Glenn Greenwald on the CIA war against Trump

This topic has 34 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 35 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
January 12, 2017 at 2:37 pm #63229
wv
Participant
The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

Glenn Greenwald
The Intercept
January 11 2017, 10:35 a.m.

IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?

All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

FOR MONTHS, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

Whatever one’s views are on those debates, it is the democratic framework — the presidential election, the confirmation process, congressional leaders, judicial proceedings, citizen activism and protest, civil disobedience — that should determine how they are resolved. All of those policy disputes were debated out in the open; the public heard them; and Trump won. Nobody should crave the rule of Deep State overlords.

Yet craving Deep State rule is exactly what prominent Democratic operatives and media figures are doing. Any doubt about that is now dispelled. Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being “really dumb” by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them: …see link
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/
- This topic was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by wv.
January 12, 2017 at 3:03 pm #63232

zn
Moderator

What unverified claims? Trump himself agrees there was hacking.

And it’s not the CIA. It’s every intel agency.

January 12, 2017 at 3:45 pm #63234

Zooey
Moderator

zn wrote:

What unverified claims? Trump himself agrees there was hacking.

And it’s not the CIA. It’s every intel agency.

I think he is referring to the 35-page dossier from the British ex-spy who says the Ruskies have financial and personal dirt on Trump sufficient to blackmail him. Not the hacking.

January 12, 2017 at 3:49 pm #63235
Billy_T
Participant
Greenwald tends toward hyperbole. A lot. And it’s misplaced.

All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

What I read and saw was that the Intel agencies warned Trump that this Kompromat was out there. They did him a huge favor. And in exchange for that huge favor, Trump put on a bit of performance art, blasted the media, blasted the intel agencies who had warned him (in private), and went after CNN especially for doing nothing more than report that a meeting had occurred — which really did occur.

He and his crew of baby fascists later said the CNN reporter should be fired for trying to ask a question, and Trump, yet again, managed to make himself look like the victim.

He isn’t. He’s never the victim of anything more than his own making, and it surprises me that Greenwald would defend such an obvious snake.

He’s also making the huge mistake of thinking that criticism of Trump means support for the Deep State. That’s kind of like saying criticism of Israel’s government is the same as supporting anti-Semitism.

GG does this from time to time. He did it frequently when he defended Ron Paul. He tried to make any criticism of Paul an indictment on the critic and a sign that he or she supported war and the Deep State, blah blah blah.

Sheeebus, but America has lost its mind.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.
January 12, 2017 at 3:52 pm #63238
Billy_T
Participant
Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

What unverified claims? Trump himself agrees there was hacking.

And it’s not the CIA. It’s every intel agency.

I think he is referring to the 35-page dossier from the British ex-spy who says the Ruskies have financial and personal dirt on Trump sufficient to blackmail him. Not the hacking.

Good pick up, Zooey.

Buzzfeed released that. Not the other media companies Trump slammed. And McCain is the person who reportedly first gave that to the FBI.

All of this, in the context of people who are fine with the Wikileak dump, but rant against the dossier being published . . . . Oh, well. It just strikes me as McConnell territory for hypocrisy and double standards.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.
January 12, 2017 at 4:01 pm #63241
Billy_T
Participant
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.

Again, who’s cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies? And if anyone tried to subvert the election, it was Russian intelligence, not the CIA.

The CIA tends to stick with trying to subvert foreign elections, not our own. With exceptions. And I see no evidence that the CIA did side with Clinton in this one, and the evidence that Comey tried to hand the election to Trump is pretty self-evident.

Is GG able to provide evidence for his assertions about the CIA in this particular case? I haven’t read him do that. Well, isn’t that just as bad as claiming Russia helped Trump, if it didn’t happen? Or worse, cuz we actually have a ton of evidence for that.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.
January 12, 2017 at 4:02 pm #63243

wv
Participant

My own view is that the CIA/NSA/Deep-State/Gangster-Nation of the USA,
and
the Russian-Gangster-Government
as well as many other gangster-nations CONSTANTLY do all kinds of spying and dirty tricks in an effort to gain power or keep power.

So, thats where i start. With that view.

With that starting-point, i read that the gangster-state of the US is accusing the gangster-state of Russia of playing some dirty tricks, such as supporting the gangster-Trump over the gangster-Hillary.

Well, aint that ‘shocking‘. 🙂

I assume the gangster-state of Russia has been trying to blackmail Obama, Bush, Clinton, and every other powerful-gangster in America for a long time. And i assume the US-deep-gangster-state has been doing the same to powerful gangsters all over the globe since WWII.

Again, ‘shocking’.

Enh.

The only odd thing about this particular dynamic to me, is Trump aint playin by the usual gangster rules. He’s like a gangster from out of town or somethin.

w
v

January 12, 2017 at 4:07 pm #63244
Billy_T
Participant
wv wrote:

My own view is that the CIA/NSA/Deep-State/Gangster-Nation of the USA,
and
the Russian-Gangster-Government
as well as many other gangster-nations CONSTANTLY do all kinds of spying and dirty tricks in an effort to gain power or keep power.

So, thats where i start. With that view.

With that starting-point, i read that the gangster-state of the US is accusing the gangster-state of Russia of playing some dirty tricks, such as supporting the gangster-Trump over the gangster-Hillary.

Well, aint that ‘shocking‘. 🙂

I assume the gangster-state of Russia has been trying to blackmail Obama, Bush, Clinton, and every other powerful-gangster in America for a long time. And i assume the US-deep-gangster-state has been doing the same to powerful gangsters all over the globe since WWII.

Again, ‘shocking’.

Enh.

The only odd thing about this particular dynamic to me, is Trump aint playin by the usual gangster rules. He’s like a gangster from out of town or somethin.

w
v

I’m with you on all of that.

But I’m just not sure how GG goes from that to the idea that Trump is a victim of some huge conspiracy against him, cooked up by the Deep State.

If anything, he seems much more their cup of tea than Clinton. He just cuts through the usual middlemen bullshit and puts the billionaires in charge of public policy directly, and he went against several decades of precedent by bringing in a general who is still an active lobbyist for the MIC to head defense. He’s repeatedly said Obama “gutted the military” and that he wants a massive expansion, including nukes.

And, of course, his tax plan and deregulation of corporate America. Clinton definitely would give them all good deals, but Trump makes them instantly much richer and hands them more leeway to do as they please.

I’m just not getting why Clinton and the Dems would be favored by the Deep State over Trump and the GOP. It’s illogical to me.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.
January 12, 2017 at 4:08 pm #63245

wv
Participant

link:https://popularresistance.org/election-interference-the-u-s-has-done-it-in-45-countries-worldwide/
Election Interference? The U.S. Has Done It In 45 Countries Worldwide

America has a long history of meddling in the elections of foreign countries, new research shows

Russia’s attempt to sway the 2016 election continues to consume American politics as the Obama administration struck back with a series of punishments targeting Russia’s spy agencies and diplomats. The White House on Thursday moved to expel 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the U.S. and impose sanctions on the Kremlin’s two leading intelligence services in response for what the U.S. says were a series of cyberattacks conducted by Russia during the presidential campaign. For the time being, Russian President Vladamir Putin has indicated that he won’t immediately retaliate, though that could change.

The simmering tit for tat has kept the issue of election meddling burning bright in the national spotlight, fueled even further by the belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump capture the presidency. Yet neither country is a stranger when it comes to directly trying to sway the election of other nations. In fact, the U.S. has a long and stunning history of attempting to influence foreign presidential elections, recent research by political scientist Dov Levin shows.

Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, found that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Often covert in their execution, these efforts included everything from CIA operatives running successful presidential campaigns in the Philippines during the 1950s to leaking damaging information on Marxist Sandanistas in order to sway Nicaraguan voters in 1990. All told, the U.S. allegedly targeted the elections of 45 nations across the globe during this period, Levin’s research shows. In the case of some countries, such as Italy and Japan, the U.S. attempted to intervene in four or more separate elections.

Levin’s figures do not include military coups or regime change attempts following the election of a candidate the U.S. opposed, such as when the CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, in 1953. He defines an electoral intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” According to Levin’s research, that includes: peddling misinformation or propaganda; creating campaign material for preferred candidates or parties; providing or withdrawing foreign aid, and; making public announcements that threaten or favor certain candidates. Often, it also includes the U.S. covertly delivering large sums of cash, as was the case in elections in Japan, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries.

To build his database, Levin says he relied on declassified U.S. intelligence as well as a number of Congressional reports on CIA activity. He also combed through what he considered reliable histories of the CIA and covert American activity, as well as academic research on U.S. intelligence, diplomatic histories of the Cold War, and memoirs of former CIA officials. Much of America’s meddling in foreign elections has been well-documented — Chile in the 1960s, Haiti in the 1990s. But Malta in 1971? According to Levin’s study, the U.S. attempted to “goose” the tiny Mediterranean island’s economy in the months leading up to its election that year.

Much of the America’s electoral meddling occurred throughout the Cold War as a response to containing Soviet influence through the spread of supposed leftist proxies, the findings suggest. And to be clear, the U.S. wasn’t the only one trying to sway foreign elections. By Levin’s count, Russia attempted to interfere in other countries’ elections 36 times between the end of World War II and the end of the 20th century, bringing the total number of electoral interventions by the two countries to 117 during that period.

