baseless, allowed the Kavanaugh’s political enemies to repeatedly smear him as a sexual assaulter at the very least. At worst, Kavanaugh was a serial gang rapist. For the better part of two weeks these are the sort of terms that were attached to Kavanuagh’s name by press chatterboxes, their 24 hour, 7 day conviction- by-media loudly dwarfing the standard terse denial statements Kavanaugh offered in response.

To step back a bit, generally when these sort of sexual crimes are alleged with no tangible evidence, and none forthcoming due to substantial time having passed, the man is faced with an unduly high bar to breach to successfully clear his name. In practice, the mere accusation is enough to harm the man’s standing in many eyes. Should he be cleared of the charge legally, many will still view him as a guilty man who simply had the fortune of the evidence being destroyed by time.

The man’s reputation is irreparably harmed by the ordeal, and many will never view him in the same light again. Opportunities in business and employment, public service and community participation may be closed off to him. A lot of this is a consequence of biology, in that female sexual and reproductive value is intrinsic to the furthering of a given society, and as such society is extremely sensitive to sexual violations perpetrated against females, considering it among the worst of crimes.

This is what Kavanaugh faces at the moment, and will continue to face for the rest of his life. Even if he is cleared of these charges in some official capacity, it will not be enough to undo the association of Kavanaugh and rape, which was seared into the pubic conscience by the media.

His family life will be altered forever, with his wife facing ostracism for supporting a ‘rapist,’ with his kids being hounded to view their father as evil, thereby themselves relegated to spawn of evil; with his community and social circle pressured to isolate the family as tainted. All of this, to be cemented in recorded history for posterity. Already we have seen this to some extent as the media views his coaching of girls basketball as problematic, implying predation of minors, while Harvard Law School has effectively frozen him out of his teaching duties.

The Times shows no empathy for Kavanaugh’s plight, writing:

Judge Kavanaugh’s defiant fury might be understandable coming from someone who believes himself innocent of the grotesque charges he’s facing. Yet it was also evidence of an unsettling temperament in a man trying to persuade the nation of his judicial demeanor.

There is no “might” here. Kavanaugh’s fury is completely understandable, and has multiple layers to it. As described, there is an special sort of disgust for sexual crimes against females that aggregates to a concentrated fury towards the perpetrators. The flip side of this is the concentrated fury of those falsely accused of such crimes, emanating from the prospect of facing the steepest of penalties with no justification.

The price Kavanaugh stands to pay here is potentially life and career ending, and certainly reputation-ending, all because someone made an allegation, with no basis, and thus no legitimacy. Well, no legitimacy apart from its potential ability to exact political damage. That Kavanaugh’s life has been turned upside down perhaps deliberately, with calculation, presents a second layer of justifiable fury. Then there are the kids. Imagine having to explain to your 10 year old what “gang rape” is.

And thus, with his life set to be wrested from him ultimately for the crime of his political inconvenience, he appeared before some of the very enablers of his predicament to defend his family, his name, his life.

And our ‘betters’ in the press act like it was a surprise that Kavanuagh showed some emotion, some fight. After all, it was only his life and his family on the line.

The fact is that when Kavanaugh was in front of the Committee in his capacity as a judge, answering questions about his judicial record as well as other questions pertaining to the Supreme Court, his temperament was fine. He was calm, engaging and respectful to all of the senators who asked him questions – including Democrats who attempted to malign him and his record.

It was only when he faced the same committee in his capacity as a Man, defending his name and his family from salacious charges that he was moved with a range of emotion.

Unmoved by this, Kavanaugh’s detractors in the NYT took the further step of using his humanity in defending his family against him, claiming that his ‘defiant fury’ was somehow evidence of a temperamental flaw which made him unfit for service on the bench.

This is textbook gaslighting. A bogus charge is levied, followed by days of constant smearing, then a declaration of mental instability when a justifiable anger is levied in response. It is indeed reminiscent of the lowest of low tactics perpetrated by totalitarians when trying to bring the hammer down on those it considers dissidents. The Editors carry on, in their role as Pravda:

On Thursday, he gave misleading answers to questions about seemingly small matters — sharpening doubts about his honesty about far more significant ones. He gave coy answers when pressed about what was clearly a sexual innuendo in his high-school yearbook.

Kavanaugh stated that “boofing” referred to flatulence, that the “devil’s triangle” referred to a drinking game, and that the “FFFFFFourth of July” referred to an inside joke about the way a friend spoke. They were fine answers on their face. However, even if you want to insist that these are actually evidence of a clear sexual innuendo, beyond having no proof of this, you are left arguing that teenage boys do not go around flaunting newly acquired knowledge about sex as much as possible, despite their vast inexperience. Above this, equating joking about sex or intimating sexual activity with ‘a tendency to sexually assault women,’ is insipid at best, irresponsible on the average, and defamatory at worst.

He insisted over and over that others Dr. Blasey named as attending the gathering had “said it didn’t happen,” when in fact at least two of them have said only that they don’t recall it — and one of them told a reporter that she believes Dr. Blasey.

In other words, no one corroborates Blasey Ford’s account. The closest she comes is “I believe her, but I can’t recall if what she is saying happened.” This allegation would get absolutely nowhere in the legal system, as Rachel Mitchell declared.

But, they tell us, this is not a criminal investigation! This is about assessing the character of a man we might be putting on the Supreme Court! And to this end,

Judge Kavanaugh clumsily dodged a number of times when senators asked him about his drinking habits. When Senator Amy Klobuchar gently pressed him about whether he’d ever blacked out from drinking, he at first wouldn’t reply directly. “I don’t know, have you?” he replied — a condescending and dismissive response to the legitimate exercise of a senator’s duty of advise and consent. (Later, after a break in the hearing, he apologized.)

Judge Kavanaugh gave categorical denials a number of times, including, at other points, that he’d ever blacked out from too much drinking. Given numerous reports now of his heavy drinking in college, such a blanket denial is hard to believe.

Indeed, the questions surrounding Kavanaugh’s drinking were the worst aspects of his testimony. However I suspect Kavanaugh was attempting to avoid being drawn into an obvious trap. The Democratic Senators were trying to establish that Kavanaugh at times drank in excess such that he forgot details of the previous night. Therefore, Ford’s account could have happened, but Kavanaugh might not have remembered it thanks to his drinking. This is indeed line of attack Kavanaugh’s enemies pursued as the various allegations started to unravel.

Spurious at best, but when you have absolutely no shred of concrete evidence, spinning fantastic theories is your best bet.

Furthermore, the ‘job interview’ argument is disingenuous. Kavanaugh’s character is now being examined in the context of an allegation of serious crime. Whether he actually committed that crime or not is thus incredibly important to assessing his character. The flimsy nature of the allegation combined with the presumption of innocence should not damage Kavanaugh’s character in theory.

What those who constantly harp on the fact that this is not a criminal investigation are trying to do is bypass that logical conclusion by intimating that that if you are of good character you will never be accused of anything in the first place. In so doing, they render mere allegations to be damning.

This is dangerous, to put it mildly. Indeed, the mask slipped when a protestor to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation got in the face of Senator Cassidy of Louisiana. Consider the following exchange:

Protester: “I would fight. And I would make sure women are heard. Clearly you’re OK if a rapist goes on the Supreme Court.”

Cassidy: “No, I’m not. But then on the other hand, clearly you’re OK, the absence of evidence obviously means nothing to you.”

Protester: “No, there is evidence. Look at the standard. How many people are in jail for less?”

According to the protester, Kavanaugh’s lynching is justifiable because of the fact that other men have been destroyed on even less grounds than the ‘weaker than he said, she said’ case brought against him. She is no doubt voicing the id of the leftist establishment in the press, academia and politics, communist to the core, the thirst for blood palpable. Returning to the Times:

In contrast, Dr. Blasey bolstered her credibility not only by describing in harrowing detail what she did remember, but by being honest about what she didn’t — like the exact date of the gathering, or the address of the house where it occurred. As she pointed out, the precise details of a trauma get burned into the brain and stay there long after less relevant details fade away.

In other words, Ford provided no evidence, tangible or otherwise that this event occurred. Her precise description of the floor plan of the house yet no recollection of even the month when it occurred is waived away by psychology. Yet this is all seen as a bolstering of credibility.

She was also honest about her ambivalence in coming forward. “I am terrified,” she told the senators in her opening remarks. And then there’s the fact that she gains nothing by coming forward. She is in hiding now with her family in the face of death threats.

Where a man accused of sexual crime without evidence finds himself in an almost untenable situation, the female accuser in such scenarios rarely faces the same sort of potential lasting damage. Should her claim be shown to be false, or lacking evidence, the sympathetic position she garners by merely making the claim is bolstered by a further sympathy from some that The System failed her.

To the extent she faces any shorter term criticism for ruining a man’s life, this dissipates over time to the point where nothing may as well have happened.  See Jackie Coakley, the infamous Rolling Stone UVA accuser, who faced no repercussions for cooking up a totally fake story about a rape in a fraternity house. Nothing happened to her outside of internet criticism. She even found some guy to look past her obvious mental issues and marry her.

It is ridiculous to assert that Ford has nothing to gain. For a start, Ford’s political aims would be realized if Kavanaugh is prevented from the bench over this. Beyond that, her name will forever be on the lips of social justice activists from now until the end of time. She will go down in history alongside the likes of Rosa Parks as women who changed the course of American history, in this instance by saving Roe v Wade.

Even if her claims are proven unequivocally as baseless, Ford will still have her defenders. No matter what, she will gain monetarily in the shape of book deals, high profile interviews and media appearances, and even corporate sponsorships. This, on top of the three quarters of a million dollars she has seen accrue to her Go Fund Me page, despite having spent nothing on her lawyers (who happen to be big players in the Democrat political machine – not cheap by any stretch), and nothing on the two-question polygraph test many have pointed to as part of her “credibility.”

The reported death threats sound routine, in that almost every public figure, particularly controversial ones, receive them regularly. I do not trivialize them, but only mention their regularity (Kavanaugh and his family have received death threats as well) so as to highlight the fact that the preponderance of evidence points to Ford having plenty to gain and relatively little to lose. Whether she meant it that way is irrelevant.

The Times finishes thusly:

There is no reason the committee needs to hold this vote before the F.B.I. can do a proper investigation, and Mr. Judge and possibly other witnesses can be called to testify under oath. The Senate, and the American people, need to know the truth, or as close an approximation as possible, before deciding whether Judge Kavanaugh should get a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court. If the committee will not make a more serious effort, the only choice for senators seeking to protect the credibility of the Supreme Court will be to vote no.

Indeed, the committee made that more serious effort, with Senator Jeff Flake essentially demanding a further FBI investigation in exchange for a ‘yes’ vote. Interestingly enough, what led to Flake’s last second demand, apart from his natural propensity to waiver, was an exchange he had with two women who accosted him as he attempted to enter an elevator.

The women shouted Flake down, declaring that they were victims of sexual assault and that as a result Flake’s decision making on the matter, should he decide ‘incorrectly,’ would be validating  and legitimizing their stated assaults. In a way, this was a microcosm of the entire Kavanaugh saga – a shrieking woman claiming abuse, and demanding that this claim inform the sober rationality of a Supreme Court nomination. Note too that one of the women accosting Flake was obviously foreign. She is a confirmed operative of a George Soros-funded activist group. This added a nice touch in highlighting the destruction of Heritage America by foreigners from within.

A lot of that destruction over the last 50 years or so has come at the hand of the Supreme Court, which has taken an increasingly activist role in that time. While the court had been nominally a 5-4 split in the favor of the more conservative view, in reality Justice Kennedy’s voting record showed that the split was effectively 4.5-4.5. With Kennedy’s retirement and Kavanaugh’s prospective ascension to the court, it would be a legitimate 5-4 split.

This is the real reason for the extra bit of dirtiness coming from the Kavanaugh opposition camp. It is because of the realization that the main vehicle for Marxist advancement will be closed off, and even reversed, for a generation. Kavanaugh thus represents existential damage and is worth stopping by any means necessary.

I suspect that the rank desperation the left has shown here will prove to have been a bridge too far. The United States still has within it the soul of Heritage America in large numbers, despite its declining vitality. They will be viscerally disgusted by the willingness to so easily destroy an innocent man and his family for the sake of political advancement. Kavanaugh is no Trump. He is not an apex alpha male celebrity with decades in the spotlight.

He is a normal guy who did normal things and dated normal women. John Q. Public looks at Kavanaugh and sees himself or perhaps his good buddy in high school. Huge swaths of women see Mrs. Kavanaugh struggling to keep it together and shudder at the thought of this happening to their family. I suspect they won’t cosign what the leftists have offered. If a descent to such moral lows is what is required, perhaps those aims sought aren’t worth it.

On a more somber note, the entire saga is quite depressing. That one has to write such a tome in the defense of concepts such as a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in today’s age speaks to the declining intelligence of the country as a whole. More generally, that we have a huge slice of the population that believes that allegations are convictions, or does not value freedom of speech, the rights of one to self-defense via firearm or concepts such as the Electoral College speaks to a decline in the essence of America.

That they all have voting power leads to  the realization that country that so produced the glorious reputation the United States is on the way out absent change.  It more generally speaks to the warnings against a pure democracy from throughout history. If we haven’t already reached a sort of ‘Post-America,’ we are fast reaching it. To save America, or indeed to sit by and let it go will both come with its own horrors. As such, these are potentially dark times.

The Fight is On

In the realm of politics and the culture, there is a street fight going on. It is starting to come to a head now, in terms of the wider public debate because one side is just starting to understand the fight is an existential one. Let me explain what I mean.

On the cultural side, the social justice set has continued the long march through the institutions its predecessors began decades ago, and are slowly but surely reshaping the United States in its progressive, Marxist image. Politically, the nexus of high level elements of the government bureaucracy, industry and their mouth pieces in the legacy media – some would call this nexus the Deep State – has seen its power grow and deepen during that same time period. Furthermore, this power has been used to advance the cultural Marxism espoused by the social justice set.

This set has achieved its gains most explicitly in the cultural arena, with an assessment of such succinctly put in the observation that as the US once put men on the moon, it now puts men in the women’s bathroom. Along the way, the “opposition,” branding itself as conservative, has tended to scream loudly before ultimately rubber stamping each and every cultural change. To the extent this conservative group provided original contributions, they came in the shape of facilitating the departure of America’s industrial base to distant lands, while advocating endless military entanglements in other distant lands.

What facilitated the transformation of America was the fact that it was very gradual, and that the vestiges of Heritage America, most notably the Constitution, were kept intact, at least on the surface.

If the founding fathers stepped out of a time machine into today’s America and were informed of the mere existence of an FBI, CIA or NSA, let alone the amount of power they are capable of wielding, they’d drop dead from the shock. Yet only a few Americans living today have qualms with the insipid justification that ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.’ Fewer still are moved enough to take active steps in shielding themselves from Big Brother.

In a recent podcast, The Z Man outlines the ways in which the Constitution, while nominally in tact, has in practical terms lost its meaning. Yes, you do have the rights and freedoms afforded to you by the document on paper, but attempting to exercise those rights and freedoms in the real world becomes another proposition entirely.

With respect to the first amendment, one does have the right to free speech and to assemble peacefully. But should you do so and choose to promote a right leaning, or more specifically anti-cultural Marxist point of view, you risk consequences that are far greater than mere “opposing speech.”

Take Roosh V, who has recently had 9 of his books banned upon the release of his new book Game, which was selling like hotcakes. Or take Alex Jones. Or Andrew Anglin, Richard Spencer, Lauren Southern, Milo, Faith Goldy, Chuck Johnson, Ricky Vaughn, Jared Taylor, James Allsup, Gavin McInnes, Tommy Robinson, Owen Benjamin, Blonde in the Belly of the Beast, Identity Evropa, Virginia Dare, American Renaissance, Red Ice, David Horowitz, Brittany Pettibone, Darren Beattie, and so on.

These individuals or groups have all been subject to life calls for losing their jobs, or when it comes to their internet presence, bans from social media platforms, payment processors, or web hosting services, not to mention trickery such as shadowbanning and algorithm tinkering. All for trafficking in wrongthink.

The fact that these sanctions were all administered by private companies enables the cultural Marxists and their nominal conservative allies to claim innocence since there is no explicit government censorship involved.

