We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lapp√©, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Pushing Russia Toward War

Click here to access article by Alastair Crooke from ConsortiumNews

In this piece Crooke demonstrates an acute insight about Russian-American relations, and asks some very important questions. For example:
So has Putin’s strategy of co-opting America in the Middle East been the failure that the Bastrykin faction implies? In other words, is it the case that the policy of gaining cooperation has failed and that Putin must now move beyond it, because America is not about to cooperate and is, instead, continuing the process of cornering Russia?
However, I think he is much better at understanding Russian and European deep politics than he is of American deep politics. He sees Donald Trump as challenging the reign of the neoconservative (or Zionist) faction of the American ruling class which worked their magic especially through the Bush administrations and continued with lesser fidelity during the Obama administrations. I think Trump is an unknown factor in American deep politics. I always look at a person's track record in government office to determine his actual politics, and Trump is an unknown factor because he has never held office.

To be sure, he has spoken and written a lot that distinguishes his views from that of the neoconservatives and has made them uncomfortable, but I've seen his willingness to pander to power as demonstrated with his address to AIPAC where he received standing ovations. I think he is very ambitious; and since he has already achieved billionaire status, why wouldn't he go for the ultimate prize--the highest (formal) political office?  I think his sociopathic character makes him very capable of making a deal with the deep state to follow their policies in return for their backing. 

But can we assume that the deep state will adhere to its Zionist orientation? Could the ground be shifting a bit in this faction of the ruling capitalist class? This is affirmatively argued in another essay entitled "The Widening Cracks in Zionism" by Lawrence Davidson. So, who knows where the directors of the Empire are headed? That is the most important question. Forget about elections in the pseudo-democratic nation  of the US. Think about constructing a powerful, sustainable revolutionary movement--because that is the only way real change will come about.

In any case I think, as I have always thought, that Hillary Clinton will be elected to the formal office of president because a large segment of the American population feels threatened by a Trump presidency because of statements he made to suggest a very authoritarian orientation. Still, if Trump can make an accommodation with the directors of the deep state, who knows how much their corporate media can influence ordinary Americans to support Trump by manufacturing a new political persona for him?

Class, this is a test question: who really runs the political affairs of the US? Or, to put it in Bush Jr's vernacular: who are the real "deciders"? 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated causing a little delay in being posted. Should you wish to communicate with me privately, please contact me through "About Me" on this blog.