UNDERNEATH "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA"

Recent weeks have shown us: 

1) Uranium One

2) Comey had the fix in on the Hillary email scandal

3) Hillary paid for the Trump Dossier

4) IRS has admitted it used it's power to shut down Conservative Organizations

5) Harvey Weinstein is accused of rape, and Hollywood is teetering

I have to wonder if there is one person, or one group of people, driving recent events/revelations.

It seems to me that Donna Brazile's suddenly loose lips with regards Hillary's conspiracy to loot the DNC, and steal the nomination, is not a part of the rest, but it certainly contributes.

For a long time I have believed that our government was a corrupt group of Socialist Uni-Party officials but now, within the past few weeks we have had multiple confirmations that this is true.

And it seems to go as deep as my worst suspicions would tell me.

1) Hillary sold Uranium to Russia ( 20% of the total U.S. stockpile) and Obama knew. Mueller and Comey were in on it (this is real collusion with Russia against US interests - and may be what Obama was referring to when he famously told Putin that he would have more latitude after his second election).

2) Comey wrote the letter, absolving Hillary in the email scandal, months and months before he pretended to be looking into it when things got too hot right before the 2016 election.

3) Hilary and the FBI paid for the "Golden Showers" Dossier and then lied and said they didn''t. In fact, Hillary paid for it, McCain released it, and then Comey used it to get a FISA warrant against Trump during the election season. That was the course of events - that is a conspiracy between individuals involved in the highest reaches of our government to subvert democracy.

4) Speaking of conspiracy to subvert democracy -the IRS settled it's lawsuit with conservative groups, who accused it of putting their applications for 5013c status on a permanent backburner. This means the IRS essentially admitted they did this to shut down the Free Speech rights of Conservatives DURING AN ELECTION SEASON. Lois Lerner and John Kocksuckingman will never go to jail, and the IRS did not officially admit wrongdoing. But then, why did they of the deepest pockets settle the lawsuit?

5) As for Hollywood, Diana West's book American Betrayal alleged - and provided much evidence of - a vast and deep conspiracy of Communist Party (CPUSA) officials, and friends, in the highest reaches of American government, academia and the media, conspiring together to weaken America and promote Soviet propaganda. -The events it relates took place between 1930-1950. And, of course, the McCarthy Commission, and the deep anti-Communist feelings of Americans circa the 50's, brought about the downfall of many of these conspirators and put a scare into many of the other lesser Communists. BUT you and I know they did not go away. In fact, they were likely stronger than ever when I was getting two Humanities degrees, in the 80's and 90's. Additionally we see how the courts conspire to do away with any law or ruling against immigration and incarceration. And we see how the politicians work together to bury Trump and his pro-America agenda. And alas, we see how Hollywood promotes it's anti-Capitalist message and it's Gramscian anti-traditionalist/anti-patriotism agenda in it's movies. AND NOW, THE PRIME CREATIVE FOUNT OF THAT GRAMSIAN AGENDA - MR. HARVEY WEINSTEIN HAS SUDDENLY RUN AFOUL OF THE LAW. You want to tell me Weinstein is not a Communist, and that he is not in bed with those in the highest reaches of our government - Hillary, Bill, Obama, otherwise known as "The Swamp". I think the only difference between now, and the time of West's American Betrayal, is the CPUSA organization is not really needed anymore because you can be a communist right out in the open. In other words, Communism, as a force, is so powerful and accepted they no longer need to assemble an organized force to protect themselves. Besides, they have the Democratic Party behind which to "hide" to effect their agenda.

So that is five stories, all having caved in in recent weeks, three of them relating directly back to Russia (communism) - or at least two of them directly to Russia, while the Hollywood story relates directly to Communism - insofar as we can agree that Harvey Weinstein is a Communist who uses his money to promote a Communist agenda.

The Comey coverup story relates back to Russia in that we know Hillary was hiding something, or maybe a number of things, in those disappeared emails. And now that we know about the Uranium One scandal, we know that that scandal was at least part of it.

So that is four.

The fifth story, the one about the dossier does not relate directly to Communism, except, in that Trump wants to promote a supremely Capitalist and America First (as opposed to one-world) agenda, we can see that this story, too, does relate back to Russia, at least indirectly.

So how is it that all this information is suddenly coming out in an avalanche? Who is driving this? Is it Trump? Is it Assange? Is it Trump working with Assange? 

Or are there many players working together, in the deepest parts of the internet, working to bring down the powers that be, and, are they using Trump the Fool and his kingdom to help bring this about?

What do you think?

THE ABOVE IS PART OF AN EMAIL CONVERSATION I HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH A FRIEND.

HERE IS HIS RESPONSE:

I think it's simpler/less ideological than that. I see it as competing Mafia families. There is a contingent of people who were in the "Clinton" mafia family. Their power was linked to that association. And that family was shown up as weak, so now it's crumbling.

What comes along with rule by (loose) 'family' of this type is a certain level of corruption. For example, someone maybe didn't like Clinton that much, but they got carried along to power by them so they acted like a fan regardless (look at Donna Brazile! i'd always thought she was a big Hillary fan! she'd clearly been hiding her real feelings about Hillary for career purposes, till Hillary lost and it no longer paid off). From the outside this looks like corruption even though, from their POV it's just rational behavior.

Or, anyone who signed off on that uranium thing to advance their career (or bank account): also got corrupted. Now they're in on it, and (consequently) they also had an incentive to be in on the coverup. Maybe this describes people like Mueller.

Corruption gives people an incentive to push narratives/actions along for hidden reasons. That's how they end up acting like a coordinated Mafia family, which from the outside you can't fully understand (without forming conspiracy theories)

It can also blind them to reality or warp their perceptions. For example, I think deep down Comey (and John Brennan, who I suspect is a sort of ringleader of the Trump-Russia narrative) thought the 'dossier' was all true and that's why he kept the investigation open. They think it's all true cuz it aligns with what they already wanted to believe. Same goes for the idea that Team Trump 'colluded with' Russia directly on all the hacks and leaks. 

See from their point of view they're all 'defending' democracy though. Against someone who (they think) sold out our important Russia sanction policy for 19.5% of Rosneft. (Even though that makes no sense, and he didn't, and our sanction policy isn't really that important anyway.) 

They think that because they want to think that, it lines up with not just their ideology but their mafia-family-power goals.

A big piece of the puzzle for me is that I think the Magnitsky Act stuff also has led to a good deal of corruption. I think 'sanctions' often have noble intent but they just end up corrupting. 'Sanctions' targeted at Russian bigshots leads predictably to lobbying/bribes from those bigshots to get rid of them, or work around them. That lobbying/bribes/accounting ends up lining the pocket of certain Westerners. Now they have an incentive to be seen as 'working against' the sanctions, yet (at the same time) the sanctions never ending. 

Meanwhile, other Westerners (maybe some who are true-blue believers and honest) see the 'anti-sanction' people as corrupt traitors, so start working against THEM. Then that *itself* becomes a cause that you can make money from, and leverage yourself into power by advocating. 

It all just leads to a downward spiral of corruption and backstabbing and self-dealing.

I think the same dynamic was present re: Iraq sanctions in the mid/late 1990s. A big part of the reason i was in favor of ousting Hussein was to break the cycle of having an endless sanction regime against them that just polluted and corrupted our internal politics.

I'm not sure 'sanctions' have ever accomplished anything besides corruption? Maybe there's some historical example out there but not in my memory.

For example, the most likely reason the Weinstein allegations came out is that his brother is making a move to take over, and so he somehow got the message out to withdraw whatever protection Weinstein had been under.

Brazile wrote a tell-all book and dishes some dirt on Team Clinton and stuff. The most likely reason is she no longer sees Clinton as a vehicle she can ride to power, and meanwhile, she's latched on to some other team that she believes has a better shot (Liz Warren? Bernie?).

etc.

I don't think these things happen for pure noble reasons. I think a reigning Team suddenly is seen as weak and then there's a cascade and a pile-on as people rush to attack it from some other power center.

I have lots of opinions.

I would say it's possible to think of Trump as a sort of (unwitting) 'catalyst' of some of these 'revolutions'. (You can call them revolutions; they are power-centers revolving from one to another.) Mostly in a metaphorical/allegorical/Secret Sun-type of way. 

The ascension of Trump symbolizes that anything can happen, that the old power-centers that used to be seen as invincible, really aren't, they are paper tigers. That nothing people thought about how the world was organized, was really solid. 

So yes in a way I do think Harvey Weinstein wouldn't have been brought down without Trump getting elected, even though I also don't think Trump himself had anything to do with it per se. It hasn't happened faster because Trump hasn't really shown that he controls all the levers of power yet. He's the President but only in name. 

For example the Department of Justice and FBI leadership clearly don't give a fuck about him and many of the bigshots there actively hate him. (And Sessions is an empty-suit who doesn't know what he's doing or how to wield power within the organization he supposedly leads.) 

There are still giant pockets of Trump-resistance within the government, often because their allegiance is to the old power-team and those policies, or at least covering-up for those policies (including Magnitsky and uranium one-related graft). 

But the longer Trump survives in office, what could happen is that he slowly but surely shores up his power by attrition. People retire, or leave for private gigs, or get weeded out, one by one. Fast forward 3 years and maybe he does have a critical-mass of people with allegiance to his 'team' instead of, like, John Brennan's or whoever you wanna think of as the ringleader of this endless 'Trump-Russia investigation'. 

It's not clear he'll get there though. One thing really working against him is that they're just not nominating huge numbers of people for the low/mid-level political positions. ("Deputy assistant secretaries" and whatnot) I think the Ds in Congress have been (cleverly) stalling like crazy on them, and the Rs (dumbly) aren't helping, but it also seems to be that Team Trump just isn't trying that hard (out of a misguided goal to 'save money' it sometimes seems; or maybe that's just the excuse they give for the fact that they can't get their nominees through) 

A clear quick way to make sure they can wield the reins of power within these organizations is to appoint an army of political-climbers who all owe their titles and paychecks and career-potential to them and their policies pushing forward, but they haven't quite been able to do that, which is a shame.