This dynamic highlights the manner in which the Marxists have operated over the years. The American Corporation, in one way or another, plays a gigantic role in the lives of ordinary Americans. Either you work for one, and thus are dependent on it for income, you are entertained by one, or you consume its products, many of which facilitate everyday activities. Marxists have infiltrated Corprate America at large, and as such they are for the most part boisterous adherents to the religion of TEPID (tolerance, equality, progress, inclusion, diversity). This poses a  danger to the would-be dissident.

He or she must now choose his or her words carefully, because offending the wrong person means a potential loss of employment, ostracism, expulsion from polite society, being barred from basic services such as payment processing, or all of the above. In a related sign of things to come, Governor Cuomo of NY not so subtly warned financial institutions that it might be subject to ‘reputational risk’ should they conduct business with the National Rifle Association.

The bottom line is that we still have our constitutional freedoms on paper, but exercising them fully is becoming more and more difficult. Our nominal conservative friends tell us that we should just build our own platforms, or some variant of that argument. That is all well and good, but with respect to social media, the reality of the monopoly Big Tech enjoys makes this difficult. Especially when you consider that the people controlling access to internet sing from the same TEPID hymn sheet. Given the propensity of nominal conservatives to acquiesce, at some point they’d be shrugging their shoulders, declaring “Why do you just build your own electrical Grid?!?”

The move to censor right-leaning voices on social media and the internet generally is a tactical response to the proliferation of such voices that resulted in complete domination of the 2014-2016 electoral cycle.

From Gamergate through Brexit and Trump’s victory, the right memed, podcasted, YouTubed and tweeted its message far and wide, bypassing the legacy media and delivering what was, and still is, the winning argument. The legacy media did not see this coming, nor was it equipped to fight back. Having had the monopoly on “objective truth” for decades it had grown lazy. It had no answer for a new medium which could provide virtually anyone the opportunity to cogently repudiate legacy media narratives, and do so in front of an audience that began to dwarf that of the mainstream press.

Instead of putting forth better arguments, the legacy media leaned on the social media companies themselves, very loudly accusing them of being hosts to “hate speech,” “propaganda,” “Russian bots,” whatever. This then led to the rush to censor and harass that we are currently in the midst of. The TEPID religion was sending a message to the non-believers who had stalled the March To Progress back in 2016: do NOT try this again.

Politically, the Deep State has done its utmost to thwart and subvert the Trump Agenda. It even admits it. The reason is that Trump represents a populist revolt against the failed paradigm of the post World War 2 era.

President Obama was perhaps the perfect president to continue the advancement of that paradigm. He was able to significantly advance leftist goals in the matters of socialized medicine, industry stifling regulations, and ‘woke’ identity politics. For the nominal right, he maintained a flow of cheap labor from south of the border, did not significantly impair neoconservative foreign policy aims, and left a parting gift of TPP, a NAFTA-style trading partnership with several countries in the Pacific.

Although many on the more radical left were disappointed in Obama, his work had to be considered within the context of a United States which, at its core, still purported to be a conservative country. That placed a check on the ability of the Marxists to go full speed ahead with their grand vision.

President Trump represented the most formidable challenge to that vision, one of a destroyed Heritage America, in decades. Trump had exposed the lies which Americans had been told for far too long about subjects such as trade, immigration and foreign policy. These were lies that on some level, most Americans understood, but could not articulate.

Trump’s messaging, while simplistic, was enough to help square the circle for the American voter. Yes, it is true that America’s issues are more complex than “China’s killing us on trade,” but to the American voter, particularly those old enough to have consciously experienced the shift from ‘Made in America’ to ‘Made in China,’ it clicked. The juxtaposition of the sober reality Trump described with the insistence of our elites that the same reality had actually been great for the economy brought about an unmistakable realization that the true price of cheaper foreign trinkets was the destruction of once healthy American communities.

It was that sort of realization that propelled Trump from strength to strength. And above that, it was his willingness to fight, unencumbered by any political debt, plus a 40 year run as an A-list celebrity in an increasingly celebrity-worshipping culture that made him truly dangerous.

Thus, he had to be taken down. From the Rosie O’Donnell debate question to the Access Hollywood tape, the Old Guard did it’s best to throw a spanner in the works. However, despite dozens of ‘scandals,’ any one of which likely would have ended the run of a standard Republican candidate, Trump still won.

And then it became real.

The 50-plus year Marxist advance was in danger of slowing down or coming to a halt. The Status Quo, the Old Order, Democratic norms – whatever you want to call it – was at risk for the first time in decades. 

A few centuries ago, Machiavelli accurately described the risks Trump faces today, when he noted that attempting to change an old order is one of the most difficult, and dangerous things one can do. Those who benefit by the old order will militantly defend it, while those who might benefit from the new order only offer lukewarm support as the unsure future success isn’t worth the short term unrest in their eyes.

So as Plan A, the slow and steady promulgation of cultural Marxism through American institutions and conventions, became suddenly under threat, another plan was necessary. Plan B, then, could only be described as a full-scale attempt to overturn the result of the 2016 election, as well as purge any and all elements which helped that result come to pass.

That part began in earnest during the summer of 2016, with the FBI ‘insurance plan’ headed by now infamous agent Peter Stzrok. The Mueller special probe which followed is not investigating any specific crime, but rather is simply investigating Trump the candidate, and his campaign. That is not how the justice system is supposed to work.

The pleas and convictions of the likes of George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are ultimately borne of an  investigation which used the power of the state to railroad its political enemies. If the Democrats retake the House in November, they will do nothing but continue to investigate Trump, in search of a crime, for the next two years.

As that has gone on, Congress, controlled by nominal conservatives, has done nothing with the opportunity it has given, proving without a shadow of a doubt that it had little interest in acting on the conservative agenda it pretended to champion, outside of token achievements such as tax cuts.

Add to this a foreign policy establishment that consistently undermines President Trump’s aims of reversing the failures of the globalists over the last 30 years. The most brazen example of this has been John Kerry flitting around the planet this week as though he was still Secretary of State. His aim has been to trash Trump, tell everyone to merely wait him out, essentially pushing the very policies and points of view which had brought nothing but failure for decades, and had been summarily rejected by voters as a result.

These sort of undermining campaigns of course has been cheered on by a lap dog press which conjures up such absurdities as Trump’s resistance to prolonging a fruitless 17 year campaign rendering him some sort of child, who had to be reined in by the ‘adults in the room.’

Then you have Brett Kavanaugh, who was subjected to a low blow attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court. She reportedly forwarded a letter from an anonymous woman alleging  possible sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh from his high school days to the FBI. The FBI has since declared it won’t investigate, but the point of it all was the sullying of Kavanaugh’s name.

For the rest of his time on the bench, he’ll have this nebulous accusation hanging over his head. For decades to come, news organizations will be able to write sentences such as “Kavanaugh, who was once accused of sexual misconduct but never investigated…” It’s as dirty as it gets.

To bring this full circle, this week has also highlighted the efforts of one Google in attempting to influence the 2016 election. Specifically, a leaked email chain showed the efforts Google went to influence the vote by goading Hispanic voters to the polls (to vote against Trump) by curating the information that these voters were subject to on Google services. It was described as a ‘silent donation’ by the executive in question.

This effort failed, and was lamented by the Google execs, both in that leaked email chain, and in this hour long video of them consoling themselves after the election defeat.

On one hand, the fact that companies with the reach of Google tried to tip the scales and failed is encouraging. But on the other hand, they were mostly blindsided by the breadth of Trumpism as a movement. They are aware now, and are taking clear steps to redress what happened in 2016.

In other words, the gloves are well and truly off. The TEPID religion couldn’t convince the populace through conventional means, and so it is now seeking to force itself upon us through censorship and intimidation. In the process, it continually sheds the pretense of an adherence to American-style constitutional republic governance, revealing the soft totalitarianism underlying the TEPID dogma.

Should that fail, the social justice set will have little compunction in going Full Jacobin. Just look at Antifa. Or the Twitter horde that threatened a commentator for a pro-life, anti ‘sexual revolution’ opinion. A man was subject to an attempted  stabbing, for the modern sin of running for office as a Republican. This, of course a year on from a man shooting up a baseball field full of Republican lawmakers. Then you have Joe Scarborough in the Washington Post comparing President Trump unfavorably to actual terrorists – on the anniversary of 9/11 to be sure – before not so slyly pointing out that those terrorists were killed before truly completing their goals. And he and his ilk have the nerve to drone on about ‘dogwhistles.’

What this all means is that there is no more time for those in the squishy Right, those like Fox News host Neil Cavuto, who closed a personal address to President Trump on a recent show with a mic-drop attempt, declaring Trump was “so darned focused promoting a financial boom that you fail to see that you are the one creating this moral bust.”

This mentality is utterly useless when the opposition has no issues with winning a fight in an unprincipled, even dirty manner.

With Marxists exercising the enormous power of corporations in circumventing the constitution in an attempt to bring dissident voices to heel; with the Deep State attempting to establish a precedent for overturning the results of a free and fair election in the United States by bureaucratic fiat, while chalking any dissent down to Right Wing Russian Propaganda…we’re supposed to be concerned about a “moral bust?”

This, in an age in which an LGBT lobby not content with the massive legislative victories attained in recent years, such that a Colorado baker must be singled out for badgering until he is forced to use his artistic abilities in a manner suitable to the mob. The same group which wants Judge Kavanaugh crucified for a possible sexual encounter when he was a teen in high school celebrated a guide to anal sex being published in an issue of Teen Vogue. And we are to believe this moral bust was created by Trump?

The other side took the gloves off ages ago. To seek a genteel rapprochement in response is fatal.

Guilt By Association

One of the more common declarations by our ‘betters’ at the top levels of government, industry, media, and entertainment is that President Trump has some sort of great affinity for totalitarian dictatorships and is seeking to implement something similar in the Home of the Brave. It only takes the most cursory glance at the definitions of terms like ‘totalitarian’ to understand that those elites which go after Trump in that manner are projecting, and in a big way. Consider the following except from the book Political Participation in Communist China by James Roger Townsend:

Nevertheless, the Party does not expel them from the ranks of the “people” for their sin of omission and they need not fear physical punishment. At the same time they cannot escape some compulsion to conform. This compulsion normally takes the form of social pressure- intensified persuasion by cadres and activists, public criticism and condemnation, and perhaps some form of ostracism. It may also take the form of a justifiable fear on the part of the “passivist” that he is jeopardizing his future by acquiring a bad name, although this fear is much stronger among professional and technical strata than among the masses of workers and peasants for whom individual promotion and placement is less a meaningful question.

Here Townsend was describing the tactics used by the Communists to bully those, in this case those who weren’t sufficiently supportive of The Party and its aims, into compliance. It is not a perfect parallel, but this sort of bullying is increasingly rained down from On High upon dissidents in West – those who don’t enthusiastically swallow the TEPID (tolerance, equality, progressive, inclusion, diversity) ideology.

Earlier this week, Tucker Carlson’s show brought the plight of Darren Beattie to my attention. Beattie was speechwriter for President Trump, who was fired after CNN discovered that Beattie had attended the Mencken Conference in 2016. I’ll let CNN tell you why that was a bad thing:

A speechwriter for President Donald Trump who attended a conference frequented by white nationalists has left the White House.

CNN’s KFile reached out to the White House last week about Darren Beattie, a policy aide and speechwriter, who was listed as speaking at the 2016 H.L. Mencken Club Conference.

The Mencken Club, which is named for the early 20th century journalist and satirist whose posthumously published diaries revealed racist views, is a small annual conference started in 2008 and regularly attended by well-known white nationalists such as Richard Spencer. The schedule for the 2016 conference listed panels and speeches by white nationalist Peter Brimelow and two writers, John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg, who were both fired in 2012 from the conservative magazine National Review for espousing racist views.

Other speakers from the 2016 conference are regular contributors to the white nationalist website VDare. Jared Taylor, another leading white nationalist, can be heard at the conference in 2016 on Derbyshire’s radio show along with Brimelow.

The White House, which asked CNN to hold off on the story for several days last week declined to say when Beattie left the White House. Beattie’s email address at the White House, which worked until late Friday evening, was no longer active by Saturday.

You see, Beattie’s great sin was being in the same room as some of the most unfancied dissidents in America, according to our elites. Note, Beattie is not accused of saying anything “racist” himself, or even being on record as saying nice things about one of the other Bad Thinkers mentioned. He merely breathed the same air as they did for a few hours. According to the press, this is now a disqualifying act.

It is really important to stress the fact that Beattie did, nor said anything objectionable, even in the context of the easily upset sensibilities of the day. After his firing was made public, Beattie published the text of the speech he gave. The word “white,” or “race” appear nowhere. The speech was merely a technical discussion of the intellectual underpinnings of a potentially burgeoning movement on the political right. It would not be out of place at any political science talk or lecture at any college campus in the world. Go ahead and read it if you don’t believe me.

None of that mattered however; Beattie was guilty by association. CNN’s behavior in the matter is textbook for totalitarians. Having become aware of Beattie it “reached out to the White House” to inform them that they had a Bad Thinker in its midst. The manner in which the article describes the White House almost pleading with CNN not to go public with a story about a White House connection to Bad Thinkers suggests it was afraid of a manufactured outrage campaign. Undoubtedly the author of the piece, Andrew Kaczynski, who has made a living out of this sort of blackmail journalism, intimated as much to the White House.

The cowardice shown by White House in caving in and firing Beattie is not lost on me. I mention it here to highlight that the White House playing nice did not abate the press. Robert Costa of the Washington Post first posed concerns over the vetting process accompanied with hiring White House staffers:

He then got the bright idea of wondering if anyone else in the administration had come in contact with Peter Brimelow. Brimelow of course is the exiled National Review editor who went off on his own to start VDARE.

Having smelled blood, the press moved in for another kill, and it seemed to find one in Trump’s senior economic advisor, Larry Kudlow.

Brimelow happens to be a long time friend of Kudlow, and was reported to have attended a birthday party in Kudlow’s honor last weekend. This egregious discovery was then reported on by Costa at the Washington Post.

Kudlow’s ‘defense’ was that he didn’t know that Brimelow held certain views (Brimelow is anti-immigration). I doubt that is the truth; as stated before the two men have been friends for decades and surely have had discussions on the topic at some stage. Kudlow was simply managing the PR. It seems to me that the two men have simply had a disagreement and left it at that while remaining friends. 

In our current age, such civility is unfathomable. The totalitarian leanings of the TEPID set are such that if one happens to hold an objectionable view, anyone who associates with that person must secretly hold that view as well. Thus, the person must be subject to ostracism and social pressure until he renders a nuclear disavowal of the objectionable individual he associates with. Failure to do so must result in a firing, boycott, ban, etc. Thankfully Kudlow has not been fired, at least not yet.

This is what our Free Press has been reduced to. Be mindful of who you invite to your birthday party in this totally Not Totalitarian Clown World. And on top of this, the legacy media has the cheek to frame itself as risking life and limb to “speak truth to power,” every time someone is slightly critical of that well-regarded pillar of democracy. It is more accurate to say that it powerfully speaks ill of the Truth.

John Brennan, Free Speech and The Swamp

If you’ve been taking the various legacy media reports regarding John Brennan’s security revocation by President Trump last week to be good faith reporting, the one thing you got from them was that Trump was engaging in a direct attack on the First Amendment. The argument holds that by revoking Brennan’s security clearance, Trump was punishing him for making extremely critical remarks about the President on television. The knock on effect is to signal to all government officials that maintaining one’s clearance comes with an obligation not to criticize Trump.

In order to make this argument, one has to hold the following things as true – first that John Brennan had done nothing but express a political opinion, and that security clearances are some sort of proxy for a constitutional right to free speech.

Regarding the first, the reality is that John Brennan has done a lot more to warrant the revocation of a security clearance than just bloviating in the media. At the very least, his lying to Congress, twice, about very damning behavior from the CIA is more than enough justification. In fact, much of the media had called for Brennan’s resignation and/or firing at the time of these incidents.

More pertinent to Trump, Brennan leveled a charge of treason at the President after his meeting with Vladamir Putin. That has serious implications when it comes with the gravitas of an ex-CIA director potentially having intimate knowledge of incriminating, but classified matters. Indeed there are various investigations ongoing, and Brennan’s comments are at the very least irresponsible in light of that.

The bottom line is that, were Brennan attempting to apply for a security clearance today, with all of that on his record, he would be rejected instantly. Therefore it is no big deal that he does not have his clearance.

Which leads us to another angle the legacy media Is running with – namely that these clearances are some sort of stand-in for first amendment political speech. In addition, they represent a layer of national security maintenance, given that former officials with clearances may be needed in short bursts for their expertise in dealing with the intelligence and/or national security matters of the present.

A much less noted consequence of a security clearance revocation is the subsequent inability to land roles with private sector contractors and consulting firms which deal in information requiring such clearances. Brennan himself confirmed as much over the weekend with Chuck Todd, after Todd asked what the ramifications of losing a clearance were generally:

Well for me, it probably does mean that, that I just can’t go into the agency and have conversations with people who may call me up and ask me for my thoughts and views, and that has happened in the last couple of months. But for others, former officials who are on that list, some of them serve on boards of directors that require security clearances because the companies involved deal with classified information, and this can have a very punitive, very financial hit against them, and so now if I was asked to be on a board that requires a security clearance, I couldn’t.

Here, Brennan gets at the crux of the matter. The US government spends roughly $500 billion annually on contracts to the private sector, which in turn hires career government officials who have developed security clearances to handle the sensitive information that is dealt with. This explains how “career public servants” like James Comey can end up multimillionaires. In his case he went from the DOJ to Lockheed Martin and Bridgewater and made vast sums serving as counsel to those firms. Undoubtedly his clearances were of great value in securing these roles.

The issue underpinned the viral exchange between Phil Mudd and Paris Dennard on CNN earlier this week. A visibly unhinged Mudd scoffed at the argument that his security clearance served as a golden ticket. A look at his bio suggests otherwise:

Mr. Mudd is the President of Mudd Management, a company specializing in security consulting; analytic training; and public speaking about security issues.  He is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and The George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute.  He now serves as Senior Global Adviser to Oxford Analytica, a British-based firm specializing in advising multinational companies.   He sits  on the advisory board for the National Counterterrorism Center and for the Director of National Intelligence, and he serves on the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Group.

The idea that Mudd’s security clearance status affects absolutely none of those roles is difficult to believe, to put it mildly. Indeed, his inability to remain cool and his over the top defensiveness in the face of Dennard’s simple acknowledgement of the monetary benefits to holding a security clearance is telling. But more generally, his indignation is perfectly representative of how The Swamp must feel at this moment.

Those government officials who are particularly vexed by this, along with their mouthpeices in the media are ultimately less angered about Brennan specifically than they are about the sunlight now being directed on the revolving door between the government and private contractors and consultants.

Trump’s actions are alarming to the Swap because they are a disruption of a bipartisan feeding trough for some government officials. In the good old days, these individuals could put in their time in the Institutions, and then have the option to cash out at a cushy consulting gig, with a contractor, or as a media contributor. The game was largely kept outside of political squabbling because both Democrats and Republicans benefited handsomely from it.

In this regard, to refer to Trump as attacking the First Amendment is to effectively declare that these exalted career government officials have a Constitutional right to high paying sinecures once their time in government is up. It is just as well, given the legacy media is itself part of that Swamp.

That stance is incorrect, of course, and insidious to boot given the actual threat to free speech currently being posed by social media companies, mostly at the behest of the very legacy media which defends Brennan – and indeed the other government officials who are potentially set to lose their security clearances – from Trump.

In those other cases, the rumored revocations are tied to the conduct of the individuals in question with respect to prior and current FBI investigations. The recently fired Peter Stzrok, for example, is under review for likely manipulating and/or withholding 302s, which are essentially FBI transcripts of subject interviews. The media has framed any and all censure of Stzok however, as being a result of his anti-Trump text messages, painting a picture of political retribution by Trump. This is not accurate.

In the end, this piece of the saga highlights the entrenched nature of The Swamp, and its inability to let go of the status quo. It is also confirmation of President Trump’s effectiveness. He was elected to take these fights head on, and his mere engagement in them reveals to the  public, bit by bit, the reality of the corrupted system in which we find ourselves.

Anatomy of Fake News: Downplaying Bruce Ohr

Last week, Michael D. Shear, Katie Benner and Nicholas Fandos wrote a piece for The New York Times titled “Embracing Conspiracy Theory, Trump Escalates Attack on Bruce Ohr.” It is presented as a stone cold, sober news story, yet even before the byline, the article has engaged in editorializing. This has become a go-to tactic of our “objective” news media of late, which cannot seem to report on anything without first framing it in a way that meshes with a preconceived narrative.

In this case, the narrative is that President Trump is using his power to silence political critics in government, as well as those who are or were involved in the investigation surrounding the 2016 election.

The New York Times piece starts as follows:

WASHINGTON — President Trump threatened on Friday to quickly revoke the security clearance of Bruce Ohr, a little-known Justice Department official, for the first time seeking to apply his power to cut access to sensitive information to a midlevel government worker rather than a prominent former national security official.

In mentioning the fact that Ohr is a “little-known Justice Department official” and even more crudely, describing him as “a midlevel government worker,” the authors of the piece are attempting to paint an image of an average stiff. We are to believe that Ohr was a hapless cog in a machine, thus framing the subsequent scrutiny levied against him by Trump as that of an out of control bully.

The reality is that as of his demotion in December 2017, Ohr was an Associate Deputy Attorney General – a position which is just subordinate to the Associate Attorney General, who is the third ranked official at the DOJ. (Later in the piece, it is noted that the DOJ is a body with 113,000 employees). Nowhere in the article is Ohr’s former lofty rank at the DOJ mentioned.

In addition, he held (and still holds) the role of director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces. Indeed, Ohr would probably take exception at being described as “midlevel” and a mere “worker” by Shear, Benner and Fandos because he was nothing of the sort.

But, for the sake of the narrative, Ohr’s pedigree was severely downplayed. A few paragraphs later, Shear, Benner and Fandos write:

Mr. Trump began this week to use his power to void security clearances to punish perceived adversaries in the Russia investigation. His revocation of the clearance of John O. Brennan, a former C.I.A. director who has emerged as an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump, drew condemnation from former national security officials.

But by targeting Mr. Ohr, the president moved beyond his bitter clash with high-profile antagonists like Mr. Brennan and reached deep into the bureaucracy. Mr. Trump also forced a difficult choice on Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general: accept the actions of the president or defend a public employee’s right to the normal process of appeals.

Again, the narrative the Newspaper of Record is trying to promulgate is one of an Authoritarian President Trump wielding his power in facilitating the destruction of all of his political enemies, big and small. In Brennan, a former CIA director, we are given an example of a big enemy. In Ohr, the “little known,” “midlevel government worker,” we must take as a small enemy. The description of Trump having to reach “deep into the bureaucracy” to get to Ohr adds further color to the narrative being spun.

So too does the minimization of Brennan’s actions play into the narrative. The Times authors encapsulate the totality of Brennan’s behavior in this saga in the benign label “outspoken critic.” To describe Trump’s actions, they note his “power” and willingness to “punish perceived adversaries,” thereby creating a sense that the President is at the very least abusing his power.

However, as Andrew McCarthy wrote over the weekend, the President’s revocation of Brennan’s security clearance was indeed justified. This is because Brennan, in his new role as a media pundit, frequently went beyond mere political criticism and spoke with the insinuation that law enforcement has President Trump dead to rights, and his impeachment is imminent. He merely cannot be explicit because, you know, the pertinent information is classified.

Furthermore, Brennan does this with the gravitas of an ex-CIA director, specifically the one who was in charge during the time covered by the multiple, ongoing investigations into the events of the 2016 election and beyond. At the very least his comments are irresponsible.

Beyond this, there is the issue of Brennan’s history of lying to Congress about spying on US Senate staffers in 2014. On that basis alone, Brennan would not be granted clearance if he were to apply for it today from scratch. That he even remained in the job beyond 2014 was absurd. Indeed, many of the same left leaning outlets now championing this poor little “outspoken critic” had called for his resignation or firing back then (here, here, and here). However, in service of The Narrative, a little hypocrisy is no bother.

