While dining at a fast food restaurant yesterday, I caught a bit of a CNN report on Syrian refugees in Europe. CNN's hideously slanted reporting was almost as horrifying as the plight of the refugees.

Basically, CNN intercut footage of the bedraggled refugees with shots of "central casting" protestors holding up anti-Assad signs. Since all of the signs were in English, we may safely presume that the central casting protestors were filmed in America, not in Hungary.

This was not a news report. This was a scene from Wag the Dog.

In reality, the protestors are not fleeing Bashar Assad. Assad has been running things in Syria since 2000; there were no refugees until Al Qaeda (aka al Nusra) and ISIS conquered large amounts of Syrian territory and began to persecute all non-Sunnis.

What the refugees are fleeing is not the government of Bashar Assad but the vile behavior of ISIS -- the maniacs who are trying to topple Assad.

That's not my judgment. That's the way NBC calls it:

Syrian Refugees Escaping ISIS Put Lives at Risk on Dangerous Seas

The brutality of ISIS and the ongoing war in Syria has triggered the biggest wave of refugees in modern history.

And here:

Migrants Who Escaped ISIS, War and Syria Chant 'We Are Human'

I was not able to see the entire CNN report, so I don't know if it got better as it went along. But the part that I did see was so outrageously biased I nearly choked on a french fry.

The only way to solve the refugee problem is to end the Syrian conflict, which can be done rapidly and simply. The United States should join forces with the governments of Russia, Syria and Iran in their heroic fight against ISIS. The insufferable nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel should be directed to stop aiding ISIS and Nusra (and to get the hell out of Yemen). If those bellicose governments refuse to comply, these countries should be attacked and conquered military, and their current leaders should be made to face an international tribunal.

A blogger can dream, can't he?

The New York Times is just as bad.  Nicholas Kristof's NYT piece on the refugee crisis is, in its subtle way, every bit as deceptive as CNN's exercise in Orwellianism.

In any case, let’s be clear that the ultimate solution isn’t to resettle Syrians but to allow them to go home.

“Stopping the barrel bombs will save more refugees dying on the route to Europe than any other action, because people want to return to live in their homes,” noted Lina Sergie Attar, a Syrian-American writer and architect.

There's nothing here about the true causes of the Syrian war. Nothing here about ISIS. Nothing here about the aid ISIS and Nusra have received from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey (and indirectly, from the United States and Israel). Nothing here about the largely fictional nature of both the "Free Syrian Army" and those alleged "moderate rebels" we keep hearing about. (You know: The ones who are always described as "vetted.") Nothing here about General Petraeus' insane suggestion that America should aid Nusra/Al Qaeda. Nothing here about Israel's mad determination to see Assad overthrown.

Let's talk about Lina Sergie Attar, who was cited by Kristof. She is another neocon propagandist -- albeit one who knows how to make herself attractive to American liberals and intellectuals. These are her words:

People believed that documenting repeated chemical weapons attacks would eventually end them. Instead, Obama’s “red line” became a green light for the Assad regime to continue using chemical weapons, including chlorine-laden bombs, even after a United Nations Security Council resolution to ban them. People believed that more than 55,000 smuggled images of tortured, skeleton-like corpses in Assad’s prisons would create an international outrage that would finally send Assad and his regime where they belonged—a trial at The Hague. Instead, Syrians were left alone to battle Assad, Al-Qaida and ISIS

Can you believe this nonsense? It has been established beyond the point of rational debate that the rebels, not Assad's forces, were the ones who used chemical weapons.

And as for those photos: Before you believe Attar and her fellow neocons, you should read this. I've written two previous posts about those photos, the number of which keeps growing with each telling. (That fact alone indicates the bogus nature of this atrocity tale.) See here and here. Bottom line: The source for those photos is a defector named Caesar, who gives every indication of being another "Curveball."

(Remember him? Remember how this government -- and our pundit class -- decided that Curveball was a credible source? Remember what happened?)

Caesar's handler appears to be Mouaz Moustafa, who links up with WINEP (a front for AIPAC). Moreover, Caesar's report was brought to us by the Saudis and the Qataris -- the same people who funded ISIS!

One measure of Caesar's believability is the fact that he has relentlessly pushed the "Assad created ISIS" disinformation meme. That propaganda line was so ludicrous that the propagandists soon had to abandon it.

With that in mind, let's take another look at Attar's last sentence -- "Syrians were left alone to battle Assad, Al-Qaida and ISIS." These words have been cleverly designed to give uneducated Americans the impression that Assad is somehow allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS. Is Attar trying to resurrect Caesar's "Assad created ISIS" horseshit? I think she is.

In fact, ISIS and Assad have always been enemies, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. ISIS and Nusra are trying to conquer Assad's government. Lina Sergie Attar knows full well that if Assad were to fall, ISIS would rule in Damascus.

Let's be crystal clear: There is no third choice. Even President Obama used the word "fantasy" to to describe other possible outcomes. Either ISIS and Nusra will rule Syria, or Assad will win. PERIOD. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a paid liar.

Attar has written an anti-ISIS book -- yet her stance is objectively pro-ISIS. She is a staunch supporter of a revolution poised to install the Islamic State in Damascus.

In this piece, Attar praises the Libyan revolution. Nobody has any fond memories of Khaddafy, of course -- but who are the rebels? Why doesn't Attar mention their ties to Al Qaeda? How is Libya doing now?

I'll save you the trouble of Googling the answer: Libya is a complete nightmare -- a failed state. Question: Isn't Libya's current predicament a foretaste of what will happen to Syria if Assad falls?

"I write, tweet, and breathe the Syrian Revolution," Attar says on her Twitter page, knowing full well that this revolution, if successful, will place ISIS in power. Moreover, this revolution is precisely what caused the refugee crises.

And yet Kristoff dares to cite this woman in a piece about the refugee crisis! Nicholas Kristoff, you are the one who needs an empathy transplant.

Then again, what can one expect from someone who writes about foreign affairs for the NYT? In recent years, that publication which has become a liberal analog to Fox News, relentlessly trying to sell neoconservatism and war to moderates and progressives.

Added note: In the UK, The Guardian fulfills the NYT's function -- selling the latest neocon horseshit to liberals. The Guardian told its readers "bomb Assad and save the refugees," knowing full well that the refugees were created by ISIS and Nusra, not by Assad, a secular leader who has pursued a policy of tolerance for all religions and ethnic groups in Syria.

This morning, we are being inundated with headlines telling us that we must solve the refugee crisis by getting rid of Assad and replacing him with ISIS. We've not seen such a propaganda barrage since 2003. Permalink

Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt asked Donald Trump what should have been an easy question about Iran's Al Quds force. Trump mis-heard, and said that "the Kurds" were not being "utilized properly or used properly." (Interesting distinction, that.) Instead of apologizing for his error, Trump exploded at Hewitt, calling him a "third-rate radio announcer.”

I think that this hair-trigger response gives us an idea as to what kind of president Trump would be. Watch out, Bill Maher! Insult this guy's hair and he might launch a nuclear strike on your neighborhood.

Now I'm wondering how Trump would react if someone asked him a truly difficult question. Take, for example, his friendship with convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. The relationship was discussed in this podcast, cited in a previous post.

Oddly enough, Trump himself has tried to imply (without citing any evidence) that Bill Clinton is somehow involved with Epstein's sexual shennanigans: See here.

In an earlier post, we noted that the NY Post did the same thing, relying upon the testimony of Virginia Roberts, one of the women who was raped by Epstein when she was underaged. (Roberts is now suing the U.S. government because Epstein's lenient deal was kept secret from his victims.) The Post -- like other right-wing sources -- has granted Roberts "temporary credibility," but only to the extent that her words can be used against Clinton. When she speaks against Epstein or Alan Dershowitz, her credibility suddenly disappears. She is Schroedinger's witness.

Here is the truth: Although she has claimed that Dershowitz and Prince Andrew had improper relations with her, Virginia Roberts has made no claim against Bill Clinton. None.

I know that a lot of people -- including many of my readers -- would like to think otherwise, but her statement is clear. Yes, she says that she was used to blackmail important people; she does not say that Clinton was one of them. If Epstein had hoped to use her as bait, the former president did not take it.

Epstein flew Clinton, Chris Rock and Kevin Spacey to Africa for an AIDS conference. Despite the oodles of speculation and fulmination and pseudo-investigation, the preceding sentence is IT. That's all we have on the much-ballyhooed Clinton-Epstein link; everything else is insinuation.

(It should be noted that Epstein has also tried to ingratiate himself with Stephen Hawking. It should be further noted that Clinton runs a charity and thus must ingratiate himself with all sorts of well-heeled folks who hope to buy a little respectability. The French have a saying: "Behind every great fortune is a crime." If that sentiment is valid, then every charity must flatter the criminal class.)

So what prompted Trump to speak of Clinton and "that island"? To the best of my knowledge, no published article links Clinton to Epstein's island. More to the point, I can't help but wonder how Trump knows about the things that Epstein got up to on "that island." Did Trump visit the place?

Maybe The Donald accidentally blurted out more than he intended.

Donald Trump was Epstein's friend, although he would prefer for you to think otherwise...

When the story broke, Trump’s spokesman told Gawker, “Mr. Trump only knew Mr. Epstein as Mr. Trump owns the hottest and most luxurious club in Palm Beach, and Mr. Epstein would go there on occasion.” With that, the media backed off the story and forgot about the Trump connection.

That disingenuous statement does not cover the length and breadth of the Trump-Epstein connection. Before the Virginia Roberts scandal became public, New York Magazine published the following:

Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Isn't it cute? Trump used to brag about his long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, fun guy and lover of beautiful women. Now Trump claims that he had little or nothing to do with the guy.

(Trump's revisionism reminds me of Alan Dershowitz, who doesn't want you to know that he and Epstein were once so close that Epstein was the only non-family member allowed to get a look at Dershowitz' manuscripts.)

The fact that Trump has told two very different stories about his relationship with Epstein is highly intriguing. Moreover, Trump's first statement suggests that he and Epstein may have womanized together (if I may be allowed that old-fashioned and somewhat distasteful verb).

That said, let's be clear about one point: I do not think that Donald Trump has ever shared Epstein's penchant for the underaged. Everyone knows that Trump likes women with curves, while Epstein prefers the young-and-boyish type.

If Donald Trump blew his top at Hugh Hewitt for asking about Iran, how will Trump respond if -- when -- someone prods him about his fifteen-year friendship with the world's richest pedophile? Permalink

Donald Trump has taken the "No independent run" pledge, which means that he has unilaterally disarmed himself. Previously, the GOP establishment had to restrain itself as it attempted to derail the Trump Train. Now, those restraints are gone.

Or are they? I wonder...!

If Trump were to break the pledge he just gave, would his supporters feel betrayed? Doubtful. "Promises are like pie-crusts: Made to be broken." This quote -- wrongly attributed to Lenin -- accurately sums up a certain political reality. If the GOP establishment knocks The Donald out of the race, and if he can plausibly argue that the blow was low, he'll probably consider The Pledge to be null and void.

What's the worst they could do to him? Deny him a speaking slot at the convention? Big deal.

Here's something they could use against Trump.  Esteemed reader Alessandro Machi offered the following as a comment to our previous Trump post:

Many years ago at the end of an Apprentice season the prize given to the non-celebrity apprentice winner was overseeing luxurious condos that were going to be built either in Florida, California, or Mexico. People watching the show called in to make down payments on these condos for anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 dollars.

The condos were never made and the investors LOST all their money. These were middle class people with 401'Ks who figured buying a condo on the front end on the cheap would be a terrific investment because they would get to own it outright, live in it, and the value would grow. Instead the investors lost all their money. The weirdest part was NOTHING GOT BUILT. It's not like the condos got built halfway, or only half of the condos were made, NOTHING was made but the artist drawings and probably very little else. How did Trump get away with that? If he is going to brag about what a great businessman he is, he has to address CondoGate and explain why a multi-billionaire did not give even a partial refund to his blue collar investors.

(Actually, that's not exactly how the story shook out, as we shall soon see.) One wonders why Trump would need to indulge in such behavior, if he truly has the kind of money he claims. The following comes from a 2011 NYT story:

But as Mr. Trump, who is weighing a bid for the White House, has zealously sought to cash in on his name, he has entered into arrangements that home buyers describe as deliberately deceptive — designed, they said, to exploit the very thing that drew them to his buildings: their faith in him.

Over the last few years, according to interviews and hundreds of pages of court documents, the real estate mogul has aggressively marketed several luxury high-rises as “Trump properties” or “signature Trump” buildings, with names like Trump Tower and Trump International — even making appearances at the properties to woo buyers. The strong indication of his involvement as a developer generated waves of media attention and commanded premium prices.

But when three of the planned buildings encountered financial trouble, it became clear that Mr. Trump had essentially rented his name to the developments and had no responsibility for their outcomes, according to buyers. In each case, he yanked his name off the projects, which were never completed. The buyers lost millions of dollars in deposits even as Mr. Trump pocketed hefty license fees.

Those who bought the apartments in part because of the Trump name were livid, saying they felt a profound sense of betrayal, and more than 300 of them are now suing Mr. Trump or his company.

“The last thing you ever expect is that somebody you revere will mislead you,” said Alex Davis, 38, who bought a $500,000 unit in Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale, a waterfront property that Mr. Trump described in marketing materials as “my latest development” and compared to the Trump tower on Central Park in Manhattan.

“There was no disclaimer that he was not the developer,” Mr. Davis said.

Davis was ripped off to the tune of $100K.

Investors sued, and Trump arranged a settlement in 2013. (This is a point that Mr. Machi should have mentioned.) But even the settlement revealed that the whole operation was rather cheesy...

Trump told The Times that the developers were to blame, saying he merely licensed his name to the 525-unit oceanfront project and was not involved in building it.

It was not an unusual arrangement for Trump. He made his name in real estate and casino development but now is best known for his reality TV hit, "The Apprentice," and frequently licenses his name to real estate projects that are managed by other developers.

Again, one wonders why someone who has the kind of money that Trump claims to have would do this kind of business. I can't think of a parallel to found anywhere in the annals of the ultra-rich. Can you? I mean, John D. Rockefeller did not license out his bird-like profile to be plastered all over ads for dubious enterprises... Permalink

Before the citizens of this country put Donald Trump in charge, we should take a closer look at how he handled his own finances. He didn't have a hardscrabble beginning, unless you call getting $40 million from his father in 1974 hardscrabble.

True, he is allegedly worth billions today -- although sources differ as to how much he actually has. (Don't expect to see The Donald's tax returns.) But as Vox points out (in a piece derived from this National Journal article) Trump would be probably be worth roughly the same amount of money "if he had taken $40 million from his dad and thrown it into an index fund."

In other words, his fortune has nothing to do with investment savvy.

But if you compare Trump's performance since 1982, when the stock market started to take off after the early-'80s recession, it looks pretty abysmal. Forbes estimated that Trump was worth $200 million that year. If he'd put that money in an index fund that year at a 0.15 percent fee, he'd have $6.3 billion today after dividend taxes, almost certainly more than he actually does. This jibes with analyzes prior to Dáte's which have found that Trump has underperformed compared with the market since 1988; an AP analysis found that if he'd put his money in an index fund that year, he'd have $13 billion today; the S&P calculator similarly suggested he'd have $11.3 billion, after fees and dividend taxes.

The point is that after decades of touting his business acumen, his ability to negotiate tough deals and spot good investments, and after spending this entire campaign season arguing that he's qualified for the presidency based on his skills in the market, Trump nonetheless has an investment record that at best roughly matches and at worst underperforms the market.

Side note: Inspired by Bill Maher, I had planned to make a joke about Trump's father, Fred Trump. The joke was going to involve the claim that the elder Trump made his initial grubstake by appearing on the Today show under the name J. Fred Muggs.

A quick visit to Google uncovered a surprising fact: J. Fred Muggs is still alive. He made his first appearance on the Today show in 1953.

The average lifespan of chimp in captivity is 60 years, so the former Today Show mascot has already sailed past that number. The average lifespan of a chimp in the wild is 30 to 40 years. The average orangutan in captivity lives 50 years. Fred Trump died in 1999 at the age of 93. Either Bill Maher is wrong or Fred beat the odds.

Incidentally, Fred Trump's middle name was Christ. And the family name was originally Drumpf. Permalink

The latest on the Jeff Epstein case. I'll admit it: I haven't yet heard this podcast, but I'm told that it offers some fresh material.

Big lie. Did several Democratic senators vote in favor of the Iran deal because Iran bribed them? That's the story pushed by David Horowotiz' group and republished by any number of right-wing bloggers. As it turns out, the accusation is pure bullshit, granted a rare Pants On Fire rating by Politifact.

There was no bribe. There were some not-particularly-hefty campaign contributions from a group that represents Iranian-Americans, the vast majority of whom would prefer to see the current Iranian government replaced by a democracy. The same interest group has given money to Republicans. Almost needless to say, if every campaign contribution were construed as a "bribe," then we'd have no politicians left. (Some of my readers would approve of that outcome.)

Why does anyone continue to pay any attention to Horowitz or his confederates-in-craziness?

The real evil is being done by groups like The National Endowment for Democracy, The American Enterprise Institute, and The Committee on the Present Danger. There's also something called the Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which turns out to be a front group for AIPAC. For more, see here.

Despite the best efforts of these bar sinisters, the Iran deal is going through.

James O'Keefe is at it again. Here's another well-known liar who simply will not go away. O'Keefe runs hidden cameras at Hillary Clinton campaign rallies, looking for every possible instance that might be construed by the right-wing propaganda machine as an impropriety. He announced this campaign at a press conference.

One journalist, cognizant of O'Keefe's own incredibly shady history, asked: "Is this a joke?"

For more details about just how shady this guy is, check out the NYT coverage at the other end of that link. O'Keefe also received prominent mention in an amusing Cracked piece titled "5 Successful People Who Everyone Forgets Are Exposed Frauds." Jim-Boy is right up there with Peter Popoff (fraudulent faith healer), David Barton (the right's go-to guy for bogus history), fake medium Theresa Caputo and demon-hunters Ed and Lorraine Warren.

Great company you keep, Jimmy!

The ISIS lie. Marcy Wheeler discusses David Petraeus' new idea (which is really an old idea): Use the Nusra front as a bulwark against ISIS. Of course, Nusra = Al Qaeda.

But I’m most interested in this claim:

Petraeus was the CIA director in early 2011 when the Syrian civil war erupted. At the time, he along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly urged the Obama administration to work with moderate opposition forces. The U.S. didn’t, and many of those groups have since steered toward jihadist groups like the Nusra Front, which are better equipped and have had more success on the battlefield.

While it is true that Obama did not systematically arm rebels in Syria in 2011, it is also a public fact that the CIA was watching (and at least once doing more than that) Qatar and Saudi Arabia move arms from Libya before Petraeus’ departure in 2012, and Obama approved a covert finding to arm “moderate” rebels in April 2013, with CIA implementing that plan in June.

That’s all public and confirmed.

So how is it that we once again are pretending that the CIA — the agency Petraeus led as it oversaw a disastrous intervention in Libya that contributed to radicalization both there and in Syria — didn’t arm purported moderates who turned out not to be?

In other words, the story here should be, “David Petraeus, after overseeing a series of failed training efforts and covert efforts that led to increased radicalization, wants to try again.”

Let's admit it: All of this nonsense about a moderate opposition to the Assad regime is pure fantasy (to use President Obama's terminology). Let's not fall for this revisionist historical line -- pushed by Hillary, Panetta and Petraeus -- that there were masses of moderates who were ready to take up arms against Assad only to be ignored by Barack Obama.

The administration aided the jihadists because the jihadists had numbers, motivation and muscle. Yes, it is true that the DC did not fund the Islamists directly; Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Sunny powers did the dirty work. But everyone knows that when we wage covert war, we use proxies. That's the way we have played the game for more than 60 years.

ISIS was a creation of our allies -- and thus, in a very real sense, ISIS was created by us. We could have strangled the demon-child in its crib had we so desired. We turned against ISIS only when they went rampaging into Iraq. They were supposed to stay focused on Assad.

That's what really happened. Don't be misled by bullshit.

Ha'aretz portrays the IDF as a fascist fighting force. Why is Ha'aretz allowed to print truths that are forbidden to American (or British) journalists? Any American journalist or opinion writer who offered up the exact same text would be labelled an anti-Semite.

Donald Trump cheats at golf. I'm not surprised, and I don't really care. What I do care about is the double standard: If (say) Bill Clinton cheated at golf, every right-winger on the radio would be screaming louder than Black Bolt with a stubbed toe. Regnery would put out an insta-book titled Demon on the Green: The Arrogance of Megalomania.

(Does Regnery still put out books like that? Or has the great Propaganda River found new ways to flow?) Permalink

People wonder why Hillary Clinton communicated via a private email server. The answer is obvious: She wanted to communicate with friends and family about the world situation -- and about private matters -- without having to share those communications with any oppo researcher waving an FOIA request.

No, her intent was not to share classified information. Why on earth would she want to do that? As we've seen, none of that stuff was classified at the time.

Even the Obama administration's retroactive overclassification campaign has made clear that none of the "sensitive" info came from intelligence sources. We've known for a long time that this infamously secretive administration could put a classification stamp on a ham sandwich.

Much of what you've been hearing about emailgate is garbage: "Hillary exposes classified materials! She did it because she's arrogant! Arrogant arrogant arrogant! Clintons think they're above the law!"

Propaganda. All of it. The only thing it proves is that trolls will type if you toss a few quarters at them.

Hillary's email system existed to give confidantes -- not least among them Sid Blumenthal -- a chance to express themselves freely: Shoes off, tie loosened, belt unbuckled and no snoops.

Or so they thought.

As I predicted would happen, the name of Max Blumenthal (Sidney's son, and the world's most effective critic of Israel) has popped up in this controversy. In one of the emails, Hillary praises Max's first book, Republican Gomorrah. Although that book is not about Israel, the email establishes that Hillary considers Max to be worth reading. She probably has read Goliath, although she will never admit it.

From Politico, we learn that...

[Sidney] Blumenthal had lots of frustrations with Israel, in particular Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He forwarded opinion pieces critical of the Israeli leader and government, some of which were written by his son, Max Blumenthal.

In one email with the subject line “an idea, perhaps useless, but nonetheless,” Blumenthal argues that the U.S. may want to reveal its own position on the latest attempt at peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, one that “should incorporate at its heart what the Israeli government has already agreed to in the final status negotiations at Camp David, along, of course, with certain adjustments and amendments" to account for the past 10 years in terms of boundaries, etc.

The upshot? “This puts the burden on Bibi [Netanyahu] to repudiate [former Israeli Premier Ehud] Barak in principles and details if he pushes back, splitting his coalition, and appearing to be the rejectionist. Also it makes the U.S. seem utterly reasonable...” Blumenthal writes.

Sid may keep his true feelings hidden in public, but the emails reveal that he is not exactly fond of Bibi Netanyahu. Although this anti-Bibi stance is shared by many other American Jews, it is considered Thoughtcrime in DC.

Moreover -- and this is the sweetly shocking part -- Sidney Blumenthal obviously thinks that his message will fall on receptive ears when transmitted to Hillary Clinton. Example:

For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: AIPAC speech

This memo does not address specific policy initiatives. What I've written are options. Use what you like, or none at all. Here are some ideas:

1. Hold Bibi's feet to the fire, remind everyone he was at Wye, his key participant event in the peace process, and that it was successful.

2. Reassure all players of our commitment to the process and the solution (whatever the language is).

3. Perhaps most controversial, I would argue something you should do is that, while praising AIPAC, remind it in as subtle but also direct a way as you can that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion. Bibi is stage managing US Jewish organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster) against the administration. AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, specifically Likud. By acknowledging J Street you give them legitimacy, credibility and create room within the American Jewish community for debate supportive of the administration's pursuit of the peace process. Just by mentioning J Street in passing, AIPAC becomes a point on the spectrum, not the controller of the spectrum. I suggest a way how to do this below.

The elder Blumenthal also emphasized the surprising results of recent polling of American Jews:

March 23, 2010
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: US Jewish and Israeli public opinion

Three new polls released: from AVO07 (all US), J Street (US Jews), and Ha'aretz (Israelis). I've sent Lauren the whole J Street poll to print out for you; its internals are the most detailed, relevant and suggestive. My reading of that poll is that the administration is in a pretty good spot with US Jewish opinion and that the drag (about 10 points, I think) has less to do with the Middle East and Israel than with the economy. Jewish opinion is far more solidly supportive of the administration generally than the general population (except minorities). Those adamantly opposed to the administration stance on Israel are preconceived to be against; they are predictable, a minority of the US Jewish community and have reached their natural limits. The institutional US Jewish position backing Bibi and against the administration does not have majority support among Jews.

