Posts Tagged ‘Vladimir Putin’

Mark Levin and the Establishment

Thursday, March 10th, 2022

Why does Levin sound like the establishment on Ukraine?

I really didn’t see this coming. I was on my way home from another day of work on Wednesday as Levin’s show began.  As he began talking about the events in Ukraine, it came to that moment when he said that he’d be having Lindsey Graham on in his third hour to discuss the Senator’s notion that Putin needs to be taken out, an idea with which Levin heartily agrees.  As I listened to him go on about his disdain for “nationalist-populists” and so on, before too much time had passed, a thought formed in my mind that I simply couldn’t escape.  At first, I thought, and may even have said aloud in answer to the radio: “Mark, you sound just like the establishment against which you always rail.” A commercial came on as I pondered that thought a little longer, and then it struck me.  It’s not that Mark Levin merely sounds like the establishment.  He is the establishment, or at least its errand-boy, perhaps unwittingly.

Do I think Mark Levin is deep within the DC establishment?  No.  On the other hand, he’s in their circle, perhaps loosely, and he’s put himself in a position through which they will attempt to exploit him, and thereby, his audience.  When he speaks, millions listen attentively.  They listen because he offers a view from inside politics, as a former chief of staff to an Attorney General of the United States.  Though his connections into the mechanisms of state are dated and most will have long since retired, that doesn’t mean the existing establishment hasn’t cultivated a connection to him through which they hope to propagandized and manipulate his audience.

Do you need proof?  Every time the Republican establishment needs something from him, he gives it, with few exceptions.  They know there will be some times and some areas of policy on which he will be unapproachable, but they know when election time rolls around, for the most part, they can count on him to carry their water.  He helped give us a whole string of Senators under the vague umbrella of the Tea Party movement, but most of them went on to betray us in varying degrees.  In 2020, he brought his audience Lindsey freaking Graham.  He pushed Lindsey for re-election.  He should have given him a strong kick in the ass and run him off.  Instead, Levin played the good soldier and brought Graham on his show, and while you could almost hear part of Levin holding his nose, he did it nevertheless.  In 2016, when Ted Cruz needed a “constitutional expert” to vouch for his eligibility to run for President, he went immediately to Levin.  In what I regard to be the biggest single betrayal of his audience in the whole of his career on the radio, he cobbled together some nonsensical explanation that “Natural Born Citizen” was “just a citizen.”  It was embarrassingly infantile and nonsensical, and it took a long time for me to get over it.  I had been researching the issue(and continued to for some time before publishing my article) when Levin made this pronouncement, and knew him to be full of piss and wind on the issue that day.

I knew then that Levin would bend things to support his own agenda, and that while it wasn’t perfectly aligned with the establishment, it was nevertheless amenable to them in some instances.  What happens to Levin seems to be that he’s so invested in winning that he’ll make friends with alleged enemies if he thinks it will help him advance his cause, but the problem with this approach is that often, it’s self-defeating, not only to Levin, but also to his audience. As another example, he’s friends with Senator Mike Lee, (R-UT,) a guy who makes many good arguments, but unfortunately also is the Senator from Google.  He’s thoroughly compromised by the funds and lobbying that rolls in the door from that company.  Levin won’t tell you about that. He’s protective of Lee on that issue. It’s as though it doesn’t exist.

Another good example is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, (R-CA,) another establishment stooge and first-rate swampster. Levin brought this stooge to you in 2020 also, just as he did Speaker Paul Ryan(R-WI) in previous election years. On Wednesday evening, Levin bashed McCarthy, after mentioning he was seemingly interested in coming on the show an longer.  Of course not, Mark, he got what he needed from you in 2020, pre-election. Check back in with him this coming Fall!  Ryan is the definition of a swampster, a Republican who’s married into a thoroughgoing Democrat family(and his sister-in-law is the Biden SCOTUS-pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson,) and who spent as little time in Wisconsin as was humanly possible.  In that respect, Ryan was a good deal like another swampster Levin brought you on his show when she was seeking election to the house: Elizabeth “Liz” Cheney(R-WY) spends even less time in Wyoming than Ryan spent in Wisconsin.  Do you see how the Republican establishment exploits him?  How is this possible for an alleged Tea Party guy, a constitutionalist?

I don’t believe Mark Levin is a part of the DC UniParty, but his orbit crosses theirs, whether he’ll admit it or not.  He makes mention from time to time on-air about how they reach out to him, and want to come on the show, but most of the time, if an election is tight, and he thinks he can help a little, he’ll bring them on.  It’s what it is.  Is he an evil guy?  No. Absolutely not.  The problem is that when you get into bed with these people, it’s hard to get away.  I also wouldn’t say he provides strictly establishmentarian propaganda.  He does provide much very good content, but I’m afraid that very often, too many of the wrong people have his ear.  He gets “insider” information from some people who are truly swampy.  How do I know?  I hear it on air.  I can tell what sorts of people within the bureaucracy or in the Congress have his ear. For Pete’s sake, he brought John Bolton(!) to Donald Trump.  He admitted on-air that Bolton had lobbied him strongly to get in on the NSA job with Trump.  Bolton was a catastrophe who spent his whole time in that job undermining Trump’s foreign policy agenda.  Levin admits it now, belatedly.  If I were Trump, I’d never listen seriously to another recommendation from Levin on personnel.  Ever.  Thinking about it, maybe neither should you.

Now Levin is taking information from the same crowd with respect to Ukraine.  He can see the Democrats are a catastrophe, but he can’t see that the information he’s being passed comes from the same sort of corrupt sources that brought Trump a recommendation of John Bolton via Mark Levin.  He remarked the other day that some fan had asked him in public whether he believed anything about it, because the media is so corrupt.  Levin explained to his audience that he’d told the man that the whole of the International Press isn’t corrupt too.  You see, he doesn’t see it.  The politicization of media hasn’t stopped at the water’s edge, any more than politics itself has stopped there.  Levin seems to be having a weird kind of “bromance” with Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, but the problem is that much of that upon which Levin bases his admiration for Zelenskiy has been debunked.  It turns out that Zelenskiy may be just as corrupt as his predecessor, if not quite as wealthy. He’s tied-in with Ihor Kolomoisky, another corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. Somehow, these facts escape Levin, or he’s not mentioning them because of his admiration for the Ukrainian president.  Either way, it’s a dangerous lack of perspective.

Levin has always had his strawmen and his foils.  Lately, he’s been concentrating on the “nationalist-populists,” decrying them as Putinophiles, or something in that vein.  I actually hate when he does this.  Name names, for Heaven’s sake!  In the case of “nationalist-populist,” I’m pretty certain he means Steve Bannon of WarRoom fame.  There seems to be real heartburn there, and Bannon, for his part, doesn’t help when he tosses out phrases like “Neocon” because it seems to trigger Levin’s antisemitism alarms.  Levin needs to get a grip.  Virtually nobody who uses the term “Neocon” means anything to do with Jews, and most of them won’t even know the relationship between “Neocons” and Jews in the purely historical sense.  It’s much like “establishment” in the sense that you might not be able to name an actual “neocon,” but you can identify their policies in action and advocacy when you see them, and while the original description “neocon” may have applied specifically to a particular group of Jews, it’s been clear for some time that their basic set of military and foreign policy issues have been adopted by a wider group of interventionist Republicans, many of whom are clearly not Jews.

It’s maddening. Levin is so close to the truth about Ukraine, but he’s being strung-along by his emotions, his admiration for Zelenskiy, and his cold-war-hardened hatred for all things Russia, particularly Putin. When you add to it what’s being pumped-out in the mainstream narratives, even by Republicans, especially swampsters, he just can’t shake it loose.  I’m afraid that until Levin overcomes these demons, he’s simply incapable of bringing you full and sensible information on Ukraine, and that’s simply the most disappointing development in media in a long, long while.

At the end of his show, in the last hour, Levin had Graham on his show to talk about taking out Putin.  If you listen, you can hear Lindsey Graham ingratiate himself to Levin with the slobbering remarks near the end of his appearance.  One could almost hear Levin’s heart melt.  I could vomit.

Here’s the full podcast(The Graham interview begins at the 1:28:55 mark):


Oh, and Mark? Ronald Reagan never once called for taking-out Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko or Gorbachev. He knew that the last thing a nuclear-armed country run by a totalitarian government needs is any sort of instability of that sort.  Do you think the people who would take out Putin would be any more stable or less dangerous to the United States?  No.  Reagan knew better than nonsensical ideas like that. You should be ashamed of yourself for associating such a foolish idea with the temperament and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

 

Advertisements

Caught in the Crossfire Between Empires of Lies

Monday, February 28th, 2022

Ukraine: Caught in the crossfire between empires of lies

I grew up in a large family.  All but one of us children were boys.  Like boys often do, brotherly taunts and squabbles could at time give way to furious fights.  While not unusual, the odd thing about families is that there’s a kind of cohesiveness that generally holds them together when the threats come from outside.  Though at “war” with one another as we at times seemed to be, it was nevertheless true that against outsiders, we quickly rejoined ranks to thwart the interlopers.  Right or wrong, after all, these were my brothers, and our fraternal bonds were far stronger.  Ever did we automatically take one another’s side over outsiders, often without thought and consideration, but by mere reflex of habitual fraternal loyalty. This was our brotherly version of “politics end at the water’s edge.” The problem with this, occasionally, is that at times, it led us to support brothers who may have acted badly outside our borders.  The baseline assumption was ever that our brothers were right, and this was sometimes a mistaken conclusion.  When these things happen on the scale of a family, they can be forgiven as acts of fraternal loyalty.  When they happen on the scale of nations and continents, and indeed the globe, we have a deeper responsibility to examine the actions and intentions of our own brethren.  The folly in failing to do so could be catastrophic. We Americans have been coming to grasp that our government is thoroughly corrupted, and that it bears no resemblance to the ideals it renders as a mask.  “Truth, Justice and the American way” have been replaced with “Justice and Truth are what we tell you, and that is the American way.” Is Putin’s allegation true in any measure?  He says the West, starting with the United States, has become an “Empire of Lies.”

Self-appointed President-for-Life Vladimir Putin is a professional liar.  To be in the intelligence operation of the former Soviet KGB is to act as the bodyguard of a colossal set of lies.  Make no mistake about it:  Putin is not a trustworthy man, and all of his words are laced with falsehoods, half-truths and distortions, all aimed at disarming his audience to make them easier to overwhelm.  His work truly is the province of pure information warfare, but like all such warfare, it relies on kernels and nuggets of truth.  If he were to suggest that Zelenskiy is the agent of aliens, or that Joe Biden is a failed alien-human hybrid, we’d be right to discount everything he says.  What makes some of his propaganda somewhat successful, I’m afraid, is that he attacks at our points of true weakness:  He attacks our Western governments’ most fundamental lies.  This does not mean that we should take anything he says at face value, but in examining his words, we should be careful to heed the dangerous truths he’ll happily employ to sow chaos and dissention among us.  It is those small but glaringly significant truths we must hasten to address, not in answer to the Russian dictator, but in honest and truthful appraisal of our own condition and situation.

Where the Western foreign policy and intelligence establishment is concerned, we have been an “Empire of Lies” for many years. One can go back much further in our history than the post-World War II environment to find lies, but they became systematized and ingrained beginning roughly during the Second World War.  This is when the first widespread programs of war propaganda were employed by the United States, not merely against its enemies, but particularly against its own citizens.  Remember “Rosie the Riveter?” She was a fictional character used to implore more women to join the war’s industrial workforce.  Whether it was good or bad; right or wrong, it was war propaganda deployed against the American people.  Many countries produced this sort of propaganda.  In some instances, such propaganda was disguised as “news.”  Soviet Russia was a gargantuan producer of war propaganda.  At some points in the war, propaganda and the ferocity of the fighting it inspired was their most important weapon.

Nowadays, propaganda is generally more nuanced, though outlets like PBS and NPR do their best to engage in full-time propagandization.  One way or another, it’s in everything you will see or hear from those outlets.  It’s in their news, but also in their programming for children.  It’s in everything.  Of course, the private-sector media is little different.  They tend to be somewhat less obvious, most of the time, but their messaging is polluted with propaganda of some sort virtually every minute of every day, in this case on behalf of paying customers, some governmental, but also some in the private sector.  This is how you get to the spectacle of CNN, with a huge proportion of its current sponsorship being the large pharmaceutical companies, like Pfizer.

Over the last several years, any person who pays even passing attention to the so-called “news” cannot help but notice the frequency with which stories are later shown to have been mistaken, wrong, or entirely fabricated.  Lately, it seems everything we hear in so-called mainstream media is a lie.  It’s gotten so bad that many people now assume that to get to the truth of a story, all they need do is simply turn on MSNBC and believe the exact opposite of whatever its anchors spew, and they’re not far off.  “Reverse-viewing” our mainstream media is not a bad tactic, and more people are now employing it.

What astonishes me most, however, is how many of my fellow Americans simply forget from time-to-time what it is that they’re listening to, or who actually crafted the messages they’re hearing.  A good example at this moment in history is the War in Ukraine.  How much of the “news” we’re receiving is real?  How much of it is fabrication?  Somehow, some people who are ordinarily, rightfully skeptical of our media seem to adopt the notion of fraternal suspension of doubt when we get to the water’s edge.

I will not here allege that Vladimir Putin is a “good guy.” I don’t believe that for a moment, but my own biases about the dictator aside, I must ask, if I’m to be honest:  How do I know anything at all about Putin?  How have my impressions about him been formed, and is it unusual that they’re almost uniformly bad?  Remember in 2016 when Trump made mention that Putin was a  strong leader for his country?  What Trump was stating quite factually, in the way he does, is that Putin, whatever else you might say about him, is a strong leader for his country.  Whatever else I might say of Putin, this seems to be true.  Do you remember what happened next, after Trump had made this pronouncement?  Yes, the whole world of American politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, shouted him down with a cacophonous, screeching rebuke.  The media mocked him, the late-night “comics” lambasted him, and he was roundly presented either as a rube or as a stooge.  Why?  Even if he had been wrong, surely potential voters would recognize this and turn away.  You see, the problem was that he challenged a long-nurtured, well-constructed, widely-disseminated narrative about Vladimir Putin.  That was Trump’s central offense at that moment.

It’s not that I think Putin’s right to invade Ukraine — quite the contrary — but there are some truths we must examine in our own back yard even as we confront him.  The so-called DeepState, spread across countries and continents, really is that Empire of Lies about which Putin speaks.  They lie to us systematically, and they defraud us consistently.  They use the intelligence assets for which we pay against us, and even against our President.  To call the DeepState a “cabal” is to understate its reach and influence by many orders of magnitude.  Pointing out this particular Empire of Lies does not, however, make Putin our friend.  What it should cause instead is that we seek to remove and demolish the DeepState before it can cause us a catastrophe.  It won’t make the problem with Putin disappear, but it might prevent the next one.

After all, as I covered on Sunday morning, the Biden administration, through its agents, officers and operatives, made certain that the most threatening view of Ukraine be presented to Putin.  Would Putin have invaded Ukraine had he not been led to believe its membership in NATO was imminent?  It was this same “Empire of Lies” which left him with that unambiguous perception.  We may never know how much this particular manipulation played into Putin’s actions against Ukraine, but it almost certainly didn’t help matters.

Put it another way: How many of the people now sternly denouncing Putin either have some interests of their own in Ukraine, or have clear associations with this “Empire of Lies?” Notice that even now, as the West announces more sanctions against Russia, including banning Russian banks from the SWIFT payments system, what they struggle to de-emphasize is the single word: “some.” One must read beyond the headlines in this era of entirely propagandized media narratives.  The headline blares:

US and EU ban Russian Banks from Swift system in latest sanction

What they omit from the headline is a single, but important word: “Some.” This is done to conceal from you the whole truth, by telling you a lie by omission. Many people read only headlines. Often, truths like this will be buried deep in a story, or even in a linked sub-stories.  This way, they can later have claimed to tell you the truth while trying to engineer some cheap mis/disinformation.  Clearly, Western “mainstream media” is a fully functional organ of the “Empire of Lies.” When you dig around in this story, and chase the story across many platforms, “some” gives way to “select.”  Then “select” gives way to “key.” In the end, you realize that this is a mostly symbolic ban to the degree it’s a ban at all.

This is a story of intense importance, not because Putin’s a trustworthy source, but because we already know that our own “mainstream” sources are completely unreliable. I’m not making a case on Putin’s behalf.  That’s in no way related to my point.  Putin is merely picking at a scab barely covering a deep wound of which we are already domestically aware.  That he opportunistically pecks at our wounds does not mean we should ignore them.  What I intend to provoke here is the idea that Americans should begin to doubt everything, to avoid making the error of alleged fraternal trust in our media and governments, not because we should trust Putin, but because we too easily trust our own government and media, often at our own peril.  Look how frequently and easily they’ve blatantly lied to us in recent years.  Why would this story be any different?  I’ve been scanning a variety of foreign news outlets, particularly European, and they seem, as ever, to be singing from the same basic hymnal as our own.  Take away the foreign accents and cultural differences, and the stories could have been produced just as easily by CNN or MSNBC.  Sky News, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera, and many others are examples.  Sometimes, your own “brother” is lying to you, and you’d do well to see it.  At this scale, the stakes are simply too great, and we cannot permit alleged familial bonds to blind us to the monsters operating happily within our own Western and American families.  While we’re quite right to doubt most anything that issues forth from Putin’s lips, we should exercise no less caution in evaluating the pronouncements of our own government and media.  They lie to us daily.  For the average citizen, this begins to take on all the appearances of a war among rival gangs of villains, with ordinary people, as ever, caught squarely in the middle.

 

Sarah Palin Is Right About Obama’s Intentions

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

The Gov Weighs In

When President Obama was caught by an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he needed more flexibility because this is an election year, he wasn’t saying this as a means to buy time for negotiations as his staff later claimed.  He was plainly delivering a promise on our missile defense systems that endangers every American from sea to shining sea.  This ridiculous behavior caught the attention of many, but it brought down a hail of criticism from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has embarked on a mission to thoroughly vet Barack Obama since the media didn’t do it in 2008, and since Obama now has a record from which he cannot escape.  In an article entitled The Audacity of Obama’s Intentions Revealed, Governor Palin makes the strong case that Barack Obama isn’t looking out for American interests, and may indeed by hurting them.

She offers the following quote from the open-mic transcripts:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

“Vladimir” is none other than Vladimir Putin.  What Medvedev does is agree to be a courier for Obama and deliver a message to Putin.  He’s buying time, but it’s political time, meaning he is offering to come across with what Putin wants but he has to wait until after the election when he’ll be able to get away with almost anything if re-elected.  From Gov. Palin’s Facebook note:

“I pointed this out as Governor of Alaska when he proposed reducing Alaska’s missile defense system capabilities. I explained then that the President’s proposed military cuts would diminish Alaska’s opportunity to defend the union with our strategic location’s defense infrastructure. We also know that in 2009, as part of his “reset” with Russia, President Obama turned his back on our Eastern European allies by abandoning past promises for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Governor Palin is spot-on about this.  President Obama has done everything he could to weaken the United States position with respect to Russia, and it hasn’t gone well for America’s defenses as Obama has cut our vital strategic capabilities.  Among other things she notes, Gov. Palin points out the disastrous results of just three short years of Obama’s defense policies for American national security:

“He has consistently taken a position of weakness and naïve trust in Putin’s Russia. Consider that one-sided New START Treaty as an example of this. Or consider those cuts to Alaska’s missile defense system, which leaves us much more vulnerable in the face of a nuclear North Korea. Now consider the state of our national defense under a President who whispers to a foreign power that he needs even “more flexibility” to weaken us further.”

This is demonstrably true, and it should cause great concern for Americans.  Read the rest of Governor Palin’s article here.  I think it’s a dangerous sign that the President of the United States is making whispered assurances of this sort to Putin’s emissary.  What Obama clearly has in mind is the ability to rule without worry about being kicked to the curb for his disgraceful behavior in this matter, but also his general lack of concern for the defenses of our nation.

My questions are simple, and I’ve asked them many times before, in various forms:  What is Barack Obama after?  Why is he undermining our country?  What will he gain?  Whose interests does he serve, since it cannot be ours?  Why do I get the feeling that if re-elected, Barack Obama might well leave this country even more fully open to attack than his policies have already made it?

As Governor Palin points out elsewhere in her article, while we can’t know what’s in Barack Obama’s mind, we can make educated guesses based on his past performance as a decryption key in speculating about his future actions.  In my own view, with the past as prologue, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that Barack Obama isn’t intentionally undermining America and bolstering its enemies at home and abroad.  As I have pointed out before, I do not believe that Obama’s actions owe to incompetence.  What he’s doing is by design, and the increasing threat of an Obama second term should be terrifying to Americans who love their country.

Shock Poll: Politico Less Trustworthy Than Vladimir Putin

Friday, November 4th, 2011

Even Vlad Can't Believe It!

Respondents to an on-line poll have (thus far) overwhelmingly said they find the political website Politico.com less trustworthy than Vladimir Putin.  Mark Levin is running his “Daily Temperature Poll” on this question, and as of this writing, more than 1619 respondents have voted in the poll, and by an overwhelming margin, respondents said they trusted Politico less.  This undoubtedly stems from Politico’s biased, ridiculous and very nearly fact-free coverage of  the Herman Cain story, and since they broke the story they ought to bear the burden when it turns out to be a fiasco.  I’ve been unable to contact any of the hacks reporters at Politico.com for comment. I tried.  No, I really did.

Here’s a screen-shot of the poll.  (You can go take the poll by clicking the image):

Click Image to Take Poll

You can be certain that this won’t sit well with Politico, but then again, who cares?  This is also a great example of the sort of polls and analysis to which you are generally treated by the mainstream media.  Poll methodology?  Well, no matter what, it’s got to be better than the vote taken by Occupy Oakland. It certainly has had more voters already.  Politico has published 90 Cain stories in just five(5) days.  It certainly hasn’t helped their credibility.  Go take the poll HERE

The one thing to be learned from this poll is that recidivist commies are more trustworthy than the unrepentant ones.