Inny świat, część trzecia

This is Part III of my look at right-winger Bob Bishop's diatribe about how the "far-left" (which in Bishop's mind includes everyone from corporate tools like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, through to AOC all the way to actual leftists) is trying to destroy US-American society from within through ideological subversion.  In Part I I looked at the Soviet defector who inspired Bishop's article.  In Part II I started looking at Bishop's claims about far-left domination of the media, the universities and the Justice Department.  In this post I'll continue with Bishop's loony-tunes claim that the "far-left" also controls the USA's intelligence agencies.  

What are the USA's intelligence agencies?  Offhand I'd say that this term includes the Central Intelligence Agency.  Am I right in believing there is something called the National Security Agency?  I am. Seems to me that I remember when crack-head Hunter Biden forgot his laptop at the repair shop that 50+ intelligence agencies said that those pictures of him smoking crack and banging prostitutes were all deep-fakes created by the KGB.  Yeah.  Here's that story. 

The letter, signed on Monday, centers around a batch of documents released by the New York Post last week that purport to tie the Democratic nominee to his son Hunter’s business dealings. Under the banner headline “Biden Secret E-mails,” the Post reported it was given a copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive by President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said he got it from a Mac shop owner in Delaware who also alerted the FBI.

While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work.

“If we are right,” they added, “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

Nick Shapiro, a former top aide under CIA director John Brennan, provided POLITICO with the letter on Monday. He noted that “the IC leaders who have signed this letter worked for the past four presidents, including Trump. The real power here however is the number of former, working-level IC officers who want the American people to know that once again the Russians are interfering.”

The former Trump administration officials who signed the letter include Russ Travers, who served as National Counterterrorism Center acting director; Glenn Gerstell, the former NSA general counsel; Rick Ledgett, the former deputy NSA director; Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA senior operations officer; and Cynthia Strand, who served as the CIA’s deputy assistant director for global issues. Former CIA directors or acting directors Brennan, Leon Panetta, Gen. Michael Hayden, John McLaughlin and Michael Morell also signed the letter, along with more than three dozen other intelligence veterans. Several of the former officials on the list have endorsed Biden.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” though the FBI is reportedly conducting an ongoing investigation into whether Russia was involved.

The New York Times raised questions on Sunday about the rigor of the Post’s reporting process, revealing that several of its reporters had refused to put their name on the Biden stories because they were concerned about the authenticity of the materials. The Post stood by its reporting, saying it was vetted before publication.

But the release of the material, which POLITICO has not independently verified, has drawn comparisons to 2016, when Russian hackers dumped troves of emails from Democrats onto the internet — producing few damaging revelations but fueling accusations of corruption by Trump. While there has been no immediate indication of Russian involvement in the release of emails the Post obtained, its general thrust mirrors a narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies have described as part of an active Russian disinformation effort aimed at denigrating Biden’s candidacy.

That WHOLE STORY was crap by the way.  That WAS Hunter Biden's laptop.  Everything on it was authenticated.  Notice how the POLITICO story takes the opportunity to include the LIE that Russia hacked the DNC's servers and gave the info to Trump.  

Anyway, who's on that list?  It seems that there's at least 21 of these places, with a few of them connected to some wing of the military.  And they're all dominated by the "far-left"!  Which, again, includes right-wing corporate tools like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

But this is insanity.  Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden clearly have more in common with Mitch McConnell, David Frum, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, than they do with Noam Chomsky or CODE-PINK.

I am finding this series to be more difficult to write than I'd anticipated.  Because I'm constantly having to clarify that certain words and terms do not mean what Mr. Bishop claims that they mean, while at the same time trying to imagine the argument based on his misuses of these words and terms.  As I said, it is INSANITY to imagine that neoliberals are leftists.  It is INSANITY to imagine that neocons are leftists.  In what way, shape, or form are "globalists" imagined to be "leftists"?  "Globalists" are (when they're not simply a right-wing fever-dream Jewish plot to take over the world ... and a world they've already conquered on top of that) international capitalists (bankers, big pharma, computer/internet, weapons manufacturers, advertising and marketing) or their wealthy functionaries (bureaucrats at the IMF, UN, etc., or politicians, etc.,).  [In this age of bureaucratic capitalism, CEO's are also trained functionaries.  Leaders of corporations are more often bureaucrats with MBA's than they are individual owner-capitalists such as Jeff Bezos, and highly paid IMF presidents are as much brethren as functionaries.]

It is entirely unclear, even if we grant the "globalists" some hazy motivation to destroy national capitalist economies that is more sinister than the motivations of, say, a national capitalist, such as a head of a steel manufacturer in the USA to pay their workers as little as possible, to avoid regulations about carbon emissions or other environmental concerns, and to maximize profit, ... just how that "globalist" isn't a capitalist, motivated by profit maximization, but is actually a "leftist."

