The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Fake Russia Collusion Calumny Delivers Body Blow to FBI's Credibility
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who agree that some members of the FBI and DOJ are trying to delegitimatize president Trump through politically-motivated investigations (that’s putting it mildly to say the least). The data comes from a Reuters Ipsos poll that was conducted the first week of February. “Unsure” answers, comprising less than one-quarter of all responses, are excluded (N = 2,417):

The Deep State may seem untouchable, but there is one thing no power center in the West can afford to lose: Legitimacy.

Nearly half of blacks and more than 1-in-3 Clinton voters suspect foul play. Majorities of other contingents of the Coalition of the Fringes smell something rotten.

The jig is up. The FBI’s legitimacy is bleeding out. Mueller may throw another smoke bomb before slithering away, but the FBI has been harpooned.

Devin Nunes is a hero. May other supine congress critters and officials take inspiration from his ability to find a spine.

Trump’s ability to leave every entity that tangles with him worse for the wear is really something to behold. The Bush family, the Clintons, the dinosaur media, the Pope, the GOPe, the Obama administration, the NFL, National Review, the FBI–he’s landed body blows on the credibility of all of them. He pulls it off every single time.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 21 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When James Comey became FBI boss, he gave a speech calling the agency "too white" and "too male".

    If Laura Ingraham had called the NBA "too Black", she would have been handed her walking papers. (She was wrong to pick a fight with Lebron James, who is a philanthropist Big Man to local blacks in his hometown)

  2. Anonymous [AKA "psysim"] says: • Website

    Thank God that Hillary LOST ! We won !!

  3. It's not really a remarkable observation that going up against the President of the United States can be harmful to one's public image!

    • Replies: @Dan

    Nixon whithered quickly against the deep state and media. Nobody even considers that maybe they were biased and to get him.

  4. @IHTG
    It's not really a remarkable observation that going up against the President of the United States can be harmful to one's public image!

    Replies: @Dan

    Nixon whithered quickly against the deep state and media. Nobody even considers that maybe they were biased and to get him.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:


    It certainly is new that President Bashing isn't good for one's prospects.
    It is a new and different President than we've had since possibly FDR and probably Truman.

    @AE: "but there is one thing no power center in the West can afford to lose: Legitimacy."

    I think we'll have to see how that affects actual power including elections.
    Merkel remains in power despite it all, Obama was re-elected in 2012 on heels of Benghazi and so on. Simply put most people are self centered and short term only and voters look to who will deliver the goods.

    The FBI probably had limited cred with minorities prior to this…they just flat hate cops.

    BUT this is KEY: the FBI and Deep State look WEAK.
    Politics is POWER: And they show WEAK.


  6. And that poll was conducted before the FBI's negligence about Nikolas de Jesus Cruz came to light. Imagine what the numbers look like now.

  7. Amazing to me though how out of sync blacks are with everyone else. They must hate him more than any ethnic group, including Hispanics. This despite the fact that Trump’s signature issue, immigrations, harms them the most.

  8. Even Mueller's fanboys are tempering their expectations. The big hope is that he will call for Trump to be impeached for obstruction of justice, but even that seems outlandish.

    Right now, the worst he will be able to do is slap around Manafort and Flynn, and charge some odd person. The hopes that he will find secret communications between Trump and Putin, and the Trump campaign coordinating the hack of the DNC servers with the Russians, are fast evaporating.

    Granted, there are a few odd idiots on Twitter who will insist the Russians tampered with voter boxes, but they can join the people who insist we didn't land on the Moon.

    CNN still finds ways to talk about the Russia investigation and either flat out lie about Trump, or be scumbags and try to insinuate Trump is linked to Russia, but their ratings are tanking.

    Earlier this month, our military bombed Russian mercenaries in Syria and probably killed or wounded hundreds of them. The Dems who believed in Russian collusion won't admit they were wrong, but the ones who are intelligent and not completely dishonest recognize that Putin wouldn't instruct Trump to bomb Russian soldiers.

  9. The whole hate Russia thing on the part of Democrats all got started because Russia doesn't kowtow to the gay agenda. Their idea that you should not propagandize homosexuality to children apparently struck at the core of the left and prompted a total about face.

    World War G, Steve Sailer dubbed it.

    It is insane but true that Obama put gay rights at the center of all of the state department interactions with all sorts of countries including countries in Africa where gay issues do not crack the top 100 in terms of importance. A true wasted opportunity by the Obama admin to help with global problems such as overpopulation in those places.

  10. Dan,

    The Obama administration got along with Russia fairly well from 2009 to 2010. They pushed the reset button, and Medvedev was more sympathetic to the Western point of view than Putin was. This is when the Uranium One deal took place.

