Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Steve Bannon’s China Syndrome reveals America’s jealousy of a China that is ‘great again’

Steve Bannon made the controversial remarks shortly before he plans to speak in China.

Published

on

4,253 Views

During Donald Trump’s successful campaign to become President of the United States, both Trump and his then adviser Steve Bannon spoke a great deal about the following:

–Increasing exports 

–Increasing the sales of US made products domestically 

–Increasing employment 

–Increasing the wages of the domestic workforce 

–Seeing trade in economic rather than ideological terms 

Now, Steve Bannon has criticised China for effectively implementing each of the items listed above. 

In a recent interview with the New York Times, the once and future king of the US media outlet Breitbart has delivered a morose, provocative and at times absurd assessment of modern China, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room. The elephant of course is the fact that ‘making America great again’, in many ways meant ‘making America more like China’.

Since the 1978 reforms of Deng Xiaoping, China has become an economic powerhouse. While much of China’s initial post-78 growth was based on exports, China is increasingly cultivating its affluent domestic consumer base, just as the United States did in the 1920s and even more so in the economic boom which hit the American domestic markets after 1945.

China’s immense industrial capacity has seen Chinese exports dominate world markets both because of their generally competitive prices as well as because of their increased quality. Whereas in 1990, ‘Made in China’ was often derided as a moniker which meant ‘not as good as German or Japanese made goods’. Increasingly, ‘Made in China’ is the world’s latest mark of excellence.

In terms of quality alone, many American electronics and car manufacturers had lost the race to Europe and East Asia dating back to the 1970s, when Toyotas and Volkswagens started becoming known as affordable cars that were durable while Mercedes-Benz and high quality German electronic brands such as Revox, outpaced their US rivals in terms of both quality and reliability.

As China was still a mostly agrarian economic for much of the 1970s and into the 1980s, one can hardly blame China for having outpaced not only the America of the 1950s and 1960s, but also the West Germany and Japan of the 1970s and 1980s.

One might even recall a time when the pro-US entity of Chinese Taipei (commonly referred to as Taiwan) was selling more to the US than China. Those days are gone. China may have started the race last, but it is finishing first.

These simple realities of global trade however, seem to imply something different to Steve Bannon. Bannon said the following about modern China,

“A hundred years from now, this is what they’ll remember — what we [it is not clear who ‘we’ is, in this context] did to confront China on its rise to world domination.

China right now is Germany in 1930. It’s on the cusp. It could go one way or the other. The younger generation is so patriotic, almost ultranationalistic”.

Bannon’s rant continued,

“China’s model for the past 25 years, it’s based on investment and exports. Who financed that? The American working class and middle class. You can’t understand Brexit or the 2016 events unless you understand that China exported their deflation, they exported their excess capacity.

“It’s not sustainable. Bannon declared. The reordering of the economic relationship is the central issue that has to be addressed, and only the U.S. can address it”.

There are several points of speculation on Bannon’s part which defy commonly understood fact. First of all, far from not being sustainable, China is developing cheap and highly effective green energy products, including solar technology, which is set to make China increasingly energy self-sufficient. China is also looking to set a date for the elimination of all cars which run on fossil fuels from its expanding roadways.

Even before one realises that China’s green technology is among the most export friendly sustainable energy product line in modern history, by cutting energy costs, China is already ahead of the US which has generally shunned sustainable energy, something which is increasingly apparent under Donald Trump.

The old argument that green technology is a money loser has been challenged by China and in this respect, China has defied the odds and made green energy both efficient and cost effective.

Secondly, China’s One Belt–One Road seeks to build on China’s export strengths by modernising and harmonising the mechanisms of world trade across both growing and flourishing economies. China has poured investment into parts of South Asia and Africa while the Middle East and South East Asia look to similarly benefit from injections of Chinese cash.

One Belt–One Road is a project that seeks to pool the strengths of all participating economies in order for each member state to attain unique benefits based on the specific needs of individual economies.

Crucially, unlike western backed trade initiatives, One Belt–One Road does not require participating states to change their internal socio-economic traditions, nor are there any demands to alter the nature of domestic governance. One Belt–One Road therefore derives its strength from its flexibility and anti-ideological nature.

While China does depend on the US as a major export market, the expanding nature of new trading markets means that in many ways, the US relies on China more than China relies on the US. In respect of the US, entire industries in both the manufacturing and service sectors depend on a reliable influx of Chinese goods. China likewise has purchased substantial amounts of US sovereign debt. It was the US which sold this to China, no one’s hand was forced in respect of such an arrangement.

Far from being un-sustainable, the prospect of China’s further growth seems to frighten individuals like Bannon who seek the markets of South East Asia, South Asia and Africa for themselves even though at this point the US has increasingly little to offer such markets.

Thirdly, the fact that China’s workforce is becoming increasingly wealthy and patriotic frightens Bannon which is ironic as Bannon has been accused of being an ‘ultranationalist’ himself. That being said, calling Bannon and the youth of China ‘ultra-nationalist’ is equally inaccurate. Bannon is something of a patriotic American and many Chinese are patriotic about their own country. There’s nothing extraordinary nor dangerous about this fact.

In respect of the South China Sea, it is clearly not an America issue to settle. It is between the states of South East Asia and their Chinese neighbour to the north. Already Philippines has made great strides on reaching an amicable settlement with China under the leadership of Rodrigo Duterte. This has led China to hail a ‘golden period’ of good relations between Beijing and Manila.

The major obstacle towards settling lingering territorial issues in the South China Sea is Vietnam, but even Vietnam’s number one trading partner is China. Ultimately, it ought to be up to a country that has good relations with both China and Vietnam to settle lingering issues and the natural choice for such a mediator is Russia, certainly not the United States.

The truth is that Deng Xiaoping along with his successors did in fact make one of the world’s oldest civilisations ‘great again’. The task of turning a  20th century China ravaged by multiple political changes, Japanese aggression and a difficult post-war period, into the economic powerhouse it is today, was a monumental endeavour.

By contrast, ‘making American great again’, while challenging, cannot be compared to Deng’s economic revolution which has catapulted China to the forefront of 21st century economic growth.

When all is said and done, perhaps the real reason that Steve Bannon seeks to undermine China is due to jealousy and little more.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
seby
Guest
seby

The Chinese (and Russia) now know that tRump is a ponzi scheme the American people have bought and on foreign policy he is repubelican bush the III.

Nothing bambam bannon can say that will change their minds about the “fred flintstone” with greying orange hair.

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

We have Bannon and we have China. Bannon is so stupid… one would be tempted to say that it defies belief, but nothing out of the US of A defies belief. “Bannon is something of a patriotic American…”? “Something” is nothing: Bannon is a bitterly nostalgic hegemon whose strategic brain is missing so many marbles that he doesn’t even know that it was the very same American companies whose stocks are momentarily on the rise which robbed the US middle class (which is now supposed to be happy at the exuberant “confidence” the stock prices show) looking for cheap labor… Read more »

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Fact: China is a communist country a dictatorship. It is severely polluted and is dependent on exports, and thereby also tied to the Western Global Banking Elite. Fact: The are record outflows from China to 5 eyes countries like Canada, Australia, West coast USA where they are buying up residential real estate and Apartments in a frenzy, desperate get their money out of China. That alone is not a sign of a healthy country, and you do not see this magnitude per capita) of outflows from anywhere else. That being said , this is no guarantee that the USA will… Read more »

tiger
Guest
tiger

Your China book is out of date, Rasti. China is no longer a “communist…dictatorship”; it’s a mixed economy, admittedly with strong govt controls. The outflows are proof of strong capitalist activity, buying relatively cheap assets abroad (though the govt is now restricting this speculation). This is mimicked in the West by various corporations and individuals. US manufacturing, except for a few industries – weapons, farm & construction equipment, etc is hopelessly outdated. The US economy has financialised, making ephemeral profits for the few, destroying the middle class and increasing poverty. Most consumer goods are imported from China, which now has… Read more »

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Where I currently am in one of the so called five eyes Anglo Countries, I am practically in China, living among a 85+% Mandarin speaking majority. The establishment locals here have sold out their neighbourhoods to them, as well….Anything for a buck.

China is a one party system dictatorship with majority industries state owned, (directly or indirectly) and rampant pollution, hence the massive exodus of capital and searching for safe havens in the west.

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

I think you will appreciate this analysis of Bannon’s interview on 60 Minutes

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

Many thanks for the analysis. For me, its main usefulness is the video-audio repetition of what Bannon said, which makes it incumbent on the reader/viewer to pay close attention and start asking questions. I like slow food, and I like slow reading. The body-language analysis is then mostly icing on the cake: When Bannon says McConnel insisted he didn’t want to hear the “drain the swamp” stuff, Bannon dropped his eyes. The analyst says Bannon is not entirely lying here, but he is not telling the whole truth, or he is dodging. Maybe the quote on “drain the swamp” is… Read more »

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

In regards to Bannon’s knowledge of ‘money’: he once worked for Goldman Sachs. “From his Wall Street roots and apocalyptic film career to his cultivation of alt-right bigots at Breitbart News” per this TeleSUR video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HelSaMSy8HY:

worldblee
Guest
worldblee

Preach, Adam!

K Pomeroy
Guest
K Pomeroy

Mr. Garrie, I generally like your articles, because you leap to conclusions that are often correct. But the premise of this one is a little too cute. Believe me, making America great again cannot possibly mean to any American making our country more like China. If Washington were nuked, for example, I’d much rather be taken over by Russia than China. China is totalitarian. They have forced entire villages to move out of mountainous regions into soulless government-built cities covered with white porcelain tile. They invaded and savaged Tibet, a formerly independent country, murdering hundreds of thousands and destroying the… Read more »

GeorgeG
Guest
GeorgeG

Might be a reading problem.

K Pomeroy
Guest
K Pomeroy

Hi GeorgeG. In case you meant a reading problem on my part, that would be fair. I’m like Eric Zuesse, who says once he reads a false sentence, he can’t read any further. Since Eric Zuesse said this in response to one of my own articles, I wrote him back saying I tend to do the same, but that it’s a bad habit, and I would try to change. I guess I haven’t changed. I stopped reading Garrie’s article after the first paragraph. Looking back over it now, I see Garrie was referring to China’s economic statistics, and not to… Read more »

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Sophistry.

K Pomeroy
Guest
K Pomeroy

Hi Kafka. Or should I say hello … ?? My 1929 edition of Websters says sophistry means captious or fallacious reasoning. Since my comment was anecdotal (a confession, in fact) and didn’t involve any reasoning, I don’t know how to interpret your sophistry charge. Unless of course you were accusing Garrie of sophistry, in which case, well … ?!

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

fkoff

K Pomeroy
Guest
K Pomeroy

What on earth have I said to offend you? Thought I was being friendly.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

I take that back then. Sorry if I have you wrong. I have just been through a full frontal kvetching by Zionists. It set me on edge.

K Pomeroy
Guest
K Pomeroy

Understand how they can get to you. Please excuse the photo I edited in. I guess things got to me too.

stevek9
Guest
stevek9

‘Not sustainable’ has nothing to do with Green. It means exchanging dollars for real goods … forever. That is presumably not sustainable.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

Another brilliant economic and strategic analysis by the uniquely talented and prescient Adam Garrie. I hope to see him on Cross Talk more frequently now that they are back from much-earned holidays and co-hosting the BRICS media conference. Comments like the one below by @KPomeroy show a typical, American cognitive dissonance and an ahistorical frame of reference which is as suspect as it is highly self-serving. Bannon and his fellow historically vacuous Americans have something they are hiding: Their enormous guilt before the Third World which Kissinger consigned to annihilation with the words: “The chief task of the USA is… Read more »

pogohere
Guest

Do you have a source for: “Kissinger consigned [the Third World] to annihilation with the words: “The chief task of the USA is now the depopulation of the Third World.” Thanks.

Franz Kafka
Guest
Franz Kafka

National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled
“Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security &
overseas interests,” says:

“Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that
“depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy
towards the Third World.” He quoted reasons of national security, and
because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of
minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries …
Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such
stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and
to the economic interests of U.S.

pogohere
Guest

So far I have tracked the quote you cited, and have instituted a search for, to:

National Commission on. Materials Policy, “Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, An Interim Report” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1972)

I have not found the quote (yet) in “National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,”

If you have a page number or other identifier in the latter document, I would appreciate it if you’d share that.

Thanks for the source(s).

DianeKNewman
Guest
DianeKNewman

Google pays now $99 to each worker for working on computer.You can also avail this.
on sunday I got a great new Ford Mustang from having made $9388 this – 5 weeks past . it’s certainly my favourite-job Ive ever done . I actually started 6 months ago and almost immediately started bringin in more than $99 per-hour . look at here
!su110d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://FinancialReportsGetGoogleResearchProfitWorks/get/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!su110l..,…

Punisher 1
Guest
Punisher 1

“By contrast, ‘making American great again’, while challenging, cannot be compared to Deng’s economic revolution which has catapulted China to the forefront of 21st century economic growth.”

While in amount of work to be done you are correct. But in the ability to make the changes needed to get the job done. In that China was/is much better off. They are able to force those changes ,even if the “establishment” opposes them. In the US it appears its not possible to get “anything” positive done.And the “state” isn’t united to even try to make the changes needed.

Matt Hol
Guest
Matt Hol

Hes totally wrong on who financed it. It was internal mostly. Nothing from the US middle class. The EU is Chinas biggest trade partner, not US

Kenny Lee
Guest
Kenny Lee

Making China the bogeyman as an impediment for MAGA is a preparation for shifting blame for the oncoming failing domestic social engineering programs. Deep State, MIC and certain Globalist want concessions from China. Mutual reciprocity in trade and commerce is imbalanced favoring China, but whose fault is that? No one made any foreign manufacturer by threat of violence, to build factories and transfer technology to China. If anything it’s America’s financial elites along with the pertinent governing bodies of the American government who made all those imbalanced trade deals thereby enriching themselves at the expense of domestic American factory workers.… Read more »

Latest

Defeat in Bavaria delivers knockout punch to Merkel’s tenure as Chancellor (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 136.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The stunning CSU defeat in Bavaria means that the coalition partner in Angela Merkel’s government has lost an absolute majority in their worst election results in Bavaria since 1950.

In a preview analysis before the election, Deutsche Welle noted that a CSU collapse could lead to Seehofer’s resignation from Merkel’s government, and conceivably Söder’s exit from the Bavarian state premiership, which would remove two of the chancellor’s most outspoken critics from power, and give her room to govern in the calmer, crisis-free manner she is accustomed to.

On the other hand, a heavy loss and big resignations in the CSU might well push a desperate party in a more volatile, abrasive direction at the national level. That would further antagonize the SPD, the center-left junior partners in Merkel’s coalition, themselves desperate for a new direction and already impatient with Seehofer’s destabilizing antics, and precipitate a break-up of the age-old CDU/CSU alliance, and therefore a break-up of Merkel’s grand coalition. In short: Anything could happen after Sunday, up to and including Merkel’s fall.

The Financial Times reports that the campaign was dominated by the divisive issue of immigration, in a sign of how the shockwaves from Merkel’s disastrous decision to let in more than a million refugees in 2015-16 are continuing to reverberate through German politics and to reshape the party landscape.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning Bavarian election defeat of the CSU party, and the message voters sent to Angela Merkel, the last of the Obama ‘rat pack’ neo-liberal, globalist leaders whose tenure as German Chancellor appears to be coming to an end.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge

Voters in Germany’s economically dominant southern state of Bavaria delivered a stunning rebuke to the ruling Christian Social Union, in an election that delivered another crushing blow for the parties in Angela Merkel’s grand coalition in Berlin.

With all eyes on Sunday’s Bavaria election, moments ago the first exit polls showed a historic collapse for the ruling CSU party, which has ruled Bavaria continuously since 1957, and which saw its share of the vote collapse from 47.7% in the 2013 election to just 35.5%, losing its absolute majority and suffering its worst result since 1950, as voters defected in their droves to the Greens and the far-right Alternative for Germany.

German newspaper Welt called the election “the most painful election defeat of the past 50 years for the CSU”. As predicted in the polls, the CSU experienced a “historic debacle” in the Bavarian state elections, according to Welt. The CSU was followed by the Greens which soared in the election, more than doubling to 18.5% from 8.6% in 2013, the Free Voters also rose to 11% from 9.0%, in 2013.

Meanwhile, the nationalist AfD are expecting to enter Bavaria’s parliament for the first time ever with 11% of the vote, and as such are setting up for their post-election party. Party leader Alice Weidel already is having the first beer in the small community of Mamming in Lower Bavaria.

Establishment party, left-of-center SPD also saw its support collapse from 20.6% in 2013 to just 10% today.

The full initial results from an ARD exit poll are as follows (via Zerohedge):

  • CSU: 35.5 %
  • Grüne: 18.5 %
  • FW: 11.5 %
  • AfD: 11.0 %
  • SPD: 10.0 %
  • FDP: 5.0 %
  • Linke: 3.5 %
  • Sonstige: 5.0 %

The breakdown by gender did not show any marked variations when it comes to CSU support, although more women voted for the Greens, while far more men supported the AfD:

There was a greater variation by educational level, with highly educated voters tending more towards the green GRÜNE (G/EFA) and liberal FDP (ALDE) then the average, while low/middle educated voters tended more towards CSU (EPP) and AfD (EFDD).

This was the worst result for the CSU since 1950.

Zerohedge further reports that alarmed by the rise of the anti-immigration, populist AfD, the CSU tried to outflank them by talking tough on immigration and picking fights with Ms Merkel over asylum policy.

But the strategy appeared to have backfired spectacularly by alienating tens of thousands of moderate CSU voters and driving them into the arms of the Greens.

Meanwhile, as support the CSU and SPD collapsed, the result confirmed the Greens’ status as the rising force in German politics. Running on a platform of open borders, liberal social values and the fight against climate change the party saw its support surge to 18.5%, from 8.4% in 2013. Meanwhile the AfD won 11%, and for the first time entered the Bavarian regional assembly.

“This is an earthquake for Bavaria,” said Jürgen Falter, a political scientist at the University of Mainz.

The CSU had governed the state with an absolute majority for most of the last 60 years. “It was Bavaria and Bavaria was the CSU. That is now no longer the case.”

The latest collapse of Germany’s establishment parties highlights the shaky ground the grand coalition in Berlin is now resting on as all three parties in the alliance, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, the CSU and the SPD, are haemorrhaging support. Some are now questioning whether the coalition, already frayed by personal rivalries and near constant bickering over policy, can survive a full term in office.

“This outcome throws ever more doubt on the future of the grand coalition,” said Heinrich Oberreuter, head of the Passau Journalism Institute and an expert on the CSU. “Based on current polls, if an election were held now, the CDU, CSU and SPD would not even command a majority in the Bundestag.”

The CSU will now be be forced to form a coalition government — a humiliating outcome for a party that has run Bavaria single-handedly for 49 of the last 54 years. Its preference is probably for a three-party coalition with the Free Voters, a small party that is mainly focused on local politics. It could also team up with the Greens, though it would be highly reluctant to do so: the two parties are deeply divided over immigration, transport and environmental policy.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA ploy backfires big time (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 1.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at Senator Elizabeth Warren’s ‘genius’ idea to accept POTUS Trump’s ‘Native American DNA’ challenge. Let’s just say that Warren will never recover from this self-inflicted wound.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

The Cherokee Nation issued a statement crushing Elizabeth Warren for her “continued claims of tribal heritage.”

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, who ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.

– Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr

Zerohedge reports that Elizabeth Warren just owned herself after releasing a DNA test confirming that she’s as little as 1/1024th Native American – about half the percentage of the average white person.

What’s more, the DNA expert she used, Stanford University professor Carlos Bustamente, “used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American” as opposed to, say, DNA from a Cherokee Indian which Warren has claimed to be throughout her career.

Adding to the absurdity are two major corrections by the Boston Globe (which has become the media mouthpiece of Warren’s 2020 damage control efforts of late), letting readers know that “Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024,” and later updating it to “between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.”

Adding to the absurdity are two major corrections by the Boston Globe (which has become the media mouthpiece of Warren’s 2020 damage control efforts of late), letting readers know that “Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024,” and later updating it to “between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.”

Elizabeth Warren’s got trolled by Trump in the most epic fashion, pushing the Senator to make a blunder that will follow her for the rest of her career.

The Daily Caller’s Benny Johnson exposed Elizabeth Warren’s history of lies in 10 simple tweets…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Hillary Clinton: Democrats have been TOO CIVIL with GOP (VIDEO)

Civil war becomes more likely as Clinton calls for greater civil unrest after weeks of absolutely insane behavior from leftist activists.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton just called for an end to civil behavior towards Republicans and conservatives. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN expanded on in a piece by USA Today, the failed candidate had this to say:

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about… That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and / or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Clinton said that Senate Republicans under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., “demeaned the confirmation process” and “insulted and attacked” Christine Blasey Ford – who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault she alleges Kavanaugh committed in 1982 – along with other “women who were speaking out.”

It should be pointed out here that Clinton told a lie. The Senate Republicans did everything possible to hear out Dr Ford’s testimony, and no one has gone on record with any sort of insults or demeaning comments about her. Every Republican Senator who stated anything agreed that something happened to her, but they also agreed that there was no corroboration showing that Judge Kavanaugh was actually involved in any misdoings. USA Today’s piece continues:

Clinton compared the handling of Kavanaugh’s confirmation to “Republican operatives shutting down the voting in 2000,” the “swift-boating of John Kerry,” attacks on former Arizona Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary and “what they did to me for 25 years.

“When you’re dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding, you can be civil but you can’t overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections,” she told Amanpour.

Clinton compared Kavanaugh’s swearing-in ceremony at the White House on Monday to a “political rally” that “further undermined the image and integrity of the court.”

She told Amanpour the effect on the court “troubles” and “saddens” her “because our judicial system has been viewed as one of the main pillars of our constitutional government.”

“But the President’s been true to form,” Clinton added. “He has insulted, attacked, demeaned women throughout the campaign – really for many years leading up to the campaign. And he’s continued to do that inside the White House.”

Here, Clinton told at least two more incendiary whoppers.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

First, no one has been specifically after her, and second, President Donald Trump’s record with women including in the White House has been nothing short of stellar and gentlemanly. Nikki Haley, who supported Marco Rubio in the 2016 campaign and has at times been openly critical of Donald Trump, yesterday announced her full support of his 2020 campaign and her intent to campaign with and for him.

By all accounts, Mrs. Haley is a woman.

The first American Civil War had economic policy and states’ rights as its central focus. Slavery was a part of that issue, though slavery was practiced in the North as well in the South before this war began.

Now a new civil war is coming, but perhaps it should be called the American Social War. It is not about any real policy matter at all. It is hysteria, but it appears to be hysteria with a purpose.

The first American Social War has two apparent sides and allying forces and groups:

The Left:

  • pro-gay marriage
  • pro-death (in other words, pro-abortion)
  • anti-Christian, especially Christianity that says these first two issues are wrong
  • anti-GOP / Republican / Conservative
  • “victim class” – feminists, some millenials
  • supporters of legalized use of mind-altering / mood-altering drugs
  • appears to support overreaching socialist style government, featuring “fair” wages, such as a $15.oo minimum wage
  • anti-traditionalist
  • Mainstream media is strongly allied here
  • George Soros is a supporter
  • social media outlets, like Facebook and Twitter are supporters through “scrubbing” of media content
  • anti-white, anti-male, and if you are white, male and Christian, look out. You are Enemy Number One
  • supports and executes violence against all these people they are against, including family members.
  • very zealous, and very monolithic in terms of alignment and energy

The Right:

  • Conservatives
  • people who generally want the government to leave them alone
  • generally favors life, considering abortion tragic and to be avoided, though some consider that it should be made illegal
  • marriage has always been between one man and one woman and it should not be redefined to fit the whims of a few
  • God is sovereign (though many conservatives would never make this connection)
  • No real animus against the left, but at the same time, fed up with being hectored by the left all the time, as we saw in Senator Lindsey Graham’s explosive confrontation against Senate Democrats
  • Generally Republican by party affiliation, though many libertarian and conservatives are also present as well as a number of conservative democrats.
  • seeks to avoid violence. While there do exist a very few neo-Nazi types, their numbers are infinitesimal, and their behavior is rejected by the Right
  •  generally against drug use, though many have unfortunately moderated on the matter of actual illegality

The main characteristic of this approaching war, as stated before, is little more than some sort of outrage over identity politics and perceived victimization. This is something both new and old, as there is always a party in any war that claims that they are fighting because they are in fact the aggrieved party, under the other side’s aggression and suppression.

That factor exists with this war too. However, the reality of that aggression or suppression is that it does not exist, and this makes it very difficult for the “perceived aggressors” to ramp up the zeal needed to carry out the fight.

This factor is often very maddening for conservative people. As a whole they do not wish to fight. They wish to be left alone. The left on the other hand insists that everything must be fought for because the right has somehow managed to take it away from them, or is keeping it away from them.

This is purely fiction but it is almost impossible to convince a leftist that this is so. Tucker Carlson expands on this matter in this report. He makes reference at 6:37 about how Hillary Rodham Clinton is now openly calling for civility to the GOP to end (as if it hasn’t already!), but the entirety of this report begs to be seen to give perspective to the look and feel of this crisis:

This is unfamiliar territory in many ways, and it is unclear how far this will go. But one this is clear: it is testing all available limits, and it may come to real fighting, and real killing, for no reason better than perceived victimization.

It should be understood that the advocates for violence are all people that reject God and traditional values openly. There is certainly a connection.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending