Category Archives: Police State (US)

Mueller And Atta: Fake Intel Runs Through … Prague, Part 1


By ©ilana mercer

No, the moral of the Mueller inquisition is not that the Left is incorrigibly corrupt and morally and intellectually bankrupt, although this is certainly true.

And, no. It’s not that the Republicans are meek, more eager for swamp-creature tenure than to save the country. However much state power flaccid Republicans capture, they quickly come to heel when Democrats crack the whip.

The moral of the Mueller inquisition, at least one of them, concerns the alphabet soup of acronyms that stands for the Permanent Security State—FBI, DOJ, DIA, DHS, CIA, NSA, on and on. That this intractable apparatus’ impetus is liberal is hardly new. What is counterintuitive to many is that the Permanent Security State’s modus operandi comports perfectly well with both Republican and Democratic administrations, alike.

When it comes to subverting an “America First,” sovereignty-centered, populist platform—the duopoly acts as one. Have not fans of Mr.  Mueller kept reminding us that the man is a loyal Republican? And he is—Mueller’s a Republican stalwart of the managerial class. (By the way, Mueller fans can find “Mr. Mueller-face earrings and Mueller devotional candles on Etsy, the e-commerce equivalent of a hippie grandmother’s attic.”)

To make sense of the Russia Monomania and the Mueller time we all served, it is essential to grasp the anatomy of American state power.

In particular, to comprehend the mass hysteria that is the war on Trump, it’s crucial to trace the contours of that other war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and the way it was peddled to the American public.

The manufacturing of Fake News by the Deep State, circa 2017, is of a piece with the anatomy of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, in 2003. Except that back then, Republicans, joined by many a diabolical Democrat like Hillary Clinton, were the ones who dreamt up Homer Simpson’s Third Dimension in Iraq.

Fact: The Steel Dossier, which launched the Mueller inquisition, was as fantastical a fabrication as were the documents that fed the Bush administration’s will to war.

As it is, intelligence report-writing is more art than science; more flare than fact. It’s executed by many of the same, tinny, dogmatic, ex-CIA feminists whom we see plonked in CNN studios, ponderously pontificating about Our Russian Enemy.

From the CIA to CNN, the youthful talking heads (and their shapely keisters) have only ever gone from a swivel chair at the Langley headquarters to a seat in a CNN studio, in New York City.

It’s not at all unfair to conclude that the “intelligence” these cartoon characters produced as CIA or FBI agents is as intelligent as their commentary in the TV studio.

PRAGUE AGAIN?

Did no one but this writer have PTSD-related flashbacks when Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, was floated during the Mueller madness?

During his testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the bewildered Michael Cohen—a tragic figure, really—was asked in all seriousness whether he had liaised with “Kremlin officials” in Prague. “I’ve never been to the Czech Republic,” Cohen shot back.

Curiously, Prague is umbilically linked to another notorious intelligence hoax.

According to manufactured American intelligence, a putative meeting between Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of Sept. 11, and Iraqi intelligence, was said to have taken place in … Prague.

Atta and the Iraqi assets never met in Prague. (At the time, Iraq had been 95-percent disarmed and was in possession of no weapons of mass destruction, an assessment backed by many an expert in strategic studies BEFORE THE WAR.)

The Prague apparition is a thread that runs through the Iraq and Mueller mythology.

Is Prague a figment of an intelligence officer (a female enterprise?) who had just read her first Milan Kundera novel? Inquiring minds have to wonder.

Seriously, Prague is the witches brew you get when you fuse the FBI’s highly-strung anti-Trump brigade with Christopher Steele’s “research” team.

Certainly, the publicly available CIA reports, offering “irrefutably” incriminating evidence against Iraq—the one I had perused in December of 2002—had novel-like qualities.

UNINTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE

Hardly sober and scholarly, the bafflegab that convinced Republicans to destroy the balance of power in Iraq and the region went something like, “Saddam will probably”; “Give him time and he will eventually”; “With sufficient weapons-grade fissile material, he’ll doubtless”; “He doesn’t have the capability to develop enriched uranium or plutonium to fuel a nuclear bomb, but just you wait …”

This is obviously not the letter of the texts that convinced everyone (except a few of us) to destroy Iraq. But it’s close enough to its spirit.

How the CIA cobbled together evidence for an “interest in acquiring” or “an effort to procure”—considering that these WMD-related purchases never seemed to materialize—isn’t clear. What proof did we have that they were even initiated? None.

I hazard that much of the compositions masquerading as intelligence and continually cited by political actors in privileging their policies are in language that is manifestly intended to exempt the writer from having to substantiate much of the claims.

Be it against Iraq or Russia, the political storyline du jour is manufactured by America’s gilded elites. To this—to heading a principate like Rome—Republican Karl Rove famously confessed during the era of Bush II:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”  Not coincidentally, Karl is currently urging Republicans to “move on from Robert Mueller,” nothing here to see.

MANUFACTURING CONSENT

To manufacture consent over Iraq, elements in the intelligence community worked with neoconservative counterparts in Bush 43’s administration, in particularity with “the Office of Special Plans.” And while Fake News babes did wonders to sex up, stateside, the cause of senseless killing—the dissemination of Fake News, vis-a-vis Iraq, was hardly the exclusive province of Fox News. With some laudable exceptions, Big Media all was tuned-out, turned-on and hot for holy war in the cause of democracy, WMD, whatever.

Now, it’s all-out war on Trump. Then, the same Machine aligned against Iraq.

Salient in 2003, as in 2017, was the monolithic quality of the cheer-leading coming from the networks; an unquestioning uniformity that spoke to a slutty sell-out throughout the media establishment. For journalistic jingoism, it’s impossible to best the coverage of the high-tech media extravaganza known as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Embedded with the military turned out to be a euphemism for in bed with the military. Practically all network embeds focused exclusively on the Pentagon’s version of events, to the exclusion of reality on the Iraqi ground. Yet reporters who slept with their sources were treated as paragons of truth. Those of us who refused such cohabitation were labeled “unilaterals,” deniers, unpatriotic, and worse.

Reporting hearsay as truth and failing to verify stories were all in a day’s work on cable and news networks. A Geiger counter that went off in the inexpert hands of a young Marine, stationed in Iraq, became “Breaking News,” possible evidence of weapons-grade plutonium. Every bottle of Cipro pills located was deemed a likely precursor to an anthrax factory. Anchormen and women somberly seconded these “finds,” seldom bothering to issue retractions.

When you’re the most powerful entity in the world, as the U.S. government still is—you get to manufacture your own parallel universe with its unique rules of evidence and standards of proof. What’s more, as the mightiest rule-maker, you can coerce other earthlings into “sharing” your alternate reality by hook or by crook, abroad or at home.

More than anything, the moral of Mueller is that the Security State is dangerous to all Americans, Republicans, Deplorables—even Democrats.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Advertisements

The Teachers’ Pets Of Douglas High, Florida, Can’t Think Straight


By ilana mercer

“In America,” observed as Oscar Wilde, “the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.”

So it is with the activist kids who’ve emerged from the Parkland, Florida, school massacre of February 14th, in which 17 of their own were murdered.

Each one sounds like the proverbial teacher’s pet, groomed to take a monolithic message to the media.

Like their educators, these one-track minds “don’t impress me much.” The National Rifle Association (NRA) they invariably frame as big, bad and greedy; government as not big enough, generally good and certainly benign.

There are, indubitably, good arguments to be made against the NRA. The kids—who managed to be, for the most, rude, ungrammatical, sanctimonious and smarmy—failed to muster them.

Trained pets that they are, the dogged media kids of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High seemed capable of focusing only on the one causal factor to the exclusion of all others: guns, their legal purveyors and their law-abiding owners.

The students who were front-and-center on the idiot’s lantern were unwilling to hold the shyster sheriff, Scott Israel, and his notoriously iffy Broward County department, responsible for—there is no way to finesse it—enabling, indulging, even grooming killer Nikolas Cruz over years. To students, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO) was blameless. Lackluster logic led them to the NRA alone.

One young media darling told of his love of Civics classes. This, while refusing to consider the state’s role in what were systemic and systematic failures.

Reliably derelict and criminally negligent, Sheriff Israel and his Broward County law enforcement didn’t “slip-up.” As a matter of progressive policies and philosophy, sheriff and officers had decided against protecting the people they had sworn to protect.

The BSO has been practicing the progressive penal abolition and restorative justice models of crime “prevention.” Yet our auditioning activists have refused to do their basic civic duty: hold this branch of government accountable for its end of the civic compact.

Out of the mouths of babes we hear that officer Scot Petersen and his compadres—they milled about outside Douglas High, while inside children were being riddled by bullets—were mere NRA scapegoats.

Almost unanimously unmoved were the kids by the fact the BSO had received 45 desperate calls over years, detailing homicidal threats made by the killer and violent, deviant altercations in which he was embroiled. Thirty-nine times had the Broward Sheriff’s officers visited the Cruz home in seven years. A critical mass of criminality and pathology was discounted by law-enforcement in ways at once callous, stupid and depravedly indifferent.

The one civic-minded kid could recite the purpose of a bicameral legislature, but cared not a bit about the imperative of government to protect life, liberty and property. Or, about the role of the Second Amendment in mitigating the effects of such a dangerous government. Likewise was the FBI given a pass for being  every bit as criminally culpable as the Broward County sheriff and his lawful crime syndicate.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a repeat offender.

Coined by Patrick Pool, a national security and terrorism correspondent, the term “Known Wolf” denotes the relationship between the FBI and the dangerous criminals it’s supposed to neutralize. In almost all of America’s major terrorist attacks—and in the Florida, Parkland, school shooting, too—the FBI failed to stop well-known wolves. As far as I can tell, Parkland is the first time this rogue agency has admitted wrongdoing.

The good news for those of us who view government as the greater evil: The NRA has now been pitted against the FBI, and that’s an extra check on power.

Back to the kids: To top it all off, when asked what would make him feel safe enough to return to school, teacher’s pet du jour replied: “legislation.” He’s not going back to school until anti-gun legislation has been drafted.

Here’s a quick verbal drill for children whose minds have been turned into mush by menopausal, hippie teachers (those with the Y Chromosome, included): There’s an active shooter in school. What do you do? Reach for legislation? Remind the frenetically active shooter that he is flouting the legislation? Not quite.

You shelter in place, hunker down, look for an escape, run to a designated panic room or shelter. All the while, you hope the officers who took an oath to protect you don’t take a hiatus, as did Sheriff Scott Israel’s officers.

Another mantra kids keep regurgitating is that “authentic” learning requires complete freedom of access, open spaces and indiscriminate inclusivity. All cardinal lies and illogic.

To that effect, teachers have already been waxing fat: “Security makes us feel sad.” [Isn’t feeling sad better than being dead?] “We’re here to learn and to teach.” [Since when are safety and scholarship mutually exclusive?] Ultimately, the strength of ideas rests on their relationship to reality. Contrary to the teachers who’re force-feeding students their uniform and uninformed ideas, the schools must be fortified.

Fortresses are facts of history. If young ignoramuses learned more history and less “social studies” and the imperative of activism; they’d know that since antiquity, fortification has protected and facilitated civilization.

Learning requires peace of mind. If fortress conditions are a prerequisite for survival—if fortification keeps the barbarians at bay—then the rational mind will find tranquility in security.

As a traditional libertarian, never a libertine, this writer agrees with the activist students of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High on one matter. If anything has been affirmed by the heartbreaking murder of 17 people, it is that teens should not own guns. Even a cerebrally compromised biology teacher at a progressive school would surely second that, in individuals so young, the capacity for higher-level abstraction and advanced reasoning is not fully developed.

An effort by retailers, not by regulators, to limit gun purchases by teens (practice and proficiency can still be pursued under adult supervision), should, ideally, be accompanied by efforts to repeal the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, smuggled into the Constitution by statute, to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, and artificially swell the ranks of Democratic voters.

Kids are Democrats by default.

And, if 18 is too young to vote, or to purchase firearms—18 is also too young to enlist!

“We are going to outlive these old men in congress,” declared a Douglas High School activist defiantly. Ageism is apparently quite fine when leveled at older white men. Well, then, let us agree that the wily “old men” in power should not be allowed to entice the young and the gullible to serve as cannon fodder in the recreational wars they routinely prosecute.

**

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

The US FBI: Rule Of Law Or Law Of Rule?


By ilana mercer

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s sin was lying to liars, not colluding with Russians.

When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump’s 2016 election, former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to the electorate.

In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn’s deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that Obama’s expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at “boxing Trump in diplomatically,” making it impossible for the president to “improve relations with Russia,” a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.

To defuse President Obama’s spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot of which was that Russia “retaliated” by … inviting US diplomats and their families to the Kremlin for a New Year’s bash.

A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn’t you say?

Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Kushner likely instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council’s favorite pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by Daddy and the first daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.

One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s violations, here, is that Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect’s promised foreign policy—diplomacy with Russia—is not illegal.

Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government’s KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.

The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated “criminal” label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?

Nowhere.

By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common criminals.

An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them.

Likewise was Martha Stewart imprisoned—not for the offense of insider trading, but for lying to her inquisitors. During interrogation, the poor woman had been so intimidated, so scared of conviction—wouldn’t you?—that she fibbed. The lead federal prosecutor in her case was the now-notorious James B. Comey. (See “Insider Trading Or Information Socialism?”)

This kind of entrapment—the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn’s case about a non-crime—is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make “a materially false” statement to a federal official—even when one is not under oath.

It’s perfectly fine, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into fibbing. By such tactics, The State has created a category of crime from which a select few are exempt.

Is this equality under the law or inequality under the law?

Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.

Yet another tool in the Deep State toolbox is to lean on family members in order to extract a confession. To get Flynn senior to confess, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is purported to have threatened the junior Mike Flynn with a legal kneecapping.

Ultimately, The State has overwhelming power when compared to the limited resources and power of an accused. The power differential between The State and an accused means he or she, as the compromised party, will cop a plea.

The Flynn guilty plea bargain, if you will, is nothing more than a negotiated deal which subverts the very goal of justice: the search for truth.

In the process of hammering out an agreement that pacified a bloodthirsty prosecutor, Flynn’s punishment for doing nothing wrong has been reduced.  President Trump’s former national security adviser will still have to sell his home to defray the costs of a federal onslaught.

Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule? The question is a rhetorical one.

**

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & YouTube.

 

 

Truman Would Have Agreed With Trump On The CIA In Syria


By Ilana Mercer

Said the president: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and, at times, a policy-making arm of the Government. … [T]his quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue.” Read more

Why Are the “Adults in the Room” So Awful?


Kevin Carson

It’s common among centrists to describe themselves — in contrast to the “far Left” and “far Right” — as the “rational adults” who can compromise and get things done. The “rational adult” trope usually appears in conjunction with “Horseshoe Theory,” according to which wisdom and reasonableness inhere in the political center and deviation from the center is identified with greater “extremism” the further to the Left or Right one goes. Read more

« Older Entries