3.WK mit Russland? Als Erinnerung

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Some 50 State Department officials have signed a memo calling on President Obama to launch air and missile strikes on the Damascus regime of Bashar Assad.

A “judicious use of stand-off and air weapons,” they claim, “would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

In brief, to strengthen the hand of our diplomats and show we mean business, we should start bombing and killing Syrian soldiers.

Yet Syria has not attacked us. And Congress has not declared war on Syria, or authorized an attack. Where do these State hawks think President Obama gets the authority to launch a war on Syria?

Does State consider the Constitution to be purely advisory when it grants Congress the sole power to declare war? Was not waging aggressive war the principal charge against the Nazis at Nuremberg?

 

If U.S. bombs and missiles rain down on Damascus, to the cheers of the C-Street Pattons, what do we do if Bashar Assad’s allies Iran and Hezbollah retaliate with Benghazi-type attacks on U.S. diplomats across the Middle East? What do we do if Syrian missiles and Russian planes starting shooting down U.S. planes?

 

Go to war with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia?

 

Assume U.S. strikes break Syria’s regime and Assad falls and flees. Who fills the power vacuum in Damascus, if not the most ruthless of the terrorist forces in that country, al-Nusra and ISIS?

 

Should ISIS reach Damascus first, and a slaughter of Alawites and Christians ensue, would we send an American army to save them?

 

According to CIA Director John Brennan, ISIS is spreading and coming to Europe and America. Does it make sense then that we would launch air and missile strikes against a Syrian regime and army that is today the last line of defense between ISIS and Damascus?

Does anyone think these things through?

Wherever, across the Middle East, we have plunged in to wage war — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria — people continue to suffer and die, and we are ensnared.

Have we not fought enough wars in this Godforsaken region?

Last week, Russian planes launched air strikes on the rebels in Syria whom we have been arming and training to overthrow Assad.

Said John Kerry, “Russia needs to understand that our patience is not infinite.” But why are we arming rebels to overthrow Assad?

Who rises if he falls? Moscow’s alliance with Damascus goes back decades. Syria provides Russia with a naval base in the Mediterranean. Vladimir Putin’s support for the embattled Syrian regime in the civil war being waged against it is legal under international law.

It is our policy that appears questionable.

Where did Obama get the right to arm and train rebels to dump over the Damascus regime? Did Congress authorize this insurrection? Or is this just another CIA-National Endowment for Democracy project?

Why are we trying to bring down Assad, anyhow?

U.S. foreign policy today seems unthinking, reactive, impulsive.

Last week, 31,000 NATO troops conducted exercises in Poland and the Baltic republics, right alongside the border with Russia.

For the first time since 1945, German tanks appeared in Poland.

Now we are planning to base four NATO battalions — one U.S.-led, one British, one German, and perhaps one Canadian, as the French and Italians are balking at being part of a tripwire for war.

How would we react if 31,000 Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian and North Korean troops conducted military exercises across from El Paso and Brownsville, Texas?

How would we react if each of those countries left behind a battalion of troops to prevent a repeat of General “Black Jack” Pershing’s intervention in Mexico in 1916?

Americans would be apoplectic.

Nor are some Europeans enthusiastic about confronting Moscow.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called the NATO exercises “warmongering” and “saber-rattling.” He adds, “Anyone who believes that symbolic tank parades on the alliance’s eastern border will increase security is wrong. We would be well-advised not to deliver any excuses for a new, old confrontation.”

Not only is Steinmeier’s Social Democratic Party leery of any new Cold War with Russia, so, too, is the German Left Party, and the anti-EU populist party Alternative for Germany, which wants closer ties to Russia and looser ties to the United States.

This month, we sent the USS Porter into the Black Sea. Why? Says Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, “to deter potential aggression.”

While there is talk of a NATO Black Sea fleet, Bulgaria, one of the three NATO Black Sea nations, appears to want no part of it.

The European Union also just voted to extend sanctions on Russia for annexing Crimea and supporting separatists in Ukraine.

Donald Trump calls the NATO alliance a rip-off, a tripwire for World War III and “obsolete.” Hillary Clinton compares Putin’s actions in Ukraine to Hitler’s actions in Germany in the early 1930s.

Looking for a four-year faceoff with a nuclear-armed Russia?

Hillary’s the one!

Hintergrund des Monica Lewinsky Skandals?

Eine weitere These: Zumindest ist sie nicht abwegig, da Geheimdienste gerade in dieser Weise mit Erpressungsmaterial hantieren, um ihre Ziele zu erreichen. Wobei Monica nicht mal bewusst auf Clinton angesetzt sein muss, als vielmehr jemand Bills Frauentyp kennt und weiss, auf was der Präsident so oder so anspringen wird.

Idee erwähnt auf diesem Blog: https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/

Remember the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Well, Bill Clinton was trying to get an Israeli-Palestinian peace going, which the Jews did not want. So, the Zionists got their Jewish mole Monica Lewinsky – an intern at the White House – to sexually compromise Bill. She in turn spilled the beans:-) to her Jewish bosses who then revealed it to their Jewish peon Matt Drudge (incidentally drudge means peon – you really can’t make this stuff up) of DrudgeReport.com who “broke the news”. Consequently, the peace process was dead and Bill Clinton disgraced. The Palestinian Peace Process was all but forgotten by all subsequent Presidents who learned not to mess with the Jews, thus leaving Israel alone to destroy the Middle East at its leisure. However, that scandal catapulted Matt Drudge in the blogosphere as the premier news site aggregator where “headline news” are controlled and massaged to fit the agenda of Matt’s coreligionists.

Orlando Shooter: Seine 2. Frau unter Verdacht, Gegenmeinung

In der Presse ist zu lesen, dass die Frau des Orlando Shooters Omar Mateen zugegeben hat, dass sie ihrem Mann half, den Anschlag vorzubereiten und dass sie deswegen angeklagt würde.

Aus dem Umfeld der Frau kommen nun ganz andere Informationen. Wem ist zu glauben? Hat das FBI und die „anonymen Quellen“ nicht ein starkes Interesse, schnell einen Sündenbock präsentieren zu können und die muslimische Gesellschaft in dern USA anzuklagen anstatt zuzugeben, dass sich solche Anschläge nicht verhindern lassen oder gar schlimmer, das FBI selbst mitdrin verwickelt ist.

Es gibt auf eintsprechenden Seiten bereits wieder Theorien, dass diese Schiesserei gefaket war. Sogar Paul Craig Roberts hat aufgrund der kaum erhältlichen Quellen (Bildmaterial) zu Opfern und Schiesserei sowie den ganzen Ablauf (ein Täter oder mehrere TäterInnen laut gewissen Zeugen) seine Zweifel angemeldet.

Nachfolgend der Artikel zu den Aussagen der Frau Omar Mateens, die von der Presse zur Mittäterin gestempelt wird.

 

Noor Zahi Salman: Everything You’re Hearing About Me Is a Lie

Virtually everything in the media about Noor Zahi Salman, Omar Mateen’s wife, is from anonymous government sources. They lie in situations like this.

Such anonymous sourcing helped facilitate the lies used to invade Iraq and countless other horrific policies. They’re doubly dangerous during a panic, consider that after government anthrax killed people in 2001, Andrew Sullivan talked about using nuclear weapons.

And the government has a lot of incentives to lie about this case. They failed to keep people safe. So, what to do? Blame the wife. Blame the Muslims. They didn’t alert us. They are suspect. Potentially, all of them. That’s what Trump — and Clinton in more subtle ways — are saying.

I didn’t need to be in contact with people who know Noor Zahi Salman to know that, but it helps.

In fact, I am in touch with a friend of hers who is in regular contact with people around her now. This means I am probably in closer touch with the actual facts of the case than the zillion media outlets blaring whatever it is “sources” are telling them to blare at you. In so doing, they are smearing a woman who was questioned by the most powerful government in the world, smeared on the largest media outlets as a virtual accessory to mass murder — all without the benefit of a lawyer.

She is apparently telling people around her that virtually everything you’re hearing about her is a lie.

Some examples:

NBC claims: “The Orlando gunman’s wife feared he was going to attack a gay nightclub overnight Saturday and pleaded with him not to do anything violent — but failed to warn police after he left, NBC News has learned.”

Noor Zahi Salman is apparently saying she didn’t have any idea of an attack.

NBC claims: “In addition, she said she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said.”

Noor Zahi Salman is apparently saying she didn’t do that. She says it might be possible that they went shopping together — and she went to buy food or clothing and he might have gone to a gun store. In any case, why is this on her? Why are people focusing on her and not the “security” firm G4S that employed Mateen? How is it that the FBI is suddenly off the hook?

The Daily Beast claims: “Noor Zahi Salman also reportedly drove Mateen to the gay nightclub Pulse to case the place before he killed 49 people there on Sunday night.”

Noor Zahi Salman is apparently saying that she never drove him to the club and that in fact, she doesn’t like to drive at all.

ABC claims: “After Noor Mateen began to answer questions, agents administered a polygraph test to determine whether she was telling the truth.”

Noor Zahi Salman is apparently saying she offered to take a polygraph but the government declined.

Noor Zahi Salman is apparently “free”, but with an electronic bracelet.

What we apparently have is severe logrolling between media and government — where government sources hide behind anonymous quotes and media hide behind anonymous sources. So, basically, they can mutually absolve each other and publish most anything that will benefit the both of them.

Seriously, what’s the justification for using anonymous sources on this story? My justification for using my anonymous sources is that they are scared. The only thing the government sources driving this story are afraid of is that they will be held responsible for their words.

We’re not seeing a free-for-all in terms of everyone speculating as they please. There might be justification for that: Bring on the government stenographer, then bring on the false flag theorist. No, what we’re seeing are directed leaks laying out a pattern of smearing an individual, smearing a community and getting the government and media off the hook for the fact that 50 people are dead.

Some friends of Noor Zahi Salman are apparently speculating that what actually happened was that Omar Mateen was about to be outed as gay — and went nuts. This could have broader implications since “Israel surveils and blackmails gay Palestinians to make them informants.” That clearly is speculative. But far more responsible than speculation that is streaming forth from your TV.

I know more, including an allegation about how the government treated Noor Zahi Salman that would turn your stomach.

I’m not telling all I know now because I have reason to believe it might make the family and friends uncomfortable.

See what I did just there? I was forthright with you, my reader, while respectful of my sources.

Big media propagating anonymous government allegations about Noor Zahi Salman distracts from their own failure to protect the public from attacks.

Instead, it fingers the Arab and Muslim communities as responsible. And that’s a message that is being articulated in ways crude and subtle from our “leaders”:

Says Donald Trump: “But the Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what’s going on. They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn’t turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.”

More subtly, says Hillary Clinton: “Since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have worked hard to build relationships with Muslim-American communities. Millions of peace-loving Muslims live, work, and raise their families across America. They are the most likely to recognize the insidious effects of radicalization before it’s too late, and the best positioned to help us block it. We should be intensifying contacts in those communities, not scapegoating or isolating them.” Clinton pretends to be against “scapegoating” when that’s exactly what she just did. Most just let it slide because it’s not as crass as Trump’s formulation of much the same idea.

Most subtle still is President Obama: “Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.”

I don’t know Noor Zahi Salman. I have not had the opportunity to speak to her directly. I don’t know for certain how forthright of a person she is, though even through media reports, several people who have known her have said she’s upstanding. My immediate source I believe is very reliable. Things are rushed, there maybe misunderstandings here. Noor Zahi Salman is quite likely in shock, she may be honestly misspeaking, especially when in a coercive environment before threatening government agents.

Now, would I like more sources to confirm what I’m writing? Yes, I would, but I think it would be irresponsible to let what are likely falsehoods contaminate the public mind on virtually every major media outlet given the limited capacity to communicate directly with Noor Zahi Salman at this time.

Sam Husseini is founder of the website VotePact.org

NATO Einsatzfall nun auch bei Cyberattacken

Authored by Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Saker,

On Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. The preliminary decision for this was made two years ago after Crimea abandoned Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. That NATO decision was made in anticipation of Ukraine’s ultimately becoming a NATO member country, which still hasn’t happened. However, only now is NATO declaring cyber war itself to be included as real “war” under the NATO Treaty’s “collective defense” provision.

NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.

NATO had produced in 2013 (prior to the take-over of Ukraine) an informational propaganda video alleging that “cyberattacks” by people in Russia or in China that can compromise U.S. national security, could spark an invasion by NATO, if the U.S. President decides that the cyberattack was a hostile act by the Russian or Chinese government. In the video, a British national-security expert notes that this would be an “eminently political decison” for the U.S. President to make, which can be made only by the U.S. President, and which only that person possesses the legal authority to make. NATO, by producing this video, made clear that any NATO-member nation’s leader who can claim that his or her nation has been ‘attacked’ by Russia, possesses the power to initiate a NATO war against Russia. In the current instance, it would be U.S. President Barack Obama. However, this video also said that NATO could not automatically accept such a head-of-state’s allegation calling the cyber-attack an invasion, but instead the country that’s being alleged to have perpetrated the attack would have to have claimed, or else been proven, to have carried it out. With the new NATO policy, which was announced on June 14th, in which a cyber-attack qualifies automatically as constituting “war” just like any traditional attack, such a claim or proof of the target-nation’s guilt might no longer be necessary. But this has been left vague in the published news reports about it.

In the context of the June 14th NATO announcement that cyberwar is on the same status as physical war, Obama might declare the U.S. to have been invaded by Russia when former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails were copied by someone in Russia.

It’s a hot issue now between Russia and the United States, and so, for example, on the same day, June 14th, Reuters headlined “Moscow denies Russian involvement in U.S. DNC hacking”, and reported that, “Russia on Tuesday denied involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee database that U.S. sources said gained access to all opposition research on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

In previous times, espionage was treated as being part of warfare, and, after revelations became public that the U.S. was listening in on the phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, espionage has become recognized as being simply a part of routine diplomacy (at least for the United States); but, now, under the new NATO policy, it might be treated as being equivalent to a physical invasion by an enemy nation.

At the upcoming July 8th-9th NATO Summit meeting, which will be happening in the context of NATO’s biggest-ever military exercises on and near the borders of Russia, called “Atlantic Resolve”, prospective NATO plans to invade Russia might be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus plan for the entire alliance. However, even if that happens, it wouldn’t be made public, because war-plans never are.

The origin of this stand-off between the U.S. and Russia goes back to promises that the West had made in 1990 to the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, not to expand NATO up to the borders of Russia, and the West’s subsequent violations of those repeatedly made promises. Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact, on the basis of those false assurances from Western leaders. Thus, Russia is surrounded now by enemies, including former Warsaw Pact nations and even some former regions of the Soviet Union itself, such as Ukraine and the Baltic republics, which now host NATO forces. NATO is interpreting Russia’s acceptance of the Crimeans’ desire to abandon Ukraine and rejoin Russia following the 2014 Ukrainian coup, as constituting a showing of an intent by Russia to invade NATO nations that had formerly been part of the Soviet Union and of the Warsaw Pact, such as Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia; and this is the alleged reason for America’s Operation Atlantic Resolve, and the steep increase in U.S. troops and weapons in those nations that border on Russia.

*  *  *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Brexit- These revisited: Warum der Austritt nicht stattfinden wird

Zur Überprüfung im Verlauf der kommenden Monate.
Erste Überprüfung am Tag nach der Abstimmung.
Dodgy Geezer's picture

1 – Britain won’t vote to leave. Project Fear and the dirty-tricks brigade will wind up to hysterical heights as the referendum approaches. Look for sexual smears and arrests of major ‚Out‘ figures. Look for threats from bosses to all jobs…..

Es gab Mord an der Politikerin Jo Cox (Brexit Gegnerin), der in den Umfragen einen Stimmungswandel bewirkte in Richtung „Remain“. 

2 – If the voting figures are close, the figures will be fiddled.

Es scheint relativ sicher, dass sich die Bürger mit 52 zu 48 für einen Brexit entschieden haben. Manipulationsvorwürfe sind bislang keine erhoben worden.

3 – If the votes still are for ‚Out‘, Cameron might start the ‚Leave‘ process, which involves negotiation with Europe.  Within 3 months he will announce that the negotiations are going so well that in his view the basis for leaving has changed, and another referendum will be called.

 

Das bleibt abzuwarten. Das Referendum war nur eine Meinungsumfrage und ist für die Regierung nicht bindend. Allerdings hätte eine Missachtung des Wählerwillens negative Auswirkungen auf das Demokratieverständis der Bürger. Es gäbe sicherlich starke Proteste und eine Neuabstimmung (wie bei Irland zum Lissabonvertrag) müsste mit guten Argumenten und Vorteilen (wenn auch nur vordergründig) für die Briten einhergehen.

 

4 – If all of the above does not work, there will be a revolt in Parliament. MPs will not vote to leave. This will result in a General Election, with ALL the main parties supporting ‚Remain‘, and working together to suppress the minor parties. The returned government will then claim that the later Election takes precedence over the Referendum.

 

 

NACHTRAG: Ermordung einer MP Jo Cox durch einen „Rechtsradikalen“ (genau bestimmt sind sein Motiv und seine politische Haltung nicht, aber das schwirrt bislang in den Medien rum).

Alle Wahlkampfbemühungen der Bexit bzw. Bremain Aktivisten sind bis heute Samstag eingestellt. Die Medien erwarten einen Umschwung zugunsten der Bremain-Befürworter.

Allerdings scheint es laut einer ersten Online Umfrage, dass der Wert für Brexit gleich blieb allerdings die Zahl derjenigen, die unentschieden sind, wieder zugenommen hat und daher die Zahl der Bremain Befürworter gesunken ist. Die Umfrageinstitute sehen dagegen eine erhöhte Zustimmung für den Verbleib in der EU.

Vgl.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/first-brexit-poll-after-jo-cox-death-reveals-stunning-result

Spruch des Monats

It takes a village to raise a child, 

it takes a bomb to raze a village

leicht modifiziert aus Gary Leupps Artikel über Hillary Clinton und Donald Trump

(“It takes a village to raise a child,” she says, knowing so well from experience that it takes a bomb to raze a Libyan village including its children, while she cackles in hilarity.)

Ganzer Artikel aus counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/10/some-sober-lessons-for-bernie-sanders-supporters/

Some Sober Lessons for Bernie Sanders Supporters

As the wizard Gandalf declared during the darkest hour: “There never was much hope… Just a fool’s hope.”

The narrow thread of hope now rests on the Justice Department investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal concealment of her emails from the State Department she headed from 2009 to 2012. If she’s hit by a true scandal between now and the Philadelphia convention in July, all bets could be off.

The email server matter is of course an internal ruling class issue that doesn’t much concern the masses on a moral level. But it just might—just by chance (what Hegel called “the cunning of history”)—produce an unexpected, positive result. It would be awesome to wake up to the headline: CLINTON INDICTED.

Or imagine in your dreams the headline: CLINTON WALL STREET SPEECH TRANSCRIPT LEAKED: TELLS GOLDMAN SACHS “I’M YOUR GAL.”

I wouldn’t count on it, though. It’s not like there’s a God out there who’s going to intervene with a miracle and save us from this preordained presidency. Let’s assume that—just as the whole political process is rigged to support the establishment, the whole economy rigged to support the billionaire class, and the whole judiciary rigged to cover up abuses—the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails is likewise rigged to, at the end of the day, exonerate the very picture of corruption. And that anyone sitting on those embarrassing speech transcripts will sit on them until one of them finds reason to sell them, months from now.

As John Lennon put it, in his anguished, brutally honest song “God” put it: The dream is over.

The fact is that Tuesday’s news was very, very bad. As the Hillary cheering squads trumpet her triumph, nauseating us until we can vomit no more, and as the drone-master president Barack Obama overtly endorses her bid to beat the world into submission, serious Bernie supporters might—I humbly suggest—draw the following hard-truth conclusions.

U.S. “democracy” is in general a farce. You weren’t taught this in high school “civics” (those of you who were in schools where such classes are still even taught). How could you be? It’s not really allowed in this free country.

But now you’ve experienced the farce personally. And of course it makes you angry, as it should.

Some of you’ve known or suspected this all along. And in fact this American “democracy” has always been a farce, from the beginnings when the franchise was limited to a small stratum of propertied white men, including slave-holders in the top ranks; to the Jacksonian era when the franchise vastly expanded (alongside the widening scale of slavery); to the Gilded Age when money bought government on an unprecedented scale; to  the present sorry state of affairs in which two parties (equally beholden to Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and the One Percent) politely trade off the presidency insuring that Capital will ever more thoroughly control our lives—while people imagine that “well, at least in our system there’s competition.”

The right to vote, we are told—from schoolteachers, politicians and civil rights leaders alike—is sacrosanct and precious. Rather like the right to, if you’re a Roman Catholic, participate in the Eucharist service. But of course if you don’t believe in the premises of that ritual (the idea that Jesus died for your sins, and that the wine once consecrated becomes his blood, etc.) involvement in that rite is rather meaningless.

(Surely some skeptical churchgoers go along with it, for family and community reasons, just for form’s sake. And one can cast a political ballot for form’s sake as well, pretending you believe it will make a difference—-although you don’t really think it will— just to show what a good and responsible citizen you are. Every North Korean understands such feelings.)

But as you might have noticed—over time in this country, the voting ritual has as much co-opted people as empowered them. Women have had the right to vote nationally since 1920, but it wasn’t voting rights but mass struggle from the sixties that edged us a little bit closer towards gender equality. And (as the Clinton case plainly demonstrates), it’s mostly been a case of affording ruling-class women equal rights with ruling-class men to do, just with broader legitimacy, what the ruling class has always done.

The official (tame) narrative about the Civil Rights movement locates its central moment as the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which more thoroughly incorporated black people into the electoral farce. As though “winning the right to vote” has made African-American people any less likely to be incarcerated, killed by police, or subject to lives of poverty since then.

The fact is, during Bill Clinton’s administration, the number of young black men in prison reached the number of young back men in slavery in 1860. There’s no apparent empirical connection between the extension of the franchise within this farcical system and the real well being of the people. The advantage to the system is that it actually inculcates in the ordinary person the thought that he or she has actually voted for the prevailing state of affairs and is therefore co-responsible.

“Well, it’s our own damn fault,” you’re supposed to say, and “People get the rulers they deserve.” But you don’t believe that, surely.

The spectacle of (wealthy, privileged) African-American women news anchors and commentators—like Joy-Ann Reid on MSNBC—touting the destroyer of Libya as an advocate for women and people of color, while disdainfully dismissing Bernie from the get-go (as an old white socialist Jew with little appeal among African-Americans), shows you how the system corrupts, and corrupts absolutely.

When you vote in the rigged system, you vote not so much for a particular candidate as you vote for the system itself. You testify thereby that you really believe in it, that you think—regardless of the (usually distasteful) choices—you’re at least grateful you can participate in it, thus legitimating whatever outcome occurs. You’re saying: “Thank you, System, for allowing me too, to express my loyalty.”

But you don’t need to do that. You sure as hell don’t need to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Over the last quarter century, between 50 and 55% of eligible voters in this country have participated in the presidential election farce, kissing the system’s ass and allowing it every four years to shout from its rooftops: The people have spoken! Even though the people didn’t say much at all, actually! They stood in front of a slot machine, holding their noses maybe, pulled the handle and chose Tweedledum over Tweedledee in the quadrennial rip-off, their choice shaped mostly by the “fourth estate”—the establishment press.

Comcast, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, Time Warner and CBS provide 80% of the mainstream media news. These conglomerates don’t constitute an official state propaganda apparatus; they don’t need to! But they serve as the system’s Pravda–-just much, much more effectively than the Soviet press ever did. The well-educated Soviet people generally knew the state media was skewed. In contrast, many Americans actually believe the corporate media is “objective.” That’s its great strength, and that’s why it’s such a magnificent tool for oppression.

Not only is the mainstream media in bed with the State Department, framing its assessment of global events through consultation with the active warmongers, actively spreading their lies about Iraq or Libya or Ukraine on request. It’s also a vehicle for the routine, constant promotion of the system itself—in ways you take for granted and hence might not even notice.

One out of every four minutes you spend watching television news, you’re treated to commercials. Okay we just need to take a break now, says Chris Cuomo, without adding: to advertise the people who own us, allow us to say whatever we say, and want to shape your opinions.

Cigarette packages require a health warning; news packages do not. You’re not told: Warning: The news coverage you are about to see has been vetted through our bourgeois sponsors to exclude any embarrassing exposure about themselves. 

The “messages from our sponsors” are a kind of tax on your viewing pleasure. You get some filtered news about current events, and the sponsors in turn get your hard-earned money. You can of course use the time to pee, go to the refrigerator or check your emails. But often as not you just sit there, watching, a passive vessel of consumerist vulnerability. The marketing of commodities (the profitable sale of the products of mostly Third World human labor-power) makes everything possible. It’s the very premise of this civilization.

Somebody has to profit from what you’re told about today’s events. And you’re supposed to accept the idea that—why yes, of course—there have to be corporate sponsors for the news.

(But sit back a moment and wonder if that really makes sense. Will our descendents a hundred years from now be so subject to the rule of capital, and the principle of capitalist profit still intercede in all our interactions with other people and access to information about them? Can’t we as a species—having mapped our human genome, identified terrestrial exo-planets, learned how to grow human organs in other animals and in labs and accomplished other mind-boggling miracles—do better than that?)

In these (still-primitive) times, to get your TV news, you need to imbibe, not government propaganda but the advertisement of capitalism itself. There’s no way that corporate America will sponsor news critical to itself; if a program becomes “radical” it will protest by withdrawing its patronage. (So much for freedom of the press; you are absolutely free to broadcast what your corporate backers are willing to sponsor.)

American capitalism doesn’t require a political dictatorship to retain its grip; it constitutes a dictatorship (of what Bernie has called the “billionaire class”) simply through its legal, mundane, seldom questioned control exerted through capital. It’s a class dictatorship as powerful and effective as any dictatorship imposed by an individual.

The Democratic Party’s primary system and super-delegates are specifically designed to prevent change. The Democratic primaries are “front-loaded” to include most of the historically most conservative southern states early on in the process. Clinton swept the southern states on “Super Tuesday” and claimed a commanding lead from that point. In so doing, she counted in each state the “superdelegates.” These are Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors, and other “distinguished party leaders” who can be counted upon to support the party establishment’s candidate and preserve the power structure because that’s what they do.

After the Democratic National Convention delegates nominated candidates who the party leadership saw as “insurgents” (quasi-antiwar candidate George McGovern in 1972, and “outsider” peanut farmer Jimmy Carter in 1976), these leaders decided to strengthen insider decision-making by appointing such unelected delegates. Their numbers rose from 14% of the total delegates in 1984  to 20% in 2008. Almost all these “superdelegates” were in Hillary’s pocket even before Bernie announced his candidacy.  And the apportionment of delegates from some states where Bernie won big-time were virtually equal to both candidates.

Of course it’s not fair. It’s not supposed to be. Repeat: it’s a farce, at the end of which they want you to say, “Okay, well that’s the system, those are the rules, this is the best we can do.” To this, you have the constitutional right if not moral duty to say: Sorry, no thanks, I won’t be hoodwinked, and I’m not gonna defile myself.

There are unusual aspects to this particular farce, revealing a system in deep, deep doo-doo. In this particular electoral season, due to the depth of voters’ disillusionment—based on decades of economic stagnation and the miserable conditions facing youth, especially since 2008—the stage-managers of the Two Party System lost control of the farcical process early on.

A racist narcissistic blowhard buffoon crushed his “mainstream” Republican hopefuls, aided by the corporate media that (for reasons that need to be analyzed) covered his every move and rambling incoherent rant, sparing him the need to even purchase ad time.

Even as the news anchors expressed perplexity and horror at his rise, the news producers (did you notice—because it looked like a matter of policy) accorded him a hundred times the air-time they deigned to allow Bernie. The Donald rambled on and on about building a wall, and Muslims hating us, and how great he was doing in the polls, in flow-of-consciousness inchoate homilies respectfully covered as “breaking news.”

Meanwhile Bernie’s pointed speeches to thousands merely served as the muted backdrop to reporters ignoring his message but covering the story, as it were, as a weird sociological phenomenon. Gosh, why are all these millenials flocking to a socialist of all things?

That more than sucks. It’s extremely insulting to the human mind, in a society that’s supposed to be “democratic.”

This race has not been determined so far by direct corporate contributions, in the traditional manner. Neither did Trump became the (presumptive) Republican nominee because he outspent his challengers from his own deep pockets. Rather, the chief decision-makers in that tiny corporate-media world elected to not just present him as a normal sort of candidate, worthy of respectful treatment, but to indeed accord him extraordinary amounts of free air-time to reach out to his Neanderthal base.

Time and again news programs broke to “breaking news,” which turned out to be The Donald saying the same damn shit again. Bernie’s appearances were ignored. Fair?

Trump’s simple message—of making America “great again” (as it was at some undefined point in the past)—appeals to many of the least educated and most alienated, much as neo-fascist movements do throughout Europe.

Still, Bernie has given Hillary Clinton—who holds what the pundits call “high unfavorables,” and is widely perceived as dishonest, and as former secretary of state has blood all over her hands—a run for her money. But the grotesque Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chair and Hillary shill posturing as “neutral” in the Clinton-Sanders match, has been more successful than her Republican counterpart in steering her party’s race towards the pre-programmed coronation.

In the end, Wall Street has won out. The One Percent that controls the country in all spheres will be equally happy with a Goldman Sachs groupie plagued by a State Department security breach scandal or a billionaire basket case plagued by a bogus university rip-off scandal; either might serve to captain the ship of state, preserving just sufficient confidence in the system itself and suppressing mutinies for the next few years.

Expect the top 10% of the top One Percent to expand its share over that time, while you work two jobs, keep living with your parents and try to meet your monthly student loan payments. The next president whoever it might be will express love, sympathy and encouragement, and gratitude for your precious vote.

The system wants to suck you in, and make you think it’s somehow “yours.”  Hillary will soon come calling, you know, beaming that artificial smile, praising you for your youthful energy and enthusiasm, and thanking Bernie for “bringing you into the system.” She’s actually said to him: “Thank you so much for energizing the party!”

That, for her, is his huge historical contribution: rounding you up like sheep for the slaughter and delivering her into her motherly embrace. (“It takes a village to raise a child,” she says, knowing so well from experience that it takes a bomb to raze a Libyan village including its children, while she cackles in hilarity.)

You remember that old fairy tale in which Little Red Riding Hood visits her grandma, who in fact is a wolf in disguise with the real grandma already eaten and in his belly? And how the girl observes, “What a big mouth you have,” rather like Hillary’s big raspy mouth? And how in the story, the fake grandma responds: The better to eat you with, with my dear?

Because that’s what Hillary’s telling you now. She wants to chew you up and spit you out, maybe on the Libyan, Syrian or Iraqi desert if you (lacking other job options) sign up to do what they call “fight for your country.” (Even though you don’t actually, as you know, really have a country that needs fighting for. And even though you realize that over 4000 U.S. troops died in Iraq—in a war based on lies that she shrilly championed,—not dying “for their country,” and certainly not for you, but for U.S. imperialism and Wall Street.)

She’ll repeatedly applaud your “idealism”—a smug euphemism for what she privately sneers at as your adolescent naïveté. But if you have any self-respect, her condescension should repel you. You should recoil in horror. And when the slick operatives posturing as journalists or “analysts” on the cable news networks talk about how “the differences between the campaigns are actually narrow” and “can be smoothed over at the convention” you should feel free to go puke, taking your time, and then reply as follows.

Okay look. Let me put it this way.

Sometimes I’m invited to a party.

I know I won’t like the people who will be there.

And I won’t like the food.

So I decline. That’s reasonable, right?

Well, that’s how I feel now when I’m invited to this bullshit presidential election.

I mean, pleeease.. .are you kidding me?

Trump or Clinton? God, what a nightmare.

Is this really happening?

I resent the suggestion that in this populous country of well educated, decent people the two candidates blessed by the two Wall Street parties are the best we can do.

That’s just—excuse me—fucking shit.

Sorry. I don’t like the choices.

I don’t like how Bernie was excluded, disrespected and taken for granted. And I don’t like being taken for granted either.

I resent the idea that I need to hold my nose, voting for this shit or that shit.

I reject the notion that by abstaining entirely I assist one candidate over the other.

I supported Bernie because he seemed to challenge the system.

You, Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, are the very system itself, every bit as much as Trump (and maybe even more).

Don’t insult me with your invitation to taint myself. Go away!

The successes of the Sanders campaign, such as they are, show that another world is in fact possible. The ability of the system to fuck with the human mind has shrunk with the advent of the Internet and the availability of alternative sources of information. Social media have empowered people to more easily and effectively mobilize. For example, cell-phone cameras have generated unprecedented awareness of the routine occurrence of police murder and helped people start to push back against it, although not nearly enough.

The Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements helped give rise to the Bernie Sanders campaign. Energy applied to that campaign can now be shifted to the organization of a (real) political revolution against the system itself—the farcical nature of which you now (so much more clearly through the pain of experience) understand.

The worst possible result would be for Bernie supporters to line up behind a person (a woman, by chance, but so what?) who’s a soul-mate of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger and John McCain who never met a war she didn’t like and will gleefully drag your young ass into war for regime change in Syria, or into Ukraine to challenge Putin and provoke World War III.

The best possible result would be for friendships and networks built in this fool’s hope campaign to resist that planned co-option. We should rage against the dying of the light, wake up to the need for real revolution—real democracy, real socialism—abandoning illusions about the “process” that the wolf in Armani clothing credits Bernie for drawing you into.

By voting in a primary, you didn’t say: I’m so happy to be involved in this process; thank you, Bernie, for politicizing me!

Many of you, at least, said something different. You said: Fuck this system. Bernie means change. And this made sense at the time. But if Bernie at some point urges you to get behind the Democratic candidate, it would be best to maintain some moral integrity and say Thanks for the ride, Uncle Bernie. I’m sorry you have to do what you think you have to do. But sorry. No way!

And prepare to spend some time out on the streets with your new friends and other good people in the next few years, as will be necessary to resist whichever horrible candidate wins.

You were supporting Bernie Sanders, not Bernie Madoff. If you say, Okay, well, I guess I’ll have to go for her, I can hear her Wall Street backers chortle in delight at your humiliation. It will sound exactly like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Clintons Email Server II

Gute Überlegungen eines IT-Technikers:

Hillary steht vor einer Anklage wegen Bestechung und Korruption. Seine Begründung: Einen Email Server aus Bequemlichkeit selber zu unterhalten ist sehr mühsam. Das machen nicht einmal grössere Kleinunternehmen, weil sich das erst ab mehreren Dutzend Mitarbeitern lohnt. Sogar kleine IT-Technikfirmen mieten sich auswärtige Server und Email Services, weil sie das nicht selber machen wollen. Darum muss es um das Verbergen der Kommunikation gegangen sein und das macht nur Sinn, wenn man etwas zu verbergen hat, das sich lohnt. Mit den vielen Spenden, die die Clinton Stiftungen erhalten haben und den Möglichkeiten, die Hillary als Aussenministerin zur Bewilligung von Waffendeals und anderem hatte, ist hier Betrug und Bestechung wahrscheinlich und möglicherweise würde man entsprechende Beweise auf dem Server finden.

Nun: Jeder guter IT Techniker richtet ein Backup der Daten ein, was er aber dem Kunden nicht unbedingt auf die Nase binden wird. Zumindest scheint das Bryan Pagliano gemacht zu haben und so hat das FBI wahrscheinlich alle Backup-Server-Daten vor dem Zugriff durch Clinton gerettet und so die Chance, die Clintons anzuklagen.