A comparison between opinion polls taken ahead of a potential airstrike on Syria for alleged chemical weapons use in 2013 with those taken in the aftermath of the recent airstrike on the same country with the same leader for the same purported reasons, shows the power of cognitive dissonance to make people rationalize outcomes that they preferred not to happen.
Rewind to 2013, back when Trump was firing off tweets against the airstrikes on a daily basis. Every poll showed overwhelming opposition to such strikes, even when the question was worded to state as a matter of fact that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own citizens (ABC / WP), and even when a separate question found 80% agreeing that Assad had used chemicals on his own people (CNN).
Majorities agreed with anti-globalist positions across a range of questions (Pew / USA Today), such as airstrikes will make things worse in the Middle East, we have no moral obligation to stop violence against civilians in another country, Syria poses no risk to us anyway, and we're not going to lose credibility just because we don't fire missiles.
Republicans were more opposed than were Democrats, compared to the opposite now -- kneejerk partisan reactions. But Trump campaigned during the primaries and general that we should not do what we just did, and he blew away his anti-Assad rivals. So it's not like Republicans had changed their position as of a few months ago.
The main difference between this strike and the potential strike in 2013 is that Obama tried to argue for it in the court of public opinion, and that campaign dragged on and on as he refrained from pulling the trigger. That allowed Americans' true feelings to crystallize, and it turned out they were against it. This time, the Deep State pulled the trigger as soon as they could, after some pro forma propaganda about the evil butcher gassing beautiful babies. That rapid-fire response gave Americans little time to evaluate the situation and let their anti-airstrike views crystallize again.
After the strikes had already been conducted, a good chunk of people who were against them will not want to feel like they were on the losing side of that decision, so they rationalize after the fact that they actually approve of them when a pollster calls them up. There's no point in crying over spilled milk.
We can tell that people didn't actually want these strikes because the typical "approve" response is that they were fine, but let's not do it again, and definitely do not send in a ground invasion. They're just trying to rationalize this specific act, and move on.
If they were so against Assad or his regime or his Russian patron, they would be tasting blood by now and be excited about future strikes against the evil dictator. That's how the neocons have reacted. But only a small minority of American citizens feel this way, probably the same people who were looking forward to strikes in 2013.
April 13, 2017
Jackson would nuke Saudis, not Syria -- "counter-puncher"
Because the airstrike on Syria was in the 180-degree opposite direction of Trump's message about Syria, Assad, the Middle East, and Russia -- from 2013 through early 2017 -- many of his fervent supporters were struck with cognitive dissonance. The normal human way to solve that is to rationalize, and Trump supporters like anyone's supporters are only human.
Some rationalizations deal only with this particular strike -- explaining how was it a good thing after all, and then leaving it there. They're only trying to compartmentalize this specific incident.
But now there's a more general rationalization, sensing that there may be more foreign policy moves that are not just imperfect or less-than-pure (small magnitude) but pointing totally away from his original message (opposite direction). If the Syrian strike becomes one example among many, then a more general rationalization will be needed to cover all these cases coherently, rather than each one on an ad hoc basis.
Cognitive dissonance goes away more easily when there's a single interwoven story to tell, because telling ourselves dozens of patchwork stories is too obvious to fool our mind, even when it is seeking relief from dissonance.
The one I've been seeing over the past several days, whether alt-right people on Twitter or a gay racist bodybuilding forum like MPC, is that Trump's foreign policy is "Jacksonian" a la our seventh President.
This idea seems to trace back to an article from mid-March in National Interest (realists more than neocons), which was making an argument for where things ought to go, not what their current state was. There were no real defining events a month ago, but there are now.
The basic tenets were building up a strong navy in order to defend abroad our people, our material interests, and our national honor. But then only when diplomacy was not possible, e.g. dealing with savage races in the South Seas, not dealing with the French.
That does sound very much like what Trump has advocated for all throughout the campaign and back to his potential presidential run in 2000.
So how does the Syrian airstrike measure up by Jackson's and Trump's standards?
It fails the most basic criterion of targeting someone who had done us wrong. Assad's regime has not attacked us or threatened to. Nor has his patron state of Russia, who was in the place that was struck. They have not run off with our money or our things, taken any of our territory, insulted us, or threatened to do any of these things.
On the contrary, Assad and Putin were under the impression that we'd be working with them against the jihadists in Syria, whether their branding is ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, etc. Those jihadists and their Gulf state patrons are the ones who have attacked us -- most spectacularly on 9/11, but also ISIS-inspired attacks from American residents. Assad and Putin wiping them out is protecting our people.
By the way, when are we going to launch cruise missiles or rain down nuclear bombs against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, to avenge their attack on 9/11? Now that would have been Jacksonian. (Don't count on Deep State to favor this, they are anti-American.)
Attacking someone who has not even threatened to attack you, let alone who is helping your interests, is a flagrant violation of the culture of honor, which is founded on tit-for-tat reciprocity -- or being a counter-puncher, as Trump always emphasized.
Jackson certainly never behaved that way against foreign societies. He got us into no military interventions, with the minor exception of sending the navy to thump some savage pirates in the South Seas, who had murdered our people, stolen our treasure, and destroyed our ships.
His only other major foreign policy confrontation was collecting a debt from France, but this payment was owed to us because they had done us wrong by capturing our ships and sailors, and he solved it through diplomacy first, rather than use force right away. Nobody in the administration last week tried to figure out what the hell actually happened in the chemical incident, let alone apply initial diplomatic or financial pressures if in fact Assad were at fault.
Closer to home, Jackson kept us out of war regarding Texas and Mexico. He favored trying to buy it off from Mexico, but they didn't bite, and he denied the option of a military take-over. It wasn't until roughly ten years after Jackson, when James K. Polk took office, that Texas was annexed, admitted to the Union, and defended militarily during the Mexican-American War. Unlike Jackson, Polk was elected on an explicit expansionist platform, through war if necessary.
Jackson did not expand the territory of the Union by even an inch. His main avenue of advancing European colonization was driving the Indians out of American territory via the Trail of Tears.
These are not the actions of someone who goes around randomly screwing with people, least of all the enemy of one's enemies, in order to create a madman persona for frightening others. Jackson was a counter-puncher, just like the real Trump (not the one whose arm was twisted by Deep State into striking Syria).
Many people now are confusing Nixon's madman approach derived from ghetto thugs and warlords, with Jackson's honor-based approach derived from reciprocity. This re-imagining of Jackson's legacy is what allows people to relieve their cognitive dissonance over Trump's Syria strike -- it's what Jackson would have done.
In fact, the airstrike on Syria comes from the stunt-pulling mindset of sociopathic Deep State agents, not the righteous indignation of a counter-puncher like Trump. We will have to wait and see how much pressure Deep State can exert over foreign policy, but for now we have a simple way to judge where the balance of power lies.
The more we pre-emptively attack those who have not done our people wrong -- and who have even helped our people's interests -- rather than applying diplomatic, financial, and finally military pressure in retaliation only, the more we can conclude that foreign policy will be the one domain where Trump's true goals may become subverted, and point in the opposite direction.
The legitimate monopoly on violence that the Deep State has access to, is not wielded by other interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce, immigrants' rights groups, judiciary branch, etc., so it will be full-steam ahead in all other domains. But we should stay objective about foreign policy and not fool ourselves into believing that Jackson or true-Trump are nothing more than a couple of wurlstah gangbangers or mafia kingpins unpredictably knocking people around just so everybody knows who's boss.
Instead, it's time to purge the infection of ghetto norms from mainstream American culture.
Some rationalizations deal only with this particular strike -- explaining how was it a good thing after all, and then leaving it there. They're only trying to compartmentalize this specific incident.
But now there's a more general rationalization, sensing that there may be more foreign policy moves that are not just imperfect or less-than-pure (small magnitude) but pointing totally away from his original message (opposite direction). If the Syrian strike becomes one example among many, then a more general rationalization will be needed to cover all these cases coherently, rather than each one on an ad hoc basis.
Cognitive dissonance goes away more easily when there's a single interwoven story to tell, because telling ourselves dozens of patchwork stories is too obvious to fool our mind, even when it is seeking relief from dissonance.
The one I've been seeing over the past several days, whether alt-right people on Twitter or a gay racist bodybuilding forum like MPC, is that Trump's foreign policy is "Jacksonian" a la our seventh President.
This idea seems to trace back to an article from mid-March in National Interest (realists more than neocons), which was making an argument for where things ought to go, not what their current state was. There were no real defining events a month ago, but there are now.
The basic tenets were building up a strong navy in order to defend abroad our people, our material interests, and our national honor. But then only when diplomacy was not possible, e.g. dealing with savage races in the South Seas, not dealing with the French.
That does sound very much like what Trump has advocated for all throughout the campaign and back to his potential presidential run in 2000.
So how does the Syrian airstrike measure up by Jackson's and Trump's standards?
It fails the most basic criterion of targeting someone who had done us wrong. Assad's regime has not attacked us or threatened to. Nor has his patron state of Russia, who was in the place that was struck. They have not run off with our money or our things, taken any of our territory, insulted us, or threatened to do any of these things.
On the contrary, Assad and Putin were under the impression that we'd be working with them against the jihadists in Syria, whether their branding is ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, etc. Those jihadists and their Gulf state patrons are the ones who have attacked us -- most spectacularly on 9/11, but also ISIS-inspired attacks from American residents. Assad and Putin wiping them out is protecting our people.
By the way, when are we going to launch cruise missiles or rain down nuclear bombs against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, to avenge their attack on 9/11? Now that would have been Jacksonian. (Don't count on Deep State to favor this, they are anti-American.)
Attacking someone who has not even threatened to attack you, let alone who is helping your interests, is a flagrant violation of the culture of honor, which is founded on tit-for-tat reciprocity -- or being a counter-puncher, as Trump always emphasized.
Jackson certainly never behaved that way against foreign societies. He got us into no military interventions, with the minor exception of sending the navy to thump some savage pirates in the South Seas, who had murdered our people, stolen our treasure, and destroyed our ships.
His only other major foreign policy confrontation was collecting a debt from France, but this payment was owed to us because they had done us wrong by capturing our ships and sailors, and he solved it through diplomacy first, rather than use force right away. Nobody in the administration last week tried to figure out what the hell actually happened in the chemical incident, let alone apply initial diplomatic or financial pressures if in fact Assad were at fault.
Closer to home, Jackson kept us out of war regarding Texas and Mexico. He favored trying to buy it off from Mexico, but they didn't bite, and he denied the option of a military take-over. It wasn't until roughly ten years after Jackson, when James K. Polk took office, that Texas was annexed, admitted to the Union, and defended militarily during the Mexican-American War. Unlike Jackson, Polk was elected on an explicit expansionist platform, through war if necessary.
Jackson did not expand the territory of the Union by even an inch. His main avenue of advancing European colonization was driving the Indians out of American territory via the Trail of Tears.
These are not the actions of someone who goes around randomly screwing with people, least of all the enemy of one's enemies, in order to create a madman persona for frightening others. Jackson was a counter-puncher, just like the real Trump (not the one whose arm was twisted by Deep State into striking Syria).
Many people now are confusing Nixon's madman approach derived from ghetto thugs and warlords, with Jackson's honor-based approach derived from reciprocity. This re-imagining of Jackson's legacy is what allows people to relieve their cognitive dissonance over Trump's Syria strike -- it's what Jackson would have done.
In fact, the airstrike on Syria comes from the stunt-pulling mindset of sociopathic Deep State agents, not the righteous indignation of a counter-puncher like Trump. We will have to wait and see how much pressure Deep State can exert over foreign policy, but for now we have a simple way to judge where the balance of power lies.
The more we pre-emptively attack those who have not done our people wrong -- and who have even helped our people's interests -- rather than applying diplomatic, financial, and finally military pressure in retaliation only, the more we can conclude that foreign policy will be the one domain where Trump's true goals may become subverted, and point in the opposite direction.
The legitimate monopoly on violence that the Deep State has access to, is not wielded by other interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce, immigrants' rights groups, judiciary branch, etc., so it will be full-steam ahead in all other domains. But we should stay objective about foreign policy and not fool ourselves into believing that Jackson or true-Trump are nothing more than a couple of wurlstah gangbangers or mafia kingpins unpredictably knocking people around just so everybody knows who's boss.
Instead, it's time to purge the infection of ghetto norms from mainstream American culture.
Categories:
Crime,
Morality,
Politics,
Psychology,
Violence
April 10, 2017
How to decide if "It's 4D chess, chill out" vs. "As it appears, start worrying"
There's lots of confusion among Trump supporters about what the meaning is of the administration's greater moves toward regime change and potential confrontation with Russia. Do we conclude that it's all part of a 4D chess strategy, perhaps involving other players like Putin, and there's nothing to get so worried about? Or do we conclude that it's the straightforward scenario of heightened conflict in the M.E. and/or Russia?
I've already explained why I think Trump truly has not changed his views deep-down -- he has been too consistent and vocal on them from at least 2013 through the early part of this year, on regime change in Syria. Rather, he's being maneuvered into that position by the military faction of the Deep State, who can credibly threaten to weaken their military support for his authority, at which point he cannot effectively govern.
(This is unlike his economic and domestic agendas, where our enemies have nothing to threaten us with.)
Still, it's a hypothesis, and so is the opposite view. How do we decide which case to believe in?
Beliefs are not important in the real world, it is how we behave that matters. So do we behave as though it's a 4D chess strategy, or as though it's as things appear?
This choice boils down to what are the consequences for choosing to behave as though one scenario or the other were true, weighted by how likely they are to be true.
The straightforward scenario should receive a higher probability of being true -- the whole point of calling something 4D chess or counter-intuitive is that it's less likely to be true, given what we observe.
In the case of Syria and Russia, this should be even lower in likelihood, assuming not only counter-intuitive moves by Trump / US but perhaps also by Putin / Russia, whereby these esoteric moves are acting in harmony when these two sides do not have identical goals, and even divergent goals.
What are the consequences if it's just 4D chess? Nothing much comes of it, no major changes, certainly not ones that negatively impact the American people. We breathe a sigh of relief.
The counter-argument is that the 4D chess move pulls off a victory for the ages, with all our foes vanquished and the American people reaping benefits for generations to come. Obviously that is wishful thinking, and even the "don't worry" crowd are downplaying the upside of the 4D chess view -- at most, we avert serious catastrophe, and the Syrian civil war winds down peacefully for the American side.
What are the consequences if it's as things appear, and we're heading toward armed conflict against Russia in Syria? There is no point in guessing an average, since that would be a fat-tailed event with more or less unbounded negative consequences, up to nuclear war that cripples much of the American economy, infrastructure, military, and citizens' lives. However severe, there would be only downside for the American people.
The counter-argument is that we're missing the upside to war against Russia -- e.g., proving once and for all that the "Trump in bed with Russia" narrative is bogus, winning support of media, Democrat politicians, and other groups who were antithetical to his coalition and will always remain so.
This is a phony upside, and as we're already seeing, the conspiracy theorists and witch hunters will never be satisfied, as every attempt to disprove their narrative only strengthens their convictions. "Ha, Trump only lobbed a few dozen missiles that did minimal damage to that airfield, leaving the runway intact -- just the sort of halfhearted PR stunt that a stooge of the Kremlin would resort to in order to throw us off track." Then if he launches a nuclear strike on Moscow, "Wow, someone is desperate to cover up his being controlled by the Kremlin. Trump only dropped one nuke and did not even flatten the city! Nice try to throw us off track."
The straightforward interpretation that we're heading toward a military escalation against Russia is both more likely and far more serious in its consequences -- so that's the scenario that we behave as though it were true.
To end with, let's contrast how this is unlike the several times when Trump's hardcore supporters freaked out during the campaign that he was changing course. For example, that he was opening up to amnesty for illegals.
First, there are concrete decisions made by the administration that point 180 degrees away from Trump's long-standing and fervent views on the topic. The missile strike itself, the public innuendo that Russia knew about the alleged chemical attack by their Syrian client (making them complicit), and on the Russian side, the termination of the deconfliction channel between the Russian and American militaries in Syria, along with condemnations of the strike.
Trump never made any clear action toward amnesty -- he wasn't even President, so how could he have taken any action one way or another? The paranoids were going off of his rhetoric alone, which itself was simply more ambivalent -- not unambiguously the opposite of what he had promised.
Now that he's taken office, this is the only policy on which he has veered off-course from his promises. He killed the TPP, nominated a SCOTUS justice from his original list, stepped up deportations and border defense, twisted arms of manufacturers into bringing back jobs and plants, and signed two separate executive orders to implement the Muslim ban.
None of these were preceded by 4D chess moves, taking clear steps away from his promises, only to return back to them for the win. Trump is a busy man, and there is so much on the Trump movement's agenda. He doesn't have time for playing games or toying with his supporters -- he's hit the ground running, and launched a totally straightforward full-court press on all of his major issues.
That would seem to rule out an emotional fake-out in the case of war, which was another of his major promises. He would have wanted to hit the ground running on fixing our commitments in the Middle East ASAP. But in this area, he ran into an enemy (military Deep State) that has enough literal forces to push back at least for the moment, though hopefully not for the long-term.
I've already explained why I think Trump truly has not changed his views deep-down -- he has been too consistent and vocal on them from at least 2013 through the early part of this year, on regime change in Syria. Rather, he's being maneuvered into that position by the military faction of the Deep State, who can credibly threaten to weaken their military support for his authority, at which point he cannot effectively govern.
(This is unlike his economic and domestic agendas, where our enemies have nothing to threaten us with.)
Still, it's a hypothesis, and so is the opposite view. How do we decide which case to believe in?
Beliefs are not important in the real world, it is how we behave that matters. So do we behave as though it's a 4D chess strategy, or as though it's as things appear?
This choice boils down to what are the consequences for choosing to behave as though one scenario or the other were true, weighted by how likely they are to be true.
The straightforward scenario should receive a higher probability of being true -- the whole point of calling something 4D chess or counter-intuitive is that it's less likely to be true, given what we observe.
In the case of Syria and Russia, this should be even lower in likelihood, assuming not only counter-intuitive moves by Trump / US but perhaps also by Putin / Russia, whereby these esoteric moves are acting in harmony when these two sides do not have identical goals, and even divergent goals.
What are the consequences if it's just 4D chess? Nothing much comes of it, no major changes, certainly not ones that negatively impact the American people. We breathe a sigh of relief.
The counter-argument is that the 4D chess move pulls off a victory for the ages, with all our foes vanquished and the American people reaping benefits for generations to come. Obviously that is wishful thinking, and even the "don't worry" crowd are downplaying the upside of the 4D chess view -- at most, we avert serious catastrophe, and the Syrian civil war winds down peacefully for the American side.
What are the consequences if it's as things appear, and we're heading toward armed conflict against Russia in Syria? There is no point in guessing an average, since that would be a fat-tailed event with more or less unbounded negative consequences, up to nuclear war that cripples much of the American economy, infrastructure, military, and citizens' lives. However severe, there would be only downside for the American people.
The counter-argument is that we're missing the upside to war against Russia -- e.g., proving once and for all that the "Trump in bed with Russia" narrative is bogus, winning support of media, Democrat politicians, and other groups who were antithetical to his coalition and will always remain so.
This is a phony upside, and as we're already seeing, the conspiracy theorists and witch hunters will never be satisfied, as every attempt to disprove their narrative only strengthens their convictions. "Ha, Trump only lobbed a few dozen missiles that did minimal damage to that airfield, leaving the runway intact -- just the sort of halfhearted PR stunt that a stooge of the Kremlin would resort to in order to throw us off track." Then if he launches a nuclear strike on Moscow, "Wow, someone is desperate to cover up his being controlled by the Kremlin. Trump only dropped one nuke and did not even flatten the city! Nice try to throw us off track."
The straightforward interpretation that we're heading toward a military escalation against Russia is both more likely and far more serious in its consequences -- so that's the scenario that we behave as though it were true.
To end with, let's contrast how this is unlike the several times when Trump's hardcore supporters freaked out during the campaign that he was changing course. For example, that he was opening up to amnesty for illegals.
First, there are concrete decisions made by the administration that point 180 degrees away from Trump's long-standing and fervent views on the topic. The missile strike itself, the public innuendo that Russia knew about the alleged chemical attack by their Syrian client (making them complicit), and on the Russian side, the termination of the deconfliction channel between the Russian and American militaries in Syria, along with condemnations of the strike.
Trump never made any clear action toward amnesty -- he wasn't even President, so how could he have taken any action one way or another? The paranoids were going off of his rhetoric alone, which itself was simply more ambivalent -- not unambiguously the opposite of what he had promised.
Now that he's taken office, this is the only policy on which he has veered off-course from his promises. He killed the TPP, nominated a SCOTUS justice from his original list, stepped up deportations and border defense, twisted arms of manufacturers into bringing back jobs and plants, and signed two separate executive orders to implement the Muslim ban.
None of these were preceded by 4D chess moves, taking clear steps away from his promises, only to return back to them for the win. Trump is a busy man, and there is so much on the Trump movement's agenda. He doesn't have time for playing games or toying with his supporters -- he's hit the ground running, and launched a totally straightforward full-court press on all of his major issues.
That would seem to rule out an emotional fake-out in the case of war, which was another of his major promises. He would have wanted to hit the ground running on fixing our commitments in the Middle East ASAP. But in this area, he ran into an enemy (military Deep State) that has enough literal forces to push back at least for the moment, though hopefully not for the long-term.
Categories:
Politics,
Psychology,
Violence
Trump wants rapprochement with Iran, distance from Gulf states
We're getting closer to involvement in an open armed conflict between the Iranian vs. Arabian sides in the struggle for regional dominance in the Middle East, with Syria and the Shia Crescent being on the Iranian side, and the jihadist-enabling monarchies on the other (led by Saudi Arabia).
If you belive in "trusting Trump," what are his views on this choice moving forward? For the past several decades, we have only sided with the Arabians and cut off relations with the Iranians.
It turns out that Trump believes in moving closer to Iran than we have been, and farther away from the Arabians than we have been.
Rewind to 2007, when Iranian President Ahmadinejad is visiting New York to give speeches at the UN and Columbia University. It's a rare appearance of an Iranian President in America.
As the Columbia president is giving the introduction to Ahmadinejad's speech, he turns to him and flatly accuses him, "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
At the time, Trump was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, and the topic came up. Did we score any wins?
So, he wasn't some supreme evil or #1 state sponsor of terrorism. He was some foreign leader who we should have made a better impression on and gotten something out of. It was a missed opportunity.
For even clearer statements, see this vintage Trump appearance on Fox & Friends from 2007:
President Bush was also at the UN at the time, but doesn't meet Ahmadinejad. Trump says that instead of blowing him off, Bush should be meeting, talking, and negotiating with the Iranian leader, especially now that he's on our turf (a rare opportunity for home field advantage).
A Fox host asks, "Do you think he's mentally stable?" Trump: "Who, the President?" lol. Trump calls the Persian "smart like a fox" who is probably playing other world leaders without them realizing it.
Trump reiterates that Iraq didn't knock down WTC -- that it was Saudi Arabia and other (Gulf) countries. Then he adds for emphasis that it wasn't Iran either on 9/11. He calls out Saudi Arabia again for probably harboring Bin Laden, when the retarded media is focusing on distraction countries.
At least as far back as a 1999 interview with Larry King, discussing his political views while considering a presidential campaign in 2000, Trump has made his displeasure known that "Saudi Arabia is ripping us off big-league".
Since the Iraq War, he has regularly made statements about how Iran's influence is growing in the region (and that was before Iran started taking over Iraq's oil, a common complaint of his now). As a savvy businessman, he knows that this means there's more and more reason to try to cut some kind of deal with them. Get a piece of the action, rather than get shut out. He probably has not just the oil in mind but the geopolitical strength that oil brings with it.
Here are all of Trump's tweets that mention Iran. Most are about the nuclear deal, and his criticism was always how bad our negotiators were at getting goodies for our side, not that it was immoral to make the deal, it would lead to nukes, etc. Unlike Lyin' Ted, Trump did not promise to "rip to shreds" the deal as President.
The other occasions are outrage when they antagonize us, but that burns out quickly.
And mentioning that Iran's power and influence continue to grow. He sounds upset not on an existential level, like the Antichrist is growing more powerful -- but because we have no relations with them, and they're holding more and more of the cards in the Middle East, especially regarding oil. He's pissed that we can't get in on that because we've so isolated ourselves from them, and on the few times when we do interact, we give them everything and get nothing in return.
He certainly has never mocked an Iranian politician like he did a major figure in the Saudi royal family:
Verdict: Trump favors rapprochement not only with Russia, but also their major ally in the Middle East, Iran (aside from defending their client, Assad, as the lesser evil). He has held this view for at least the past 10 years, and is making his calculations based on utilitarian concerns like rising vs. falling relative influence. If the Saudis are down and Iran is up, then we should re-allocate our relations away from the Arabians and toward the Iranians.
All the more reason given how we were stabbed in the back by the Gulf states on 9/11, and provide them with free defense without which they wouldn't exist. Iran does not parasitize us militarily or blow up our skyscrapers, so they would make better-faith partners.
If we the American citizens can drown out the drumbeat of war, we may actually get to see the President make good on his long-held goal for aligning ourselves away from the jihadist hotbed of Arabia and toward a worthy fuckin' adversary at the deal-making table. "The Persians -- they're great negotiators, folks."
Aside from that line, he does not idealize or romanticize Iran, but he's a realist -- and who is the alternative? The two big oil nations there are Iran and Saudi Arabia (Iraq is big, but becoming an extension of Iran). By now we see what we get from throwing in with the Saudis rather than the Iranians, a relationship that Putin has been benefiting from -- without having Iranians hijack planes and fly them into Moscow skyscrapers.
If you belive in "trusting Trump," what are his views on this choice moving forward? For the past several decades, we have only sided with the Arabians and cut off relations with the Iranians.
It turns out that Trump believes in moving closer to Iran than we have been, and farther away from the Arabians than we have been.
Rewind to 2007, when Iranian President Ahmadinejad is visiting New York to give speeches at the UN and Columbia University. It's a rare appearance of an Iranian President in America.
As the Columbia president is giving the introduction to Ahmadinejad's speech, he turns to him and flatly accuses him, "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
At the time, Trump was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, and the topic came up. Did we score any wins?
Well, I'll tell you this. I guess [Ahmadinejad] hates us pretty much already. When he leaves New York, he's going to dislike us even more. And in a way, that's too bad. But he certainly dislikes us. And from everything I see on television, between CNN and everything else, he's going to dislike us a hell of a lot more once he leaves.
So, he wasn't some supreme evil or #1 state sponsor of terrorism. He was some foreign leader who we should have made a better impression on and gotten something out of. It was a missed opportunity.
For even clearer statements, see this vintage Trump appearance on Fox & Friends from 2007:
President Bush was also at the UN at the time, but doesn't meet Ahmadinejad. Trump says that instead of blowing him off, Bush should be meeting, talking, and negotiating with the Iranian leader, especially now that he's on our turf (a rare opportunity for home field advantage).
A Fox host asks, "Do you think he's mentally stable?" Trump: "Who, the President?" lol. Trump calls the Persian "smart like a fox" who is probably playing other world leaders without them realizing it.
Trump reiterates that Iraq didn't knock down WTC -- that it was Saudi Arabia and other (Gulf) countries. Then he adds for emphasis that it wasn't Iran either on 9/11. He calls out Saudi Arabia again for probably harboring Bin Laden, when the retarded media is focusing on distraction countries.
At least as far back as a 1999 interview with Larry King, discussing his political views while considering a presidential campaign in 2000, Trump has made his displeasure known that "Saudi Arabia is ripping us off big-league".
Since the Iraq War, he has regularly made statements about how Iran's influence is growing in the region (and that was before Iran started taking over Iraq's oil, a common complaint of his now). As a savvy businessman, he knows that this means there's more and more reason to try to cut some kind of deal with them. Get a piece of the action, rather than get shut out. He probably has not just the oil in mind but the geopolitical strength that oil brings with it.
Here are all of Trump's tweets that mention Iran. Most are about the nuclear deal, and his criticism was always how bad our negotiators were at getting goodies for our side, not that it was immoral to make the deal, it would lead to nukes, etc. Unlike Lyin' Ted, Trump did not promise to "rip to shreds" the deal as President.
The other occasions are outrage when they antagonize us, but that burns out quickly.
And mentioning that Iran's power and influence continue to grow. He sounds upset not on an existential level, like the Antichrist is growing more powerful -- but because we have no relations with them, and they're holding more and more of the cards in the Middle East, especially regarding oil. He's pissed that we can't get in on that because we've so isolated ourselves from them, and on the few times when we do interact, we give them everything and get nothing in return.
He certainly has never mocked an Iranian politician like he did a major figure in the Saudi royal family:
Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2015
Verdict: Trump favors rapprochement not only with Russia, but also their major ally in the Middle East, Iran (aside from defending their client, Assad, as the lesser evil). He has held this view for at least the past 10 years, and is making his calculations based on utilitarian concerns like rising vs. falling relative influence. If the Saudis are down and Iran is up, then we should re-allocate our relations away from the Arabians and toward the Iranians.
All the more reason given how we were stabbed in the back by the Gulf states on 9/11, and provide them with free defense without which they wouldn't exist. Iran does not parasitize us militarily or blow up our skyscrapers, so they would make better-faith partners.
If we the American citizens can drown out the drumbeat of war, we may actually get to see the President make good on his long-held goal for aligning ourselves away from the jihadist hotbed of Arabia and toward a worthy fuckin' adversary at the deal-making table. "The Persians -- they're great negotiators, folks."
Aside from that line, he does not idealize or romanticize Iran, but he's a realist -- and who is the alternative? The two big oil nations there are Iran and Saudi Arabia (Iraq is big, but becoming an extension of Iran). By now we see what we get from throwing in with the Saudis rather than the Iranians, a relationship that Putin has been benefiting from -- without having Iranians hijack planes and fly them into Moscow skyscrapers.
Categories:
Economics,
Geography,
Human Biodiversity,
Politics
April 9, 2017
Put 150,000 Americans in Syria: Deep State envoy McMaster
Mike Cernovich, who broke the Susan Rice as unmasker story, delivers some unfortunate news (article link in tweet):
Here is a livestream he did at the same time.
The article also says that plan intends for the American force to be working mostly alone, not even with our jihadist supporting allies in the region (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). Therefore, certainly not with Assad, Russia, or Iran, whose forces are stabilizing Syria.
Read the whole thing.
This seems to be what the military wing of the Deep State wants, and is trying to get it the easier way, by having the Nat Sec Advisor present a warped picture of what the intelligence says to Trump, nudging him persuasively toward the full-scale invasion. More likely they're just using McMaster as a glorified courier delivering the message of what their demands are, if they are to continue giving Trump their legitimacy (control over the armed forces).
Timewise, both Cernovich and Jack Posobiec are saying their sources suggest a roll-out no later than the end of May.
That means all of this was crafted long ahead of time, back when every elite group was 100% convinced that Crooked Hillary was going to win. If it sounds like Hillary's foreign policy is coming true, it's more that she was the mouthpiece for plans that were developing and are now coming to fruition.
It's not as though the Deep State sat around with their thumb up their ass during all of 2016, and only after a winner emerged on November 9 did they begin crafting a set of short-term plans and long-term goals that would be to the liking of Trump and his voters. They knew Trump would lose, and began designing the standard interventionist program that Hillary would begin selling to the citizens during the electoral season.
Except that the Trump movement won on Election Day -- oops. They weren't going to let that get in their way, though. We managed to stop the TPP trade deal dead in its tracks, even though the Chamber of Commerce didn't want to give that one up either. But they have no leverage over us -- just money, which we don't need. The military wing of the Deep State, however, has armed forces that are slightly more persuasive.
Internally, we Trump voters and citizens in general are headed on a collision course with the Establishment warhawks. Externally, we are headed on a collision course with nuclear Russia -- far worse than merely getting bogged down in quagmires like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, where there was no major power on the other side.
As we prepare for the coming anti-war movement, remember not to blame Trump since his goals are our goals, and it's not his fault that the military part of the Deep State can threaten a coup or similar if he doesn't play along with their plans.
We will be only too happy if he does stand up to them, but at this early stage without widespread popular support for the anti-war position (especially after that disgusting speech he was forced to read during the missile strike), he might have to give in on this issue for a little while.
Our goal is to get him the popular support cover that he needs in order to say, "Gee fellas, I'd love to indulge you, but in case you haven't noticed, the streets are in turmoil and we're facing a bloody peasant revolt unless we get the hell out of there."
Our other goal is to shine a light on who exactly is pushing this -- both the Deep State concept, as well as specific individuals such as McMaster and Harvey (his Middle East advisor). Exposing shadowy behavior raises the social costs on it, and tends to make them knock off their subversion while they're under a spotlight.
Fun fact: the article says that the drama between Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner is hyperbole put out into the media by McMaster's team, since both Bannon and Kushner agree on not wanting to pursue nuclear WWIII in the Middle East. I told you I never know what to make of the mainstream media's reports of palace intrigue because the sources are the factions involved themselves, and have every motive to deceive.
BTW, I will be deleting all comments that are non-sequitur or raising questions of credibility (i.e. the Soros-funded shills). We'll stipulate that the report may be true or not, but given his track record in breaking the Susan Rice unmasking story, as well as going public with advance warning of the strikes the other night, it seems likely this one is true, too. He'd been sitting on it before the Rice story, and used that one to establish that his sources are accurate.
I just published “H. R. McMaster Manipulating Intelligence Reports to Trump, Wants 150,000 Ground Soldiers in Syria” https://t.co/WZQO7thqeq— Mike Cernovich 🇺🇸 (@Cernovich) April 9, 2017
Here is a livestream he did at the same time.
Current National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond “H. R.” McMaster is manipulating intelligence reports given to President Donald Trump, Cernovich Media can now report. McMaster is plotting how to sell a massive ground war in Syria to President Trump with the help of disgraced former CIA director and convicted criminal David Petraeus, who mishandled classified information by sharing documents with his mistress.
As NSA, McMaster’s job is to synthesize intelligence reports from all other agencies. President Trump is being given an inaccurate picture of the situation in Syria, as McMaster is seeking to involve the U.S. in a full scale war in Syria.
The McMaster-Petraeus plan calls for 150,000 American ground troops in Syria.
The article also says that plan intends for the American force to be working mostly alone, not even with our jihadist supporting allies in the region (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). Therefore, certainly not with Assad, Russia, or Iran, whose forces are stabilizing Syria.
Read the whole thing.
This seems to be what the military wing of the Deep State wants, and is trying to get it the easier way, by having the Nat Sec Advisor present a warped picture of what the intelligence says to Trump, nudging him persuasively toward the full-scale invasion. More likely they're just using McMaster as a glorified courier delivering the message of what their demands are, if they are to continue giving Trump their legitimacy (control over the armed forces).
Timewise, both Cernovich and Jack Posobiec are saying their sources suggest a roll-out no later than the end of May.
That means all of this was crafted long ahead of time, back when every elite group was 100% convinced that Crooked Hillary was going to win. If it sounds like Hillary's foreign policy is coming true, it's more that she was the mouthpiece for plans that were developing and are now coming to fruition.
It's not as though the Deep State sat around with their thumb up their ass during all of 2016, and only after a winner emerged on November 9 did they begin crafting a set of short-term plans and long-term goals that would be to the liking of Trump and his voters. They knew Trump would lose, and began designing the standard interventionist program that Hillary would begin selling to the citizens during the electoral season.
Except that the Trump movement won on Election Day -- oops. They weren't going to let that get in their way, though. We managed to stop the TPP trade deal dead in its tracks, even though the Chamber of Commerce didn't want to give that one up either. But they have no leverage over us -- just money, which we don't need. The military wing of the Deep State, however, has armed forces that are slightly more persuasive.
Internally, we Trump voters and citizens in general are headed on a collision course with the Establishment warhawks. Externally, we are headed on a collision course with nuclear Russia -- far worse than merely getting bogged down in quagmires like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, where there was no major power on the other side.
As we prepare for the coming anti-war movement, remember not to blame Trump since his goals are our goals, and it's not his fault that the military part of the Deep State can threaten a coup or similar if he doesn't play along with their plans.
We will be only too happy if he does stand up to them, but at this early stage without widespread popular support for the anti-war position (especially after that disgusting speech he was forced to read during the missile strike), he might have to give in on this issue for a little while.
Our goal is to get him the popular support cover that he needs in order to say, "Gee fellas, I'd love to indulge you, but in case you haven't noticed, the streets are in turmoil and we're facing a bloody peasant revolt unless we get the hell out of there."
Our other goal is to shine a light on who exactly is pushing this -- both the Deep State concept, as well as specific individuals such as McMaster and Harvey (his Middle East advisor). Exposing shadowy behavior raises the social costs on it, and tends to make them knock off their subversion while they're under a spotlight.
Fun fact: the article says that the drama between Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner is hyperbole put out into the media by McMaster's team, since both Bannon and Kushner agree on not wanting to pursue nuclear WWIII in the Middle East. I told you I never know what to make of the mainstream media's reports of palace intrigue because the sources are the factions involved themselves, and have every motive to deceive.
BTW, I will be deleting all comments that are non-sequitur or raising questions of credibility (i.e. the Soros-funded shills). We'll stipulate that the report may be true or not, but given his track record in breaking the Susan Rice unmasking story, as well as going public with advance warning of the strikes the other night, it seems likely this one is true, too. He'd been sitting on it before the Rice story, and used that one to establish that his sources are accurate.
April 8, 2017
Looming war with Russia over who shapes post-war Syria?
In a few days, Sec of State Tillerson heads to Moscow. Now that American-Russian relations have soured, especially over Syria, it's worth asking a simple basic question: Why would Russia now allow us a role in shaping Syria after the war is all wrapped up?
Since the outbreak of the civil war in 2011, the efforts to put down the jihadists and stabilize the society in Syria has always come from Russia (and to a lesser extent, Iran), not from the US, EU, or the Arab League. As of 2015, that includes military intervention, not only the diplomatic and supplying roles they had played before.
See here for an overview, here for military intervention, and here for diplomatic leadership in the peace process.
Since Russia has played the decisive role in turning the tide against the jihadists, and before long ironing out the remaining wrinkles, they will play the primary role in crafting post-war Syria -- its government, economy (oil pipelines), military, and so on. Iran will also play a decent role for its involvement on the winning side.
What investment in stabilization can the globalists in the US State Dept, military, and White House point to? At least Obama didn't take out Assad, and he did fight ISIS somewhat. Beyond that, our involvement has been to leave the secular regime high-and-dry, while arming and providing propaganda cover for the jihadists not named ISIS (al-Nusra et al).
Our allies in the region have also been in favor of winking at the jihadists while fighting against only the ISIS fighters among them, possibly even favoring to depose Assad. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey -- they, along with us, have been on the wrong side of history, not only in the moral sense of supporting jihadists, but backing the losing side in a war.
Our side, both the US and its allies, is also bitterly opposed to Russia's main ally and the secondary force for stabilizing Syria, Iran.
Over history, Syria has been aligned with the Soviet Union and Russia since the end of WWII. Their diplomatic, economic, and military bonds are stronger and deeper than either nation's bonds are with us.
Any way you look at it, Russia has invested tons more in the Syrian civil war and peace process, and importantly on the winning side. We have stayed more on the sidelines, and tended to back the wrong side when we did get involved.
Having put so much skin in the game, Russia is going to push for its own delegation to be the primary shaper from outside of the country itself. Secondarily the influence will go to Iran. Both are located close to Syria, and have more of a vested interest in the region's security.
Even if there had been a spirit of cooperation between the US and Russia, the Russians would push for more influence on account of having risked more and sacrificed more. But now that relations have gone from frosty to heating-up, they will be even less inclined for the US to play much of a role at all in shaping postwar Syria.
The American Deep State and military brass have twisted Trump's arm into striking Assad, against years of his arguing for the exact opposite (right through October 2016). Being in control of the armed forces that undergird his authority, they have leverage over his plans in a way that other big actors do not (Chamber of Commerce, illegal immigrants, and so on).
This was done as some kind of display of strength, presumably leading up to a negotiation of some kind -- likely the peace process talks that determine how Syria will operate after the civil war is completed. Their tough talk about "maybe Russia was involved in the chemical attack themselves, not just their client Assad," plays a similar function, turning up the heat ahead of sitting down at the bargaining table.
In the past few days, we've been wondering if Assad will ultimately go or not, and if so, who has input over his successor -- he would be someone to the liking of both Russia and the US. But given how distinct Russia's interests are from the US's interests in that country and region, it's unlikely that their goals will harmonize an awful lot -- not just about the individual leading the government, but who will benefit from oil pipelines, who gets which military bases, which areas provide buffer zones against whose vulnerable spots, and on and on.
So, the American foreign policy Establishment turning up the heat on Russia is unlikely to yield much at the negotiating table. They have contributed relatively little to stabilization (if anything, mostly destabilizing by supporting jihadists), have mostly sought the most destabilizing diplomatic option (Assad goes, before jihadists have been brought under control), and have taken unilateral military action against another party's client.
Then we arrive at the stage where a truly hot conflict breaks out, given that the US Establishment seems unwilling to back down or even moderate their tone and posture toward Russia vis-a-vis Syria. At that point, the question is who wants the influence over postwar Syria more -- who has invested the most already, and who stands the most to lose if they get little in return?
That is obviously Russia. They will be far more committed to winning any military conflict that breaks out as a result of a showdown among the parties trying to get a piece of the Syrian pie.
Iran would immediately side with Russia, and that could easily trigger the US allies to join in too, as they're all united around countering Iran's growing sphere of influence. With Turkey on our side, perhaps that would draw in some major NATO countries as well -- particularly France, which seems to be champing at the bit to stick it to Russia, Iran, and Syria. (Here's to hoping Le Pen wins the election.)
Hell, maybe China joins in on the other side for good measure, seeking a piece of Russian / Iranian / Syrian oil.
This thing has the potential to blow wide open, which is why so many in the Trump movement have come against even the initial moves in that direction. We don't want to risk nuclear WWIII against Russia, whose nuclear program is not still run on floppy disks like ours.
For some perspective, imagine if America had at first supplied the Mexican government with arms in their battle against the drug cartels, and then we intervened outright with our military and decisively turned the tide against the cartels. With over five years of involvement, who knows how much money spent, and conducting peace talks between Mexican government officials and cartel representatives to finalize the conflict, we would want a hell of a lot out of it.
Now imagine some country that wasn't even involved, or even one that had been funding and arming several of those cartels, butts into the process and arrogantly demands a seat at the final negotiating table. Some country that isn't even from this hemisphere -- France, say. They want a piece of Mexican oil, and they start turning up the heat on the United States ahead of meeting with us, hoping to psych us out of imposing our will on the post-cartel landscape of Mexico.
We'd slap them so fast it'll make ya head spin. And we can expect Russia to respond likewise when the US foreign policy Establishment and Deep State try to butt their way into the postwar process in Syria.
Who knows for certain who would prevail, especially considering the vagaries of which other countries would join us and which would join Russia?
But setting us onto this course toward potential nuclear WWIII cannot be tolerated. Not just because we have very little basis for demanding a role in the shaping process, given our record, but because on a pragmatic level, Russia stands to lose a lot more from being the first to swerve in this great big game of chicken -- so they won't, and either we'll swerve and look stupid and weak, or we'll choose to collide and fuck our country over for the next generation.
Since the outbreak of the civil war in 2011, the efforts to put down the jihadists and stabilize the society in Syria has always come from Russia (and to a lesser extent, Iran), not from the US, EU, or the Arab League. As of 2015, that includes military intervention, not only the diplomatic and supplying roles they had played before.
See here for an overview, here for military intervention, and here for diplomatic leadership in the peace process.
Since Russia has played the decisive role in turning the tide against the jihadists, and before long ironing out the remaining wrinkles, they will play the primary role in crafting post-war Syria -- its government, economy (oil pipelines), military, and so on. Iran will also play a decent role for its involvement on the winning side.
What investment in stabilization can the globalists in the US State Dept, military, and White House point to? At least Obama didn't take out Assad, and he did fight ISIS somewhat. Beyond that, our involvement has been to leave the secular regime high-and-dry, while arming and providing propaganda cover for the jihadists not named ISIS (al-Nusra et al).
Our allies in the region have also been in favor of winking at the jihadists while fighting against only the ISIS fighters among them, possibly even favoring to depose Assad. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey -- they, along with us, have been on the wrong side of history, not only in the moral sense of supporting jihadists, but backing the losing side in a war.
Our side, both the US and its allies, is also bitterly opposed to Russia's main ally and the secondary force for stabilizing Syria, Iran.
Over history, Syria has been aligned with the Soviet Union and Russia since the end of WWII. Their diplomatic, economic, and military bonds are stronger and deeper than either nation's bonds are with us.
Any way you look at it, Russia has invested tons more in the Syrian civil war and peace process, and importantly on the winning side. We have stayed more on the sidelines, and tended to back the wrong side when we did get involved.
Having put so much skin in the game, Russia is going to push for its own delegation to be the primary shaper from outside of the country itself. Secondarily the influence will go to Iran. Both are located close to Syria, and have more of a vested interest in the region's security.
Even if there had been a spirit of cooperation between the US and Russia, the Russians would push for more influence on account of having risked more and sacrificed more. But now that relations have gone from frosty to heating-up, they will be even less inclined for the US to play much of a role at all in shaping postwar Syria.
The American Deep State and military brass have twisted Trump's arm into striking Assad, against years of his arguing for the exact opposite (right through October 2016). Being in control of the armed forces that undergird his authority, they have leverage over his plans in a way that other big actors do not (Chamber of Commerce, illegal immigrants, and so on).
This was done as some kind of display of strength, presumably leading up to a negotiation of some kind -- likely the peace process talks that determine how Syria will operate after the civil war is completed. Their tough talk about "maybe Russia was involved in the chemical attack themselves, not just their client Assad," plays a similar function, turning up the heat ahead of sitting down at the bargaining table.
In the past few days, we've been wondering if Assad will ultimately go or not, and if so, who has input over his successor -- he would be someone to the liking of both Russia and the US. But given how distinct Russia's interests are from the US's interests in that country and region, it's unlikely that their goals will harmonize an awful lot -- not just about the individual leading the government, but who will benefit from oil pipelines, who gets which military bases, which areas provide buffer zones against whose vulnerable spots, and on and on.
So, the American foreign policy Establishment turning up the heat on Russia is unlikely to yield much at the negotiating table. They have contributed relatively little to stabilization (if anything, mostly destabilizing by supporting jihadists), have mostly sought the most destabilizing diplomatic option (Assad goes, before jihadists have been brought under control), and have taken unilateral military action against another party's client.
Then we arrive at the stage where a truly hot conflict breaks out, given that the US Establishment seems unwilling to back down or even moderate their tone and posture toward Russia vis-a-vis Syria. At that point, the question is who wants the influence over postwar Syria more -- who has invested the most already, and who stands the most to lose if they get little in return?
That is obviously Russia. They will be far more committed to winning any military conflict that breaks out as a result of a showdown among the parties trying to get a piece of the Syrian pie.
Iran would immediately side with Russia, and that could easily trigger the US allies to join in too, as they're all united around countering Iran's growing sphere of influence. With Turkey on our side, perhaps that would draw in some major NATO countries as well -- particularly France, which seems to be champing at the bit to stick it to Russia, Iran, and Syria. (Here's to hoping Le Pen wins the election.)
Hell, maybe China joins in on the other side for good measure, seeking a piece of Russian / Iranian / Syrian oil.
This thing has the potential to blow wide open, which is why so many in the Trump movement have come against even the initial moves in that direction. We don't want to risk nuclear WWIII against Russia, whose nuclear program is not still run on floppy disks like ours.
For some perspective, imagine if America had at first supplied the Mexican government with arms in their battle against the drug cartels, and then we intervened outright with our military and decisively turned the tide against the cartels. With over five years of involvement, who knows how much money spent, and conducting peace talks between Mexican government officials and cartel representatives to finalize the conflict, we would want a hell of a lot out of it.
Now imagine some country that wasn't even involved, or even one that had been funding and arming several of those cartels, butts into the process and arrogantly demands a seat at the final negotiating table. Some country that isn't even from this hemisphere -- France, say. They want a piece of Mexican oil, and they start turning up the heat on the United States ahead of meeting with us, hoping to psych us out of imposing our will on the post-cartel landscape of Mexico.
We'd slap them so fast it'll make ya head spin. And we can expect Russia to respond likewise when the US foreign policy Establishment and Deep State try to butt their way into the postwar process in Syria.
Who knows for certain who would prevail, especially considering the vagaries of which other countries would join us and which would join Russia?
But setting us onto this course toward potential nuclear WWIII cannot be tolerated. Not just because we have very little basis for demanding a role in the shaping process, given our record, but because on a pragmatic level, Russia stands to lose a lot more from being the first to swerve in this great big game of chicken -- so they won't, and either we'll swerve and look stupid and weak, or we'll choose to collide and fuck our country over for the next generation.
April 7, 2017
Alt-right as the new McCains? ("Sensibly nonpartisan")
With much of the alt-right freaking out over the Syria strikes, I wonder if we're going to see an evolution of the Trump movement into a state where they become the new McCains, so to speak -- not on policies, obviously, but on the jumping off the bandwagon and broadcasting their displeasure to an audience made up of the other side, every time their side does something they don't like.
The other side being the Sanders supporters, in this new alignment of parties.
Strangely, the alt-right will be seen as the "moderate" or "sensible" Trump supporters, who do not fall in lockstep with their movement on every issue, who are eager to "reach across the aisle" -- to the Bernie people.
True, on ideology they are more extreme than the unshakable Trump supporters, just like McCain is way more out-there on ideology than McConnell or Ryan.
But in terms of emphatically and dramatically showing their non-partisanship, the analogy looks fitting.
Also, the "sensible" Republicans of the past cycle were more concerned about finding a mate from the other side, rather than someone from their own party and social-cultural background.
Likewise we see the alt-right pining after secular / leftist exotics, rather than an American girl whose uncle wears a camo Trump hat out in public.
I attribute this greater desire to please the other side to a greater rootlessness. If you're a nomad, there is no "your people," and you have to rely on connections with unfamiliar groups. If you're deeply rooted, you've got that social-emotional sustenance already, and what the out-group members think of you is irrelevant.
The other side being the Sanders supporters, in this new alignment of parties.
Strangely, the alt-right will be seen as the "moderate" or "sensible" Trump supporters, who do not fall in lockstep with their movement on every issue, who are eager to "reach across the aisle" -- to the Bernie people.
True, on ideology they are more extreme than the unshakable Trump supporters, just like McCain is way more out-there on ideology than McConnell or Ryan.
But in terms of emphatically and dramatically showing their non-partisanship, the analogy looks fitting.
Also, the "sensible" Republicans of the past cycle were more concerned about finding a mate from the other side, rather than someone from their own party and social-cultural background.
Likewise we see the alt-right pining after secular / leftist exotics, rather than an American girl whose uncle wears a camo Trump hat out in public.
I attribute this greater desire to please the other side to a greater rootlessness. If you're a nomad, there is no "your people," and you have to rely on connections with unfamiliar groups. If you're deeply rooted, you've got that social-emotional sustenance already, and what the out-group members think of you is irrelevant.
Categories:
Dudes and dudettes,
Politics,
Psychology
April 6, 2017
War was green-lit before Trump took office, NOT a betrayal
Tonight sees the beginning of yet another pointless war in the Middle East -- a "limited strike" in a place with all sorts of foreign entanglements, which will provoke escalation, and which was followed by a call by the President on all civilized nations to join in the effort to stop the monster dictator who at any moment is bound to gas more babies.
There's good news and bad news for the Trump movement.
First, the good: it's obvious from Trump's history of shouting down military adventurists, specifically about Syria / Assad / false flag chemical attacks, that he did not undertake this action willingly.
If he could have done it his way, we'd be at least waiting for an investigation to figure out what the hell actually happened in the attack, and even if Assad were guilty, still weigh the utility of slapping him on the wrist against the risk that it could provoke nuclear WWIII. Small probabilities multiplied by enormously negative magnitudes of the outcome are too much to risk, especially when they're only counterbalanced by slapping a dictator on the wrist.
So, we cannot blame Trump for this. Some might call on him to stand up to the military-industrial complex, but Trump is only so powerful, no matter if he got elected by a populist revolt or not. He still has our nation's and our people's best interests at heart, but is constrained by certain political realities -- like an interest group that literally runs the armed forces.
We should not fundamentally alter our view of what Trump wants to accomplish -- only how able he will be to achieve the results, depending on who the enemy is.
Some enemies are weak, and we will make great progress -- those whose only power is money, for instance. They threw all the money in the world at us, and didn't put a dent in the Trump train. So expect all sorts of victories on economic matters -- trade deals (TPP killed within first week, to zero resistance), jobs and manufacturing returning to our country (all the companies he's been twisting the arms of before even taking office), and so on.
The open borders crowd has also proven weak, only able to obstruct with district court judges who will get overruled by the Supreme Court, or at worst can be ignored while Trump gives the go-ahead to the men with guns to get the foreigners out of here, and block others from entering. Expect major progress on immigration, including reductions in legal immigration.
The bad news: the one area where Trump cannot just tell the other side what to do is where his own authority lies, namely the monopoly on the legitimate use of force -- the armed forces. That's what lets him ignore lawless judges, if he so chose. That's who would enforce the border with guns, if he so assigned them.
The military has goals of its own, and given its hierarchical nature, the big pushes will come from the brass, who are more like corporate managers than battlefield leaders of the old days. Grabbing highly sought-after foreign territory is their mergers and acquisitions.
If they're going to go along with Trump being the leader of the nation, he's going to have to give them something they want as well. And considering that they could stage a coup against him, they have considerable leverage over him. He would have to rely on his popular support against the military's plans -- however, the military is the one institution that most Americans still trust. So a major showdown against the military, relying on popular revolt to back him up (the military will not wipe out the citizens), seems highly unlikely.
It seems clear that the military had planned the regime change and military intervention against Assad for awhile before Trump took office, given that it's been executed well within "the first 100 days" and is totally opposite of what Trump wanted to occur at any time in his term, let alone so early. They informed him that it would take place, and some pretext would be given, and he would have to go along with it, or else they would weaken or withdraw their support for him in his role as leader of the nation. And what is a President without the full backing of the military?
During any anti-war conversations or activities, it is crucial to emphasize that we are against the adventurists within the military brass who have been gunning for this for awhile, and not against our duly elected leader who has always expressed disgust for that kind of policy. Don't let the war machine's efforts succeed in pulling you away from your champion. Get angry instead at those who have driven a wedge between you and Trump. That would be anybody celebrating now -- warmongers, neocons, media, etc.
For some final perspective, consider our war in Yemen on behalf of the jihadists backed by the Arabians. That had been going on before we took office, and many of the maneuvers must have been planned back then as well. Trump could not just call them off without spending precious capital with the military. When the American soldier was killed in that raid in Yemen, you can tell Trump was disturbed by it, and didn't want him to be there for no greater purpose than advancing an Arabian jihad.
He tried to make it up to the soldier's wife, and to the American people, by building up the raid as crucial to collect information that would deter future attacks. Maybe, maybe not. The point was not a factual one, but a social-emotional one -- to help the American people not feel despair as yet another pointless Middle Eastern war wages on. We can expect him to do likewise with the new Syrian War, although perhaps also with some involuntary propaganda against the other side.
Let's be clear about the stakes here: it's been exactly one century since the last once-a-century war defined by pointlessness and disastrousness, WWI. The foreign entanglements throughout the Middle East, including two nuclear superpowers who are now on opposite sides of a hot conflict, make it possible that some kind of world war will ignite.
And again, it isn't the exact degree of probability that such a disaster occurs -- it is the probability multiplied by the magnitude of the outcome, that determines the expectation. A 1/1000 chance of 1 million people dying is, on expectation, a loss of 1000 people. Unlike the probability, though, the magnitude of the outcome is more or less unbounded -- it could be 1 million, 10 million, or 100 million dead if the nuclear shit hits the fan.
Those numbers make it impossible to support the war, and we need to make that clear to the rest of the American people, by protesting if necessary -- while reminding everyone that we're against the military-industrial complex, not against Trump himself or his broader agenda.
There's good news and bad news for the Trump movement.
First, the good: it's obvious from Trump's history of shouting down military adventurists, specifically about Syria / Assad / false flag chemical attacks, that he did not undertake this action willingly.
If he could have done it his way, we'd be at least waiting for an investigation to figure out what the hell actually happened in the attack, and even if Assad were guilty, still weigh the utility of slapping him on the wrist against the risk that it could provoke nuclear WWIII. Small probabilities multiplied by enormously negative magnitudes of the outcome are too much to risk, especially when they're only counterbalanced by slapping a dictator on the wrist.
So, we cannot blame Trump for this. Some might call on him to stand up to the military-industrial complex, but Trump is only so powerful, no matter if he got elected by a populist revolt or not. He still has our nation's and our people's best interests at heart, but is constrained by certain political realities -- like an interest group that literally runs the armed forces.
We should not fundamentally alter our view of what Trump wants to accomplish -- only how able he will be to achieve the results, depending on who the enemy is.
Some enemies are weak, and we will make great progress -- those whose only power is money, for instance. They threw all the money in the world at us, and didn't put a dent in the Trump train. So expect all sorts of victories on economic matters -- trade deals (TPP killed within first week, to zero resistance), jobs and manufacturing returning to our country (all the companies he's been twisting the arms of before even taking office), and so on.
The open borders crowd has also proven weak, only able to obstruct with district court judges who will get overruled by the Supreme Court, or at worst can be ignored while Trump gives the go-ahead to the men with guns to get the foreigners out of here, and block others from entering. Expect major progress on immigration, including reductions in legal immigration.
The bad news: the one area where Trump cannot just tell the other side what to do is where his own authority lies, namely the monopoly on the legitimate use of force -- the armed forces. That's what lets him ignore lawless judges, if he so chose. That's who would enforce the border with guns, if he so assigned them.
The military has goals of its own, and given its hierarchical nature, the big pushes will come from the brass, who are more like corporate managers than battlefield leaders of the old days. Grabbing highly sought-after foreign territory is their mergers and acquisitions.
If they're going to go along with Trump being the leader of the nation, he's going to have to give them something they want as well. And considering that they could stage a coup against him, they have considerable leverage over him. He would have to rely on his popular support against the military's plans -- however, the military is the one institution that most Americans still trust. So a major showdown against the military, relying on popular revolt to back him up (the military will not wipe out the citizens), seems highly unlikely.
It seems clear that the military had planned the regime change and military intervention against Assad for awhile before Trump took office, given that it's been executed well within "the first 100 days" and is totally opposite of what Trump wanted to occur at any time in his term, let alone so early. They informed him that it would take place, and some pretext would be given, and he would have to go along with it, or else they would weaken or withdraw their support for him in his role as leader of the nation. And what is a President without the full backing of the military?
During any anti-war conversations or activities, it is crucial to emphasize that we are against the adventurists within the military brass who have been gunning for this for awhile, and not against our duly elected leader who has always expressed disgust for that kind of policy. Don't let the war machine's efforts succeed in pulling you away from your champion. Get angry instead at those who have driven a wedge between you and Trump. That would be anybody celebrating now -- warmongers, neocons, media, etc.
For some final perspective, consider our war in Yemen on behalf of the jihadists backed by the Arabians. That had been going on before we took office, and many of the maneuvers must have been planned back then as well. Trump could not just call them off without spending precious capital with the military. When the American soldier was killed in that raid in Yemen, you can tell Trump was disturbed by it, and didn't want him to be there for no greater purpose than advancing an Arabian jihad.
He tried to make it up to the soldier's wife, and to the American people, by building up the raid as crucial to collect information that would deter future attacks. Maybe, maybe not. The point was not a factual one, but a social-emotional one -- to help the American people not feel despair as yet another pointless Middle Eastern war wages on. We can expect him to do likewise with the new Syrian War, although perhaps also with some involuntary propaganda against the other side.
Let's be clear about the stakes here: it's been exactly one century since the last once-a-century war defined by pointlessness and disastrousness, WWI. The foreign entanglements throughout the Middle East, including two nuclear superpowers who are now on opposite sides of a hot conflict, make it possible that some kind of world war will ignite.
And again, it isn't the exact degree of probability that such a disaster occurs -- it is the probability multiplied by the magnitude of the outcome, that determines the expectation. A 1/1000 chance of 1 million people dying is, on expectation, a loss of 1000 people. Unlike the probability, though, the magnitude of the outcome is more or less unbounded -- it could be 1 million, 10 million, or 100 million dead if the nuclear shit hits the fan.
Those numbers make it impossible to support the war, and we need to make that clear to the rest of the American people, by protesting if necessary -- while reminding everyone that we're against the military-industrial complex, not against Trump himself or his broader agenda.
April 5, 2017
Trump is not cucking on regime change: Another boomerang operation
After the false flag chemical attack in Syria, the neocons and oppositional Dems are crying for regime change.
Trump ran his campaign on preferring a "bad guy" like Assad, if the only alternative is jihadist whackjobs who will spread chaos and violence all around the Middle East and the wider world. He defended that as a general principle, from Assad to Saddam to Qaddafi. "But they hurt their own people!" I know, it's terrible, really hahribble stuff -- but look at who the replacement would be, and the situation for people would be far worse.
Here are all the times Trump mentioned Syria on Twitter, from the most recent. Most are about the potential invasion or regime change in 2013 after another false flag chemical attack. Trump was forceful about not getting suckered into invading -- and that if Obama did get suckered into that, at least don't get suckered into picking up the tab as well, but make the Arab League pay us handsomely.
Now, he pins the blame on Assad and says it's changed his mind. He says he's famously flexible and not a rigid ideologue, so his plans are subject to change.
But when you listen to interviews from 10, 20, and 30 years ago, it's clear that he is the least flexible or mutable person who has ever taken high office. At least on the very important matters like trade, re-industrialization, immigration, healthcare, and foreign policy, all fitting into the broad theme of nationalism and populism. He even uses the same phrases and intonation (1999: "Saudi Arabia is ripping us off big-league").
The only thing he's really "evolved" on is abortion, going from pro-choice to pro-life after his wife got pregnant while he was fairly old to be a new father, but they took the risk and were rewarded with a son who's the apple of his eye. Even that issue is part of the culture war, which does not interest Trump at all -- the big picture is about the economy and the government, not social-cultural matters.
What does change from Trump is his moment-to-moment messaging, image, and presentation -- meant to throw his enemies onto the wrong track, keep them guessing, and lure them into letting their guard down.
There are four main groups who are pushing for regime change, so let's look at how Trump's policy of dissembling about his goals in Syria neutralizes the threat from each of them.
1. Jihadists on the ground (ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, etc.)
This is the group he is most worried about, since they're the ones doing the raping. By appearing to flip-flop overnight, he lulls them into complacency. Maybe Uncle Sam will be helping us topple Assad after all!
This will not only give the pro-Assad coalition the all-important element of surprise against the jihadists, it will also convince al-Nusra etc. not to take such desperate last-ditch measures like another false flag chemical attack. Their days are numbered, and Trump doesn't want them to go out with a great big desperate bang.
2. State enablers of jihadists (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey)
These countries favor jihadists over an ally of Iran, which is expanding its sphere of influence in the region.
But they are also lazy and stingy, relying as always on Uncle Sam to do the fighting, supply the arms, and otherwise pay up for the operation.
If they thought that the US was against regime change in Syria, then they might grudgingly take up the task themselves, risking a war against Russia.
If they're lulled into complacency about Uncle Sam stepping in yet again, they won't mobilize their militaries for invasion. Regime change will be a "possibility" that never materializes, and by the time the jihadists are defeated, their state enablers will have no cover story for why they're invading to topple Assad.
3. Warmongers in the American military, deep state, and elected office
They want to expand their sphere of influence as broadly as possible, whether or not it benefits the American people.
By appearing to have changed his mind, Trump fends off a rising chorus of war cries, and lulls them into complacency. They no longer cook up plan A, B, and C, figuring that Trump and his team are already on it.
4. Media and oppositional Democrats
They tow the Establishment line, so appearing to acknowledge their concerns gets them to stop beating the war drums so incessantly.
They are even more easily lulled into complacency because they have the self-aggrandizing delusion that they're powerful enough to push Trump one way or another on major policies. They will be the first to declare victory and pat themselves on the back, while Trump prepares his true plan.
The "tell" that Trump is playing his enemies yet again is how over-the-top his denunciations have been about the inhuman barbarity against little beautiful babies. This is the same guy who responded to Bill O'Reilly's attempt to provoke him into denouncing Putin as a "killer" with, "Yeah, well, there's a lot of killers out there -- you think we're so innocent?"
He knows which side is likely behind the attack, if not the specific jihadi group / state enabler / deep state operatives. Those specifics will take some time to figure out, and he needs to be left alone by his enemies in the meantime.
Rather than dismissing the attack on Twitter as "another obvious false flag trying to lure our stupid leaders into wasting lives and money in the Middle East," he's going to turn it back around on the real perpetrators.
In order for that boomerang to inflict maximum damage, he's going to have to get people's emotions on fire about how intolerable the act was. Then when we read a tweet about how he "just found out" that it was really, say, al-Nusra, helped along by Turkey, with CIA support -- he can call for greater severity against the jihadists (torture to get information), a clean break with the wrong-side-of-history nations like Turkey / Saudi Arabia, and heads to roll among deep state warmongers.
Then he can call for reprisals not just for how horrific the initial act was, but for the deceptive propaganda that could have lured us into another Iraq War -- this time against a nuclear superpower like Russia!
It will be hard to pull off a full discrediting of the jihadi warmongers without indulging them a little bit first. If he wants the warmongers to hang for it, first he has to fan the flames of calling for the perps to hang for it. The ultimate sneak attack will be revealing who the perps actually are.
Trump ran his campaign on preferring a "bad guy" like Assad, if the only alternative is jihadist whackjobs who will spread chaos and violence all around the Middle East and the wider world. He defended that as a general principle, from Assad to Saddam to Qaddafi. "But they hurt their own people!" I know, it's terrible, really hahribble stuff -- but look at who the replacement would be, and the situation for people would be far worse.
Here are all the times Trump mentioned Syria on Twitter, from the most recent. Most are about the potential invasion or regime change in 2013 after another false flag chemical attack. Trump was forceful about not getting suckered into invading -- and that if Obama did get suckered into that, at least don't get suckered into picking up the tab as well, but make the Arab League pay us handsomely.
We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2013
Now, he pins the blame on Assad and says it's changed his mind. He says he's famously flexible and not a rigid ideologue, so his plans are subject to change.
But when you listen to interviews from 10, 20, and 30 years ago, it's clear that he is the least flexible or mutable person who has ever taken high office. At least on the very important matters like trade, re-industrialization, immigration, healthcare, and foreign policy, all fitting into the broad theme of nationalism and populism. He even uses the same phrases and intonation (1999: "Saudi Arabia is ripping us off big-league").
The only thing he's really "evolved" on is abortion, going from pro-choice to pro-life after his wife got pregnant while he was fairly old to be a new father, but they took the risk and were rewarded with a son who's the apple of his eye. Even that issue is part of the culture war, which does not interest Trump at all -- the big picture is about the economy and the government, not social-cultural matters.
What does change from Trump is his moment-to-moment messaging, image, and presentation -- meant to throw his enemies onto the wrong track, keep them guessing, and lure them into letting their guard down.
There are four main groups who are pushing for regime change, so let's look at how Trump's policy of dissembling about his goals in Syria neutralizes the threat from each of them.
1. Jihadists on the ground (ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, etc.)
This is the group he is most worried about, since they're the ones doing the raping. By appearing to flip-flop overnight, he lulls them into complacency. Maybe Uncle Sam will be helping us topple Assad after all!
This will not only give the pro-Assad coalition the all-important element of surprise against the jihadists, it will also convince al-Nusra etc. not to take such desperate last-ditch measures like another false flag chemical attack. Their days are numbered, and Trump doesn't want them to go out with a great big desperate bang.
2. State enablers of jihadists (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey)
These countries favor jihadists over an ally of Iran, which is expanding its sphere of influence in the region.
But they are also lazy and stingy, relying as always on Uncle Sam to do the fighting, supply the arms, and otherwise pay up for the operation.
If they thought that the US was against regime change in Syria, then they might grudgingly take up the task themselves, risking a war against Russia.
If they're lulled into complacency about Uncle Sam stepping in yet again, they won't mobilize their militaries for invasion. Regime change will be a "possibility" that never materializes, and by the time the jihadists are defeated, their state enablers will have no cover story for why they're invading to topple Assad.
3. Warmongers in the American military, deep state, and elected office
They want to expand their sphere of influence as broadly as possible, whether or not it benefits the American people.
By appearing to have changed his mind, Trump fends off a rising chorus of war cries, and lulls them into complacency. They no longer cook up plan A, B, and C, figuring that Trump and his team are already on it.
4. Media and oppositional Democrats
They tow the Establishment line, so appearing to acknowledge their concerns gets them to stop beating the war drums so incessantly.
They are even more easily lulled into complacency because they have the self-aggrandizing delusion that they're powerful enough to push Trump one way or another on major policies. They will be the first to declare victory and pat themselves on the back, while Trump prepares his true plan.
The "tell" that Trump is playing his enemies yet again is how over-the-top his denunciations have been about the inhuman barbarity against little beautiful babies. This is the same guy who responded to Bill O'Reilly's attempt to provoke him into denouncing Putin as a "killer" with, "Yeah, well, there's a lot of killers out there -- you think we're so innocent?"
He knows which side is likely behind the attack, if not the specific jihadi group / state enabler / deep state operatives. Those specifics will take some time to figure out, and he needs to be left alone by his enemies in the meantime.
Rather than dismissing the attack on Twitter as "another obvious false flag trying to lure our stupid leaders into wasting lives and money in the Middle East," he's going to turn it back around on the real perpetrators.
In order for that boomerang to inflict maximum damage, he's going to have to get people's emotions on fire about how intolerable the act was. Then when we read a tweet about how he "just found out" that it was really, say, al-Nusra, helped along by Turkey, with CIA support -- he can call for greater severity against the jihadists (torture to get information), a clean break with the wrong-side-of-history nations like Turkey / Saudi Arabia, and heads to roll among deep state warmongers.
Then he can call for reprisals not just for how horrific the initial act was, but for the deceptive propaganda that could have lured us into another Iraq War -- this time against a nuclear superpower like Russia!
It will be hard to pull off a full discrediting of the jihadi warmongers without indulging them a little bit first. If he wants the warmongers to hang for it, first he has to fan the flames of calling for the perps to hang for it. The ultimate sneak attack will be revealing who the perps actually are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)