Bannon White House - Rebuilding the Soviet Empire

Staying "On Focus" 

The Russians, the President and the Republicans

Are Desperately Trying to Confuse Everybody

The Congress and the Media Aren't Helping.

Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs in the Russian Federation have been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the "Trump Experiment" all through the 2016 election. While the entire collection of both methods and the goals tempting the Russians into this enterprise constitute a long list of mischief, there really is a "big picture" in play which supersedes all the distracting antics playing out "here and there" in the White House.

None of these matter much to the illiterate hill billies and bigots among Trump's voting base, but for the rest of us the stakes are high, indeed.

An estimate of the "secondary" goals for this Russian gambit is fairly straightforward. A few of the larger issues can be listed immediately.

1. Hillary Clinton and Future US Foreign Policy

In the beginning stages of this process Putin was afraid of the prospect of seeing a politically empowered Hillary Clinton in the White House. It is now clear that the Russian's initial plan was to pump resources into Trump's campaign in the hope of politically "wounding" a new Clinton President with the result of throttling some of her executive ability to reign in the Russian Federation's expansionist appetites.

Putin's first impulse was to simply weaken her by introducing a flood of character damaging propaganda during the campaign. Trump's victory apparently caught Putin by just as much surprise as it did Trump.

If there is a visible error in the Russian's geo-political strategy, it can be seen most clearly in the timing confusion which quickly followed this unanticipated turn of events. Putin was still focused primarily on inflicting damage to a newly elected Clinton, "confusing" what would have probably been a quick turn to exploiting Trump's win.

Nonetheless, Russian "cast iron" political strategy doesn't usually spend much time at all getting back on its feet after a miscalculation -- especially not when there is such a "rich pot" on the table.

2. Dreams of a New Soviet Empire

Since the rather ignominious fall of the old Soviet Empire, Russian expansionist plans have been constantly blocked by NATO and the United States. One particularly poignant "low point" in this -- for the Russians -- frustrating international military policy has occurred in Ukraine. Further, this recent set back occurred while the injuries of the previous set back were still raw. Yes, the fiasco in Afghanistan was during the entropic end of Soviet fever dreams of hegemony, but the damage the Russians inflicted upon themselves as a result of the over reach was severe and long lasting.

[The similar self-inflicted damage for the West from its own adventure in Afghanistan -- the longest war in modern history -- was also severe, yet somewhat less painful. The economies of the participating countries forced to absorb it were stronger than that of the Federation.]

In many ways the Russian military and political efforts to regain control of Ukraine are a direct result of this. [See item 3, below.] However, the Russian appetite for aggression is not limited to Ukraine. It is executing a slowly growing resurgence in several democratic nations along the old Warsaw Pact border. The Russian Federation's long term goal is to destroy the unity of European countries -- and the US -- currently supporting NATO. 

3. Internal Politics Within the Russian Federation

The current President of the Russian Federation deals with an internal politics not too dissimilar to Donald Trump's situation in the US. Within the widely diverse population of the modern Federation most Russians -- as is the case around the globe -- are primarily concerned with the events and challenges of day to day living. However, a staunch minority of Russian nationalists dependably support policies by the controlling autocrat, Vladimir Putin, directed at re-establishing the old Soviet Empire.

Russian oligarchs comprise an obedient gang of thugs obliged to carry out instructions from the Kremlin. The pay is great -- so long as you follow orders, you get to live as a billionaire. The penalty for not following orders is also extreme. When "top secret" correspondence between Trump and Putin had to be carried out, a Russian oligarch's hundred million dollar personal jet, in this case, one owned by Russian billionaire, Dmitry Rybolovlev, repeatedly appeared as various airports around the US at the same time Trump was there. [Russian Billionaire's Secret Meetings With Trump/MSNBC]

Although Putin himself is already, most likely, the richest man on Earth, the ambitious crowd of Russian billionaire oligarchs surrounding him also stand to gain even more wealth if the Federation can expand beyond its present boundaries. This bunch "cheers him on" when he formulates schemes such as intervention in Ukraine...or in the US.

"Paying the Piper"

What does Putin Want From Trump?

Should we expect to see troops from the Russian Federation

 as "Peace Keepers" when the rioting begins?

The confusion being generated daily by the Trump Administration has a purpose, but that purpose has nothing to do with feeble gestures to gratify the unwashed, uninformed masses who served to elect him. Donald Trump could not care less about the any of his incendiary actions which have left the country is such a vulnerable dismay.

Trump's central purpose [All Russian assets have a "central purpose."] is to quit making US foreign policy which would stop Putin and the Federation from expanding into the recently liberated countries which used to be Soviet satellites. Everything else coming from the White House is simply a distraction -- a suspiciously convenient confusion.

Take a moment to read the CNN article.

Putin's aggression in Europe
should worry the US

By Richard Shirreff
October 21, 2016
[Visit the original article Russian Aggression and NATO/CNN]

(CNN)Since the formation of NATO in 1949 the defense of Europe and the free world has depended on the absolute certainty that whatever president is occupying the White House, the United States will come to the aid of a NATO member if attacked. Any doubt about the American commitment, and the credibility of NATO's doctrine of collective defense, is holed below the waterline.

At a time when the West faces a greater threat from a resurgent Russia since the most dangerous crises of the Cold War, NATO, more than ever, needs to stand strong, united and credible.

Russia's invasion of Crimea and Ukraine in 2014 may have already lit the fuse that could lead to the unthinkable: nuclear war with Russia in Europe.

Consider the words and actions of President Vladimir Putin, who has described the breakup of the Soviet Union as the "greatest geo-strategic tragedy of the 20th century." In his speech on March 18, 2014, the day Crimea was admitted into the Russian Federation, Putin majored on the threat the West posed to Russia by its continued encirclement and warned about the possibility of pushback: "If you compress the spring to its limit, it will snap back hard: something you should remember," while claiming the right to protect the interests of Russian speakers everywhere, "even if it will worsen our relations with some states."

Overnight, Putin became NATO's strategic adversary, starting a dynamic that could lead to a clash with NATO over the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (which have significant Russian-speaking minorities).

Two years on and the threat is even greater. Indeed, the ratchet of tension clicks tighter on an almost weekly basis: Even this week we wake up to news of Russia sailing warships near the British coast in "a show of force and a show of capabilities," according to Peter Felstead, editor of Jane's Defence Weekly.

Unprecedented levels of military activity on the borders and in the airspace of the Baltic states, Finland and Sweden have been matched by the rapid buildup of military forces in Russia's Western Military District on the borders of NATO.

For example, in January, Russia announced the formation and deployment of three motor rifle divisions, about 60,000 troops, along the Russian frontier with the Baltic states. And the Russians have kept themselves busy with regular so-called snap exercises to test the readiness of their military, at least one of which was based on a scenario of invasion and occupation of the Baltic states.

Putin's strategic aim is clear: to re-establish Russia's status as one of the world's great powers and to dominate the former republics of the Soviet Union -- imperialist intentions that might have been acceptable to great powers in the 19th century but which are an affront in 2016. If the opportunity presents itself, he may well activate long-held plans to march into the Baltic states.

To paraphrase British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's 1938 comment on Czechoslovakia, why are events in these faraway countries of which we may know little important to Americans?

First, because if Russia puts one soldier across the borders of the Baltic states it means war with NATO.

Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have been members of  NATO since 2004 and are therefore protected under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the founding document of NATO, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all. A Russian attack on the Baltic states puts America at war with Russia -- meaning nuclear war, because Russia integrates nuclear weapons into every aspect of its military doctrine.

And don't think Russia would limit itself to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Any form of nuclear release by the Russians would almost certainly precipitate nuclear retaliation by the United States, and the dreadful reality of mutually assured destruction and the end of life as we know it would follow.

Indeed, Russia is at war with America already. Russian hacking of Democratic Party email servers and, if confirmed, WikiLeaks publicizing of Clinton campaign emails to discredit the Democrats and propel Donald Trump -- arguably what Putin would classify as a "useful idiot" into the White House -- is classic maskirovka -- deception, aimed at undermining the intelligence and integrity of the enemy in a way that remains below the threshold of conventional warfare. In the words of Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center, and a man with close connections to the Putin regime, the Kremlin has been at war since 2014.

But although the clock may be ticking close to midnight, it is not too late. Maintenance of the peace we have enjoyed in Western Europe for nearly 70 years depends on effective deterrence. The bar of risk must be raised too high for Russia to consider any opportunistic move into the Baltic states. This requires forward basing of a credible military capability in the Baltic states and eastern Poland (rather than the token presence agreed at the NATO Warsaw Summit in July).

NATO reserves able to move quickly and effectively to bolster defenses in the Baltics will send a powerful message. It also requires Canada and European members of NATO to recognize that military capabilities lost from cumulative disarmament over the past two decades must be regenerated. This means increasing defense spending, almost certainly above the 2% of gross domestic product agreed -- but often not acted upon -- by NATO members (less the United States, UK, Estonia and Greece).

2017 is 100th anniversary of the first occasion the United States intervened in one of Europe's wars. The region's security is a matter of American security, and it means continued and close engagement in Europe and a continuation of the strong leadership that America has given NATO from the start.

Has The Republican Party Destroyed Christianity?

Christendom's End

Not by siege, sword, catapult or mace,

but rather by ambition's poisonous embrace.

MeanMesa

It's usually a good idea to introduce whatever shards of history might be readily available -- without any regard whatsoever as to likely credibility -- about such an incendiary topic. Facing this necessity, we may as well, quite reasonably, begin with Pope Urban II's declaration of war over the real estate matter of Jerusalem's ownership in 1095. That decision led to countless illiterate European farm boys tediously walking from slave-like servitude the feudal fields of the day's Christian Kings to the Ottoman border in one bloody Crusade after another for the next several centuries.

Of course Pope Urban's fatwa was almost certainly not the beginning of this blood drenched nonsense, but it does represent a convenient point of departure for use as a "date anchor" in this discussion. By the final collapse of the Third, Fifth or even Seventh Crusade, there were plenty of folks thoroughly disgusted with the idea of unending religious wars being fought to the death by hundreds of thousands of peasants who knew very little about the conflicts beyond what their priests and muftis had told them.

The Islamic armies of the Ottoman Empire, at one point or another, captured Spain, most of the Middle East and North Africa, Venice and Constantinopolis [modern Istanbul]. These "Turkish" troops were better educated, better fed and better equipped that the peasant armies of the Christian Kings. They also enjoyed generally superior, college educated field commanders. After a few decades of bloody conflict with the Europeans, the citizens of the Empire had little sympathy or respect for the Christians and very little appetite for co-existence.

Christian religionists reveal an arrogant side of themselves as they, reviewing this grisly account, applaud what they clearly perceive as the apparently supernatural durability "the old rugged cross" Any mythology less narcotically enervating would have been history before the first drips of "infidel" blood had clotted in the Judean dirt. 

Unhappily, this old scam is not over -- by a "long shot." The GOP's "trailer park" voting base is eager and ready to launch their sons right back into another repetition of this mayhem. The unemployed "Christian hating" boys in Syria are taught to dream of a future Islamic caliphate; the unemployed "Muslim hating" boys in the dreary swamps of the deep South are taught to dream of a modern US theocracy --  the Western version of the same dream.

The oligarchs have no interest at all in whether or not such a theocracy ever materializes. Their interest is entirely with the advantages of exploiting a voting block perennially mesmerized with the dream of a theocracy.

One of George W. Bush's more egregious faux pas occurred in Jordan just before the invasion of Iraq when he referred to his wet dream of the impending military adventure as "a Crusade." [Think of a fart in a spacesuit.]

In any event MeanMesa already can anticipate that a post like this one will have the email buzzing like mosquitoes at a blood bank in no time at all, but that expectation is no reason to hesitate even for so long as "a New York minute."

The Rise and Fall of the "Moral Majority"

Jerry Falwell's Ultimate Old Testament  PR Scam and

Reagan's Very Useful 20th Century Political Fatwa

It's never been considered "Constitutional good taste" to claim that one political pitch or another was exceptionally embellished by "God's grace." However, likewise, not a single day has passed since the Boston Tea Party when some dirty shirt preacher has not "blended" his political ambitions and aspirations with an implied "authorization" which arrived from the divinity in a sacred note dispatched exclusively to him.

Although President Ronnie definitely had more than his share of "foggy" moments, his handlers made sure that a crack team of public opinion manipulating, high grade, psychological experts were constantly on hand to steer the "Gipper's" otherwise wavering course. THOSE guys were the ones who spotted the "unexploited resource" of disgruntled, restive Christians populating the ranks of Ronnie's most fervent proselytes.

Further, those disgruntled Christians were, in fact, disgruntled for the very reason that "things" in the US were simply not going along the lines described in the Old Testament. Confused? Maybe this will help: "Facts meant nothing."

Jerry with homosexual
Demon Tele-Tubby Tinky Winky [image]

Joining the mindless ranks of the "Moral Majority" almost instantly provided precisely what was needed to assist these proselytes to emerge from these "conveniently Biblical" doldrums of theirs. For starters the President's manipulators convinced them that they were being "oppressed" by the less Holy -- mainly Democrats and liberals. This sentiment was especially pervasive in the states of the Confederacy following the Civil Rights movement.

Nationwide, Republican "Holy Men" [Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and others, but especially Jerry Falwell.] instantly snatched the momentarily dangling tail rope of the thing, embellishing and reaffirming every one of these Old Testament complaints with a constant tide of incendiary evangelistic rhetoric.

The "marriage" between the Republican Party and the wandering, disgruntled, stumbling, evangelical base was consummated before sundown of the first day. It has remained a "marriage made in heaven" since then, even though things have not necessarily been "roses, simply roses" at all times. It turns out that Republicans had been taught during their earliest childhoods that "competition is sacred," and predictably, given that they were already neck deep in this unquestionably quite abnormal religious-political hodge podge, they began competing with each other to determine which among them was MORE Holy than the others.

The nature of these Old Testament complaints also became more and more important. Although the lives of these proselytes were, over all, quite pleasant when compared to the lives led by folks in the biblical past, and, in fact, also quite pleasant when compared to other people living else where on the planet, Ronnie's "psych experts" gradually convinced them that instead of being quite pleasant, their lives were, instead, a living torture being fomented upon them by, you guessed it, the "less Holy."

When any natural occurrence such as a hurricane or a drought came along the Republican "Holy Men" would, without fail, promote the idea that God was punishing these already diligently suffering proselytes for violating certain "rules" in which God was extremely interested. Of course, although there was no way for anyone to particularly know anything about such "rules," the Republican "Holy Men" turned out to be experts who knew the details of almost everything important that was on God's mind -- particularly if this or that "rule" turned out to be politically useful.

As "things" moved along a new "idea" began to be incorporated in the political side of the religious-political hodge podge. This was that Republicans were, in fact, obviously God's "chosen ones," and that Democrats, poor people, liberals and minorities of all sorts were, well, not "chosen ones" at all.

Elections became "re-affirmations" of faith.

WIKI has a fairly good article on the Moral Majority. [Read the entire article  here WIKI/MORAL MAJORITY] The WIKI sections titled "Dissolution" and "Organizational goals and composition" are of especial interest for this post. While going to such depth in the historical basis for what we see today may seem a bit academic, please pay careful attention to the structure [highlighted in darker red] of this original form of the organization with respect to similarities in the more modern case. [Footnoting in the original WIKI article is disabled. ]

Dissolution [Moral Majority]

By the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential administration, Christian Right organizations were generally in a phase of decline. After Reagan's two terms in office, donations were decreasing, possibly because after eight years of Christian Right-supported leadership, the nation did not appear to donors to be in the same state of moral peril as they perceived it to be when Reagan first took office. The Moral Majority's financial base seriously eroded when it became part of the Liberty Federation and financial difficulties ultimately were a major factor in the decision to disband the organization. Falwell, though, gave a more optimistic public opinion about the Moral Majority's dissolution. Announcing the disbandment of the Moral Majority in 1989 in Las Vegas, Falwell declared, "Our goal has been achieved…The religious right is solidly in place and … religious conservatives in America are now in for the duration."

1989 - Las Vegas

Organizational goals and composition

The Moral Majority sought to mobilize conservative Americans to become politically active on issues they thought were important. A variety of tactics were used to garner support. These tactics included direct-mail campaigns, telephone hot lines, rallies, and religious television broadcasts. Although the Moral Majority existed for only a decade, it became a visible political force very shortly after its founding and was relatively effective in its mobilization goals. According to Robert Liebmanand Robert Wuthnow, common explanations for this success include:

The Moral Majority was founded with strong financial backing already in place.

The Moral Majority’s leaders were in frequent communication with its constituents, enabling consistent messages to resonate throughout all levels of hierarchy.

The Moral Majority’s leaders generally had previous organizational experience.

The general public was amenable to the issues the Moral Majority emphasized.

Some issues for which the Moral Majority campaigned included:

Promotion of a traditional vision of family life

Opposition to media outlets that promote an "anti-family" agenda

Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

Opposition to state recognition or acceptance of homosexual acts.

Outlawing abortion, even in cases involving incest, rape or in pregnancies where the life of the mother is at stake.

Support for Christian prayers in schools

Marketing to Jews and other non-Christians for conversion to conservative Christianity

[Emphasis added]

At this point the Owners of the Republican Party were ecstatic. Of course this clutch of craven billionaires couldn't possible care any less about the "salvation" of the country. That had never been any sort of priority for them, but when the real prospect of easily manipulating a majority block of GOP voters with this style of propaganda arose, it was as if every last one of them had suddenly been handed a "free heroin and cheap sex sandwich."

The Moral Majority's Unsurprising Resurrection

The long dead are even less attractive when they once again begin to talk.

The corpse had "matured" by 2015.

Of course the official "end date" of the Moral Majority amounted to little more than a minor notation on the thing's tax exempt IRS filing. It had become far too politically valuable for the billionaires financing it to simply let it drift off "into the sunset."

However, rather than "resting in peace" for these interregnum years, the idea of the Moral Majority had grown even more rancid and petulant than it had been prior to its previous "demise." Not surprisingly, the old name was demolished by the think tank PR guys. The new "replacement" movement would have no unifying name at all, no bothersome theocratic tenets squawked over its own network broadcasts, and -- with that new freedom of being nameless and tenet-free -- the movement would also be free of any "authorized spokesmen" of the Jerry Falwell ilk. [Jerry had a frequently awkward case of imaginary biblical "control issues."]

For many of the years between the "Majority's voluntary self-immolation" in 1989 and the present day the "movement" occupied a more or less static position. Of course there were a few startling exceptions -- for example when the "children of the cross" were ordered to be outraged by President Clinton's dalliance with Monica. Importantly, however, the "movement" never particularly "lost steam" with respect to how many grumbling, oppressed, Christian "last days" followers it was able to attract to its ranks.

The oligarchs are calling you.
 Rise up![image]

With the "near suicidal" political perch the Republican Party has taken while preparing for the 2016 election, the frantic billionaires who own the Party have, once again, very predictably returned to their most dependable and obedient base -- these now nearly entirely "doctrinally liberated" and questionably resurrected, Moral Majority types. The volumes on the hate radios in American Legion beer halls across the nation were turned up immediately, and the next wave of wing nut, religious-political outrage followed just as planned.

So, This Is IT?

Really? Really?

Relax. There are two sides to every "question," right?

While one might expect the religionists turned politicos to be issuing forth with every possible kind of persuasion in hopes of, well, "leading the fallen back to the flock" and, at the same time, expressing every possible "evidence" of the deep connection between the religion and the Republican Party in hopes of "leading the fallen back to the Party," but there is nothing of this sort going on in the "discourse"  -- absolutely nothing.  In fact for the GOP and their sanctimonious, quasi-evangelical ground troops any sort of conversational discourse is now a "thing of the past."

Who needs a microphone if there is a fire hose?

The basic idea expressed by our Founders was that an "educated electorate" would from time to time "conduct the common discourse of citizens" to consider the choices to be decided in elections. Sounds simple enough, right? There is, however, among those ideas of the Founders a subtle yet inescapable mandate to consider the "pros and cons" of the types of decisions which might be decided in those elections. In a representative democracy elections communicate the will of the citizens with respect to the policies of the government.

MeanMesa has selected a few revealing examples of the "discourse" of the modern Republican Party. [If there were ever any doubt, the following examples will establish the absolute vital necessity of the Internet in these times of utterly failed industrial media "news" networks. Note the source of each of these cited here. Suspicious that these examples shown are "cherry picked" or need more examples? Fire up your own GOOGLE and have at. There are tens of thousands.]

Janet Porter: My Prayers Got Bush Elected President,
Can Also Overturn Marriage Equality Decision
Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 7/8/2015

Janet Porter, the right-wing conspiracy theorist and creator of the anti-gay film “Light Wins,” reveals today that her prayers reversed the results of the 2000 presidential election to ensure that President Bush was the victor in Florida.

...

In the 2000 Presidential election, between George W. Bush and Al Gore, I lived in a place called Broward County, Florida. When they declared the state of Florida–and the election–for Al Gore, I, like so many others, got down on my knees and asked for something that had never been done before. I asked for God to change the outcome of the election. You know what happened: He answered that “ridiculous” prayer. And if God can change the outcome of a presidential election, He can change the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling. Ask Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to file a motion for rehearing the marriage case at: 800-282-0515 . Then, pray to the God of the impossible.

