America Caught In A Police State Pincer Movement

alt-market  |  The establishment supports social justice violence and unrest, and is cracking down hard on any resistance to medical tyranny. The hypocrisy is evident.

But this brings up some questions; such as why they are so keen to allow the BLM riots to continue? As noted at the beginning of this article, I think the strategy is evident – It's a two pronged attempt, a bait and switch: If the Marxists are successful and meet little resistance from the public then they will tear down the current system, and the elitists institutions that fund them like George Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation will use the opportunity to build an Orwellian collectivist society from the ashes.

On the other hand, as in Germany in the 1930s, the civil unrest caused by hard left groups could also convince the general public that martial law measures are an acceptable solution and make them willing to sacrifice constitutional protections in order to rid themselves of the threat. There have been examples of this recently when federal agents initiated black bagging of protester in Portland using unmarked vans; all I saw from most conservatives was cheering. This would undoubtedly lead to a long term totalitarian structure that, once again, benefits the elites that inhabit every aspect of government including Trump's White House.

In both cases, the power elites get what they want – a police state.

In terms of the pandemic response, a police state is already being established in many nations, and with most Western people's predominantly disarmed there is little chance they will be able to resist the crackdown that will ensue as they try to protest the restrictions. But what about in America?

This is why it does not surprise me that the BLM riots are being encouraged so openly in the US. Look at it this way: If the elites cannot get us to go along with medical tyranny for fear of sparking an armed uprising from conservatives with actual training and ability, then they figure maybe they can trick us into supporting martial law in the name of defeating the political left.

The only solution is to refuse to support either option. We must repel the establishment of medical tyranny and stand against any overstep of state and federal governments against the constitution when it comes to protests. Riots and looting can be dealt with, and dealt with within the confines of the Bill of Rights. Also, once again I would point out that in almost every place where armed citizens organize and take up security measures in their communities the protests remain peaceful, or they don't happen at all.

There is no legitimate excuse for a police state. There is always another way. Anyone that tells you different has an agenda of their own.

Oligarchs Fund, Promote, Distribute, And Profit From Performative Blackness

unz  |  Here’s your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do “Critical Race Theory”, “The 1619 Project”, and Homeland Security’s “White Supremacist” warning tell us about what’s going on in America today?

1. They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people
2. They suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws
3. They alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race war
4. They indicate that powerful agents — operating from within the state– are inciting racial violence to crush the emerging “populist” majority that elected Trump to office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into a tyrannical third-world “shithole”.

Which of these four statements best explains what’s going on in America today?

If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. “Critical Race Theory”, “The 1619 Project”, and Homeland Security’s “White Supremacist” warning are as much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of “ideology”, and all three are being used to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as “Americans”.

The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history, their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative “Reset” that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don’t expect the strategy will ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging and unapologetic.

The Civil Rights Movement Was A Grassroots Illumination Of National Disgrace. BLM....?

Counterpunch |  Why did Richard Nixon win? 

Many historians point to his invention of a diabolical “Southern Strategy,” which employed racially charged issues such as law and order and welfare fraud to win racist votes in the eleven Confederate states. 

This story is wrong, too. While Nixon used racism, of course, he did not invent the Southern Strategy. Southern slaveholders invented it at the founding of the republic, and it has become a regular feature of American politics.

For example, the former Confederate states were part of the Democratic Party’s New Deal coalition. Southern support did not come for free. Franklin Roosevelt’s programs were confined in what historian Ira Katznelson has called the “southern cage.” That is why the Social Security Act did not apply to agricultural and domestic workers, the only jobs many African Americans in the south could get. This was FDR’s Southern Strategy.

In 1980, after the Republican National Convention, nominee Ronald Reagan chose to begin his campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi. This small county is known for only one thing, the 1964 Ku Klux Klan murder of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. It was one of the worst atrocities of the civil rights era. When Reagan told the crowd, “I believe in states’ rights,” everyone knew what he meant. That was his 1980 Southern Strategy.

On July 26 of this year, Republican U.S. Senator Tom Cotton told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette he thought slavery was a “necessary evil.” Why? He was getting an early start on his 2024 Southern Strategy.

The outcome of the 1968 election had been decided four years earlier. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress realigned the American political parties. They kicked the Confederacy out of the New Deal coalition by passing the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid in 1964 and 1965.

The southern states had nowhere to go except the Republican Party, which is what they proceeded to do. In 1968, Democrat Humphrey won only one of the eleven Confederate states. The rest split between Nixon and third-party candidate George Wallace, a former Alabama governor and a raw segregationist. Polls showed if Wallace had not run, his votes would have gone to Nixon by a two-to-one margin. Nixon’s electoral vote margin over Humphrey would have been even larger than it was.

Except when Jimmy Carter won one term due to the Watergate scandal. Republicans owned the White House for the next twenty-four years. And since 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has won the majority of white votes in the South or nationwide.

Federal Stormtroopers Teargas Peaceful Portland "Wall Of Moms"

dailymail |  Federal agents teargassed a group of mothers who formed a 'wall of moms' to protect protesters during a Black Lives Matter demonstration over the weekend as the mayor of Oregon's largest city ordered the officers to leave. 

Portland has seen nearly two months of nightly protests since George Floyd died under the knee of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25. 

While the majority of protests have remained peaceful, fires have been set in dumpsters near the city's courthouse and the walls of the building have been defaced. 

The agents used tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the mothers participating in the 'Wall of Moms' protest. 

The women had formed a human shield between protesters and law enforcement officials outside a federal courthouse, donning bike helmets and linking arms. 

They carried signs that read 'Angry mama bear BLM' and chanted 'Moms are here, feds stay clear.' 

According to Melanie Damm, unidentified federal officers in military-style gear fired tear gas canisters into the group of mothers, clad mostly in white.

'The level of violence escalated by these GI soldiers was such an overreaction. You're seeing moms getting tear-gassed,' said Damm, herself a 39-year-old mom. ''

'We aren't young and Antifa-looking,' she said, referring to more militant anti-fascism protesters. 

And despite being teargassed, the mothers showed up to Sunday night's protest. 

Thank GAWD Smart Bruvvas Have Never Fallen For The WEF/BLM Buhshidt

nonsite |  In light of recent events we thought to republish Adolph Reed’s 2016 essay on racial disparity and police violence. We include a new introduction to the piece by Cedric Johnson, “The Triumph of Black Lives Matter and Neoliberal Redemption,” that considers the essay in view of the contemporary situation.   

 

Some readers will know that I’ve contended that, despite its proponents’ assertions, antiracism is not a different sort of egalitarian alternative to a class politics but is a class politics itself: the politics of a strain of the professional-managerial class whose worldview and material interests are rooted within a political economy of race and ascriptive identity-group relations. Moreover, although it often comes with a garnish of disparaging but empty references to neoliberalism as a generic sign of bad things, antiracist politics is in fact the left wing of neoliberalism in that its sole metric of social justice is opposition to disparity in the distribution of goods and bads in the society, an ideal that naturalizes the outcomes of capitalist market forces so long as they are equitable along racial (and other identitarian) lines. As I and my colleague Walter Benn Michaels have insisted repeatedly over the last decade, the burden of that ideal of social justice is that the society would be fair if 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources so long as the dominant 1% were 13% black, 17% Latino, 50% female, 4% or whatever LGBTQ, etc. That is the neoliberal gospel of economic justice, articulated more than a half-century ago by Chicago neoclassical economist Gary Becker, as nondiscriminatory markets that reward individual “human capital” without regard to race or other invidious distinctions.

We intend to make a longer and more elaborate statement of this argument and its implications, which antiracist ideologues have consistently either ignored or attempted to dismiss through mischaracterization of the argument or ad hominem attack.1 For now, however, I want simply to draw attention to how insistence on reducing discussion of killings of civilians by police to a matter of racism clouds understanding of and possibilities for effective response to the deep sources of the phenomenon.

Available data (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl) indicate, to the surprise of no one who isn’t in willful denial, that in this country black people make up a percentage of those killed by police that is nearly double their share of the general American population. Latinos are killed by police, apparently, at a rate roughly equivalent to their incidence in the general population. Whites are killed by police at a rate between just under three-fourths (through the first half of 2016) and just under four-fifths (2015) of their share of the general population. That picture is a bit ambiguous because seven percent of those killed in 2015 and fourteen percent of those killed through June of 2016 were classified racially as either other or unknown. Nevertheless, the evidence of gross racial disparity is clear: among victims of homicide by police blacks are represented at twice their rate of the population; whites are killed at somewhat less than theirs. This disparity is the founding rationale for the branding exercise2 called #Black Lives Matter and endless contentions that imminent danger of death at the hands of arbitrary white authority has been a fundamental, definitive condition of blacks’ status in the United States since slavery or, for those who, like the Nation’s Kai Wright, prefer their derivative patter laced with the seeming heft of obscure dates, since 1793. In Wright’s assessment “From passage of the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act forward, public-safety officers have been empowered to harass black bodies [sic] in the defense of private capital and the pursuit of public revenue.”3

This line of argument and complaint, as well as the demand for ritual declarations that “black lives matter,” rest on insistence that “racism”—structural, systemic, institutional, post-racial or however modified—must be understood as the cause and name of the injustice manifest in that disparity, which is thus by implication the singular or paramount injustice of the pattern of police killings.

But, when we step away from focus on racial disproportions, the glaring fact is that whites are roughly half or nearly half of all those killed annually by police. And the demand that we focus on the racial disparity is simultaneously a demand that we disattend from other possibly causal disparities. Zaid Jilani found, for example, that ninety-five percent of police killings occurred in neighborhoods with median family income of less than $100,00 and that the median family income in neighborhoods where police killed was $52,907.4 And, according to the Washington Post data, the states with the highest rates of police homicide per million of population are among the whitest in the country: New Mexico averages 6.71 police killings per million; Alaska 5.3 per million; South Dakota 4.69; Arizona and Wyoming 4.2, and Colorado 3.36. It could be possible that the high rates of police killings in those states are concentrated among their very small black populations—New Mexico 2.5%; Alaska 3.9%; South Dakota 1.9%; Arizona 4.6%, Wyoming 1.7%, and Colorado 4.5%. However, with the exception of Colorado—where blacks were 17% of the 29 people killed by police—that does not seem to be the case. Granted, in several of those states the total numbers of people killed by police were very small, in the low single digits. Still, no black people were among those killed by police in South Dakota, Wyoming, or Alaska. In New Mexico, there were no blacks among the 20 people killed by police in 2015, and in Arizona blacks made up just over 2% of the 42 victims of police killing.

What is clear in those states, however, is that the great disproportion of those killed by police have been Latinos, Native Americans, and poor whites. So someone should tell Kai Wright et al to find another iconic date to pontificate about; that 1793 yarn has nothing to do with anything except feeding the narrative of endless collective racial suffering and triumphalist individual overcoming—“resilience”—popular among the black professional-managerial strata and their white friends (or are they just allies?) these days.

Nah Jim, Black America Didn't "Opt Out" - White America Violently Rejected Integrating Black Children

I was fetching around for a way in which to try and integrate today's dismissals of both BLM and the black political mainstream, with tomorrow's refresher course on American racism and living memory history. Tomorrow is REALLY important.  That said, I suspect that even here, short attention span theater predominates - such that a simple succinct six minute turn that Irami Osei Frimpong offered - will have been lost even on my audience.

For sure what has been lost is the fundamental, core living memory experience of racism that shaped my life, largely i'm guessing, because it had little to no impact on any of your lives. What I'm referring to is public school desegregation attempted in the 70's and flatly and legally and politically rejected by white Americans of all socioeconomic and political persuasions. 

Kunstler entirely misses this in his haste to blame black folks for their exclusion and alienation from the American mainstream. See, I and a number of my peers, my immediate personal cohort, were among the lucky and durable ones who integrated public and private schools during the 70's, survived, got tough, and thrived, all the while learning everything there is to know about white America. 

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, don't get me wrong. I'm not crying about anything, I'm not playing a victim card, and I sincerely believe and exemplify the ethos "that which does not kill you". But the simple fact of the matter is, that when white Americans refused to accept integration of public schools and shifted themselves in very dramatic macro-scale fashion in response to the prospective horror of little Cindy Lou sitting next to young Tyrone in the 3rd grade, well..., that kind of set the mold for much of what has followed over the next 50 years.

kunstler |  That business was the full participation of Black citizens in American life. The main grievance now is that Black Americans are still denied full participation due to “systemic racism.” That’s a dodge. What actually happened is that Black America opted out and lost itself in a quandary of its own making with the assistance of their white dis-enablers, the well intentioned “progressives.” 

Let me take you back to the mid-20^th century. America had just fought and won a war against manifest evil. The nation styled itself as Leader of the Free World. That role could not be squared with the rules of Jim Crow apartheid, so something had to change. The civil rights campaign to undo racial segregation under law naturally began in the courts in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954). So-called public accommodations — hotels, theaters, restaurants, buses, bathrooms, water fountains, etc. — remained segregated. By the early 1960s, the clamor to end all that took to the streets under the emerging moral leadership of Martin Luther King and his credo of non-violent civil disobedience.

Many acts of non-violent street protest were met by police using fire-hoses, vicious dogs, and batons to terrorize the marchers. This only shamed and horrified the rest of the nation watching on TV and actually quickened the formation of a political consensus to end American apartheid. That culminated in the passage of three major federal laws: the Public Accommodations Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Meanwhile, something else was going on among Black Americans: not everybody believed in Dr. King’s non-violence, and not everybody was so sure about full participation in American life. Altogether, Black America remained ambivalent and anxious about all that. That full participation implied a challenge to compete on common ground. What if it didn’t work out? An alternate view emerged, personified first by Malcolm X, who called MLK an “Uncle Tom,” and then by the younger generation, Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers and others retailing various brands of Black Power, Black Nationalism, and Black Separatism. It amounted, for some, in declining that invitation to participate fully in American life. “No thanks. We’ll go our own way.” That sentiment has prevailed ever since.

So, the outcome to all that federal legislation of the 1960s turned out not to be the clear-cut victory (like World War Two) that liberals and progressives so breathlessly expected. The civil rights acts had some startling adverse consequences, too. They swept away much of the parallel service and professional economy that Blacks had constructed to get around all the old exclusions of everyday life. With that went a lot of the Black middle-class, the business owners especially. In its place, the liberal-and-progressive government provided “public assistance” — a self-reinforcing poverty generator that got ever worse, especially in big cities where de-industrialization started destroying the working-class job base beginning in the 1970s.  Fist tap Big Don.

Simple Hard Men Ought Not Be Making Policy Or Technology Decisions...,

wired |  It's been the better part of a decade since the hacktivist group Anonymous rampaged across the internet, stealing and leaking millions of secret files from dozens of US organizations. Now, amid the global protests following the killing of George Floyd, Anonymous is back—and it's returned with a dump of hundreds of gigabytes of law enforcement files and internal communications. (Blueleaks)

On Friday of last week, the Juneteenth holiday, a leak-focused activist group known as Distributed Denial of Secrets published a 269-gigabyte collection of police data that includes emails, audio, video, and intelligence documents, with more than a million files in total. DDOSecrets founder Emma Best tells WIRED that the hacked files came from Anonymous—or at least a source self-representing as part of that group, given that under Anonymous' loose, leaderless structure anyone can declare themselves a member. Over the weekend, supporters of DDOSecrets, Anonymous, and protesters worldwide began digging through the files to pull out frank internal memos about police efforts to track the activities of protesters. The documents also reveal how law enforcement has described groups like the antifascist movement Antifa.

"It's the largest published hack of American law enforcement agencies," Emma Best, cofounder of DDOSecrets, wrote in a series of text messages. "It provides the closest inside look at the state, local, and federal agencies tasked with protecting the public, including [the] government response to COVID and the BLM protests."

The Hack

The massive internal data trove that DDOSecrets published was originally taken from a web development firm called Netsential, according to a law enforcement memo obtained by Kreb On Security. That memo, issued by the National Fusion Center Association, says that much of the data belonged to law enforcement "fusion centers" across the US that act as information-sharing hubs for federal, state, and local agencies. Netsential did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Best declined to comment on whether the information was taken from Netsential, but noted that "some Twitter users accurately pointed out that a lot of the data corresponded to Netsential systems." As for their source, Best would say only that the person self-represented as "capital A Anonymous," but added cryptically that "people may wind up seeing a familiar name down the line."

"Part of what a lot of the current protests are about is what police do and have done legally."
Emma Best, DDOSecrets

DDOSecrets has published the files in a searchable format on its website, and supporters quickly created the #blueleaks hashtag to collect their findings from the hacked files on social media. Some of the initial discoveries among the documents showed, for instance, that the FBI monitored the social accounts of protesters and sent alerts to local law enforcement about anti-police messages. Other documents detail the FBI tracking bitcoin donations to protest groups, and internal memos warning that white supremacist groups have posed as Antifa to incite violence.

You Thought They ACTUALLY WANTED Us All To Be Critical Thinkers?

jonathanturley |  We have yet another teacher suspended or put on leave for merely expressing her opinion of Black Lives Matter on her personal Facebook page.  After Tiffany Riley wrote that she does not agree with the BLM, the Mount Ascutney School Board held an emergency meeting to declare that it is “uniformly appalled” by the exercise of free speech and Superintendent David Baker assured the public that they would be working on “mutually agreed upon severance package.”  The case magnifies concerns over the free speech rights of teachers on social media or in their private lives.

As we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.  There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives.  Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.

Most recently, we discussed the effort to remove one of the country’s most distinguished economists from his position because Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the Journal of Political Economy,  criticized Black Lives Matter and Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson is reportedly facing demands that he be fired because he wrote a blog about the Black Lives Matter movement.

Who Is Funding And Orchestrating Protest Movement Logistics?

unz |  “The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives “execute orders?” 

Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of “Defund the Police” is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have an excuse.” (“My take on the present situation”, Sic Semper Tyrannis)

Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa’s “logistical capabilities”. The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. It’s beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem. 

None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA’s color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose “shock therapy” on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here’s a short excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog “Another Day in the Empire”:

“The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder….

It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main problem—boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all—black, white, yellow, brown—as expliotable and dispensable serfs.” (“2 Million Arab Lives Don’t Matter“, Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)

The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.

Mayor Quinton: Performing "Blackness" While Pandering To The Police

tonyskansascity |  It's time for Mayor Quinton Lucas to pick a side.

There's no way to politic out a difficult decision that threatens to change the course of Kansas City's future irrevocably.

And so, the community needs an answer from Mayor Quinton Lucas. Police also deserve to know where they stand with City Hall

Thankfully, one of the smartest TKC readers made the issue crystal clear and wrote about the mixed messages in no uncertain terms . . . Checkit:

"Mayor Lucas needs to be called out for being weak-kneed and two-faced. Posturing with BLM protesters while pandering to KCPD."

Remember . . .

The Mayor signed on to #BlackLivesMatter demands during a protest on City Hall steps. Local control of KCPD was #1 on that list.

However . . .

This week Mayor Lucas drew ire from supporters for a thank you note to the KCPD which was so cringe-y that Council Lady Katheryn Shields skipped it and earned more political credibility from both police and residents for at least being honest with her reasoning and avoiding the empty publicity stunt.

Accordingly . . .

THE COMMUNITY AND POLICE DESERVE A CLEAR ANSWER FROM MAYOR LUCAS ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL OF KCPD!!!

His non-binding agreement with BLM doesn't ring true if it's followed up by a confessional love letter addressed to police.

Even worse, our local media FAIL to question the mayor on his duplicity and would, seemingly, rather play sycophant or simply lack perspective on this importance of this issue.

Mayor Lucas has needlessly created confusion on "local control" wherein the two sides are clearly defined. There is no middle-ground in this discussion. The future of police in Kansas City and across the nation are now at a critical crossroads and the question of governance is at the crux of the dilemma. The longer the Mayor waits to make his position clear, the less his words matter. As Kansas City suffers historic unrest and record-breaking deadly crime, demands for police accountability start with Mayor Lucas.

America vs. The DC-NYC System That Protects Its Own

turcopelier |  Suppose some very rich folks bought the majority of American media. They control that by influencing who is hired, promoted and fired throughout their networks. Smaller players, internet businesses, etc. are dependent on the larger players for content. They are similarly controlled by the big players.

Now suppose there is also a global foundation, operated by the most skilled politicians of their era. Their business model is simple. They control and operate a global influence network. People with money can buy influence from this network.

The network, which we will call “the respectable tendency”, to borrow Andrew Roberts term, extends deep into worldwide media and perhaps more importantly, public services around the globe. Of course all of this is benign because the purpose of this endeavor is the advancement of planetary human well being. To this end it seamlessly creates or combines with a variety of good causes, to advance its agenda, for example, the advancement of women, minority rights, gay rights, the environmental movement.

Now we come to practical matters.  As the behaviourists posit: “where you stand is where you sit” - Miles Law. The foundation lives by this saying and drives it deep into every organ it touches. Be aware that when the foundation touches you it makes a Faustian bargain. You do something for it, one day it returns the favor. For example,  you might be asked as a civil servant to do something that is perhaps borderline corrupt.  You are found out but no matter; you reappear as a professor at a prestigious University, or a fellow at a think tank, or a media personality on a Tee Vee network or perhaps a judge. The foundation takes great care to ensure it keeps its end of the bargain. It also publicly destroys the careers of those that reject its overtures using whatever weapon comes to hand, for example sexual innuendo, allegations of discrimination, whatever. Fear and greed are its tools.

Lets assume that the foundation has had almost total success in recruiting Congress and the higher ranks of the career public service. There are two exceptions; the first is President Trump who is fireproof against the entreaties of the foundation. More about the other later.

So now let’s look at the events of Trumps Presidency through this lense.

Russiagate - explained.

The illegal and obvious judicial persecution of Flynn and others who have associated with Trump - explained.

The conversion and public recantings of former Trump appointees - explained.

The criticisms of Trump and public professions of love for foundation causes like #metoo and BLM by senior business leaders - explained.

The deliberate frustration of President Trumps agenda by Congress - explained.

The relentless and unjustified criticism of Trump by the media - explained.

Occupy and BLM Were Symptoms Of A Broken System Too

theglobeandmail |  The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.

If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. Fiction writers are particularly suspect because they write about human beings, and people are morally ambiguous. The aim of ideology is to eliminate ambiguity.

The UBC Accountable letter is also a symptom – a symptom of the failure of the University of British Columbia and its flawed process. This should have been a matter addressed by Canadian Civil Liberties or B.C. Civil Liberties. Maybe these organizations will now put up their hands. Since the letter has now become a censorship issue – with calls being made to erase the site and the many thoughtful words of its writers – perhaps PEN Canada, PEN International, CJFE and Index on Censorship may also have a view.

The letter said from the beginning that UBC failed accused and complainants both. I would add that it failed the taxpaying public, who fund UBC to the tune of $600-million a year. We would like to know how our money was spent in this instance. Donors to UBC – and it receives billions of dollars in private donations – also have a right to know.

In this whole affair, writers have been set against one another, especially since the letter was distorted by its attackers and vilified as a War on Women. But at this time, I call upon all – both the Good Feminists and the Bad Feminists like me – to drop their unproductive squabbling, join forces and direct the spotlight where it should have been all along – at UBC. Two of the ancillary complainants have now spoken out against UBC's process in this affair. For that, they should be thanked.

Once UBC has begun an independent inquiry into its own actions – such as the one conducted recently at Wilfrid Laurier University – and has pledged to make that inquiry public, the UBC Accountable site will have served its purpose. That purpose was never to squash women. Why have accountability and transparency been framed as antithetical to women's rights?

A war among women, as opposed to a war on women, is always pleasing to those who do not wish women well. This is a very important moment. I hope it will not be squandered.

Prohibition Has Been An Epic Policy Failure

Illicit drug markets were flourishing in white communities in the 1970s, and they continue to flourish in white communities to this very day. The crucial difference between affluent white drug markets and gritty black urban drug markets is the drive-through customer service provided to strangers in mostly black ghetto neighborhoods. 

White neighborhoods feature a drug market staffed by affluent teenagers doing it as a sideline for free drug supplies, social-peer status, and disposable income with a customer base of similarly well-heeled schoolmates and friends. Black and brown ghettos feature a market run in deadly earnest by poor and marginalized people viewing it more like a career choice- as their best chance at earning good money, fast money, and possibly even a boost to long-term upward mobility.

Open-air street markets are riskier all around, and much more criminogenic. But that's principally a function of the illegal marketplace, not the underlying commodity "drugs" being bought and sold. Prohibition has been an epic policy failure. Instead of success in curbing the use of officially forbidden drugs, 50 years of get-tough criminalization, zero tolerance, and mandatory minimums have resulted in;

1. a state of perpetual civil conflict
2. an unregulated supply of a wider array of harder and harder drugs
3. diverse harder drug abuse by younger and younger people
4. broad-based antagonism against police and government
5. unparalleled levels of police corruption

Unfortunately, the respectable negroes of impoverished black ghettos made the same mistake as the morally upright but deeply hypocritical WW2 generation of adults in more affluent white communities.  Faced with an unfamiliar phenomenon (the newfound popularity of some legally prohibited drugs among the youth), they imagined that a law enforcement crackdown would solve the problem and reset their status quo back to more familiar conditions, back before the kids were smoking pot and experimenting with drugs. 

Let's be clear- the initial 1960s-era domestic "illegal drug problem" related almost entirely to marijuana; the heroin market was confined to "bad neighborhoods" in a handful of large cities, and it took years for the cocaine market to develop a significant consumer base anywhere in the country.

Instead, the resulting Drug War only made matters worse, across the board. Including problems of police brutality and the impression that a coercive regime was being imposed upon urban black neighborhoods by outsiders. Which is, yes, what the citizens originally asked for. But the source of the folly was the naive idea that "drugs" were the primary source of the breakdown of civic order, rather than the illicit markets empowered by a simplistic prohibition regime that was- and still is- rationally indefensible.

Even the most responsible black American parents of teenagers are in much the same position as practically every other ethnic population- there's only so much they can do to counteract negative peer group influence on their adolescent children, given the circumstances of the modern world. And the stance that "studying is a white thing" would have a lot less social currency in the absence of the attractions of economic success provided by opportunities in the retail illicit drugs trade. "Studying is a white thing" is part of a narrative of fake resistance promulgated by criminals and delinquents. It's an excuse proffered by nihilistic elements of the black lumpenproletariat - pornographically promoted by Madison Avenue - not by "black culture".

The source of the problem- the basis for the appeal of the story that tells boys to kick school to the curb and go for fast money and instant gratification- isn't the inherent criminality of "black culture", or black people. It isn't ethnically based. It's mostly about Pinocchio Pleasure Island. The real-life Pleasure Island of the drug dealing game. In the absence of a lucrative underground market in prohibited drugs, criminality is a pretty pathetic career path.  In the presence of that avenue of opportunity, it's a glamor profession. Or at least it contains enough glamorous aspects to make it a very attractive occupation, especially for teenage males at the outset. Remember what eventually happens to the boys on Pleasure Island.

The useless not-see narrative blames the dysfunctions of poor black communities on a lack of moral character - a deficiency purportedly inherent to lower racial IQ or some allegedly monolithic "black culture." The useless BLM narrative blames the problems in impoverished black ghettos on some all-pervading, amorphous, undifferentiated, supposedly rampant white racism, i.e., an inherent moral deficiency of monolithic "white culture." 

Neither of those stories address the actual source of the problem.

In the Historical Vacuum of BeeDee-ism - Chicago is "BLM Consequences"

Hot off the BD brainpan this morning:

Excerpt near the bottom:

"Every cop saw that video," O'Connor said. "One big difference is that now, on the street, there is no fear. Even in the '90s, with all the killing, the gangs feared the police. When we'd show up, they'd run. But now? Now they don't run. Now, there is no fear."

