AdSense

  • Latest News

    December 11, 2015

    Part II: The Clinton-Trump Deal: Why you must support Donald Trump, & how Hillary can win it

    December 11th, 2015 - 

    By: Joaquin Flores - 

    PART II



    [continued from Part I] ...  

    It's been well documented for over a decade that Trump and the Clintons are close; in fact Trump is a lifelong Democrat and has donated millions upon millions to the Clintons in particular. At the end of the day, though, the reason that Clinton also really likes Trump and sought him out for this project is that Trump probably doesn't care about winning and he's a loyal friend.

    But he likes to look like a winner.  And if he's not elected president, but still feels like a winner, that's great for Trump. If Clinton wins the presidency, then the presidency is a loser title anyhow, and the whole thing is rigged. It's rather simple for Trump. His brand only grows from all of this, and there will be innumerable ways that he can pull something later from this. Image is everything for Trump; even his 'success' is an image. In fact he inherited his money, and the image of success is just the product of his own self-promotion. There are over 500 billionaires in the US, and we can only name a few - because these are the people who go out of their way to be noticed and seek attention. Attention is what they crave; actual results, not so important. 

    Still, Trump is a man with a broad and untameable ego, only surpassed by Clinton's, but if she makes the mistake of arousing some real ambition in him, he may decide to go for gold.  And there's a good chance she'll do that, especially if she makes a remark about his hair.  We've already seen how that goes. Trump can actually win. See the thing with people is that sometimes they are unpredictable.  Trump doesn't care about losing so long as he's seen as a winner.  If this image of 'winning' is trounced on, who knows what Trump will try to pull... He's already broken most of the PC rules and hasn't been successfully crucified yet, and this only brings him more support.  

    Even the UN's against him now apparently, and something like this can arouse non-voters to vote for him.  It's like an Obama strategy, but instead of focusing on youth and minorities, it's for white guys who have either never voted or voted last for Reagan. There's a whole percentage point right there at least. Obama's handlers discovered that it was more efficient to get new voters interested than it was to fight over the universe of existing potential voters. True fact.



    Trump is not afraid of saying something offensive, or being hated - and there's this peculiar thing about human beings that innately senses the totalitarian nature of the PC cult, and yearns for a bigger than life public figure who can run against it all. There's something refreshing about this devil-may-care approach to the 'respectable' positions which American society so narrowly defines. Regular people inherently detect the elitist, proper, bourgeois nature of this rigid parameter, even if they wouldn't verbalize it in those terms.

    Unthinkable, yes for some, but in fact Trump is better plugged into the 'pulse' and is more attuned to new media, and he and his team have probably rightly determined that, despite the anti-Trump campaign that Clinton is placing all her hopes in, Trump is still the more likable person than Clinton. Of course, what voters want doesn't matter. The image matters more, and the messages around the talking points are flexible and can be crafted to sort of line up with the collective consciousness of the voting mass at any given time. To begin with the 'collective consciousness' is developed out of this more recent interplay between old and new media, the balance of systemic 'mainstream' views with counter-systemic memes, and so on.

    So, Trump really does stand a chance.  In many ways, Trump is more like Bill Clinton. They are both masters of communication, and take the art to levels rarely before seen. There is also something peculiar about their rhythm, select use of choice words in a particular order, repeated whenever possible, that seems to borrow heavily from the teachings of Anthony Robbins and his contribution to the method of Neuro-linguistic Programming, or NLP.  It is certain that Obama was (and is) a master of this method.  

    Tony Robbins


    Hillary, on the other hand, may not actually be able to fully comprehend just how hated she is. So the real question will be if Trump tries to throw the election for Clinton. The problem is that all of the unimaginable and unspeakable things he might say to throw the election, just might arouse yet another cross-section, people who never otherwise vote at all. These aren't swing voters, and they aren't stay-home Democrats who Clinton needs to appropriately scare into voting. This leaves three real options:

    1.) he randomly bows out,
    2.) the media tries to staple some horrible 'scandal' to him. In the second option, that's difficult by itself because, again, voters just may react the other way to that. And last,
    3.) He runs as an independent, splitting the Republican vote, and in this way hands victory to Clinton (the infamous Ross Perot move, redux).

    The honest truth, though, is that Trump simply should be president if the other option is Hillary. What you have with Trump is essentially an 'honest liar', being full of shit, a sensationalist troll, his visible and outward  image is something that reflects his actual essence.

    I don't think anyone really believes he has a problem with Muslims or Mexican immigrants. He's clearly engaging in showmanship, trolling for headlines, and just saying the naughty things that scores of millions of Americans really think, but aren't allowed to say anymore. And democracy, as an open ended project, isn't about protecting the speech of the politically correct and polite things to say, but about keeping every door open and protecting the speech of the things which otherwise wouldn't be allowed to be said.

    He's also a man fundamentally in touch with who he is, there are no 'naughty parts' that he thinks he has to cover up. He is an unabashed and self-actualized asshole. We are talking about egos here and people just aren't as turned off by people with big egos as they are with people with egos who fake humility. Clinton is just such a sheer and utter fake on every level, that this penis-forward comb-over approach to life of Trumps is really just a bit more appealing. Human beings are animals and retain all of these instincts, and we can all 'smell' this sort of thing on people. Trump smells just like who he says he is, Clinton does not.

    There are some other really truly compelling reasons to vote for Trump. And most of these are actually the reasons that many people will be fooled into voting for Clinton.

    The US right now is in a very difficult position geostrategically and geopolitically. Its power is waning which means that any given moment it is more powerful than it will be in the next moment. It must strike now, strike fast, and strike hard.  That's why we see this sudden return to a Monroe Doctrine in Latin America, and the doubling-down on Ukraine in supporting neo-Nazis, in Syria supporting ISIS, in Africa supporting warlords, sabotaging the Euro in Europe, and the hysteria over Chinese sand islands in the Pacific rim. The main targets are primarily Russia and China, and any other country that wants to break from the yoke of US economic and military oppression.

    Obama served a really important role for the US, because the forces behind him were able to unite the neo-cons (the old Plan B), who are the modern incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger - with their old arch rivals the Trilateralists. The outcome of this success of the Obama brand here was in bringing Europe back on board with the wars in the Middle-East, which are part of a larger pivot to control the 'rimland' Middle-East and contain the 'Heartland' which is the Russian continental power.  Bush and the neo-cons were unable to push Schroeder and Chirac towards an Atlanticist position on these things. The people who brought you Obama were also able to place Sarkozy and Merkel into European politics, and create some coherency around that.

    Clinton expects to really serve just the same function as Obama in this major, in fact primary, area of US foreign policy. Part of this new 'Great Game' is also the new 'Cold War', and it's all about continuing the artificial primacy of the US over the world.

    Trump is an absolute non-starter, not because he can't play ball, but because no French or German politician could effectively, well, even shake hands with him without it decreasing their own credibility.  It, in that sense, really is like a Bush on steroids as far as the Europeans are concerned, and Trump as a 'symbol' really cuts against the ability for the French and the Germans to work openly with the Americans either on Russia or the Middle East.  For people who are not fans of American global hegemony, and think that America needs to focus on its own problems first, then Trump really is the better candidate between the two.

    As a white man, and suddenly we are to believe a Republican, this makes him instantly an easy target for any European on the center-left.  He is instantly a racist and a misogynist. Just look at his wives. They look so good, he must really hate women. His statements about immigration and Islam, surely make him like a leper and entirely out of step with European values. For people concerned about war, this is actually very good. If America cannot get Europe to take an active role in the coming wars, well, they just might not happen at all. And based on the gestures he's made on foreign policy, he actually lines up well with Euroskepticism, and would dovetail nicely with a France led by Marine Le Pen, who has herself been quite vocally opposed to the increase in tensions with Russia.  

    And what about America's own problems?  It's the fear mongering here that Clinton hopes will push voters to vote against Trump, which means of course only incidentally voting 'for' Clinton (a mere technicality to be sure!). 

    It's time to be real again. When Democrats are in office, real social movements are made complacent, they give way to empty promises, and real grass-roots activism dies. Just look at the anti-war movement pre-Obama, and post-Obama.  

    What Democrats do is co-opt social movements, tell the activists what they want to hear, then once elected we are lucky if they do not do the exact opposite. It's really better to have an open reactionary in charge, and this unites people on the basis of real activism and grass-roots movements. There is no 'angle' with Democrats, there is no 'gradual process of reforms' going on. This isn't 19th century Germany. The Democrats are not a labor or social-democratic party. This also isn't Germany or France of the 1930's, Trump is not a fascist despite what Democrat talking points aimed at left-wing voters will be, and so a 'popular front' of all 'social forces' against fascism is uncalled for. The fear-mongering over fascism has certainly led to a fake social-democracy in Europe bent on austerity, and the 'anti-Bush' movement that only saw the rise of the equally criminal Obama. 

    The Democrats control organized labor, and Democrat Party agents lead the major trade union federations in the US, whether SEIU or the AFL.  The Democrat Party must be smashed in order to create the disruptions and power vacuums within organized labor, in order that some real room for militant organized labor struggles can be made, and new leaders may be born.  Just as with anti-war activism, the real triumphs were never made at the ballot box, but were always made on the picket line. Clinton's friends in the AFL and SEIU, like Mary Kay Henry, really think they can scam more Americans with a fake astro-turfed 'labor campaign' against - for example -  Wal-Mart, even though Clinton and Wal-Mart are two sides of the same coin.

    Democrats mean war, and every major war in the 20th century required a Democrat president to lead it - why? Precisely because through the Democrat Party, labor is chained politically to the decisions and politics of capital, the possibility for popular opposition to the war, jingoism, and austerity is cut back by ten-fold. The Democrat Party is America's ''Corporatist war model'' - fake labor leaders organized by industry, vertically, absolutely put the squash on any horizontal, bottom-up, independent, militant, labor action.

    May Day General Strike, Los Angeles 2006 - 2 million - Schwarzenegger and Bush  in power - Labor when Democrats are not in office


    Without a Democrat in office, a major war is hard to build support for. Right now, and for the next four years for sure, the chances for a major global war are greater than they have been at any time since the late 1930's.

    In America, politics is broken - it's the only way you could possibly have someone as despicable as Clinton and perhaps slightly more tolerable like Trump (not yet a war criminal or murderer) be the two candidates to choose from.

    And really, truly, there's something very ugly and glaring, and it's something Americans need to address. In the words of Morrissey, "America is not the world". That's right - and what does this concretely mean? America has the potential to destroy the world, but not the potential to save the world. The honest truth is that all of the most interesting things going on in the world right now, developmentally, are happening outside of the US, and moreover, in distinct opposition to US hegemony and imperialism.

    You will never get an American president who will promise peace and then deliver peace based on anything she or he has done, at least not directly. The forces of stability, development, and peace in the world today are succeeding only where America is failing to succeed.  Peace comes not from American initiatives, but from successful opposition to American initiatives. 

    Do you believe in sacrifice? If you really care about the world, and really want to see more peace in the world and more autonomy and self-determination for people of the 2nd and 3rd world, and indigenous communities, then you have to support Trump this time. Maybe it's a sacrifice at first, domestically. But the reliance on politics, courts, and elected officials is, and always has been, a dead end. The major populist and labor movements in the US arose in the years between the turn of the last century and the Great Depression. Times were bad, not good. People organized in the face of firing squads, and of course the feds read their mail just as the feds read your emails today. So what? Are you going to live forever? Vote Trump, and take one for the world team. 

    Trump's election will electrify the now zombified social movements in the US, and will make a War Party, whether domestically or internationally, extremely difficult to build. That's the simple fact of it. 

    The President of the US has many powers on paper, more so than even twenty years ago. In reality of course there are teams of military officers and intelligence agents, who have loyalties to powers much more lasting and institutional than a rotating, electable official. So, a president serves mostly just a symbolic role, lately it's more like the offspring produced by several institutional powers, such as with love-child Obama. So we support Trump really for three reasons:

    1.) The ego and vanity of Clinton, a murderous, cackling, and unrepentant war-criminal on-par with Bush or Blair, simply cannot be allowed to succeed. She must be stopped from realizing her ambitions for the pure and simple reason that they are her ambitions. Tying labor and social movements to the party in power gives America 'both wings' to attack with, and greatly enhances the chances of war. 

    2.) A white male Republican president will bring back to life a culture of resistance to imperialism and the exploitation of labor, at home. While there is a large and growing libertarian and 'box other - [x]'  of anti-imperialists in the US which are decidedly 'not' from the left, the historic core of anti-imperialism in the US is tied to militant labor action which has for a long time been associated with the left. This can draw fresh blood into a new, non-Democrat led labor  and popular movement, from across the political spectrum, moving beyond left and right, and focusing instead on issues directly connected to labor and capital, and not the old 'new-left' concerns of identitarianism. It also helps to shatter illusions about change in the US. There's a saying, "all's well that ends well".  Well, the US did not start well, is not well, and it all will not end well. Reforms are out of the question. Trump represents a backlash against generations of hypocrisy and divisive politics from Wall Street and Washington. The character of the period of his presidency will not be defined by his own views so much as the social movements it creates room for.

    3.) Trump is fundamentally a sane person whose showmanship and antics are staged, rooted in a fundamentally honest self-actualization, whereas Clinton is fundamentally a detached psychopath (not exaggerating), with a severe personality disorder, a dangerous and murderous lunatic, on the loose, who billions on this planet (outside of Europe) would like to see brought to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    But Clinton can still win. 

    Most indicators point to Trump being Clinton's ploy to get elected, as has been detailed in any number of popular articles floating around the web. But the scam should be reversed on her, everything else aside, for the fundamental reason that scams should backfire in principle. Call it cosmic justice, except we must be the bringers of it. 

    Still, for reasons we've outlined, Trump's campaign may be like a drill that suddenly goes live. He can certainly capture the Reagan Republicans that Clinton's campaign will rely on mobilizing.

    Even if Trump winds up "in it to win it", and if Clinton really looks like she's losing, there is really just one last thing she can do - it's her Hail Mary. At the climax of the campaign, just when things look like they cannot get worse, she must perform the 'arc of transformation'. It can be done through a - yes! -  "very convincing, very public, but not too drawn-out repentance." She must cry, and we will cry with her. "The world is a cruel place, and I had wrong ideas about what success meant. I started with all the right intentions, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions. I was blind to it. I once was lost. But now I'm found. Yes, I became a part of this cruel world. I cannot be this person any longer. Looking at Trump, I almost saw myself, and I said - this is not who I want to be. Amazing grace. My heart must heal, and this nation's heart must heal" Then she changes, the country changes, and we change with it. This will change the hearts and minds of literally thousands of voters. And for the millions more needed, she'll rely on Diebold.  


    • Blogger Comments
    • Facebook Comments

    0 comments:

    Post a Comment

    Item Reviewed: Part II: The Clinton-Trump Deal: Why you must support Donald Trump, & how Hillary can win it Rating: 5 Reviewed By: Joaquin Flores
    Scroll to Top
    \