Trump's main defences to the charges he faces, both before and after the start of the Impeachment trial, have so far consisted of the following...
1. There was no "quid pro quo".
2. This is a frame-up by the Democrats - a witch hunt. There is no truth to this whatsoever.
3. Trump intended to withhold the cash as he was concerned about corruption, and not as a "quid pro quo".
4. If there was a "quid pro quo", then what he did was not a crime, and because persons can only be impeached for committing crimes, Trump cannot be impeached.
And the latest which appears to have surfaced today from one Republican Senator...
5. OK, there was a "quid pro quo", but we should let the American people decide Trump's fate in the next election rather than impeach him.
Of course, if the "let's let the American people decide in the next election" defence wins the day, then there is no reason to have an impeachment provision in the US Constitution, as there will always be another election.
Trump's defence lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, introduced a sixth defence this week.
He advised the United States Senate that the American President was within his rights to try to coerce Ukraine to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden, in order to gain a political advantage that could see him re-elected, if Trump truly thought his re-election would benefit the American people. This is a "mens rea" type of defence - as long as the intent was to get re-elected in the belief that doing so would benefit Americans, anything goes.
On the issue of what would warrant impeachment, Dershowitz though that only if he committed an outright crime, like taking kickbacks from the building of a hotel, could Trump be impeached.
Given that every leader everywhere would assert that their leadership is for the benefit of the people, the Dershowitz Doctrine would leave the President of the United States largely beyond what we know as modern political ethics.
Let's look at recent attempts at impeachment.
Would Nixon have been impeachable if he could argue that Watergate was OK because he was trying to get re-elected and that his re-election would benefit the American people? It is at least debatable. The break-in was a crime, but no one has ever proven he knew about it.
Clinton would have a hard time arguing against his impeachment by outlining how lying about getting fellacio from his staff in the White House was in aid of getting re-elected for the benefit of the American people. However, if he did actually try to explain it, no doubt millions of people would still believe the silver-tongued devil!
The Dershowitz Doctrine (DD) would really make its mark on those things for which the President has discretion.
Certainly, using the portion of the country's treasury that Congress has allowed the President to spend in his own discretion, in order to pay people who will help him get elected, and to punish those who will not is perfectly fine via the Dershowitz Doctrine.
One is reminded here of Robert Mugabe who starved sections of the country that did not vote for his party by withholding food aid - that could be 100% OK under the DD, if he had simply said this was about getting re-elected for the benefit of the people.
As well, hiring only those who would vote for and support a president, and firing anyone in government employment who did not would also be OK.
Could Trump arrest political opponents as long as he said it was in aid of his re-election which he truly believed as for the benefit of the American people? Well, he is the chief law enforcement officer in the country, now isn't he, and enforcement is a discretionary activity.
The list goes on...
The Dershowitz Doctrine has not been accepted, but if it were, it would represent a revolution in American public life.
Unlike what some have written, I do not think that the DD would put the president above the law and effectively make Trump into a monarch. Dershowitz seemed pretty clear that presidents cannot actually break the law, and monarchs are - by definition - above the law, so the DD would not go that far. But in the murky world of "ethics", just about anything would be OK as long as Trump could say that he thought that his re-election was to the benefit of Americans.
Hmmm...do you think Donald Trump would say that his presidency has benefitted America, and that America needs four more years of him???
It is a distinct possibility.
Friday, 31 January 2020
Monday, 27 January 2020
Bolton Bolts! Giuliani Jolts!
OMG! He wrote a book!
Bolton seems determined to tell what he knows about Ukraine-Gate.
So far, press reports regarding his new book indicate that he has personal knowledge that Trump ordered cash for the defence of Ukraine withheld until an investigation by Ukraine of the Biden's was announced.
Crime or not, this essentially destroys Trump's defence, which is that his phone call to Zelensky was "perfect" and he did nothing wrong.
About 20 other people have confirming the story of "no investigation, no cash" via their sworn testimony, but Bolton is different. He is a conservatives' Conservative. What he has to say matters, which is why Republicans do NOT want him to testify.
Bolton clearly puts something above his loyalty to Trump. That "something" may be respect for tradition, the law, and his love of country - things that used to animate every true conservative.
His book may be available to be read into the record in the Senate. If this is the case, the Republicans may have to call contrary evidence to rebut Bolton, perhaps in the form of testimony from Giuliani.
This Giuliani...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-and-friends-desperately-tries-to-end-rudy-giuliani-interview-repeatedly-fails
I think it is now clear that Trump used his office to try to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival. Given this essentially reality, Trump would have to show that asking for that investigation was legitimate - that the Bidens are corrupt and took massive bribes in Ukraine.
But no one in the US security or criminal investigation establishment is claiming this. Here is what the New York Times says Biden did in Ukraine...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html
Trump will not go down without a fight so get ready for the Rudy Giuliani Show!!!
Giuliani now claims that Biden took $8 Million in bribes in Ukraine. If he can't prove it - and he likely has to prove it in the US Senate - Trump could now be in very big trouble.
Wow....
Bolton seems determined to tell what he knows about Ukraine-Gate.
So far, press reports regarding his new book indicate that he has personal knowledge that Trump ordered cash for the defence of Ukraine withheld until an investigation by Ukraine of the Biden's was announced.
Crime or not, this essentially destroys Trump's defence, which is that his phone call to Zelensky was "perfect" and he did nothing wrong.
About 20 other people have confirming the story of "no investigation, no cash" via their sworn testimony, but Bolton is different. He is a conservatives' Conservative. What he has to say matters, which is why Republicans do NOT want him to testify.
Bolton clearly puts something above his loyalty to Trump. That "something" may be respect for tradition, the law, and his love of country - things that used to animate every true conservative.
His book may be available to be read into the record in the Senate. If this is the case, the Republicans may have to call contrary evidence to rebut Bolton, perhaps in the form of testimony from Giuliani.
This Giuliani...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-and-friends-desperately-tries-to-end-rudy-giuliani-interview-repeatedly-fails
I think it is now clear that Trump used his office to try to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival. Given this essentially reality, Trump would have to show that asking for that investigation was legitimate - that the Bidens are corrupt and took massive bribes in Ukraine.
But no one in the US security or criminal investigation establishment is claiming this. Here is what the New York Times says Biden did in Ukraine...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html
Trump will not go down without a fight so get ready for the Rudy Giuliani Show!!!
Giuliani now claims that Biden took $8 Million in bribes in Ukraine. If he can't prove it - and he likely has to prove it in the US Senate - Trump could now be in very big trouble.
Wow....
Sunday, 26 January 2020
The Problem With A Faux Trial
Here is a brilliant editorial in the Washington Post on the probable outcome and fall-out from the Impeachment "trial".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-impeachment-evidence-will-catch-up-to-republicans-and-trump--whether-they-ignore-it-or-not/2020/01/24/c06e9246-3ec3-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
The essential problem for the Republicans is the simple fact that the guy is guilty, and they know it.
Clinton was charged with lying under oath and obstruction of justice related to trying to hide the fact that he had sex with a subordinate. What Trump has obviously done makes Clinton's crimes look petty in comparison.
Trump should be removed from office.
For the record, I am not rabidly anti-Trump - I thought Clinton should have been removed from office as well. As guardians of the law, lawyers can't ever lie under oath, and if they are caught doing so, the maximum penalty should be rendered against them. (NB - Clinton was disbarred, and prevented from ever again practising law in Arkansas after the impeachment trial, based on the fact that he lied under oath.)
Presidents like Trump, and Clinton before him, are why the Impeachment Clause exists in the United States Constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-impeachment-evidence-will-catch-up-to-republicans-and-trump--whether-they-ignore-it-or-not/2020/01/24/c06e9246-3ec3-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html
The essential problem for the Republicans is the simple fact that the guy is guilty, and they know it.
Clinton was charged with lying under oath and obstruction of justice related to trying to hide the fact that he had sex with a subordinate. What Trump has obviously done makes Clinton's crimes look petty in comparison.
Trump should be removed from office.
For the record, I am not rabidly anti-Trump - I thought Clinton should have been removed from office as well. As guardians of the law, lawyers can't ever lie under oath, and if they are caught doing so, the maximum penalty should be rendered against them. (NB - Clinton was disbarred, and prevented from ever again practising law in Arkansas after the impeachment trial, based on the fact that he lied under oath.)
Presidents like Trump, and Clinton before him, are why the Impeachment Clause exists in the United States Constitution.
Friday, 24 January 2020
Et Tu Fox??
This, on FOX!
https://www.businessinsider.
The only way that any commentator on Fox would be allowed to express a contrary opinion to Trump's standard impeachment line of "this is not a crime"m and he new one "Trump held back the cash because he thought Ukraine was corrupt", is if the people who run Fox are having second thoughts about the man.
And - Shiff's masterful summation of the case against Trump is going viral - he is beating Trump in the world of Social Media, which is a very bad omen for the man.
Trump will still win the Impeachment Trial. But, as noted here previously, he may come out the other side of this so damaged that he cannot win the presidency again - this will separate him from the rest of the corrupt pack of politicians in the USA in the eyes of Americans. and effectively destroy his career.
Fox and Shiff both played a role in bringing this about in the last 24 hours.
https://www.businessinsider.
The only way that any commentator on Fox would be allowed to express a contrary opinion to Trump's standard impeachment line of "this is not a crime"m and he new one "Trump held back the cash because he thought Ukraine was corrupt", is if the people who run Fox are having second thoughts about the man.
And - Shiff's masterful summation of the case against Trump is going viral - he is beating Trump in the world of Social Media, which is a very bad omen for the man.
Trump will still win the Impeachment Trial. But, as noted here previously, he may come out the other side of this so damaged that he cannot win the presidency again - this will separate him from the rest of the corrupt pack of politicians in the USA in the eyes of Americans. and effectively destroy his career.
Fox and Shiff both played a role in bringing this about in the last 24 hours.
Thursday, 23 January 2020
REPO!!!
Here is the continuing REPO madness explained...
Guys like Harry Dent are always wrong until the aren't, and when they aren't, the world bends and breaks almost exactly as predicted.
