rigorousintuition.ca

Elvis wrote...

Yes Mac, I'm afraid it's really bad. I know Seattle, too, it might be especially bad here in terms of "progressives" swallowing the anti-Russia hysteria to the point where they now believe that the Russians stole our election. They read the big papers (ST/NYT) and hip magazines like the Atlantic and watch Rachel Maddow and you can't tell them anything. I'd say a good number of them (majority?) preferred Clinton over Sanders for all the 'practical reasons. Many would probably be in favor of almost any alternative to Trump.

Mac wrote....

I was hoping most of the derangement was confined to the corporate-media class, and that it would subside once the hacks realised their jobs were not at risk. And I was hoping most educated Americans with an internet connection would be able to see through the current derangement and resist it.

I concur with Elvis and Willow, although my old friends will change their tune and/or be quite careful if we 'get into it'.

The irony is that, in this moment in time, the most educated Americans are also the most brainwashed people.

8bit wrote....

That said, what Russia did in Syria I find horrendous.

Syria asked for Russia's help to keep from being turned into another warlord state like Libya. The aggressors are 'horrendous', not the defenders.

A war with China seems unlikely. The Philippines and Vietnam are trying to reconcile with China, I assume because those folk are experienced readers of tea leafs.

The Philippines are certainly pivoting towards China but I am not so sure about Vietnam, although eventually they will have to accede to China as does most of the region. The cancelling of the TPP is nothing but a boon for China, I'd say...Who knows what might happen with Duterte though...

....isn't a basic principle of US policy that you either fall out with Russia OR China but never both at the same time...clearly Trump has decided on China primarily on economic / trade issues ( Russia's GDP is smaller than Italy ) whilst the Washington monster wants the exact reverse.....he seems to be basically an America First isolationist that may want to build some hotels in foreign countries but has little personal interest or involvement beyond that ...

He also skipped the Davos conference - where Xi showed some admirable brass neck by bigging up China's support for the environment, intellectual property rights & against "protectionism"...

amusing to read that supposedly Trump nixed neo-con John Bolton because he didn't like his moustache

The short answer to your question is yes.

I'm currently working on a blog entry that factors in more of the complexities of our current political situation and what I think that portends for the future. Here is some pertinent food for thought:

It's important to point out, especially because they are so powerful, that the CIA is not a monolith, the FBI is not a monolith, NATO is not a monolith and our military is not a monolith. By extension, I think it's safe to say the Deep State is not a monolith either; there are factions competing for direction in all of these powerful groups.

Anyway, I'll have more to say later, but I think you're raising some good questions with fertile terrain for exploration.

.

The idea that there is a white hat/black hat split in the institutions of national security, deep state and MIC, with support for Trump among the white hats (or at any rate anti-neocon/anti-neolib anti-imperialists, whatever) is absurd.

It evaporates instantaneously through a look at a) everything programmatic Trump said prior to the election (safely ignoring a few odd free association tweets and rally and debate statements) and b) the appointments to the new administration of men so intensely neocon they were outsiders even to the Bush regime.

It requires total denial of the obvious and overtly stated reality:

CUT THE HEAD OFF ISIS AND TAKE THEIR OIL.

THE MISTAKE IN IRAQ WAS NOT TO KEEP CONTROL OF THE OIL.

WE NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION.

REGISTER THE MUSLIMS, BAN THEIR ENTRY. BUILD A WALL. MAKE MEXICO PAY.

Pence, Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly, Pompeo, Flynn and Coats.

Hellooo?

The only Congressional vote on foreign policy I am aware of during the last two months was to condemn the United Nations for its Palestine/Israel resolution. The new ambassador to Israel may as well be Avigdor Lieberman. Jerusalem will be recognized as the capital of Israel for the first time.

Erik Prince is advising on the new admin, hello!!! His sister is in the cabinet! Yoo hoo!!! Dreamers!

Now that they are in, the extreme right-wing Congress and executive will raise the military budget massively as promised. The institutions will mostly line up at the trough and find their accommodations with the new regime, as they always do. The regime will continue and intensify the perpetuation of permanent crisis, permanent fear-mongering, and permanent war. The only disagreement so far has been on who should top the enemies list, and that is likely to melt away. Of course anti-Trump propaganda will continue to leak here and there, since the executive if not the legislature is extremely unstable given that it's being run by an insane professional wrestling performer who can't keep his thumbs off his Samsung.

Every single one of the appointments has an anti-Russia pedigree and made sure to emphasize the Russian threat in their confirmation hearings. There will likely be a deescalation with Russia (good), at least assuming Trump himself lasts. Either way, things will be kept at an imperialist boil as always. New wars are very likely to be produced. Watch out for sudden fake super-crisis productions. The only good possibilities inherent in the new government are in its non-zero chances of instability, overreach and premature fall. Nothing good is coming of these bastards, that is plain.

.

From what I've heard, upper-level military types were preparing for either outcome, a Clinton or Trump win, but that they were apprehensive of a Trump victory. Simply put, Trump is a destabilizing force within the scope of their profession. Trump has threatened to upend the apple cart, and complicate things with longtime allies while smoothing over things with long-standing adversaries.

But these military types are not like the Democrats who want to stomp their feet and protest a Trump victory. No, they have plans to work with it and steer it where they can. I'm not talking about top brass and civilian advisers, as those people often have very different views on what we should do in any situation. I'm talking about the middle-level guys who have made a career spanning several administrations.

Don't expect a military take-over of Trump, but also don't expect that they are gung-ho about going easy on Russia and going after China (or whatever Trump dreams up). I think these military types want to avoid any large-scale conflict like a Chinese-American war or a Russo-American war. That doesn't do anyone any good. They want to continue prosecuting the War on Terror, honestly not because they love bloodshed, but because they believe in the mission and they feel equipped to do the job.

It may be old-fashioned nationalism, but the people I know genuinely care about American lives, even if it's at the cost of a few dead foreigners who, regrettably, get in the way.

Novem5er wrote:From what I've heard, upper-level military types were preparing for either outcome, a Clinton or Trump win, but that they were apprehensive of a Trump victory. Simply put, Trump is a destabilizing force within the scope of their profession. Trump has threatened to upend the apple cart, and complicate things with longtime allies while smoothing over things with long-standing adversaries.

I'd bet that JCS, or someone in the Pentagon, has plenty of spies, and probably electronic monitoring, in place within the incoming administration. I'd further guess that most of the appointees drawn from the military are going to ultimately be loyalty to the military, not Trump. (Not sure about Flynn, he's kind of a wild card but probably part of a like-minded 'set' or 'clique' of loyalty within the military.) I think the Pentagon big cheese learned a lesson awhile back about maverick presidents.

I'm thinking back to Nixon, whose secret diplomacy drove the Joint Chiefs nuts—"what's this guy doing??!"—so they got the Navy kid placed in Kissinger's NSC staff to Xerox everything and bring it to the generals so they could know WTF was going on. And I'm thinking, maybe that wasn't such a bad idea.

Novem5er » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:07 pm wrote:From what I've heard, upper-level military types were preparing for either outcome, a Clinton or Trump win, but that they were apprehensive of a Trump victory. Simply put, Trump is a destabilizing force within the scope of their profession. Trump has threatened to upend the apple cart, and complicate things with longtime allies while smoothing over things with long-standing adversaries.

But these military types are not like the Democrats who want to stomp their feet and protest a Trump victory. No, they have plans to work with it and steer it where they can. I'm not talking about top brass and civilian advisers, as those people often have very different views on what we should do in any situation. I'm talking about the middle-level guys who have made a career spanning several administrations.

Don't expect a military take-over of Trump, but also don't expect that they are gung-ho about going easy on Russia and going after China (or whatever Trump dreams up). I think these military types want to avoid any large-scale conflict like a Chinese-American war or a Russo-American war. That doesn't do anyone any good. They want to continue prosecuting the War on Terror, honestly not because they love bloodshed, but because they believe in the mission and they feel equipped to do the job.

It may be old-fashioned nationalism, but the people I know genuinely care about American lives, even if it's at the cost of a few dead foreigners who, regrettably, get in the way.

I know a fair amount of military folks at varying levels. The first commander of CINC/NORAD was my mom's babysitter. I once received a Christmas present from Norman Schwarzkopf. The olde man has letters from multiple Presidents on the wall.

What I am getting is that JSOC was very afraid of HRC's Russia baiting. China has the temperament not to take a challenge personally. They understand psychodrama. Putin does not.

The Clinton position was extremely dangerous and it STILL astonishes me that this is somehow not blatantly fucking obvious to her apologists here. Of all places.

Sounder » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:49 am wrote:

The irony is that, in this moment in time, the most educated Americans are also the most brainwashed people.

It was ever thus, and of course not just in the case of Americans. Money talks, and it says; "Be careful what you say." Social status says the same thing, even if it is just the status of a woke hipster amongst woke hipsters. ("Conspiracy theory" is not cool, unless it's a "conspiracy theory" gone mainstream, such as "Putin hacked our election".) I have found much more openness to 9/11 scepticism, for example, and much more rational and well-informed statements about it, from taxi drivers, Turkish shopkeepers, unemployed people, and working-class men and women of all kinds, including a plumber who saw a book by Mathias Broeckers on the shelf in my bathroom and couldn't shut up about what a scam 9/11 had been. None of those people are ever gonna be on TV or in senior management or applying for a job in academia or a stipend or a grant. So they can think and say what they want.

Students, too, are open, but usually only until they stop being students. And the old are open again, especially if they retired financially safe. The decades in between are the decades of prudent silence.

I experience this as well with predictable demographics. The educated Dems are remarkably compromised in their critical thinking skills. There's a huge obstacle in the dissonance of liberals. The libertarians at least seem more realistic in the expectations than the doomsayer Democrats who seem obsessed that HRC was going to save everyone from positions she held two decades ago.

So they don't want a war with Russia? Are they actually going to disassociate with NATO, start removing bases from Japan and elsewhere? Stop finding reasons to bomb the fuck out of the ME, sell billions in arms to whatever dictatorship wants them, convert the Vet Affaris into something that actually helps the vets with PTSD, homelessness etc?
So now it's thank god the military saved us from the CIA?

I am not trying to be adversarial or apologize for HRC. I am truly interested in how people think this is really going to shake out...especially if you think there will actually be material improvement for the life of regular Americans...

JackRiddler » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:34 pm wrote:.

The idea that there is a white hat/black hat split in the institutions of national security, deep state and MIC, with support for Trump among the white hats (or at any rate anti-neocon/anti-neolib anti-imperialists, whatever) is absurd.

Just want to be clear, that's not what I was trying to suggest when I wrote about factions. Factions do exist, but they don't always break down along such binary lines. Where I see a relevant division pertains to how our phony election was manipulated to shift foreign policy focus from Russia, which I agree will most likely see a needed deescalation, to China. But they're all black hats in my book.

Well, the social policies and spending being rolled out suggest a coup by the Heritage Foundation. The fucking Heritage Foundation folks...

stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:44 am wrote:

JackRiddler » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:34 pm wrote:.

The idea that there is a white hat/black hat split in the institutions of national security, deep state and MIC, with support for Trump among the white hats (or at any rate anti-neocon/anti-neolib anti-imperialists, whatever) is absurd.

Just want to be clear, that's not what I was trying to suggest when I wrote about factions. Factions do exist, but they don't always break down along such binary lines. Where I see a relevant division pertains to how our phony election was manipulated to shift foreign policy focus from Russia, which I agree will most likely see a needed deescalation, to China. But they're all black hats in my book.

I wouldn't think that's what you thought. I was commenting on the tenor of the discussion generally, and on the Washington's blog post.

.

OP ED » Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:33 am wrote:

Novem5er » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:07 pm wrote:From what I've heard, upper-level military types were preparing for either outcome, a Clinton or Trump win, but that they were apprehensive of a Trump victory. Simply put, Trump is a destabilizing force within the scope of their profession. Trump has threatened to upend the apple cart, and complicate things with longtime allies while smoothing over things with long-standing adversaries.

But these military types are not like the Democrats who want to stomp their feet and protest a Trump victory. No, they have plans to work with it and steer it where they can. I'm not talking about top brass and civilian advisers, as those people often have very different views on what we should do in any situation. I'm talking about the middle-level guys who have made a career spanning several administrations.

Don't expect a military take-over of Trump, but also don't expect that they are gung-ho about going easy on Russia and going after China (or whatever Trump dreams up). I think these military types want to avoid any large-scale conflict like a Chinese-American war or a Russo-American war. That doesn't do anyone any good. They want to continue prosecuting the War on Terror, honestly not because they love bloodshed, but because they believe in the mission and they feel equipped to do the job.

It may be old-fashioned nationalism, but the people I know genuinely care about American lives, even if it's at the cost of a few dead foreigners who, regrettably, get in the way.

I know a fair amount of military folks at varying levels. The first commander of CINC/NORAD was my mom's babysitter. I once received a Christmas present from Norman Schwarzkopf. The olde man has letters from multiple Presidents on the wall.

What I am getting is that JSOC was very afraid of HRC's Russia baiting. China has the temperament not to take a challenge personally. They understand psychodrama. Putin does not.

The Clinton position was extremely dangerous and it STILL astonishes me that this is somehow not blatantly fucking obvious to her apologists here. Of all places.

This is what I mean when I said that different military organizations and ranks have differing views on a variety of subjects (I think I said that). I brought up the Clinton/Russia thing many times to some people and it was kind of hand-waived away, whereas the reality of Donald Trump disrupting NATO was a serious concern. Like I also said, these people had a plan to deal with either victory, and like Elvis said above, they are going to make sure they stay informed and try to maneuver the national conversation in a direction they favor. The military does not like rogue presidents, and as scary as Hillary was, I don't think most of them considered her a rogue.