Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Globalist Clinton: Clear and Present Danger to World Peace

The US Presidential election is a conflict between an alienated population and a self serving globalist elite that has become concentrated in rival but also mutually supporting political clans.

Gilbert Mercier

Published

on

882 Views

Submission by the author, was first published by News Junkie Post.

This current United States presidential election cycle is completely out of the ordinary.

Even though the division and contentions between Hillary Clinton’s supporters and Donald Trump’s supporters are not policy oriented, like they should be, they are nonetheless extremely vivid in the realm of rage and raw emotions.

It appears that most Americans will be motivated to cast their ballots with hatred in their guts. In other words many will vote for Trump because they hate Hillary with a passion, and vice versa.

The divide in the US collective psyche seems so great, that many could reject the outcome of the result, especially if Hillary Clinton wins. When a candidate calls the supporters of the other “the deplorables,” this is hardly acting like someone who wants to unite all Americans.

The right-wing forces backing Trump  largely because of his running mate Pence and their aversion to Hillary Clinton, are the evangelical Christians. They are the ones Clinton calls deplorable. They represent a strong voting block of about 10 percent overall nationwide, and much more in rural areas.

When you look at a map of the electoral divide in the US, it is rather fascinating both sociologically and historically. It is as if the mid-19th century Civil War was never lost or won. The old Confederate south will go to Donald Trump, and this is precisely where a new form of resistance to a corrupt political class might begin.

Most people like Trump  because he is considered to be an anti-establishment candidate. Trump is a right-wing populist reacting against the ultra-globalist Clinton. Many will vote for Trump as a form of protest against a political class they despise. One could say, especially considering that this election cycle has become such an exercise in sleaze, depravity and joyful roll in the gutter, that a vote for Trump is a f**k you vote echoing the recent BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom.

Clinton: the ultimate globalist neocon tool

A long time ago, Hillary Clinton was considered to be a so-called liberal. That is, until her immense appetite for money and ambition  turned her into a neoliberal instrument of Wall Street.

In Orwellian times, notions that appear to be opposite morph into one another. Therefore, when it came to maintaining and expanding  the US empire, neoliberal and neocon became synonymous.

As opposed to the Southern Bible belt and blue-collar rust belt supposed deplorables, the neocons are a rarefied urban elite, in majority Jewish. Since the launch of the so-called Project for the New American Century in 1997, they have been the driving force behind almost every foreign policy decision made by US governments, either Republican or Democrat.

Victoria Nuland, the person who masterminded the destabilisation of Ukraine from the State Department, is the wife of one of the neocon founding fathers: Robert Kagan.

You will not find neocons with mud on their shoes minding their fields in Alabama. Their natural milieu are the corridors of powers in Washington DC, organisations like AIPAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, American Enterprise Institute, and other think-tanks; or institutions like the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA.

Neocons are, by definition, the ideologues and puppet masters of the empire behind the notion of US exceptionalism and uncontested global hegemony.

In this regard, Hillary Clinton is, very much, a neocon controlled by Wall Street and its subsidiary of the industrial-military complex. If elected, her supranational masters will make sure that their agenda of global government controlled by a minuscule global elite is implemented.

Who would run Trump?

This is a question that Donald Trump voters should ask themselves. The appeal of Trump is largely the notion that he would clean the cesspool that is Washington. But let’s not be naive here: Donald Trump is a businessman with zero political experience, and he is not exactly a modern day Hercules able to clean the Augean stables in a day. Trump will need help, but  he is an outsider, and therefore a Trump cabinet is, in many aspects, a mystery.

Which group of people would run Trump if he were elected? From day one of his presidency Barack Obama was surrounded and run by Clinton’s crew, whom I call Clintonites. Therefore, in many ways, Obama’s first and second terms were really Clinton’s third and fourth term.

Trump would like to be perceived as a new Ronald Reagan, but this does not fare well as an indication of the real power he might want to exercise. The man in power during the Reagan era was George Bush Sr., while the former actor was just a figurehead reading speeches he did not write.

Ultimately, if Trump had the intention to assert his independence from Washington’s usual suspects and heavyweights, and truly assume power, it would likely become extremely hazardous to his health.

Is Clinton more likely than Trump to start World War III?

In regard to foreign policy, there is, unfortunately, not much departure from Trump about the guiding precept of US  global hegemony, by military force in most cases.

A Trump presidency would not end the global Monroe Doctrine, which has been the cornerstone of US foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The somewhat moronic comments Trump made during the first debate with Clinton should be alarming when he mentioned that countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, which are arguably occupied by US troops and have been since World War II and the 1950s for Korea, should pay the US for their own occupation. This is in line with the tribute paid to Rome by oppressed nations that the Roman empire had invaded.

During the second debate, calling Iran a terrorist state was also an extremely alarming foreign policy faux pas obviously aimed at pleasing Israel.

Trump is also still clueless about the rise of ISIS as a mercenary force financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the full knowledge and blessings of Washington and Israel.

That said, however, there is an unknown factor with Trump, and paradoxically it is a good thing.

Donald Trump is the devil we don’t really know. The devil we know, Hillary Clinton, seems to act as if she already has won the election and is directing US foreign policy in the worst possible way.

The no-fly-zone over Syria is a Clinton idea, which is of course designed to put the US and Russia on a collision course.

Hillary Clinton is the one who started comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Clinton is the one most likely to approve an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, and by doing so trigger World War III.

This is what Western Europe’s leaders should think about when they more or less openly endorse Hillary Clinton.

Let’s keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind fostering fake revolutions for regime change purposes in Libya, Syria and Ukraine: the prime engineer of failed states, misery and death for millions.

In many ways, Clinton was ISIS’ godmother. 

Clinton’s policy path is a well-documented trail of chaos.  Neither of the US candidates is a good option, but Clinton certainly constitutes a clear and present danger to world peace.

Mafia Imperial Rule

A mafia imperial rule, at the pleasure of world finance, started in the US  with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. This is when conflicting centres of power started to disappear, to become increasingly monolithic.

After all, the different mafia families serve the same Wall Street masters and interests.  Just like in the mafia crime families whose influence reached its apex between the 1920s and the late 1950s, to fade away in the late 1970s, the US rival political families are in many ways organised in clans with their own structure of don, capo, consigliere and hatchet men.

The Rockefellers and  Kennedys operated like this with don Joseph for the Kennedys. Since the election of Reagan, the two dominating clans have been the Bushes and the Clintons.

In the early 1990s, their interests sometimes still clashed, but very quickly, as Bill Clinton became in Bush Sr.’s eyes “almost a son,” their interests started to coincide almost always, in an implicit agreement to pass the baton of power from one clan to another every four or eight years.

The year 1980 was the beginning of the end of the US as a republic with a two-party system. It is when the US became a full-fledged empire with two mafia-type dynasties taking turns in power.

John Kerry was part of the Kennedy clan, and for this reason a bit of an outsider. Informed observers hoped that he would offer an alternative and challenge Hillary Clinton during the primary. He had the intelligence, the poise and the credentials to do so; however, he made the choice — deliberate or forced through blackmail — to join the Clinton clan instead.

Godfather Bush Sr.’s support for Hillary is easy to understand in this mafia-like context: if Bill Clinton is Don Bush Sr’s adopted son, then Hillary is Bush Sr.’s daughter-in-law. George W. Bush’s wife Laura has also pledged her support to Hillary Clinton.

The two leading political clans are not in conflict at all. In their power sharing agreement everybody gets a very nice share of the pie. It has worked well for the Bushes under Clintonite Obama, and of course Empress Hillary would maintain the status quo.

This form of government is corrupt to its core, and this is why somebody like Trump appeals to anti-establishment voters. People are fed up. They do not precisely know what they want, but they are certain that the system is rigged and are ready to reject it.

Mainstream media pro-Hillary propaganda and anti-Russia hysteria

Western media outlets, and especially US mainstream media, have become at-large propagandists for their corporate masters.

In this election cycle the tragic state of health of almost all US media: networks, cable, radio stations, and print is so blatant that it is embarrassing for the profession of journalism. By serving the interests of Hillary Clinton so obviously, newspapers such as The New York Times and the Washington Post are pretty much losing whatever credibility they had left as impartial news sources. With the recently released lewd audio tape of Donald Trump right before the October 9, 2016 debate, both papers have hit the bottom of disinformation and sleaze, on par only with rags such as The National Enquirer.

Originally Hillary Clinton used the Ukraine crisis, which Washington triggered, to generate an anti-Russian hysteria and vilification of President Putin. The US-Russian tensions over Syria are aimed at giving Clinton an edge over Trump in the eye of the electorate because of Trump’s lack of foreign-policy experience.

But in this completely abnormal and nearly anachronistic election cycle, it could, if properly used by Trump’s campaign, backfire on Clinton provided that Trump brings up key damaging elements recently revealed by Wikileaks in the Podesta files.

Clinton has proven by her track record that she should not be trusted to diffuse conflicts by diplomatic solutions. After all, the Clinton clan has been great for its friends and sponsors of  the military-industrial complex.

Perhaps a much bigger conflict, directly with Russia and China, sounds appealing to the war profiteers in Washington and Wall Street. The nationalism of a leader such as Vladimir Putin is really at the core of the problem here. This is why, if Clinton is elected, her elite globalist bosses will demand that regime change in Russia be part of the agenda.

Is Trump more unfit for duty than Hillary?

Hillary Clinton always claims that Donald Trump is unfit for the duty of commander-in-chief, with access to the nuclear codes.

She might have a point, but one honestly has to wonder if she is fit either. She seems to operate in an alternate reality, and even at her best, the expressions on her face — this sort of irritating and unmotivated permanent smile — should raise concerns about her mental health.

Regardless, if she is elected and makes it to the official inauguration in January, as long as she can stand up and read a teleprompter without drooling all over her face, even if her health deteriorates further, she will remain president on paper while the first husband, Bill Clinton, actually runs the White House.

If Hillary Clinton has to step down formally because of health issues, her running mate Tim Kaine, as vice president, would officially become president while Bill Clinton would assume the real leadership of the country.

Gilbert Mercier is the Editor-in-Chief of News Junkie Post and the author of  The Orwellian Empire.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

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

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

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

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

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