Trump vs Sanders: Trump Wins

OK, that title is not an endorsement of the Donald. I just want you to put a pause on your binging on all primaries-related things to consider the following proposition:

That The award for most revolutionary candidate in the  2016 Presidential Primaries  goes to…the Donald.

Now, settle down; I have a few goodies for you to munch on.

But first, he receives the award for clearly beating Sanders at portraying  a presidential candidate who shakes and threatens  the elite’s political order, and instills fear and dread in their hearts.

So credible is his performance that he has garnered the oligarchs’ hate, who are conspiring to illegally derail his candidacy. Sanders’ performance, on the other hand,  has been praised and encouraged by them. He hasn’t even been accused of being  a ‘red threat’ or a ‘communist’, despite his ‘socialist’ trappings.

The character Trump has been playing in the primaries  is that of an anti-globalist. Sanders has been relegated to supporting actor attacking the democratic party’s  ‘establishment’.

OK. Now seriously.


Let’s start with Trump.

The Donald has consistently been saying that outsourcing of jobs is “killing us” and has consistently advocated imposing penalties to corporations that outsource jobs

Donald’s “Mexican wall”, which, of course, “they are going to pay for it“, is a pain in the globalists’ derriere, not because they are not racists, but because it is an obstacle to their privilege to access global cheap labor, whether in Mexico or China.

The mere act of voicing a challenge to that privilege converts that person in the enemy of the globalists and of their representatives in Congress and the White House.


Then, by being the ONLY one in these primaries challenging the globalists and becoming their enemy, the Donald becomes the true radical. Further, I argue that his appeal to some minorities and the working class has to do with them understanding, at least at a subconscious level, why he is being attacked by the ‘establishment’.

“That’s why I’m doing so well in Michigan—because people say I’m the only one who understands what’s going on.” Donald Trump On Ford, Carrier, Shipping Jobs To Mexico: ‘I’m The Only One Who Understands What’s Going On’

Of course, in politics, as in life, to be a radical is not necessarily a good thing. Trump’s ideological (apparent) anti-globalism is soaked in racism too. Based on his comments, he seems to be a paleoconservative, anti-interventionist, and nationalist; words as scary to the elite as the words ‘zika virus’ are to a pregnant woman. That’s why you seldom see those words used in the MSM.

But paleo/conservatism is not good for the working class either. It’s a complicated existence, people. Trump’s ‘radicalism’ belongs to the class of small(er) business  owners. That’s not a crime. The working class shares interests with them and the same enemy: the globalists.

So, what about Sanders?


Sanders is NOT  an anti-globalist.

Words are important, and Sanders has been very careful with them; and if he can’t handle the words, he just evade the topic. Case in point, you won’t find any reference at his website to globalism, nor to foreign policy. Funny thing, the Donald addresses the issue, but not the ‘socialist’ candidate.

But you could get a sense of his position from these few carefully crafted sentences:

“Nobody I know believes we should place a wall around this country. Trade is a good thing, …

Globalism is safe in Sanders’ hands is what that means.

…our overall trade policy must also change for corporations to start investing in America and creating jobs here again, and not just in China and other low wage countries.”

This is the thing: a ‘socialist revolutionary’ would have the political understanding that globalism is the wooden stake through the heart, not only of national interests, but of international working class solidarityThere is no “fair trade” when workers are pitted against each other for crumbs. You can’t have “fair trade” if foreign policy is based on militaristic defense of the interests of global corporations, which is what these wars are about: protecting their markets and cheap labor. Globalism and its ideology has to be stopped.

Everything is interconnected. Sanders refusal to talk about his foreign policy plans indicates he is hiding it; it’s no out of  ignorance. 

Sanders  Elementary Math for the Working Class:  ” the tiny .1% of 1%”

Sanders has been very careful not to condemn the entire class of oligarchs. He has persistently called the attention to the “tiny one tenth of one percent” of it. It matters not only because it is a matter of perception, but because he is the ‘socialist’ who should be using his campaign to educate the youngsters about what the elite doesn’t want them to learn: the reality of  class wars.

Sanders has achieved the dubious honor of bringing the progressives to the point of giving up fighting the oligarchy altogether when he focuses their attention to fighting against the “tiny .1% of 1%” in Wall Street.

That is Orwellian, folks. Our “only” enemy is that tiny % of  “the billionaire class”, the “greediest elements of that class”. No mention to other sectors who are part of the elite: the owners of the media, Monsanto, military corporations, surveillance and digital/software kings…How do you measure the “greediest” element?  Can we solve our problems with the oligarchs by eliminating the few “greediest” men in that class?

It’s not a class war when only a few are portrayed as the  offenders, when it is reduced to a moral issue, i.e., “the greediest elements”.

The working class has been blinded, its identity as working class has been distorted. It has been reduced to the category of an “angry” component of global capitalism which the globalists need to appease. Obama and now Sanders have thrown a tarp over the oligarchs to hide them from the ire of the victim of their globalism.

Trump is not the answer, mainly because no one knows what the hell is below that puff of yellow hair. Sanders is not it either because he is another Obama in disguise.

As for Hillary, we know what she stands for, whether you like her or not. She has never campaigned as the big white hope or revolutionary. Obama defeated her by dangling the carrot of “hope and change”. See where that took the working class, national and international. Now we have Sanders dangling the same carrot, this time one dyed red.

Hillary has a history of TRYING to help when she was First Lady: in favor of Palestinians, and trying a better health system, better than Obamacare. She has been paying dearly for taking a stand for the Palestinians; it is one of the reasons why the media vilifies her, but not the ‘commie’.  You should ask yourselves why the MSM attacks her and not him. (Pss, it’s not because she is “a liar” or “immoral”. The MSM and the GOP don’t care for that.) Sanders, well, in my post you can see how he defends the Zionists.

Hillary offers no utopia.

You can deal with reality, not with utopias.

I recommend this article for those interested in a deeper analysis of Sanders’ campaign.

Posts where I discuss these candidates and the levels of comfort they represent to the oligarchs.

PS: Being anti-Zionist does not equal being anti-Jewish.


Bernie Sanders’ Billionaire Class: The Fight Against A Handful Of Capitalists

The Evolution of the Fight Against the Capitalist Class:From All of Them to Against 0.1% of Them

From about the beginning of the industrial revolution, the working class have fought against the capitalist class, against all of it. Then, from the middle of the 20th century up to 2010, and as evidence of their loss of political power,  ‘we the people’ was wagging  a battle against  a ‘mere’  10% of that class.

Then, in 2011 came the new wave of leftist progressivism in the form of the OWS movement: their fight was reduced to against a bare 1% of the capitalist class. 

Image result for ows against the 1%

Now comes ‘socialist’ Sanders, who has decided that the youngsters should fight against ONLY the 0.1% of the capitalists, and that said class should be known from now on as the ‘billionaire class’, not the capitalist class. Also, a vote for him is a vote “for yourselves” or for the “working family“, not for the working class.


In other words, the last vestiges of the socialist ideology of class identity (capitalist or working class) is finally gone in the new millennium with Sanders’ new brand of ‘socialism’.

Sanders revisionist formulation of who is the enemy of the working class (only the 0.1% of the billionaires), is not based on ignorance or omission, not even on ‘tactic’ to bring the voters into his ‘movement’.

He has almost exclusively identified as the evil class only a portion of Wall Street, “the greediest” elements in it. He seldom mentions any other elements of the capitalist class: the war mongering armament corporations (he has even used police force to defend them from protesters), the surveillance corps, not the globalist health insurance corporations…Only WS is our enemy, per socialist Sanders. His agenda for reforming WS, shall he become president of the USA, reflects clearly his true class alliance.

It’s not to the one  you think.

Those in the top 95-99% are part of the ‘greedy’ capitalists too: big money/blood sucking owners of globalist corporations are there. But Sanders don’t want you to look there. Just focus on the .1% of that 1%.

The many ‘reforms’ on Wall Street advocated by Sanders and the other protectors of capitalism will be sooo successful that, by the end of the next 20 years, there won’t be any percent to fight against. WS will be made whole and the capitalist class will chant ‘mission accomplished: our rule is unchallenged.’ We will be fighting against each other, cannibalizing each other for the few permanent jobs and other crumbs from the victorious elite. It’s Ayn Rand’s dream come true.



Reforming Wall Street and The Orwellian Language of the New Class Wars

This is not a call for revolution or for class struggle or class war: it’s the working class losing its identity and becoming mere consumers, begging protection from its oppressors.







Origin of MSM Love Affair with Sanders: at The Brookings Institution

Sanders Capitulation
The ‘Conversation’
Dispelling Their Fears
Conclusion: Third-party is the real revolution


I have been ‘bitching’ in this blog about how the MSM has given Bernie Sanders a pass (up to now) on his daring in-your-face socialist-revolution themed presidential primaries campaign.


I have given examples of him ‘passing’ but no evidence of the pass itself. Well, I found the pass ticket!!


It solves the mystery of why, why has the MSM abstained from unfurling on Sanders the traditional red-scare fear-mongering flag we all expect to be unfurled on anyone who dares to barely whisper the word ‘socialism’, let alone together with the word ‘revolution’.

It all starts at The Brookings Institution, a preeminent influential elitist’s (the ‘10%érs’) think-tank  where all presidential candidates are vetted by the representatives of the oligarchy. Long-shots candidates like Obama and Sanders go through the same ‘investiture’ ceremony as regular  establishment candidates do. Get Brookings blessings and you have a real shot at the presidency; and to get their blessings all you have to do is promise them that, if you win, you will work for them.

In this post I deconstruct the ‘conversation’ that served as  the official public ordination of Sanders at Brookings with the representatives of the elite and the elite MSM, E.J. Dionne as moderator. The conversation is an outstanding example of Orwellian language hiding the ‘Wall Street revolution’ behind Sanders’ populist ‘revolution’.  Yes, for them suspicion breeds confidence.

At the end of the conversation you will see that Brookings finds Sanders to be a valuable partner they can count on to defend WS when they need it the most.  Also, consistent with E.J. Dionne’s admiration for Sanders, every time you read an article of him about the primaries in the MSM, rest assured it is in Sanders favor, whether the headline has Sanders’ name or not. That is payback to Sanders in MSM currency for his vote and defense of the Stimulus Package bill, the bailout of WS.



The Hamilton Project is an economic policy initiative at the Brookings Institution.

Sanders Capitulations

You will see in this post, among other things, how Sanders and Dionne ease Wall Street’s angst about him, how Sanders qualifies his ‘socialism’ as low as “somewhere where Pope Francis is,“; he dispels fears that he may want to take “the means of production”; you’ll see him telling them how PROUD he is of  defending his vote for the  Stimulus Package bill that saved the WS crooks. You’ll see Sanders asking for the MSM support. As you have seen so far, WS has been happy to abide by his petition. Also, the Keystone Pipeline? He promised them, if he wins, it will not be “a priority” of his administration.

Note: This is the same investiture process I discussed   in 2008 to show Obama’s promises to the elite.

The ‘Conversation’

On Monday, February 9, 2015, The Brookings Institution hosted Sanders for a ‘conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders” (transcript).

While the activity was promoted as part of “our ongoing conversation on the future of our economy and of shared economic growth“, its real goal was to 1) dispel any concerns among its members about Sanders’ ‘socialist’ trappings, and 2) to let the MSM elite selected for the activity ask, for their clarification, the questions that will not be asked in public about his ‘ideology’. These people know the right questions to ask, as opposed to the little people trained to follow lovable  personalities and to not ask questions.

Those goals were clear from (Senior Fellow at Brookings) E. J.’Dionne’s very first words introducing Sanders (highlights by me):

…it is a pleasure to welcome a self-described proud democratic socialist here to Brookings. These days the word “socialist” is thrown around as an epithet, and the socialists I know are insulted when President Obama’s called a socialist because they argue he is too moderate to be a democratic socialist, but the thing we forget is the vibrancy of the democratic socialist tradition in the United States, and bear in mind we’re talking democratic, small “d” socialist, i.e., Scandinavia, not the old Soviet Union, and that in the American tradition we are talking about people from Eugene Debs to Norman Thomas to Michael Harrington to people today like Barbara Ehrenreich. This is a lively American tradition that has influenced policy in our country in a great many ways, and so it is refreshing to have a senator who doesn’t run away from a particular part of our American tradition.

Holy moly! That was the mother of all whitewashing. I didn’t know the oligarchy was proud, PROUD! of  this nation’ “socialist tradition of democratic socialism” and of Eugene Debs – the same guy they sent to  die in prison (released shortly before dying) for being a “proud socialist”. I didn’t even know there was a “tradition” of socialism here. Live and learn, people; live and learn. I had to read it at the Brookings Institute. Now, let’s analyze the rest of E.J.’s introduction.


This is what Debs was fighting against and for which he was sent to prison. When The Brookings Institute says they are “proud” of that history, they mean they are proud of having won over the socialists and of sending Debs to prison. It was the beginning of the very successful red scare bait.

First: This is the Brookings presenting Sanders to its members and the select MSM. That means they had already vetted Sanders at closed doors and found him kosher to be consumed by its group. They then fed the members a scripted ‘conversation’ to dispel any fears and to cast their approval on Sanders, not only as non-threatening ‘pinko’, but actually as a highly palatable presidential material.

Dispelling Their Fears

Thus Dionne’s intro, “it is a pleasure” is code for ‘we like him a lot, don’t be scared of the socialist’.  For him, the word socialist is an “epithet‘ to describe a person, not a philosophy, and gives Obama (accused of being a socialist in the 2008 primaries) as an example of how safe that type of socialists are. Dionne artfully dispels the fears of ‘socialist” candidates by referencing  Obama’s socialist detractors  to qualify him as not–a-socialist.  Dionne doesn’t have to say it himself and the Brookings is not on record saying that Obama (and Sanders) are not  socialists; socialists themselves did the work for the elite when they undressed Obama of his ‘socialist’ garment. Dionne knows his craft: he doesn’t have to be on record admitting that Obama and Sanders are no threat to the ‘establishment’.

Small ‘d’ and Big ‘c’

(Still on that first quote.) Then, don’t be afraid of Sanders’ socialism: it comes with “small ‘d’“, meaning small democracy, nothing they can’t handle with their big ‘c’ for ‘big capitalism’. By mentioning Debs, they remind their membership, in masterful Orwellian fashion, that they know how to handle unruly socialists. This is not the Soviet Union, here socialism is a “lively tradition”, is…like fun.  Do you really think that Dionne and Brookings elite have admiration for Debs? It’s high quality spin.

A  socialist “lively tradition” means the traditional class wars that are part and parcel of  capitalism. And as with all class wars, it is very lively indeed, action packed with marches and police  beatingswhere the labor movement loses most of the time. So, it is “refreshing‘ for Brookings to have Sanders, who doesn’t run away from a PARTICULAR part of that tradition. Which ‘part’ is that? That was very cryptic, wasn’t it, with no specification of what Dionne meant by it. Also, we all know how the lively class wars have influenced our policies: Taft Hardly and other policies to restraint the working class demands.

You see, they don’t have to clarify how the labor movement (‘socialism’) has ‘influenced our policies’ because they know. Language allows them to not be specific when a group of people share the same values. You are thinking “influenced our policies” means, for example, good labor policies (8 hrs shifts), but they are thinking Taft Hardly. Do you think they are proud of the labor movement achievements in labor policies, or proud of the Taft Hardly anti-labor policies? Our angry youngsters who have seen the video of this ‘conversation’ think that Dionne was truly praising  socialism in the USA. Reading between the lines is important when you are dealing with the oligarchy. But let’s continue.

Then E.J. continues approvingly of Sanders’ record in COngress, and to make sure you don’t leave with doubts about on whose side Sanders is , he (Brookings through E.J.’s mouth) said this:

…so when we have Senator Sanders and Senator McCain working together, we can produce miracles in public policy.

McCain is code for the republican party. It’s not ‘I can work on both sides of the isle’; it’s more like ‘I have your back’. You’ll see below.

Are you scared that he is an atheist socialist? No need to worry:

And while Senator Sanders will not be talking about miracles today, I will close by saying that he is a fan of Pope Francis.

Should the elitists worry about how far to the left he is, or how big his…’d’ (democracy) is? Nope. This interaction between him and E.J. is VERY telling:

[Sanders] “Sorry, government in this country is going to work for all of us and not just the top 1 percent.” Thank you very much. (Applause)
MR. DIONNE: Thank you, Senator Sanders, for that carefully hedged, cautious, political (laughter) speech.
SENATOR SANDERS: I was very quiet. This is the Brookings and I didn’t want —
MR. DIONNE: Yeah, this is a moderate version of this speech.
SENATOR SANDERS: That’s right.

He doesn’t want to…scare them, is what that interaction means. Dionne saved him from saying the words.

Are they afraid he is going to nationalize the means of production? NOOOOO WAAAY.

[E.J.] In this long list of proposals you do not propose public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and you are very critical of the way capitalism works, but what is your view of the market economy in general and capitalism in particular? 
SENATOR SANDERS: Well, in that regard I think I come down somewhere where Pope Francis is, who I think, by the way, has played an extraordinary role in the last several years in raising issues internationally that have not been raised by such a prominent figure.

Mother of God!!!! His socialism is based on Pope Francis!!! That’s all he has. People:it can’t get any safer for them than that, unless he speaks approvingly of capitalism.

[Sanders] so, E. J., capitalism does a lot of good things. It creates wealth.

Wealth?! For who? He doesn’t have to say it because they all get his drift.

Wait! It’s not over. How ’bout the economy and Wall Street? They are scared. Should they be? Nah. You see, while Sanders has been harping publicly about how bad the economy is, he eases the oligarchs by saying that he believes the economy is better now than six years ago, no need to ‘redistribute’ or change anything at the root:

[E.J.] you do say that we are better off economically than we were six years ago,…

And this ‘harping’ is acknowledged and dismissed for what it is: political posturing.

[E.J]…you have a pretty tough litany of what’s wrong with the economy as it exists…Yet you voted for a number of programs to try to get the economy moving including [there were others] the Recovery Act, otherwise known as the Stimulus.

[Sanders] So I am proud to defend it.[!!!]

Now, that was music for Wall Streets representatives’ ears there. You see, the Sandernistas refuse to ask the right questions, instead they find excuses when confronted with his pro-Wall Street votes. You can be sure that WS doesn’t forget what he did for them. It’s payback time people.

Other quotes:

MR. DIONNE: Is there a place for something like Wall Street in a Bernie Sanders economy?

SENATOR SANDERS: Well, look, banking plays an important role, obviously, in our society, and in that I’m pretty conservative.

Avoiding the question of whether he wants the Working Families (socialists) endorsement.

SPEAKER: Do you view the Working Families Endorsement of Elizabeth Warren as a setback?
SENATOR SANDERS: Well, I’m not sure that Senator Warren is going to be running for office.

About wars, another version of Obama’ “stupid wars”, which means he will continue the wars, not ‘for ever’, of course:

[Sanders] I do not disagree with the air attacks that the United States is coordinating, for example. What I just don’t want to see is a ground presence and never-ending war.

The Keystone Pipeline: not a priority for his administration if he wins.

[Sanders] …but if you were the Republican Party or any group of people you really think that you would put up the Keystone Pipeline as your first order of business? I’m against the Keystone Pipeline; fought it very hard, but there are people who disagree with me. [WS, for example, whom he will have to listen to]. Do you really think that a Canadian pipeline which will provide 35 permanent jobs is the most important issue facing America…?

The way the ‘conversation’ ended is telling too. Sanders asks, in not so veiled manner, for the MSM support in exchange for him running on the democratic side and not being “a spoiler”.  And E.J. makes a subtle quote of Lenin, showing that they, the capitalists,  know their communists.

[Sanders] [[Asking for help from the MSM]] Will the media cover you if you run as an Independent?  So, these are some of the issues that I’m wrestling with.
MR. DIONNE: I just want to close by saying that the late Mike Harrington used to say that he was for the left wing of the possible, and I think that Senator Sanders is pushing the definition of the possible, and I thank him and all of you for a very enlightening exploration of what can be done [for Sanders and Wall Street], and if I may use the phrase what is to be done. Thank you very, very much. (Applause)


I’m not telling you NOT to vote for Sanders. All I’m trying to do is making you aware that a vote for Sanders is NOT a vote for revolution nor for socialism. Considering that the Sandersnistas don’t ask the right questions, they don’t know which of the many definitions and tonalities of ‘socialism’  Sanders has in mind. The Brookings are clear, though.

Also, Sanders is very clear that he speaks about the “1%”, and some times the “0.1%”. In other words, all those WS honchos who are big millionaires but not billionaires, the ‘10%’, are part of the group his ‘revolution’ is going to protect. But they are part of the problem too. It is highly improbable that anyone with over 20 million bucks has the interests of the unemployed and poor in his or her mind. And yet, that person is not technically part of the 1%. Sanders is more a neo liberal than a socialist.

If you want to know how acceptable a politician is to the elite, see if the Brookings invite him or her and what he or she says to them. Again, I researched this for Obama in 2008, I can see that Sanders is following the same path of his lukewarm socialist predecessor.

I don’t speak about Hillary here because she is not the one running promising a revolution. We all know what to expect from her, she is in the system.

So there. Voting for Sanders means pushing the real revolution back another 20 years.

If you want a revolution, you must leave the two-party system and create a truly progressive third-party or join those already there. Also, I consider more important getting seats in Congress than the presidency. Progressives don’t have to get caught up in the presidential elections.