    Things really started to sour in 2011 when Medvedev more or less let the US, UK, and France whack Qaddafi without making much of a fuss. From what I've read, this drove Putin to take a more direct role in governing Russia again, and he ran for president again in 2012.

    His return to power was met with a number of protests. Putin, apparently, blamed Hillary for them. Even so, the Democratic Party was not a tenth as opposed to Russia as it is now. "The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back!"

    I think the three big things that made the Democratic establishment anti-Russia were the anti-gay propaganda laws, Russia agreeing to grant Snowden asylum, and Russia protecting Assad, especially once Putin intervened in August 2013 and got Assad to agree to disarm his chemical weapons when we were ready to pounce.

    With the Maidan protests and the 2014 Sochi games, the American media and foreign policy establishment had a stupidly irreverent stance towards Russia. And once Russia took Crimea, US-Russian relations took an irreversible dive.

    In December 2015 or so, Putin said favorable things about Trump and Trump was elated. The Democrats figured they'd tie the two together, and thus accuse Trump of treason.

    Ideally I'd like to see US and Russia de-escalate tensions and work towards a normal relationship again. Ukraine falling under the US/EU sphere of influence but Russia keeping Crimea seems inevitable now. That said, I don't think relations will normalize for as long as Putin is in office, and he will likely stay for another six years or so.

  11. Also, Soros et al and the phony "refugee crisis" explain a lot….Quite a bit. During the 2010's Western liberals and NGO's began to really push the refugee crap hard. Ironically, in the 70's-2000's it was actually the GOP that really got behind resettling non-whites, often on the principle of such people being victims of current or former communist countries, or in the case of Arabs, fighters of commies).

    Literally every single traditional ally of America, as well as several more recent allies (such as Germany), has great gobs of Lefty leaders who enthusiastically embraced refugee dumping in the 2010's. The Slavs and Balts have been much more reticent; in fact, Russia has committed itself to containing dangerous Muslim nations/sects abroad while simultaneously continuing the traditional Eastern practice of defending ethnic homogeniety in one's nation as much as possible.

    Google N-Gram reveals that the term "refugee" skyrocketed in mainstream use after 1980. During the 40's-70's, Westerners largely concerned themselves with their backyard. But the economic booms of the 80's and beyond, as well as Boomers being the most globalist oriented generation in history (Boomers traveled at their whim and dated outside their race far more than previous generations and also bought into tripe about Trad. Western civ being "corrupt"), kicked off a still continuing sob fest about rescuing poor non-whites. It didn't have to be this way. The 1970's was a profoundly realistic/pragmatic decade, with society holding up stop signs regarding the use of resources, and birth rates plummeting because people felt bleak about our abilities and prospects. But that changed in the 80's, when the importance of "growth" began to surpass any other consideration.

    Back to Russia relations, the refugee nonsense has become the dividing line between globalist leadership and nationalist leadership, in terms of white countries..

    "And once Russia took Crimea, US-Russian relations took an irreversible dive."
    This wouldn't really matter if Russia was under our aegis. But they're not anymore. Also, the US/Nato has repeatedly broken agreements about military movements in Eastern Europe. After the Cold War ended, everybody agreed to no longer conduct military activities in a fairly large range of territory. But the US/Nato reneged on the deal in the later 2000's/2010's. And this was before Crimea was annexed, or the notorious "invasion" of Georgia happened. The Pentagon/Western leaders deliberately try to stir the cold war back up, so as to justify war mongering and globalism under which all countries can, and eventually will be, "broken" to serve the neo-liberal elite. Remember that Mike Flynn and Bannon wanted to bury the old East v. West rivalry so that we could jointly target the worst Muslim sects. This spooked modern Western Leftists, who are primarily "good" whites bent on destroying the "bad whites". As we've seen, the US has become terribly paranoid and petty in it's policing of Russian practices, while developing the infuriating habit of ignoring the same stuff or worse within non-white countries.

    In addition, the US itself has had an increasingly moronic track record of foreign policy dating back to the 60's. We arrogantly bully and meddle all over the globe, and then our leadership has the audacity to complain about what other countries do. And as I noted above, the US has a history of provoking people and starting shit. Then the US will complain that our wishes aren't being respected. Give me a break.

  12. I realize its not Mueller that is the crazy psychopath out to get Trump although he is part of the problem.

    Rather, it is Weissman, a Hillary sycophant who was at Hillary's victory party, presumably crying and plotting revenge.

    Weissman should NOT be Mueller's lead guy and that is the guy all conservatives should be going off about. He should be a household name symbolizing corrupt overreach, even more than Mueller.