Perhaps I should google "Alex Jones" and "globalists" and immerse myself in that world of shit to try to better understand it.  But that's assuming that I think it's important enough to understand the "thinking" behind Bob Bishop's shit-for-brains essay that I'd subject myself to even more shit-for-brains essays.  So I won't be doing any further investigations.  I will just continue to read and critique Bishop's screed as it is.  As an artifact unto itself.

So, according to Bishop, the intelligence community has been taken over by the "far-left."  In reality of course, it has not.  Neocons are not leftists.  Certain members of the right-wing (the voting base mainly) have soured on the correctly labelled "Forever Wars" of the neocons.  Here's an article from one Jordan Michael Smith in The New Republic wherein Smith (as a "responsible" internationalist) struggles to reconcile the justifiable disgust that ordinary US-Americans feel for the bullshit wars of choice of the neocons, with his own perceived need for the continuation of this bullshit through "alliances" (is Canada an "ally" of the USA or a colony?) such as NATO (a "defensive" alliance of Afghanistan,Yugolavia, Libya, Ukraine infamy).

Conservatives like Davis are shifting the moment away from the hawkish internationalism that prevailed for years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A generation of right-wingers has been subjected to the war on terrorism’s hyper-interventionism and is now far more skeptical of things like democracy promotion, “globalism,” multilateral international organizations, and neoconservatism. They are joined by the Republican Party’s younger leaders and many rank-and-file members, at both the grassroots level and among intellectual and media elites, where hostility toward overseas commitments is now widespread. In Congress, the GOP’s traditional bias in favor of Reagan- and Bush-era policies remains. But the Republican leadership can only resist the pressure for so long. Sooner or later, the impulses spreading around the party will prevail. And the result may be the most significant transformation of U.S. foreign policy in decades. GOP support for multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and NATO may finally collapse, long-established relationships with allies and diplomatic agreements may crumble irrevocably, and support for any global action outside of confronting China may disappear. The era of bipartisan liberal internationalism that has remained intact since the onset of the Cold War will finally end.

In that article, Smith stupidly accepts the premise that Biden, the "harmonious" Democratic Party, and the majority of the Republican caucus, are genuinely aligned as having the USA leading a coalition of democratic countries against authoritarian ones (led by Russia and China).  The fact that the USA has counted clearly authoritarian-ruled countries as allies for DECADES, and the fact that the USA has used violence against democratically elected governments and replaced them with military dictatorships several times during the post-1945 era, these are all treated as minor abberrations from the stated policy.  Whatever.

Right-wingers have soured on the Forever Wars because they have come to see them as wars that THEY and their families have had to fight.  THEY have to pay for.  They see the failed occupation of Afghanistan, the senseless support for Al Qaeda in Syria, the pointless occupation of Iraq, the billion-dollar subsidies for an ungrateful Israel, and the entire expensive litany of failures since 9/11 2001, and they have rightly turned against it all.  Donald Trump, as an outsider to politics, and as someone personally friendly with Russians, could not see the point of these wars and could not see the logic in there being a "Clash of Civilizations" between the West and Radical Islam that was simultaneously opposed to Russia helping fight Radical Islamists in Syria.  This made him appealing to newly-isolationist Republican voters.  But when he got elected, Trump felt the power of the CIA and the military-industrial-complex and he trimmed his sales.  He also noted the accolades he received when he bombed Assad in Syria.  But when three years of betraying his voters and allowing the neocons to have their wars didn't earn him the MIA's support he decided to pull-out of Afghanistan.

The blog "Moon of Alabama" had a link to an interesting article about the motivations behind the USA's particular brand of imperialism:

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is how it departs from the theories of realism, championed by the likes of John Mearsheimer or Stephen Walt, who assert that all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else. They assert that given that maximizing power is the best way to survive in the international system, if they had the opportunity all states would seek to become hegemons like the US is today, or imperial Britain was yesterday.

Fernandes makes a very different case, which I actually think is a far better explanation of how the world actually works, and of the historical behavior of various states. His point is that there’s something unique about US geopolitics, and that of Western colonial states before it, in that they have these extremely aggressive characteristics - the impulse to subjugate and pillage others - that actually often harm their security rather than safeguard it. And he explains this with the undue power the moneyed class has over the state in those systems of government. Which is hard to deny if one looks at things historically: for instance it is the East India Company that initiated the colonization and pillage of India, not the British state that only came afterwards to essentially pacify growing rebellion in India so as to perpetuate the ongoing pillage. Or take a more recent example: the war in Iraq. It makes very little sense from an American security or survival perspective but it makes eminently good sense from a US oil company or economic hegemony perspective. Or again the current conflict in Gaza, which is extremely negative for American security as it generates busloads of hatred throughout the Muslim world against America and diverts American attention from more consequential geopolitical challenges. But it makes sense if you look at it from the standpoint of perpetrating a hegemonic system.

In other words, Fernandes’ point is that the key characteristic of the “rules-based international order” relates to the actual structure of the American (or British, French, Australian, etc) social and economic system, which seeks to enforce an order where the whole world is open to the penetration and control of their respective national moneyed classes. Which is why the order is about hegemony, and not about security, and why the former so often comes at the expense of the latter.

So, while it might not make sense within the context of "security," it DOES make sense within the context of "profit."  Still, it is up to shit-heads with arrogant fantasies of themselves as global chessmasters, moving million-man armies and using entire nations as pawns, such as John Bolton, Victoria Nuland, William Kristol, David Frum, Hillary Clinton, who are at the wheel of this travesty, and their delusions can have a momentum all their own.

Chuck Norris and Arnold Schwarenegger??

But NONE OF THIS is "leftist."  Leftists are about social equality.  Leftists believe that if a society's traditions stand in the way of human equality and human freedom then so much the worse for those traditions.  Leftists believe in collective action to collectively raise-up the individuals in the collective.  Now, whether certain traditions can be demolished willy-nilly, or whether the majority can regulate miorities or individuals in pursuit of the "common good" are important questions that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  But regardless, those are the values of leftists.  How in hell such values are served by inventing wars to sell weapons, or to indulge the masturbatory fantasies of chicken-hawks like Bill Kristol can be viewed as "leftist" is beyond my ability to comprehend.  Probably because the premise is insane and stupid.

Who opposed the invasion of Iraq?  Afghanistan?  The Vietnam War?  Support for the Contras in Nicaraugua?  The subsidizing of Zionist apartheid?  The NATO bombings of the Balkans and of Libya?  Time and time again, it has been the Left (with some smatterings of libertarians) who have consistently protested militarism (and got smeared as traitors and friends of dictators for our trouble).  It's true that nowadays, many left-of-center supporters of the Democratic Party (or the Liberals in Canada) have allowed tribalist stupidity to align them with their parties' imperialist policies, but that is a betrayal of their principles and it also aligns them with right-wing neocons.

I'll end this post here.  I'll leave the rest of Bishop's crazy ranting below for anyone interested.

The modern-day Jacobins are a Malthusian death cult. Their goal is about control of your mind and behavior; not submitting makes you a dissident. They exclusively focus onfulfilling Maslow’s hierarchy of physiological needs of survival and safety (i.e., North Korea) to control the masses, leading to idleness and moral decay. At the same time, it ignores the human psyche that strives for psychological and self-actualization (top of Maslow’s pyramid), which creates a more vibrant and prosperous society.

The World Economic Forum and the United Nations’ objectives buttress the ideological subversion of America to achieve the Great Reset.  Let’s trace America’s trajectory through the first three stages of ideological subversion. 

Demoralization

The demoralization stage is composed of ideas, structure, and life components. Ideas or brainwashing are constructed in the media, education, and culture, for example, where historical figures are replaced with false heroes (Saint George Floyd). The structure is undermined by discrediting the police, lawfare to deny opponents’ legal rights, destroying family values, and the American last policy. American life has been attacked by erasing national history, inflaming race relations, promoting equity over equality, and promoting victimhood.  

The ‘long march’ took over three decades to complete the demoralization stage. 

Destabilization

The demoralization phase lays the groundwork for stage three of anarchy.  The goal is to criminalize constitutionally protected speech and personal freedoms, destroy traditional family and cultural values, and create a domestic color revolution.  Some examples of destabilization are:

• The dubious 2020 national election.
• J6 suspension of habeas corpus.  
• Perilous foreign entanglements.
• Law by Rule (Trump persecution).
• Epidemic drug addiction.
• Crushing debt.
• A wide-open border funded by the US, EU, and UN.  
• Banning and canceling conservative voices.
• Mobocracy (BLM and Antifa).

Crisis

Hopefully not, but don’t hold your breath; America could soon enter the crisis stage.  Many vectors could cause collapse, leading to absolute power and control.  The foreign entanglements with Ukraine and Israel could spark a regional war, which could mushroom into WWIII.  Most likely, terrorist campaigns will be conducted against the public and infrastructure thanks to Mayorkas’s open border, which has permitted hundreds of thousands of foreign agents and belligerents to enter the US.  This will lead to martial law and the suspension of next year’s election.  The crisis will quickly usher in the stage four normalization phase of a new totalitarian power structure, destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.