Category Archives: The Rises, Falls and lies about Western Empires

A series of articles describe how the United States of America came to become the most powerful empire in the world, often by very dubious methods.  But many decisions and approaches taken by the US Administration over the last century are in danger of imitating the demise of most other powerful empires of the past.  Power, greed and covert agendas such as towards a new world order are accelerating this demise.

Empires: rises and falls, so now what?

The US was the dominant world power after WWII but has been failing, compounded by lies and desperate plans for hegemony compounded by declining culture and values. Previous empires such as the UK and Roman empires failed in similar manner.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse Than China’s

 

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse Than China’s  By Gregory Hood, The UNZ Review, 17 November 2020

China is notorious for a “Social Credit System” that controls the lives of citizens, rewarding what the authorities want and punishing what they don’t. The United States has a social credit system, too, even if we don’t call it that. And ours is worse.

The Chinese system tries to build social trust. Ours destroys trust. The Chinese system defends the interests of the Han, the ethnic group that built and sustains Chinese civilization. Our system hurts whites. The Chinese system encourages charity, good citizenship, and patriotism. Ours incites hatred and spreads bitterness and division.

The Chinese government’s goals are clear: According to a 2014 planning document, the state wants to build a “social credit environment of honesty, self-discipline, trustworthiness, and mutual trust.” Despite the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party, there is no central system of control, but that is only because the government lacks the capacity. According to the 2014 plan, by this year, China should have “basically” completed “a credit investigation system covering the entire society with credit information and resource sharing.”

Vox reports China has a grading system for people from A to D. Ds are “untrustworthy.” “Citizens can earn points for good deeds like volunteering, donating blood, or attracting investments to the city,” said the MIT Technology Review in 2019. “They can lose them for offenses like breaking traffic rules, evading taxes, or neglecting to care for their elderly parents.” Taking seats on public transportation reserved for old people or doing anything the South China Morning Post called “uncivilized behavior” can also cost points.

You can lose points for playing video games too oftenbuying too much alcoholarguing at check-in countersboarding a train without a ticketgetting into a fightposting stickers hostile to the governmentor letting chickens out of their coop. You can lose your dog if you walk it too often without a leash or if it bothers people. NPR reports that “if you spread rumors online” you could lose points, and even “spending frivolously” can cost points. The system punishes some things just as we do in the United States. If you drive drunk in China, you lose points. If you drive drunk in America, you can lose your license.

How does the system find out all this about you? The Chinese track people through a combination of cameras, facial recognition software, spies, and data from tech and social media companies. There are an estimated 626 million security cameras in China, capturing all sorts of behavior. The Straits Times reported that cameras caught a citizen jaywalking, recognized her face, and immediately put her photo up on a video screen above the street, along with her name and past infractions. The Chinese use drones disguised as birds.

There are groups of paid government informers. In one case, a group of senior citizens called the Chaoyang Masses supposedly tracked behavior, though some people thought the group was questionable. This could be a feature of the system; you don’t know who is watching. The New York Times reported in 2019 that the government uses students to track professors.

Companies such as Alibaba and Tencent track your online activity, and you can lose points if you publish political opinions without permission or talk about certain issues such as Tiananmen Square. You also lose points if your friends commit infractions; collective punishment helps isolate dissidents and discourage others. However, you can gain points if you parrot the government line. Some of this is self-reported and checked against data held by the government, tech companies, and surveillance records. There is an app called Sesame Credit that lets you track people’s scores. It is voluntary for now but will eventually be mandatory.

 

“Trust-breakers” go on an online “blacklist” that anyone can search. “Trust-keepers” go on an equivalent “redlist.” Everyone’s behavior is public, and the authorities encourage citizens to compete with each other to get good scores.

Good citizens can get discounts on energy bills, better returns on bank deposits, and can rent bikes or hotel rooms without paying deposits. Local officials praise them publicly. In Suzhou, “trust-keepers” get cut-rate public transportation.

Depending on the locale, if your credit score reaches 600, you can take out an instant loan of about $800 without collateral when shopping online. At a score of 650, you can rent a car without a deposit. At 700, you get priority for a Singapore travel permit, and at 750, you are on the fast track for a coveted Schengen visa for 28 European countries.

Punishments include banning you or your children from top schools, barring you from top jobs and the best hotels, and preventing you from buying high-speed train or air tickets.

Businesses also get grades on, for example, whether their advertising is deceptive. If their grades are too low, they can’t issue bonds or bid in land auctions.

There’s a financial aspect to the system. It costs points if a person or business fails to repay a loan. We have credit scores, too. The difference is that the Chinese government can — and does — deduct points for political reasons. It could cut a business or family out of normal activity for saying the wrong things. Your social credit “grade” could wreck your life.

If the system is fully imposed, it would be terrifying to be a D. China does not yet have a centralized, all-encompassing system. Different government agencies, localities, regions, and private companies share information and have different programs, rewards, and penalties. Two years ago, Foreign Policy explained that “unless people are sole proprietors or company representatives, have taken a loan or credit card, violated the law, or defaulted on a court judgment, they’re unlikely to be in the social credit database.”

China wants to get all 1.4 billion people into the system. Since China routed the Hong Kong autonomy movement, the system will surely spread there too. “All regions and departments should have ideological unity,” says the plan.

China is working hard in two areas that will help it control its people. The first is artificial intelligence to manage vast amounts of data. The United States and China are competing in AI systems, and that battle could help determine who rules this century. Collecting enormous amounts of data on citizens will mean finely detailed control.

The second area is digital currency. China is already experimenting with a digital yuan. Most people in China already use mobile apps for transactions, not cash. A full record of transactions, combined with AI, means tremendous government power to track individual behavior and modify social credit scores.

A “cashless,” total-social-credit China could be a prison. It would mean no unauthorized buying or selling, no political opposition (“ideological unity”), and little privacy. However, citizens would be forced to fulfill basic duties such as taking care of families and paying bills. They would be rewarded for helping their communities. The Chinese Communist Party would succeed in turning the people it rules into typical petit bourgeois with conservative norms.

The Chinese government wants to “broadly shape a strong atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful . . . .” In other words, China wants a high-trust society.

Diversity destroys trust, as white advocates often point out. China is working to overcome this problem by replacing Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese. The government is also Sinicizing these areas, especially by suppressing Islam. A faithful Muslim should rebel against these policies, but a Han Chinese sees this as protecting national interests.

Xi Jinping, President of China, can be seen on a video wall in the western Chinese city of Kashgar. Strict security measures are in place in the oasis city, making reporting difficult for journalists and affecting the lives of Uighur minorities. (Credit Image: © Simina Mistrenau / DPA via ZUMA Press)

We have the equivalent of a social credit system in the United States. It just has different incentives. You can lose your job for a politically incorrect remark caught on camera. Political dissidents find they can no longer use PayPal or even banks. Twitter bans people with whom it disagrees, while users with verified accounts can make threatening or violent statements.

“Spreading rumors” or “conspiracy theories” is cause for social media to boot you. Some journalists spend time hunting down people who spread “conspiracy theories.” If journalists or trolls decide that your small business or video channel needs to be deplatformed, they can complain to tech companies, and once you are off, there is no appeal. For many people, that means loss of livelihood.

Power-hungry people invent new forms of social credit all the time. Democrats have started a Trump Accountability Project so that Trump supporters can “never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society.” With a remarkable new website called Donor.Watch, you can find out exactly how much your neighbors (or anyone in the country) gave to any of the 2020 candidates. The tools are there for Democrats to set up shaming mobs to harass or intimidate Trump supporters.

Social media, which let ordinary people express themselves and were originally to be bastions of free speech, have taken it upon themselves to determine what is official information. Even now, Twitter is censoring President Trump, and Facebook is removing Trump supporters and their groups.

You can’t cast an informed vote or express yourself if you can’t learn or speak the truth. In his book Deleted, Allum Bokhari showed Google’s power to direct information, sway votes, and bury stories it doesn’t want covered. While the Democrats often say tech companies don’t censor enough, they at least recognize their power. A House Judiciary Committee report recently found that Amazon, Alphabet (Google/YouTube), Apple, and Facebook use monopoly power to suppress competition. President Trump’s Department of Justice recently sued Google, calling it the “gatekeeper of the Internet.”

Conservatives banned from the big platforms can go elsewhere, but what happens when Parler and Gab lose their payment processors or servers or even their bank accounts? Will we have to build our own banks and internet?

Our system is not exclusively punitive. The American system encourages banks to lend to non-whites with doubtful credit. There is a broad set of incentives to promote minority — especially black — bank ownership, even as black banks keep going under because they keep lending money to dubious black borrowers.

Social media openly promote Black Lives Matter, and every minority cause, holiday, and celebration. Book sellers direct you to endless titles on anti-racism and white privilege.

Unlike the Chinese version, American social credit is not state run and is even less centralized than China’s. However, it’s not true that the state has no involvement. Acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan admittedin 2019 that although the government cannot act as a censor, it expects to work with tech companies and “watchdog groups” to force ideas it doesn’t like off the internet.

The Republicans have done hardly anything about this. An American president is relatively weak, and unlike Xi Jinping, can’t issue orders through the bureaucracy and expect obedience. Perhaps President Trump lacks the will. Kamala Harris, probably the next vice president, appears to have plenty of it. She wants to give the FBI millions of dollars to “more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites” and “put pressure on online platforms to take down content that violates their terms and conditions.”

Under a Biden/Harris White House, the partnership between state and media would therefore grow stronger. Like Chinese officials, many Democrats and journalists take it for granted that not only traditional media should promote certain stories and suppress others, but “open” social media should do the same. The American system increasingly resembles the Chinese, with ideology imposed from the top.

We do not have single-party rule in the United States, but we do when it comes to white interests. Republicans and Democrats unanimously blamed “White nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups” for violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 — as if antifa were not even there — even though local officials deliberately forced demonstrators and antifa together so that violence would be an excuse to shut down a legal rally. There may be two parties, but both agree that whites must not promote their collective interests in the streets or online.

Just as the Chinese system punishes people for associating with low-scoring trust-breakers, the media and “watchdog” groups love to publicize “links.” The Washington Post recently revealed in an indignant article that a Trump Interior Department official had linked to an article at AmRen.com. American dissidents routinely use pen names, and “respectable” people keep their relations with them secret.

In some respects, an openly authoritarian government is better than our system. It’s clear who is in charge. Citizens know who rules them. It’s easier to remove a tyrant because you can always march on the palace or the party HQ. If you are ruled by a dictator, king, or party, you also know what the rules are; if you follow them, you can avoid trouble.

 

Our system is much more diffuse and therefore much harder to fight or even understand. Private companies, on a whim, can shut down your social media account, refuse to sell your books, make it impossible for your business to take credit cards, and close your bank account. You have no recourse, not even to the courts. Each company has its own inconsistent, arbitrary, ever-changing rules. Now, they all say, in effect, “We’ll kick you out if we don’t like you.” And that’s what they do.

If there were legal censorship, there would be laws that limited free speech. They might be vague and inconsistently enforced, but there would be rules. If the court system had any integrity, there could be litigation and legal appeals. In our system, every person you know is a potential commissar. If you become the subject of a “viral” story, literally millions of people can turn against you. This is “public shaming” worse than anything the Chinese face.

Their system is authoritarian, but it has this crucial difference from ours: It pushes people to behave correctly. In our Anglo-American tradition, personal virtue is the guarantor of our liberties, so we don’t need overarching government. However, we are no longer virtuous, at least not in the way the Founders understood virtue. Instead, anti-racism has become America’s moral code, and blacks are semi-sacred. Any social interaction with a non-white can be a life-changing disaster if it is caught on camera. The rules for what is politically correct change so quickly no one can be sure what to say to avoid trouble. We’re in an absurd system in which groups that enjoy government mandated “affirmative action” lecture us about our privilege. Although “racism” is the main sin our social credit system punishes there are others: “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “misogyny,” “xenophobia,” with more new ones invented all the time.

While the Chinese social credit system builds a better — if regimented — society, ours makes it worse. The media feed non-whites moral arguments to use against whites, whether they are about “racist” police, “systemic racism,” or “far-right extremists.” Anyone non-white, from educated elites to illiterate thugs, can feel justified in attacking middle-class whites because the only explanation for inequality is white racism.

Thus, our system doesn’t build “mutual trust” but suspicion and even hatred. Instead of building national unity, the American system undermines the foundation of patriotism by telling us our history and heroes were racist and evil. The Chinese system punishes destructive behavior and rewards charity. The American system winks at destructive behavior such as BLM rioting, and rewards “virtue signaling,” not real virtue.

White-owned business can be deplatfromed online and some can be ransacked by radicals, with no interference from the police. The right even to self-defense is under attack (ask Kyle Rittenhouse or Mark and Patricia McCloskey). In some areas, people cannot gather to demonstrate or even to worship, while antifa and BLM protesters can do almost anything with impunity.

Can we honestly say we have more freedom than the Chinese? Can we say that our government pursues our interests or protects our rights? Can we trust technology companies and major media? Are our elites pushing us towards greatness or towards dispossession and pariah status?

Still, we do have advantages. The great strength of the American Social Credit System is that it is ad hoc and unofficial. It’s hard to know exactly what or whom to attack but that’s also its weakness. There are “gaps” in the system we can exploit. At the same time, our rulers’ lust for power is clearer than ever. Donald Trump, however half-hearted and bumbling, forced our opponents to reveal their snarling hatreds and their breathtaking arrogance in believing they have the right to control what we read, hear, watch, and think.

 

We still have rights. American Renaissance sued the state of Tennessee, and won the right to use public facilities without paying for security. Others are suing tech companies. We are creating new ways of donating and accepting money, spreading our message, and building new platforms. These aren’t temporary workarounds, but steps towards community- and even nation-building. They are forcing us to do the things we should have been doing anyway.

What should a healthy society want? Perhaps every advanced society will have a formal or informal Social Credit System. Elites always try to control information, capital, and behavior. When we take control of our own destiny, we will promote strength, beauty, and virtue. We are a freedom-loving people, so I believe that if we slough off this current system, we can achieve these goals without repression.

Who rules the United States? I’d argue it’s media and Big Tech. They decide who can speak in the public square, raise money, do business online, or enjoy the full protection of law. They encourage victimhood instead of heroism, and distrust instead of unity. China’s system promotes positive values, exalts its people, and directs them towards positive ends.

It’s hard not to feel envious. The greatest threat to white Americans certainly isn’t Beijing. It’s those who presume to rule us, holding us captive, trapping us behind a blue screen.

====================

Trump and the real resistance

Trump and the real resistance  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 8 November 2020

The 70 million people who voted for Trump are revolting against the new elites. We should listen.

So, Joe Biden has won the highest popular vote in the history of the US. At the time of writing, more than 73 million people have voted for him. He has beaten the record set by Barack Obama who was swept to power on that famous wave of ‘HOPE’ and 69.5 million votes in 2008. But here’s the thing: so has Donald Trump. Trump might trail Biden in the popular vote of 2020, but he, too, has beaten Obama’s 2008 record. Trump, at the time of writing, has 69.7 million votes. So he has won the second-highest popular vote in the history of the American republic. That is remarkable. Far more remarkable than Biden’s very impressive count.

Why? For one simple reason. Trump is the man we’re all meant to hate. He has been raged against ceaselessly by the cultural elites for the past four years. Hardly any of the American media backed him in 2020. Globalist institutions loathe him. Academia, the media elites, the social-media oligarchies, the celebrity set and other hugely influential sectors have branded him a 21st-century Hitler and insisted that only a “white supremacist” could countenance voting for him. He’s the butt of every sniffy East Coast joke and the target of every fiery street protest. He’s the worst thing to happen to Western politics in decades, we’re told, by clever people, constantly.

And yet around 70 million Americans voted for him. The second-highest electoral bloc in the history of the US put their cross next to the name of a man who over the past four years has been turned by the political clerisy into the embodiment of evil.

That is what makes the vote for Trump so striking, and so important. Because what it speaks to is the existence of vast numbers of people who are outside of the purview of the cultural elites. People who have developed some kind of immunity to the cultural supremacy of the “woke” worldview so intensely mainstreamed by the political and media sets in recent years. People who are more than content to defy the diktats of the supposedly right-thinking elites and cast their ballots in a way that they think best tallies with their political, social and class interests. People who, no doubt to varying degrees, are at least sceptical towards the narratives of identitarianism, racial doom-mongering, climate-change hysteria and all the pronouns nonsense that have become dominant among political and cultural influencers, and which are essentially the new ideology of the ruling class.

READ MORE:‘Time to unite’: Biden to address nation|What’s next for Donald Trump?|Biden’s cabinet to transform US politics|Face it, Trump did get many things right

Hillary Clinton infamously referred to many Trump supporters as “the deplorables”. But a far better word for them would be “the unconquerables”. These are minds and hearts uncolonised by the new orthodoxies. Seventy million people in a peaceful state of revolt against the new establishment and its eccentric, authoritarian ideologies. This is the most important story of the

The fury of the elites in the wake of the US election is palpable, and at times visceral. Even though their man has won, they are incandescent. Already there is rage against the innate racism and “white supremacy” of the throng. Already there is neo-racist disgust with the Latinos and black people who, in larger numbers than 2016, voted for Trump. “We are surrounded by racists”, said New York Times columnist Charles M Blow, capturing the sense of siege felt by the woke clerisy. This rage of the elites against the masses, despite the victory of the elites’ preferred candidate, suggests they instinctively recognise their failure to bring significant sections of the masses to heel. They splutter out terms like “racist” and “white supremacist” as reprimands against the millions who refuse to take the knee to their politics of fear, politics of identity, and politics of cancellation and control.

The elites, despite getting their way with a Biden presidency, have been thrown by this election. First, because they called it so wrongly. Their predictions of a “blue wave” did not materialise. Their polls and punditry insisting that Trumpism would be resoundingly defeated turned out to be catastrophically incorrect. The stories of a 10-point swing to Biden evaporated upon contact with reality. So far, Trump has increased his vote by seven million.

The elite’s wrongness about this election is itself a crushing confirmation of their failure to ideologically domesticate large numbers of Americans. Many Americans have clearly chosen not to communicate their beliefs to pollsters, a key part of the new political clerisy, because they are aware that the political elites hold them in contempt. As one election analyst said, because of the “degree of hate” directed to Trump supporters “by nearly all the media”, we have a situation where “people didn’t necessarily want to admit to pollsters who they were supporting”. Not only do many Americans refuse to embrace the new orthodoxies of the uniformly anti-Trump cultural elites, but they also refuse to engage honestly with the cultural elites. They know it’s a waste of time. That is the size of the moral and political chasm that now exists between the guardians of correct-thought and millions of ordinary people.

The second reason this election has rattled the seeming victors — the pro-Biden establishment — is because of who voted for Trump. Exit polls suggest there were significant shifts of black and Latino voters to Trump. It is reported that 18 per cent of black men voted for Trump, up from the five per cent who voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 11 per cent who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A shift of this kind towards a politician relentlessly described as a “white supremacist” is very significant. According to the AP VoteCast, 35 per cent of Latinos seem to have voted for Trump. And a whopping 59 per cent of Native Hawaiians and 52 per cent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives opted for Trump. Seemingly these First Nation peoples didn’t get the NYT, SNL, DNC message that Trump is a racist who hates all non-white people.

As we should expect from the neo-racialists of the identitarian elites, there is already fierce denunciation of minority groups who voted for Trump. They have sold out to “white supremacy”, woke academics and columnists claim. Blow writes in the NYT that the Latino and black shift towards Trump is proof of the “power of the white patriarchy” and the influence it has even over oppressed racial groups: “Some people who have been historically oppressed will stand with their oppressors.” That’s a lot of words to say “Uncle Tom”. The anger with Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump is motivated by a view of these people as racial deviants, as traitors to their race. In the rigid worldview of the identitarian elites, people are not individuals or members of an economic class — they are mere manifestations of race and ethnicity and they must conform to that role. That many voters have clearly bristled at such racial fatalism is a very positive development. Identity politics was dealt a blow in this election, and the elites know it.

More striking still is the educational divide in terms of who voted for Biden and Trump. A majority of people whose educational level is high school or less voted for Trump, while a majority of college graduates voted for Biden. Among white voters, the educational divide is even more stark. Majorities of white men voted for Trump, but among white men who didn’t go to college 64 per cent voted for Trump, while among white men who did go to college it was only 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of white women who didn’t go to college voted for Trump, whereas 59 per cent of white women who did go to college voted for Biden.

The educational divide is telling. Naturally, some observers claim it is proof that clever people primarily vote for Biden while dumb people prefer Trump. In truth, this split is primarily reflective of the key role universities now play as communicators of the new orthodoxies. In recent years, universities in the Anglosphere have gone from being citadels of intellectual consideration and experimentation to being factories of woke indoctrination. From critical race theory to genderfluidity, from the view of American history as one crime after another to the myopic policing of speech — including conversational speech in the form of “microaggressions” — universities have become important transmitters of the ideologies of the new elites. As a consequence, one of the great ironies of our time is that it is those who have not attended a university who seem better able to think independently and to resist the coercions of elite-decreed correct-thought.

US President Donald Trump golfs at Trump National Golf Club, on November 7 in Sterling, Virginia. Picture: Getty

The ideas that hold on a university campus — that men can become women, that offensive people must be “cancelled”, that complimenting a woman on her hair is a racial microaggression, that describing America as a “melting pot” is a denial of people’s “racial essence”, as UCLA has claimed — hold no sway whatsoever in the factories, delivery centres, mess rooms or bars of vast swathes of America. That university-educated and non-university-educated people now think so differently is testament, not to uneducated people’s stupidity, but to the transformation of universities into machines for socialising young adults into the ways and creeds of the removed new elites.

Indeed, the split of Biden and Trump voters on issues is striking, too. Of the voters who think the economy and jobs is the most important issue, the vast majority are Trump supporters: 81 per cent compared with just 16 per cent of Biden supporters. Of the voters who think racism is the most important issue, 78 per cent were Biden supporters and just 19 per cent were Trump supporters. And of the voters who think climate change is the most important issue, 86 per cent were Biden supporters and just 11 per cent were Trump supporters. On Covid, 83 per cent of Biden supporters said it is “not under control at all”, while just 15 per cent of Trump voters said the same thing.

This is incredibly revealing. On issues that are central to the clerisy’s worldview — the idea that racism in America is as bad as ever, that the climate is heating uncontrollably, that COVID poses an existential challenge to the future of the nation — Trump voters deviate consistently from the elite narrative. That isn’t to say that they don’t think climate change or racism are problems we must address — I’m sure majorities of them do. But they clearly reject the fatalism and dominance of these issues in the body politic. They clearly baulk at the ceaseless discussions of America’s inescapable racism and the idea that if Americans do not radically alter their lifestyles then they will fry in the heat-death of climate catastrophe. They push back, in their thoughts and their votes, against the identitarianism and apocalypticism of the new elites. And they do so even on issues for which you can be cancelled for disagreeing. Try going on to a campus and saying that racism and climate change are not major issues for the US. You would be finished. But not in other parts of America. There, free discussion, or at least free thought, appears still to reign.

One study, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology after the 2016 election, described the widespread support for Trump among working-class or less-educated communities in particular as a form of “cultural deviance”. The study used over-psychologised language to describe people’s voting behaviour, but it hit on an important point: the evidence suggests that Trump-voting for many people was a form of “cultural deviance… [from] the salience of restrictive communication norms”. In short, the Trump phenomenon represents a revolt against the cultural supremacy of political correctness and its cancellation of any views or beliefs that are judged to be problematic. Trump became a vehicle for those who don’t agree that America is broken or racist, or that climate change will kill us all, or that identitarian correctness is more important than the economy and jobs, or that Trump is Hitler — things it is increasingly difficult to say in a polite society so feverishly policed by the new elites.

The real resistance

Perhaps the most important act of “cultural deviance” carried out by the millions who chose Trump over Biden is their attempt to re-elevate class over identity. This is why the shift of working-class blacks and Latinos towards Trump is so important. It is also why Trump voters’ overwhelming belief that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in the US right now — in contrast with very small numbers of Biden voters who think the same thing — is so relevant. What we have witnessed in the US is a reassertion of the importance of class over identity, of the shared social and economic interests of a significant section of society over the narrow cultural obsessions of the new elites and their supporters in the new knowledge industries. The emerging populist coalition of working-class blacks, Latinos and non-university whites is a quiet revolt against the stranglehold that the upper middle-class elites have over the political narrative, and against the elites’ self-conscious promotion of the neoliberal myopia of identity and their diminution of the importance of class.

This is another reason why the elites are so furious in the wake of their own election victory. It’s the key reason, in fact. Because they instinctively recognise that the economic concerns, and, more importantly, the economic consciousness, of substantial sections of society pose a threat to their ideological dominance. Witness the sneer, the naked contempt, with which the phrase “economic populism” has been uttered by Biden-backing observers in recent days. ‘Economic populism’ is a cover for racism, our moral superiors insist. They dread nothing more than the re-emergence of a more class-based politics because they know it would run entirely counter, politically, morally and economically, to the divide-and-rule identitarianism they have cultivated in recent decades.

Corporations, academia, the education system, the Democratic establishment, the media elites and the social-media oligarchies are heavily invested in the cult of identity because it is a means through which they can renew their economic dominance over society and exercise moral authority over the masses. Identitarianism has provided spiritual renewal for the capitalist elites, new means of rebuking and censuring the workforce in corporations, and a sense of purpose for a political class utterly adrift from the working masses it might once have sought to appeal to. And they are not about to let some uppity blacks and Latinos and uneducated whites disrupt this new ruling-class ideology with their vulgar concerns about the economy and jobs.

Trump has lost. But so has the anti-Trump establishment. In some ways, the establishment’s loss is far more significant. These elites see in the 70 million people who disobediently, flagrantly voted for “evil”, and who question the doom and divisiveness and censure of the new elites, a genuine mass threat to their right to rule and their self-serving ideologies. And they are right to. For these unconquerables, these teeming millions who have not been captured by the new orthodoxies, are proof that populism will survive Trump’s fall and that the self-protecting narratives of the new elites are not accepted by huge numbers of ordinary people.

This is the real resistance. Not the upper-middle-class TikTok revolutionaries and Antifa fantasists whose every view — on trans issues, Black Lives Matter, the wickedness of Trump — corresponds precisely with the outlook of Google and Nike and the New York Times. No, the resistance is these working people. These defiant Hispanics. Those black men who did what black men are not supposed to do. Those non-college whites who think college ideologies are crazy. These people are the ones who have the balls and the independence of mind to force a serious rethink and realignment of the political sphere in the 21st-century West. More power to them.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked www.spiked-online.com

========================

 Eyewitness To The Trial and Agony of Julian Assange  By John Pilger, JohnPilger.com, 4 October, 2020

John Pilger has watched Julian Assange’s extradition trial from the public gallery at London’s Old Bailey. He spoke with Timothy Erik Ström of Arena magazine, Australia:

Q: Having watched Julian Assange’s trial first-hand, can you describe the prevailing atmosphere in the court?

The prevailing atmosphere has been shocking. I say that without hesitation; I have sat in many courts and seldom known such a corruption of due process; this is due revenge. Putting aside the ritual associated with ‘British justice’, at times it has been evocative of a Stalinist show trial. One difference is that in the show trials, the defendant stood in the court proper. In the Assange trial, the defendant was caged behind thick glass, and had to crawl on his knees to a slit in the glass, overseen by his guard, to make contact with his lawyers. His message, whispered barely audibly through face masks, WAS then passed by post-it the length of the court to where his barristers were arguing the case against his extradition to an American hellhole.

Consider this daily routine of Julian Assange, an Australian on trial for truth-telling journalism. He was woken at five o’clock in his cell at Belmarsh prison in the bleak southern sprawl of London. The first time I saw Julian in Belmarsh, having passed through half an hour of ‘security’ checks, including a dog’s snout in my rear, I found a painfully thin figure sitting alone wearing a yellow armband. He had lost more than 10 kilos in a matter of months; his arms had no muscle. His first words were: ‘I think I am losing my mind’.

I tried to assure him he wasn’t. His resilience and courage are formidable, but there is a limit. That was more than a year ago. In the past three weeks, in the pre-dawn, he was strip-searched, shackled, and prepared for transport to the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in a truck that his partner, Stella Moris, described as an upended coffin. It had one small window; he had to stand precariously to look out. The truck and its guards were operated by Serco, one of many politically connected companies that run much of Boris Johnson’s Britain.

The journey to the Old Bailey took at least an hour and a half. That’s a minimum of three hours being jolted through snail-like traffic every day. He was led into his narrow cage at the back of the court, then look up, blinking, trying to make out faces in the public gallery through the reflection of the glass. He saw the courtly figure of his dad, John Shipton, and me, and our fists went up. Through the glass, he reached out to touch fingers with Stella, who is a lawyer and seated in the body of the court.

We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme.

The sheer bias in the courts I have sat in this year and last year, with Julian in the dock, blight any notion of British justice. When thuggish police dragged him from his asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy – look closely at the photo and you’ll see he is clutching a Gore Vidal book; Assange has a political humour similar to Vidal’s – a judge gave him an outrageous 50-week sentence in a maximum-security prison for mere bail infringement.

For months, he was denied exercise and held in solitary confinement disguised as ‘heath care’. He once told me he strode the length of his cell, back and forth, back and forth, for his own half-marathon. In the next cell, the occupant screamed through the night. At first he was denied his reading glasses, left behind in the embassy brutality. He was denied the legal documents with which to prepare his case, and access to the prison library and the use of a basic laptop. Books sent to him by a friend, the journalist Charles Glass, himself a survivor of hostage-taking in Beirut, were returned. He could not call his American lawyers. He has been constantly medicated by the prison authorities. When I asked him what they were giving him, he couldn’t say. The governor of Belmarsh has been awarded the Order of the British Empire.

At the Old Bailey, one of the expert medical witnesses, Dr Kate Humphrey, a clinical neuropsychologist at Imperial College, London, described the damage: Julian’s intellect had gone from ‘in the superior, or more likely very superior range’ to ‘significantly below’ this optimal level, to the point where he was struggling to absorb information and ‘perform in the low average range’.

This is what the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, calls ‘psychological torture’, the result of a gang-like ‘mobbing’ by governments and their media shills. Some of the expert medical evidence is so shocking I have no intention of repeating it here. Suffice to say that Assange is diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and, according to Professor Michael Kopelman, one of the world’s leading neuropsychiatrists, he suffers from ‘suicidal preoccupations’ and is likely to find a way to take his life if he is extradited to America.

James Lewis QC, America’s British prosecutor, spent the best part of his cross-examination of Professor Kopelman dismissing mental illness and its dangers as ‘malingering’. I have never heard in a modern setting such a primitive view of human frailty and vulnerability.

My own view is that if Assange is freed, he is likely to recover a substantial part of his life. He has a loving partner, devoted friends and allies and the innate strength of a principled political prisoner. He also has a wicked sense of humour.

But that is a long way off. The moments of collusion between the judge – a Gothic-looking magistrate called Vanessa Baraitser, about whom little is known – and the prosecution acting for the Trump regime have been brazen. Until the last few days, defence arguments have been routinely dismissed. The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured.

The dissident artist Ai Weiwei came to join us one morning in the public gallery. He noted that in China the judge’s decision would already have been made. This caused some dark ironic amusement. My companion in the gallery, the astute diarist and former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote:

I fear that all over London a very hard rain is now falling on those who for a lifetime have worked within institutions of liberal democracy that at least broadly and usually used to operate within the governance of their own professed principles. It has been clear to me from Day 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect. I have again and again reported to you that, where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her.

I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.

The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.

There are few records of the proceedings. They are: Craig Murray’s personal blog, Joe Lauria’s live reporting on Consortium News and the World Socialist Website. American journalist Kevin Gosztola’s blog, Shadowproof, funded mostly by himself, has reported more of the trial than the major US press and TV, including CNN, combined.

In Australia, Assange’s homeland, the ‘coverage’ follows a familiar formula set overseas. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke, wrote this recently:

The court heard Assange became depressed during the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy where he sought political asylum to escape extradition to Sweden to answer rape and sexual assault charges.

There were no ‘rape and sexual assault charges’ in Sweden. Bourke’s lazy falsehood is not uncommon. If the Assange trial is the political trial of the century, as I believe it is, its outcome will not only seal the fate of a journalist for doing his job but intimidate the very principles of free journalism and free speech. The absence of serious mainstream reporting of the proceedings is, at the very least, self-destructive. Journalists should ask: who is next?

How shaming it all is. A decade ago, the Guardian exploited Assange’s work, claimed its profit and prizes as well as a lucrative Hollywood deal, then turned on him with venom. Throughout the Old Bailey trial, two names have been cited by the prosecution, the Guardian’s David Leigh, now retired as ‘investigations editor’ and Luke Harding, the Russiaphobe and author of a fictional Guardian ‘scoop’ that claimed Trump adviser Paul Manafort and a group of Russians visited Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. This never happened, and the Guardian has yet to apologise. The Harding and Leigh book on Assange – written behind their subject’s back – disclosed a secret password to a WikiLeaks file that Assange had entrusted to Leigh during the Guardian’s ‘partnership’. Why the defence has not called this pair is difficult to understand.

Assange is quoted in their book declaring during a dinner at a London restaurant that he didn’t care if informants named in the leaks were harmed. Neither Harding nor Leigh was at the dinner. John Goetz, an investigations reporter with Der Spiegel, was at the dinner and testified that Assange said nothing of the kind. Incredibly, Judge Baraitser stopped Goetz actually saying this in court.

However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files. The renowned New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who worked with Assange on the Afghanistan and Iraq war leaks, described how Assange took ‘extraordinary precautions in redacting names of informants’.

Q: What are the implications of this trial’s verdict for journalism more broadly – is it an omen of things to come?

The ‘Assange effect’ is already being felt across the world. If they displease the regime in Washington, investigative journalists are liable to prosecution under the 1917 US Espionage Act; the precedent is stark. It doesn’t matter where you are. For Washington, other people’s nationality and sovereignty rarely mattered; now it does not exist. Britain has effectively surrendered its jurisdiction to Trump’s corrupt Department of Justice. In Australia, a National Security Information Act promises Kafkaesque trials for transgressors. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been raided by police and journalists’ computers taken away. The government has given unprecedented powers to intelligence officials, making journalistic whistle-blowing almost impossible. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Assange ‘must face the music’. The perfidious cruelty of his statement is reinforced by its banality.

‘Evil’, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil’.

Q: Having followed the story of WikiLeaks closely for a decade, how has this eyewitness experience shifted your understanding of what’s at stake with Assange’s trial?

I have long been a critic of journalism as an echo of unaccountable power and a champion of those who are beacons. So, for me, the arrival of WikiLeaks was exciting; I admired the way Assange regarded the public with respect, that he was prepared to share his work with the ‘mainstream’ but not join their collusive club. This, and naked jealousy, made him enemies among the overpaid and under-talented, insecure in their pretensions of independence and impartiality.

I admired the moral dimension to WikiLeaks. Assange was rarely asked about this, yet much of his remarkable energy comes from a powerful moral sense that governments and other vested interests should not operate behind walls of secrecy. He is a democrat. He explained this in one of our first interviews at my home in 2010.

What is at stake for the rest of us has long been at stake: freedom to call authority to account, freedom to challenge, to call out hypocrisy, to dissent. The difference today is that the world’s imperial power, the United States, has never been as unsure of its metastatic authority as it is today. Like a flailing rogue, it is spinning us towards a world war if we allow it. Little of this menace is reflected in the media.

WikiLeaks, on the other hand, has allowed us to glimpse a rampant imperial march through whole societies – think of the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, to name a few, the dispossession of 37 million people and the deaths of 12 million men, women and children in the ‘war on terror’ – most of it behind a façade of deception.

Julian Assange is a threat to these recurring horrors – that’s why he is being persecuted, why a court of law has become an instrument of oppression, why he ought to be our collective conscience: why we all should be the threat.

The judge’s decision will be known on the 4th of January.

===============================

The Saker’s View of the US Election

The Saker’s View of the US Election  From The Saker, via PaulCraigRoberts.org, 15 September 2020

In early July I wrote a piece entitled “Does the next Presidential election even matter?” in which I made the case that voting in the next election to choose who will be the next puppet in the White House will be tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking. I gave three specific reasons why I thought that the next election would be pretty much irrelevant:

1The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people

2The choice between the Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all

3The systemic crisis of the USA is too deep to be affected by who is in power in the White House

I have now reconsidered my position and I now see that I was wrong because I missed something important:

A lot has happened in the past couple of months and I now have come to conclude that while choosing a captain won’t make any difference to a sinking Titanic, it might make a huge difference to those passengers who are threatened by a group of passengers run amok. In other words, while I still do not think that the next election will change much for the rest of the planet (the decay of the Empire will continue), it is gradually becoming obvious that for the United States the difference between the two sides is becoming very real.

Why?

This is probably the first presidential election in US history where the choice will be not between two political programs or two political personalities, but the stark and binary choice between law and order and total chaos.

It is now clear that the Dems are supporting the rioting mobs and that they see these mobs as the way to beat Trump.

It is also becoming obvious that this is not a white vs. black issue: almost all the footage from the rioting mobs shows a large percentage of whites, sometimes even a majority of whites, especially amongst the most aggressive and violent rioters (the fact that these whites regularly get beat up by rampaging blacks hunting for “whitey” does not seem to deter these folks).

True, both sides blame each other for “dividing the country” and “creating the conditions for a civil war”, but any halfway objective and fact based appraisal of what is taking place shows that the Dems have comprehensively caved into the BLM/Antifa ideology (which is hardly surprising, since that ideology is a pure product of the Dems (pseudo-)liberal worldview in the first place). Yes, the Demolicans and the Republicrats are but two factions of the same “Party of Money”, but the election of Trump in 2016 and the subsequent 4 years of intense seditious efforts to delegitimize Trump have resulted in a political climate in which we roughly have, on one hand, what I would call the “Trump Party” (which is not the same as the GOP) and the “deplorables” objectively standing for law and order. On the other hand, we have the Dems, some Republicans, big corporations and the BLM/Antifa mobs who now all objectively stand for anarchy, chaos and random violence.

I have always criticized the AngloZionist Empire and the USA themselves for their messianic and supremacist ideology, and I agree that in their short history the United States have probably spilled more innocent blood than any other regime in history. Yet I also believe that there also have been many truly good things in US history, things which other countries should emulate (as many have!). I am referring to things like the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the spirit of self-reliance, a strong work ethic, the immense creativity of the people of the US and their love for their country.

It is now clear that the Dems find nothing good in the US or its history – hence their total support for the wanton (and, frankly, barbaric) destruction of historical statues or for the ridiculous notion that the United States was primarily built by black slaves and that modern whites are somehow guilty of what their ancestors did (including whites who did not have any slave owners amongst their ancestors).

Putin once said that he has no problems at all with any opposition to the Russian government, but that he categorically rejects the opposition to Russia herself (most of the non-systemic opposition in Russia is profoundly russophobic). I see the exact same thing happening here, in the USA: the Dem/BLM/Antifa gang are profoundly anti-USA, and not for the right reasons. It is just obvious that these people are motivated by pure hate and where there is hate, violence always follows!

To think that there will be no violence if these people come to power would be extremely naive: those who come to power by violence always end up ruling by violence.

For the past several decades, the US ruling elites have been gutting the Constitution by a million of legislative and regulatory cuts (I can personally attest to the fact that the country where I obtained my degrees in 1986-1991 is a totally different country from the one I am living in now. Thirty years ago there was real ideological freedom and pluralism in the US, and differences of opinion, even profound ones, were considered normal). Now the apparatus needed to crack down on the “deplorables” has been established, especially on the Federal level. If we now apply the “motive, means & opportunity” criterion we can only conclude that the Dem/BLM/Antifa have the motive and will sure have the means and opportunity if Biden makes it to the White House.

Furthermore, major media corporations are already cracking down against Trump supporters and even against President Trump himself (whom Twitter now threatens to censor if he declares that he won). YouTube is demonetizing “deplorable” channels and also de-ranking them in searches. Google does the same. For a President which heavily relies on short messages to his support base, this is a major threat.

[Sidebar: one of Trump’s biggest mistakes was to rely on Twitter instead of funding his own social media platform. He sure had the money. What he lacked was any foresight or understanding of the enemy]

Paul Craig Roberts has been one of the voices which has been warning us that anti-White racism is real and that the United States & Its Constitution Have Two Months Left. I submit that on the former he is undeniably correct and that we ought to pay heed to his warning about what might soon happen next. I also tend to agree with others who warn us that violence will happen next, no matter who wins. Not only are some clearly plotting a coup against Trump should he declare himself the winner, but things have now gone so far that the Chairmen of the JCS had to make an official statement saying that the US military will play no role in the election. Finally, and while I agree that Florida might not be a typical state, I see a lot of signs saying “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” with the word “domestic” emphasized in some manner. Is this the proverbial “writing on the wall”?

Conclusion:

The Empire is dying and nothing can save it, things have gone way too far to ever return to the bad old days of US world hegemony. Furthermore, I have the greatest doubts about Trump or his supporters being able to successfully defeat Dem/BLM/Antifa. “Just” winning the election won’t be enough, even if Trump wins by a landslide: we already know that the Dem/BLM/Antifa will never accept a Trump victory, no matter how big. I also suspect that 2020 will be dramatically different from the 2000 Gore-Bush election which saw the outcome decided by a consensus of the ruling elites: this time around the hatred is too deep, and there will be no negotiated compromise between the parties.

In 2016 I recommended a Trump vote for one, single, overwhelming reason: my profound belief that Hillary would have started a war against Syria and, almost immediately, against Russia (the Dems are, again, making noises about such a war should they return into the White House). As for Trump, for all his megalomaniacal threats and in spite of a few (thoroughly ineffective) missile strikes on Syria, he has not started a new war.

By the way, when was it the last time that a US president did NOT order a war during his time in office?

The fact is that the Trump victory in 2016 gave Russia the time to finalize her preparations for any time of aggression, or even a full-scale war, which the US might try to throw at her. The absence of any US reaction to the Iranian retaliatory missile strikes against US bases in Iraq in January has shown that US military commanders have no stomach for a war against Iran, nevermind China or, even less, Russia. By now it is too late, Russia is ready for anything, while the US is not. Trump bought the planet an extra four years to prepare for war, and the key adversaries of the US have used that time with great benefit. As for the former world hegemon, it can’t even take on Venezuela…

But inside the USA, what we see taking place before us is a weird kind of war against the people of the USA, a war waged by a very dangerous mix of ideologues and thugs (that is the toxic recipe for most revolutions!). And while Trump or Biden won’t really matter much to Russia, China or Iran, it still might matter a great deal to millions of people who deserve better than to live under a Dem/BLM/Antifa dictatorship (whether only ideological or actual).

The USA of 2020 in so many ways reminds me of Russia in February 1917: the ruling classes were drunk on their ideological dogmas and never realized that the revolution they so much wanted would end up killing most of them. This is exactly what the US ruling classes are doing: they are acting like a parasite who cannot understand that by killing its host it will also kill itself. The likes of Pelosi very much remind me of Kerensky, the man who first destroyed the 1000 year old Russian monarchy and who then proceeded to replace it with kind of totally dysfunctional “masonic democracy” which only lasted 8 months until the Bolsheviks finally seized power and restored law and order (albeit in a viciously ruthless manner).

The US political system is both non-viable and non-reformable. No matter what happens next, the US as we knew it will collapse this winter, PCR is right. The only questions remaining are:

  • What will replace it? and
  • How long (and painful) will the transition to a new USA be?

Trump in the White House might not make things better, but a Harris presidency (which is what a “Biden” victory will usher in) will make things much, much worse. Finally, there are millions of US Americans out there who did nothing wrong and who deserve to be protected from the rioting and looting mobs by their police agencies just as there are millions of US Americans who should retain the ability to defend themselves when no law enforcement is available. There is a good reason why the Second Amendment comes right after the First one – the two are organically linked! With the Dem/BLM/Antifa in power, the people of the USA can kiss both Amendments goodbye.

I still don’t see a typical civil war breaking out in the US. But I see many, smaller, “local wars” breaking out all over the country – yes, violence is at this point inevitable. It is, therefore, the moral obligation of every decent person to do whatever he/she can do, no matter how small, to help the “deplorables” in their struggle against the forces of chaos, violence and tyranny, especially during the upcoming “years of transition” which will be very, very hard on the majority of the people living in the US.

This includes doing whatever is possible to prevent the Dem/BLM/Antifa from getting into the White House.

The Saker

=========================

America’s Colour Revolution

America’s Colour Revolution  By Paul Craig Roberts, Zerohedge, 14 September 2020

I have provided evidence that the military/security complex, using the media and the Democrats, intends to turn the November election into a colour revolution – here, here, and here.

 

The CIA is very experienced at colour revolutions, having pulled them off in a number of countries where the existing government did not suit the CIA.  As we have known since CIA Director John Brennan’s denunciations of President Trump, Trump doesn’t suit the CIA either. As far as the CIA is concerned, Trump is no different from Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro, Charles de Gaulle, Manuel Zelaya, Evo Morales, Viktor Yanukovych, and a large number of others.

Russiagate was a coup that failed, followed by the failed Impeachgate coup.  Faced with Trump’s re-election and the realization that upon re-election Trump will be able to deal with the treason against him, the Deep State has decided to take him out with a colour revolution.

The evidence of a colour revolution in the works is abundantly supplied by CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, NPR, Washington Post and numerous Internet sites funded by the CIA and the foundations and corporations through which it operates, all of which are committed to Trump’s ejection from the Oval Office.  The American public does not realize the extent to which the institutions of a free society have been penetrated and turned against freedom. All of these media organizations are establishing the story in the mind of Americans that Trump will not leave office when he loses or steals the election and must be driven out. 

Emails are arriving from readers in the UK and Europe reporting that the British and European media are at work preparing the acceptability of the CIA’s colour revolution against President Trump.  It is taken for granted by both media and politicians in Europe and the UK that Trump cannot win re-election because he:

(1) is a Putin agent,

(2) abuses the power of his office,

(3) represents racist “Trump Deplorables,”

(4) is a womanizer – “grab them by the pussy,”

(5) is responsible for America leading the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths,

(6) doesn’t support NATO (a sinecure for many Europeans),

(7) is an outsider and not a member of The Establishment and “is not like us,”

(8) “has orange hair” (orange is considered a low-class colour). 

You can add your own to the list.

The scenarios for what the American, British, and European media assume to be a necessary colour revolution  to drive Trump from office are:

  1. Trump loses the election, refuses to leave office and must be dislodged or democracy is lost.
  2. Trump wins the election by fraud and must be dislodged or democracy is lost.

The scenarios do not accommodate Trump actually winning the election by the vote of the people.  That outcome is outside the possibilities.

According to the media, Trump can only lose or steal the election.

With Antifa and Black Lives Matter now experienced in violent protests, they will be unleashed anew on American cities when there is news of a Trump election victory. The media will explain the violence as necessary to free us from a tyrant and egg on the violence, as will the Democrat Party.  The CIA will be certain that the violence is well funded.

Trump, isolated in his own government, which has failed to bring charges against the Obama regime officials who tried to frame the President of the United States and drive him from office—Barr and Durham represent The Establishment, not the President or law—will be cut off from Twitter, Facebook and from the print and TV media.  All Americans and the world will hear is that Trump lost and must go or Trump won by vote fraud and must go. It will be impossible for Trump or anyone to refute the charges. The weak-minded, weak-willed Republicans will collapse. Republicans are not people capable of combat. Republicans believe that to disparage the military/security complex is unpatriotic. Thus, they are sitting ducks.

Bottom of Form

The CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, Radio Liberty, etc., have used color revolution against others who stood in the way of the American National Security State. Only Maduro has survived them.  So far.

The Secret Service cooperated with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. What is a re-elected President Trump going to do when the Secret Service refuses to repel Antifa and Black Lives Matter when they breach White House Security?  There is no doubt whatsoever that the Secret Service is penetrated by the CIA.  How else could President Kennedy have been assassinated?

American Democracy is on the verge of being ended for all times, and the world media will herald the event as the successful overthrowing of a tyrant.  

====================

Previous articles