ELECTION SEASON NEARS IN THE UNITED STATES AS POLITICAL CRISIS GAINS TRACTION

 03.09.2021 

Election Season Nears In The United States As Political Crisis Gains Traction

The United States 2021 elections are drawing near, with the majority of them taking part on November 2nd, 2021.

Many are taking place on the surrounding days.

It is a volatile season, as the Democratic Party won the Presidential Elections in the face of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and holds a majority thanks to the vice president in the Congress.

In the House of Representatives, the Democrats hold the majority.

Interestingly, in the Senate the Republicans have 50 senators, but still Democrats hold majority with 48 senators, due to Kamala Harris swinging the vote.

Political instability was introduced in the United States following the fiasco that the withdrawal from Afghanistan turned into.

Americans were abandoned, Afghan allies were left behind, and an ISIS terror attack left 13 Americans and hundreds of Afghans dead.

This political instability didn’t simply appear out of nowhere with the fiasco in Afghanistan.

It was brewing when former President Donald Trump faced Joe Biden in the polls, and even before that.

This could also be a way to set the stage for Biden’s resignation, for health reasons or otherwise. A power grab is in order by Vice President Kamala Harris and the neoliberals she represents and whose interests she fights for.

Conservatives and traditionalists would surely come in the spotlight and receive quite a bit of negative attention focused at them. After all, they are the ones who elected Trump, and almost even re-elected him.

Various neoliberal movements, such as BLM and others will become the norm at Washington level, and that is when the true suppression attempts can begin.

This leading ideology will marginalize the states that are more conservative. There will likely be an ideology split within the United States, and even within singular states themselves.

Local authorities, as well as the local business elites and opinion leaders, will be strained, they will need to guide the population in one direction or another.

As a result, every state that’s strongly conservative or liberal will play a significant, leading role in the upcoming events ahead of the election, and after it.

If Texas remains strongly conservative, pro-Republican, as there is not even a Democrat candidate, it is likely that changes might be coming. Some states may wish for more independence in spending, development, legislation and more and be freed from some compulsory factors coming from Washington.

This doesn’t relate to a splitting of the federation into smaller countries, but rather a US in “two speeds”, similar to what is being observed in the European Union.

Texas is second in the US – second richest, and with its 29.1 million residents in 2020, is the second-largest U.S. state by both area and population. It is also a staple of conservatism and the Republican party, it promises to remain as such.

Naturally, the winner of the elections will become an important figure.

Currently, the governor of Texas is Greg Abbott, from the Republican Party.

Election Season Nears In The United States As Political Crisis Gains Traction

He seems like a rather conservative, but adequate leader of his state, with the population having a generally positive opinion of him.

It is an up-and-down, however.

Recently, the most radical abortion law in the US has gone into effect, despite legal efforts to block it.

A near-total abortion ban in Texas empowers any private citizen to sue an abortion provider who violates the law, opening the floodgates to harassing and frivolous lawsuits from anti-abortion vigilantes that could eventually shutter most clinics in the state.

Senate Bill 8 ushered through the Republican-dominated Texas legislature and signed into law by the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in May, bars abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks, and offers no exceptions for rape or incest.

He is also widely considered to have failed the COVID-19 pandemic. Texas was also woefully unprepared for the freezing cold, and citizens were left without power and heat for days.

Still, despite controversy, he is the favorite.

When CPAC, the nation’s leading conservative political conference, met in Dallas earlier this month, speakers included former Dallas state Sen. Don Huffines. And while Huffines bashed President Biden, he spent most of his time on stage blasting a fellow Republican: Gov. Greg Abbott.

Huffines invoked the story of the Alamo and praised Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, then said:

“Well, we don’t have a Donald Trump as governor. We don’t have Ron DeSantis as governor. We don’t have William B. Travis as governor. Unfortunately, we’ve got a career politician that’s a political windsock, a RINO (Republican in name only.)”

Abbott, citing the kickoff of the legislative special session, wasn’t there to defend himself. Huffines used his absence against him, attacking Abbott’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“He doesn’t want to face you,” Huffines said, “because he shredded our constitution. He put 3 million Texans on unemployment and dependent on the government in one day.”

But Huffines wasn’t just speaking out of passion. He’s also one of two candidates challenging Abbott as the governor seeks a third term in 2022. The other: former Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West, who’s made many of the same charges against Abbott’s pandemic response.

Essentially, the situation in Texas is such – the Republican party, more or less, has the victory certain. The favorite appears to be Greg Abbott, but his two main competitors are also from the Republican party.

The two main candidates: Don Huffines and Allen West are simply pushing the same platform, and want to win over the state away from Abbott, who has gone rogue, according to them.

There’s little to mention about West, he simply wants to “overthrow” Abbott, and he even gave up on the chairmanship of the Republican Party in Texas for the purpose. Both him and Huffines are on the same “team”.

In the case of Huffines, experts say that he didn’t win his own seat when he ran for Senate (in 2018), and it’s a seat that was more Republican than the state as a whole when he lost it. It is unlikely that this time he would have success.

Still, when he announced his campaign, he made no mention of Abbott.

It took aim at “politicians who offer nothing but excuses and lies” and promised to take on the “entrenched elites of the Austin swamp.” In promising more decisive action, Huffines said Texas needs to “finally finish the [border] wall” and that he would put the state “on a path to eliminating property taxes.”

Huffines was a strident conservative in the Senate. His announcement highlighted his record on issues important to the right, as well as his successful push to shut down the Dallas Public Schools bus agency amid reports of financial mismanagement there.

He got to the Senate in 2015 after unseating Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, in the primary, attacking him as too moderate. But the Dallas-based Senate District 16 swung toward Democrats under former President Donald Trump, and Johnson beat Huffines by 8 percentage points in 2018.

Huffines stayed politically active after leaving the Senate and especially so in the past year, as conservative angst simmered over Abbott’s pandemic management. Even then, Huffines has an interesting family connection to the governor’s circle: His brother is James Huffines, whom Abbott tapped last spring to chair the Governor’s Strike Force to Open Texas.

Southern Methodist University political science professor Cal Jillson said the odds are that Republicans will ultimately get everything they’re pushing in the current special session, even if it takes several more special sessions to get those priorities passed.

“Right now, the Republicans have the Democrats strung up by their thumbs with their feet barely touching the ground,” Jillson said. “I think the Republicans are going to win on the substance, and how the Democrats frame their eventual loss very much will determine whether or not the two bases are equally energized by this fight or one is energized more than the other.”

In his most recent gubernatorial race in 2018, Abbott won with 55.8% of the vote.

Abbott has money too.

He’s sitting on a war chest of $55 million.

But despite rampant rumors that former Congressman Beto O’Rourke or even actor Matthew McConaughey will get into the race, Democrats still don’t have a declared candidate for governor.

Still, the Democrats appear to have given up on Texas, as there is no candidate, two months prior to election.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Abortion and the Culture War

About me

August 8, 2021 

An Analysis by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Competing Rights

For those American readers not old enough to remember a time before the nationwide legalization of abortion through the court case known as Roe v. Wade (1973), let me remind you of some of the attributes of that era. The prevailing law made it very difficult to get an abortion in the United States, but not impossible. The real question was how much danger a pregnant woman was willing to face in the illegal “back alley” operations that were available. You see, as with most things illegal, a “black market” existed which would not only eliminate the unborn fetus, but often kill the distraught mother as well. If you were well off and determined, you could go abroad and have the operation performed with relative safety—often making the whole issue one of class privilege. Behind the scenes, one found two dramas played out: (a) the frantic, sometimes near-suicidal despair of the pregnant woman, often only a teenager, and (b) the sanctimonious prattle of those anti-abortionists —mostly men—who said they represented the will of an imagined deity.

Having said this, I do not want the reader to believe that there is no moral question when it comes to abortion. From an evolutionary standpoint, the fetus is a potential human being upon conception and may well have a “moral right” to that life trajectory. Yet that right exists within a broader context which requires that it should be balanced against a woman’s “moral right” to control her own body and the child’s “moral right” not to be born into an environment where he or she is basically unwanted. If we were to deal with this issue logically, the real answer to the dilemma of competing rights is surely free and universally available contraception—along with sensible sex education.

Part II—Anti-Abortion and Gun Mania—An Eerie Connection

There is yet another relevant fact to consider. Remember that the whole anti-abortion movement assumes that human life is uniquely valuable. However, our societies often do not act as if human life is something special—morally or otherwise. Take a look at the essay I wrote in June 2019 entitled “The Alleged Preciousness of Human Life.” I think it lays this failing out clearly and convincingly. Here in the United States, this fact is most obviously brought home by the society’s glorification of guns and the resultant deadly mayhem.

Actually, there is an eerie connection between the abortion issue and gun mania. It runs, of course, through the Republican Party. At the end of July 2021, “228 Republican members of Congress told the Supreme Court that it should overturn Roe v. Wade and release the court’s ‘vise grip on abortion politics.’” These are the same politicians who have sworn loyalty to the official Republican party platform that states “We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right . . . secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans to exercise their God-given right of self-defense.” In other words, the Republicans who demand that the courts subscribe to their view of the “right to life” of unborn children are the same ones who insist that each citizen has a right to possess society’s chief instrument of death. In this effort they invoke, once again, the approval of that imagined deity. They also misinterpret the Second Amendment, and play fast and loose with such words as “natural” and “inalienable.” Well, as it is often said of American politics, hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Part III—Culture War

Both abortion “rights” and gun “rights” are parts of a continuing American culture war—which also includes other hot topics such as real equality for Blacks, Native Americans, women in general, homosexuals, and transgender people, as well as other questions such as multiculturalism.

None of these issues existed as publicly divisive ones before the 1960s. Before that time, the misleading though strongly promoted image of American society was white, male, heterosexual, and benevolent. For those old enough to recognize it, the benign version of this model was given in a classic TV show called The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, which aired from 1952 to 1966. The resulting false picture of the near-perfect American family dwelling in a community where there were no serious social problems became so iconic that, subsequently, many Americans came to idealize the 1950s. One strongly suspects that the anti-abortion and pro-gun lobbies still do.

The Ozzie and Harriet model had broken down by the second half of the 1960s. What shattered the iconic image were (a) the demand for equal rights, both in social and political terms, for, initially, the country’s Black minority and female majority—that is, the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Liberation Movement and (b) opposition to the Vietnam War, which shredded any claims of “God-given” moral exceptionalism for the nation.

The “excrement hit the fan” the moment these campaigns for equal rights and peace began to gain political backing. People knew this was happening because new laws came into existence: anti-discrimination laws and others like the “war-powers act” which sought to limit presidential power to wage undeclared war. These were seen as progressive moves attuned to a different, if yet unfulfilled, humane canon of American ideals.

From that general moment until today, the progressive equality camp has been engaged in a culture war—really a struggle for political power—with the camp that favors the traditional white-male-heterosexual-anti-abortionist setup.

Part IV—Fascist Potential

For the past five years Donald Trump has been the leader of the latter camp, and this alignment helped him win the presidency in 2016. During this time Trump has been accused of racism, misogyny and sexual harassment, being a deadbeat, tax evasion, nepotism, blackmail, compulsive lying, encouraging police violence, subversion and insurrection, and being an advocate for the destruction of the world’s climate, among other things. If even half of these allegations are true, it means that the white-male-heterosexual-anti-abortionist crowd is quite willing to have a criminal personality with fascist leanings as their leader.

One way to interpret this is that, for this camp, democracy is not an important issue. It was democracy that led to the progressive change they hate and fear, and democracy that seems unable to reverse this course as quick as they would like. If voter rolls expand and gerrymandering is corrected, their influence will shrink. Under these circumstances this side in the culture war is willing to throw democracy out in favor of an authoritarian government run by thugs. We already see intimations of this in Arizona, Florida, and Texas, to say nothing at the U.S. capital on January 6, 2021.

One might ask, can the sane citizens of the U.S. take hope in Trump’s defeat in 2020? The answer is, perhaps not. If Donald Trump keeled over from a fatal coronary tomorrow, we would still be in trouble as a nation. One indicator of this, relevant to the abortion question, is that, in his brief stay in the White House, he was able to appoint to the Supreme Court three reactionary judges—making the balance 6 to 3 in favor of decisions turning the clock back to a pre-progressive time. The constitutional argument these six judges will most likely use toward this end is “states rights”—turning important social decisions over to state legislatures even if these bodies are filled with anti-democratic, conspiracy-theorist, paranoid, irrational politicians.

Part V—Democratic Party Weakness

This brings us full circle back to Roe v. Wade. “At issue before the court is a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy [Roe v. Wade set the cut off at 24 weeks when most experts believe fetus viability occurs.] There is no exception for rape or incest. The court will render its decision by next June, in the lead up to the mid-term elections.” Upholding the Mississippi law would invalidate Roe v. Wade and the legal status of nationwide abortion.

If legal precedent was a factor in this contest, there would be no doubt that Roe v. Wade would be upheld. For over forty years both lower court and past Supreme Court decisions have upheld the present law affirming the “woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” But, because the Trump administration managed to shift the balance of power on the high court, most observers now expect that Roe v. Wade will fall. Like wolves circling a wounded prey, various states with Republican legislatures have “introduced more than 500 restrictions on abortion over the past four months, a huge increase from previous years.”

In the meantime, the Democratic administration of Joe Biden has not spoken out strongly about the possible demise of Roe v. Wade. In fact, President Biden, who is Catholic and perhaps fears increased criticism by the Catholic Church, has refused to use the word “abortion” in public. His administration has also chosen not to challenge other conservative icons, such as the issue of gun control (or lack thereof). Put it all together and one suspects that President Joe Biden is a man bypassed by time. He is a politician of an age when bipartisan cooperation, and thus meaningful compromise, was possible. Yet this ended with the Obama presidency (2009-2017), when the Republican leadership, which is still in place, systematically attempted to defeat or stall everything President Obama attempted to accomplish. Biden was a witness to all of this in his role as vice president, but he seems to have learned nothing from that experience.

Part VI—Conclusion

So here is the situation: (1) An ex-president with a sociopathic personality leads a Republican minority of mostly white, heterosexual, male conspiracy theorists who have also taken up the cause of outlawing most abortions and, given half the chance, are perfectly willing to selectively overthrow the U.S. Constitution; (2) the defense of the realm is in the hands of Democratic Party leaders who, for the most part, have misjudged the current situation and rely on traditional bipartisanship—to wit: they are trying to compromise with those who do not respect the present democratic system; (3) as a consequence, leaders like Joe Biden have probably lost that part of the nation’s progressive achievements encoded in Roe v. Wade, and perhaps a lot more; (4) finally, in 2022 there will be mid-term elections for the Congress—to reelect the Republicans as they now exist is to put into power the bigoted, the prevaricators, and often the deranged.

It is anyone’s guess if, devoid of able and forceful Democratic leadership clearly articulating what is at stake, enough voting American citizens will understand the risk or have the motivation to stop a reactionary takeover.

The Democracy vs. Freedom Dispute

About me

July 1, 2021 

by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Democracy and Freedom

In the United States, there is a dispute over whether democracy and freedom are compatible. Some, such as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have questioned their compatibility, and even asserted that freedom, rather than democracy, is what the U.S. really stands for. These terms are often used out of context and the dispute often suffers from a lack of historical knowledge, but there is nothing surprising about that. 

Most of the men who put together the U.S. Constitution saw the world in class, racial and gender terms. While they wanted a more democratic government than that in England which, for propaganda purposes, they had portrayed as a tyranny, the new American democracy had to be carefully structured. Here is how this translated from theory into practice: the common man’s passions should be held in check by a system that kept the power to make policy in the hands of those white males who had “a material stake in society”—that is, the propertied class. For large segments of the population democracy was to be denied due to both gender and color. 

Only a relative few of these men were thinking about freedom per se. And those who did, certainly did not define it in open-ended libertarian terms. Indeed, in late 18th century America, freedom came in two flavors: (1) first and foremost, the freedom from “unreasonable” taxation. What is unreasonable in this sense, would be argued about incessantly right up into the present. (2) Protection against the abuse of government power. The notion of abuse was directly connected to a) examples of alleged British excesses leading up to the American Revolution and b) Federalist party practices (when in power) like the suppression of critical newspapers and pamphlets. It is to cover a host of these sorts of issues, collectively posited as the protection of individual rights or freedoms, that Jefferson and Madison insisted a bill of rights be added to the Constitution as its first set of amendments. Once this was accomplished (December 1791) America’s democracy and a constitutional list of protected rights/freedoms, became compatible. 

Part II—Getting Things Wrong 

Now we fast forward to the present and Republican Senator Rand Paul, who was recently quoted in the New York Times as follows: “The idea of democracy and majority rule really is what goes against our history and what the country stands for [which is freedom]. The Jim Crow laws came out of democracy. That’s what you get when a majority ignores the rights of others.” He goes on to connect Republican Party opposition to a bipartisan congressional investigation of the January 6 “protest” (it was really an attempted insurrection) with the right of the political minority to protect itself against the majority. All of this is ahistorical and illogical. 

When taking up Paul’s position there are several points to consider:

First: Historical accuracy. Paul seems confused about the status of majority and minority when it comes to freed slaves in the American South at the time Congress abandoned Reconstruction (March 1877). At this time, the Black population in large parts of the rural South constituted the numerical majority. So, the Jim Crow laws that quickly followed were the products of a local political/racial minority (southern Whites) seeking to suppress the newly won rights of their local majorities (southern Blacks). Thus, Paul has his facts backwards. He might have made this mistake because he thinks that the American Black population has been a minority at all times and in all places throughout the country’s history. Yet here we have an important exception—an exception that challenges the senator’s argument that discriminatory behavior principally has its source with oppressive majorities.

Today, if Senator Paul is looking for a minority in need of protection, he should focus on contemporary southern Blacks (who are now indeed a minority both in size and power.) They are now faced with a white Republican Party in control of state legislatures seeking to suppress the voting access of minorities.

Second. Paul seems not to take into consideration that the American majority has grown and diversified. In other words, when it comes to what the government (local, state and federal) cannot do to you (like suppress your voting rights)—the you have steadily grown larger. Theoretically this should bode ill for the rightwing state legislatures mentioned above. It is unclear how Senator Paul personally feels about this (such narrowing of the election laws has not taken place in his home state of Kentucky), but he is an active member of the Republican Party, and that is party playing fast and loose with the voting laws in a host of southern and mid-western states. Why is the Republican Party doing this? Because a growing and diversifying majority creates a growing number of voters and most come from Black and other non-white segments of the population. Exercising their participatory political rights, they tend to vote Democrat. 

Third. The constitutionally protected rights or freedoms are not open-ended. Yet Paul seems to suggest that they are when he asserts that to protect the Republican minority in the Senate, the party can block a bipartisan investigation of the January 6 insurrection. On the one hand, it is quite true that the bill of rights was designed as, and remains, a necessary defense of individual rights from majority demands for political or cultural uniformity. On the other, one can ask, what is Paul and the Republicans trying to protect their party from? The bill of rights does not, and never was supposed to stifle investigation of criminal acts. The only thing the bill of rights does in this regard is to guard the individual against illegal evidence gathering procedures and other abusive practices on the part of law enforcement.

Part III—Misusing the Bill of Rights

Against this background, how are we to understand Paul’s specific application of minority rights? At the very least, we can understand it as a misinterpretation of the purpose and intent of the bill of rights and the protections it offers individual citizens. In other words, he is defending his party’s refusal to allow a bipartisan investigation of an apparent crime—a crime with potentially embarrassing trail of evidence.

The Republican Party and its conspiracy-spinning allies in the press and social media (whose speech is nonetheless protected) essentially created an alternate reality for millions of Americans that led some of them to insurrection. Despite many evidence-based demonstrations to the contrary, millions have bought into the myth that former President Donald Trump was cheated—and thus they, his supporters, were also cheated—out of victory in the 2020 presidential election. While both the Republicans and their supporters may believe the unbelievable—aver the demonstrably false—they have no right under the Constitution and its bill of rights to express such a delusion by going on a rampage, destroying public property, and attacking public officials. They have no protected right—no “freedom” to do this even if they claim, probably truthfully, that they believed the president told them to do it. 

Taking the next step, what is the real-world consequence of Paul’s defense? Well, given the likelihood that the investigation would connect elements of the Republican Party to the actions of the insurrectionists, this must be seen as self-serving obstruction of justice—itself a crime. For Paul, this is the “freedom” that—conveniently—supersedes democracy. 

Finally, the whole affair is a scary example of a paradox: The protection of speech, that is the right to free speech, can  degenerate into a campaign of lies and this can easily lead people to unprotected, that is criminal, actions. This is, admittedly, a downside of the bill of rights. An individual (and keep in mind that under U.S. law corporations are seen as individuals) has a protected right to lie to the public—to wit: broadcasted fantasies ranging from those of the National Inquirer to Fox TV and, lest we forget, Donald Trump.

Part IV—Conclusion

It is worth repeating that one of the positive things about the political evolution of the United States is that it has expanded the ranks of the participatory majority. In political terms, citizens of all genders and races now have both participatory rights and protected individual rights. Correspondingly, the minority—referring here specifically to those who object to this historical expansion—is slowly shrinking. While the latter’s rights to, say free speech, will remain protected, their ability to retain political and cultural power may well diminish over time. There is no doubt that the Republican leadership has a sense of this possibility, and this accounts for their increasingly fierce and frenzied attempts to turn back the clock. 

The shift of emphasis from an expanding democracy with protected individual rights/freedoms, to a dangerously ad hoc and sometimes illogical version of freedom, is part of that frenzied activity. Senator Paul and his friends, very short on historical facts and judgment, want all of us to believe in the absurd. That is, obstruction of justice in the name of minority rights is “what the country stands for.”

Iran rules out step-by-step lifting of sanctions

Biden knows that any deal with Iran will be attacked by the Republicans as selling out to Iran

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
This file photo shows Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh fielding questions from reporters.

by PressTV, Tehran

[ Editor’s Note: Iran seems to have found some middle ground. It will meet in Vienna with the remaining JCPOA countries with the US ‘down the hall’, or one could say ‘in the dog house’, until it comes back into full compliance with the agreement.

Nothing could show more weakness than negotiating with someone who has walked out of a deal unilaterally, and only wants to dicusss coming back into it on the terms that it can renegotiate the deal, which is obviously a continuing reneging on the deal. That would be a humilation for Iran.

An Iranian government doing so would have zero chance of being reelected, and hence the Biden administration’s opening strategy was not a confidence builder. So far, as a token concession, it has put on the table releasing a few billion of frozen (stolen) Iranian funds, a mistake made to pretend the US was being flexible.