We continue:

Mr. Ohr, a career law enforcement official who has worked on antidrug and antigang initiatives at the Justice Department, has been targeted by conservative allies of Mr. Trump who have seized on the fact that Mr. Ohr was at the department at the same time that his wife, Nellie, was a contractor for Fusion GPS, a research firm that participated in compiling a dossier of damaging information about Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Ohr is portrayed again as some sort of stiff just working on drug and gang cases, who just happened to be married to a contractor for the firm which helped to produce the infamous Trump Dossier. That this ‘coincidence’ has been “seized on” by “conservative allies” is supposed to inform the reader that Ohr is a victim of a right wing conspiracy theory. Furthering that idea, Shear, Benner and Fandos write:

Conservatives have pointed out that emails show that in 2016, Mr. Ohr was in contact with Christopher Steele, the British former spy who compiled the dossier, in part by relying on Russian sources, and with Glenn R. Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS. Democrats have called the accusations ridiculous and overblown.

The phrase “conservatives have pointed out” deliberately muddies the waters, drenching plain fact in insinuations of politically motivated spin.

Mr. Ohr was in touch with Mr. Steele, a professional acquaintance whom he had known before Mr. Steele began working for Fusion GPS, through summer and fall 2016, including one conversation in which Mr. Steele said that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”

Mr. Ohr eventually told the F.B.I. about his wife’s work and about his conversations with Mr. Steele, passing along information given to him by Mr. Steele that the F.B.I. had already received directly from the former spy. Mr. Steele had worked with the bureau on past cases.

Shear, Benner and Fandos paint an innocuous picture here, but leave out a crucial detail. Steele had indeed worked with the FBI, but had those ties severed for leaking information to the media. Therefore, the FBI could no longer credibly use Steele’s information in its investigation. Given that Steele was essentially the only source of information, it would have left the investigation at a dead end.

Enter Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked with the same firm that Steele had been working with, Fusion GPS. Steele’s information passed through Nellie and Bruce Ohr to the FBI. The FBI was thus getting laundered information from Ohr, a “source” untainted by a leaking offense.

It was for this that Ohr was demoted back in December. This laundering aspect of the investigation was confirmed by Peter Stzrok, who testified last month to receiving Steele’s information from Ohr.

Now comes the obfuscation, lest the reader begins to veer towards the truth:

And no evidence has emerged showing that Mr. Ohr or his wife played a role in starting the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation. Rather, it was contacts between a former Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, and Russian intermediaries that prompted the bureau to open the inquiry in late July 2016.

But Mr. Trump has embraced the theory, casting Mr. Ohr and his wife as central players in what he calls the “rigged witch hunt” and accusing the couple of having what he claims are indirect contacts with Russians — apparently a reference to Mr. Steele’s research.

And a few paragraphs later:

Republican lawmakers who strongly support Mr. Trump, mostly in the House, have circled Mr. Ohr and his wife for months, alleging connections to Mr. Steele and the Democrat-funded dossier they argue formed the basis for a politically motivated investigation into the Trump campaign.

No one is alleging that the Ohr’s were the reason the FBI started the Russia investigation, as the Times writes. What is suggested is that the Ohr’s played a role in ‘cleansing’ the Steele dossier for the purposes of presenting it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in pursuit of a FISA warrant which allowed for the monitoring of one-time Trump campaign participant Carter Page.

The scandal stems from the fact that Steele’s information was unverified, and furthermore his credibility as a source was damaged by his leaking to the press. The Ohrs facilitated the rehabilitation of the Steele information by presenting it to the FBI as though it was coming from the DOJ, thus providing a more credible source.

This is not “theory.” This comes from sworn testimony, as well as newly released evidence of contacts between Steele and Bruce Ohr. Yet the Times wants us to believe that it is Trump who is waging a politically motivated assault on dutiful government workers over political differences. Towards the end, Shear, Benner and Fados write:

Republicans who control Congress have shown little interest in directly challenging Mr. Trump on security clearances or his broadsides against investigators.

And in a letter released Friday, 60 former C.I.A. officials said they objected to Mr. Trump’s threats to remove clearances of former security officials, adding their names to the chorus of senior intelligence officers condemning the revocation of Mr. Brennan’s clearance. The letter argued that “the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their view.”

Trump’s critical views of the actions of Bruce Ohr, and indeed John Brennan, are couched as “broadsides against investigators,” continuing the theme of ascribing to Trump’s actions a negative connotation and the implication that these actions are that of an authoritarian. It implicates Republicans as well, describing them as unwilling to challenge Trump, before quoting former officials lamenting the supposed weakening of the country thanks to Trump’s ‘tyranny.’

The reality is that Trump’s “broadsides” have been levied against people who have, at the very least acted unethically, if not criminally. They have not been mere political critics as has been implied.

Peter Stzrok was not fired for anti-Trump text messages but for likely manipulating and/or withholding information in the 302s (written memos of FBI interviews with subjects) of Hillary Clinton and Michael Flynn. Bruce Ohr was not fired for his political views. Indeed, the Times goes to great lengths to state how “little known” Ohr was, which suggests that logically the only way he could have made a name for himself was by doing something very severe. The Times own reporting mentions those severe actions actions, Ohr’s role in the information laundering effort, but tries to gloss over it. The Times then tries to reframe any criticism of Ohr on these very legitimate grounds as politically motived conspiracy theories, even using the title of the piece to hammer the idea home.

However one can hardly be accused of peddling conspiracy theories given that all of the criticism stems from on the record evidence disseminated in reporting on investigations by Congress and other internal government bodies, as well as sworn testimony by principle witnesses.

And with that, Michael D. Shear, Katie Benner and Nicholas Fandos completed an exercise in obfuscation, lying by omission and plain dishonesty in the service of the narrative that President Trump is a dictator using his power to silence his political enemies. The charge is patently false; Trump has not placed any restriction upon any individual or organization critical of him. That is an important thing to note in light of his battles with the Press, culminating in a coordinated, simultaneous attack by some 300+ news organizations against the President last week.

What Trump has done, in spades, is to be critical of his critics, in a particularly sharp and stinging manner to boot. There is nothing wrong with this, particularly when his critics engage in the tactics on display in the Shear, Benner and Fandos piece. Very little of what is written in the piece is an outright lie, which is to say factually incorrect.

What the piece does do is augment factual information with clever qualifiers and negative connotations to nudge the reader towrard the worst possible interpretation of events.

As mentioned, this process begins straight from the headline, leading by accusing President Trump of “embracing conspiracy theory,” yet burying the factual evidence which contradicts that accusation in the 8th and 9th paragraphs.

Its mischaracterization of Ohr and the omission of pertinent information regarding his situation lead the reader to believe the drastic moves the President makes are that of a petty tyrant, or alternatively, an act of desperation in saving his own skin.

The omission of Brennan’s catalog of bad behavior and portrayal as a mere political observer similarly leads one to the conclusion that Trump is being heavy handed in his response. So too does the mention of a letter released by dozens of ex-CIA officials, the purpose of which is to add a perceived layer of sober authority.

And with all of this done under the masthead of the New York Times, what is naked political propaganda is recast as objective news. It is this sort of thing that President Trump has raged against, and rightly so. The pushing of bias and opinion as down the middle factual reporting is the essence of “fake news” in the Trump era. The public at large still sees the NYT masthead and assumes objectivity, even if they are increasingly wary. In a bygone age, organizations like the Times had a monopoly on such objectivity.

In the age of the internet, and more specifically social media, this monopoly is gone. Articles such as the Shear, Bonner and Fandos piece which are supposed to form the public’s understanding can be taken apart and ridiculed for what they are. The president regularly does this from his Twitter bully pulpit, and on a smaller scale, conservatives on Twitter, YouTube, blogs and discussion forums are doing the same.

The press doesn’t like this, and true to form, label critiques of their offerings as “attacks on the Free Press.” They are nothing of the sort, merely necessary corrections to the record. It is my aim that the techniques dissected here will jump off the page the next time the reader should encounter such “reporting,” and armed with such knowledge, the reader will better understand it for what it is.

Unfortunately, the more frequently the reader consumes legacy media, the more frequently such skills will be required.

Is the Political Class Mentally Stable Enough to Provide Meaningful Political Analysis?

The short answer is: no. But I don’t do short answers, so here’s the long one.

In How Dare You, I described the fact that nearly a year into Trump’s presidency, his opposition has yet to come to terms with the fact that he did actually win the election:

The larger issue here is that those who would consider themselves our cultural betters have affixed to their beliefs the status of The Truth, by fiat. What is accomplished by this is the elevation of what really are mere opinions to base maxims of the sort that are the foundation of the country, thus in theory unassailable.

