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.

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

The Day After Hillary Wins-The MSM Kills Her, and Trump Appeals to Berniebots

I watched David Axelrod, Obama’s former campaign ad guru, at CNN doing a ‘Killing me softly” version on Hillary Clinton (HC) last night, the NY primaries day. It looked ominous because he proved in the 2008 primaries that he is an expert at killing Hillary.

He kept saying that HC, in order to not provoke Sanders’s followers, whom she may need if she wins the nomination, should not respond to his attacks against her and should not get angry. He dismissed Sanders’ dirty tactics of character assassination and lies against her. The implication was that she should be a good-girl and ignore the bully.

But that’s how he, Axelrod, ran his Obama campaign against her: he made her look ‘bitchy’ whenever she responded to Obama’s character assassination tactics. It’s no secret that Obama  and Axelrod, together, and Hillary are not in ‘good terms’ with each other.

That’s how Hillary is going to lose the elections: the MSM, Obama’s representative (Axelrod) there and the GOP will shred her to smithereens with misogyny, character assassination and outright lies. Today, less than 16hrs since her NY victory, the WaPo has this headline: The Take: Clinton got what she needed, but her image is underwater. The NY Times asks Sanders to stay in the race but makes no reference to his negative campaign threatening to handle the presidency to Trump.

The MSM is part and parcel of the presidential election process. They have more power to shape opinions than the politicians themselves. If the MSM is against you, you have an uphill battle to fight.

The only good news is that Gloria Borger, CNN’s Chief Political Analyst, who have been constantly bashing HC, showed a sign that women are finally noticing the misogynistic hack job that is been done on her. Gloria actually, somehow meekly, managed to respond to Axelrod’s comment observing that, as they were discussing (that democrats should start attacking Trump)

whenever Hillary tries to focus on Trump, Bernie gets under her skin an starts accusing her and bringing the emails, and she then has to pivot back to Bernie to respond to the accusations”.

Axelrod went actually mute: he couldn’t respond. The MSM is not 100% efficient, as shown by Trump’s and Hillary’s continued staying power despite the personal attacks. But the fact that  Sanders won Upstate New York prove that they have a powerful effect. The MSM has never criticized Sanders nor vetted his record; they attack Hillary if she responds to his smearing campaign. That’s how he won Upstate New York.

You can check my research on WaPo’s negative articles on HC and the positive for Sanders here.

Axelrod and Gloria Borger talking to each other. Old snapshot, clearly.

Trump Appeals to Berniebots

Trump, on the other side of the aisle, last night displayed his new tactic for recruiting ‘democratic’ voters: appealing to berniebots. He, ever so innocently, said:

I don’t like that Bernie guy, but what is  going there with the super delegates is worse, worse here.

The man is not the moron we all thought he is. He is effective in his conning. The purpose of that statement he made was to lure the berniebots whom he knows are expressing the idea of supporting him and not Hillary. All he has to do is sweeten his bait and they will flock to him. The honey in this case is ‘victimhood‘: he, just like Sanders, is a victim of the ‘establishment’. He wants to  commensurate with Sanders’ followers. ‘I have more in common with you than you with Hillary’, that is his message to them.

And bite they will.

Bernie Sanders And The Left’s Inability to Learn From Recent History (End)(Revised)

It’s time to tackle Sanders and Hillary.

Sanders Campaign is Not A Movement (This heading was recently added.)

Sanders sat with his wife sometime last year and discussed with her, and maybe with some friends, whether to run for president or not. He filed the required federal forms and off he went. Did he meet with the progressives and devised a campaign with goals set and determined by all? Is he responsible  or accountable to those progressives supporting him and giving their money to him  in any form? Is his campaign open for his berniebots to give him input on what issues to include in his platform? No, no, and no.

Sanders  is running is a very successful campaign that surprised even himself in it success. The millions of dollars he is raising from his poor followers, at the end of the campaign that money goes to…him. He doesn’t return that money to them. At the end of the campaign he just packs his bags and flies back to Vermont. What happens now to all that anger and ‘hope’ his followers berned for him provoking Trump’s followers at those rallies, even getting physically hurt?

Was Obama a movement? What happened to it after he won?

But the illusion of a ‘revolution’ is a pretty one. So let the frustrated and inept leftists and communists join with saint Sanders. Is like I said in that post linked there (um, sorry for quoting myself):

Unappealing Socialists

Let’s start with a socialist truism: there is no revolution without the masses. Today, a  70+ years old politician with 30+ years of experience participating in the capitalist’s electoral process, with no (official) affiliation to any of the US political parties or organizations, a self-proclaimed independent socialist whose major success has been convincing, for the last 30 years, a sector of his state’s progressives and working class to elect him as their representative in the oligarchs’ house of political power…that politician is commanding a whopping 6,045,960  followers, mostly youngsters (as of 4/6/16) who want to elect him president of the USA.

Our socialists look at that picture and, because they are human beings, can feel nothing but envy…because they haven’t been able to appeal to their own family in that way for the last 30 years.

Yes, the left have been buying this delusion since Obama. That’s why they hate Hillary Clinton: it’s not because she is the evil witch corrupting Wall Street.  It is because she does not offer or promise dreams to the sleeping left.

Sanders the Saint

Like Obama before him, Sanders is presenting himself as a unique, mystic-like personality. He is not your run-of-mill politician, according to his worshiping followers, despite the fact that he has been in politics for the last 30 years of his life.  No, he is a step away from sainthood, thus his supposedly impetuous trip to the Vatican to crawl over the marbled floors there begging for a photo-op with the Pope.

You can refer to the first part of this post to read about his sainthood. Same conclusion: if the left is, again, buying this distorted picture of this politician…I can’t even muster the words to complete that sentence. But buying it they are.

So, we could say that since Obama, the oligarchs have fineness the art of giving the oppressed workers for their elections caricatures, video game characters to make them believe that the establishment is providing real options: hey, Obama, Trump, Sanders…there are your red leaders!

On close examination, they are worse than the old type of politicians.

Sanders’ record in Congress and as a mayor in Burlington has not been touched by the MSM; berniebots would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. But the record is there.

Sanders the Orwellian

Sanders has a unique gift, as compared to Obama. He is not poetic, but he is crafty at justifying voting against the working class and making it look as something good and necessary…or claiming victim-hood.

The Minutemen Militia ‘incident’

We have him on record as a supporter of a racist group. We don’t have Hillary on record as supporting them or the KKK, though. He did vote to give them power, and then claimed he thought he was voting for some amendment codifying Congress laws, that the Minutemen amendment was ‘slipped’ through into the bill by republicans.

militia

This is 20015. They were overjoyed by his announcement of running for POTUS.

Then, when confronted with his record of voting in favor of  bailing out the Auto industry, he gave the explanation he has consistently given when confronted with his support of the oligarchs: it was for the good of the working class:

Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the $700 billion bail out of the financial services industry but he says this package is different: (Sanders) “The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.”

Of course, the auto industry ended up firing thousands of workers and pocketed the bailout money, something NO ONE could have expected, could they?

He had the same explanation for voting against the Immigration Reform bill: it was not good enough, so let’s leave things the way they are. He never offered alternatives.

When confronted about his vote protecting the Minutemen militia, he claimed victim hood.

He has said that all his life he has stood with the working class and that big donors corrupt politicians:

  • He voted for the financial and insurance corporations’ bail out.
  • Anti-union company American Crystal Sugar was his top donor in 2012. The company engages in union-busting workers lockout.
  • More Super Pac money was spent supporting him in Iowa than HC and O’Malley together.
  • He voted against the invasion of Iraq but then gave Bush all the money and funds needed to do the job. He has funded EVERY war we have engaged since then.
  • Voted Yes for the invasion of Yugoslavia (1998) and the massacre of over 200k innocent Serbian men, women and children who did not participate in any previous “atrocities” used as excuse to kill them. Then arrested anti-war progressives who occupied his office for supporting Bill Clinton’s war.
  • In 1994 he voted yes for the federal 3-strikes law for mandatory life sentence.
  • He is against Israel’s use of “excessive force” in Gaza: that’s not a pro-Palestinian stand. He agreed with the attack, it should just have been ‘more measured’.
  • He doesn’t believe Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.

The list goes on-and-on.

  • He voted to fund the military industry, had progressives arrested, when he was mayor, for protesting in front of Lockheed the millions of dollars given to them to build armaments with which to kill other poor and working class people around the globe.

He is a hawk, just as he denounces HC is.

  • He is pro-drones,
  • He is pro-torture.
  • He is pro-keeping Gitmo open.

The Hamilton Project, Again

I covered that too. He spoke to The Brooking Institution, the parent organization of THP.

Look, the man is far far away from being a saint. He is just another tool of the oligarchs. He is the bait to drag the working class into the two-party system, together with Trump.

You can’t cry ‘traitor’ later when his true class positions were announced in his record, and when you should know by now that politicians pay to experts in psychological brainwashing for opinion-shaping.

As with Obama, Sanders has not been vetted. His record has been left untouched and defended with claims of sanctity: he never lies.

There is a lot of material in this blog for you to check him out. You can accept it, question it, corroborate it…but you should not sit there accepting this picture of him as a unique, moral politician. The man is a proven racist and a liar.

But the left is willfully blind to this. They just want to hear the words ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’ to relief that tension. Now they are daydreaming.

Hillary Clinton

Who is claiming that she is a saint? Who?!

This woman is the most vetted politician on this planet. The things you don’t know about her politics… you can imagine them.

To me, Bush, Obama, Sanders, Hillary…they are all equally guilty of betraying the working class and all of them have third-world people’s blood in their hands.

But every four years we are dragged into this delusion that voting matters. It would matter if we had a working class third-party not controlled by the oligarchs. But we don’t have that, do we? We have no other alternative, none at all, than to vote for the ‘least of two evils’, or for the Green Party or any of the other ones outside the duopoly.

The problem is that none of those are ready for their close up. Instead of joining the dem party, Sanders should have run independent and/or build that third-party. But he is there for himself. Until then…

So, why HC? You might as well ask: Why is the MSM and the establishment bashing her, again? Yes, she gets money, but so does Sanders (under the table). Why is she been portrait as the evil witch, as if we were able to get rid of her the world will become an Eden, WS would grow a heart only if we could kill her?

Her nomination is not guaranteed yet; the oligarchs want the ‘populist’ for the reasons discussed before: channel the anger into the duopoly. Hillary is not doing that, she is offering ameliorating the problems. She has a plan, not perfect, but Sanders offers only slogans. The oligarchs prefer that to a woman who may actually put the reigns on them.

So why her? Because we know her. You can vote for her and have at hand how you are going to go to the streets and fight her. You couldn’t do that with Obama bc you wouldn’t hurt the man you were in love with. And, if you vote for Sanders, you wouldn’t protest his policies for the same reasons. Obama destroyed the anti-war movement and no one heard a cry from below. He bashed the OWS movement and no one came to their rescue. Hillary, she can expect we will be all over her if she doesn’t deliver because nobody sees her as a saint.

But I believe that, given all we know about HC, we also know that she has taken a stand for women and Blacks and Palestinians, more palpable than your typical male politicians and presidents. Yes, for Palestinians, when she was a FLOTUS, and for that she was vilified.

Hillary is not lying to you, she is basically telling you ‘this is who I am, but I can be persuaded’. You will not be disappointed by her because you are going aware of what to expect from her. The opposite can be said of voting for Sanders: you will be disappointed because you don’t know his true identity.

I believe she can be persuaded. I believe she will protect women’s rights from republicans and democrats destroying them.

Finally, for 200 years we have elected men, totally imperfect men. Why do we demand from a woman that she be perfect? By that standard, we will never have a woman president. Obama became evidence that we can now vote independently of skin color.

We need to do the same about gender.

Until that third-party materializes, I’m voting for Hillary today.

 

 

Sanders and The Two-Party System: Moving The US Towards Fascism

In this post I discuss:

  • How Sanders and the  two-party system have destroyed the progressive movement
  • How his betrayal is pushing his followers  from the extreme left to the extreme right of the political spectrum as they see Trump as an alternative to vilified Hillary Clinton (HC) and, finally,
  • That his followers’ movement towards Trump presages our nation moving towards fascism.
  • I also discuss why HC is the proverbial sacrificial lamb in this process of destroying the progressive  movement.

First, consider these YouTube videos titles:

  • Hillary and the True Beast She Is.
  • Clinton Insider Reveals Hillary’s Lesbian Sexcapades
  • Hillary Clinton – A TRUE STORY OF SEX, DRUGS & MURDER
  • Carly Fiorina Knows All About Hillary’s Sex Life
  • Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal
  • hillary clinton and huma

There are millions of videos like these, and worse, there.

I checked videos for Dick Cheney: they were all about him being a war criminal and making a profit out of the Iraq invasion. For President George W. Bush, the videos were even cute: there were “GWBush bloopers” and other ‘funny’ takes on “Bushisms”. In other words, their moral character and their manhood, their masculine sexual qualities are not questioned…ever. They are human beings…who do bad things.

But those videos ‘inform’ us that Hillary Clinton is not human, there is no possible redemption for her as a human being because she is an unnatural beast.

You would think that republicans made those videos.  I have bad news for you: most of the videos were made by ‘democrats’ and ‘progressives’, i.e., by Sanders followers.

Hillary Clinton is not the caricature portrayed in those videos, and she is definitely not worse than the other two guys, not even if compared base on their politics, nor even as a human being. So what gives?

The Times They Are A-Changin’

If voting were to change anything, it would be illegal.

Yes, they are changing, but is not the ‘change’ you voted for when you voted for Obama.

In the  2008 elections the oligarchs learned that the voter anger that came as a consequence of the post-9/11  economical and political changes could be contained and diffused in the electoral process with the help of charismatic leaders promising to change and ‘clean’ the system.

Today they are offering you more  ‘charismatic’ and popular leaders: Sanders and Trump. Is no coincidence that they both are talking the same language of “corrupt establishment”.

Keep in mind that in 2008 HC, despite having been the preferred nominee in the beginning, became the target of a brutal misogynistic campaign attack from the democratic party and the MSM that portrayed her as the evil witch of the status quo. She was unpolitely asked to cede her candidacy to the charismatic candidate paving the path to bring the angry voters into a liberating communion of hope and change. The same thing is happening to her today.

Voter anger

Today voters have more than good reasons to be angry, on both sides of the aisle. There’s no need to go into the causes of that anger here. The question here is What do they do with that anger?

Sanders,  the two-party system (2ps) and the art of killing a populist movement

The modern purpose and function of the 2ps is to channel and dissipate voters anger in its electoral process, that’s why the ‘establishment’ protects it with tooth and nail.

Nothing threatens the status quo of the US oligarchs more than the prospect of having a viable third-party, not even ‘evil’ Hillary. That’s why the GOP forced the Donald into signing that pledge, remember? And that’s one of the reasons why B. Sanders has remained an “independent” in Congress: to divide and conquer; keep the power concentrated in the hands of the oligarchs.

For all his chest-beating shouts about “revolution”, “socialism” and being against “the billionaire class”, Sanders has never ventured outside of Congress to form a party to challenge the ‘establishment’. He is part and parcel of that establishment and has  promised many times publicly to protect the democratic party. He doesn’t even have a record of supporting other independents running for elected positions. On the contrary.

Sanders, the  great anti-establishment independent, was adamant in protecting the party from another independent by giving his unconditional support to Kerry over Nader in the 2004 presidential elections. In doing so, Sanders can receive credit for  these dubious achievements:

  • He helped in killing the momentum to create a viable third-party.
  • He blamed, not only Nader, but the third-party option for Bush winning over Kerry.
  • The psychological impact of blaming Nader for Americans having to endure the atrocious second Bush administration has cemented the voters into the 2ps. The third-party is now further away than it was in 2004.

Independently of  how democrats feel about Nader, in the eyes of the leftists and progressives Sanders betrayed the progressive movement by siding with the democratic party.

Sanders’ job in Congress all these years  has been  to give voters the illusion  that there is third option in the electoral process in his state of Vermont against the establishment, and that he represents that option. He has done his job superbly well considering his record of voting against the interests of his supporters.

Now he is doing it again now.

And that takes us to today’s primaries.

The Primaries: The Escape Valve

Sanders is running in the “corrupt party”…because the party needs him to run in it, and he does as they tell him to do.

The  DNC asked him to run  as a democrat to give the appearance that  the 2ps, and the democratic party in particular, offers real alternatives to the voters, not only the usual pro-establishment candidates. Appearances are important in a ‘democracy’. They roll the dice and if Sanders can repeat Obama’s feast, offering the pie in the sky to pacify the raucous voters, the party will again sacrifice Hillary in the altar of misogyny. Also, the anger resulting from ‘no change‘ and from the continued attacks on the middle class and the police-state is getting out of hand and has morphed into  the Occupy and BLM movements. It needs to be diffused: ‘out of the streets and into the party’ (paraphrasing “out of the closet and into street”).

So, once again the owners of the DNC recruit Sanders to impersonate ‘change’.

Sanders’ aura as an “independent” and of being in touch with the grassroots movement is a coup. He is The Pied Piper of Vermont  bringing  those pesky disorganized and drifting angry youngsters who have been challenging the status quo into the abyss of the primaries to burn and dissipate their energy (feeling the bern?) in the electoral process. That’s one of the reasons the MSM has given free press to Sanders and Trump, to stir the belligerent youngsters in the party, burn them there and render them inoffensive and malleable.

With no third-party option because Sanders helped destroy it, our  angry youngsters have no other option but to enter the 2ps…to see their anger manipulated and misdirected.

Trump is channeling the conservative angry voters and Sanders the “progressives”. They are the escape valve to dissipate all that righteous anger. Hillary and the other candidates represent the status quo, but Hillary in particular has been made the target of the youthful anger. The oligarchs, they own the 2ps, they win no matter who wins the primaries and the elections: each and every candidate in these elections is part of the ‘establishment’ and is there to protect it. But more important, they are there to protect the oligarchs themselves. That’s why Sanders vilifies Hillary, and seldom focus his ‘ire’ on the WS CEOs personally.

The only real alternative for the working class, the middle and poor classes, is to have a third-party not controlled  by the owners of the two parties. Until that ideal condition materializes, we are stuck in the duopoly; forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

And now we enter into the danger posed by Sanders and his followers.

The Angry Bots Are On The Loose

Given that Sanders have lured the angry young voters into the electoral process with his magical ‘revolution’, they have to be given a reason to stay there. They are being made to believe that the party needs their youthful anger to change the party, and that their only obstacle is HC. That’s why Sanders continues to bash her with impunity. Every time he does it, his followers experience a bout of  ecstasy.

But it is becoming clear to them that, once again, the democratic party is not willing to deliver on change; worse, is not willing to kill HC. and is not willing to let them bring the revolution to the party.  Sanders committed the mistake of eliminating himself from the contest by  his bullying and unsophisticated attacks on Hillary; he didn’t learn from Obama.

So, they are still looking to put their energy into a ‘political revolution’. Donald Trump is their next hope.

This is where the wheels come off the cart.

A bit closer to fascism

Even though Trump is running as a republican (he is a political weather vane, really), even though he has espouse racist and crude misogynistic feelings, even though he represents the opposite of what leftists and socialist stand for, Sanders followers find in Trump an alternative, not to the ‘corrupt establishment’, but to HC,  the avatar of that system.

Sanders’ followers obsession with HC shows to us that they are not well versed with the concepts they use as their motto: revolution and socialism,  and Sanders has been good at keeping them in the dark about them.

They are not fighting the oligarchs nor are they trying to change the class structure in the USA. They are fighting HC  who, in their eyes, represent all that is bad with humanity. She is the Goldstein of “1984”. They have poured all their anger and hatred into that one person, anything is better than her, even Trump. Considering that Sanders is not willing to,  figuratively?,  kill HC, and ‘older’ voters seem determined to elect her, for his followers the next best thing  is to follow the other ‘charismatic’ leader against the establishment: Trump. What is it they want from him?

They want Trump  to kill her, to humiliate and ridicule her as he has done with his opponents; they want him to show no mercy for her. That’s their ‘revolution’.

The danger

Sanders followers have shown their ignorance about the ‘revolution’, and that they are easily doped by charismatic leaders to the point of moving towards the right of the political spectrum…and that they are very angry and willing to act on it. The oligarchs have taken note and have started to use them as tools to repress other sectors of the working class and cultural groups.

The GOP is resolving its internal divisions, their fight with  “non-conservative” Trump, by manipulating the anger of the Sanders supporters and having them attack Trump to make him look ‘un-electable’. That they can do it so easily should worry every American.

The coordinated violent provocations at Trump’s rally smack of 1940s German fascists. “Berniebots” harassing  anyone who disagrees with them is now notorious, and gets them closer to their new alternate hero, Trump.  The scary part of this picture is that the oligarchs, through their MSM, have given their seal of approval for that behavior by saying that it has all been provoked by Trump’s ‘racist’ comment. Funny to see the MSM (Fox in particular) and the oligarchs complaining about racist comments from Trump.

Sanders too has done his part in creating and giving the seal of approval to this fascist behavior, and his party condones him. Now his supporters go to HC’s activities to provoke her and her followers.

Summing up, these fascist tactics and attacks are now part of our culture. Don’t expect them to go away after the elections.

Sanders helped the dem party kill the progressive movement, the anti-war movement and the third-party option. There are no options for the working and middle classes to fight the oligarchs. Americans are married to cut-throat capitalism.

Sanders effectiveness at betraying the progressive movement makes him the least qualified to be elected, and the most dangerous to us if he is.

Trump is what we all know he is. He is not an alternative either.

That leaves Hillary Clinton. She is not hiding anything. We know what she can and can’t give us. For the last 200 years we have elected men; it’s time to give a woman a chance. Hillary can’t be worse than the men who have ruled us since 9/11. Look at her record and you will find an imperfect politician who has tried to help the middle class, women and children and the poor.

Until the conditions for the third-party materializes, she is the least of all the evils, she is our only option in these elections. After the elections, the progressives and leftists should concentrate in making the Green Party a viable alternative to the next elections. Otherwise, it will be more of the same.

BIG: Bernie Admits Hillary NOT Accountable for Iraq Deaths, Attacking Her Is ‘Tit for Tat’ – Blue Nation Review

In one interview, Bernie just obliterated one of the most unjust and insidious attack lines against Hillary.

Source: BIG: Bernie Admits Hillary NOT Accountable for Iraq Deaths, Attacking Her Is ‘Tit for Tat’ – Blue Nation Review

Bernie Sanders: Silent partner of American militarism – World Socialist Web Site

Bernie Sanders: Silent partner of American militarism

By Patrick Martin
27 August 2015

Bernie Sanders now leads frontrunner Hillary Clinton in polls of Democratic voters in New Hampshire, the first state to hold a primary, and he is closing the gap in Iowa, the first caucus state, and in national polling as well. The Vermont senator continues to attract large crowds, favorable media attention (including a flattering front-page report in the New York Times August 21), and a flood of campaign contributions.

The flaccid and unimaginative media punditry has largely ignored a significant void in the Sanders campaign. The White House aspirant has offered not the slightest hint of what he would do as commander in chief. Four months into the campaign, Sanders makes little or no reference to foreign and military policy in his stump speech. The subject of foreign policy is not even addressed on the Sanders campaign web site, which lists 10 topics, all of them concerned with domestic policy.

A report on Yahoo News August 24 raises the question of “How President Bernie Sanders would handle foreign policy.” It begins by taking note of this curious fact: “Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has a special ‘War and Peace’ section on his official website, detailing his views on issues like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East peace process. Bernie Sanders, the contender for the Democratic presidential nomination … doesn’t.”

The report goes on to detail the positions that Sanders has taken on a range of foreign policy issues, based on his voting record as a congressman and senator. His profile is typical of liberal Democrats, supporting the Clinton administration’s war against Serbia in 1999 and the Bush administration’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, while voting against the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq in 2002. Sanders criticized Obama’s bombing of Libya in 2011—mainly because he did not seek congressional authorization—but backed his bombing of Iraq and Syria in 2014.

Sanders is a down-the-line supporter of the state of Israel, repeatedly endorsing Israeli onslaughts against the Gaza Strip, most recently the savage bombardment of July-August 2014 which killed nearly 2,000 Palestinians, including more than 500 children. At an August 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders notoriously demanded that audience members “shut up” when they questioned his support for Israel’s criminal actions.

He is a vociferous opponent of China in both economic and foreign policy, and backed the US intervention in Ukraine to foment a coup spearheaded by fascist elements to overthrow the pro-Russian government and set up a pro-Western stooge regime. “The entire world has got to stand up to Putin,” Sanders declared last year, at a time when the warmongering campaign in the US and European media was at its height.

Yahoo News summed up the candidate’s foreign policy profile as follows: “The picture that emerges is less that of a firebrand anti-war radical than a pragmatic liberal who regards military force as a second choice in almost any situation—but a choice that sometimes must be made.”

CBS News, in a profile of Sanders last week, noted his general alignment with the foreign policy of the Obama administration, including its war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, its nuclear agreement with Iran, and its decision to normalize relations with Cuba.

The continued silence of Sanders on foreign and military policy has become something of an embarrassment to some of his left-liberal supporters. In a commentary published earlier this month on the web site of Al Jazeera America, media critic Norman Solomon, after expressing enthusiastic support for Sanders on domestic and economic issues, complained of the candidate’s refusal to address issues of militarism and military spending.

Solomon continues: “The same omissions were on display at an Iowa Democratic Party annual dinner on July 17, when Sanders gave a compelling speech but made no reference to foreign affairs. Hearing him talk, you wouldn’t have a clue that the United States is in its 14th year of continuous warfare. Nor would you have the foggiest inkling that a vast military budget is badly limiting options for the expanded public investment in college education, infrastructure, clean energy and jobs that Sanders is advocating.”

Sanders is not only generally aligned with Obama administration foreign policy, he has refused to specify a single weapons program or Pentagon project that he would cut or eliminate if elected in 2016. He is a longstanding backer of the most expensive US weapons program, the $1.4 trillion F-35 fighter jet, some of which are to be based in Burlington, Vermont, his hometown.

The so-called “socialist” has voted repeatedly for vast Pentagon appropriations bills, maintaining funding of the wars he was (rhetorically) opposed to, as well as funding for the CIA, NSA and the rest of the vast American intelligence apparatus, the infrastructure for police-state spying against the American people.

So right-wing is his record on foreign and military policy that even his most craven apologists, the pseudo-left groups Socialist Alternative and the International Socialist Organization, have been compelled to complain about it, although this has not stopped them hailing the Sanders campaign as a huge advance and openly supporting a candidate for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.

In a lengthy profile of Sanders, Dan LaBotz of the ISO describes Sanders’ foreign policy views as “a big problem,” adding, “What this record makes clear is that Sanders has no consistent and principled position against US imperialism.” This is a gross distortion: Sanders is a longtime proven defender of US imperialism, not a half-hearted or inconsistent opponent.

LaBotz continues: “Sanders’ program makes no mention of the military. While he calls himself a socialist, Sanders’ foreign policy and military policy remain in line with corporate capitalism, militarism, and imperialism.”

In other words, Sanders has nothing in common with the internationalist principles on which genuine socialism is based. He is cut from the same cloth as Tony Blair, the British “Labor” prime minister who was the junior partner of George W. Bush in perpetrating the criminal war in Iraq, and François Hollande, the French “Socialist” president who is Obama’s junior partner in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and throughout Africa.

Source: Bernie Sanders: Silent partner of American militarism – World Socialist Web Site

The Left’s Envy of Populist Sanders

Today, most of socialist and communist groups in the USA are feeling the bern…in the same way they felt the “hope” in the 2008 primaries.

After having read some of their analysis online justifying their support of Bernie Sanders, it is clear to me that what lies behind that support is…envy. OK, don’t go away yet. Let me explain.

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
Vladimir Lenin

Unappealing Socialists

Let’s start with a socialist truism: there is no revolution without the masses. Today, a  70+ years old politician with 30+ years of experience participating in the capitalist’s electoral process, with no (official) affiliation to any of the US political parties or organizations, a self-proclaimed independent socialist whose major success has been convincing, for the last 30 years, a sector of his state’s progressives and working class to elect him as their representative in the oligarchs’ house of political power…that politician is commanding a whopping 6,045,960  followers, mostly youngsters (as of 4/6/16) who want to elect him president of the USA.

Our socialists look at that picture and, because they are human beings, can feel nothing but envy… because they haven’t been able to appeal to their own family in that way for the last 30 years.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination success  in reaching millions of youngsters with a left-wing message is prompting a lively debate among socialist organizations about questions that have been around for some time:

Should socialists work inside the Democratic Party, with the hope of transforming it into a party that genuinely represents workers’ interests? [Highlights by me.]

‘Hey, look what Bernie is doing, let’s go there too, what the heck, we can do it too.’

Except that you can’t.

Don’t even bother registering as a democrat just because you are daydreaming that you can be a ‘subversive’ force in the Democratic party. You have demonstrated all these years that you, socialists and communists organizations,  are as painfully unappealing to the working class as a mole in the middle of your interlocutor’s nose. Do you need any evidence?

Well, funny thing is that something similar to these primaries’ ‘feel the bern’  happened in the 2008 primaries, except that on that occasion the populist ‘progressive’ candidate had fewer years of political experience, and yet, he won. You found many reasons to support Obama who, like Sanders, had nothing to show that he was a trustworthy ‘progressive’ who would bring the  elusive “change”. But that didn’t prevent you from joining the deluded masses in their ecstasy:

Frank Chapman, CPUSA supporter, hailing BO’s victory in the Iowa caucuses:

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole”, not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

(It thoroughly shames me having to bring that quote out again.)

So, for the last eight years there have been a mass of angry discontented voters – on both sides of the aisle – expressing their desire to follow ANYONE who can utter the right words. They are so sweetly ripe to the right words that they are falling for Trump, Trump! Even Trump can find the right words to appeal to the angry masses!

But you can’t.

Joining Them in Their Delusions

After Obama won, how much did you, socialists and communists, advanced your ’cause’ by organizing the masses who voted for him? Did you reached out to those masses to  organize a viable and appealing revolutionary third-party to prepare you for this election cycle? Any efforts at coalition building? You had eight years to do it.

The masses are passing you by again, and here you are discussing whether to join them there or…nowhere.

The reason why you are so impossibly unappealing to the masses is because…you join them in their delusions. You joined them with Obama, and now you are joining them with Sanders, just because you see him with all those kids following him as religious people follow charismatic preachers, and you want to have that. Otherwise you wouldn’t bother to ask whether to join the dems or not: it’s all about the masses you can’t handle.

What is the trick? What is it that Obama and Sanders have that you, socialists and communists, don’t have?

Have you asked yourselves that question? But seriously asked yourselves that question?

To Hillary or Not to Hillary?

I take it for granted, I expect and HOPE that you guys are not going to vote for Hillary, so that you prove some consistency. Only the ‘common’ masses should vote for her because they function within the duopoly party system. They are perennially obligated to choose for the least of two evils, and that’s the way it should be until YOU give them a real alternative, which you don’t have right now.

But you voting and asking them to vote for a pseudo-socialist, an unvetted politician, is doing a disservice, not only to the people, but to the socialist movement in general. Going the anarchist way, like Susan Sarandon and her ex hubby are suggesting (“vote for Trump to cause anarchy”) is irresponsible, is playing politics with the people’s lives. These personalities agitators don’t have much to lose; they can just pick up and leave the country when the repression is unleashed on the people.

So I expect and HOPE that you will not vote for Sanders either. Why? Haven’t you learned the lesson from the Obama debacle?

Lenin’s Dream And The Damage Caused by “Hope” and “the Bern”:

These two politicians, Obama and Sanders are the pablum the oligarchs need. The oligarchs see an angry populist movement ready with the pitchforks, and they quickly find ‘populist’ candidates to channel and neutralize that anger. They did it to the original GOP Tea Party movement. Every time you support one of these ‘populists’, you set the ‘movement’ 20 years back. These populists candidates are the reason the angry voters don’t want to venture outside the duopoly: these candidates stain the image of a socialist movement in general with their undelivered promises, with their becoming more-of-the-same with-different-color, and make the movement a non-alternative. Why trust socialists, they are as good at delivering as the oligarchs, maybe worse.

Most of us leftists agree that Obama killed the anti-war movement. It happened because, well, you can’t attack your elected history-setting ‘socialist’.  Sanders is part two of that picture. Why? Because of your ENVY. Once you commit to them, you own them, in the sense that you have to pay, with the image of your movement, for what they break. But you want what Sanders has, access to the millions of (rightfully) angry voters; so you join him thinking you can get it from him.

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” Well, it is there, the young generation, burning to change the present. Oh, but you are not Lenin.

Look, get ready for the next wave. Forget that you, once again, missed that train. There is always another arriving behind that one. Your job is to make yourselves appealing to the masses so that when they decide, on their own, to take down the ‘establishment’, they know there is an organization ready to support and provide structure to their energy.

One of the reasons the youngsters in the OWS and BLM refuse to organize in the old fashion political party format (they prefer no ‘leaders’) is because of your failure to offer them real participation in your organizations. It is you, socialists and communist, who have destroyed the working class movement in the USA.

You accuse Hillary of being untrustworthy: I say it is YOU who have proven to be untrustworthy to the angry masses, that’s why they don’t follow you.

The masses are still out there! Go get’em!

But please, first extirpate that mole off your nose.

Sanders ‘Moral’ Revolution: The NY Daily News Interview

Sanders followers have assumed an attitude that they are the only ones with a moral agenda, they are the moral leaders in this election, and Hillary Clinton’s followers are either ignorant people or as immoral as “she is”. You can read and hear that attitude of moral superiority in the MSM comment sections and in online blogs, and hear them at YouTube.

You can NEVER win an argument with people whose claim is that they are morally superior than the others. This conceit in politics (and in religious fanatics) is the base over which tyrants and fascist stand. It could in part explain why Sanders followers find so much affinity with Trump, to the point of considering voting for him, not just out of spite, but because they actually think that Trump is a ‘different type’ of revolutionary.

But Sanders too is framing his campaign as a “moral” campaign; e.g., he argues about the “immorality” of the 0.1%er. The problem with morality in politics (a place where morality is not the main concern, power is) is that you then have to be consistent with what you defend as moral: because “moral” is in the eye of the beholder.

Here I discuss Sanders responses to the NY Daily News interview.

Not only you will not find any substance in Sanders political ‘revolution’, you will not find a steady moral support for his ‘revolution’: it’s all about “trades and income”. Missing from his description of his revolution is the compassion for women and Blacks. We have seen what he thinks of Trump’s attack on women last week: he said the right thing to do is to ignore it. And here, Sanders again refers to Blacks victims of police violence  as “ranting mentally ill” people.

In this post I point at some of those inconsistent “moral” arguments, and at how Sanders’ lack of understanding of the problems he is proposing to “fix” is immoral in itself.

I’m not a professional writer or blogger, so I will just put my observations in bullet type format.

  1. Sanders said that it is immoral that Wall Street “are trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes”.
  • Sanders himself has refused to disclose his taxes. He is right: when someone hides his taxes, it usually is because they are not paying their fair share of taxes. One has to conclude that Sanders refusal to show his tax papers indicates that he is not paying his fair share of taxes, that he is lying about his income. That would make him ‘immoral’, wouldn’t it?

2. The moral argument that big corporations leave the American workers for cheaper labor worldwide: “The only thing that matters is that I can make a little bit more money. That the dollar is all that is almighty. And I think that is the moral fabric.”

  • But what about the greed of businessmen whose profit comes from manufacturing guns and war armaments? Sanders unleashed the police on progressives, when he was mayor, to protect those greedy CEOs who were manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Where is the moral argument there? That it is OK to be greedy and manufacture weapons of mass destruction if you are doing it at home and giving your people a “decent salary”?
  • Is a war-based economy something we should pursue as something moral only because it creates jobs? Shouldn’t we be against a “progress” based on killing other human beings in poor nations?
  • Sanders says that he has not considered the “unintended consequences” of breaking the banks. “So I can’t say, if you’re saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

3. How does Sanders defines ‘morality’?

  • “To me, what moral is, I’ve got to be concerned about you. You’ve got to be concerned about my wife.” I’ll leave you to make sense of that one.

4. How does Sanders defines the moral aspect of his revolution? For an answer, he refers you to the   Pope; ask him. Sanders can’t explain his ‘revolution’ except by referring you to either  wiki to read about New Zealand’s economy or to the Pope:

  • “I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy.”

5. What about the immorality of corporate globalism? Sanders is a globalist, so he can’t see anything immoral with it. It only needs to be tweaked. He only cares that it is “unfair” to workers, not to women, but to workers in general.

    • “I’m not anti-trade. We live in a global economy, we need trade.

6. So, then, how do we make globalism more moral, more “fair”? The implication is that globalism is here to stay, no need to question it in itself. Let’s just make it “fair”, as if you can negotiate with the oligarchs to drop you some crumbs. So, how Sanders define “fair” in a globalist world?

  • So you have to have standards. And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States.”
  • Sanders proposes, in the interview, that while it is true that his trade positions are the same as Trump’s, what separates both of them is that definition of “fair trade”. I’m sure you can see the many questions his definition of fair trade raises. There’s no morals there, just give them a better salary. The rest stays the same.

About the “too big to fail”: His ignorance about the problem and the solutions is appalling

  1. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct?”  The “we” is correct because HE did bailed them out. The immoral part of this is that: a) he did bail them out and b) denies he did it. SEE HERE.
  2. Sanders’ revolution against Wall Street is based on a so-called moral ground, he knows not how WS functions nor how he is going to change them into  ‘moral entities’: Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it.
  3. He acknowledges that the president has no power to make any changes or determinations about breaking the big banks. But he, as president will make the revolution, some how.
  4. He is not assuring or promising that the “too big to fail” will be broken in his administration. He is saying that he would EMPOWER the Fed Res to determine if  and only if those in the list qualify as “too big to fail”. But we saw he knows nothing about the Fed, and if you leave it to the Feds to decide who is too big, you will see no changes.
  5. He would let the banks decide if and how they would ‘re-structure’ themselves. Now, that’s revolutionary.
  6. He acknowledges that he has not considered what to do when the SCOTUS kills his plan. Sanders: It’s something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.
  7. He acknowledges that he doesn’t know what the “unintended consequences” of his ‘revolution’ will be, but he knows the economy in general will get better…by magic.
  8. He trashed Hillary because she is not bold enough, bc she believes in “incremental changes”, but he wants to do it fast, not planning, not caring for ‘unintended consequences’…
  9. The revolution done with “voter turn out”. He is not supporting any candidates for Congress or the Senate, but he says if he wins, dems win automatically in Congress.

About Palestinians

  1. Palestinians: “Israel has a right to exist in peace and security without having to face terrorist attacks…” no right to self-defense for Palestinians and no right to access to the  International Court either…and don’t ask him why!! Daily News: Why not? Sanders: Why not? Daily News: Why not, why it…Sanders: Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe..

About drones and torture

  • He likes drones.
  • Torture..yes: Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo…Sanders: Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.
  • The morals of war: there’s none in his discussion. He didn’t say a word about stopping these wars. He is against the death penalty, but OK with killing in the battle field with drones; he implied it is a convenience because you don’t have to deal with issues of death penalty and legal rights at home when you arrest a ‘terrorist’.

About Blacks:

  •  Sanders: Such as do what many other countries are doing. Look, you’ve got somebody who’s clearly mentally ill outside, right? Ranting and raving, and maybe they have a knife in their hands. Are there ways to deal with that issue other than shooting that person?
  • He thinks that ALL victims killed by cops are “ranting mentally ill, maybe with a knife in their hands”.

Other post relevant to this discussion:

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/sanders-at-brookings-institution/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/bernie-or-bust-immoral-argument/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanders Won’t Defend Women From Attacks – Stands Up For Muslims

Hillary Clinton wasted no time in responding to Trump (T)’s remarks about punishing  women who choose to have an abortion; no one had to ask her, she tweeted her reaction immediately. She denounced him and the GOP as dangerous to women’s rights.

Sanders, on the other hand, did not respond to Trump’s comments. Were it not for Rachel Maddow asking him for a reaction (see video below) he would have simply ignored Trump’s attack on women. In that interview with her he explained why it was OK for him to ignore Trump’s attack on women.

Sanders made it patently clear that women’s issues have no priority in his campaign. He said that Trump’s attacks on the working class and Muslims are more important – and can’t be ignored, than his attack on women.

Sanders totally dismissed Trump’s comments as “stupid remarks” that do not deserve media attention. He even got  visibly annoyed when Rachel questioned him about his dismissal of the comments as less important compared with ‘real problems’, i.e., the economy, workers salaries, the environment…You name the problem, it is more important than women’s problems.

You could even hear Sanders laughing when Rachel quoted Cruz as being even more explicit at how the GOP would attack abortion rights. [at 2:06 in the video]

Interestingly enough, Sanders is thoroughly offended by Trump’s attacks on Muslims, warning that Trump’s comments put Muslims in danger of losing rights and being physically harmed. He is so worried about their well-being that he sees it fit for himself to come out and make forceful public condemnation of said attacks. Those attacks deserve the media attention.

But Sanders feels no need to protect women from politicians who threaten their lives, their rights, their health, their freedom and their human rights.

Of all the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the ONLY ONE who includes women’s rights as part of her platform. That is one of the reasons she is hated by

  • many men,
  • by the ‘establishment’,
  • by conservatives and the GOP,
  • by the pro-life movement…

All that hatred that you see in the MSM, all those negative ads and headlines…it all stem from this unmentionable fear of a woman standing for women’s rights.

hillary3

This is why haters hate her so much, including Sanders’ followers. This is why she is such a ‘scary’ and ‘bitchy’ woman who “screams” instead of talking. 

 

In social and political history, nothing scares the bejesus out of powerful men more than assertive women. Hillary Clinton is that type of woman. Hillary has a history of standing for women’s rights and abortion rights. That’s a no-no for men who hate women.

If you are a woman, if you are one of those progressive men who understand the causes and sources of the oppression of women;  if you are a man or a woman who worries about the future of your daughter and, finally, if you are a man or woman who understand that women rights are human rights, then you vote for Hillary Clinton.

Because all the current candidates, including Sanders, dismiss women rights, you can expect their administration to trample on those rights.

It’s time for women to assert their needs. It’s time for women’s issues to come to the front; it’s time to stop relegating the oppression of women to the end of the line of progress.

Only Hillary Clinton can do that.

 

 

 

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.

OUTSOURCED JOBS = Globalism

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.

global

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  ORWELLIAN DEFENSE OF THE OLIGARCHY

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.

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1241

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

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/sanders-and-msm-attacks/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/sanders-at-brookings-institution/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/sanders-and-the-billionaire-class/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/trump-globalism-and-working-class/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/trump-smoking-the-elite-out-of-its-vault/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/trump-sanders-two-party-betrayal/

https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/the-trump-appeal/

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

GOP and Trumpists: Get Ready to Rumble

The GOP forced Trump to sign a promise that he would not leave the party and run as independent or form a new party.

Now it just so happens that the GOP is sooooo freaking desperate and afraid the ‘mild’ conservative-anti-globalist Trump will give a coup to the party’s neocons, that they are considering self-eviction, aka self-deportation.

They are considering leaving the party and forming a new one. That’s probably their best bet if they want to leave alive and in one piece.

Giving Trump a coup, crowing any one other than him, if he gets the popular votes and delegates, is an invitation to a re-run of national conventions gone berserk.

Police attack protesters outside of the 1968 Democratic National Convention

As for Sanders in the democratic party, he never was a threat to the elite. He was crowned, by the Brookings Institution, the elite’s favorite ‘revolutionary socialist’, literally.

Right now he has been ordered to tone down the attacks on Hillary. He said he is a democrat, will run as democrat in the future, and will continue to protect the party as he did against Ralph Nader, when he went an forcefully endorsed and campaigned for Kerry. He is complying, and has toned down the attacks.

There’s no ‘revolution’ in the DNC. Only in the GOP the ‘establishment’ is being shaken by the working class.

That is revolutionary.

Trump’s Anti-Globalism Dividing the GOP, Not Class Warfare

Of all the bs unveiled in these primaries (e.g., the oligarchy praising the candidacy  of a ‘socialist revolutionary’), the one that stands out, to me, is seeing an arrogant billionaire as the standard-bearer of the discontented  working-class, calling for their ‘revolution’ within the party that represents the financial and globalist corporations of all types. (You better watch out, Hillary.)

Now we have the elite in a state of dread by the prospect of having to share a minuscule % of their profits with the discontented working class that produced it, just to calm them down and save the party.

Then, when you see the neo-cons  coming out in person to defend THEIR party (GOP), you know what they fear the most is not the working class. Oh, they are sublimely aware of the class conflicts, but it is taboo in the US to call it by its name:

Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity…[Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders]

Donald Trump’s rise goes beyond his demagogic appeal. It is a reflection of the political psychology of frustration – people see him as responding to their fears about the modern world order, an outsider fighting for those who have been left behind. [Larry Summers, see my discussion here.]

They are also aware that the working class is not demanding that the elite relinquish its power to them, that all they are asking is for some crumbs and for the yoke on their neck to be unfastened a bit. A few crumbs would calm the restless mob, but there’s no talk about that, only calls to show your ‘morality’ by rejecting the Donald.

All public attacks on Trump are based on moral grounds: racism, sexism, etc., not on the class conflicts they acknowledge exist.  (I’m not defending him nor do I support him in any way; just commenting on the ‘issues’.)

Yet, the hypocrisy of this morally based  accusations is shown by today’s European community issuing “harsh” warnings to illegal immigrants there. They accuse Trump of xenophobia, but here they are doing it. In addition, the other GOP candidates have defended the “wall” and other racists policies they criticize on Trump.

It’s not about racism or morality; for the elite the issue is globalism, their right to use cheap labor wherever they can find it. Trump is not moral, but he is against globalism, for whatever his elitist reasons may be. For him, jobs should stay here, or so he says now.

The elite is aware that at stake is their ideology of capitalist globalism.

Screen Shot 2015-12-12 at 8.54.42 AM

The real ‘revolution’ is happening at the GOP, of all places, not in the democratic party.

Trump’s  (comparative) moderate conservatism and other ideological currents following him (moderate libertarian, nationalist and protectionist, isolationist) is a threat to the ideology of the globalists/military class. All of  the categories I mentioned for Trump are in contradiction with globalism.

He is not ‘conservative enough’ because, among other things,  he stated in one debate, to the outrage of Rubio and Cruz, that under a Trump presidency no one would die in the streets. The other candidates trip over each other to show how they are going to screw the middle class and the poor: if you can’t afford medical services, it’s your fault and bad luck.

Just look at that “Letter to Donald Trump” to see the real jewel they are protecting, all global issues hidden under the cover of anti-racism: global trade, trade with the Arab world, free trade (offended by Trump’s “protectionism” and “isolationism”).

And the problem with Mexico is two fold: 1) “protectionism” prevents global companies from using cheap labor there (and world-wide) and 2) the problem with Trump’s wall is not the wall itself, but forcing Mexico to pay for it.

his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall…

That’s because globalists don’t care about the immorality of treating the Mexican workers like cheap machine parts. They accuse him of the same moral ‘crimes’ for which the GOP is famous, among them, rampant racism and this one, the most amusing of the accusations:

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable. [It was the neocons who instituted, and still maintain, an OPEN policy of torture to ‘protect’ you against ‘terrorism’.]

The anti-globalism threat is so real that they are coming out in person to communicate their orders and threats to the downtrodden following Trump: don’t get involved in the elite’s internal divisions.

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community…We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. [Same “Open Letter to Donald Trump”]

That letter, by the way, was sent out to all of you. The message is that they, as a class, are united against you  “blue-collar workers” who are about to elect Trump.

We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election [of Trump]

So much for democracy.

The hint of a possible “compromise” with the working class was given in Summers quote above:

be clear to all Americans that the tradition of vigorous political debate and compromise will continue.

But, in that letter to Trump, the neo-cons made clear there will be no compromise related to their global interests. Trump and his anti-globalism must go.

The GOP is thoroughly divided by ideological forces: globalists/militarist and what I call paleo-conservatism.

Summing up:

This is no working class revolution going on, not in the GOP not in the democratic party. The American working class has no class identity. This turmoil in this presidential elections has to do with an ideological division of the elite within the GOP. The working class want a “share in the profits” (rightly so) of the capitalists.

But this class of globalists and banksters is sooo irremediably greedy that they can’t even consider, less accept the idea of  wasting some cherished crumbs on pacifying its serfs.

I’m fascinated by the veiled class warfare going on, waiting to see which path the elite is going to take to protect its globalism: provocation of violence (pitting the working class against each other at Trump’s rallies to disqualify him in the public opinion), or abandoning their party for a new one.

[If link to Open letter doesn’t work, go to the last paragraph here and use that link.]

 

 

 

 

 

Trump’s Victories and the Schizophrenic Working Class [updated]

Intro
Factor #1: Anger over the ‘establishment’: The Two-party System Fulfilling its Duty
Factor #2: That Pesky Working Class Bitching About the Economy
Start the Revolution

I just watched Trump’s Nevada victory speech on YouTube. He crowed that everybody loves him because he won with  the highly educated voter, the highly uneducated (he particularly loves them), the fat, etc., and now, he said, “even the Latinos love me”: he won 45% of the Latino votes there. That’s an eye opener for the same reason he said  “even” the Latinos loves him. He was as surprised as we are that this group would support him after his attacks on them as a group and as a people.

So, what gives? Well, that’s the purpose of this post: a search for any facts that could reasonably explain a highly bizarro picture of the working class people stampeding to embrace the oligarchs who offend and oppress them.  I have here some of the pointers deliberately ignored by the MSM.

Factor #1: Anger over the ‘establishment’: The Two-party System Fulfilling its Duty

Most MSM pundits, voicing the thoughts of the oligarchy for whom they work, point at voter anger over ‘the establishment’ as Trump’s and Sanders appeal to voters. The elite would have not  noticed the level of that anger were it not for Trump and Sander: they are the only ones verbalizing the anger of the working class.  I propose that when the MSM describes the Donald’s and Sanders victories as voter anger, the oligarchy is expressing awareness  that it  is exceeding the levels of oppression tolerated by the population they are ruling over. They have to do something about that, don’t they?

But I also propose that the appeal voters see  in these two candidates is plain anger,  that both Sanders and Trump verbalize angry and violent class sentiments; and that the other qualifiers (‘at the establishment’, ‘at the party’…) are the only licit objects provided by the oligarchy’ media to them  over which to discharge their political class anger. It’s not the elite who owns the parties, or the two-party system or capitalism; the problem identified for them by the elite is the politicians who control the parties and sell their souls to the elite: they are the  ‘establishment‘.

Thus, the voters have no choice but to choose from inside the parties the ones that say what the voters are thinking, not the ones who repeat the same old promises. As in life in general, it usually happens that the ‘different’ ones are the most outrageous and ‘colorful’.

Look, Trump and Sanders are ‘outsiders’ inside the two-party system; they have both promised to the powers that be that they will not be ‘spoilers’.  Their appearing to be ‘alien‘ to the establishment (pun intended), provides a psychological outlet to the frustrated citizens, but within the safe confines of the two-party system controlled by the oligarchs. It’s a repeat of Obama’s fake anti-Wall Street populism. Trump and Sanders personify, with their angry remarks, working class sentiments and, at the same time, keep the ‘solutions’ within the confines of the two-party system. The message is: There is no class struggle or  class wars in the USA, only greedy politicians.

elect

Either way, the oligarchs always win.

The Purpose of the Two-party System

Trapped in the two-party holographic democracy ,  at the end, after having voted for each party and seeing their misfortunes unaddressed, the citizens see their political power reduced to choosing from between the less of two evils, the party less likely to reduce them to the status of discarded squeezed orange. That’s the purpose of the two-party system, to castrate the working class.

The absurdity of voters protecting Trump’s violent, sexist and all other immoral attacks on the working class consist in that they are giving him the power to denounce the system from his own elitist point of view.

There is nothing more disturbing and indecent than the working class willingly relinquishing its power to their oppressors: Donald Trump as representative of the interests of the working class. Now, that’s rich.

If the class anger were to spill outside the two-party system coop, the elite would be unable to control it. Therein the danger mentioned by Lloyd Blankfein,  Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs CEO  (and the closest you get to having a king), referring to Sanders dragging his name, vilifying him and other oligarchs in these primaries:

“To personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment, not just for Wall Street, not just for the people are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line.”

That was a public scolding of Sanders, telling him to tone down his ‘anti-Wall Street’ rhetoric. You see, Lloyd is not afraid of Sanders, a member of the establishment; he is afraid of the out-of-control angry citizens, just as kings became afraid of their angry plebs running amok beheading kings during the ‘glorious revolution’ of 1789.

No king or bankster CEO have being able to forget that “dangerous moment” in history. Lloyd even said to the media in 2009 that he would start carrying a gun on his person if people continued to express such ire at him and other crooks over the 2008 financial debacle and the bail out. He is terrified of the angry mob demanding he and his pals be brought to justice for his crimes.

Lloyd to Sanders: Don’t you dare use my name in vane, specially after YOU voted to bail me out and said you feel PROUD to defend that vote.

 

People, if your memory has not being yet totally deleted, it should remind you of Obama’s first year in the WH when, after he publicly shamed the banksters and said “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”, they ALL marched there to tell him in person to stop badmouthing them who bought him the presidency.

It worked in both cases: Obama never again spoke in that tone and refused to prosecute them, despite his campaign promises. Sanders, well, after the scolding and the not-so-veiled threat (“There is a pendulum that swings in markets and also in the political economy as well.”), his plans for WS is to ‘ask’ them to be less greedy.

Given that Sanders, as Obama before him, protected them from prosecution and proudly bailed them out…

Yet you voted for a number of programs to try to get the economy moving including the Recovery Act, otherwise known as the Stimulus.

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

I see no reason, except posturing for the naive voter, to believe that he will be a Marx in the White House breaking banks right and left by fiat. The ‘establishment’ is safe and in secure hands with ANY of the candidates as long as they keep the voters confined in the two-party system.

When the citizens, as a group, can not correctly identify the source of their anger, it becomes an emotion easily manipulated by experts in molding public opinion and channeled into objects that function as punching bags, defusing their political power. That’s the purpose of the two-party system.

 


Factor #2: That Pesky Working Class Bitching About the Economy

The real anger of citizens in the new millennium is...class anger.

The republican voter’ scorn for Mexicans is a misdirected anger over lost jobs. The blame for lost jobs and the economic suffering of the working class ought to be cast on those who control the economy: the oligarchs and the banksters. Elected politicians are paid workers of the oligarchic class. (You know that, I’m not saying anything new here. I have read your comments online, and, whether you are a republican or democrat, you have stated the same sentiments I have just described in this paragraph.)

As for anger over ‘big government’, same deal. The working class delusion is YUUGE, and schizophrenic.  It is two-fold: 1) thinking that the problem with ‘big government’ is that it regulates and stifles the elite – they think the crumbs will not trickle from the ‘trickle down’ economy if capitalists are not free to create profits, and 2) that big government is ‘welfare state’, you know, good for the ‘free loader’, (described as anyone below ‘me’ or who isn’t ‘me’). Adopting the neo-liberal ideology is what makes the working class schizophrenic.

So, what we are witnessing in this presidential elections is nothing more than the working class having a temper tantrum: big capitalists refusing to drop some crumbs to them. As long as the baby stays in the crib, daddy will be fine. If baby tries to get out of the crib more than twice, daddy is bound to have a fit of anger  and seriously spank the baby.

As long as the working class refuses to look at itself in the mirror and see that they have nothing in common with the likes of Lloyd Blankfein, Trump and even Sanders, they will remain like angry babies in the crib of the two-party system.


Start the Revolution

I have discussed here and here the reasons why Sanders is not the ‘socialist revolutionary’ his followers have deluded themselves into believing he is. The only radical revolution his followers can start is creating a third-party; call it whatever, ‘the party of consumers’ or ‘the workers party’, whatever. As long as you are in the two-party system begging for crumbs (reduce student debt, relief from police brutality, reform Wall Street, jobs), that’s what you’ll get: one crumb to quiet you down.

I don’t expect them doing that any time soon. We are running out of time. Disorganized we can’t fight against the oligarchs’ wars and the police state. It ain’t gonna be like in the 1940s. The future, with its digital technology, is rendering human mind down to software.