Mark Nicholas
ORIGINAL REPORT BY RUSSIA INSIDER

Russians grapple with the question why McCain hates them so much

A great report from Russian TV on McCain. Russian journalists traveled to Vietnam and spoke to his captors, the man who shot him down, and many others. It shows how Russians see the Duke of Chaos, and has some great info from when his career as war criminal was interrupted by a Soviet missile and Soviet-trained men.

Neocon McCain’s Hatred of Russia ‘a Disease’ Says Russia’s #1 News Anchor Kiselyov

ABOVE IMAGE: THE OBAMAS BURNISHING THEIR CREDENTIALS AS UNCONDITIONAL ALLIES OF THE MEDIEVAL SAUDIS. ⁽¹⁾ 

By  Gilbert Mercier

Syria: Fog of proxy war and conflicting agendas

As furious fighting rages in Syria for control of Qusair, a border town of critical strategic importance, the dense and toxic fog of that country’s proxy war is spreading to Lebanon and Iraq. With Hezbollah becoming directly involved in the conflict to back Assad, the patchwork coalition of Syrian rebel groups and Jihadist foreign fighters, with al-Nusra in the lead, is losing ground and on the defensive. Bashar al-Assad has three main objectives, which could now be obtained with the substantial and full commitment from Hezbollah. First, taking back Qusair would reopen a critical channel between Damascus and pro-Assad Alawite militias on the Mediterranean coast. Second, this would cut off the rebel-held areas between the north and south. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this would give Assad a stronger hand before the peace conference organized by Russia and the United States, to take place in June. Meanwhile, Arabs and Muslims in general are killing each other and doing the bidding of Israel and the West in what could become a full-blown regional sectarian war between Sunnis on one side, and Shiites and Alawites on the other. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the West are certainly strange bedfellows, and this is reflected by the state of the Syrian opposition “coalition.”

---

Syrian opposition: no clear agenda or coherent leadership

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] meeting of the Syrian opposition in Turkey last week was a complete fiasco. The coalition’s Western supporters, with the US, the UK and France in the lead, wanted more seats for liberals, but this attempt was blocked by a Muslim-Brotherhood influenced bloc supported by Qatar. In this regard, reflecting a change of course, the Western-backed part of the coalition was supported by the Saudis, as they became concerned about Qatar’s rising influence on Syrian opposition groups.

---

---

The sectarian war in Syria spreads to Lebanon and Iraq

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]lawites are now also fighting against Sunnis in Tripoli, Lebanon. According to Qatari as well as Israeli sources, 5,000 Hezbollah troops have joined Assad’s forces in Syria, and another 5,000 have been called to be deployed in the coming days. On May 27, rockets fired by Sunnis targeted and hit Hezbollah-held areas of Beirut. Meanwhile, in a speech on May 26, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah said that his organization will stand firmly with Assad. “We will continue to the end of the road. We accept this responsibility and will accept all sacrifices and expected consequences for this position,” said Nasrallah.

---

---

In Iraq, sectarian violence has become a daily event. According to the United Nations, more than 700 people were killed in April, and already 350 in May in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Sunni Iraqi Jihadists are reported to be fighting against Assad in Syria. The expansion of the fight to Lebanon and Iraq demonstrates, once again, that inflaming sectarian conflicts in the Arab world is a deadly strategy concocted by the West and Israel to divide and rule the Middle East. These geopolitics of chaos have wrecked Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The West and Israel would like an encore in Syria by toppling Assad.

---

---

Will today’s allies against Syria, Hezbollah and Iran become foes tomorrow?

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hen one considers this strange Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Israel alliance built on the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” it is hard not to recall the pact of non-aggression signed in 1939 between Hitler and Stalin. On one hand, not having a  front with the Soviet Union made wrecking Poland, Belgium and France easier for Nazi Germany. On the other hand, this gave Stalin the time he needed to build up the Red Army, knowing perfectly well that the pact with the Nazis would be extremely temporary. Providing that Assad is toppled and that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the West “take care” of Hezbollah and Iran, the aftermath in the region and beyond would be extremely messy.

---

“Inflaming sectarian conflicts in the Arab world is a deadly strategy concocted by the West and Israel to divide and rule the Middle East. These geopolitics of chaos have wrecked Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The West and Israel would like an encore in Syria by toppling Assad…”

[dropcap]Q[/dropcap]atar and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia are working to establish an Islamist state in Syria. Using their money, they are exploiting the Syrian opposition against Assad as well as recruiting and arming some 50,000 Jihadist foreign fighters. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have done this before. Qatar was among the few Arab states that offered active military assistance to NATO during the toppling of Gaddafi in Libya, and Qataris were key suppliers of money and weapons to Libyan rebels. Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s vision is that of a Middle East that becomes Sunni dominated, under their influence, using the Muslim Brotherhood as a political instrument. Qatar wants a Muslim-Brotherhood controlled Syria, just like Egypt. But what will Israel do if it becomes surrounded by Muslim-Brotherhood controlled states sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia? And what will happen to Israel’s vision of territorial expansion to a Greater Israel?

---

Can Russia and China impose a political solution for the Syrian crisis?

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he only hope for avoiding an escalation that would put us on course to World War III is for Russia and China to make a stand on Syria, as opposed to their inaction on both Iraq and Libya. Syria should be defined as a red line not to be crossed by the West, Israel, and their temporary allies from the Gulf. If Russia dumps Syria, Hezbollah and, down the line, Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin would lose all geopolitical credibility.

---

---

Nobel-peace-prize laureate Mairead Maguire, who just headed a peace delegation to Syria and Lebanon that pushed for a Syrian National Reconciliation, wrote in a report: “The Syrian state and its population are under a proxy war led by foreign countries and directly financed and backed by Qatar.”  According to Maguire, 50,000 foreign Jihadist fighters have come to Syria through Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The Jihadists originate from many different countries: there are Libyans, Saudis, Tunisians, Chechens, Afghans, Pakistanis, Emiratis, Lebanese, Jordanians, Europeans, and even Australians.

Saudi King Salman-bin-Abdulaziz-Al-Saud (above and below), one of the main figures behind the Middle East mess. (Bing/(cc))

Qatar’s strongman Emir Tamim-bin-Hamad-Al-Thani. The Gulf potentates—with their allies in the West— are a case study in how to squander enormous fortunes on criminal and stupid pursuits. (Bing-(cc))

---

---

Maguire urged the international community to “support a process of dialogue and reconciliation in Syria between its people and the Syrian government and reject outside intervention and war.” While Russia’s aim is merely to push for a ceasefire, Maguire’s ultimate goal is peace in Syria, although, with so much animosity between Sunnis and Alawites, a partition of Syria along sectarian lines (see map) might be a more realistic solution to avoid further bloodshed in a conflict that has already killed more than 80,000 and displaced 3.5 million people.

---

Editor’s Note: Photographs one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten by Freedom House.

 

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP. JUST CLICK HERE.

Gilbert Mercier is a French author of "The Orwellian Empire", a journalist, on air geopolitical analyst, a photojournalist and filmmaker based in the US since 1983. He is the founder and  co-editor-in-chief of News Junkie Post"   

---

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

---

---

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

---

---

---

BY THE SAKER

(Originally posted on December 20, 2016)

Okay, so tonight we have the name of the assassin, it is Mevlut Mert Aydintas, a 22 year old policeman who had been recently fired following the anti-Gulenist crackdown of Erdogan against the forces which had attempted to overthrow him recently. We also have a very useful video of the murder.

That video of the attack also shows something very important: the only shots fired are those fired by the assassin.  See for yourself:

A. (Abridged version)

B. (Longer, more detailed version. Observe how the killer is allowed to stand behind the ambassador and no one seems to object. A total lack of security presence.)

What this means is one of two things:

Version 1: there was nobody in charge of security at this exhibition

Version 2: the room where this murder happened was considered ‘safe/sterile’ because it was inside an outer security perimeter which we don’t see in this video.

I find version 2 far more likely.  That would also explain why and how Mevlut Mert Aydintas so easily got it: he simply flashed his police ID and was let through.

When such an event occurs it is also important to ask cui bono – whom does it benefit?

Erdogan? No.

[dropcap]I [/dropcap]see absolutely no imaginable reason why Erdogan would want the Russian Ambassador murdered in Ankara, but I can easily imagine a long list of reasons why he would not want that to happen at all.  Some will correctly say that the fall of Aleppo is a humiliating defeat for Turkey and Erdogan, and I agree.  But I would remind everybody that Erdogan clearly had a deal going with the Russians and the Iranians when he moved his forces across the border and occupied northern Syria.  There is *no way* he would have risked such a move against the will of Moscow and Tehran.  So what was this deal?  We will probably never know, but it clearly included a provision which limited Turkey’s actions to a narrow strip in the north.  If that hypothesis is correct, then Aleppo would have to be considered outside the “Turkish sphere of interest” in Syria, at least by the tripartite Turkish-Iranian-Russian understanding.  Did Erdogan know that Aleppo would fall and would fall so fast?  Probably not.  It appears that Erdogan got outmaneuvered by the Russians and the Iranians.  But he most definitely had better options to retaliate against the liberation of Aleppo than to have the Russian Ambassador murdered in Ankara.  The fact is that the Turks did precious little when Aleppo was liberated, at most they helped the Russian evacuate part of the “good terrorists”.

Even if Erdogan is a lunatic, he is smart enough to understand that if he has the Russian Ambassador murdered in Ankara NATO will do nothing to protect him and that the Russians can fire a cruise missile right into his bedroom window.  Erdogan might be crazy, but he is clearly not *that* crazy.

Finally, let’s remember the disastrous consequences for Turkey following the shooting down of the Russian SU-24 and the fact that, by numerous corroborated accounts, the Russian intelligences services saved Erdogan, probably literally, by warning him of the coup against him.

So, for all these reasons, Erdogan is not on my current list of suspects.  Never say never, new facts might come to light, especially with a maniac like Erdogan, but right now I will assume that he has nothing to do with what happened.

Daesh & Co?  Maybe.

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ell, it is rather obvious that the Daesh & Co. had an extremely long list of reasons to want to kill a high profile Russian official.  So yes, they sure had the motive.  Considering how successful radical Islamist extremists have been at penetrating the Turkish deep (and not so deep) state, Daesh and Co. also had the means.  As for the opportunity, the video above clearly shows that not only did Mevlut Mert Aydintas have the time to shoot the Russian Ambassador many times (I counted 9 shots), but after that he still had the time to just stand there and scream all sorts of slogans about Syria, Aleppo and God.  While we don’t know all the details yet, this is already very strong evidence that security at this event was dismal.

Gulen, the CIA, Obama & Co?  Maybe.

[dropcap]Y[/dropcap]es, they are also on my list of suspects.  The Gulenists have nothing to lose, the CIA has gone crazy with anger and fear at the election of Trump, and the Obama Administration is full of angry, offended, deeply vengeful and otherwise plain nasty characters who would love to trigger a new crisis between Russia and Turkey or make the Russian pay in some way for humiliating the AngloZionist Empire in Aleppo.  Keep in mind that this is exactly how the CIA always kills foreign dignitaries: by subcontracting the murder to a local fanatic so as to preserve what they call “plausible deniability”.

During the Cold War the Soviets and the Americans had an unwritten understanding that “we don’t kill each other”.  It was never formally mentioned or otherwise acknowledged, but I assure you that it was real: neither side wanted an open ended escalation of assassinations and counter-assassinations.  But today’s CIA is a pathetic joke compared to the CIA of the Cold War, and with hodge-podge of mediocre dimwits now in the Executive branch I would not put it past some idiot in Langley to approve of the murder of a Russian Ambassador.  Besides, if the Americans were crazy and reckless enough to attempt to overthrow Erdogan, why would they not try to murder a Russian Ambassador?

What about the lone gunman hypothesis?

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ell, it is impossible to prove a negative. Mevlut Mert Aydintas did lose his job in a recent purge, he did have police credentials and his actions on the video seem to be a textbook example of the kind of fanatical behavior a lone nutcase would display.  So yes, it is possible that Mevlut Mert Aydintas acted alone.  After all, all he needed was a gun and a police ID.  Let’s see what the Turks, and the Russians, find out about him.  Still, I doubt it.  That kind of personality is usually identified by state sponsoring terrorism and then activated when needed.  My gut tells me that he did not just act alone.  Somebody probably used Mevlut Mert Aydintas.

Painful questions

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]ere I really hope that I am wrong, but if I want to be honest I have to admit that I am completely unable to find an excuse of the lax security around Ambassador Andrey Karlov.  And I am not referring to the Turks here, I am referring to the Russian security services.  Here is why.

Even if we assume that the Turks had told the Russians that they had established a ‘safe/sterile’ perimeter around the exhibit and that the general public would not be let in, the footage shows what appears to be only a few guests, there is no excuse for the Russian not to have at least one bodyguard in the immediate proximity to the Ambassador.  Turkey is not only a country at war, but Russia is a party to that war, the Takfiris have made a very long list of threats against Russia and, finally, Turkey is a country which has suffered from terrorism for years and which has just suffered a bloody attempted coup.  In a country like that a top official like an Ambassador should have been protected by an entire group of bodyguards, but in this case there was clearly nobody.  Oh sure, the Russian can blame the Turks for having set up a crappy perimeter, but as professionals they should know that the Turks are already having extreme difficulties in dealing with their own terrorists and that following the massive purges the security services are in a state of chaos.  Would one bodyguard have made a difference?

Yes, possibly.  Probably, in fact.

From the video it appears that Mevlut Mert Aydintas was standing about 5 meters behind Ambassador Karlov when he opened fire.  Apparently, not a single of the shots hit the Ambassador’s head.  If Ambassador Karlov had been wearing a flack jacket or any other type of body armor he would have probably survived that first volley of bullets (unless one hit the cervicals).  One single bodyguard could then have easily killed Mevlut Mert Aydintas and evacuated the ambassador to safety.  Evidently Karlov was not wearing any kind of body armor that day.  Why?  He did not have a single bodyguard next to him.  Why?  No Russian voices are heard on the video, so there appears to have been no Russian security anywhere near the ambassador.  Why?

Normally, ambassadors are a very easy target.  Everybody knows them, their routine is public and, contrary to what many seem to think, most of them have no security detail.  I am absolutely amazed that more ambassadors are not killed regularly.  In high risk countries, however, ambassadors are normally protected, especially ambassadors representing countries involved in a war or who are likely targets of terrorist attacks.  True, as a rule, the Russians, including diplomats, tend to be more brave/reckless (pick the term) than their western counterparts: they don’t scare easy and they like to show that they are not afraid.  But that kind of attitude needs to be kept in check by professionals.

Frankly, it makes me angry to see how many Russians have been killed by that lax attitude towards personal risk and security.  Yes, it is very noble to be courageous, but to die killed by a maniac is also plain dumb.  I would feel much better if Russian officials and politicians would be a little less courageous and a little more careful.  Because what happened today begs the question: who will it be the next time?

Conclusions

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat happened 48 hours ago is a tragedy made twice as painful by the fact that it could probably have been avoided.  The Turkish security services will probably arrest overnight pretty much anybody and everybody Mevlut Mert Aydintas has ever met, and they will get lots of confessions.  I am pretty sure that they will share a lot of that data with the Russians, if only to show how sorry they are.  Alas, both the Turks and the Russians have an long tradition of secrecy and we might never find out who, if anybody, really was behind Mevlut Mert Aydintas.

The only thing I am sure of is that Putin will do nothing harsh regardless of who is behind this murder.  If it is the Takfiris, then the people involved will die in the next couple of years.  If the CIA is involved, however, the Russians will be much more careful and might choose to act in a very different way, possibly through the next Administration.  The murder of Ambassador Karlov will not succeed in derailing the Russian and Iranian efforts at getting some kind of a regional solution to the war in Syria, nor will it change the Russian determination to prevent the AngloZionst Empire of turning Syria into yet another Takfiristan.

As for Russia and Turkey, as long as Erdogan remains in power they will continue to try to collaborate against all odds and in spite of deep and fundamental differences.  Neither Russia nor Turkey, which have fought each other in twelve wars, has any other option.

—The Saker

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

By JASON HIRTHLER

Oh, they’ll start pouring out their bile now, blaming everyone but themselves and their candidate. It was the media’s fault for popularizing Trump (a Clinton strategy). It was the FBI’s fault for re-opening the email case (thanks to Huma Abedin’s ex). It was stupid Middle America’s fault for being racist and sexist (was that why they voted for Trump?). It was third-party supporters who screwed us in Florida again (Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow are furious that leftists didn’t vote for their heroine). It was Russia’s fault for hacking the DNC (no evidence) and plotting to invade Europe (no evidence).

Hillary and the Great Divide

In Hillary’s farewell speech, she kept to form and quoted scripture–the very last guide she has used to shape her political life. In other words, she remained a hypocrite. She talked to little girls who think she is a great flagbearer for womankind, even though she precipitated the brutal destruction of infrastructure, the breakdown of law and order, and the eventual collapse of the Libyan state, throwing thousands of brown women, boys and girls into extreme danger [death] and exile. She exported the same plan to Syria. And she supported a coup d’état in Honduras that has now led to predictably vicious repression and regular homicide.

The truth is, Hillary was a terrible candidate. Like Al Gore. She was charmless and toneless. In an election atmosphere typified by personality politics, Hillary lacked one. She had a rich track record of foreign policy meltdowns [and criminality] at the State Department and a feckless tenure in the Senate. She alienated Congress in 1993 when she failed to get health care reform passed [a mss of a plan, to begin with, no better than Obamacare]. And she evidently used high office to peddle access and influence to Clinton Foundation donors. Her positions had changed repeatedly, suggesting she couldn’t be trusted. This, compounded by the scandal surrounding her lazy use of email in the trafficking of confidential information, and ham-fisted attempts to cover it up, cast her in the dimmest of lights with many Americans. An albatross husband still despised by conservatives and who loomed hungrily behind the floodlights of her campaign–didn’t help either.

Their strategy was typical of the liberal mindset, which principally cares about identity politics. The media aimed to destroy Trump by exposing his sexism and racism and sense of elite entitlement. The relentless smearing of Trump, the unearthed audio tapes, the timely advent of a phalanx of sexual accusers, and the haunting image of a Great Wall on the Mexican border–all of this “horrified” Starbucks America, the coastal enclaves of educated, profitably employed, and multi-cultural voters.

One good point made by political pundit Alex Castellanos was that Trump’s campaign pivoted on a single theme: Make America Great Again. What was Clinton’s theme? Hillary for America? That lack of focus perhaps belied an unwillingness to trumpet her own track record and rather cast herself as a blank slate in a gender-friendly outfit, upon which voters could inscribe all manner of multicultural hopes, much in the way that Barack Obama did in 2008. But Obama played to change. Clinton was far too establishment to try that.

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]espite the transparent defects of the Clinton campaign, her bi-coastal minions were astonished at the results. As with Brexit, the media couldn’t understand the populist rage boiling beneath their lofty studio sets. Particularly the partisan mainstream media (MSM) that threw its full weight behind Clinton from the outset of the general campaign. Their strategy was typical of the liberal mindset, which principally cares about identity politics. The media aimed to destroy Trump by exposing his sexism and racism and sense of elite entitlement. The relentless smearing of Trump, the unearthed audio tapes, the timely advent of a phalanx of sexual accusers, and the haunting image of a Great Wall on the Mexican border–all of this “horrified” Starbucks America, the coastal enclaves of educated, profitably employed, and multi-cultural voters. They couldn’t understand how anyone could vote for Trump because they were only focused on multi-culturalism, which is the only message the Democratic Party has left. The top 10 to 20 percent of society, coasting along on the information economy, think it’s all about sexual politics and an outdated bible-based worldview. There’s plenty to that, but there’s a lot more to the authentic rage people feel about having their livelihoods ruined by an oligarchic state that sees them as riff raff–a reserve pool of cheap labor to be patronized every four years and otherwise ignored.

(By the way, “horrifying” and “terrifying” are the most overused clichés of the election season. Have you ever seen such righteous posturing and mawkish contortions among the MSM priesthood?)

The voters in Walmart America, the sneered upon “flyover states,” saw job loss and DC corruption. They are truly the “forgotten people” Trump referenced. How many college-educated white-collar workers understand what it feels like to have their job taken by an illegal immigrant who will work longer hours for less money and fewer benefits? Nobody at The New York Times, anyway. Walmart America was sick and tired of being screwed over by a political class that paid lip service to the plight of labor and then looked the other way. A Democratic Party that wouldn’t even mention poverty and only talked about the Middle Class. As if those tens of millions who couldn’t scrape together $400 in a pinch didn’t exist. Or the 1 in 3 Americans that have zero retirement savings. Or the millions of displaced factory workers. Mortality rates and drug use are on the rise among the middle-age white working class for a reason.

Decades of all-out corporate war against unions, all-out offshoring by disinterested multinationals, debt fearmongering and austerity as a matter of course, and bank-breaking imperial wars that drain away what taxes the working class had left to give. That’s a recipe for a populist uprising. That’s a recipe for a Donald Trump.

Faking Success

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] decade of Barack Obama telling us that the economy was growing, manufacturing jobs were back, and inflation was beaten, was comprehensively revealed to be a giant lie by this election. If all that were true, there’d have been no Trump, no inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants being the source of everything wrong with America, and no repudiation of a sitting president’s anointed successor. Immigrants become a scapegoat when illegals compete with citizens for scarce jobs. Obama certainly deported plenty of people, some two million, a presidential record. But he didn’t produce the kinds of full-time, long-term, benefits-included, living-wage jobs people used to have. The kinds of jobs progressives of yore gained by their blood. Instead, Obama effectively watched the economy produce a drizzle of openings for bartenders and waitresses and hospital orderlies–jobs that couldn’t be offshored–and did nothing about it. Obama should have known that not counting discouraged job seekers as unemployed, and tweaking the commodities basket to understate inflation, was no way to fix the economy.

Actually, he did know this. So did the Clintons, who introduced these measures. The problem is that for decades now the corporate Democrats have only cared about appearances. Reality can be prettified with a few glossy BLS reports and a small-time jobs program with a big-time press conference. Social spending programs can be bled dry by talking tough about deficits. But that only works for so long. Eventually the lower classes feel the pain and rebel.

All Trump really had to do was address them personally. He had to acknowledge their reality. Millions of jobs gone. Check. Taxes spent on needless wars and provocations. Check. So-called free trade agreements stealing our sovereignty. Check. Illegals taking American jobs. Check. Monopolies cutting jobs and raising prices. Check.

That’s what mattered to Middle America. Not the p-word and the taco bowl and scattered violence at rallies. That’s what mattered to the coastal class of corporate liberals. But not to anyone else.

Lesson Learned?

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t would be a great thing if Democrats learned a lesson from this unqualified rebuke. That they should rediscover the working class. That they should reclaim the progressive mantle of FDR and LBJ. Don’t kid yourself. They are wholly owned subsidiaries of the one percent now. They’ll just regroup and try again. After all, Hillary won the popular vote and 228 electoral votes. She got close.

A Trump presidency that ditches the Cold War rhetoric, quits using NATO as a battering ram, and cuts deals with Russia instead of leveling false accusations against it, would be a welcome sight to many. But there’s no doubt that much on Trump’s agenda will be “deplorable,” including the typical two-party attacks on taxes, regulation, education, and piddling reforms that fall woefully short on climate change, healthcare, and immigration. God only knows what he’ll try.

He could go to Russia and China and say, America wants to be part of the New Silk Road project. We want to run it across the Bering Strait and across the United States. From New York to Lisbon, east to west and back. But he won’t. He’ll most likely cave to strong-armed threats from the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, and will keep most of our discretionary monies ploughed into war. They are anxious to maintain our posture of hostility and menace toward any government that even hints at economic independence. The military-industrial complex (MIC) and international finance capital (IFC) won’t go gently into that good night. They aren’t going anywhere. The MIC-IFC is too big a complex of vested interests for one man to defeat. Challenging them, though, could be the ‘match that sparks a prairie fire,’ to use an old Communist trope. But don’t expect this from The Donald. Vanity suggests he’ll do whatever is necessary to produce a cosmetically attractive presidency, just like Obama did, and just like Hillary would have done. One that looks good on paper and bad in the streets. Another principled Jill Stein campaign crossed the finish line at one percent, four percent shy of qualifying for federal matching funds. But she nearly tripled her totals from 2012. As Obama would say, incremental gains.

THIS PIECE IS A CROSSPOST WITH COUNTERPUNCH.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

What will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable