(she’s) occupying my brain & refusing to leave (refrain)

Mr Ex CIA Man contradicts himself when he says first that he “supported the war through sheer ignorance”, then second that he “did believe that at least some of them, who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt, were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in south-east Asia.” He could not have known that these “things” were “awful” if he suffered from “sheer ignorance” regarding the war – RB

Why Do “Progressives” Like War?
Phil Giraldi, Unz Review, Feb 21 2017

Liberals are supposed to be antiwar, right? I went to college in the 1960s, when students nationwide were rising up in opposition to the Vietnam War. I was a Young Thug back then, and I supported the war through sheer ignorance and dislike of the sanctimoniousness of the protesters, some of whom were surely making their way to Canada to live in exile on daddy’s money, while I was on a bus going to Fort Leonard Wood for basic combat training. I can’t even claim that I had some grudging respect for the antiwar crowd, because I didn’t, but I did believe that at least some of them, who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt, were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in south-east Asia. As I look around now, however, I see something quite different. The lefties I knew in college are now part of the Establishment and generally speaking are retired limousine liberals. And they now call themselves progressives, of course, because it sounds more educated and sends a better message, implying as it does that troglodytic conservatives are anti-progress. But they also have done a flip on the issue of war and peace. In its most recent incarnation, some of this might be attributed to a desperate desire to relate to the Hillary Clinton campaign with its bellicosity towards Russia, Syria and Iran, but I suspect that the inclination to identify enemies goes much deeper than that, back as far as the Clinton 42 administration with its sanctions on Iraq and the Balkan adventure (sic – RB), which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the creation of a narco-terrorist state in the heart of Europe. And more recently we have seen the Obama meddling in Libya, Yemen and Syria, in so-called humanitarian interventions which have turned out to be largely fraudulent. Yes, under the Obama Demagogs it was “R2P time,” and all the world trembled as the drones were let loose. Last Friday I started to read an op-ed in the WaPo by David Ignatius that blew me away. It began like this:

President Trump confronts complicated problems as the investigation widens into Russia’s attack on our political system.

Ignatius then proceeded to lay out the case for an “aggressive Russia” in terms that have been repeated ad nauseam in the MSM. Of course, the op-ed was lacking in any evidence, as if the opinions of co-opted journalists and the highly politicized senior IC boxtops should be regarded as sacrosanct. Not coincidentally, these are reportedly the same people who have been working together recently to undercut the White House, by leaking and then reporting highly-sensitive transcripts of phone calls with Russian boxtops. Ignatius is well plugged into the national security community and inclined to be hawkish but he is also a typical Post politically correct progressive on most issues. So here was your typical liberal asserting something in a dangerous fashion that has not been demonstrated and might be completely untrue. Russia is attacking “our political system!” And The Post is not alone in accepting that Russia is trying to subvert and ultimately overthrow our republic. Reporting from the NYT and on TV news makes the same assumption whenever they discuss Russia, leading to what some critics have described as mounting Pindo ‘hysteria’ relating to anything coming out of Moscow. Rachel Maddow is another favorite of mine when it comes to talking real humanitarian feel-good stuff out one side of her mouth while beating the drum for war from the other side. In a bravura performance on Jan 26, she roundly chastised Vlad the Impaler and Russia in general. Rachel, who freaked out completely when Donald Trump was elected, is now keen to demonstrate that Trump has been corrupted by Russia and is now controlled out of the Kremlin. She described Trump’s lord and master Putin as an “intense little man” who murders his opponents before going into the whole “Trump stole the election with the aid of Moscow” saga, supporting sanctions on Russia and multiple investigations to get to the bottom of “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” According to Maddow, Russia is the heart of darkness and by way of Trump, it has succeeded in exercising control over key elements in the new administration.

Unfortunately, people like Ignatius and Maddow are not alone in the media. Their willingness to sell a specific political line that carries with it a risk of nuclear war as fact, even when they know it is not, has been part of the fear-mongering engaged in by Demagogs and many others on the left. Their intention is to get Trump, whatever it takes, which opens the door to some truly dangerous maneuvers that could have awful consequences if the drumbeat and military build-up against Russia continues, leading Putin to decide that his country is being threatened and backed into a corner. Moscow has indicated that it will not hesitate use nuclear weapons if it is confronted militarily and facing defeat. The current wave of Russophobia is much more dangerous than the random depiction of foreigners in negative terms that has long bedeviled a certain type of Pindo know-nothing politics. Apart from the progressive antipathy towards Putin personally, there is a virulent strain of anti-Russian sentiment among some self-styled conservative congress critturs such as the Two Amigos, Walnuts McCain & Lindsey Graham, the latter of whom told Wolfgang Ischinger’s Munich Security Conference:

2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress!

It is my belief that many in the National Security State have convinced themselves that Russia is indeed a major threat against Pindostan, and not because it is a nuclear armed power that can strike Pindostan. No, the new brand of Russophobia derives from the belief that Moscow is “interfering” in places like Syria and Ukraine. Plus, it is a friend of Iran. That perception derives from the consensus view among liberals and conservatives alike that the Pindosi sphere of influence encompasses the entire globe, as well as the particularly progressive conceit that Faschingstein should serve to “protect” anyone threatened at any time by anyone else, which provides a convenient pretext for military interventions that are euphemistically described as “peace missions” and, if anything, it should constitute a good reason to work hard to maintain cordial relations, rather than not, but it is seemingly ignored by everyone but Donald Trump.

There might be a certain cynicism in many who hate Russia, as having a powerful enemy also keeps the cash flowing from the treasury into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the military industrial congressional complex, but my real fear is that having been brainwashed for the past ten years, many government officials are actually sincere in their loathing of Moscow and all its works. Recent opinion polls suggest that that kind of thinking is popular among Pindosis, but it actually makes no sense. Though involvement by Moscow in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is undeniable, calling it a threat against vital Pindo interests is more than a bit of a stretch, as Russia’s actual ability to make trouble is limited. It has exactly one overseas military facility, in Syria, while Pindostan has more than 800, and its economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of Pindostan. In fact, it is Faschingstein that is most guilty of intervening globally and destabilizing entire regions, not Moscow, and when Donald Trump said in an interview that Pindostan was not so innocent when it came to killing, it was a gross understatement. Ironically, pursuing a reset with Russia is one of the things that Trump actually gets right, but the new left won’t give him a break because they reflexively hate him for not embracing the usual progressive bromides that they believe are supposed to go with being antiwar. Other Moscow trashing comes from the Walnuts McCain camp, which demonizes Russia because warmongers always need an enemy and Walnuts has never found a war he couldn’t support. It would be a tragedy for Pindostan if both the left and enough of the right were to join forces to limit Trump’s options on dealing with Moscow, thereby enabling an escalating conflict that could have tragic consequences for all parties.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s