I don’t vote. For one thing – I don’t want to acquire the US citizenship. But even if I had a US passport I would not vote for the following reasons: First, the choice between the two parties is like Pepsi-Cola vs Coca-Cola: both are toxic and impossible to tell apart. Second, every time the American people voted to support one policy, they got the exact opposite, from Bush’s “read my lips no new taxes” to Obama’s “change you can believe in”. Third, what the USA needs is not a change of Administrations but “regime change”: changing the puppets and keep the same puppeteers makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Fourth, to win you need huge amounts of money: instead of one man one vote it is one dollar one vote. Hence the top 1% matter more than the bottom 99%. The American ‘democracy’ is, indeed, the best ‘democracy money can buy’. Fifth, voting is morally wrong because it takes away from you the option of saying “not in my name”. For all these reasons, I have been paying no attention at all to the circus of the US Presidential election. Well, that’s not quite true, I would say “almost no attention at all”. What could always happen is the “Frankenstein/Golem phenomenon”: the creators lose control of the creature which ends up revolting against them. So no matter how slim the chance of that happening, sometimes a change of puppets can result in a dramatic change of puppeteers.
The other reason why I was keeping an eye on the Presidential race was the possibility of a real nightmare happening: Hillary in the White House, this time as POTUS. Her I truly fear. I strongly believe that she is one of the most toxic and outright evil people ever produced by the American system and I have come to the conclusion that she is dumb enough to think that she can bully Russia into submission. Every single issue she tried to deal with ended up in abject failure and she has something to prove. That makes her especially dangerous. So while I had no interest in US politics other than “anybody but Hillary”.
Which puppet will win this time?
And then Trump happened.
My first hunch was that Trump was “created” to scare people into voting for Hillary. Only a clown looking like an out of control loose-cannon could make the Republicrats lose the next Presidential election to the Demoblicans, right? Maybe.
But now I am starting to get the feeling that the Neocons are really freaking out, and that Trump, possibly to his own surprise, is starting to believe that he might make it. Well, what if?
Ron Unz, in a recent column, gave a very accurate description of what appears to be happening: (source)
Over the last few months I’ve been much too preoccupied with my Harvard University Overseer project to pay much attention to the unfolding saga of the presidential race; I’ve closely read my morning newspapers as I always do, but not watched a single one of the endless debates. Still, even out of the corner of my mind’s-eye, the rise of Donald Trump certainly seems the political story of the decade or even the half-century, with the loud-mouthed Reality TV star now having a good chance of seizing the Republican Party nomination against the ferocious opposition of nearly every significant Republican faction and pundit.
But although I’ve been just as surprised at this remarkable development as anyone else, in hindsight perhaps my astonishment was more than it should have been. Based on absolutely everything I’ve read in my daily NYT+WSJ, Trump certainly seems an ignorant buffoon and a loose cannon, but being a loose cannon, he rolls around randomly, not infrequently in the correct direction, which is more than I can say for nearly all of his Republican rivals.
Consider the Iraq War and its aftermath, surely one of the central geopolitical developments of the last few decades. In the mid-2000s, my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan, accurately characterized the war as “the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.” Yet today that calamitous legacy and its five trillion dollar total cost is warmly embraced by many of the top Republican leaders and publicly criticized by almost none of them.
However, just a couple of weeks ago, Trump blasted the war and the Bush Administration lies behind it on nationwide television during a Republican debate, inducing total shock within the Republican commentariat, shock that turned into apoplexy when he immediately afterward won a landslide victory in ultra-rightwing and pro-military South Carolina. Sometimes a single bold and honest statement delivered on national television can cut through endless layers of media lies and propaganda, and I only regret that Gen. Odom was no longer around to witness it.
Earlier this year, an ardent Trump supporter declared that his favored candidate was 95% a clown but 5% a patriot, and therefore stood head-and-shoulders above his Republican rivals, and this sounds about right to me.
I agree with Unz. Trump does, indeed, appear to be “rolling around randomly, not infrequently in the correct direction” and he sure does present himself as a “95% a clown but 5% a patriot, and therefore stood head-and-shoulders above his Republican rivals“. In fact, I am pretty sure that those who support Trump will gladly provide a long list of quotes which will make a good case that Trump is right much more than on 5% of cases. Most amazingly, Trump seems to suggest a radical change of US policies towards Russia and Israel: Trump wants peace with Russia and he wants to USA to be an “honest broker” in Israel. The latter is enough for (even the putatively Left-leaning Ha’aretz) to list not one, but “Six Reasons Trump Would Be Disaster for U.S. Jews, Israel and the Middle East“.
Trump – candidate for peace?
Could it be that the “Trump project” is getting out of control and that a supposed “puppet” refuses to stick to its role?
Maybe. I honestly don’t know.
What I do know is that on the Demoblican side Hillary’s nomination appears to be a done deal. And, besides, it’s not like Sanders is a viable option. While the Occupy Wall Street supporters might like him (especially if he teams up with Tulsi Gabbard), the “Socialist” stigma makes the man unelectable in a viscerally anti-Socialist USA (especially since most Americans have no idea whatsoever of what Socialism is all about). By the way, Sanders is a loyal Zionist anyway, so even if he was elected you would imagine that the Neocons could sleep in peace knowing that “their man” is in the White House. But clearly, Sanders is not bloodthirsty enough for them, they want Hillary and only Hillary. Only she can really guarantee the bloodbath the Neocons want.
Does that then make Trump the proverbial “lesser evil”?
Compared to Hillary, almost anybody would, so I suppose Trump qualifies. And, who knows, maybe all the nonsense Trump regularly spews is only electoral politics and not a foretaste of what a Trump Presidency would look like.
At this point in time all I can say is that I have come to no conclusion beyond two very basic ideas:
- Axiom: Hillary is by far the worst option
- A Trump Presidency might be interesting to observe. Maybe.
This is about as much enthusiasm as this entire topic can elicit in me.
The Saker
The media pressitutes all hate Trump so that is one card in his favour. The Republican old guard themselves hate Trump as well. George Sorros got his MoveOn.Org goons to organize against Trump.
He seems to tick off all the correct boxes. Who really knows how he will turn out but it he is light years ahead of that blood thirsty Hillary Clinton.
This is the latest analysis from the Daily Bell; take it with the proverbial grain of salt but worth considering and Russia’s favorite billionaire, Soros, is predictably involved:
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/trump-and-60s-propaganda-strategy-to-launch-north-american-union/
Excerpts:
# # #
Trump is a charismatic and gifted businessman. But nothing in his background suggests that he is deeply wedded to “making a difference” on the political stage. He has no history of it. He is a practical man, and his ideas often seem to resonate because they provide practical solutions.
Like the Occupy Wall Street movement a few years ago, he could be harnessing the rightful anger that people feel for the wrong reasons.
We had a lot of questions about Occupy Wall Street, which was funded by George Soros and eventually fell apart because it wasn’t a real protest movement but a method of class warfare.
Now Soros seems to be at it again. And this time Trump may be part of it, though Trump seems to have the backing of a broad-based group of libertarians, social conservatives and alienated mainstream voters. What Richard Nixon used to call “the silent majority.”
Trump’s viewpoints are still evolving, but the military industrial complex does seem to have his backing. Responding to our previous Trump article, feedbacker “Carol” wrote:
“I have been reading Trump’s book, Crippled America, and like some of his ideas. However, his enthusiastic idea that the American military is and will be the police force or global military of the world is disturbing in that it is exactly what the NWO has proposed … ”
Trump’s book came out in November 2015, so it is obvious he’d been contemplating a political campaign for a while. Whether he anticipated this level of escalating controversy is less clear.
Oddly, the Chicago protests were at least partially organized by Black Lives Matter and MoveOn.Org, both groups supported by Soros.
Billionaire Soros is a political activist who uses his vast wealth to create social change. He is taking aim at Trump, though even cursory research reveals that Soros is a longtime business partner of Trump’s. And they move in the same social circles as well.
Soros is one of the top givers to the Clinton Foundation. Bill and Hillary Clinton attended Trump’s 2005 wedding.
This leads to the question we’ve begun to ask: Is it possible some sort of dialectical strategy is taking place?
Soros provides the thesis, you see, and Trump the antithesis. Out of media-promoted conflict emerges a synthesis that considerably deepens the relationship between Mexico and America …
Trump’s “wall” – his signature political issue – would be at the center of this cultural and geographical realignment. Out of its construction, might emerge a greater union embracing a much larger geographical region.
This is a startling speculation; it is also an ironic one.
Not many of Trump’s supporters in the Southwest yet realize that Trump’s candidacy might bolster a merger of America, Canada and Mexico in one EU-style trading bloc often referred to as the North American Union.
***
Poor David McGowan, lately deceased, suggested the 1960s “cultural revolution” was directed by the CIA. Certainly, the 1960s were a time of engineered rebellion.
The Youth Generation was purposefully set against its parents to create cultural chaos that would realign the psychological moorings of Baby Boomers. The republicanism of America’s founders diminished as a result.
What could we lose this time?
The yearning to turn back the authoritarian tide sweeping the US is palpable. Personally, we have no ill will toward Trump and hope he is everything people say he is. But we have a hard time believing he is somehow going to reverse federalist trends that have been in existence since Lincoln’s time, even if he wants to.
# # #
It looks like perhaps the neocons have selected Ryan to be the Republican nominee.
Some notes about US Elections:
First of all, the people don’t select the candidates. The parties do. And the parties do not belong to the people, even if there are people in the parties. Rank and file registered republicans don’t count, and they never have. Neither do their votes. Thus, even if every registered republican voted for Donald Trump, it won’t mean a thing when it comes time for the party to decide who gets the nomination, if the people’s choice doesn’t square with that of the party hierarchy. The party hierarchy can do this, and the poloi don’t have a thing to say about it- why? Because the party is a private corporation that doesn’t belong to them and they don’t make the rules. ASK the RNC rules committee chairman why they even bother with primaries. Go on…I dare ya. This is why the founders sternly caution us NOT to allow such creations as political parties because parties amount to feral despotism.
Second, the election process is a wholly owned monopoly of the parties which control it from the office of the President, to county dog-catcher. Try running as an independent, and see how difficult it is to get on the ballot in all states; it is pretty much locked down to keep you out. Voters need to be aware of this.
Third, We The People aren’t supposed to be voting for the President anyway. Our main concern is House of Representatives, the local and state level offices because they represent US. The President is picked by the States because that’s who he represents to the rest of the world. He doesn’t represent the people. That’s why there’s an electoral college. The United States was never conceived as a “democracy.” That is a fallacy. It was conceived as a representative republic. Remember, a democracy is mob rule and one step removed from communism. It is truly, Wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
I’d vote for Satan himself rather than Hillary. What would be the difference? Gender.
I read today how the neo-cons plan on electing Clinton as President. The Democrat Party elite will destroy Sanders (they have been working on that since the beginning). Sanders is too anti-elite for them to tolerate. But its expected that he will endorse Clinton and try to get his voters to vote for her (that hopefully will be a hard sale for a lot of them).
Now the neo-cons in the Republican party are plotting to run an independent candidate from the Republican Party to stop Trump. If they can’t stop him from getting the nomination the plan is to run some neo-con Republican as well. That will,they believe,split the Republican vote. Assuring Clinton wins the election. All in the name of course of “saving Democracy from Trump”. Its a evil but clever plot. And should work for them. The only hope to stop them is if Sanders “did run” as an independent candidate as well. That would split the Democrat vote too. We would have 4 people running for President out of the two main parties. And Trump (or Sanders) might have a chance to beat Clinton. But its unlikely he will run as an independent. The other candidates from the tiny parties won’t have any effect on the election as usual.
As I’ve always said. You can’t change the system in the US with votes. As in all tyrannies only revolution will bring change. The system is too entrenched for peaceful change to happen.