Analyzing Clinton’s Nonsense on the Late Show

When we talk about “what happened” regarding the 2016 elections, we should always start with the clear point that in the bourgeois political extravaganza, no one is willing to take responsibility. And, obviously, the masters of not taking responsibility are the Clintons.

In the video, Colbert and Clinton spend the first two minutes on general fluff and wound-licking. Following that, Clinton says the point of her book is to figure out what happened, “so that it doesn’t happen again”. Of course, she receives raucous applause for this line. After all, she is on Colbert’s show.

What is “it” exactly? Bourgeois elections? The Democrats losing elections? I suppose she means the government of the Russian Federation “interfering” in the elections, but we’ll cover that a bit later.

She says at around the 3:40 mark, that she’s being as candid as she could be about “the mistakes [she] made, … but also, … everything from sexism and misogyny to voter suppression to the unusual behavior of the former director of the FBI and the Russians, and the Russians and you have been sounding the alarm about this, because I believe so strongly that they think they succeeded in messing with our democracy…”

We can unpack this more as the interview goes on, but you’ll notice how quickly she pivots from talking about her own actions to blaming everyone else. Throughout the rest of the interview, she fails to mention anything else about what she could have done to change the outcome of the election.

That’s not to say the other things aren’t important, but rather that in her perspective, she is not responsible for her own loss. Well, what the fuck? For someone who apparently extolls the virtues of the Amerikkkan political process, why is she complaining about it so much? I don’t remember any (literally, not one) of the other losers in my lifetime doing anything remotely like this.

BLM Clinton

“Russia made me say racist things in the 90s!”

Back to the video…

Around 4:30, she says that the “Russians” definitely were “influencing voters and, therefore, influencing opinion…”

Let’s assume, for a moment, this is true. What does that mean? The government of the Russian Federation supposedly bought ads on Facebook and published news articles that were particularly aimed at Clinton and her campaign, placing her in a bad light.

What’s the issue here?

Last time I checked, that’s perfectly legal and acceptable. In fact, that’s what you do in an election! You attempt to influence voters and opinion in order to help you achieve your personal desirable outcome.

Now, dear reader, you might protest that the problem is that Russia is a foreign government. However, I don’t hear anyone complaining about how Clinton received money and blessings from Saudi Arabia and Israel (along with countless other states).

So what’s the deal? Russia bought Facebook ads? And by doing so, influenced the election?

Good for them. They played the game and beat out other countries. It seems like if we accept the narrative that Clinton and Colbert are pushing, the whole process was merely a power-play between different countries. And in that power-play, Russia beat Saudi Arabia.

clinton saudi

Around 5:07, she claims that she’s “a bit of a Paula Revere.”

Can’t you hear it now? The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

This is fear-mongering and highfalutin bullshit at its finest.

So now we get to hear Clinton’s breakdown of Vladimir Putin’s strategy. Fasten your seatbelt, dear reader, because you’re about to get thrown through a whirlwind of garbage.

At 5:12, she begins:

“You know, you’ve gotta understand what Putin’s strategy is. He really doesn’t like democracy. He thinks its an inconvenient, messy process. And he doesn’t like us. And he wants to destabilize our country, sow doubt about our democracy. I mean, these latest revelations where you had Russians pretending to be Americans. You had fake Americans with fake news and fake stories and fake demonstrations. That wasn’t just because he’s bored and has nothing to do. He wants to undermine how we see each other, how we respect each other, how we support our institutions and our society. So, I think they believed they had a good outing in 2016 and I think they will be back in 2018 and 2020 unless we stop them.”

This analysis received applause. And it really shouldn’t have.

The hypocrisy here is so blatant and so shameless, I’m surprised it got past people at all.

Putin doesn’t like democracy? Putin is trying to sow doubt about “our democracy”?

Seriously?

What the hell is she talking about?

Who is the person who just wrote a book and is appearing on television to say that the most recent elections were illegitimate? Not Putin!

Who is the one saying that we had people faking citizenship and lying about facts in order to help their side? Not Putin!

Who likes democracy? Not Putin and certainly not Hillary Clinton!

Clinton Putin.jpg

“I hate democracy as much as you do.”

At 6:30, Clinton speculates as to why Putin wouldn’t like her. She concludes that it’s because she questioned the legitimacy of the elections in Russia in 2011. She goes on to say that Putin is still upset about the dismantling of the Soviet Union and that he wants to “undermine the European-American alliance.”

I think there are probably a few other pretty good reasons for Putin to cheer for anyone opposing Clinton. It’s true, she did question the legitimacy of the elections in 2011 – as did everyone else, because it was obviously rigged.

So, that’s probably not the primary reason.

Who ran on the platform of shooting down Russian planes flying over Syria?

Who was Secretary of State and oversaw the total destruction of Libya?

Who threatened to give more money to the Ukrainian government and started peddling revisionist narratives of the events of 2013-2014?

Clinton has a very proactive record of military aggression against sovereign countries and trying to corner Russia into very tight positions. As the regional power, the Russian government has seen these maneuvers (rightfully) as threatening and has opposed them.

Obviously, Dumbass Trump has been little better, but we can all rest assured that, through incompetence, Trump has been unable to get as much done as Clinton would have.

And that’s a good thing for Russia (and everyone else, btw)!

Starting around 7:35, Clinton starts telling a story about a time she met with Putin “in his dacha” in order to demonstrate that Putin is a terrible misogynist.

It, of course, doesn’t take a genius to realize that Putin is a patriarchal piece of shit. His whole image is that of ultra-masculinity. However, we should ask ourselves the question: what’s the function of this story?

It’s to make sure that everyone is on Clinton’s side against Putin (and, of course, we must hate Russia, because we hate Putin).

Why doesn’t Clinton focus on other avowed misogynists?

Like King Salman or Bibi Netanyahu?

Or how about Bill Clinton?

hillary-clinton-shush-1

I’d like to end this with a story, just so we have the entire context here.

There was a significant event in 1996 that ought to be retold – the second election ever in the Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin was running for re-election under very bad circumstances. He had been wildly popular in the beginning and watched that popularity dwindle as he did things like literally bomb the parliament building in central Moscow in 1993. At the same time, the economy was failing and the Russians were bombing Grozny to hell in the separatist republic of Chechnya.

So things weren’t going very well.

At the same time, a lot of people were looking back on the Soviet Union and realizing that they had lost a lot – public finances going to social security, healthcare, and education. Worker’s protections were also important. In Russia today, people refer to the 90s as “the wild 90s” and almost no one I’ve ever talked to has had anything positive to say about that time.

At this point, Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the newly-formed Communist Party of the Russian Federation (replacing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) looked like a superstar, promising to fix the economy and put Russia back on track as it moved into the 21st century.

Bill Clinton, president of the U.$. at the time, was not about to let a communist win the Russian elections.

In the run-up to the election, the U.$. and the IMF funneled money to the Russian government. Yeltsin was also given logistical help from the Clinton administration. Pretty much everyone agrees, in the end, Zyuganov would have won the election, but the government committed wouldn’t allow free and fair elections.

Zyuganov.jpg

Essentially, the Clinton administration made important moves (up to and including direct election fraud) in order to ensure that Yeltsin won the 1996 elections.

Following this move, the Russian economy continued to spiral, the Russian government continued the War in Chechnya (and admitted defeat just a month after the election).

So, allow me to pose the question to you, dear reader: who in truth has a track record of interfering in foreign elections? Is Russia really the bogey-man that Clinton and her minions are trying to paint it as? Or is it the case that the Russian government simply refuses to be a vassal of the U.$.?

Advertisements

The Liberation of Afghanistan

I once heard a description of the recent history of Afghanistan begin, “Under the communists, women appeared on television uncovered. Under the Mujahideen, women appeared on television covered. Under the Taliban, there were no televisions.”

The dominant narratives regarding Afghanistan in the West possess the unfortunate characteristic of neglecting basic facts. Instead, the timeline goes a little something like this:

1. I don’t know anything about Afghanistan before I need to.

2. The evil Soviet Union invaded.

3. The heroic United States supported the freedom fighters.

4. Something, something, something.

5. TALIBAN!

6. The heroic United States kicked out those bad Taliban and gave Afghanistan democracy.

This timeline might even be giving too much credit to people (including the numbskull in the white house) who feel qualified to talk about Afghanistan, despite knowing next to nothing about one of the countries that has defined so much of last century (directly and indirectly).

That should terrify you. It should also give us a moment to think about the Liberation of Afghanistan and what that ought to mean.

At different points in history, one might point to an Afghanistan that has been called “liberated”. In 1919, Afghanistan wins its independence from the British Empire. Many have called this “liberation”. As the Kingdom of Afghanistan, the country is pushed through slow waves of modernization and conservative push-back. In 1978, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan takes power and pushes through real modernization efforts. Many have called this “liberation”. Under quick succession, Nur Muhammad Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, and Babrak Karmal try to push through sweeping land reforms, women’s rights, and social programs. This is, of course, met with terrible resistance from the “traditional” power structures and clan networks throughout the country.

It was during this period, by admission of Zbigniew Brzezinski, that Amerikkka begins funding the Mujahideen, who fight against the socialists on behalf of these misogynistic, feudal power structures.

After the Mujahideen receive support from the U$, the Soviet Union decides to send troops on December 24th, 1979 to intervene in the budding civil war. Many have called this “liberation”. Following the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the country is pulverized by becoming a flashpoint of the Cold War.

From 1979 on, there has essentially been endless civil war up until today.

In 1996, the Pakistan-backed Taliban (remember Benazir Bhutto) gains power and uses that power to destroy huge swaths of the country. Many have called this “liberation”. The remaining parts are destroyed by the U$-backed Northern Alliance. Many have called this “liberation”. And, most spectacularly, the full-fledged Amerikkkan imperialist occupation begins in 2001. Indeed, many have called this “liberation”.

At every major point in Afghan history, we’ve heard many say that “this (finally, this!) is the Liberation of Afghanistan.” However, pretty much every time, the deception became apparent almost immediately. To paraphrase Zizek in one of his essays after 9/11, one of the most grotesque and tragic states of existence is that of the family in Afghanistan who, when a plane passes overhead, does not know if it will drop bombs or containers of food and supplies in some faux humanitarian gesture.

The few bright moments in Afghanistan over the past century were always quickly dimmed by bullets and bombs. Afghanistan has been thrown into chaos and tragedy unequivocally due to the Amerikkkan Empire – anyone who doesn’t admit this is either lying or stupid. As Malalai Joya said in her interview above with Democracy Now!: “Imperialism and Fundamentalism have joined hands.”

The Liberation of Afghanistan, if it is ever to be a reality (rather than merely a name without that reality), will never come about as long as Amerikkka is involved. The Liberation of Afghanistan will come from the Afghan people alone, not from imperial machinations designed for the benefit of oil and gas pipelines and regional instability.

Imperialist occupation is never the solution to any problem.

When the incoherent fascist in Washington spews his bile, we should keep in mind that when he says, “The Amerikkkan people are weary of war without victory” – he means that he intends to continue this occupation by any means necessary.

We should fight exclusively for the Liberation of Afghanistan and against Dumbass Trump’s infinite stupidity.

I Wish Trump Was a Russian Puppet

The Huffington Post, known for its great journalism (sarcasm), has been publishing total bullshit lately (not sarcasm) on Russia.

Let’s break this down though, because it’s mostly been just two journalists: Nick Robins-Early and David Wood.

They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, but they’re certainly determined to make sure that everyone hears their ignorant opinions.

Nick Robins-Early wrote this piece, where he said that the photo is banned, which isn’t true, but rather the photo with the homophobic comment is banned. In this situation, I actually support the Russian government.

I’d like the Russian government to do more to ban homophobic language on the internet. I don’t think it does enough.

Then there’s this:

Which asks the important (sarcasm) question, why does Russia support the government of Syria? It fails to ask the important question, why doesn’t everybody? Why the fuck is Trump bombing Shayrat Airbase and groups fighting alongside the Syrian government?

 

Robins-Early also wrote this.

Which is all about poor Navalny (sarcasm) who was sentenced to jail for his bullshit. Navalny is considered to be an oppositionist in Russia, so he receives infinite support from the West. The thing that no one tells you is that Putin is to the left of Navalny, who was fond of describing Georgians as sub-human during the Russian-Georgian War in 2008.

And the Huffington Post saw fit to publish this little number by David Wood that argues that Russia is trying to start a war with the U.S. (and not the other way around)! What reality are these people living in where Russia is the aggressor when the U.S. is bombing an airbase that Russia uses? Can we imagine if the opposite had occurred?

Finally, after Tillerson’s meeting with Lavrov, Putin said that the relationship with the U.S. has deteriorated – is this not significant?

And the Huffington Post was there to report it (or at least steal it from Reuters).

This is insanity.

Meanwhile, this is the same outlet that was practically screaming that Trump was a Russian agent, personally placed (or blackmailed) into the position of president by Putin himself.

The current spat between the U$ media apparatus and the new regime demonstrates the silver lining in the ascendancy of Trump. The rupture between prototypical American institutions opens a space for exploitation. In other words, because Donald Trump is a huge idiot, he won’t be able to totally consolidate his power if he continues to attack corporate media. This means that here, for the first time, we may see the U$ population begin to genuinely question the functioning of the Amerikkkan state.

If this dumbass can be president, then clearly there’s a problem!

This is exactly what I wrote about on the day after Trump was announced the winner of the election. This is the silver lining. This is the benefit of Trump. If we use this as an opportunity to radicalize liberals and to use theory as a weapon, we can utterly transform the empire.

Trump’s open mocking of the apparently “timeless” values and mainstays of the U$ government have created a space in which everything is up for grabs. NATO, the border, and even liberal democracy itself are all under scrutiny by everyone on the political spectrum (finally) and if we take control of the narrative, we can present reality as it is.

Why do we have NATO? Why do we need a border? What is liberal democracy, anyway?

In other ways, it seems to me like Trump might be able to successfully delegitimize the whole system. My job is much easier in arguing that the state is racist, imperialist, and patriarchal with that 70-year-old walking lobotomy in charge of things. Capitalism in its most exploitative and destructive form is running around, unmasked.

Politicians are the best at making me want to punch old people.

If Trump refuses to go along with the general program, there’s also a chance that the media won’t immediately fall into line on all future policies.

In 2002, when Bush wanted to hype up for the invasion of Iraq, every media outlet in the U$ was unbelievably fast at falling in line. The same thing happened with Obama in Libya and Syria after that. When media conglomerates and the government play footsie, there’s no method to challenging the dominant narrative.

Back to Trump.

If Trump was a Russian puppet, we could at least guarantee a few things: there would be a de-escalation of war between the U$ and Russia, which would ease tensions between the U$ and Syria, the U$ and North Korea, the U$ and China…

Listen, I absolutely hate Vladimir Vladimirovich. He’s a terrible reactionary capitalist, but he’s certainly not pulling the strings.

If Trump was a Russian puppet, things would undoubtedly be better. This is particularly obvious when you consider the fact that Putin isn’t a total fucking moron.

Donald Trump can't read this, yet he's afraid of it

“Donald Trump can’t read this, but he’s still scared of it.”

 

Caveat: Any liberal criticism of Trump will dissipate in the event of a terrorist attack. Well, any terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims. If any terrorist attack by white people occurs, it’ll barely get coverage.

But if any Muslim even hurts a white person (the media doesn’t care about Chican@s and Black people), then the media, along with the other liberals, will immediately goose-step back into line and President Literal-Cartoon-Villain will have all the power in the world.

Dismantling the Alt-Right Mythology

There seems to be a new trend in the media: attempts to explain alt-right fascism. It seems like the logic goes like this: if you present the generalized arguments of the alt-right, the leaders of the alt-right fascists, and a scattering of random facts about this “movement”, then consumers of that media will be able to reach their own conclusions.

I violently disagree.

The constant explication of the alt-right fascist ideology does nothing but normalize (and therefore promote) its presence in dominant political conversation. The mythology of the alt-right doesn’t need to be explained, it needs to be destroyed.

Here, the intention must be to expose this incipit, racist poison at its roots and extirpate this cancer infecting the body politic. One way or another, the alt-right movement must be dismantled.

antifa-4eva

Society must be defended.

One point about alt-right fascists – they claim a diverse set of ideological principles (despite apparently loathing diversity) – from white separatism, white nationalism, identitarianism, traditionalism, men’s rights activism, paleo-conservatism, and neo-monarchism (or all of these). They’ll claim different philosophical prophets from Alexandr Dugin to Oswald Spengler (or both).

This pathetic attempt to emphasize the differences within the alt-right hides the truth: they’re all touting classical racism, misogyny, and fascism.

If we can be sincere, most of them are really looking to start a White Christian ISIS in North Carolina.

While they pretend to have some new ideological shift, they’re repackaging the same old garbage from the Neo-Nazis and Right-wing Skinheads. They simply puff themselves up to be the harbingers of our future society (usually resembling Apartheid South Africa or, if they’re more honest, Nazi Germany).

Let’s analyze/deconstruct this idiotic repackaging:

  1. “White people are under attack.”

Nothing is more infuriating than this victim-complex among the alt-right fascists.

At the same time that they attempt to portray themselves as strong, they endlessly whine about how endangered white people are. White people are the majority of the population of a continent that only 500 years ago had a population of 0 white people.

The complexion of yogurt-soup is universally loved by the alt-right.

These horribly stupid racists occasionally go as far as to proclaim the existence of a “white genocide”.

That means a genocide against white people. In the United States. Right now. 

They’re really good at throwing that word around actually – genocide – simultaneously fabricating some sort of conspiracy against white people and, at the same time, trivializing true genocides.

There is no white genocide. Most cops are white. Pretty much everyone in the government is white (and about to be even whiter). In fact, aside from population sizes, it isn’t much different than Apartheid South Africa as it is.

The white ethno-state already exists. It’s called the US government.never-forget

For these fascists who like the “g” word, one thing is notable. It seems that there’s no time for the discussion of the genocide of indigenous peoples of the Americas or the genocide of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Or the Holocaust for that matter.

What does genocide mean to these people? Apparently not much.

2. “Americans are under attack.”

First of all, immigration is not out of control. The government knows how many people are coming in, where they’re coming in, who’s coming in, etc…

Second of all, when fascists think imagine “Americans”, they’re not thinking about the 350 million citizens of the US. And they’re certainly not thinking about the millions of people who live across the American continents.

They’re thinking about white people. And when they talk about immigration, the alt-right fascists don’t mean that immigration from Europe is out of control – they are talking about Spanish-speakers from Latin America, naturally.

Who are they thinking of?

Probably people whose skin tone isn’t comparable to milk-vomit.

If they start talking about undocumented immigration, they’ll be ready to throw out all sorts of bullshit numbers, rather than facts. Spend any time on the alt-right fascist sites and you’ll quickly discover that the concept of “truth” or “fact” becomes murky.

Just like their fascist god-emperor, who swerves between fiction and more racist fiction, the alt-right fascists can’t seem to keep track of basic human traits like logic and consistency.

These weak, racial chauvinists attack black people, Chican@s, and Arabs all around the country, while those in power often stand by silently. People of African descent were brought to America against their will and Chican@s are the descendants of indigenous people and white European imperialists.

The racists ignore every chapter of history in order to construct their mythology.

This is the fascist imagination. The fasci-nation.

Needless to say, every single one of these stupid white supremacists in the US is the direct product of immigration. Less than five generations ago, none of their ancestors were American. Not one.

So let me put this in another way:

Americans once were under attack – by white people.

(and they still are).

homelandsecurity

3. “Men are under attack.”

Sad, fragile masculinity is no longer celebrated in all corners of society and, therefore, these men feel threatened, despite the fact that “men” make up about half the population.

What’s next? Male Genocide?

This is probably the most imbecilic component of modern fascism. The defense of “men” is a screen behind which Men’s Rights Activists aim for the reinstitution of the patriarchal family of the 1950s along with the ability to harass and assault women with impunity.

Men’s Rights Activists long for the days when women’s rights weren’t recognized, when men could rape without even facing any fall-out (which often still happens), and when a “man” was the “head of the household”.

Unsurprisingly, these are typically the same men who glamorize the fedora and idolize Humphrey Bogart or Marlon Brando.

opinion-griff-cornwall-mens-rights

“Our heteronormative masculinity is incredibly fragile!”

There’s a reason they love actors, in particular. Men’s rights fascists live in a delusional reality, where everyone is playing a role. (Note the fedora in the picture above.)

Devoid of information, basic history, and a functioning frontal cortex, these Men’s Rights Activists like to attack women in any situation that arises.

They especially hate feminists, because feminists expose how 10,000 years of patriarchy has functioned and placed men in an undeserved position in society.

Feminists fight against the constructed and fake power of those who have disgusting, external genitalia.

4. “Language is under attack.”

One of the most articulated characteristics of alt-right fascism is the communal hatred of “Political Correctness”. In fact, PC culture seems to be hated by everyone from Jerry Seinfeld to Dumbass Trump.

So what the hell is political correctness anyway?

The push for PC-language is nothing more than a negotiation of finding words that encourage inclusivity of different people or, alternatively, discourage exclusionary language. So it’s an effort by people to not use wording that is racist, sexist, etc…

Why do people hate it so much?

Probably because they are racist, sexist, queer/transphobic, islamophobic, anti-semitic, etc…

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about PC culture. Not one of them seemed to be free of these poisonous ideologies.

Political Correctness might be the bane of white liberals and conservatives alike, but no one hates it as much as the alt-right fascists. To them, it is the great tragedy of “Western culture” that anyone would attempt to use English in any way that isn’t obnoxiously sexist and racist.

All the alt-right fascists turn into hysterical blobs of goo whenever someone says “people of color” or spells woman with a “y”.

The great irony of the fight against political correctness is that those who try to fight it end up engaging in the negotiations. They either follow PC culture to some extent (I’ve yet to see a video of Trump calling a black man what he really wants to) or establishing their own counter-attacks (Alt-Right Fascists attacking people for using PC language).

In the end, it’s pretty obvious who’s on the losing side of the PC culture wars.

(Hint: it’s them.)

———————-

rm_19_406

“Fascism is the Enemy of Women.”

Our struggle today needs to be united, strong, and clear. Neither white people nor Americans are under attack. Neither men nor language are under attack.

We’re under attack. And it’s alt-right fascism that is attacking us.

This is an ideology that exists and is spreading. In some ways, it’s obvious that the alt-right fascists will lose significant ground in the long run. However, in the short-term, they pose a huge existential threat to people of color, women, Muslims, and all of us on the Left.

We must fight them on the internet, on the streets, and in the government. We must allow nothing of their reactionary, right-wing drivel to be normalized or acceptable.

They are fascists, nothing less.

And it is our job to teach them that fascism is a losing ideology. Just as the fascists lost in World War II, these alt-right fascists shall also be defeated!