And so when Trump disagrees with this or that leftist talking point, and vehemently to boot, there is a collective shock that permeates the commentariat. How dare Trump express views which aren’t in agreement with the one Truth that is Leftism in all its forms? How dare Taylor Swift not instantly condemn Trump despite having no reason to voice an opinion, and furthermore how dare Taylor Swift disagree when she is declared to be a white supremacist? How dare Sidney Crosby, a white man, turn up to the White House to accept praise from Trump?

The fact that leftism has gone without a real challenge for multiple decades, and in particular through the Obama years, has rendered the nascent Trump era to be nothing short of a hammer blow through the sensibilities of most leftists. Many still haven’t come to terms with the fact that Trump really is the president, and more fundamentally that the Leftist Truth is not held as such by a YUGE swath of America.

The recent excitement over Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, which bills itself as an exclusive inside look at the Trump White House, is further evidence that the failure to come to terms with Trump 45 is as prevalent as ever. Indeed, it seems that Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached levels that shouldn’t be possible. In the past week, this book has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media, with Wolff himself doing interviews with basically every network and media publication to drum up the hype, bolstered by stories of how the book has been flying off the shelves in record time.

President Trump has unsurprisingly said less than favorable things about the book, and in fairness it does require the reader to suspend logic at regular intervals. For a start, it tries to advance the popular meme that Trump really didn’t want to be president. Wolff’s ‘evidence’ for this is the fact that Trump actually ran the campaign of an authentic outsider.

The Trump campaign had, perhaps less than inadvertently, replicated the scheme from Mel Brooks’s The Producers. In that classic, Brooks’s larcenous and dopey heroes, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, set out to sell more than 100 percent of the ownership stakes in the Broadway show they are producing. Since they will be found out only if the show is a hit, everything about the show is premised on its being a flop. Accordingly, they create a show so outlandish that it actually succeeds, thus dooming our heroes.

[…]

The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their fundamental worldview one whit: we don’t have to be anything but who and what we are, because of course we won’t win.

Many candidates for president have made a virtue of being Washington outsiders; in practice, this strategy merely favors governors over senators. Every serious candidate, no matter how much he or she disses Washington, relies on Beltway insiders for counsel and support. But with Trump, hardly a person in his innermost circle had ever worked in politics at the national level—his closest advisers had not worked in politics at all. Throughout his life, Trump had few close friends of any kind, but when he began his campaign for president he had almost no friends in politics. The only two actual politicians with whom Trump was close were Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, and both men were in their own way peculiar and isolated. And to say that he knew nothing—nothing at all—about the basic intellectual foundations of the job was a comic understatement. Early in the campaign, in a Producers-worthy scene, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate: “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Almost everybody on the Trump team came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president or his staff.

In short, Wolff is perplexed at the fact that Trump was genuine, a trait foreign to those who work in journalism and politics. According to Wolff’s logic, the measure of Trump as a ‘serious candidate’ would have been his reliance on hundreds of so-called experts, who would have run every word he was to utter in public through carefully curated focus groups so as to craft the message which had the highest possibility of winning according to BIGDATA analysis.

Continue reading Is the Political Class Mentally Stable Enough to Provide Meaningful Political Analysis?

Globalist Reinforcements

The mark of a good grasp of politics circa 2017 is the understanding that the ideological battle is not between principled conservatives and social justice seeking leftists but between nationalists and globalists. In America, this ideological battle is waged by the following belligerents: the Democrats, social justice warriors, Republican establishment, the media and academia on the side of globalism; the Dissident Right, President Trump and his supporters on the side of nationalism.

The fault line was clearly on display this week, as President Trump, former presidents Obama and Bush, and Senator John McCain all made comments which spoke to the divide. Consider the following quotes:

First, President Trump, during a keynote address at the Heritage Foundation:

We believe we should preserve our history, not tear it down. Now, they are trying to destroy statues of Christopher Columbus. What’s next? It has to be stopped; it’s heritage.

[…]

You understand that our glorious heritage is the foundation of everything we hope to achieve.

Senator John McCain, speaking at the Liberty Medal Ceremony in Philadelphia:

To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain “the last best hope of earth” for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.

We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.

Former President George W. Bush, speaking at an event in New York City:

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism.

We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge.

[…]

We should not be blind to the economic and social dislocations caused by globalization. People are hurting. They are angry. And, they are frustrated. We must hear them and help them. But we can’t wish globalization away, any more than we could wish away the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution. One strength of free societies is their ability to adapt to economic and social disruptions.

[…]

Our identity as a nation – unlike many other nations – is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility…

This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed. And it means that the very identity of our nation depends on the passing of civic ideals to the next generation.

It is particularly interesting that both McCain and Bush specifically denounced ‘blood and soil’ as the determining factor of our nation, and Trump, while not necessarily making specific argument for Blood and Soil, nevertheless highlighted Christopher Columbus and his role in discovering the land which would end up becoming the United States.

It is an unmistakable fact that without the exploits of Columbus and the Europeans who followed, in particular the British, there would be no United States. The ‘high ideals and civic responsibility,’ which McCain and Bush both referenced, are a result of those exploits. Their foundations lie in the people and their culture which established the land as theirs.

According to Bush and McCain, merely embracing those ideals are the prerequisites to being American. If the Founding Fathers had taken that advice prior to the Revolution, they’d have been embracing American ideals all day long until they were blue in the face, but they would have been doing so from within the British Empire as colonials. Their mere embracing did not make them the earliest Americans. It wasn’t until, in the face of continued tyranny from the Crown, they decided to spill ‘blood’ for the sovereignty of the ‘soil’ on which they stood, that a nation was born. And it continues to the extent that their heritage is passed on from generation to generation.

Bush and McCain seem to believe that the identity of that nation known as the Unites States is not a narrowly defined Renegade Brit mentality buttressed by Greco-Roman philosophical and legal precepts. Instead it is identified more by nebulous universal ideals open to anyone and everyone.

It is here we focus on McCain and his effusive praise for those globalist ideals. His praise is founded more on the idea that America is the ‘custodian’ of these ideals, the one dominant global power. He sees America and her might as little more than a tool to be used hammering any and all disagreeable nail which happens to pop up on the world stage.

McCain’s idea of proper foreign policy for America is exemplified by his 2014 comments on the situation in Crimea. He remarked:

We are all Ukrainians in the respect that we have a sovereign nation that is again with international boundaries… that is again being taken in as part of Russia. That is not acceptable to an America that stands up for the rights of human beings. We are Georgians. And we are Ukrainians.

In a sense he is right. Owing to 75 years of globalist foreign policy, we have a situation in which the vast majority of Western Europe is essentially allied against Russia via NATO, backed by American dollars and American military might. While Ukraine is not officially a member of NATO, its adversarial stance against Russia has earned it some rhetorical sanctuary under the American tent of influence. We are all Ukrainians because if they are attacked, our alliance is attacked. To maintain the leadership McCain so values in this realm, American lives are to be sacrificed.

Many of McCain’s fellow Americans are coming to see things a bit differently, wondering why the affairs of the Ukrainians, Russians, or indeed Syrians and Iraqis necessitate Americans being sent halfway around the world to die. And they’d be right to wonder, considering that when it comes to the sovereignty of those pieces of land, half a world away, the likes of McCain and Bush are lightning fast to advocate risking American lives in their defense. Yet, when it comes to the American piece of land, we are suddenly told that the soil is not the identity of the nation. Ukrainian borders are sacred. American borders aren’t.

The media reaction to the Bush and McCain comments was instructive in the context of the globalist and nationalist ideological battle. As I outlined at the start, the GOP establishment, of which McCain and Bush are a part, is allied with the mainstream press on the side of globalism. As such, the media was in full support of Bush and McCain.

CNN in particular was gushing over McCain’s comments, declaring that everyone HAD to read his speech as though it was the latest entry into the pantheon of great American political speeches. The ever odious Chris Cillizza made the typically modern declaration that merely making a left leaning argument is the same thing as making a convincing, devastatingly thorough argument.

As for Bush, anyone with a tangential appreciation of American politics over the last decade or so understands the degree to which the 43rd president was made into a laughing stock, and the butt of jokes. Now his words are held high as though sacred.

In McCain’s case, the irony is that this is the same John McCain who was painted out by the media to be a dangerous, dark figure in 2008, owing to the same plans for global domination though endless wars which are now praised because the anti-globalist Russians are now more prominently in the crosshairs. This is the same John McCain who CNN bashed as being ‘intellectually shallow.’ This apparent mental midget is now being recast as a Titan of the Senate, a wise sage with an independent streak as per the New York Times.

Of course, the reason for the about face is that McCain once sought the Presidency and therefore found himself in opposition to Barack  Obama, the media’s darling. Today, he stands against President Trump, put out as the ultimate evil according to the press.

But it is more than this. Back in 2008, the argument was not about globalism versus nationalism, but rather who among the elite was to benefit the most from the spoils of globalism, at the expense of the rest of the country. Under McCain, it would have been the military industrial complex and multinational corporations reaping the most benefit. Under Obama, it was those groups, in addition to the Media–Academia Complex, and a burgeoning Grievance Industry.

In 2016, Trump rode a wave of nationalist sentiment, fueled by the disdain the public had for distant, out of touch bureaucrats further extending their reach, and as well for their media sycophants who pathologized any and dissent to the globalist march forward.

This pathologizing was evident in Bush’s remarks, in which he castigated bigotry, which he described as ‘blasphemy’ against the ‘American creed.’ When sent through the Globalist Translator, the statement says that bigotry (defined in 2017 as the failure to acquiesce to the demands of any non-white, non-male, non-Christian, or non-heterosexual) is an affront to the deity that is Globalism. Said differently, to disseminate Ugly Truths is to commit a mortal sin. Bush’s words can then be seen as an excommunication of Trumpism from the Church of the Globalist Niceities and Political Correctness.

That said, Trump has done just fine in the wilderness. His first nine months have seen the death of TPP, a ‘free trade’ deal which would have continued in the NAFTA tradition of harming domestic industry for the benefit of foreign industry. It saw the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, which would have had similar deleterious effects on domestic industry. It saw concrete steps taken to properly secure the border, with immigration agencies emboldened to actually do their jobs and prototypes for a border wall under construction. It saw the relative reduction in American warmongering, with Trump’s bark being much larger than his bite, to the dismay of Johm McCain. In short, vast swaths of the legacy of the Bush and Obama administrations have come undone, or are on the way to being undone.

And thus, the game has changed from an intra-squad squabble between the separate Globalist factions to a battle for all the marbles with a now vibrant opposition, represented by Trump. And as with McCain, the media has been dutiful in its praise for the likes of Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and even Mitch McConnell, to name a few. Praise, because they had unkind words either for Trump, nationalism in general, or both. These individuals, who were once considered evil by default simply because of their identification as Republicans, finally gained heralding as true statesmen in their disavowal of the current President, and nationalism.

This dynamic is to be kept in mind as one considers the media reporting on Trump and his agenda vis-à-vis congress. For example, the current narrative when it comes to the tiffs the President has had with some of the aforementioned names is that he is shooting himself in the foot because he needs these individuals to pass legislation. This was most evident during the Corker episode.

The truth is that the squabbles reveal that what I outlined at the start – that the Repbulcan party, particularly the establishment wing – is not aligned with Trump when it comes to the Globalist vs Nationalist debate. In this sense, Trump does not truly have a majority in both chambers of Congress, such that the absence of major legislation is somehow a failure. The reality is that, at least in the Senate, Trump has at most about 48 votes on any given piece of Trump proposed legislation. There are generally at least 3 moderate (globalist) Republicans who will deny Trump real headway on getting the Trump agenda through legislation.

This is why the likes of Steve Bannon have come out swinging in recent weeks, declaring war on the GOP establishment as it pertains to the 2018 midterm elections, on behalf of Trump. His pledge to run primary candidates against Republicans who are insufficiently for, or outright against the Trump, nationalist agenda has been seen as potentially damaging to the Republican party.

This analysis only makes sense to those with an inadequate understanding of the true political demarcations afoot. People like Bannon correctly understand that Republicans like Flake, Sasse and McCain might as well be Democrats, given their opposition to the fundamental changes that would be required to advance the Trump agenda. So they must be replaced by ‘Trump Republicans.’

At an impromptu joint press conference with Trump and McConnell at the beginning of the week, the former spewed the orthodoxy of the globalist establishment, which was to say that doing his job to keep a Republican majority meant putting forth candidates which could actually win in a general election Translated, this means candidates who seek to be all things to all people, who never offend, always toe the line, espousing pretty lies and condemning ugly truths.

The bottom line for McConnell is that his way is looking to be the losing way, as in truth, it has been for decades. The difference now is that the elites are finally beginning to feel the losses which before only accrued to the masses. Trump’s election to date is the largest such loss. But more are seemingly on the horizon. Jeff Flake looks to be in trouble. McConnell himself enjoys a rock bottom approval rating in Kentucky of 18%. Bob Corker, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, isn’t even going to bother running to hold on to his Senate seat next year. Luther Strange, the McConnell choice in the Alabama special election was defeated by Roy Moore, the Bannonite selection.

In Europe, the forces of nationalism have been boosted this week by an election win in Austria, and the turmoil in Spain. George Soros announced that he is committing $18 billion in fresh capital to his Open Society project. And looking to the future, Generation Z, mischievously referred to as Generation Zyklon by the right wing Internet troll brigade, is shaping up to be the most right leaning generation in decades.

All of this puts those wails made this week by the old guard of McCain, Bush and Obama in context. Their fervent defense of the tired, old order, is a testament to the desperation they must feel.

The reinforcements are necessary, because they’re losing.

The Lesson In Tactics From Charlottesville

Yesterday’s Charlottesville post was mostly concerned with the event as a whole from a legal and constitutional standpoint. And on that score, Unite The Right, who were there protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue were expressing a first amendment right, and had gotten the OK of the authorities. Any violence that occurred was because Antifa ‘counter-protesters’ showed up with the explicit intent to bring the ruckus. The police and the government, perhaps deliberately, did little to prevent the powder keg from exploding. The authorities are ultimately responsible for spiral of violence that followed.

That doesn’t mean Richard Spencer and company can be proud of themselves for the events of the weekend. They made a substantial tactical error by continuing to permit the Nazi LARPing, even feeding into it with some of the visuals from the torch rally the night before. As I said in the post yesterday: if you actually want to win the long run, where winning is restoring America to her former greatness, extolling the virtues of 1930s German National Socialism is an odd way to do it, to put it mildly. Continue reading The Lesson In Tactics From Charlottesville

Interesting Developments in the Don Jr. ‘Collusion’ Saga

The media has gone nuts over the last couple days in regards to a June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manfort and a Russian lawyer called Natalia Veselnitskaya. This reason for the uproar was that the premise of the meeting was the delivery of information by Veselnitskaya to the Trump team which incriminated Hillary Clinton in illegal activities with Russia. Don Jr. was initially approached with the idea by an acquaintance of his, Rob Goldstone, who set the meeting up. I go into the meeting in painstaking detail here.

The media has held this meeting up as a smoking gun for the Russian Collusion Theory which they have propagated for nigh on a year now. At the very least, they claim, it shows that the Trump campaign was willing to collude with Russia in order to influence the election.

Continue reading Interesting Developments in the Don Jr. ‘Collusion’ Saga

On Donald Trump Jr’s Collusion With The Russians

The latest in the growing list of ‘smoking gun evidence’ of the Russia Collusion Theory was unearthed by the New York Times over the weekend when it dropped this story which outlined a June 2016 meeting in which Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manfort and Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower. The article was titled ‘Trump Team Met With Lawyer Linked to Kremlin During Campaign.’ The next day, a follow up article, ‘Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton,’ focused further on the premise under which that meeting was conducted, which was the potential divulgence by a Russian national of information damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Obviously this narrative, as described by the NYT, sounds bad. For months, the left, in conjunction with their allies on the establishment right, have promoted the Russian Collusion Theory, the idea that the Russian government colluded with the Trump campaign to obtain and disseminate emails from John Podesta and the DNC through Wikileaks. In this regard, the DJT Jr. meeting is a possible smoking gun because it contains the elements ‘emails,’ ‘members of the Trump campaign,’ and ‘Russians.’ However, a sober look at the facts, and applying basic common sense and deductive reasoning will render this smoking gun as nothing of the sort. It will result in a bad week of press for DJT Jr. and nothing more. Quote me on that.

Continue reading On Donald Trump Jr’s Collusion With The Russians