Not all Americans are Barking Nutters 640


That should not need to be said, but given the antics of Clinton and Trump it is as well to say it anyway to remind ourselves. Here is Green Party candidate Jill Stein explaining that you do not have to vote for either a “proto-fascist or a warmonger”.

The journalists of course attempt to say that to vote for Stein is to let Trump in. Stein sticks strongly to the argument that the “Queen of Corruption” and “Warmonger” Clinton is not in fact a real choice from Trump. This is of course absolutely true, Clinton is a dangerous extremist – she just happens to support the extremism of the right wing establishment and its poodle media.

I have been fascinated by the apoplexy generated in the pretend left by the notion that people ought not to vote for Clinton. The go-to argument is that not to vote for her is in itself an act of misogyny. I wonder if they will argue the same for Marine Le Pen. The second argument is that a corrupt warmonger is better than the racist bigot Trump. The interesting thing is, close examination reveals an almost 100% correlation between those apoplectic at any lack of support for Clinton, and those who supported Tony Blair. The idea that being an ultra-corrupt warmonger is not a big problem is obviously a fixed principle with these people.


640 thoughts on “Not all Americans are Barking Nutters

1 2 3 5
  • Karl Kolchack

    If Trump wins, the blame should be placed on one person in particular: Hillary Clinton. Amazingly, despite the fact that she has been seeking the presidency since the day Bill left office in 2001, neither of them thought there be any problem with cashing in on his presidency by selling influence to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. THAT is the real story of this campaign–the stuff about her e-mails is small potatoes by comparison.

  • kief

    “The interesting thing is, close examination reveals an almost 100% correlation between those apoplectic at any lack of support for Clinton, and those who supported Tony Blair”

    Liberal democrats or faux-left Progressives make the argument for misogyny when a vote of non-hillary is cast. They slavishly support laws that restrict individual liberties because they are the adults and know better than the unwashed masses. The Trojan Horse of Progressives conceals their distrust of the average joe and it traps males into self-loathing misandry. They are the bane of the Left. Jill Stein doesn’t have a chance in hell but I’m voting for her to get some third-party funding, not because she’s a woman.

  • Martinned

    For the record, the problem isn’t just that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump. The problem is also that she’s a raging nutter who may or may not believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that vaccines are bad. (As usual with politicians, she may have just been pandering when she said those things.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

    • Karl Kolchack

      As someone who intends to vote for Stein, I will say that her kookier positions are of little relevance to me given that she gets it absolutely right with the big stuff (global warming, no war with Russia, etc). My vote will be a protest against “the evil of two lessors” choice that has been foisted upon us. Both major party candidates are hideous abominations who have done many things that would land us “little people” in prison. Neither one deserves to be president, and the only choices for a true American leftist is either to vote for Stein or stay home.

    • Silvio

      I thought 9/11was a conspiracy, allegedly a conspiracy between Osama and his 19 hijackers at the very least – assuming you believe the official account. The official account of 9/11 is the only conspiracy theory that one is urged to accept without question or debate, even though the two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission responsible for putting together this “official” conspiracy theory stated that they felt the 9/11 Commission had been “set up to fail” and commission member Tim Roemer said of the Pentagon witnesses appearing before it, “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting.”

    • craig Post author

      As I understand it, Jill Stein – who is a doctor – once had concerns about evidence linking one particular vaccine to autism. She has since decided the vaccine should be used. Why that makes her nuts I don’t know.

      A very large percentage of the population have one doubt or another that the official version of 9/11 is not the full story. That does not disqualify all those people from public life.

      • Deep green puddock

        immunisation is not without risks, and mistakes have been made in the past, both of the ‘autism and MMR’ type, where a spurious connection is emphasised and takes a great deal of effort to undo. It is the balance of benefits that is important.
        There is/was a rather plausible theory that the proliferation of HIV/AIDS in East Africa was the consequence of improperly regulated immunisation and other health related programs sponsored by various western organisations,in the 60’s and 70’s and where the practice of injecting had leaked out of the qualified or competent health system, into a corrupt ‘free market’ where(for instance) bar tenders/ shopkeepers would sell (and inject) customers with various nostrums without any understanding of the hygiene requirements or heaslth implications. I know this because my university supervisor had been there at that time, and personally witnessed this informal and unregulated activity, propelled by various (occasionally well intentioned) levels of corruption and profiteering-including the dishonest off-loading of surplus and worthless or even dodgy medical supplies, in order to attract tax advantages.

      • Martinned

        In my humble opinion, it does. A politician who attacks the very foundation of democracy by undermining people’s trust in the electoral process ([cough] Trump [cough]) or the logic of Hanlon’s and Occam’s razors is as dangerous as a doctor who doesn’t believe in vaccination. Neither should be allowed to practice.

        • John

          You seem a tad behind the pace regarding the latest word on vaccines, Martinned.

          The CDC have recently (reluctantly) released papers admitting they were aware of an autism/vaccine link back in 2000. That really needs repeating, in a large bold font. This revelation has, of course, been strangely absent from the mainstream media.

          And the lady who helped develop Gardasil now recommends not having it, as it is more dangerous than the disease.

          The number of people who do not educate themselves I can live with – I’m extremely ignorant myself in many fields. But I don’t pronounce on them in public, as if I knew anything about them.

        • Chris S

          Undermining people’s trust in the electoral process? I think that’s been taken care of by those responsible for maintaining the electoral process. Even though I don’t agree with Trump’s assertions about rigging, blind faith in the process is also dangerous.
          Election monitors from the UN and Carter Center could help reassure the world that the process is sound.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Martinned November 4, 2016 at 00:18
      I’m afraid it’s you who is the raging nutter; do a bit of research before you get your kids pumped full of killer, autism-causing vaccines.

    • Chris S

      And the other two candidates purport to believe in an all powerful creator who will reward them with eternal life in a heavenly paradise. Kooky

  • Martinned

    Clinton is a dangerous extremist – she just happens to support the extremism of the right wing establishment and its poodle media.

    This is the kind of comment that makes me wonder whether I shouldn’t just stop reading this blog altogether. I mean, it’s the internet. The fact that half the commenters on a given blog sound like they urgently need to be (back) on medication is a given. But usually at least the blogger himself or herself has some vague grasp of reality. But if the author makes comments like this clearly the blog is only worth reading as a form of entertainment, and the only sane commenting approach flat-out trolling.

    (After all, what’s the point of making reasonable comments if the only people who are likely to read them are people who are likely to be proudly confused about just about every aspect of reality? If someone refuses to accept such basic facts as the difference between left and right and up and down, what’s the point of trying to have a reasonable conversation about the subtleties of UK foreign policy or US politics?)

    I guess that’s what I would do if I wasn’t too much like this guy: https://xkcd.com/386/

    • Karl Kolchack

      I can tell you for a fact that Clinton’s foreign policy positions are indeed extremist compared to the average American. Most people these days are sick of never ending wars and want the U.S. to stop meddling in the Middle East and South Asia. Even many right wing Republicans have come to accept the folly of trying to bomb and blast an entire region into submission.

      • Martinned

        I know that you would like to be lieve that, but it’s really not true.

        Also, for the part of the US that it is true, I’m not sure that you’d necessarily want to consider them friends. Right wing Republicans haven’t turned to isolationism because they’ve had a change of heart, but because they realised they don’t really care about brown people suffering. That doesn’t really sound like you, does it?

        • kief

          Republicans did not recently become isolationists. They were chief obstructors of FDR’s attempts to assist Britain prior to US entering the War.

          But continue in your pointless contrarian diatribes.

          • Martinned

            Yes, when they didn’t care about the J**s. Same difference. But inbetween the Republicans did some enthusiastic war mongering, you’ll agree.

      • Tom Welsh

        “I can tell you for a fact that Clinton’s foreign policy positions are indeed extremist compared to the average American”.

        My God, that bad??? I knew she was a murderous, merciless genocidal killer… but “extremist compared to the average American”? That’s going a bit far.

    • giyane

      Martinned

      Hillary Clinton is a dangerous extremist. Yes.
      she just happens to support the extremism of the right wing establishment and its poodle media.Yes.

      But what is that extremism?

      The neo-cons want to turn the true religion of Islam into a demented rabble of crazed nutters so that the long past its sell-by-date of JudaeoChristianity can look good in comparison.

      To this end Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of the favoured neo-cons’ election expenses which has been kept out of the news by Clinton’s use of private email addresses.

      The meltdown of trust ought to be on the scale of the twin towers. The dollar democratic world should collapse.

      With all due respect “The idea that being an ultra-corrupt warmonger is not a big problem is obviously a fixed principle with these people.” is a statement that seems to sum you up.

      http://www.voltairenet.org/article193924.html

    • nevermind

      But usually at least the blogger himself or herself has some vague grasp of reality.

      Says the lawyer taking his blinkers off to wipe his furrowed brow. We all can only hint at reality, a mere daily whitewash to further the same old narratives. News is a finely washed and spun affair and only those who dig and delve into the background, read between the lines, have been sitting around tables and actually heard so called diplomats speak in vile terms, thank you Wikileaks, have a broader grasp, can read between the lines what is reality.
      To accept what we hear as fact is not always right.
      For example, I’m hearing screaming jet engines a few thousand feet above my ears, its reality alright, but are these lads preparing for war or just flying their weekly duty roster. That these flights have increased during the last few weeks is out of the ordinary, but add to that the happiness of our unions at large naval defence contracts, upgrading of an indiscriminate nuclear weapons system and you have a picture emerging that comes close to the reality which they call ‘Putin is gunning for Britain’.

      Any news on why the investigation of MH17 is called a conspiracy in Holland would be greatly appreciated.

        • Derek

          Yes incompetence is quite likely as a cause of MH17. But would you not admit to the possibility that it was Ukrainian incompetence rather than Russian?

          After all these things are known :
          1/ Russia obsoleted all their BUK-1 missiles years ago. Ukraine still operates them.
          2/ It is known there were three batteries of Ukrainian BUK launchers within range of MH17. There are satellite pictures, and according to Russia they had their radars switched on.
          3/ Ukraine has a proven history of incompetence with BUK launchers. They accidentally shot down a Russian airliner in 2001, Siberian Airlines flight 1812, and then lied about it for two years before admitting it.

          Since Ukraine was a member of the group writing the accident report, and had power of veto over the contents, it is hardly surprising it pointed the finger elsewhere.

        • Republicofscotland

          Re, Russia, I’m rather disappointed that Amnesty Internationals Moscow office, has been closed by Russian officials, for the time being anyway.

          Russia can hardly afford, to be seen to remove another obstacle on human rights in the country. However I might add that (though not in defence of Russian tactics) that many nations, now, are ultra wary of NGO’s of any kind.

    • Sharp Ears

      ……makes me wonder whether I shouldn’t just stop reading this blog altogether.

      You know the answer.

  • Ex Pat

    UNCLE MIKE AND UNCLE NOAM’S ADVICE –

    – VOTE HIL

    I detest the fact that, as Craig Murray said, none of those rendered to Uzbekistan by the US Empire and its UK catamite sidekick have ever been seen again. In other words, they were rendered for extermination. So the US and UK have gone the way of the Germans in WW2, running death camps-by-proxy.

    And I detest the US Empire, its Neo-Con Nazis and its Mussolini-playing UK catamite sidekick, apparently like no one else on this blog.

    But I’m not arrogant enough to think that I know better than Noam Chomsky. Who says that a so-called ‘moral vote’ is missing the point of the ‘greater evil’. And it certainly is evil.

    – ‘An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)’ – Noam Chomsky with John Halle, 15th June 2016 – JohnHalle.com –

    https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

    The bottom line? As Noam Chomsky said, vote for Hillary in swing states – it really does make a difference. Because the Republicans (scum) are a (much greater) threat to the planet. Yes, Really !

    You don’t believe it and think that you are smarter, more principled and better informed than Noam Chomsky?

    ER, Good luck with that!

    What should the world expect of a Hillary presidency? As Noam Chomsky said of Obama, we can’t expect anything. Just another sock puppet leader of a murderous, genocidal US Empire.

    What will you expect from Hillary? _Nothing_. But the alternative of Trump – a Republican sock puppet moron – really is worse. _Much_Worse_. Is that a pity? Yes. But it’s still better than the alternative. By a country mile!

    SO. In swing states, vote for Hillary (while holding your nose? / “While still hating her” – M. Moore!) – Noam Chomsky –

    – Noam Chomsky website –

    https://chomsky.info/articles/

    • Loony

      Yeah you pose a problem. Who in their right mind could pretend to be smarter than Chomsky? But does the fact that he is super smart mean that he is always right? It can’t can it, otherwise he would be omniscient and he is not. Therefore he could be wrong.

      Chomsky views Hillary would as just another sock puppet leader of a genocidal regime. The problem is that genocide appears to be similar to a drug – you need more of it to get the same effect. Maybe Chomsky should acknowledge that Hillary could be the last sock puppet leader of a genocidal regime. A genocidal regime that ultimately will reach its logical conclusion i.e full spectrum extermination..Hillary certainly appears up to accepting the mission.

      It is far from clear how Republicans, or anyone else, can pose a greater threat to the planet than someone who may extinguish life on the planet.

      So what of Trump? Must be largely unknown as he is not a professional politician. Seems likely he is a nationalist interested in law and order and punishing Mexicans for the crime of being Mexican. Not good, but better than destroying the planet.(lo siento por mis hermanos los Mexicanos).

      Trump does not seem overly keen on thermo nuclear war – and that must be a good thing. Granted he is a loose cannon and who knows what he might do. The best bet is that he might not kill us all. I think the odds on Trump letting me live, are better than the odds on Clinton letting me live, so I disagree with Chomsky and vote Trump.

      • Clark

        Chomsky’s right. In a choice between the possibility of a large proportion of the world burning to death very fast (Clinton launches nukes), and the near certainty of all the world burning to death very slowly (Trump trashes the ecosphere), the latter is worse.

        • Shatnersrug

          I’m sure no one cares – but we non Americans want Americans to vote on foreign policy issues – hence Clinton = bad. However they won’t. They will vote on domestic policy. And the Dems will be better for liberalism than the Republicans – you can expect Americans to vote on foreign policy if it makes life at home worse – and a vote for trump will make life at home worse for many Americans.

        • Loony

          If Clinton launches a war then there is nothing that can be done.

          Trump cannot trash the ecosphere without the ongoing support of the mass of the population. If you don’t like it, don’t participate in environmentally destructive activities. You have a choice. That people are to supine to act on the choices available is why they loathe Trump. How much easier to blame Trump than to blame yourselves.

          • Clark

            Individual environmental action is not enough. Reducing one’s CO2 emissions uses less fossil fuel, causing the price to fall, bringing it within reach of poorer populations, so total production is unaffected. This is called demand-side reduction. Effective limitation requires supply-side reduction.

        • Aurora

          Well no, global nuclear warfare and nuclear winter sounds a lot worse. I just don’t see this scenario whereby Clinton launches a nuclear war, it’s not a geopolitical play benefiting the industries that fund her. I don’t take seriously the Russia v. US conflict, it’s showboating on both sides with real implications for Syria and the Middle East, yes, but with no reason for either side to escalate.

          What I miss in Craig Murray’s evaluation is the social impact of Trump being elected on a racist and xenophobic platform (putting aside for now the misogyny, which is a perennial issue). Let me put it bluntly: you have to be white, comfortably off, and well-removed from the action to think this is a trivial issue. Trump is seen to represent the return of the ‘white male capitalist-entrepreneurial order,’ a (fantasy) reboot of the 1950s, pre-civil rights. That’s why someone like Chomsky believes a Clinton victory, though 10,000 worse than Sanders being elected, is still a lot better for the left than a vindication of Trump’s agenda.

          • Loony

            I hope you are correct in your analysis.

            However the US has moved away from the old Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and now embraces a policy of Nuclear Primacy i.e. a policy that is predicated on the belief that the US can win a nuclear war. This article explains

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/no-new-cold-war-its-far-worse

            One problem that the general population has is in understanding the true nature of the people who have their hands on the levers of control, It is natural to conclude that people in positions of high authority must have some degree of intelligence – even if that intelligence is malign intelligence. It is possible that the people at the top are entirely stupid and actually believe that they can fight and win a nuclear war.

            In addition it is a matter of public record that the Pentagon is unable to account for the expenditure of $6.3 trillion over the course of the last 20 years. $6.3 trillion is a big number and would buy a lot of bomb shelters or weaponry.

          • Aurora

            The US might ‘win’ a nuclear war, whatever that means, but at what cost environmentally and economically? What would be left globally? And the damage to the US’s reputation if it initiated a war, even among allied countries (presuming anyone in Europe survived), would be permanent and catastrophic. There’s just no cold rational reason to face off against Russia. Cold rational reasoning I associate with Clinton. Trump by contrast is demonstrably volatile and has mixed his rhetoric of non-deployment of US troops abroad with threats to bomb, including the use of nuclear weapons (tactical weapons, for example?). That assures me a lot less, even if may just be bluster on his part. My concern is that Trump is being urged on and assisted by the far right. If he wins, he’s not going to be moderated: more likely they’ll be a realignment with the GOP shifting towards this paranoid-conspiracy alt right in order to have some say in his administration. That’s been the pattern so far.

          • Clark

            It’s hard to judge, but by comparing the respective energy fluctuations, global warming looks much, much worse than nuclear winter, especially in the long term. Likewise ocean acidification versus iodine 131 fallout.

        • Tom Welsh

          “…the near certainty of all the world burning to death very slowly (Trump trashes the ecosphere), the latter is worse”.

          In a crowded and highly competitive field, that must be a strong contender for the stupidest thing I have ever seen on the Web.

          1. Trump isn’t going to “trash the ecosphere”. Indeed he couldn’t. How is one person, no matter how rich and powerful, going to do that? In fact, pollution will very probably continue along exactly the same trajectory no matter who is president, because the people who cause it are too influential for politicians to control their actions.

          2. Do you really believe that it is worse for the world to get gradually hotter and more polluted, until at some time in the future human beings start to die off, than for the world to be abruptly rendered uninhabitable within the next four years?

      • Habbabkuk

        “Yeah you pose a problem. Who in their right mind could pretend to be smarter than Chomsky? But does the fact that he is super smart mean that he is always right? It can’t can it, otherwise he would be omniscient and he is not. Therefore he could be wrong.”
        __________________________

        That is exactly what I have said on various occasions.

        You can be a genius in one area and an absolute plonker in another.

        That is why I don’t give a flying fuck for Chomsky’s political views while acknowledging without reserve his contribution to linguistics.

        The problem arises when not very intelligent people start believing – or pretending to believe – that Chomsky’s genius in the field of linguistics gives his thoughts in the entirely different field of politics any particular value.

        • Dave Price

          Habbakuk said:

          ???? ?? ??? ? ???’? ???? ? ?????? ???? ??? ???????’? ????????? ????? ????? ????????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????????? ?? ???????????.

          ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????????? ?????? ????? ????????? – ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? – ???? ???????’? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ????????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?????.

          You want to dismiss Chomsky’s political writings by claiming that they are only given a hearing because he once came up with the idea of a generative grammar.

          This is so tiresome because of course it doesn’t matter why people read Chomsky in the first place: if people find, as they do, that his ideas are interesting and perhaps convincing, then that is what matters. I would guess from this not very intelligent move that you don’t feel up to refuting his arguments.

          However as a matter of fact you do have it round the wrong way: ask anybody who finds Chomsky’s political ideas convincing, or even just interesting, and you’ll find almost none will give a flying fuck about Chomsky’s contribution to Linguistics.

          • Habbabkuk

            “You want to dismiss Chomsky’s political writings by claiming that they are only given a hearing because he once came up with the idea of a generative grammar.”
            ____________________________

            No, you can’t draw that inference from what I wrote.

            The implication of what I said was that Chomsky’s eminence in the field of linguistics is no reason for his political writings to be considered to be any more valid or valuable than yours, mine or those of any other reasonably informed, concerned, and intelligent person.

            I – and probably many others – would, similarly, probably not attach any particular worth to any opinions about classical music which Dr Henry Kissinger might choose to share with us.

          • Republicofscotland

            “I – and probably many others – would, similarly, probably not attach any particular worth to any opinions about classical music which Dr Henry Kissinger might choose to share with us.”

            Kissinger, share!

            You must be one of the 90% surely.

      • lysias

        Chomsky never criticizes the official accounts not only of 9/11 but also of the JFK assassination, the official account on which is thoroughly discredited. Something very fishy going on.

    • giyane

      Apart from your use of the word catamite which may possibly be racist against cats, I don’t agree with you.
      The US should look at the list of unacceptable behaviour by Hillary Clinton and realise that her Presidency will be immediately impeached, freezing US influence at a time that its competitors are tasting blood, a phrase which may also be racist against foxes.

      Watergate has nothing on 1/ de-frauding the US public its choice of Democratic candidate, 2/ accepting bribes from Saudi Arabia to change the power structure of the Muslim world to a Jihadist base, and 3/ by-passing Federal supervision of a top servant of Obama’s administration by using private email accounts.

      The FBI doesn’t like the CIA and the butler has got the maid pregnant. My new Urdu proverb has found a use. Hurray! ” It seems the bitch has become acquainted with the next door dog without our knowledge.”

      • Tom Welsh

        “Apart from your use of the word catamite which may possibly be racist against cats…”

        “Speciesist”, please. In the world of political correctness, precision is all.

        • jake

          I’ve always mixed up catamites with catatites; all I can be sure of is that one goes up and the other goes down and neither have anything to do with pussy.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, “Is it reasonable?”

      Richard P. Feynman (genius)

  • Ex Pat

    UNCLE MIKE AND UNCLE NOAM’S ADVICE –

    – VOTE HILLARY !!!

    In Trumpland, by Michael Moore, now released free on youtube, there’s a clip “What if Trump wins?”

    The key line is what Moore says _after_ that clip. That saying ‘F___ YOU’ to the US elite will feel good for a day, or a week or a month. But then the US people will wake up to a Trump presidency and they won’t like it. Just like many of the Brits who voted for Brexit who won’t like the medicine that the Tory elite is going to ensure they take.

    Followed by a spoof news report on the very ugly reality of a Trumpocracy… bombing the Mexican border etc etc. Excellent!

    See @ 25.16 Trumpland by Michael Moore – Youtube –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTnPEt8a9Vg#t=25m16s

    ‘My forbidden love for Hillary’ is a good yarn too @ 42.28, with a picture of a radiant Hillary gazing supposedly at Michael Moore with a not-so-happy Bill behind her. Ha! @ 47.16

    There was an excellent review of Trumpland by Richard Brody in the New Yorker. He was extremely astute in analyzing Michael Moore, his goal and his techniques for creating what is unashamedly great political propaganda. Worth an hour of your time.

    – ‘What Michael Moore Understands About Hillary Clinton’, by Robert Brody 19th October 2016 – New Yorker –

    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/what-michael-moore-understands-about-hillary-clinton

    Michael Moore says the same as Noam Chomsky. Vote for Hillary in swing states (“Even if you hate her” – Michael Moore) because the alternative is unthinkable.

    Is it a pity that there are no pristine, untarnished candidates for President of the US? Of course, but Michael Moore’s point is that Hillary was a lot less untarnished twenty years ago and that in the waning days of the US Empire the clean candidate will _never_ be appointed.

    • Loony

      Noam Chomsky might be a genius, but Michael Moore is a fucking idiot – so who cares what he thinks.

      If he actually understood the people that he claims to represent he might understand that his comparisons with Brexit are the very reasons why people will vote for Trump. No-one in the UK is regretting voting for Brexit – but they are regretting that the establishment is seeking to impede Brexit. Any failure to Brexit in a reasonable time frame will likely provoke a political crisis in the UK, which will necessitate an early General Election.

      Maybe at that point Michael Moore will fly to the UK to explain to the Brits why they should hold their noses and vote for anyone but Jeremy Corbyn.

        • Republicofscotland

          Silvio.

          I’m pretty disappointed that Moore has sold out, his previous works, including Bowling for Columbine, and 9/11 Fahrenheit, are quite truthful and hard hitting.

      • Old Mark

        Loony-

        Michael Moore is right in one respect to make aTrump/Brexit comparison- the Brexit vote has hit the £sterling, but the aftermath of a Trump victory would see the $ tank to such a degree that its reserve currency status might not survive a 4 year Trump presidency.

        Craig has the title of this post all wrong; the MSM here only portrays the Trump voters as nutters, but presentsHillary as the ‘rational choice’- hence tonights episode of the ‘Conspiracy Files’ on Trump- which is a real curates egg.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0817q1v/the-conspiracy-files-the-trump-dossier

        Martinned and other non UK commenters won’t be able to see this (but then UK readers can’t watch Martinned HBO’s clip on youtube about Jill Stein as HBO are blocking it here- heigh ho.) For their benefit I’ll precis the contents.
        1 It is really intended to be a hatchet job about Trump but it doesn’t really come off as the leading 2 pro Hillary ‘debunkers’- Nancy Soderbergh & Susan Glasser, both establishment grande dames- can’t really be bothered to demean themselves and deal directly with the detail of the ‘conspiracies’ Trump is alleged to endorse
        2 It spends too long on Trump’s flirtation with the ‘Birther’ conspiracy- which Trump has now officially disowned
        3 It’s treatment of the Vince Foster suspicious death ‘conspiracy theory’ is too cursory; a better job on that can be found here-

        http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vince_Foster/Death

        4 It really goes all over the place in its handling of the allegations re the JFK assassination, and the alleged invovement of Sen Cruz’s dad. It gives Wayne Madsen quite a bit of airtime (surprising given that the MSM usually give him a wide berth) but its rebuttal of the claims he makes is (for an attempted hatchet job on Trump) surprising weak- half ad hominem and half an irrelevant ‘denial’ from the Cruz camp (the denial is Cruz snr wasn;t in Dallas with Oswald on 22/11/63- when what would be pertinent denials would be that he wasn’t in New Orleans with Oswald in summer 63 handing out ‘pro Castro’ leaflets, and that he wasn’t relocated pronto to Calgary pronto in 1967 to get him beyond the reach of the Garrison investigation).

        • Tom Welsh

          “…the aftermath of a Trump victory would see the $ tank to such a degree that its reserve currency status might not survive a 4 year Trump presidency”.

          And there you have it. Apparently that seems a bad thing to you, whereas it would be a godsend and cause for prolonged celebrations to 96% of the human species.

  • Schizoided

    Martinned, why are you falsely claiming that Stein may believe that vaccines are bad? Post her full statement on the issue and prove you’re not lying like a rug. While you’re at it, Martinned, explain this subset of the evidence, http://www.veteranstoday.com/ so we will know the raging nutter is not you. Martinned can’t be bothered to adduce a fact to support his fantasy world in which everyone else is crazy. Whatever the authorities say is axiomatic to Martinned, basic as the difference between left and right and up and down, to coin an unconvincing phrase. Martinned’s education in inductive logic is, shall we say, subpar. He seems not to understand what his unsupported whimsies do to his credibility.

    • Martinned

      why are you falsely claiming that Stein may believe that vaccines are bad?

      Because that’s what she said, voluntarily, on live TV. (I even posted the link, because I’m not an idiot.) Forgive me for taking Ms Stein’s word for it when she explains her own views.

  • bevin

    “JillStein …she’s a raging nutter who may or may not believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that vaccines are bad…”
    “… The fact that half the commenters on a given blog sound like they urgently need to be (back) on medication is a given. But usually at least the blogger himself or herself has some vague grasp of reality. But if the author makes comments like this clearly the blog is only worth reading as a form of entertainment, and the only sane commenting approach flat-out trolling….”

    Is this all there is Martinedd? The blanket dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you as Insane, in need of medications etc etc?
    Do you do this sort of thing professionally?
    Jill Stein’s questioning of the conclusions of the “9/11 Commission” is perfectly logical and rational. They came up with a conspiracy theory that is full of holes. It has all been explained many times and the only response from those who, like yourself, defend the Commission’s explanation of the events is that to question its conclusions is symptomatic of madness.
    It simply doesn’t wash any more: if you cannot advance reasonable arguments then you probably should find something else to do with your time.
    Wasting it by attempting to come up with ever more vicious descriptions of your political opponents is going to drive you, not them, insane.
    Lives are available for all in good health-why not go and find one? Alternatively go to a blog run by fascists and swap insults with them.

    • Habbabkuk

      “Is this all there is Martinedd? The blanket dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you as Insane, in need of medications etc etc?”
      _______________________

      In which way is that worse than the automatic denunciation of everyone not singong from the same sonsheet on here as racists, fascists, bigots and so on?

      In general the comments of the true dissenters on here are much more moderate – and certainly much politer – than the reactions of the “regulars” when challenged.

      It’s just a pity that the Mod(s) seem to sit on their hands in the face of this phenomenon.

      • Republicofscotland

        “In general the comments of the true dissenters”

        YOu can’t possibly see yourself as a true dissenter? I mean not even you could be that disingenuous, then again, it’s you. ?

        • Habbabkuk

          A true dissenter from the pensee unique which reigns on this blog, certainly.

          A dissent which goes a little wider than having the occasional pop at China, I’m afraid.

    • Martinned

      The blanket dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you as Insane, in need of medications etc etc?

      Nope, just 90% of the people on this blog, including (unfortunately) Craig himself.

      I’ve been having some very interesting discussions yesterday about the art. 50 judgement. I still think that the government’s position is better, although they didn’t argue it very well, but that doesn’t mean I have a problem with people who argue the opposite.

      • Republicofscotland

        “Nope, just 90% of the people on this blog, including (unfortunately) Craig himself.”

        Lucky for us then, that 10% posses some kind of sanity, eh? I mean who’d have thought that we’re all loonies (no pun intended Looney) and the tiny minority of establishement commentors, and useful idiots, are the rationale.

        • Habbabkuk

          The point is that the 90% / 10% divide is exactly the other way round in the real world.

          That is why – to take one example – candidates from organisations like Left Unity lose their deposits at general elections and why 90% of the population does not get its knickers in the twist about the Middle East and Israel, “BBC bias”, Scottish independence and most of the other themes which are regularly trotted out here.

          Let’s face it – the followers of the pensee unique on here are the 0,001%.

  • reliably

    I voted for Dr. Stein in 2012 and intend to do so again. At this point, my second choice is Vermin Supreme, whose platform promises mandatory toothbrushing laws and a free pony for every American. In this election, those ideas are two of the more rational policies on offer.

  • James lake

    The trouble with America is that they are not served well by their media.

    They are told what to think – not given the news. There education is gappy. Many know nothing about the world.

    The so called news comes from one of six corporations and they all support the bipartisan consensus on war and more war.

    The medias job is to present the usa as the good guys. It’s a far cry from the type of media thst covered Vietnam.

    Look at Afghanistan 15 years at war and it has not come up as a question in the election.
    They are running out of volunteers for these wars all over the world
    Clinton is s warmonger and frightens me with her rhetoric about Russia. I hate the UK subservience to the U.S. and I don’t want the UK to follow the warmongering.

    My hope that of Clinton is elected she will be so damaged that nothing will get done. Half the nation hate her anyway. Wikileaks shows she is corrupt. As president her hands need to be tied.
    Trump won’t get elected I believe it’s all hype.

    • giyane

      Barking at the moon and blogging are pretty much the same thing. Nothing changes . The whole corrupt system counts on the huge majority who don’t bark or blog.

      • Martinned

        Don’t be silly. The more people spend their days typing out misinformation on blogs that only they read, the easier it is for people who are actually up to something to get away with it. Catching the Nixons and Putins of this world requires rational, careful, and professional inquiry, not a bunch of swivelly-eyed loons typing away in their attics, distracted by anything that fits their pre-existing narrative.

        • Republicofscotland

          “Don’t be silly. The more people spend their days typing out misinformation on blogs that only they read, the easier it is for people who are actually up to something to get away with it.”

          I wish you’d tell Habb, and Anon1 that, they definitely fall into that category, as for yourself?

        • lysias

          You would have us believe that the philosophes had nothing to do with delegitimizing the French monarchy, and Samizdat had nothing to do with doing the same to the Soviet system.

  • Dave

    I read that the polling figures are based on tracking the opinions of the same test sample of people and the big change in voting intentions is the result of how they’re polled. That is they’ve been asked to choose between Hilary and Trump which gives Hilary a big lead, but once asked to choose between the four candidates, Stein and Johnson, Hilary and Trump become neck and neck.

    This means Hilary’s lead has never been as high as stated by MSM and thus the Israel/neo-con faction are now pushing anti-Iran deal Trump rather than Hilary as a better prospect to start WWIII. Hopefully Trump will play and disappoint them by being more pro-Russian than anti-Iran!

  • Bert.

    Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that these two are we get for a choice. Out of three-hundred million people (about two-hundred million electors) these are the best the US has to offer the world and it’s own people!

    So, it is misogynistic to not vote for Clinton; why does no one suggest that to not vote for Trump is misandristic?

    Bert.

  • Sharp Ears

    Un believe able!

    ‘Mrs Clinton also got a boost from her one-time rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders. He appeared alongside her at a rally in North Carolina on Thursday evening, praising her commitment to increasing the minimum wage and tackling inequality.’

    US election 2016: Battlegrounds targeted as polls tighten
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37868209

    ‘Battlegrounds’ indeed. There is no irony in the use of that word. Are they talking about the present or about what lies ahead for the world?

    • Habbabkuk

      So perhaps Mr Bernie Sanders does not share the view of many on this blog that Mrs Clinton is a mere stooge of the possessing classes and a homicidial manaic who will lead us straight into WW3?

      I wish I could help those on here who are expressing incredulity but I can’t. The only possible eplanantions are

      !/. Mr Sanders is in fact part of the Mrs Clinton conspiracy

      2/. The incredulous ones might be wrong about Mrs Clinton.

      • Deep green puddock

        Now that is disingenuous to put it mildly-your ‘binary choice and the inferences thereof.
        Obviously it is in Bernie Sanders interests (in many ways-personal/ career/political) to support the successful candidate,Mrs Clinton-even with deep reservations. Many a couple has made their wedding vows with secret reservations and put a glad face to their actions.
        Such endorsements are often,if not always, provided with the tongue planted firmly in one cheek or another-and if you think that is meant to be ambiguous you’d be right.
        Sanders has managed to influence, and would possibly continue to influence the position of the president. His position in the game has changed but he is not out of the game-stil playing a hand.
        So it isn’t difficult to understand that a ‘defeated’ opponent would line up with the winner.In fact it is the customary situation and indicates deference to the wisdom of the majority which is certainly one important aspect of representative government. All these situations are tricky.
        How about the defeated republicans, who swung behind Trump? I rather think they did so out of a sense of their predetermined group affiliations-even if there was a lot of private difficulty in supporting such a creature. Sone of course then withdrew this support-and that is yet another story.

        Voting /supporting is always some kind of compromise.

      • Loony

        There is another possible explanation, and that is that Bernie Sanders, like Michael Moore, is a fucking idiot.

        • michael norton

          Looney, you deftly point your finger at the TRUTH.

          But how can the once great America, only have this pair of twats for President,
          are there no normal people left in America
          or only those who are deranged

      • Republicofscotland

        “I wish I could help those on here who are expressing incredulity but I can’t.”

        Well first we’d have to believe what you say, and that, I’m afraid is, way beyond incredulous, I’m thinking more like preposterous.

  • nevermind

    So what would happen if a paedophile ring built up during the last few decades has morally infected senators and politicians in power.
    Would they go to war to cover up the facts, a flight forward, to smother us with heroic nationalist tub thumping and propaganda about half baked actions in foreign lands?
    Will a depravity of the privileged be investigated with the same vigour HSBC’s collusion in multi billion drugs money laundering was investigated? with no guilty being punished?
    Weiner’s Wiener is looking for an open bun to become a hot dog? Will his mate Bill be smothered in red Ketchup and mustard?
    I suppose we have to wait for the truth until they are dead.

    • Martinned

      So what would happen if a paedophile ring built up during the last few decades has morally infected senators and politicians in power.

      Sounds like the premise for a good alt-history book. Have at it.

      • Republicofscotland

        Or what about a oppressor state, that carries out atorcities, but the world in most part looks the other way, throw in some incognito nukes and voila.

  • Sharp Ears

    ex CCGS General Richards goes for Trump.

    Donald Trump ‘might actually make the world safer’ if he is elected president, says former head of UK Armed Forces
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/trump-could-make-the-world-safer-says-former-head-of-uk-armed-fo/

    Perhaps the General has been reflecting and has had enough of war and killing.

    He has relinquished his interests with military connections but retains some directorships and provides ‘geo-strategic advice to governments and companies;’ whatever that is.
    http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-richards-of-herstmonceux/4317

    ‘Richards served in the Far East, Germany and Northern Ireland with the Royal Artillery before commanding forces in East Timor and most notably Sierra Leone, where his action without official sanctioning protected Freetown from rebel attacks during the Sierra Leone Civil War. Richards has also served with NATO as a major general, and he commanded International Security Assistance Force elements in Southern Afghanistan as a lieutenant general between 2006 and 2008.

    Richards became Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces of the British Army in 2008 and held this role until 2009 when he was appointed Chief of the General Staff, the head of the British Army. He was appointed as Chief of the Defence Staff the following year. He was succeeded by General Sir Nicholas Houghton on 18 July 2013.’
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Richards,_Baron_Richards_of_Herstmonceux

  • silencenightanddreams

    Jill Stein:
    “I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication,” Stein said. “Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? — approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/

  • John Goss

    One of the reasons I come to this blog is because I support whistleblowers like Craig, whose latest very-favourably reviewed history of Sikunder Burnes is on its way, I am informed by thehive.co.uk and looking forward to the read. Whistleblowers stick their necks out by informing on items which are in the genuine, not legal, public interest for people to know. Torture is an international crime. Wars of aggression are international crimes. Corruption in office, in banking, in commerce and industry are crimes we should be told about.

    Tomorrow Julian Assange, who suffers daily because the corrupt in power have tried to stitch him up and shut him up to cover their own crimes, will be talking to intrepid journalist John Pilger on a pre-recorded interview which recently took place in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Don’t miss it!

    When I think of the leading contenders in the US election I feel that the world is a hopeless place but that is pessimistic and should not be entertained. We need to keep positive. I heard on the car radio yesterday an announcer with real venom in her voice saying cosying up to Vladimir Putin would be like cosying up to a stone wall, or words to that effect. This was on a music programme and shows just how much the drummed-home media message has polluted the minds of practically everybody. She was just passing this nonsense on. But you know you can start off liking Marmite to such a degree you overindulge and end up hating the stuff. Do not despair. First there is Jeremy Corbyn another victim of the power-elite. Corbyn has shown there is an answer in our own hands. Do not despair and follow the example of Iceland, hopefully coming to the UK soon.

    http://embols.com/2016/10/08/first-they-jailed-the-bankers-now-every-icelander-to-get-paid-in-bank-sale-2/

    • Habbabkuk

      Since we appear to be on the subject of Mr Assange again, can someone finally tell me

      1/. whether the interview he was supposed to have had with Swedish prosecutors in the Embassy of Ecuador was postponed (?cancelled) at Mr Assange’s request or at the request of the Swedes

      2/. whether a new date for said interview has been fixed/agreed.

    • Beth

      I couldn’t agree more. You realise how necessary this blog is when you feel sick in the stomach listening to msm propaganda fuelling the ongoing suffering of people in Syria. That is why I couldn’t believe it today on the bbc 1o’clock news when Owen Bennet Jones reporting from West Aleppo actually told the truth. Could it be that the BBC have given up trying to convince us that the headchoppers are peaceloving moderates. I look forward to Syria rebuilding a strong independent country again and hopefully journalists like John Pilger and Craig will reach more and more people because we need the majority of the population to make it clear to their MPs that we will not tolerate any more our government supporting armed terrorists or sending weapons to other countries to be used against civilians whether in Yemen or Gaza.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I found this video last night, which agrees with this view – but goes very much further. Its very well narrated and researched. He presents evidence that suggests the entire US Election is staged and scripted – much like a Wrestling match. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but he raises some very interesting points.

    “Should We Expect a Disputed Election? (And Other Thoughts Regarding the 2016 Race)”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60nOmmLtJSY

    Partially related to this, is my view, that I have held for several years, is that some (not all) terrorist attacks (or part of what maybe real terrorist attacks) are staged. They are faked. In some cases no one died or was injured. I reached this view mainly by analysis of the photography. However such analyses can rarely be 100% conclusive.

    This one (caught by a CCTV they were unaware of ) however is so blatant it is actually quite funny (if such a thing is possible in a warzone). The explosion goes off, and then the crisis actors run into position and lie down in the road – awaiting the ambulance to turn up. It was however reported by the Daily Mail as 100% real.

    https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/proof-of-a-staged-false-flag-event-in-iraq-used-by-the-daily-mail-uk/

    Tony

    • Habbabkuk

      Well, MPs who have or have had outside jobs do at least have some knowledge and experience of the real world. Unlike Mr Jeremy Corbyn, for example.

  • Habbabkuk

    Martinned wondered why he kept reading this blog and so I would just like to tell him (but perhaps he knows already) that there are at least a couple of interesting blogs by former UK ambassadors out there. The names are Brian Barder and Charles Crawford (the latter served in Warsaw, as did Craig).

    It’s true that those two blogs have fewer readers than Craig’s (and certainly fewer commenters) but in my opinion the numbers for the audience, so to speak, do not necessarily prove very much. After all, probably more people watch Strictly come dancing than Newsnight.

    • Martinned

      The actual answer to the question is that I read this blog for the same reason that I used to read the Volokh Conspiracy religiously, until it disappeared behind the Washington Post’s paywall: to read things that I (wildly) disagree with, and to discuss them with people who do support them. Without commenters, there isn’t much point to it. But if all rational debate is drowned out by tinfoil hatted crazies, it doesn’t work either.

  • Sixer

    For interests other than politics, I visit a few largely American online communities. The memberships are made up mostly of women and women who would see themselves as liberal/progressive in US terms. This election, even on non-political websites, is all anyone can talk about. If I could collate their voices into a collective view as to why they will be voting HRC, it would go something like this. Um…

    “Supreme court nominations are vital and it must be a Democrat president who makes them. This cannot be entrusted to Trump or even another Republican because most of them support limiting women’s reproductive rights. Trump will repeal Obamacare and, hopeless compromise that it is, many of us rely upon it. Trump is unstable and could not administer an executive and you can’t have a one-man executive. Trump will exacerbate already out-of-control race relations and, in a country already more violent than other developed countries, this could lead to a blood bath. Hillary is compromised in many ways but she is competent with a stable temperament and you need this in a POTUS. A third party vote is a wasted vote because third parties have little to no infrastructure on the down ticket and that needs to happen first if you want to break the two party corrupted system. The only point in a third party vote is if you are not in a swing state because if a third party gets to 5% of the total vote it will attract funding to make the down ticket work possible.”

    As you can see, the rationale is mostly domestic. But it certainly isn’t stupid. The women I speak to do understand that Hillary is a hawk but they vastly underestimate how much of a hawk and what dangers that might pose.

  • David

    The American people are being very badly served at the moment. And when America sneezes it hits the fan for the rest of us. They’d do us all a favour voting Stein.

    • kief

      A sober, rational conclusion. The collateral damage to ‘allies’ would be palpable and there are many cheerleaders for US troubles, unaware of their own peril.

  • eddie-g

    I’m interested to know how you reconcile your obvious admiration for Bernie Sanders with the fact that he is out there stumping for Hillary Clinton, urging his supporters in the strongest terms to vote for her.

    I live in the USA these days, I think I’m pretty well aware of the areas where I don’t like Clinton as a politician, but I also happen to think she is an infinitely better choice than Trump (among his greatest hits for me, “Why don’t we just use our nuclear weapons? What’s stopping us?”).

    I don’t know if this makes me a nutter, but fundamentally, this election is a choice between Clinton and Trump, and only one candidate has certain redeeming features. The biggest one being that as a member of the Democratic Party, her domestic policy agenda is going to help many more Americans. I understand if that isn’t very persuasive for someone who lives outside of the country, but you know, it’s an argument that ought to be respected. It’s certainly good enough to motivate Bernie Sanders to volunteer his support for Clinton’s campaign.

      • Habbabkuk

        Well of course if Messrs Assange and Pilger are involved in the statement of something then that statement must obviously be true, mustn’t it.

        Assangian or Pilgerian Infallibility.

        Personally, I put more trust in Papal Infallibility.

        • Loony

          Your comment is pure misdirection – and as so often concentrates on the messenger as opposed to the message.

          There are multiple sources available that confirm that Clinton and ISIS share the same financial sponsors. There are also multiple sources of evidence that confirm that Clinton is aware that her sponsors are also ISIS sponsors.

          There is strong evidence, also supported by multiple sources, that suggest that the US and the UK are providing certain support to ISIS on the ground in Syria.

          All of this information is suppressed, spun or otherwise distorted with the aim of keeping people confused. Meanwhile in the UK the authorities have no problem at all in arresting an otherwise anonymous couple in England for doing their best to support their son.

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/04/jack-letts-parents-arrested-trying-send-money-syria

          Did not the Nobel Laureate for Literature once opine on the matter as to whether the ladder of law has no top and no bottom.

          • Habbabkuk

            Well, Fredi was referring to Messrs Assange and Pilger, was he not?

            Perhaps you might supply us with some of those “multiple” other sources you refer to? Indeed, I am astonished that you should have foregone the opportunity to already do so.

          • Republicofscotland

            Of course, I always defer, to the logic of Netanyahuism, do the hell what you want, and plead discrimination, it works all the time.

            It makes Pilger and Chomsky, seem like amateurs.

        • Republicofscotland

          “Assangian or Pilgerian Infallibility.
          Personally, I put more trust in Papal Infallibility.”

          Oh I don’t know so much, I’d say Brexiteerian infallibility, tops the lot.

      • eddie-g

        Your point is what?

        That Saudi extremists have donated both to Clinton organizations as well as the anti-Assad forces in Syria (which has count ISIS among its number)? Known issue, Fredi.

        US meddling in the Middle East is revolting, but that won’t change with a Trump presidency. If anything, you’d fear it would get more reckless.

        • Fredi

          Pilger has been right about most he speaks of forever. There is also no doubt that wikkileaks spills out genuine information. Hillary has stated she will go after the Russians hard, Trump hasn’t.

    • Habbabkuk

      ” I understand if that isn’t very persuasive for someone who lives outside of the country,”
      _________________________

      On the contrary, I find it quite persuasive.

      Thank you for your rational and interesting comment; it is always good to hear a common sense view from someone not on the extremes of political thought.

      Let us face it – Mr Sanders was being blown up on this blog and elsewhere as the best thing for America since sliced bread – not in the pocket of the oligarchs, feels the people;’s pain, etc, etc, etc.

      Therefore, surely, it should give the Clinton-haters pause for thought when Mr Sanders throws his weight behind Mr Clinton?

  • Mark Golding

    Craig’s blog title here might well read ‘Not all Brits are Barking Nutters’ this considering Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, speaking at a Commons Defense Committee said, “Britain would be able to fight a war against Russia within two years” –

    Britain is secretly handling the B61 nuclear bomb, a ‘dial a yield’ ‘cut & paste’ tactical earth penetrating bomb, modified and moved from a British RAF base to Eastern Europe.

    Fallon told MPs – NATO ‘is waking up to the challenge’ of rising Kremlin aggression –
    And the alliance would be ready to confront Vladimir Putin ’s forces in a showdown, he insisted.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-would-ready-fight-war-9174000

    Nuclear war and environmental catastrophe is certainly a polestar on the event horizon.

    • kief

      Wow. Not only is he whistling through the graveyard, but he’s telegraphing the punch. Sheesh. Even if they believe there is truly a imminent threat, they’ve given Putin a early warning date. I have a feeling this is for domestic consumption so Brits feel ‘safe’ as Russia sails the Channel.

      • Mark Golding

        Domestic consumption? Certainly in a lateral sense. The British Establishment seen through a slightly opaque curtain is moving many irons into the fire to subvert the EU referendum and Brexit decision by the humble British people. The High Court decision the EU referendum was only ever “advisory”…

        The hottest iron shifting through the Privy Council has in fact a military sweetness while moving along the arrow of time we will most shortly witness the statement in Parliament that Britain MUST ‘Remain’, duty bound to ‘stick around’ and pull USA ropes with our EU partners in ‘Defence of the Realm’ and Europe or other such defunct public warnings…

        • kief

          Wheels within wheels has become the norm. But the complexities escape their shackles when people try to predict or force a particular outcome. It’s the most dangerous part of this game.

          • Mark Golding

            I agree kief there is a high degree of entanglement in this and most other facets of human synergy. Breaking entanglement is hard and might be as you say, dangerous. On the other hand seeing the writing on the wall is manifest if we ourselves, I believe, entangle with the moment, the stage that acts out the performance, Here lies the rub where too many tune out, shut their eyes and leave to providence. The fundamentals of causality only require a leap of intuition.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    As every activity undertaken by the Blair Project is in lockstep with (and occasionally funded by) the Clinton Global Initiative, it’s hardly surprising that allegiance to either is transferable to the other.

    However, judging by what is reported of him, Trump is not only psychologically flawed but some IQ points short of the US average. That’s his appeal. Here’s a guy who kicks pointy-head intellectual ass. And that may be his redeeming feature, too: even his own party doesn’t like him much, and the judiciary can run joyful rings round him. Not good for Americans, on the whole, but something like a stalemate may be achievable. Clinton’s as shallow and mendacious as Blair. But she’s pretty bright, knows how the levers of power can be pulled, has been in government for a long time, and she’s going to have to listen to 43 million sub-breadline Americans sooner or later – the Republicans cater skilfully to their prejudices, but their needs are still unaddressed. So, given only two candidates, it would probably be Clinton for me. And a big J before going to vote, to dull the nausea. Which is not to say that if I and an iron bar met Blair in the street, I would not commit an arrestable offence.

    The US system, even more than ours, really only permits two extremely rich and well-connected candidates to participate at a time. It might take a few more Clinton-Trump-style matches for the public to feel the colossal fraud to which they swear allegiance.

  • bevin

    One of the aspects of this election which “lesser evil” supporters of Clinton downplay is the clear evidence that it is she, rather than Trump, who is advancing a radical reactionary agenda domestically.
    She has a clear record, about which she boasts, of giving full support to the ‘welfare reform’ (dismantling), mass incarceration and financial de-regulation programmes of her husband’s government. This legacy, together with the aggressive militarism which Clinton also chose instead of a ‘peace dividend’ when the USSR collapsed, is evident in the extreme social crisis which is overtaking the USA. The widening gap between very rich and desperately poor, the massive unemployment and underemployment of the gig economy, the collapsing healthcare system, the dismantling of public education, the enormous amount of consumer debt and public finances which no longer compute-vast sums owing which can never be repaid.

    And she is promising more, the dismantling of pensions for seniors:

    “In the recent Wikileaks revelations confirming Hillary Clinton’s duplicity, one of the clearest disclosures of her policy plans concerns her intention regarding Social Security. She stated that she would return to the position of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, charged with producing recommendations for reducing the deficit, i.e. cutting government social spending.

    “The Commission, or “Simpson-Bowles committee” -named after co-chairs former Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson, and Erskine Bowles, former Morgan Stanley board member and chief of staff under Bill Clinton- was appointed by Obama in 2010. Among its members were some of the most persistent deficit hawks. Most significantly, the Commission was stacked with leading enemies of Social Security flailing their arms over the “impending insolvency” of the program. The day before his appointment as co-chair, Simpson said in an interview with the Washington Post: “How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’? The word itself is killing us.” (Feb. 17, 2010) In a later e-mail he described Social Security as “a milk cow with 310 million teats,” and had characterized its beneficiaries as “greedy geezers.” Bowles’s record was in line with Simpson’s. He had earlier negotiated with Newt Gingrich how best to cut safety net programs. The ultimate objective was to privatize Social Security….”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/04/the-coming-plague-of-poverty-among-the-elderly-clintons-plan-for-gutting-social-security/

    Clinton’s domestic policy is to do what the banks want. Nobody should have any illusions about that . And the banks want more neo-liberalism, the corporate giveaways of TTIP and TPP, and to get their hands on the savings of 300 million American workers.
    Whoever people choose to vote for-and if I were there I wouldn’t vote at all- they should be ready, after the vote to begin the hard work of preventing more wars and defending what is left of the living standards of the masses.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      Yeah, but. What’s Trump going to do? And how? He’s an old-skool predatory capitalist. Correction, his daddy was. He’s an old-skool not-half-as successful-as-he-makes- out son of a predatory capitalist. Nothing in his career indicates that he actually gives a flying one about the struggling masses: he just pats himself on the back for the non-effort it took him not to join their number. He’s going to be abandoned by the bankers, and he hasn’t got the clout to get them back in line, if he pulls anything crazy like correcting inequality. He’ll do what the hedge funds (and AIPAC, and the NRA) tell him, And in private, he’ll probably be mingling with much the same set as the Clintons.

      At least Clinton knows what’s involved, bar a few lessons on internet security. And I doubt Donald’s too good with computers, either.

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        Yes I pretty much agree with everything you say about Trump but what happens if he manages to get elected? What about that huge weight of expectation from the voters? I, like you, don’t think there is a cat’s chance that he can deliver anything remotely like social justice, or some reversal of the general direction of US policy, which is essentially technocratic, expansionist, and has rather unforgiving temporal and developmental necessities which are inimical to sudden changes in direction.i.e changes in economies is like trying to swing a convoy of tankers around in a harbour.
        He certainly won’t be able to deliver anything meaningful and one of my fears is that to deflect the mounting anger at his craven uselessness ( which will become apparent PDQ ) he will unleash something utterly vindictive-such as some kind of racist policy directed at the most vulnerable minorities, or instigate diversionary foreign adventuring against weak opponents. I certainly would not relish being in the British government’s Brexit position of trying to negotiate with a government headed by that scoundrel and bampot.

        • Ba'al Zevul

          It took him a hell of a long time to admit it, but Geoff Hoon (or Who?n), in a pathetic attempt to exculpate himself for his close connection with Blair, has just stated the bleeding obvious: that there is no special relationship except when our interests coincide, and they do not always coincide*. I think a frozen disregard for President Trump, while maintaining the closest possible contacts at the embassy level, might be rather useful for our interests. Trump, if he gets the chance, will almost certainly put up tariff barriers – it’s about all he can realistically do to maintain the pretence of reviving US industry without annoying the financiers. But those will hit all foreigners equally and we probably export less to the US than Germany and France do – correct me if I’m wrong. We’d have got that problem in or out,anyway.

          The one thing I like about Trump, given that the special relationship is a fraudulent concept, is that he’s not a pathological internationalist like the Clintons, and that ‘humanitarian’ interventions (Libya, Syria, Iraq, but, dear me, not Lebanon or Gaza) are less likely to feature in his bucket list than direct threats – some of which he will undoubtedly exaggerate – to the US itself.

          * http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-never-believed-special-relationship-9193410

          Good to kick these ideas around even if we don’t always agree, I think.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      Whatever. Most of them are just executive chatter anyway – the hysteria is largely Trump- and media-generated.The fact that the rest were not secured is indisputable.

      • kief

        Correct. But that is not the public perception. You may be satisfied it is pap, but many feel there is something there, there.

          • kief

            You really think it’s bias for Trump rather than bias against Hillary?

            It would put him squarely with the Masses, and I think we should expect more.

            But isn’t lengthy incarceration risky for one’s mental health? I think maybe he’s stewed in his own juices too long. He’s become a tool by someone’s design.

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.