Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

606 thoughts on “Making Sense of Trump and What Just Happened

1 2 3 6
  • Courtenay Barnett


    “If we are not prepared to think for ourselves, and to make the effort to learn how to do this well, we will always be in danger of becoming slaves to the ideas and values of others due to our own ignorance.”
    William Hughes
    “Responsibility to yourself means refusing to let others do your thinking, talking, and naming for you; it means learning to respect and use your own brains and instincts; hence, grappling with hard work.”
    Adrienne Rich
    “Think before you act.” Was a maxim that was taught to Donald Trump as a young man. The maxim advised, which he well understood, that he should look deeply upon the matter and think it over then act. He grew more and more confident as he followed what he was taught. Then as he grew older and very confident, having utilised the maxim much to his advantage over much of his life, he eventually came up with one of his own:-
    “Grab them by the P…”
    Donald Trump
    Stopped watching soap-operas
    Many months ago when I first saw Donald Trump as the Republican nominee during and after his debates, I concluded that I had now found the absolute substitute and elixir transforming soap-operas into supreme entertainment. It was ‘The Donald’ or what I started terming to my friends “ getting my daily dose of Trump”.
    Well, I was wrong, as was the New Yorker magazine in its mocking, and other publications having portrayed Trump as just a clown to be humoured:-
    “New York Daily News calls Donald Trump a ‘Dead clown walking’ ”
    As did the pollsters; as did just about all the experienced political pundits in America, they too got it totally wrong. They fooled me too and they (we) all got it wrong.
    Watching the world
    George Bush Jr. was a horrible President who was seen as a buffoon and his venture into Iraq added trillions to America’s debt while destroying what otherwise, post-sanctions, would have remained a cohesive country under Saddam Hussein. Thus, Obama was perceived as a real choice for change and America and the world really hoped for that.
    Barack Obama’s election was perceived by the American people as different, to say the least, and seen by progressives as a signal to the world that on the basis of ‘identity politics’ America could move forward from its history of oppression and discrimination. The real disappointment with Obama – or – rather the reason for the disappointment is that most persons, at least initially, did not understand that Obama was bought and paid for by Wall Street. Wikileaks documents confirm that almost all of the cabinet and senior persons were named by Goldman Sachs and save one, those so chosen were appointed. On that basis, without a doubt, one must conclude that American democracy undeniably proved to be the best that money can buy. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State sought ‘regime change’ in Libya, which sensibly, having seen the disaster created in Iraq, Obama initially opposed, but Hillary’s persistence gave her, her war, destruction of Africa’s wealthiest country and a ground base for the funding, training and advance of ISIS into Syria to fight yet another disastrous war for ‘regime change’ in Syria.
    Enter President Trump, notwithstanding his openly expressed racism and disrespect for women, one wonders not so much whether he will be inclusive, but at least two simple observations can be made.
    On domestic policy, he seems to be in more of a Regan Republican than anything else. He believes in tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics. The definition of a ‘mad man’ comes to mind – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results. The rich and super-rich do not invest and expand their businesses with tax cuts. They buy, as under Regan, more luxury goods, more Lexuses, Benzes, yachts and the like. The concomitant economic impact is a short to medium term spending propelled spike in the economy and a long-term ballooning of the national debt as tax inputs decline. Replacement of ‘Obamacare’ begs the question – with what- if affordable health care is not deemed to be a desirable public policy objective in the world’s wealthiest country.
    Trump’s foreign policy, from his utterances, sound isolationist. Build a wall with Mexico funding it; frack for US oil ( presumably without fully understanding the environmental fall out and dangers to the water supply and by extension human health – just save costs and public expenditures – as with Michigan’s water supply – and suffer the same consequences). On the positive side ( unlike Hillary) he wants, judging by his utterances, a reconfigured relationship with Russia. Hillary spoke of first strike and use of nuclear weapons ( needs to have her head examined on that one). At least if President Trump opens constructive dialogue on relations with Russia, Syria and the broad-based manifest human disasters and tragedies inflicted by US foreign policy in the Middle East – he may have something constructive and promising to contribute here. But, having read and listened to those who are far more knowledgeable about world affairs than I am – I still have my doubts.
    Back to the domestic issues, which also feed into foreign policy matters and the final question coming to mind is – will a Trump Presidency permit the US justice system to work all the way through to a proper investigation into the email scandal ( i.e. the knowing use of multiple unsecured servers and thus contravening the same Espionage Act for which Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are under either conviction or pending indictment; then lying to Congress; not to mention the criminality, bribery and ‘pay to play’ manifest corruption in the Clinton Foundation dealings) – read up on these events and then listen to the video below:-
    A Trump Presidency is unlikely to be different from any of the others going all the way back to the immediate Post World War 11 to the election of Truman and of General Eisenhower. While it is the same game, it is a different day and world as regards the global balances of power. Clearly, what we have witnessed is:–
    A. Tell the electorate what they want to hear before the election.
    B. Switch course once elected and let sensible senior persons in government advise on what is best to be done ( whether good advice is taken or not is another matter and remains to be seen).
    C. Then being a ladies man – unlike Bill Clinton who got caught in the ‘oral office’ we can but second guess, having regards for Mr. Trump’s utterances, that this time around he won’t as President Trump take his own advice and just “Grab them by the P…..”
    What will President Trump actually do once he is inaugurated? What will be President Trump’s security, diplomatic, domestic economic, environmental and trade policies? Only his hair dresser knows for sure!

    • K Crosby

      To be fair, that neo-nazi monster Clinton won the election and the electoral college did what it was supposed to do – thwart the will of the people (who could didn’t abstain from the undemocratic charade, that is).

  • kief

    Very airy with umms and uhhs but that is to be expected when we Know-Nothing. He’s a Tabula Rasa and nary a one of us can predict his behavior as POTUS. But that’s a very unpopular idea hereabouts with the whatabouittery.

  • kief

    What we know about him.

    “He campaigned as a populist champion of the common people against the elite. But he spent his life among the elite, and his business history shows that he is only tough with those with less wealth and power than he has.

    Trump kicks downward. He doesn’t punch upward.

    His transition team is drawn from K street lobbyists. His preference is to appoint from the private sector, not from government or academia.

    His likely choice for Secretary of the Treasury is Steven Mnuchin, his campaign finance chairman. Mnuchin is CEO of an investment firm called Dune Capital Management, but, according to POLITICO, he worked 17 years for Goldman Sachs, whose subprime mortgage manipulations were a big contributor to the last recession.

    The problem is that, in a recession, what makes sense for a business owner doesn’t make sense for a President. A business owner’s instinct in tough times is to cut back. That is rational behavior for the individual, but cutting back means less money in circulation, less economic activity and a worse recession.

  • Aurora

    “They’re still not mentioning the WikiLeaks revelations as a major factor in the results of this election…”

    So just to be clear: you’re claiming that the WikiLeaks Podesta email leaks *did* play a major role in the outcome of the election? They helped Trump win in other words?

      • Aurora

        Yes it is. Which makes any claim that WikiLeaks wasn’t deliberately trying to assist Trump’s election rather disingenuous, wouldn’t you agree?

        • NO_tory_US

          Not at all. Wikileaks was only behaving as a media outlet which publishes information that comes to hand. It may have assisted Trump but it would be better seen as reporting criminal and other activity of Clinton.

          On Trump, well I suspect we are going to get more of the same anyway, based on his selections. His use of masonic symbolisms and his approval of Israel doesn’t help either.

          • Aurora

            Yes, I get the argument. It’s just whether I really believe it.

            i should stress I don’t think WikiLeaks turned the election. Clinton and the Democrat establishment lost it through their backing of neoliberal/pro-globalization policies that saw them defeated in the rust belt states through a decline in Democrat votes not in an increase in Republican votes. I’m just trying to establish whether WikiLeaks had a proactive (deliberate) policy of assisting Trump’s election. That is different from publishing whatever comes available irrespective of the electoral consequences.

        • Macky

          No, WikiLeaks publishes information it receives in order to help the Public make informed decisions; it did not intentionally publish anything because of a specific and deliberate aim to damage HRC; they would have published damaging info on Trump if they had been given it.

          Is it that you can’t really see the difference, or is it that you just believe they really wanted to damage HRC per se despite what they say ?

          • Macky

            Ok, so you are imputing motivations, basically unprovable assumptions, based on nothing solid, yet you claim that admitting that Wikileaks did have an effect is the same as admitting that they planned that effect (!); and you accuse others of being disingenuous !!

          • Aurora

            I’m not imputing, I’m asking. But no, I don’t feel I’m getting a straight answer.

            Let’s be clear here. WikiLeaks may have released the Podesta emails unredacted, as a batch (I’m not sure of the actual timing), but the WikiLeaks twitter timeline was designed to inject or reinject certain emails compromising Clinton at regular intervals throughout the late campaign. That’s not releasing information, its trying to cause a political effect.

            And it had one: it connected with the Trump campaign and far right. Maybe it’s just me. I wouldn’t be relishing Trump being elected and looking for WikiLeaks to be ‘recognised’ for its success. And I’d be worried about being thanked for a good job by the KKK.

          • Macky

            “That’s not releasing information, its trying to cause a political effect.”

            Again, an assumption on your part; maybe there were other reasons as to why they published the information in the manner they did.

          • Aurora

            And another thing, just as a hypothetical: what if the ultimate source of the Podesta emails was the rogue pro-Trump NY faction of the FBI, leaked after Clinton beat Sanders. Would WikiLeaks be OK with that?

          • Aurora

            Just to recap. Craig Murray confirmed that he thinks WikiLeaks played a big role in deciding the outcome of the US presidential election. If that’s true – and I personally think the impact is less than imagined or claimed – then surely some kind of external scrutiny of WikiLeaks is entirely justified??? Are we just supposed to accept its word concerning its motives? Would you do so for any other journalistic outlet? That would be extraordinary, right, given the power to influence the outcome of an election that’s being attributed to it by a close supporter? Are we just supposed to assume neutrality? What if WikiLeaks is being used?

    • Jo

      I think the point Craig made was that, although the MSM, as a body, ignored the emails, the wider public were able to access the news all the same.

      • Aurora

        I’m after honesty, that’s all. It seems to me the desired effect of the emails was achieved and observed in the radio interview with some contentment. If WikiLeaks wanted to ensure Clinton was defeated in the election, then just say so. Of course perhaps it won’t admit to such a policy because it would compromise its reputation as an independent journalistic source – specifically set up to expose all government, political and institutional corruption and misdemeanour – by adopting a specific political stance (preference) in a particular election and intervening in it actively.

        • philw

          I dont see any evidence of Wikileaks having an agenda, and it would greatly compromise them if it turned out they did run agendas.

          Of course the same is not necessarily true of whoever was leaking to them. My bets would be on the FBI, given their other meddling in the election process. All emails will be being read by the security services.

          • Aurora

            Yes, seems plausible (I just posted that idea above) but that quite alarmingly suggests WikiLeaks could simply become a political weapon for use by security agencies, rather than an outlet for whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Snowden. But does that matter if the leaked information is true (unfabricated)? It’s a question.

        • Jo

          @ Aurora

          I think you’re being a bit unfair there.

          Hillary had a load of excess baggage even before we knew about the emails. Her foreign policy was pretty well known to many in the US of a certain age and to many of us elsewhere. Maybe that’s why so many of the over 40s could not bring themselves to vote for her, even some Democrats!

          The fact remains, and it is an indisputable fact, that the MSM on both sides of the pond refused to acknowledge Hillary’s very serious short-comings.

          The Guardian, for example, went way, way over the top with the pro-Hillary stuff and added in the “She’s a woman, she must be President.” thing regardless of the baggage she brought with her. That isn’t a sensible approach to me, I’m female, I don’t think any woman deserves the Presidency, or any role for that matter, simply because she’s a woman.

          I want honesty too. Hillary did not possess that thing and we know this. She’s a war-monger. We know this too. She already said, in the final debate, she intended to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, a country where she holds no authority whatsoever. She proved conclusively that she was up for more of the same old western aims………more regime change (illegal as that thing is, incidentally), more of the west doing as it likes abroad and creating even more carnage. But the big issue about that declaration of hers was that people immediately realised she was up for provoking direct confrontation with Russia. I think a lot of ordinary Americans simply weren’t up for that.

          You say you want honesty. Was what Clinton and other Democrats did to Sanders behind his back honest? Many, many of their voters were incensed by that when the emails were revealed. I think it’s possible they were so incensed that they vowed they’d not vote for Hillary and chose another option instead. It’s possible many of them held their noses and voted for Trump, or stayed home or voted for one of the other parties. I think no matter how we look at this result it was Hillary as candidate that cost the Democrats dearly and sent Trump to the White House.

          Clinton was never the best candidate for the Democrats. This wasn’t about what was best for the US, it was all about Clinton’s ambition to be Madam President. I think Democrat voters showed what they thought of that.

          • Aurora

            @ Jo
            I can’t disagree with anything you’ve written. Aside from Sanders, there were numerous other candidates the Democrats could have chosen and who would have beaten Trump comfortably. The consequences of the Trump presidency will become apparent over the next few years. The claim was that WikiLeaks helped secure the win for Trump. Just register that fact. If your interest is in saving the planet for human habitation by countering global warming, or ensuring democratic governance and not more state surveillance and suppression, or seeing social justice advanced rather than deeper racial and ethnic divisions, or fighting against the accumulation of wealth by corporations and billionaires, then Trump is a far, far worse prospect than Clinton. I refuse to accept the puerile argument that they are the same, or accept the justification that WikiLeaks only, strangely, happened to have ‘damaging’ material on Clinton. The only real compromising material, revealing something we didn’t really know, was on the Democrat primaries, and that could have waited until after the presidential election. WikiLeaks congratulated for a good job by the KKK, and not without reason. That’s where we ended up in the US election.

  • K Crosby

    Hmmm, I think this may be your best one yet. Isn’t it helpful when the interviewer wants to know what you think, rather than hear the sound of his own voice.

    • Paul Barbara

      Was it worse than ‘W’s’ hanging chads, illegal SCOTUS intervention, or the Diebold scam?

  • Parky

    Yes Craig, it was a good interview !

    It was apparent to me when Trump appeared on the scene that he was tapping into a feeling of discontent especially among those who had felt the bad economic effects of globalisation and I thought he had something pertinent. As he persisted and knocked down the rival Republican candidates one by one and became the only viable candidate, I was pretty sure he was onto a winner. It was obvious to me he was playing the media, knowing no matter how outrageous and un-PC his remarks were, he would still get publicity and in the media game today, that is all so important.

    Then came Brexit which was also tapping into some of that discontent which shocked the Establishment both in the UK and EU and so it was not such a surprise when Trump clinched it, although if you had followed only the main stream UK media and believed it’s every crooked word then you would have been very shocked as many seem to have been since.

    I was disgusted at the antics of Channel 4 News this past week ( I long ago gave up with BBC ), normally I would go to them as an honest and fair news gatherer and reporter but their naked hostility to Trump and fawning endearment to Clinton was beyond ridicule. These diseased news organs among others have very large slices of humble pie to swallow and I will not be so reliant on them in future as they showed their true varnished colours. How Trump behaves and what he achieves in 2017 remains to be seen, however I felt mightily relieved that Clinton didn’t prevail as surely as night follows day, she would be warmongering as soon as she hit the Oval office.

  • Sharp Ears


    This is the full webpage on which the interview is located.

    Mainstream Media ‘Still in Denial of What Happened to Them’ After Trump Win

    Trump has evaded the media on his WH visit which has upset the news channels.

    Sky had David Frum on for his opinion on Trump. That is the neocon Frum who worked for Bush as a speechwriter and who was a proponent for the war on Iraq.

    Apparently he voted for Clinton!

    He writes for the Atlantic and is also chair of the board of the right wing UK think tank Policy Exchange, founded by Boles, Maude and Gove, which harbours the UK neocons. Tonight they are meeting to hear Sheinwald, ex UK ambassador to Washington, discuss Trump as president with a Professor Walter Russell Mead.

  • Robin Morton

    Hello Craig,
    I’m sure you have seen this article predicting death of neoliberalism in western politics
    His prediction and the reasons for said death I think were well put but he didn’t know what would take its place. Now, with the election of Trump, i think we know. All the signs were seen in the UK Brexit vote – public were angry and fed up with the career pols – UK was just lucky that Farage and UKIP were not at all effective in manipulating that anger – they were basically buffoons – Trump was.( Scary though) -By the way did you see that the SIMPSON’s predicted Trump as President (something like 16 years ago) – and nobody listened !! Maybe we should suggest that Aberdeen farmer hero, (can’t remember his name) who refused to be bullied by him over that lapsed golf Course, as a checks and balances in his cabinet ?

    He was aided immensely aided by the fact that US pol class didn’t ) and probably still don’t ), realize that the end of the neo-lib power is over or else they would not have been so crude in their dealings with Sanders .the D party are now going to have to go back and work with him. Again we, in the UK , were very
    lucky that the anti-Corbyn conspirators (Benn/ Kinnock/Brutus etc) were not as effective as the Democrats were in dealing with his doppelganger . Do you think they will realise now that people are tired of political career dy-nasties and want politicians that really do listen, instead of just talk about it and really work on principles, and not just hanging on to the jobbie ?

    To quote Nobel Bob _the Times They Are A-Changeing wha wha!

    ps sorry I missed the book launch but look forwarwad to reading it.

  • Phil the ex-frog

    Well apart from the measure of WL influence being nothing but conjecture this sentenced jumped out at me:

    Politicians find it very easy to turn that anger and make it instead of being directed sensibly at the establishment direct it to immigrants and that’s a scary development we have to look out for.

    Scapegoating immigrants is a scary development? That we have to look out for? LOL.

      • Phil the ex-frog

        “I am left with no idea of the grounds of your objection. It appears to be an undefined semantic quibble.”

        It’s only words after all. Here’s a definition that I trust is not too semantic.

        Development: an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation.

        Scapegoating immigrants is in no way, not in the short local term, nor the long global stretch, a new stage.

        Do you mean it is a new stage in this election cycle? In US elections? Do you mean a new stage since…since I have no idea when. See, I’m pretty sure it’s been a tried and tested central plank of power relations for yonks. I find it funny that you assert it new and tell me to look out for it.

        I really cannot imagine any context where this assertion makes sense. Perhaps you might explain. Otherwise, yes, I quibble.

    • Loony

      “Scapegoating immigrants” is an interesting phrase. One that is certainly designed to create confusion and misdirect and to forestall any rational analysis of the role of immigration in the neo-liberal model.

      Take the UK as an example. Why do so many people want to live there? Well it is not being bombed and it is not scheduled to be bombed. So if you live in a country that is being bombed then the UK looks like a good bet. An alternative to this source of immigration would be to stop bombing other people.

      There is an all encompassing social security system in the UK – so if you live in a country without such a system then the UK probably looks good to you. How is this different from walking down the street and noticing a house that is bigger than yours with better furniture and you deciding to just go and live there instead? Is this kind of thing OK? No it is illegal and it is illegal because to permit such activity would rapidly lead to anarchy.

      The economic purpose of immigrants is to drive down wages and conditions. Mass immigration is much loved by companies such as Sports Direct. It makes poor people fight with other poor people for the scraps of a living. High end immigration, like Doctors, serves a dual purpose – it undermines the health system in home country of the Doctors and it drives down wages and conditions for Drs. in the UK.

      UK Drs. who see all this coming are themselves able to emigrate – because a lot of countries want to attract high skilled labor. Some guy that has just has pay cut in a warehouse does not have these same options as not many countries want to attract low skilled labor.

      The fact is that mass immigration hurts everyone – and it is designed to do so. The racist meme is much loved as it seems to be successful in frustrating both understanding and explanation.

      • craig Post author

        Total balderdash. Immigrants in the UK have a much lower benefits take-up than the general population and are much more likely to be in employment and actively contributing to the economy. The “immigrants coming here to sponge off benefits” meme is not just tosh, it is indeed racist tosh.

        • Republicofscotland

          Yes indeed, that is true, immigrants put Brits to shame, or the workshy ones anyway. Several columnists such as George Kerevan, have often cited that very fact in the National newspaper.

          However don’t expect, to see it in the Daily Mail or Express newspapers anytime soon.

          • Hmmm

            Again proving Loony’s point: hard working immigrants willing to work for minimum wage. Your “workshy” will say “fuck you, I’ll take the benefits thanks” and I don’t blame them.

        • Loony

          Thank you for taking the time to prove my point.

          The UK economy has been largely hollowed out and very few people whatever their origins “actively contribute to the economy”

          The only person to mention “sponging” is you – so by your definition it is you that is writing “racist tosh”

          People are not stupid – whilst the may be unaware of the intricacies of things like housing benefit they are aware that accommodation is largely un-affordable for anyone relying on a normal wage. .The fact that the streets are not filled with homeless people means someone is meeting these costs.

          If you live in the UK then, whoever you are, you have access to health care. Children have access to education. Everyone has access to roads and other civil infrastructure, and everyone benefits from the fact that the UK is a largely law abiding country.

          To try and pretend through omission that these things exist around the world is inane. Check out down town Mogadishu sometime and have a look at the quality of civil infrastructure, and the waiting time between having an accident and the ambulance turning up to take you to a fully equipped hospital.

          • Parky

            Those who have protected civil service pensions or are otherwise in receipt of public sector income, (Members of Parliament being a good example) and have not had to suffer the effects of globalisation on their income or job prospects perhaps should not promote the idea of unfettered immigration on those whose economic situation has been severely affected. We are now seeing the death-knell of neo-liberalism and it’s distorting and unsettling effects. Brexit is one example, Trump the latest and the breakup of the EU will be sooner than we think.

        • Old Mark

          Total balderdash my arse!

          Craig, like all pro immigrationists, is as usual conflating EU migrants (who were net contributors on the period studied to the tune of £4.4 billion) with all categories of immigrant; in fact, as the UCL study showed, ‘new commonwealth’ immigrants were in the period studied (1995-2011) a massive burden on the country- to the tune of nearly £118 biliion- a fact which with anyone familiar with the financing of local government would be unsurprised. (Since 1966 arrangements have been in place to compensate local authorities with significant numbers of ‘new commonwealth’ residents; clearly if these immigrants were a benefit, and not a burden, on the local authority areas in which they disproportionately reside those authorities should have their central government funding reduced, and not enhanced- simples!)

          The UCL study findings are also borne out by the 2011 census analysis of economic activity rates by ethnicity- the ‘Other White; group (ie mainly E Europeans) has the highest economic activity rate whereas assorted other immigrant groups have economic activity rates lower than that of the ‘White UK’ element of the population. Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups in particular are characterised by both higher unemployment levels, and a higher incidence of ‘low skills’ employment, than the general population- in other words, Craig’s contention that these groups are somehow adding value to the Uk economy is ‘total balderdash’

        • K Crosby

          Yes; it’s because it’s tosh that people resort to it. So much easier than analysing the structure of the fascist state.

      • Phil the ex-frog

        I agree that privileged liberals calling poor people racist for worrying about their material well being is dispicable. However, it is not true that poverty exists because of migration. Poverty is the result of the lack of organised labour. You unusually accept the parameters set by those who underpay us.

        • michael norton

          The original way that poverty happened was people breeding too much.
          Let’s say you have an island of one hectare, you have a man and a woman existing on their island.
          There either live a mesolithic existence or they attempt some form of agriculture.
          They have sexual relations and a family is born.
          Let’s say they have many children, most initially live – anyway there is going to be a point,
          when there will be too many mouths to feed on that island.
          If the island is isolated, there will come famine, the numbers of mouths will reduce to a level that they can sustain.
          If there is another island, nearby, some may attempt to make a boat and get to the other island.
          This is what will happen between Africa and Europe.
          Eventual famine/war/disease/breakdown of normal life.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            michael norton

            I wonder what you mean by ‘normal life’?

            The transition to the settled neolithic had absolutely nothing to do with poverty. I suspect you might be referring to ideas like Easter Island, which was way post neolithic, but even if we do accept such discredited theories they are still the exception and certainly not hunter gather.. Hunter gatherer society by definition lack the social apparatus for poverty. They may suffer famine, natural disatser, a beating from an angry fellow, but not poverty. When no one owns the deer you hunt or the berries you forage, no one can impose poverty on you.

            The neolithic was a pivotal period. After 100,000 years of egalitarian, matrilocal freedom people were plagued by the first priest class, building fences, claiming this is my land, this is my goat, this is my wife. And thus the shit started.

            The neolithic monuments are fascinating. There is a radical theory that these amazing structures, aligned with the stars and the sun, were used by the emerging priest class to convince people to abandon their hunter gather lives (driven by the moon) to convert to farming (driven by the sun), thus empowering the men who could fight the best. Fascinating stuff.

            I suggest your story is a mis representation if not a myth.

        • Loony

          Phil, The causes and maintenance of poverty is a complicated matter. Poverty is a direct consequence of migration – although not in the advanced economies. Going around the 3rd world, as the UK does, hoovering up qualified medical staff undoubtedly exacerbates poverty in the home countries of the sequestrated medical staff. Strangely this is not considered racist – perhaps it less overt than simply bombing them, although that is also not considered racist.

          In places like the UK organized labor has been smashed – and there is likely no way back. The scale of organization has fallen (compare a coal mine to say facebook), and ancillary support structures such as pubs and community facilities have been destroyed.

          When coal miners went on strike there were consequences for everyone – If people in a Sports Direct warehouse go on strike there are no consequences for anyone (other than those on strike). This relates to the hollowing out of the economy where very few people do any form of work that is actually useful.

          Immigration drives down wages – it starts with the unskilled and moves up the economic ladder. In many cases immigrants regard themselves as transient and are less attached to the communities in which they live and work.

          If you have too fast a rate of immigration then the sheer volume of people put pressure on local services – ranging from education to sewage disposal. Overloading services contributes to general poverty levels.

          In the UK people are being bled dry by housing costs – the reasons are no more complicated than simple supply demand. Existing property owners benefit from this state of affairs and lobby furiously to prevent the construction of new houses. Often when they take a break from their lobbying they will sneer at the local working classes and accuse them of being vile racists. They themselves of course are not racist – they want indentured servitude for locals and immigrants alike. They despise people not on the grounds of race but on the grounds of poverty – and they are doing all they can to despise as many people as possible. They have the gall to implement these policies under an anti racist banner.

          Prevailing culture may lead most people to remain silent – but their silence does not signify their agreement and it does not mean that they do not understand. If you shut off people’s scope for expression one way it will come out another way. Both Brexit and Donald Trump were the people expressing themselves. There is much more to come.

          • Phil the ex-frog


            I disagree I’m afraid.


            Yes of course migration drives down wages in the richer country and deprives the poorer of skilled labour. However, they are not the cause of poverty.

            Poverty existed before migration was a factor in the labour market. Poverty is the result of low wages. Bosses always pay as little as they can get away with, they have no choice, that’s capitalism. If a business does not compete to save costs relative to competition they go bust. So in any given environment bosses have to pay as little as they can get away with. Migration is just another way they get away with it. Low wages have only ever been countered by the organised resistance of workers.

        • Parky

          In a market economy such as ours, you get paid what an employer has to pay to keep you. If there are other jobs down the road and your employer pays less, you have the choice to move there. If however those jobs are taken up by Eastern Europeans who will work for what the employer will pay and accept poor living conditions as a consequence, then you have little choice but to accept it. Immigration drives down employment costs, keeps inflation low, increases consumer demand and that’s why employers and governments absolutely love it.

  • Owen Hayes


    I will certainly listen to the interview but as a relatively new reader of your blog, I am slightly confused. Is sputnik not a propaganda organ of the russian government? Akin to RT? Correct me if I’m mistaken but I’m sure the interview can stand on it’s merits anyway.

    • craig Post author


      Indeed it is. Just as the BBC is a propaganda organ of the British government. Every mainstream media outlet is a propaganda organ for someone. I do however speak to any of them on the rare occasion I am asked. It is the truth of what I say that concerns me, whatever the platform.

      • kief

        No offense but has RT suddenly become more acceptable because of what we’re discussing.

        No that it’s a taint, but there does seem to be a shift in perception.

        • nevermind

          No offence Kief, but, aren’t you just a paid morsel. a something that does not habe any opinion, for, lets say Iran…
          You are a bit of a novice, bless, and…. welcome
          just take advantage, why don’t you. Is your right innit?

          • kief

            Now that you are asking I would ask you to peruse the last couple of threads where you dismissed or passed over my comments as is the custom. I will offer you a synopsis of the cognitive dissonance on the subject of Iran and the mindless acceptance of the Mystery Guest, Donald Trump.

            He will succumb to the Neocons and become Stuxnet 2.0.

            Does that help?

        • Parky

          RT has been like a breath of fresh air this week after the blatant hysteria coming from the state and private UK broadcasters.

  • Loony

    Donald Trump was not elected as a consequence of his own policies. He was elected because people loath Clinton and loath the neo-liberal economic model that is slowly killing them.

    No one what Trump will do. If he does not do some of the things that he says he will do then next time around people will just elect and even more strident extreme figure. This process will continue until something is done to attend to the needs of the people.

    The level of self delusion and stupidity is staggering to comprehend. Listen to liberals squeal – Trump is racist. Trump is a xenophobe, Trump is Hitler etc etc. Who knows whether any of this is true. If it is then the people responsible for his rise to power are those same squealing idiots. The same idiots who closed their eyes to the subversion of democracy that eliminated Sanders. The same idiots that professed support for one of the most obviously corrupt and warmongering people ever to walk on the public stage.

    These idiots are active everywhere – they are in the UK bleating about Jeremy Corbyn and undermining him at every turn. Periodically appearing on some semi defunct TV station to try and repaint Tony Blair as a normal human being. The same idiots that act to undermine the law by seeking to frustrate, delay and prevent any criminal prosecutions for people like Blair and Clinton.

    The idiocy of these people knows no bounds. The more successful they are in the short term the more certain they make it that eventually a figure will arise that will sweep therm all away.

    Listen to the idiocy of people bleating about Clinton and the missed glory of not having a woman President. Listen to them insinuate misogyny on the part of all those who did not vote for Clinton. But a new battle dawns – soon it will be time to get behind Marine Le Pen as a credible candidate for being a female French President. Will they do that? They’d rather chop out their own tongues. So much the cause of gender equality.

    • michael norton

      Marine Le Pen wants less Islamic people to live in FRANCE
      she wants to drop the EURO
      she wants to get out of the hated European Union
      in fact she wants her country back – sound familiar
      United Kingdom
      The Netherlands

      and so on

  • Anon1

    I can’t load the video but is Craig now the expert on why Trump won, having predicted a Hillary victory? He never learns. He’s always wrong.

  • Anon1

    The reason Craig’s predictions are always wrong (and mine are always right) is that he sees himself as some kind of dissident when in actual fact he is an advocate for liberal establishment positions.

    Globalist, massively pro-EU, all concern about mass-immigration is racist, open borders, everyone else is a far-right bigot, xenophobe, etc. He represents exactly what is being rebelled against by ordinary people.

    Everything he has ever hoped for will be wiped out within the next 18 months.

    I hope you on the left enjoy the tenure of Marine Le Pen. Remember that you brought this all upon yourselves.

      • michael norton

        The opening of the men’s centre comes a week after police cleared a camp in northeast Paris where 3,800 people
        — mostly Afghans, Sudanese or Eritreans — What no SYRIANS?
        had been living in tents and mattresses under an overhead metro line.

        Last month, authorities also demolished the notorious “Jungle” shantytown in the northern port of Calais — the main launchpad for migrants’ attempts to cross the Channel to Britain.

        France’s Socialist government is anxious to show it has a handle on migration in the run-up to presidential and parliamentary elections next year.

        So the bleeding heart establishment is very concerned because there is an election in a few months.
        They are “fairly” sure Marine Le Pen will walk it.
        The reasons she will walk it
        are obvious to most but not the blind.

    • Loony

      There is a rumor going round that President Trump may appoint Nigel Farage to be his adviser with regard to Europe.

      • Anon1

        Brexit played a major part in Trump’s campaign. Brexit wouldn’t have happened without Farage and UKIP.

        Is it too much of a stretch to say Craig’s “Little Englanders” changed the world?


    • Wolsto

      Expressing and discussing concerns about immigration, “mass” or otherwise, is not racist. Indeed, it’s sensible and necessary to the smooth running of our institutions and society. Blaming all society’s ills on foreigners and refusing sanctuary to refugees is racist.

      “Ordinary people” have a range of different views about a range of different subjects. Giving you a charitable reading of what you mean with that phrase – low to middle income households outside of major cities – I would suggest that the root of dissatisfaction with the status quo is that neoliberalism has served them very poorly. Where and how that dissatisfaction is targeted is a matter for her majesty’s press and our more outspoken politicians to answer for.

  • fwl

    In the UK I’m used to watching the count being declared. It is a simple process complicated only by postal votes.

    I still don’t get what actually happens in the US and how states call the vote. There is no UK TV coverage of declarations and watching on Wednesday morning it was obvious that states are called without the count being anywhere near complete. Is it the media that calls it or do the electoral colleges call it before they have finished the count and if so how is this acceptable to everyone?

    • fwl

      Dearest Fwl,

      Electoral College meets to elect President on December 19th. It is not bound to follow the vote. I do not know what happened on 9/11 and nor does there seem to be much in the way of updates on final county by county verified vote results. Are there formal county by county state by state calls?

  • Anon1

    Jon Snow, Matt Frei and C4 News have lost all pretense of impartiality. Snow is actually endorsing threats againt the elected Republican government and stabbing his finger angrily at Democrats who aren’t sufficiently hate-filled.

    We see their true colours now. Trump supporters are being harrassed and beaten on the streets. The ‘tolerant’ liberal-left soon turn fascist when they don’t get their way.

    Listen for the word ‘divisive’. Always spoken by a fascist.

  • Republicofscotland

    I think I’ve figured out why Hillary Clinton lost the election. Several days prior to the vote Kezia Dugdale flew out America to help boost Hillary’s campaign, and no doubt she took with her the McTernan curse, which is exclusive to Labour.

    The McTernan curse has seen the likes of Jim Murphy and Aussie candidates fail, in their goals to reach office.

      • Republicofscotland

        Sure you did, and I put a thousand on Trump, as well, oh and I’ve put a thousand on Theresa May, to get a great deal from Brexit.

        Plus I put a thousand on Boris Johnson’s resignation after Brexit.

        • Alcyone

          RoSy, since you haven’t a clue where to ptu your commas, are you sure you know what a thousand even looks like?

      • Herbie

        Should of gone to Betfair.

        She was about 87% to win in the closing stages.


        The important thing to look at is who Trump’s team appoint to the key offices.

        Seems he’s looking at more your PNAC types than Hillary’s CFR types, which you’d have thought indicated a more agressive stance on the world stage.

        Israel, or at least Bibi’s Israel, shall have a much much better relationship with Trump than with Obama.

        Prime candidate for leaks I’d say.

        Much more so than Russia.

        But then, Bibi and Putie are mates.

    • michael norton

      The pins are starting to be bowled over, governments/administrations are being swept away.

      Estonia’s Prime Minister Taavi Roivas has lost a parliamentary confidence vote, causing the government to collapse.

      It follows months of in-fighting between his Reform Party and its two coalition partners over economic policies, among other issues.

      Both the leftist Social Democrats and conservative IRL Party argue the economy is stagnant.

      Roivas lost the vote 63-28, with ten MPs abstaining or absent.

      Probably Austria, next, then Italy, then France, then The Netherlands,
      not sure about Germania

      • michael norton

        Saint Nigel Farage has described US President Barack Obama as a “loathsome individual”
        and a “creature” who “couldn’t stand our country”.

        He told Talk Radio he “couldn’t be happier” about Donald Trump’s US election victory and that he would work to further trade relations.

        I say, that’s a little strong Saint Nigel.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ michael norton November 10, 2016 at 20:30
          I make Farage right – anyone who kills more people with drone strikes than Bush is indeed an extremely loathsome creature.

      • lysias

        I wonder if there’s any connection between the fall of the Estonian government and the election of Trump. Trump has expressed skepticism about coming to the defense of Estonia under the NATO Treaty.

        • Paul Barbara

          Jolly well right! There’s no way Russia would attack Estonia if they weren’t extremely provoked by Estonia or NATO, and Estonia won’t provoke Russia if they are unsure NATO would back them.
          If he stands by that sort of policy, the world will become a much more peaceful and safer place.

  • michael norton

    This is interesting

    Netanyahu meets Medvedev, says Israel, Russia, US should jointly eliminate ISIS

    Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed in Jerusalem on Thursday bilateral ties and the fight against international terrorism. Israel, Russia and the US are partners in efforts to eliminate Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), TASS quoted Netanyahu as saying at a news conference. He added that Israel will not let Iran get nuclear weapons and strengthen positions in Syria.

    Russia Today

    • Paul Barbara

      @ michael norton November 10, 2016 at 20:39
      Except, of course, Putin knows very well indeed that the US and Israel created ISIS/IS, and still back them.

  • Sharp Ears

    Is this date still on?

    Swedish prosecutor says Assange interview set for November 14
    STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Julian Assange will be interviewed at Ecuador’s London embassy on Nov. 14, Swedish prosecutors said on Monday, in a move that could end a long diplomatic deadlock that has seen the WikiLeaks founder holed up in the London residence since 2012.

    “Ecuador has granted the Swedish request for legal assistance in criminal matters and the interview will be conducted by an Ecuadorian prosecutor,” the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement.

    The Swedish assistant prosecutor, Chief Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, and a Swedish police investigator have been allowed to be present at the interview. They will report the findings to Sweden.

    Swedish authorities want to question Assange over allegations that he committed rape in 2010. Assange denies the allegations.

    (Reporting by Stockholm Newsroom; Editing by Alistair Scrutton)—FpV6C5cxnncqdJCXRVs0MA/

    If so, very best wishes to Julian for his freedom. Poor man, He’s been there over 4 years since 19 June 2012. It’s unimaginable.

    • Paul Barbara

      There’s a vigil of supporters planned for the 14th from 09:00 Monday outside the Embassy.

  • kief

    WaPo; Salfists ecstatic.

    “”Rejoice with support from Allah, and find glad tidings in the imminent demise of America at the hands of Trump,” said the Islamic State-affiliated al-Minbar Jihadi Media network, one of several jihadi forums to post commentaries on the results of the U.S. election.

  • Becky Cohen

    When they referred to the ‘American Dream’ they never let on that it was a nightmare:(

  • Becky Cohen

    Apparently, former Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke (not to be confused with Daisy), is absolutely thrilled with Trump’s victory, gushing that it’s his bestest ever dream come true. Uh-oh…sounds like that must be a wet one, then. Hope he’s a big enough boy to put his bedsheets (sorry, Klan robes) in the laundry afterwards;)

    • kief

      Yeah but there are all sorts of opportunities for attention. We really don’t know anything, or a paltry amount is understood about him and his true intent, Difficult to assess at this point because he’s a blustermaniac. I’m sure that’s how he closes business deals; with litigious threats of revenge (which we know to be true) if he doesn’t get his way. Little is known except the obnoxious public persona, (which genuinely seems a foreign idea to his family). We know he’s not paid taxes for the past twenty years, and there are no hospital wings named after the prolific ‘builder’ because he makes few pledges to charity, and often forgets to honor those he does. Has this whole thing been staged just as seen? Was the bluster just a dodge? Could be he actually has some ideas for HOW to do what he’s promised, and his Bulworth was strategic and genius.

      I watched the debates with the expectation he would show more than his usual carnival barking. He didn’t, and that’s possibly the strategy. If so, he will be transformational if he lives past his first 100 days.

      Time will tell, but no one knows except maybe him..but I’m always reading into things.

  • Aurora

    Assange in interview with John Pilger ( “‘My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

    OK. So my analysis from that is that Assange calculated that releasing the Podesta emails would not influence the outcome of the election because Trump would not (be allowed to) win, correct?

    Well, he did win, that’s obvious, and Craig Murray claims WikiLeaks helped Trump to the win (intentionally or not, I’m not making that call, neither perhaps is he, I don’t know). But, aside from been proven wrong, Trump was allowed to win, why does Assange think Trump had no backing from the political establishment or wouldn’t (and now won’t) quickly acquire such backing? The Kochs for example? Factions of the FBI? Won’t a new establishment configuration not rapidly form, assisted by a reshaped GOP in Congress?

    • Phil the ex-frog


      Assange slipped into to the conspiratorial, suggesting they, the establishment, had absolute control. He was talking shit. Get the mob and you win. Of course now Trump is equally at the mercy of the mob and seems to already be trying to calm expectations. If the US does not slip into real fascism there will be an angry fucking mob in a few years as a Trump presidency delivers greater riches to the rich. That’s my guess.

      • kief

        Could be. Could be, not. It’s a guess, and a consistent guess, but it’s a guess.

        We have no choice but to sit back and watch it play out. But I’m giving him just a little room. We’ll see if he hangs himself.

      • Aurora

        Phil the ex-frog, that’s why Sanders has been so quick to say it’s crucial that the Trump backlash is channeled somewhere healthy.

        I’m sure Assange is not pro-Trump per se, I’m just pointing out that he’s clearly been acting on the basis of some very mistaken calculations. Also he ended up echoing the conspiracy theory that was being used as a rallying cry by Trump and his supporters. Anyhow it’s done. Let’s see how the Trump presidency unfolds and what if anything gets leaked…

        • Phil the ex-frog


          I haven’t seen anything to suggest that WL might be pursuing a pro Trump agenda. The alternative, to have sat on them, would have contradicted what I understand their motivation to be.

          I guess it not impossible he has cut a deal with the Trump camp and we should expect him on the streets early next year. Obviously that would be the end of WL. Can’t see it but stranger things happen at sea. The pressure on Assange must be unbearable.

    • Paul Barbara

      Apparently the filth that was on the emails caused NYPD and 13 New York FBI agents to rebel, and say unless the FBI dropped the kid-glove treatment of Clinton, they would leak the email content. She certainly is one sick puppy (like her Hubby).

      • Wolsto

        “Apparently”? As in, from a credible source? Or did that information come to you in a dream. Did read it in the tea leaves? Interpreted it from the patterns of migrating geese against the Autumnal sky?

      • Aurora

        Irrespective of the content, my point was that Trump wasn’t and isn’t without support within the US establishment, more of which will assuredly come his way now. The bigger point is WikiLeaks sources and whether these could be internal to the US, say, and not Russian security agencies, say. There are a lot of possibilities. On this note it puzzles me that WikiLeaks supposedly has an anonymous structure for information to be transmitted to the organisation, yet CM assures everyone it wasn’t the Russians. How can that assurance be given then?

        In the end it’s about transparency, social justice, open government, informed participation (including electoral democracy) and non-exploitation. Or it should be. The *apparent* involvement of the right-wing Trump campaign, an entirely undemocratic Russian government, and various elements of security forces all have thrown WikiLeaks under a spotlight by those fighting for social justice these past months. And it’s now just irritating and unconvincing to receive patronising assurances and dismissals of any criticism as though it was above all suspicion and any suspicion is itself suspect. That’s not transparency, it’s at best irresponsibility.

    • Phil the ex-frog

      Yeah, all this talk of Clinton conspiring with the media and we forget how central they have been to Trump’s ascendancy.

      Although highly critical of him in the end, they still gave him privileged access to the airwaves because he was a good show. Ratings means profit. They increased their profits further by charging for ads from his republican rivals. This was all said by a NYC media academic on R5 live late last night*. He quoted one stat: that in the primaries one particular high profile news programme gave Trump 81 minutes of uninterrupted airtime whereas Sanders got 20 seconds.

      And happy to acknowledge my guessing is my guessing.

      * sorry can’t remember his name nor the particular news show he surveyed – on abc? – but available on iplayer (last nights “up all night”) should anyone really wants to find out.

  • kief

    And I must apologize in advance…

    I will be using facts in spite of the sTRUMPet tendency to disregard. Sorry to disrupt the zeitgeist.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Just don’t understand the lack of interest of voter fraud in the presidential election, especially in crucial states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where many constituencies have more voters than residents, what little voter roll cleanup there is like in Ohio reduces twice as many Democrats as Republicans, and Michigan seeing voter registration balloon while the population is shrinking!

    It just stinks!

    • kief

      Bigger fish for everyone to fry. It wasn’t close. Ergo; no problem. Many oddities but no one wants to talk about what seems minor in light of the future.

    • glenn_uk

      Trowbridge: Nobody’s interested in the gerrymandering, the caging, the defective polling machines or limited numbers, in poor urban or non-white neighbourhoods. It’s been happening for many years, it’s old news. The “provisional ballots” which are gleefully tossed away almost immediately, the ID requirement which disenfranchise or dissuade poorer or less white voters – heck, that’s done now with such regularity as to get only a collective yawn.

      Yet Trump was whining that the voting was rigged even as the counting was underway. Only stopped when he got the result they wanted. Now if the other side acted the same, that would have been just terrible. It’s always the same story.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    And then there are the two former Republican governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld who were persuaded to run as third party spoilers who managed for Trump to win.

    The Libertarian Party was much more successful than Ross Perot ever was.

    Were they induced by Trump to run their loony campaign?

    • lysias

      Everyone thought at the start that Johnson-Weld would take more votes from Trump, so the media initially got a lot more media coverage than Jill Stein, for whom there was a virtual media blackout.

      When it became clear that Johnson-Weld was taking more votes from Hillary, media coverage shifted, and pro-Hillary outlets like the Washington Post played up some rather trivial slips by Johnson while they virtually ignored alarming statements by Hillary in the debates about nuclear war and a no-fly zone in Syria. Meanwhile, the blackout on Jill Stein continued.

1 2 3 6

Comments are closed.