There is no Anti-Establishment Candidate in the USA


there-is-no-anti-establishment-candidate-in-the-usa

  • Instant Crypto Exchange
  • CryptoDonate Widget for your website
  • Web Hosting

I’m going to refer strictly to Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard in this piece. I’ll point out how both of them are in thralldom, to one degree or another, to the powers that be, how they pretend to champion free speech and diplomacy, and how – in fact – they are Establishment servitors.

In order to keep this article short, and not thick with data as an accounting book, I appeal to the memory of the reader. Remember all the pledges Trump made during the campaign and during his term in office, and contrast those pledges with what he actually did – his flip flops. The impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump is just PR. The Democrats and the Never-Trumper Republicans are trying to look busy, are trying to simulate opposition to Donald Trump in front of the anti-Trump electorate. It should be no mystery by now that the audience loves a victim. Trump being ganged up by crooked politicians, trying to pose as paragons of virtue will sicken any honest observer. The bs impeachment effort will help Trump in the race, just like the free news coverage he received from the mainstream media during 2016. It’s not wholly a conspiracy within a conspiracy, because Trump headlines did bring in more traffic – so there’s also a market logic behind it.

Now let’s see what was fake about the Donald Trump presidency. By no means will it be a short list, so I urge the reader to fill in the gaps by making recourse to his or her own memory. To keep it simple, the list of flip-flops won’t be chronological.

Trump’s so-called Muslim ban left out the USA’s Gulf allies, ironically the main sponsors of terrorist ideology and terrorist groups, from which the 9/11 hijackers originated.

The USMCA [NAFTA 2.0] gives even more powers of censorship to Big Tech and entrenches their legal immunity.

Trump invoked the Saudi connection to 9/11, said he would declassify info concerning the issue. He never did.

Trump chose Saudi Arabia for his first ever visit as POTUS, and there he danced and laughed with the despotic aristos, striking military contract deals with the biggest sponsor of Wahhabism [terrorist ideology]. Trump took the opportunity there in Saudi Arabia to publicly condemn Qatar as a sponsor of terrorism and agent of destabilization within the region. The next day Qatar expressed its desire to purchase wargear from the US. Trump saluted their decision and a deal was signed days later.

During the campaign, Trump said he’s willing to work with Russia within the Syrian “civil war” [aka. regime change operation]. But then Trump completely swallowed the [now debunked] staged gas attack, and used it as a pretext to both violate international and national law by launching an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation. Trump proclaimed victory against Daesh [an utter lie], vowed to pull out US troops, but that was largely a political stunt. Instead, US troops remained behind to “protect the oil fields,” as Trump put it – resources belonging to Syria and its lawfully and democratically elected Government, and not to the US, Turkey, the YPG or PKK.

Trump’s wall, ah, pardon, fence, was a crock. For the vast majority of his term, Trump hadn’t built a single mile of new wall. By now, something new has gotten built, a section that covers only a meager 2.8 percent of the border itself.

Trump said he would replace the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] with something better. To this day, nothing better was put on the table. In fact, the Trump White House dropped the American Patients First plan from its agenda, measures that would rein in to some extent price gouging, promote biosimilars, and redirect rebates from insurers to consumers.

And there are many, many other such flip-flops and hypocrisies, utter machiavellian lies, and again I ask the reader to try and remember all of them. I’ll just conclude this [short] list with the peace negotiations between the US and North Korea. At first, Trump seemed like the only sensible politician in the US mainstream. Everyone hammered him for his decision to meet with Kim. But Trump’s meeting was conducted in bad faith. As the reason for the failure in negotiations, Trump invoked the idea that the North wanted a complete lift of sanctions against it. This claim put out by Trump was subsequently infirmed by Pyonyang, stating that the North Korean side never demanded such a thing, only a lifting of sanctions targeting the civilian economy [a partial lift of total sanctions], which is more than reasonable. After nuclear talks broke down, again Pyonyang contradicted Trump’s characterization that the talks had gone well, saying the president misleads the public. So Trump was simply feigning diplomacy. He was milking a situation for personal PR points. He had no good faith about working toward a historic peace deal for both the USA and more so for the Korean peninsula; nor will anything positive happen in his second term.

Now time to focus on Tulsi Gabbard, the prominent anti-war and pro-democracy candidate. The first troubling aspect is her membership on the Council on Foreign Relations. After this became public knowledge on the internet, the CFR website took her name off the list; but the web archive held on to the truth. In 2016, she hosted a CFR briefing in Honolulu. Secondly, after watching Gabbard’s performance in 2019, we see that she has stuck with the “brutal dictator” narrative about Bashar al-Assad, playing right into [pro-war] Establishment propaganda. When referring to the events of 9/11, Gabbard was quick to dump all the blame on the backs of the Saudis, without mentioning the involvement of two key actors in that whole operation, namely Israel and the Deep State.

I don’t trust any politician who believes the mainstream narrative on 9/11, or who talks only partial truths about it. Thirdly, Tulsi Gabbard voted against the BDS movement – which is a peaceful movement that boycotts the Apartheid policies of Israel and is entitled to free speech. In this interview, Gabbard says a bunch of nothing on the subject matter. Jimmy Dore was very soft on her and even his own audience said the same. Tulsi’s stance on this reminds me of the Russian sanctions episode. Gabbard was giving interviews, criticizing the sanctions, then, when voting time came, she voted in favor…

In 2016, Gabbard was also the co-sponsor of tough sanctions against North Korea. In 2014, Tulsi Gabbard said, “Russia must face sanctions for its continued aggression against Ukraine.” […] “We must offer direct military assistance—defensive weapons, military supplies and training—to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia’s aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future.”

So I find it hilarious when Democrats accuse Gabbard of being a Russian asset… Ditto for those who accuse Trump of the same – even though Trump continues to strengthen NATO and push for military encirclement of Russia, all the while expressing cordial sentiments to the press and in front of cameras. This Black Agenda Report from 2017 on Gabbard siding with the War Party is short and insightful. When the new sanctions bill against Russia, Iran, and the DPRK reached Congress that same year, the only three Congressmen to vote against it were Republican. Gabbard voted in favor.

In past articles, I tried to be fair on both Trump and Tulsi, saying they did right when I believed so, and criticizing them when I believed they did wrong. But I’m getting tired of putting microbial-level hope in the so-called lesser evil politicians. I mean, Sheldon Adelson supports both Trump and Gabbard. Both have zionist backing, it’s just that it’s more prominent with Trump than with Tulsi. And to make a brief comment about India’s politics, Narendra Modi’s faction has had warm ties with Israel for a good while now; and without getting too much into it, Tulsi has a good relationship with Modi. If Gabbard’s foreign policy stance was truly different to the zionist path, she would have been labeled 24/7 as an anti-semite on all mainstream channels.

To sum it up…

During the last campaign, the pro-war and anti-war sentiments were exploited. Trump was a hawk regarding Iran and the JCPOA, and he was softer on Russia, insisting on normalizing relations with Moscow. Overall, Trump successfully manage to sell himself as less hawkish than Clinton. What do I predict? Irrespective of who takes the White House, the policy of hegemony by any and all means won’t be rescinded, or even placed on hold. Trump isn’t concerned with securing the southern border, otherwise, he would have built a lot more wall, ah, pardon, fence – and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he would not have authorized regime change and destabilization operations [financial and commercial sanctions included] in Central and South America. The Trump Administration has created economic migration and refugees – on top of killing people with the artificially imposed dearth via sanctions. Most likely Gabbard would have been more diplomatic, at least in her speeches, but doubtless she would have used sanctions. None of them are pro-peace in my view; they are both controlled opposition.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

Leave a Reply