We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
Civil war redux?
This current United States presidential election cycle is completely out of the ordinary. Even though the division and contentions between Hillary Clinton’s supporters and Donald Trump’s supporters are not policy oriented, like they should be, they are nonetheless extremely vivid in the realm of rage and raw emotions. It appears that most Americans will be motivated to cast their ballots with hatred in their guts. In other words many will vote for Trump because they hate Hillary with a passion, and vice versa. The divide in the US collective psyche seems so great, that many could reject the outcome of the result, especially if Hillary Clinton wins. When a candidate calls the supporters of the other “the deplorables,” this is hardly acting like someone who wants to unite all Americans.
The right-wing forces backing Trump largely because of his running mate Pence and their aversion to Hillary Clinton, are the evangelical Christians. They are the ones Clinton calls deplorable. They represent a strong voting block of about 10 percent overall nationwide, and much more in rural areas. When you look at a map of the electoral divide in the US, it is rather fascinating both sociologically and historically. It is as if the mid-19th century Civil War was never lost or won. The old Confederate south will go to Donald Trump, and this is precisely where a new form of resistance to a corrupt political class might begin. Most people like Trump because he is considered to be an anti-establishment candidate. Trump is a right-wing populist reacting against the ultra-globalist Clinton. Many will vote for Trump as a form of protest against a political class they despise. One could say, especially considering that this election cycle has become such an exercise in sleaze, depravity and joyful roll in the gutter, that a vote for Trump is a f**k you vote echoing the recent BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom.
Clinton: the ultimate globalist neocon tool
A long time ago, Hillary Clinton was considered to be a so-called liberal. That is, until her immense appetite for money and ambition turned her into a neoliberal instrument of Wall Street. In Orwellian times, notions that appear to be opposite morph into one another. Therefore, when it came to maintaining and expanding the US empire, neoliberal and neocon became synonymous. As opposed to the Southern Bible belt and blue-collar rust belt supposed deplorables, the neocons are a rarefied urban elite, in majority Jewish. Since the launch of the so-called Project for the New American Century in 1997, they have been the driving force behind almost every foreign policy decision made by US governments, either Republican or Democrat. Victoria Nulan, the person who masterminded the destabilization of Ukraine from the State Department, is the wife of one of the neocon founding fathers: Robert Kagan. You will not find neocons with mud on their shoes minding their fields in Alabama. Their natural milieu are the corridors of powers in Washington DC, organizations like AIPAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, American Enterprise Institute, and other think-tanks; or institutions like the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA. Neocons are, by definition, the ideologues and puppet masters of the empire behind the notion of US exceptionalism and uncontested global hegemony. In this regard, Hillary Clinton is, very much, a neocon controlled by Wall Street and its subsidiary of the industrial-military complex. If elected, her supra-national masters will make sure that their agenda of global government controlled by a minuscule global elite is implemented.
Who would run Trump?
This is a question that Donald Trump voters should ask themselves. The appeal of Trump is largely the notion that he would clean the cesspool that is Washington. But let’s not be naive here: Donald Trump is a businessmen with zero political experience, and he is not exactly a modern day Hercules able to clean the Augean stables in a day. Trump will need help, but he is an outsider, and therefore a Trump cabinet is, in many aspects, a mystery. Which group of people would run Trump if he were elected? From day one of his presidency Barack Obama was surrounded and run by Clinton’s crew, whom I call Clintonites. Therefore, in many ways, Obama’s first and second terms were really Clinton’s third and fourth term. Trump would like to be perceived as a new Ronald Reagan, but this does not fare well as an indication of the real power he might want to exercise. The man in power during the Reagan era was George Bush Sr., while the former actor was just a figurehead reading speeches he did not write. Ultimately, if Trump had the intention to assert his independence from Washington’s usual suspects and heavyweights, and truly assume power, it would likely become extremely hazardous to his health.
Is Clinton more likely than Trump to start World War III?
In regard to foreign policy, there is, unfortunately, not much departure from Trump about the guiding precept of US global hegemony, by military force in most cases. A Trump presidency would not end the global Monroe Doctrine, which has been the cornerstone of US foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The somewhat moronic comments Trump made during the fist debate with Clinton should be alarming when he mentioned that countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, which are arguably occupied by US troops and have been since World War II and the 1950s for Korea, should pay the US for their own occupation. This is in line with the tribute paid to Rome by oppressed nations that the Roman empire had invaded. During the second debate, calling Iran a terrorist state was also an extremely alarming foreign policy faux pas obviously aimed at pleasing Israel. Trump is also still clueless about the rise of ISIS as a mercenary force financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the full knowledge and blessings of Washington and Israel.
That said, however, there is an unknown factor with Trump, and paradoxically it is a good thing. Donald Trump is the devil we don’t really know. The devil we know, Hillary Clinton, seems to act as if she already has won the election and is directing US foreign policy in the worst possible way. The no-fly-zone over Syria is a Clinton idea, which is of course designed to put the US and Russia on a collision course. Hillary Clinton is the one who started comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. Clinton is the one most likely to approve an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, and by doing so trigger World War III. This is what Western Europe’s leaders should think about when they more or less openly endorse Hillary Clinton. Let’s keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind fostering fake revolutions for regime change purposes in Libya, Syria and Ukraine: the prime engineer of failed states, misery and death for millions. In many ways, Clinton was ISIS’ godmother. Clinton’s policy path is a well-documented trail of chaos. Neither of the US candidates is a good option, but Clinton certainly constitutes a clear and present danger to world peace.
Mafia imperial rule
A mafia imperial rule, at the pleasure of world finance, started in the US with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. This is when conflicting centers of power started to disappear, to become increasingly monolithic. After all, the different mafia families serve the same Wall Street masters and interests. Just like in the mafia crime families whose influence reached its apex between the 1920s and the late 1950s, to fade away in the late 1970s, the US rival political families are in many ways organized in clans with their own structure of don, capo, consigliere and hatchet men. The Rockefellers and Kennedys operated like this with don Joseph for the Kennedys. Since the election of Reagan, the two dominating clans have been the Bushes and the Clintons.
In the early 1990s, their interests sometimes still clashed, but very quickly, as Bill Clinton became in Bush Sr.’s eyes “almost a son,” their interests started to coincide almost always, in an implicit agreement to pass the baton of power from one clan to another every four or eight years. The year 1980 was the beginning of the end of the US as a republic with a two-party system. It is when the US became a full-fledged empire with two mafia-type dynasties taking turns in power. John Kerry was part of the Kennedy clan, and for this reason a bit of an outsider. Informed observers hoped that he would offer an alternative and challenge Hillary Clinton during the primary. He had the intelligence, the poise and the credentials to do so; however, he made the choice — deliberate or forced thru blackmail — to join the Clinton clan instead.
Godfather Bush Sr.’s support for Hillary is easy to understand in this mafia-like context: if Bill Clinton is Don Bush Sr’s adopted son, then Hillary is Bush Sr.’s daughter-in-law. George W. Bush’s wife Laura has also pledged her support to Hillary Clinton. The two leading political clans are not in conflict at all. In their power sharing agreement everybody gets a very nice share of the pie. It has worked well for the Bushes under Clintonite Obama, and of course Empress Hillarywould maintain the status quo. This form of government is corrupt to its core, and this is why somebody like Trump appeals to anti-establishment voters. People are fed up. They do not precisely know what they want, but they are certain that the system is rigged and are ready to reject it.
Mainstream media pro-Hillary propaganda and anti-Russia hysteria
Western media outlets, and especially US mainstream media, have become at-large propagandists for their corporate masters. In this election cycle the tragic state of health of almost all US media: networks, cable, radio stations, and print is so blatant that it is embarrassing for the profession of journalism. By serving the interests of Hillary Clinton so obviously, newspapers such as The New York Times and the Washington Post are pretty much losing whatever credibility they had left as impartial news sources. With the recently released lewd audio tape of Donald Trump right before the October 9, 2016 debate, both papers have hit the bottom of disinformation and sleaze, on par only with rags such as The National Enquirer.
Originally Hillary Clinton used the Ukraine crisis, which Washington triggered, to generate an anti-Russian hysteria and vilification of President Putin. The US-Russian tensions over Syria are aimed at giving Clinton an edge over Trump in the eye of the electorate because of Trump’s lack of foreign-policy experience. But in this completely abnormal and nearly anachronistic election cycle, it could, if properly used by Trump’s campaign, backfire on Clinton providing that Trump during the third and last debate on October 19, brings up key damaging elements recently revealed by Wikileaks in the Podesta files. Clinton has proven by her track record that she should not be trusted to diffuse conflicts by diplomatic solutions. After all, the Clinton clan has been great for its friends and sponsors of the military-industrial complex. Perhaps a much bigger conflict, directly with Russia and China, sounds appealing to the war profiteers in Washington and Wall Street. The nationalism of a leader such as Vladimir Putin is really at the core of the problem here. This is why, if Clinton is elected, her elite globalist bosses will demand that regime change in Russia be part of the agenda.
Is Trump more unfit for duty than Hillary?
Hillary Clinton always claims that Donald Trump is unfit for the duty of commander-in-chief, with access to the nuclear codes. She might have a point, but one honestly has to wonder if she is fit either. She seems to operate in an alternate reality, and even at her best, the expressions on her face — this sort of irritating and unmotivated permanent smile — should raise concerns about her mental health. Regardless, if she is elected and makes it to the official inauguration in January, as long as she can stand up and read a teleprompter without drooling all over her face, even if her health deteriorates further, she will remain president on paper while the first husband, Bill Clinton, actually runs the White House. If Hillary Clinton has to step down formally because of health issues, her running mate Tim Kaine, as vice president, would officially become president while Bill Clinton would assume the real leadership of the country.