« The Democratic Party in 2017 | Main | The Impossible Engine »

22 November 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"..he conditions his followers to abhor the free press. He said he cancelled his meeting with the principals at the New York time because he did not like their terms."

"free press" That's irony right??

How "free" was the NY Times when it kept peddling the Iraq WMD stories or the Assad the butcher raining barrel bomb stories? The MSM has lost a lot of credibility with this election. They colluded with the Hillary campaign to first boost Trump during the primary as he was considered a walkover in the general election and then did their darnedest to take him down. It failed. What we have are a media elite who are card carrying members of the Borg. Trump is showing he can fight back as he has 25 million followers on social media that he can communicate directly without using the corrupt media's filter. There are no news outlets it's all propaganda masquerading as news. At the top of the list for fake news should be the NY Times.

An example of where media ought to be with objective analysis is SST. But the MSM is all caught up in their own celebrity culture.


So what? Pence touted bogus electro-therapy to straighten out gay people and wants to jail transgenders for peeing in the wrong pot. The white nationalists brag about cuckholding black women and ethno-cleansing the continent. Which is worse?

Don't be suckered. These trivial issues are designed to deflect your worries from the real goal being pursued today in the secret Republican halls of power as they prepare their feeding frenzy of new bills. Focus on the real danger, the takeover of the nation by the oligarchs and the coming suppression of free speech.


Credibility is for the reader to discern. People only believe what they want and propaganda is rampant. The MSM is mostly owned by the oligarchs who have their own interests, not ours, in their choice of actions and what they publish.

As for Trump's Tweets, they are pure propaganda. Propaganda can be very informative. It shows where the powers want to go and gives us advance warning of things to come.

As for where you can find a really free press, you are right that it is in such places as SST and even this place must be taken with a grain of salt filtered by broad inquiry into other outlets.

Jack, you are the real free press. Study hard, discern closely, bring us reliable information, soundly considered views, and write often. Thanks for participating!

English Outsider

Well, Origin, that was a shock. I click on my favourite site, as I do most evenings, to get some facts on what's happening in the ME or in the unknown world of the American Defence Establishment, and to see those facts set in perspective by the Colonel and his group of knowledgeable insiders, and I get ambushed. No other word for it. There I was, strolling around, safe for the duration of my visit here, miles away from the frenetic PR and special pleading that we must accept for political discourse elsewhere and suddenly "Bang". A lethal salvo of spin,right into my safe space and no therapy dogs around to help out because the cats would object.

But free speech is free speech, however it's used. Can't object, therefore, but now I've taken cover might I be allowed a brief rejoinder?-

Here is an article that seeks to paint the extraordinary achievement of Donald Trump's election victory as a triumph of the "burgeoning rhetoric of white nationalism".

This use of the term "White Nationalism" is the worst use of spin I have seen for a long time.

1. Much of the Trump phenomenon, and much of the Brexit result for that matter, is not to do with nationalism of any variety. The mainspring for both movements was popular revulsion against the excesses of the crony classes. Nobody called Mr Sanders, or Mr Corbyn in this country, a "white nationalist" when those two gave expression to this revulsion. An overclass looting its host is no unusual sight and nor are objectors to that looting. I think we can all of us, Mr Trump and Mr Sanders included, object to theft without having swastikas carved on our foreheads.

2. I don't know how many in the American electorate, or the English electorate earlier, take note of foreign policy. Not many, perhaps, but for those of us who do Western foreign policy has been a fumbling disaster. That was set to continue. Now, perhaps, after Trump's victory, the killing will be scaled down. No nationalism there, I think, though there are in this case some real swastikas around. They belong to the Neo-Nazis the cronies support in the Ukraine, those crusaders for the white race who have publicly stated their mission is to clear Jews and Russians from their homeland.

If you wish to gain an insight into the convoluted ideological world of the Clintonian progressives then look at who they support. Read back numbers of the Kiev Post or get hold of some sub-titled videos of TV broadcasts by members of the Verkhovna Rada. Ultra-nationalism in its most extreme form is alive and well in the Ukraine and in Eastern Europe. It's thriving because Mr Trump's opponents have used it to further their foreign policy objectives. As yet I have seen no sign that Mr Trump or those who voted for him wish to so use it.

3. I think that Mr Trump might, however, be open to attack because he is clearly a patriot. But patriotism has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with where you belong. Call the patriotism of the average American "nationalism" if you wish, or white nationalism or ultra-nationalism if you wish to score a false hit on that American patriot, but belonging to a community and wishing to see that community prosper is no crime.

The circumstances in which a community can prosper, and in particular how much mass immigration a community can absorb and still remain prosperous and a community, is certainly a question that needs debate. It's a difficult and contentious debate. Donald Trump has brought that debate into the open. It won't be a useful debate if his opponents seek to suppress it by putting the wrong label on it.

This is dog whistle politics. I see it used a lot in the States at present, as it was in the Brexit debate. If the Trump movement can be given a false label, if people can be got to believe that it's a white version of La Raza, then Blacks, Hispanics and Whites will inevitably come into conflict. In the resultant scrap we shall all forget that the cronies are still running off with the loot. Divide et impera may not be the intention of those who use this type of argument but it will certainly be the result.

English Outsider


Yes , but as per KC

"Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh,
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying"

Dr. Puck

I'm interested to see if Trump departs substantially from the core motivations that are apparent in his biography, life story.

For example, it would be a departure for him to go and drain the swamp. (In noting this, it is also true that in promoting a willingness to 'drain the swamp,' Trump never described what he meant by either 'swamp' or 'draining.')

Valissa, this all could become unenjoyable if the hopes are dashed because it turns out Trump is just out to enrich himself and the 1%.


Yes. What we have is an environment where it is all a giant information operation. Propaganda is the name of the game. There can be no ability to discern in real time except for the few.

What happens when the vast majority believe that no news is truthful and it's all meant to deceive? What happens when skepticism and cynicism prevail?

As Col. Lang noted the Borg attempted to manufacture the election result. They failed this time. Doesn't mean they won't try the next time. As I noted here the Borg will never cede power as the spoils are too enticing. IMO, the only way is to drastically reduce the scope and size of government.


"We have an unrepentant “platform” provider for white nationalistic rhetoric as the newly appointed Chief Strategist for our President elect"

The use of the term "platform provider" is revealing. It refers to the attempts by the left (broadly speaking) and various interested identity lobby groups, to suppress the effective expression of political opinions they dislike (including white nationalism, but also "racism" from the reasonable to the unreasonable, "antisemitism" ranging from insufficient respect for Jewish interests and mere criticism of Israel to outright Nazi-style thuggery, disapproval of homosexual behaviour, and all kinds of traditionalist, nativist and nationalist opinion) by depriving them of any major platforms in the media and elsewhere.

This is dressed up as merely encouraging media property owners and operators to express their righteous disapproval, but what it amounts to in effect is the attempt to censor and suppress any and all expressions of the dissident opinions in question, anywhere. As such it should be resisted on principle, whether one agrees with the opinions in question or not.


There is a very dark streak sitting just under the surface of the American psyche. If you read the comments on a significant number of blogs, you will see it emerging. Mr. Bannon "platformed" the Alt-Right and Mr. Trump speaks often of throwing away "political correctness." A particular nastiness is emerging where permission has once again been given to hate speech. Alt-right groups are coming out of the closet. Just last weekend, there was a public convention in D.C.

I do not label Mr. Trump as a white nationalist, but he has yet to speak out to condemn the growing movement "platformed" by his Chief Strategist. His silence tacitly encourages it. Moreover, Trump's picks for his cabinet, particularly Sessions, ring quite scary here in the American South where we are quite familiar with who and what Sessions is. The first "foreign" leader Trump met was Farange. LaPenn has boasted of contacts. Ivanka was set out in front of Prime Minister Abe as a clear advertisement of who to contact to make deals with the President's Brand. No one will be able to control this. Too big a fortune is to be made. From here on out it is Trumpism a sour blend of crony capitalism and toxic nationalism to curry the gullible masses. There will be little resistance from Congress.

As a white person who grew up in the Jim Crow South, Trump's rhetoric has very familiar overtones from the anti civil rights rhetorics of the 1950s and 1960s, language that was used to suppress both black and white.

For an English person whose ear is not trained, words that seem innocuous are toxic and scary to a huge swath of the population. Get a beer and watch a Trump rally or three in their entirety. Trump is a master in creating false fears and feelings of superiority among his audience. Who knows what he believes beyond the art of the deal and making a profit, but the seductive dark rhetoric worked. Trump got elected.

Trump is not a savior, he is an oligarch and his interests diverge from the interests of most citizens. He will lead the flock of his kind. The Republicans are about to enter into a legislation frenzy which will take control of the government from the civil servants and give it to their friends, the contractors. The chumps are kept in line with hysteria over the diversionary issues like white supremacy, gays, immigration, and abortion while the goodies are carried away secretly during the dark.

I do not want to be a complete Cassandra, but my post is a warning. Keep close watch. Things are not as the may seem from afar. Have a look at the comments on this post alone. There is real anger. There will be conflict. China will prosper. I hope the devils do not dance as they seem to want to do and we still have a modicum of liberty and prosperity when it is over. It is up to the wisdom of the People now. I am not encouraged.


In my opinion, ... an attractive option for many in Europe.

I can't resist, Babak. Irony alert?

Please recall, the larger part of Germany doesn't lie within your Diocletian 'European culture defining' line. Except for the region on the left bank of the Rhine. Altogether that's not much of it. Thus this statement feels at least a little inconsistent. If you don't mind.

How can a pretty uncultured people try to lead the rest? Why not GB, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Austria, the Balkans? All well within the boundaries of the culture defining line of the Diocletian Empire. Thus well prepared to spread the culture to the uncultured outside that line. Simply according to your second Makkinejad thesis, that cannot ever be us.

And now I definitively shut up. Business.


Balint, I very much agree with your point of view on this. I appreciate the simplicity and power of the statement that "new-nationalism's... main adversary is internationalism."

I could complexify that a bit and restate it as... 'the new nationalism is a response to a particular form of globalization that benefits the wealthy international elites at the expense of local economies.'

But does globalization have to work this way? I don't think so. Globalization has come in waves over the course of history and it has often benefitted local economies rather than gutted them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_globalization (note: I tend to agree with those who take the longer view of it's history).

I don't see why the current modern form of globalization can't be modified to adjust who benefits. There is no fundamental reason that globalization cannot co-exist with nationalism, as it has for most of it's history. I don't see it as an either-or, nationalism or globalization... and I think setting it up as a dualism, whether intellectually, economically and/or politically, is part of the inability to solve problem (epistemologically speaking).

Dr. Puck

It will be known very shortly whether or not Trump turns down or up the swampy crony capitalist "rigged system" dial, or whether he turns up or down the borgist deep state neocon dial.

This will come about by his actions after January 20th. I'm discounting the transition circus.

It does seem like Trump will turn the planetary thermostat up.


Persuade, ok I have no problem with that after the real news is shown. Unfortunately, they lie often and well.

Alas, us oldster in the US were brought up with the notion that the MSM was supposed to be neutral politically and just present us with the facts as news. After the news they were free to editorialize to their hearts content. It's changed a lot and for the worse, why should I believe them?

Anybody catch the deathly Zika virus? Ha ha.


Perhaps, the purpose of being a "platform provider" is to be a provocateur to engender conflict and to distract from the primary purpose of the venture: seizure of power.

The removal of "political correctness" for the disaffected and marginal kooks brings in a whole new and malleable voting block in a narrow election. Political correctness was a correct approach to keeping the bubbling diverse polity within the pot of norms. Once the obligation of maintaining politically correct speech is removed, the super-heated fluid of discontent becomes explosive. Whether the discontent is containable or not depends of the volume of content in the pot. The resulting steam cloud will hide a lot of self-interested shenanigans.

Be mindful, we are press! Study hard and bring in some good tidbits for us to enjoy. Thanks for your comment.


"this all could become unenjoyable if the hopes are dashed because it turns out Trump is just out to enrich himself and the 1%."

Yes, it would be not very enjoyable. But...not any different than what would have happened under Hillary and what has happened over the past several decades under both parties.


Perhaps, the purpose of being a "platform provider" is to be a provocateur to stir up things to accomplish the real end: seizure of power. If you give license to a group of disaffected kooks, you might be able to recruit enough adherents to flip an election.


Hell's Kitchen! Even today that area has changed is now known as "Clinton", how apropos I suppose. I do sometimes wish we could go, back to the future, when life and love was simple.

So we're the weapons systems...


There is a deep streak of dark nationalism just below the surface of the American psyche. If one reads the comments in numerous blogs, you will see it surfacing. We, here, are at a simmering point. My post is meant to be a warning of the essence of what I see growing.


Ha. Channeling Konrad Adenauer? (when he joked that he's crossing into the wilds of Asia whenever he crossed the Rhein? :P )

Diocletian line is an awkward divide--I always thought the boundary is between the "Catholic" Europe, "Orthodox/Islamic" Orient, and "Atheist/Legalist/Cabalist 'China'" (I don't know enough about India to say one thing or another.) But that's for another time and place.


Thanks Dr Puck for giving me an excuse to post Trump's most recent video statement of what he intends to accomplish in the near future. Side note: I did not vote for him, I voted for Johnson-Weld, but I do see Trump having the potential to trigger some corrective measures for both the US economy and the political establishment.

Trump’s first video speech, direct to the people skipping the MSM…
Trump Says He Will Issue Executive Order On First Day In Office Withdrawing U.S. From TPP http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-21/trump-says-he-will-issue-executive-order-first-day-office-withdrawing-us-tpp [video is < 3 min, summary of points below]
TRADE - Withdraw from TPP and negotiate bilateral trade deals in America's favor
ENERGY - Cancel job-killing restrictions on American energy industry (including shale energy and clean coal)
REGULATION - For each new regulation, 2 old rules must be eliminated
NATIONAL SECURITY - Develop a plan to protect America's vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks and all other forms of attack
IMMIGRATION - Direct Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs
ETHICS REFORM - Drain the swamp by imposing a 5-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyist after they leave the administration (and a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign governments)

I was impressed by the tone of the delivery of his speech and by how presidential he sounded. But I am old enough and have seen enough presidents make promises they couldn't deliver that I remain skeptical, and am taking a wait and see attitude. I agree with Kissinger that given his unique position, we should give Trump a chance.

Don’t Nail Donald Trump for his views during campaign: Henry Kissinger http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/dont-nail-donald-trump-for-his-views-during-campaign-henry-kissinger/articleshow/55528820.cms



The point about "the real goal being pursued today in the secret Republican halls of power as they prepare their feeding frenzy of new bills." will be the real test.

There is a strong belief among many fans of Trump that Trump will not fall for these--I'll confess that I don't trust Trump enough that he will resist the regular GOP hard, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong. To be fair, a lot of the giddiness is driven by the belief among the Republicans that Trump is indeed "secretly one of them" and that he will be somehow "easy." That they were deathly afraid of him only some months ago, hopefully, will be justified and that, much the way he ran the campaign, he will prove himself an independent in Republican clothing. But we have to see how things unfold. I am really hoping that he will take up the provisional olive branch offered by the Democratic left.



You are believing the big lies I see while pushing your own lies and doubling down on NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

Good luck.



This is mendacious hair splitting, taking comments out of contest, and ridiculous hyperbole.

Is your day job with the NYT?

David Habakkuk


I think the ‘Reality TV’ part of Trump’s background is important, and may be inadequately understood.

This kind of television comes in many shapes and sizes, but sometimes it has something of the ‘circenses’ element – going back to Roman times. The audience actually enjoys an element of brutality and outrage.

One central point, however, is that while it is commonly manipulative, it cannot be simply that.

For a presenter to work, he – or she – has to have an instinctive sense of the audience. And to have this, it is necessary, at a gut level, to share a lot with them. (And the fact that someone is very rich may be of limited and ambiguous relevance here.)

By the same token, experience can help someone who has a natural talent for sensing what their audience wants, and will accept, to ‘hone’ that talent, and give them an instinctive confidence in their ability to, as it were, ‘play’ an audience in thoroughly unconventional ways.

The virtuoso element in Trump’s campaigning style was I think bound up with his understanding that a very large swathe of people – including precisely those whom Hillary Clinton thought would naturally support her – are absolutely fed up with ‘political correctness’.

But he also displayed a ‘finely honed’ sense of the kind of transgression which would play well with a ‘white’ audience, but not antagonise many blacks, Latinos and Asians – and women – in the way that the Clinton camp expected.

Unfortunately, understanding how virtuoso his campaign was does not make it much easier to assess what Trump is likely to do, confronted by the concrete decisions a President has to take.


So suppose you are on a bus ride between cities, and then somewhere out on the road the bus driver pulls over, stops the bus, singles out one particular passenger and starts a long lecture about why this passenger should support gay marriage.

That would be a legitimate First Amendment petition then?

Then someone else who heard about the incident says, "How rude! I'm not using that bus line," this would be an attack on First Amendment rights, I suppose?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad