From: Robert C. Casad, Jr.
I live primarily as an expatriate, having relocated to Denmark in 2005, just after the Bush II “re-election” following the judicial putsch of 2000. I very actively supported Bernie with donations from abroad, and consider his efforts at “political revolution” to be the single most positive development in American politics in my lifetime.
Here I write to urge fellow progressives in the US to take great caution when they interpret the information they are seeing about the 2016 election as it unfolds.
At first blush this seems like a no-brainer: Trump is so bad that we have to plug our noses and vote for Hillary. Yet if you take a deeper look, you may re-think who, exactly, is the lesser of two evils in this regrettable situation – this nightmare scenario which exists because of Hillary Clinton’s ambition and her successful suppression of Bernie’s “political revolution.” Trump wouldn’t have stood a chance against Bernie.
You should think long and hard about what is really going on in an election in which the Koch brothers and the Bush Crime Family support Hillary.
I used to say that if you wanted to fight for preservation of local culture in middle America, you should call your oganisation “The Committee for the Annihilation of Local Culture.” This would be the most effective way to formally establish yourselves as the opponent of fox-in-the-chicken-coop “proponents” of local culture such as WallMart, Time-Warner and the like.
Something analogous applies to the 2016 election. Night is day. War is peace. Hate is love. Nothing is as it seems. I just watched a scene from the Democratic Convention in which broadways stars sang a touching rendition of “What the World needs now is love sweet love,” with thousands of delegates holding hands, swaying and singing along. Seems like a very positive contrast with the Republicans’ message of fear. But you should not be taken in by the simplistic logic that Hillary is the candidate of love/defending local culture while Trump is the candidate of hate/annihilating local culture.
The official democratic message is that everything is alright, things are looking great, all of this fear from the Republicans is just a lot of Trumpery.
But in fact there really is a lot to fear – from Hillary. Here is a link to an interview where she plainly states: “I want the Iranians to know that if I am the President, we will attack Iran.”
She supported the Iraq war which followed quickly after the Bush putsch in 2000. Her super-agressive regime change program in Libya (allegedly motivated by “love” for the poor Libyans whom Kaddafi would have slaughtered) ultimately became a field day for Isis. Her failed regime change program in Syria (again allegedly motivated by “love” for the Syrian people mistreated by the monster Assad) has unleashed a cataclysm – now millions of people are homeless refugees, straining European “freedom of movement” to the breaking point and leading to a rising tide of urban terrorism. It is an ongoing theme of her candidacy that “Russian agression” is the biggest foreign policy threat facing the US, hence the need to totally surround Russia with NATO installations.
Trump, the hate candidate, in contrast plainly says “wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with Russia?” Trump proposes to work with Russia to defeat Isis and is not keen on encircling Russia with NATO bases.
I have just seen today major headlines from supposedly reputable news organizations which suggests that Vladimir Putin was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee emails. For example, see NBC News, (“DNC Email hack: Why Vladimir Putin hates Hillary Clinton” ) and see New York Times (“Russia, suspected in hacking, has uneasy history with Hillary Clinton” with picture of Hillary Clinton in a meeting with Putin”).
This is a classic example of a phenomenon that has become very common in news coverage in the US: Things are stated very matter-of-factly about Putin that are not actually substantiated at all. The actual evidence which points to a Russian connection in the DNC hack was that (1) it was from a Russian VPN server, and (2) there were some cyrillic characters in some “clues” which were carelessly left behind in the hack. Only in the US is it possible for this evidence to be immediately extrapolated as proof that “Putin did it.” Russia is a big country. A lot of people live there who do not like the United States, especially after the US-imposed economic sanctions. People who believe that Putin is a dictator who controls everything that happens in Russia are simply living in la la land.
But until now, until Trump brought this question into the center of the presidential campaign, the anti-Russian propaganda machinery in the US has been totally effective. Even my own family in the US, all well educated, resonable people, simply refuse to discuss the question of “Russian aggression.” I am wrong. It is settled. There is simply nothing more to be said about it. Russia is a global menace run by a thug dictator. They might invade Poland any day now. Full stop. Please let us not discuss this subject.
To me it is a profound and disturbing shock that the CONTENT of the hacked emails is somehow less important in the media coverage than the totally unsubstantiated claim that “Putin did it” in order to help his “buddy” Trump. The CONTENT shows that, what was formerly poo-pooed by the mainstream press as a “conspiracy theory” of Bernie supporters, was indeed a fact – the democratic party establishment willfully suppressed Bernie’s “political revolution.”
At the end of the day, Hillary is a war-mongering globalist. No matter how disgusting Trump may be, he is neither of those things. What Trump promises is to hit the re-set button on establishment, globalist Pepsi-Coke two-party politics. In my view, that is much more likely to provide a fertile ongoing context for the “political revolution” than if Hillary is allowed to complete her program. As for the “nuclear codes,” I would trust just about anybody with them before I would give them to Hillary.