On the author’s concerns regarding “legitimacy.” I don’t see the MSM bringing this up. Even diehard Dem flunkies rarely go there. And when they do, it’s because Trump brings up the subject due to his abject defensiveness and thin skin. They talk about it only when they see his refusal to criticize the Russians for interference as his insecurity regarding the election results.

It’s just a massive leap to assume Mueller and company — all Republicans, btw — are trying to play election arbiters. No. They’re trying to get to the bottom of Russian interference which is ongoing, and Trump’s role in this.

Again, I think it’s a slam dunk that he — or, at least his campaign — was thick as thieves with the Russians in order to help win the election. The evidence is beyond sufficient. The dots almost connect themselves. He actually, publicly, called on Russia to help him with the Clinton emails. His son, campaign manager and son in-law had a meeting with the Russians in Trump tower to receive dirt on Clinton — the latter breaks election laws all by itself. Trump kicked out American media, spoke with Kisylak and Labrov alone, let Russian media take pictures, and we see him yukking it up with them. White House sources leaked that Trump told the Russians that Comey was a nutcase and now that he fired him, the pressure is off. He also gave them classified information, against the wishes of the nation that had given it to him.

Think about that. Think about if a Dem president was caught doing JUST the last thing I mention. He or she would have been impeached and removed from office that day. With Trump, the few things I listed are a fraction of a fraction of what we already know he did . . . and we only know a fraction of a fraction of what Mueller knows.

I start out with the assumption that our surveillance, intel and law and order systems are primarily concerned with protecting the capitalist system, especially private property, and especially the private property of the super-rich. I start out deeply skeptical about all of it, and it always should be questioned. All authority should be, 24/7. But when we dig down into human motivations — for the rank and file, especially, individual human motivations, things get much more complicated.

The author of this article allows for no such complexity. He roars right past all of that. His world is strictly black and white, Manichean, almost inhuman, and almost entirely beyond redemption.

He’s made up his mind that a large part of the American government is irremediably, diabolically sinister, from top to bottom, and we shouldn’t even consider that there may be one or two humans in the mix who are doing their jobs for the right reasons. Paint them all with pitch.

Ironically, while talking about the lack of evidence to support the Russian probe, he provides no evidence to support his sweeping condemnation of the probe and its supposedly all sinister, all corrupt, all Orwellian aims. None. Zilch. Zero. Basically, IMO, he plays the flip side to those who want to paint the surveillance state, the intel community and law and order sectors as perfectly innocent, saintly and awesomely patriotic. His vision of the above is just the other side of the moon.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is “innocence” and ten is “diabolically sinister,” the author keeps the meter at eleven.

Life aint that simple. Dime store thrillers are. But not life.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

The “we can’t talk about it because we did it too”

STILL by far the best piece on this and, to be honest, I believe everyone should read it:

“We should recognize that there are other imperialisms”: A Marxist dissident explains what the left gets wrong about Russia

link: https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/we_should_recognize_that_there_are_other_imperialisms_a_marxist_dissident_explains_what_the_left_gets_wrong_about_russia/

.

From that piece:

For the American left, of course for them only American imperialism exists, yes? I can’t understand it. . . . In Russia, there are a lot of leftists who also believe that Russia is the main evil in the world, it’s a reactionary empire, and it should be destroyed. Or, at the same time, you have a lot of leftists who believe somehow Russia is resisting American imperialism [and] who support these “republics” in the East of Ukraine.

But you have a huge provincialization of the left as a whole because they can’t even understand each other and every leftist community, they believe in their own national reality. And that’s why they can be so easily manipulated. By whom? By Russia Today? I think it’s a very pitiable situation because the Russian propaganda machine, which is not the most clever, not so smart . . . it can so easily manipulate such a big sector of the Western left. It points to the problem of the Western left itself, but not the strength of Russia Today.

Thanks, ZN.

Looks like a good article. I skimmed it, but will go back and read it more carefully. This section struck me right away as self-evidently true:

Too often, however, this is what defines the debate: each state’s propaganda machine, with patriots believing their own country’s talking points and dissidents believing the other’s, obscuring what out to be the glaringly obvious fact that neither nation-state is motivated by any principle in domestic or global affairs more honorable than “what’s good for our oligarchs,” who even live in the same parts of Manhattan.

zn wrote:

JOHN FEFFER: Well, first, it’s not just the United States.

Good post. I have to say, I agree with every word Feffer says, which probably surprises no one. And as for his interviewer/debate opponent, I personally am always frustrated by those arguments. Feffer makes a compelling case and the alternative view is puzzling—the left is not supposed to be the group that comes across as driven by blindspots and denial, on anything.

Another reminder of something Marx himself said: he said there is no imperialist singular, it’s imperialists plural, and they are locked in competition and antagonism. That’s part of what imperialism IS, at least since the 14th century.

I think it’s a massive blindspot, and it’s beyond puzzling to me.

We’ve talked about this before, but I could see the desire for pushback if Trump and Putin were leftist freedom fighters, real threats to the neoliberal and neocon status quo, and were true champions of the people.

Obviously, they aren’t. They’re both far right, pro-autocrat, pro-corporate, pro-billionaire, anti-worker, anti-environment, etc. etc. Both also love military power and Trump has already dropped more bombs that Obama did in his entire eight years. He’s expanded our wars and escalated them, while rolling back our already too lame “rules of engagement.”

I have no idea, honestly, why some lefties have expended so much energy in defending Trump and Putin. I don’t get it. And, as mentioned before, seeking the truth about Russian interference — and Trump’s role in this — in no way absolves Clinton, the Dems, our own history of imperialism, etc. etc. It’s an entirely separate issue and needs to be seen as such.

IMO, one of the most frustrating things about this horror show is this:

We apparently can’t even discuss Russian meddling because we have a history of interference as well. Mate mentions this a coupla times, saying this somehow risks us overlooking our own sins. Um, no it doesn’t. Not even remotely. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and we do. At least we leftists.

Speaking just for myself, I can easily hold all of these ideas in my head at the same time:

1. America is an empire, and has a horrific record of bloody imperialism. It’s been interfering in the affairs of other nations for roughly two centuries, often violently.

2. Clinton was a terrible candidate, never should have been the nominee, was the most disliked for the Dems evah, and it was absolutely nuts to run her. She ran a terrible campaign, and the Dem leadership botched the election. Their four decades of soft neoliberalism is a huge reason why they’ve lost so many elections, and why 100 million voters stayed home in 2016.

3. Trump and/or his campaign are guilty of coordinating with Russia to win the election; are guilty of money-laundering and corrupt business practices; are mobbed up, here and in Russia; are guilty of endlessly lying about it all, covering it up and obstructing justice. Both Clinton and Trump were horrible candidates, and Trump has proven as president that he’s a monster.

4. Russia is trying to rig our elections still and sow discord socially. It’s insane not to do everything we can to prevent this, even though we, too, have engaged in our own brand of imperialism. By NOT trying to prevent this — Trump has done NOTHING about it — we hurt ourselves. We hurt 320 million Americans. We gain absolutely nothing by the bizarro-world idea that we can’t even discuss it because our government is guilty of similar things.

Thanks, ER. Much appreciated.

My own view is that we should bypass all of the usual battles over jargon and semantics, and make it impossible for gun nuts to play that game. Don’t just ban “assault weapons.” Ban all guns that can use, in any way, shape or form, external ammo containers (and those containers) — again, of any shape or form.

Make it illegal to possess, trade, gift, import, export, sell, buy, collect any weapon that can use, or be modified to use, external ammo containers. Limit guns to internal chambers only, with six bullets max. Six bullets that must be hand-loaded due to the physics of the internal chambers themselves.

To me, this is the “sweet spot” between radically reducing the carnage and still adhering to the 2nd amendment, an amendment with literally the blood of millions of Americans on its hands, and not one iota of good to counter that. But since we have to work with it, this is, to me, the best “middle ground.” Eliminating all external ammo containers, and restricting legal guns to those with internal chambers only, adheres to “keep and bear arms” AND saves lives.

To me, in my book of life, anyone who says their desire to play with AR-15s should trump public safety, including the lives of school children, to be very, very generous, needs to do some major soul-searching about priorities. Anyone who actually creates policy that puts playing with guns ahead of public safety is an absolute monster with massive amounts of blood on their hands.

Third: To me, the idea that if there were no Russia investigations, the Dems would suddenly find their inner progressive and change course . . . Well, I think that’s absurd. For the folks on the left who think the Dems are using this to avoid doing the right thing legislatively, I suggest they review the history. What were the Dems doing prior to Trump? Same old same old centrist to conservative bullshit.

It makes no sense to assume this probe is the one thing standing in their way. The party leadership has long been yoked to the neoliberal wagon — going back at least to the mid-1970s. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than the end of the Russia probe to get them to change. It’s actually going to take a wholesale leadership change, as well as their donor alliances with Wall Street and Silicon Valley, etc. — to name just a few.

Have they focused too much on Trump? Definitely. IMO, they never should have made the campaign in 2016 just about him. It should always have been the broader Republican/Right-Wing agenda, and it should still be. But the absence of the Russia probe isn’t going to get them to change. It’s going to take a massive house cleaning to do that.

wv wrote:

One mans view (i agree with him, so maybe its two men’s views:) )

nation:https://www.thenation.com/article/what-weve-learned-in-year-one-of-russiagate/

Will break up my response into bite-sized (Old Hacker-style) posts, to prevent TL;DNR:

__

First off, I reject the author’s premise that no evidence has been found to demonstrate Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Actually, a ton has already been reported, with the Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort and the Russians at Trump Tower being a slam dunk. We have the email chain. We have Don Jr’s joy at hearing he was about to get dirt on Clinton from the Russians, and he knowingly took the meeting. Instead of going to the FBI, the Trump campaign met on the sly to receive illegal info. That breaks the law. And they hid all of this for a year, lied about it repeatedly, changed their story three times after being finally caught, and then finally admitted it all.

But, I’ll go ahead and temporarily grant the author his premise. Thing is, the Mueller probe is ongoing and very tight-lipped. The supposed absence of proof proves nothing, because he hasn’t finished yet, and there is no report until he does. The author should wait until that happens to even suggest that there is no evidence.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

So if you agree that Cook is right on those two points, one question would be, “Ok, how SHOULD the media cover russia-gate so that the facts can be laid-out and light can be shown on the issue?”

My own answer is, it can…not..be…done….unless the issue is put in a broader historical context. IE, How is corporate-news any different than ‘fake news’ and what other forces (beside russia) influence american ‘elections’ and how often and when and where have other nations influenced American elections, and how often and when and where has the US government influenced other elections….etc.

Without that context the issue just becomes propaganda imho. Propaganda to further the notion of american exceptionalism and to shut down leftwing-dissent.

w
v

Thing is, “context” stretches in all directions. For example, if we say we have to talk about American imperialism before we talk about Russian interference, then we have to also talk about Russian imperialism, and the roots of that. One of the aspects of “context” that is often overlooked, for example, especially on studies on colonialism is this:

Russia is the biggest colonial power in the world right now, but it doesn’t look like it, because they decided (mostly) to invade, conquer, crush and rule tribal lands close to the “original” central land mass of Russia proper. They did this for centuries, and it was beyond brutal. They had slavery and serfs and ethnic cleansing, and were always trying to expand, especially under the Romanovs, but during the Soviet era too. All told, they did what we did, when we created our empire in North America, but they covered a hell of a lot more land and crushed even more peoples than we did along the way.

So, a real discussion of “context” would have to include American, European, Russian, Middle Eastern and Asian imperialism, its effects, its atrocities, etc. It would be absurd to limit it to America. And, in my view, on balance, it would still come back to this:

We have a duty to prevent Russian interference in our elections, in our social media, etc. We have a duty to prevent its attempts to create strife, regardless of our history of imperialism, wars, coups, etc. etc. They have a duty to stop us from doing the same to them. But we have a duty to our own already weakened democratic system to stop them. That starts with continuous public exposure of what they’re doing to us, and who helped them here.

For a coupla decades now, scientists have been studying the different ways people actually reason, per left and right. Obviously, they’re not claiming that if you’re on the right, you must think this way, or if you’re on the left, you must think that way. But their studies show aggregate leanings, trends, probabilities, etc. And they have shown actual biological variances, like larger amygdalas for righties, which is why they tend to reason from fear more than lefties. Fear. Especially of the Other.

Fear is among the most easily manipulated of emotions. Clever politicians, CEOs, marketers, religious leaders, can exploit that emotion perhaps most easily of all. And it tends to cloud judgment more than the rest as well.

It’s complicated, of course. Cuz one would think they’d be “fearful” of the powerful too. But they generally aren’t — at least not if the authoritarian is on their team. Hobbes was deeply conservative, as was Augustine, and their vision was that governments should be all controlling, to protect against a war of all against all. They also shared a basic assumption mentioned in the article:

Humans are essentially bad, so they have to be controlled.

Of course, psychologically, almost no one thinks they themselves are bad. It’s the other guy who needs all of that government control, not moi. In the current iteration of conservatism, it’s the Other, the ethnic, religious, sexual minority and women who need it. And workers, environmentalists, left-wing dissenters in general, etc. Not business owners. Business owners don’t need government controls, because they’re virtuous already, etc.

The right falls for lies primarily because of fear, and the belief that people are essentially bad. If they’re fed horrible stuff about the people they most fear, suspect, despise, they’re gonna believe just about anything.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

When you get the time, I still would like to hear what you think did happen, during the campaign, with Trump, Russia, and the whole deal. Not about the false narrative you think is being presented. But what you believe actually happened instead.

==========

Billy, I dont think anything ‘worse’ happened than whats happened with Obama or Clinton or Bush, with regard to…say…Israel. And i dont hear a firestorm from either the Dem-MSM or the Rep-MSM about ‘that’.

Thats not the ‘kind’ of answer you are looking for, I know, but thats how wv-brain looks at this stuff, nowadays.

You noted some of the vids i post almost make it out that Trump is a ‘victim’ — well, i dont think he’s a victim, i think he’s a monster, but i totally ‘get’ the subtext among some radicals that he’s a victim. They are picking up on the fact that the MSMs didnt go after Obama or Bush or Clinton for ‘their’ various collusions with mega-powers. Be they Israel or Mega-toxic-Corporations (I dont see the difference btw, in ‘colluding’ with Russia or colluding with Monsanto or Exxon. See the famous movie ‘Network’ speech — you know the one 🙂

PS — as for the specifics of the Trump and Russia thing — I dunno what happened. I dont think we ever get to know the full extent of these kinds of gangster weddings. I’m sure Trump and his evil henchmen got in bed with all kinds of other National and Corporate gangsters and Oligarchs. But i just dont see what they did as any more harmful than what Obama did getting in bed with Goldman Sachs, etc. I mean you can say the russia thing was “illegal” and the Goldman Sachs thing is all nice and “legal” — but are ‘you’ satisfied with that kind of distinction? 🙂

We are being fucked to death…by…”powerful forces of Nature, Mr Beale” 🙂

w
v

I think you’re making a much more sensible argument than most of those videos you post. Unlike them, in general — with exceptions — you readily admit that Trump and the GOP are also guilty of X, Y and Z . . . and then you zoom out big picture to say that national borders aren’t important. It’s the corruption shared by political actors, the degree of corruption, the quid pro quo of it all, etc. It’s the gangsterism of it all. Their venal “weddings.”

If I read you correctly, that is. Which is a pretty good argument for total repeal and replacement of our current system. I think you and I both want full democracy instead, egalitarian, free from concentrations of wealth and power, and oh so green, clean and sustainable . . .

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

Well I wouldnt wipe my but with the New Yorker, the NYTimes, the Wash Post,
the NY Review of Books, Time, The Atlantic, The BBC…I could go on

I used to think ‘layering’ lots of sources brought us a decent picture of things, but now i think if we just layer sources like i just listed, we just end up with layered-propaganda.

Why in the world would i trust ‘news’ from Corporate-Sources owned by the same Mega-Corporations that are bonded with the Deep-State/Corporotacracy?

Its a problem. (for me) Where are sources i can trust?

I tend to trust people who have built up trust (with me) over years and years. Chris Hedges, Max Blumenthal, Noam Chomsky…I tend to trust other radicals. Radical Journalists/Activists. Course thats problematic too…..blah blah blah.

Its a problem.

w
v

But, again, it makes sense to trust the source when the “accused” eventually admits they were telling the truth, right? And that’s the pattern.

And I’m saying the trust is case by case. Never blind.

IMO, where our corporate media most often falls short is via omission. Sins of. They’re not bad at all in reporting that the sun is out today when it is. They have troubles looking at the stuff off the radar, where corporations don’t want them to look. Environmental destruction, consumer scams, banking scams, systemic fraud in the financial system, international arms dealings, war crimes, prison system sadism, etc. etc. They go after the bright shiny stuff, not the stuff purposely kept off screen — with exceptions.

That’s where we get most of the “manufactured consent,” in what they DON’T talk about. They’re generally pretty good at reporting general political stuff, because it’s understood that politicians and parties and government are supposed to be bashed. They’re supposed to take the fall and the heat for their masters.

As for trusting our fellow radicals. Yeah, I prefer them too. And I prefer the Big Picture philosophical stuff beyond that, as you probably have noticed.

;>)

But I haven’t seen our favorite radicals disprove what the mainstream sources are writing about Trump, Russia, collusion and obstruction. I haven’t even seen them really try. Chomsky hasn’t. The folks at Jacobin haven’t. I haven’t seen that at Dissent, to name a few.

Do they profess “suspicion” of the authorities? Sure. What leftist doesn’t? But that’s not an argument. And since Trump and the GOP run the entire show, including the FBI, DOJ, the Courts, FISA, Congress and the Executive, it’s a pretty tough task to try to claim they’re the beleaguered minority/underdogs and powerless in all of this. And, again, if there is a “deep state,” it’s controlled primarily by the GOP, not the Dems.

In short, WV, I’m not at all persuaded by the idea that Trump is being framed by anyone. I honestly think he’s guilty as sin, and he brought all of this on himself.

wv wrote:

Well theres a whole lot there that you are asserting is true or proven. You and i would have to take each assertion one by one, and look at the actual evidence. But I doubt we would end up agreeing because I doubt i would trust your sources.

Plus there’s parts of this that just dont ‘bother’ me. Like Assange favoring Trump over Hillary. I dont care if he did. Its not illegal for him to favor Trump over Hillary. He called them both diseases, btw, as we know. Though, from day one, i suspected he favored Trump. I mean why wouldnt he. He knew Hillary wanted him in prison. He didnt know what Trump would want at the time.

My main point though, is, i dont trust the sources you are relying on, to tell us the facts/truths. Its a big issue for me now. Loss of trust in sources of info.
It changes things for me.

w
v

On trust: I don’t accept anything blindly, and I question everything. But when patterns emerge for me, and check out with a variety of sources, I think we’ve gotten close to the truth. And when it comes to Trump over the course of the last two years or so, the patterns are there.

Boiled down, they first denied any contacts with the Russians, whatsoever. News sources prove that to be false. Trump or his spinners walk back their story, little by little, but claim it’s not important because they supposedly talked about something trivial.

News sources give us more specifics. Trump or spinners walk back previous stance and try to say those specifics aren’t important and on and on. IOW, they end up confirming what the news sources have been publishing. They end up admitting they were right all along.

So I’m going to generally trust news that ends up being accepted even by the people who initially denied everything, because they were under fire, etc. Sources like the New York Times, the WaPo, the New Yorker, the Intercept, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, to name a few . . . they’ve all gone through that process when it comes to Trump and his campaign.

Donny Jr’s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower is a great example of that game. They ended up actually publishing the email chain after they were caught by the NYT. They lied and denied until they couldn’t anymore, and then finally admitted it was true.

This has happened literally hundreds of times in the last coupla years. I think it’s safe to trust these sources, while always being open to other possibilities.

WV,

Adding a bit more to what I think happened and why:

Trump’s business was massively in debt. Still is. He’s gone bankrupt six or seven times, and was no longer able to borrow from anyone, really, but the Russians. He has a terrible reputation for stiffing his business partners, workers, suppliers, banks, etc.

Putin and his oligarchs are rolling in money. Hundreds of billions. Trump wanted, desperately needed a piece of that. Putin wanted help with sanctions. Also, desperately. It was a “marriage of convenience,” transactional, opportunistic.

So they “colluded” on the election. I think Kushner gave the Russians help with micro-targeting via his Cambridge Analytica, and Russia did the heavy lifting via stealing the emails, flooding the zone with “fake news,” twitter and facebook bots, and endless attempts to game google. Wikileaks, we now know, was directly involved in favor of both Trump and Russia. We have that paper trail. Assange offered direct help to the Trump campaign, and they exchanged emails. Roger Stone had direct connections to Gucifer 2.0 and bragged about it.

Long story short, I think it’s a slam dunk that Trump or his campaign broke our election laws, lied about it, lied about his connections with Russia, got caught, tried to cover it up, and has been extremely busy trying to kill the investigation. Mueller likely has him on several counts.