Friday, October 18, 2019

Making The Truth Irrelevant

Real news is a bit slow these days. Yes, we've learned that it was John Durham who brought Mifsud's FBI issued Blackberries back from Italy--undoubtedly to the very great consternation of the FBI, and all who were in any way associated with Team Mueller. Impeachment Theater is also providing an ever clearer picture of the Deep State from the Ukraine Hoax: Its members, its tactics, its history and dealings--really, since around the end of the Cold War. Still, news is a bit slow. Therefore, I offer today excerpts from an essay that address some of the broader issues confronting the American constitutional order. What I've done is to simply excerpt those portions that were bolded in the original--until the very end. The original is very lengthy, but worth the time to read. I will add that I don't see eye to eye with the author on all matters. But here goes:

The Holy Grail For Our Rulers: Making The Truth Irrelevant

by Robert Gore

Truth is always the enemy of power. [Ultimately, truth is power because it is reality, and reality always has its revenge on unreality. The author is expressing the Gnostic version of reality, in which power trumps truth. That is the state of play in our polity, corrupted by Gnostic ideology, as Deneen explains.]

What if, instead of suppressing the truth, a regime could render it irrelevant and not have to worry about it? That prospect is the Holy Grail for those who rule or seek to rule.

That is the purpose of Russiagate and now the Ukraine impeachment controversy—they are part of a long running project to render the truth about our rulers irrelevant.

The key assertion upon which Russiagate rested was that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server was hacked by a Russian operative named Guccifer 2.0, who then turned the data obtained over to Wikileaks.

The crucial problem with the hacking narrative is that there was no hack.

With this one fact the entire Russiagate narrative should have collapsed. That it ultimately did collapse with the release of the Mueller report and his testimony can be regarded as a failure by Trump’s many enemies. However, from the standpoint of the ultimate mission—rendering the truth irrelevant—it has been a shining success.

Which is why the Democrats feel they can get away with an attempt to impeach President Trump over a phone call he had with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Russiagate was launched by Ukrainian officials who disseminated rumors in 2016 that Trump was in league with Russia and later, openly questioned his suitability for the presidency.

In his phone call with President Zelensky, President Trump elliptically mentions CrowdStrike, from which it can be inferred he wanted CrowdStrike investigated:

Joe Biden did what the Democrats accuse President Trump of doing—interfering in Ukraine’s investigative and judicial processes for political benefit.

A mere recitation of the known, indisputable facts makes out a prima facie case of influence peddling and bribery, and had Shokin been allowed to pursue his investigation, he might well have launched criminal proceedings against Burisma and perhaps Hunter Biden.

In 2000, the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration between the US and Ukraine, “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,” providing, in the words of Bill Clinton, “for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters.”

One can hardly imagine a more inauspicious set of circumstances for the Democrats to launch an impeachment investigation and potentially a vote by the Democratic-majority House of Representatives to impeach, followed by a Senate impeachment trial. So why are they doing it?

Things will be different in the Senate, but the worst case for the Democrats is the Republicans conduct a short, pro forma trial and vote not to convict. [In this context, McConnell is speaking of a 6 week trial. Short? Long? I suppose that all depends!]

Many of the traditional Republican rank and file have an unshakeable belief, firmly held through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama, that if some supposedly decisive swath of the electorate only knew the illicit things those two, and Democrats in general, have done, they would rise up and electorally smite them. It didn’t happen during the Clinton and Obama administrations and it won’t happen now.

The only thing left of Russiagate is Trump and company’s investigation of its genesis and development, which may result in criminal prosecutions against some of its sponsors. Other than that possibility, which will take years to play out in the courts, the sponsors have paid no price for Russiagate.

The Democrats are simply going to rerun the Hillary Clinton email scandal playbook.

The brass ring for the Democrats would be a Senate vote to convict, and there may be enough Mitt Romney-type Republican turncoats that the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. Failing that, the Democrats would settle for winning the 2020 presidential election.

A Democratic victory next year would be a giant victory for the truth irrelevance project. Two scandals manufactured out of whole cloth will not only not have cost them anything electorally, they will have further solidified their base, most of whom quit caring about the truth long ago.

The US is well down the road to stifling dissent and the truth. The Democrats are disregarding the truth and putting their chips on kangaroo justice. Republicans are rightfully outraged, but what kind of justice has the US meted out to truth-tellers and true whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning? Are there any prominent Republicans who have spoken out in defense of their truth telling or right to fair judicial processes? The truth irrelevance project is bipartisan. [This gets at the problem of the Deep State's relationship with the GOPe as well as the Dems. What the ruling elite of this country has been transformed into.]

In 2016, the resistance to Government As Currently Constituted And The Powers That Be got behind Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders got screwed by his own party; Trump won the presidency. Whether Trump is more a symbol of resistance than the real thing is a topic for another essay. The important point is that his voters constructively channeled their frustrations, played by the rules, and voted him into office.

If House Democrats conduct their kangaroo proceedings and Trump is convicted by the Senate, or if he stays in office but the impeachment and attendant media circus cost him the election, his supporters will stare at three relevant truths:

1) the government, its string pullers, and its sycophants and toadies in the media, business, academia, Hollywood and elsewhere [i.e., The Establishment] are completely corrupt; 
2) voting is useless, the only choices allowed are those approved by the powers; 
3) the system will never be reformed from the inside.

Some of the resistance, disillusioned, will give up. The rest will continue to resist, but they won’t be playing by the rules anymore.


  1. -->Some of the resistance, disillusioned, will give up. The rest will continue to resist, but they won’t be playing by the rules anymore.<--

    Are they even playing by the rules now?

    1. He's speaking of the conservative resistance to the ongoing Deep State coup.

    2. For specific thoughts about what this resistance may be like, see,
      where he predicts that the next "Civil War" will be fought, not in the streets, but in e.g. cubicles (w/ stolen passwords, vs. infrastructure), by esp. suburban whites (spurred by econ. crisis?) fed up w/ Elites' agitprop of hate vs. the "white patriarchy".

  2. Mark, thanks for posting. Very sobering.

    FWIW, I didn't see anything in the article that I could really disagree with...

    1. Check out the new post re the constitutional crisis. The Establishment is growing desperate.