[Peace-discuss] [Peace] Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda

[C. G. Estabrook]

John--

Trump is being impeached because he’s the first major party candidate in 40 years to attack the neocon (more war) and neolib (more austerity) policies of all recent administrations. 

Altho’ in office he's largely adopted those policies, the permanent government are afraid he’ll act on his attacks (e.g., by withdrawing from Afghanistan and Syria). 

Those attacks made him president by speaking for the growing populist wave of those who saw that Obama’s promises of prosperity weren’t fulfilled.

Trump flipped six states that had gone for Obama in 2012 — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Florida — in his upset victory over Clinton.

And those states were lost by Obama voters who stayed home, rather than voting again for a Democrat nominee (Clinton). They'd seen no "hope and change.”

So all Trump's opponents seem to have are schoolboy insults - nothing that speaks to the immiseration of the majority. 

The concentration of wealth in America continued - at an accelerating rate - in the Obama years., while wages remained flat - and Obama-Clinton war provocations of Russia and China increased.  

Since the establishment's neocon/neolib policies aren’t popular, they have only Trump’s personal failings to attack him on - which they are doing hysterically.

So support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State/permanent government agenda - those policies of more war and more austerity: that’s what generates Trump's 'base.'

Sanders of course speaks to those same quite real anxieties - which is why the permanent government can't allow him to be nominated: he’d win.

Meanwhile, impeachment like Russiagate will continue, because it’s all the permanent government/liberals have: ORANGE MAN BAD!

—CGE


> On Dec 5, 2019, at 9:27 PM, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:26 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> <https://truthout.org/articles/when-trump-calls-people-filth-hes-laying-groundwork-for-genocide/>
> 
> [Mary Ann Caton] 'There is much to highlight in Bill Martin's commentary here, so try this one on for size: "Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda..." Here's the rest of what he had to say:
> 
> ‘This article [above], from Truthout.org, is the kind of nonsense that has become exceedingly tiresome, but also very offensive, because it just plays around with terms such as genocide, fascist, and Nazi.
> 
> ‘The basis for the author’s argument is Trump’s tweet saying that Baltimore is a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” and “no human would want to live there.” The author, Nicholas Powers, turns this into Trump’s supposedly using a “rhetoric of filth” that is aimed at those same human beings. Except of course Trump doesn’t say anything like that. Powers quotes with approval Joy Behar, as a “Jewish voice” here (which is typical bullshit Identity Politics, as it would be easy enough to find numerous Jewish voices who would disagree with her) transposing what Trump says about rats to the Nazi use of the term “vermin” to refer to Jews. 
> 
> ‘Again, Trump has said nothing like that.
> 
> No, the quoted tweets are absolutely correct.  And of course tRump wasn't talking about Jews.  He was talking about Negroes.  He was pissed off at Elijah Cummings, and he said (tweeted) the first juvenile thing that popped into his benighted, hate-filled mind, as he always does.  Everyone with half a brain recognized it as an extremely thinly-veiled racial slur.  You can dismiss it as 'identity politics' if you want to.  In any event, it's extremely bad politics, and as "leadership" it's reprehensible on a number of levels.  It is indeed a "rhetoric of filth", which tRump is famous for.
> 
> 
> ‘There’s no mention in this article about “laying the groundwork for genocide” of Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment, applied to “half of Trump’s supporter’s,” which would amount to about thirty-one million people or so. This is conjecture on my part, but I feel that I am on solid ground: those who talk in the way that Powers does only disagree with HRC on the “half” part. They are fine with statements of the “dreaming of a white genocide”-sort, as long as they can get out in front of them first with some strategic virtue-signaling. Of course, the ones signaling the loudest are themselves white males, though “educated.” But, hey, that’s a class thing, and any good liberal and leftist these days knows that talking about class is just another form of racism.
> 
> ‘Despite this nonsense being tiresome, not really worth paying attention to (obviously I’m engaging in a performative contradiction here), one wants to say to this author, and to Adam Schiff, etc., “Keep talking, assh*les.” It’s obvious by now that no amount of self-exposure is going to have much effect on hardened Trump-haters, they’ll just double-down.
> 
> As will the tRump lovers.  So what else is new?
> 
>  
> A third of this is believing that most ordinary people are stupid, racist, sexist, fascists, a third is posing as some sort of “Resistance” and the self-satisfaction that brings, and a third is in fear of not being acceptable to their celebrity icons of political correctness and therefore susceptible to being called out.
> 
> ‘(Hillary doubled down on her remark about deplorables, numerous times. The remark was not a “gaff” or faux-pas, it was said with the deliberate aim of drawing a line. But this isn’t about Hillary—except in the case that she becomes the 2020 Democratic nominee, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility*—it is about all of the ordinary-people Democrats who go along with this crap, and who view other ordinary people through the lens of this line.)
> 
> ‘Hopefully there are some others who will see once and for all what a load of crap the Democrats and their “Left” allies are. Significantly, the biggest move in this direction thus far is from African-Americans who have had it with being patronized and played for chumps.
> 
> All I'm hearing so far is this Bill Martin doing a whole bunch of name-calling.  Who in hell is he?  Does he play in the same schoolyard where tRump still shoots marbles?  I'm not hearing a damned thing that's even remotely intelligent so far.
> 
>  
> ‘One thing that was useful about seeing this article posted on a liberal friend’s page is that it did make things a little more clear, to me at least, regarding the difference between liberals and the Left.
> 
> ‘The Left tries to stay on message with charging that Trump is a fascist, a Nazi, like Hitler.
> The liberals say this stuff too, but also they are outraged as well by Trump’s Rocky Balboa pose (thankfully, the MSM was quick to expose that dangerous ruse!), the hateful serving of fast food to the champion Clemson football team (whose players such liberals also hate, but whatever), etc.
> 
> Agreed, those things are pretty trivial.  But they're all part of the tRump manufactured persona, designed to appeal to his 'base' who are indeed deplorables and foolishly lap the stuff up while tRump, in reality, spends millions of our taxpayer dollars on golf outings and fancy black tie dinners at Mar-a-La-Go.  Really not unlike Bruce Rauner appearing in flannel shirts in all of his TV ads when he was running for governor of Illinois, though Rauner was somewhat more dignified about it.
> 
>  
> ‘The liberals are quick to claim that Trump supporters are not only fascist, but also stupid. The Left sometimes traffics in this language of stupidity, but in general instead claims that the sort of people who support Trump are ignorant.
> 
> ‘What, though, is the difference that makes a difference between anti-Trump liberals and anti-Trump leftists, if they seem fine in making common cause?
> 
> ‘Adam Schiff accuses Trump of “not respecting our intelligence agencies.” It used to be that was an important aspect of the Left, not only not respecting the CIA and other parts of the “intelligence community,” but also pulling the curtain back on them, exposing them, demonstrating why they are a horrible thing. Now we are in an upside-down world where liberals and the left go along with this stuff for the sake of impeachment, and Trump is the one pulling the curtain back.
> 
> I have noticed this and find it interesting, though of course tRump himself isn't pulling the curtain back on shit, but merely deflecting and obfuscating and 'counter-punching' every waking moment    But you know, the Real World where some of us live is not strictly Manichean.  The obvious synthesis of this apparent contradiction or irony is that there is a difference between intelligence-gathering and the USE or MISUSE of the intelligence gathered, which is a matter of political policy.  I suspect that most of the intelligence-gathering is pretty accurate, done by career professionals with no particular allegiance to political party.  These are they whom Adam Schiff lauds.  But then you have the political appointees like Mike Pompeo (former head of the CIA, not coincidentally), or like Rumsfeld/Powell of 15 years ago, or like the cabal in power during the Viet Nam war.  In making their decisions, they act as often as not AGAINST the recommendations of their intelligence-gathering staff, or else they manufacture evidence to justify their misdeeds, and of course create the global chaos that we're all familiar with.  This is who the 'Left' is railing against when they protest the actions of the CIA, for example - the POLITICAL POLICIES, not the intelligence gathering.  
> 
> Pay attention, Carl.  There'll be a quiz on this later in the semester.
> 
>  
> ‘Nothing better can be expected from the liberal or “progressive” “blue no matter who”-crowd. They’re openly down with the CIA, NSC, etc. But if you’re a “leftist” or some other supposedly “radical” opponent of Trump, part of the “Resistance,” and you’re supporting this impeachment nonsense, this would be a good time to do some hard thinking.**
> 
> Blah blah blah.  More name calling.  Bill Martin, whoever he is, doesn't like 'The Left'.  We get that.  I don't like Bill Martin.  He's an idiot.
> 
>  
> *(Who will be the 2020 Democratic nominee? I’m not a gambler, but it wouldn’t be that wild of a proposition to put some money on Michelle Obama.)
> 
> **(In stark terms, just to be clear … Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda—and this assertion does not depend on coming up with a “precise definition” of the Deep State. Certainly, from ordinary people, whether Democrats, leftists, etc., “support for impeachment” doesn’t really mean much, since no one is asking you anyway. Your role is cheerleader for the system. Really, I think things need to be taken further: Calling out Adam Schiff and his cohort, who are fronting for the CIA and the “intelligence community” is what is needed, which means opposition to this impeachment nonsense. If there was anything like a “true Left” today, one that embodied the spirit of the Sixties Left, but under very different conditions—these conditions, unfortunately, having knocked the current Left for a crazy and terrible loop, to put things politely, this exposure and opposition to the impeachment Schiff-show is what would be happening.)
> 
> Bullshit.  tRump isn't being impeached because he's a reformer who is courageously challenging the Deep State.  What a joke.  He's being impeached because he has flouted the Constitution in every way imaginable.  He's an amoral, narcissistic coprophage who has alienated practically every one of our allies, fractured the country domestically, assaulted the environment, and brought calumny on the United States.  Sure, this telephone call with the Ukrainian leader is only a hook on which to hang the hat of impeachment, and we know that the Republican Senate isn't going to convict him anyway.  But if there has ever been a President in our nation's history who has deserved to be impeached, this guy is it.   Otherwise we may as well just throw the Constitution completely out the window and let the fascists run things the way they see fit.
> 
> And by the way, Gentle Readers.....We've had the Deep State for quite a long time now, as Carl is always so faithful to point out, and I feel safe in saying that we will always have the Deep State.  We've had war since there were human beings on the planet.  tRump is not going to put an end to either of those things.  It's not even in his consciousness.  So why keep yammering about it?  Can you really not find anything more productive to talk about and protest and work toward?  Maybe something actually attainable?
> 
>  
> ‘[Your comments are welcome, but comments about 1) my supposed obsession with Hillary (no, I’m more obsessed with liberal and left affirmation of the deplorables remark—and another important term here is “rural”); 2) the demand to have precise definitions of things (I have been inspired/provoked by such demands to write a glossary for the book I am presently completing, but there is plenty enough to go on in the CounterPunch*** articles already published) before “discussion” can continue (I’m not going to get into some purely semantic exercise to let people get away with siding with the CIA, okay? –so just deal with that; and, as far as the hardened Trump-haters are concerned, who view everything through the lens of “Trump must go, regardless of the shortcomings of the Democrats,” I’m not interested in meeting your demands in any case—that would be both impossible and pointless); 3) my “just repeating GOP talking points,” or comments that are just name-calling—I won’t respond to such comments, and will probably delete them, because they are unhelpful and I’ve already given enough play to such things; the exception is if the comment works as good self-exposure (as they say in football, an “own-goal”) of the person who makes the comment.]
> 
> ***(I will write a separate post regarding this when I have the situation sorted, but some reading this may be interested in know that I’ve now been deplatformed by CounterPunch. I knew that I would go too far at some point, given the general trend there lately, as well-represented by a recent article by Andrew Levine (whose work, especially on Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Rawls, analytical Marxism, and Althusser, I have admired for many years), “Get Trump First, But Then …” (Nov. 15). I’m not angry, I will remain grateful to Jeffrey St. Clair for going as far as he has with me, though I’m a little sad and disappointed, especially because I hoped to wrap up my Trump series at CounterPunch and then put it all together in a book. Now I’ll need to do this somewhere else, I’ll let you know where—I had two articles in the pipeline, one on the impeachment nonsense, the other on the coup in Bolivia, I hope to have them out soon.)’
> 
> ~ Bill Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace