in ,

There is no Anti-Establishment Candidate in the USA

I’m going to refer strictly to Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard in this piece. I’ll point out how both of them are in thralldom, to one degree or another, to the powers that be, how they pretend to champion free speech and diplomacy, and how – in fact – they are Establishment servitors.

In order to keep this article short, and not thick with data as an accounting book, I appeal to the memory of the reader. Remember all the pledges Trump made during the campaign and during his term in office, and contrast those pledges with what he actually did – his flip flops. The impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump is just PR. The Democrats and the Never-Trumper Republicans are trying to look busy, are trying to simulate opposition to Donald Trump in front of the anti-Trump electorate. It should be no mystery by now that the audience loves a victim. Trump being ganged up by crooked politicians, trying to pose as paragons of virtue will sicken any honest observer. The bs impeachment effort will help Trump in the race, just like the free news coverage he received from the mainstream media during 2016. It’s not wholly a conspiracy within a conspiracy, because Trump headlines did bring in more traffic – so there’s also a market logic behind it.

Now let’s see what was fake about the Donald Trump presidency. By no means will it be a short list, so I urge the reader to fill in the gaps by making recourse to his or her own memory. To keep it simple, the list of flip-flops won’t be chronological.

Trump’s so-called Muslim ban left out the USA’s Gulf allies, ironically the main sponsors of terrorist ideology and terrorist groups, from which the 9/11 hijackers originated.

The USMCA [NAFTA 2.0] gives even more powers of censorship to Big Tech and entrenches their legal immunity.

Trump invoked the Saudi connection to 9/11, said he would declassify info concerning the issue. He never did.

Trump chose Saudi Arabia for his first ever visit as POTUS, and there he danced and laughed with the despotic aristos, striking military contract deals with the biggest sponsor of Wahhabism [terrorist ideology]. Trump took the opportunity there in Saudi Arabia to publicly condemn Qatar as a sponsor of terrorism and agent of destabilization within the region. The next day Qatar expressed its desire to purchase wargear from the US. Trump saluted their decision and a deal was signed days later.

During the campaign, Trump said he’s willing to work with Russia within the Syrian “civil war” [aka. regime change operation]. But then Trump completely swallowed the [now debunked] staged gas attack, and used it as a pretext to both violate international and national law by launching an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation. Trump proclaimed victory against Daesh [an utter lie], vowed to pull out US troops, but that was largely a political stunt. Instead, US troops remained behind to “protect the oil fields,” as Trump put it – resources belonging to Syria and its lawfully and democratically elected Government, and not to the US, Turkey, the YPG or PKK.

Trump’s wall, ah, pardon, fence, was a crock. For the vast majority of his term, Trump hadn’t built a single mile of new wall. By now, something new has gotten built, a section that covers only a meager 2.8 percent of the border itself.

Trump said he would replace the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] with something better. To this day, nothing better was put on the table. In fact, the Trump White House dropped the American Patients First plan from its agenda, measures that would rein in to some extent price gouging, promote biosimilars, and redirect rebates from insurers to consumers.

And there are many, many other such flip-flops and hypocrisies, utter machiavellian lies, and again I ask the reader to try and remember all of them. I’ll just conclude this [short] list with the peace negotiations between the US and North Korea. At first, Trump seemed like the only sensible politician in the US mainstream. Everyone hammered him for his decision to meet with Kim. But Trump’s meeting was conducted in bad faith. As the reason for the failure in negotiations, Trump invoked the idea that the North wanted a complete lift of sanctions against it. This claim put out by Trump was subsequently infirmed by Pyonyang, stating that the North Korean side never demanded such a thing, only a lifting of sanctions targeting the civilian economy [a partial lift of total sanctions], which is more than reasonable. After nuclear talks broke down, again Pyonyang contradicted Trump’s characterization that the talks had gone well, saying the president misleads the public. So Trump was simply feigning diplomacy. He was milking a situation for personal PR points. He had no good faith about working toward a historic peace deal for both the USA and more so for the Korean peninsula; nor will anything positive happen in his second term.

Now time to focus on Tulsi Gabbard, the prominent anti-war and pro-diplomacy candidate. The first troubling aspect is her membership on the Council on Foreign Relations. After this became public knowledge on the internet, the CFR website took her name off the list; but the web archive held on to the truth. In 2016, she hosted a CFR briefing in Honolulu. Secondly, after watching Gabbard’s performance in 2019, we see that she has stuck with the “brutal dictator” narrative about Bashar al-Assad, playing right into [pro-war] Establishment propaganda. When referring to the events of 9/11, Gabbard was quick to dump all the blame on the backs of the Saudis, without mentioning the involvement of two key actors in that whole operation, namely Israel and the Deep State.

I don’t trust any politician who believes the mainstream narrative on 9/11, or who talks only partial truths about it. Thirdly, Tulsi Gabbard voted against the BDS movement – which is a peaceful movement that boycotts the Apartheid policies of Israel and is entitled to free speech. In this interview, Gabbard says a bunch of nothing on the subject matter. Jimmy Dore was very soft on her and even his own audience said the same. Tulsi’s stance on this reminds me of the Russian sanctions episode. Gabbard was giving interviews, criticizing the sanctions, then, when voting time came, she voted in favor…

In 2016, Gabbard was also the co-sponsor of tough sanctions against North Korea. In 2014, Tulsi Gabbard said, “Russia must face sanctions for its continued aggression against Ukraine.” […] “We must offer direct military assistance—defensive weapons, military supplies and training—to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia’s aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future.”

So I find it hilarious when Democrats accuse Gabbard of being a Russian asset… Ditto for those who accuse Trump of the same – even though Trump continues to strengthen NATO and push for military encirclement of Russia, all the while expressing cordial sentiments to the press and in front of cameras. This Black Agenda Report from 2017 on Gabbard siding with the War Party is short and insightful. When the new sanctions bill against Russia, Iran, and the DPRK reached Congress that same year, the only three Congressmen to vote against it were Republican. Gabbard voted in favor.

In past articles, I tried to be fair on both Trump and Tulsi, saying they did right when I believed so, and criticizing them when I believed they did wrong. But I’m getting tired of putting microbial-level hope in the so-called lesser evil politicians. I mean, Sheldon Adelson supports both Trump and Gabbard. Both have zionist backing, it’s just that it’s more prominent with Trump than with Tulsi. And to make a brief comment about India’s politics, Narendra Modi’s faction has had warm ties with Israel for a good while now; and without getting too much into it, Tulsi has a good relationship with Modi. If Gabbard’s foreign policy stance was truly different to the zionist path, she would have been labeled 24/7 as an anti-semite on all mainstream channels.

To sum it up…

During the last campaign, the pro-war and anti-war sentiments were exploited. Trump was a hawk regarding Iran and the JCPOA, and he was softer on Russia, insisting on normalizing relations with Moscow. Overall, Trump successfully manage to sell himself as less hawkish than Clinton. What do I predict? Irrespective of who takes the White House, the policy of hegemony by any and all means won’t be rescinded, or even placed on hold. Trump isn’t concerned with securing the southern border, otherwise, he would have built a lot more wall, ah, pardon, fence – and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he would not have authorized regime change and destabilization operations [financial and commercial sanctions included] in Central and South America. The Trump Administration has created economic migration and refugees – on top of killing people with the artificially imposed dearth via sanctions. Most likely Gabbard would have been more diplomatic, at least in her speeches, but doubtless she would have used sanctions. None of them are pro-peace in my view; they are both controlled opposition.

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

Report

What do you think?

32
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
Smoking CrapoldandjadedBobbyPaul MartinWilliam H Warrick III MD Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

Cripes at LAST! I have been saying this about Tulsi for a year now.

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

Trump represents the rich ruling-class, the
25% most wealthy who hoard 75% of wealth.

Tulsi Gabbard represents the educated
middle-class, the 25% who hoard 25% of wealth.

And so, who shall work for free, to liberate from
slavery the 50% working-poor including me?

Paul Martin
Guest
Paul Martin

The only ones who use the term “anti-establishment” are those who have no established place in society. Who might those be? Socialists or communists, and Marxists in general. In other words, people with tremendous emotionally deranged resentments who would act according to them if ever attaining office. Pathology uppermost, but (of course) taking care to include talking points to appeal to the “working poor” and their pocketbooks.

Political language itself has become stale and ineffective, largely because we’ve actually been moving on from an age of politics — and into one with morality as its focus and center.

Vincent Neil
Guest
Vincent Neil

What age of politics are you talking about? Morality and religion have always been invoked in politics, since the dawn of man. Who uses the term anti-establishment? Everybody who’s not a goddamn centrist bootlick. In the US, half the population is living from paycheck to paycheck. 1 percent of the country’s wealthy own 50% of the country’s wealth. In the US you don’t have a capitalist society, you have a neofeudal system. People on the left and right use the terms establishment and anti-establishment. The establishment are those folks who extract unearned income from the rest of society in the… Read more »

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

If government let all socialists and capitalists do as they please, with the only restriction being that no one could own more property than needed for a healthy life, would that not solve the problem?

cudwieser
Guest
cudwieser

No. Why should the government dictate. Only we the people should govern and negotiate, not dictate and demand.

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

Socialists, by robing from the rich and giving to the poor, destroy the moral fabric of society by making impossible the emotions of compassion, charity and a grateful response. But than, does not capitalism do the same, by the fake morality that profit may be hoarded by the first one who gets their greedy hands on it?

Robertx5
Guest
Robertx5

My suspicion is, Tulsi Gabbard believes in certain things, the military, the institutions, the United States, ultimately she believes in the system. I think she is a conservative with a small ‘c’. My reading (rightly or wrongly) is that she can be persuaded with logic and reason to change her mind (another, surprisingly may be Tucker Carlson). My opinion Her upbringing up as a strict Hindu gave her a view of the world which she appears to now moved on from. Her view appears to be you don’t have to love people with different lifestyles, you just need to accept… Read more »

Paul Martin
Guest
Paul Martin

The big problem for the left is maintaining their ideological consistency, even when logic actually keeps escaping them, and they wind up making very little sense. Their adherents don’t seem to notice this serious deficiency, but sticking to pre-selected “facts” and talking points is their only refuge, it seems. By another name, it’s called: “In for a penny, in for a pound.”

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

The logic that seven billion sinners should not cause the one billion least intelligent humans to slowly starve to death, has that not escaped you?

Paul Martin
Guest
Paul Martin

Plenty of sophistry to go around here it seems (at least from lefties). I don’t buy the “one billion slowly starving to death” kinds of spin — not only because we are living in a time when human life has direly succumbed to the rules of quantification (where data and stats can be manufactured or skewed at will to validate various positions), but because the left has always tried to use its own shallow investment in victimhood to convince others that they’re the “good” guys. This is why, even as through the years many people have been working through various… Read more »

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

As a liar may enrich himself upon our misery only by a pretense of good that hides his evil intent, the only possible solution is to enlighten everyone of the absolute difference between good and evil. What planet earth is all about.

Paul Martin
Guest
Paul Martin

For all the success Trump has attained for himself, he has firmly remained an outsider to the real bunch of corrupt ones running things in the financial and political worlds. For example, he was never in line with Wall Streeters, who viewed him with hositility, but appealed to smaller entrepreneurs in his deal-making prowess. The real “establishment” have hated him all along, because he never played according to their rules, but only appeared to, and monitoring who was who in the scheme of things, while keeping a scorecard to determine likely combatants in the battles to come… That’s right: a… Read more »

Pierre Vaillant
Guest
Pierre Vaillant

Trump appealed to small business? Is that why his tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited big corps, and why all the money saved from the tax cut went into stock-buybacks instead of investment? Trump IS a Wall-Street guy. He always brags about the stock market, even though the stock market is NOT the real economy. Before the GFC hit, the stock market was doing great, because it was based on no fundamentals. It’s all a scam, a rigged system, of which Trump is a part of. All Trump did was to give boons to rent-seekers, usurers, and war profiteers, just like Obomber.

Paul Martin
Guest
Paul Martin

Time will eventually tell if some or all of your points are right. At the moment, my intuition rather doubts it. I will go with that, rather than argue with all the many “facts” that you and others are offering, since there are always enough opinions masquerading as facts… Well, we will see.

Smoking Crap
Guest
Smoking Crap

Read the financial press all of it, read independent reports. The Trump tax cut overwhelmingly went into stock buybacks. Trump did nothing for the working class. Trump himself made money as a real estate speculator, pocketing the value of location created by communities and left untaxed by the state. In other words, Trump is a rent-seeker, and all he’s done in office on the economic side was to the benefit of the parasite class. If you’re living in a world in which you suspect facts as being opinions, then you’re living in a fake world. Why don’t you bother to… Read more »

Pierre Vaillant
Guest
Pierre Vaillant

Oh, that’s how Trump cleans up the swamp? By naming war hawks and Big Bank lobbyists in his administration? Hahahahaha.

AriusArmenian
Guest
AriusArmenian

Have to agree. It is not possible via elections to change the supremacist warmongering foreign policy of the US. It doesn’t matter what they say on the campaign trail – once elected the deep state machine takes over. US button pushing elites are marching us all directly at economic collapse or war – this moronic march will end one way or the other.

James
Guest

In the 1960’s presidential election both the Republican and Democrat candidates seemed to be pro-establishment. Democrat candidate Senator John F. Kennedy criticised President Eisenhower and his Republican opponent Richard M. Nixon for the “Missile Gap”, for allowing the Soviets to achieve nuclear weapons superiority over the U.S. – a claim he surely knew to be false and which was to subsequently hamper his efforts to achieve peace with the Soviet Union. Given the subsequent cover-up of the conspiracy to murder him on 22/11/1962, we now know that JFK was not the establishment candidate. Likewise in 2019, we cannot know for… Read more »

JFK was a war criminal
Guest
JFK was a war criminal

Kennedy is a joke. The fact that he was assassinated doesn’t wash away his sins. He greenlighted the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was responsible for the Cuban missile crisis. He escalated the war in Vietnam and committed numerous atrocities. He lobotomized his daughter. He made a fortune from insider trading. He supporter Joseph McCarthy. He and his son had affairs with the same woman. John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s presidency was one of violence and destruction as he stumbled along his path from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the Vietnam War all the while refusing… Read more »

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

PERFECT SOLUTION — All Western nations treat Iran with the same cruel indifference as they treat their 50% working-poor, namely, allow the college educated upper-half of society to hoard all the land and wealth. So, never should Iran doubt that the Western powers will not always strive to enrich themselves upon the misery of the working-poor in Iran. And so, to undo the damage done by the Western powers, the working-poor in Iran must be eliminated by eliminating all millionaires and billionaires. Just a simple law that puts a cap on wealth, than with all that hidden and hoarded wealth… Read more »

John Ellis
Guest
John Ellis

If government let all socialists and capitalists do as they please,
with the only restriction being that no one could own more property
than needed for a healthy life, would that not solve the problem?

Natural Born Georgist
Guest
Natural Born Georgist

The law should distinguish between earned and unearned income.
Between economic surplus and economic rent.
Between wealth creation and wealth extraction.
Between natural monopolies (land, water, air) and capital (machines, tools, and contracts/money).
Limiting the net worth of an individual by looking purely at money values, and not the type of economic activity performed, is regressive and not at all just.

Anthony Enos Wicher
Guest

Totally and completely wrong. Tulsi and Trump are both anti-establishment.Even though the facts cited are mostly true, the over-all picture is a one-sided distortion of reality. I think that Trump and Tulsi both do represent genuine threats to the Empire. For example, the House of Lords has said that the special relationship between the U.S. and the U.K. cannot survive a second Trump term. The efforts by the Empire to get rid of Trump since he entered politics in 2015 are genuine. The same imperialists are attacking Tulsi’s anti-war advocacy. Trump is just one man who has to deal with… Read more »

Ellie Donald
Guest
Ellie Donald

“Even though the facts cited are mostly true” Facts are either facts or they’re not facts. You contradict yourself. How is Trump a threat to the Empire, when he’s been pushing NATO members to spend more on their military, when Trump has hiked the US war budget, when Trump is creating economic migrants and refugees by continuing and starting new regime change pushes? By the way, Trump is also taking your guns away while giving more powers to Big Tech and Big Corps in general. He’s a stooge. His America First policy is a crock. Instead of getting out of… Read more »

Smoking Crap
Guest
Smoking Crap

All the things listed in this piece are facts and can be easily verified. But you Trumpists always ignore when your beloved Israel First president lies his pants off.

Smoking Crap
Guest
Smoking Crap

The US empire under Trump has a far bigger budget and is more belligerent in indirect operations. In no way is Trump a threat to the Empire. Just listen to what Trump pledges to the Zionist gangsters. He’s a warhawk stooge pretending to be more dovish that the Demoncrats.

William H Warrick III MD
Guest
William H Warrick III MD

If Tulsi is a Deep State tool, why are they trying to destroy her?

Bobby
Guest
Bobby

They’re doing what they did to Trump in 2015 and 2016. If you’ll recall, all that focused attack propped Trump in the polls. They’re grooming her for a post-Trump second term.

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

“Establishment” is far too broad a phrase to have real meaning. Trump is undoubtedly outside the mainstream political establishment(and for me at least, under present conditions, that’s enough), but in no way shape or form is it realistic to describe him an “anti-establishment” in the broader sense. Tulsi Gabbard on the other hand, is very much a political insider, who is being marketed as “anti-establishment”. One thing I do find disturbing, when Tulsi Gabbard is mentioned, the vast majority (even more so than with Trump, and that’s really saying something) seem to completely eschew any rational thought, and react on… Read more »

Bobby
Guest
Bobby

That’s cuz she’s an attractive woman. I haven’t studied up on Gabbard’s base, but I suspect it’s overwhelmingly composed of men, straight or bi. So that explains it. Men think with their dicks.

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

sweet j&$&$, even I was giving them a little more credit that THAT! LOL! But you may have a point.

Kurti’s Election Means A Stronger Push For “Greater Albania” And Protection For Terrorists In Kosovo

Bill Browder and Fraud in the Ukraine Investigation w/ @LaRouchePAC Harley Schlanger