Monday, January 09, 2017

No, THIS is what meddling in elections looks like

What began as isolated cases of Putin Derangement Syndrome years ago morphed into full-blown hysteria in 2016, when the Clinton campaign and its media enablers latched onto the accusations of "Russian hacking" to explain the humiliating disclosure of their plots and operations via internal emails from the DNC and John Podesta's private Gmail account.

On Friday, January 6, the Director of National Intelligence published a "report" basically asserting the Clintonites were right, and that Putin Himself ordered "interference" in US elections through, um... RT? The lion's share of this amateurish collection of "we assess" and "we believe" was devoted to RT, inexplicably relying on a primer produced in 2012 (so, there goes the argument the current conflict is due to 2014 "Russian aggression" in Ukraine...). The report, however, does say that "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries"  - meaning that the Clintonites lied when they said the purloined emails were being tampered with.

My assessment is that talk of "Russian hacking" is a desperate ploy to argue that Trump's victory was somehow the fault of malicious external forces, rather than Clintonite detachment from reality, logic and the American people. To borrow the Bard's description: A tale told by snarky idiots, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

Now if you want to hear a story of how a country's democracy was actually meddled with... stay awhile and listen.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Turning points

"Things will never be the same as they were just a year ago. For any of us," I wrote this time last year.

I was almost right. For while 2016 was the year of major changes - Brexit, Trump and the victory in Aleppo being the three I would dub the most important - in one corner of the world the Atlantic Empire still reigns supreme.

Serbia is still in thrall of a regime determined to redefine the depths of servility. Its history is still being written by its enemies and kangaroo courts determined to trample all decency in their crusade for global dominion. The Empire has even stretched out its hand to Montenegro, wanting to complete the conquest of the Adriatic.

In that path of that conquest they ran into Russia, which refuses to dishonor its WW2 dead. Moscow seems to have learned the lessons of Yugoslavia, even if Serbia itself has not.

Of course, everything the Empire touches turns to rot, but why worry? It is the natives that suffer all the consequences, and the Imperial leadership that gets all the worshipful attention. Or so the thinking went, until someone appeared to skewer the sacred cow by proposing to restore the Republic.

Those absolutely convinced it was their destiny to rule the Empire refused to learn anything, and kept wallowing in evil in order to maintain the chaos they called order, the desert they called peace. They were so convinced their triumph was ordained in the stars.

They failed. Oh, how they failed. First the British, then the Americans took the off-ramp from ruin that history seldom offers. Now the Imperial elites are flailing about in panic, shrieking conspiracy theories and hatching hapless plots, while Russia holds the high ground.

It is Christmas in Aleppo now, and everywhere the blood-dimmed tide of Empire is receding.

Wake up, my people. We have work to do.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

What Putin really said about Trump, Reagan and the DNC

The Atlantic Imperialists really dislike Vladimir Putin. They dislike Russia in principle, as the ultimate "other" - a large, European civilization separate from the post-Roman West. As usual, the Economist is completely wrong: It is really the Empire that sees Russia as an existential threat, because its resurgence provided proof positive that the Western "end of history" paradigm was even desirable, much less inevitable. As for the validity of Western models... how are those working out these days?
Much has been made of Putin's supposed trolling of the Democrats for being sore losers at the December 23 press conference at the Kremlin. This comes from the same media that kept assuring everyone that Hillary Clinton's presidency was inevitable, so forgive me if I am inclined to take it with a grain of salt. Especially since the actual transcript of Putin's remarks at the marathon year-end press conference paints a different picture (all emphasis mine):

Vladimir Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.

We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.

It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.

They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

The outstanding Democrats in American history would probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during World War II. Today’s administration, however, is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.

But my real hope is for us to build business-like and constructive relations with the new President and with the future Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the interests of both countries and peoples.

Friday, December 23, 2016

Christmas in Aleppo

The Atlantic Empire tried everything - from recycling Bosnian War lies about starving civilians and a million "last hospitals" to weaponizing a 7-year-old girl - to save its proxy jihadists in Aleppo.

It failed.

Syria's largest city was officially liberated on December 22, after the last of the jihadists ("moderate rebels" in Westernspeak) were evacuated to Idlib or Turkey. Of the devastated hospitals, there wasn't a trace. Nor was there any inkling of the "massacres" the alarmed Western ambassadors spoke of; rather, their "democratic" Islamist proxies had slaughtered all of their prisoners, lest they testify of the true horrors under their rule.

Liberators also found warehouses full of food, hoarded by the jihadists. Not surprisingly, the number of people actually living in the jihadist-held area was vastly overestimated: not 250,000, but 40,000 - including some 4,000 militants and their families.

With the "moderate" head-choppers routed, their "plan B" brethren at ISIS have taken initiative. ISIS attacked Tadmur (Palmyra) and Deir-ez-Zor - both held by the Syrian Arab Army - and inflicted heavy casualties at Turkish armored forces attempting to take Al-Bab, northeast of Aleppo. Oddly enough, ISIS seems to be ignoring the advance of the US-backed Kurds towards their "capital" in Raqqa. Very peculiar, that.

The Syrian War is not over, but Aleppo will surely be its turning point. With the new government poised to take over in the US next month, Washington may drop the pretense it can use jihadists as a weapon and leave ISIS and the "moderates" to either sue for peace or achieve the martyrdom they so desire.

Either way, it's Christmas in Aleppo. 


Thursday, November 10, 2016

History made


I'm referring to this post, of course. What did you think I was referring to?

Monday, November 07, 2016

An unlikely off-ramp

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night; the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: “You are now entering Imperium.” Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: “Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.” And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: “No U-turns.”
- Rise of Empire by Garet Garrett, 1952

Long-time readers of this blog know that I am a subject of the Atlantic Empire and therefore have the right to participate in the quadrennial ritual of electing the Emperor. While I will not disclose which one of the candidates will get my vote, between my background and what's been published here that ought to be intuitively obvious.

What I will say, however, is this. Once a republic turns into an empire, it is rare - unheard of, actually - for it to get an opportunity to turn away. That's what the quote above refers to. Yet through a combination of most unlikely circumstances, the USA has one such opportunity this year. Whether Americans will use it, or lose it (most likely forever) will shape their own destiny - and that of the world.

Let's see what happens.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Deir ez-Zor was no accident

I'm going out on a limb with this - and note that this in no way represents anything but my own, personal opinion - but today's airstrike that killed 62 and injured 100 Syrian soldiers outside of Deir ez-Zor was not an accident. Here's why.

First, the US-led "international coalition" has not previously operated in this area. Though the city is under siege by Islamic State (ISIS), it's an enclave held by the Syrian Arab Army (aka "Assad regime forces" for you mainstream media viewers). There are no US-backed "moderate rebels" anywhere near.

Secondly, the US reaction. The official line is that this was "unintentional." I may have bought that if the strike was conducted solely by F-16s flying at a high altitude, but A-10s are ground-attack planes that can get in low and close. They should have known they were striking a Syrian Army base - especially if they had intelligence on the area, which they say they did.

Now, note the Central Command statement on the incident:
“Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but [the] coalition would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit.” 
Not only does the excuse not apply to this particular area, but "would not" does not mean "did not."