Three emails reviewing the election of 2016, Trump’s presidency and its contradictions

From The Money Masters onto Trump  (first email)

  • Review of The Money Masters

We note that this video was produced in 1996 by Patrick S. J. Carmack and directed by Bill Still. A member of the bar of the US Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Carmack, practices corporate law and was a former Administrative Law Judge for the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma. As we understand, The Money Masters has been widely popular so you might be aware of or have read it. We review it especially for those who might be introduced to it. First, its Amazon editorial:

The Money Masters is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately- owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned central bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers. ControlAmerica/dp/B0018IPKCG/ref=sr . . .

For us, the message of the video/transcript means a great deal more as it provides a cogent history, first and briefly, of the England from which we rebelled, and then in greater detail of our nation and its continued struggles with the Bank of England under the control of the Rothschild’s. At the time of our revolution, the Rothschild’s had gained control of not only England but well on their way to controlling most of Europe’s central banks, intending to make and control us, the next and greatest empire. As we regressed, losing the freedom for which we aspired, mainstream media, as might be expected, came more and more under bankers’ control securing their means to retain their magnificent profits to buy whatever and whomever they desired. Consequently, the history in this video/transcript is not familiar to most Americans but it is the history that determined our future and now to determine that of the world.

Reviewing briefly the highlights of the video, we see that it was our participation in WW II , both great and noble, that finally determined the completion of our course from a democracy to imperialism. As explained, at the root of such change was not the American people, whose masses were manipulated and deceived, but the “elite” American and European moneymen and their banks having engaged the country in a series of five bank wars, the first of which began before our Revolution and the last, or 5th, in 1913 which they finally won with the creation of the Federal Reserve whose name, in keeping with their modus operandi, was a euphemism to hide the fact that it was the private national bank the moneymen had long been seeking. It was also, and not coincidentally, in the early years of these wars, that Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the patriarch of the clan that would lead the international banking cartel, made his famous statement “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”. To achieve their ambitions here in the states, where they saw their greatest prospects, such bankers and their allies manipulated our masses by manipulating gold, alternately hoarding and floating it to cause periodic economic chaos with only a few among us realizing what was happening and what such actions were meant to achieve. First among those aware were founding fathers

. . . .both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to a privately-owned central bank. They had seen the problems caused by the Bank of England. They wanted nothing of it. As Jefferson later put it: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered Page 7

The first of the bank wars was led by Alexander Hamilton, an agent of the Rothschild’s. That attempt eventually failed as would two more and a fourth in 1836 with bankers meeting up with Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, the new Democratic party’s president. Nearly single handedly, he prevented the private bank’s rechartering for there to be no more bank wars for 77 years. About the bankers he said

You area den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and the Eternal God I will rout you out. Page 15

And rout them out he did in spite of the fact that these bankers had recently disposed of Napoleon paving their way to greater power. While they would lose this fourth attempt, their wealth and influence were becoming unbounded. In the Industrial revolution soon to follow, their vast accumulated monies here, there and everywhere would underpin a great and rapid transformation from the old agrarian world to the new steam powered and electrified modern world with its developing communication systems. The international banking cartel that had divided and conquered peoples in the Napoleon wars, financing both sides of battle, was to make similar arrangements here, dividing our industrial North from our agrarian South. Otto von Bismarck at this time was rising to be Chancellor of Germany skillfully balancing the powers of European nations allowing them to remain at peace for twenty years . Obviously he was a man who knew well these bankers and their motives. About them and our Civil War he said

“It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty . . . “that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world Page 16

During the War, Lincoln had not one but two enemies, the rebels and the bankers. Needing more monies to win, he first refused to pay the bankers’ extreme interest, creating a successful Greenback program for our government to print its own money. But coming to need more, he returned to seeking bankers’ help to come to describe his negotiations with them.

They persist, they have argued me almost blind. I am worse off than St. Paul. He was in a strait between two. I am in a strait between twenty and they are bankers and financiers. Page 18

Growing desperate to win, in 1863 Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through their National Banking Act with all intentions to curb their influence later. After he was assassinated, his Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase said

My agency in promoting the passage of the national Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. Page 20

With the war ended and Lincoln off the scene, the moneymen had their heyday during the Industrial Revolution. Among their powerful agents in the New York City banks were the Morgan’s , the Rockefeller’s, the Aldrich’s, the Loeb’s, Kuhn’s and Schiff’s. With currency on the gold standard and bankers having enormous hoards, they proceeded to manipulate the economic environment of the US. The masses crying for help, weakened the defenses of our representatives. In 1913, the very first year of the Wilson administration, the Federal Reserve Act was passed. With that battle finally won, such bankers were to run the nation and through it come to run the world. Wilson and his Secretary of State Bryan had naively believed the power of the Reserve would be centered in Washington obviously not aware of how our economic climate was being manipulated. But connected to the great international banks centered in New York City that connected to the powers of London and the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve was and still is run by this international cartel. Not long after, the ever naïve Wilson, in spite of the massive reluctance of the American people and its representatives, dragged the nation into an inevitable First World War, believing even more naively it would be a war to end all wars. Bryan at least had had enough and resigned.

While Wilson and Bryan may have been duped, some notable Americans especially in Congress had seen things clearly. Not able to prevent the consequences, at least at the time, speaking out, they could still be heard. Congressman Lindbergh, the father of the famous aviator said

“This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed… The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. . . . . Page 30

Through these early decades, another honest critic was Congressman Louis McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee from 1920 to 1931. He called the Federal Reserve

“A super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.” Page 31

Thomas Edison also understood

“If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good . . . . It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the userers and the other helps the people.” Page 32

Into the 1960’s such people were pointing out such truth that was being more and more concealed behind the façade that was our government. House Banking and Currency Committee chairman, Wright Patman from Texas, put it this way

“In the United States today we have in effect two governments … We have the duly constituted Government … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.” Page 31

President Wilson, eventually coming to his senses, came to see the errors of his ways.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by … a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Just before dying in 1914, he remarked

“I have unwittingly ruined my government.” Page 32

Wilson in fact did not just ruin his government, he had played a major role in ruining the world. As Carmack further records in The Money Masters, the bankers who had financed both sides of the Napoleonic War and then both sides of the Civil War, came to finance in one way or another every side of every war and revolution to follow. Their means to divide and conquer were coming now not only from dominating currencies but also dominating communications, replacing truth with lies and propaganda, making it ever more difficult to know one from another. Among the most important truths which disappeared was this about the Russian revolution.

Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company bragged on his deathbed that he had spent $20 million towards the defeat of the Czar. But the truth was that much of that money funded the communist coup d’etat replacing the democratically elected Kerensky regime, which had replaced the Czar months earlier. The bankers were not so much enemies of the Czar, as they were intent on seizing power in Russia, through the Bolsheviks. Three gold shipments in 1920 alone, from Lenin to Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Morgan Guaranty Trust repaid the $20 million to the bankers, and this was just a small down payment. But would some of the richest men in the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so-called capitalism that `made them wealthy? Communism, like plutocracy, is a product of capitalism. Researcher Gary Allen explained Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.” Page 33

At the base of such immoral actions, Carmack points out W. Cleon Skousen’s book: The Naked Capitalist to explain.

“Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power… It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishment of a central world-wide dictatorship.” Page 34

Perhaps the most telling of disappeared realities were the ones about the Nazi’s whose leader came to be media’s and then the world’s most hated tyrant.

To pressure Stalin back into the ranks, as C.G. Rakovsky explained, the bankers financed Hitler, who was an avowed enemy of communism and openly advocated invading the Soviet Union. Anthony C. Sutton and others have documented the money trail from Wall Street to Hitler. . . . Page 35


  • Trump and the world he inherits


Patrick Carmack in The Money Masters, like Ellen Brown and others, sees that an international banking cartel of a few super elite masters operating a private currency system reap untold profits, trapping the masses of us in a web of debt paying them exorbitant interest. This has become their means to accumulate exorbitant wealth and consequently political power. Founded in England the cartel moved its headquarters to the US to proceed to to dominate the nations of the whole world. It was and is they who. . . ruined our president who ruined our country; inhabited . . . a den of vipers; and would come to deprive . . . . people of all property until their . . . children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. Such history dwells beneath a chaotic surface of the bankers’ making and consequently unfamiliar to the masses of Americans even perhaps most of those who write our history. Such bankers and their allies through the centuries created the rich and poor crazy quilt global world of today, reaching its most dangerous precipice. Carmack explains:


It was precisely their international character that gave them unique advantages over national banks and governments, and that was precisely what rulers and national parliaments should have prohibited, but did not. This remains true of international or multi-national banks to this very day, and is the driving force of globalization – the push for one-world government. Page 3

A key question to ask about the validity of this history is how could a few Americans have understood, in decades long gone, if what they said were not true and more so today in what seems to many “end times” have such truth though buried for centuries ring loud and clear. Is it not as artists have tried to express through centuries, like Shakespeare’s witches in Macbeth stirring and chanting around a caldron foretelling what would come: Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

Such fate has been our reality in civilizations, moving from war to war, led by the ambition of the Macbeths and their ilk, seeking ever more power to rule the masses to accumulate ever more wealth that should have been shared among all. The aristocrats from whom we rebelled grew out of military conquests to be enabled by the greater wealth their traders discovered roaming the earth’s markets. Now we see today those traders became the financial masters, the new replacing the old aristocracies and oligarchies. Throughout the ages forms change while things stay the same. Accumulated power in the hands of an elite opposes the masses who desire only the simple joy of living and existing. In the centuries that produced our civilizations, some 5000 years that is a mere blip in the history of time, a crazed few kill, main, rape and enslave ever grasping for more making them ever more crazed and grasping. There seems to have been no exceptions. The Aztecs, who the Spanish enslaved, believing they assuaged the gods of nature, sucked blood and organs from their victims in human sacrifices; the Romans perhaps not quite as maddened crucified their slaves to display what might happen to those who resisted; Queen Elizabeth I having no qualms about cutting off heads, especially of her aristocratic rivals, preferred to awe and conquer her masses of bedraggled peasants lining the streets where she rode in a golden chariot attired in ludicrous wigs and gem studded costumes proving her radiance descended directly from the gods. Lethal or not, elites had always to put on a show for the masses. Today it is no different, although masters appear less godlike or threatening in business suits and uniforms sitting behind desks clicking buttons on their computers. Ironically the power they command, developed from simple knives to swords and armor to bombs and drones, are now weapons of mass destruction able to destroy nature totally. Coming to that ultimate command are the few financiers intertwined in governments intertwined in Industrial Military Complexes, intertwined in mainstream media. Sitting on the horizon, this elite apparently waits for the moment to bring their plans to final solution in one world governance that will dominate once and for all the billions of us inhabiting earth. What an amazing feat! What an amazing fate!


  • 2016 Election and the Corporate State

Our election was between two corporatists. Corporations once independent businesses grew into dominating monopolies through the machinations of bankers’ stock markets and Wall Street. As Congressman Lindbergh, the father of the famous aviator said about the establishment of the Federal Reserve, their overseer,

“This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized.. . . . The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. . .

In a short 30 minute video on You Tube, TPP & the New World Order, Paul Craig Roberts, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and now blogs on the Internet’s alternative media, discusses the Trans Pacific bill, the TPP, that Trump recently dismissed to no doubt revise. Roberts explains TPP has nothing to do with free trade that everyone has been brainwashed to believe. Rather it has to do with corporations becoming immune to laws of sovereign nations propagated to be in control of them. Anything that comes to inhibit corporate profits will be held against nations by the power in the law given to corporate tribunals. Knowing Mr. Roberts is an ardent capitalist, it was especially interesting to hear him say that capitalism has become the most tyrannical system ever created, a political system beyond that of any king or queen able to dismiss all checks and restraints in order to lie about everything– jobs, employments, Russia, China. Six mega corporations control 90% of media making it easy to label events conspiracies to dismiss them with no discussion or facts to interfere. The US government now moves quickly to privatize whatever is left public–education, health, water, military, prisons– all and anything it would seem. No one, Roberts says, should pay attention to anything they hear from government, that he had not heard a word of truth from it in twenty years. We would agree with Mr. Roberts, while adding that from our experience it was the Reagan administration when truthfulness began to continually and drastically diminish to its present state of “nothingness”. Roberts goes on to add that the West no longer exists, that it is a caricature of what it was. Centuries producing the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the rules of law, all have been swept away after 9/11.

In another article The Re-enserfment of Western Peoples Roberts agrees with former Wall Street economist, Michael Hudson, and we might add Thomas Jefferson, that ownership will be consumed by corporations who will completely eliminate representative government, that the . . . . corporations are buying power cheaply. They bought the entire US House of Representatives for just under $200 million . . . .


