The analysis is hardly complete but already they reveal an
'unveiled' Hillary Clinton and more or less confirm what many already thought.
She's an Establishment figure and has no qualms about taking public positions
that can be contrasted with her real 'private' feelings and the policies she
will pursue. Like most politicians, she's a phony.
The DNC and the US Establishment are beating the war drums
and Vladimir Putin's Russia is their target. For some time they've been trying
to paint Assange as a pro-Putin collaborator. This only demonstrates they do
not understand him or the alternative media. It's not that Assange or other
Clinton critics such as John Pilger are pro-Putin. That's just not the case at
all. They are simply anti-Clinton.
In the absurd thought dynamic that dominates American
politics anti-Clinton means pro-Trump and yet this is pure fallacy. There are
many who believe (and rightly so) that there's no viable candidate, both
parties represent the same values but that said... some (and only some) will
argue Trump is perhaps a variable while Hillary Clinton is not. Hillary is
pro-Wall Street and pro-War and thus they oppose her. With Trump who they do
not support, there is at least the possibility of the US war machine being
neutralised by the chaos he generates. That said, they would all admit he is a
repulsive and evil figure but only slightly worse than Hillary Clinton. In fact
Trump's values are really not that different than those held by the American
Establishment. His problem is he's uneducated, boorish, vulgar and unpolished.
He says things that aren't supposed to be vocalised even if many in the
Establishment and certainly among the masses feel (more or less) the same way.
Is he a lecher? You bet he is and he's by no means the first running for high
office that's been guilty of being a moral wretch. This is the nature of power.
I am consistently amazed that so many think our leaders are
people with morals and integrity. They obviously have never read a book, a
journalistic article or watched anything beyond what is approved by the
mainstream.
A prime example would be the recent PBS Frontline piece, 'The
Choice 2016'. While certainly interesting and somewhat informative it was in
the end a whitewash... certainly of the Clintons.
Many figures in the alternative media advocate voting for
third parties or even, not at all.
Assange is not pro-Putin. If it were revealed that he was
somehow collaborating with Moscow his credibility and the Wikileaks project
would be forever destroyed. His critics will point to his short-lived programme
that appeared on Russia Today (RT) which is known to have Kremlin connections.
Yet if anyone bothers to watch RT they'll find figures as diverse as Ron Paul,
Julian Assange, Chalmers Johnson, Nigel Farage and many others (both Left and
Right) representing a wide range of views. The station more or less functions
as a Radio Free America, a channel granting American dissenters a voice. This
is why it has some popularity among consumers of alternate media.
A few months ago the DNC suggested that Russia was behind the
hacked emails that led to its chairman's resignation and a scandal regarding
the committee's blatantly corrupt internal politics. And yet the public was
never given any proof and as Edward Snowden assured us, it would be easy to see
and the NSA or some other agency would have been able to release something,
some form of even a redacted document that demonstrated Russian guilt.
We never saw it.
NSA whistleblower William Binney thinks it was done by
someone inside the DNC or US intelligence. There's other evidence that suggests
this.
And now we're supposed to believe the Obama administration's
expanded charge that Putin is 'meddling' with US elections?
Where's the proof?
In fact the timing is rather revealing. The Administration
knew the Assange/Wikileaks release was pending. They waited until the moment it
went public and then formally and publically charged Russia with election
tampering. I don't doubt they've been sitting on the press release for some time.
This is little more than an attempt to discredit Assange and
his organisation and to step up the propaganda campaign against Russia. The
charge against Russia is supposed to indicate that Assange is obviously their
tool.
Will the leaks benefit Trump? Maybe, but so what? Not
everyone is going along with the Bernie Sanders fraud of channeling the Left
into supporting the pro-Establishment, pro-Capitalist, pro-militarist ever
Right-ward trending Democratic Party. Bernie Sander's political revolution
turned out to be little more than... you have to support the Hillary Clinton
Right-wing vs. the Nativist/Fascist Trump bloc. In other words it's a false
choice and a counterfeit movement. Frontline
suggests we have a choice? What choice?
The fact that the Trump misogynist/predator video was also
released today may not be a coincidence. It may be a counter-October Surprise
meant to deflect from everything else and destroy any capital he might have
gained from the Clinton transcripts. It would be interesting to know how long
someone has been sitting on that video.
An additional point...if Russia was involved in US meddling,
which at this point I am not at all convinced... I wouldn't put it past Putin...
but I don't trust the US government or its media either. We may never know the
whole story.
If Russia was seeking to influence the US election, can you
blame them? Considering the agenda that Washington has pursued since 1991 one
can hardly blame them for trying. Considering the obvious direction US policy
is headed vis-à-vis Moscow, they would almost be fools not to do whatever they
could. A Trump presidency is a gamble, while a Clinton administration is a guarantee
of crisis and brinksmanship.
Even today while these stories were breaking, Western media
focused on Russian jets violating Finnish airspace. Finland has been
collaborating with Israel on arms sales, allowing US jets into their country
for joint exercises and upgrading their American F-18s which are the mainstay
of their air force. And there's little doubt that Russia is suspicious of
Pentagon officials meeting with officials in Helsinki, today's new security
pact dispelling any doubts they may have had. The US has been quietly working
on a trilateral side arrangement with non-NATO members Sweden and Finland.
While not officially part of the NATO command structure their militaries are
being slowly and quietly brought into the larger strategic equation.
Finally, the US can make all the noise it wants to, but any
protestations are purely hypocritical. The US has manipulated the elections and
politics in literally dozens of nations over the past century or so, many of
them its own allies. No nation in the world has consistently demonstrated a
more anti-democratic foreign policy than the United States. This is
indisputable.
We pray that calmer heads will prevail and that some of the
Washington strategists will heed the advice of Brzezinski (a strange thing to
say) and embrace diplomacy and coexistence rather than the march to destructive
and perhaps catastrophic conflict.
The American public is being swindled. It's starting to feel
a lot like 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.