The New Red Scare Further Blurs the Line Between Real and Hogwash

Did Vladimir Putin personally lead a successful effort to hack the DNC, collude with Wikileaks to release data obtained by such means, and thereby sway US elections? Probably not.

In fact, according to Craig Murray - who actually played a part in Wikileaks' handling of DNC emails - the data in question was leaked by a party insider in order to blow the whistle on the Clinton campaign's manipulation of a blatantly corupt political machine. Murray's claims effectively call the legitimacy of the US political machine into question. So do the leaked emails themselves. So do statements like those made by former UN ambassador John Bolton - who has suggested the Russian hack story is a politically-motivated contrivance amounting to a 'false-flag attack'.

But questioning the the US political machine's legitimacy is taboo, so pertinent facts like these are being thoroughly buried under a giant pile of anti-Russian propaganda.

Even in the absence of actual legitimacy, the perception of legitimacy must be maintained by the powers that be.

Although a recent Boston Globe editorial by security-state expert Michael J. Glennon makes some dubious claims, it sheds further light on the political necessity of maintaining this perception of legitimacy:

"The managers of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement departments of our government are largely self-governing, virtually immune from democratic accountability and the checks and balances described in civics books. They make up a second government: The one we elect provides public frontage, but the concealed, unelected one actually defines and manages the nation’s security.