Yet even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. continued its interventions abroad, including elections in Israel, former Czechoslovakia, and even Russia in 1996, Levin found. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine, Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, among others.
Related Posts:

CIA, FBI, DHS And ODNI Sued For Records On Russian Interference In… December 30, 2016
DAPL Company Files Lawsuit To Finish Pipeline And Bypass “Political… November 22, 2016
Report: Environmental Abuses Of TPP Countries Raise Doubts November 6, 2016
Private Eyes: Little-Known Company Enabling Worldwide Mass… October 26, 2016
‘Good Anthropocene’: Grassroots Initiatives Worldwide Show October 14, 2016

January 12, 2017 at 4:22 pm #63248

Billy_T
Participant

Oh, and wouldn’t the Deep State prefer someone like Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, who has close ties to Putin, with a lust to drill oil on its 63 million acres there?

Does anyone believe the Deep State would choose to continue to block access to that, rather than lift sanctions, if they could call the shots? That 63 million acres is more than four times Exxon’s holdings even here.

On policy after policy, on ideology, on cabinet choices, on control of Congress, I honestly can’t see the powers that be wanting the Dems over the Republicans.

Yes, they love both their bought and paid for servants. But one is more aggressive in its shilling than the other.

January 12, 2017 at 4:56 pm #63267

wv
Participant

Billy_T wrote:

I’m with you on all of that.

But I’m just not sure how GG goes from that to the idea that Trump is a victim of some huge conspiracy against him, cooked up by the Deep State..

———–
Well thats where things get tricky and all we got is speculation and stuff.

But my gut/intuition tell me GG is right. For whatever reason the deep-state dont like Trump. I dont know why. They LOVED hillary. Ab-so-lutely LOVED her. And ‘they’ dont like Trump. I dunno why.
I’ve been wondering that for a while now. Why does the system attack Trump? One would think they’d love him. I dont have an answer to that.

w
v

January 12, 2017 at 6:41 pm #63282

Billy_T
Participant

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I’m with you on all of that.

But I’m just not sure how GG goes from that to the idea that Trump is a victim of some huge conspiracy against him, cooked up by the Deep State..

———–
Well thats where things get tricky and all we got is speculation and stuff.

But my gut/intuition tell me GG is right. For whatever reason the deep-state dont like Trump. I dont know why. They LOVED hillary. Ab-so-lutely LOVED her. And ‘they’ dont like Trump. I dunno why.
I’ve been wondering that for a while now. Why does the system attack Trump? One would think they’d love him. I dont have an answer to that.

w
v

I don’t know, WV. I’m not seeing that love for the Clintons. Not by the powers that be. By her own team? Sure. But unless we think of the GOP as a dissident, anti-Deep-State party, and the Dems as the Deep State’s only representative in DC, I don’t buy it.

Cuz, the Clintons have been hounded by the GOP for 25 years, deserved or not. This happened while Bill Clinton was governor, and accelerated massively once he became president. It never let up until the impeachment failed. And it continued into Obama’s presidency, as soon as HRC took the position at State. Endless hearings, Benghazi, the email server, etc. etc. The GOP was relentless. And we just don’t see that reciprocated by the Dems, historically.

If anyone has been the victim of a coordinated, decades-long attack, it’s the Clintons. Fair or not. Justified or not. And everything in between. And I’d say they brought much of it on themselves. Their politics make me ill, so I’m not defending them. But to me, if she really were the Deep State’s pet, I don’t see those endless hearings taking place. The GOP would be in on the fix too, cuz they definitely don’t strike me as the anti-Deep-State boys coming to America’s rescue.

January 12, 2017 at 7:23 pm #63294

wv
Participant

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I’m with you on all of that.

But I’m just not sure how GG goes from that to the idea that Trump is a victim of some huge conspiracy against him, cooked up by the Deep State..

———–
Well thats where things get tricky and all we got is speculation and stuff.

But my gut/intuition tell me GG is right. For whatever reason the deep-state dont like Trump. I dont know why. They LOVED hillary. Ab-so-lutely LOVED her. And ‘they’ dont like Trump. I dunno why.
I’ve been wondering that for a while now. Why does the system attack Trump? One would think they’d love him. I dont have an answer to that.

w
v

I don’t know, WV. I’m not seeing that love for the Clintons. Not by the powers that be. By her own team? Sure. But unless we think of the GOP as a dissident, anti-Deep-State party, and the Dems as the Deep State’s only representative in DC, I don’t buy it.

Cuz, the Clintons have been hounded by the GOP for 25 years, deserved or not. This happened while Bill Clinton was governor, and accelerated massively once he became president. It never let up until the impeachment failed. And it continued into Obama’s presidency, as soon as HRC took the position at State. Endless hearings, Benghazi, the email server, etc. etc. The GOP was relentless. And we just don’t see that reciprocated by the Dems, historically.

If anyone has been the victim of a coordinated, decades-long attack, it’s the Clintons. Fair or not. Justified or not. And everything in between. And I’d say they brought much of it on themselves. Their politics make me ill, so I’m not defending them. But to me, if she really were the Deep State’s pet, I don’t see those endless hearings taking place. The GOP would be in on the fix too, cuz they definitely don’t strike me as the anti-Deep-State boys coming to America’s rescue.

————
Yeah, ok, i will think about that.

I guess i think of the ‘deep-state’ as more of the Dem-Neoliberal-media-Machine. …but it seems like the CIA has chosen sides and is now part of the Dem-neoliberal-media-machine. And that, as far as i know, is NEW. And a bit odd. And i dont know where to plug that into my brain.

‘Deep state’ is probly not the word to use for the new Dem-Neoliberal = CIA alliance.

I will give it more thot.

w
v

January 12, 2017 at 7:39 pm #63306
Billy_T
Participant
wv wrote:

Yeah, ok, i will think about that.

I guess i think of the ‘deep-state’ as more of the Dem-Neoliberal-media-Machine. …but it seems like the CIA has chosen sides and is now part of the Dem-neoliberal-media-machine. And that, as far as i know, is NEW. And a bit odd. And i dont know where to plug that into my brain.

‘Deep state’ is probly not the word to use for the new Dem-Neoliberal = CIA alliance.

I will give it more thot.

w
v

Thanks for that, WV.

I’m no expert on the subject. Far from it. But I did use the term (Deep State) in my most recently finished novel. From what I’ve read, it’s very similar to the idea of The Power Elite, perhaps best conceptualized by C. Wright Mills in his (1956) book of the same name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite

___

If you’ve just been saying that Clinton was the pet of the Democratic Party and its power structure, no question. That IS obvious. But I thought you were talking about the whole enchilada, including the Military Industrial Complex, which is generally thought to be at the center of the Deep State nexus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

Writers, journalists, political scientists and political activists in the United States have for decades expressed concerns about the existence of a deep state or state within a state, which they suspect secretly controls public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country’s democratic institutions.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

According to Philip Giraldi, the nexus of power is centered on the military–industrial complex, intelligence community, and Wall Street,[11] while Bill Moyers points to plutocrats and oligarchs.[12] Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions “big oil” as a key player,[13] while David Talbot focuses on national security officials, especially Allen Dulles.[14] Mike Lofgren, an ex-Washington staffer who has written a book on the issue, includes Silicon Valley, along with “key elements of government” and Wall Street, but emphasizes the non-conspiratorial nature of the “state”.[15][16]

Political scientist Michael J. Glennon believes that this trend is the result of policy being made by government bureaucracies instead of by elected officials.[6]
- This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.
January 13, 2017 at 8:33 pm #63459

wv
Participant

link:http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works/
Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works

by CJ Hopkins

For students of official propaganda, manipulation of public opinion, psychological conditioning, and emotional coercion, it doesn’t get much better than this. As Trump and his army of Goldman Sachs guys, corporate CEOs, and Christian zealots slouch toward inauguration day, we are being treated to a master class in coordinated media manipulation that is making Goebbels look like an amateur. This may not be immediately apparent, given the seemingly risible nature of most of the garbage we are being barraged with, but once one understands the actual purpose of such official propaganda, everything starts to make more sense.

Chief among the common misconceptions about the way official propaganda works is the notion that its goal is to deceive the public into believing things that are not “the truth” (that Trump is a Russian agent, for example, or that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, et cetera). However, while official propagandists are definitely pleased if anyone actually believes whatever lies they are selling, deception is not their primary aim.

The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an “official narrative” that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between “the truth” as defined by the ruling classes and any other “truth” that contradicts their narrative.

Imagine this Maginot line as a circular wall surrounded by inhospitable territory. Inside the wall is “normal” society, gainful employment, career advancement, and all the other considerable benefits of cooperating with the ruling classes. Outside the wall is poverty, anxiety, social and professional stigmatization, and various other forms of suffering. Which side of the wall do you want to be on? Every day, in countless ways, each of us are asked and have to answer this question. Conform, and there’s a place for you inside. Refuse, and … well, good luck out there.

In openly despotic societies, the stakes involved in making this choice (to conform or dissent) are often life and death. In our relatively liberal Western societies (for those of us who are not militant guerillas), the consequences of not conforming to the official narrative are usually subtler. Despite that, the pressure is still intense. Conforming to the consensus “reality” generated by these official narratives is price of admission to the inner sanctum, where the jobs, money, professional prestige, and the other rewards of Capitalism are. Conforming does not require belief. It requires allegiance and rote obedience. What one actually believes is completely irrelevant, as long as one parrots the official narrative.

In short, official propaganda is not designed to deceive the public (no more than the speeches in an actor’s script are intended to deceive the actor who speaks them). It is designed to be absorbed and repeated, no matter how implausible or preposterous it might be. Actually, it is often most effective when those who are forced to robotically repeat it know that it is utter nonsense, as the humiliation of having to do so cements their allegiance to the ruling classes (this phenomenon being a standard feature of the classic Stockholm Syndrome model, and authoritarian conditioning generally).

The current “Russian hacking” hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn’t intended to be believed … it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma. (It doesn’t matter what actually happened, i.e., whether the “hack” was a hack or a leak, or who the hackers or leakers were, or who they may have been working for, or what whoever’s motives may have been. What matters is that the ruling classes have issued a new official narrative and are demanding that every “normal” American stand up and swear allegiance to it.)

The ruling classes are not exactly making it easy for their followers this time. Their new official narrative (let’s go ahead and call it “The Putinist Putsch to Destroy Democracy”) is so completely fatuous that it’s beyond embarrassing. The plot is more or less what you’d expect from a mediocre young adult novel or a Game of Thrones-type fantasy series. And if that wasn’t already humiliating enough for the liberals being asked to pretend to believe it, the PR folks in charge couldn’t even be bothered to assemble a new collection of liars to market their childish fairy tale for them. Not only are they insisting that liberals take the word of the “Intelligence Community” and the mainstream media that sold the world the “Saddam Has Secret WMDs” hoax, they actually dispatched James R. Clapper to sit there, in more or less the same spot he sat in the last time he lied to Congress, and do his dog and pony show again.

Meanwhile, the ruling classes’ papers of record, which cosmopolitan liberals rely on to provide a simulation of “serious journalism,” highbrow “arts and culture,” and so on, have descended to the level of the National Enquirer. Among the recent highlights was The Washington Post‘s “Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid” story, which it turned out involved neither Russians nor hackers, nor the Vermont power grid’s actual computers, and was basically just another made-up story, like the one about Putin’s Fake News Army. The New York Times, which has also been dutifully rolling out the new official narrative, has taken the leash off Charles M. Blow (aka “The Withering Gaze”), who is accusing Trump of being Russia’s appointment” and proclaiming his election “an act of war.” And now, as I was writing this piece, they hit us with the “Golden Showers” story, in which Trump paid a bunch of Russian hookers to pee on the bed where Obama slept. Any day now we are going to be told that Elvis is secretly working with Putin to deploy a Zhirinovskian gravitational weapon in a UFO disguised as Jesus that Assange and Snowden will personally pilot across the Atlantic to sink America. It’s like some kind of loyalty test in which the ruling classes are trying to determine just how far they can go with this crap before liberals refuse to salute any more of it.

The point of all this propaganda is to delegitimize Donald Trump, and to prophylactically reassert the neoliberal ruling classes’ monopoly on power, “reality,” and “truth.” In case this wasn’t already abundantly clear, the neoliberal ruling classes have no intention of giving up control of the global capitalist pseudo-empire they’ve been working to establish these last sixty years. They’re going to delegitimize and stigmatize Trump (and any other symbol of nationalist backlash or resistance to transnational Capitalism), bide their time for the next four years, and then install another of their loyal servants … after which life will go back to “normal,” and liberals will do their best to forget this unfortunate period where they pretended to believe this insipid neo-McCarthyite nonsense.

If I wasn’t worried that Trump is going to launch an all-out War on Islam, or that one of “our boys” in the tanks Obama has theatrically ordered to the Russian border was going to go bonkers and try to “git some” for Clinton, I’d be looking forward to seeing just how batshit crazy it’s going to get.
Join the debate on Facebook

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.

January 13, 2017 at 8:49 pm #63460

zn
Moderator

The current “Russian hacking” hysteria is a perfect example of how this works.

What I am finding on this is that many people who appeal to us as critics of the status quo are actually confusing the issues.

There is no “hysteria” about Russian hacking and (among other things that happened) there WAS Russian hacking. Not even Trump denies that.

So I am supposed to doubt there was, because somebody who claims to know better, is engaged in another intercine left against left war, because they don’t like the people who (according to their view) benefit the most from such a narrative?

Meanwhile those of us who could give a damm whether Hillary voters use the hacking narrative their way, want a discussion where the actual fact of hacking (among other things) is not dismissed SIMPLY BECAUSE the Hillaryites make use of it.

I don’t find THAT move (ie. Hillaryites have seized this so therefore dismiss it) as any more progressive or liberatory than the Hillaryites are.

There’s got to be better ways to discuss this.

.

January 13, 2017 at 11:02 pm #63477

Billy_T
Participant

zn wrote:

The current “Russian hacking” hysteria is a perfect example of how this works.

What I am finding on this is that many people who appeal to us as critics of the status quo are actually confusing the issues.

There is no “hysteria” about Russian hacking and (among other things that happened) there WAS Russian hacking. Not even Trump denies that.

So I am supposed to doubt there was, because somebody who claims to know better, is engaged in another intercine left against left war, because they don’t like the people who (according to their view) benefit the most from such a narrative?

Meanwhile those of us who could give a damm whether Hillary voters use the hacking narrative their way, want a discussion where the actual fact of hacking (among other things) is not dismissed SIMPLY BECAUSE the Hillaryites make use of it.

I don’t find THAT move (ie. Hillaryites have seized this so therefore dismiss it) as any more progressive or liberatory than the Hillaryites are.

There’s got to be better ways to discuss this.

.

I gotta go with ZN on this. And, frankly, I think part of “the left” has lost its fucking mind. We know they’ve lost their fucking mind, because they keep on making up shit about other people supposedly “celebrating the CIA” or some version of supposed “hysteria over Russian intervention,” all the while scolding people who don’t buy their bullshit as somehow being supporters of neoliberal Democrats or Hillary fucking Clinton.

Seriously. This is pissing me off to no end. Fuck them! Fuck anyone who wants to denigrate MY commitment to leftist ideals, egalitarian, democratic, smash the hierarchy, smash capitalism for good and forever, just because I fucking don’t accept the idea that there’s some Democratic Party conspiracy to subvert our democracy when it so CLEARLY is coming from Trump and the GOP!!

All of this “enemy of my enemy is my friend” bullshit is driving me up a wall, and a pox on ALL of their houses!! But anyone who claims THIS fantasy is a moron of the first order:

The point of all this propaganda is to delegitimize Donald Trump, and to prophylactically reassert the neoliberal ruling classes’ monopoly on power, “reality,” and “truth.” In case this wasn’t already abundantly clear, the neoliberal ruling classes have no intention of giving up control of the global capitalist pseudo-empire they’ve been working to establish these last sixty years. They’re going to delegitimize and stigmatize Trump (and any other symbol of nationalist backlash or resistance to transnational Capitalism),

Come on, man. Trump’s cabinet now holds more net wealth than the bottom third of the nation combined. He just named yet another Wall Street financier, Philip Bilden, to head the god damn Navy!! No military or government experience. But he’s going to head the Navy. And he’ll be joining SIX Goldman Sachs stooges, several billionaires, the CEO of Exxon, and four generals who JUST left being lobbyists for the god damn fucking Military Industrial Complex!! And we’re supposed to believe that there’s a conspiracy to subvert Trump on behalf of the neoliberal order!!

Jesus H Christ!! People wake the fuck up!!!

January 13, 2017 at 11:11 pm #63479

Billy_T
Participant

To boil that down a bit:

If this were a matter of Trump truly being a hero for the common man, a person who wasn’t a billionaire with Mob ties, and one who routinely fucked over his workers, went bankrupt seven times, stiffed countless small businesses, paid no taxes for twenty years and is PROUD of it, went after a union leader on Twitter and almost got him killed, said he would ban all Muslims from entering the country, wants to deport every undocumented worker, and is BELOVED by white supremacists . . . . etc. etc. etc. And one who constantly egged on his followers to beat the shit out of LONE BLM protesters . . . If Trump really were a progressive, workingman’s hero, and a decent, working class stiff himself . . . . well, maybe I would see this as some concerted effort to protect the status quo ante.

But that’s NOT what we have. We have a vile, racist, despicable human being who flaunts his wealth in front of everyone, bullies women who have the nerve to say he sexually assaulted them, bullies reporters who dare ask him questions, mocks the disabled, all the while telling us he’s the greatest fucking thing the world has ever seen . . . .

As the young kids used to say, OMG!!! THIS is the piece of shit some on the left choose to defend and turn into a victim!! Are you fucking kidding me?

America has completely lost its mind, at that includes a good bit of the left.

January 13, 2017 at 11:28 pm #63481

Billy_T
Participant

Okay. So I took a deep breath. And I want to add this thought, or two, or three.

Why in the world is “the left” running to the defense of someone so clearly on the far right, beloved by the hard right, including neo-fascist and neo-nazis? And that’s NOT an exaggeration. They say this themselves. We have tape and video on this, which they’re rather proud of. Did the writer at Counterpunch forget the Alt-Right lunatics who gave the nazi salute to Trump? Did he forget that Trump hired Steve Bannon, of Breitbart and Alt-Right fame? Did he just skip over all the hard-right nutcases Trump has put in his cabinet, along with all the hard-right nutcases that already exist in the GOP?

The “left” wants to defend him over the centrist Clinton? She’s horrible, but she aint beloved by neo-fascists and neo-nazis. And if we want to talk about who’s working to protect capitalism, sheebus. Trump has stocked his cabinet with oligarchs and plutocrats, directly. He hasn’t even tried to put managers in there who work for the oligarchy. He’s gone directly to the oligarchs themselves!!

Man, some on the left have sunk to new lows, picking sides like this, choosing the far right as the supposed lesser evil.

I never thought I’d see the day when the real left, actual leftists, would choose the hard right, as if they were taking a principled stand against the status quo. As if they were backing some hero of the people against the monsters of the status quo.

G’night, all.

January 14, 2017 at 8:33 am #63493

wv
Participant

Well, my own view — once again —

1) is that Yes, Russia hacked. I never once said they didnt.
But we dont know the details. We DONT KNOW whether they gave the info to WIKILEAKS. They may have given the info to a third party who THEN gave something to Wikileaks. That would be the smart way for Russia to do it – thereby giving Assange plausible deniability, etc. Assange says he didnt get the true-and-accurate information from Russia. I tend to believe him. No-one knows though. There is zero evidence being presented. Zero. Are we simply supposed to ‘trust’ the fucking CIA and ‘intelligence communities’ ? I wouldnt trust a damn thing they or their puppets in the MSM said. Lets see proof. Where’s the evidence that Russia gave Assange the true-and-accurate information on Hillary and the NeoLibs ? And again — its TRUE and ACCURATE info people are complaining about here. Much like Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers.

2) context matters. Selectivity matters. The context of this hacking story is that the MSM is acting like this is new or unusual or strange, or good guys vs bad guys — the truth is the CIA has hacked and hacked and hacked all over the world. And the MSM has kept quiet about it. I assume the Russians have hacked and hacked and hacked all over the world. Mega-Corporations have hacked and hacked all over the world. Etc. So thats the context. Where is that context in the MSM?

3) I am not ‘defending’ the fascist billionaire Donald Trump when i say the CIA is trying to take him to the woodshed and teach him a lesson. And that is what this is all about to me. THe CIA/MSM is trying to assert some control of the loose cannon fascist. Listen to the Chris Hedges vid i just posted. He gets it. Looks to me like there is a bit of a ‘deep-state civil war’ between the fascists and the neoliberals.

w
v

January 14, 2017 at 8:56 am #63495

Billy_T
Participant

WV,

Hope you know my angry rant wasn’t directed at you. Just very frustrated at the stuff I’ve been reading and seeing by some left-leaning public figures.

And thanks for the Hedges video. I agree with a lot of what he says, and usually do . . . . though he does have a dangerous blindspot when it comes to black-bloc anarchists. David Graeber, one of the founders of OWS, called him out on that and begged him to stop putting their lives in danger.

Anyway, Hedges also talks about the Deep State pretty much as I conceive it too. It encompasses both parties, not just one. He also mentioned Exxon. As you know, Trump picked its CEO to replace Clinton at State.

Too many other known facts about Trump and the people on his team for anyone to see him as a victim, in my view. And some of these pundits are painting him that way.

January 14, 2017 at 9:02 am #63497

Billy_T
Participant

Also, people can use terms any way they want, and I’m no Mayor of Internet Language. But from my readings, I don’t see “neoliberal” as something exclusive to the Dems’ side of the duopoly. To me, the “liberal” part of that term throws a lot of people. It’s actually not referring to “liberalism” at all. It’s in reference primarily to the “liberalization” of the markets, which is a euphemism for just letting the corporate world do as it pleases, basically.

(In particular, deep tax cuts, serious deregulation and systemic privatization.)

One could say it’s the dominant form of capitalism in the world right now, and has been since the early 1970s. Doesn’t matter if the Dems are in power or the Republicans. Both parties embraced it as a replacement for the Keynesian Consensus.

January 14, 2017 at 9:06 am #63498

zn
Moderator

Billy_T wrote:

It’s in reference primarily to the “liberalization” of the markets, which is a euphemism for just letting the corporate world do as it pleases, basically.

(In particular, deep tax cuts, serious deregulation and systemic privatization.)

Bloody exactly.

And supercharged by a republican congress, Trump is worse when it comes to all that than ANYONE we have had so far. Literally, anyone.

January 14, 2017 at 9:57 am #63508
wv
Participant
zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

It’s in reference primarily to the “liberalization” of the markets, which is a euphemism for just letting the corporate world do as it pleases, basically.

(In particular, deep tax cuts, serious deregulation and systemic privatization.)

Bloody exactly.

And supercharged by a republican congress, Trump is worse when it comes to all that than ANYONE we have had so far. Literally, anyone.

————-
Ok, true, but ‘neoliberal’ to me, also means to reach out around the globe and spread and grow and to use the military and cia to help that spread. And sometimes Trump sounds like he doesn’t like Nafta type policies. Nafta is neoliberalism. So whatever Trump is, he doesnt ‘quite’ sound like a garden-variety clinton-obama-neoliberal to me. He might be worse, i dunno, but he seems a bit ‘different’.

zn, if Trump is a classic neolib, HOW do you explain his opposition to Nafta?

w
v
- This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by wv.
January 14, 2017 at 10:03 am #63511

zn
Moderator

wv wrote:

Ok, true, but ‘neoliberal’ to me, also means to reach out around the globe and spread and grow and to use the military and cia to help that spread.

But that’s not what the word means.

The word refers only to economic policies.

And different neo-liberals can have different foreign policies and all still be neo-liberal.

That’s because foreign policy does not reduce to economic policy. With foreign policy you have to start accounting for fears and anxieties and perceived threats. Those can just run on a completely different track. So you can de-regulate the financial industry, destroy public education, and spend untold fortunes on the military because you’re pizzed off at what you perceive to be the muslim threat.

January 14, 2017 at 11:08 am #63515

Zooey
Moderator

wv wrote:

Looks to me like there is a bit of a ‘deep-state civil war’ between the fascists and the neoliberals.

w
v

Haven’t watched the Hedges video, but this statement characterizes my thoughts on these events at present.

January 14, 2017 at 11:34 am #63516

zn
Moderator

Zooey wrote:

Haven’t watched the Hedges video, but this statement characterizes my thoughts on these events at present.

And I would say that’s impossible.

There is absolutely nothing NOT neo-liberal about Trump. In fact we are already seeing neo-liberal policies from him and the congress that make everything coming before him pale in comparison.

Neo-liberalism is a very narrow term that refers exactly and precisely ONLY to a specific set of economic policies. And when it comes to that, Trump is a neo-liberal extremist compared to what has come before.

Saying “neo-liberals and fascists are opposed” would be like saying “you either punt the ball in this situation, or draft a receiver in the 2nd round.”

Unrelated things. Apples and oranges.

You can be a non-fascist neo-liberal and a fascist neo-liberal. Fascist and neo-liberal are not opposable terms.

And make no mistake. Trump is every single inch a deep economic neo-liberal.

…

January 14, 2017 at 11:40 am #63518

zn
Moderator

zn wrote:

You can be a non-fascist neo-liberal and a fascist neo-liberal. Fascist and neo-liberal are not opposable terms.

from the wiki

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic free market liberalization. These include extensive economic policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy. The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of the financial crisis of 2007–08. Currently, neoliberalism is most commonly used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers, and reducing state influence on the economy, especially through privatization and austerity.

The ONLY part of any of that Trump opposes, at least superficially, is the trade stuff. But then it’s doubtful that’s even true…he is not consistent or coherent when it comes to that. The rest? He’s another lockstep pro-corporate, pro-market, liberalization soldier. Far more so than any of his predecessors.

January 14, 2017 at 12:00 pm #63523

wv
Participant

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Ok, true, but ‘neoliberal’ to me, also means to reach out around the globe and spread and grow and to use the military and cia to help that spread.

But that’s not what the word means.

The word refers only to economic policies.

And different neo-liberals can have different foreign policies and all still be neo-liberal.

That’s because foreign policy does not reduce to economic policy. With foreign policy you have to start accounting for fears and anxieties and perceived threats. Those can just run on a completely different track. So you can de-regulate the financial industry, destroy public education, and spend untold fortunes on the military because you’re pizzed off at what you perceive to be the muslim threat.

————-

Ok, well when “I” use the term I have a broader meaning in mind.

And to me, those neoliberal econ policies CANT be separated from the Pentagon/cia-enforcement methods.

w
v

January 14, 2017 at 12:11 pm #63525

Zooey
Moderator

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Haven’t watched the Hedges video, but this statement characterizes my thoughts on these events at present.

And I would say that’s impossible.

There is absolutely nothing NOT neo-liberal about Trump. In fact we are already seeing neo-liberal policies from him and the congress that make everything coming before him pale in comparison.

Neo-liberalism is a very narrow term that refers exactly and precisely ONLY to a specific set of economic policies. And when it comes to that, Trump is a neo-liberal extremist compared to what has come before.

Saying “neo-liberals and fascists are opposed” would be like saying “you either punt the ball in this situation, or draft a receiver in the 2nd round.”

Unrelated things. Apples and oranges.

You can be a non-fascist neo-liberal and a fascist neo-liberal. Fascist and neo-liberal are not opposable terms.

And make no mistake. Trump is every single inch a deep economic neo-liberal.

…

I clarified my position on this in the other thread that seems to be on the same subject.

Basically, I see neo-liberalism and fascism as more or less the same thing: private business runs the show and the government kind of facilitates that. They are doing the same thing. It’s just that the neo-liberal democrat types want to do it politely, and have a sense of noblesse oblige (they let the servants have the carcass to take home after their feast) whereas the fascists see the servants as disposable, and don’t care if they starve ‘cuz they’re always having babies and there will be someone younger to come in and attend to them.
Author

Posts