  13. Anon,

    It's even more blatantly ridiculous than that. Imagine a white pundit saying any NFL position (other than QB, kicker/punter, or center) was "too black". Yet black (and white) pundits regularly complain about coaching and QB positions being "too white" despite enjoying black representation roughly commensurate with black representation in the general population.


    Touche, though this was a power he had before becoming president. Hell, he was pulling it off before anyone (outside the dissident right and people like Ann Coulter and Scott Adams) even thought he had a real chance of winning the GOP nomination.


    It's staggering to think about just how much never saw the light of day prior to the smartphone/internet revolution. Think these stage props pushing gun control would've been exposed even a decade ago, let alone half a century ago?


    Points well taken. That said, deserving to be treated as legitimate isn't the same as being perceived as legitimate. Obama never lost his perceived legitimacy among almost all non-whites and a lot of whites. Even Merkel's approval rating is currently bumping around 50%.


    Yep, the news is all bad, bad, bad for the organization. Disband!


    For blacks Trump = Bad. For many (most?) blacks, that's as far as their thought processes go.


    Yes, bringing the full weight of the FBI and NSA to bear, they're going to be able to turn up a few more unrelated technical violations, but nothing that comes even remotely close to the initial allegations. The biggest thing for team Trump to avoid is a perjury trap.

    Anatoly Karlin, who is my go-to source for information on Russia, says Putin is tired of being head of state and wants out soon. Will he last another six years?


    Russians serve much the same function on the global stage as deplorables do on the national stage–both are whites with 'regressive' values who are perceived to be more powerful than they actually are.


    Looks like WWII is what really gave us the term "refugee".

  14. Immigration into America soared in the 80's, esp. in the twilight of the Reagan Admin.

    The 80's is when we started to be inundated with sentimental garbage about the 3rd world (people hardly talked about the "3rd world" per se in the 70's when many First Worlders believed that their own countries were on the verge of ecological and/or economic collapse).

    The thing to keep in mind is that Silents and Boomers were able, under the go-go environment of the 80's, to start preaching about "aid" to Africa and such while they were able to line their pockets. They became termites feeding upon the financial and political edifice of the Anglo West (after attacking the cultural edifice in the 60's and 70's), yet encouraged more and more of our resources to be spent on the 3rd world and it's inhabitants.

    The phenom. of affluent liberals essentially buying indulgences via resources devoted to PC causes can be largely traced to the Boomers, with some Silents and X-ers along for the ride. Fortunately, Millennials are the brokest generation since the Lost Generation, yet Millennials just don't care about falling behind like Boomers and X-ers did and often still do. The mentality that many Boomers and X-ers had, and often still have, that wealth and the accompanying charity to boutique causes is the main standard by which to be judged and ought to enable you to float above the bitter losers, will eventually fade away. The older generations could've traded higher status/salaries for better overall treatment of the masses and younger generations, but if that were the case, then there wouldn't be as much money left for aging and affluent people to engage in ostentatious charity posturing.

    While we know well certain obnoxious status symbols, the tendency for decadent and aging (but affluent) generations to feel better about themselves via donations and activism on behalf of various things is also a status related thing, and really not much different than Catholic indlugences of the past.

  15. AE,

    I can definitely believe Putin is tired of the job. He's 65, has dominated Russian politics for 18 years, and respect or revile him, most everyone has very strong, ossified feelings about him. As such, he doesn't have all that much room for maneuver.

    That said, it's too late for him to bow out of the current election year in Russia, and I haven't heard of anyone who would make for a natural successor to him. I think he'll sit in power for another six years while preparing for a number of people to succeed him in different capacities. From then on, he'll be an éminence grise in the Kremlin, with affairs largely needing his approval until he dies.


    I think the conflict between Russia and the US since the end of the Cold War has had to do with what Russian borders should encompass. Within Russia they have different schools of thought as to where their borders should stop. The Kremlin chooses between them according to what its interests are and how much it can get away with. In general, they're "Eurasianist" when their former-Soviet neighbors comply with their wishes and are "nationalist" when they don't. When Ukraine was getting close to joining the Eurasian Economic Union, they made no claims on Ukrainian territory. When Maidan happened, behold, Crimea is Russia!

    Russia won't budge from Crimea, but they've largely alienated the rest of Ukraine in doing so, losing much of their erstwhile reach within the country. As such, I think Russia getting Crimea, but Ukraine having the choice to join Europe is a nearly inevitable outcome.

    Needless to say, I don't find the MUH KIEVAN RUS' arguments to be terribly persuasive. At the same time, I wholeheartedly agree that the US has done a ton of stupid things to make the conflict worse than it has to be. Ideally we would deescalate tensions with them, but I doubt that will be possible for a long time.

  16. AE — Make sure you backup your blog. I feel like the censorship winds are a blowing what with Cernovich and

  17. seems like an option in case. Back up today I say!

  18. Feryl,

    Virtue-signaling as an indulgence is a useful way to think of it.

    I actually prefer the phrase "moral posturing", but "cheap grace" is another one that works (and fits better with indulgences).


    You'd know better than me. Thanks.


    I do, don't worry. I have all the html on hard drive and flash disk. Peter Brimelow (at VDare) has inquired about me writing there. I don't want to take the limited resources our broad movement has at its disposal, though, and VDare pays its content creators.

    As I've said before, Vox Day is the canary in the coal mine. As long as his b-spot site is operational, we're probably safe here. He's the biggest fish who uses it.

  19. " Ideally we would deescalate tensions with them, but I doubt that will be possible for a long time."

    Wikipedia divides recent US history into several chapters; 1945-1964, 1965-1979, 1980-1991, 1992-2007, and 2008-present. Personally, I'd say that 1945-1979 overlap in some ways, while 1980-2008 also over lap.

    Circa 1900-mid 1940's: Crises involving civil unrest, foreign conflicts, and economic depressions. We eventually manage to solve these things, and the subsequent era becomes a victory lap where we can focus on decidedly trivial things (like integrating whites and blacks and relieving the boredom of house wives)

    1945-1979: Tremendous cultural upheaval and broadly shared prosperity (the two things are not mutually exclusive) among adults and adolescents.

    1980-2008: Cultural stagnation, alienation among younger generations who have not benefited from post-WW2 prosperity and who had no say in post-war cultural changes. Older generations commence bickering and posturing while doing virtually nothing to insure greater long term security and stability.

    2009-Present: Backlash toward arrogant elites. The outcome is contingent on whether elites shape up or not. The Civil war was a similar period of dysfunctional elites who never could get their act together. Can we avoid this? If we don't, then the US could well experience a social, military, and/or economic collapse, and we won't be able to do things on our terms anymore.

  20. The cynical virtue signal thing could well be true for younger people, but in general liberal mush-head Boomers sincerely do believe in White Man's Burden (and White Man's Guilt). Neil Howe since the 80's has talked about the way Boomers railed against the system in the 60's and 70's (even though they had little to complain about), then in the 80's and subsequent decades they began counting their money while endlessly explaining away how they sold out. Ultimately, they never really have a guilty conscience because they always fancy themselves to be the One True Warrior fighting the good fight, and if they happen to get rich in the process, that's merely incidental to the good works they do. And of course, most Boomers are quick to blame the *other* Boomers, not themselves for whatever particular thing they don't like.

    Amongst X-ers and Millennials, there is way more self-awareness regarding moral shortcomings and there also is shaming about the idea of taking the easy way out, cutting corners. Granted, since the Silents and Boomers overwhelmingly control wealth, it's not as if younger people even had the opportunity to be Scrooge McDuck.

  21. "Within Russia they have different schools of thought as to where their borders should stop. The Kremlin chooses between them according to what its interests are and how much it can get away with."

    Well, the US has had such one-sided dominance (often taking the form of abuse, violence, and corruption) since 1945 that we really place a lot of countries into an abusive relationship. We treat everyone (Russia included) like a wife who isn't allowed to go outside the house without permission. We're moderately more respectful to nations based on them being either: 1)historically white Protestant and/or white Catholic nations, or 2)Asian sweatshops. The majority of other countries are always under the threat of US induced destabilization, generally done for the purpose of installing more "pro-Western" (e.g., neo-liberal) leadership.

    If Austria shows that it has balls (by not kowtowing to the US and EU), it'll be mighty interesting. How will the US handle a majority white 2nd ring ally (1st ring allies being the English speaking countries) going off the reservation?

    The dated mentality of older generations is that the US is the good guy, and as such, we're entitled to be jerks. Since younger generations have much less reason to respect the US, that would suggest to me that with the passage of Silents and Boomers, we might finally get a break from the US starting shit constantly for the purpose of continuing Pax Americana. The last time the US credibly did the whole world a favor was when we helped force Hitler into a bunker and we nuked Japan out of any delusion that they had a divine right to shit on other countries. Since then we've squandered more and more of the goodwill of the world. That other countries are flawed, or are putatively even less qualified to run the show than we are, doesn't matter. Our free world leader entitlement has clearly metastasized to monstrous levels.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS