No blow too low for Democrats in choosing mullah for US Guardian Council

BRETT KAVANAUGH: a scumbag reactionary for all seasons, but currently under attack from the flimsiest of angles—a nearly 40 year old sex assault accusation. Leave it to the Democrats. (TGP screengrab)

It's time to admit that America is ultimately run by mullahs. 

No, there isn't a pro-Iran lobby which is funding a Deep State cabal or anything. The idea of a "pro-Iran lobby" being permitted to democratically exist in the US is, of course, a total impossibility as long as Iran maintains its anti-capitalist and anti-Zionist stances.

And no, I am not referring to the Chicago-based Nation of Islam. Black Muslims are not running America because, of course, they are Black, which is a much greater hindrance to political power in America than being Muslim. Being a Muslim in America is, in 2018, a huge problem, but c’mon - being Black means far more social marginalisation and enforced subjugation!

Anyway, America really does have their own mullahs - Iran doesn’t even need to try and foist our mullahs on them (though they are on us). The ideas of these American mullahs are not far astray from the ideas and ideals of the first, revolutionary generation of American mullahs, but the real problem with American mullahs is their “American Salafism”, which I will explain later.

America's mullahs, the ones who are technically & legally in charge - and you don't need to be Iranian to see this - comprise the US Supreme Court.

Their Supreme Court is extremely similar to Iran's Guardian Council, our society’s council of elders & arbiters, except that Iran's system is far, far more modern and democratic (and socialist-inspired, of course, because they keep protecting socialist policies), but I will get to that later also because there is some hot news in the US right now.

It is pretty shocking, at least to right-wing US media, that Democratic California Senator Dianne Feinstein revealed an anonymous, 11th-hour, 35-year old accusation of attempted sexual assault against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's first nominee to the Guardian Council of the US. The accusation was made public just a week before the final confirmation vote. Feinstein reportedly had the information for two months, but didn't even have the decency to bring up the accusation during her private meeting with Kavanaugh. Far worse, she didn’t even bring it up even though the she is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a clear breach of trust as a public servant.

Right-wing media, and any journalist who can't just publish anonymous accusations (unlike American Senators and The New York Times), obviously smell something rotten.

Feinstein only finally made the allegation public at this late date because…it’s obviously the dirtiest, lowest political tactic possible to derail Kavanaugh’s candidacy. American (fake) leftist publications do not smell something rotten (Democratic excrement is incapable of stinking, to them) but some go beyond unquestioningly parroting the demands by leading Democrats for a delay (simply to win more midterm votes, not to do anything such as promote morality or exhibit good governance) without including even a Republican counter-point on such a fishy story.

Take, for example, the headline of The New York Times first article after the allegation was made: "Dianne Feinstein Refers a Kavanaugh Matter to Federal Investigators".

A loyal servant of the plutocracy, to which she belongs, Diane Feinstein is cozy with the CIA, the police state and an enemy of free speech, to name just 3 major areas where she is a disgrace. Call her your typical Democrat.

LOL, that's an appropriate headline for a minor news blurb. But by couching the story angle in terms of Feinstein-first, that allowed them to devote their article’s first section to the immediate defense of this Democratic Party California Superstar, thus getting ahead of the "Feinstein is making a rotten allegation to derail Trump's justice" narrative ("narrative" being synonymous with “truth" in this case, I will happily wager with anyone reading, and with good odds for you!).

Now that The New York Times had protected their beloved Feinstein and her dirty tactic, then they wanted to examine how well the dirty tactic had worked. Thus, less than 48 hours later: "New Kavanaugh Disclosure Shows Little Sign of Impeding His Nomination".

To them, we are not talking about an anonymous, unprovable “allegation” but a "disclosure" - facts, even lurid ones, are merely, properly and delicately “disclosed”, whereas accusations are publicly and loudly trumpeted. Regardless, The Times cares only about protecting the Democrats and attacking Trump (but not in that order), and their analysis is clear - what is the most important aspect of this story is that Feinstein’s ruse is not working, because it "Shows Little Sign of Impeding His Nomination", which was of course the entire reason for the “Disclosure".

The lede paragraph of this second article immediately defended Feinstein yet again, this time via moral relativisation and the unquestionable integrity of English Law's slavishly unchanging obedience to precedent: "Sudden new revelations in Supreme Court confirmation fights are not new. Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas...." Yes, that did happen once before, but whether that was right or wrong then has absolutely nothing to do with Feinstein and Democratic Party leaders being right or wrong now.

And The New York Times and the Democratic Party are clearly wrong here. Imagine if the week before Feinstein's re-election vote I wrote: "I'd like to formally announce here that I have in my hand the name of a man who claimed to be sexually assaulted by Dianne Feinstein in 1950 (when she was 17 and a minor in high school, like Kavanaugh in his allegation). I've known about it for a while, but just trust me in that I have lived in "release, don't release torment" night and day ever since; it has made a wreck of my stomach, which forgets if there is both an up and a down. Clearly...we must call off her election, or at least delay it because of what I claim."

Now...would anyone take my unprovable, anonymous accusations seriously?

So many angles to take here - Democrats are just as immoral as Republicans, Democrats are actually even worse than Republicans, the failure of leftist media to have "right-wing" moral backbone - but I'm going to take a novel tack: I'm going to explain why Feinstein was RIGHT to do this.

She's right because the Supreme Court is so important. After all, that’s what Democrats have scare-mongeringly told American voters for decades. Forget Nader or Sanders or anyone else. They scare them away from non-mainstream parties with the caution of, “The Democratic presidential nominee is not perfect, but just think of the Supreme Court in conservative hands!" Democrats explicitly encourage supporting the status quo - no matter how bad it is and always was for the working class - and make it impossible for the average citizen to even imagine that “There Is No Alternative” is wrong - that a third (Socialist) party can, should, must exist.

So back to Feinstein being “right” - it only proves one thing: How very undemocratic and politically unmodern America's political system truly is. For many voting Americans the primary question is: “Forget policies - who will this candidate appoint to our Council of Elders?” Apparently, the unelected, lifetime, unimpeachable (a US Supreme Court justice has never been impeached) arbiter in the Supreme Court has ultimate domestic power in the eyes of many US citizens - what other conclusion can we draw?

But what kind of system is that? It’s a bourgeois (West European) “lawyer-based” system, and it makes Iran's system look 1 million times better, which is probably why Iranians don't want to switch to the US system despite the ring of American bases menacing us that we'd better.

‘American Salafists’ run America - it’s designed that way

Nobody wants to hear it, and even fewer will take the time to compare them objectively, but we may as well strap a beard on Kagan, Ginsberg and Sotamayor because they are all mullahs.

Heck, they are more powerful than mullahs - they are practically Imams!

(Pause for laughter from Shia readership.)

The reality is that the Supreme Court is laser-focused on ONLY interpreting the Constitution - they thus cannot be considered “progressive” because all the rights and rules have already been delineated and powers apportioned; no progression is possible, only preserving the status quo. That makes it an obviously reactionary institution.

Certainly, there can be no debate that it was entirely designed to protect 18th century bourgeois powers. The Supreme Court is totally untouched by the ideas of 19th century socialism, feminism, workers’ rights, religious and ethnic equality, electricity, the Moon landing, the digital age, the Slurpee, tinfoil, the Cubs winning the World Series and much else.

Also, the court does not question right and wrong, they do not question morality, they do not question social utility, they do not consider the effect of a law or decision on the well-being of the nation, they do not change with the times, but only examine whether or not the Constitution has been violated. They do their best to remain stuck perpetually in 1789 with only around two dozen exceptions (amendments).

I have long-referred to this belief that “the Constitution is my divine Koran” as “American Salafism”, because huge numbers of Americans believe (and have been inculcated to believe by right-wing, anti-socialist commentators) that the only way for the US to succeed and thrive is by strictly adhering to the exact words (not spirit) of what was written centuries ago. Indeed, if you do not espouse a belief very close to the idea that the US Constitution is a sacred, divinely-revealed document you will not pass your Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings, that is certain.

But Iran's Guardian Council, also charged with implementing the Constitution and oversight of all the government, is far, far more democratic: in the US the president appoints ALL nominees, who are then accepted or rejected by their parliament. In Iran the Supreme Leader only appoints six members while Parliament appoints the other half, thus giving the entire legislative branch equal weight in a balance of powers.

But the bigger reason why the Supreme Court is more despotic and more anti-democratic than Iran's Guardian Council is that Iran's members only serve 6-year terms, whereas America is stuck with justices forever. This is the only caste of American worker which has true tenure! Every socialist system stresses the importance of recall of bad public officials, but the American system is so outdated and so pro-bourgeois that they have made their "English Republican Law Class" (emphasis on English, not Republican) something beyond a Council of Elders into a reactionary, anti-99% American "Council of Kingmakers". Clearly, one cannot compare the autocratic powers of a Supreme Court justice - within the tiniest and most elite of American coteries - with Iran’s Guardian Council. Americans implicitly realize this legal autocracy - many base their vote around it!

I reject the idea that the American president is not a king: To non-Americans that’s exactly what he is. The American President can assassinate, invade, abduct, steal (freeze assets) and do whatever he wants to a non-American. The American king has always been overwhelmingly encouraged to commit such actions and is repeatedly rewarded by voters for doing so (a sitting president during wartime has never lost re-election). So while Americans may view their leader as a "president", and limited in powers domestically, the 95.7% of the world which is not an American citizen correctly sees a tyrant.

The ability of American Mullahs to legally make or not make the American king was proven most recently in the 2000 elections, when the Supreme Court did not count the votes of Blacks (again) in Florida to grant the election to Dubya Bush.

Ah, but Iran’s Guardian Council is truly full of true mullahs - therefore, they must be less democratic, right? Well, that is a prejudice, not a proven fact; it is certainly not proven to be a correct prejudice in the best arena - real world practice.

Regardless, the US council of elders is entirely composed of lawyers - America is a lawyer-dominated system (not Party-dominated, not worker-dominated, not warrior-dominated, etc.), and we all know that. Want to rise in American local politics? Get a law degree. Iran’s Guardian Council is only half filled by mullahs, as the other 6 must be jurists - Iran’s system is not “full of mullahs” after all.

The God of Iran’s Guardian Council Mullah (and non-mullah jurist, I assume) is…the One Abrahamic God, of course…but the God of the American Mullah is the US Constitution. This is why Feinstein was “right” - the US Supreme Court Justice is the closest thing to God’s instrument on this earth. Again, Americans know this - they are encouraged to base their vote on it!

Or is there a holy trinity and the US Supreme Court is the instrument of the Son, Thomas Jefferson, on Earth? Is the American Salafist Holy Spirit Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson? I find both Christianity and American Salafism rather confusing, but I only condemn the latter.

Kavanaugh’s a sexual assaulter, Obama’s a Muslim - what’s the difference?

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]emocrats like Feinstein are no better than the Republicans who railed against Obama for being a “foreigner” and a “Muslim” because both are based on wild accusations.

Is it somehow morally superior to falsely accuse a man of sexual assault as opposed to falsely accusing someone of being an illegal alien and a Muslim? Only a fake-leftist or a soulless lawyer would even lack the moral integrity to begin parsing such a fake-moral question, but this is exactly how many Democratic Party defenders behave.

What Feinstein and her ilk, and even her supporters on Main Street across the US, fail to realize is that: such an immoral tactic only soils herself & the Democratic Party, and only deepens anger and resentment towards them (thus hurting them in the long-term politically). Take, for example, the final line in this column on the Kavanaugh allegation from the conservative Townhall.com:

"And who says we're not at a state of war with the Democrats? Because with this, and a slew of other antics, we are."

That’s a depressing, but accurate, accounting of political sentiment in the US; Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. However, we should always keep in mind that US political sentiment is always “us versus them”, and the “them” can vary from Blacks to Communists to Russians to Trumpers, etc., because it is an outgrowth of the “me versus everybody” system of capitalism.

Sad to say but the writer is correct, at least partially. What Feinstein has done is just as divisive as one of Trump's anti-Mexican tweets. Trump has a bigger loudspeaker, but do Democrats think Feinstein and The New York Time's actions pass unnoticed? If their tactic doesn’t work, do they think people will just forget it?

Democrats appear to smugly believe that Trumpers and White Trash and Religious Trash and other Trash subsets are too stupid to remember these immoral tactics of Democrats in power (like Feinstein is). We understand and remember. This blindness and moral equivocation worthy of a 6-year old on the part of US Democrats is probably the central point of this article.

However, this flaw - the idea that nobody has an accurate historical memory of American crimes (and thus an honest and intelligent political analysis) - is shared by both Democrats and Republicans. They all, at their base, want to systematically ignore and cover-up the crimes of American fascism and capitalism-imperialism - this is also inherent in the selfish, individualistic system of capitalism and can only be escaped except through evolution to socialism.

However, a real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats always talk about human-centered morality but so often fail to deliver; Republicans occasionally talk about God-centered morality and they only occasionally deliver righteous actions. The latter, on a moral level, is often better than what the Democrats offer and certainly better than how the Democrats are perceived - this is why “leftist” or “liberal” in the US is an epithet, whereas elsewhere it is a signifier of strength, vitality and steadfastness.

Yes, obviously Feinstein, The New York Times and other Democrats in power are true Machiavellians who have no true political ideology, but I suggest that, psychologically and morally, Feinstein and The New York Times truly believe - in some sort of absurd moral scale of reckoning - that their actions “do not count as much” as Trump’s. The US Democrats worship power, as they are capitalists, and if their actions are wrong they are alleviated by the fact that their “wrongs” are less important because they have less power, and thus they are made “more right”. That appears to be their logic, no?

No. They are actually quite authoritarian in their world view, as opposed to the power-sharing & power-devolving view of true leftists (socialists), who insist that there is an organic social cohesion and unity, and that thus all are collectively responsible and must work collectively.

If Feinstein and The New York Times controlled the truly topmost levels of power, therefore, they would be just as fascistic as the Republicans…which of course Johnson’s Vietnam, Bill Clinton’s Yugoslavia, Hillary Clinton’s Libya and Obama’s “surges” and drones prove. This, too, is not forgotten when Democrats lecture Conservatives about their greater love of humanity.

To non-Western views, the problem remains American fascism.

The reason for that is, of course, "American fascism" has never been defeated, much less openly discredited: “European fascism” was discredited and beaten, but not in America, as the alleged "anti-fascists" righteously and victoriously returned home in 1945 to lynch Blacks, or at least get them to not walk on the sidewalk alongside Whites.

As far as the economic aspect of "American fascism" being discredited - LOL, that's something your idiot Democratic Party stalwart neighbour - with 500 "Vote like me" signs up in his or her yard during election time - cannot even think of questioning. And he or she certainly has fought against anti-capitalist changes whether he or she knows or admits it or not.

But the problem is systemic: lifetime Supreme Court Justices with no recall is 18th century capitalist bourgeois (West European) nonsense and no modern country would or should emulate it. But Americans don't care about any of that - many are Salafists and fake-leftists, after all. So, this article is really of little practical interest to Americans.

So let’s get practical: Obama got a couple justices, Trump will get a couple…stop being so authoritarian and share power! Kavanaugh will eventually be confirmed, so enjoy your American fascist mullahs! I know you will. After all, you support the US system, don't you...or does the CIA have film of you taking a knee in your living room during football's opening week via the camera in your laptop?

In the end, I hope Kavanaugh doesn’t get elected just for diversity reasons: Of the 8 current justices 5 are Catholic and 3 are Jewish; 5 are from New York or California with 1 from New Jersey. Clearly, the “big beards” in America's Council of Elders are overwhelmingly from their Northeast and Southwest coastal regions and are either Jewish or Catholic. This is in a country which is literally half Protestant and which has 5,000 kilometres between its two oceans. Kavanaugh is another Catholic, amazingly, and from Washington DC so he’s more of the same in many ways. Add in the fact that all 9 justices (including Kavanaugh) attended either Yale or Harvard and there is a huge problem of reflective representation here on multiple levels. Not very modern or democratic, if you ask me.

Parts of the Deep State seem to be trying to undermine Trump’s ability to choose a Big Beard, but the fact that 18th-century Mullahs do rule in the US is a fact which is open, accurate and undeniable.

The least America’s Democrats could do is accept that without such incredibly immoral tactics which cannot and should not be forgotten, and which say reams about those government servants whom Democrats want to give even more power. Accepting it with grace - divine or human - is likely out of the question: we are talking about American fake-leftists, after all.