Ah, the 80s.
(Part 1: Fiddle Music!)
Author: Ian Welsh Page 258 of 419
I don’t think there’s much question about it. Even if they think it’s unlikely, Russia thinks war is possible enough that preparatory steps are required.
Citing routine drills, Russia has even moved missiles within striking range of NATO targets, into the Kaliningrad enclave bordering Poland and Lithuania.
Meanwhile, CNN informs us that:
“Moscow abruptly left a nuclear security pact, citing U.S. aggression, and moved nuclear-capable Iskandar missiles to the edge of NATO territory in Europe. Its officials have openly raised the possible use of nuclear weapons.”
And:
This tension is spilling out into territory beyond the U.S. as well, as reports show the European Union is less likely to ease sanctions on Moscow over Ukraine, now that Russia has intensified air strikes on E.U. and U.S.-friendly rebels in Syria. They are even considering more punitive steps.
…Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this week the U.S. was considering a “range” of “proportional” responses to alleged Russian hacking of U.S. political groups like the DNC. The accusation from Washington, CNN reports, came after the Syrian ceasefire talks broke down when U.S. officials suggested Russia should be investigated for war crimes.
Sigh.
This is all profoundly stupid and unnecessary. Crimea and the Ukraine are not worth a war with Russia. (Especially Crimea, which was part of Russia for centuries, and whose population, as best I can tell, genuinely did want to join Russia.)
Unlike everyone else in Syria, Russia was invited by the recognized Syrian government. And no Western nation should have much of an interest in destabilizing Syria. There are reasons for the Gulf Arabs, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey have such an interest, but not the West. Furthermore, to note the blitheringly obvious, there are NO “moderate” rebels of any significance in Syria. If Assad, nasty as he is, loses, an awful Islamic state will be set up in Syria.
The evidence of Russian interference in the US election is circumstantial at best, and even if they have given Wikileaks some documents, so the fuck what? All the documents released by Wikileaks are real documents, the information they reveal is what matters. The US has interfered far more extensively in a long list of other countries’ elections, including in Russia’s.
Let us remember, Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization multiple times over. So does the US. The Russians have been quite explicit that if they start losing a conventional war, they WILL use tac nukes, and it is a short step up from there to strategic nukes.
Over Syria? Over the Ukraine and Crimea, which were part of Russia for centuries and are clearly in their sphere of influence?
Clinton is an uber-hawk. Hillary has said that Putin is echoing Hitler in the 30s. She also called for a no-fly zone in Syria, after Russia was there.
Apropos of “rhetoric,” if you sincerely say someone is Hitler in the 30s, gobbling up territory, you are saying “only force can stop him.”
This is deranged. This is insane. This is potentially genocidally insane.
I hope that Clinton and other Western leaders are just spewing rhetoric, but I also know that that rhetoric is leading to real, concrete actions, like moving weapons and men to the borders of NATO; real sanctions which are doing real harm, and so on.
Contrary to what many seem to think, you can back yourself into a war (see World War I). We can’t afford to back into a war with Russia.
(Update: the “return of officials story” is wrong and I have removed it.)
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
For decades now, the anti-abortion right has had an argument.
Every abortion is a murder.
Because there are so many abortions, there are so many murders, which means America and the world is in the middle of an unacknowledged holocaust.
Abortion doctors are mass-murderers. They kill, and kill, and kill again.
Rhetoric has consequences. If you believe that there is an ongoing campaign of mass murder against, one notes, people who cannot protect themselves, your duty to stop it is clear, and it is not clear that duty stops short of violence.
Indeed, there has been violence around abortion clinics, up to, and including, murder and not of fetuses.
Left-wingers, as a group, accept the argument that this rhetoric has led to the anti-abortion violence.
Donald Trump is a fascist. This has been proclaimed repeatedly.
To most Americans fascist = holocaust, Hitler, and World War II. To be a fascist is to be the worst thing possible.
Popular culture is full of references of going back and killing Hitler before he became powerful. We bewail that no one did anything. We blame Neville Chamberlain for responding to Hitler’s provocations by making concessions.
To try and make peace with a fascist, it is generally accepted, is foolishness.
Donald Trump is a fascist, so are many of his followers, and those who follow him but who aren’t fascists are still working to try and get a fascist into power. They must be stopped, and our culture believes violence is justified in stopping fascists.
That is the logic of the rhetoric.
So, yesterday, we had someone bomb a GOP field office. A swastika was painted, along with this message: “Nazi Republicans leave town or else.”
No one was killed. This time.
Meanwhile, we have the constant, frankly deranged, insistence that Russia is behind Trump; in many cases, this has escalated to calling Trump one of Putin’s agents. Claims are constantly made that Wikileaks is the Russian cat’s paw, on quite weak evidence. The leaks themselves are all legitimate, despite what many have claimed, but they have largely been neutralized by anti-Russian rhetoric.
The government has announced that it will “cyber attack” Russia in retaliation.
Next to a Nazi, what is the worst thing in the world to most Americans, especially old ones? Bla… uh, I mean, Russians. Commies (true, Russians aren’t Commies any longer, but people still think of Russia as the big bad).
Trump has stoked xenophobia throughout the election–Mexicans, Muslims, and so on. But those who support Clinton have massively demonized Trump’s supporters as Nazi third-columnists supported by big, bad Russia.
This has consequences. It is especially insane with respect to Russia, which still has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, multiple times over, and which feels very threatened by the US and NATO–for rather good reason. Russian elites really do think Clinton wants war with them.
Rhetoric has consequences. Americans have been whipped, by both sides, into hatred of their fellow citizens, with Democratic supporters as guilty as Republicans. All this fascist rhetoric is not harmless and the fact that its targets are white, and therefore it is not “racist” rhetoric, does not make it less dangerous. And whipping up hatred and fear of Russia is playing with something so dangerous it could lead to nuclear war.
Rhetoric does have consequences. We all understand that Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, but those on the Left seem to not understand just how much damage the Left has done by using the “fascist and Russia” rhetoric to demonize Trump and his supporters.
If you’re going to say people are trying to install a fascist, you’d both better be right and ready for the logical consequences. You cannot scream “Fascist!” and also say, “But, hey, it’s not worth fighting to stop him.” The two do not compute in a society in which fascist = holocaust.
Rhetoric has consequences. For abortion as holocaust. For racism. For fascism. For demonizing a nation with nukes.
Play with fire and be burned.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
There are a great number of stories about how Trump is “destroying” the Republican party.
Bullshit.
That Trump is most likely to lose the Presidency badly does not make the Republican party broken. There is some down-ballot effect, but:
- Republicans will certainly hold the House;
- Republicans will still control majority of State Governorships; and,
- They might lose the Senate but if they do it will be barely.
Does that sound like a broken party? No, it sounds like a largely ordinary election result: in fact, in 2008, the Republicans did far worse.
There will be blow-on effects from the Trump candidacy, but they will no more “destroy” the Republican Party than the Tea Party did.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
So, Trump said some very nasty things about women, which were caught on tape and released to the public.
There’s no question that Trump is a vile misogynist, and he has multiple outstanding sexual assault allegations against him.
It is also true, as Trump says, that Bill Clinton is a piece of work when it comes to women (no, spare me) and that Hillary has attacked those who accused him.
But what is more interesting to me is that a norm has been violated. Male politicians regularly molest women.
Please, don’t act surprised, everyone in the business knows this and so does anyyone outside it who wants to know. (Younger men get molested a lot too, the position of “page” is a dangerous job.)
But, as Marcy Wheeler has pointed out, this doesn’t usually get brought up. In the ’90s, Clinton got hit with it, and then it was mostly swept under the rug.
Now, someone has opened it up again.
This is what Trump has been, in his blustering way, warning about: Those who attack him on this issue will be attacked in turn. Especially Republicans, as he and his team view them as traitors–always worse than the “officially” avowed enemy.
Usually I despise having a “conversation,” but this is a conversation I welcome. Let’s get into it. Let’s talk about all those who are groping, molesting, assaulting, and out-and-out raping.
I do think it is worth pointing out that the Iraq war caused more rapes and assaults than anything Trump has ever done. Libya too. Oh, and “super-predator” legislation increasing the prison population would have caused a lot of rapes also.
It is worth looking at what people actually do. When someone is potentially in a position of power, it’s worth it to ask how many people they have, through their actions, hurt. This is a rounding error predicting the harm they might do. I know this is an intensely alienated way for most people to think, but being unable to think in those terms causes great suffering.
That said, one can certainly make the argument that Trump will be a worse President than Clinton (on some scale of awfulness). Remember, it isn’t necessary to pretend that Hillary is a good person for whom to vote, with the worst enemy being Iran, and the first priority being to overthrow Assad. One needs only to say either she’s the lesser evil or that fuck it, they’re both bad, and you’ll be voting in your own interest.
Finally, I note that, contrary to what you may have read, the Wikileaks releases from the DNC and Podesta are entirely accurate. In a normal election, they would be dominating the news-cycle. Clinton is a corporate shill and a warmonger who has caused immense suffering in her life.
These are not good people. Do not identify with either, nor with their courtiers. Those close to them have sold their souls for power, or its illusion. You would be selling something precious and receiving nothing close to that in return.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
The Course of Empire by Thomas Cole
It is a cliche, but true, that American elections, especially Presidential elections, are lesser-evil contests.
Both candidates are bad. Both candidates will reign over continued decline. Both candidates will kill a lot of people whose deaths will not make America or the world safer or more prosperous.
Every US Presidential election of my life, with the possible exception of 1968 and 1972, when I was four years old, has been between two candidates who, objectively, could be expected to do things which would cause American decline. (And in both 1968 and 1972, the bad candidate won.)
Somewhat coincidentally, 1968 is the earliest year from which you can date American decline; 1968 is when white working class wages peak. It’s not until 1980 that one can say, “Ok, America has chosen decline,” however, because how to fix the problems of the late 60s and the 70s is the question of that time.
Since 1972, every election has been between people who would have been (or will be) bad Presidents. Every single one.
You cannot be led by bad leaders for 44 years and expect anything but bad results.
Various attempts have been made to end the “nothing but bad candidates problem.” All of them have failed.
Each failure is another rail pounded into the railway to Hell America is building.
You must fix this problem, of nothing but bad leaders, or you can go nowhere good. And even if you elect the “lesser evil,” you are just going to Hell a little slower.
Fix your politics, or wind up in Hell.
It is that simple, and I am not saying “Hell” idly.
(The saddest thing is that as flawed as he was, I’d take Nixon in a heartbeat over any President from Reagan on. Yes, including Clinton and Obama. It isn’t even close.)
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
I used to get paid to watch these things. I don’t any more. So…I’m going to go read a nice novel in a coffee shop. Please feel free to talk about the debate in comments. I will, actually, be curious to hear what people have to say, just not willing to sit through so much sewage to get my own “take.”
Enjoy.