True believer

 

Was Billy Graham (yes, *that* Billy Graham) a covert anti-Semite, pro-Muslim, and irenic towards Catholics and Mormons? This fundamentalist YouTube channel believes that Graham was too soft on non-believers. Apparently, fundamentalists wanted to separate from him and even called him "Billy Balaam"! The worst part is the anti-Semitism...from the secret Nixon tapes?!

Hmmm...

Not sure what to do with this material. 

The Drona weapon

 

 

Dude! So I assume Styxie isn´t a libertarian anymore? I mean, you need a fairly powerful federal government to build the kind of trinkets he talks about here. Neutron bombs, space-based nukes, doomsday weapons, maybe the Drona weapon?! Who do you think invented the A-bomb? FDR cough cough New Deal cough cough... 

Dubbeltydigt

 

"En skurk vinner alltid över en idiot" - uttalande tillskrivet Richard Nixon.  

"Alla vet att hon är marxist"

 

Har inte orkat kolla på debatten mellan Trump och Harris, men den roligaste repliken verkar ha varit när Trump sade "alla vet att hon är marxist". Eh?

Antagligen p.g.a. ett utspel från Harris om prisstopp. Richard Nixons osalige ande harklar sig besvärat...

Socialist shock

 

Commie in the closet?

Breitbart News attacks a rumored policy proposal from the Kamala Harris campaign: "socialist" price controls. Should you or I tell them about Richard Nixon?   

Kamala Harris to announce Soviet-style price controls

Nixon shock

Executive Order 11615

I had a dream

 

Today is exactly 50 years since the resignation of Richard Nixon, give or take some time zone shenanigans.

Three years ago, I actually had a bizarre dream in which Tricky Dick appeared?! See link below!

When Ashtar met Richard Nixon (sic) 

The King and the President

 

A somewhat strange piece by Irish occultist and chaos magician Thomas Sheridan, arguing that Elvis and Tricky Dick were the true rebels fighting The Man. 

How time and clarity absolved Elvis...and Richard Nixon too

Freedom on trial

 

LOL. This is promoted on YouTube as some kind of stunning predictions about the present world situation, from former US president Richard Nixon back in 1994.

Sure, Nixon does say a few prophetic words. But what really stands out is of course the almost endearingly naïve optimism. In reality, there was never any chance that Russia would become a "democracy" (like Nixon´s America?) and "export freedom". 

And although I´m not a big fanboy of things Greater Russian, Tricky Dick´s perspective of turning the Russian Federation into a docile exporter of its mineral wealth to the West probably didn´t do much to endear the Americo-sphere to those east of the Donbass. That, and the neo-liberal disaster area that was Yeltsin´s presidency!

Yes, "freedom" was indeed on trial in Russia during the 1990´s. It was found wanting. And now the chicken and, I suppose, the sakers are coming home to roost...   

Amerikas Frankensteins monster?

Ordförande Mao i färd med att utöva "barbarian management"

KKP tackar idag Richard Nixon och Henry Kissinger. Och Bill Clinton, förstås. Röda Kinas first strike capacity: Amerikas Frankensteins monster? LOL. 

Kina mångdubblar sina kärnvapen

Who watches the Watchmen?

"Watchmen" creator Alan Moore
Credit: Fimb

"Watchmen" is a 2009 American superhero film based on a 1986-1987 British-American comic of the same name. I never read it, and have never been particularly thrilled by the superhero genre. So I wasn´t that excited about "Watchmen" either, but I admit that you might be, if you are into that sort of thing. The film does look, feel and sound like a certain kind of American comic, with exactly the same aesthetics, typical lines (including the pseudo-erudition and the pseudo-hard boiled aspects) and "alternative timeline" plot. The most funny line: the bad guy says "do you think I´m some kind of comic book villain?".  

The original comic was apparently intended as a dystopian parody of the entire superhero genre, and I suppose it worked well enough back in 1986, when people still expected Superman to defend the Amerikan way of suburban life, or something to that effect. Today, every other superhero on TV turns out to be a murderous psycho, so from our 2021 horizon, "Watchmen" is actually quite tame! The same goes for the society depicted. It´s neither better nor worse than the United States actually looked like in 1986. Where, pray tell, is the dystopia? My backyard is probably more scary (and more in need of psychotic superhero intervention) than the alternative timeline United States of "Watchmen"...

The plot is extremely complex (it was apparently even more complicated in the original comic), with constant flashbacks and digressions. The Watchmen are not "superheroes" in the usual sense, but rather a vigilante squad of martial art specialists in funny outfits. Their political loyalties are not always obvious. In the intro, we learn that one of the Watchmen, The Comedian, actually killed JFK! The sole exception to the rule is Doctor Manhattan, a scientist transformed into a god-like being after an accident in a military research facility. Manhattan has genuine superpowers and is immortal (but not omnipotent). In the in-house universe of the story, Richard Nixon asks Manhattan to attack "Viet Cong", something he promptly does, ending the Vietnam War in US favor after only a week of supernatural fighting. Nixon then changes the US constitution (or perhaps disregards it), being elected to a third term. Tricky Dick is a rather typical comic book villain, a trigger happy nuclear weapons aficionado who doesn´t mind half of America to be nuked unless he can destroy the Soviet Union in the process. Other "real" people that turns up in "Watchmen" are Henry Kissinger, Pat Buchanan and - I think - William Buckley. Reagan is briefly mentioned.

The villain (or anti-hero) is a former Watchman turned billionaire, Adrian Veidt alias Ozymandias, who takes utilitarianism to its logical conclusion. In order to end the arms race between the superpowers, an arms race that threatens humanity with nuclear annihilation, Adrian tricks the United States and the Soviet Union into cooperating against an outside threat...by killing millions of people in futuristic bomb attacks, and then blaming the massacres on his old Watchman colleague Doctor Manhattan! Nixon and the unnamed Soviet leader promptly unites against Manhattan (who is of course entirely innocent), while Adrian´s corporation introduces free energy, saves the environment and fills the skies with highly advanced blimps. Er, what?! 

Another bizarre twist is that Manhattan accepts Adrian´s deception (including the mass murders), since the mayhem served the higher purpose of world peace. "Kill millions to save billions". That being said, I admit that I found Manhattan to be intriguing (and yes, I know it´s superhero comics pseudo-philosophy). The blue demi-god takes the Lovecraftian idea that the universe doesn´t (and shouldn´t) care about humanity to its logical conclusion. Not just humanity, but *life itself* is inconsequential. During his self-imposed exile on Mars, Manhattan points out that the red planet is perfect without life (and without shopping malls), pointing to the strong winds and the intricate geological formations. Indeed, Manhattan is on the way to become pantheistically One with this dead but infinitely creative expanse. OK, I admit I was fascinated. (But of course the idea is illogical, since there is still a consciousness admiring the austere perfection of Mars: Doctor Manhattan´s tachyonic brain.)

Unless I misinterpreted the story somehow, it doesn´t *really* have a happy ending. One of the Watchmen, the hard boiled assassin Rorschach, refuses to accept Adrian´s Machiavellian-genocidal peace strategy, but is promptly killed by Manhattan when threatening to expose the conspiracy. Unknown to the conspirators, however, Rorscharch´s diary has ended up in the "kook file" of a far right newspaper, and its strongly implied that the paper publishes the contents. Presumably, the arms race and environmental destruction will simply re-appear right on schedule when the superpowers realize that Doctor Manhattan is innocent, and that no external threat to all humans on Earth exist...

Perhaps that´s the real dystopia.

When Ashtar met Richard Nixon (sic)

Price controls, anyone?

I had a very, very bizarre dream earlier today (when I took a nap). I dreamt that I met...Richard Nixon?! I mean, wtf...

In the dream, I was in a small lecture hall, together with a couple of other people, listening to a lecture or presentation by Nixon. I don´t remember what he was talking about, but I assume it was political. When I laughed at something he said, in a completely benign way, Nixon became visibly annoyed and told me to stop!

LOL.

He was also somewhat more handsome, or at least normal-looking, than in real life. 

I have no idea why this dream came to me (or emerged out of my super-materalist synapses) just now. I´m not currently reading or watching anything even remotely related to Tricky Dick. Of course, years ago I dreamt that I met Leon Trotsky in my parents´ living room, so I suppose No 37 is in good company...

Cold War triangle

The link above goes to a documentary on YouTube, titled "Mao´s Cold War: China vs the Soviet Union". It´s available at the Timeline channel. It tells the story of the "cold war within the cold war" between the two leading Communist powers, the Soviet Union and the People´s Republic of China. A large portion deals with the 1969 clashes between Soviet and Chinese troops at Zhenbao Island in the Ussuri River. Several Chinese veterans from that particular conflict are interviewed. The entire production has a strong Sino-centric tendency. 

According to the documentary, Stalin´s Soviet Union treated Mao´s China as a semi-colony, forcing the Chinese "comrades" to grant economic concessions in disputed border regions and use Soviet loans to buy Soviet weapons (while refusing to sell the most advanced weapon systems to the Chinese side). During the Korean War, Stalin used Mao´s army as a proxy (some would perhaps say cannon fodder). Still, China and the USSR remained allies. 

While Mao may have had a few problems with Joe Stalin, he liked Stalin´s successors even less. I don´t think Khrushchev´s "condemnation of the personality cult of Stalin", per se, had anything to do with it, however, as suggested by the documentary. Rather, it was the Khrushchev thaw and the attempts at "peaceful co-existence" with the United States (the latter is mentioned) that worried Mao. For instance, the anti-Soviet Hungarian uprising of 1956 would have been impossible under Stalin. Mao was quite simply worried that Khrushchev´s policy risked weakening the entire Communist bloc. Khrushchev, for his part, wasn´t amused and recalled all Soviet advisors from China, also stopping Soviet aid. 

When Khrushchev was unseated and replaced by Brezhnev, the Chinese made an abortive attempt to restore the Sino-Soviet relations. This failed due to strong suspicions that the Soviets wanted to saw discord within China and perhaps stage a coup to overthrow Mao. 

The documentary mentions both major disasters during Mao´s tenure: the Great Leap Forward (38 million dead from famine) and the Cultural Revolution. Interestingly, it almost entirely skips over Mao´s developing alliance with the United States, instead claiming that the Cold War bi-polar world became a "triangle". This shows the Sino-centricity of "Mao´s Cold War". In reality, of course, China allied itself with the United States bi-pole, but apparently that´s not politic to say in Beijing these days. 

As already mentioned, a large portion of "Mao´s Cold War" deals with the clashes at Zhenbao Island, when the cold war between the Communist giganti turned red hot. 

One thing that struck me was that the war veterans still sound very "Maoist". They quote Mao Zedong´s commonplaces as if it was the highest wisdom, and even deny that the famine under the Great Leap Forward was Mao´s responsibility. Instead, they blame the Soviets! "We had to pay back the loans to the Soviets even during the famine, so therefore we couldn´t eat apples, the debt was paid in apples" (presumably, apples are a staple food during famines in China). 

The documentary also claims that the Soviets wanted to literally nuke China during the border clashes, but were forced to back down due to Richard Nixon´s threat that America would look *very* negatively on such a move. In plain English, Nixon would retaliate by a nuclear strike on the Soviets. Is this true? Nixon was notoriously trigger-happy, so who knows? Of course, this means that Tricky Dick was positive towards improved relations with Red China already before Kissinger started playing table tennis... 

Relatively interesting. Worth watching. 

Trump embraces SOCIALISM, proves Bernie right, makes libertarians jump from Golden Gate bridge!

Next time a Trump-voting libertarian (why libertarians would vote for a guy who wants the borders sealed with a steel-version of the Great Wall of China is beyond me, but I suppose they like his tax cuts or sumethin) tells you that the Dems in general and one Vermontier named Bernie Sanders in particular stands for SOCIALISM and SOCIALISM IS BAD cuz FREE STUFF, please tell them to read this article from Breitbart News: 

Donald Trump endorses Nancy Pelosi corona relief bill

I suppose this makes the Donald a SOCIALIST who wants FREE STUFF for the people. HA HA HA HA!

If even Trump supports a "socialist" bill, sorry, libertariantards and narcho-capitalistas, that proves Bernie is right and as for you, run back to Mummy and vote for Gary Johnson or something. 

But then, Donald Trump still has nothing on Richard Nixon!

How China is using its dollar reserves

Credit: Mariordo

Yes, they are used to encircle the United States. China now has a foothold in the Caribbean, specifically the Dominican Republic. Can we impeach Richard Nixon for this somehow? Asking for a friend who doesn´t simply want to blame the nationalist government in Santo Domingo...

Chinese influence in the Dominican Republic

Geo-economics in the age of Trump

The link below goes to an extremely interesting article by Michael Lind titled "The Return of Geoeconomics". It speaks for itself, but here is a short summary…

"Free trade" is a sham, or at the very least a temporary anomaly. Neither the British Empire nor the United States were for "free trade" when their industry was still weak. Only later did these imperial powers start to promote it - since by that time they could dominate the world market and turn any competitor into a producer of cheap raw material for their advanced economies.

The United States would never have become a great power if it had heeded Adam Smith´s advice and followed a free trade policy. Alexander Hamilton´s protectionist course was the right one. Friedrich List in Germany was also right.

When an empire becomes globally dominant, there is a temptation among the financial elites in particular to stop promoting de facto nationalism in favor of *actual* free trade. The financial elite is replenished by former manufacturers. This weakens the imperial superpower. The US has progressively weakened its position in this manner, in latter years by lucrative trade with China. In reality, this has mostly benefitted the Chinese.

Two strategies are possible for the United States in the present situation. One is to regroup and create a smaller Western-dominated free trade bloc by excluding China. This was Barack Obama´s strategy to some extent. The other is full nationalism. This is Donald Trump´s strategy. Trump is harking back to Richard Nixon.

The Obama strategy won´t work due to opposition from India. Why should India accept being a subordinate producer of cheap goods in a US-dominated global bloc? Therefore, the Nixon-Trump strategy is the best one.

"Realism" in foreign policy cannot be divorced from economic considerations. There is a direct connection between diplomacy, military security and the economy.

Empires which don´t see the above will fall. The British Empire is a case in point. The United States might be next.

The above was recently published in "The National Interest", previously a Neo-Con publication!

The Return of Geo-economics

The tragedy of South Vietnam

“South Vietnam. A Political History 1954-1970” is an anonymous book published in 1970 as “Keesing´s Research Report 5”. The book tries to be as objective as possible (must have been difficult during the Vietnam War!), but is probably anti-war and pro-NLF. Somewhat curiously, it mentions the US role in the war mostly in passing, instead concentrating on internal troubles in South Vietnam, including near-esoteric conflicts between different regime factions.

After the overthrow of “emperor” Bao Dai in 1955, power in South Vietnam (the non-Communist zone of Vietnam) ended up in the hands of Ngo Dinh Diem, whose authoritarian Catholic regime alienated the Buddhist majority of the country (and pretty much everyone else, too). There are still strong suspicions that the United States had foreknowledge of, or even approved, the murder of Diem during a military coup in 1963. After the murder of Diem, the new rulers never quite managed to put their act together, the regime splintering into a myriad factions and competing cliques (including supporters of the ousted Diem). The book becomes more difficult to read as the story progresses through the 1960´s.

South Vietnamese elections were never particularly representative, since Communists and “neutralists” (real or perceived pro-Communists) were excluded from the electoral process. Of course, the Communist-dominated National Liberation Front (the “Viet Cong”) weren´t interested in the elections anyway, preferring to take power through armed struggle. The Buddhist opposition was also largely excluded from the political process, and seems to have become increasingly friendly towards the NLF as a result, making the regime even less willing to make concessions. Interestingly, the National Assembly elected under these highly restrictive conditions *also* proved unruly, and sometimes tried to veto decisions taken by the military-controlled government. Under intense pressure, the Assembly always backed down in the end. The book also confirms that the South Vietnamese state entity probably wouldn´t have survived without American aid. Apart from the US military presence, the United States also gave South Vietnam enormous amounts of financial aid, without which basic government functions wouldn´t have worked. The money was also needed to combat inflation, famine, etc.

The strong support of the NLF is, ironically, visible in official South Vietnamese government statements about the number of Communists killed or otherwise incapacitated, the number of villages “pacified”, etc. Those numbers are always very high, and if taken at face value, therefore show that Uncle Charlie was pretty popular outside Saigon. Otherwise, I must say that this Research Report gives a very rosy picture of the NLF, essentially taking its pronouncements about free elections, broad coalition governments, neutrality and gradual (not immediate) reunification with the Communist North Vietnam at face value. In reality, the southern zone was speedily conquered and incorporated by the Hanoi regime after the US withdrew its troops. No surprise there – study Stalin´s and Mao´s strategy and draw your own conclusions…

The book ends with the South Vietnamese House of Representatives (the local constitution was nominally very similar to that of the United States) approving a Land Reform Bill, apparently at the prodding of one Richard Nixon. The interesting thing to note is that the land reform was de facto a massive expropriation of the landlords, since only 20% of the compensation was in cash, the remaining 80% being given in the form of government bonds (which must have been pretty worthless in South Vietnam during the war). The US pledged 10 million dollars in aid to help implement the land reform. I have no idea what happened to this last-minute proposal to let the Vietnamese peasants eat something more than cake, or if anyone else than “Keesing´s Research Reports” ever noticed. The South Vietnamese regime simply couldn´t be saved by 1970. In hindsight, its downfall looks inevitable. (How peasants in North Vietnam were treated, see my review of “From Colonialism to Communism” by Hoang Van Chi. Not a pretty story either.)

With that, I end my review of “South Vietnam. A Political History 1954-1970”.  

They are all in on it

“Konspirationer” is a Swedish book by Gunnar Wall, a left-wing radical writer who could be seen as a “moderate” conspiracy theorist. I´ve previously reviewed his book “Konspiration Olof Palme” on the 1986 assassination of controversial Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. He reaches the conclusion that Palme might have been killed by elements from the Stay Behind organization, rogue or otherwise. The Swedish government, police and secret service covered up the whole thing since too many awkward questions about “neutral” Sweden´s role in NATO operations and Palme´s opposition to the same would have been aired had the investigation been conducted on proper lines. I believe Wall might very well be on to something, maybe even the truth. In this case, it´s obvious that *somebody* was conspiring somewhere, since people connected with the government secretly continued to harass the militant Kurdish group PKK (the supposed assassins) even after the prosecutors called off that particular angle of the investigation. (Nobody today believes the PKK did it.)

One of the chapters of “Konspirationer” also deals with the Palme case – I admit I didn´t read it. Instead, I concentrated on some of the other sections, all of which deal with US conspiracies: the JFK assassination, Watergate, and government foreknowledge of 9/11. The two latter are well-argued, while the JFK chapter could perhaps have needed a better editor, with too many facts or factoids presented in random fashion. Also, Wall is unsure whether Lee Harvey Oswald was a genuine leftist critic of the establishment or just an agent provocateur. That being said, few people outside the mandarin conspiracies-never-happen intellectual “elite” would question that of course Oswald didn´t act alone (or at all), JFK probably being killed by Cuban exiles and the mafia. Wall believes the rabbit hole goes deeper: it wasn´t simply revenge for screwing up the Bay of Pigs invasion. Rather, the JFK assassination was part of a broader agenda from the side of the military-industrial complex to get rid of a powerful politician deemed “too soft on Communism”, most notably in Vietnam. (Wall believes that Kennedy wanted to leave Vietnam.) Wall believes Palme and Dag Hammarskjöld were murdered for the same general reasons.

The most shocking chapter in the book deals with 9/11. It seems al-Qaeda´s “unexpected” and “unprecedented” attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 wasn´t so unexpected and unprecedented after all. Quite the contrary: the US administration had received multiple warnings of various kinds shortly before the event from foreign intelligence services, “war games” featuring hijacked planes and attacks on landmark monuments had been conducted for years by various agencies, and al-Qaeda was publicly acknowledged as one of America´s top enemies. Yet, it´s as if the entire US administration simply looked the other way when the warnings of an impending major attack grew louder and louder. This is in stark contrast to the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration *after* the attack, when they suddenly showed firm resolve to go after al-Qaeda and “the axis of evil”. And even then, the resolve was selective: Afghanistan was attacked, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (two major al-Qaeda sponsors) continued being treated with kid gloves as valuable US allies. Iraq was attacked, too, despite having nothing to do with al-Qaeda (nor WMD´s). But they sure as hell had oil… 

Wall doesn´t believe that the 9/11 attacks were “planned” by the US government itself, nor that they had direct foreknowledge of the terrorist plans. Rather, by deliberately lowering America´s guard, the administration made it easier for al-Qaeda to strike, an event which could then be used as an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, get the “Patriot” Act adopted, strengthen the military-industrial complex and perhaps line the pockets of senior officials with shares in oil companies. It was a kind of false flag operation by default. One reason why al-Qaeda could be used in this manner were the cozy relationships between the United States (including the Bush family) and various Saudi oil interests (including bin-Ladin´s family). Also, the Islamist militants themselves were “assets” of the Agency since at least the 1980´s war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. 

While Wall´s scenario may seem outlandish to some – he implies, after all, that Bush-Cheney didn´t give a damn about 3,000 dead on Manhattan – later events in the Middle East (not mentioned in the book) certainly point in the same direction. In Syria, al-Nusra (really al-Qaeda) controls a buffer zone around the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights. Even establishment media admits that Israel is really collaborating with al-Nusra, and it´s difficult to believe that the United States aren´t aware of the situation. Note also how US ally Saudi Arabia brokered the rise of ISIS and how NATO member Turkey bought oil from their faux caliphate in northern Syria. Some American foreign policy experts have proposed *not* to destroy ISIS, rather using the terror cult as a geopolitical counterweight to Iran. Somehow, all this sounds vaguely familiar… In the murky underworld of the secret services, with all their provocations and counter-provocations, the Islamists (perhaps a bit like Oswald) are both assets and potential patsies at the same time, while the Straussian Princes of Darkness spin their geopolitical (and lucrative) cobwebs. It´s not a pretty picture of the United States of America that emerges out of these pages…

In the case of Watergate, we know pretty much what happened, so here the conspiracy-deniers are on very thin ice. Wall points out that the pundits use a different strategy to minimize the conspiracist impact in this case, essentially trying to portray Watergate as a quixotic burglary attempt somehow connected to Richard Nixon´s election campaign. To Wall, Watergate in this strict sense was simply a smaller part of a paranoid presidency gone completely out of control in a situation in which political and social tensions in the United States had reached a boiling point due to the Vietnam War. Part of that war was in itself a “conspiracy” of sorts, since the bombings of Cambodia and Laos were initially secret!

In an introductory chapter, Wall discusses the notion of conspiracies in general, including a few others which have been revealed and well-documented, such as MK-ULTRA. I used to be a de facto conspiracy denier myself, but I now think it´s obvious how extremely weak this position is (except on the highest level of history – I don´t believe in the Babylonian Brotherhood or David Icke´s reptoids from the 666^th dimension). Wall points out the paradox that conspiracy-deniers use “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as an example that conspiracy theory is fake. Yes, the Protocols were a forgery by the Czarist Russian secret police, the Okhrana. But the success of the Protocols, and the fact that millions around the world believe it to be authentic, is *in itself* a successful conspiracy, precisely the thing deemed impossible by the literati. It struck me when reading the book that another argument often used by conspiracy-deniers is equally paradoxical: the claim that conspiracies, if they do happen, are always exposed in Western liberal democracies. Watergate would be an example of this. But isn´t it strange that the *exposure of actual conspiracies* is used to deny conspiracy theory…? 

As a radical leftist, Wall believes that even Western democracies have powerful elites, often with hidden agendas. These clash with the stated liberal goals of Western political systems, especially when the secret services and various vested economic interests are involved. Indeed, Wall frequently just appeals to our common sense: do we *really* believe that the people in charge have nothing to hide? How naïve and trusting are we, in the god-forsaken year of 2019? (Or 2014, when the book was published.) A funny thing about “Konspirationer” are all the proven conspiracies it doesn´t even mention. Thus, during the 1980´s, people in the Swedish arms industry really did smuggle weapons to nations deemed beyond the pale by the proper authorities (Kuwait and East Germany if memory serves me right). Meanwhile in the US, Oliver North and other elements in the Reagan administration were busy carrying out their end of the Iran-Contragate conspiracy. Perhaps the chapter on Palme mentions all the revelations surrounding Stay Behind?

To crack a joke: Where are all these non-existent conspiracies, anyway?

A sequel to “Konspirationer” would be interesting. Today, even mandarin liberals believe in (or at least pretend to believe in) at least one conspiracy theory. Yes, that would be the Russian collusion narrative according to which Trump stole the presidency with the aid of Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange and a Twitter troll named Natasha Trolska Twitterskaya. And no, this one I don´t believe, but it sure is interesting how *fast* it infected all the conspiracy-denying liberal and Neo-Con circles. It´s almost as if some kind of conspiracy is being hatched here, although not the one we´ve been led to believe… 

It will be interesting to see if a leftist such as Gunnar Wall will tackle this problematique.

Impeachment is not enough

"Impeach Trump". What for? Let's see. Richard Nixon had Watergate. Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contragate. Bill Clinton played the saxophone. George W Bush cheated in Florida. Twice. Hillary Clinton took money from the Saudis and gave American uranium to the Russians (sic). Donald Trump did…well, what?

OK, I get it. It's the hairdo. I should have known. It's ALWAYS the hairdo!