Skip to Content

Ilana Mercer.

The proof is not in the Putin

Paleolibertarian columnist Ilana Mercer lays into the notion that Vladimir "had elected Trump". The Left’s delayed Russophobia is about a century too late, she says.

Published: December 17, 2016, 9:20 am

    President-elect Donald Trump made another great stride for America—maybe even for mankind, given the CIA’s global reach. Mr. Trump slapped the Central Intelligence Agency down. And hard.

    The flurry over the Russia-related misinformation released by the CIA is reminiscent of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, except that, in Bushspeak: “Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me … You can’t get fooled again!”

    The CIA has been asserting, sans proof, that Vladimir Putin had, essentially, elected Donald Trump. This, the Russian ruler is alleged to have done by hacking the emails of the Democratic National Congress and those of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

    WikiLeaks, the source of October’s epic “data dump,” has denied Russian complicity in enlightening and educating the American people. Why enlightening and educating? Wonderful WikiLeaks provided definitive proof that the mass media are lapdogs, not watchdogs. Democratic lapdogs. The colluding quislings of the major networks and newspapers had actively worked to elect Mrs. Clinton. Thanks to WikiLeaks, Americans also learned of the contempt with which these Democrats hold them.

    Distilled, the CIA’s position, shared by the rest of the foreign-policy priestly caste, is that the American people don’t have the right to know what WikiLeaks divulged. Better that Americans elect rotten representatives who hate their guts, than violate the privacy of rogues looking to live-off them.

    Were it up to this writer, these mezzanine-level party operatives—Democrat and Republican—would have no privacy on the job. They’re auditioning to go on the people’s payroll! They’re looking to serve the people. As members of the degraded sphere of politics, make party apparatchiks as easy to monitor as parolees.

    WikiLeaks’ proprietor has martyred himself in the cause of truth. Without fear or favor, Julian Assange has exposed the workings of business and government alike, Republican and Democrat—from Facebook, Google and Yahoo’s “built-in interfaces for US intelligence,” to the clandestine wheeling-and-dealing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to the neoconservatives’ war-crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As another unimpeachable source put it: “Do we believe Snowden and Assange, or John McCain and Lindsey Graham? I would add: Who’s likelier to destabilize his country by going to war? Putin or Graham?

    So, too, does the Federal Bureau of Investigation disagree with the CIA’s intemperate charges against Russia. Not that the FBI is more trustworthy than the CIA. Still, the FBI at least is smarting because “Hillary Clinton was not criminally charged for mishandling classified information.”

    Above all, the most powerful man in the world, President-elect Donald Trump, has now mainstreamed a truth for which some on the Right were ostracized, 14 years ago. Lest we forget, Mr. Trump ran on disavowing the lie that was Genghis Bush’s war on Iraq. And he continues to properly implicate the CIA in foul-play in that country: “President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team questioned the credibility of the CIA late Friday in response to a report the agency found Russia intervened in the election to boost his prospects. ‘These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,’ the Trump transition team said in a statement.”

    Indeed, in the winter of 2002, this writer had perused publicly available CIA reports about Saddam Hussein. These, I reported, “offered no fresh incriminating evidence against Iraq, but a lot of equivocating, inventive bafflegab.” Used by the CIA were vague phrases that amounted to, “Saddam will probably”; “give him time and he will eventually”; “with sufficient weapons-grade fissile material, he’ll doubtless”; “he doesn’t have the capability to develop enriched uranium or plutonium to fuel a nuclear bomb, but hang in there …”

    This was obviously not the letter of the CIA text, but it was close enough to its spirit. Unclear was how the CIA could claim to have cobbled evidence for weapons of mass destruction from an “interest in acquiring” or “an effort to procure,” considering its analysts offered no proof of such actions and purchases.

    The same vague nomenclature deployed by CIA analysts to take Americans to war in Iraq is evident in the agency’s unsubstantiated claims against Russia. In trying to incriminate absent hard evidence, the CIA, as reported by The Washington Post, alludes to “a secret assessment,” nowhere apparent, identifying only “anonymous sources and individuals” in “closed-door briefing.”

    Underpinning the Left’s delayed Russophobia—they’re about a century too late—is a logical fallacy: the argument from authority. Believe the CIA because its intelligence is derived “from multiple sources.” Be impressed since “the intelligence community [has] officially [not informally] accused Moscow.” Bow down because our CIA overlords’ non-specific intelligence makes it “quite clear” that the accusations against Moscow are justified. And if verbiage without evidence leaves you unconvinced, well then, “Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed …”

    Onward to war.

    As I see it, Trump’s daily intelligence briefings are tangentially related to the attempt to incriminate Russia in ridding us of Hillary. Said President-elect Trump to Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I don’t need to be told the same thing every day, every morning, same words. ‘Sir, nothing has changed. Let’s go over it again.’ I don’t need that. … If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on one minute’s notice.”

    The terminally stupid talking heads are outraged. Economizing always rattles the politicians and the presstitutes (with apologies to honest, hardworking prostitutes). They’re used to creating redundancies and duplication, which are lucrative. But in President-elect Trump, the establishment has a different animal—someone who’s looking to eliminate redundancies; who’s aware of the cost of a scarce resource like time.

    More crucially, the daily intelligence briefings likely comprise a good deal of “analysis,” and NOT original intelligence intercepts. Perhaps Mr. Trump is not wild about the quality of “analysis” America has been receiving from 17 highly politicized intelligence agencies. (Talk about redundancies!) I know I’d want to compare the original intelligence intercepts with the analysis rendered by the “experts,” before making life-and-death decisions.

    ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. (Articles Archive.) Ilana is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June,  2016) and Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow ilana on Twitter, Gab, and Facebook. Subscribe to Ilana’s YouTube channel.

    opinion@freewestmedia.com

    Exclusively for freewestmedia.com

    Keep ​your language polite​. Readers from many different countries visit and contribute to Free West Media and we must therefore obey the rules in​,​ for example​, ​Germany. Illegal content will be deleted.

    If you have been approved to post comments without preview from FWM, you are responsible for violation​s​ of​ any​ law. This means that FWM may be forced to cooperate with authorities in a possible crime investigation.

    If your comments are subject to preview ​by FWM, please be patient. We continually review comments but depending on the time of day it can take up to several hours before your comment is reviewed.

    We reserve the right to del​ete​ comments that are offensive, contain slander or foul language, or are irrelevant to the discussion.

    • Eric Bligan

      It was crystal clear and a pleasant read, thank you!

      If I had to emphasize one thing, it would be this:
      “Distilled, the CIA’s position, shared by the rest of the foreign-policy priestly caste, is that the American people don’t have the right to know what WikiLeaks divulged. Better that Americans elect rotten representatives who hate their guts, than violate the privacy of rogues looking to live-off them.”

      One heavy outstanding questian is:
      What power or NGO is controlling the CIA?

    Opinion

    What Is The Obama Regime Up To?

    Obama has announced new sanctions on Russia based on unsubstantiated charges by the CIA.

    Kevork Almassian: Aleppo resisted and triumphed

    OPINIONEven the Western Mainstream Media couldn’t hide the celebrations and the joy of the civilians in Aleppo, who expressed their gratitude to the Syrian Army and Russia.

    Lebanon’s new president: Michel Aoun

    COMMENT

    Ukrainian Terror and Donbass referendum: What we can learn from the latest events in Donetsk

    OPINIONThe assassination of Donbass field commander Arsen “Motorola” Pavlov on October 16 can be seen as a new escalation of the war scenario in former Eastern Ukraine. The successful elimination of one of the most popular commanders of the independence war of Donbass brought that geopolitical hotspot – despite the events in Syria´s Aleppo – back in Western mainstream media.

    Renaud Camus

    The Great Replacement and the tragedy of Sweden

    AfD’s Marcus Pretzell: In the grip

    OPINIONGerman and European freedom is being threatened by arbitrary decisions taken by the German state, especially on immigration wherein it is influenced by left-wing NGOs and lobbyists, says Marcus Pretzell, European MP for the AfD.

    Disrupting international relations

    Soon to appear in south Chicago’s Jackson Park, advancing the cause of political disruption and international conflict around the world, is the The Barack Obama Center and Presidential Library.

    Clinton World: Rumblings of war with Russia

    Inept, hubristic and unaccountable are words that come to mind when Hillary Clinton is mentioned. And now her backers, in the media too, are threatening to go to war with Russia because of perceived cyber transgressions.

    #BlackLivesMatter: the South African chapter

    OPINIONDan Roodt looks at the results of 'critical race theory' in the USA and South Africa, two countries struggling with riots and chaos. In a throwback to 1960s student radicalism, South African universities are struggling to stay open.

    As “good Europeans”, Sweden Democrats should embrace Wilders and Le Pen

    OPINIONOn May 8th, London got a muslim mayor in the Pakistani Sadiq Khan. In Germany, Frauke Petri, the leader of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), announced that her party would henceforth join both conservative groups in the European Parliament. The groups concerned are: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) led by Nigel Farage and David Borrelli, and Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), headed by Marine Le Pen and Marcel de Graaff. The South African writer Dr Dan Roodt writes that Frauke shows the way for European unity.

    Go to archive