RightWingWatch_Janet_Porter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Vows to Burn over Same Sex Marriage
By Curt Autry
[Excerpted. Read the original article here -NBC12]

"We are not going to bow. We are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn!" Scarborough said. Although the pastor did not explicitly state that he would self-immolate in protest of gay marriage, as some have suggested.

...

Scarborough was also quoted saying: "The preachers need to get out front, the leaders need to get out front, out front of these ordinary citizens and say, 'Shoot me first!'" He went on to claim that same-sex marriage comes from Satan. "We now have a race of humans that don't want to acknowledge that there's a God," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right-Wing Pastors: Expect 'Gunfire' And Rebellion Due To Gay Marriage Ruling

Brian Tashman on Friday, 7/10/2015

[Excerpted. Read the original article here - RightWingWatch]

Shines told Wiles that the marriage ruling will lead to massive anti-Christian persecution, which will in turn spark a movement of civil disobedience “that is going to go beyond what we saw back in the ‘60s.”

Wiles claimed that the U.S. has reached the point where federal agents will soon move to arrest pastors and seize church buildings, sparking a violent confrontation: “You’re going to see gunfire.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Hagee: Putting An End To Gay Marriage

Is ‘A Matter Of Survival’

AUTHOR: VERA APRIL 3, 2015

[Excerpted. Read the original article here - AddictingInfo]

It seems like it was just yesterday that pastor Matthew Hagee, the son of pastor John Hagee, took to his weekly “Hagee Hotline” show to claim that the legalization of gay marriage would be the end of society because same-sex couples are unable to procreate naturally. In that segment, which aired in March, Hagee said that by supporting two people’s right to marry whichever person they love legally, “you are taking away the ability of that society to survive.”

Hagee says:

“It is impossible for same-sex marriage to do what biblical marriage does: create children. Without the procreation of children, the American society economically, will fail; culturally, will fail. It is not a matter of right or privilege, it’s a matter of survival.”

Why Hagee believes that allowing gay people to marry each other will actually stop heterosexuals from having children, I have no idea. But the scary thing about this argument is that so many people use it, and believe it – despite how stupid and inaccurate it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian Pastor Explains Obamacare

[Excerpted. Read the original article here - TOPEKA'S_NEWS]

Topeka, KS – Many good Christians and Republicans out there have questions about Obamacare. Today my email inbox alone had over 90 people asking for an article about the so called ‘Affordable’ Care Act, aka, Obamacare. It goes into effect next week and up until now, there has not been an official Christian, Republican explanation for the Obamacare Act.

First, let me say that Obamacare is the antithesis of Jesus’ commandments. The Bible says not be lazy, but with Obamacare in effect all the lazy, marijuana smoking, baby-popping people who are plaguing America with crime and poverty will have better health insurance than you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick Wiles: Muslim 'Avengers' Will Destroy America Thanks To Abortion Rights And Obamacare 

Brian Tashman on Friday, 2/13/2015

[Excerpted. Read the original article here - RightWingWatch]

On Wednesday’s edition of “Trunews,” End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles invited Dr. Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, to speak about the threat of radical Islamists to America’s security. After Wiles wondered why “the far-left is in an alliance with jihadist Islam,” Lutzer said the “the far-left and jihadists are in cahoots” because both groups are bent on “destroying capitalism” and seeking the “destruction of Christianity.”

Wiles added that Muslim immigration to the U.S. and Europe is “part of the judgment” of God for abortion rights. “It’s like the Muslims are the avengers who are being sent in to avenge for the deaths of innocent babies,” he said.

Lutzer later explained that Obamacare is helping too many people gain health coverage, and as a result the “administration is encouraging Islamic doctors from all over the world to come to the United States.”

Since Obamacare is pushing doctors out of the practice and abortion rights are slowing population growth, Lutzer said, the U.S. now has “huge immigrant populations from the Muslim countries.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to "Quantification"

Just a little housekeeping before we say "good bye"

Axiomatic set theory teaches us that logical propositions are most useful when they are properly quantified. Is one arguing that such propositions apply to everything, some things, at least one thing or no things at all?

It might be the habit, at this juncture, to begin "excusing" specific inhabitants of both the Republican Party and the newly re-imaged wing nut right evangelicals with a politically correct, quantifying "preface" such as: "Of course not all Republicans are in this embarrassingly opportunistic, rancid class, and, of course, not all evangelical [or any other known "flavor" of] Christians are predicting the end of the world or threatening to set themselves ablaze, but... "

No thanks.

While there may actually be some rare exclusions lurking somewhere in the religious-political shadows [...logical proposition with "existential quantification"] of this neo-Christian-Republican horde, such a population is now so small as to be inconsequential. MeanMesa has watched this "dog and pony show" long enough to have become a well seasoned, "old hat"  with respect to the perpetual "bait and switch" techniques constantly employed.

"Oh yes, that was, indeed, horrible, but that was them -- not us.

 We're not like that."

"No one can be responsible for the comments and behavior

 of all those supporting him."

"What did you expect? Some religions are hideous,

 and some are lovely. Mine's lovely."

"The Constitution requires that we respect 

the opinions and the 'free speech' of others."

And of course,

"There are two sides to everything."

"That's why they make Fords and Chevrolets."

"Both parties are the same."

"If it isn't one thing, it's another."

After a long, intense "logical inquiry" into this "burning question of the day," here are MeanMesa's new conclusions:

1.  ALL Republicans are hateful wing nuts. There are no "moderate" Republicans.

2. ALL Christian religionists are just a hateful. All Christians are right wing Christians.

3. The historical Republican Party and Christian religion are useless relics of the past.

4. The oligarchs are laughing their asses off watching how easily they have created all this. 

They are also salivating. 

Oligarchs, Autocrats and Ideologues

[A note from MeanMesa: The blog has been off line for a few days, and an explanation might be necessary. The first news is NEW GLASSES! After eye surgery a few weeks back the old glasses had become a constant irritation, but the new ones are super! The second news is that MeanMesa has been working on a "project." Although this is not a classified product, its publication is constrained by a temporary confidentiality/proprietary agreement. That will be over in a few weeks, and when that day arrives, the whole thing will be posted here on the blog.]

Who's Left the Zoo Unlocked?

Where have these people been hiding?

A rather frightening collection of quite reactionary types seems to have emerged while the attention of Americans has been focused elsewhere. Interestingly, they have also emerged all across the existing class structure in the country with representative components strewn from the very richest to the most desperately poor demographics. Likewise, the usual disparity arising from widely varying levels of intelligence hasn't seemed to exert any particular "segregating influence" on the mob, either. Those at the very top clearly demonstrate a significant capacity to design and execute mischief while those perpetually eager ones at the very bottom are apparently unable to discern much at all.

The result is a quite unanticipated congruence of "political types" with very little in common beyond the obvious scheme currently unfolding.

The GOP's Striking Penchant for 

Whispering "Sweet Ideological Nothings"

By both the "passers" and the "receivers" - 

and "passing" for "political discourse" in 2015.

Since it is now only a year and several months prior to the 2016 election,  hundreds or thousands of "career oriented" broadcasters are already packing the air waves with amateurish, right wing political announcements, pronouncements, proclamations and other breathless, high wattage detritus. So much electrical energy is being dedicated to this purpose that one not familiar with the vacuous nature of the quadrennial electoral pageant might expect "some real substance" to be perched innocuously somewhere in all this blather. 

Not romantic enough? [image]

Of course visitors to this blog probably would never expect anything remotely like this, yet being "well informed" politically includes garnering a robust familiarity with the content of these "speeches" of theirs.

Here is the challenge.

Do a little sampling. MeanMesa's ROKU offers up a dozen or so of these "speeches" presented here and there with the "news" every night. Rather than simply "clicking" them into electronic oblivion in the nether reaches of hyper space, spend a minute listening to the Christies, Rubios, Trumps and the rest. While it's not particularly important [or healthy] to listen to exactly what they are saying, paying attention to the "general themes" of these carefully engineered conversational structures offers a starkly revelatory experience.

After consuming as much of this as is possible, you may very well conclude that these wing nuts are actually not talking about doing anything if elected. They no longer consider making campaign promises or out lining ambitious plans for the nation as worthy of the air time. Uttering or even hinting at such specific proposals have been defined as "quite risky" by the think tankers steering each candidate's media tactics from the back room, and, happily, so far as political promises go, the GOP base has now been so thoroughly numbed that they are no longer disposed to ever demand any.

For decades the American "conservative" movement has focused relentlessly on politics while avoiding making any "dangerous excursions" into actual policy or even promises of actual policy. In fact the priorities of paramount importance driving those in the super PAC think tanks seems to have almost nothing to do with the fate or direction of the nation, and, instead, has everything to do with manipulating the number of right wing voters who can be driven to the polls by the exquisitely crafted fears and outrages being presented in these very "speeches."

Although it must never be revealed to these "conservative" voters, there is, of course, an actual "conservative" policy. However, this carefully concealed "conservative" policy has a fatal flaw -- it will not deliver any election victories. No one in a "right mind" would ever think such a policy is even worth considering -- that is, except the billionaires who now officially own the Republican Party. They think finely honed, top secret, modern, "conservative," political policy of theirs is the "best thing since sliced bread."

For them, all that's left "to do" is to be very, very careful to never so much as mention this nasty, unsaleable, actual policy and, instead, direct billions of dollars worth of "campaign contributions" to selling something else to the GOP base. If that sale goes through, the oligarchs can simply "have at." That curiously interesting "something else" of theirs is, of course, the point of this post.

So, What ARE They Selling?

"Have another frozen ideology, Jimmy."

"Everything is swell."

Amazingly, even when things turn out unmistakably bad after a GOP "election victory," and these Congressional "servants of the oligarchs" are in power, no one who just voted for them complains! This is because, in such instances, things have turned out precisely as they promised in their campaign speeches! Plus, of course, the think tankers have also been working diligently all along to also establish someone to blame -- and, of course,  that would be "someone else" to blame.

The romantic potential of all this "frothy, ideological nothingness" has begun to sour as it encountered its inevitable competitor for the attention of the GOP base: 

 PAIN. 

The pain of existing in a continuously degrading economic reality will, given time, rise up to deflate this soap bubble, and we may be seeing the first fractures in this artificial racket unfolding right now. A comatose, paralytic, sold out Congress operating in a billion dollar echo chamber with the single intention of servicing the needs of its owners in the oligarch class doesn't help convince even this base that what is happening is actually somehow real.

While there's no real prospect of even imagining what the "bubble's collapse" will ultimately look like, the material consequences for Republicans are unavoidable.

A Closer Look at the Approaching Ice Berg

It is a mistake to presume that the shadowy clutch of insanely greedy, rapacious, democracy hating oligarchs is a new development. The oligarch class has been hard at work on achieving precisely this same outcome for decades. Much of the same inequality had been accomplished prior to FDR's time and the Great Republican Depression of 1929. During those times the obvious futility of the scheme was disguised below the palliative impression that everyone was making money on the market.

Well, everyone was making money on the market, but those at the top were REALLY making money on the market. When the quite predictable crash finally occurred, the disparity was reversed. Those at the top suffered a few scrapes and bruises, but everyone else REALLY lost their shorts on the market.

This time around the oligarchs did not find it necessary to divert the enticement of market advances to anyone except themselves. The population could be brought along quite nicely -- and quite cheaply -- with an unending stream of ideological fear mongering, artificial villains and irritating, fully funded, media chest beating.

If the GOP has thoroughly accomplished 

one thing in the past 6 years, it's this.

SUN OCT 12, 2014

by Rachel191/Daily KOS

[Excerpted. Read the entire article  here - Daily KOS ]

In six years of professional "No-ing," the GOP has accomplished very little. They've shut down the government, accused the president of trying to destroy the country, cooked up every sort of conspiracy theory you can imagine, attacked women, gays and minorities...but that really seems more like "activity" than something accomplished: petulant disagreeableness, throwing a wrench in the workings of the country because they're not in charge, and tearing down their scapegoats du jour.

But looking back at all Republicans have done, they seem to have achieved one goal really well: convince Americans making just enough that if only those with not enough had less, they'd be doing much better. Put another way, they've trained a certain segment of the population to kick downwards. Instead of looking at a system that makes it difficult to survive, instead of looking at the portion of the population that keeps getting richer and richer, instead of looking at how many hundreds and even thousands of times those above them make than everyone else...they look at the people just below them, getting poorer and poorer. Republicans have instilled such a level of contempt in people for unskilled laborers and the poor, that they do the work of justifying paying them less than enough to survive for the party.

So, what exactly is the ultimate goal of this oligarch class strategy which must never be shared publicly with the GOP base? Have a look.

“The most important chart about the 

American economy 

you'll see this year”

FRI SEP 26, 2014

by Bob Swern/Daily KOS

[Excerpted. Read the entire article  here - Daily KOS ]

I was doing my usual perusal of news and commentary throughout the blogosphere, earlier on Thursday, and I came across this quite stunning chart (see below) from Bard College and Levy Institute economist Pavlina Tcherneva.

Pavlina Tcherneva's chart showing the distribution of income gains during periods of economic expansion is burning up the economics internet over the past 24 hours and for good reason. The trend it depicts is shocking:

Emphasizing the Painfully Obvious [graphic MeanMesa]

Yglesias continues…

For a long time, most of the gains from economic growth went to the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution. And, after all, the bottom 90 percent includes the vast majority of people. Since 1980, that hasn't been the case. And for the first several years of the current expansion, the bottom 90 percent saw inflation-adjusted incomes continue to fall.

The data series ends in 2012 and we don't know how long the expansion will last, so that negative income trend may evaporate before all is said and done. But unless there's a massive break with the previous three expansions we will continue to have an economy where the typical family's living standards grow much more slowly than GDP growth per se would allow.

The Narcotic Appetite for the Simple Stuff

 From the "Good Ole' Days"

The mass appeal of ideology, absolutes and autocracy -- 

"piping hot," cheap and delicious!

[A little o' thet ol' rugged Bible don't hurt, neither...]

But not painless.

Because 30% to 40% of the American electorate has "chosen" to be swayed by this otherwise blatantly ridiculous rhetoric it may make sense to look at the phenomenon a little more closely.  

A human with a relatively "average" capacity to consider propositions allows the persuasive weight of the data supporting them to be a main part of the process, yet, we see literally millions of Americans progressing through a very different kind of consideration when we look at the behavior of these GOP - neo-conservative base voters. Rather than taking this more or less rational approach to the formation of their individual "beliefs," this demographic seems strangely willing to either "set aside" or even completely avoid factual data's role in the process.

Yes, they tend to be severely "information challenged," but even more strikingly, they seem to also be quite seriously "curiosity challenged." Hopefully, we can assume that an autonomous individual would be interested in whether or not the "factual data" set driving his conclusions [about all sorts of things] would have an "individualized interest" in determining the credibility of that data set.

For example, various ancient religions tacitly accepted the idea that a giant turtle was drawing the sun from horizon to horizon each day. Although we have no particular means of determining whether or not individuals of the time took this seriously -- i.e. as credible data -- the sheer longevity of the myth's duration suggests that, in fact, many of them must have. There was, at the time, scant information contradicting such a proposal which might have led to serious skepticism about its reasonableness. 

Earlier, the term "chosen" was presented. 

The importance of these political decisions made by the GOP's base is well established. Even they understand that their votes actually manifest future consequences in very tangible way. Further, there is no externally enforced prohibition to gathering vast amounts of the easily available "data set" which would normally drive the conclusions they were making. It may even be added that this voting demographic probably has at least an average measure of functional capacity for normal curiosity.

[The GOOGLE has long ago penetrated all socioeconomic barriers to having a presence in every trailer park and American Legion beer halls across the country.]

So, why have these voters "chosen" to disregard the highly available data sets which might have possibly pulled the process for the formation of their opinions closer to rationality? Right here, we have brushed an arcane kind of explanation -- one of MeanMesa's frequently cited favorites.

Codependency.

The attraction on the part of these "voters in a Democracy" toward such a self-defeating form of "political considering" is, indeed, quite abnormal. In fact, it is so seriously abnormal that it more or less demands an explanation, and that explanation will not only fill the hypothetical academic needs arising from the normal curiosity about such things in the minds of researchers of this topic, it is also urgently necessary for the long term survival of a rational "representative" part of the US system.

Can the unusual political behavior of the conservative base voters be explained as a symptom of codependency? Unhappily, yes.

The right wing think tankers considered the codependency so rampant in their base to be an unexploited treasure trove in terms of manipulating these voters and, ultimately, the election outcomes they were being paid handsomely to produce. If it weren't so impersonal and sinister, one might consider it a "thing of beauty," but those being maneuvered by the scheme are also paying with their fair share of pain.

Their suffering is constantly sustained as they receive a precisely designed collection of stimuli from their closed media which more or less continuously incites their un-examined fears and literally drives them to all sorts of incendiary states. We see ample evidence of this at Tea Party rallies. The attendees are so violently angered as a result of this echo chamber narrative that their behavior, while almost comical, is also certainly tragic. 

More reasonable people might worry about the health of these mentally impaired types, but the think tankers pulling their puppet strings are more than comfortable with the idea of simply sacrificing them to accomplish their contracted political ends.

We can revisit the title of this post.

Oligarchs

Autocrats 

Ideologues

How can the reactionary right wing voter become so complacent with such creatures? The codependency idea offers one explanation.

Oligarchs:

This may be the easiest of the three. Right wing propaganda promotes the impossible rise of the typical tea bagger to "millionaire status" or beyond as an essentially inevitable outcome once those to blame for holding the economy in check have been subjugated. The "blame crowd" includes poor people, old people, minorities, college students and so on.

According to the reactionary propaganda, these are exactly the Americans who are continuously "hollowing out" the nation's prosperity at the expense of all those who would have almost automatically prospered otherwise. Of course, this amounts to little more than "frog feathers" in the light of day, but given enough saturation by hate radio, these codependent Republican voters predictably begin to see themselves as victims.

There is a prescient anecdote [not MeanMesa's] which describes a tea bag's view of his own situation as that of a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire." 

Codependents are obsessed with control, and these codependents are convinced that if these "moochers" were to just be controlled, financial success for them would follow in basically an inevitable, spontaneous explosion in a few days. The rhetorical narrative of right wing propaganda implies that supporting reactionary candidates is the equivalent of, once again, reestablishing this control.

Perhaps the most egregious of the obviously false premises contained in the fundamentals of such propaganda is that, at some previous time, control of this type had fostered a wide spread, well balanced prosperity.

Autocrats:

Autocrats offer the codependent a special opportunity not really available elsewhere. In supporting an autocracy the individual task of forming opinions or proposals about how things "should" be run is removed. Things will be run as directed by the autocrat. So long as one supports the autocracy, one is relieved of the possibility of ever actually "being wrong." One is also relieved of the necessity of formulating ideas about potential alternatives to the autocratic "suggestions," "justifications" and arguments concerning "necessities."

The flow of reactionary propaganda is meant to accomplish many things, but in this respect its highest priority may be to simply portray the actions of the autocrat as being successful. The cause of any failures in the autocratic policy is laid at the feet of the dangerously out of step types, the carefully orchestrated "villains" in the milieu. The "villains" will never be defeated or neutralized, so the autocracy is perpetually excused and justified.

Those deserving credit and those deserving blame are provided to the codependent supporters of an autocracy as absolutes, unquestioned and unchanging. Everything is continuously under suffocating control. Meanwhile, there is only sacrifice -- always unfortunate and yet always also quite reasonable -- to be made, and no decisions to ever be taken.

Ideologues:

When political discourse can be entirely translated into questions of ideology, demands become theoretical. When the promises are devoid of details, the demands, in time, inevitably follow suit becoming cloudy generalities under which the success or failure of policy must be "debated."

However, because codependents detest confrontation, these "debates" resolve nothing while placing those "debating" into one inexorably comfortable ideology or another. "Debate positions" become the equivalent of uniforms identifying in which of the opposing armies one is enlisted. Any possible solutions are comfortably obscured by the fog of "true belief."

Individual responsibilities for any disagreements arising is transferred to the ideology -- at least to the individuals in charge of expressing it. We see examples of this in the doggerel maxims paraded so proudly in right wing demonstrations such as those televised during the attempt to recall Scott Walker.

The codependent individual is shielded from the necessity of ever creating or holding an actual position as an individual in favor of parroting the position of the ideology. When there is an actual confrontation between two parties, the ideologue can transfer "the heat" to a third, invisible character -- the ideology. When this occurs, the ideologue begins citing talking points as irrefutable fact, and the discussion is soon finished.

Aside from the obvious task of manipulating the reactionary GOP base in this way, the think tankers have not neglected the remainder of voters in the process. By reducing the once strong prospect of voters that their votes mattered to the modern alternative where that opinion has turned to the contrary, the old hope which used to inspire the process has been converted to hopeless futility. 

The old Chinese proverb may be quite on point here. 

"There are three emotions in the life of man -- love, hate and apathy. Of the three, apathy is the strongest."

Calling the 38% voter turn out in the 2014 election "apathy" may be off target. If it were truly the result of "apathy," we would not find ourselves so worried about it. Perhaps we will be more accurate to call it a carefully engineered disgust.