  • Why we voted for Trump


With both Trump and Clinton emerging out of or in support of mega corporations, Americans had little choice. Yet the masters’ media, in spite of most voters agreeing both candidates unworthy, made it appear Hillary was the lesser evil, apparently more rational than Trump to save us from the harshest of corporate realities such as privatization of Social Security. In fact and for one thing, Hillary was on the record in favor of privatizing Social Security and in contrast and, in fact, Trump, the once Democrat, had been a long time advocate of the program and that perhaps a minor illustration of another obvious and dominant fact. The surface of reality is not the reality we need to know. Rather, covered with lies and propaganda and omissions, it should only motivate us to dig for the truth under what the masters wish us to know. For many legitimate reasons, Trump’s glaring negatives needed to be examined but so were Hillary’s, given a pass, making him appear not only more crooked but often nearly insane. Media coverage even included predictions that if elected, he would be another Hitler and those voting for him, at the least foolish and unknowing, were primarily from the uneducated underclass or worse the Alt Right crowd, i.e. Neo Nazis nutcases.

Adding to the primary and election scenes, we now have a presidency and appointments, a number of whom are apparently terrible choices. For us, one of the the worse is Betsy DeVos apparently ready to privatize our public school system. Yet the privatization that Trump might carry to extremes began with the governments he replaced. Again what you see is not what you get. Yet another appointment seemingly a terrible choice is his nominee for Secretary of Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, to be mistrusted as a manager of his own huge hedge fund who had worked for Goldman Sachs. At one of his confirmation hearings, he said that to assure the country would not be left with four or five mega banks, he would strongly support community banks now being rapidly gobbled up —that they had the people most knowledgeable to know those companies that needed loans to create small businesses, adding small businesses are at the heart of restoring our economy. From what we know that is not only right but at the heart of what is wrong. Mega banks are supported by those Trump replaced.

In such a corrupted world while we really cannot know just what Trump will do, we can know about those he replaced. Most importantly, The Money Masters reveals the bankers’ cartel as internationalists having planned to dominate the nations of the world that even included in their schemes the financing of the 20th Century’s worst tyrants. Certainly, there is a good and bad side to nationalism, but Trump cannot be seen at least at this point as one who wants to dominate world governments while those allied with Hillary can.

At any rate, as people who voted for Trump, we were like many others, supporters of Bernie until he supported Hillary. Bernie was not an Independent as he proclaimed but a Democrat and that another example of misleading appearances. Still, no doubt about it Trump lied to manipulate deeply resentful voters proving himself a crude egotist and braggart. Yet it was he, not Hillary, who said that the establishment and its media were corrupt. From all we knew that was absolutely true. Among other remarks, some about China that were certainly threatening, he had also said we should not have warred in Iraq, implying we should untangle ourselves from the Middle East. Was he, we asked, apparently more a deal maker than a war maker, while Hillary and her allies, with the record to prove it, clearly warmongers. But rising even above these issues was the Clinton’s destructive record of the 90’s, making us wonder if Americans might have forgotten or never knew it. Partnering with a deep state having taken command of the presidency, as we saw it Hillary, if elected following the command of her allies would take the country to the brink of nuclear holocaust while Trump, the wild card, whom they sought to destroy, might or might not.

While we do not doubt the Clinton’s had begun with some democratic ideals and had some accomplishments, actions in their administration contributed in major ways to the mess we were in. During their administration, they had turned their coats. As we read them, in the early days of their first term, finding their ideals and their ambitions challenged, like the Macbeths of the world, they colluded with rather than resist the masters pulling their strings. At that time, following Reagan and Bush Sr., masters had gathered mostly in the Republican party. With Democrats just barely hanging on, the Clintons consolidated a trend that Thomas Frank, a real Democrat, later explained when he wrote that his working man’s party became a party of elitists and Ralph Nader observed that there was no longer a dime’ worth of difference between them. But while that was certainly bad, it was hardly the worse.

Active in our local community, we discovered the very foundation of our system was under attack, for as presidential power was being transferred to a deep state, local power, the very foundation of that system, was also finding itself transferred to that federal government.    The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for the first time gave the right of religious groups in certain cases to take decisions of a local volunteer citizen board to a federal court in the hope to have any decisions against them overridden as happened in our community. As experts in this law explained, federal legislators would never have passed this bill if, for one thing, they had read it and, for another, its passage had not been manipulated during the Clinton administration “in the middle of the night” so to speak by an unrecorded voice vote of a Congress on their way out the door on vacation.

During the Clinton administration negatives seemed to grow worse. Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, a shinning star of Wall Street, led the repeal of the Glass- Stegall law which directly led to our 2008 economic debacle for which taxpayers were made to pay the costs of Wall Street criminals left in place to commit even more crimes. But rising above all was a geo political decision, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, which directly led to our intensified endless Middle Eastern wars beginning in the Bush Jr. administration after 9/11. Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, was famous among other things for saying What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it? In 1992 with ongoing civil wars in the regions of Yugoslavia, it was arranged for NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which had been put in place as a defensive organization to protect Europe, to go on the offensive. Following allegations of war crimes against civilians, NATO bombed Bosnia in a regional war to be wrapped up in 1995 in the famous Dayton Treaty Accords conducted by Richard Holbrook. A friend of Albright and once competitor for her position, media presented the feat of the treaty maker, of a war no doubt meant to serve the global interest of the US, nothing less than heroic.

In 1999 NATO, again for “humanitarian reasons”, was charged to bomb in another regional war in Kosovo. In Fools’ Crusade, Diana Johnstone, a reporter never found in mainstream media, explains the hypocrisy about how NATO was being used and how that connected to our future wars.

. . . . .Apparently, many people on the left, who would normally defend peace and justice, were fooled or confused by the claim that the “Kosovo war” was waged for purely humanitarian reasons. The altruistic pretensions of NATO’s Kosovo war served to gain public acceptance of war as the appropriate instrument of policy. This opened the way for the United States, in the wake of 11 September 2001, to attack Afghanistan as the opening phase of a new, long-term “war against terrorism”. The bombing of Yugoslavia marked a turning point in the expansion of U.S. military hegemony. For the first time, a European country was subjected to the type of U.S. intervention usually reserved for Central America. It also marked the end of Germany’s postwar inhibition about foreign military intervention, and saw Germans returning to the scene of Nazi crimes with a clear conscience. For the first time, NATO abandoned its defensive posture and attacked a country that posed no threat to its member states, outside the NATO treaty area, and without seeking UN Security Council authorization. International law was circumvented in the name of an alleged higher moral imperative. A precedent was set. When the United States subsequently arrogated the right to bomb and invade Afghanistan on moral grounds, its NATO allies could only meekly offer to tag along. In a world with no more legal barriers to might proclaiming itself right, there was nothing to stop a U.S. president from using military force to crush every conceivable adversary. . . .

As we now know NATO came to be used also to equip countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, bordering on Russia, with small nuclear missiles that in turn saw Russia put such missiles on her borders. In our Blog you will find articles about Dr. Freeman Dyson, an emeritus mathematics professor now over 90 years of age still residing at Princeton’s Advance Institute of Study. Many years ago, he wrote about agreeing with George Kennan, the former influential US diplomat and government advisor, about what was the most likely scenario to begin nuclear war

. . . . Tactical nuclear weapons deployed in forward positions overseas are fundamentally more dangerous to world peace than strategic weapons deployed in silos and in submarines for two reasons. First, tactical weapons are in places where local wars and revolutions may occur with unpredictable consequences. Second, tactical weapons are deployed as strategic weapons with a doctrine which allows United States forces to use them first in case of emergency.. . . . The combination of local political instability with vulnerable weapons and the option of first use is a recipe for disaster. . Freeman Dyson, December 2014


  • A surface of chaos and deceit


As we mentioned above, fear of nuclear war brought us in the end to vote for Trump, seeing Hillary and her new allies filled with as much hubris as the power they wielded in finance, government and media. But also, as Trump trumpeted Nationalism, Hillary and her crowd were trumpeting Internationalism, a global world order using the US their means for a few masters to control the world’s masses and for us at least there could be no worse. To achieve that aim, policies and politics seemed to be put in place to destroy nations especially our nation, one of which was probably immigration overwhelmed in the US by a giant hypocrisy as we Americans were reminded most of us were children of immigrants. Certainly, when immigrants are needed and find jobs, they should be as our ancestors able to earn their way to citizenship and its benefits. But in an age when American jobs and benefits are fleeing elsewhere, something is dreadfully wrong with policies that let hordes of people enter no matter. Why? Part of the answer appears to be politics and the kind of particular voters they may become but that seems the least of problems. While, and especially our nation, should never close its doors to the many and varied reasons people choose to come here, allowing massive practically unconditional immigration comes with a purpose not a history very much connected to the great changes in the world today. Not only here but all over the world it seems citizenries are divided and weakened in sundry ways making it easier for them to dissolve into a new global world order.

The banking journey emanating out of the Bank of England to the US Federal Reserve has never veered off course but grew stronger with changing rulers inheriting a destiny evermore powerful. After World War II, on track, the US, the new and greatest empire, became the world’s dominate power with the greatest nuclear arsenal to police the world to assure we all not be radiated. Also, during this time a third leg was added to the journey with the creation of Israel. An excellent book to read on this subject is Israeli Tom Segev’s One Palestine Complete. Among many things we learn is that the London Rothschild’s of that time played a major role in the creation of the new nation and another that, with their mighty influence pressuring British politicians, Churchill in passing came to say the Jews ran the world, obviously referring to his government’s experience with the Bank of England. But certainly the world was sympathetic to the other Jews, unlike the masters, suffering and needing a place to rest after a horrific holocaust with Israel to be for all Jews no matter where they resided a place with deep cultural and historical attachments. The problem rested on the other hand with the powerful banking cartel, in which the US was critical to its plans, coming to see that American Jewish political power become formidable. In 1963 the influential lobby AIPAC , the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was established, out of which would grow those we know as Neocons and Neoliberals, many of whom had dual citizenship. They established with others many Washington think tanks, one of which in 1999 was PNAC, Plan for the New American Century whose members included among others two of the coming Bush Jr.’s administration most powerful appointees, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Two years before 9/11, PNAC issued its mission statement describing the need for regime change in the Middle East that included Iran, the region’s other great power. Such regimes were in control of the last and greatest resources of fossil fuel energy on which all governments had come to depend. The plan explained that to initiate regime change America needed a new Pearl Harbor.

As conservatives had come to dominate American politics, so too conservatives would come to dominate Israeli politics especially after Netanyahu and his allies took over. Born in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu’s family had moved to the US between 1956 and 1958 and again between 1963 and 1967. Speaking perfect English, he had graduated from a US high school and later MIT to become a critical link between here and there. As many astute observers have noted, he and his Likud party supported another plan from the 1980’s, the Yinon Plan, outlining a greater Israel. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research explains

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states. middle-east/

As our larger American population is divided so too is our large Jewish American population as well as the Israeli population. Both countries have substantial though ineffectual peace movements and most significantly twisted relationships. Uri Avnery, one of Israel’s peaceniks, in The Real Ruler of Israel: Sheldon Adelson writes about the strange symbiosis. Netanyahu, he says, has come to run the US while Jewish American Sheldon Adelson, the fabulously wealthy casino operator, has come to run Netanyahu.

At any rate, all citizens of the world sensing extreme danger are trapped on a chaotic globe whose surface is covered with propaganda and lies preventing them from understanding and that understanding or consciousness be the way to recovery. That Trump came to use media as perniciously as media was being used should not be a surprise. As mentioned before, there is little truth left in mainstream media turned into a weapon against us. Consequently, we and many others have turned to honest outside writers in alternative media on the Internet. From there we have come to understand, that upon dominating the Middle East region, commanding elites will move to subdue Russia and then China, the two most powerful nations in the way of the West’s world governance. Trump, the wild card, is their fly in the ointment. While he is a full fledged neoliberal ready to further and intensify their domestic agenda, he wants to negotiate with Russia. Articles below, one way or another, explain that Trump, having reigned on the outside not the inside, sees those inside, especially neocons and neoliberals whether Republican or Democrat, making a bloody mess of things in the Middle East having produced a successful alliance among Iran, Russia and China that to “Make America Great Again” must be broken up. Evidently his plan is to try to pull Russia out of that alliance. Thus, all neoliberals running the country, caring not a wit about our welfare, are deeply divided and duking it out. Trump’s enemies intend to “tame” him or “delegitimize his administration” or as soon as possible “impeach” him. We assume if all fails, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested, they might indeed eliminate him. Rising to the top of the witches’ cauldron boiling over in headline news is now our #1 enemy Russia as well as all and any website uncritical of Russia “fake news”. Recently, tuning in to a morning CSpan call-in show, we heard a man seemingly quite intelligent conclude that Trump was a Russian agent meaning to turn the US over to them.

To begin a review of articles, we first recall Professor Cohen who suggested Putin-bashing was insane and Trump’s intention to work with Putin, who Hillary likened to Hitler, would rouse extreme ire in “Cold War Warriors . More recently he adds in New Cold War and Neo-McCarthyism are coming from Liberals, Progressives

“I used to live among liberals and Progressives so it pains me to say that the new Cold War on the American side . . . a little neo-McCarthyism is coming from liberals and Progressives primarily. I mean, the point is that — I can’t remember in my lifetime when a publication like the “New York Times” would refer to the man who has been elected president of the United States as a lackey of the Kremlin. Where have we gone? When a “New York Times” columnist says that Donald Trump is the Kremlin’s poodle and Putin’s puppet. We are libeling our own president. But it may be — I mean, who can be sure that it may be that they are absolutely determined to prevent the kind of cooperation with Russia that will make it safer. I will go one step farther and say maybe to the horror or shock of some of your viewers that Vladimir Putin is potentially America’s most essential, valuable national security partner. And I refer in particular to the war against terrorism and we always omit one thing, the terrorists are in pursuit of nuclear material. If you put those two together . . . nothing could be more dangerous today.”

Dave Lindorf in Democratic Hysteria on Russia reminds us of some recent history that for the most part occurred during the Clinton Administration

As the British newspaper the Guardian, points out, in a way that you will be hard-pressed to find reported honestly in the US corporate media, Putin, during his decade and a half of running Russia, rebuilt the Russian economy, improved the lives of average Russians immensely, and equally importantly, restored a once great nation from the status of global basket case to a major international power again. Not surprisingly, he is now one of the world’s most popular leaders.. . . . . The “harm to tens of millions in the former USSR” and in Russia proper was done not during Putin’s tenure but during the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, between 1989 and 1999. That was when the entire Soviet Union was strip-mined by former Communist apparatchiks who enriched themselves by cutting deals to take over former state assets at fire-sale prices, or for nothing, robbing the Russian people, and the workers in those former state enterprises blind. The US encouraged this process, and Boris Yeltsin, a notorious drunk, oversaw it for two terms as Russia’s president. Vladimir Putin began his rise to power in 1999 when Yeltsin made him prime minister before suddenly resigning the presidency on New Year’s Day 1999. . . . .once the USSR ceased to exist and Russia, a rump country that, while geographically the largest in the world, is less than half the size of the US in population, found itself struggling to restructure it’s centralized state-owned economy into a modern capitalist one, shouldn’t the US have changed it’s “consistent policy” of hostility towards what remained of the old Soviet Union? Instead of actively helping Russia recover, the US urged on President Boris Yeltsin a destructive “economic shock therapy” program of balanced budgets, open borders for imports and investment and, most importantly, a sell-off of state assets . . . . While Russians struggled to survive through a period of rampant inflation, economic collapse and epic corruption, the US, instead of lending a helping hand as it had to the collapsed countries of Europe and after World War II (including our former bitter enemies, Germany and also Japan in Asia,), Washington under the Clinton administration began a program of aggressively and threateningly expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (a Cold War relic of an outdated containment policy which should have, like the Warsaw Pact, been mercifully disbanded), forcing an economically strapped Russia to respond by still spending precious resources on restoring its hollowed out military. . . . . While Obama Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and others in the Washington elite maintain that Russia poses an “existential threat” to the US, presumably because of the number of nuclear missiles it maintains, it’s important to note that Russia has those missiles because the US has a similar number, most of them pointed at Russia–the main difference being that the US has many of its nuclear-tipped missiles located just minutes away from Russia at sites in Eastern Europe, while Russia’s nukes are all on its own territory, thousands of miles and at least a half-hour’s flight away from the US mainland — a difference that means one country, the US, has the ability to launch a first strike and take out the other country’s ability to respond to an attack, while the other has no ability to make such a first-strike threat. This is all by way of getting to a larger point. The hysteria about Russian hacking of the US election — an action which while it might have happened, is by no means proven — is a meaningless diversion, because there is no evidence at all that Russia is an aggressive nation. While the US is moving Abrams battle tanks and nuclear-capable mobile artillery up close to the Russian border in the waning days of the Obama administration, forcing Russia to respond by beefing up its own national border defenses, no one could argue seriously that Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin, have any interest whatsoever in invading any country of Europe, however small and weak. . . . .

James Carden in Neo-McCarthyism and the US Media explains further the crusade to ban Russia policy critics

. . . . a special report published last fall by the online magazine the Interpreter would have us believe that Russian “disinformation” ranks among the gravest threats to the West. The report, titled “The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money,” . . . . funded by the exiled Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Cowritten by the journalists Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev, this highly polemical manifesto makes the case for why the United States, and the West generally, must combat what the authors allege to be the Kremlin’s extravagantly designed propaganda campaign. If implemented, the measures they propose would stifle democratic debate in the Western media. . . . . Because of his decade-long imprisonment, Khodorkovsky has attained the stature of a secular saint in some circles. But it should not be forgotten that the oil tycoon made his fortune in a spectacularly corrupt and sometimes violent fashion. Indeed, in 2000, Foreign Affairs described him and his fellow oligarchs as “a dangerous posse of plutocrats” who “threaten Russia’s transition to democracy and free markets” as well as “vital US interests.” According to a recent profile of Khodorkovsky in The New Yorker, staff members of a Riga-based news outlet in which he planned to invest objected. “He’s a toxic investor,” said a person “close to the project.” . . . . .” Khodorkovsky’s agenda—to bring regime change to Russia—is faithfully reflected in the work of IMR, the Interpreter, and the “Menace of Unreality” report. . . . . Insinuations of unpatriotic disloyalty on the part of critics of US policy toward Russia are numerous, but consider a few examples. For much of the past year, Princeton and New York University professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen, a leading scholar of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia and a Nation contributing editor, has been routinely castigated in The New Republic, the Daily Beast, The Boston Globe, New York, and Slate as “a toady,” “Putin’s best friend,” and a “Putin apologist.” The latest such attack came on May 6, courtesy of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which published a story claiming, without evidence, that “Cohen is essentially defending the Kremlin’s agenda in the West.” Hurling such barbs at a prominent scholar seems to be an attempt not only to marginalize Cohen, but also to silence other critics—including, and perhaps especially, younger ones. Similarly, in June 2014, the Daily Beast ridiculed a conference attended by Columbia University’s Robert Legvold; Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration; and a leader of a Russian opposition party as a gathering of “anti-Semites and ‘truthers’” that amounted to little more than “a pity party for the Kremlin’s die-hard American apologists.” Then, in August, Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics launched a screed against David Johnson, the proprietor and editor of a listserv that aggregates Russia-related articles. “What I find most surprising,” Aslund wrote, “is that you have several items from RT every day, which is to Putin’s rule what Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer was to Nazi Germany.”

Jack Rasmus in Taming Trump points out that as Obama was elected by those believing he meant as he claimed to establish a progressive liberal populist agenda came to see it a “faux” agenda, so too will those who elected Trump come to see his populace conservative agenda “faux”. Masters behind the scene intend to “tame” him with a constant stream of scandals about his taxes, family, appointments, businesses, laws, etc

Like the Obama regime, the Trump regime will retreat to a neoliberal US elite regime. It will be a ‘Neoliberalism 2.0’. An evolved new form of Neoliberalism based on the continuation of pro-investor, pro-corporate, pro-wealthy elite economic policies—with an overlay of even more repressive social policies involving immigration, law and order, privatizations, cuts in social programs, more police repressions of ethnic communities, environmental retreat, limits on civil liberties, more insecurity and more fear. This is the new form of Neoliberalism, necessary to continue its economic dimensions by intensifying its forms of social repression and control. . . . . We predict Trump will concede to elite neoliberal policies on Trade and Foreign Policy eventually, as he already is about to do with regard to elite policy preferences on taxation and deregulation. If he does not, elite interests are waiting in the wings, gathering the evidence and ammunition to attack Trump more directly if necessary, should he not comply. So long as he plays ball with them, they’ll just hold their ammunition at the ready. They will lock and load, and cock the hammer, taking aim and give a warning. Trump will respond. He will come around to their demands. After all, he has more personally to even lose than did Obama. Faux left is replaced by faux right in American politics.. .

Others looking at the scene see more serious intentions. In U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency Professor Michel Chossudovsky writes

The ultimate intent of this campaign led by the Neocons and the Clinton Faction is to destabilize the Trump presidency. Prior to the November 8 elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic, Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.. . . . They are part of a propaganda campaign on behalf of powerful corporate interests. . . . . . The central objective of this project against Trump is to ensure the continuity of the Neocons’ foreign policy agenda geared towards global warfare and Worldwide economic conquest, which has dominated the US political landscape since September 2001. . . . . “ The preemptive war doctrine also included the preemptive use of nuclear weapons on a “first strike” basis (as a means of “self-defence”) against both nuclear and non-nuclear states. This concept of a preemptive first strike nuclear attack was firmly endorsed by Hillary Clinton in her election campaign. In turn, the “Global War on Terrorism”(GWOT) launched in the wake of 9/11 has come to play a central role in justifying US-NATO military intervention in the Middle East on “humanitarian grounds”. . . . As a member of the establishment, he has his own corporate sponsors and fund raisers. His stated foreign policy agenda including his commitment to revise Washington’s relationship with Moscow does not fully conform with the interests of the defence contractors, which supported Clinton’s candidacy.

On Democracy Now in a discussion What’s Next for U.S.-Russia Relations? Professor Cohen, mentioned above, added this on the expansion of a new McCarthyism

It’s the people who speak out who are being called apologists for Putin, and it’s chilling . . .. . We’re in the most dangerous confrontation with Russia since the Cuban missile crisis. It needs to be discussed. And at the moment, it can’t be discussed because of these charges that everybody is a client of Putin who disagrees with the mainstream opinion. And it’s coming from the Senate. It’s coming from The New York Times. One motive is to keep Trump from going to the White House. Another is to delegitimize him before he gets there. But the main motive—and you can hear it clearly—is Trump has said he wants cooperation with Russia, and the war party . . . . .

A list circulated widely is PropOrNot identifying those who produce “fake news” . Just above every name and website we research is on the list indicating to us at least a kind of desperation as actions become more absurd as critics receive an ever larger audience. Patrick Buchanan wrote in Trump’s Enemies See an Opening about a leaked 35 page dossier

. . . of lurid details of his alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA and FBI — and then leaked to CNN. This is “something that Nazi Germany would have done,” Trump said. Here, basically, is the story. . . . Some sought to substantiate the allegations. None could. So none of them published the charges. In December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI. On Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis. Once CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details. BuzzFeed released all 35 pages. The story exploded.. . . . The stakes in all of this are becoming huge. Clearly, Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon achieved with Leonid Brezhnev. This should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the West. Russia is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus ripe for change. But any such hope is now suddenly impaired. . . . . The sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President Trump to work with President Putin. The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built: “The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of what they find.” What the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the JFK assassination. . . . .

Pointing to nightly television arrayed against Trump, David Swanson writes in Does Rachel Maddow Want Russia Bombed?

. . . . .Maddow goes on and on demonizing Russia and Putin. She airs for free and in its entirety a television ad that refers to as fact “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” Then she credits the ad, which asked no questions, with raising legitimate questions. Then Maddow declares that there will be an investigation into “Russia’s efforts to influence our election on Trump’s behalf,” which assumes as fact all the evidence-free claims and then piles on the claim to know Russia’s motivation. Yet, later Maddow’s theory devolves into just the possibility that some little fragment within all these evidence-free accusations could be true — and it would be over that fragment that a Russian was arrested for treason. Maddow struggles at this point to make the chronology work, since the arrest was in early December. Yet she asserts as simple fact that the treason arrest was in fact a response to U.S. election tampering. Maddow, meanwhile, makes clear that she believes actual evidence of Russian hacking, supplying WikiLeaks, etc., exists somewhere in the U.S. government. Yet people are leaking torture prison plans and embarrassing accounts right out of the White House, and we’re to believe that nobody in any of the sainted 17 “intelligence” agencies would leak evidence if it existed?. . . . . . I asked observant media critic Norman Solomon (with whom I work at what he thought of Maddow’s performance, and he replied: “Maddow’s 25-minute soliloquy was a liberal version of Glenn Beck at the whiteboard. Her plot line was the current Democratic party line — free-associating facts, possible facts, dubious assertions and pure speculation to arrive at conclusions that were based on little more than her zeal to portray Trump as a tool of the Kremlin. Even when sober, Joe McCarthy never did it better. “We might dismiss her performance as just another bit of stagecraft on ‘MSDNC,’ but Maddow is in sync with widespread fear-mongering by pundits and Democratic Party loyalists who think they’re picking some low-hanging fruit to throw at Trump. But what they’re doing is poisonous — and extremely dangerous. Escalate a new Cold War? Push the U.S. government into evermore assertive brinkmanship? Push the world to the precipice of nuclear holocaust and maybe over it? Humanity deserves better than mega-propaganda that could lead to the world blowing up.”

In Regime Change Comes Home Dr. James Petras reaches for the depths about what is happening in our country

Introduction: The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition. These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order. . . . .  Regime Change in America . . . . Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations. The decisive shift to ‘regime change’ at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. . . . . The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate ‘dodgy dossiers’ linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or ‘vulnerable to KGB blackmail’. The CIA’s phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance ‘security’ contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to ‘take the bite’ on the ‘smelly’ dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain (‘war-hero’ and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government ‘act on these vital revelations’! . . . . CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous ‘regime changes’ overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ‘just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump’s policies) on the United States could be profound…” Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.. . . . . Mass propaganda, a ‘red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason (‘Trump, the Stooge of Moscow’) resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany. A broad ‘coalition’ has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

Steven Lendman sums up some things. We note first that Mr. Lendman has never supported Trump but in fact supported whole heartedly Bernie until Bernie supported Hillary and Lendman turned to Jill Stein. If anything, we would guess he might be liberal and further note he has the honor of being included on the PropOrNot list. In Pro-Hillary Dark Forces Plot Anti-Trump Coup? he writes among other things how much worse is Hillary than the big bad Trump.

. . . Since the deplorable Clinton co-presidency, America has been on a slippery slope toward full-blown tyranny – notably post-the-9/11 mother of all false flags.
It was followed by an array of police state laws, new ones recently enacted, flagrant constitutional violations, media scoundrels silent on an unprecedented abuse of power. McCarthyism is back on steroids. Truth-telling is now considered fake news and/or pro-Russian. We’re perilously close to criminalizing content or advocacy for anything opposing America’s deplorable agenda, its imperial wars, its high crimes against humanity at home and abroad. Perhaps I and others like me are considered Kremlin agents for supporting Putin’s anti-war, anti-imperial, anti-uni-polarity agenda, a leader supporting rule of law principles and mutual cooperation among all nations. It’s polar opposite how America operates, a rogue state like no others earlier, threatening humanity’s survival like never before, a terrifying reality too few people realize. Now there’s a plot afoot to deny Trump his electoral triumph – the Clintons, their supporters and other dark forces behind it. Is their goal to turn America into an illegitimate putschist state like Ukraine, installed by Obama? . . . . . Can any thinking person believe Russia cost Hillary the election? It defies logic. It’s an absurdity on its face, a disgraceful Big Lie and an affront to the sensibility of everyone. Parties trying to reverse November’s electoral result should face sedition or treason charges. Their attempt confirms America’s deplorable state more than ever. The nation was never a democracy from inception. Now it’s a fascist police state, waging permanent war on humanity, exceeding anything before in world history – rule of law principles out-the-window entirely. Radio Network.


  • The protests


One of the most surprising developments for us from the election has been to receive passionate letters from leaders of some of the largest and most important citizen groups pleading for contributions to destroy Trump. We certainly understand their concern which is also our concern, but while intending to do all we can to defeat his neoliberal domestic agenda, we cannot understand the one-sidedness of such appeals from those who should know better not differentiating the most important geo political issues from those domestic. After all we cannot reform a country expired in nuclear conflict. By damming him no matter the complexity of what may be happening to our country, we ask if such organizations suggest it would have been better to have Hillary, the agent of the masters. Doing so comes to make us think what we had not before that these leaders, might not only be Democrats, supported by the likes of Soros and other bankers and corporations but like Hillary turned into their agents especially since they and so many so-called humanitarian groups have not made a difference in our fate grown ever worse. Professor Chossudovsky of Global Research in an audio tape discusses how large citizen and humanitarian groups funded by and dependent upon corporations cannot be expected to serve citizen interest. Rather, if there is any hope, activism must take place at the grass roots level. We note that the audio discussion with Professor Chossudovsky also includes, first, Jack Rasmus discussing his article on taming Trump and, following the professor, Mark Robinowitz,, explaining wars in the Middle East are about energy rather than terrorists and that with energy resources quickly diminishing we are headed for more and greater economic disruption no matter who leads the country.

Further, about Democratic protests, Jon Reynolds as reported in The Black Agenda Report sees things this way

The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way, shape, or form entitled to the moral high ground over the equally horrific opposing party is a beyond ridiculous assertion without any basis in reality. To see crowds of people motivated to action by the loss of their party, protesting an archaic electoral college system that they would have likely accepted the results from had their candidate won, tests the limits of ones ability to empathize with their plight. Kill lists, defense of torture, mass surveillance, US citizens being picked off by drone missiles, the continued buildup of a vast empire — none of it prompted thousands upon thousands of American Democrats to fill cities across the US in a fit of anger because at the time, their chosen political racehorse was in Washington. If Hillary had won, the drone strikes would have continued. The wars would have continued. The spying would continue. Prohibition would continue. Whistleblowers would continue being prosecuted and hunted down. And minorities would continue bearing the brunt of these policies, both in the US and across the world. The difference is that in such a scenario, Democrats, if the last eight years are any indication, would remain silent — as they did under Obama — offering bare minimum concern and vilifying anyone attacking their beloved president as some sort of hater. Cities across the US would remain free of protests, and for another 4-8 years, Democrats would continue doing absolutely nothing to end the same horrifying policies now promoted by a Republican. Trump’s victory, if there is anything good to say about it, will at least breathe much needed life into an antiwar sentiment that has been largely dormant since Bush left office. Issues like drone strikes, torture, military occupations, mass surveillance, and other hot button subjects once protested by Democratic partisans during the Bush era will again — hopefully — be criticized and fought against. Yet the shame about it all is that this time, those unaffiliated with either of the two major parties — those who have been focused on these issues while Democrats have offered pathetic excuses and baseless justifications in defense of them — won’t make the mistake of thinking Democrats will stick around for the fight if they win office again in the next election

In Beyond Anti-Trump Paul Street points out, Democrat or not, concentrating on Trump we miss the real enemies.

Let’s be careful about the phrase “anti-Trump coalition.” . . . . . We need to take on the unelected deep state dictatorships of money, class, race, empire, militarism, sexism, and ecocide – the reigning oppression structures that have ruled under Barack Obama as under previous presidents. . . . . dreary corporate-Democratic presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama are no small part of the explanation for the ever more right-wing Republican presidencies of the long neoliberal era. Their serial populism-manipulating betrayals of the working-class majority in service to the wealthy Few open the door for Republicans to sweep in and take over . . . . We must not let Trump become a great red cape in the hands of the ruling class matadors. We must learn to head for the masters who hold the swords and spears behind the cloak. Resist him we must, but we cannot afford obsession with Trump

Such articles seem to help establish the need for a new party. While grass roots resistance may be an absolute necessity, so too is creative leadership at the top. Still what we can know for sure is that there can be no good in protests if only half of us participate; that only a half shows just how deeply divided a citizenry we are; and for sure so divided we are conquered. With shootings at malls, movie houses and other local scenes turning into regular television fare, our tensions will inevitably rise no matter who or where we are. Perhaps a symbol of the brawling among us that could come, echoing those who command us, was the enraged liberal lady who had to be removed from her seat on a plane for refusing to stop her rant of verbal abuse to her neighbor because he voted for Trump.

Union is beautiful, no matter in Europe, the US, or the everyday small lives most of us lead. It is a matter of equals sharing as disunion a matter of sides pitted against each other with one wanting to dominate the other. Likewise, protests of citizens are beautiful if joined together and ugly when conducted by a half manipulated to defeat Trump. We can only begin to come together if we begin to peer down to the bottom of the well to see beyond Trump, who, as bad as he is, is not the worse of our enemies who try to eliminate him. While we can never understand all that is happening, even those with the deepest perceptions, we should keep in mind other possibilities. Trump in his awkward way could help more of us become more aware of those “others” in their convoluted frenzy to do him in.

With power to convolute and reverse just about all reality, those who have come to control our government keep the masses in the dark and divided in every which way. A current and populist example is the ragingly popular Broadway play, Hamilton, in which Hamilton becomes the founding father of greatest note. As Carmack and others reveal, Hamilton was an agent of the banking cartel intent on putting in place its private US national bank. The play, most likely a product of Wall Street, makes their man not ours a hero. The book on which the play is base was written by Ron Chernow who also wrote the play’s script and is the author of The House of Morgan, a song of praise that is perhaps subtle but nonetheless deeply admiring of those who have come to be seen by others “founding” criminals. On a CSpan program in which Chernow himself is heaped with praise, at one point he remarks that his fondest wish is for the play to become a staple of every high school’s dramatic repertoire.

In contrast, a real national hero is forgotten or denigrated. Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, was the victor in the War of 1812 Battle of New Orleans and later as president faced down South Carolina’s early secessionists to preserve our federal union. Most importantly he nearly single handedly prevented the rechartering of the 4th private national bank for such a private bank to remain closed for the next 77 years. Now as Mary Stockwell explains he is remembered only for the his part in the Trail of Tears. On another CSpan program reviewing her book, The other Trail of Tears, she says that bringing up the name of Andrew Jackson in her college classes brings only a huge groan of resentment. While not exonerating Jackson, she tries in her book to present the complicated history of the times when our ancestors were coming here in droves demanding more and more land causing more pain and suffering for our natives who were moved in a Trail of Tears out of the South to Oklahoma and there would come to be moved again with the clamor for more land. In fact if Jackson is guilty, so are we whose ancestors settled on Indian lands. Obviously, such complication of history is diminished with headline news burying reality complicated or not to become a way for the few in power to gain more power. During the Revolution, and for years before and after, the English had aroused Native Americans to resistance in wars against us especially those of Tecumseh, one of their most passionate leaders. As Ms. Stockwell explains, promising Indians their own nation in our northwest, the English sought not only to win the revolution but in any event prevent the US from taking Canada. On the rampage Indians bearing grudges scalped and tortured innocent victims as well as military leaders often no more or less than those who tortured and scalped them.

History is not only complicated it is long and deep with connections from one era to another collapsing time for beginnings to intertwine with endings Marshall Eakins, a historian of the Americas in a series of lectures we have recently watched, explains how, in the long centuries before the English reached our shores, Spanish and Portuguese explorers following Columbus exploited the Caribbean islands and the lands of Central and South Americas to enslave native populations to work on their plantations. When those native populations died en masse from infections for which they had no defenses, as would natives in America later, the plantation owners bought black slaves that were becoming a growing commodity. Portuguese’s Brazil would import more black slaves than any other country. Centuries later English plantations in our South were modeled on those before and all such experiences connected to a growing system of capitalism with traders discovering and dominating world markets. Some traders who evolved out of ancient Middle Eastern empires roamed the Mediterranean to eventually connect to the West for the system there, in the West, to settle, grow and dominate.

Ferdinand Braudel, one of the most notable writers to explain the growth of capitalism, among other things, traces its main power centers in the West, from Portugal and Spain, north to the Netherlands, back south to England and eventually New York City. He argues

. . . capitalists have typically been monopolists and not, as is usually assumed, entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets. . . . .. capitalists did not specialize and did not use free markets. . . the state in capitalist countries has served as a guarantor of monopolists rather than a protector of competition, as it is usually portrayed. . . . . capitalists have had power and cunning on their side as they have arrayed themselves against the majority of the population. . . . .


  • The Deep State under the chaotic surface


Is there a “deep state” in our government and what is it? In November 2014 we posted to our blog Peter Dale Scott Interview about his book: The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on U. S. Democracy. Scott before coming to his analysis refers to Dana Priest’s description of her investigations described in her book Top Secret America

. . . Dana Priest . . . said, we now have “two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own…“ Well, . . . that second level, the deep state level, has been ruling over decades, but it is true that it has mushroomed in the last decade when she was writing. And it is exactly because of 9/11 and the COG (Continutity of Government program) . . . authorized and implemented before the last of the four planes had gone down. They implemented COG, then they proclaimed an emergency three days later, and since then we have been living in this state of emergency, which means that in effect the constitution does not rule the way it used to. Now you asked about deep events. 9/11 (is) a deep event because from the very beginning it was not very clear exactly what happened. Even journalists commented on the confusion and the inaccuracy of reports, it became so bad that congress had to press … it was a fight to get an investigation. This is the largest criminal act that was ever committed in America and the White House tried not to investigate it. There was a crime scene that was dismantled almost immediately; some people would say that was illegal. They said they were looking for corpses, and that is why they carried away all steel. But now scientists are very interested to know what residues were in that steel to see if the buildings were perhaps blown up or not. Most of the steel was shipped out of the country very quickly, and so it is a deep event, and we had the commission to investigate it. The two great events that are deep events are first the Kennedy assassination ’63, then 9/11, there are more – some of them could be very small. . . . . But the ones which had constitutional consequences were the Kennedy assassination – the consequences were pretty invisible in that one but they were real: they changed the role of the CIA and its relationship to the FBI and to local police. . . . . . And in both cases you had commissions to investigate, and they came out with findings which were demonstrably not true. Now that is the real test of a big deep event – when they investigate it and they give you a story, which almost immediately people can start picking holes in and seeing it is not true. So by definition a deep event is one which we are not given the truth about and the biggest ones we are given a story, which may be true in certain respects but in key respects it is not true. . . . . Rushing to war in Afghanistan to find the perpetrator we were told was Osama bin Laden, we would soon engage in a war in Iraq which was suppose to have weapons of mass destruction never to be found. From there we were to move on to Lybia and now Syria having all the while one terrorist attack follow another all of which were truly like 9/11 never investigated just headline news telling us all we needed to know to keep us fearful and in support of the wars. Much more important were the changes after 9/11 . . . .. So by definition a deep event is one which we are not given the truth about and the biggest ones. We are given a story, which may be true in certain respects but in key respects it is not true.

Deep events as Mr. Scott describes which include 9/11 are also called false flags and they defined as . . . covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. While we are assured by our government and its media that 9/11 was committed by Middle Eastern terrorists, television under their command, has made Nazi and Hitler the most hated, worse ever tyrants, to often be showing scenes about the burning down of the German Reichstag that most historians believe was committed by Hitler and his allies to blame their enemy the Communists. If true it was a classic “false flag” that consolidated the power of the new German Chancellor. In fact false flag events are the stock and trade of those consolidating political power. Nero is believed to have burned down Rome to blame the Christians as well as build his new palace. The list is endless. In The Biggest Secret In History: False Flag Terror we read statements of our greatest 20th Century tyrants:

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

The article explains more

The age-old saying is true: If we don’t learn history, we’re doomed to repeat it.
The single biggest historical secret which people haven’t yet learned is false flag terrorism. There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
False flag terror has changed the course of history over and over again … all over the world. Unless people learn about false flags, governments will carry them out to start more and more disastrous wars. (That’s why we continuously scour documents and sources to look for new admissions of false terror … and post updated lists when we find them.) . . . . . # 31 The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.). . . . . . #32 Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. . . . .

A series of articles by Federico Pieraccini in the Strategic Culture Magazine concluded with Trump’s Delusion: Halting Eurasian Integration and Saving ‘US World Order. Pieraccini sees Trump’s big game strategies hopeful if they lead to the end of a ‘unipolar moment’, impelling the emergence of a multipolar world order. . . with that leading to stability among the great powers reducing the threat of nuclear war. We can only hope.

. . . . Important alliances are being forged without seeking the assent of the United States, and the world model envisioned in the early 1990s – from Bush to Kagan and all the signatories of the PNAC founding statement of principles – is increasingly coming undone. Donald Trump’s victory represents, in all likelihood, the last decisive blow to a series of foreign-policy strategies that in the end undermined the much-prized leadership of the United States. The ceasefire in Syria, reached thanks to an agreement between Turkey and Russia, notably excluded the United States. The military, media, financial and cultural assault successfully prosecuted over decades by Washington finally seems to have met its Waterloo at the hands of the axis represented by Iran, Russia and China. The recent media successes (RT, Press TV and many alternative media), political resistance (Assad is still president of Syria), diplomatic struggles (negotiations in Syria without Washington as an intermediary) and military planning (Liberation of Aleppo from terrorists) are a result of the efforts of Iran, Russia and China. Their success in all these fields of operations are having direct consequences and implications for the internal affairs of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. The relentless efforts by the majority of Western political representatives for a successful model of globalization has created a parasitic system of turbo capitalism that entails a complete loss of sovereignty by America’s allies. Brexit and Trump have served as an expression of ordinary people’s rejection of these economic and political regimes under which they live.. . . . . Within the American political system, the establishment, spanning from Clinton to Obama, was swept away for their economic and political failures. The mainstream media, spewing an endless stream of propaganda aimed at sustaining the political elite, completely lost their battle to appear credible, reaching unprecedented peaks of partisanship and immorality. Donald Trump has emerged with a new approach to foreign policy affairs, shaped by various political thinkers of the realist mould, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. First on the to-do list is doing away with all the recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention . . .and soft-power campaigns in favor of human rights. . . .. The Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments, Arab Springs, and color revolutions. . . . The Middle East will accordingly see a decline in violence, increasing the chances of seeing an end to the conflict in Syria. . . . The implicit message is to seek dialogue and cooperation with all nations. Probably what lies behind these overtures is actually an explicit willingness to try to break the cooperation between Russia, Iran and China. The motivations for this action stem from the implications for the United States if a full military, cultural and economic alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is formed. It would almost ultimately consign the United States to irrelevance on the grand chessboard of international relations. More realistically, Trump aims to shift the focus of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where the largest US commercial interests will reside in the future; a shift of focus from the Middle East to the South and East China Seas.. . . In summary, Trump intends to accelerate Obama’s Asian pivot, bringing about profound changes to US foreign policy. Smoking the peace pipe with Russia will free up resources (to “build up our military” in naval terms) to be focused in the Pacific. He intends to emphasize the importance of bilateral relations between allies (“free riders” Japan and South Korea) to focus on containing China. . . . . With this in mind, Trump’s choice of a very questionable personality to liaise between Washington and Tel Aviv, combined with the strong rhetoric of Trump against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the equally harsh responses from Tehran to the threats of the future president, seem to satisfy the roles and rhetoric of all parties involved. No actions, only rhetoric. For Tehran and Tel Aviv it is easier to argue that to sign an agreement. The Iranian nuclear deal will, for this reason, continue to be a major point of tension, but also the guarantor of unlikely military action.. . . . . The global hegemonic project that was supposed to be realized with a Clinton presidency has been stopped. The inevitable military confrontation with Russia, Iran and China has been averted thanks to the preventive actions of these countries together with the defeat of the Democratic candidate. A huge blow has been delivered to the establishment, with its impulse toward globalism and US imperialism. The emergence of a multipolar world order has altered the way nations interact with each other in the field of international relations. Washington is no longer the only referent, and it is this that represents a pivotal transition from a unipolar world dominated by Washington. The mechanisms that regulate the great powers have varied in form and content, leading to an almost unprecedented international situation. The future multipolar world order, historically unstable, will in fact hold the promise of stability thanks to the actions of opposing nations to the American superpower. United they will stabilize the world. The key to a sustainable future world order is the synergy between the newly formed Beijing, Moscow and Tehran axis as an economic, military and cultural counterweight to the US. The union and the alliance of these three nations has created a new super-pole, able to balance effectively the often destructive actions of Washington. Rather than a multipolar world order, we are actually faced with a situation of two superpowers, one of which is based on the integration between dozens of nations on more than two continents. It is a new era that will accompany us over the coming decades. The unipolar world is over – forever!

How the brawl between our elitists will work itself out we cannot know but one thing seems sure. If they eliminate the wild card Trump that deep state government filled with hubris determined to achieve world governance no matter the risks will be back in place. Another article from Strategic Culture reports US Senators Are Even More Neoconservative than Are Trump’s Appointees.

. . . . obsessive hatred of Russia is the standard neoconservative position . . . Each one of these nominees has, in turn, provided responses which indicate that he, too, is far to the right of Trump. The Senators are apparently satisfied with each one of the nominees, on that basis — a neoconservative basis.. . . . These hearings are displaying 100% neoconservative U.S. Senators — no Senator who isn’t a neoconservative. These Senators, of both Parties, in their questioning and comments, are all far to the right of the incoming President, Donald Trump. (Democrats might be to the ‘left’ of Republicans on some domestic matters, but both Parties are neoconservative, which is a far-right foreign-affairs ideology.). . . . although Trump’s appointees might be less neoconservative than the Senators, and less neoconservative than was Trump’s predecessor, Obama — and Trump is far less neoconservative than is Hillary Clinton — Trump still could turn out to be a neoconservative President. This isn’t because the American public are neoconservative (they definitely aren’t), but because the American aristocracy is. The U.S. government represents them — not the American public. neoconservative-than-trump-appointees.html


  • Some Thoughts


For long years the masters who came to control our government have put in place institutions doing away with our civil rights and due process of law for us to be like a police state in the making and waiting. When the time is ripe, as many have written, Marshall Law will be declared. In 2016 the power of Marshall Law in essence was put into the hands of a President Obama

. . . . Executive Order .. . gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy – in the name of national security – in times of national emergency. This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas — even farm equipment — can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of “national defense.” There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.
By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen

We asked previously how could so many of our predecessors know things that have come to be true if they were not true. Now we ask how could an Orwell in his 1984 come to predict what also seems to have come true, noting that truth be in the making long before any Trump arrived on the scene

. . . . the most extreme realization imaginable of a modern-day government with absolute power.. . . . a state in which government monitors and controls every aspect of human life to the extent that even having a disloyal thought is against the law . . .. . . . psychological stimuli designed to overwhelm the mind’s capacity for independent thought. The giant telescreen in every citizen’s room blasts a constant stream of propaganda . . . . channels people’s pent-up frustration and emotion into intense, ferocious displays of hatred against . . . . political enemies. Many of these enemies have been invented . . . . expressly for this purpose.. . . controls every source of information, managing and rewriting the content of all newspapers and histories for its own ends. . . . . employs complicated mechanisms to exert large-scale control on economic production and sources of information. . . . The idea of “doublethink” emerges as an important consequence . . . massive campaign of large-scale psychological manipulation. Simply put, doublethink . . . mind-control techniques break down an individual’s capacity for independent thought. . . possible for that individual to believe anything . . . .

It seems to us that unless you adhere to the notion, that many indeed do, that humanity is born to engage in continuous killing and wars, the “truth” provided in the pages of The Money Masters and other such writings explain that evil derives from domination defeating its antidote, freedom, meant for people to recover their independence and with it their sanity and creativity. That domination has nothing to do with race or religion rather with accumulation of political and social power of those grown sickly and greedy for whatever psychological reasons to distort their minds to seek power that distorts more their minds to seek more power. With horns hidden, are they not the devils always walking among us whispering over our shoulders in our ears, as Goethe for one imaged Mephistocles in his Faust? Today they invade our homes with their media. In the The Money Masters, we see how the accumulation of monies and the domination of markets have led to the development of ultimate powers. It may be curious that the ultimate tentacles of domination are wrapped around what might seem such mundane powers of products, markets and exchange but those products and markets and exchange have been as much about human existence as the air we breath. Evolving to make tools, we came to make products and markets for exchange, a creative process to expand our experiences, pleasures and common wealth meant to be everlasting and progressive. Peoples becoming individuals always need to share in communities. We are social animals as animals have always been. But that natural process seemed fated to be diverted by military conquest in devastating wars, turning life for centuries from joy to heartache, to pain and to destruction and death worst than any natural disaster. Wise people among us seemed always to have known nature, fate and consciousness are inexorably intertwined in the mystery we call life, that human societies need union to balance its forces like the Ying’s and the Yang’s, the he’s and she’s, of ancient Asian philosophy. Imbalance produces devils. Still, with us all being one, the way out of our dilemma is not recrimination and retribution but consciousness coming to understand ourselves in all our manifestations for in the end we are all one no matter the road we have taken with all, no matter, needing to be folded back into the creative whole.

During the thousands of years of civilization, while progress seems apparent in many ways, more apparent is the wicked movement along a line of ever larger and more horrific wars, having now produced an undisputable pattern to reveal we are headed toward nuclear annihilation in a third world war. What a paradox! Through those millions of years of evolution, call it God or whatever you may think its original source and even if there is none, humans singularly among the multitudes of living species have been endowed with creative minds meant to grow conscious. Seemingly miraculous, infants are born with brains filled with billions of neurons making trillions of connections immediately ready to have their future experiences mold creatively. In contrast, now for those thousands of years, their experiences have been overwhelmingly, when not about slavery, about competition, wars and earthly destruction to diminish or distort sacred minds retreating to survive. Those awake to resist, if not embittered, come to see and feel for the suffering of the millions, now so vividly seen in the trials and tribulations of Middle Eastern refugees “rejected and despiseth” unable to find a place of rest after their homes and lives have been savaged by wars initiated, not by the Russians as now seems propagated but, by a “deep state” of a few elites centered in the US. In such a global dominated world as ours, we should come to realize there can no longer be safe havens for any human. With the beauty of natural life turned ugly and cruel in the extreme, with our communities and fellowships disappeared along with our nations, all peoples and most importantly we in the US, stand unnaturally divided, to be more a collection of autonomous atoms destined united only in passing.

Americans must become conscious of those really responsible for turning our democratic dream virulently anti human. We may never know why along our mysterious way we were diverted just as we may never know why we exist. We live in the now and that is about evolving and changing, knowing perhaps only that we do not appear as we did and will not in the future, if we continue to exist, as we are. In America we now have a President Trump needing all of us to keep in mind that which our enemies know well, our presidents have been the thread connected to our system of government connected to our dream and its defeat or survival. It is our enemy who delivered us their enemy Trump that without doubt an unstable and mercurial, “Jekyll and Hyde” of two sides. If he did not deserve to be elected president more so Hillary did not, set up by those who now attempt to destroy him. Ruled by headline news it is hard to know reality, but for sure all of us sense, as Gorbachev recently said, the world prepares for war. To stop the madness we must dig down to know who really dwells at the bottom.




Trump Update  (Second email)
Two articles below indicate that so far the conduct of Trump and his administration leaves little hope that he might ever clean out the swamp. Rather it appears that he like presidents before him, that we note especially those following JFK, has his strings pulled from behind. Of course Trump is still a wild card and we are still early in his administration so no one can say for sure how all will turn out, but certainly events have taken a dark turn. Two former commentators, Stephen Lendman and Paul Craig Roberts, having had hope he could make a difference, have already despaired.

Trump: America’s Latest Warrior President, Surrenders to Wall Street and War Profiteers
Clarity Press/Steven Lendman
In short order, America’s 45th president surrendered to Wall Street and war-profiteers, gorging at the public trough – at the expense of humanity at home and abroad. The hoped for antidote to Hillary appears no different when on policymaking – both subservient to moneyed interests at the expense of popular ones, both warriors, not peacemakers, both intolerant of challenges to America’s hegemonic aims, both hostile to all sovereign independent states, a deplorable situation, a dangerous one risking possible nuclear war. Hillary’s defeat didn’t dodge a nuclear bullet. It gave Trump the trigger, perhaps as willing to squeeze it to prove his machismo. Both aspirants appear near two sides of the same coin, much alike on issues mattering most. It’s a tough judgment this soon into Trump’s tenure. Things sometimes change, though rarely, except for the worst, not better.

•    Trump calling NATO “obsolete” on the stump proved deceptive hyperbole. He fully supports the alliance, according to Vice President Pence, Defense Secretary Mattis, for sure hawkish National Security Advisor McMaster, and UK Prime Minister Theresa May.
• Trump’s South China Sea saber-rattling risks confrontation with Beijing. Other administration figures speaking for him, demanding Russia end Kiev’s war on Donbass and relinquish its Crimea territory, is a prescription for no change in hostile US policy toward Moscow.
• Threats made against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela risk more trouble, thinly veiled ones for regime change. All this going on in a few short weeks into Trump’s tenure is breathtaking and disturbing for a White House aspirant promising a different way.
There’s more. Additional US combat troops may be sent to Afghanistan to continue America’s longest war – instead of ending what never should have been waged in the first place. . . . .
Trump directing “mad dog” Mattis to develop a preliminary plan on how to defeat ISIS appears more about designing a way to use these foot soldiers more effectively – continuing America’s war OF terror on humanity, not waging peace instead. His campaign hoopla about draining the swamp was deceptive hyperbole. His agenda continues serving privileged interests at the expense of most others. US imperial madness remains unchanged – world peace and stability as threatened as ever.


Is The Trump Administration Already Over?
Paul Craig Roberts
Hopes for the Trump administration are not burning brightly. Trump’s military chief, Gen. Mattis, is turning out to be true to his “mad dog” nickname. He has just declared that Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”
He has declared Russia to be the number one threat to the US.   He has threatened intervention in China’s territorial affairs.  I was wrong. I thought Gen. Mattis was a reasonable choice as he rejects the efficacy of torture, and, according to Trump, convinced Trump that “torture doesn’t work.” Apparently Mattis cannot reach beyond this realization to higher geo-political realizations. Trump needs to fire Mattis who has placed the Pentagon in the way of normal relations with Russia. There is no evidence in the behavior of Iran, Russia, and China to support Gen.Mattis’ views. His definition of threat is the neoconservative one—a country capable of resisting US hegemony. . . . . If truth can be spoken, there are only two countries in the world with hegemonic aspirations—Israel and the US—and they are the sources of terrorism. Israel terrorizes Palestinians and has done so for about 70 years. The US terrorizes the rest of the world. All known Muslim terrorists are creations of the US government. Al Qaeda was created by the Carter administration in order to confront the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan with jihadism. ISIS was created by the Obama/Hillary regime in order to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then was sent by the Obama/Hillary regime to overthrow Assad in Syria, as Trump’s national security advisor, Gen. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed on TV. The Ukrainian neo-nazis assaulting the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were also unleashed by the Obama/Hillary overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine. All terror is associated with Washington and Israel. . . . Iran, and Syria rescued by the Russians, are the only states in the Muslim world that are not US puppet states and mere vassals that are nothing in themselves, no independent foreign policy, no independent economic policy. Only Iran and Syria have independent policies. . . . . Iran is the most inopportune of targets for Trump if he wishes to restore normal, non-threatening relations with Russia. Yet his mad dog Pentagon chief recklessly makes threatening statements alleging Iran to be a “terrorist state.” Do we see Israel’s hand at work in the threats against Iran? Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East that are not American puppet states. Syria’s army has been hardened by combat, which is what Syria’s army needs in order to stand up to US-backed Israel. Both Syria and Iran are in the way of Israel’s Zionist policy of Greater Israel—from the Nile to the Euphrates. For the Zionists, Palestine and Southern Lebanon are merely the beginning. Israel has successfully used the corrupt British and now the corrupt Americans to reestablish themselves on lands from which God evicted them. This doesn’t speak well of the intelligence and morality of the British and US governments. But what does? . . . . For twenty-four years—eight years of the criminal Clinton regime, eight years of the criminal Bush regime, eight years of the criminal Obama regime—the world has heard threats from Washington that have resulted in the death and destruction of millions of peoples and entire countries. The Trump administration needs to present a different Washington to the world.


  • Comments: The Presidency

Previously, we saw Jack Rasmus in his article Taming Trump feeling assured Trump would be tamed by the neoliberal/neocon deep state running our government as well as Dr. Petras in another article feel assured he would be unable to accomplish his objectives while Paul Craig Roberts even suggested that he might be done in trying. As we look back to the JFK assassination and the record of presidents following him, it might seem there never should have been any hope because a deep state had been incrementally but assuredly taking over the presidency and with it the nation. As to our presidents following World War II, President Eisenhower, a seasoned veteran, was the best, notably leaving office warning us to beware of our growing military industrial complex. Following him, JFK would be aborted, paying the cost of learning on the job no doubt who were our real enemies. After he was assassinated, Johnson was found crouching in a corner of the plane, a suitable symbol for his immediate caving in to the masters to war in Vietnam that JFK had apparently planned to resist. Nixon following Johnson came into office fraught with paranoia. With the wily and crafty Henry Kissinger at his side, as some have come to believe, he was calculatingly destroyed by Watergate. Certainly no hero to the masses of Americans, he might have been to the masters as unreliable as a Trump. Then, while Ford took over after Nixon resigned seemingly an obviously good man, he was also obviously shallow and unlike his predecessor would have been compliant and manageable. Reaction to Watergate hoisted Carter into the presidency where he might have had a chance to make a difference, but in office he seemed at best another Wilson, unequipped and unprepared or even possibly unknowing, to handle the existing deep corruption. At his side was another wily foreigner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former Polish nobleman his national security adviser. Carter stayed in line with the masters coming up with a Middle East Doctrine to threaten the gulf states; befriending Iran’s Shah who had lost to a truly democratically elected president, Mosaddegh, that the CIA had overthrown; and even putting in place the neoliberals’ first deregulation legislation. Reagan, with the masters behind him and an Iranian hostage crisis, easily dismissed Carter.

An interlude here is some personal notes. At the New Jersey Statehouse, working with other citizen activists on legislative days for several years, I, Barbara, saw Reagan’s election a turning point. Hollywood, a well documented and long reported source of corruption, had put one of their own front and center. Adding to the money that had been bringing us our candidates now would be celebrity and from there no turning back. Reagan, a familiar and warm presence, charmed his audience making it seem he was the hero walking straight out of his old movies, when in fact and although once a Democrat he had long been a paid Republican conservative operator working in television as spokesman for General Electric. Saving his Hollywood career from oblivion, he moved on to become governor of California and then president. In Washington he and Nancy had the roles of their lifetime playing president and first lady to the hilt. Obviously, under such a false face corruption would inevitably deepen. As I had learned at the statehouse, the real action that was left basically unexamined, hid behind a proliferation of minor issues. It was a raging battle between energy and environmental proponents. With Reagan’s election and before it Republican Governor Cahill’s defeat in his Republican primary by conservative Charles Sandman, the efforts I had shared with citizen activists for several years, many of which had been successful, were destined to be eradicated. I ended my statehouse journey.

In the early 70’s while Watergate was going on, as I had experienced, Republican Governor Cahill and his environmental chief Richard Sullivan had championed environmental issues in an effort to clean up much of the state’s degraded rivers and landscapes. But in spite of all his good work, he was easily eliminated by headline news destroying his credibility in a state in which political news was essentially nonexistent. Issues, not parties, mattered. Democrat Byrne followed Cahill and wary of his fate managed to stay in office twisting and turning along the way. It seemed to me at least that never again could there be a full frontal attack, actually something I had realized at the statehouse and for such reason was coming home sending out information generally not available to a list of statewide activists many of whom were in my community.
In the end, we came to feel sorry for Reagan who very well might have had the onset of his disease in office where his lifelong unreality deepened perhaps most dramatically. In spite of all, he did seem to keep some allegiance to his roots saving Social Security from being privatized. More so in the bigger picture of things he had had made a great though ultimately failing effort to come to terms with Gorbachev to begin to dismantle nuclear armament. As I noted in our blog about these meetings during Russia’s Perestroika, Reagan finally decided not to give in to Gorbachev’s demand to give up his star wars project in spite of moderate advisors urging him to cooperate that included among others his wife Nancy and Secretary of State George Schultz. Instead the president, sincere about his effort, took the advice of his strong hard line advisors that included the still active neocon Richard Perle among others. Gorbachev had wisely summed up Reagan’s Star War Program as the beginning of the weaponizing of space.
Onto the wars with Bush Sr. and the first in the Gulf states who was and probably still is a notable ally of Saudi Arabia. Still, it was the next three presidencies that came to seal the deal for neocon/neoliberalism to become the nation’s new bible: the Clintons turned their coats finding hope for anything else nonexistent; Bush the junior, the limited, irresponsible spoiled brat and first child of his parents put Cheney and Rumsfeld and their neocon/neoliberals allies in powerful positions for them, not he, to take care of matters; and then Obama, the mulatto, a presidency no less than the others arranged by the bosses and by virtue of his combined race suggested to the masses we were indeed still a democracy. Now in thinking about Trump, we wonder if he was ever to come to really challenge in any serious way the “deep state” so firmly in place that would no doubt not hesitate to eliminate him if they had to. Trump is no JFK who was n fact dying of Addison disease living a reckless existence to make his challenge perhaps a less threatening personal consequence. Trump on the other hand, as one commentator noted, has too much to loose, living so large in his so unreal environment. But we would argue the presidency no longer matters. The road ahead is the same with or without him It is we who must come to make the difference keeping hope that we will find some form of safe leadership emerging not as a hero or autocrat but as perhaps a group or team whose creative leadership would somehow or other be shared so that if one falls another can take his or her place. Trump is in a real sense old hat, painting himself a hero to make America great again that no longer has resonance in our brave new world.


  • Comments: The Press


One thing stands out for sure, for whatever reason we can only guess, is that their media has been “out to get him”, and “piling on” has perhaps unnerved Trump and that be quite dangerous for us all. But who knows? We can’t be sure mostly because it would seem the mercurial Trump himself can’t be sure. But while in fact it is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening and why it is happening, it is possible to see clearly how “media” is his and our fierce opponent. For instance, in a February Press Conference Trump expressed his belief that it was dangerous for the Press to harp constantly and negatively on Russian relationships, having no basis in fact for their claims, and that by so doing they were preventing any chance that he come to negotiate with Putin, adding that since both were the world’s most powerful nuclear states, negotiation not confrontation was needed to prevent nuclear holocaust. He also spoke to the fact that leaking information was dangerous as it interfered with any president’s ability to conduct the nation’s business. This of course struck a nerve with us for it was part of the reason we had voted for him and something well expressed by people like Professor Stephen Cohen writing that Putin- bashing in these times was essentially crazy. Needless to say, headline reports of this conference were mostly about other issues discussed at the conference although we did find Newsmax reporting Trump saying

“All of those things that you’ve mentioned are very recent because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal,” Trump said, adding that it’s important that both nations, as nuclear powers, maintain positive relations. “I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal,” the president said. “I want to do the right thing for the American people, and to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.” “Don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are they. There’s no upside. I have been briefed. And I can tell you, one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we.”

In our relatively shallow review of headline reports of this conference, it seemed in general and as usual Trump was ridiculed and denigrated using loaded words like “ranting on. At the end of a Politco article one can see reporters and this website putting ahead their issues of concern that at least from our point of view is a clear dereliction of duty to simply report clearly and straightly what was said, saving their interpretations for editorials or the like.

. . . .“Maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I tried,” Trump said. That tangent did not satisfy reporters who wanted a clear response to the New York Times report. A few minutes later, one tried again: “I was just hoping that we could get a yes or no answer on one of these questions involving Russia,” she said. “Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?” . . . .

Just as the Press is against Trump, it is against us. It is the means by which the powerful elite controls our nation. As we have suggested many times, to know why we are in this mess is to understand this wayward role of communications as much as to understand financing and the military industrial complex. That is not to say that Trump is not bad but that in the scheme of things the deep state and their media are the real enemy and presidents their tools. However, one seemingly good outcome of this latest battle is that Trump, perhaps not for all the right reasons, has aroused the citizenry out of its lethargy. It would seem that it is now for the rest of us to see behind Trump or any other puppet president if that is what Trump is to be in the end. There are enough issues to arouse most of us to take a stand against him and his administration’s positions making sure we do not get trapped brawling with each other with such chaos giving our phony government reason to use force against us. An example of such possibility was the Berkeley riots that seemed staged for TV to make part of the public appear unreasonable and out of control. Interestingly former Clinton Secretary of Labor and Berkeley professor of public policy, Robert Reich, told CNN he has heard rumors that “right-wingers” instigated violence at the university

“Those people were not Berkeley students. They were outsiders, agitators, I’ve never seen them before,” he said. “There’s rumors that they were right wingers. “They were a part of a kind of group that was organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event. So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn’t respect free speech rights, that’s a complete distortion of the truth.”

Robert Reich is an honorable man often with keen insights but here we would argue he is true to his democratic inclinations. The black clad violent perpetrators might have been right wingers or just as well left wingers but we think probably acting out another false flag for the deep state that surely has within as many democrats as republicans. But knowing how things may be set up against our activism, we need to be wary to make sure we attack issues not people and especially not each other no matter which side we take. What really matters is our health, safety and democracy, issues that should in time become reasons to unite especially as we organize in our communities that will in the end become major trouble spots for all kinds of negative reasons. While clearly it appears the odds are against us, it remains possible and some might say probable that we could retrieve our Congress which is in fact the only and certainly most difficult democratic tools in our system of government. Presenting our representatives with our positions on issues in reasonable terms, as many are doing now, if they do not turn to serve us then we should turn immediately to work to vote them out of office keeping in mind that we will have to be wary of voting machines and other tactics to make that a battle as much as anything else. But, in the end, we are the masses that the masters go to so much trouble to control and if we learn to unite, to be souls rather than colors or races or creeds, working together there is no force that can defeat us. We have not been successful before perhaps because we have never been so utterly and lethally challenged. It is now or never as it never has been before.

Another thing to realize is that our struggle goes round the world. It is the same there as here. In France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface, Diane Johnstone, an American journalist reporting from France for many long years, write about the coming French election, noting that deep state and corporate media in control of the ”narrative” has popped up in France in the same form as displayed in the US.

The amazing adoption in France of the American anti-Russian campaign is indicative of a titanic struggle for control of the narrative – the version of international reality consumed by the masses of people who have no means to undertake their own investigations. Control of the narrative is the critical core of what Washington describes as its “soft power”. The hard power can wage wars and overthrow governments. The soft power explains to bystanders why that was the right thing to do. The United States can get away with literally everything so long as it can tell the story to its own advantage, without the risk of being credibly contradicted. Concerning sensitive points in the world, whether Iraq, or Libya, or Ukraine, control of the narrative is basically exercised by the partnership between intelligence agencies and the media. Intelligence services write the story, and the mass corporate media tell it. Together, the anonymous sources of the “deep state” and the mass corporate media have become accustomed to controlling the narrative told to the public. They don’t want to give that power up. And they certainly don’t want to see it challenged by outsiders – notably by Russian media that tell a different story. That is one reason for the extraordinary campaign going on to denounce Russian and other alternative media as sources of “false news”, in order to discredit rival sources. The very existence of the Russian international television news channel RT aroused immediate hostility: how dare the Russians intrude on our version of reality! How dare they have their own point of view! Hillary Clinton warned against RT when she was Secretary of State and her successor John Kerry denounced it as a “propaganda bullhorn”. What we say is truth, what they say can only be propaganda.. . . . In some ways, the French election is an extension of the American one, where the deep state lost its preferred candidate, but not its power. The same forces are at work here, backing Macron as the French Hillary, but ready to stigmatize any opponent as a tool of Moscow. What has been happening over the past months has confirmed the existence of a Deep State that is not only national but trans-Atlantic, aspiring to be global. The anti-Russian campaign is a revelation. It reveals to many people that there really is a Deep State, a trans-Atlantic orchestra that plays the same tune without any visible conductor. The term “Deep State” is suddenly popping up even in mainstream discourse, as a reality than cannot be denied, even if it is hard to define precisely. Instead of the Military Industrial Complex, we should perhaps call it the Military Industrial Media Intelligence Complex, or MIMIC. Its power is enormous, but acknowledging that it exists is the first step toward working to free ourselves from its grip.


  • Last Words from the professionals


The Stakes for Trump and All of Us
Paul Craig Roberts
We need to understand, and so does President Trump, that the hoax “war on terror” was used to transform intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, and criminal investigative agencies, such as the FBI, into Gestapo secret police agencies. Trump is now threatened by these agencies, because he rejects the neoconservative’s agenda of US world hegemony that supports the gigantic military/security annual budget. Our secret police agencies are busy at work planting “intelligence” among the presstitute media that Trump is compromised by “Russian connections” and is a security threat to the United States. The plan is to make a case in the media, as was done against President Nixon, and to force Trump from office. To openly take on a newly elected president is an act of extraordinary audacity that implies enormous confidence, or else desperation, on the part of the police state agencies.. . . . The “evidence” provided by CNN and the CIA is a “report” by the New York Times that, with little doubt, was planted in the NYT by the CIA. This is so obvious that it is clear that CNN and the CIA regard the American people as so gullible as to be completely stupid.

Glenn Greenwald explains to Amy Goodman that the CIA is after Trump, because Trump’s announced policy of reducing the dangerous tensions with Russia conflicts with the military/security complex’s need for a major enemy.

“The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.
. . . . .this is not just about Russia. You go all the way back to the campaign, and what you saw was that leading members of the intelligence community, including Mike Morell, who was the acting CIA chief under President Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and the NSA under George W. Bush, were very outspoken supporters of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Michael Morell went to The New York Times, and Michael Hayden went to The Washington Post, during the campaign to praise Hillary Clinton and to say that Donald Trump had become a recruit of Russia. The CIA and the intelligence community were vehemently in support of Clinton and vehemently opposed to Trump, from the beginning. And the reason was, was because they liked Hillary Clinton’s policies better than they liked Donald Trump’s. One of the main priorities of the CIA for the last five years has been a proxy war in Syria, designed to achieve regime change with the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton was not only for that, she was critical of Obama for not allowing it to go further, and wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria and confront the Russians. Donald Trump took exactly the opposite view. . . . . “Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. You just listed off in your news—in your newscast that led the show, many reasons. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that. http/

The United States is now in the extraordinary situation that the liberal/progressive/left is allied with the deep state against democracy. The liberal/progressive/left are lobbying for the impeachment of a president who has committed no impeachable offense. The neoconservatives have stated their preference for a deep state coup against democracy. The media obliges with a constant barrage of lies, innuendos and disinformation. The insouciant American public sits there sucking its thumb. What can Trump do? He can clean out the intelligence agencies and terminate their license granted by Bush and Obama to conduct unconstitutional activities. He can use anti-trust to breakup the media conglomerates that Clinton allowed to form. If Bush and Obama can on their own authority subject US citizens to indefinite detention without due process and if Obama can murder suspect US citizens without due process of law, Trump can use anti-trust law to break up the media conglomerates that speak with one voice against him. At this point Trump has no alternative but to fight. He can take down the secret police agencies and the presstitute media conglomerates, or they will take him down. Dismissing Flynn was the worse thing to do. He should have kept Flynn and fired the “leakers” who are actively using disinformation against him. The NSA would have to know who the leakers are. Trump should clean out the corrupt NSA management and install officials who will identify the leakers. Then Trump should prosecute the leakers to the full extent of the law.No president can survive secret police agencies determined to destroy him. If Trump’s advisers don’t know this, Trump desperately needs new advisers.




President Trump: Nationalist Capitalism, An Alternative to Globalization? (3rd email)
Professor James Petras 

During his inaugural speech, President Trump clearly and forcefully outlined the strategic political-economic policies he will pursue over the next four years. Anti-Trump journalist, editorialists, academics and experts, who appear in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly distorted and lied about the President’s program as well as his critique of existing and past policies

We will begin by seriously discussing President Trump’s critique of the contemporary political economy and proceed to elaborate on his alternatives and its weaknesses.

  • President Trump’s Critique of the Ruling Class

President Trump targeted importers who bring in cheap products from overseas manufacturers for the American market undermining US producers and workers. His economic strategy of prioritizing US industries is an implicit critique of the shift from productive capital to financial and speculative capital under the previous four administrations. His inaugural address attacking the elites who abandon the ‘rust belt’ for Wall Street is matched by his promise to the working class: “Hear these words! You will never be ignored again.” Trump’s own words portray the ruling class ‘as pigs at the trough’ (Financial Times, 1/23/2017, p. 11)

  • Trump’s Political-Economic Critique

President Trump emphasizes market negotiations with overseas partners and adversaries. He has repeatedly criticized the mass media and politicians’ mindless promotion of free markets and aggressive militarism as undermining the nation’s capacity to negotiate profitable deals.

President Trump’s immigration policy is closely related to his strategic ‘America First’ labor policy. Massive inflows of immigrant labor have been used to undermine US workers’ wages, labor rights and stable employment. This was first documented in the meat packing industry, followed by textile, poultry and construction industries. Trump’s proposal is to limit immigration to allow US workers to shift the balance of power between capital and labor and strengthen the power of organized labor to negotiate wages, conditions and benefits. Trump’s critique of mass immigration is based on the fact that skilled American workers have been available for employment in the same sectors if wages were raised and work conditions were improved to permit dignified, stable living standards for their families.

  • President Trump’s Political Critique

Trump points to trade agreements, which have led to huge deficits, and concludes that US negotiators have been failures. He argues that previous US presidents have signed multi-lateral agreements, to secure military alliances and bases, at the expense of negotiating job-creating economic pacts. His presidency promises to change the equation: He wants to tear up or renegotiate unfavorable economic treaties while reducing US overseas military commitments and demands NATO allies shoulder more of their own defense budgets. Immediately upon taking office Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and convoked a meeting with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.

Trump’s agenda has featured plans for hundred-billion dollar infrastructure projects, including building controversial oil and gas pipelines from Canada to the US Gulf. It is clear that these pipelines violate existing treaties with indigenous people and threaten ecological mayhem. However, by prioritizing the use of American-made construction material and insisting on hiring only US workers, his controversial policies will form the basis for developing well-paid American jobs.

The emphasis on investment and jobs in the US is a complete break with the previous Administration, where President Obama focused on waging multiple wars in the Middle East , increasing public debt and the trade deficit.

Trump’s inaugural address issued a stern promise: “The American carnage stops right now and stops right here!” This resonated with a huge sector of the working class and was spoken before an assemblage of the very architects of four decades of job-destroying globalization. ‘Carnage’ carried a double meaning: Widespread carnage resulted from Obama and other administrations’ destruction of domestic jobs resulting in decay and bankruptcy of rural, small town and urban communities. This domestic carnage was the other side of the coin of their policies of conducting endless overseas wars spreading carnage to three continents.

The last fifteen years of political leadership spread domestic carnage by allowing the epidemic of drug addiction (mostly related to uncontrolled synthetic opiate prescriptions) to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly young American’s and destroy the lives of millions. Trump promised to finally address this ‘carnage’ of wasted lives. Unfortunately, he did not hold ‘Big Pharma’ and the medical community responsible for its role in spreading drug addiction into the deepest corners of the economically devastated rural America . Trump criticized previous elected officials for authorizing huge military subsidies to ‘allies’ while making it clear that his critique did not include US military procurement policies and would not contradict his promise to ‘reinforce old alliances’ (NATO).

  • Truth and Lies: Garbage Journalists and Arm Chair Militarists

The respectable garbage journalists of the Financial Times claim that Trump wants to ‘destroy world trade’. In fact, Trumps has repeatedly stated his intention to increase international trade. What Trump proposes is to increase US world trade from the inside, rather than from overseas. He seeks to re-negotiate the terms of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements to secure greater reciprocity with trading partners. Under Obama, the US was more aggressive in imposing trade tariffs that any other country in the OECD.
Garbage journalists label Trump as a ‘protectionist’, confusing his policies to re-industrialize the economy with autarky ( a policy of establishing a self-sufficient and independent national economy). Trump will promote exports and imports, retain an open economy, while increasing the role of the US as a producer and exporter. The US will become more selective in its imports. Trump will favor the growth of manufacturing exporters and increase imports of primary commodities and advanced technology while reducing the import of automobiles, steel and household consumer products.

Trump’s opposition to ‘globalization’ has been conflated by the garbage journalists of the Washington Post as a dire threat to the ‘the post-Second World War economic order’. In fact, vast changes have already rendered the old order obsolete and attempts to retain it have led to crises, wars and more decay. Trump has recognized the obsolete nature of the old economic order and stated that change is necessary.

  • The Obsolete Old Order and the Dubious New Economy

At the end of the Second World War, most of Western Europe and Japan resorted to highly restrictive ‘protectionist’ industrial and monetary policies to rebuild their economies. Only after a period of prolonged recovery did Germany and Japan carefully and selectively liberalize their economic policies.
In recent decades, Russia was drastically transformed from a powerful collectivist economy to a capitalist vassal-gangster oligarchy and more recently to a reconstituted mixed economy and strong central state. China has been transformed from a collectivist economy, isolated from world trade, into the world’s second most powerful economy, displacing the US as Asia and Latin America ’s largest trading partner.
Once controlling 50% of world trade, the US share is now less than 20%. This decline is partly due to the dismantling of its industrial economy when its manufacturers moved their factories abroad.

Despite the transformation of the world order, recent US presidents have failed to recognize the need to re-organize the American political economy. Instead of recognizing, adapting and accepting shifts in power and market relations, they sought to intensify previous patterns of dominance through war, military intervention and bloody destructive ‘regime changes’ – thus devastating, rather than creating markets for US goods. Instead of recognizing China’s immense economic power and seek to re-negotiate trade and co-operative agreements, they have stupidly excluded China from regional and international trade pacts, to the extent of crudely bullying their junior Asian trade partners, and launching a policy of military encirclement and provocation in the South China Seas. While Trump recognized these changes and the need to renegotiate economic ties, his cabinet appointees seek to extend Obama’s militarist policies of confrontation.

Under the previous administrations, Washington ignored Russia ’s resurrection, recovery and growth as a regional and world power. When reality finally took root, previous US administrations increased their meddling among the Soviet Union’s former allies and set up military bases and war exercises on Russia ’s borders. Instead of deepening trade and investment with Russia , Washington spent billions on sanctions and military spending – especially fomenting the violent putchist regime in Ukraine . Obama’s policies promoting the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, Syria and Libya were motivated by his desire to overthrow governments friendly to Russia – devastating those countries and ultimately strengthening Russia’s will to consolidate and defend its borders and to form new strategic alliances.
Early in his campaign, Trump recognized the new world realities and proposed to change the substance, symbols, rhetoric and relations with adversaries and allies – adding up to a New Economy.

First and foremost, Trump looked at the disastrous wars in the Middle East and recognized the limits of US military power: The US could not engage in multiple, open-ended wars of conquest and occupation in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia without paying major domestic costs.

Secondly, Trump recognized that Russia was not a strategic military threat to the United States . Furthermore, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin was willing to cooperate with the US to defeat a mutual enemy – ISIS and its terrorist networks. Russia was also keen to re-open its markets to the US investors, who were also anxious to return after years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry imposed sanctions. Trump, the realist, proposes to end sanctions and restore favorable market relations.

Thirdly, it is clear to Trump that the US wars in the Middle East imposed enormous costs with minimal benefits for the US economy. He wants to increase market relations with the regional economic and military powers, like Turkey , Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Trump is not interested in Palestine , Yemen , Syria or the Kurds – which do not offer much investment and trade opportunities. He ignores the enormous regional economic and military power of Iran , Nevertheless Trump has proposed to re-negotiate the recent six-nation agreement with Iran in order to improve the US side of the bargain. His hostile campaign rhetoric against Tehran may have been designed to placate Israel and its powerful domestic ‘Israel-Firsters’ fifth column. This certainly came into conflict with his ‘America First’ pronouncements. It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will retain a ‘show’ of submission to the Zionist project of an expansionist Israel while proceeding to include Iran as a part of his regional market agenda.

The Garbage Journalists claim that Trump has adopted a new bellicose stance toward China and threatens to launch a ‘protectionist agenda’, which will ultimately push the trans-Pacific countries closer to Beijing . On the contrary, Trump appears intent on renegotiating and increasing trade via bilateral agreements. Trump will most probably maintain, but not expand, Obama’s military encirclement of China ’s maritime boundaries which threaten its vital shipping routes. Nevertheless, unlike Obama, Trump will re-negotiate economic and trade relations with Beijing – viewing China as a major economic power and not a developing nation intent on protecting its ‘infant industries’. Trump’s realism reflect the new economic order: China is a mature, highly competitive, world economic power, which has been out-competing the US , in part by retaining its own state subsidies and incentives from its earlier economic phase. This has led to significant imbalances. Trump, the realist, recognizes that China offers great opportunities for trade and investment if the US can secure reciprocal agreements, which lead to a more favorable balance of trade.

Trump does not want to launch a ‘trade war’ with China , but he needs to restore the US as a major ‘exporter’ nation in order to implement his domestic economic agenda. The negotiations with the Chinese will be very difficult because the US importer-elite are against the Trump agenda and side with the Beijing ’s formidable export-oriented ruling class. Moreover, because Wall Street’s banking elite is pleading with Beijing to enter China ’s financial markets, the financial sector is an unwilling and unstable ally to Trump’s pro-industrial policies.

  • Conclusion

Trump is not a ‘protectionist’, nor is he opposed to ‘free-trade’. These charges by the garbage journalists are baseless. Trump does not oppose US economic imperialist policies abroad. However, Trump is a market realist who recognizes that military conquest is costly and, in the contemporary world context, a losing economic proposition for the US . He recognizes that the US must turn from a predominant finance and import economy to a manufacturing and export economy.

Trump views Russia as a potential economic partner and military ally in ending the wars in Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Ukraine , and especially in defeating the terrorist threat of ISIS . He sees China as a powerful economic competitor, which has been taking advantage of outmoded trade privileges and wants to re-negotiate trade pacts in line with the current balance of economic power.

Trump is a capitalist-nationalist, a market-imperialist and political realist, who is willing to trample on women’s rights, climate change legislation, indigenous treaties and immigrant rights. His cabinet appointments and his Republican colleagues in Congress are motivated by a militarist ideology closer to the Obama-Clinton doctrine than to Trumps new ‘America First’ agenda. He has surrounded his Cabinet with military imperialists, territorial expansionists and delusional fanatics.

Who will win out in the short or long term remains to be seen. What is clear is that the liberals, Democratic Party hacks and advocates of Little Mussolini black shirted street thugs will be on the side of the imperialists and will find plenty of allies among and around the Trump regime.

President Trump’s speech can be heard here:


  • More Comment

Stephen Lendman in the article below sees Trump’s proposals benefitting Wall Street and militarism more than the nation’s needs for jobs, infrastructure health and safety. But as others, and especially Democrats point out, no matter what he may proposed, it needs to turn into real and passable legislation. There is the rub! Such legislation might be good as it helps address the wrongs Dr. Petras points out above and bad as it creates a more powerful Wall Street and Imperialism that Mr. Lendman sees in the article below to serve the establishment Trump so vehemently appeared to oppose. However, we would argue that Trump or worse, under the preceding conditions, was an inevitability. He inherited not created his opportunity and as we have noted many times, we must look underneath him to see the real enemy and then to ourselves to help resolve our dilemma. Consequently, we would argue that whether or not Trump becomes a tyrant depends now on us as much as him. He is no Hitler rather an American salesman or flim flam man and as such a part of the American experience since its inception. In other words it could be worse and with a Trump perhaps it is better. We simply don’t know at this point but we should not be taking any chances. If he remains the wild card who knows how he will flop around and then if he can survive in a more positive form. We need faith to do our jobs and as Glenn Greenwald suggested we have enough ways to attack issues rather than personalities to keep him and us from tumbling over and down. It is up to us as much as him. It is up to us as much to him. Here’s Lendman’s take on his speech that surely showed him in his best form, the American pitchman, as well as the threat he also seems to be.


Trump Before Congress
Stephen Lendman 3/1/17


His Tuesday address was long on making America safe for Wall Street, war profiteers and other corporate predators, short on what’s most needed to serve all Americans equitably and promote world peace. He focused on increased military spending at a time major cuts are needed, combating terrorism without explaining ISIS and likeminded groups are US creations, used as imperial foot soldiers. He called for repealing and replacing Obamacare, omitting what he and GOP lawmakers want is something worse, maybe devastating for the nation’s most vulnerable.
“We will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border,” he said. He lied claiming it’ll deter illicit drugs and crime. He covered his notion of immigration reform, falsely claiming “it will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families, including immigrant families, enter the middle class.” Middle America has been disappearing for years. Neoliberal harshness since the 1990s wrecked it. Nothing in prospect suggests resurrection. He wants America more militarized than ever, intending greater funding for police – to protect the nation’s privileged class from beneficial social change. Changes he’ll propose in America’s tax code are unrelated to letting “our companies…compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” He lied claiming otherwise. Corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs. Economic growth does. GW Bush and Obama gave business trillions of dollars in tax breaks. Their balance sheets and bottom line performance benefitted. Enormous amounts of corporate wealth went to tax havens, were used for stock buybacks, along with higher executive pay and bonuses, nothing helping workers, nothing creating jobs. Job reductions accompanied foreign investments. Offshoring was rewarded. Rotten part-time jobs replaced good full-time ones. Corporate America and high-net worth households never had things better. Unprecedented wealth amounts shifted from ordinary people to them. The great wealth transfer heist continues, America thirdworldized in the process, nothing being done to change things. Trump’s economic plan may make conditions worse with Goldman Sachs in charge of administration policy. His address said nothing about Russia, little about foreign policy. America remains the world’s leading pariah state on his watch, its leading bully, waging endless wars of aggression. He lied claiming the “United States respects the right of all nations to chart their own path.” Humanity profoundly disagrees. Candidate Trump called NATO “obsolete.” Before Congress he expressed strong support for “an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism.”
NATO is a killing machine, used for offense, not defense. World peace, stability and security are impossible as long as the alliance exists. Saying he “want(s) harmony and stability, not war and conflict,” imperial wars rage on his watch in multiple theaters – nothing said about ending US aggression against nations threatening no one, nothing about the grand deception of America’s war on terrorism. His address was long on hyperbole and bluster, short on a compelling need for a new direction.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s