When Blumenthal wrote these words, he did not expect the messages to be leaked.

So how did the leak come about? Whodunnit, and why?

Ostensibly, the leak first came to us by way of a Romanian cab driver named Marcel Lehel, a.k.a. Guccifer, the same fellow who revealed Dubya's oil paintings to the world. Lehel is a nutcase who thinks that Dubya is a Klansman and that Sidney Blumenthal is a secret neocon.

More importantly, the guy -- by his own admission -- isn't much of a hacker. High-level hacking requires high-level smarts, and Lehel has a whole bunch of loose nuts and bolts and springs rattling around his noggin. So how did this conspira-kook skulk his way into the secret communications of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton?

I think he had help.

Secret help. So secret that even Lehel didn't know about it.

It would have been child's play for those lovable scamps at Unit 8200 or the NSA or GCHQ to commandeer Lehel's computer. They could stay hidden as they arranged for Lehel get "in" -- all the while allowing him to think that he was doing the job all by himself.

Here's how the NYT described Lehel in action:

Instead of burrowing into his victims’ email accounts using computer worms and other hacking tools, the prosecutor said, Mr. Lazar trawled the web for information about his targets and then simply guessed the right answers to security questions.

There are several problems with this claim, but we need not go into those issues here. My point is this: Unseen helpers could have allowed Lehel to slip into the secret places of George and Hillary, and Lehel did not even need to guess that the correct passphrases were "ImTheBestestPainterSinceAdolf" and "DieMonicaDie."

Lehel was the perfect cyber-patsy.

The purpose of this operation is clear: To humiliate Hillary by exposing the Blumenthal correspondence. (The Dubya infiltration was unimportant, except insofar as it establishes that the hack was non-partisan.)

I have little doubt that the spooks were reading Sidney's emails to Hillary in real time, back in 2009. The problem was figuring out a way to let the world know about those messages without also revealing that spooks read the private emails of American politicians.

It's not just a matter of hurting Hillary Clinton's public image, although this country's right wing will never miss an opportunity to do just that. The main purpose of this operation is to thin her wallet.

To illustrate the point, let me run one name past you: Haim Saban.

He's the ardently pro-Netanyahu billionaire who has been backing Hillary, and who has advised his wealthy friends to do likewise. How do you think Haim reacted when he read those letters from Sidney?

In July, Hillary felt obligated to send a letter to Saban outlining her opposition to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel -- a movement which Max Blumenthal has embraced. I believe that she was trying to minimize the damage of those email leaks.

Even if she wrote another dozen letters of that sort, the damage has been done. I doubt that Saban will ever cut Hillary another check. You can have Haim Saban as a friend or you can have Max Blumenthal's dad as your friend -- but not both. That's the way the world is.

Moreover, it is fair to presume that the Kagan clan is now reconsidering its support of Hillary.

Of course, the Blumenthal correspondence makes me like Hillary more. Alas, I do not have a billion dollars. Sorry, Hillary! Permalink

Many more of Hillary's emails have been deemed classified by the State Department. I'd like to say that this news is driving the right-wingers batshit crazy, but I can't. They were that way to begin with.

You have to read well past the headlines to discover the key point: None of these emails were classified at the time. Since we can't see the documents in question, we have no way to determine whether the texts are being over-classified. I feel quite certain that they are.

Many on the right (and some on the left) have compared Hillary's email debacle to the case against General David Petraeus. Anne Tompkins, one of the prosecutors in that case, pooh-poohs any claim of similarity:

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.

These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer.

Hillary is guilty of none of these things.

Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton’s server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received. Additionally, the Justice Department indicated that its inquiry is not a criminal one and that Clinton is not the subject of the inquiry.

Fox News (of all venues!) just published an interesting take on all of this by Paul Goldman. His piece more-or-less admits that the charges against Hillary are mostly hooey. But in today's political world, mere reality doesn't matter:

The point being: After all that has transpired to date, perception may have already become reality to most Americans, indeed most commentators, not to mention defenders and detractors, on both sides. Or put another way: Another batch of emails isn’t going to change the bottom line.

The drop in Clinton’s support from 69 percent among Democrats nationally when she announced in April to now only 45 percent in one recent poll surely has some cause and effect relationship to the email issue.

Here's a worrying possibility: What if Hillary is being undermined by the Obama administration?

This theory would explain a lot.

After all, Obama is the person ultimately in charge of the State Department, which suddenly deemed 150 emails on that server to be classified. A mere two days ago, those very same missives were thought to be non-sensitive. The State Department took this step knowing full well that misleading headlines would convey the impression that the emails were classified at the time.

Obama favors Biden. That much is clear.

Added note: There are smears and then there are smears. This piece in Forbes (by one Paul Coyer) achieves full-body smeargasm. Example:

Hillary’s comments at her Friday press conference just repeated the behavioral patterns that the Clintons have long been known for – a non-apology apology and carefully parsed denials that do nothing to dispel the broadly-held view that this scandal is merely further evidence, if any were needed after nearly a quarter century of seeing Hillary’s pattern of behavior in public life, that Hillary (like her husband) has a pronounced penchant for dishonesty and dislikes playing by everyone else’s rules.

It is highly unlikely that Hillary’s use of private email servers (and her private email account had no encryption at all for the first few months of her tenure as Secretary of State) were not penetrated by foreign intelligence, particularly the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians, all of whom would see such a target as high priority, and that such emails did not provide such hostile foreign powers a critically useful insight into foreign and national security policy decision-making at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

The combination of the intelligence gleaned from Edward Snowden and from Hillary’s emails are likely to have contributed to Putin’s aggressive course of action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

This inside knowledge told the Kremlin that the Administration was not likely to take forceful actions that would raise the costs to Moscow of such actions to unacceptable levels, but would be limit its response primarily to economic sanctions. Putin, who has a long-term horizon, has calculated that the Russian economy (and his regime’s stability) can withstand these sanctions, no matter what the short to medium term consequences on the economy.

And the intelligence coup to Moscow provided by Hillary’s emails says nothing of what the benefit may have been to other American opponents, including Tehran as it prepared for the critical nuclear negotiations with the Obama Administration, and Beijing as it made decisions regarding how far to go in attempting to coercively alter the status quo in the South China Sea. It is a certainty that America’s opponents knew far more about the Obama Administration’s attitudes and decision-making processes and about what Hillary and Mr. Obama were doing than did the American people or the Congress.

"It is a certainty..." Oh, for chrissakes...

None of the emails were classified at the time. Nothing indicates that any of this material was discussed. Nothing indicates that Russia or China or Tehran considered Hillary's email server to be of great importance. (Perhaps needless to add, nothing links the Ed Snowden revelations to any of Putin's actions vis-a-vis Ukraine. Snowden's material was entirely about the NSA.) This Forbes piece is the kind of over-the-top propaganda that even the John Birchers would have considered crude and bombastic.

This nonsense is illustrated with an ominous photo of Huma Abedin. Apparently, we're supposed to think that she is some sort of Mata Hari employed by the dreaded Russia/Chinese/Iranian conspiracy. Permalink

Today's post will head into some rather fringe-y territory. If that kind of exploration bugs you, stop reading now. (As regular readers know, this blog's weekend offerings occasionally veer away from "hard" news and politics.)

I have been re-reading a book called Programmed to Kill, in which author Dave McGowan offers a bizarre revisionist history of the serial murder phenomenon. Frankly, McGowan is bit of a crackpot, even by my generous standards. But he has his virtues. Unlike most crackpots, he writes well, and he offers some truly fresh material and insights. Unfortunately, a certain predictability sets in toward the end: The automatic gainsaying of consensus belief eventually becomes as tiresome as consensus belief itself.

Nevertheless, McGowan's section on the Atlanta Child Murders of 1979-1981 had me hooked. All readers of a certain age will recall how the killings of some 29 African American children and young adult males caused a national uproar. The killings were ultimately ascribed to a young, locally well-known black musical entrepreneur named Wayne Williams. He was tried only for the murders of two adults; the legal system offered no closure in the cases involving children. Williams maintains his innocence to this day.

In 1985, a three-part TV movie -- starring James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman, Martin Sheen and Jason Robards -- dramatized the case; it's available on YouTube starting here. I saw this docu-drama when it was first broadcast; it holds up quite well, thanks in large measure to the excellent acting. Although clunky exposition mars the first segment, the script offers a gripping argument that Williams was railroaded.

Gripping, yes -- but not wholly persuasive. I'm not at all convinced of this man's innocence. It's easy to see how a young musical promoter -- someone known to be looking for the next Michael Jackson -- might well have gained the trust of young black kids. No other suspect in the case had that ability to entice the young.

Before the cops identified Williams, many black people believed that the Klan committed the murders. There was an obvious objection to this theory: How could any white person prowl the black neighborhoods of Atlanta unnoticed, especially during a time of great tension and fear? Children were repeatedly warned to avoid all strangers. How could a Klansman lure young blacks boys into a vehicle?

It is nevertheless the case that an informant named Billy Joe Whittaker told authorities that a local Klansman named Charlie Sanders had confessed to the murders. A wiretap recorded Sanders announcing his intention to "ride around a little bit" to find another kid. Infuriatingly, this recording was later destroyed by the Georgia Bureau of Intelligence.

This site offers a look at Sanders and a number other intriguing suspects.

I don't have the space here to go into all of the details of this complex case. In short and in sum: Even though I lean toward the view that Wayne Williams belongs in jail, I do not think that all -- or even most -- of the important questions have received answers.

In 2010, CNN broadcast a documentary which I should have discussed in this column years ago. Here it is. The documentary, hosted by Soledad O'Brien, addresses some of the controversies surrounding this case; other issues (such as the Sanders angle) are ignored. The presentation concludes with a bombshell interview (excerpted here) with Wayne Williams, in which he is confronted with a little-known 1992 document called "Finding Myself."

In this autobiographical text, Williams claims that -- when he was all of 19 -- he received CIA training for possible missions in Africa. This assertion is not so outlandish as many people may believe. At the time, there were several hotspots on the continent, and the Agency did not have nearly as many black field agents as it needed. And Williams was nothing if not ambitious.

Nevertheless, a number of internet commenters have scoffed at the idea. Skeptics presume that Williams is a blowhard hoping to draw attention to himself. None of the scoffers have asked the obvious questions: How did CNN acquire this document? When was it written, and under what circumstances?

Why isn't "Finding Myself" online? I have yet to find a copy. (If you know where to look, please pass along the URL!)

Our most important question is this: Does the document contain information which can be verified through other sources -- information that Williams could not otherwise have known? We cannot address the issue of credibility until we see the details.

Right now, all we have is the following:

O'BRIEN (voice-over): When we returned to prison for our final interview with Wayne Williams, we had one question he was not expecting, what Wayne had written about being recruited for espionage training as a teenager. At a secret government camp hidden in the woods near this north Georgia lake, where he was given what could amount to a license to kill.

(on camera): It's called finding myself. What is finding myself? It reads like an autobiography.

WILLIAMS: Go ahead. I'm listening.

O'BRIEN: It's an account of your CIA training.

WILLIAMS: We're not going to get into that.

O'BRIEN: Why not?

WILLIAMS: We're not going to get into that.

O'BRIEN: I have a copy of it.

WILLIAMS: We're not going to get into it.

O'BRIEN: Why not?

WILLIAMS: We're simply not going to get into it. O'BRIEN (voice-over): By his account, Wayne was fresh out of high school, just 18 years old, when he was approached by an associate of an old World War II spy living in the Atlanta area, and was initiated into a secret world.

(on camera): You're not going to answer a single question on this.

WILLIAMS: No, ma'am.

O'BRIEN: Is it fake? Is it fictional writing?

WILLIAMS: No.

O'BRIEN: Did you work for the CIA?

WILLIAMS: We're not going to get into it.

O'BRIEN (voice-over): In these pages, he said he spent his summer weekends in those woods, learning how to handle plastic explosives, hand grenades, and something even more chilling.

(on camera): So I'll do the talking part and you can answer what part of it you want. You write how you fired rifles, sub-machine guns, handled assault weapons, grenade launchers, C-4, learned unarmed combat techniques, through this training group over weekends. Is it true or is it false?

WILLIAMS: I'm not going to comment on it.

O'BRIEN: When you were 19 years old? You're saying you worked for the CIA. You've been recruited.

WILLIAMS: I'll let the document speak for itself. I'm not going to comment on that.

O'BRIEN: Did you work for the CIA?

WILLIAMS: I cannot comment on that.

The problem becomes more confounding the more one gnaws on it. The reader should understand one key point: The "CIA training" allegation does not bolster the case for Williams' innocence. (This fact may explain why he seemed visibly surprised and upset when CNN's Soledad O'Brien brought up the document.) At trial, Williams' lawyer emphasized that his client was small and physically unimpressive, and therefore unlikely to have choked to death two larger men. "Finding Myself" calls into question the closing statement made by Williams' attorney.

Why did Williams write "Finding Myself" if the text harms his case? Never mind, for the moment, the question of whether this memoir is based on fantasy or reality: Why on earth would a man desperate to prove his innocence undermine one of the primary arguments offered in his defense?

Although the document bears a 1992 date (according to CNN), we have some reason to believe that Williams, before his arrest, had broadly hinted that he had acquired specialized knowledge of hand-to-hand combat. The aforementioned 1985 made-for-TV movie reconstructs -- accurately, I hope -- the testimony offered by various prosecution witnesses. Around 19 minutes into part three, one such witness says that Williams bragged of knowing a special choke hold which induces rapid unconsciousness. Later, this same witness says that Williams has a "split personality."

(This witness was devastating to Williams' case. Even more damage was done by Williams himself: Testifying in his own defense, he went on a tirade that alienated the jurors.)

CNN uses "Finding Myself" to demonstrate that Williams had acquired the training necessary to murder larger men with his bare hands. But if we accept the document at face value, then the Wayne Williams story veers off into very strange territory.

Who was this "old World War II spy" living in the Atlanta area? Offhand, I can't think of a possible candidate -- and I'm a bit irked that CNN has kept the name hidden. (If you can fill in the blank, please share!)

Why did CNN refuse to identify the "north Georgia lake" close to the "secret government camp"? If CNN had investigated Williams' claim and found this camp to be non-existent, Soledad O'Brien would surely have mentioned that fact, and would have named the lake.

(At first, I thought that the reference might go to the Georgia Public Safety Training Center. But that complex is located in central Georgia, and it is hardly a secret.)

We must add one other point. In 1981, none other than Vice President George Bush created a federal task force which investigated the then-unsolved series of murders. Vice presidents do not usually take on such duties; in fact, I can't think of a single parallel. Bush had once headed the CIA, the very organization which -- allegedly -- trained Wayne Williams.

Although I'm irked by Dave McGowan's more outlandish theories, I must admit that many aspects of the Atlanta story do not add up. This case deserves a new investigation.

Added note: Boy, do I feel like an idiot! A kind reader mentioned the name of the notorious Mitch WerBell, an OSS veteran then living in Atlanta. He was an amazing, larger-than-life character who perfectly matches what we know of the man described by Wayne Williams. WerBell had an anything-goes training facility called The Farm off of Georgia State Route 360, near Powder Springs, located north of Atlanta.

Jim Hougan's remarkable -- and, these days, very hard-to-find -- book Spooks offers a vivid picture of WerBell and his crew. Basically, these guys were (are?) the real-life equivalent of The Expendables. Although I lost my copy of Spooks ages ago, a new copy came into my hands quite recently. And if I had bothered to re-read the damned thing, that CNN documentary would have caused all sorts of lightbulbs to flash over my noggin.

Wayne Williams is talking about Mitch WerBell. It's gotta be him. Everything fits.

God damn. I should have seen this immediately.

Added added note: Turns out that my humble blog was not the first humble blog to identify Mitch WerBell as the man who trained Wayne Williams. See here.

Before you read that entry, I should explain that WerBell hobnobbed with all sorts of very strange people, including Lyndon LaRouche, who made the transition from left to hard right in the 1970s. Many LaRouchies received training at "The Farm."

The story gets wilder from there. Check out the link... Permalink

I really do not want to defend Hillary Clinton. Yes, she deserves to be criticized -- for the right reasons. This nonsense is not one of the right reasons. Perhaps it was a bit over-the-top for Hillary to liken the Republicans' stances on women's issues to terrorism. But so what? These days, over-the-top sentiments are as common as raindrops in a rainstorm.

If you hit the link given above, check out the comments -- many of which, we may fairly presume, are pure astroturf. These commenters pretend to be incensed by Hillary's intemperate language, yet the writers always express themselves in the most outlandish terms imaginable. Hypocrisy is hip, it seems. I found the following to be particularly amusing:

I will be more happy when she is in jail for treason and misdemeanor homicide

There's such a thing as "misdemeanor homicide"? Just who, prithee, is the alleged victim? (The same commenter says that Hillary won't go to jail because she is a "Clition.")

In a similar vein, here is the latest attempt to smear Bill Clinton.

ABC News has obtained State Department e-mails that shed light on Bill Clinton’s lucrative speaking engagements and show he and the Clinton Foundation tried to get approval for invitations related to two of the most repressive countries in the world -- North Korea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Yada yada yada. Basically, ABC News is giving us the usual smear job. If you read their piece carefully and skeptically, you'll discover the truth of the matter: Clinton runs a charity, and he goes around the world trying to drum up millions for his charity. Where the money comes from doesn't matter as much as where it goes to. As far as I'm concerned, if dictators and thugs pony up some dough and starving villagers in India receive the benefit, fine. Would you feel comfortable telling the starving villagers to keep starving?

Unfortunately, our "unbiased" news media insists on writing stories which convey the impression (without directly stating) that the money goes into the Clintons' own pockets, not to the starving villagers. A number of alleged progressives go along with this hallucination, because doing so makes them feel hip. This situation persists even though the watchdog groups who keep track of charities all say that the Clinton Foundation is clean and transparent.

Incidentally, Clinton did not speak at any function involving the North Koreans or the Congo. His foundation simply told the State Department that the invitations had been received. That's it. This, we're told, constitutes some kind of scandal.

And so it goes.

Hillary's numbers are going down not because of her policies, not because of anything real, but because the Clinton name is being subjected to daily smears. As the saying goes: If enough bullshit hits the wall, some will stick. Permalink

The invaluable Bob Parry demonstrates, once again, that our political culture has been so thoroughly neoconned that no candidate in either party can openly favor peace. Even Bernie Sanders, who voted against the Iraq misadventure, seems to have lost his way.

When Sanders has spoken about the Mideast, he has framed his comments in ways that make them acceptable to Official Washington but that ultimately make little sense. For instance, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Sanders suggested that Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich sheikdoms replace the United States as the region’s policeman in the fight against Sunni terrorists in the Islamic State (also called ISIS).

Ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is one of the major backers of ISIS -- a fact of history seldom discussed out loud, but a fact nonetheless. The murderous behavior of the Saudis in Yemen demonstrates that King Salman has no interest in peace, justice, or international opinion.

Joe Biden once blurted out this unspeakable truth about Saudi Arabia. (Biden is one of this country's truly great blurters.)

“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria … the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they doing? They were so determined to take down [President Bashar al-] Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”

Whenever Biden emits one of his honesty farts, pundits mutter about the vice president's tendency to commit gaffes. Those "gaffes" are the main reason to welcome the idea of a Biden presidency. On the other hand, Hunter Biden's involvement in Ukrainian affairs is more than a little worrisome.

Parry does not mention the name of one candidate who might challenge the war consensus: Jim Webb.

Some aspects of Webb's foreign policy plan bother me -- especially point 4, which is is nothing more than a new way of sucking up to Israel. But his key point, the one that overshadows all others, comes at the end:

7. Congress must step up and restore its relationship with the executive branch.

Senator Webb identified a shift in war-making power from the Congress to the presidency. He drew on Libya and Iraq as examples of executive military maneuvers that bypassed legislative approval. In both cases, Webb felt that no vital national interest was at stake.

When the public applies pressure to Congress, Congress feels it. Right now and for the foreseeable future, the public does not want war.

In 2013, every "respectable" pundit was screaming for Obama to rain hellfire on Syria. Obama, boxed in and seeking a way out, hit upon a brilliant strategy: In a rare (and purely tactical) show of respect for the Constitution, he left the decision up to Congress. After the people of the United States made their feelings known, Congress had to shun Ares.

Although the administration made clear that the Great Syria Dodge was a one-time deal, Webb wants to transform 2013 into the new normal. He clarifies his foreign policy stance here:

However, there is an important caveat to how our country should fight international terrorism. The violation of this principle has caused us a lot of trouble in the recent past. I can do no better than to quote from an article I wrote on September 12th, 2001, the day after the 9 / 11 attacks. “DO NOT OCCUPY TERRITORY. The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent bases, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend – the United States and our outposts overseas – and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets.”

And finally, a warning spurred by the actions of this Administration in places such as Libya. There is no such thing as the right of any President to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on such vague concepts as “humanitarian intervention.” If a treaty does not obligate us, if American forces are not under attack or under threat of imminent attack, if no Americans are at risk, the President should come to the congress before he or she sends troops into Harm’s Way.

Do these words mean that Webb deserves to be called "the peace candidate"? Many of you will say No.

My response: If Webb turns war into a congressional problem, peace will finally get a chance -- because Congress, for all of its many corruptions, must listen to the people. True, many Americans are easily fooled by propaganda. Many Americans are dumber than a rock that failed rock school. But even the more obtuse citizens of the United States understand that the Iraq misadventure cost trillions, and that our nation would now be far more prosperous if Dubya's disaster had never happened. Not all Americans love peace -- in fact, many Americans are bellicose boobs. But nobody wants to run up that kind of debt again.

Reagan adviser Martin Anderson used to say: "In politics, the question is always 'Compared to what?'" Compare Webb to Hillary Clinton, to Bernie Sanders, to Joe Biden. Compare Webb to anyone who participated in the Republican debate. Ask yourself: Which candidate is least likely to let the neocons dictate foreign policy? Permalink

Burning Man is now officially for assholes only. Fucking libertarians always gotta ruin everything.

When I read the article at the other end of that link, I thought: How many times have we seen this process play out? Bohemians (or "hippies," as they were called during one brief historical moment) shout "Freedom!" and initiate Coolness. Rich people respond: "Yeah! Freedom! Freedom for the rich to take over!" -- and then they turn Coolness into Uncoolness.

Many people don't know that the Bohemian Grove -- you know, the thing with the giant owl -- also began with a group of artsy types from San Francisco who sought to create an anything-goes enclave out in the woods. It didn't take too long for a bunch of stuffy bigwigs to take over the show.

This pattern will continue until a new generation of Bohemians finally understands that the pattern is a pattern. Next time the artists and visionaries and crazies construct a Bohemian enclave in the wilderness, they have to erect barriers against the One Percenters: "Sorry, but this is an exclusive club. Only actual human beings are allowed inside. You wouldn't understand."

Speaking of the Bohemian Grove: I just found the damnedest photo...


This is a picture of various members of the Bohemian Club in the woods circa 1904. (The Bohemian Club founded the Grove.) The painting is of none other than Gustav Mahler, then very much alive -- in fact, his best work was ahead of him. Now considered one of the world's greatest composers, Mahler's music was, at that time, thought to be unfathomably avant-garde; he was famous as Vienna's most celebrated and controversial conductor. It seems that his fame had spread to the redwoods of California.

Why had the club fixated on Mahler? Perhaps because he was literally a scion of Bohemia, being born in the center of what later became Czechoslovakia.

There's another possible explanation. In the 19th century, a secretive artist's society called the Schlaraffia (a German term for "fairyland") sprang up. Mahler belonged to this group, although I doubt that he took it very seriously. It was a bit like the Dead Poets Society, and their symbol was the Owl of Minerva (goddess of Wisdom). Writer Terry Melanson argues that the Schlaraffia may have given birth, so to speak, to the Bohemian Club.

There was a branch of Schlaraffia instituted in San Francisco as early as 1884, so there is the possibility of real connections and influence among the two groups.

(He meant "between the two groups.") The intersection of Bohemia and Big Money always seems to fascinate the more easily-gulled conspiracy researchers. Artsy-fartsy Bohemian-types love to play with symbols and riddles and mystical murkiness. Conspiratards consider all of that stuff to be very spooky and scary. Most conspiratards are poorly-educated Christian fundamentalists, and when these apes try to comprehend what the Bohemians have been getting up to, hilarity ensues. Permalink