Wednesday, 22 January 2020
Definition of Trial and Farce
Simple definition of "Trial"...
"The purpose of a criminal trial is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding a crime. At the trial, evidence is presented to a judge, or sometimes to a jury, to determine if the accused person committed the crime."
Simple definition of "Farce"...
"...a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations."
There is a cave. You are in it and you cannot leave. The Puppet Showmen are busy in the Senate. Look at the shadows on the wall. Call it the truth. KAG!!
"The purpose of a criminal trial is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding a crime. At the trial, evidence is presented to a judge, or sometimes to a jury, to determine if the accused person committed the crime."
Simple definition of "Farce"...
"...a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations."
There is a cave. You are in it and you cannot leave. The Puppet Showmen are busy in the Senate. Look at the shadows on the wall. Call it the truth. KAG!!
Tuesday, 21 January 2020
Trump's Non-Defence Defence
The Trial is ON!
The acquittal is almost guaranteed. Trump's defence is that he cannot be impeached as he has not been found to have broken any laws. WTF?
The standard for impeachment is that the President of the United States is as follows..
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
When the Framers of the United States' Constitution crafted this section, the only precedent they had to look to was British Common Law. According to Common Law "...other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." related to, other than actual crimes, misdeeds in office sufficiently corrupt and disreputable to warrant removal from office. This has been the law in both British Common Law jurisdictions and in the United States literally for centuries.
This impeachment trial may change this, and rewrite this incredibly important section of the United States Constitution. This is because if Trump is acquitted because he did not commit an actual crime, this defence will effectively become the new standard for impeachment. This would be a much higher bar to hit for impeachment than the Framers intended, and this change would move the impeachment section from being extremely difficult to implement to being essentially irrelevant, as securing a criminal conviction through this process may be impossible.
There is one other insidious problem with Trump's defence.
By saying he can only be impeached if a crime has been proven, he is essentially conceding the point about the possible quid pro quo. In other words, if he had a defence to the charge that he tried to use his office to gain an advantage over a political opponent, surely he would reveal that defence now....
...but he didn't reveal that mystery defence for the simple reason that he doesn't have one.
By trying to rewrite constitutional law by way of his defence, and by essentially admitting that he abused his office in offering this non-defence defence, Trump is telling one and all what we already know - the man is unfit for office, and he always has been.
But he cannot do this alone. His Republican allies make his continued dismemberment of America's traditions and legal framework possible every single day.
Every great nation may be fated to die a thousand deaths at the hands of its own citizens long before these nations are ever diminished by outside competitors and enemies.
The USA that emerges from the Trump years will be unrecognizable to those of us who grew up admiring that great nation.
KAG KAG KAG!!
The acquittal is almost guaranteed. Trump's defence is that he cannot be impeached as he has not been found to have broken any laws. WTF?
The standard for impeachment is that the President of the United States is as follows..
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
When the Framers of the United States' Constitution crafted this section, the only precedent they had to look to was British Common Law. According to Common Law "...other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." related to, other than actual crimes, misdeeds in office sufficiently corrupt and disreputable to warrant removal from office. This has been the law in both British Common Law jurisdictions and in the United States literally for centuries.
This impeachment trial may change this, and rewrite this incredibly important section of the United States Constitution. This is because if Trump is acquitted because he did not commit an actual crime, this defence will effectively become the new standard for impeachment. This would be a much higher bar to hit for impeachment than the Framers intended, and this change would move the impeachment section from being extremely difficult to implement to being essentially irrelevant, as securing a criminal conviction through this process may be impossible.
There is one other insidious problem with Trump's defence.
By saying he can only be impeached if a crime has been proven, he is essentially conceding the point about the possible quid pro quo. In other words, if he had a defence to the charge that he tried to use his office to gain an advantage over a political opponent, surely he would reveal that defence now....
...but he didn't reveal that mystery defence for the simple reason that he doesn't have one.
By trying to rewrite constitutional law by way of his defence, and by essentially admitting that he abused his office in offering this non-defence defence, Trump is telling one and all what we already know - the man is unfit for office, and he always has been.
But he cannot do this alone. His Republican allies make his continued dismemberment of America's traditions and legal framework possible every single day.
Every great nation may be fated to die a thousand deaths at the hands of its own citizens long before these nations are ever diminished by outside competitors and enemies.
The USA that emerges from the Trump years will be unrecognizable to those of us who grew up admiring that great nation.
KAG KAG KAG!!
Wednesday, 15 January 2020
Bubble Trouble
Is there a stock market bubble?
I do like the Shiller P/E Ratio. It indicates that the stock market is Super Frothy, and does it in a way that looks at real data, not projections.
https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
Now, look here....
https://www.fxstreet.com/
Harry Dent builds on the Shiller P/E Ratio, adds a few more helpful indicators (Market Cap to GDP, and S&P Price to Sales Valuation), and even tries to show how low this will go when it bursts.
We don't know The When...and I have been waiting three years now!....but the The What is obvious.
These are the Last Days of Disco People!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97RjuC9YeXg
I do like the Shiller P/E Ratio. It indicates that the stock market is Super Frothy, and does it in a way that looks at real data, not projections.
https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
Now, look here....
https://www.fxstreet.com/
Harry Dent builds on the Shiller P/E Ratio, adds a few more helpful indicators (Market Cap to GDP, and S&P Price to Sales Valuation), and even tries to show how low this will go when it bursts.
We don't know The When...and I have been waiting three years now!....but the The What is obvious.
These are the Last Days of Disco People!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97RjuC9YeXg
Monday, 13 January 2020
Trump in 2020? Be Afraid!
Last night, I watched much of Trump's first stump speech of 2020 that was made in Ohio on Jan 9th.
He went on for over an hour. He was vintage Trump, calling the Democrats "horrible people", and introducing his new campaign slogan, "Keep America Great!"
As I have noted before, "Make America Great Again!" was a GREAT campaign slogan...this new one is its natural follow-up. In fact, he will use both.
He was VERY effective touching on the economy, the border wall and immigration, the police and health care, China, his opponents etc, entirely without notes. He played the crowd like an old pro.
Get used to it people, Trump is now an experienced and effective speaker.
The Democrats need to up their game.
He barely won last time; he is a much stronger candidate this time.
He went on for over an hour. He was vintage Trump, calling the Democrats "horrible people", and introducing his new campaign slogan, "Keep America Great!"
As I have noted before, "Make America Great Again!" was a GREAT campaign slogan...this new one is its natural follow-up. In fact, he will use both.
He was VERY effective touching on the economy, the border wall and immigration, the police and health care, China, his opponents etc, entirely without notes. He played the crowd like an old pro.
Get used to it people, Trump is now an experienced and effective speaker.
The Democrats need to up their game.
He barely won last time; he is a much stronger candidate this time.
Sunday, 12 January 2020
Bye Bye Buy Back Binge?
I have been DEAD WRONG about a stock market pull-back for three years now!
The culprit has been share buy-backs - companies going into the stock market to buy back their shares, and by so doing, pump their share prices.
While this has been happening, officers and directors of these same companies have been selling their shares at a rate unknown in the last 20 years. I have noted in this space before that it should be illegal for these people to arrange for their companies to buy back shares while at the same time they are selling the shares that they own!
The response to my rant - which is a widely held view - has been that in buying back shares, companies pump their share prices, and small investors reap a reward.
This is true, to a degree, but these are "real" gains only if those same shareholders know that the buy backs will end, so they know to sell at the height of the artificial stimulus to the share price.
Of course, no small shareholder knows this - but the officers and directors of these companies who arrange for the share buy-backs do have this information. This is why it should be illegal for these people to sell their shares while their companies are engaged in share buy-backs - to keep them from launching buy-backs so that they can reap illicit gains by selling into an artificial price bubble of their own making.
But I digress!
Small investors and institutions have not been the major drivers behind the massive appreciation in share prices in the past few years. Starting with the Trump tax cuts in 2018, companies have bought trillions of dollars worth of their own shares, and this has pumped the market.
Many people wonder when the recent massive appreciation in stock prices will end? The answer is simple...
...when the buy-back frenzy abates, the market will deflate!
Look here...
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/institutions-retail-and-algos-are-now-all-just-buybacks-tumble
This is a kind of crazy conspiracy-like site, but they do very good economic and market analysis.
The key quote...
..."...in the grand scheme of things, and on a rolling 3 month basis, stock buybacks are a far cry from where there were just two years ago, and fading fast to levels not seen since before the Trump tax reform which unleashed a $1.5 trillion buyback bonanza."
I am STILL short...due your own due diligence!
The culprit has been share buy-backs - companies going into the stock market to buy back their shares, and by so doing, pump their share prices.
While this has been happening, officers and directors of these same companies have been selling their shares at a rate unknown in the last 20 years. I have noted in this space before that it should be illegal for these people to arrange for their companies to buy back shares while at the same time they are selling the shares that they own!
The response to my rant - which is a widely held view - has been that in buying back shares, companies pump their share prices, and small investors reap a reward.
This is true, to a degree, but these are "real" gains only if those same shareholders know that the buy backs will end, so they know to sell at the height of the artificial stimulus to the share price.
Of course, no small shareholder knows this - but the officers and directors of these companies who arrange for the share buy-backs do have this information. This is why it should be illegal for these people to sell their shares while their companies are engaged in share buy-backs - to keep them from launching buy-backs so that they can reap illicit gains by selling into an artificial price bubble of their own making.
But I digress!
Small investors and institutions have not been the major drivers behind the massive appreciation in share prices in the past few years. Starting with the Trump tax cuts in 2018, companies have bought trillions of dollars worth of their own shares, and this has pumped the market.
Many people wonder when the recent massive appreciation in stock prices will end? The answer is simple...
...when the buy-back frenzy abates, the market will deflate!
Look here...
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/institutions-retail-and-algos-are-now-all-just-buybacks-tumble
This is a kind of crazy conspiracy-like site, but they do very good economic and market analysis.
The key quote...
..."...in the grand scheme of things, and on a rolling 3 month basis, stock buybacks are a far cry from where there were just two years ago, and fading fast to levels not seen since before the Trump tax reform which unleashed a $1.5 trillion buyback bonanza."
I am STILL short...due your own due diligence!
Saturday, 11 January 2020
Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752
Two groups of people had to make decisions last week, with profound consequences...
Managers of Ukraine International Airlines and its Pilots - "Hmmm...we can see ballistic missiles flying through the air on our television screens in what could become a hot war in a matter of minutes...do we launch an airliner into the same airspace?"
Iranian Anti-Aircraft Missile Battery Crew - "Hmmm...a plane is being tracked leaving Tehran, along a known airliner flight path, and at airliner flight speed...do we activate our AA missile battery and try to shoot down the intruder before it gets out of our airspace?"
The Iranians have said it is "scientifically impossible" for one of their missiles to have shot the airliner down. Do they mean that they think it is scientifically impossible for two separate groups of people to be this colossally stupid at almost the same time?
Sadly, they are wrong...never underestimate stupidity.
Condolences to the victims and families who are suffering the consequences of these epic acts of negligence.
Sunday, 5 January 2020
World War Three!
Game on!
The next big war is on, and we have barely noticed!
There are two sides - The West and its Democratic allies, versus China, Russia and a range of also-rans including Iran and North Korea.
But where, pre tell, are the mass casualties? Why have our young people not yet been conscripted? In a sense, they have been conscripted, but not in the ways we are used to.
Read on...
"War is the continuation of politics by other means..." so said von Clausewitz.
In the present age, war is being waged on the Internet. It is an actual war that meets any definition of "war", not of military aggression, but over public opinion.
This is perhaps a bit cryptic...it requires more background and discussion.
When states fight what we have always thought of as "wars", they do so in order to eliminate a looming competitor; or to gain land and living space; or to avenge a wrong; or to wipe out a religious or ethnic competitor; or to defend what they think is a vital interest.
In fact, war as a policy tool has been illegal since 1928, so all wars these days are "defensive", as the only legal justification for the use of force in international law is defensive. Nonetheless, there are small wars and civil wars underway all over the globe. But I'm noting a different type of war here.
The goal of wars - any war - is almost always to leave your opponent divided and emasculated to the extent that they can no longer pose the threat, or so that they can no longer compete against a country's interests as they did previously.
This is happening right now at the level of public opinion, and it should be apparent that The West and its Democratic allies are losing this war.
What!!?? We are losing a war that is leaving us divided and emasculated? Am I the one who is LOSING IT!? Please read on, and think about Brexit...
The Russians, through the vicious "fake news" propaganda of Cambridge Analytica and other on-line manipulation, won a magnificent victory over Europe on June 23, 2016, when Britain narrowly voted to leave the European Union. This would not have happened but for the vile lies and distortions of the Russians and their traitorous stooges.
This is the first essential point of this wee tome...
As public opinion in democracies is at the essence of how change is made, if a malignant force wants to move a country away from its real interests and toward those of the malignant actor, that actor must change public opinion. Social Media, in that it can reach right into the minds of each and every citizen and form their opinions, has become the REAL battleground, as the results of successful media manipulation can be precisely the same as the results of a successful war of aggression.
The proof?
Three years after the referendum, Britain is now ready to formally leave Europe. In so doing, the British will leave Europe weakened and less able to confront Russia on issue like Ukraine. Brexit may even hearken the end of the United Kingdom itself, as it is very likely that the Scots will seek independence, and Northern Ireland may seek an accord with the republic to the South.
Do you see what I mean?
By manipulating democratic processes within a long-standing democracy through the propagation of mass lies and distortions via Social Media (as well as their official propaganda arms like Russia Today, or RT in the West), the Russians were able to bring about the same results of a major war against their enemies in Europe - the weakening of their primary challenger on the continent, and they may even have brought about the dismemberment of their longest-standing opponent in Europe as well!
Hmmm...why employ armies when the Internet can get you the same results?
Not convinced? Please think about what is going on in the USA.
There is a divide in that country that now rivals the divide that was apparent there prior to the Civil War - Red State versus Blue State; Democrat versus Republican; CNN versus Fox; Right versus Left, and unlike anything since prior to World War Two, Capitalists versus Socialist.
There is some focus on the need to confront "fake news" both on the Left and Right, with both sides hurling accusations at the other regarding their opponents questionable veracity.
But the focus is on tools and methods, not on purpose; commentators who speak out against "fake news" note the what is happening, but not the why.
As with Brexit, we can find the long malignant hand of Russia at work here - for them, the Cold War never ended, it has just moved to computer screens.
It is well known that the Russians supported the election of Donald Trump in 2016. What is less known is that they also supported the evolution of the Black Lives Matter movement.
I have news for you - the Russians don't give a hoot for either Trump or for Black people in the USA. By supporting the former, they divide the USA from the Right, and by supporting the latter, they divide the USA from the Left.
The intense political division that we see in the USA at present is not organic - this did not evolve naturally. It has been successfully encouraged and driven on purpose by America's historic enemy.
The point of Russian efforts is not to spread "fake news" per se - that is the tool or method being used. The purpose behind mobilizing this tool in the United States is to weaken, if not outright dismember the Great Republic as assuredly as if the USA had lost a war. In other words, they are seeking to do to the USA what the Russians have successfully brought about in Europe, and maybe even Britain itself, via Brexit.
What about China?
The Chinese are fighting mostly a defensive public opinion battle, designed to protect the position of the Chinese Communist Party. One primary way they do this is through threats to Western media about lost access to the mainland if they do not do what the Communists want.
For example, try finding an article about Falun Gong in Western media - they are there, but they are rare. This religion constituted the greatest threat to the Chinese Communist Party since the revolution up to the end of the 1990s. It was put down in the most horrific suppression of a religion on planet earth since the Holocaust.
This has barely been reported on, because Western media need access to China to make money - so they do what they are told. Falun Gong has hit back with its own media source - The Epoch Times, which is now the largest weekly periodical on the planet.
To the extent that China is taking to the offensive, it is doing this through cultural means designed to slowly undermine the faith that Westerns, and especially Americans have in their institutions. One primary way has been by partnering with Hollywood in the co-production of movies. The Chinese often insist on plot lines that put the Good Ole USA in a bad light, and China in a good one. They understand the power of the movies, and as with Russian manipulation of Social Media, they are seeking to get their message right into the minds of citizens of their adversary in order to undermine and weaken them.
Beyond the Russians and Chinese, others such as Iran and even North Korea are engaged in "war by airwaves". There's is more direct, targeting base infrastructure in the West in something like a normal military campaign designed to reduce their enemies ability to fight. This is not like the battle for public opinion that is underway on a broader scale, however.
Regarding the battle for public opinion, and as with all wars, we have a cavalcade of traitors and turncoats who are more than willing to sell the country out for mammon. Let me outline who these people are by way of example.
When a person knows that they are spreading Russian propaganda designed to weaken the West or even dismember their own country, they are objectively a traitor, and to the extent that they do cooperate with Putin, they may actually be guilty of treason. Now consider the US Congress...
Recently, as part of the impeachment hearings, Republican representatives parroted the Russian propaganda line that Ukraine is the source of the e-mails that were stolen from the Democratic National Committee that ended upon Wikipedia. This is utterly false, and the people repeating these lies know it, but they want to win, and making a deal with the devil is often one way to do it.
This illustrates a point which is that the malignant forces that seek to win a war against the Democratic West have found willing stooges on both the Left and Right. These are persons who are so involved in their own internal battles against political opponents that even if they have to truck and trade with their country's historic enemy, that is fine, as long as they win.
In that sense then, this period in history may be a bit like the Middle Ages. At that time, Europe was dominated by weak kings and strong aristocrats. If one king wanted to try to take land from another by way of a war, they could often find willing aristocratic turncoats on the other side willing to help out, as long as he undertook to reward them handsomely afterward.
We have such turncoats now. If you think about it, you will know who they are.
There is also an entirely different perspective that warrants review here, which is the extent to which the uber wealthy are essentially driving all of this for personal gain, regardless of country, loyalty or anything other than the accumulation of more wealth. I will stay away from this topic for the time being.
So what of military campaigns, and what we normally think of as wars?
There are wars now, but wars matter, not from the perspective of conquest, but from the perspective of the effect that managing wars may have on public opinion. There is only one real battleground now, and it is in the minds of citizens.
For example, did the USA pull out of Iraq for military reasons, or so that Obama could claim that he did it and move up in the public opinion polls? The rise of ISIS suggests that the Americans left Iraq a tad early.
Did Trump order the killing of Qassem Soliemani to protect the USA and its citizens and interests, or to divert public opinion from his impending impeachment trial in the Senate? Do I really need to answer this one!?
This use of foreign military actions to influence domestic opinion is as old as history itself. But the prime importance of public opinion in all of this is new as the world has never had a situation in which the opinions of citizens in so many places matter as much as today. The ability to influence this opinion directly through Social Media is also nw - together they have wrought a revolution in warfare, from the field to the mind.
The second key point about war today...
Democracy plus Social Media may have brought an end to war as it has been known for millennia. To defeat a Western democracy now, it is not necessary to fight a traditional war - just convince population for vote for an initiative or party that is adverse to their interests and in favour of the aggressive country in question, and that is that!
So who are the soldiers in this war?
Well, if you are reading this, you are! To the extent that you are connected via the Internet, you are also a soldier in a war being fought over your personal opinions.
The military draft? No one is more connected via IT than young people...call it Conscription by Facebook.
One final thought - where does this go when we mix in Artificial Intelligence?
The next big war is on, and we have barely noticed!
There are two sides - The West and its Democratic allies, versus China, Russia and a range of also-rans including Iran and North Korea.
But where, pre tell, are the mass casualties? Why have our young people not yet been conscripted? In a sense, they have been conscripted, but not in the ways we are used to.
Read on...
"War is the continuation of politics by other means..." so said von Clausewitz.
In the present age, war is being waged on the Internet. It is an actual war that meets any definition of "war", not of military aggression, but over public opinion.
This is perhaps a bit cryptic...it requires more background and discussion.
When states fight what we have always thought of as "wars", they do so in order to eliminate a looming competitor; or to gain land and living space; or to avenge a wrong; or to wipe out a religious or ethnic competitor; or to defend what they think is a vital interest.
In fact, war as a policy tool has been illegal since 1928, so all wars these days are "defensive", as the only legal justification for the use of force in international law is defensive. Nonetheless, there are small wars and civil wars underway all over the globe. But I'm noting a different type of war here.
The goal of wars - any war - is almost always to leave your opponent divided and emasculated to the extent that they can no longer pose the threat, or so that they can no longer compete against a country's interests as they did previously.
This is happening right now at the level of public opinion, and it should be apparent that The West and its Democratic allies are losing this war.
What!!?? We are losing a war that is leaving us divided and emasculated? Am I the one who is LOSING IT!? Please read on, and think about Brexit...
The Russians, through the vicious "fake news" propaganda of Cambridge Analytica and other on-line manipulation, won a magnificent victory over Europe on June 23, 2016, when Britain narrowly voted to leave the European Union. This would not have happened but for the vile lies and distortions of the Russians and their traitorous stooges.
This is the first essential point of this wee tome...
As public opinion in democracies is at the essence of how change is made, if a malignant force wants to move a country away from its real interests and toward those of the malignant actor, that actor must change public opinion. Social Media, in that it can reach right into the minds of each and every citizen and form their opinions, has become the REAL battleground, as the results of successful media manipulation can be precisely the same as the results of a successful war of aggression.
The proof?
Three years after the referendum, Britain is now ready to formally leave Europe. In so doing, the British will leave Europe weakened and less able to confront Russia on issue like Ukraine. Brexit may even hearken the end of the United Kingdom itself, as it is very likely that the Scots will seek independence, and Northern Ireland may seek an accord with the republic to the South.
Do you see what I mean?
By manipulating democratic processes within a long-standing democracy through the propagation of mass lies and distortions via Social Media (as well as their official propaganda arms like Russia Today, or RT in the West), the Russians were able to bring about the same results of a major war against their enemies in Europe - the weakening of their primary challenger on the continent, and they may even have brought about the dismemberment of their longest-standing opponent in Europe as well!
Hmmm...why employ armies when the Internet can get you the same results?
Not convinced? Please think about what is going on in the USA.
There is a divide in that country that now rivals the divide that was apparent there prior to the Civil War - Red State versus Blue State; Democrat versus Republican; CNN versus Fox; Right versus Left, and unlike anything since prior to World War Two, Capitalists versus Socialist.
There is some focus on the need to confront "fake news" both on the Left and Right, with both sides hurling accusations at the other regarding their opponents questionable veracity.
But the focus is on tools and methods, not on purpose; commentators who speak out against "fake news" note the what is happening, but not the why.
As with Brexit, we can find the long malignant hand of Russia at work here - for them, the Cold War never ended, it has just moved to computer screens.
It is well known that the Russians supported the election of Donald Trump in 2016. What is less known is that they also supported the evolution of the Black Lives Matter movement.
I have news for you - the Russians don't give a hoot for either Trump or for Black people in the USA. By supporting the former, they divide the USA from the Right, and by supporting the latter, they divide the USA from the Left.
The intense political division that we see in the USA at present is not organic - this did not evolve naturally. It has been successfully encouraged and driven on purpose by America's historic enemy.
The point of Russian efforts is not to spread "fake news" per se - that is the tool or method being used. The purpose behind mobilizing this tool in the United States is to weaken, if not outright dismember the Great Republic as assuredly as if the USA had lost a war. In other words, they are seeking to do to the USA what the Russians have successfully brought about in Europe, and maybe even Britain itself, via Brexit.
What about China?
The Chinese are fighting mostly a defensive public opinion battle, designed to protect the position of the Chinese Communist Party. One primary way they do this is through threats to Western media about lost access to the mainland if they do not do what the Communists want.
For example, try finding an article about Falun Gong in Western media - they are there, but they are rare. This religion constituted the greatest threat to the Chinese Communist Party since the revolution up to the end of the 1990s. It was put down in the most horrific suppression of a religion on planet earth since the Holocaust.
This has barely been reported on, because Western media need access to China to make money - so they do what they are told. Falun Gong has hit back with its own media source - The Epoch Times, which is now the largest weekly periodical on the planet.
To the extent that China is taking to the offensive, it is doing this through cultural means designed to slowly undermine the faith that Westerns, and especially Americans have in their institutions. One primary way has been by partnering with Hollywood in the co-production of movies. The Chinese often insist on plot lines that put the Good Ole USA in a bad light, and China in a good one. They understand the power of the movies, and as with Russian manipulation of Social Media, they are seeking to get their message right into the minds of citizens of their adversary in order to undermine and weaken them.
Beyond the Russians and Chinese, others such as Iran and even North Korea are engaged in "war by airwaves". There's is more direct, targeting base infrastructure in the West in something like a normal military campaign designed to reduce their enemies ability to fight. This is not like the battle for public opinion that is underway on a broader scale, however.
Regarding the battle for public opinion, and as with all wars, we have a cavalcade of traitors and turncoats who are more than willing to sell the country out for mammon. Let me outline who these people are by way of example.
When a person knows that they are spreading Russian propaganda designed to weaken the West or even dismember their own country, they are objectively a traitor, and to the extent that they do cooperate with Putin, they may actually be guilty of treason. Now consider the US Congress...
Recently, as part of the impeachment hearings, Republican representatives parroted the Russian propaganda line that Ukraine is the source of the e-mails that were stolen from the Democratic National Committee that ended upon Wikipedia. This is utterly false, and the people repeating these lies know it, but they want to win, and making a deal with the devil is often one way to do it.
This illustrates a point which is that the malignant forces that seek to win a war against the Democratic West have found willing stooges on both the Left and Right. These are persons who are so involved in their own internal battles against political opponents that even if they have to truck and trade with their country's historic enemy, that is fine, as long as they win.
In that sense then, this period in history may be a bit like the Middle Ages. At that time, Europe was dominated by weak kings and strong aristocrats. If one king wanted to try to take land from another by way of a war, they could often find willing aristocratic turncoats on the other side willing to help out, as long as he undertook to reward them handsomely afterward.
We have such turncoats now. If you think about it, you will know who they are.
There is also an entirely different perspective that warrants review here, which is the extent to which the uber wealthy are essentially driving all of this for personal gain, regardless of country, loyalty or anything other than the accumulation of more wealth. I will stay away from this topic for the time being.
So what of military campaigns, and what we normally think of as wars?
There are wars now, but wars matter, not from the perspective of conquest, but from the perspective of the effect that managing wars may have on public opinion. There is only one real battleground now, and it is in the minds of citizens.
For example, did the USA pull out of Iraq for military reasons, or so that Obama could claim that he did it and move up in the public opinion polls? The rise of ISIS suggests that the Americans left Iraq a tad early.
Did Trump order the killing of Qassem Soliemani to protect the USA and its citizens and interests, or to divert public opinion from his impending impeachment trial in the Senate? Do I really need to answer this one!?
This use of foreign military actions to influence domestic opinion is as old as history itself. But the prime importance of public opinion in all of this is new as the world has never had a situation in which the opinions of citizens in so many places matter as much as today. The ability to influence this opinion directly through Social Media is also nw - together they have wrought a revolution in warfare, from the field to the mind.
The second key point about war today...
Democracy plus Social Media may have brought an end to war as it has been known for millennia. To defeat a Western democracy now, it is not necessary to fight a traditional war - just convince population for vote for an initiative or party that is adverse to their interests and in favour of the aggressive country in question, and that is that!
So who are the soldiers in this war?
Well, if you are reading this, you are! To the extent that you are connected via the Internet, you are also a soldier in a war being fought over your personal opinions.
The military draft? No one is more connected via IT than young people...call it Conscription by Facebook.
One final thought - where does this go when we mix in Artificial Intelligence?
Saturday, 4 January 2020
Miyamoto Musashi Speaks
A 16th century perspective on living a good life, from Japan's greatest swordsman.
Musashi was petty hard core!
1. "Accept everything just the way it is."
2. "Do not seek pleasure for its own sake." 3. "Do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling." 4. "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." 5. "Be detached from desire your whole life long." 6. "Do not regret what you have done." 7. "Never be jealous." 8. "Never let yourself be saddened by a separation." 9. "Resentment and complaint are appropriate neither for oneself or others." 10. "Do not let yourself be guided by the feeling of lust or love." 11. "In all things have no preferences." 12. "Be indifferent to where you live." 13. "Do not pursue the taste of good food." 14. "Do not hold on to possessions you no longer need." 15. "Do not act following customary beliefs." 16. "Do not collect weapons or practice with weapons beyond what is useful." 17. "Do not fear death." 18. "Do not seek to possess either goods or fiefs for your old age." 19. "Respect Buddha and the gods without counting on their help." 20. "You may abandon your own body but you must preserve your honour." 21. "Never stray from the Way." -- Miyamoto Musashi
Musashi was petty hard core!
1. "Accept everything just the way it is."
2. "Do not seek pleasure for its own sake." 3. "Do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling." 4. "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." 5. "Be detached from desire your whole life long." 6. "Do not regret what you have done." 7. "Never be jealous." 8. "Never let yourself be saddened by a separation." 9. "Resentment and complaint are appropriate neither for oneself or others." 10. "Do not let yourself be guided by the feeling of lust or love." 11. "In all things have no preferences." 12. "Be indifferent to where you live." 13. "Do not pursue the taste of good food." 14. "Do not hold on to possessions you no longer need." 15. "Do not act following customary beliefs." 16. "Do not collect weapons or practice with weapons beyond what is useful." 17. "Do not fear death." 18. "Do not seek to possess either goods or fiefs for your old age." 19. "Respect Buddha and the gods without counting on their help." 20. "You may abandon your own body but you must preserve your honour." 21. "Never stray from the Way." -- Miyamoto Musashi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)