More Evidence Sanders’ Supporters Responsible for Trump Presidency

More evidence that Berniebots gave the presidency to Trump.

Trump won Michigan by 2,279,543 votes (47.6 percent), according to the certified results — 10,704 more than Hillary Clinton’s 2,268,839 (47.4 percent).

Jill Stein, Green Party, won 51,463 votes (1.1 percent). Those are ‘protest votes‘. Hillary would have won Michigan with 11k of those 51k+ votes.

History will condemn these stupid, STUPID people for the atrocities Trump will unleash on this nation and the world.

Advertisements

Bernies and The Left At A Crossroad: Support Trump’s ‘Brand’ of Peace or Attack His Racism?

Donald Trump looks and talks like the ugly, racist, bullying American — and he is exactly that, but he hasn’t killed anybody yet, and his public statements have been of a far more peaceful nature than the woman he beat at the polls. Black Agenda Report “War Less Imminent After Clinton Defeat “

Mine is no idle attack on the Left.

That quote up there has been the mantra of the American Left all along: The First Lewd President is pro-peace because he likes Putin. Notice also  the hatred of Clinton, “the woman he beat”. Can’t even call her by her name; they have reduced her to the lowest level of humanity: a ‘woman’. Sounds very Islamist, doesn’t it? Oh, but the Left is not misogynist.

When you set your mind to believe something, you won’t see anything else. True, that applies to everybody, but we are talking about politics and lives here.

The Left wants to see Trump as a pacifist, so they do. They want to see Hillary as beaten in the elections, which she wasn’t because she won the popular vote by over a million votes now, but they continue to perpetuate the lie that Trump defeated her. He didn’t; even he was surprised at the outcome. I believe he was genuinely surprised.

As I have been saying all along on this blog (and now they prove I was right all along), the Left has endorsed and, worse, extolled Trump as a pacifist. These ‘Marxists’ can’t get more deluded than that, can they? They can’t see in the people he is assigning for his cabinet that Trump is fascist; or maybe they can see it but prefer to look to the other side.

These people are going to support Trump’s foreign policies; they have given him a blank check to work with Putin in exchange of ignoring his racists policies at home.

It’s Not Idle Attacks On The Left

Some of the few readers of this blog may think that I’m focusing too much on the American Left, but you should keep an eye on them too.

They have means of persuasion, their online ‘think-tanks’ that propagated among Bernies, ‘progressives’ and unsuspecting rank and file Leftists, the elitist media message that Hillary Clinton (HC) is ‘corrupt’ and ‘dishonest’. The Bernies followed some of these people, they followed the Bernies.

That message of Hillary-hating was effective, they kept removing votes from her; she could have won by a decisive amount of votes from the beginning of the counting process, making it more difficult for the traitors at the electoral colleges to steal the presidency from her.

And they have crossed the ideological barrier to side with Trump; so expect them to go the mile for him. Theirs is no lazy support; they are actively working for him.

Trump’s Call for the Left to Join Him Was Answered

Trump used the Bernies and the Left to keep the race tight. He used Sanders’ tactics of misogyny and character assassination, he used the Bernies and thanked them for helping him on attacking HC. He even INVITED them to join him. Many of them did, voted for him, and the Left will continue supporting him. It’s not idle antipathy for them, they are dangerous to non-white Americans.

“It’s class, stupid, not race” [Counter Punch Mag]

Identity Politics (IP) is being used in the way Hitler did, to protect the interests of white male working class. This time IP is denied, but the result is the same: a focus on the economic problems of white America.

They and Sanders are destroying the democratic party ‘as the party of Wall Street’. That leaves you with, what? With a party that believes that you are ‘stupid’ if you think that the interests of non-whites and non-males are important.

id

The result of fascist brand of Identity Politics. “It’s class, stupid, not race” As with ‘climate change’, deny Identity Politics at your own risk.

By the time the progressives wake up from their masculine dream, it will be too late for them to see that they were supporting a mirage. The male fear of women in power is gone, they are safe in their male world with ultra-alpha man Trump protecting their masculinity.

The only real progressives and Leftists in America today are those who supported Hillary Clinton. We need to stay together and keep an eye on those who betrayed us in the name of male and white supremacy.

 

X-Rays Show: It’s a Malignant Media

As everybody else, I’m raking my mind trying to put the pieces together that would give me a more complete picture of WTF Happened Here?

I know all the usual suspects:

  • ‘I see white people’.
  • Those white bitches
  • Is the economy, stupid.
  • Hillary Clinton (HC) “was a shitty candidate”, explained yesterday Bernie Sanders with all the power of his compassionate heart for women.
  • The Immigrants! Quick! Round them up.

But looking at the recent stats coming out from every fancy research expert’s butt, there are TWO slithering effective crooks who stole your mental sanity and escaped untouched, unharmed, unnoticed, and ever so supremely victorious: THE MEDIA and its wife MISOGYNY.

Hillary Clinton “underperformed” on every category except on one: Black women. A whopping 95% of them voted for HC. Where did Black men go, or everybody else for that matter?

We can confidently assert that Black women is the ONLY segment in our nation that was NOT influenced by the media, be it mainstream (MSM) or Leftist. These women were not affected, they didn’t fall to pieces, like the rest of the nation apparently did, by the last-minute dump of emails that caused so much depression that even HC’ supporters fled in shame from her side.

Of Suicidal Lemmings And That One-Statistical Point

If, as the stats show, HC and the Dem Party lost at least one point in every category (except Black women), then where did that one point go and why?

Let’s be clear, people are not lemmings that commit suicide by leaping en mass to the ocean.

Image result for the rodents that jump the cliff

 

Actually, lemmings don’t do that either. The truth about jumping lemmings is very similar to that of humans.

Lemmings were being chased down and thrown to the cliff by a Walt Disney crew filming “True Life Adventure” series in 1958. They edited the film, you could not see them behind the lemmings doing their inhumane deeds for ‘educational purposes’.

And so with that one-statistical point. They were being chased down the cliff to the ocean of fascism in this presidential election by the media who was hiding behind the “professional journalism” camera, edited to hide their dandy art of pushing public opinion to commit suicide en mass.

Who Exactly Did The Media Attack?

There is agreement across our political spectrum in that the MSM did a horrific, but efficient, job of misinformation and manipulation of public opinion. Unfortunately, there is no agreement on who benefits from what was done, nor on how  that misinformation took shape.

Some people believe that Sanders was ignored by the media, while other believe that he was used to contrast his ‘honesty’ against Hillary’s perpetual dishonest personality; that Trump was unfairly attacked all the time, and some believe that Hillary was NOT attacked by the media, while other believe she was.

There are at least three reasons that explain the lack of agreement in that area.

One,  lack of understanding by regular folks about the art of misinformation and opinion-shaping (because it is an art taught in colleges). Second, because of the belief that freedom of press must be total in a democracy. In my opinion, total freedom of press is like saying that, if I can circumvent your home security system, you don’t need to fix it, just deal with me. And third, because the public ideological position is that the media, even though it belongs to a financial elite, doesn’t bring the owners’ class interests into their job. In other words, capitalist media owners are honest, they just want your ‘clicks’ for money.

This refusal to believe that Murdock or Bezos (WaPo) use the power of the media to advance their class interests is the gem of the elite class. This refusal to believe that there is a class interest behind their journalistic reports must be corroborated and protected at all cost.

Killary Clinton: Because She Is A Babies Killer

Hillary Clinton has been dodged by public lashing in the media since she was First Lady. Character assassination has been the tool used against her all along.

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation.

In May this year, comedian Jon Stewart implied that HC is a sociopath, even suggesting that she is not a human being:

Maybe a real person doesn’t exist underneath there.

That is the picture the media, from right to left, has given us this year. I discussed the history of this attack on her on this blog. Please, check it out.

Misogyny: Because We All Enjoy Attacking Women as Bitches

To be continued tomorrow.

https://wordpress.com/stats/day/crazyusaelections.wordpress.com?startDate=2016-11-11

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/berniebots-splitting-and-brainwashed/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-great-american-brainwash-half-a-billion-dollars-to-turn-the-public-against-hillary/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

Trump, Sanders, and the Myth of the Outsider

The Myth of The Outsider
The Outsider Becomes The Insider
Voters Angry At What?

The Myth of The Outsider

I will start by noting that  Trump’s  unshakable  appeal to the masses is, in part, the product of the success of the mainstream media (MSM) at implanting in the people’s mind the myth that the business elite and the oligarchs  are apolitical and outside of partisan politics in Congress and the presidency.

This myth is one of the oligarchs’ most valuable tool that must be kept intact in these presidential primaries, no matter how many politicians or which party may be hurt in the process of protecting said myth. That’s why they can’t attack Trump directly as a heartless billionaire, as an elitist who has been controlling politics from the outside, as a vulture whose businesses include taking advantage of and promoting the mental illness called compulsive gamblers… How many times have you read any headlines like this: ‘Heartless Billionaire Wants To Deport Illegal Families‘? Even when Trump himself brags about influencing politics by buying  politicians, no one in the MSM has used the opportunity to get rid of him using that headline bomb: Heartless Billionaire Wants To Deport Illegal Families

Yes, he is an ‘outsider’, but so is our oligarchy, and yet they control us all.  All the blame for the ‘corruption of the establishment’ must be cast, not on the oligarchy, but on the two parties and never outside of them. That myth of the outsider is one of the reasons why Trump is so difficult to defeat: to defeat him you must destroy the myth of the billionaires as ‘outsiders’.  To defeat him means that the elite will become  collateral damage. The only way to successfully attack Trump is attacking his business practices as a privileged elitist; instead, the MSM focuses on his racists tirades (never on him as a racist billionaire), as if the GOP is not as or more racist than he is. 

Same with Sanders, he is no “outsider’ either. Sanders as an ‘outsider’ is like saying that because your hair is outside your skull it is not part of your body. Are you kidding me? 30+ years in politics and in Congress…and he is ‘an outsider’?

Finally, sadly, the oligarchs are squashing the intra-GOP fire of Trump vs the globalists with the fire of the angry liberal/progressive  youngsters. These youngsters have been manipulated to solve the GOP’s elite problem by sending them to provoke him and his followers. The goal is to present Trump as the violent element who provokes angry reactions. Notice that the MSM, uncharacteristically, is excusing the youngsters actions as ‘righteous’ response to Trump’s racists comments and ‘policies’. It is that ‘excusing’ that evidences that the youngsters are being manipulated; compare the treatment the MSM gave to those same youngsters when they were ‘occupying’ Wall Street. They were called troublemakers then, never righteous protesters.

The Outsider Becomes the Insider

It should be  patently clear by now that this year’s presidential election process is not party politics as usual. I suggest that this political parallel universe we are experiencing has its origin on 9/11, the date the globalists and billionaires chose to shake the world and take control of each nations’ political system out in the open.

(I’m not advocating any conspiracy theory about who brought the towers down. I’m referring to the political consequences of 9/11.)

It is no secret that, before 9/11, these elitists  were controlling politics behind the curtain, as acknowledged  by a writer of the elite’s think-tank Brookings Institute: Typically billionaires seek to influence politics quietly and out of public viewBut now billionaires of all stripes have come out to take control of our nation’s politics because, after 9/11, they want to run the nation  like they run their corporations: with a global frame of mind. The new qualification to run for president of the USA is to be a ‘successful’ corporationista.

Bloomberg was the first billionaire to run for office (mayor of NY) on the heels of 9/11, and since then we have been feeling the presence in our politics and public institutions  of the billionaires of all industries, e.g.  Silicon Valley’s tech giants (controlling our nation’s health research priorities) and online business moguls like Amazon’s Bezos (who influences politics and public opinion through his ownership of the WaPo).

Back to the current presidential elections

As Larry Summers explained in his blog, the crisis we are witnessing in these presidential primaries process is the result of the success of globalism. Summers( and his class members) is very much aware of voters anger and has some suggestion on how to deal with it.

Voters Angry At What?

That’s the question the MSM doesn’t want you to ask nor will they ask in their 24hrs news shows. Suffice it to say, according to them, that the people are angry at the “party establishment“: keep moving folks, there’s nothing else to see here. But consider the following.

Chances are you would agree in that most Americans have been complaining about the economy and the outsourcing of jobs, about the high cost of health care services, student debt…Trump is telling them that he has heard them.

Chances are you would agree that globalism is in great measure the culprit for jobs having been outsourced. Trump has been telling them that he knows globalism is the culprit. He even describes the problem of globalism to the American voters in his colorful and entertaining Trumpist fashion.

And chances are you would agree that Wall Street and the financial sector’s rapacious greed is hurting the US and the rest of the world. Trump there again.

These are some of the causes behind voters anger which the oligarchs and the MSM don’t want the public to discuss in the presidential elections process, dismissing publicly the anger as the result of ‘party establishment dishonesty’. Even when the MSM discusses the economy as behind voters anger, it almost invariably fails to mention globalism. See, for example, this Bloomberg‘s analysis “Why voters will remain angry” were anger is disrupting global politics, instead of global politics causing the anger.

The oligarchs prefer to set both parties aflame with voters anger and not open for discussion the problem of globalism in the elections. They think that, once the fire consumes its nutrient, it is bound to die.

Except that this is wild-fire.

Trump and Sanders are the ‘arsonists’, but Trump is the true ‘revolutionary’ in this process. Sanders is not a threat to the elite, he is there to ‘bern’ the anger. Sanders has aimed his attacks exclusively at Hillary and the democratic party ‘corruption’.

Trump, however, doesn’t mince words, calling the problem as he sees it by its name:  the globalists and neo-conservatives in both parties are America’s problem. He has denounced the Bush administration by name, Reagan and everything the GOP considers sacrosanct. Trump’s foreign policy ‘manifesto’ was prepared for the American voter, not for the party, although in it he tells the GOP elite what he thinks of them. Trump is, at least today, more of a libertarian. He may change personality next week; we have to wait to see if this is his real self.

But Trump is not an ‘outsider’, nor is him a ‘revolutionary’. He is an exquisite con man who will destroy this nation as Comodo in Gladiator in Rome: by entertaining the mob while he was been a tyrant.

The myth of the oligarchs as outsiders keeps us blinded to the true source of our corrupt politics and misery.

If Not Hillary (And Certainly Not A Chance For Bernie), Then who?

I ended my previous post about how the elite is getting ready to quell the people’s anger stemming from the devastation produced by the success of globalism by saying this:

The oligarchs are as deep in this crisis as we are. But they are organized, they have traced their course and goals, they have a VISION. What does the left have?

The left has nothing to offer to the middle class. Well, maybe the Green Party does. Go cast your vote for whoever…

At the end of this elections cycle, we will end up exactly where we started: in the hands of the oligarchs.

That’s the sad truth, that’s exactly where we will all be when we wake up the morning of November 9, no matter who wins: Sanders, Hillary, Trump…

The elite is ready to rumble, but are we?

There are no options, none for the progressive middle class except the democratic party. The Green Party is not ready for its close-up. We have to vote for the democratic candidate. But if Sanders’ misguided and rabid Hillary-haters  followers have their way, the republicans will make the decision for us. Sanders and his followers have tarnished Hillary Clinton because she  lacks Sanders’ purity and perfection (the Vatican approved of his purity  and, in doing so, tried to mark Hillary as the ‘she-devil’), so there’s a risk she may not win the presidency.

They have made her the sole culprit for the debacle caused by globalism, they focus on her alone. Trump’s new moniker for her comes courtesy of Sanders and his followers who have joined the MSM in successfully portraying her as a subhuman entity devoid of morals. Those votes she lost to Sanders as the campaign progressed were lost because people started to believe Sanders’ and his followers’ message that she is immoral.

The leftist movement bears some of the guilt for that situation.

The left’s own monumental failure at reaching the middle  class is appalling because of the fact that, let alone the working class, humanity itself is about to collapse under the weight of the oppression by a handful of oligarchs, which makes them open to  the right message. But the left can’t communicate with the downtrodden they claim to be fighting for, and they seem to have forgotten how to organize the working class. Even Trump, a clownish wealthy entertainer, have easily found the words to explain his version of the evils of  globalism to a big segment of blue-collar America.

Instead, the left finds itself  joining the mass of people  deluded by the MSM’s bumper-sticker messages of ‘hope and change and ‘socialist-revolution’ marching towards the duopoly.

The left has fallen for the ‘Bernie revolution’ because they have not vetted him, just as they didn’t vet Obama. A revolution named after and based on worshiping a politician who has been part of the establishment for 30+ years should have been the first clue to the leftists that something was not kosher with that revolution. The fact that the MSM has refused to vet a ‘socialist’ should have also piqued their curiosity about him and his ‘revolution’.

The progressives have wasted their youth’s energy and money on helping Sanders corral them and march them in to the democratic party, the duopoly.  The left criticizes the ‘establishment’ but marches towards it in every election instead.

I imagine the ‘progressive’ Hillary-haters will spend the next four years, if she wins, battling against her instead of organizing the people so that in the next elections they have an alternative other than the duopoly.

So, if not Hillary and certainly not Sanders, then who, people? Trump? Are you serious? Is that all you’ve got to offer to the disappearing middle class?

Larry Summers: Presidential Elections Crisis Evidence That Globalism May Have Run Its Course

Introduction
Why Is Trump Causing A Crisis In The GOP?

Summers: Primaries Are Evidence Globalism Has Plateaued
What Is To Be Done? Weathering the Global Storm
Managing The Consequences Of Globalism
Summers’ Veiled Threat To Americans: Ostracize Trump or Else…
Conclusion: The Left’s Distorted Thinking

Introduction

I read in Black Agenda Report a comment  by Glen Ford about this primaries cycle similar to those found in other leftists blogs:  that the duopoly (the two-party system) is bankrupt, destabilized to the point of near collapse due to Trump and Sanders’ campaigns challenging each respective  party’s owners. In Ford’s words:

What makes this election season different is the crisis in the duopoly system, itself: the possibility that the U.S. corporate-controlled electoral arrangement might be shattered beyond repair by irresolvable fractures in both the Republican and Democratic camps, creating more space for a broad left politics in the United States.

He also says there:

On the Republican side, the fate of the duopoly hinges on whether the GOP’s corporate leaders will choose to coexist in the same party with Donald Trump, an unpredictable billionaire who cannot be counted on to support perpetual U.S. military occupation of the planet and race-to-the-bottom global trade deals.

Rest assured Glen, the elite will avert the crisis. As I will show in this post,  they are working on it as we speak.

Missing from Ford’s and the other leftists’ analysis is the why: Why is it that the oligarchy cannot handle run-of-the-mill entertainment mogul Donald Trump, allowing him to ‘sequester’ the GOP? Sanders is in the other party doing what Trump is doing in the GOP: he too is ‘denouncing’ the elite. But the democrats seem to be handling him better; the impending doom for them is not as palpable as in the GOP. I know, evil-Hillary has him by the neck.

But Sanders has never attacked the globalists directly.  His mantra has been  against the “0.1% of Wall Street and against Hillary Clinton as the evil witch who has corrupted our nation’s good CEOs. As of late his has focused exclusively on her. He has stated his support of globalism. That’s why he has not directly associated voter anger with globalism as Trump has; that’s why he (and HC) is not a threat to the elite. I’m not endorsing him, for crying out loud!

But I think there is something else: the constant on both parties is that which Ford dismissed in his article: ‘voter anger’.

angry - Copy

Since March 1 I have been writing (inartfully, for sure) in this blog (here, here and here) about the relation between voter anger, Trump, the globalists and Larry Summers, and as it so happens, not only the relation exists, but it should have been taken into account by the left long time ago. Had they done that, they would have saved themselves from the embarrassment and disappointment at getting sucked into the Sanders ‘revolution’ day-dreaming campaign and falling for Trump’s pseudo-anti-globalist ‘rebellion’.

Why Is Trump Causing A Crisis In The GOP?

I will discuss Larry Summers’ two recent articles that illuminate the real causes behind this presidential election cycle crisis. Let me frame the conversation.

I argued, in the posts links above, that this electoral crisis is due mostly to voters anger, an outcome  of globalism, and that the elite sees these elections as the evidence that they have inflicted as much pain and disruption as the  middle class and the global humanity are capable of withstanding without rebelling. I also suggested that the Trump effect, the disruption of the GOP’s order, is not due to his anti-globalist position, as the left has suggested.

Trump’s crime has been daring to open for public discussion the crimes of the globalist elite, inciting the anger of the middle class against the elite. Of course, that is Trumpism, i.e., opportunism; he just wants to get those votes, he is part of the ‘billionaire class’.  The regular people is not allowed to discuss the evils of globalism anywhere, least of all in their presidential elections. Trump opening the discussion merely for winning votes is the ultimate betrayal to the elitist class to which he belongs.

aim - Copy

Image from somewhere in the internet.

So let’s see what is it that Larry Summers wants Trump to stuff it.

Summers: Primaries Are Evidence That Globalism Has plateaued

What follows is based on these two articles:(a) Global trade should be remade from the bottom up
April 11th, 2016, and (b) Larry Summers: Donald Trump is a serious threat to American democracy March 1.

There is nothing surprising about these elections to the elite because they are watching the effects that their rapacious greed is having on humanity. Larry Summers made the diagnosis: the political crisis that is this presidential election cycle is  merely a symptom...of the success of globalism.

This [globalization] has proved more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. [On article (a)]

Summers is sort-of paraphrasing Trump: globalists have had so much success that they are saying “please, no more success”. But, seriously, Summers et al globalists are listening  to your complaints:

They read the revelations in the Panama Papers and conclude that globalisation offers a fortunate few the opportunities to avoid taxes and regulations that are not available to the rest. And they see the disintegration that accompanies global integration, as communities suffer when big employers lose to foreign competitors. [(a)]

poor - Copy

For Summers, the evidence that  globalism has plateaued, overachieved, is in our current presidential elections. The oligarchs have taken notice of the importance of this elections cycle:

Elites can continue pursuing and defending [global] integration, hoping to win sufficient popular support — but, on the evidence of the US presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. [a]

Yet a revolt against global integration is under way in the west. The four leading candidates for president of the US — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — all oppose the principal free-trade initiative of this period: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Proposals by Mr Trump, the Republican frontrunner, to wall off Mexico, abrogate trade agreements and persecute Muslims are far more popular than he is. [a]

candidtes - Copy

That last phrase, “far more popular than he is“, it says it all.

So there you have it: the elite is watching you and understands better than you do yourselves from where that anger is coming. How do they know that the damage has been done? Let’s just say… they know:

The core of the revolt against globalintegration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense, not wholly unwarranted, that it is a project carried out by elites for elites with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people — who see the globalisation agenda as being set by big companies playing off one country against another. [a]

So our dysfunctional presidential primaries show that the people are angry at globalization and can’t take it any longer. What is the elite to do to help us?

What Is To Be Done? Weathering the Global Storm

Globalism plateaued and there’s no way to convince the masses that it should be protected: the damage is beyond repair.

Elites can continue pursuing and defending integration, hoping to win sufficient popular support — but… this strategy may have run its course. [a]

The inevitability of popular unrest due to globalism having plateaued will result in a situation like that scene in the God Father were the mob went underground for cover after Michael killed Sollozzo: it was a “hiatus”.

This is likely to result in a hiatus in new global integration [a]

The elite will then concentrate on:

efforts to preserve what is in place while relying on technology and growth in the developing world to drive further integration. [a]

Like the God Father’s mob, the elite is weathering the storm.

solloazo - Copy


Managing The Consequences of Globalism

Voters fight with each other defending/attacking Trump and Sanders/Clinton: but Larry Summers knows how childish their fights are because he knows that they are fighting the wrong enemy. He also knows that they can be like an elephant walking in a ceramics store. The elite knows that the unmanaged anger will lead to chaos. So manage the anger they will.

Much more promising is this idea: the promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. [a]

Larry Summers doesn’t go deep in this article about how he envisions this “managing” of the consequences of globalization, except to say this:

This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonisation agreements, where issues such as labour rights and environmental protection would take precedence over issues related to empowering foreign producers. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions that escape tax or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did. [a]

One thing I can take from that quote: that our lives, our jobs, our unemployment, our education and entertainment, our housing…it has all been managed for us for a long long time, and will continue to be managed for us today. The solutions, the bandages or the profound alternatives to move away from this crisis will come from them.

They will use the MSM to ‘educate’ us, to influence our opinions, to tell us how to run our lives because, to them We the people are like children having a bad temper tantrum and who need to be disciplined. But he is afraid of the unruly children:

I have had a strong point of view on each of the last ten presidential elections, but never before had I feared that what I regarded as the wrong outcome would in the long sweep of history risk grave damage to the American project. [b]

Summers’ Veiled Threat To Americans: Ostracize Trump or Else…

soon - Copy

Thus Summers proceeds to give a warning to the American middle class, a veiled threat of what will happen to you if you don’t behave:

The United States has always been governed by the authority of ideas, rather than the idea of authority. Nothing is more important than to be clear to all Americans that the tradition of vigorous political debate and compromise will continue. The sooner Donald Trump is relegated to the margins of our national life, the better off we and the world will be. [b]

Did you see it, or am I misinterpreting that quote? Those two quotes tell a story: The elite will not allow you to disrupt their status quo, they  have no patient with you, so you will be better off ostracizing the Donald, not only from the campaign, but from our “national life”; and “the sooner” you do it, the better for you. If you elect Trump, you will be governed by “the idea of authority”, there will be no more compromises. But it is not Trump’s idea of authority: it’s the elite’s.

This veiled threat has been used before: by Bush Jr. in 2009 when he threatened to use martial law if the people refused to bail out the big financial and insurance corporations criminals.

Another thing that will “remain in place”, according to those quotes,  is the elite’s privilege to avoid paying taxes. Summers recommends to the elite to devote as much of  their financial and political resources to protect the “trillions that escape tax…” as they will devote to trade agreements.

Conclusion: The Left’s Distorted Thinking

These primaries are special. The reason the duopoly is in crisis is not because of Trump or Hillary; both parties are in crisis because of the middle class’ anger, because globalism has reached its peak.

In times of turmoil, it is expected that opportunist politicians will try catch the big fish out of the dark waters. Trump and Sanders are those politicians. Hillary Clinton? Well, you have wasted your energy on her: she is not the one running as the revolutionary or socialist. You chose to follow two of three of the worse evils. Instead of seeing what I have described here, you engaged in vilifying a woman as the sole corrupt element in the ‘establishment’. With all due respect, that is so male of you.

The oligarchs are as deep in this crisis as we are. But they are organized, they have traced their course and goals, they have a VISION. What does the left have?

Well, they are united in their Hate-Hillary fest. You allowed your emotions and, often, misogyny to take control of your mind. Your hatred lead you  to publicly consider the most shameful thought a leftist can have: voting for Trump. The amount of energy spent on vilifying HC was at least 3x higher than that spent on Trump, and 10x higher on advocating for Sanders. Your hatred distorted your thinking, made you forget that Trump could NOT POSSIBLY be the anti-globalist he has claimed he is: it was all an act. You forgot that he is a member of the elite; if he wins, he will bend over to the military and oligarchs bigger than he is.

The left has nothing to offer to the middle class. Well, maybe the Green Party does. Go cast your vote for whoever…

At the end of this elections cycle, we will end up exactly where we started: in the hands of the oligarchs.

Why aren’t we talking about Sanders’ foreign policy more?

 Election 2016
Bernie Sanders’ Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad
Why aren’t we talking about Sanders’ foreign policy more?
By Michael Arria / AlterNet
May 13, 2015

In his resignation letter to Sanders, former staffer Jeremy Brecher explained the Clinton administartion’s position at the time. “While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo,” wrote Brecher, “…The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.”

Brecher’s note to Sanders closes with a set of rhetorical questions, “Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take? My answers led to my resignation.”

The attack on Kosovo is hardly the extent of Sanders’ hawkishness. While it’s true he voted against the Iraq War, he also voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. More recently, he voted in favor of a $1 billion aid package for the coup government Ukraine and supported Israel’s assault on Gaza. At a town hall meeting he admitted that Israel may have “overreacted”, but blamed Hamas for the entire conflict. After a woman asked why he refused to condemn Israel’s actions, he told critics: “Excuse me! Shut up! You don’t have the microphone.”

Brecher’s entire letter to Sanders can be read below. The bombing of Kosovo killed between 489 and 528 civilians.

May 4, 1999

Congressman Bernie Sanders
2202 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC, 20515

Dear Bernie,

This letter explains the matters of conscience that have led me to resign from your staff.

I believe that every individual must have some limit to what acts of military violence they are willing to participate in or support, regardless of either personal welfare or claims that it will lead to a greater good. Any individual who does not possess such a limit is vulnerable to committing or condoning abhorrent acts without even stopping to think about it.

Those who accept the necessity for such a limit do not necessarily agree regarding where it should be drawn. For absolute pacifists, war can never be justified. But even for non-pacifists, the criteria for supporting the use of military violence must be extremely stringent because the consequences are so great. Common sense dictates at least the following as minimal criteria:

The evil to be remedied must be serious.

The genuine purpose of the action must be to avert the evil, not to achieve some other purpose for which the evil serves as a pretext.

Less violent alternatives must be unavailable.

The violence used must have a high probability of in fact halting the evil.

The violence used must be minimized.

Let us evaluate current U.S. military action in Yugoslavia against each of these tests. Evil to be remedied:

We can agree that the evil to be remedied in this case — specifically, the uprooting and massacre of the Kosovo Albanians — is serious enough to justify military violence if such violence can ever be justified. However, the U.S. air war against Yugoslavia fails an ethical test on each of the other four criteria.

Purpose vs. pretext: The facts are incompatible with the hypothesis that U.S. policy is motivated by humanitarian concern for the people of Kosovo:

In the Dayton agreement, the U.S. gave Milosevic a free hand in Kosovo in exchange for a settlement in Bosnia.

The U.S. has consistently opposed sending ground forces into Kosovo, even as the destruction of the Kosovar people escalated. (While I do not personally support such an action, it would, in sharp contrast to current U.S. policy, provide at least some likelihood of halting the attacks on the Kosovo Albanians.)

According to the New York Times (4/18/99), the U.S. began bombing Yugoslavia with no consideration for the possible impact on the Albanian people of Kosovo. This was not for want of warning. On March 5, 1999, Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema met with President Clinton in the Oval Office and warned him that an air attack which failed to subdue Milosevic would result in 300,000 to 400,000 refugees passing into Albania and then to Italy. Nonetheless, “No one planned for the tactic of population expulsion that has been the currency of Balkan wars for more than a century.” (The New York Times, 4/18/99). If the goal of U.S. policy was humanitarian, surely planning for the welfare of these refugees would have been at least a modest concern.

Even now the attention paid to humanitarian aid to the Kosovo refugees is totally inadequate, and is trivial compared to the billions being spent to bomb Yugoslavia. According to the Washington Post (4/30/99), the spokeswoman for the U.N. refugee agency in Macedonia says, “We are on the brink of catastrophe.” Surely a genuine humanitarian concern for the Kosovars would be evidenced in massive emergency airlifts and a few billion dollars right now devoted to aiding the refugees.

While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo. Such proposals have been made by Russia, by Milosevic himself, and by the delegations of the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma who met recently with yourself as a participant. The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.

Less violent alternatives: On 4/27/99 I presented you with a memo laying out an alternative approach to current Administration policy. It stated, “The overriding objective of U.S. policy in Kosovo — and of people of good will — must be to halt the destruction of the Albanian people of Kosovo. . . The immediate goal of U.S. policy should be a ceasefire which halts Serb attacks on Kosovo Albanians in exchange for a halt in NATO bombing.” It stated that to achieve this objective, the United States should “propose an immediate ceasefire, to continue as long as Serb attacks on Kosovo Albanians cease. . . Initiate an immediate bombing pause. . . Convene the U.N. Security Council to propose action under U.N. auspices to extend and maintain the ceasefire. . . Assemble a peacekeeping force under U.N. authority to protect safe havens for those threatened with ethnic cleansing.” On 5/3/99 you endorsed a very similar peace plan proposed by delegations from the US Congress and the Russian Duma. You stated that “The goal now is to move as quickly as possible toward a ceasefire and toward negotiations.” In short, there is a less violent alternative to the present U.S. air war against Yugoslavia.

High probability of halting the evil: Current U.S. policy has virtually no probability of halting the displacement and killing of the Kosovo Albanians. As William Safire put it, “The war to make Kosovo safe for Kosovars is a war without an entrance strategy. By its unwillingness to enter Serbian territory to stop the killing at the start, NATO conceded defeat. The bombing is simply intended to coerce the Serbian leader to give up at the negotiating table all he has won on the killing field. He won’t.” (the New York Times, 5/3/99) The massive bombing of Yugoslavia is not a means of protecting the Kosovars but an alternative to doing so.

Minimizing the consequences of violence. “Collateral damage” is inevitable in bombing attacks on military targets. It must be weighed in any moral evaluation of bombing. But in this case we are seeing not just collateral damage but the deliberate selection of civilian targets, including residential neighborhoods, auto factories, broadcasting stations, and hydro-electric power plants. The New York Times characterized the latter as “The attack on what clearly appeared to be a civilian target.” (5/3/99) If these are acceptable targets, are there any targets that are unacceptable?

The House Resolution (S Con Res 21) of 4/29/99 which “authorizes the president of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with the United States’ NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” supports not only the current air war but also its unlimited escalation. It thereby authorizes the commission of war crimes, even of genocide. Indeed, the very day after that vote, the Pentagon announced that it would begin “area bombing,” which the Washington Post (4/30/99) characterized as “dropping unguided weapons from B-52 bombers in an imprecise technique that resulted in large-scale civilian casualties in World War II and the Vietnam War.”

It was your vote in support of this resolution that precipitated my decision that my conscience required me to resign from your staff. I have tried to ask myself questions that I believe each of us must ask ourselves:

Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take?

My answers led to my resignation.

Sincerely yours,

Jeremy Brecher