“Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.” – William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA)
In scenes reminiscent of the 1938 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the Western media is losing its shit over the ‘Russian hack’ of the US election. This despite a complete lack of evidence and some pretty serious doubts that any such ‘hack’ ever occurred. But rather than confront the content of the leaked Podesta and HRC emails which expose Hillary and the Clinton Foundation’s crooked dealings and how the Democratic party rigged its own primaries to steal the presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders, the powers that be are engaging in a game of blame-the-messenger, à la Snowden and Manning.
While a few reputable journalists have been quick to point out that the Podesta and HRC emails were clearly “leaked”, rather than “hacked”, citing sources close to the leak including Julian Assange of Wikileaks and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray (who claims to have had direct contact with the source), most of the mainstream press is swallowing the CIA story hook line and sinker.
Of course Russia did not “hack” the US election, any more than it was stolen by internet bloggers or youtubers. As much as some would like to fantasise, the election result was not determined by Facebook, InfoWars, Wikileaks or by the so-called democratisation of information brought about by the internet. Trump’s victory, just as Michael Moore predicted a year ago, was the political expression of an embattled and embittered working class. There is nothing at all unique about this.
The breakdown of demographics shows that Clinton’s oft-cited ‘popular vote’ lead came down to a few densely populated key urban areas which make up the democratic heartland. In New York City for example, she received well over 2 million more votes than Trump, who won the rust belt in a landslide. (if a mere 58% voter turnout can be considered a landslide.) This is of course why the Electoral College system exists – so that a few large cities don’t get to decide the vote for an entire country.
Consequently, pressure is now being brought to bear on the Electoral College to sway the Dec. 19 vote. With the votes of 270 republican electors needed to put Trump in the Oval Office, the hope is to convince 37 of those voters to vote in bad faith, against the wishes of their electorates. To this end the Democrats and certain actors within the “intelligence community” are pulling out every dirty trick in the book including exhuming the long decomposed remains of McCarthyism. If the vote doesn’t have the desired results, President Obama has ordered a full review of allegations of Russian interference by January 20, which just happens to be inauguration day. In the event of a constitutional crisis the whole election may end up being decided by the House of Representatives, with a very real chance that Trump could be sidelined, leaving us with a far more hawkish acting president Pence or even vice-President Clinton. In any event we can expect legal challenges in the months ahead.
The rank hypocrisy that nobody seems to be talking about is Obama’s claim that the so-called Russian hack allegedly “casts doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process”. This from a country whose Central Intelligence Agency has been interfering in other countries elections since at least 1948. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. What is even more tragic is that this latest psy-op seems to be going viral, with both the UK and Germany now accusing Russia of aggressive propaganda.
Trump’s preferred appointment of former Exxon chief Rex Tillerson to Secretary of State, tho thoroughly consistent with his mandate to make trade not war, has given the Democratic establishment another reason to point the finger at his alleged Russia connections. Herein may lie a clue as to the nature of the rift within the establishment which has the neoconservatives maneuvering so desperately to keep Trump out of the White House.
Quite clearly both Clinton and Trump had little in common with the average American. Both are very much insider figures, but each represents a different face of the establishment. Trump appeals to the billionaire (capitalist) class, where Obama and Clinton represent the trillionaire (finance) class. Where Obama and Clinton are aligned with the globalists of Wall Street, Trump’s interests are nationalist, leaning toward isolationist. His brand of populism appeals to a forgotten tradition of American nativism expressed in the famous words of John Quincy Adams “…she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
It is precisely this point which has the globalists in such a panic. With a defence budget black hole amounting to 54% of all federal discretionary spending, some $598.5 billion annually, it is not just those at the top who stand to lose their perks under a Trump administration. Trump’s desire to tighten the reins on federal defence spending puts him at loggerheads with the military industrial complex which has kept Wall Street afloat these last 70 years.
The permanent war economy has transformed the institutions of American capitalism so that they now work against the people. As one reader notes: “by putting the capitalist West on an economic war footing, by using the industrial might of the West to show the world that capitalism can wipe the floor with communism economically, if it gets rid of the welfare state, removes trade barriers, and focuses entirely on industrial and military production.”
It’s easy to see why Trump’s anti-interventionist prerogative makes him public enemy number one. Public enemy number 2 has to be Vladimir Putin. Putin’s refusal to roll over, incrementally re-asserting Russian sovereignty and its place in the international community, and most recently frustrating US led efforts at regime change in Syria, make him the perfect scapegoat for these fictitious allegations. The claim that Putin personally ordered the alleged hacks serves both to avert attention from the chaos which the US political establishment has brought upon itself, and to re-ignite cold war tensions with Russia.
There is an obvious problem with this hypothesis tho. Doubling down on Russophobia didn’t work for the Democrats during the election, so why would it work now?