Sunday, 9 April 2017


Here's a straightforward enough analysis. It's not plausible to me that anyone of significance is not being tapped all the time. Anywhere you read the term "vetting" to connote standard due diligence, it entails rummaging through any and all data attainable with or without a FISA court say-so.

The only thing that's new here is the tech. Let's not forget how rogue Hoover is said to have been and the long list of people who were shadowed, tapped, blackmailed and threatened with public shaming, publically shamed, and even murdered. Is it not true that some of his spying had an uncrossed t or two?

Semantics are sometimes the lone distinction; whether or not it is civilians, per se, in control, it's an ever more meaningless one. Private contracting and corporate espionage, and the private interests behind public policy in general come to mind, which would blend one blind in trying to connect dots, alone when it comes to pre-internet snooping.

Still, Russia could have been the source of the DNC's leaked email, and their source could have been someone within the NSA or FBI with a personal agenda or acting in an unofficial official capacity. And/or but the entire shebang could have been pulled by a lone gunman.

The nature of the deep state is that everybody is compromised. It might make me a traitor, but the least meaningful distinction at this point is whether or not Russia was involved. I mean, it's perfectly legal to arm the Saudis and Israelis to the teeth, and now that they got Don damning Assad, we just might get an instance where the insistence upon regime change will be led in the houses by the Democrats, with "acquiescence" from the Republicans. Another meaningless distinction.

Again, as I recorded here just days ago: Get a good idea as to their attitude, tendencies, & predilections when they say two things are exactly the same versus when they use carefully constructed qualifiers to soften supposedly scant similarities.

This time the diff might be how much popcorn people will be eating, waiting with bated breath to see how deeply Dump means it. Odd, but typical at the same time is the fact that his latest ordered "strikes" occur as if they're a change in approach, as if he hadn't already ordered such, or that his predecessor had not done the same. Alone this past month the United States had already killed as many Syrian women and children as this highly touted chemical attack did. The former assault received press coverage here and there, not exactly covered up, but the latter garnered the wall-to-wall, baby picture posturing style of press we get whenever somebody wants to highlight the “need to do something”.

Would-be wonks instead will stress vagaries of presidency-defining "doctrines" and subsequent divergences there-from. The reality is more than the recent US-led attack that killed Syrian civilians, quickly swept aside, if ever known, by reports of weapons with chemicals, magnified in significance for reasons that should be at least confusing. The reality is also what preceded this: admitted alliances with dubious actors in the name of opposition to Assad as President of Syria.

Helpful to the scepticism at prompt assertions that the gas attacks in Syria were deep state false flags would be a healthy dose of suspicion at the reliability of the reports of the attacks themselves, which requires revisiting recent history. Propaganda is not a one-sided, black vs. white affair. Nor is fake news. Only one married to being a simpleton should maintain such absurdity when forced to rely on the track record of those who reliably, and quite timely, call for regime changes.

It's not exactly a clean switcho-chango we see with Rats posing as Russia paranoiacs and Cans insisting upon thaw maintenance. It's as complex and fractious as, say, the middle east with all her shared- & cross-interested proxies, but it is a remarkable turnaround, what with the former having lol'd at Romney's Russia rhetoric as recent as a general election ago and certain Cans having masqueraded interference of the Rama's State Deptarment's apparent raring to topple Damascus.

To add some of that lone gunmen flavor, certain Rats are willing to entertain the possibility that Dump and Putin staged this whole production to hide their affair. But not that bipartisan interests are shadowed & shared from the top down, and that this endless "my side - their side" shitshow lends ostensible opposition and plausible consent at the most convenient times.

Then, of course, the utility of Dump's bombasting the Rama administration whether or not he's doing precisely as they'd've done. To the Rama apologist, or more broadly the Rat loyalist, this doesn't discredit any military action their side has made, tainting it by so obvious association,  but rather underpins its virtue by ridiculing the partisan discourse surrounding it.

Just as, for example, Dump's claim that his predecessor "created ISIS" obfuscates that they did in fact continue weaponizing their alleged enemies, directly and by proxy, while feeding the state's sycophantic foreign policy analysts fascinating tales about what talented tight-roping it takes to fight a war on competing fronts. Never having called out their own on this hypocrisy, they just "lol" and/or "smh" their more local opposition.

And again there's that Dump wire-tapping claim which by now at worst appears hyperbolic yet substantially grounded.


Useful idiots know who they are. The sad news is that you don't even rise to their level. Or good news. Sure, your consumption habits and contribution to the general function of the machine are useful, even necessary, but your meanderings to your virtual brethren, sistren, cistren & transren (side-swiping all of your sworn troll enemies) are twelve steps short of taking to the streets, which itself is not bound to bring about anything but the feeling of community. Which has it's own value absolutely. If you do grab some of that, it will have been worth it. For you. Just like for me it's worth it to prose about it. It's all part of our creative urge. That so much of our creative urges converge with lamenting how much others' are creatively destructive is just a side-effect.

'Til my dying breath likely will I repeat, ad nauseum! ad nauseum!, my most approaching proud, certainly self-pleased, self-penned aphorism that eschatological paranoia is fueled by the knowledge that others are right this very moment suffering their own real apocalypse, and that none familiar with the cause should be immune to its effects. The irony that this longing for justice includes one's own demise is bonus humanity, I can only reckon. Guilt is kindred as tributary of the proverbial river in Egypt, the alternative to flowing down which must mean suffering the tributary's wrath of relative non-suffering. O, why must I be not just helpless witness to this suffering but also be made to tithe the decimation!