"Democracy Is At Risk"- John Dean's Take On Trump Is Terrifying - Except for the Trumpists

"Remember, Donald, we have the photos of you with our beautiful Russian whores!"

Former Nixon legal advisor John Dean definitely got Chris Hayes' attention on 'All In' last night in terms of the threat Trump poses to democratic institutions in the country. Dean's appearance was instructive, given his testimony helped bring down one of the worst state presidential criminals in history: Richard Milhous Nixon.

For those not aware at the time, it is incumbent to get hold of the Nixon Whitehouse tapes, which ultimately did the bastard in. It was those tapes, replayed in parts during the Watergate hearings in 1973 that incriminated Tricky Dick. Hostile to those arrayed against him, Nixon created his own "enemies list" and then weaponized branches of the government -including the FBI, IRS - to go after those enemies (such as Daniel Ellsberg).   The Watergate break-in itself was Tricky Dick's final undoing.

But at least at that time, enough of Nixon's own party had the integrity to "read him the Riot Act". Thus, four GOP members of congress went to tell Nixon he had no choice other than to resign, and resign he did. In addition, the robust press at the time - namely The Washington Post with its Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward- did true investigative reporting to get at the bottom of this conspiracy.

Dean pointedly noted the same checking forces are now much weaker, and not likely to put a halt to Trump's overreach - where he will basically wield more power than any other previous holder of the office. For example, today the members of a party (GOP) prepared to condemn the actions of Trump can be reduced to one finger of one hand. (Rand Paul refused to vote for repeal of the ACA)

In addition, the media today is only a weak sister of what it was in the Watergate era. As papers have been sold off or merged, and support of true investigative journalism pulled back, PR has now come to dominate. The alert reader need only scan through the pages of his local newspaper to behold all the sources that are either PR outfits, or think tanks - with the mandate to bend the news and readers' perceptions.

The absence of these cornerstones for scrutiny is important given the Trump program is orders of magnitude worse than anything Nixon conceived. For starters, Trump's enemies list will probably contain most of the nation's Left bloggers, as well as those organizations (like the SPLC) that inveigh against racism - especially calling fellow humans "apes" as a replacement euphemism for the N-word.

Also, while the damage inflicted by Nixon was mainly from his inner circle, the devastation wrought by Trump's derelicts will be vast given it will include rabid enclaves laden with Alt-Right Nazis, KKK, Aryans and the like. Some, under the "Bikers for Trump" helm, have vowed to crack open heads and harass anti-Trump protesters present on Inauguration Day.  I suggest that any protesters encountering them have their own cans of Mace and solid helmets on for protection.

In similar fashion, Dean pointed out the only way a fascist Trump agenda might be stopped is from the bottom up - in other word, enraged citizens venting their furor, especially to state Senators, congress critters. As Dean observed, once their own re-elections are threatened they will see no point in blindly backing Trump.

But at the same time, Dean emphasized that nearly 63 million of our fellow citizens will never lift a finger or  say anything because they actually applaud what Trump is doing, i.e. to tear down the establishment. Or so they've been told. What I want to see is what they do when Trump and his acolytes take a sledge hammer to their health care, veterans' benefits and even Social Security.

Against this background, it was heart warming to learn that in the coming days more than 1 million people in 32 nations and 51 states plan to protest against the illegitimate Trump ascension.  The problem is that these protests cannot be a one off. No they instead must be used as a basis for a massive networking of a Trump resistance.  That resistance will be in charge of national strikes, boycotts, as well as new, energized voter registration efforts.

The message of a new resistance -protest movement will be "Take Down Trump By 2018!" Of course, that most likely will be via the 25th Amendment route which will be invoked as Trump shows clearly he's unfit to lead, likely because of a serious mental disorder (intermittent explosive disorder and schizoid behavior)

That will be important, as any Trump reign lasting overly long will likely mean the end of this country as we know it. Ever seen the film 'Idiocracy'? You should!

Want A Better Capitalism? Keep Entitled "Big Shots" Under Control

The work of Berkeley Psychology Professor Dacher Keltner, on the critical topic of dominance and how it translates to power plays and economic inequality,  is well known to many .  In his book, 'Born To Be Good - The Science Of A Meaningful Life', for example, Keltner waxes forth on the main culprits standing in the way of a more equitable and harmonious society.  Among these is  "rational choice theory"  and the "strongest proponents are in the halls of economic departments". The deformed creature resulting is "Homo Economicus" - a misshapen critter solely looking out for himself and his financial advancement. Also a believer in the Neoliberal idiom that each person must disdain governmental supports or assistance in favor of "personal initiative". This also feeds into the nation's overt hyper-consumption, since each individual (as a "productive" worker) is then expected to consume, consume and consume using his wages....so remains on the work-spend treadmill til he croaks.

The ultimate denizen of Homo Economicus is a bizarre, disdainful and arrogant grabber: the entitled CEO, "boss man" or alpha member of a group who fancies that he is the one deserving of the "most toys". Experiments conducted by Keltner and others have exposed these deformed, entitled cretins in numerous experiments and via many observations, including: games of Monopoly in which they grab two dice instead of one to advance, and company managers invariably grabbing twice as many biscuits or other goodies brought into a room for a team, or teams of employees.

Evidently, from the get go, these entitled goobers believe it their right to grab as much as they can and devil take the weaklings or less powerful. What are they going to do? Complain to the big boy? 

Of course, transferred to the larger economic scene - say to hedge fund managers, CEOs and thousands of bosses, we can easily see the basis of inequality. If these grabbers, indeed, can set up an economic system which is rigged from the outset to get them more: more money, more jobs, more real estate, more resources of every kind  then we have a putative basis for huge economic inequality.

But this stuff isn't new. It is a fact of historical record, which can easily be checked by anyone, that the social and political hierarchies of Nazi Germany were set up this way. The most powerful and dominant always took more than their share before the German hoi polloi or little people even had a chance.  My sister-in -law Krimhilde, for example, often related how high (and low)  ranking S.S. would barge into their farm and home and take whatever they felt they could use, or give as perks to others. They didn't care it would leave the family with five mouths to feed worse off.

Much of this was exposed 60 years ago in the little known book, 'The Power Elite' by C. Wright Mills who actually modeled his work on earlier studies of Nazi Germany. In Wright's 1956 book, however, the sights were turned on American society which even then was infected by the virus of a self-sustaining clique of miltarists, corporatists, PR mavens and politicians out to feather their own nests.

Later, Harvard's Pitirim Sorokin published 'Power and Morality' which proposed that the individuals introduced by Mills were not just self-interested but sick. He wrote:

"Taken as a whole, the ruling groups are more talented intellectually and more deranged mentally than the ruled population'"

Much of this take (by an admitted refugee from Lenin's Russia) was taken as commie drivel - at least until 1959 when Edward Jennings (a founder of business ethics) quizzed 162 American execs on their lives. Were they little angels just out to do as much good while they made some profits on the side? Did they treat their employees and others fairly? Hardly.

Jennings found:

- In the office most treated their colleagues with suspicion and regarded friendship as a weakness

- They to a man allowed self-interest to govern their in work and outside behavior

But in true Jekyll and Hyde fashion, most admitted to being "nice guys on weekends" - meaning they played with their kids and invited the neighbors over for barbecue.

The implication of Jennings' findings was that most of these honchos were born with their penchant for unethical behavior. It wasn't a side effect of being in charge.

Keltner in his book (op. cit.) divides humans into "low jen" and "high jen" groups.  According to Keltner:

"Jen is a central concept in the teachings of Confucius and refers to a complex mixture of kindness, humanity and respect that transpires between people."

There are also biological markers that are signatures for "high jen" humans, including: vagus nerve operation (eliciting lower heartbeat and release of oxytocin inducing more compassion for fellow humans), oxytocin itself - inducing greater empathy for others, more trust, and the Duchenne smile - embodying the outward manifestation of love of humanity and a general trust.

By contrast, low jen humans (like the entitled power players exposed by Jennings) exhibit consistent scowls or paranoid distrust, unless weekends arrive - when they put on their fake smiles (always easily distinguished from the Duchenne because the eyes are not a part of them, only the mouth).

Keltner's claim and which is expatiated upon in his book, is that the jen concept "reveals a new way to think about the evolution of human goodness."  Very often, as Keltner observes, low -jen humans originate in the cradle. They are seldom held by their mothers, they are usually slapped or screamed at rather than embraced, hugged, and these actions lead to negative physiological markers - including low oxytocin levels, and overly excited vagus nerve response to most situations.

The "jen ratio" is the somewhat subjective measure that allows the quality of jen in a person to be assessed. According to Prof. Keltner, when assessing the jen ratio in another person, we place all his negative recent actions in the denominator, and all his positive actions in the numerator. For a manipulative billionaire like Trump, for example the jen rato would be about 1/40 on a given day. For Hillary, it might be 3/10. Based on these, one can easily see Hillary has the higher jen ratio.

Is this enough to elect a politician or presidential candidate to high office? Maybe not, but it's a start, certainly in terms of choosing the lesser of two evils which is what we are confronted with in this election. As Carl Bernstein also pointed out on 'Smerconish' this morning, neither one of these candidates - Trump OR Hillary - "has been properly vetted by the media" . This goes beyond 15 minute segments on '60 Minutes' or the occasional appearance on 'Face The Nation'. Bernstein was referring to (and demanding) entire hour documentaries on each of the two, going to their real selves and getting beyond the mythologies.  Will the bought and paid for PR- driven media do it, say like Cronkite and CBS would have in the 60s? I doubt it.

Keltner himself published a controversial paper on power dynamics in 2010 after which three European academics (Martin Korndorfer, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff) surmised it might be possible to reproduce the results using data from surveys carried out by the German state.  Their work suggested the opposite of Keltner et al's, i.e. that privileged individuals were actually more generous to fellow citizens than poorer citizens. (Which makes sense because they have more disposable income to afford greater generosity). However, on submitting it to The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found it was rejected by peer reviewers.

On re-submitting with some major revisions (extending analysis to the U.S. and other nations) it was still rejected. Did the journal peer review board exercise proper and objective judgment or display bias?  It isn't clear, but if the charity index is anything to go by, their conclusions certainly needed to be more rigorously crafted. One must be able, after all, to separate the many perks of privilege - such as being able to devote more time to volunteer work- from those aspects that feed and foster an aggressive sense of entitlement. The peer review board likely felt this was not done. In any case Egloff et al ultimately published their work in an online journal.

Keltner, for his part has pointed out many of his social experiments have indeed been replicated. I even cited some of them in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God.'.  As he explained in one NY Times magazine piece:

"Here is what power does to just about every human being: it's going to make you not pay attention to people as well as you used to pay attention to them....You will be a little less careful in the language you use. You will be a little less thoughtful of how things look from their perspective.. So just practice a little gratitude."

He makes excellent points, and I'm sure if more power wielders followed his advice we'd behold fewer instances of big shot malevolence and also healthier form of capitalism. This has oppose to "I got mine so screw the rest of them!"

Why I Trust Oliver Stone over Bob Woodward

Quick! Trick question here: What is the fastest way to get a Beltway Goombah's ripe head to explode in front of you? Give up? Come on now, only ten seconds left! It's to inform the Goombah with a totally straight face that you trust Oliver Stone more than Bob Woodward, in terms of politics and recent history. As you do that you will behold the expression of the Goombah change before your eyes from stark disbelief to visible pain. "STONE! AWWW NOOOO! EGAD MAN! WHAT'RE YOU ON!"

Actually, reality....that's what I'm on, as opposed to the D.C. bubble fodder fed incessantly to pinheads in the Beltway! Much of it by 35+ year Über hack Bob Woodward,  who is treated like some kind of prescient Guru or Washington Wizard with powers beyond those of Harry Potter, Spiderman and Superman combined. Why any President would kowtow to this numskull is beyond me, as he's devolved into a total sellout hack unlike his other Watergate half, Carl Bernstein. Bernstein has at least done yeoman, serious journalistic work, worth reading as opposed to using for emergency firewood.

As documented by Kathryn Olmstead: 1996,Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI,  1996, Univ. of North Carolina Press, who notes that Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein found (p. 21) " that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA was actually much higher. In a controversial article in 'Rolling Stone', Bernstein showed that more than 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA from the early 1950's to the mid-1970's. The 'New York Times' alone, Bernstein insisted, provided cover for ten CIA officers from 1950 to 1966."


Is that not MUCH more substantive, of vastly more need -to know import than presidential "atmospherics" or  how Bush teased his dog Barney, or the so-called goings on and gossip at presidential confabs? So why is it that Carl Bernstein's work (like Oliver Stone's) is apt to set off  apoplectic reactions but not Woodward's? Curtis White, author of The Middle Mind offers a clue (p. 12):


"We have the lovely pretense of serious inquiry: no one gets hurt and no one has to worry that something undesirable might come of it. Like a demand for real thought. We are free to say anything we like so long as what we say does not suggest...that the ruling order has no right to rule"


Well, I think he hit pay dirt, or at least close to the truth! Thus, those like Bernstein and Stone have in their work (in Stone's case, the new Showtime series, 'The Untold History of the United States') exposed the ruling order's hands, while those Neoliberal propagandizers like Woodward (And Fareed Zakaria, Tom Hanks etc.)  are there to protect the ruling order. The Overclass or ruling order are protected from any historical content challenges as well as economic incursions (hence the yen for the once FDR Dems to now give the Repukes the Chained CPI) and to protect them from any serious investigative inquiries into the reasons for their power, or political assassinations - which we are expected to believe are all accomplished by "lone nuts".

And woe betide your sorry ass if you don't 100% buy into the PR spun by these Neolib protectors of the establishment! You are then deemed a "crazy", a "whacko", a "conspiracy nut, a "commie", a "terrorist" or worse. All because you are truly invested in deep politics, have done decades of research on your own - without being spoon fed - and are prepared to think for yourself.  The extent of much of the U.S. Media -Corporate PR industry I laid bare in a series of blogs in January, 2010, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-propaganda-industry-part-ii.html

And what about Stone? In the second instalment of the blog series referenced above I noted the WaPo spinoff mag NEWSWEEK, in its Dec. 23, 1991 cover - for example- fairly screamed: The Twisted Truth of 'JFK': Why Oliver Stone's Film Can't Be Trusted'  

The actual article, bordering on the hysterical and penned by a Kenneth Auchincloss, lambasted Stone for attempting to "recreate history", and concluded that anything which does , "distorts history".  Now, this is intriguing because it's very close to what the assorted mainstream corporate media critics have written concerning Stone's new Showtime series. My question here is: Why the need to go almost ballistic? Are you so insecure with your own version of history you're unable to tolerate any challenge?

At one point Auchincloss asks: "Was it true that Kennedy was planning a pullout from Vietnam?" - the answer given so definitively by Auchincloss presumed that in no way was this the case.  

However, just six years later, with the benefit of Freedom of Information Act released files (thanks to Stone's film 'JFK' by the way), The Baltimore Sun featured this story: Declassified Documents Hint at Plan to Bring Troops Home in 1965, (Dec. 23, 1997, p. 3A). A subsequent book by Lt. Fletcher Prouty, 'JFK and Vietnam', disclosed this was not merely a "hint" but an actual, hands-on plan to remove all personnel by the issuance of National Action Security Memorandum 263. Hence, it was clear that Stone was spot -on correct in his prescient selection of at least one motive for the assassins.  Egg on the face? All over Auchinchloss!

Many in the Beltway- New York Media axis still harbor a grudge at Stone for his movie 'JFK'. They hysterically assert he "defiled history", "lied about the assassination" and "misled moviegovers" - much like the flak Stone is catching now for his Untold History. But is it true? I have at least three Stone interviews on video tape from 1991, including one on CNN's then 'Larry King Show' in which Stone clearly states - for the record and anyone paying attention- that the film was never intended to be a faithful historical reproduction but "a countermyth to the myth of the Warren Commission". And believe me, friends, by postulating 7 wounds in two men made by one bullet and it ending up near pristine on a Parkland stretcher, the Warren Commission is indeed a myth! So why the hell make such a big deal if Stone portrays a counter myth showing multiple interests, assassins? Why such a big deal? Because it's on film? Grow up already! But again, it discloses the infantile level to which our media have devolved that they feel it incumbent on them - as big daddies - to protect us from Oliver Stone's "Theories".

Then there's the other canard that Stone's film was befouled because he relied overly much for his source material on Jim Garrison and his trial of Clay Shaw. No one, not any critic I've met, has ever done the necessary background reading that showed in fact that Garrison's case was upended by the judge (Haggerty) who peremptorily excluded any mention or use of Clay Shaw's alias "Clay Bertrand". This is crucial since without it, Garrison couldn't make his case that Shaw was working for the CIA and had a  supportive role in the hit.

Years later, with release of files under the JFK Records Act, it would become evident that Shaw was indeed a CIA Contract Agent. As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"

And "Clay Bertrand" was tied to this Project ID.

And what of Bob Woodward? The guy at the time of Watergate (ca. 1973) was actually a real reporter, and had the yen to challenge the power order, as he did Nixon's White House, along with Carl Bernstein. Had it not been for their first class detective work and fearless journalism,  Nixon's nefarious plans might never have been exposed. However, since the assorted Washington Post buyouts, and executive changes, especially after Phil Graham took control, Woodward became more and more a sellout, mainly to the meme of Presidential Neoliberalism, pushing it - while making loads of money with his assorted books (the latest 'The Price of Politics' on Obama .)

So why waste time and reap few rewards and little money, like a real reporter - say of the Carl Bernstein mold- when you could make thousands of times more with goofy, PR pabulum in a sequence of well-received  "President" books?  Especially when you posture and pose as an "insider" and imply all informed and educated people will take you seriously. (Because this D.C. wannabe "insider" lot mainly doesn't know any better!)

A case in point is Woodward's latest book, ‘The Price of Politics’ , in which Woodward blames Obama for failing to be "presidential enough" for failing to finally solve what all true people in the know understand is the REAL, REAL problem:

"Unsustainable entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as highlighted by Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and familiar to all informed politicians and economists....has been left largely unaddressed."

This is critical because we see the sure signs of Neoliberal hackism all over the remark (See also my blog on Fareed Zakaria earlier). The problem for us, the average citizens, is presidents tend for whatever reason to take this hack's books on them seriously. Is Obama doing so? Well, since Woodward makes such a big deal out of the "Grand Bargain" one could argue that Obama has been caught in the trap. Last I read he appears prepared to give away the store by giving Boehner and the 'pukes the horrific "chained CPI" to cut Social Security via the back door in return for tax increases only on income above $400,000. As Bernie Sanders put it yesterday on the Ed Schulz show, this is a travesty since the revenue won't be enough and there are much better ways to deal with Social Security like raising the payroll tax cap.

But is Woodward merely echoing what the Beltway jerks want to hear, or is he being original with this "entitlement hysteria"? The true fact is that he's likely merely echoing the Neoliberal palaver which has been spouted by BOTH parties since the 1980s. The Dems, make no mistake, are as bad as the repukes.  Some perspective on this is provided by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, ‘The Problem of the Media’, Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.


It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries."

  Thus, Woodward's shtick is not original but one must admit that he IS a very powerful voice for the Neoliberal "cut the fuckin' entitlements" idiom, because so many take his word seriously, almost as seriously as fundies take their biblical inerrancy. That both parties have fallen into this pervasive trap is also no surprise, since both parties get the bulk of their funding from corporate sources whose interests are served by going after social insurance. These assholes don't give a flying fuck about any election results or "mandates", they want the rich - including all their investors, to keep getting the major benefits of society's wealth because they believe in their little hearts they are the "producers". Short of a people's action, as advocated incidentally in 'The Declaration of Independence' (to forge "new government whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends") nothing will change that. Voters will keep getting shafted year after year after year.

This is why we need now more than ever courageous voices like Oliver Stone's (in his 'Untold History of the United States')  to remind us just how badly we've been shit on in the real history of the country (see also 'A People's History of the United States' by Howard Zinn), not the vanilla  PR substitute junk fed our kids in high schools - which is why most hate history, as they rightfully should. Hell, I'd hate history if I was in a high school class today being taught the far out American exceptionalist bullshit that these kids are. No hint of conflicts, of contradictions, of plots. Do these kids even know about the Haymarket riot in Chicago, or the Bonus Army confrontation in 1932? No, wait, they're probably still also taught that Lee Oswald killed JFK in 1963! No wonder Americans are so pathetically and profoundly clueless on their own history. They ape and eat the crappola fed them by the propagandizers.

My best advice to any H.S. kid reading this: Put down your U.S. history text and get hold of Zinn's text, and try to watch Stone's Untold History of the United States! Your brain may yet be salvaged! More importantly you may then actually aspire to be a REAL CITIZEN as opposed to a mere "consumer" and PR puppet.