Until recently, the ability of cops, to freely delete an occasional low-life extreme street scum, has been necessary to preserve polite society.  Now, (BodyCams, Dashcams, BLM, big settlement$$$) nobody is safe....

chicagotribune |  Manpower shortages combined with too much overtime lead to exhaustion. And loss of morale from the mayor's botched handling of the Laquan McDonald fiasco have wreaked havoc with command, with street stops down markedly. Yet taxpayers don't have a true picture of how thin that thin blue line has become.

All these problems have deep roots. Daley was at war with his Police Department and demanded a thorough house cleaning. There was a purge of district commanders and other leaders under former police Superintendent Jody Weis, and that created havoc throughout the command structure.

Earlier, the large gang crimes units — south, west and north — which provided valuable human intelligence and interaction with the gangs, were disbanded and remade.

A common theme recently is that people in the most violent neighborhoods don't cooperate with police, but the fact is they won't talk to cops they don't know. And they won't talk with others listening.

The gang members, and their families, knew officers in the old gang crimes units.

"They'd catch a two-time loser with a gun, put the cuffs on, and he'd know what to do," said Bob Angone, who spent 30 years as a street cop, as a tactical lieutenant and commander of the hostage barricade team.

"That loser will say, I know who shot victim so-and-so. They'll give you information, but they'll only tell the police they trust, the specialists, because they know they'll get their break in court, that the specialists would keep your word. That's how it's done. And the city lost a lot when we lost the gang crimes units."

There is another thing to consider about the differences between August 1991 and now. It isn't quantifiable; it won't fit on a mayoral white paper, there are no numbers to it.

But it was reported, with a video, by Tribune journalists Megan Crepeau and Erin Hooley a few days ago under the headline: "Heckling and gunfire as police investigate shooting: 'We're just playing.'"

Police were investigating reports of a shooting in bloody Englewood when about 10 young men confronted them, harassed them, mocked them on the street, hurling epithets, angry, defiant.

a week's worth of subrealism in a single epic comment...,

anonymny |  The reason why Trump appeals to many Americans is the lack of pomposity. He has the bomp and the pomp but without the pompousness. He comes across as a straight-talker. He’s rich and privileged, and he enjoys luxury. He’s honest about it. He talks and acts like an American in the street. And I think this part of Trump is real. It’s not put-on uh-shucks George H.W. Bush claiming to like pork rinds or Bush II as ‘beer buddy’. Trump is no saint, and I wouldn’t trust him. He may be a phony, but like Holly Golightly, he is a real phony. He plays this brand called ‘Trump’ and really believes in it. 

Also, the paradox of Trump is only a ‘crazy person’ can be sane and sound in today’s politics. Why? Cuz of the power of globo-PC and so many rules on what can be said and cannot be said. To be ‘sane’ and ‘sound’ is to just go by the script.

Now, in a sane world, following the script may be perfectly fine. But in an insane world, the script itself is nuts. So, to be ‘sane’ and ‘sound’ means to go along with the script without missing a beat.

Under communism in the USSR, the party members and bureaucrats all spoke and acted ‘sanely’. 

They didn’t throw fits and didn’t talk like blowhards. They seemed proper and dignified. But they were all speaking from a nutty script of Leninism-Stalinism. Solzhenitsyn, in contrast, seemed like a madman, but he was right. Now, I’m not saying Trump is Solzy. Trump is a blowhard and a narcissist and a fool. But he has balls, and it takes a big pair to do the Randall McMurphy thing in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. US is a funny farm of PC and globalism. And the GLOB has appointed Hillary to be Nurse Ratched. In the movie, most of the patients act proper and sane. They are respectful of authority. They don’t realize that the place that is supposed to cure them is keeping them even more insane through dependence and weakness. This is why so many conservatives responded well to Trump in the GOP debates. It was like watching that scene in CUCKOO’S NEST. 

Propriety and Dignity are good under most circumstances, but there are times when someone has to howl like a wolf. With the likes of Jeb, Kasich, Fiorina, and etc reading from the same script of the Donor Class, someone had to howl and talk big to break through the PC fog. And Trump did that. Style mattered to break the ice.

In a sane world, propriety and dignity is about mutual respect and preservation of just order. But in a insane world, they are tools of corrupt power like in the former Soviet Union where the bureaucrats acted properly but dared not speak the truth that communism was a horror show and a vast prison.
In a crazy world, there has to some passion, some rage, some counter-craziness.

Look at Obama as the perfect specimen of slimeball dignity. He’s a smooth operator. He has this presidential style. He acts sane and sound. White folks were happy to have a Nice Negro with manners and intelligent style than boors like Sharpton and Jackson. But Obama is a total phony, a weasel, a skunk. He’s a globalist tool of Wall Street, open borders, more wars. And he is surely the most pompous president ever. His talk of his ‘profound humility’ or his speeches where everything is about ‘me’, even at the funeral of Daniel Inoue of Hawaii. And his pompous-ass book Dreams of My Father. Pure weasel-talk.

You can’t blame just Hillary for Libya and Syria and Ukraine. Obama totally went along with that stuff. Obama’s style may come across as clean and crisp, but he is just going along with the crazy globalist script. His policies messed up Middle East and set off massive ‘refugee’ problem. And then this jerk pressures EU to take in all these people. And the media just go along with this. And where the anti-war left? It is all but gone. It’s like the dignified and clean-seeming authorities in SANJURO are the real villains while ruffian-seeming hero is closer to the truth.

Now, it’s true that Trump’s style is fresh and boorish. Sometimes, he can be overbearing and even stupid. He made overstatements about Mexicans that was unnecessary. But is it worse than Obama fanning racial flames that burned down entire cities like Ferguson and Baltimore and encouraging a Lie Machine like BLM movement? Didn’t such rhetoric get innocent cops killed? And hasn’t there been increased policing and more tensions between cops and blacks precisely because urban Progs have been trying to revive cities by getting touch on black crime?

Also, if Trump’s side is so crazy, how come virtually all Trump supporters are well-behaved? How come all the violence is from the other side? They stormed a Trump rally in Chicago and aborted it. They physically assaulted Trump supporters. Where is the media on this? Media throw fits about ‘hate hoaxes’ from the Right but overlook ‘leftist’ violence as forgivable or even justified.

At any rate, we must not mistake style with real substance of the Trump Campaign. The idea that Trump is some nutjob who is going to blow the world up as president is pure nonsense. Trump’s style may be brash, but his positions are remarkably sane.

There is a massive immigration and illegal immigration problem in the US. Something must be done about it. Wall or no wall, we cannot let things go on as usual. Forcing Mexico to be responsible with the border is crazy? Only a crazy world would say that is crazy.

Trump also calls for economic policies that produce jobs for the middle class and working class. Why is that crazy? While the upper class are doing so well, middle class and working class are not. Is it so crazy to end the outsourcing of US jobs overseas? Where is insanity in this?

On the Muslim Issue, I think Trump went too far. But he still sounds more sane than Hillary. He is saying we need to stop foreign wars that set off these ‘refugees’ in the first place. Obama and Hillary, weasels that they are, pose as humanitarians with open arms to ‘refugees’, but they(along with media) overlook the fact that the ‘refugees’ are the product of conditions they created in the Middle East and North Africa by direct or indirect intervention. Why are Trump’s views crazy?

Now, it may well be Trump is less well-versed and informed about the details of other nations and crises around the world, but he sees the Big Picture more sanely than others. Stop messing other nations and creating crises that set off tons of refugees and migrants. The fact that Obama and Hillary could destroy so much of the world and then pose as ‘saviors’ goes to show how sick our media really are. It’d be like Hitler invading Poland and then offering aid to Polish rerfugees to show how wonderful he is. It’d be like Stalin displacing entire populations and then offering them food and cloting to show that he is a real humanitarian.

On the NATO and Russian issue, Trump is totally sane. NATO had a necessary purpose during the Cold War. But it has no use today. The idea of EU needing US protection is a joke. The idea of Russian invading the Baltic states, let alone Poland and Hungary and the rest, is complete fantasy, 1000x crazier than anything cooked up by Joe McCarthy. Russia didn’t even take Georgia when Suckassvillain attacked South Ossetia. It is about time Europeans took care of themselves. It is about time US got along with Russia.

The only purpose of NATO since the end of the Cold War has been to fight Wars for Israel. It is just an imperialist organization. It not only keeps EU as a vassal of the US, but it makes EU go along with every cockamamie plot cooked up by Jewish globalists.

So, how is Trump going to drive us ‘over the cliff’ by asking Europeans to build up their own militaries and by making peaceful overtures to Russia?

On every major issue, Trump is calling for sanity and common sense. He is no foreign policy expert, but he knows well enough that the Washington Pros have been in the neo-imperialist globalist game that is doing harm to US and the world.

Trump IS nutty about Iran, but he’s just playing to the Zionist crowd. In the US, you must find some way to appeal to Jewish Power(and now even holy homo power).

To sum up, Trump had to play ‘crazy’ to break through the fog of PC and globo-elite consensus that are suffocating this country. It was this brashness that allowed him to say and get away with what the cuckservatives like Jeb and others were afraid to do.

That said, Trump’s style is not his substance. His substance in terms of his policy proposals are common-sensical, realist, and even moral. A nation must defend its borders and have rule of law. We can’t just let illegals storm in and then reward them with amnesty, thereby encouraging more future invaders. I mean how did Reagan’s amnesty turn out? It only encouraged more for a second round.

Also, the Cold War is long over. There is NO REASON for the US to be enemies of Russia. That is just Jewish supremacist vanity at work. And we need to stop messing up Middle East and Muslim nations. If anything, Trump is really the pro-Muslim candidate. He may not be crazy about Muslims coming over here, but at least he doesn’t want to blow them over there.

He said some brash things about fighting ISIS, but it’s just red meat for the audience. Rambo talk. But the substance of his policy calls for minding our own business and making peace and making deals than invoking ‘human rights’ and other BS to mess up entire nations at the behest of Globalists
.
Also, Trump is right to denounce Wall Street, though being a NY’er, I doubt he will or could do much about the banks. Banks, being ‘too big too fail’, can sink the economy if any politician tries to get tough with them. Also, both banks and media are owned by Jews. So, if any president decided to get tough with Wall Street, WS will set off market tremors and cause panic. And then the Jewish-controlled media will serve Wall Street by blaming the president for causing the crisis. So, WS essentially holds a gun to the head of the president.

Professors are expected to dress, talk, and act in a certain way.

Whatever the ideology, studies, specialty, department, or function, there is the Professional and Professorial style. It is supposed to be objective, intellectual, cerebral, restrained, and cautious. Of course, there are differences. Some professors have pony tails. Some dress loudly. Some talk shit in class. But there is an predominant Academic Culture. It is pervasive and becomes a way of thinking, acting, feeling, and being.

To an academe, Trump’s style is all wrong. Professors are not supposed to talk or even move like him. Serious students are not supposed to see him as model. And with PC dictating college values, no one is supposed to say the sort of things Trump has said. Serious academic types(professors and students) hate the party fraternities, and Trump acts like one-man Animal House. He rubs academes the wrong way like Rodney Dangerfield did in BACK TO SCHOOL. 

Academes are devoted to studying the world, and they become specialists in certain fields. But because they function in a social bubble, they don’t rub up against reality like Trump and the Dangerfield character do in the REAL WORLD. It’s the difference between a boxer who’s been in the ring and the locker room AND the scholar of sports who knows statistics and such but don’t know what it’s like to have a punch in the face and blood spurt out of the nose. 

In the academic world, proper form matters at all times. Professors must dress properly and talk properly. And there is rules of classroom conduct. This is all very good and necessary. But such a culture creates a false impression that the world should be like the school environment, where theory and reality are complementary.

Paradoxically however, it is the very culture of proper form that had led to the takeover of certain colleges by the lunatic fringe of PC-triggered madness. We see how this happens in David Mamet’s OLEANNA. In the film, a Liberal College professor is into being very professional and academic. He is part of that culture, and he lives it, inhales it, exhales it. He probably thinks and acts academic even at home, like Dustin Hoffman’s character in STRAW DOGS.

So, when a crazed feminist wench in OLEANNA makes a crazy accusation against the professor, he doesn’t know what to do. He’s so committed to maintaining the proper form that he hasn’t the guts to get angry and call her a vile, disgusting, stupid, ludicrous, lying, hag bitch. Why, such an emotional response would mean loss of form and dignity. It would seem barbaric in the eyes of academic culture, just like Barry Lyndon’s loss of temper in front of the aristocratic folks.

Professorial dignity is closely tied to proper form. So, even when up against great pressure, one’s respect depends on maintaining that form. Lose it, and you’re seen as a boor. So, rather than risking one’s loss of form and respect, many academics just have let the crazies run rampant on the campus. (This is why British society is so defenseless against PC lunacy. When one see nuttiness, one must show anger and take rough action. But such boorish behavior is beneath the dignity of the preening British elites. So, they just choose to make gentle assurances and accommodate the craziness by offering it a place in the power structure. That way, the British elites get to be ‘good whites’ and the radicals direct their ire at the ‘bad whites’ who aren’t so accommodating and offering of bribes. Social Justice Cult is just an extortion racket. The rich can keep their style of ‘dignity’ by buying off the radicals to attack something else. In the UK, the ‘bad whites’ are the ‘working class racists’ who voted for Brexit.)

Indeed, when the professor finally loses it in OLEANNA and strikes the no-good bitch, he knows he’s lost everything, just like Barry Lyndon. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you must live by the culture of form, you can’t fight back against lunatics who insult and impugn you. You must take the smears and taunts. But if you do lose it and fight back, it will only confirm the taunts and smears that you’re an oppressive brute and barbarian. (It’s like radicals often provoked cops into violent reaction and then cried foul.)

The elite worlds of academia, military, and government all rely on the culture of form, propriety, and dignity. Necessarily so. But such emphasis on form has a constricting effect on the thoughts and emotions of people in it.

This is why academic types usually don’t make great artists. To be an artist, you have to be free, wild, imaginative, and passionate. To be an intellectual, one’s emotions have to be checked and controlled, and the mind has to be focused on critical assessment. If Bob Dylan, Marlon Brando, Sam Peckinpah, and Elia Kazan had taken an academic course in life, they never would have been artists. On the other hand, intellectuals, scholars, and critics must be more cerebral and objective than passionate and subjective.

Bacevich worked in military, government, and academia. He went from a culture of form to culture of form to culture of form. He is about control, order, system, form, and dryness. His culture is different from the culture that made Trump, the wheeler-dealer who had to be shifty, ‘artful’, bluffy, clever, crafty, bullying, and etc.

Trump is a player in the very game of money and power. Also, Trump had to be more savvy to rise up in his field. If one works in military, government, and academia, there are clearer rules as to what you must do to rise up the ranks. In business, so much depends on the ‘art of the deal’, charisma, handshakes, and instinct.

Trump’s world is about the play. You have to play to win.
Bacevich’s is about the program. You follow the program to rise up.
It’s the difference between Belfort and the Fed in Wolf of Wall Street.

Now, I’m not saying Trump is a douche like Belfort(though he could be, what with the Trump Chump University scandal) but merely making a point about the difference of personalities in different endeavors.

Anyway, people like Bacevich feel somewhat superior to the rest of us. They feel superior to us unschooled dummies because we don’t have Ph.D’s and other credentials. We don’t read books and don’t have access to special information in departments and archives. Also, people like Bacevich are wealthier than we are.

But people like Bacevich also feel superior to rich folks like Trump. They see people like Trump as having hustled and swindled their way to great wealth. Or even if super-rich folks didn’t cheat to rake in the dough, all they ever cared about is money, money, money. It’s like Bill Gates never got much respect as anyone other than a businessman. Even Steve Jobs said Gates got no culture, no taste. He only knows geekery and money and business.

People like Bacevich see themselves as Human Ideals. They are wealthy(or wealthy enough) and deserving of privilege. But they are not all about money. They are about knowledge and truth. They devoted their lives to studying the world and coming up with useful theories. They play the role of scholars and critics of power. And they have mastered a proper form of manners and behavior that epitomize dignity, seriousness, maturity, and integrity.

From their angle, there is nothing lower than someone like roguish Trump. Even if Trump agreed with them 100%, his talk-radio-like populist style would rub them the wrong way. It’d be like Rush Limbaugh coming on NPR. The only kind of conservative that such folks can maybe tolerate is Bill Buckley or some tweedy type with proper manners. Trump is too much like the Wild One in the Brando movie. Or maybe like the Lee Marvin character. It’s like how Jimmy Stewart reacts to the tough guys in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. It’s like how Gregory Peck the Eastern elitist reacts to the boors of Texas in THE BIG COUNTRY. Reagan was more bearable because he was more like John Wayne than Lee Marvin.

But, with all due respect, let us knock people like Bacevich down a few pegs.

For one thing, despite the culture of form, dignity, and propriety — and all those POMPOUS ceremonies with tassels, real and honorary degrees, highfalutin titles in Latin, graduation speeches, and etc — , much of the academia is corrupt, crazy, repressive, dishonest, radical, careerist, opportunistic, privileged, lazy, demented, partisan, nasty, vindictive, backstabbing, tribal, fiendish, scummy, and no good.

Bacevich says Trump is pompous. No, he’s boorish. Pompous would be something like all those graduation speeches where honorary guests make bloated statements about hope and etc. Pompous would be the 2008 election that presented Obama as The One, the messiah, the black jesus, ‘like god’(as one reporter said), the second coming of MLK and Camelot, and etc. Pompous would be all those ‘esteemed’ professors talking like they are philosopher kings. Pompous would be all those armchair revolutionaries with millions of dollars in their bank accounts but yammering about Marx and Social Justice. Consider Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates.

So many academics are actually cowards who don’t want to face the real world. So, they hide in the bubble, in the ivory tower. But they tell themselves that they are committed to studying the real world and critiquing what is wrong with it. But most professors have no idea of human nature since they have no contact with real people. They live with theories of reality. Many of them have no sense of reality beyond what they got from PC from cradle. Many are children of privilege pretending to be fighting privilege. But of course, they need privilege to study and oppose privilege. Just look at Harvard and Yale and Princeton. They are filled with kids of privilege and elitism, but they pose as ‘progressives’ and talk of equality and social justice.

Bacevich assumes that since Trump’s style is wild, his substance must be crazy. But in fact, the substance of Trump’s proposals are some of the most sane we’ve heard in many yrs. Indeed, they may sound crazy precisely because they sound TOO SANE. Fix our borders. No more crazy wars. Favor national interests of American people than globalist interests of elites. Stop with the new cold war business.

In contrast, so many academics have the form of integrity and dignity. They seem and sound so smart, balanced, thoughtful, critical, skeptical, and retrospective.

But, we must judge people by what they do, not what they say.

Weren’t the financial instruments that nearly brought down US finance in 2008 the creation of Ivy League-trained academics, economists, and investors?

Aren’t the people in the US intelligence, US military, and US state department mostly the graduates of top elite universities? Yet, the so-called Best and Brightest gave us stuff like Iraq War, War on Terror that actually aids terrorists, the disaster in Libya and Syria?

Bacevich speaks of Trump’s bad manners. Well, Colin Powell was one of the best-mannered men in government. Yet, he sat before the UN council and lied through his teeth that Hussein had nuclear weapons program using aluminum beer cans. John Yoo, the well-mannered professor from Berkeley argued that US could torture prisoners. The Best and Brightest planned for Iraq War that led to Abu Grahib, endless escalation, the looting of Iraq museum, civil war that no one anticipated(or maybe they did and wanted it), and etc.

And who were the advisers to the privatization in Russia in the 90s? It wasn’t Trump and such boors. No, it was the philosopher kings, the professors of the best schools. Larry Summers. Jeffrey Sachs. It was the Harvard Team. (To Sach’s credit, he must be feeling some remorse since he is opposed to Hillary’s nutty call for New Cold War against Russia.) And what happened to Russia as a result? Didn’t Larry Summers also push deregulation of Wall Street? And Yale-educated Clinton signed on it.

People say Obama is so smart and knowledgeable. But what has he accomplished in office? He didn’t know jack shit about Wall Street and just gave the banks everything they asked for. He got Obamacare only by lying to the public, and we don’t know how it will turn out. Almost surely badly. His foreign policy has been a total mess. Middle East and North Africa got worse than during Bush yrs when only Afghanistan and Iraq were burning. Now it also Libya, Yemen, Syria. And it may well spread to Turkey. And then, there is the massive ‘refugee’ crisis and terror attacks spreading all over.

Crime is up due to Ferguson effect. Whatever economic recovery has been largely due to printing money and borrowing, with debt now at over 20 trillion. Illegal immigration is totally out of control, worse than in Bush yrs. Obama’s SC appointees are PC commissars, not defenders of any Rule of Law based on Constitution. A ‘wise Latina’ and some Jewish lesbian who, in her stint at Harvard, filled the Law school with her tribesmen while bitching about ‘white privilege’.

Obama certainly perfected the academic style, and he became the darling of white/Jewish Libs who want to appear pro-black but had problems finding Negroes of real caliber. But as smart as Obama is, what has he done academically or professionally prior to becoming a politician? Zilch. He got by on style. He didn’t even become a professor at University of Chicago. He just hung around and made connections with the right kind of people who found him useful as ‘our Negro’. Jews went so far as to call him the ‘first Jewish president’. So, even though Obama did absolutely nothing as instructor and politician, he got to be president because he had the right kind of ‘style’ and knew the right kind of people.

So, before Bacevich gets all high and mighty about the academic world and its nice manners of civility and dignity, he should ask himself how so much of the academic style and prestige have been used for some of the most insane, irresponsible, reckless, stupid, vile, hideous, nasty, ugly, sick, and demented policies one can think of.

And look at foreign policy. You’d think academics would be honest and tough critics of power and politics. But we’ve seen so many academics whore themselves out to Republican and Democrat warmongers. There were plenty of academics advising the Bush administration in the reckless Iraq War. And there were plenty of highfalutin academics supporting and making excuses for Obama-Hillary’s war in Libya and subversion in Syria and Ukraine. Victoria Nuland is related to a Yale academic.

So much for honest critics of power. They act so professorial and dignified, but so many are partisan hacks or tribal opportunists(mostly of the Zionist kind). Jewish money and media pressure are so pervasive that Norman Finkelstein was robbed of a job at Depaul(and other universities) because the odious Alan Dershowitz made phone calls. And Steven Salaita couldn’t get a gig at U of I because of impassioned remarks during the Gaza massacre.

And do law schools really teach the law? Just how does law school produce idiots like Sonia Sotomayor the ‘wise Latina’? Just how does the academia justify something so bogus as ‘hate speech’ laws? I mean who decides what is hate and not hate? The powers that be, right? And how can any serious person say stuff like “I believe in free speech but not hate speech”? And how is it that the best law schools produce people who reinterpret and redefine marriage as between a man and man and between woman and woman? How is that the leading academic theories of justice advised NY to fine businesses for $250,000 if they confuse a ‘he’ with ‘she’? What are they teaching at Harvard Law School when they say a guy with a woman’s wig should use a woman’s washroom? What is this, farce?

And if academic life is about truth, dignity, and sanity, how is it that some of the craziest ideas in recent yrs came out of the academia? And if the academia has such high standards, how did it allow so many moronic or crazy lunatics to become tenured professors? How did colleges come up with stuff like ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘micro-aggressions’ and other hysteria? And how do universities react to stuff like false KKK sighting at Oberlin? They treat them as if they’re real. And when the Milo the homo poofter was interrupted and threatened at Depaul, where was the principle of freedom of speech? If anything, the Depaul administration sided with the thugs. How did Emma Sulkowicz get away with such rot. Even after she was exposed as a nut and fraud, NOW gave her the courage award. But this is a nation where Bruce Jenner won both the courage award and woman of the year award. And we live in a world where Obama got the Nobel prize for nothing. Well, how much peace did Obama spread around the world since then?

And look at the media. A massive lie machine. Now, so many journos are products of top journalism schools. So, how come so many are more committed to PC, the Narrative, and BS than to the truth? How come black thugs are called ‘teens’ and ‘youths’? Why did NBC’s Diane Sawyer say bombed out Gaza is Israel. How come Helen Thomas lost her job for saying European Zionists should return to Europe? How come NYT and rest of media cheer-lead the Iraq War? Why have they let Obama get away with so much spying, lack of transparency, and war-mongering? Why did they go easy on Wall Street that fleeced us blind in 2009 with bailouts? How did the whole media fall for the UVA rape hoax? If not for a handful of bloggers who exposed the fraud, the whole world would still be believing the story and the crazy bitch who wrote it probably would have won the Pulitzer.

And as I’ve said before, the academia has been either too cowardly or too complicit in the rise of PC craziness and hysteria in the campuses. The cowards didn’t speak out against the rise of PC lunacy and witch-hunt mentality. The complicit were the very professors — mostly in sociology, humanities, political science, and law — who filled the minds of millennial morons with paranoid lunacy about Evil White Males, Patriarchy, KKK, ‘homophobia’, and etc. If academic environment is so sane and rational, how come some of the most vile, aggressive, hateful, and bilious movements have emerged from the universities?

And what has come of college debates? Now, winners are usually shucking and jiving black wanna-be rappers. This is what US colleges allow, and the likes of Andrew Bacevich never lodged a complaint. Yet, he is bitching about Trump’s ill manners and craziness?

When Bacevich saw PC lunacy on his campus, did he ever speak out? Or did he just keep his head low and walk away because he didn’t want to lose his proper form as a dignified academic? If we want craziness, we don’t need Trump. We only need to look at colleges newspaper to see what the latest hysteria, craze, fad, or nutjobbery is.

But, the crazy stuff in colleges is cloaked with the conceit of intellectualism, rationalism, critical theory, or some such. So, it gets a pass while Trump is said to be crazy, extreme, and nutty because he said… let’s fix our borders(how mad!!!), end the stupid new cold war with Russia(how loony!!!), let’s stop messing up Muslim nations(how ludicrous!!!), let’s be careful about which Muslims we allow into America(how frightening!!!), let’s think about the American worker and not just the globalist urban class(how supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!!).

What is truly crazy about America is that a NY real estate hustler and blowhard makes more common sense, moral sense, and good sense than all the experts of media, academia, military, and government combined. But in a world where the law of the land says 2 + 2 = 5, someone who insists it is 2 + 2 = 4 must be mad.

Trump is not the emperor who has no clothes. He is one who notices that the Empire has no clothes. Also, unlike the ridiculous expectations of Pompous Hope and Change of Obama that couldn’t be fulfilled(not least because they lacked specificity), what Trump is calling for can be achieved.

They are realistic about the real world. We can fix our borders if we really want to. We can lower immigration to give US workers time to breathe and catch up. We can end the stupid new cold war with Russia. It’s easy cuz Russia doesn’t want it. We can let EU carry a bigger burden with NATO. We need to stop seeing EU as a vassal state of US. We can stop the wars in the Muslim world and let Muslims and Arabs pick up their own pieces. It was US intervention and its collusion with allies that led to hell in Libya and Syria. Dealing with the big banks is a much tougher call.

Despite Trumps overstatements and boorish style, what he is calling for is doable, sensible, and right.
But then, we have too many people feeding on crisis caused by globalist interventions. They don’t want a fix to the problems. They thrive on problems. And that is why they see Trump as a threat.

The remarkable thing about Trump is his style is sometimes over-the-top and ‘crazy’, but he is, at the core, totally sane. He’s not like the man in NETWORK who really loses it and screams ‘I’m mad as hell’.

The way of Trump is to be ‘Sane as Hell’. In a world gone nuts as the new normal, he is wildly… sane.