U.S. Bourgeois Political and Media Elites In A Tizzy Because Trump Said Mean Things About One Of Their Number

Tongues are clucking and fingers are wagging at Donald Trump, the current president of the U.S. (and thus the man in charge of maintaining and expanding U.S. global dominance and preserving the hegemony of billionaires everywhere possible) for insulting Mika Brzezinski.

For something like 99.999% of the world's population, Mika Brzezinski is an unknown person. But U.S. political and media elites, who genuinely feel themselves to be at the center of the universe, have the attitude that they are "everybody." In fact, the words "everyone" and "everybody" have been used in regard to this pathetic contretemps.

For days on end now, if you turn on a radio or television, or look at a news website, you're deluged with the scandal du jour, Trump's Meanness to Mika. The U.S. media actually thinks this is something Important. (Apparently any club, or stick, or twig, with which to beat on Trump, will do.) The Washington Post, the hometown "news"paper of the capital city of the global U.S. empire, has numerous articles on its homepage devoted to this trivial story, all breathless in their outrage, shock, and indignation at the caddish, "inappropriate" (the mildest term of condemnation being used in the deluge of denunciations against Trump) behavior of Trump.

Brzezinski is where she is because her Daddy was the notorious imperialist apparatchik Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish emigre who harbored a lifelong hatred for and grudge against Russia. Brzezinski was the Man with the Plan to sucker-punch the Soviet Union by luring it into invading Afghanistan. In fact, it  is true to say that if it hadn't been for U.S. machinations, the Soviet Union probably would never have invaded that country. The U.S. conspired to place a regime hostile to the S.U. in power in Afghanistan. Brzezinski, who was the "National Security" Advisor to U.S. president James Earl Carter, advised Carter that the Soviets could be sucked into a war in Afghanistan to bloody their nose, as it were, and as "payback" for the U.S.' self-inflicted Vietnam War (really Indochina War, as the U.S. devastated Cambodia and Laos in addition to destroying Vietnam) debacle.

Brzezinski is the co-host of a pointless TV show on MSNBC, hosted by her lover, Joe Scarborough, called, modestly, "Morning Joe." Scarborough was previously a Republican Congressman, so of course he is a right-winger. This ego trip program is centered around Scarborough spouting his opinions- and he has opinions on every topic, free of any special insight or edifying analysis- with others sitting around a table on a studio set to chat, and with power-system guests, meaning various politicians, polemicists, and what passes for "experts" in the pantheon of the U.S. propaganda system.

Scarborough was a Trump enthusiast and booster, but once the bourgeois elite turned against Trump with a vengeance, Scarborough duly sailed his little media boat with the tide and turned against Trump. So both he and his lover/co-host turned into harsh critics of Trump.

Eventually Trump responded as he always does when he perceives hostility or even resistance, with insults. He called Dear Mika "dumb," and this was taken as something beyond the pale by the blatherariat and various politicians. He claimed she turned up at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's personal Florida Xanadu, with her paramour, bleeding from her face from recent plastic surgery. Trump says the duo repeatedly sought admission through the Magic Gates, and were repeatedly turned away. The media elite were duly aghast at the unflattering comments about one of their own. Republican politicians weighed in, harrumphing that Trump should can the trash talk, as it was unseemly, beneath the dignity of the president (it's certainly not beneath Trump's personal dignity!) and, of course, "a distraction" from important matters, like gutting Medicaid for millions of people, lavishing billions in tax reductions on the ultra-rich, neutralizing the Environmental Protection Agency, increasing the military budget by 11%, and so on. (In that case, let's hope the "distractions" continue for however long Trump remains inflicted on the world as U.S. Emperor.)

Scarborough/Brzezinski then retailed a story asserting that Trump's minions threatened them with a hatchet job in the so-called "National Enquirer," controlled by Trump's longtime friend, admirer, and ally, David Pecker, unless they apologized to Trump and called him to beg him to spike the story. The Washington Post helpfully provided an op-ed slot for Joe and Mika to feed this story to the public.

Pecker rules a stable of pseudo-newspapers, burlesque versions of actual newspapers, that are placed weekly in racks right at tens of thousands of supermarket checkout lines. Thus millions of people see their covers and lurid headlines every week, and are at least subliminally influenced by them. Pecker's rags, with their drumbeat of Trump-boosting covers during the campaign for the presidency, no doubt aided Trump's "victory." (He actually lost to Clinton by 2.9 million votes, but under the bizarre system of U.S. "democracy," he won in the so-called Electoral College, which is what counts, not who people actually vote for.) [1]

Trump's side denied the Scarborough/Brzezinski extortion story, but it seems credible to me.

The Epitome of Elegance: the very debonair David Pecker

Even though Trump is besieged by hundreds of media voices and political hacks, he apparently never tires of punching back, and indeed of picking new fights, gratuitously, as when he speciously attacked the Mayor of London in the wake of a terrorist attack there on June 3. [2] I don't see Trump tiring of the constant conflict, because he thrives on it. Unlike what is often said about bullies, he is no coward. In fact, he's a lot gutsier than his predecessor, Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama, who always, always, shied away from taking on the GOP, and made numerous attempts to appease them. Likewise he rewarded Israeli prime minister Binjamin Netanyahu for heaping years of abuse and insults directed at him with a 10-year, $38 billion dollar gift of U.S. weapons, paid for by American taxpayers. [3]

One could expect no end to the media's high dudgeon against Trump's rudeness to Mika until another factoid comes along for Trump's power establishment enemies to wax indignant and outraged over. Sure enough, something came along, in the form of a dopey 28-second video of Trump tackling someone at a burlesque "professional wrestling" show, with a CNN logo superimposed on the "victim's" head. Trump tweeted the video (allegedly the work of a known white racist) and the media were off to the races again. CNN issued a pained statement about Trump inciting violence against journalists and neglecting the duties of the presidency.

 And all the while, the major propaganda offensive, "Russian meddling/interference in Our Democracy" has been non-stop political theme music for months now. The Democrats and most of the corporate media (and the prime movers behind this campaign, the secret police agencies FBI, CIA, and FBI that are the beating fascist heart of the Deep State) hope to build that into a crescendo that will oust Trump from the White House.

We shall see. This should be interesting. For the objective, perspicacious analysis that reveals the hidden truth, check back here regularly.

Poor Mika and Joe! Bullyboy Donald keeps PICKING on them!

MEANEST President EVER! He hurt Mika's feelings! And he exterminated Native Americans! And lots of Filipinos! And overthrew governments and imposed murderous fascist regimes in those countries! And he NUKED two defenseless cities! And laid waste to Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos! And... Oh wait, that was other presidents. Never mind.....

1]  An example of Pecker using the rags he controls to help Trump was his publication during the GOP presidential primaries of a photo of Ted Cruz's fascist fanatic father next to CIA agent (not CIA officer) Lee Harvey Oswald, with the imputation that Cruz senior was involved in the JFK assassination, for which Oswald was the fall guy. When Trump picked up on this, he was roundly denounced by much of the media blatherariat, who are ever-alert and allergic to any examination of that assassination. (The picture proves nothing about Cruz senior's involvement with the JFK hit, of course.) Ted Cruz was also running for the GOP nomination for president at the time.

For a timely description of Pecker, his "career" as a purveyor of media garbage, and his intimate ties to Trump, see "The National Enquirer’s Fervor for Trump ," The New Yorker, July 3, 2017 issue.


2]  See "Anti-Muslim Bigot & Demagogue U.S. President Trump Slimes London Mayor After Terrorist Attack," June 5, 2017.

3]  Two caveats to the Obama Cowardly Bully thesis. One is that he was a reactionary, who never had any intention of even trying to enact progressive policies. All his campaign rhetoric to the contrary was standard  Democratic Party deception, perfected over several decades by that vile gang. Second, one wonders if he was trying to "triangulate" in the manner of his predecessor as president, fellow accomplished-con-man Bill "Mass Murderer Times 4" Clinton. Clinton outflanked Congressional Republicans on their right, gutting welfare and instituting 60 new Federal death penalty crimes, among other things. Then-leader of the House GOP, the political mountebank Newt Gingrich, felt compelled to go along. Obama tried something similar with his healthcare "reform," devised originally by the far-right wing Heritage Foundation. To his surprise, the Republicans in Congress adamantly refused to provide even a single vote for it. Apparently Obama hadn't read the news reports of Senate GOP Boss Mitch McConnell stating the Republican priority for the Obama regime- to ensure its "failure." The fact that the Gang Of Plunderers announced in advance their plan for total obstructionism wasn't enough to stop Appeaser-In-Chief Obama from repeatedly trying to craft rightwing legislation they would support. And when Obama was first elected, the Democrats held majorities in both Congressional chambers, and could have enacted progressive legislation. But then, this is a party that has had ample opportunities to repeal the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which is a key factor in the destruction of labor unions in the U.S. Yet they never had.

Unions that continue to support the Democratic Party are the equivalent of abused wives who never leave their abuser.

Still, the thesis stands. Obama consistently kow-towed to the powerful (like the financial industry) and took out his wrath on the weak, such as when he ordered the assassination of the 16-year-old son of Anwar al-Awlaki (who was driven into exile by the FBI and became a propagandist for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) and arranged for the Egyptian secret police to break the arm of peace agitator Medea Benjamin in retaliation for interrupting one of his orotund, mendacious speeches. Or keeping political prisoner and then Army soldier Chelsea Manning naked for a year in a Marine Corps brig prior to being railroaded for revealing U.S. crimes to the world via a document transfer to WikiLeaks. Or the incredible persecution of Julian Assange. Or many more examples. For an excellent documentary on some of the lengths the U.S. has gone to "neutralize" Assange, using Britain and Sweden (and even Assange's native Australia) as willing puppets, see "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange," by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation 4 Corners Program. It used to be available free on youtube, but now you have to pay. I downloaded it before that happened.

For Medea Benjamin, See "Obama Has Egyptian Military Regime Break American Peace Activist's Arm," March 8, 2014, and "Medea Benjamin’s Arm 'Wakes Me Up Every Single Night in Pain,'*" July 2, 2014.

If You're Seeking Disingenuousness, The New York Times Is A Great Place To Look!

Year after year, the New York Times "news"paper often demonstrates a remarkable ability to be seemingly oblivious to elephants in the room. It even at times flatly denies the reality that the very facts it reports make obvious. One has to wonder why this is.

Sometimes it would seem to be motivated by a desire to avoid conflict with other capitalist industries, or with institutions of state power. There is also a desire to uphold and protect various planks of the ideological system. They don't want to fundamentally change the outlook or consciousness of people. (That is quite distinct from molding opinion on this or that issue, which they do assiduously, every day.)

Now here is a rather glaring example, which the Times put under the heading "Media," indicating that in the print edition it appeared in the Business section. This is from the Times website dated May 30:

            "Television Networks Struggle to Provide Equal Airtime in the Era of Trump." [1]

The article is about Donald Trump's dominant presence in the media vs. Hillary Clinton's much smaller media footprint. This is attributed by the Times to the different behavioral styles of those two presidential candidates, and in Clinton's case, to an active avoidance of the media. Much of the article consists of handwringing by various media executives and on-air figures, which likewise is disingenuous on their part.

The very first paragraph gets things wrong. Quote: "Donald J. Trump relishes the spotlight of live television. Hillary Clinton has long recoiled from it. Now, the television news industry is wrestling with how to balance fairness, credibility and the temptations of sky-high ratings as it prepares for a presidential matchup like none other."

Fairness, credibility and the temptations of sky-high ratings are in reverse order of actual important to the TV industry. Obvious ratings- a surrogate for revenues and profits- is most important. Credibility matters longer term. Fairness? What fairness? Maybe an appearance of fairness, somewhat. Since when has "fairness" (a totally subjective quality in any event, completely in the eye of the beholder) mattered in propaganda?

But no need to dally there. What struck me most forcefully, and revealed the headline to be packed with disingenuousness to the bursting point (remember, Networks Struggle to Provide Equal Airtime) are some facts from the article itself. Namely that when Clinton gave speeches to labor unions, the TV networks blacked out the speeches. In one instance, they instead "covered" an empty Trump podium. (Unmentioned by the Times: the TV bosses did the same thing to Bernard Sanders. On the night of a bunch of his primary wins, they blacked out his speech, focusing instead on an empty Trump podium. But the Times is no stranger to blacking out news itself. Ralph Nader was virtually ignored by the rag when he ran for president, despite drawing tens of thousands of people to rallies, including ones with admission charges such as at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Do I detect a political bias operating in the "objective journalism" of U.S. news?)

Here are the paragraphs from the article that reveal the dishonesty of the headliine:

"Networks are seeking novel ways to maintain balance [between Trump and Clinton], like staging voter town halls that provide candidates with equal airtime; seeking a wider spectrum of on-air contributors and campaign surrogates; and bringing more fact-checking into segments, as Jake Tapper has done recently on CNN to some acclaim. [Acclaim? From who? From other propagandists, that's who! For asking obvious questions! Hey, I could do that job.]

"Still, the presence of Mr. Trump can be irresistible, especially in an election in which viewership and advertising rates have soared, generating tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue for an industry threatened by digital competition. [What "threat"? The networks all ARE online themselves.There are no "upstart" TV networks.]

"Last week, none of the three major cable news networks — CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC — carried Mrs. Clinton’s speech to a workers’ union in Las Vegas, where she debuted sharp new attack lines against Mr. Trump. [Sounds "newsworthy" to me. She had new things to say. But ah, she was talking to workers, in a union, and the capitalist media hates unions and doesn't much like workers either.]

"Instead, each chose to broadcast a live feed of an empty podium in North Dakota, on a stage where Mr. Trump was about to speak.

"The same discrepancy [sic!] occurred earlier this month, when the cable networks aired Mr. Trump’s address to the National Rifle Association live from start to finish. A speech by Mrs. Clinton in Detroit days later, to a labor union, did not receive the same coverage; all three networks skipped the speech, with Fox News airing a lighthearted [read: trivial] segment about a nationwide backlog of cheese." [My emphases.]

I wouldn't call that a "discrepancy." But the Times is right: covering a Trump speech, while totally ignoring a Clinton speech, is indeed not "the same coverage." Just like zero and 100 aren't "the same."

So here's the disingenuousness. Are the networks "struggling" to provide "equal airtime" when they actively black out events involving unions? Doesn't sound like they're "struggling" very hard.

Notice too the attempt to substitute "town hall" bullshit for people in their actual role as workers. The U.S. media always strives to prevent people from thinking of themselves as workers. "Workers" are always somebody else, somebody costing businesses money, or being selfish and inconsiderate by going on strike and causing the public hardship (or at least inconvenience). We all are "consumers." So there's "the consumer" and "the worker," and never do the twain meet in bourgeois ideology (or in "economics" either, it seems).

But you see, this "discrepancy" is because Trump is just so masterful. He's "irresistible" catnip to the media drones and their masters, who count the dollars in the tills. Here's the Times again:

"In interviews, more than a dozen anchors, executives and news producers displayed admiration for Mr. Trump’s facility with their medium. Some expressed a bit of soul-searching, [see the handwringing?] admitting unease at the unfiltered exposure he has received, with one anchor describing frustration about being asked to conduct on-air interviews with Mr. Trump by telephone, rather than in person. But several offered the defense that whatever viewers make of Mr. Trump, he is undoubtedly newsworthy — and always accessible."

Why, it's enough to make a propagandist swoon!

Of course, you have to be "nice" to Mr. Trump, or he'll abuse you ferociously, and in public.

This is such nonsense. It's like "McCarthyism," the idea that one person is making things happen that are in fact institutional activities. "The" media is promoting Trump, although we have to make a distinction here between the broadcast arms and the print arms. The print arms, aimed at more intelligence and intellectually sophisticated people- people who read- has certainly been quite critical (rightly so, and I mean rightly both factually and morally) of Trump and his despicable demagoguery. But there is no question that broadcast media has aided and abetted the Rise of Trump. In fact, the man can be said to be a media creation.

The truth is, the media pick and choose what to "cover" and what to ignore. The only caveat here is that by creating a Frankenstein monster, "the" media have created a self-reinforcing momentum for Trump. Now they feel compelled, for reasons of profit (as the article does admit) and competition with each other, to keep on giving Trump far more attention than his idiotic statements deserve.

But another caveat: now that he's the presidential candidate of one of the two corporate oligarchic political parties of the U.S. two-party dictatorship, he actually is very important.

What happens if this loose cannon, Donald J. Trump, narcissist extraordinaire, becomes president of the globally dominant U.S.A.?

Well, the ruling elites made their bed, now they have to lie in it. They created their monster, and they'll have to figure out how to control his rampages if he attains the top power position in the U.S. and in the world.

As they used to say in Brooklyn, Oy vey!

1] New York Times, May 30, 2016.

Funny thing, when I went to double check the meaning of disingenuous, Oxford Dictionaries online gave a first example sentence that dovetailed nicely with this essay:

DISINGENUOUS
ADJECTIVE
"Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does: 'this journalist was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical.'"

Now why did they choose that as an example!

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/disingenuous