The archive is catalogued by 'Politics', 'Economics', 'Mockery', 'In other news' and 'On other things' 


"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world" - Henry Kissinger

and yet...

"Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences" – Robert Louis Stevenson

If you don't know me by now, you will never never never know me whoo...whoo...whoo

In response to an FT article by Edward Luce on 18th September 2016, entitled ‘Fifty Trumpian days that will shake the world’

‘It is little short of astonishing that this close to midnight she (Hillary Clinton) feels obliged to launch another drive to explain to voters why she wants to be president.  What exactly was the past year about? Or the past decade? As the song says, “If you don’t know me by now . . .”’ Edward Luce

You’re right Mr. Luce…truly astonishing…and the next line of the song is even more apt…“If you don’t know me by now. . .you will never never never know me”

If the voters haven’t worked out that Hillary Clinton is totally unsuitable to be President of the United States then they will never never never know Hillary Clinton.  If they haven’t noticed that she is bought and paid for by the highest bidder, whether it’s Wall Street banks or Saudi Arabian ‘princes’, then they haven’t been paying attention. If they need to be reminded that she’s never met a war that she didn’t like…then they haven’t been paying attention.

As for this: ’Hillary Clinton is all that stands between the world and the Trumpian abyss’…I’m wondering if you’re paying attention Mr. Luce, never mind the voters.

Clinton’s foreign policy is a Godsend to two dangerous groups of people; two groups differentiated by the labels they wear…but not by the ends they promote:

a) The ‘neo-conservatives’ - who promote regime change in the name of ‘democracy’

b) The ‘liberal interventionists’ who promote regime change in the name of ‘humanitarianism’

Both groups are clearly more interested in ‘power’ and ‘money’ than any noble or altruistic pursuits, as exemplified by ghouls like Victoria 'F@ck the EU’  Nuland and George ‘What colour shall we choose for our next revolution’ Soros.

If the Democrats have any sense of self-preservation, they will ditch Clinton before there is no choice but to do otherwise.  Personally, I hope they bring back Bernie - I do not think he’s got any idea how to fix the economy and I think the state causes more problems than it solves, but I’m clear of three things about him:

1. He is NOT a war-mongerer

2. He is NOT in hock to Wall Street

3. He is relatively honest - indeed for a politician he’s the equivalent of a saint

He would also stand a far better chance in the debates than a person who avoided press conferences for 280 days and blathers when asked anything ‘real’.  Bernie is exactly what Trump needs to face – someone with nothing to hide.


Post Script:

Some of the responses to my comments illustrate an accelerating trend of selective reading, which is indicative of how blinkered and ‘binary’ this debate has become. The following ‘read’ my comments about Sanders and projected them onto Trump:

“Hmmmm... not sure how you can call Trump relatively honest”

 “Not sure how you could possibly come to the conclusion Trump is "not a warmonger": he seems intent on convincing the electorate that he is!’

Another projected a ‘meaning’ onto my words that was absent:

“’If the voters haven’t worked out that Hillary Clinton is totally unsuitable to be President of the United States then they will never never never know Hillary Clinton’.  And you think Trump is???!?!?!”

Some of this is explained by ‘passion’ in the heat of the moment. As we approach the debates, however, there will be a marked increase in deliberate ‘misreading’ of views and events…led by the parties and encouraged by the media...AKA propaganda.

To be clear - my position is this:

Even if the election were binary, which it is not (there's 4 on the ballot in many states) thinking, and therefore my choices, are not.

There are two deeply flawed candidates battling for the presidency...BUT...I disagree that one of them must win. Why? Because I don't think Clinton will make it to the election. I suspect that her campaign is in the early stages of meltdown.  

If she does make it to the election I believe she will lose. Sanders would have a far greater chance of winning, but will not be chosen because he is no more popular with the established elites than is Trump - as evidenced by the numerous ways in which the DNC rigged the deck in the primaries.

Clinton is the preferred candidate of the elites in government, banking, the media, and the military because she is the only one who will preserve the status quo.

Overall, I think the historical relevance of this election will be that it demonstrated the corrupt nature of the system of political economy we have been putting up with. 

Gideon Rachman bemoans a sinking pivot

Martin Wolf has a shilling for Larry Summers