A Few Thoughts On The Russian “Hack”

If we don’t restore our ability to critically consume media, we’re going to be constantly led into the abyss.

As I digest all the self-serving shit being offered up as “analysis” in regards to the alleged Russian involvement in our sacrosanct, yet anti-democratic, media-driven, oligopolistic, dog and pony show of an election, I’m left with a few questions that simply can’t wrap my head around.


A bit of history: In February of 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow and made him the now-infamous offer. If the Soviets would permit the Germans to reunify — a sensitive concession to say the least considering less than 50 years earlier they endured the loss of some 25 million fellow countrymen suppressing the Nazi war machine in what is hailed as the largest military confrontation in history— the United States would provide “ironclad guarantees” not to expand NATO “one inch eastward”.

Well, within months of that gentlemen's agreement, the United States had already been proven untrustworthy, having initiated machinations to bring the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland under the umbrella. Their membership was formalized in 1999 with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, and Croatia soon to follow. With Georgia, and the United States recently investing 5 billion to “promote democracy” in Ukraine the long arm of NATO not only stands at Russia’s doorstep but surrounds the entire house.

Western revisionists have since attempted to deny that such an agreement took place but simply ask yourself, how would the US react if Russia presided over an antagonistic military alliance that permitted them to station hostile troops all along the Canadian border accompanied by missile silos that could strike every major US city in minutes while simultaneously running Russian war games in Mexico? The answer is obvious.

Why should Russia be expected to sit back and tolerate that when we would declare war in seconds?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

In the past few weeks alone we’ve sent US tanks into Eastern Europe, US special forces into Leningrad, and US ground troops into Poland. We have 800 forward military bases spread across 70 nations which, since 1945, have been used to destabilize, destroy, or overthrow the governments of over 50 countries including Russia. We’re currently at war with 7, having dropped 24,287 ‘humanitarian’ bombs in 2016 alone and we spend more in a year on our military than Russia spends in a decade but please, tell me more about “Russian aggression.”

To suggest anything Russia does is anything but reactive to American belligerence is intellectually disingenuous and criminally ahistorical.


The genesis of this entire ordeal stems from John Podesta — a man who has done more to undermine American democracy in the past decade than Russia could ever dream of — falling victim to an elementary phishing attack. You know, those spam emails asking you to “reset” (i.e. hand over) your password that most of our mothers are sophisticated enough to jettison to the virtual trash?

To the credit of our magnificently milquetoast mass media they’ve managed to spin a simple moment of utter ineptitude into the pretext for a possible war while simultaneously diverting public attention away from all the insidious shit said ineptitude uncovered, the veracity of which no one is contesting.

Truly magnificent and utterly contemptible.

Private intelligence agencies (i.e. companies whose income is directly contingent upon providing the CIA a constant stream of the ‘right’ conclusions) then made reckless, unsubstantiated claims that were then vacuumed up by the mainstream media and repeated uncritically, ad infinitum. The distillation of which is ultimately this:

“Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.”

And yet, despite all these repeated Russian blunders we’re still presented with nothing rising above the circumstantial in regard to actual proof, ultimately being asked to accept that since the result of the “hack” mirrors the “strategic interests of the Russian government” this is evidence in and of itself of their complicity.



Let’s lay out a few wholly incontestable facts. 1) Virtually no one on this planet truly thought Trump had a genuine chance to win the election 2) The NSA possesses unparalleled, god-like surveillance capabilities through their own in-house technology and the incestuous, all-encompassing public/private relationships they have with our telecom providers and third-party intelligence agencies and 3) Putin, whatever you think of him, unlike US presidential candidates Trump and Clinton, isn’t imbecilic or suicidal, respectively.

And yet, we’re to believe Vlad would risk giving Hillary Clinton the very pretext she needed to indulge her megalomania, with a Hail Mary attempt of manipulating an election Trump had little chance of winning though a cyberattack which would almost certainly be traced back to the doors of Moscow?


Hillary Clinton spent her entire campaign sable-rattling like a sociopath whereas Donald Trump, to his credit, proffered peaceful relations with our nuclear-armed counterparts across the pond.

The entire evidence-free DNI report bases its “assertions” on the very understandable aspirations of the Kremlin to see a leader in Washington who at least offers 140 million Russian citizens the chance of not awaking one morning to nuclear holocaust.

Yet “serious people” actually view this as a belligerent position? An act of war?

Would Britain not have “aspired” to see a Clinton presidency? Is anyone as daft as to believe Washington is an unflinchingly neutral observer in international affairs?

This is part and parcel of the sheer unintelligible framework the media has applied to keep us intoxicated with Russophobia for decades now.

As the inimitable Michael Parenti explains

If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.


In the world of cyber intelligence the CIA couldn’t find the bathroom if the NSA didn’t draw them a map so it should raise serious red flags when the fellas in Fort Meade throw some shade on Langley “assertions” as they did in the recent DNI brief and as they should, considering the facts being presented as “evidence” would be laughable if not being used to grease the skids for a potential nuclear war.

According to US intelligence, a foreign network which shines a light on a litany of issues most Americans clearly appreciated more coverage of —illustrated by RT’s massive viewership in the US —is “overwhelming” evidence of a conspiracy to subvert the democratic will of the very same American people.

This is literally what they’re saying:

Daring to merely cover topics such as third party candidates, police brutality, drone use, “alleged” Wall Street greed, and “anti-fracking programming”, are all part of this sinister plot to install Putin’s Manchurian candidate in the White House.

This is what’s being presented as a potential pretext for war. This is literally the ‘evidence’ being uncritically parroted by every media outlet and pundit alike as “overwhelming” and worst of all, most of it was derived from a report created almost a decade ago bolted to the end of the brief like a irresponsible 11th grader would pad a term paper and delivered by a director in James Clapper who, in the same very role several years ago, stood before congress and perjured himself.

Anonymous conjecture and motive does not evidence make. An opinion also shared by VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), a group of 20 senior, respected, intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans including the godfather of the NSA himself William Binney.

A sagacious man one said: “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

After an uncritical at best (patently duplicitous at worst) corporate media led us into the abyss in 1991 on the pretext of Iraqi soldiers erroneously throwing babies out of incubators, and then once again in 2003 under the guise of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and then again, in Libya, propelled by fictitious stories of Gaddafi planning genocide and Viagra-fueled mass rapes, and then again in Syria, via heretofore unsubstantiated claims of chemical weapon use, it should now be abundantly clear that they can no longer be relied on to provide the necessary information required to make critical decisions regarding the nature of our “enemies” and the moral and/or existential need to engage them.

Listen, I’m no fan of Putin, nor particularly Russia for that matter. All I’m looking for is my country to apply that elementary moral truism where if something is wrong for them, it’s wrong for us. I see a nation, my nation, awash in hypocrisy and I think if we’re not hypocrites ourselves we need to take ownership of that fact and immediately strive to remedy it lest we be led further into the abyss and potentially a final war from which none of us recover.

I really just wish the media (and liberals particularly) could’ve been as vigilant and voracious in the hunt for truth when it came to Democrats clamoring for war as they are now with Republicans — even self-interested bigots like Trump — potentially, even tangentially, calling for a modicum of peace.

Because as Albert Einstein so ominously stated…

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”