Doing the French mistake

Going on two decades now, all the scary articles about CYBERWAR!!! (gasp! …. choke!) rattled people’s cages with scenarios of some hacker in a hoodie in Dirtbagistan short-circuiting America’s electrical grid, opening dams, and basically implementing the worst parts of the Bible with a few lines of code. Turns out, crowd-psychology is the most damaging weapon in the cyberwarrior’s arsenal.

The foolish “democracies” of this planet are ruled by crowds. A few well-timed infodumps can turn those crowds in the direction you want them to go when they hold their stupid elections in these places.

Funny thing how the tricksters responsible never reveal the skeletons (real or planted) in the closets of authoritarians, right-wingers, reactionaries, nativists and flag-waving nationalist bigots. Candidates on the left get savaged. Why?

I’m assuming Russia (i.e. Putin) is responsible—a plausibly deniable strategy through paid catspaws in Macedonia, etc. This still begs the question …

Why would Putin want radical right-wingers in charge of the USA and France?

Obviously, not because of agreement on policy. So why?

I’m assuming it’s because radical right-wingers are more predictable. They think in simplistic, on/off, binary terms. You’re either my friend or my enemy. If my country wins, your country loses. Etc.

Predicting the actions of liberals, leftists and moderates is a lot like predicting the weather. The factional/fractional left is a boiling stew of chaotic factors. Steven Colbert says Trump is Putin’s “cock holster.” The #FireColbert campaign immediately pops up. Instead of opposing Trump, the people supposedly on Colbert’s side rise up against him!

How can you anticipate that shit?

Putin (if you’ll pardon the hackneyed metaphor) is a master chessplayer. Trump and Le Pen can barely play checkers. Entirely predictable. If you want to win, there’s nothing like a blinkered opponent.

I think that’s why.