Make Social Media, Not War

There's a grain of truth to the notion that “the Russians” (including NGOs and private citizens as well as the Putin regime) “interfered” or “meddled” in the 2016 election. But there's a mountain of falsehood to the notion that their goal was to put Trump into office. Based on the evidence that Inspector Hound, AKA Robert Mueller, and his team have assembled (or chosen to ignore), it can just as easily be argued that their goal was to put Hillary Clinton into office. But if the real goal – as is becoming more clear with each passing day – was, as has been noted by many, to demoralize the American public and shatter their illusions as to the soundness and legitimacy of our electoral system, and of our political system in general, then one has to admit that they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Mission accomplished! And while Russia stands securely as a political monolith with Putin at the top, American politics has been shattered into a million pieces, and Americans have been politicized, fragmented, and set against one another in a way not seen since the run-up to the Civil War. Even the 1960s pale by comparison. And this has been accomplished without a shot being fired.

The main instrument of all of this has been – irony alert! – the so-called social media, which didn't exist in Cold War times, but which have been effectively weaponized by countless parties, and none more effectively than those seeking to create havoc within the American enterprise. After all, didn't we invent the social media? I clearly remember when the Internet was no more than a gleam in the eye of DARPA (no, not Al Gore). It began with ARPANET, which was intended as a tool for the Defense Department, and was dreamed up by the smartest people on the planet at that time. (Well, OK, the smartest people in the U.S. Or the smartest people in the government, whatever.) Back in the 70s when I was working in DoD, DARPA was this mysterious place right across the street, and it was spoken of in hushed tones, like these are the people with huge brains who are way ahead of the technology curve and who are sure to make a difference. And what a difference! Whenever you hop on the Internet to play around with Facebook or Twitter, just remember that you are mere fleas on the backs of giants.

So here we are 40 years later, and it seems like our old enemies have moved in and used our tools against us. And there's no doubt as to what benefits this provides to the new post-Soviet Russia – and to China as well, for that matter. In the current version of The Great Game, the sides have come into sharp focus over the years since the end of the Cold War – or let's call it Cold War I. We have, first and foremost, Russia, which staggered through the drunken haze of the Yeltsin years when the new oligarchy was being created, and emerged – tanned, rested, and ready – to once again assume a dominant role on the world stage. Then we have China, which has done the impossible, namely come up with a hybrid system of political communism plus aggressive economic capitalism. It's almost as if they've taken the main platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties over the decades and merged them; how do you beat something like that?

Another major player in all of this is the EU, which, along with its predecessor organizations – let's give credit where credit is due – has kept the Western European nations from cutting each other's throats for many decades now. Now, one can quibble as to whether the EU is an organization of equals, the way the U.N. is supposed to be; some will say that it's simply the latest manifestation of the German Empire – call it the Fourth Reich. But if so, it can at least count peaceful coexistence among its accomplishments, unlike the previous Reichs. (This may simply be a sign that, at long last, economics has emerged triumphant as the main motivator and model for Europe, as opposed to the nationalism of old.)

Then we have what are called “non-state actors” – globalists on the one hand (not unrelated to the EU, but with a much larger vision and a more comprehensive strategy) and “terrorists” on the other. It turns out that Islam was not taught a lesson as a result of World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire; and sure enough, the radical Islamists have a renewed caliphate as their long-term objective.

Then we have Israel, which is the sine qua non of American foreign policy, having been unceremoniously dumped in our lap by Britain. And their continued existence is not unrelated to terrorism, since it constitutes a thorn in the sides of Muslims everywhere. And after all, don't all of our politicians regularly recite, like some kind of litany, that there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel? So why shouldn't anyone with a grudge against Israel also have a grudge against the U.S. (and against lesser “crusaders” or “Franks” like France and England)?

But wait – doesn't this add up to at least seven distinct entities? Isn't that kind of messy? After all, the Cold War had the merit of being, basically, two-sided, with China pretty much sitting it out, the globalists quietly drawing up their program in Brussels, the Islamists hitting the books in madrasas, and Israel making do (up until 1967) without the West Bank. And the Cold War was fought relatively quietly like the chess game that it was, with overt conflicts confined to proxy wars (Vietnam being an exception since it was "proxy" for them but first-hand for us).  It was by no means a calm, peaceful era; it just seems that way compared to what's happening now.

If you insist on sticking with the two-sided Cold War model, you can say that Team A is us, the EU, globalists in general, and Israel... and Team B is Russia and China, who have apparently sat down and divvied up the “turf” like gangsters in Old Chicago. But you still have the “terrorists”, who seem to be bugging everybody, but Team A more than Team B. (Maybe it's because Russia and China have time-tested ways of dealing with that sort of thing, whereas we and the EU are still groping around trying to figure out “why they hate us”.) Israel, of course, knows full well why the Islamists hate them, and are completely unapologetic in dealing with them in any way that seems appropriate – much to the occasional dismay of the U.S. (not so much the EU, which is famously non-judgmental about these things).

But there is one thing that everyone but us has in common – an overriding shared interest, if you will – namely to cut the U.S. down to size. (And actually, a large portion of our political class wants the same thing.) So Russia makes inroads in the Ukraine... and China buys up the lion's share of our national debt... and the EU continues to take advantage of our largess dating from the post-WWII era. And the terrorists manage to stir up trouble faster than we can dispatch troops or bombers to deal with them. (It is they who have, in effect, provided us with an excuse for waging perpetual war and keeping our economy on a war footing. And they don't seem to mind. In fact, they like it, because it vindicates their rationale for waging war against the West.)

The rest of the world is, in effect, treating us like some senile, doddering billionaire in a Hollywood movie – basically clueless and hemorrhaging wealth, but dangerous nonetheless. It's a war of attrition, if you will – and China, patient as always, is waiting for the day when it will be advantageous to call in their chits. Great bites have been taken out of the Soviet Empire of old – but they're being cagey, so far, when it comes to reclaiming them (the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine being the only exceptions – call them trial runs if you like).

So, bottom line, everyone is waiting for Uncle Stupid to break his hip and be moved into the dementia ward – but in the meantime they're doing everything they can to hasten the day, and that includes – ta-da! – using our very own social media to sow doubts among the citizenry.

It's been said that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed was that “the termites quit holding hands”. But we have our own termites in the form of political movements, some dating back more than a century. The American Experiment ran aground ages ago; some will argue that it ended with the Civil War. But there was a tremendous amount of energy that persisted, and that ultimately took the form of the American Empire. But that too has run aground, and some will give the war in Vietnam credit for that. And yet the energy persists – and the most remarkable thing is that the American economy can continue to support, and the American people continue to put up with, the continuing high level of folly and catastrophic loss of national wealth attributable to our foreign policy. Any other empire would have collapsed, been carved into pieces, and been put up on the auction block long since – and yet here we are. (Anyone who spends any time thinking about “sustainability” has to look upon this phenomenon with awe; it defies all the laws of economics and politics and yet there it is.)

So yes, to the extent that the Russians (and who knows who else) mounted an “attack” using the social media (and other media as well), it was designed to disrupt, and to cause consternation and dismay, but it was indifferent as to the results of the 2016 election, because that didn't matter. Trump may turn our home-grown “Resistance” types into gibbering psychotics... and he may step on a few toes in the EU... and he may huff and puff at Russia and China, but in the long run it's the same dreary story. Russia and China can put up with the huffing and puffing, and the EU can put up with a few bruised toes, but the terrorists are undeterred... and the globalists seem to get their own way no matter who's in charge. Can anyone seriously claim that Hillary would have done anything significantly different? Oh sure, if you're talking about domestic policy, but to the powers that be – those who play The Great Game -- America's domestic woes are noise level. What counts is not who does what to whom, or to what degree, but the level of fragmentation and – most importantly – the loss of national identity and political will (factors intimately tied to the immigration controversy). Identity politics, on the other hand, will be with us no matter who's in the White House, and it's only going to get worse. (Please recall Obama's, ahem, success at promoting racial healing.) Identity politics is a fragmenting, alienating, divisive phenomenon, which means that our enemies are all for it, and will encourage it as much as possible.

So we have, in a sense, a paradox – we are eating ourselves alive, which seems to be a domestic political matter... but it's being aided and abetted by powers and entities beyond our borders. And even at that, think of how many times over the years we've mounted our own “interference” campaigns against other countries, regimes, and leaders. There are karmic factors in play here. And why are we always the ones who talk about “regime change”? It's because we like the idea and because we're good at it (or, at least, used to be). Other nations and leaders who talk about “regime change” in the U.S., as they are doing non-stop these days, are missing the point. If there's a Deep State that is bent on sabotaging Trump, or anyone else who might occupy the White House, it's hidden in the bowels of the EU, the Kremlin, and the Forbidden City. Our own Deep State is simply, knowingly or not, doing their bidding.

The idea is to get the U.S. out of the way once and for all. Then the rest of the world can go back to doing what it does best, namely trying to kill each other.

Greece on the Skids

It's all a scam, basically. No, I don't just mean the Greek economic “crisis”; I'm talking about the European Union economic plan. The idea was, allegedly, all about strength in unity... providing economic and trade commonality and cooperation... having a single currency and no customs regulations (for ease of trade and travel)... standing up to the economic colossi of the U.S., Russia, and China... and giving the European countries a good reason not to go to war with each other... and maybe, just maybe, on rare occasions, helping out members in need – you know, temporarily, until they got back on their feet.

OK, that all sounded pretty good back then. Finally, a united Europe! An Unholy Roman Empire, if you will. We could all agree with that. All of the rough edges would be filed down, historical resentments would be smoothed over, religion would be ignored, and Europe would enter a new age that the empire builders of old could only dream of. And best of all, nations and peoples would cease being so damned different – they would cease being themselves. Germans would no longer be Germans, Greeks would no longer be Greeks, and so on. Oh sure, a bit of sterile “diversity”, like the kind we – ahem – enjoy over here would be permitted, but no real differences – nothing that might lead to resentment, hostility, and war.

But that wasn't the real plan, was it? Now it's becoming more clear with each passing day that the main agenda was to, basically, put the northern and western nations (AKA Germany, with help from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) in charge of all of Europe (or as much as the Russians would tolerate) and, basically, enslave the less economically-sound, chaotic, misgoverned, and foolish countries to the south (plus Ireland). (Not to mention, all Catholic or Orthodox. What a coincidence!) It was to be, in short, the Fourth Reich – a new German Empire – not overtly military this time (unless you include NATO) but purely economic, with politics the abject servant of economics.

And how was this enslavement to be accomplished? Much as the pusher enslaves the junkie – give him free stuff to start with, then start to raise the price. Before you know it, he's working entirely for you, and not for himself or his family. The EU raised the price on Greece and others by gradually turning the freebies into loans, for such things as elaborate social programs (including retirement benefits). And did those mendicant countries count the cost? Of course not – like credit card junkies, they were content to wait until the bill arrived, if ever, then only pay the minimum, if that. Those countries hopped aboard the gravy train, assuming that this was the way things really were in the world... they could now have their piece of the pie... their share in the new prosperity... and the bill would never come due. It was magical thinking, basically – but they were never disabused of such by those in charge, any more than a payday loan operation is scrupulous about truth in lending.

Another tack was to expect the governments of the “PIIGS” to naturally fall into line, and start to function in the same cold, rational fashion as the governments of the north, with zero or at least minimum corruption and racketeering. This, of course, was known to be impossible, but the attempt would further weaken the ne'er-do-well countries and accelerate their rush into dependence.

And I'm sure there were many other aspects to this scam as well. But the point is, the Greek “crisis” is no surprise to anyone. It is, in fact, part of the plan – or, let's say, a very small extrapolation of the plan. And so it can't really be called a “crisis”, any more than when we have an alleged “Constitutional crisis”; all it means is that those in charge have to actually go back and read the Constitution for once, in order to find out what to do next.

Besides, I fail to see how the failure of a single, non-illustrious member constitutes an existential threat to the EU. Think about a tree with a dead or rotten branch -- what's best for the tree and for its future health, leaving the branch there or cutting it off? So why shouldn't that apply to this case as well? Far from a threat, you'd think that getting rid of a, basically, parasitic member would strengthen the EU – and, by extension, stock markets both there and over here. Instead, everyone is in panic – or pretending to be.

And that brings up another aspect to all of this which should not escape our attention. The styling of all of this as a “crisis” may be part of still another scam – namely using it as an excuse for a broader financial upheaval, similar to our “Great Recession”. I mean, let's face it, the Greek economy is no more than a blip on the EU's radar, not to mention ours. They could default tomorrow and it would have a minor impact – the way the sub-prime mortgage crash here would have been a minor thing except that it was used as an alibi for everything that happened from then on (up to the present day, in fact). What I'm driving at is that we'll see just how important the Greek situation is by the reaction to it – it is reasonable, and measured, or is it an exercise in hysteria and fear-mongering? If the latter, you'll know that something much bigger is in the works, and that whatever it is was always part of the plan. It just took the failure of a profligate and woebegone nation to provide the rationale.

Two and a Half Butt-Heads

How to let Putin know that we're “serious” about the goings-on in Ukraine?  Send Joe Biden, of course! At the risk of over-using the term “tone-deaf”, how did Obama manage to miss the point that his vice president is widely regarded – not only here but overseas as well – as a world-class buffoon? I mean... if he had really wanted to show the Russkies that we mean it, he should have sent someone with more gravitas – like Bozo the Clown, or Pee-Wee Herman. And just to add to the absurdity, we have John Kerry, AKA Lurch, mumbling and growling in the background like some one-man Greek chorus. (OK then, make it three butt-heads – two plus two halves.)

So you have your answer right there – we're not serious. And yet we're sending troops into Poland, en route to the Baltics? Because they were, somehow, talked into joining NATO (an organization that should have folded the minute the Soviet Union broke up)? So OK, Mr. President, what do you seriously propose here? A land war with Russia on what, up until recently, was Soviet soil? You're going to succeed where both Napoleon and Hitler failed? And with nuclear arsenals complicating the matter? And if non-nuclear (how to keep it that way is beyond me) war with Russia is not contemplated, why go through the charade of sending troops ever there? Ah yes, I know, it's “symbolic”, right? And in fact, our entire foreign policy these days is symbolic; it has no real substance. It is – I'll say it again – a sign of a dying empire (ours, that is – the Soviets just put theirs on hold for a while).

Besides, Obama – and Democrats in general – don't really believe in foreign policy any longer; to them it's just an annoyance and a distraction from the real work at hand, which is to collectivize the U.S. The Democrats used to be known as the “war party”, and this, I believe, began with Wilson, i.e. with the progressives, who felt that enlightened democracy for just one country (i.e. us) wasn't enough – that it had to be spread throughout the world (by force, if need be). And this was just one of the many manifestations of humanism -- the notion that “we” (the intellectuals) know better than “the people” (ignorant, impulsive, superstitious, etc.) what is best for them. This attitude persisted through World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, although with diminishing fervor and idealism, and more cynicism... and then when the Cold War faded away we became reformers without a cause. (The “War on Terror”, which is actually a war on Islam, hardly measures up – a war on a religion by a post-Christian society? I'm unable to make any sense out of that.) But old habits die hard, and rather than pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan the day he took office, Obama perpetuated Bush's folly... and besides, he was (and is) owned by the Regime, which always profits handsomely from war. But just because you're fighting endless wars doesn't mean you have a coherent foreign policy; in fact it could be said that war is our foreign policy, period. (The real “war party” now is the Republicans, who are, in turn, neocons, who are fake patriots ruled by internationalists. So Obama, basically, inherited a war he didn't believe in from people who did believe in it. But it didn't matter what he believed, because he had his orders.)

But to get back to Ukraine and environs -- there are already signs that Western Europe is not totally buying in to this idea of ours to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with whomever the Russians appear to be picking on, or might be picking on at some time in the near or distant future; they are just too dependent on Russia in the commercial, practical sense (AKA “energy”). And we know that, contrary to popular belief, we follow the EU's orders more often than they follow ours – or, to be more precise, both we and the EU follow orders from the cabal, which is, according to my theory, based in Europe. In any case, I imagine the EU is much more willing to cut Russia a bit of slack than we are – for one thing, the Europeans live in Europe. They are much more entitled to be “war-weary” than we are, have ever been, or ever will be. They are all about negotiation – you know, that thing we call “compromise” and “cut and run”. They are much more appreciative of issues of hegemony, “turf”, and so on. (And we should be, since we still cling to the Monroe Doctrine, which is why the Cuba boycott drones on even though we are trading partners with Vietnam.) I imagine they would be willing to cut Ukraine, and maybe the Baltic States as well, loose in order to keep the peace. And yes, Chamberlain's ghost is rising, but so what? What ever happened to “realpolitik”? (If Hitler had stuck to the agreement, Chamberlain would be a hero on par with George Marshall. But that's a long shot.)

There's a reason we never invaded across the Iron Curtain, and it's the same reason the Soviets didn't (in the other direction). The Cold War was kept cold for what I assume were good reasons, but now, in the post-Soviet era, we're disoriented (or as George W. Bush would say, “disorientated”). Those newly-free countries are rightfully ours, dammit! Or... I mean, if not “ours” exactly... um... well, they at least ought to be allowed to join NATO, AKA “us and some other guys”. Which is a way of saying they ought not to be free – I mean really free, i.e. “non-aligned”. But clearly, neither side is willing to put up with such nonsense. So they send troops up to their border, and we send troops halfway around the world to their border... anyone see any asymmetry here? If the Russians had troops in New Brunswick or Ontario, it would make more sense... and if we minded our own damn business, that would make more sense as well. But it was not meant to be.

I should add that the commentariat has been “leaking”, in a very subtle way, the idea that a war with Russia is off the table... ain't gonna happen... not contemplated... etc. And since they are in the same echo chamber as Obama & crew, one has to wonder, why are they so confident in this, even though the actions of the administration don't provide any basis for confidence, at least not on the surface? This is further evidence that troop movements, Kerry's mumblings, Biden's buffoonery, etc. are just so much strutting and chest pounding – symbolism with a bit of body english. Read between the lines of the Regime's organs and it doesn't sound like we're in a crisis at all – merely a dialogue. And this would be OK if it were only the gullible American public who had to be dealt with, but the Russians are very good at seeing through things like this, and the more Obama piles on, the weaker he becomes in their eyes, which, arguably, emboldens them even more, etc. A new domino effect? Stay tuned.