The Selective Application of Justice Is Not Justice At All–Democrats Deserve Their Desired Election Investigation

The Selective Application of Justice Is Not Justice At All–Democrats Deserve Their Desired Election Investigation

The selective application of justice is not justice at all…

…it’s a tool for tyrants to crush opposition or “problematic” citizens.

The Democrats say that their concern about the alleged Russian hacking, and the alleged Trump/Russia collusion, is the integrity of our elections. Despite the fact that whoever leaked the DNC/Podesta emails actually exposed the Democrats’ and media’s own subversions of a fair electoral process, and despite no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, and despite never explaining exactly what sort of collusion they’re looking for…surely we need an independent investigation, they say–a special prosecutor, even.

Well if that’s the concern, then yes, let’s have an investigation into the election, and everything that may have affected its integrity. Here are some of the issues that would fall under that umbrella:

Bad for the Democrats:
– The Clinton server + investigation

  • Aiding a coverup for, or scuttling a worthy prosecution of, a presidential candidate would clearly be a problem and indeed a serious interference with the electoral process
  • The crime
    • Classified info mishandling
    • Endangering cybersecurity at State Dept, possibly wider (disabled govt security systems due to issues with the private server, State Dept was hacked within weeks)
    • Destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice (smashed devices with hammers, deleted emails after subpoena, modified emails (see “stonetear”))
  • The coverup, politicization of law enforcement
    • FBI giving immunity like candy
    • Allowing destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice
    • Mishandling witness/person of interest interviews: allowing people of interest to the suspected crime, who had given testimony prior, to act as Clinton’s lawyers/advisors during her testimony
    • Comey overstepping his authority to protect Clinton from prosecution, despite her clear guilt, where he invoked intent as necessary for prosecution despite such a requirement not being in the statute
  • Investigation interference, compromised Justice Dept: Bill meeting w/ AG Lynch on the Arizona tarmac (known about only thanks to a tip given to a local reporter)
  • Email about Lynch “not letting it go too far” (?)

– The Clinton Foundation investigation (ongoing?), pay for play

  • Again, was law enforcement politicized, and criminal activity of a presidential candidate shielded from investigation and prosecution?
  • The lucrative private speeches, the donations to the foundation
    • To/by people whom she made diplomatic deals and government contracts with, and pushed policy that benefited them (e.g. Libyan/Syrian wars)
      • Contractors, e.g. defense
      • Russian uranium deal
      • Foreign governments (and individuals within those governments), often mideast despots, Chinese, Russians
      • Individuals (given government/board positions)
    • Or to whom the Clintons gave access (e.g. Morocco)
  • Charity malfeasance (and crimes?)
    • Charity as cover for a political operation, e.g.
      • Sid Blumenthal and his activity in Libya (and perception by other Foundation employees)
      • Simultaneous employment of Huma by State Dept, CF, and Hillary’s personal office
    • Human trafficking activity/associations in Haiti?
    • Payments to Teneo holdings? Being used to arrange private, lucrative contracts (e.g. speeches) for Bill?

– DNC malfeasance

  • Violating their charter by not being impartial to the candidates (see: DNC class-action lawsuit)
    • Thereby:
      • Defrauding donors
      • Wasting taxpayer money on primaries
    • Cheating in the debates (questions given to Clinton beforehand)
    • Scheming to create media narratives against Bernie
    • Intimidation and control over endorsements
    • Laundering and pilfering state party/candidate funds to DNC coffers via Hillary Victory Fund and control over transfers
    • Superdelegates, misleading media reporting of delegate totals
    • Limiting # of debates and controlling all of them, via rule changes by DWS (none unsanctioned by DNC allowed)
    • Collusion/coordination by DNC and Clinton campaign

– Media malfeasance

  • Collusion w/ Clinton team, revealed in the Podesta emails
  • ‘Pied piper’ strategy to engineer the Republican primary
  • Rampant, outright dishonesty and bias, for Clinton and against her opponents (esp. Trump)
  • AP declaring Clinton the winner of the Democratic nomination the night before the California primary, based on private, anonymous polling of superdelegate endorsements (not even officially added to the delegate count until they vote at the convention)
  • NBC holding the pussy tape for maximum impact, leaked before they intended

– REAL story behind DNC leaks and Russia

  • Who leaked
    • Zero evidence it was Russia, or that the leaker obtained emails via hacking
    • Assange says it was not a state actor, Craig Murray says it was a DNC insider, Robbin Young says it was Seth Rich (via alleged correspondence with Guccifer 2.0, wherein it’s claimed he was murdered for leaking)
    • Podesta emails were phished, not hacked
  • Was it whistleblowing
    • It did reveal corruption, cheating, collusion, violation of charter (i.e. defrauded donors)
  • Was Seth Rich (DNC staffer) the leaker?
    • He was murdered in July, right before the leaks and the convention, on the streets of DC, with the police concluding it was a “botched robbery”, despite his valuables being left on his person. Case remains unsolved.
    • Podesta emails revealed his attitude towards leakers in Feb 2015: “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.”
    • The Robbin Young messages, if true, show just how criminal, dangerous, and immoral the DNC/Clintons and/or their allies were.
    • Wikileaks has STRONGLY hinted Seth Rich is the leaker, offering a reward for information about his murder, and Assange talking about him in the context of the dangers that leakers face in this interview
      • Rod Wheeler, former DC homicide detective, now PI hired by Rich’s family, has stated
        • tangible evidence on Rich’s laptop that confirms he was communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death
        • believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation
        • “The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”
        • “I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor’s office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday].”
      • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have both retweeted this story (though maintain their practice of not revealing sources)
      • UPDATE: The family has pushed back on Wheeler’s claims, via their spokesperson, Brad Bauman, who just happens to be a Democratic PR crisis consultant who’s been “serving” them since just after Rich’s death.
      • UPDATE 2: Apparently Wheeler has walked back his claims of hard knowledge about emails and WL contact, take that as you will (Was he just looking for attention for himself? Trying to revive the issue?  Has he been intimidated/threatened?  Regardless, we still have all the other evidence, and WL’s strong hints)
  • Who hacked, how, and why
    • DNC had terrible cybersecurity (a familiar habit for Clinton); showed lack of concern, action; ignored warnings by FBI of cyber attacks and threats
      • So really, could have been anyone
      • RNC received same warnings by FBI, had better security that foiled alleged hacks
    • Terrible, nonsensical, unverifiable evidence provided to public in embarrassingly sparse intelligence reports
      • All on the word of Crowdstrike, hired by the DNC, headed by Russian expat Dmitri Alperovitch, and who have severely damaged credibility after their false Ukrainian artillery story
      • FBI & gov never allowed to analyze server
    • Evidence that the Russia hacking narrative is false
      • All of the above, and:
      • Counter testimony by other cybersecurity experts
        • Ukrainian malware was an old version, easily obtainable on the web by anyone
        • Cyrillic characters, etc.–no apparent attempt by Russia to hide their tracks
        • APT’s not actually well-defined groups? Not necessarily Russian state or state-associated?
      • Emails showing planning of the Trump/Putin bromance narrative by Clinton campaign before the leaks: e.g. “Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin” (Podesta, Dec 21 2015)
      • Wikileaks showing insane CIA malfeasance, and ability to frame a hack as other nations
      • Politicization of IC and law enforcement (see FBI, Comey)

– Crimes by Democratic operatives at highest levels (e.g. one and two degrees away from Obama and the Clinton campaign, one often personally visiting the White House)

  • Conspiring to commit mass voter fraud, admission of doing so for years (see: Project Veritas videos)
  • Instigation of violence at opponents’ rallies, organized at highest levels (see: Project Veritas videos, “birddogging”)

– Leftist political violence and intimidation

– Voter disenfranchisement in Dem primaries

  • Unexplained registration changes/drops
  • Massive reduction in polling places in some states, e.g. Arizona, leading to hours long waits in sun and heat
  • Harry Reid’s shenanigans in NV w/ unions? Letting them off work to vote for Clinton?
  • Biased ballots? E.g. California showing Clinton with picture and no one else?

– Obama admin. abuse of power (for political ends and electoral advantage)

  • DOJ slush fund (allowing billions of dollars in fines payed by corporations as punishment/settlement to go to Dem-favored political groups instead of Treasury)
  • IRS targeting conservative political groups

– Improper, politically-motivated surveillance, unmasking, and leaking of info targeting Trump/campaign (Fisas, warrantless surveillance, unmasking)

  • Rejection of FISA warrant request (super rare, ~ 1 in 3000) in June
  • Fake Dossier (paid for by FBI?) (falsified/improperly used to get October FISA?)
  • Inappropriate unmasking of Trump and associates (and family?) for no apparent legitimate intelligence reason, as revealed by Nunes (and not challenged by Dems who’ve seen the reports–they just shot the messenger, as usual)
  • Rule change by Obama in final days of presidency, to allow wide dissemination of unmasked intelligence on Americans throughout government (to facilitate leaks on Trump)
  • Leaking/spreading of piss dossier
  • Illegal leaks of classified info targeting Trump and associates’ legal activities

– Post-election attempts to subvert democracy

  • See above, Russia narrative, collusion narrative, surveillance/unmasking/leaking against Trump and associates
  • Riots (e.g. at inauguration, Berkeley, Portland)
    • Antifa, an anarcho-communist terrorist movement, ignored/downplayed by media (while “Nazis” are everywhere!)
    • Violence towards innocents allowed to happen (twice!) at Berkeley, cops stood down and did nothing
      • Likely ordered to stand down by mayor, who was a member of the extremist, leftist cult BAMN’s Facebook group
  • Calls for political violence, sedition by celebrities and media
  • Paid protesting
  • Widespread hate crime hoaxes to demonize Trump and his supporters
  • False narratives of election fraud and recounts specifically targeting Trump
  • Campaign to overturn the results via electors
  • And all this on the heels of Clinton (and the media) accusing Trump of being a “threat to democracy” for not pre-emptively accepting election results, when result-affecting fraud or legitimate recounts were still actually a possibility (unlike after the election, when the results were clear)
  • Continuous calls for impeachment, investigation of Trump on ZERO evidence (after nearly a year of investigation, including surveillance), continuing to this day

Bad for Trump:

  • Alleged collusion between his campaign and Russia
    • Only bad for him IF you believe it actually happened, despite there still being zero evidence, and all signs pointing to it being a false, politically-motivated narrative to undermine our democracy and delegitimize a legitimately elected president. Bad for Dems if false.
  • Comey press conference in July outlining findings in Clinton server case and recommending against prosecution, letter to Congress committee in October about reopening of case
    • But these aren’t even Trump’s doing, and the alternative should not just be Comey’s public silence on, but Clinton actually being prosecuted for her crimes, not to mention anyone around her who also might be guilty

So, Democrat party, establishment RINOs, and media: still want a special prosecutor/investigation? You want to ensure the integrity of our democracy and our elections? What an admirable goal! So let’s do it. Let’s clear out this mountain of corruption, crime, and lies you’ve buried this country under for years.

Anyone who bypassed the mainstream media even momentarily last year at least caught glimpses of all this stuff. I think when looking at it in total, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Clintons and the DNC are an astoundingly corrupt and conniving political machine, and posed an unparalleled threat to the health of our electoral, political, and governing processes.

They spent years amassing control over the Democratic party to the point where they thought they could muscle their way to both the DNC nomination and to the Presidency, through control, subversion, and collusion, rather than win on merit via a legitimate, democratic electoral process. As the Clintons gained control, the party’s attitudes and practices came to be more than just a reflection of their own–they became one and the same. The same thing can largely be said of the media, who acted as a partisan, political force and did their utmost to get her in the White House, while attempting (and failing) to maintain a facade of legitimate, ethical journalism.

Democrats should be thankful that Clinton didn’t ultimately succeed, as who knows what even just 4 more years of rot could have further done to their party, both internally and to its image, but more significantly, what the rot could have further done to the country and the world–indeed everyone should be thankful. We were saved from their Orwellian, authoritarian, corrupt mode of operation, perhaps only by the grace of their hubris and incompetence. They undoubtedly did not deserve to win this election, but if they were slightly more adept at their conniving, or at hiding their corruption, they might have won anyway, and we would all be in for some serious shit.

Since the election, the narratives have been continuously unraveling, and the Clintonian Democrat party slowly and visibly descending into desperate, unhinged, Russia-obsessed, anti-Trump madness. Polls have shown more Clinton voters would now switch their votes than Trump voters, and the Democrat party remains less popular than both the Republican party and the primary object of their seething, unhinged hatred, Trump himself. This despite the continued all-out war by the media on Trump and on the truth–or perhaps because of it, with trust in the media at a well-deserved all-time low (and continuing to decline, I would imagine).

Now as much as their twisting in the wind provides some sweetly poetic Schadenfreude to many, for their sake and the sake of our entire country I would like to see it end, punctuated by nothing less than the unmistakable signal of some long-awaited justice well-served:

  • for the Obama/Clinton empire to face the music for the corruption it has sown and for the damage it did to us, the world, and the faith in our institutions;
  • for an intellectually and morally decrepit Democratic party to pay penance to its defrauded donors and voters, implode, then start anew, with a hopefully legitimate, patriotic, and truly liberal (as in liberty) opposition party to take its place;
  • for an intelligence community that has been politicized, corrupted, and weaponized (literally) against the interests and security of the American people, to be reined in and made accountable at last, its methods and missions re-evaluated and–hopefully–effectively reformed;
  • and for the thoroughly dishonest, unscrupulous, and tunnel-visioned legacy media–who have rested on the laurels of their monopolistic past for far too long–to take their rightful place in the dustbin of history; and for an open, meritocratic, innovative and free (as in freedom) independent media to take their place, with the public empowered to leverage new communication technologies, and to reap the benefits of truly open dialogue, rather than the corporate/establishment/leftist-controlled dialogue that has obfuscated reality to our great harm

And I think nothing would help to expedite this justice more than a thorough, independent, honest review of all the issues I listed above that may have corrupted the integrity of our elections. So let’s get this show on the road. This Bernie-turned-Trump supporter is 100% on board.

I call on the Democratic Party to do what is right, not only for our country, but for themselves, to restore their own moral compass and credibility.  It will be a painful, embarrassing process for those who are guilty, but it’s the only way to stop the bleeding, and prevent more people like me from finding greener political pastures among their opposition.

(title image courtesy of Wikipedia user Continentaleurope)


Holy Shit. Our President is the Greatest Troll of All Time

Holy Shit. Our President is the Greatest Troll of All Time

(left image courtesy of /r/the_Donald)

That is, of course, assuming he’s the one who actually leaked his tax return, which seems extremely likely, given how it looks for him.  If he didn’t leak it, and this was the worst the leaker could find/put out on him…holy crap, he should release all his returns for the glowing publicity he’ll get.

What all did this accomplish?

  • Exposed the McCarthyist-in-chief, Rachel Maddow, and her entire organization, for the desperate, overhyped shills that they are.  Also shows them to be complete idiots, for not realizing this is positive for him (or for not reviewing the document before hyping it).
    • This will rub off on the corporate media, the Democrats, and anti-Trumpers as a whole.
    • This damages the jingoistic, McCarthyist witch-hunt movement, given her role as its spiritual leader. This is great not just for him, but for the country and the world as a whole.
  • Shut down any desire from his opposition to talk about his tax returns for the time being
  • Showed he had income at a rate where he probably is indeed a billionaire, and that he has paid a fairly high tax rate (higher than NBC, Obama, and Sanders), completely cutting down two speculative criticisms of him.
    • Further, shows he probably earned at least a billion between ’95 and ’05 alone, given the billion dollar loss in ’95 he could have deducted for up to 18 years
  • Tarnished the reputation of David Johnston (the reporter who received the document and took it to Maddow), who wrote a negative biography of Trump during the campaign.

The fact that it went to Maddow is probably just incidental (but extremely fortunate) as it was probably Johnston’s own choice to go to her.  And the spectacular, extremely hyped-up fashion it all blew up in is just about the best result Trump could have hoped for, but couldn’t actually control.

This is also the greatest trolling not just because it’s funny as hell and he utterly BTFO his opponents, but because he did a GREAT service to the country, as it might be enough to put an end to the extremely dangerous McCarthyism and jingoism that Maddow has been leading, and the media at large has been fueling.  As someone who has been calling out (more so on social media than here) the Russia hacking/collusion narrative as the politically-motivated, dangerous, hysteria that it is ever since it started last summer, last night was both a huge relief and extremely satisfying.

I’ve recently seen commenters on Reddit literally calling for war with Russia over what is clearly nothing (or almost nothing, if Russia actually was the one who leaked the DNC/Podesta emails and exposed their unethical, democracy-subverting behavior; which is probably not the case, and perhaps completely unknowable).  Everything Trump ever did or said involving a Russian has been fuel for the paranoid fires in their heads, and each one of the daily litany of lazy, disingenuous and innuendo-laden articles further ignited their rage.  The jingoism was getting crazy and feverish, and the baseless accusations of treason and treachery even more rampant and vicious than during the run-up to the Iraq war.

I think the Dems were likely going to spin themselves into a political death spiral before they could actually gain the power/influence to outright stoke war with Russia—but it still presented a serious risk of that, among other dangers like pressuring the administration into unnecessary belligerence, which it may have already done.  It’s not something I want to see fucked around with in the slightest.  Michael Tracey, who is from what I’ve seen one of the more reasonable and respectable liberal journalists, outlines well the very real danger the anti-Russia hysteria poses.  I hope it tamps down quickly now.

I’m not trying to idolize Trump, or revel in partisan schadenfreude—I think this is truly a watershed moment in exposing an unscrupulous media, and hopefully in refocusing/shifting our approach towards Russia and, really, our entire political atmosphere. Maybe, just maybe, we can get on to governing now.  Trump will come out of this with more respect (if begrudging) and sympathy from a lot of people, and the many vicious, irresponsible, tunnel-visioned opponents of his in the media and government will rightfully come out of this with a lot less respect.  I think this is evidenced by the online reactions, case in point (found in an anti-Trump community):


God bless this timeline.

The Trumps give the Obama-Jarrets a housewarming gift #ObamaGate

I would write an article on some of the crazy developments in the past few days (or weeks) but other projects are keeping me quite busy right now, and on one of the big stories (the other being Wikileaks vault7) Stefan Molyneux does a damn fine job summarizing and contextualizing the issue, so I’ll just link his video (at bottom), and provide you my in-depth meme.

Also, he and Hard Bastard both had good takes on the Loretta Lynch video, which was pretty extraordinary and exactly what I’m talking about when I say the left is recklessly encouraging violence.  (And what do you know?  More violence at Berkeley.)

I hope to have more content sooner than later!  I appreciate anyone who checks in here.

I can’t take credit for the story/punchline here, just meming it into reality.  Have a good day, everyone.  Hope you have lots of popcorn for the weeks ahead.  Things will get interesting (and hopefully remain peaceful).


Stefan Molyneux’s video on Obama wiretaps:

Hard Bastard’s video on Loretta Lynch:

Stefan Molyneux’s video on Loretta Lynch:

Who is Steve Bannon, really? Required Reading for All Americans

Who is Steve Bannon, really?  Required Reading for All Americans

This is one of the most important documents in American politics right now, and perhaps ever, given how consequential the next 4-8 years might be.  It’s the transcript of a Q&A that Steve Bannon gave (remotely) to a conference on poverty at the Vatican, hosted by the Human Dignity Institute in 2014.  Everyone I’ve shown it to, of a variety of political stripes, has had the same reaction I had: it’s illuminating.  You learn the framework of his worldview on a variety of issues, like his governing philosophy, his views on finance and Wall St., the role religion, and more, and how they all tie together.

It’s not what you’d expect based on his portrayal in the media, where he’s routinely painted as a vicious white nationalist, and an ambitious, hard-right fascist.

It’s incredibly valuable reading/viewing for all Americans, for understanding the perspective and motivations of an obviously very influential man right now.  If you want to engage in politics, and value being informed (and I hope you do), you owe it to yourself to read it.  Given the myriad of issues swirling around him (like the #StopPresidentBannon meme, the continual accusations of white supremacy leveled at him, outrage over him being on the National Security Council, and the uproar over potential changes to Dodd-Frank) I think it’s even more critical.

I honestly care much less that you read the rest of this article, than I do that you read this:

Hearing someone’s point of view in their own words doesn’t necessarily give you the full picture of who they are, of course—everyone, especially people of high status and power, might have skeletons they are not forthright about—but it is a huge piece of the puzzle, and if you haven’t done it, yet jump to accept other people’s judgements of them, you are doing yourself a disservice.

One of the most striking things the talk reveals is the sophistication of Bannon’s worldview.  He shows a depth of knowledge about a multitude of topics, and a thoughtful approach from a clear moral center.

The most striking part, though, are his views on capitalism, finance, and Wall St.  He’s an unrepentant capitalist, but also an unrepentant enemy of crony capitalists.  He knows finance, and appears to be very earnest in his aim to stamp out the corrupt practices within it, and ensure capitalism serves the common good.  It’s really the driving force, in his view, of the center-right populism we’re seeing in America and elsewhere, and the driving force of his governing philosophy, where he marries the practices of capitalism to the traditional values of the Judeo-Christian west.

This is in opposition to the two other strains of capitalism he sees in the world: state-sponsored, highly corrupt capitalism (a la Russia, China, and to a large extent the crony capitalists of the west) and the Ayn Rand / Objectivist school of libertarian capitalism, both of which turn people into commodities, and do very little to spread wealth and value among the middle and working classes.

Some excerpts on this topic:

I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things.

…when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West…And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief.

…I think you really need to go back and make banks do what they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading — you know, the hedge fund securitization, which they’ve all become basically trading operations and securitizations and not put capital back and really grow businesses and to grow the economy.

I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong….absolutely outrageous, and here’s why: It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable.

…In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on. Because even with the Democrats, right, in power…they looked the other way.

…they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.

Unless you believe this and his other public statements to be an elaborate facade—that he’s crafted an entire framework and set of beliefs purely in order to deceive the public, and kept his real motivations entirely hidden for years—I think this shows that he’s not driven by simply doing rich people favors.  I haven’t seen anything to indicate that Trump is driven solely by corrupt motives either.  He’s already proven willing and able to stand up to big business (e.g. manufacturers, defense contractors, pharma) in ways no other presidents have, at least not in recent history.  Both of their anti-establishment track records seem pretty genuine to me.

Progressives might find they actually have allies in the White House on many issues, including Wall St. in many respects.  But the Democrats and the media are loathe to let people come to that conclusion.  The recent executive order, that has largely been characterized as an effort to begin a full repeal of Dodd-Frank, simply calls for a review of our financial regulations to ensure they adhere to a certain set of principles, chief among them preventing more taxpayer-funded bailouts, something which Dodd-Frank has not adequately done.  Discussion is certainly warranted about the merits of each policy they eventually push to repeal or modify, but the hysteria and hyperbole, as usual, is not warranted.

Taking everything into account, Bannon and Trump might be exactly who we need in the White House right now, to actually stand up to the behemoth of Wall St., and prevent them from royally screwing us over again.

The other major aspect of Bannon’s talk, and of the crisis he believes the west is facing, is the rise and spread of radical Islamic fascism.  This is where I have more mixed feelings on his approach.  I think the fight against ISIS and Islamic fascism at large is an absolutely necessary one, and we need people like Trump, Bannon, and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who all recognize the necessity and gravity of that fight in an unmistakable, clear-eyed way (unlike Obama and Clinton, who actually routinely empowered jihadists, and tried to use them as a geopolitical tool).

But, while there may be some merit to it, the extent that he views the world in a “clash of civilizations” and religious framework, combined with the past rhetoric of Trump and Flynn, makes me worry that the administration may pursue this fight in an overzealous way, and frame it in a blunt, xenophobia-stoking way, that polarizes factions and inflames tensions before we can resolve them.  The fight for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, and to pull Muslim societies as a whole towards more moderate stances, and push them to actively reject extreme ones, is a necessary fight as well, and should not be neglected.

My worry is a bit alleviated by a few factors.  One, Bannon’s recognition that people can be opposed to radical Islam but “not as militant and not as aggressive [as he is] and that’s fine.”  Two, the fact that he states explicitly that, “It’s very easy to play to our baser instincts, and we can’t do that. But our forefathers didn’t do it either.”  And three, that I think he, Trump, and especially Secretaries Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly, are all ultimately very pragmatic people.  Hopefully this will keep the temptation for overzealousness in check, and keep the importance in mind of an inviting posture for fence-sitters to gravitate to, but it’s certainly something to keep an eye on as things unfold.

Seriously, you should read the transcript.  If you don’t want to read it because you oppose him politically, you’re being foolish—“know thy enemy”.  If you don’t want to read it because you’re afraid you might have your mind changed about him, you’re being weak, and intellectually dishonest.  There is little excuse, really, other than apathy, but if you’ve read this far, I’m willing to bet you’re not the apathetic type.

And if you think it’s valuable reading, and that others should read it too, share it.  I know a lot of you might be afraid to post something that might make people think you support Trump or his administration even in the slightest way, but this is an easy one.  The headline and the article are politically neutral (a transcript, a primary source), and you can share it without comment.  If everyone were afraid to share information that went against the dominant narrative, our society would be doomed—fearmongering propagandists, witting and unwitting, would have nothing standing in their way.  I encourage you to help un-doom our society in whatever small ways you can.  It’s actually quite liberating to throw off the constraints of fear and fear-driven conformity.  And it’s the right thing to do.

Antifa: The rise of left wing Fascism

Really pertinent historical parallels and context for recent events, good summaries of many important issues at play right now, and insightful perspectives.

Great follow up read to my last article. Highly, highly recommend.

J.P.R. Campbell's Blog

Antifa are an organisation of ‘anti-fascists,’ though I use the term so loosely that it slides right off the bones of Antifa like rotting flesh, revealing the jagged skeleton of fascism.

There’s a quote often mistaken to originate from Winston Churchill, though its actual origin is more likely to be that of Huey Long a populist politician from the state of Louisiana in the 1930’s. The quote can be summarised as follows:

“When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!”

Huey was arguing a point about fascism, that it isn’t so easily identifiable as a swastika. His point was that fascism is first and foremost an ideology, and that anyone can display it. It would almost be humorous the coincidence that the fascists of America call themselves anti-fascists, if it weren’t for the fact that none of this is funny.

View original post 1,496 more words

The Road to Fascism Could Not Be Clearer, but It’s Not What the Media Says It Is

The Road to Fascism Could Not Be Clearer, but It’s Not What the Media Says It Is

Last night should make it clear where the greatest threat of fascism in this country lies.  If the left continues on its current course, it will either bring it about directly, or in concert with whatever response it provokes.

The longer the media downplays and excuses, even celebrates leftist violence, extremism, hate, and ignorance, the greater the risk that all of it festers into war and/or fascism.  (Or communism/whatever term you prefer.  Violent, doublethink-ridden, authoritarian movements are what I’m talking about here.)

THE SEEDS OF THIS HAVE BEEN VISIBLE FOR A YEAR, though invisible to most.  There are videos of dozens upon dozens of physical attacks on Trump supporters, that the media conveniently swept under the rug all last year.  It’s really disturbing and hard to watch.  Have you seen the incidents in this video?  It’s only from June of last year:

Most people haven’t seen them, because the media acted as a deceptive, one-sided, gatekeeper.  They were the true builders of our “post-truth” society.

But they made sure the world saw, on repeat, the one clear instance of a Trump supporter hitting someone else at a rally.  And they uncritically relayed a series of alleged post-election hate crimes, the vast majority of which turned out to be hoaxes, and to this day still use them to claim there was an epidemic of right-wing violence.  One of many BIG LIES of late (e.g. “17 intelligence agencies“).

Again, all this deception, this inversion of reality by the media, and the downplaying of extremism and violence on the left, has. to. stop.

They have fueled a false hysteria that the political opposition are all nazis, and now are giving calls to violence against these alleged nazis.  How do they expect this to turn out?  Who the fuck are they, that raucously celebrate an awards ceremony speech that calls outright for political violenceWhat have they become, if not exactly what they claim to protest?

Have you seen the Project Veritas videos?  Whatever you have heard about James O’Keefe, it is clear and well established that he did not fake these videos, and that the misdeeds, of both conspiring to commit mass voter fraud and of routinely instigating violence at Trump rallies, are undeniable, and were committed by Democratic operatives at the very highest levelsThe left needs to wake up and smell the bullshit, because it is and has been all around them, and they need to get out of it.

Whatever you do, do not consider yourself informed if you only get/trust information from major mainstream and left-leaning outlets.  Sure, read those, but not exclusively.  Independent and right-leaning media are a must if you want a real sense of what is happening in the world.  E.g. Sargon of Akkad, Dave Rubin, Ron Paul Liberty Report, DailyWire, Fox, and yes, even r/The_Donald, Breitbart and InfoWars are all useful to keep on your radar.  You don’t have to believe or agree with everything they say, or how they say it, to get value out of them.  And the fact is they are all usually far less deceptive than mainstream outlets, who deceptively edit, omit (a LOT) and skew things constantly.

Cast a wide net, folks, as wide as you can, and never trust a headline without reading and verifying an article.  Above all, think critically.


[1] Footage from the Berkeley riots/violence last night, if you haven’t seen it:

[2] Some background on Antifa and the black bloc

We Need Vigilance Against Bigotry, and That Means Increasing Our Understanding—Of Trump Voters

Emotions were extremely high this election, and one only need glance at social media to see that.  My regional, educational, and generational cohort swing liberal, so I’ve seen the gamut of raw, day-after shock and anger.  Much of it calls for vigilance against further bigotry and hatred of the kind we saw during the campaign.  And it’s spot-on.  We will need to be vigilant in opposing further bigotry and ignorance out of Trump, or bigotry he might continue to inspire or expose.  LGBT and racial minority rights and relations are literally a matter of life and death for many Americans, and directly affect the quality of life for the rest.  We are in this together after all (and even if we somehow weren’t, every decent person still deserves a decent life!)

Some of the reactions go further, and blame Trump voters for being ignorant, racist, sexist, selfish, or hateful—that as privileged whites, they’ve demonstrated that they don’t care about the needs or aspirations of anyone but themselves, or people superficially like themselves.

But to the people who feel this way, who are assigning blame this way, please remember—people’s choices were constrained.  Most of America wouldn’t have chosen Trump to be a nominee, and it should provide some small relief knowing that ~70% of America disapproves of him, despite the 48% (of people who voted) who voted for him.  Most people are appalled by the disgusting, offensive, and hateful things he’s said, even those people who checked his name on the ballot.

The reason many people chose him over Clinton in spite of all that is not because they are white, or because they only care about themselves, or only care about white straight men.  Starting from that premise assumes far too much about their motives, and assumes the worst about them—its the least empathetic interpretation of their decision, and is thus an extremely inaccurate interpretation in most cases.  It’s also thus a non-starter for building understanding and working together to move forward as a country.

What would you say to the 29% of Latinos who voted for him?  Or the 8% of blacks?  Or the 29% of asians?  Are they all “white” on the inside?  The very notion is offensive.

What would you say to the 14% of LGBT voters who chose him?  Are they simply unaware of who they are?  Do they not care about their own rights?

You have to be willing to understand someone’s decision-making before you judge their motive, or before you assume they made such a decision out of prejudice, ignorance or callousness—or even privilege. Many of the people who are appalled by some of Trump’s attitudes, also have fears about war, or the balance of power in society, or terrorism, or the economy, or malfeasance in government.  Those are life and death matters too.  Decisions about war and peace are clearly a life and death matter.  And the health and accountability of our institutions intimately affects everyone’s opportunities and quality of life.  Many of the same people who voted Trump are themselves economically down and out, disadvantaged, suffering because they have been beaten down by society in one way or another, held back by a government that is corrupted, or left behind by established interests and institutions that enrich themselves at others’ expense.

A thought experiment: hypothetically, if Hillary Clinton fueled a war in a smaller foreign country that Donald Trump wouldn’t have fueled, and 100,000 people died as a result, and a million ended up in refugee camps—is all that death and suffering “worth it”, to have a president who is a bigger proponent of LGBT rights for four years?  What if the actual resulting policy difference, or cultural difference, between candidates around those rights is minimal, or non-existent in those four years?  What if the war was with Russia, and the prospect of war actually threatened your life and livelihood, and your family’s?

Now, you may disagree with the premise that Clinton would be more likely to fuel war than Donald Trump, and you may hotly contest and debate that premise.  Good!  Society needs such debates.  But that debate gets off to a really bad start if you assume someone believes such a premise, or gives it the weight they do, simply because of the color of their skin.

So please do not fret, about this, at least: the results of this election do not mean bigotry has won.  It does not mean half of America is okay with bigotry.  If we understand that, we’ll all be better equipped to operate in the political arena in the coming years, to work together to make the world a better place for all, and a better place particularly for the most disadvantaged among us.