On the American side Biden knows that any deal with Iran will be attacked by the Republicans as selling out to Iran, but he should not be concerned about that at all. We recently had the large numbers of the Republican party after the January 6th insurrection vote not to certify the election, fearing the punishment of our ex-Mafia-in Chief president.

The saying about this situation that we learned about as kids was ‘people who live in glass houses should not throw stones’. If Biden flubs this he runs the risk of the Iranian hardliners coming to power, where he will then be blamed for that by the Repubs.

While the Republicans have openly launched the most massive nationwide voter supression campaign in modern history, we are way past having to worry about making them happy.

The world is watching while America devours itself on the one hand and then is posing that it should be the world leader of a new ‘coalition’. Some would suggest that is not a bet that makes good sense to even entertain… Jim W. Dean ]


Iran cannot prevent its being tormented by the US, but it will not be pushed around

First published … April 03, 2021

In an exclusive interview with Press TV, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh rules out any step-by-step lifting of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic under former US president Donald Trump.

“As has been clearly stated many times, no step-by-step plan is being considered,” Khatibzadeh said on Saturday.

“The definitive policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the lifting of all US sanctions, whether those which Trump reimposed after withdrawing from the JCPOA or those which he initiated, as well as sanctions imposed under any other heading,” he said.

“Obviously, this lifting of sanctions must be effective and must be verified by Iran,” Khatibzadeh added.

His remarks came in response to claims made by US State Department deputy spokeswoman Jalina Porter about a planned meeting by representatives of Iran and other countries in Vienna Tuesday to discuss the troubled 2015 nuclear deal.

Restoring the nuclear agreement would be a major step, nearly three years after Trump scrapped it and imposed new sanctions or reimposed others lifted under the deal, forcing Iran to take a series of “remedial” measures in response to the decision.

Porter said Friday that the discussion would focus on “the nuclear steps that Iran would need to take in order to return to compliance with the terms of the JCPOA”, using initials for what is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

In the talks, American officials would be down the hall while British, German, French, Chinese and Russian officials meet with Iran.

And that would be joined with discussion of “the sanctions relief steps that the United States would need to take in order to return to compliance, as well,” Porter said, an acknowledgment that the United States is currently in violation of the accord.

Khatibzadeh stressed that “the suspension of Iran’s remedial measures and their reversal will take place only after the lifting of all sanctions and its verification” by the Islamic Republic.

In a tweet on Friday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the aim of the Vienna session would be to “rapidly finalise sanction-lifting & nuclear measures for choreographed removal of all sanctions, followed by Iran ceasing remedial measures”.

“No Iran-US meeting. Unnecessary,” he added Friday.

American officials have said they were willing to meet directly with the Iranians, but the Iranian government has insisted on working through the Europeans, a stance which Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi reiterated Friday.

“We only negotiate with the members of the JCPOA. The parties that are now known as the P4+1 will be our negotiating partners. They can talk to the other sides as they wish. We have no direct or indirect dialogue with the Americans,” he said.


BIOGRAPHYJim W. Dean, Managing Editor

Managing Editor

Jim W. Dean is Managing Editor of Veterans Today involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews. 

Read Full Complete Bio >>>

Jim W. Dean Archives 2009-2014https://www.veteranstoday.com/jim-w-dean-biography/jimwdean@aol.com

American Prospect

Via The Saker

January 27, 2021

by Sushi for the Saker Blog

If you wish to understand the concerns of those who attended the 1/6 Save America rally, you can learn much by watching the first three minutes of this video . If you wish to understand the issues that lie at the heart of the Nancy Pelosi – Never-Trump response, you can do no better than watching the same three minutes. Three minutes is not a long time. Maybe it saves the Republic. Perhaps not.

I recognize many of the locations shown; it was in Seattle that I met my first wife and my memory of the city is tainted by the youthful hormones associated with love and romantic attachment. Dispense with those gemütlich thoughts, strip all the romance away, and the video remains a searing reintroduction to an America in decline.

The Articles of Impeachment cite Trump for the remark,” ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’ He said those words because he believed them to be true. His supporters believed them to be true. The founders of this country believed them to be true. The ghosts of Concord, Omaha, Antietam, Betio, and a thousand other forgotten battles, laid down their lives to consecrate those words. America is drenched in blood. Is it worth asking who spilt it and why?

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

At the end of President Regan’s term in office, America was the greatest exporter of manufactured goods, the world’s largest creditor nation, the world’s largest importer of raw materials. Each year, America created the greatest value added in the history of the world. Today all these numbers are reversed. America is the world’s greatest debtor nation, America imports almost all its manufactured goods, and the main source of value added is found in the FIRE sector.

In an earlier era, America hired people to add value to raw materials and sell the finished products. People had good jobs. They lived the American dream. Today, they live the American nightmare. Today the route to wealth is found in the creation of SPACs and CDOs and other pieces of paper backed by little more than a promise. Or it is found in creating a new virtual universe composed entirely of electrons. The plungers have bid up the market to incredible heights of fantasy, interest rates border on the negative, and Biden is in the process of adding a few trillion more dollars to the top of an already teetering matchstick pyre. As the great sage of America once said: “What, me worry?”

In the years since President Regan, middle America has been in constant decline. Republicans came into office, made a lot of promises, and when they left office the majority of America was worse off than before. The Democrats came into office, promised hope and change, and when the Democrats left office the majority of America was worse off than before. The Red Hatters suspect the emergence of a pattern.

There have been 16 years of Republican presidents: Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump 45, and 16 years of Democrat presidents Clinton and Obama. Trump’s supporters have learned, much to their chagrin, and at great personal expense, that it does not matter who you vote into office, the outcome is always the same. The average American is yearly worse off, their savings erode, their debt explodes as increased debt is the only way to keep their head above water, send their children to school, pay their bills. On the coasts, and in Washington, live the elites who get richer and richer every year. The banks collapse and wipe out the savings of ordinary Americans? No problem. We bail out the culprits with trillions of dollars and the bank executives, the ones who created the funny money in the first place, they give themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses. For what? For crashing the world economy and coming out on top? Nice work if you can get it. And the ordinary folk? They lose their job, their savings, possibly their home. Some get the bonus of a cardboard mansion.

When Enron collapsed, people went to jail. When the savings and loans collapsed people went to jail. In the financial crisis fat paychecks and get out of jail cards went to a small segment of the population. None of them wore Red Hats. The systemic causes were never addressed, except as a band-aid solution, which implies they remain as a hidden set of weaknesses ready to rip open at the next great signs of stress.

The Democrats want you to believe that 1/6 was a coup, a rebellion, a putsch, an overthrow of a legitimate government. It is unclear how you claim to be a legitimate government, of the people, by the people, for the people, when each year the elites get more and more wealthy and ordinary folk are driven into poverty and then laughed at. Called Deplorables. Despicables. Traitors. Insurrectionists. Domestic Terrorists. Refused airline travel because of their political views. Refused legal counsel because of their political views. Have their employment threatened because of their political views. Have their insurance contracts revoked because of their political views. Have their communications media cancelled because of their political views. Put on watch lists because of their political views. Labelled as American ISIS for their political views. Al Qaeda in America. Bin Laden’s corpse is adrift in the Arabian Sea but he is winning.

Two observations. The first is that the Red Hatters have legitimate grounds for grievance. The elites that populate the coasts and inhabit the Capitol appear greatly unwilling to acknowledge that fact. In fact, the response of the Washington and coastal elites appears dedicated to the destruction of any form of political unorthodoxy. The Red Hatters strike me as empiricists. They experience the fact of reduced opportunity, reduced paychecks, a decline in their standard of living. These are the people who staff small business, the fire stations, the police stations, who are shipped overseas to combat the war on error. Those who send them overseas, who seek assistance from the fire stations, the police stations, are ideologues. And the ideologues are disconnected from reality and therefore indifferent to the plight of their fellow citizens. They hold the belief that the physical and financial distress the Red Hatters claim to experience is all in their head. If they removed the hat all would be fine. And what they really require is ostracization. A period of re-education and indoctrination. A few years in the Gulag. Ship them out to the Xinjiang re-education camps. Store them in Gitmo. It’s the American way.

The Ideologues have it all. And they want even more. Their appetites are immense and unyielding. Any form of challenge, appeal, or protest, is to be crushed. Legitimate grievance will be labelled Al Qaeda in America and destroyed. The orange man who appears to have provoked the uprising; he too will be destroyed. None can be allowed to remain standing because the sheer fact of their presence threatens the Ideologues beatific view of a world in which they have absolute mastery. Political mastery, commercial, and military.

The second observation is that history has gone out of fashion. It is an outdated subject well past its best before date. America’s history of rebellion and revolution is outmoded and inapplicable. Not pints, but gallons, hundred of gallons, VLCCs brimming with blood, all of it spilt, and none of it matters. Because this time its different. Those history guys in their funny hats, weird britches, and leggings, they did not have computers. They knew nothing of social media. If any remain alive today, they are dodos, too stupid to know they went extinct years ago. The problem is exacerbated by a Fourth Estate which is of the belief that “goebbels” is a noise made by turkeys, or the description of a rushed and greedy eater. People who do not know history are forever condemned to repeat it. That includes 1929 as well as 1776.

I remain confident of one thing. Joe Biden will unify the country.

The truth of this is found in his first initiatives. His imposition of a $15 minimum wage, his approval of increased immigration, his grant of amnesty to those present in the country illegally, his increase in corporate taxes, and his termination of the XL pipeline, coupled with the termination of drilling on Federal lands, will increase the cost of energy which will act as a regressive tax on those who can least afford it. These initiatives will have negative impact on Blacks, Latinos, hard hats, and Red Hats. All will have a negative impact on jobs and employment.

Biden’s single greatest achievement is the executive order stipulating that those males who self-identify as a woman are to be free to participate in women’s sports. For any impoverished youth seeking a higher education the best means to a scholarship is now to self-attest to female identity and win a post-secondary sports scholarship.

By this initiative alone, Biden will add fifty percent of the population to the group of persons already united against him. He only needs another 15% to 20% and he will have achieved 100% of his inaugural goals. I think he can do it.

A large crowd of people in front of a monument Description automatically generated with medium confidence

There has been some feedback from persons who attended the Save America rally on 1/6. They dispute my estimate of crowd size which was based on the only aerial photograph I was able to locate. I have since found other imagery which confirms a new estimate of close to 500,000. It was standing room only in the ellipse and there was a multitude on the West end of the mall and to the East of the George Washington Monument.

When the British burned the Capitol, they came with a small brigade of 4,500 men. That small force burned the Capitol, the White House, the US Treasury, and the War Department. Then they blew up Fort McNair. That was achieved by 4,500 men.

Does anyone honestly believe there would be much of Washington left standing if a force of 500,000 had been incited to attack?

The current public estimate is of 800 people having entered the Capitol (I believe this to be high. The available imagery does not support such a high number. The F.B.I. presently has case files on 200 persons). If the full size of the crowd was 500,000 then the entrants are 0.0016 of the total participants. The Democrats and the press are gleefully slandering large numbers of people possibly creating grounds for a class action suit. The litigants would have grounds for damages based on loss of employment and loss of reputation.

Second, Incitement requires that people attacking the Capitol, heard what Trump had to say, listened to it as instruction, command, or direction, and acted as they did because of what he said. Press reports show the first attacks commenced at 12:50 and Trump did not complete his remarks until 13:13. The alleged incitement did not occur until the end of his speech. In addition, the significant size of the crowd completely swamped the available cell towers. Many Save America attendees reported no cell phone reception.

Third, incitement requires that those persons allegedly incited are in fact guilty of some crime. Marching to the Capitol is not a crime. Thousands of tourists do it every day. The words: ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore’ is language not found in the criminal statutes. It is used as a legitimate form of grievance and has been used throughout history for exactly that purpose. Trump never incited burglary. He never told anyone “steal Pelosi’s lectern” In fact, it is unclear what exactly it is presumed he incited.

Fourth, there may still exist in this country a legal tradition known as the presumption of innocence. All of those charged by the state for alleged criminal activity are innocent of that criminal charge until such time as the legal process pronounces them guilty. Madame Pelosi and her compatriots in the House have put the cart before the horse. What if every alleged criminal is found innocent? What then is Trump to be found guilty of inciting? An Antifa conspiracy? Was Trump a secret BLM plotter?

Fifth, the evidence suggests that there were multiple independent groups at the Capitol on 1/6. This citizen report by a person with some knowledge of special forces activity claims there were at least four different groups present: 1) Plainclothes militants; 2) Agents-provocateurs; 3) Fake Trump protesters; 4) Disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. This citizen account confirms details found in The Defense of Mr. Trump: there was a relatively minor observed police presence, there was limited, or no, cell phone reception, the majority of the crowd was jovial and friendly, and included people of all ages, and races, including parents with children. There was minimal sense of threat.

Sixth, this new account supports the fact that among the Save America participants there were persons who were not Trump supporters but who sought to appear to be Trump supporters. Some were dressed in militant gear. The exact numbers of these militants, and their pollical affiliation, will not be known until the police complete their investigation (if the police complete an investigation) and have obtained statements. Trump cannot be accused of inciting people who were part of a pre-existing disciplined and militant cadre, persons who conspired to disrupt the Save America rally, and attack the Capitol, weeks before Trump made his remarks. The fact that some of those charged are alleged conspirators suggests the police are aware the violence was pre-meditated well in advance of Trumps remarks at the Save America rally.

Graphical user interface, text, application Description automatically generated

Seventh, it is well known that in the summer of 2020 there were riots across the United States and these riots were led by groups known as Antifa and BLM. These riots and violence were described as “peaceful” by both the press and political leaders. In the summer of 2020, a group of violent militants had been permitted to raise havoc. There was no condemnation of this rioting and violence. It was applauded. The Vice-President worked to provide bail for those arrested. These rioters were not Trump supporters. Trump condemned this violent action. If Antifa and BLM agitators were present on 1/6, as it appears that they were, if they conspired to stir up a peaceful protest (as it appears that they did), if they ordered Save America participants forward into the attack (as it is reported that they did), if they sought to prevent peaceful participants from departing the scene (as it is reported that they did), then those individuals are guilty of incitement. If they are found guilty of conspiracy and incitement, then why the impeachment of Trump?

Graphical user interface, text, application Description automatically generated

Eighth, by not condemning the violence occurring in the summer of 2020, the political leaders communicated to the citizens that violent protest was acceptable. That to burn buildings was acceptable. To proclaim an independent state was acceptable, That police defunding and disbanding was acceptable. The press, and the political leadership who failed to condemn activity that put lives at risk, condoned unlawful deaths, and caused over 1 billion in property damage. Certain groups known to have led the 2020 violence are reported to be complicit in the events of 1/6. The political leaders and the press, by virtue of their lack of condemnation, gave notice to Antifa and BLM that their actions would be tolerated, that there would be no legal sanctions, that the police would not arrest them, and the state would not prosecute them. They sent entirely the wrong message to the hoodlums. Did sending this inaccurate message lay the foundation for the riots at the Capitol? Was it misleading to claim Antifa to be just an idea? The press reporting during this period, and in prior periods, also gave endorsement to Antifa. Support for Antifa was seen as a means to undermine a sitting President. Does such conduct rise to the level of sedition? Is it possible the wrong president is being impeached? If you can impeach an out of office president, should others also be held to account for their conduct?

I do not have the answer to these questions. But I think the following sums up the situation:

The president-elect’s demeanor and furor certainly were not compatible with his media image as the supposedly angelic uniter of the country. Within 24 hours he had gone from blasting the police authorities as racists to the old reductio ad Hitlerum trope of comparing a few Republican senators to Nazi propogandist Joseph Goebbels, in a hysterical rant that descended into incoherent numerology about the bombing of Dresden. I’m sure Xi Jinping and Ayatollah Khamenei were impressed by his historical recollections. (see American Greatness)

Lastly, if disputing an election result is an impeachable offense what does this say about the Democrats who have disputed election results multiple times in the past? What does it say about the Speaker of the House, the person who bears ultimate responsibility for the security of the Capitol and appears to have been negligent in the discharge of her duties? On 1/6 did she fail to properly execute her responsibilities toward Congress? Is this the reason for her attack on legitimate assembly and grievance? To reassign blame for her own failure? Should Pelosi be subject to impeachment?

Graphical user interface, application Description automatically generated

Part One of this series: On Democracy

Part Two of this series: What is to be Done?

Part Three of this series: The Defense of Mr. Trump

Democrats’ ‘divide and conquer’ Senate show trial may jeopardize duopoly

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., right, and Senator Roy Blunt, R-Mo., confer during the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee confirmation hearing for Gina Raimondo, nominee for Secretary of Commerce, in Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC on January 26, 2021. / AFP / POOL / Tom Williams
Democrats’ ‘divide and conquer’ Senate show trial may jeopardize duopoly
(Ramin Mazaheri (@RaminMazaheri2) is currently covering the US election. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea, and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China,’ which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.)

Tuesday, 26 January 2021 10:40 PM  [ Last Update: Tuesday, 26 January 2021 10:44 PM ]

Press TV and The Saker

By Ramin Mazaheri

Much ink could be spilled about the upcoming, and second, Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, but that would be a waste of ink – the trial has nothing to do with social justice or patriotism and everything to do with aggravating political divisions for elites’ gain.

We could say it’s just “politics as usual”, but only if: the “True Rate of Unemployment” wasn’t pushing 30%, even per Politico; 2020 didn’t witness the biggest annual rise in the US poverty rate since the 1960s; America didn’t just have its most disputed election in anyone’s memory; there weren’t armed soldiers protecting politicians nationwide, or, according to nearly 40% of the country, there weren’t armed soldiers making sure politicians are illegitimately installed in the White House. In the US right now politics are not usual, whatsoever.

It is incredibly bad journalism the way the US Mainstream Media endlessly overplays the number of Republican defectors against Trump – they get way, way too much press, and of course it’s because they don’t want to admit Trump has any grassroots support (which is not from neo-Nazis). One might have easily imagined that scores of House Republicans were about to vote in favor of Trump’s impeachment, yet only 10 out of 211 did (5%). To give one mainstream example, it was totally misleading of the Los Angeles Times to write that a “bipartisan House majority voted to charge him” after the House’s January 13 vote, and in their lede paragraph, no less, and to even mention the 10 Republicans in their headline. Trump remains the most popular Republican by leaps and bounds – there is no way 17 of 50 Republican senators will end their re-election chances just to appease a Never Trumper movement which only won the general election by a 51-47 margin. Trump’s first Senate trial was a landslide – by supermajority standards – for “not guilty”: 52-48 in favor of Trump.

Given the assurance of acquittal (again) we should ask who benefits from this second trial, and who does not benefit?

Obviously, the enormous mass of everyday Americans will see no benefit from the trial, and I listed just a few of the once-in-a-century reasons why they have more pressing concerns. It is never declared in the US media that the US public has no real appetite for the Senate trial – they need and want the governors of the nation to govern, and right now.

The only way Americans could possibly be convinced that the nation needs to shut down Congress for weeks with a trial whose conclusion is not in doubt is via constant Mainstream Media talking heads shrieking about its necessity, and with the very same fervor that they were shrieking that Russia stole the 2016 election. This is fake-news, too, and it certainly takes airtime away from discussing things like the “True Rate of Unemployment”.

The only people among average Americans who insist that seeing ex-president Trump in the dock is more pressing than resolving the multiple areas of socioeconomic disaster are the most bloodthirsty and rabid of the Never Trumpers. How can one easily switch off four years of demonization? Answer: many simply are psychologically unable to move on, and even though they got what they want – Trump is out of the White House. But while these people – generally upper- and upper-middle class persons who are not very touched by the economic crisis – are loudly obnoxious they are not in actual control of the levers of power.

It’s primarily the nation’s elite-level politicians who really want to make America’s Marianas Trench-depth cultural-political divide even deeper, but not for the reasons one may think.

Many Congressional Democrats are no doubt embarrassed and vengeful over having been turned into cowering, world’s fanciest gas mask-wearing deserters on January 6 – these people control the legislative docket and they want Trump to look afraid now. That would be a self-centered and over-emotional reaction, but why should we ascribe self-sacrifice for the well-being of the nation among the virtues of Congressional Democrats?

The Capitol Hill protest did make many Democrats even more dead-set on getting Trump out: Despite being elected president once and narrowly winning re-election – or rather, precisely because of this electoral success – Democrats want to try and ensure that Trump cannot run in 2024, and a Senate conviction would bar Trump from ever holding public office again. Again, they are deluded by endless MSM spin if they think they have a realistic chance of turning so many Republicans.

Those are two plausible motivations for the Senate trial, but they are not sufficiently convincing.

How elite Democrats gain from a trial, but America loses (unless a 3rd party truly sprouts)

There seem to be so many tiny groups which gain in the many instances where one reads “but America loses”? Thirty million Americans file for unemployment in 2020 – the S&P 500 gains $14 trillion in value over the same timeframe (up 16% annually). Four hundred thousand Americans die from coronavirus – the first vaccine announced only two days after Joe Biden prematurely declares victory, allowing Biden to change the media focus from his divisive and promise-backtracking early declaration.

By forcing a trial in the Senate Democrats seem to think they can win big by playing “divide and conquer” or even just “divide and divide”.

In the latter scenario Democrats certainly gain by forcing Congressional Republicans to openly divide themselves into pro- and anti-Trump factions, which will necessarily be revealed during the Senate vote on the 2nd impeachment. That vote will be like the 2003 Iraq War vote for Democrats (but only if we falsely imagine today’s Democrats to actually be an anti-war party anymore). If nothing else is gained for elite Democrats – who happily watched households crumble and workers go hungry until after Biden’s election to finally become willing to negotiate a second, paltry household stimulus – a Republican Party distracted by squabbles, and thus open to being bought into defection on certain key votes, is enough reason to waste everyone’s time with a Senate show trial.

The “divide and conquer” scenario is more worrying for national health, because the pro-War Democratic Party does like to conquer human beings: There are incredibly shocking efforts to blacklist, censor and seemingly criminalize Trump supporters. By forcing Trump’s Congressional supporters into the open Democrats will know exactly where to set their stigmatizing sights. I cannot believe that Democrats are going to lead a multi-month, much less multi-year, “Trumperphobia” campaign, but I also couldn’t believe the 2016 Russophobia campaign lasted until even after the 2019 Mueller Report’s exoneration of Russia. Is it possible that Democrats are going to persist in their anti-Trumper cultural pogrom for years rather than honestly discuss America’s decline?

But the main question is: How deep is the American duopoly? Answer: the deepest and oldest in the world.

What if Democrats are actually trying to create a Republican Party division into two parties, with the Trumper faction defecting to a new “Patriot” or “America First” party? That would end the need for Democratic legislative majorities – all they’d need is a plurality (as in every other modern democracy).

Is it possible that Trump will actually undo America’s awful legislative duopoly and bring in a multi-party system? Like most good things Trump has done, this boon would be an unintended consequence of Trump’s actual political agenda.

Are Democrats looking to end the two-party system by giving Trumpers a clear indication that they can either organize, drop out or get persecuted by the US system? Are anti-Trump Republicans daft enough to think that the Republican Party will stay Reaganite forever, even after Reaganites allowed the Great Financial Crisis to mushroom into the Great Recession for so many of their voters?

I would say that – in the end – Democrats are not looking to end the duopoly, in which they are the party which is paid no matter what: they are paid to make sure actual leftist ideas lose, by combining them with fake-leftists idea such as identity politics, and they are paid to make sure leftist gains are truly, truly minimal when they do occasionally have power.

But Democrats are US politicians, after all – they cannot think long-term, and they openly admit they spend 2/3rds of their working hours focused on getting campaign money for their re-election – and so they really don’t know what they are doing, or even care about the medium- and long-term consequences of their actions. The Senate trial of Trump is useless theater, but who knows what these professional actors really feel or if they even feel anything at all? If they feel anything it is for their supporters and “work family”, which can be found on Wall Street and not Main Street.

Just as the January 6th protest was improvised and not the start of a long-term “Occupy Capitol Hill” movement – it had none of the determination and planning of Egypt’s Tahrir Square” (in a nod to this week’s 10th anniversary of that wonderful progressive movement, which was repeatedly sabotaged by Washington and Tel Aviv and their Egyptian compradors). Democrats are now improvising a way to keep inflicting opprobrium, censorship and maybe even criminal convictions on the odious – yet quite popular and taboo-breaking – Trump. Just like in 2016: anything to keep from discussing the real roots of any sort of “drain the Swamp” political feeling and America’s undeniable decline. 

Elite Democrats don’t have Russia to kick around anymore, let’s remember – all they have is Trump and his 74 million supporters. Kick them too much and Democrats might break their own precious duopoly.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

Democrats Launch Their Assault on Red State America – Civil War Heats Up

Paul Craig Roberts - Official Homepage

January 12, 2021

Paul Craig Roberts

The opening salvo against red state America is the article of impeachment against President Trump introduced on January 11 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Representatives David Cicilline, Ted Lieu, and Jamie Raskin.  So much for Biden’s promise to “unify the country.”  

What is the intent of this article of impeachment?  It cannot possibly be to remove Trump from office.  Trump will have left office before the Senate could vote on impeachment. There is no such thing as impeaching a person who is not in office. Clearly impeachment has nothing to do with getting Trump out of office.

How does it unify the country to follow up an election believed by half of the US voting population to have been stolen with impeaching the president who is regarded as the victim of a stolen election? Adding insult to injury will only further enrage 75 million or more Trump voters,  and many honest Democrats, who regard the election as stolen.  If the Establishment and its Democrat, Republican, and media allies truly believe the election not to have been stolen, why wasn’t the evidence permitted to be examined so that the controversy could be settled instead of ignored?  Ignoring the evidence deepens the suspicion as does labeling those who challenged the election “enemies of democracy.”  Democrats are now trying to censure Republican members of the House and Senate who supported having the evidence presented to Congress.  Why censure someone who wants evidence to be examined?

What many Americans and people abroad do not comprehend is that in the 2020 election Trump  officially got 74,222,958 votes.  This is the official number, which is understated by the 10 million vote suppression used against him.  In “losing,”  Trump’s 74,222,958 official votes are more votes than any elected president has ever received with the exception of Biden whose vote count was raised by 10 million fraudulent ballots. How is the country unified by demonizing half of it?  Are the Democrats’ threats and reprisals against Trump and his supporters unifying?  

I watched the presentations by independent experts to three state legislatures of the detailed evidence showing evidence that the election was stolen in the swing states. Some of the experts explaining the election’s theft were people of color as were many of those who signed affidavits under penalty of perjury of the electoral fraud that they witnessed.  This information has never been presened by the media to the public, nor has any media, election officials, Department of Justice, or Congress examined the evidence.  It is overwhelming evidence ignored.

Whether of not you believe that Biden—the most uninspiring presidential candidate in American history—got 81 million votes (the largest in American history), why do Pelosi and the Democrats want to make themselves even more hated and distrusted by half of the country by impeaching the president whose reelection they stole?  

This is rubbing salt in the wound.  Half of the country already regards Biden as an illegitimate president and regards the Democrats as power-mad totalitarians hostile to democracy.  What does Pelosi achieve by furthering this image of Democrats? She is damning her party and herself. Why?

The answer is to generate fear in Republicans and Trump supporters.  

The Democrats are using open unabashed retribution to scare Republicans and Trump supporters into compliance. Everywhere you look Republican members of Congress both House and Senate, Trump’s present and former cabinet members, and present and former members of the White House staff are denouncing Trump and putting distance between Trump and themselves. The latest is Fiona Hill, formerly of Trump’s National Security Council. She denounces Trump for having “put us on the brink of civil war.” Note that for Republican Fiona Hill, it is not a stolen election that puts “us on the brink of civil war,” but the protest against the election theft. This is the position of the Republican Party.  In other words, the Republicans have surrendered.  They are useless to the people.

As a large number of videos made available online by people who attended the rally show, the Capitol police allowed protestors into the Capitol.  The Trump supporters were not smart enough not to take the bait. Once inside, the Democrats had their “insurrection” and “storming of the Capitol.”  

It achieved its purpose. It stopped presentation of the evidence showing Congress a stolen election. Scared by the presstitutes one voice proclamation of an attempted coup, the Republicans wilted and ran for their political lives knowing that they would be blamed for “aiding and abetting Trump’s insurrection.” 

The Democrats intend to keep them running, and that is what the impeachment is about.

Trump supporters are in for it as well.  The FBI, which has been hand-in-hand with Democrats throughout the Russiagate and impeachment hoaxes, is now hunting down those who attended the Trump rally.  Those for whom the FBI cannot invent grounds for arrest have their names turned over to the presstitutes who agitate for their firing from their jobs. Already policemen, corporate employees and executives, including a chief financial officer, have been fired for attending the Trump rally, and recording artists dropped because they attended the rally. Dumbshit indoctrinated school children have impoverished their own families by ratting out their parents for attending the rally and causing them to be fired.

Children squealing on their parents to the media is the worst part of the Democrats’ assault on America, because it shows that the liberal propaganda that passes for education in the schools has destroyed solidarity and loyalty in the family.  Without the family, there is no society.  Essentially, without family there is no country.

In so many ways Americans are now people without a country. 

As the blatently public theft of a presidential election shows, democracy is a dead value among elites and institutions in the United States.  The word will continue to be used as cover for oligarchic rule in the interest of the few. All who find the courage to challenge rule by the few will be demonized as “enemies of democracy.”  We are already seeing it.  President Trump and his “deplorables” are already declared “enemies of democracy.”

Whether or not Americans believe Trump and his supporters are enemies of democracy, many will be caused by fear to go along with it.  Otherwise, they will be the next to be outed, fired, and prosecuted.

I am not optimistic.  One reason for my lack of optimism is the age of disinformation in which we live. Disinformation is used by the Establishment to conform the public to its agendas. Disinformation is used to reconstruct white society. Disinformation is even used by Trump supporters in efforts to keep alive hope that the stolen election will be overturned or that Trump will win reelection in four years.

Another reason I am not optimistic is that I read comment sections of websites that host courageous and insightful commentators in hope of encountering intelligence and a rising awareness that could result in effective resistance.  But what do I find?  Inability to comprehend what they have read. Narcissists  hiding behind fake names. Nit-picking in place of weighing a well-stated presentation. And the ever-present trolls demeaning the authors with ad hominum accusations that are spread into social media.  

I am also not optimistic when I see that Trump, who has experienced the evil power of the Establishment, has not come to the realization that the last blow he can strike against the Establishment is the pardon of Assange and Snowden, two who are persecuted for telling the truth. Perhaps the reason is that many of Trump’s patriotic supporters have fallen for the Establishment’s line that Assange and Snowden are Russian agents who acted against America.

In the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and all of Western Europe, telling the truth is being criminalized.  The result will be the destruction of the truth-teller. This is true as well within the universities.  Identity politics and Establishment agendas rule.  If you cross them, you are out.

Objective truth has been redefined as a “white construct” that serves “systemic racism” and misogynists. White people, especially heterosexual white males, have been assigned the role that Karl Marx gave capitalists. They are hateful, exploitative creatures that must be destroyed by demonization and indoctrination. The process has been going on for some time in the schools and in work place “sensitivity training” sessions.

This is the ideology of the Democrat Party. Imposed ideologies wear down facts. 

As the Native American tells the elderly woman in the Clint Eastwood film, The Outlaw Josey Wales, “Hell is coming to breakfast.” White people can expect hell.  To see this, all you have to do is to look at Biden’s Department of Justice appointments.

Americans are only now beginning to realize that the expensive educations they have paid for their children have resulted in their children being stolen from them. A friend told me recently that his son and son’s girlfriend had left their brutally lockdowned Democrat state to come to him in a Republican state where life still went on not too far from normal.  Having heard their conversations with him and among themselves, he has concluded that they regret that they were born white.  

To his dismay, he understands that their regret at having white skin is not because of employment and promotion quotas that limit their success as white people, or the demeaning racial training sessions they have to endue as “systemic white racists.” Their regret is due to their successful indoctrination that, as white racists, they are responsible for the lack of success of black Americans.  Perplexed, he asked me, “how can we resist the tyranny that is being imposed on us when the younger generation believes we are quilty and cannot be trusted with our freedoms.

Yes, good question.  How?

Note that the outpouring of support for Trump in the Washington Rally, which Democrats easily turned into a liability for Trump, consists largely of older adults.  Where were the young people?  They stayed home and ratted out their parents.

America’s young were not born into a free society. They have never experienced a free society. They are not socialized into a free society. They have no idea what one is beyond access to the Internet. 

It was two decades ago that the Bush regime orchestrated  the PATRIOT Act.  It was two decades ago that the Republican President of the United States threw habeas corpus out the window and claimed executive authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without presenting evidence before a court.  No bar association, no university law faculty, no court, no Congress, and certainly no presstitute media demanded Bush’s impeachment for unilaterally exercising unconstitutional executive authority.

During the subsequent Obama regime, America’s First Black President, who got less votes than Trump did in 2020, executed American citizens without due process of law.  No one demanded Obama’s impeachment for his unconstitutional and illegal murder of American citizens.

If cancelling the Bill of Rights isn’t insurrection, what is?

In contrast, President Trump who challenged the media monopoly for its censorship, who challenged the military/security complex for its orchestration of Russia as an enemy, who challenged various “trade agreements” for sending Americans’ middle class jobs abroad—in other words, a rare president who represented the American people—this President was destroyed by the Establishment and its media and intellectual whores.

The  corrupt and evil Establishment, acting through the Democrat Party with the backing of the monopoly over all communications and the monetary and power interests of the military/security complex and Wall Street, and strengthened by the Identity Politics hatreds, which extend into the universities, public schools, bar associations, corporations, and judiciary, and the indoctrination seminars that white males are forced to undergo, has achieved more power than Stalin and Hitler could imagine.  

Today the United States is not only a threat to its citizens but also a threat to the world.  The American Establishment’s belief in its hegemony makes the United States  the greatest threat that the world has ever experienced.  

The forces in control of the United States deny the existence of objective truth. As the Establishment defines truth, truth is what serves the agendas of the ruling elite.  

There is no other truth.  

Among other terrors, this means that an accused person can mount no defense.  As the trial of the surviving brother of the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing demonstrated, the proof of his innocence according to the FBI’s own evidence was not allowed to be introduced into the trial, only the fabricated “evidence” of his guilt.  When this happened, it was clear that the United States government regarded the rule of law as dispensable whenever it interferred with its agenda.

As journalist Ekaterina Blinova instantly recognized, the effect of the stolen election is to create one-party rule in the United States. Of course, the Democrats won’t rule. Rule will be by the interest groups for whom the Democrats will front. As the Republcans abandoned the American people and joined in the denunciation of the “insurrectionist Trump,” there are few voters left who will vote Republican. By its cowardice, the Republican Party has destroyed itself.

What can be done.  I am open to answers.  If you think about it, you wonder if Americans have the intelligence and awareness to survive.  Consider Parler, a social media alternative that does not censor.  Why did Parler think it could be independent when it was dependent on Apple, Amazon, and Google?  It must be a new high water mark of American insouciance that Parler executives thought the ruling Establishment would allow them free speech. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/tech/parler-suspended-apple-app-store/index.html 

America is in collapse on all fronts—morally, economically, socially, politically, and militarily.  Every American institution is corrupted. America’s collapse will be a large collapse, and it will affect the entire world.

The Worst of Days for Trump & Trumpists

Image courtesy of Voice for America 
Patrick J. Buchanan (@PatrickBuchanan) | Twitter
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at http://www.creators.com.

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Source: Creators

January 8, 2021 

President Donald Trump, it turns out, was being quite literal when he told us Jan. 6 would be “wild.”

And so Wednesday was, but it was also disastrous for the party and the movement Trump has led for the last five years.

Wednesday, the defeats of Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in Georgia’s runoff elections were confirmed. This translates into the GOP losing the Senate for the next two years.

Chuck Schumer now replaces Mitch McConnell as majority leader.

And the new 50-50 split will put Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, the president of the Senate on Jan. 20, in position to cast the deciding vote on every major issue where the two parties are evenly divided.

Wednesday, there also came the acceptance by both houses of Congress of Joe Biden’s 306-232 electoral vote victory over Trump. The last potential hurdle to Biden’s inauguration as 46th president of the United States has been removed.

But the worst of the day’s events for Trump came when a segment of a friendly crowd of 50,000 he just addressed concluded its march down the mall to the U.S. Capitol by smashing its way into the building and invading and occupying the Senate and House chambers.

Members of Congress were forced to flee and hide. A protester, an Air Force veteran, was shot to death by a Capitol cop. Vice President Mike Pence, who was chairing the joint session, was taken into protective custody by his Secret Service detail. Doors were broken open. Windows were smashed, and the building was trashed.

All this was seen on national television from mid afternoon through nightfall. The East and West fronts of the Capitol were occupied for hours by pro-Trump protesters, whom the president, his son Don Jr., and Rudy Giuliani had stirred up in the hours before the march down the mall.

What Americans watched was a mob occupation and desecration of the temple of the American Republic. And the event will be forever exploited to discredit not only Trump but the movement he led and the achievements of his presidency. He will be demonized as no one else in our history since Richard Nixon or Joe McCarthy.

Yet, just two months ago, Trump rolled up the highest vote total ever by an incumbent president, 74 million. And, according to four major polls, his approval remains where it has been for four years, between 40 and 50%.

What took place Wednesday was a disgrace and a debacle. But it was not, as some have wildly contended, comparable to 9/11 or to the British burning of the Capitol in 1814 during the War of 1812. That is malicious hyperbole, establishment propaganda.

On Sept. 11, 2001, more than 3,000 Americans died horribly when Manhattan’s World Trade Center twin towers came crashing down and the Pentagon was hit by a hijacked airliner. And there have been far more serious events in the lifetimes of many of us than this four-hour occupation of the Capitol.

In May 1970, after Nixon ordered an invasion of Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries, National Guard troops, in panic, shot and killed four students at Kent State University in Ohio.

Hundreds of campuses exploded; hundreds of universities shut down for the semester. Scores of thousands of demonstrators poured into D.C. Buses, end-to-end, circled the White House. U.S. troops were moved into the basement of the Executive Office Building.

Today, there is absurd media talk of removing the president through impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment.

If the House votes impeachment, is the Senate going to hold a trial in 12 days to put Pence in the Oval Office? As for removing Trump through the 25th Amendment, this would require a declaration by Vice President Pence and half of the Cabinet that Trump is unfit to finish out a term that ends in two weeks. Not going to happen.

But undeniably, the events of Wednesday are going to split the Republican Party. And what does the future of that party now look like?

After Trump leaves the presidency, he will not be coming back. The opposition to him inside the GOP would prevent his nomination or would defect to prevent his reelection were he nominated again.

Yet, the size and strength of Trump’s movement is such that no Republican candidate he declares persona non grata could win the nomination and the presidency.

Trump’s supporters are today being smeared and castigated by the same media who lionized the BLM and antifa “peaceful protesters” who spent their summer rioting, looting, burning and pillaging Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Portland, Kenosha, Louisville and scores of other cities.

The Trumpists have been demonized before. They are used to this. And whatever their sins, disloyalty and ingratitude to the man they put in the presidency is not one of them.

Wednesday was a bad day for America, but it was not the Reichstag fire.

Trump’s disgraceful end

January 9, 2021 – 12:10

By M.A. Saki

It was too late for Americans, especially most of his fellow Republicans, to realize how dangerous Donald Trump was. 

I cannot forget remarks by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, an expert in global thought and comparative philosophies, who said that “Trump is the most dangerous man in the world.”

On Wednesday, Trump provoked assault on the Capitol in a last-ditch effort to overturn the results of the November 3 election in which he lost with a rather large margin.  

According to CNN, in his first presidential debate on October 1, Trump refused to condemn White supremacists and blamed what he called “antifa and the left” for violence and told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

At last, his Proud Boys, a mob of fanatics, caused mayhem by storming and capturing the Capitol, violently disrupting the ceremonial electoral count. The move by the fanatics came as a severe blow to the heart of democracy that the U.S. has been boasting of.

Trump has been repeatedly claiming that the U.S. presidential election looked like an election in a third world country. But, in fact, it was Trump himself who behaved like a dictator in a third world country as he refused to admit losing the election. 

It is very difficult for the liar-in-chief to admit defeat and resist his egoism. He proved that he is ready to push the United States toward a crisis in order to please his egoism.

Just prior to the elections, he kept claiming that he will win the presidency for a second term otherwise the votes are rigged.

Trump’s entire presidency was filled with numerous lies. He has no principles. In addition, the self-centered president shows no respect to democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, etc. By inciting his supporters, who attacked the Capitol building, he crucified democracy and the rule of law in the U.S. and showed complete disregard for those who had not voted for him.

If the American Constitution had not restrained Trump, he would have acted more irresponsibly and recklessly at home and abroad.

His unprecedented sanctions against Iran under the name of the “maximum pressure” campaign are in violation of international law. The sanctions have pushed millions of Iranian citizens to the verge of poverty and instead made a small percentage of Iranians millionaires because of skyrocketing inflation. This will remain in the memory of Iranians forever. His reckless order of assassinating Iran’s Major General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in January 2020 reminded the people of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which ignited the First World War. 

Also, his move in recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the stolen Golan Heights and moving the U.S. capital to Jerusalem in violation of UN Security Council resolutions are some other examples of the illegal moves that the Trump administration should be ashamed of.

Trump picked Mike Pompeo as his secretary of state, who according to Professor Adib-Moghaddam, “continued to pursue an essentially ideological foreign policy, driven by a distinctively irrational approach to world politics in general and Iran in particular.” 

Actually, from the very beginning, Trump was unfit for the post of president. However, a great majority of Republicans in Congress, especially in the Senate, kept supporting him just for partisan interests. 

Regardless of certain extremist senators such as Ted Cruz and a considerable number of lawmakers in the House of Representatives who still repeat Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, finally it was realized that the person that the Republicans supported for four years based on party lines dealt the greatest blow to the Republicans themselves. And fortunately, he is being forced, of course legally, to leave the White House in disgrace.  

PA/PA

ترامب يخسر آخر حروبه و سيف العزل فوق رأسه

ناصر قنديل

خلال يوم واحد خسر الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب كل أوراقه، ولم تعد ثمة حاجة لمناقشة الاختلال العقلي الذي يصيبه من زوايا ارتكاباته في منطقتنا. فالتعبير طغى يوم أمس على وصف ترامب في وسائل الإعلام الأميركية، وصولاً لما ورد في رسالة نواب ديمقراطيين وجمهوريين في الكونغرس الى نائب الرئيس مايك بنس لبدء مسار عزل ترامب بداعي الاختلال العقلي، ويكفي النظر لوضع ترامب خلال أربع وعشرين ساعة ورؤية حجم الضرر الذي جلبته حماقاته عليه، للتحقق من صدق الوصف بالاختلال العقلي.

كان ترامب قد حصل على حسم الحزب الجمهوري للقبول باعتماد ترشيحه للرئاسة في 2024، وكان ترامب قد نجح بدمج جمهوره المتطرف والغوغائي بجمهور الحزب الجمهوري، وكان ترامب يأمل بفوز المرشحين الجمهوريين بمقعدي مجلس الشيوخ، وكان ترامب يأمل بامتلاك فرصة التحكم بالكثير من البيئة المحيطة بالولاية الرئاسية للرئيس جو بايدن من خلال ما يستطيع فعله خلال ما تبقى من ولايته، لكن ترامب كان يطمح لما هو أكثر، فوضع خطة لقلب الطاولة تبدأ بتحرك حشود مؤيديه نحو الكونغرس لمنع حسم شرعية فوز بايدن التي يتولاها الكونغرس وفقاً للدستور.

ليس واضحاً بعد ما إذا كان الاختلال العقلي لترامب وراء مشهد اقتحام الكونغرس أم أن هناك من نجح باستدراج الاقتحام لإلحاق هذا “العار الديمقراطي” بترامب ودفع الحزب الجمهوري الى واجهة المواجهة معه، لكن الحصيلة هي الأهم في النهاية، فقد حمل ترامب مسؤولية المشهد الذي أصاب صورة الديمقراطية الأميركية المؤسسية بجرح بليغ ورسم شكوكاً حول قدرتها، رغم النجاح بتجاوز الأزمة هذه المرة، لكن السابقة حصلت، وهي تهديد الكونغرس من قبل أحد المرشحين الخاسرين، خارج إطار الاحتكام للمؤسسات الدستورية والقضائية، والسابقة صارت قابلة للتكرار.

الحصيلة أن ترامب وجد نفسه محاصراً داخل الحزب الجمهوري، وقد أجبر على دعوة مناصريه للذهاب الى بيوتهم، وأن نائبه بنس قام بإدارة عملية تثبيت رئاسة بايدن وبات المرشح البديل لترامب لرئاسة 2024، وأن جمهور الحزب الجمهوري قد انفصل كلياً عن جمهور ترامب الذي تحول الى شريحة ضيقة قادرة على المشاغبة، لكنها عاجزة عن صنع السياسة من دون الحزب الجمهوري، وهي الأقلية البيضاء المتطرفة، وأن الحزب الجمهوري خسر مقعدي الكونغرس في جورجيا وصار الديمقراطيون ممسكين بناصية البيت البيض والكونغرس بغرفتيه، ما يُضعف قدرة الجمهوريين على المشاركة في إدارة البلاد، وأن ترامب اضطر الى إعلان قبوله تسليم السلطة لبادين في الـ 20 من الشهر الحالي، والأهم أن سيف العزل بات مسلطاً فوق رقبة ترامب إذا ما غامر بالذهاب إلى اي مغامرة، فالوزراء وخصوصاً نائب الرئيس الذين لا بدّ أن يمر عبرهم أي تصرف احمق لترامب يتربصون به لبدء مسار العزل إذا بدرت ملامح اختلال عقلي جديد.

سيذكّر التاريخ ترامب كرئيس أميركي أحمق، وسيطوي الأكاذيب التي روّج لها بصفته رئيساً تاريخياً، لكن أميركا ستبقى تجرجر أذيال ما فعله داخلياً وخارجياً، فالعالم الذي تركه ترامب من بعده لا يختلف عن أميركا التي يتركها، حيث الخراب يعمّ كل شيء والترميم يحتاج جرأة نادرة ربما ليست متاحة للرئيس الجديد، بحيث تبدو أميركا ويبدو العالم أمام إدارة الخراب أكثر مما يبدوان أمام خطة لإعادة البناء.

فيديوات ذات صلة

مقالات ذات صلة

Is Washington going to Maintain its Ties with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Source

EGP34222

By Vladimir Odintsov
Source: New Eastern Outlook

According to media reports, Republican Senator Ted Cruz recently sent another bill to the US Congress, proposing to declare an Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia – ed.), a terrorist organization.

Earlier, in late 2014, the US administration, in the face of Congressman Ted Cruz, already made a similar suggestion. In it, he referred to the fact that Egypt, after the President of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Morsi was overthrown in late 2013, declared the organization a terrorist organization, and in March 2014, Egyptian example was followed by Saudi Arabia. In November 2014 the UAE declared the actions of 83 organizations in their territory illegal. This list included the Muslim Brotherhood, while Jordan arrested numerous high up and ordinary organization members, whom they promptly accused of terrorism. In April 2016, however, Ann Petersen, then Assistant Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs, speaking before a subcommittee of the US Congress, refused to consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, stating that “the organization is represented by legitimate political parties in several Middle Eastern countries, moving away from its violent position that it has held for decades”.

Nevertheless, in 2017, a group of Republicans represented by Senator Thea Cruz introduced a new bill in the US Congress recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. Soon enough, another bill was introduced against the Islamist organization, proposing that it be declared a terrorist group in the United States.

In order to understand the reasons for the difficulties in having the US authorities officially recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, which has long been recognized as one in Russia and a number of other countries, it seems appropriate to recall the history of its existence and its “friendship” with the US authorities.

The Muslim Brotherhood was established as an international religious and political association in March 1928 by teacher Hassan al-Banna in Ismailia, Egypt. The status of this organization is ambiguous – in some countries it is legal, and political parties associated with it have seats in the parliaments of their respective countries, in particular in Yemen, Sudan (until November 2019), Tunisia, Turkey, etc. At the same time, it is recognized as a terrorist organization in Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Tajikistan.

US cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood began in 1953 under President Eisenhower, when several dozen Islamic theologians were invited to Princeton University to participate (according to the official version) “in a scientific conference”. In fact, the US authorities thereby intended to enlist the support of the spiritual leaders of Islamic countries to combat the growing “Communist threat” in the Middle East. Moreover,

File:President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office with Muslim  delegates in 1953.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Said Ramadan (second from the right) in the Oval Office with US President Dwight D. Eisenhower and other Muslim leaders in 1953

in the reports published in the media about this meeting, one of the main representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time, Said Ramadan, who was present at the meeting, was referred to by the US intelligence agencies as a “fascist” and a “Falangist:”.

In his book, “Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood”, Ian Johnson, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, noted that US  interest in the Muslim Brotherhood especially increased after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 to use Islamists in opposition to the USSR in that country at the time.

And then, in September 1981, the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat is assassinated by members of a terrorist group, a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood. During the same period, the Muslim Brotherhood actively supported Islamic extremist groups operating in Afghanistan. Since the mid-90s, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, carried out a series of major terrorist attacks on tourist routes against foreign nationals, and participated in military operations in Chechnya and Dagestan on the side of the bandit formations.

After the September 11 attacks, US contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood were frozen for some time. However, given the George W. Bush administration’s clear miscalculations in the two wars in Muslim countries, cooperation with representatives of this Islamist group has been strengthened by Washington in the hope that they will “help ease tensions” in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in Europe. Therefore, in 2006 in Brussels, with the mediation of the US State Department, a conference was organized, involving the European branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, where representatives of the US and British intelligence agencies discussed the prospects for cooperation with the Islamists.

With the arrival of Barack Obama into the White House, this close cooperation continued, especially since people from George W. Bush’s team, who were developing a strategy for rapprochement with the Muslim Brotherhood, remained in the Obama administration. The leading role in maintaining these contacts was played by the US (CIA) and British (MI6) secret services, as Thierry Meyssan, the founding president of the Réseau Voltaire website, has written about in great detail and accuracy. It was not without the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood that the United States succeeded in deposing and executing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has great influence not only in a number of countries in the Middle East, but also in Europe and the United States, and it is very well organized. The Muslim Brotherhood is a real international network with decades of experience. In Europe, the centers of this organization are London, Munich and many other major cities.

Given that Washington’s main goal in foreign policy has always been to maintain the role of the US as the absolute global leader, America could ensure its leadership in a global crisis only by, first, creating a climate of chaos in the world, in the midst of which the US would look like “an attractive island of stability”. In addition, it is much cheaper to manage chaos than it is to manage order. Second, America could retain global leadership if the economic and military-political power of China, the only competitor of the US in the battle for world domination, ready to take the crown of the winner from the United States, was severely restricted. Therefore, in recent years, the “friendship” of the United States with the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a blatantly anti-Chinese focus on using these Islamists to wreak havoc in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China and Central Asian countries.

By agreeing to a strategic alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, the US government has opened a Pandora’s box. The Muslim Brotherhood, which has repeatedly proclaimed its desire to build an Arab caliphate based on Sharia principles “from Spain to Indonesia,” intends to conquer new spaces and countries, especially enemies of the United States, with the active support of Washington through terror and propaganda.

As for the United States, under the guise of legal difficulties in officially recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, it clearly fears the unintended consequences of such a step for its relations with Turkey and Qatar, which support the Muslim Brotherhood on both the religious and political levels. If the assistance of the peninsular emirate in the Persian Gulf is mainly limited to financial support for this Islamist organization, Ankara has made the Muslim Brotherhood one of its “combat wings” in Syria and Libya.

That is why it would be unwise to expect a positive outcome from the consideration by the US Congress of another bill to declare the Islamist organization Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia – ed.) a terrorist organization, even though relations between Washington and Ankara have noticeably deteriorated lately.

Vladimir Odintsov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

A Poisoned Chalice?

A Poisoned Chalice?

December 15, 2020

by Observer R for the Saker Blog

The Biden v Trump 2020 election controversy has generated a lot of accusations and squabbles over evidence or lack thereof. Less common is an explanation of the strategy of the legal teams on both sides. To what extent is the Trump legal team trying to goad the voting system companies into suing the Trump campaign for defamation? How does the Trump team plan to get into a court where they can call for discovery, produce witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses? What is the Biden team’s strategy, other than trying to get the cases thrown out early to prevent dramatic movie-style courtroom battles? If the Trump team is trying to get to the Supreme Court as fast as possible, what do they plan to do once they get there? What is the strategy of the voting system companies, other than denials and refusing to show up at investigative hearings?

Possibilities

Do the political parties even want to win? If the stock market is a giant bubble and the real estate market is also pumped up by easy money and low interest rates, what happens when the bubble bursts? The economy has already slumped due to the virus and the lockdowns. The US national debt is way into the danger zone as is the budget deficit. The helicopter money cannot go on forever without the dollar going the way of Zimbabwe money. A possible result could be Great Depression II which would forever tarnish the reputation of whoever was President at the time. The President could look forward to being called Herbert Hoover II. The party in office at the time could look forward to defeat in the next election, and probably to defeats in several more elections. On the other hand, if the opposing party could put up a candidate for President in the 2024 election who could act, look, and speak like a proper president, that party might hold office for a considerable length of time. If successful, that President would fill a historical role as Franklin Delano Roosevelt II. In other words, winning the 2020 election might turn out to be like winning the proverbial poisoned chalice. Better for the party to wait until 2024.

The Democrats put up two candidates in 2020 who fared poorly in the primaries and generated very little enthusiasm in the campaign, with relatively small crowds of supporters. Campaigning from the basement was hardly inspiring and the many mental lapses provoked more sympathy than support. It seemed as if many of the ballots were not so much votes for Biden as votes against Trump. One could wonder if the Democrats did the calculations and decided to put up candidates who would likely lose the election. The Republicans, for their part, seemed to waste most of four years time when they should have been working on re-election tactics. The Republicans could have done something much earlier to set up competing television, print, and social media, instead of leaving the field mainly to the Democrats. The Republicans complained about slanted coverage and censorship being directed mostly at them, but did very little to combat it. The Republican administration was unable to get many of the federal agencies to act in a non-partisan manner. Finally, the Republican Party was also unable to put more polish on its candidates and to do a better job of writing speeches and sound-bites. It did not seem like they were very much interested in winning.

On the other hand, maybe the parties really did want to win in 2020. Both parties went at mud-slinging with gusto. The Democrats had the mainstream media in full cry, using every possible way, fair or foul, to discredit the other party’s candidates. The Democrats also made herculean efforts to ensure that their candidates received as many votes as possible, allegedly by any means possible. So, despite fielding a less-than-stellar cast of candidates, by election time the Democrats seemed determined to win. The strategy seemed to be that an avalanche of after-midnight absentee ballots would put Biden over the top in the swing states, then the mainstream television networks would call the election for Biden. At that point, Trump would make the usual concession speech and the Democrats could go forward with transition-team planning and house hunting. It all went according to plan, except for a small wrinkle when Trump declined to concede. He even went further and declared the election to be fraudulent. This off-script behavior so upset some of the media that they censored the President in mid-speech. At this point, the gloves came off and the Republicans decided to maybe look like they really wanted to win after all. Whistleblowers came forward and claims of scandalous irregularities appeared, along with a flurry of lawsuits. Even if it turned out not to be enough to keep Trump in the White House, it would serve to fire up the Republican base and help organize a four-year obstruction campaign against the Biden Administration. The Republicans even started greater use of alternative media instead of relying on crumbs from Fox News. The network had basically sided with the Democrats when it came to calling the election and Republican viewership and support for the network fell dramatically.

Difficulties

For the first three weeks after the election on November 3 things seemed to be going favorably for the Democrats. The Republican allegations were not taken seriously by the mainstream media and were considered more like sour grapes or just more Trump tantrums. Biden went ahead with setting up his team and most interest centered on who he would pick for the important cabinet posts. Foreign governments allied with the US immediately congratulated Biden on his supposed win, and even most of the holdout governments capitulated after a while. Notably, Israel and China were slow, but eventually got onboard. The only remaining major holdout was Russia. Republican attempts to seek remedy in the state courts seemed to go nowhere, and the Republicans could not get traction in the federal courts either. Biden looked like the winner. Then a few storm clouds appeared on November 25. Catholics and Jews had filed suit against the lockdown rules in New York, which they claimed discriminated against churches. They had lost a previous suit earlier in the summer, but this time the US Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in their favor. It was noted that the newest justice cast the deciding vote, thus validating the intense worries of the Democrats when Trump was able to appoint three justices. In addition, on the same day, lawyers for the Republicans filed suits in federal courts seeking to invalidate the election results in Georgia and Michigan. Just prior to this, the Republicans had managed to get a public hearing in the Pennsylvania legislature concerning the allegations of improprieties in the election. A federal court in Nevada set a hearing for December 3 concerning election issues in that state. These actions moved the Republican complaints out of just the alternative media and gossip columns and into official channels. Now things began to get dicey for both parties.

More Difficulties

The lawyers for the Democrats will have to try to discredit the whistleblowers’ testimony and try to prevent election officials from being called to testify under oath in court. The mainstream media supporting the Democrats will have to try to minimize the court actions and direct public attention elsewhere. Lawyers for the Republicans will try to do the opposite. Of course, it may turn out that the Republican Party’s evidence is weak and not persuasive enough for the courts to interfere with the election results. On the other hand, if evidence of a major election scandal is produced, the recent action of the Supreme Court does not bode well for the Democrats. It will be very tricky for the Republicans to produce such evidence. This has nothing to do with the facts of the election, but with the outing of who did what and when. The alleged evidence appears to depend in large part on the activities of certain voting system companies.

Trump and his supporters keep calling for documents to be declassified, but nothing much seems to happen. One of the former CIA directors calls for keeping things classified, but it is not clear what, if anything, the classified information has to do with the election. If the Trump lawyers reveal the evidence they claim to have concerning voting fraud in the US, how can they prevent that action from indirectly producing evidence of voting fraud in other countries around the world that were using the same software, hardware, and voting system companies? Some articles on the internet allege that voting system companies operating at elections in the US are actually owned or controlled by foreign companies. We have been subjected to more than four years of allegations and investigations of foreign interference in US elections and hacking by foreign parties. So it would seem prudent to make sure that elections in the US are only supported by US-owned and controlled companies and only use software and hardware developed and built in the US. So the Democrats have every incentive to prove that the voting system companies are US companies and have US headquarters. The Democrats also have every incentive to abandon their long claim of Russian interference in US elections, as well as to deny any foreign hacking of the 2020 election systems. The Republicans have to walk a very narrow path as they cannot allege any Russian interference now after denying it for more than four years, but they cannot point a finger at Western countries being involved either. This latter problem means that the experience of elections in certain other countries should not be mentioned. The Republicans are thus left with blaming the usual suspects—Venezuela, Iran, China—who are the current bad countries listed by the Trump administration. The Republicans seem unlikely to claim in federal court that the “Deep State” is mounting a “color revolution” against them even though the actions appear to be right out of the much-discussed color revolution handbook.

Even More Difficulties

Up until the first week of December, the Biden supporters were mostly successful in preventing the Trump supporters from getting traction in the courts or in the mainstream media. The media had censored or spun the alleged voting scandals to such a great extent that most of the public did not know what Trump was talking about when he mentioned issues concerning Hunter Biden. This censorship began to fall apart when Hunter himself admitted that he was under investigation by the IRS concerning tax issues. Then some news media in Washington detailed how Hunter was also under investigation by US Attorneys in several states for possible illegal activities, and that Joe’s brother James Biden was also under investigation. The news about Hunter’s laptop gained wider circulation. In the meantime, however, the swing states certified the election for Biden despite the Republican efforts to delay. In an amazing coincidence, more information about the connections between the Bidens and China was aired at the same time as more information about Chinese spying in the US. So just as the Democrats used “RussiaGate” against Trump, the Republicans appear to be setting up “ChinaGate” to use against Biden. Then to top it all off, the State of Texas filed suit in the US Supreme Court against four of the swing states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) concerning the election. Texas was joined by eighteen other states, with three more leaning toward support. In response, nineteen other states joined the swing states against the Texas suit. This was an unprecedented legal maneuver that was mostly a surprise. The US Supreme Court was quick to dismiss the lawsuit on December 11, 2020, for “lack of standing” by Texas, thus joining other courts in finding procedural reasons for not getting involved. The Electoral College voting is on December 14 and is expected to favor Biden. There may be more surprises as analysts are wondering what was the point of Executive Order 13848, Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election, signed September 12, 2018, as well as the reason for replacing the top managers of DoD intelligence immediately after the election. The Executive Order requires the Director of National Intelligence to issue a report by December 18, 2020, concerning the 2020 election. On January 6, 2021, Congress meets to certify the electoral vote. This is normally a rubber-stamp affair, but it is still possible to have a surprise at this point.

Future Difficulties

Regardless of who becomes President in 2021, a cloud will hang over future elections. Just as many Democrats still hold to the belief that the 2000 election for President was stolen, many Republicans will continue to believe that the 2020 election was stolen. If/when Biden is sworn in as President, the Republicans will worry that there will be little urgency on the part of the Federal authorities to investigate any aspect of the 2020 election. The Democrats will likely use their successful electioneering strategy in both the 2022 election and the 2024 presidential campaign. The strategy appears to be most applicable in densely populated areas which happen to be mostly Democrat. The strategy appears to be less useful in small towns and rural areas populated by Republicans. This asymmetry gives the Democrats an advantage in statewide elections, whereas district elections are more of a level playing field. A surplus of votes in one district does not affect the outcome in other districts, although such a surplus can swing a statewide total. This could affect statewide races for office such as governor, secretary of state, attorney general, US senator, as well as the national offices of President and Vice President. The Republicans will, therefore, be searching for a viable counter-strategy. If, on the other hand, Trump somehow stays in office, there might be a concerted effort by Federal agents to dismantle the big city voting strategy. The stakes are very high as the US states are rapidly becoming less united.

Trump will continue political civil war to maintain his relevance: analyst

November 20, 2020 – 21:12

By Amir Mohammad Esmaeili

 TEHRAN – Jim W. Dean, the managing editor of Veterans Today, tells the Tehran Times that Donald Trump is going to continue the American political civil war to maintain his relevance, and also to help protect himself from prosecution. 

“There are many, even in U.S. intelligence, who have considered him a national security threat, and who fully expect him to profit from selling U.S. classified material for his personal interest and attempt to rebuild himself after he leaves office as the ideology enforcer of the Republican party, as a big Mafia Don, even those running in primary elections must kneel and kiss the ring of ‘Don’ Trump,” notes Dean, who comes from an old military family going back to the American Revolution.

Here is the full text of the interview:

Q: How do you analyze the U.S. presidential election and its following consequences? 
 
A: It is both a relief and a torment. The thought of four more years of an autocratic Trump regime would have put 79 million Americans into a depression. And not the least of that would be because we have been looking forward to his losing his presidential immunity so the legal cases, including criminal ones, can proceed against him and his family. 

“There are many, even in U.S. intelligence, who have considered him (Trump) a national security threat, and who fully expect him to profit from selling U.S. classified material for his personal profit.”Hundreds of retired ex-prosecutors are ready to assist in this process, people who have served both Republican and Democratic administrations. They are joined in the belief that Trump should be made an example of to dissuade any future autocratic new president thinking that he can follow in Trump’s shoes.

There are many, even in U.S. intelligence, who have considered him a national security threat, and who fully expect him to profit from selling U.S. classified material for his personal profit and attempt to rebuild himself after he leaves office as the ideology enforcer of the Republican party, as a big Mafia Don, even those running in primary elections must kneel and kiss the ring of ‘Don’ Trump.

Q: How do you see the current chaotic situation in the U.S.?

A: The chaos in the election count is subsiding. The Washington Post, three months prior to the election had revealed the White House plan to contest the election due to Trump being so behind in the polls. It has turned into a circus that will stain the Republican party for years. 

Their original plan was focused on challenging a close election, but Rudy Giuliani is now viewed as taking a wrecking ball to that strategy. He chose to flood the courts with scores of election fraud claims, many of them based on Twitter social media platform reports alone. 

That, combined with Trump’s tweeting about “The Steal”, blew up the original plan with almost all of the early challenge cases being thrown out for lack of evidence. Some judges hinted that the attorneys presenting them might have their law licenses taken away. Pro-Trump law firms have begun backing off filing any more cases, including in Pennsylvania.

The political strategy now seems to be focused on challenging the vote count with nitpicks as a way to operate a fundraising scam that will fund a Trump supporter PAC called Save America. Trump is thinking of revenge and needs to be able to control his base to intimidate the Republican leadership and to be a critic of the Biden presidency.

The man wants to continue hogging the media spotlight with his endless false claims to keep his base riled up, the biggest of which will be that the election was stolen from him, and them.

Q: How do you assess the reaction of the U.S. political and security apparatus to the political unrest? 

A: There had been months of preparation for election unrest, both for street protests and rioting. But there was also contingency planning for the possibility that an angry Trump might do some crazy things, including starting a conflict somewhere. 

“Trump is thinking of revenge and needs to be able to control his base to intimidate the Republican leadership and to be a critic of the Biden presidency.”This planning even involved a high alert being put out for any possible false flag attack being planned which could justify a Trump “retaliatory” strike. The scenarios included a possible nuclear event where Trump could call a national emergency. 

On the political end, we know from White House leaks via the Washington Post, that Trump asked his staff to consider the nuclear option of demanding the Republican State legislatures take the step of casting their respective state Electoral College votes for Trump, under a Constitutional pathway that has never been used.

The consensus, so far, is that the Republican Party going forward would not want that on their record. The Supreme Court has already hinted it does not want to get involved in an election court case and is letting some items on its docket just run out of time. It does not want its reputation besmirched by a desperate Trump.

Q:  Will U.S. foreign policy towards West Asia change in Biden’s presidency? 

A: Biden has sent some early signals, such as the unipolar Trump foreign policy mania seems to be history. The EU will be the first benefactor for renewing better relations. This triggers some early responses inside the EU that it is time to take responsibility for its own defense, which will be popular with American taxpayers. 

Biden has indicated the U.S. rejoining the JCPOA, but then later attached some conditions to it, which could doom that move. 

Expect Biden to be a hawk with Russia, China, and North Korea, but trying to bring a coalition along with him so he does not follow the Trump lead of talking one game and then doing another.

Trump and Melania According to Fritz Lang

trump and Melania.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

As of today, America does not seem convinced by its democratic nature and its democratic process. One poll released yesterday claims that “less than half of the Americans believe Biden is the legitimate winner of election; a third say Trump won.”  By now it is reasonable to admit that America is far from being confident about anything that is traditionally associated with its core ideological roots and its founders’ philosophy.  

By now it is also clear beyond doubt that the predictions of a Democratic ‘landslide victory’ were either delusional or even consciously duplicitous. As of today, Republicans have gained seats in the House of Representatives, and look likely to retain control of the senate. If this is not enough, President Trump also increased his support base significantly. He even managed to expand his share of votes within marginal segments that until now were considered ‘democratic territory’ such as the Black and Latino communities

America is divided in the middle. Some may wonder what is it that made so many American voters  give their votes to a presidential candidate who seems to be past his best days and often appear confused and cognitively challenged. Others wonder how is it possible that such a significant number gave their vote for a second time to an eccentric real estate tycoon who proved to be totally foreign to some elementary knowledge of running a country, let alone the language of politics and diplomacy. How is it possible that more than 70 million Americans voted for a man who shakes his hands and ass to the music of YMCA at his rallies?   

The truth of that matter can’t be denied: Trump’s electoral power is based on his wall-to-wall support amongst White uneducated males. It is America’s white working class that support a man who has never engaged in any form of manual work so to say, a man who was born into wealth. 

I would expect every American political scientist to clear his or her table and concentrate on one question: what is it at the core of this bond between this demographic and this abrasive real estate oligarch? Seemingly the many Americans who do not approve of Trump prefer to go to bed in the night and wake up in a Trump-less universe. Bizarrely enough, this is exactly what happened on election night. America went to sleep accepting that Trump might very well make it again, that he might be here to stay for another four years.  Yet miraculously, when America woke up, just a few hours later Trump looked likely to be on his way out. We may never know what really happened at the wee small hours in those ‘swing states.’ Yet, Trump’s bond with America’s white working class is, no doubt, a fascinating question and it remains a mystery.

Trump is not the first American tycoon to be loved and admired by the working masses. Henry Ford, the chief developer of the assembly line technique of mass production, a man who made the USA into an industrial superpower, wasn’t exactly a ‘socialist’ by any means but he took great care of his workers and improved their lives by unimaginable proportions.  

Ford was a pioneer of ‘welfare capitalism.’ He astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage, practically doubling the rate of most of his workers. Ford believed that paying employees more would enable them to afford the cars they were producing and thus boost the local economy. In practice, Ford offered a valid answer to Marx’ theory of ‘alienation.’ His workers bonded with their reality by means of consumption.  Ford believed in manufacturing, nationalism and patriotism. He was against wars; he saw Wall Street and global capitalism as America’s prime enemy. This fact alone put him on an inevitable collision course with the wolves of Wall Street. Consequently Henry Ford went down in History as a “notorious anti-Semite” and Trump has been denounced more than once  by the ADL and other Jewish organizations for “extolling” him and his achievements.

It is not difficult to point at some crucial similarities between Ford and Trump. Both are critical of military interventions. Both adhere to nationalist, patriotic and conservative values. Both believe in manufacturing. Both oppose globalism of any form and see globalist Wall Street as a prime enemy. But the bond between the struggling worker and the arch capitalist has deeper cultural, rational and psychological roots that go beyond the particular historicity of one industrialist or another.

The significance of the fantasy of bond between the oligarch and the oppressed is at the centre of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927), one of the most important cinematic epics of the 20th century.

Watch Fritz Lang’s Metropolis: https://youtu.be/AvtWDIZtrAE

Metropolis was created in Germany during the era of the Weimar Republic. It is set in a futuristic ultra-capitalist dystopia that isn’t so removed from the reality we witness in the growing abyss between Americas’ seashore urban metropolises and the so-called ‘Fly Over’ States. It tells the story of Freder, the son of the city master, and Maria, an inspirational working class, Christian and saintly character. Together, Freder and Maria defeat social injustice and the class divide by means of unity. Against all odds, they manage to unite capital and labor. For this unity to occur, a mediator has to come forward to transform social clash into a harmonious future.  Fritz Lang’s Metropolis is two and a half hours of horror, oppression, slavery, capitalist malevolence and class divide that resolves in the end into harmonious reconciliation of the Hegelian ‘end of history’ type. The cinematic epic exhausts itself when the workers’ leader and the city master are shaking hands and accepting their mutual fate and co-dependence. “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart,” is the inter title of the scene, emphasizing the ideological and metaphysical motto of the film. In the eyes of Trump supporters, Donald is such a ‘heart.’

 Yesterday I watched Melania Trump – The Mysterious First Lady, a new Arte documentary that attempts to grasp the role of Melania and her contribution to her husband’s success. 

 Watch Melania Trump – The Mysterious First Lady: https://youtu.be/GwM–ZPeJtA

It didn’t take me long to notice the similarities between Lang’s Freder and Donald Trump. It took me even less time to see a resemblance between Maria and Melania.

Looking at the Arte film it becomes clear that Melania’s roll in Trump’s success is far greater than what the American compromised media may be willing to admit. The American press treats the current first lady as a meaningless decorative element planted in proximity to the ‘great evil’. But, as the Arte film reveals, for Trump’s supporting crowd, Melania is a loaded symbol of deep spiritual and cultural meaning.

Melania is practically the ultimate embodiment of the ‘American dream.’ Born in a remote village in Communist (former) Yugoslavia, she made it to the top of the world. She is literally the First Lady, married to the strongest man in the world. She did it on her own. She had a wish, she dedicated herself and she accomplished her mission.  

But it goes further, this ‘sleeping beauty’ character happens to ‘wake up’ in the most volatile moments and say the right things.  Being a dedicated mother, she furnishes the turbulent presidency with a deep sense of family commitment. She fits like a glove with the conservative understanding of conventional gender relations. But she also enlightens the compatible and mutual relations between the male and the female couple:

She is ‘young and beautiful,’ he is ‘old and shrewd’ but when things ‘get out of hand,’ when the president, for instance,  is caught on tape calling to “grab them by the p*ssy”  the couple swap rolls immediately. Melania, out of the blue, becomes the big caring mother/wife, she forgives her naughty husband however confirms that he is actually a very nice gentleman and qualified for presidency. It is, practically Melania who Gives Donald the kosher stamp when he really needs it.   

It isn’t a coincidence that no one in the USA could produce such a documentary that delves into the true meaning of Trump and his Trumpina. Not one camera owner in the USA has the mental power to admit that the Trump project is actually way more sophisticated than what we are willing to admit. One filmmaker who apparently understands the Trump project is obviously Michael Moore who predicted Trump’s victory in 2016. He also tried to warn his fellow progressive friends that they are deluding themselves into believing the pollsters and their phantasmic landslide victory predictions.  

Trumpism is ideologically motivated and strategically driven. Not many  Americans in the Left have the guts to admit that if one political offering is pushing for non-binary gender, trans identiterianism, Globalism and anti-patriotism, there would be enough people that push back on this message, clinging to the most obvious call for nationalism, family values, strict gender binaries, Christian ethos etc.  

In Fritz Lang epic Metropolis the leader unites the under-city slaves with the Mammonites on top. I am not so sure that Trump can establish any kind of a bridge between Wall Street and his supporters in the ‘Fly over’ States. Wall Street does not see any reason to reach out to the so-called ‘deplorables.’ America is already divided on pretty much every possible front. Two days ago I asked a NY friend how does he feel about the current events in the USA. He corrected me immediately.  “I live in NYC not in the USA… the USA” he said, “starts after the Hudson.”

It is hard to predict where America is going from here. But since Henry Ford predicted the current mess almost a century ago it may be good to remember that it was the same guy who cleverly pointed out that “when everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.”

Donate

The Democratic Facade

 BY GILAD ATZMON

democracy 2.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon 

On election day, countless progressive and liberal commentators throughout the entire mainstream media were foolish enough to admit that the battle at stake wasn’t really about ‘Trump or Biden’ but about the ‘American way,’ the future, so to say, of the public discourse and public life in the USA. Progressives and liberals were confident enough to believe that with nearly 100 million ballots given in before election day, Americans had already cast an unprecedented spectacle of rejection of everything that may even mildly resemble ‘conservative values.’ They were convinced that America had made its choice already. For them, I must assume, the election was just an act of formality. The battle was basically won already.

 But then just a few hours later, it became clear that the pollsters failed them completely once again. The ‘Trumpsters’ refused to evaporate. They grew substantially and even expanded demographically into some ‘unexpected’ electoral territories traditionally associated with Democratic politics.

 The clear meaning of the election is that America, like most other Western states, is divided in the middle into two opposing societies that have very little in common.  Far more worrying is the clear fact that the two sides of the divide cannot tolerate each other. 

As much as the Left, Progressives and Liberals are convinced by the absolute validity of their way of thinking, to the point that they insist to dictate them by authoritarian and tyrannical measures, at least as many people do not buy, follow and even reject those values.   Many Americans do not accept the identiterian shift. Many Americans are not convinced at all that gender isn’t binary. I assume that most disappointing and worrying for the DNC is the fact that members of ‘diverse minorities’ as the Democrats call them, have switched sides. They became vocal Trump supporters.

Watch a Cuban fusion band sings “I will Vote for Donald Trump” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HpwNRSE4nM

This is very easy to explain. The Democratic Party offers Blacks, Gays, Latinos and so called ‘diverse minorities’ to be marginalized forever in an amalgam of ‘Others United’.  The GOP is offering those people an immediate integration as ordinary people into the American realm. All you need to do is get yourself a red Trump baseball cap and join your next local Trump rally. It is this most basic existential togetherness that was so vivid within the Left revolutionary discourse, but only materialized into a populist sustained tsunami of political resistance within the contexts of right-wing populist politics. 

In the upside-down world in which we live. The Republican party has become the party of the American working-class people. People who are defined by their adherence to family values, the church, hard work and see themselves as the ‘Americans.’  The Democratic party that claimed to be the voice of those working people, has gradually morphed into an urban identiatrian conglomerate.  A collective of ‘as a’ people: humans who insist to identify with their biology:  ‘as a Woman,’ ‘as a Gay,’ ‘as a Trans,’ ‘as a Black,’ ‘as a Jew.’

In the upside down world in which we live, the Left ended up adopting the most embarrassing and problematic Hitlerian ideological aspect: Unlike Italian fascism that adhered to the concept of ‘socialism of the Italian people,’ or early Nazism that pushed for the idea of ‘equality of German speaking people,’ Hitler insisted upon ‘socialism of one race.’ Hitler believed that people’s politics is intrinsic to their biology. As opposed to traditional inclusive Left thinking that was class oriented, the contemporary Left pushes people to identify politically on biological terms: ‘as a woman,’ ‘as a black,’ ‘as a gay,’ ‘as a trans’ etc. The GOP on the other hand, is coming closer and closer to universal class politics.  

On the morning of the 3rd of November, the liberal press was ready to announce that the ‘as a’ philosophy had won. But as things stand right now, this  battle between the ‘as a’ people  and the ‘Americans’ may escalate into a real violent conflict as there is no one in America or anywhere else who knows how to unite the people into a simple concept of peoplehood. Again, this is hardly an American phenomenon. The exact same division and the lack of a political unifying prospect is currently apparent in every Western State.

On Thursday, Wall Street rose substantially. Naturally, many commentators believed that our oligarchs and financial tycoons were excited by Biden’s likeliness to win the American election. But it may also be possible that Wall Street was way more thrilled by the prospect of a possible civil war. When people fight each other, capitalism, mammonism and usury can be celebrated mercilessly and boundlessly. This is exactly what Wall Street is after.   

It may as well be possible that in the global universe in which we live, in a world where all existential concerns reintroduced themselves as ‘global threats’ to do with: global warming, global financial turmoil, global pandemics etc., a state of bitter civil war is exactly where global capitalism wants us the people to be. Democracy and the fantasy of political choice, as such, are just a camouflage. It is there to convey the image that the current chaos is merely our own choice or fault.  

To understand ID politics and its disastrous impact on contemporary society read Being in Time

Donate

A 2nd term is his if he really wants it, but how deep is Trump’s ‘Trumpism’?

Wednesday, 11 November 2020 8:10 AM  [ Last Update: Wednesday, 11 November 2020 8:18 AM ]

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
US President Donald Trump (File photo)

By Ramin Mazaheri

A 2nd term is his if he really wants it, but how deep is Trump’s ‘Trumpism’?
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

The United States repeatedly has the worst elections of all the Western core democracies.

That’s not “Iranian meddling” but Harvard and their 2019 Electoral Integrity Index. They ranked US elections just 57th in the world.

One wonders how much further they will fall in this year’s ranking?

If we honestly ask if American elections have integrity I think everyone has the same answer, and it’s as serious as a heart-attack:

You don’t want to go there. American elections cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

So if President Donald Trump actually wants a second term, it’s likely there for the taking. He’ll have to ride out weeks of personal stress even worse than the televised Watergate hearings in 1973, but he won’t come out like Richard Nixon just for insisting that American elections finally get looked at honestly. 

I don’t think that Trump has engaged in vote fraud, but I must report that half of the US still believes that Democrats did. Mail-in balloting has unnecessarily stressed an already corruption-filled system, per Harvard. In a democracy it does not matter if perceptions of voter fraud run on partisan lines – if such perceptions are widespread they simply must be resolved satisfactorily.

Nobody has tested the integrity of US elections in recent memory. Not in even in 2000, when they rushed to install George W. Bush 37 days after the election. We later found that an unforgivable 14% of African-American votes had been questionably rejected in they key state of Florida.

Americans shouldn’t forget things like that, and many don’t. Many just permanently stay away from elections and encourage others to do the same.

Democrats want to pin all the blame for the current election mistrust on Trump, but such a view acts as if the world began in 2016.

This is an election system which could not stand serious scrutiny, and now it is cracking at the end of this year of unprecedented pressures.

Half the country is begging Trump: stress it further.

His supporters are asking Trump to be a martyr and refuse to concede

This is an absolutely history-making moment in time, and this hard-news journalist never resorts to such hyperbole: This is the moment when Donald Trump can choose between going down in history likely portrayed as a buffoon, or he can take on the establishment “Swamp” by forcing it to investigate allegations of structural corruption by elites.

It’s a stunning idea, and unthinkable to half the country here, who is being swamped with the insistence that Joe Biden is the president-elect even though the votes counting is still ongoing, even though he leads by a mere average of 21,000 votes over four states, and in an election which has been tainted by corruption accusations for months.

What they are applying as pressure is the cynical power of “inevitability”. Maybe Trump really did get fewer votes, so why put the nation through stress?

That common view should be rejected in favor of the martyrs who came before, such as the disenfranchised Black Floridians of 2000. And how long can honest reckonings be put off without destroying faith in the system? Destroyed faith in society has a price, and America has a problem with honest talk, but this is truly la chance for redemption.

That’s why Joe Biden’s early declaration was so reckless, self-interested and – in the worst sense of the word – Trumpian. Biden’s promised redemption is already false – he did not have faith in allowing the US system to play out.

It seems like a difficult task, but I contend that Trump has everything going for him – he has the one thing nobody really has, which is time. All Trump has to do is let the process play out: if he lost fairly, he will garner much credit for standing up for the common voter; if he wins the presidency, he’s a hero who reversed the tide.

Trump’s Achilles’ heel is that he cannot do this with dignity, but when every other election this century has been disputed, one person’s foolish behavior isn’t the main issue for American society anymore. 

There really is no rush: a new president doesn’t take over until January 20. But imperialists abhor a vacuum. They don’t know who is in charge and, thus who to follow, and thus who to plot to destroy. Imperialist cultures are exceptional and distorted like this in ways smaller countries can’t imagine.

This, “We’re the slave-master,” pride is also why a small country can take their time and get an election right, but the US is rushing to judgement no matter how many it disenfranchises. They know they have to constantly project total strength: every day they do not is another day the colonized will question the slave-master’s true power and abilities.

What is this 21st century “Trumpism” really? We are about to finally find out.

‘Trumpism’ isn’t the name of a proper political party – will one be found or is it over already?

Certainly, like the Yellow Vests in France, it was immediately and falsely slammed as xenophobic. That’s now a pathetic, false and boring argument: Trump won a greater percentage of minority votes than any Republican in 60 years. So we don’t really know what it is, due to this propaganda.

The reality is that their opposition to 1%-benefiting globalization, their demand for patriotic sovereignty and their opposition to 1%-benefiting “universal values” are the reasons for the corporate-mainstream vilification of both.

If Trump gives up the adjective of “Trumpian” Republican will no longer be necessary because the world’s oldest duopoly sucks the revolutionary spirit out of every third-party movement. I doubt you have heard of the “Bull Moose Party”, even though Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore?

If Trump really stands his ground right “Trumpian” could shed its perceptions of xenophobia and be associated with a spirit of rigor and democratic egalitarianism. It would be a coup against the 1%’s efforts, and to win that Trump has to get absolutely crucified in the next three months.

We’ve never known just how serious about politics Trump is, no?

He used to be a reality-show star, but he has certainly put in a lot of work for four years. Key senators have said that Trump is within his rights to demand recounts and transparency. Now we will find out how fighting he is willing to do – he still has a ton of power.

Trump been vilified for four years, and revolutionaries are made, not born. Surely he is aware of the problems which those without power cannot possibly stand up to? He who is more aware is necessarily more responsible.

But how deep is Trump’s Trumpism?

It’s very easy to cynically say that Trump will only ever be a tool of the pro-Zionist camp, or that he is only in this to make money, or that all he seeks is fame or even infamy. Maybe all this is quite true, and he’s gone further than he ever imagined or even wanted to?

It doesn’t matter to me: The better point to make is that Trumpism is very real to its supporters. Like the Yellow Vests they actually do have genuine virtues. They see corruption and they want it out, but all they have is one vote each – they are not the president. 

Right now is the time if Trump shows he has learned how to be a public servant after four years, or if perhaps many are right to conclude that “democracy with American characteristics” is incapable of producing humble, selfless public servants, and only corrupt, self-interested ones. 

If Americans cannot have a transparent election they cannot possibly achieve even moderate progress: This is country which has opposed revolutionary tactics for 200+ years – everyone here is committed to reformism of the American system. If Trump does not make a stand here – if he bows to the forces of cynical inevitability – Trumpism remains half a personality cult, half a brand name and certainly half-finished at best. Trumpism will have made a point, but not a real impact.

The average American should not be punished – they have a right to free and transparent elections, and the whole world knows that they don’t get them. 2020 is yet another recent example. It seems unfortunate that it is up to Donald Trump to help him and her, but it is too early to judge: he may yet get added onto Mount Rushmore, as he hopes.

What is certain one week after their initial vote is that the US has had a vote, and a winner (two of them) – there is only one logical conclusion: concession/inauguration.

Until that happens it will be a steadily-increasing drip of chaotic news. That is not a bad thing for the world, nor one to be feared by Americans, but it is intensely feared by their 1%.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

The American Elections: An Out-of-Context Reading الانتخابات الأميركيّة: قراءة خارج السياق

The American Elections: An Out-of-Context Reading

Auto translation: Actually I don’t know what happened

Ziad Hafez

The results of the presidential election were announced by former Vice President Joseph Biden, amid a broad public split between supporters of and opponents of US President Donald Trump. We will not enter into a debate about the “legitimacy” of the results and the credibility of the screening process, but regardless of that debate that has its own merits but only concerns us to the extent that it confirms the deep division in American society. There are several facts revealed by the US elections about the internal political scene that we have been monitoring for many years and we expect it to reach this state. Yes, we were not surprised by what happened, but rather we expected it because what happened reflects the transformations that have occurred and are still taking place within American society or, more precisely, within American societies. We expected that US President Donald Trump is stronger than his internal and external opponents believed, despite the ferocity of the election campaign, and we also expected that an argument may revolve around the reliability of the counting process due to the internal division. There is not one America, but at least two, if not several, “Americans,” so to speak. The American division is vertical and horizontal. The factors are class first, otherwise the American media wants to acknowledge this for a clear reason, as it is owned by only six companies, meaning there is one opinion imposed on the American citizen, so the class dimension in American societies is ignored. The second component is race, the third is religion, the fourth is culture, and the fifth is geography, where the inhabitants of large cities differ from the residents of central and small cities and the countryside in general, which we have referred to in the past and will not be repeated here. But we think it is useful to extract the facts that the US elections have shown. The factors are class first, otherwise the American media wants to acknowledge this for a clear reason, as it is owned by only six companies, meaning there is one opinion imposed on the American citizen, so the class dimension in American societies is ignored. The second component is race, the third is religion, the fourth is culture, and the fifth is geography, where the inhabitants of large cities differ from the residents of central and small cities and the countryside in general, which we have referred to in the past and will not be repeated here. But we think it is useful to extract the facts that the US elections have shown. The factors are class first, otherwise the American media wants to acknowledge this for a clear reason, as it is owned by only six companies, meaning there is one opinion imposed on the American citizen, so the class dimension in American societies is ignored. The second component is race, the third is religion, the fourth is culture, and the fifth is geography, where the inhabitants of large cities differ from the residents of central and small cities and the countryside in general, which we have referred to in the past and will not be repeated here. But we think it is useful to extract the facts that the US elections have shown.

The first fact is the flabby political system in place in the United States, which is based on the system of two ruling parties, which alternate power from time to time, according to circumstantial data and according to the role of some differences in domestic and foreign public policy. However, the two parties agree on one vision of the nature of the existing system, which protects, first and foremost, capital and harnesses law and politics, and thus justice in the interest of capital. The two parties also share one vision of the continuation of the empire and the politics of domination. However, this system, which was formed within two centuries within specific population scales and within certain economic and social power balances, is no longer able to accommodate the demographic shifts that have taken place and which Samuel Huntington pointed out clearly. The latter said in his last work before his departure:

Indeed, population shifts indicate that the rate of population growth in the United States is below the rate required to maintain its presence, and therefore the door to immigration must be opened. The issue of immigration, legal and illegal, is a complex one that needs a separate approach, but it is at the core of the dispute between the two competing parties. The Republican Party wants to legalize immigration according to standards that there is no consensus or agreement about, and while the Democratic Party wants to open the door to immigration to ensure, first, a cheap labor force that guarantees lower wages and supports capital, and its belief that ethnic diversity is in the interest of the party at the electoral political level. Therefore, the Republican Party has become a white majority party that is considered marginalized in the globalized society, which was promoted by liberal leaders in the Democratic Party for two decades, while the Democratic Party has transformed into a party of ethnic and religious diversity, but with a liberal leadership that is mostly white and not necessarily identical to the requirements of diversity.

On the other hand, the two parties are no longer able to absorb the economic shifts due to the tendency towards globalization from which the big companies and the financial and technological oligarchy have benefited, but at the expense of the American worker. The decline in jobs in the basic productive sectors and the shift towards a virtual rentier economy based on financial and real estate speculation has led to a rift between the real economy and the path of financial markets. The stock market is in a mile and unemployment in another mile. And the two parties contributed over the decades in that transformation until Donald Trump arrived and tried to regain industrial jobs that were exported to the countries of the South in general. However, it clashed with the power of interests associated with the neoliberal economic model, which led to the concentration of money and media in the hands of companies no more than the fingers of one hand. Hence the wave of public discontent that Trump succeeded in exploiting in 2016 and nearly succeeded in the 2020 elections had it not been for Corona and his mismanagement of the pandemic that toppled his chances of success for a second term.

The defect in the ruling system appeared twice in a row: the first time in the 2016 presidential elections and the second this year, when the options imposed on the American voter were to choose between who is less bad than who is better, and not for those who have the political, economic and social program that mimics the aspirations of Americans and the transformations. That happened during the past four decades. The observer wonders why the political scene has reached this state and the answer lies in the nature of the regime governed by money and private interests, and only those who declare their full loyalty to it will not come. The overwhelming majority of politicians and people working in public affairs owe their positions to those who funded them, not to those who elected them. Naturally, the “elites” elected in this way become very poor, as we see in the rolling graph for more than forty years. The president is either morally corrupt or ignorant, or both. And the “clean” among them is whose vices are either concealed or concealed. The corporate dominant media deliberately ignored the corruption of the candidate Biden, who became “president” and focused on the corruption of the current president. As it is said in colloquial speech, the latter is “his body is worn.” The scandal of the fanciful left-wing Intercept website, which supports Biden, refused to publish an investigation into the corruption of Biden and his family. And the current president came from outside the usual context, and thus his mandate was an ongoing war with the deep state because he wanted to break the vicious alliance. On the other hand, the candidate Biden, and before him Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, are from the womb of the corrupt environment that produces the ruling elites in the United States. It can be said through the announced results that the deep state defeated Trump, but the cost may be very high. And the current president came from outside the usual context, and thus his mandate was an ongoing war with the deep state because he wanted to break the vicious alliance. On the other hand, the candidate Biden, and before him Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, are from the womb of the corrupt environment that produces the ruling elites in the United States. It can be said through the announced results that the deep state defeated Trump, but the cost may be very high. And the current president came from outside the usual context, and thus his mandate was an ongoing war with the deep state because he wanted to break the vicious alliance. On the other hand, the candidate Biden, and before him Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, are from the womb of the corrupt environment that produces the ruling elites in the United States. It can be said through the announced results that the deep state defeated Trump, but the cost may be very high.

The second fact is the loss of the United States’ prestige. One pro-Biden website described the election count as a “farce” that lost the credibility and prestige of the United States that it lost in our opinion some time ago, but the election play was an official announcement of the fall of the illusions of the credibility of the existing system in the United States. Even the unofficial spokesperson for globalization and neoliberalism, Thomas Friedman, wrote that “America has fallen” in this cycle of elections. The doubts, or perhaps more than one, about the “theft” of the elections (as Paul Craig Roberts and others say) will contribute to exacerbating a political crisis that may herald the end of the United States as we know it and the creation of a different entity from what it was. A new battle will appear for the sake of a new “legitimacy” that may not gain the consensus of the Americans and will exacerbate the division.

Here some clarification is needed. What happened after the 2016 elections will be repeated after 2020. The losing side will not accept the poll results. From the very first moments after Trump was elected, the Democratic Party, along with the dominant corporate media, took action to bring down Trump because it was surprised by Trump’s victory. And if Trump’s promises are true, he will try to challenge the results in federal courts, and hard-line factions in his electoral base may announce their rejection of these results. This is what Friedman meant, and this is what we should pay attention to, that is, the democratic process has become a source of skepticism. So what is the alternative?

The third fact is hitting the credibility of the corporate hegemonic media that led the campaign against Trump through the poll companies that inspired the world with Biden winning by a large margin, as if the results are already settled before the vote! The actual results came to refute those expectations and confirm that Trump is not a passing phenomenon, but rather a reflection of an American mood outside the traditional context and has weight on the popular level. Trump’s vote exceeded Hillary Clinton’s vote by two million, indicating that Trump supporters are not the only ones who reject Hillary Clinton. The elections proved that the American mood differs from what the dominant media portrays, which lost its professionalism in covering the campaign and was expressing only one opinion. Regardless of the official results, Trump has transformed from a president of the United States into a popular political leader for the so-called red America, that is, the states at home that voted for him. And this is despite the obvious and scandalous flaws in his competence and personal behavior that were the object of ridicule and contempt for many Americans and non-Americans. This change may be decisive in American political life, where “popular leadership” may be in the face of “constitutional legitimacy,” and the resulting constitutional crisis, to a system crisis, to an entity crisis.

Among the failures of public opinion polls is the failure to achieve the “blue wave” that was supposed to sweep Congress. The Democratic Party, which had expected an increase in its majority in the House of Representatives, lost several seats and may lose its majority in the next mid-term elections in 2022, as it was unable to obtain the majority in the Senate. Popularly, the Democratic Party lost the elections, even if Biden was declared winning the presidency. This “victory” has its credibility popularly contested by almost half of Americans, and it may be judicially contested. The political division may extend beyond the arena of constitutional institutions, namely the Congress, to resolve (the absurd) in the street. All this means that instability has become the title of the current and future stage in the United States. On the other hand, there are those who consider that the United States is a state of institutions, and after the wave of anger on the losing team, things will return to normal. This is a simplified reading of the American scene that does not take into account the transformations that we mentioned above and previously, and which portend the erosion of internal cohesion in the context of economic scarcity. The American dream, which was creating internal cohesion, has fallen into the periphery of contradictions and failures, both internally and externally.

The fourth fact is the high turnout among supporters and opponents of the US President, which indicates the depth of the existing division that took the character of “breaking a bone.” It is not certain that the president-elect and his team have the ability to bridge the gap between the two factions of the people, because he does not have a clear discourse and policy that can simulate the citizens’ concerns. If it is too early to pass judgment, the history of the man and the history of the Vice President-elect do not suggest that they have a vision for an exit from the structural crises facing Americans. From the Corona pandemic to its economic repercussions, to health insurance issues, to the issue of immigration and internal security, to issues of racism, to climate issues, to the rehabilitation of flabby infrastructure to a long list of entitlements that have been neglected over the past five decades, that is, since the beginning of the seventies, They all need a comprehensive vision. The disagreement between the young base of the Democratic Party and the aging party leadership is difficult to bridge.

The fifth fact is that the Corona pandemic toppled the American president. Let us not forget that in the primaries, Biden was on the verge of leaving the campaign trail and the lead was candidate Bernie Sanders. Also, Kamala Harris won only one percent of the Democratic voters in the election campaign, indicating that there was a coup in the primaries to exclude Sanders, as happened in 2016, and to float Biden. With great support from Barack Obama, the democratic leadership overturned the internal equation in the Democratic Party and benefited from the Corona pandemic that halted the economy and erased the economic “achievements” that the US President was betting on. So the election title became the referendum on Trump’s personality and mismanagement in the face of the pandemic. From this angle, the Democratic Party scored a huge success.

The sixth fact is signs of weakness in the deep state. This may come as a surprise to many observers. It is true that it defeated Trump, but the cost of that victory may topple her. The deep state, its capabilities, and its alliance with the military, industrial and financial complex, and the technological oligarchy in communication and corporate media could not obtain a balanced majority in American society. The majority that the elected president obtained (a majority by blasting if it is permissible) is not a solid and solid majority, if it turns out that the announced results are correct and not subject to veto. However, these results reveal the weakness of the dominant American political discourse, which reflects the disruption of the ruling political elites from the actual reality.

The seventh and striking fact is the failure of the money spent in the elections to change the course of things. These elections achieved record numbers of financial spending, which, according to initial estimates, amounted to about 14.5 billion dollars, of which 6.5 billion were on the presidential elections and the rest on the US congressional elections. In South Carolina, for example, the Democratic Party spent about $ 100 million for its candidate against Sheikh Lindsay Graham, who is a hawk in the Republican Party. The Democratic candidate did not win, however, with record campaign spending. The same applies to a number of seats. In Florida, Michael Bloomberg spent more than $ 100 million defeating Trump in the state that Trump ultimately won. Among the major financiers of election campaigns are the owners of social media companies who have become major “players” in campaign finance.

The eighth fact is the emergence of the role of the Arab and Islamic voice in the elections. That sound was the owl of the shrew in the swing states of Michigan and Minnesota that tipped the balance of power in favor of Vice President Biden. President Trump reaped the results of his discriminatory policies against the Arab and Islamic community. The credit for that mobilization is due to young women in the Democratic Party and within the US Congress, such as Rashida Tlaib and Han Omar, in bringing the most likely votes in favor of Biden.

In the end, it can be said in the preliminary assessment of the results of the US elections that there are many losers. Of course, in the first place the current president, Donald Trump. However, there is a loss for the Democratic Party at the level of the House of Representatives, which witnessed a significant decline in its majority in the House of Representatives or the Representatives, and did not obtain a majority in the Senate. The American media and public opinion polling companies, which over the course of two elections failed to read the mood of the American electorate, too. It is true that she was right about Biden winning, but she failed in the size of the success just as she failed on the issue of the “blue wave” that was supposed to sweep the US Congress. As for the deep state that “triumphed” over those who came from outside the political flock, the cost of its victory may be exorbitant because of the associated vibration in the credibility of its components. Therefore a separate conversation for later.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

* Writer and political economist, and former Secretary General of the Arab National Congress.

الانتخابات الأميركيّة: قراءة خارج السياق

زياد حافظ

تمّ إعلان نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية بقوز نائب الرئيس السابق جوزيف بايدن وسط انقسام شعبي كبير بين مؤيّد ومناهض للرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب. لن ندخل في السجال حول «شرعية» النتائج ومصداقية عملية الفرز، لكن بغضّ النظر عن ذلك السجال الذي له حيثياته ولكن لا يعنينا إلاّ بمقدار أنه يثبّت حالة الانقسام العميق في المجتمع الأميركي. فهناك حقائق عدّة أظهرتها الانتخابات الأميركية عن المشهد السياسي الداخلي الذي كنّا على مدى سنوات عديدة نرصده ونتوقع وصوله إلى الحال هذا. نعم، لم نفاجأ بما حصل بل توقعناه لأن ما حصل يعكس التحوّلات التي حصلت وما زالت داخل المجتمع الأميركي أو بشكل أدقّ داخل المجتمعات الأميركية. توقعنا أن الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب أقوى مما كان يعتقده خصومه الداخليون والخارجيون ورغم شراسة الحملة الانتخابية وكما توقّعنا أنّ سجالاً قد يدور حول مصداقية عملية الفرز بسبب الانقسام الداخلي. فليس هناك أميركا واحدة بل على الأقلّ أميركتان إن لم تكن عدّة «أميركات» إذا جاز الكلام. فالانقسام الأميركي هو عموديّ وأفقي. والعوامل هي طبقية أولاً وإلا يريد الاعلام الأميركيّ الإقرار بذلك لسبب واضح، فهو مملوك من ست شركات فقط، أي هناك رأي واحد يُفرض على المواطن الأميركي، لذلك يتمّ تجاهل البعد الطبقي في المجتمعات الأميركية. العنصر الثاني هو العرق، والثالث هو الدين، والرابع هو الثقافة، والخامس هو الجغرافيا حيث سكّان المدن الكبيرة يختلفون عن سكّان المدن الوسطى والصغيرة والريف بشكل عام، والتي كنّا أشرنا إليها في السابق ولن نكرّرها هنا. لكن نعتقد أنه من المفيد استخلاص الحقائق التي أظهرتها الانتخابات الأميركيّة.

الحقيقة الأولى هو ترهّل النظام السياسي القائم في الولايات المتحدة المرتكز إلى نظام حزبين حاكمين يتداولان السلطة بين فترة وأخرى، وفقاً لمعطيات ظرفية ووفقا لدور بعض الفروقات في السياسة العامة الداخلية والخارجية. لكن الحزبين متفقان على رؤية واحدة لطبيعة النظام القائم والذي يحمي أوّلاً وأخيراً رأس المال ويسخّر القانون والسياسة وبالتالي العدل لمصلحة رأس المال. كما أن الحزبين يشتركان في رؤية واحدة حول استمرار الإمبراطورية وسياسة الهيمنة. لكن هذا النظام الذي تكوّن خلال قرنين من الزمن ضمن موازين سكّانية محدّدة وضمن موازين قوّة اقتصادية واجتماعية معيّنة، فهذا النظام لم يعد قادراً على استيعاب التحوّلات السكّانية التي حصلت والتي أشار إليها بوضوح صامويل هنتنغتون. فالأخير قال في آخر مؤلّف له قبل رحيله: «انسوا صراع الحضارات فما يهدّد الولايات المتحدة هو فقدان هويتها البيضاء الانكلوبروتستنتية» لصالح هويات أخرى كالهوية الهسبانية الكاثوليكية على سبيل المثال وربما هويات أخرى آسيوية.

وبالفعل، فإنّ التحوّلات السكانية تشير إلى أنّ معدّل النمو السكّاني في الولايات المتحدة أصبح دون المعدّل المطلوب للحفاظ على وجودها وبالتالي لا بد من فتح باب الهجرة. وملف الهجرة، الشرعيّة وغير الشرعية، ملفّ معقد ويحتاج إلى مقاربة منفصلة ولكنه في متن الخلاف بين الحزبين المتنافسين. فالحزب الجمهوري يريد تقنين الهجرة وفقاً لمعايير ليس هناك من إجماع أو اتفاق حولها، وبينما الحزب الديمقراطي الذي يريد فتح باب الهجرة لضمان أولاً يد عاملة رخيصة تضمن خفض الأجور وتدعم رأس المال ولاعتقاده بأن التنوّع العرقي يصبّ في مصلحة الحزب على الصعيد السياسي الانتخابي. لذلك أصبح الحزب الجمهوري حزب أكثرية بيضاء تعتبر حالها مهمّشة في مجتمع العولمة الذي روّجت له قيادات ليبرالية في الحزب الديمقراطي على مدى عقدين من الزمن بينما تحوّل الحزب الديمقراطي إلى حزب التنوّع العرقي والديني ولكن بقيادة ليبرالية معظمها بيضاء وليست بالضرورة على تماهي مع مستلزمات التنوّع.

من جهة أخرى لم يعد بقدرة الحزبين استيعاب التحوّلات الاقتصادية بسبب الجنوح نحو عولمة استفادت منها الشركات الكبرى والأوليغارشية المالية والتكنولوجية ولكن على حساب العامل الأميركي. فتراجع الوظائف في القطاعات الإنتاجية الأساسية والتحوّل نحو اقتصاد افتراضي ريعي مبني على المضاربات المالية والعقارية أدّى إلى انفصام بين الاقتصاد العيني ومسار الأسواق المالية. فالبورصة في ميل والبطالة في ميل آخر. والحزبان ساهما عبر العقود في ذلك التحوّل إلى أن وصل دونالد ترامب وحاول استرجاع الوظائف الصناعية التي صُدّرت إلى دول الجنوب بشكل عام. لكنه اصطدم بقوّة المصالح المرتبطة بالنموذج الاقتصادي النيوليبرالي الذي أدّى إلى تمركز المال والإعلام بيد شركات لا يزيد عددها عن أصابع اليد الواحدة. من هنا موجة الاستياء العام الذي نجح ترامب في استغلالها سنة 2016 وكاد ينجح في انتخابات 2020 لولا كورونا وسوء إدارته للجائحة التي أطاحت بفرص نجاحه لولايّة ثانية. لكن في المحصّلة ظهر تيّار شعبوي لا يمكن تجاهله ولا يستطيع الحزبان ضبطه ما ينذر إما بتشظّي الحزبين أو ظهور حزب ثالث شعبويّ يعكس الحالة الترامبية التي ظهرت خلال السنوات الأربع الماضية.

الخلل في النظام الحاكم ظهر مرّتين على التوالي: المرّة الأولى في الانتخابات الرئاسية سنة 2016 والثانية هذه السنة حيث الخيارات المفروضة على الناخب الأميركي كانت أن يختار بين من هو أقلّ سوءاً وليس من هو أفضل، وليس لمن له البرنامج السياسي والاقتصادي والاجتماعي الذي يحاكي تطلّعات الأميركيين والتحوّلات التي حصلت خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية. ويتساءل المراقب لماذا وصل المشهد السياسي إلى هذا الحال والإجابة تكون في طبيعة النظام الذي يحكمه المال والمصالح الخاصة ولن يأتي إلاّ بمن يعلن الولاء الكامل له. فالأكثرية الساحقة من السياسيّين والعاملين في الشأن العام مدينة بمواقعها لمن موّلها وليس لمن انتخبها. وبطبيعة الحال تصبح «النخب» المنتخبة بهذه الطريقة في منتهى الرداءة كم نراه في الخط البياني المتدحرج منذ أكثر من أربعين سنة. فالرئيس يكون إما فاسداً أخلاقياً أو جاهلاً أو الاثنين معاً. و»النظيف» بينهم تكون رذائله مخفيًة أو تمّ التستّر عنها. فالإعلام المهيمن الشركاتي تجاهل بشكل متعمّد فساد المرشّح بايدن الذي أصبح «رئيساً» وركّز على فساد الرئيس الحالي. وكما يُقال في العامية أن الأخير «جسمه لبّيس». فضيحة موقع «الانترسبت» اليساري الهوى والمؤيّد لبايدن رفض نشر تحقيق حول فساد بايدن وعائلته. والرئيس الحالي جاء من خارج السياق المعتاد وبالتالي كانت ولايته حرب مستمرّة مع الدولة العميقة لأنه أراد أن يكسر الحلفة المفرغة. بالمقابل فالمرشّح بايدن، وقبله هيلاري كلنتون وباراك أوباما وجورج بوش الابن وبيل كلنتون، من رحم البيئة الفاسدة التي تنتج النخب الحاكمة في الولايات المتحدة. ويمكن القول عبر النتائج المعلنة إنّ الدولة العميقة انتصرت على ترامب ولكن الكلفة قد تكون باهظة للغاية.

الحقيقة الثانية هي خسارة هيبة الولايات المتحدة. فأحد المواقع الإلكترونيّة المؤيّدة لبايدن وصفت عملية الفرز الانتخابية بـ «المهزلة» التي أفقدت مصداقية وهيبة الولايات المتحدة التي فقدتها في رأينا منذ فترة، ولكن مسرحية الانتخابات كانت بمثابة الإعلان الرسمي عن سقوط أوهام مصداقية النظام القائم في الولايات المتحدة. وحتى الناطق غير الرسمي باسم العولمة والنيوليبرالية توماس فريدمان كتب أن «أميركا سقطت» في هذه الدورة من الانتخابات. وما يدور من شكوك، بل ربما أكثر من شكوك، حول «سرقة» الانتخابات (كما يقول بول كريغ روبرتس ومعه آخرون) سيساهم في تفاقم أزمة سياسيّة قد تنذر بنهاية الولايات المتحدة كما نعرفها وخلق كيان مختلف عما كان. فهناك معركة جديدة ستظهر في سبيل «شرعية» جديدة قد لا تحظى بإجماع الأميركيين وستزيد في تفاقم الانقسام.

هنا لا بدّ من بعض التوضيح. ما حصل بعد انتخابات 2016 سيتكرّر بعد 2020. الفريق الخاسر لن يقبل بنتائج الاقتراع. الحزب الديمقراطي بادر منذ اللحظات الأولى بعد انتخاب ترامب ومعه الإعلام المهيمن الشركاتي إلى العمل على إسقاط ترامب لأنه فوجئ بفوز ترامب. وإذا صدقت وعود ترامب فسيحاول الطعن بالنتائج في المحاكم الاتحادية والفئات المتشدّدة في قاعدته الانتخابية قد تعلن رفضها لتلك النتائج. هذا ما قصده فريدمان وهذا ما يجب الانتباه إليه أي العملية الديمقراطية أصبحت محطّة تشكيك. فما البديل؟

الحقيقة الثالثة هي ضرب مصداقية الإعلام المهيمن الشركاتي الذي قاد الحملة على ترامب عبر شركات الاستطلاع التي أوهمت العالم بفوز بايدن بفارق كبير وكأن النتائج محسومة مسبقاً قبل الاقتراع! جاءت النتائج الفعلية لتدحض تلك التوقّعات ولتؤكّد أن ترامب ليس ظاهرة عابرة بل انعكاس لمزاج أميركي خارج السياق التقليدي وله وزنه على الصعيد الشعبي. فالأصوات التي حصدها ترامب تجاوزت الأصوات التي حصلت عليها هيلاري كلنتون بمليونين ما يدلّ أن المؤيدين لترامب ليسوا فقط من الذين يرفضون هيلاري كلنتون. أثبتت الانتخابات أن المزاج الأميركي يختلف عمّا يصوّره الاعلام المهيمن الذي فقد مهنيته في تغطية الحملة وكان معبّراً عن رأي واحد فقط. وبغض النظر عن النتائج الرسمية فإنّ ترامب تحوّل من رئيس للولايات المتحدة إلى زعيم سياسي شعبي لما يُسمّى بأميركا الحمراء أيّ الولايات في الداخل التي أدلت بصوتها لصالحه. وذلك رغم العيوب الواضحة والفاضحة في كفاءته وسلوكه الشخصي الذي كان موضع سخرية وازدراء العديد من الأميركيين وغير الأميركيين. وقد يكون هذا التغيير مفصلياً في الحياة السياسية الأميركية حيث «الزعامة الشعبية» قد تكون في وجه «الشرعية الدستورية» وما يمكن أن ينتج عن ذلك من أزمة دستورية، إلى أزمة نظام، إلى أزمة كيان.

ومن ضمن إخفاقات استطلاعات الرأي العام هو عدم تحقيق «الموجة الزرقاء» التي كان من المفروض أن تجتاح الكونغرس. فالحزب الديمقراطي الذي كان يتوقّع ارتفاع أكثريته في مجلس النوّاب خسر مقاعد عدّة وقد يخسر أكثريته في الانتخابات النصفيّة المقبلة عام 2022، كما لم يستطع أن يحصل على الأكثرية في مجلس الشيوخ. شعبياً، خسر الحزب الديمقراطي الانتخابات وإن تمّ إعلان فوز بايدن بالرئاسة. فهذا «الفوز» مصداقيته مطعون بها شعبياً من قبل نصف الأميركيين تقريباً وقد يكون مطعوناً قضائياً. والانقسام السياسي قد يتعدّى حلبة المؤسسات الدستورية، أي الكونغرس، للحسم (العبثي) في الشارع. كل ذلك يعني أن حالة عدم استقرار أصبحت عنوان المرحلة الحالية والمقبلة في الولايات المتحدة. بالمقابل هناك مَن يعتبر أن الولايات المتحدة دولة مؤسسات وبعد موجة الغضب عند الفريق الخاسر ستعود الأمور إلى حالتها الطبيعية. هذه قراءة مبسّطة للمشهد الأميركي التي لا تأخذ بالتحوّلات التي ذكرناها أعلاه وسابقاً والتي تنذر بتلاشي التماسك الداخلي في إطار الشحّ الاقتصادي. فالحلم الأميركي الذي كان يصنع التماسك الداخلي قد سقط في محيط التناقضات والإخفاقات على الصعيد الداخلي والخارجي.

الحقيقة الرابعة هي الكثافة في الإقبال على التصويت من قبل المؤيّدين والمناهضين للرئيس الأميركي ما يدّل على عمق الانقسام القائم والذي أخذ طابع «كسر العظم». ليس من المؤكّد أن للرئيس المنتخب وفريقه قدرة على ردم الهوّة بين الفئتين من الشعب لأنه لا يملك خطابا وسياسة واضحة تستطيع محاكاة هواجس المواطنين. وإذا كان من المبكر إصدار الحكم فإن تاريخ الرجل وتاريخ نائب الرئيس المنتخب لا يوحي بأنهما يمتلكان رؤية للخروج من الأزمات البنيوية التي تواجه الأميركيين. فمن جائحة الكورونا إلى تداعياتها الاقتصادية، إلى قضايا الضمان الصحي، إلى ملف الهجرة والأمن الداخلي، إلى قضايا العنصرية، إلى قضايا المناخ، إلى إعادة تأهيل البنى التحتية المترهلة إلى قائمة طويلة من استحقاقات تمّ تجاهلها على مدى العقود الخمسة الماضية، أي منذ بداية السبعينيات، فكلّها تحتاج إلى رؤية شاملة. الخلاف بين القاعدة الشابة للحزب الديمقراطي والقيادة التي شاخت في الحزب يصعب ردمه. بالمقابل حالة الرفض للرؤية الديمقراطية لتلك الملفّات من قبل الناخبين الجمهوريين وخاصة في قضايا القيم والسلوك الاجتماعي لا توحي بأن هناك إمكانية في ردم الهاوية.

الحقيقة الخامسة هي أن جائحة كورونا أطاحت بالرئيس الأميركي. فلا ننسى أن في الانتخابات التمهيدية كان المرشح بايدن على وشك الخروج من حلبة الحملة الانتخابية وكان المتقدّم المرشّح برني سندرز. كما ان كمالا هاريس لم تحظ إلاّ بواحد بالمئة من أصوات الناخبين الديمقراطيين في الحملة الانتخابية ما يدلّ على أن انقلاباً ما حصل في مسار الانتخابات التمهيدية لإقصاء سندرز كما حصل سنة 2016 ولتعويم بايدن. استطاعت القيادة الديمقراطية بدعم كبير من باراك أوباما بقلب المعادلة الداخلية في الحزب الديمقراطي واستفادت من جائحة الكورونا التي أدّت إلى إيقاف عجلة الاقتصاد ومحو «الإنجازات» الاقتصادية التي كان يراهن عليها الرئيس الأميركي. فأصبح العنوان الانتخابي الاستفتاء حول شخص ترامب وسوء إدارته في مواجهة الجائحة. من هذه الزاوية سجّل الحزب الديمقراطي نجاحاً باهراً. لكن بالمقابل، هناك سكوت تام حول الملفّات الساخنة التي ستواجه الرئيس المنتخب والذي كان سبباً رئيسياً في إخفاق الحزب الديمقراطي في زيادة أكثريته في مجلس النوّاب وانتزاع الأكثرية في مجلس الشيوخ.

الحقيقة السادسة هي ظهور بوادر ضعف في الدولة العميقة. وهذه قد تكون مفاجأة للعديد من المراقبين. صحيح أنها انتصرت على ترامب لكن كلفة ذلك الانتصار قد يطيح بها. لم تستطع الدولة العميقة وما لديها من إمكانيات وتحالفها مع المجمع العسكري الصناعي والمالي والاوليغارشية التكنولوجية في التواصل والإعلام الشركاتي أن تحصل على أكثرية وازنة في المجتمع الأميركي. الأكثرية التي حصل عليها الرئيس المنتخب (أكثرية بالتدفيش إذا جاز الكلام) ليست أكثرية ثابتة وصلبة، هذا إذا ما تبيّن أن النتائج المعلنة صحيحة وغير قابلة للنقض. لكن هذه النتائج تكشف ضعف الخطاب السياسي الأميركي المهيمن الذي يعكس انقطاع النخب السياسية الحاكمة عن الواقع الفعلي.

الحقيقة السابعة واللافتة للنظر هي إخفاق المال المنفق في الانتخابات على تغيير مسار الأمور. حققت هذه الانتخابات أرقاماً قياسية في الإنفاق المالي والذي بلغ حسب التقديرات الأوّلية حوالي 14،5 مليار دولار، منها 6،5 مليار على الانتخابات الرئاسية والباقي على انتخابات الكونغرس الأميركي. ففي ولاية كارولينا الجنوبية على سبيل المثال أنفق الحزب الديمقراطي حوالي 100 مليون دولار لمرشّحها ضد الشيخ ليندساي غراهام وهو من الصقور في الحزب الجمهوري. لم يفلح المرشح الديمقراطي رغم ذلك الإنفاق القياسي في حملته الانتخابية. وكذلك الأمر بالنسبة لعدد من المقاعد. أما في ولاية فلوريدا أنفق مايكل بلومبرغ أكثر من 100 مليون دولار لهزيمة ترامب في الولاية التي ربحها ترامب في آخر المطاف. ومن المموّلين الكبار في الحملات الانتخابية أصحاب شركات التواصل الاجتماعي الذين أصبحوا «لاعبين» كبار في التمويل الانتخابي. لذلك على ما يبدو ففي المعارك المفصلية لا يكون المال العامل الفاصل كما كان في انتخابات سابقة التي لم تحظ بالأهمية التي شهدتها انتخابات 2020.

الحقيقة الثامنة هي بروز دور الصوت العربي والإسلامي في الانتخابات. كان ذلك الصوت بيضة القبّان في ولايتي ميشيغان ومينيسوتا المتأرجحة حيث قلب موازين القوّة لصالح نائب الرئيس بايدن. حصد الرئيس ترامب نتائج سياساته التمييزية ضد الجالية العربية والإسلامية. والفضل في تلك التعبئة يعود إلى الشابات في الحزب الديمقراطي وداخل الكونغرس الأميركي كرشيدة طليب والهان عمر في جلب الأصوات المرجّحة لصالح بايدن.

في النهاية يمكن القول في التقدير الأوّلي لنتائج الانتخابات الأميركية أن هناك خاسرين عديدين. طبعا، في الدرجة الأولى الرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب. لكن هناك خسارة الحزب الديمقراطي على صعيد مجلس النوّاب الذي شهد تراجعاً ملحوظاً في اكثريته في مجلس الممثلين أو النوّاب ولم يحصل أيضاً على الأكثرية في مجلس الشيوخ. كما أخفق أيضاً الإعلام الأميركي وشركات استطلاع الرأي العام التي على مدى دورتين انتخابيتين أخفقت في قراءة مزاج الناخب الأميركي. صحيح أنها كانت محقة بشأن فوز بايدن ولكنها أخفقت في حجم النجاح كما أخفقت في موضوع «الموجة الزرقاء» التي كان من المفروض أن تجتاح الكونغرس الأميركي. أما الدولة العميقة التي «انتصرت» على من أتى من خارج السرب السياسي فكلفة انتصارها قد تكون باهظة بسبب ما رافقها من اهتزاز في مصداقية مكوّناتها. ولذلك حديث منفصل في وقت لاحق.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*كاتب وباحث اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي.

أزمة النظام السياسي الأميركي: هشاشة الديموقراطيّة؟ – أسعد أبو خليل

 الصفصاف

لو كانت هناك عدالة على هذه الأرض (أو في السماء)، لكان يحقّ لكل سكّان الأرض الإدلاء بأصواتهم في مسألة تقرير الرئاسة الأميركيّة، لأن أميركا تقحم نفسها في كلّ شؤون الدول، إلى درجة أنّها أرادت أن تحثّ نقولا فتّوش على أن يقطع روابطه مع 8 آذار، وهي كانت ترغب لو أنّ بيار فتّوش حنَّ على حليفها وليد جنبلاط بحصّة في معمله الشهير. يُقرّر الرئيس الأميركي في الشأن اللبناني، مثلاً، أكثر ممّا يقرّر الرئيس اللبناني نفسه (بعد نزع صلاحيّاته في «الطائف»). كذلك الخلافة في سلالات الطغاة الحاكمة في الخليج، لا تُقَرّ من دون ترجيح أميركي. ولا يزال محمد بن سلمان يتمنّع عن الاستيلاء على العرش بانتظار ترخيص أميركي صريح. لكن ليس لنا، شعوب العالم، أن نقرّر في مسألة اختيار إمبراطور الأرض. هذا الأمر متروك لفئة من الشعب الأميركي التي تختار أن يقترع، ومجموعها يكون أحياناً أقلّ من نصف هذا الشعب.

لم تكن نتائج الانتخابات الأميركيّة متوقّعة؛ استطلاعات الرأي كانت (في معدّلاتها على موقع «ريل كلير بوليتكس») تعطي لجو بايدن أرجحيّة بنسبة عشرة في المئة على، صعيد البلاد بأجمعها (أي الانتخاب الشعبي الذي يحتسب أصوات الاقتراع في كلّ البلاد)، كما كانت تُعطي بايدن أرجحيّة واضحة في «الولايات المتأرجحة» (أي تلك التي باتت تذهب في هذا الاتجاه أو ذاك، يوم الانتخاب، وتصبح هي العرضة لتنافس المرشّحَين). المؤشرات كانت لا تفيد دونالد ترامب (أو «طرمب»، حسب لفظ ألبير كوستانيان) على مدى أشهر. لكنّ النتائج (بصرف النظر عن شخصيّة الفائز التي لا تزال عرضة للتكهّن وتعداد الأصوات باليد، تماماً كما كانوا يفعلون في بداية عصر الانتخاب)، تُعمّق من الشرخ الذي يفصل بين وطنَيْن في أمّة واحدة. الحزب الجمهوري يصبح بازدياد حزب الذكور البيض (هو ينال أكثر من ثلثَيْ أصوات الذكور البيض، وتزداد النسبة عند هؤلاء الأقلّ تعليماً بينهم)، والنساء البيض اللواتي يخترن الحزب الجمهوري (بنسبة 58٪ لترامب، مقابل 43٪ لبايدن، فيما صوّتت النساء ككل بنسبة 56٪ لبايدن مقابل 43٪ لترامب). والتغيير الديموغرافي لصالح المهاجرين والملوّنين، يُنقص من حظوظ الحزب الجمهوري على المدى الطويل، ولهذا يعتمد الحزب على وسائل عديدة للحفاظ على أرجحيّته: 1) هو يعمد في الولايات إلى تصعيب عمليّة الاقتراع وتعقيدها (تماماً، كما كان الحزب الديموقراطي يستنبط في الولايات الجنوبيّة حتى الستينيّات، وسائل عديدة وامتحانات لتخفيض حجم الاقتراع للسود) عبر وسائل عديدة، لعلمه أنّ الملوّنين والفقراء – وهم الأقل اقتراعاً بين الطبقات الاجتماعيّة والأعراق – يقترعون غالباً لصالح الحزب الديموقراطي (زاد ترامب من نسبة تأييده بين السود الذكور، وإن قليلاً). كذلك، فإنّ زيادة إجراءات التسجيل قبل الاقتراع، هي حيلة استنبطها الحزبان الممثّلان لمصالح النخب الطبقيّة، تماماً كما أراد المؤسّسون الأوائل الذين اعتبروا أنّ اختيار الرئيس مسألة بأهميّة تفوق القدرة العقلانيّة للعامّة (من البيض الذكور طبعاً، لأنّ الآخرين كانوا مستثنين من العمليّة الانتخابيّة). 2) ينجح الحزب الجمهوري، خصوصاً في عهد ترامب، برصّ الصفوف العنصرية بطريقة لم تألفها البلاد من قبل.

كان هناك دائماً تساؤل في أوروبا، كيف لم تشهد أميركا ظاهرة «اليمين الجديد» (وهو اسم ملطَّف لظاهرة اليمين العنصري الإسلاموفوبي المتطرِّف). لكن سبب عدم ظهور حزب «يمين جديد»، لا يعود إلى غياب أفكار اليمين الجديد عن أذهان المقترعين، بل لأنّ النظام الاقتراعي القائم على الدائرة الانتخابية الواحدة (التي تعطي الفائز الربح المطلق، وهذا صحيح في احتساب الفائز عن كلّ ولاية في الانتخابات الرئاسيّة، حيث ينجح الفائز بأكثريّة الأصوات في ولاية كاليفورنيا، مثلاً، في الحصول على 55 صوتاً اقتراعيّاً ولا يحصل الفائز على الملايين من الأصوات الأخرى على أي من الأصوات الاقتراعيّة) تمنع تشكّل أحزاب ثالثة. يصعب جداً في ظلّ النظام الانتخابي الحالي تشكيل حالة اختراق من قبل حزب جديد، إن على مستوى مجلس النواب أو الشيوخ أو الرئاسة. لكنّ الحزب الجمهوري تكيّف مع تصلّب الفكر العنصري الأبيض عند الناخبين البيض، فبات يمثّل ظاهرة اليمين الجديد من دون إعلان تشكيل حزب جديد منشق عنه. تغيّر الحزب الجمهوري كثيراً عمّا كان عليه في عام 1980 مثلاً، وحتى قاعدته الانتخابيّة تغيّرت. كان الجنوب الأميركي معقلاً للحزب الديموقراطي، لكن مناصرة الأخير للحقوق المدنيّة في قانون 1965 بطلب من الرئيس لندن جونسون (وهو كان عنصريّاً على الصعيد الشخصي، مثله مثل معظم رؤساء أميركا، وفكرة أنّ ترامب هو أوّل رئيس عنصري، كما قال بايدن، هي فكرة مهينة للسود لعلمهم أنّ معظم رؤساء أميركا كانوا من المؤمنين جهاراً بنظريّة تفوّق العنصر الأبيض) دفعت بالبيض إلى الهجرة الكبيرة من الحزب الديموقراطي نحو الجمهوري الذي أصبح الحزب النافذ في الجنوب، وتخلّى عن إرثه كالحزب الذي يرتبط برمزيّة إعتاق العبيد من قبل الرئيس الجمهوري، إبراهام لينكولن.

يعمد الحزب الجمهوري إلى مخاطبة البيض، وتأجيج تعصّبهم (تماماً كما برع حزب «الكتائب» في مخاطبة التعصّب الطائفي لجمهوره وتخويفه من المسلمين على مرّ السنوات التي سبقت الحرب الأهليّة)، مستعيناً بلغة مرمّزة والتشديد على «النظام والقانون» الذي، منذ حملة ريتشارد نيكسون الانتخابيّة في عام 1968، بات مصطلح تخويف البيض من السود – وقد حوّل ترامب شعار «النظام والقانون» إلى لازمة في حملته الانتخابيّة الأخيرة. كما أن ريتشارد نيكسون خاطب الغرائز العنصريّة للبيض، باستعمال مصطلح «الأكثريّة الصامتة». وقد استعار ترامب في هذه الحملة الانتخابيّة من حملة نيكسون، وهو كان شديد الإعجاب به (وقد تسرّب إلى الإعلام أخيراً مراسلات بين ترامب ونيكسون، واللغة فيها لغة مُعجب برئيس سابق). والبيض يتبرّمون من المستقبل، ويحاولون إيقاف تقدّمه: وهذه الغضبة من المهاجرين التي عبَّر عنها ترامب لم تكن إلا حركة من «اليمين الجديد» العنصري الذي يعمّ دول أوروبا – لكن ربط العنصريّة في المجتمعات الغربيّة باليمين فقط، يغمط العنصريّة في وسط الوسط والليبراليّين وحتى اليسار المعادي للمهاجرين. إنّ العنصريّة الفرنسية والإسلاموفوبيّة، باتت تتجلّى في كلّ المروحة السياسيّة، ربما باستثناء الحزب الشيوعي الفرنسي.

واختيار بايدن مرشحاً للحزب الديموقراطي من بين دزّينة متنوّعة (في الجندر وفي العرق) كان عملاً مقصوداً. أراد الحزب الديموقراطي ترجيح كفّته عبر جذب العمّال الصناعيّين البيض في الولايات التي خسرتها هيلاري كلينتون في آخر انتخابات، مثل ميشيغن وبنسلفانيا وويسكنسون، وهي كانت تاريخيّاً ولايات العمّال الصناعيّين البيض الكاثوليك، وكانوا عماداً ثابتاً للحزب الديموقراطي. ونجح رونالد ريغان في جذب هؤلاء في انتخابات عام 1980، لأسباب متعدّدة بعضها عنصري: النقمة ضد سياسات البرامج الاجتماعيّة لم تكن إلا ثورة ضد ما يراه البيض من امتيازات للأقليّات والنساء (مع أنّ النساء البيض كنّ المستفيدات الأكبر من هذه السياسات). الحزب الجمهوري يؤجّل الخسارة الكبيرة التي ستلحقه عندما يصبح البيض أقليّة في البلاد، وهو يعاند ضد ذلك من خلال إجراءات كثيرة، منها إعادة رسم الدوائر الانتخابيّة بطريقة تحفظ للجمهوريّة الحفاظ على أغلبيّاتهم في الولايات، أو من خلال حضّ البيض على الاقتراع بنسب كبيرة، ومنها التحريض ضد المهاجرين والحدّ من التجنيس الذي يفيد الحزب الديموقراطي. وعمليّة إعادة رسم الدوائر الانتخابيّة وتشتيت أصوات الأقليّات تجري من سنوات وليس هناك من رادع لها، لأنّها حق من حقوق المجالس الاشتراعيّة المحليّة الخاصّة بكل ولاية. وهذه لعبة لعبها الحزب الديموقراطي وتمرّس بها، إلّا أنّه بات يعترض عليها متأخّراً لأنها تضرّه.

كانت نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسيّة مفاجئة، فقط لأنّ خللاً حلّ بوسائل الإعلام وباستطلاعات الرأي. استطلاعات الرأي ليست علماً، وهي لا تتفوّق إلا بدرجة قليلة عن خزعبلات وبلاهات ميشال حايك وليلى عبد اللطيف. ونسبة تأييد ترامب في عام 2016، كانت أقلّ في استطلاعات الرأي ممّا هي عليه يوم الاقتراع، وهذا الأمر تكرّر هذا الأسبوع بالرغم من وعود وتعهّدات من شركات الاستطلاع بأنّها أصلحت أخطاء منهجيّة وتقنيّة في الاستطلاعات الماضية (كانت الاستطلاعات مثلاً تقلّل من نسبة سكّان الريف والمزارعين في الولايات، وهذه المجموعة السكّانية تميل للحزب الجمهوري، والاستطلاعات تقلِّل من نسب الاقتراع للقاعدة الحزبيّة الجمهوريّة، أي الذكور البيض). لكنّ الأخطاء كانت فظيعة هذه المرّة: توقّعت الاستطلاعات تفوّقاً بنسبة 15% لصالح بايدن في ولاية ويسكنسون (بحسب استطلاع «ذي واشنطن بوست» وشبكة «إي.بي.سي») فيما نجح بايدن هناك بنسبة ضئيلة جداً. وحصل شيء مشابه أيضاً في ولاية مين، حيث فازت سوزان كولنز بمقعدها في مجلس الشيوخ بنسبة مريحة، فيما توقّعت الاستطلاعات خسارتها بنسبة كبيرة. استطلاعات الرأي لم تكن يوماً علماً، ولن تكون مهما تحسّنت تقنيّاتها، وهي أقلّ فائدة في دولة تنقسم بنسبة النصف بين فريقَيْن متصارعَيْن. ولقد ساهمت وسائل الإعلام في الإساءة إلى استطلاعات الرأي، لأنّها خلقت ثقافة شيطنة ضد ترامب، ما دفع بالعديد من أنصاره إلى إخفاء أهوائهم عن المستطلعين خشية وصفهم بالعنصريّين (ولهذا تاريخ معروف في الاستطلاعات الأميركيّة، ويرتبط بظاهرة «وايلدر»، وهو كان مرشحاً لمركز المحافظ في ولاية فرجينيا في عام 1990 وفضحت الانتخابات يومها أنّ نسبة البيض الذين اقترعوا له كانت أقل بكثير من النسبة التي أبلغت شركات الاستطلاع بنيّتها الاقتراع له). أي أنّ تأييد ترامب مكتومٌ في تبيانات الاستطلاع، وهذا شبيه بنسبة التأييد المكتوم لمارغرت تاتشر في بريطانيا في الثمانينيات، إذ أنّ الشباب كانوا لا يفصحون عن نيّتهم الاقتراع لها، لأنّ ذلك لم يكن محبّذاً في الجو الشبابي البريطاني يومها. هذه مشاكل لن تُحل في استطلاعات الرأي هنا، مهما تعقّدت وتشعّبت النماذج الحسابيّة التي تعتمدها وسائل الإعلام، وشركات الاستطلاع، في توقُّع نتائج الانتخابات. لم تخطئ حنة أرندت عندما قالت إنّ السياسة لا تكون في التوقّع، وليس هذا شأنها. وفي لبنان، هناك لـ8 آذار شركات استطلاع معتمدة، وهناك أخرى معتمدة لـ١٤ آذار، وهي قادرة على توقّع نتائج انتخابات ملائمة لكلّ طرف، كما أن شركة «زغبي» باتت متخصّصة في إنتاج نتائج استطلاعات رأي في العالم العربي، تتّفق مع مصالح وتوجّهات محمد بن زايد.

أراد الحزب الديموقراطي ترجيح كفّة بايدن عبر جذب العمّال الصناعيّين البيض في الولايات التي خسرتها هيلاري كلينتون في آخر انتخابات

لم يكن سقوط ترامب – لو تأكد – عفويّاً أو نتيجة تقلّبات هائلة وجذريّة في أهواء الرأي العام. النتائج كانت متقاربة، لو حسبتها من خلال الكليّة الاقتراعيّة أو من خلال النسب على مستوى البلاد. ولقد نجح ترامب في زيادة تحالفه الانتخابي: فهو وإن خسر نسبة ضئيلة من الرجال البيض (من62% في عام 2016 إلى 58% في هذه الانتخابات) فإن عوّض عن ذلك بتحقيق نسب إضافيّة طفيفة من تأييد اللاتين (نحو الثلث) ومن السود (الذكور بصورة خاصّة). لكنّ نسبته من تأييد القوات المسلّحة انخفض إلى 52٪ فقط، وهذا غير مألوف للمرشح الجمهوري. وهذا التقلّص يكشف حقيقة أسباب خسارة ترامب. لقد شنّت البنية العسكرتاريّة – الاستخباريّة حملة لا سابق لها ضده، وهو استهان بعدائها له لأنّه غير متمرّس في الحكم والعمل السياسي. لم يكن ترامب يعلم أنّ هناك أثماناً باهظة يتكبّدها من رصيده السياسي كلّ رئيس يحاول أن يشنّ حرباً ضدّ أجهزة الاستخبارات، هي تعمل في الخفاء ولديها من مخزون المعلومات ما يجعلها خصماً لا يُستهان به. لم يكن ترامب يعلم أنّ شنَّ حرب علنيّة وسريّة ضد 17 وكالة استخبارات ذات ميزانيّة سرّية بعشرات المليارات لها أكلافها السياسيّة والشخصيّة. من سرَّبَ وثائق ضرائب ترامب، بعد سنوات من إصراره على عدم الإفصاح عنها؟ هل هناك غير وكالات الاستخبارات هذه، التي لديها القدرة على النفاذ إلى أماكن حفظ هذه الوثائق؟ ثمّ من الذي سرّبَ هذه الوثائق قبل أسابيع فقط من الانتخابات الرئاسيّة؟ ما يُسمّى في مصر بـ«الدولة العميقة» (وهي أعمق هنا من أيّ دولة أخرى في العالم، لأنّها دولة الإمبراطوريّة المترامية الأطراف) لم تكن راضية عن ترامب، وتركيبة السياسة الخارجيّة التقليديّة (من الديموقراطيّين والجمهوريّين) خشيَت من أن يقود ترامب الإمبراطوريّة إلى حتفِها. لم يسبق في السنوات الماضية، أن حظي مرشّح بهذا الإجماع من قبل نخبة الحزبَيْن في السياسة الخارجيّة كما حظي بايدن، وهذا مؤشِّر إلى الانحراف الذي قاده ترامب في نظر هؤلاء.

ستعود قيادة إمبراطوريّة الحرب الأميركيّة إلى أيدٍ أمينة موثوق بها، وستحسِّن من مسار الإمبراطوريّة لضمان استمراريّتها. قادة القطاع الاستخباري – العسكري عبّروا عن الكثير من القلق في ظلّ إدارة ترامب. إنهاء حالة العداء مع كوريا الشمالية، مثلاً، كان مثاراً للقلق الذي تسبّبت به سياسات ترامب. إنّ حالات العداء التقليديّة ضرورة من ضرورات سياسة الإمبراطوريّة – وفي أي حال لم يُسمح لترامب بالمضي في سياساته المهادِنة لكوريا الشمالية، كما أنّه لم يُسمح له بسحب القوات الأميركيّة من أماكن مختلفة في العالم. نشر القوات ضرورة من ضرورات الإمبراطوريّة الحربيّة، والتهريب ضرورة للحدّ من التهديدات لمصالح قوة الحرب الأميركيّة. وقد خشي خصوم ترامب من خبراء الإمبراطوريّة من تفكيك «حلف شمال الأطلسي»، وذلك بحجّة التخفيف من نفقات الالتزام الأميركي. وكان ترامب على حق بأنّ اهتمامه بأولويّة تحسين الاقتصاد وتخفيض الأعباء الماليّة للسياسة الخارجيّة (باستثناء ميزانيّة الدفاع والاستخبارات) ستعود بالنفع المالي على أميركا.

فضحت الأزمات السياسيّة الأميركيّة في السنوات الماضية هشاشة الديموقراطيّة الأميركيّة. فقَد النظام السياسي الكثير من خواصه التي كانت أميركا تزهو بها بين الأمم، عن عراقة ديموقراطيّتها. التهديد الأكبر للنظام السياسي، برز في انتخابات عام 2000، عندما تقرّرت الانتخابات الأميركيّة في المحاكم وليس في صناديق الاقتراع. النظام السياسي يفقد شرعيّته، أو تصبح الشرعيّة مرتبطة فقط بتطابق الحزب الحاكم مع أهواء الناخب: الديموقراطي لا يرى شرعيّة خارج حكم حزبه، والعكس صحيح في حالة الجمهوريّين – أو هي أعمق في حالة هؤلاء. أنصار الحزب الجمهوري أكثر تعصّباً لفريقهم وأكثر استعداداً للجوء إلى الحيَل والخدع والطرق الملتوية للبقاء في السلطة. لم يكن أنصار ترامب يمزحون عندما كانوا يهتفون لولاية ثالثة له (التعديل الدستوري الثاني والعشرون يحدّد ولاية الرئيس بولايتَيْن فقط). وظاهرة ترامب ليست، كما يحاول الإعلام الليبرالي تصويرها، ظاهرة شخص واحد يمرّ مروراً عابراً في السياسة السياسيّة الأميركيّة. هي نتاج عوامل تحتدم في النظام السياسي، منذ التسعينيّات على الأقل. يكفي أن تعرف أنّ البيض الذكور لم يختاروا رئيساً من خارج الحزب الجمهوري منذ عام 1977، وهم بذلك يثورون على تحالف النساء والملوّنين في الحزب الديموقراطي (زيادة ترامب في الانتخابات الأخيرة من نسبة تأييد الذكور السود، لم تظهر في التغطية الليبراليّة له، لأنّها تريد جعله ظاهرة محصورة بالمتطرّفين لأنّها لا تريد أن تعترف بعمق الأزمة السياسيّة الأميركيّة). قد لا يختفي ترامب عن الساحة السياسيّة بعد سقوطه، لكن سيأتي مثله – الكثير مثله – في السنوات المقبلة. كانت معادلة ترامب ناجحة: هذه شعبيّة الرئيس بين أعضاء حزبه لم يسبق لها مثيل، حتى أنه فاق شعبيّة ريغان في عزّه. وهذا العامل يمنع حتى خصوم ترامب في داخل حزبه من المجاهرة بانتقاده.

هناك سيناريوات حقيقيّة لتقويض النظام السياسي الأميركي من الداخل. تتخيّل ترامب، مثلاً، أو غيره في المستقبل، وهو يحضّ أنصاره على اقتحام مراكز الاقتراع لتعطيل عميلة عدّ الأصوات (القانون المحلّي في أريزونا يسمح للمتظاهرين بمحاصرة مراكز عدّ الأصوات، وهم مدجّجون بالسلاح الظاهر). وقد غرّد ترامب، قبل يومين، مطالِباً بـ«وقف العد». هذه الجملة لو صدرت عن زعيم دولة في العالم النامي، لكانت أدّت إلى تقريع فوري من وزير الخارجيّة الأميركي، إلّا إذا كان هذا الزعيم من أدوات أميركا الكُثُر في العالم الثالث. هناك بوادر على حالة تمرُّد في النظام الحاكم. تسرّب أنّ وزير الدفاع الأميركي السابق، جيمس ماتس، اتّفق مع البعض في هيئة الأركان على معارضة ترامب، في حال أصدر أوامر اعتبروها مناقضة للمصلحة الأميركيّة العليا، وقادة في مكتب التحقيقات الفدرالي تباحثوا في انتخابات عام 2016 في إمكان تعطيل انتخاب ترامب. كان النظام الأميركي مستقرّاً عندما كانت الشرعيّة محلّ إجماع بين الناس، وعندما كان الحزبان متقاربَيْن في الموقع نحو الوسط الأميركي المحافظ. لكنّ الحزب الجمهوري سافرَ كثيراً نحو اليمين ممّا كان عليه من قبل، والتحالف الجديد للحزب الديموقراطي يدفعه نحو الليبراليّة، فيما قيادة الحزب لا تزال في حالة رفض الواقع والإصرار على البقاء في موقع الوسط المحافظ. هي معركة أجيال في داخل الحزب الديموقراطي، وينعكس ذلك على سياسات الحزب نحو الاحتلال “الإسرائيلي”.

سخِرت أميركا كثيراً من أنظمة في العالم النامي، وهي باتت تحمل سمات بعض تلك الأنظمة. هل يرفض ترامب مغادرة البيت الأبيض؟ هل سيحرّض أنصاره على التمرُّد المسلّح؟ هذه الأسئلة لم تعد سيناريوات أفلام هوليوود. وإمكانيّة طرد ترامب من البيت الأبيض بالقوّة ليست مستعبدة. يمكن لنا اليوم الاستعانة بأمثلة من أنظمة في العالم الذي لا يعتبره الغرب متحضِّراً لتوقُّع مجرياتٍ سياسيّة أميركيّة. لعلّ مشاغلهم الداخليّة تصرفهم عن دول العالم النامي، وتقلِّل من حوافز شنّ حروبهم التي تبدأ ولا تنتهي.

* كاتب عربي
(حسابه على «تويتر» asadabukhalil@)

الأخبار

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2)

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden walks out of The Queen theater on November 05, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. (AFP photo)
Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2)
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

November 05, 2020

(Part 1)

By Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog and cross-posted with Press TV

It’s Day 3 of the US Election Debacle and – as we’re still mid-debacle – it’s very possible that Donald Trump will be the only conservative casualty, because it’s already certain the US election was an undeniable disaster for Democrats.

The Democrats had everything on their side in 2020: the mainstream media, the Deep State, the (self-professed) moral high ground, more campaign money than ever, a hysterically-motivated base – and yet if Trump does end up winning Democrats will have nothing to show for all that.

That should be stunning news. Here is the roundup of the non-presidential elections:

Republicans now hold 60% of state legislatures (where the most far-reaching policies are decided in this extremely decentralised, pioneer-influenced system), half of all state governorships, they’ll almost certainly keep a majority in the Senate, they shockingly reduced the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, conservatives just got a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court, and at the local judicial level Americans judges are already so conservative that it’s infamously said that they “never see corruption”.

(In the United States “corruption”, much like “propaganda”, is something only found in other countries, of course.)

So if Democratic leadership (dominated by the Clintonista faction) is not corrupt than they surely are incompetent, no? Despite every cultural, political and financial advantage – truly an unprecedented situation – they might walk away with only decapitating the figurehead of Trumpism.

It’s a second consecutive enormous failure by whoever is planning Democratic Party strategy – they now have two black eyes, even if they oust Trump. That’s good news for the Sandernista faction, but their blacklist of Iranian media shows how fake-leftist they really are.

The American commentariat is admitting the major Democratic defeat, but it’s being currently obscured by the presidential vote debacle, which is turning out like we all expected: judges will decide and not voters.

The US, it must be remembered, has always been a lawyer-dominated system. That is what “rule of law” really means in the West: domination by aristocratic lawyers, as opposed to worker domination, God domination, vanguard party domination, elders domination and all the other available options. The outsider Trump threatened this domination, and thus the US political elite seemingly did all they could to ensure that the presidential vote would be disputed in order to ensure control by this societal sector which they came from, control and rewrite at will.

Kill a snake’s head and the snake dies, but 70+ million Trump voters are not snakes but humans

Putting aside the uncertain fate of Trump himself, the 2020 election results already objectively insist that main failure of Democrats was due to their insistence that Trumpism was merely a cult of personality.

This allowed them to not seriously evaluate the true democratic electability of their policies, personalities, principles and job performance: they refused to admit that Trump incarnated actual political ideas and that he genuinely reflected authentic some cultural ideas and trends. By failing to understand that Trumpism was a democratic force which must be accounted for, the electoral reckoning was emphatically anti-Democratic Paty in spite of their unprecedented advantages.

The Democrats chose to rely on sensationalistic fear-mongering: Trumpism was based on White supremacy; White militias are about to shoot up Main Street.

Oh really? I think they failed to understand that both of these hysterical assertions were always going to be easily provable no later than November 4, 2020:

So Trump’s increased 2020 vote totals in Black and Latino communities – they are White supremacists too? Of course not – there is something deeper than what Democrats claim. Since election day American cities are mostly ghost towns – maybe 1,000 anti-Trumpers marched in Chicago, even smaller numbers of pro-Trumpers rallied at voting booths, but the mainstream media warned for months that semi-automatic fire was actually going to be seen beyond the governmentally-abandoned African-American ghetto for the first time ever… so where is it?

This was always absurd, stupid, lazy, hysterical thinking, and it was exactly like what they did in France to their Yellow Vests, whom I covered more than probably any other reporter working in either English or French: accusing these movements of White supremacism and anti-Semitism was always a way to discredit and ultimately suppress the political analyses of the lower classes, and especially of those whom Americans descriptively call “White Trash”.

But Trump supporters are not all White nor does their poverty or lack of a vastly overrated college degree make them human “trash”; French Arabs supported the Yellow Vests as much as any other Frenchman. Sadly, this is all something the corporate media cannot allow to be said openly, so there is widespread misunderstanding.

We must ask why that is?

The answer lies in the domination of democratic structures in the West by their 1%. The backbone of the Western system is not lower-middle class mullahs, nor cobblers-turned-parlimentarians in Cuba, nor a communist party whose acceptance rate is on par with the American “Ivy League” of universities – the backbone of the Western system is exactly like shah-era Iran: a tiny coterie of a few dozen rich families, and then a small percentage of the population who are handed some of the wealth and stability produced by the toil of the nation’s masses in exchange for defending the few dozen gangster families.

And the backbone is also something else, which like “propaganda” and “corruption”, is never discussed in the US mainstream: duopoly. But this is the subject for Part Two – let’s wrap up the reality of Trumpism’s victory even amid a possible defeat by Trump.

Many of the newly-elected Republicans are widely called “Trumpian” – this does not mean they are parading around with gilt-framed pictures of The Donald but that they have adopted many of his policies, such as anti-globalisation, anti-censorship, economic patriotism, sovereignty and – crucially for the world – a reluctance for more endless imperialist wars.

The adjective “Trumpian” does imply negative policies: a hard line on immigration, a sinful and useless arrogance that America is the greatest country in the history of mankind (that is a direct quote – you hear it all the time in public over here) and a Red Scare-like hysteria against the socialist-inspired ideas of a strong central government and economic redistribution.

(What’s so telling about the US is that the word “socialism” is never uttered by their alleged left wing – even the Bernie Sanders-linked Democratic Socialists of America are so timid and so propagandised that they absurdly and incorrectly added the adjective “Democratic” in front of socialism. “Socialism” in the United States is a word only heard when hysterically screamed by the right-wing, and it is hysterically screamed by them all the time, I can report.)

But the election confirms that Trumpism is an ideology and not merely a one-time cult of personality.

Trump the man is unpleasant (to be polite) but that personal judgment is far, far less relevant than the cultural-political ideas it is now clear that he – for better or for worse – genuinely reflected and clearly fostered. My point here is not to condone nor condemn these cultural-political ideas – I am merely saying: there are genuine ideas here which are authentically championed by a very large part of the US public. It is bad journalism to ignore this and scream “White supremacism!”.

But the US media and chattering class is another huge election night loser along with the Democratic Party – both were totally wrong about a non-existent “Blue Wave” and the denial of Trump’s grassroots appeal.

Their only hope is Trump loses and they keep chattering uselessly about that to deflect attention from that submerged part of the iceberg which they got all wrong journalistically. All I can say as a journalist is: you get it wrong, you get demoted – you lose your twice-weekly editorial sport, you no longer are on the editorial board, etc. Back to the street for you. At least ideally.

Will there be consequences for getting it wrong for the failed Democratic elite or the US mainstream media? They have merited such reproachful dismissiveness that I’ll direct towards them only what I think is the laziest journalistic phrase: It remains to be seen.

Part Two will address how Trumpism related to the world’s most powerful and longest-running duopoly.

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv


سقوط الإمبراطوريّة الأميركيّة والبحث عن مخلص!

ناصر قنديل

في الدولة الإمبراطورية الأعظم في العالم التي تمثلها أميركا انتخابات، هي واحدة من عشرات الانتخابات المماثلة التي شهدتها وقدمت خلالها نموذجاً للانتقال السلمي للسلطة، بصورة جعلت منها النموذج الأعرق للديمقراطية في العالم، وفي الدولة الإمبراطورية العظمى، والنموذج الديمقراطي الأعرق، يتفق المرشحان المتنافسان على شيء واحد هو أن الانتخابات هذه المرّة قد لا تشهد انتقالاً سلمياً للسلطة، فالرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب هو أول رئيس أميركي يهدّد بعدم التسليم بنتائج الانتخابات وعدم تسليم السلطة، والمرشح الديمقراطي جو بايدن يحذر من أعمال شغب وفوضى، ومحللون وسياسيون وخبراء كثر من النخب الوازنة في الوسطين السياسي والإعلامي يتحدّثون علناً عن خطر حرب أهلية تنتظر أميركا، والتقارير المجمع عليها من مناصري الفريقين المتنافسين تتحدّث عن حمى تسلح وعن تمرّد ولايات على الدولة الفدرالية إذا فاز المرشح المنافس للمرشح الذي يتملك غالبية كاسحة في هذه الولايات. والحديث يدور هنا عن أكثر من عشر ولايات تدين بولائها للديمقراطيين بصورة كاسحة ومثلها تدين بالولاء للجمهوريين بصورة كاسحة.

للمرة الأولى في التاريخ الأميركي لا تملك السياسة الأميركية في الحزبين فرصة لحل أزمتها الداخلية بالتوجّه نحو الخارج، ولا يملك كل من الحزبين حلولاً سحرية لأزمات الداخل، والتغيير الجوهري الذي يراهن عليه كل من المرشحين يعني مساساً بثوابت قيمية وجودية للفريق الآخر، بصورة تجعل خسارته الانتخابات أكبر من خسارة مؤقتة بما تعنيه من فتح الطريق لمجتمع من نوع آخر، وقيم حاكمة أخرى، ما يضع وحدة الدولة والمجتمع على المحك، وفي عمق المأزق الأميركي يشترك الحزبان الواقفان وراء المرشحين في بلوغ الطريق المسدود في خوض الحروب، بعد ولايتين لجورج بوش أشد الرؤساء الجمهوريين رهاناً على الحرب الخشنة، وولايتين لباراك أوباما أشد الرؤساء الديمقراطيين رهاناً على الحرب الناعمة، والحصيلة فشل مكثف في الولايات الرئاسية الأربع، وصولاً للحرب التي شهدتها الولاية الخامسة التي كان عنوانها دونالد ترامب، وعنوانها العقوبات وحروب الحصار المالي، التي أضافت للفشل مزيداً من الفشل، لتجد أميركا نفسها أمام طريق مسدود بين حرب تعجز عن خوضها وتسوية لا تجرؤ على الخوض فيها.

أمام الأميركيين أميركيتان مختلفتان جذرياً مع فوز كل من المرشحين المتنافسين، واحدة تلغي الأخرى، داخلياً وخارجياً، في مشاريع التنمية الاقتصادية، والتوجهات الضريبية والبيئية، وفرص العمل والأجور، والتأمينات الصحية والتعامل مع كورونا، والعلاقة بين الأعراق والإطار القانوني للمواطنة الأميركية، فأميركا ترامب بيضاء للأثرياء لا تعترف بضوابط البيئة والصحة، تسود فيها شركات النفط والسلاح والعقارات وتحصر صناعة السياسة بها، وهي أميركا التي تقع في صلب مخاطر المواجهات غير المعروفة النتائج، مع سلبيات عدائية تطال كل العالم من روسيا والصين وصولاً الى اوروبا مروراً بإيران سورية وكوريا الشمالية؛ بينما أميركا بايدن هي اميركا مختلفة جذرياً، حيث لم يعد ممكناً الكلام عن رفض العنصرية بالنسبة للسود واللاتينيين من دون تغييرات تشريعية جذرية، ولم يعد ممكناً للطبقات الوسطى وما دونها قبول الإصلاح الاجتماعي والطبي من دون نظام ضرائبي جديد، ولا يمكن الحفاظ على دعم الجماعات البيئية من دون إجراءات حاسمة ستصيب شركات النفط والسلاح في الصميم، وتنظم القطاع العقاري بمعايير يرفضها اصحاب الرأسمال العقاري. وخارجياً هي أميركا العائدة الى محاولة ترميم الجسور التي نسفها ترامب، على قاعدة الاختلاف والندية، لكن ايضاً على قاعدة التعاون والبحث عن الحلول السياسية للنزاعات، في ملف اتفاقية المناخ وملف منظمة الصحة العالمية والملف النووي الإيراني، وملف التفاوض على حلّ يستند لصيغة الدولتين للقضية الفلسطينية.

في أميركا يكثر أنصار المرشحين من استعمال صفة المخلص في توصيف مشروعه وترشيحه، فيما خيار ترامب يعني إصابة وجودية لنصف الأميركيين، وخيار بايدن يعني إصابة وجودياً للنصف الآخر، والأهم من اسم الرابح في الانتخابات هو أن نهاية الانتخابات تعني بداية مسار مصيري خطير للإمبراطورية التي تترنح وتفقد توازنها، ليست الحرب الأهلية مجرد شائعة فيه، بعد قرنين من الصعود المستقر، يصير الشحوب والتراجع خطاً بيانياً مستداماً، والقفزة الى المجهول قاب ساعات أو أكثر، ويصير تفادي الساعة السوداء للسقوط المدوّي للإمبراطورية العظمى بذاته إنجاز غير قابل للتحقق إلا بفوز كاسح لأحد المرشحين، حيث يبدو بايدن هو الأوفر حظاً لتحقيقه، حيث فوزه الضئيل يشكل صاعق التفجير الداخلي للإمبراطورية، وفوزه الكاسح ربما يكون بوليصة تأمينها من التصدع، وربما يكون هذا حافزاً لتصويت غير متوقع لصالحه لتفادي الأسوأ، بحيث يبدو بايدن مشروع مخلص بنظر دعاة وحدة «الأمة الأميركية» من الحزبين لرد الاعتبار للسياسة ولو من موقع أضعف.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: