by
Berry Friesen (Aug. 10, 2016)
I’ve been mulling this possibility since last August, when Trump
and his supporters showed us that a Trump run for President had to be taken
seriously.
I do not know the answer to my question, but in the
paragraphs that follow I will outline why I increasingly am inclined to regard
this “election from hell” as a covert op.
As I said in “A
Dog in This Fight?”, the empire carries out covert ops all around the world to create desired change. Why not here?
By “covert op,” I mean a secret conspiracy of agencies of
the US government (probably the FBI, CIA, NSA), working together with private
“security” contractors and elements of organized crime to achieve specific
results in the 2016 presidential election.
For those who reject “conspiracy thinking” across-the-board,
spend a couple of hours reading about how the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) conspired to make sure Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Democratic
nomination. Then come back here to
finish this post.
What is the purpose
of this covert op (if it exists)?
Primarily, the purpose is to elect Clinton as the next
President.
She is a member of the imperial elite and can be counted on
to advance the imperial agenda, both in the US and globally: undermine independent bases of power and
authority (culture, religion, nationalism, fiefdoms, etc.); use debt to shift public
wealth into private hands; financialize the economy so that Wall Street rules.
The military, covert intelligence agencies and proxy terror groups are the enforcers
in this game plan. In Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine, Clinton has
established a clear record of using such “allies” to advance private interests. She can be trusted to authorize more violence
when “needed.”
A second purpose of a covert op within this election is to
restore the legitimacy of the US democracy. Many millions of Americans are
convinced that the US political system has been corrupted by the moneyed
elite. Participation in voting has been weak; turn-out among the voting-age population has not reached 60 percent
since 1968.
This threatens the legitimacy of the agendas advanced by the
President and other political leaders.
So this election must generate high popular participation, including more
voting.
Third, within the Republican Party is a group of
mavericks who refuse to follow the imperial script (more Wall Street control,
more surveillance, more use of the US military in world events). Members of this group oppose increased surveillance,
oppose war without congressional authorization, oppose energetic government action
in response to crisis, and refuse to follow blindly their leadership.
The growth in this sentiment within a major player in the
system must be stopped. Discrediting this
maverick point-of-view and making it political death to go off-the-reservation (as
politicians such Rep. Walter Jones or Senator Rand Paul have) is necessary in
order to restore stability.
How would such a covert
op be implemented?
A populist candidate who engages the disaffected would be provided
the resources to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President, but then
would conduct a post-convention campaign that almost inevitably produces failure
in the General Election.
Cooperation of the key players in this plan would need to be
secured. For Trump and Bernie Sanders, the
opportunity to gain the attention of the nation and launch “political
revolutions” would be sufficient inducement; for Clinton, certain victory would
make it all worthwhile. Major media executives
who decide how to “cover” the news are already part of the imperial elite; their
support can be counted on. The same is
true of the top leaders of the two major political parties.
How has it been
implemented?
Mainstream media ushered Trump onto the national stage in
the late spring of 2015 by amplifying his attention-seeking statements. They kept Trump in the spotlight for a solid
15 months. This is highly unusual
behavior in response to a maverick candidate who has very little establishment support.
FOX News played a major role in this
(even though Trump was highly critical of FOX News), but other leading
television networks and news outlets have responded similarly.
On the left, Sanders campaigned energetically and successfully in opposition to two aspects of Clinton's record: Wall Street's stifling hold on the US economy and international trade agreements that benefited primarily the 1 percent. Inexplicably, he said little-to-nothing about Clinton's reckless use of confidential documents or her falsehoods to the American people about that conduct. Likewise, Sanders avoided criticism of Clinton's foreign policy record, which has served the interests of al-Qaeda while failing to protect US interests.
Since Trump's nomination as the Republican candidate, he has performed poorly. Rather than building momentum on his convention success and the popularity of several of his policy proposals (opposition to international trade agreements and the extension of US military force around the world; support for the expulsion of certain groups of refugees and illegal immigrants and a return to an economy based on production, not financial manipulation), Trump instead has distracted his audience with off-topic controversies.
Since Trump's nomination as the Republican candidate, he has performed poorly. Rather than building momentum on his convention success and the popularity of several of his policy proposals (opposition to international trade agreements and the extension of US military force around the world; support for the expulsion of certain groups of refugees and illegal immigrants and a return to an economy based on production, not financial manipulation), Trump instead has distracted his audience with off-topic controversies.
Prominent Republican leaders have responded to Trump’s unfocused and controversy-laden campaign by openly disavowing him. Other Republican leaders in the foreign
policy establishment—especially the Republican neo-cons—have committed their
support to Clinton. Numerous Republican
officials in the “national security” establishment have declared Trump is “dangerous.”
Together, this has caused a drop in support for Trump among college-educated
Republicans and Independents, even while Trump’s support among the disaffected
blue-color portion of the electorate remains strong.
Generally, throughout the pre-convention and post-convention
phases of the campaign, Republican voices of opposition have been
too-little-too-late, never attempting to cut Trump off at the pass, but always
waiting to act until he is safely in the clear.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media has continued to report
about Trump’s statements in a way that attracts the disaffected while alarming
those loyal to the process.
For example, Trump’s recent comment that in the event of a
Clinton victory, Second Amendment devotees may have an alternative to the loss
of Amendment-secured rights has been reported as encouragement to assassinate Clinton,
even though it shows Trump to be referring instead to some sort of insurrection
in the event of a Clinton victory. Thus,
both the disaffected and those loyal to the system have been energized.
How will this end?
If this is “a fixed fight” (as I suggest it is), then Trump
will continue to engage the disaffected and alienate the rest of the electorate
with outrageous antics and statements. If
there are more moderate and liberal voters driven to the polls by this approach
than disaffected voters, then Clinton will certainly win.
Trump will do what is necessary to lose, in other words.
That’s what the script calls for.
What difference does
any of this make for you and me?
Always, our question must be how to use our time and
energy. Will we expend it on the drama
and theatrics of what probably is a staged event leading to a Clinton
presidency? Or on helping to build an entirely
different base of moral and political authority than our existing two-party
system? For me, as YHWH gives me breath,
it will be the latter.
