Here’s why a Hillary Clinton presidency will push the world closer to war

If the western media is to be believed, no one is allowed to die of natural causes in Russia. Every time a person in Russia dies there is a clear culprit. Let’s say it all together…. ‘Putin did it’. Of course this is beyond farcical, it is utterly inane. But far from being clowns, the ringleaders of the western circus are actually deeply frightening individuals.

A series of seemingly unrelated events have transpired in recent days and weeks which when analysed as part of a larger international agenda, have the aggregate effect of accelerating a political and military doomsday.

The Obama government has waged a cold war on three distinct fronts

1. A political/economic cold war against Russia, complete with the doubling up of hostile NATO military bases and arms near Russia’s vast land border. This part of the Obama government’s plan saw the US aiding and encouraging the violent overthrow of the legitimate government in Kiev in 2014.

2. A political and cyber-war against whistleblowers, legal activists and free speech agitators (Manning, Snowden, Assange being the most well-known)

3. Proxy wars in the Middle East designed to weaken Russia’s traditional Syrian ally through the funding and arming of terrorist groups including ISIS.

But things seem to be getting a lot worse in the run-up to the most violently contested US Presidential election in recent history. Russia has dominated election rhetoric more than in any election since the Reagan era and by comparison, Reagan’s anti-Soviet rhetoric was bland and predictable.

Contrasted with Reagan’s Manichean assessment of international relations, the Hillary Clinton campaign have directly accused Russia of specific and serious acts ranging from waging a war in Donbass when Russia has not done so, trying to destabilise European politics and interfering in elections, when the truth of the matter is that Russia has said and done less and less when it comes to Europe due to the EU increasingly cutting itself off from the wider world under American influence.

Now the Clinton campaign are accusing Russia of directly meddling in the US election and the accusations continue to grow ever wilder. Whether it’s Russia hacking into the computers of the Democratic Party or allegations that Trump and his associates are striking secret personal deals with Vladimir Putin to ensure a Trump victory, Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunts suddenly look modest by comparison. 

Whilst no serious analyst thought Russia was behind the leaks, it now appears that a possible whistleblower has been identified as a recently murdered man. On 10 July of this year, 27 year old Seth Rich was shot in the streets of Washington. Rich had worked for the Democratic National Committee and Julian Assange has cryptically suggested (as Wikileaks never reveal their sources) that Rich may have been the whistleblower who leaked the emails.  

The circumstances surrounding Rich’s death are highly suspicious. He was shot by a still unidentified individual, but was not robbed or molested in any other way. It has all the hallmarks of a targeted assassination. With rumours running rife that a Clinton government would put pressure on Ecuador for granting Assange asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange has posted a 2010 video of Clinton supporter Bob Beckel calling for the ‘illegal’ (Beckel’s words) killing of Assange. Obama’s cold war on whistleblowers has just become very hot indeed.

This has happened more or less simultaneous to rumours that the Ukrainian army along with paramilitary units and terrorist gangs are set to wage total war on the republics of Donbass. In the aftermath of Russia’s thwarting of a terrorist attack on Crimea, some say that Kiev’s forces may attempt to invade Russian territory, beginning with Crimea. 

It is a well-known fact that Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest anti-Russian agitators in Washington, this in spite of the fact that in her last failed attempt to become the President of the US she couldn’t even name the then President of Russia. Now though, Clinton is slipping the anti-Russian message deeper and deeper into both her foreign policy rhetoric and her rhetoric about the political process in America.

The fact that Donald Trump has taken a line that America and Russia should de-escalate tensions is not due to some conspiracy involving Putin, it is because as a self-styled populist, Trump is voicing the view shared by the vast majority of American’s that Russia is not a threat and not even a political issue. The people of America do not care about Russia. Most hardly know about Russia, let alone the intricacies of her foreign policy. This has proved to be both a blessing and a curse for the American political process. On the one hand, Trump offers a much needed alternative to the anti-Russian hysteria which prior to Trump was a point of unity between both Republican and Democratic politicians. With Trump correctly stating that instead of planning a war with Russia, an American president ought to help America’s economy and quill her violent crime rates, many people are taking this simple, honest and correct message on board.

Inversely, Trump has given Clinton an opportunity to play up her anti-Russian stance as Russia is now a point of contention. Assuming one of Trump’s Republican opponents had been the party’s candidate, there would be little point of disagreement and hence no argument about policies towards Russia. But this is no longer the case and Clinton has been emboldened to blame everything, including the presence of Donald Trump on Russia.

I cannot think of a grimmer prospect than a Hillary Clinton presidency. Caligula infamously appointed his favourite horse Incitatus a consul of Rome and frankly I think he would do less damage to world than Clinton. Trump does not have a perfect rhetorical record on whistle-blowers or even on Russia, but contrary to mainstream western media perceptions, his policies are far more sane and sound than those of his opponent. Many pro-war Republicans are telling their constituents; ‘hold your nose and vote for Clinton’. The truth of the matter is, even for those who dislike Trump’s style, if one cares about world peace, hold your nose and vote for Trump.