The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance

October 29, 2016 Consortiumnews.com

By Robert Parry

A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

There’s much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former “Al Qaeda in Iraq” which splintered off several years ago, but Al Qaeda’s central role in commanding Syria’s “moderate” rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.

Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America’s revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred “good guy/bad guy” narrative regarding the Syrian war.

For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda’s command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.

The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the “White Helmet” rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, “Wag the Dog.”).

Rare Glimpse of Truth

Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda’s importance in the rebellion breaks through, even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as the A9 article in Saturday’s New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:

“The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. … The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers.” (You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of “robust aid” from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments violate international law.)

What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda’s affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted “moderates” are serving in mostly support roles. The Times reported:

“The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the United States and its allies.”

The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that “the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting.”

Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo “offensive have been vetted by the C.I.A. and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. …

“In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels’ weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges.”

The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance

In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda’s new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda.

The Times article also includes a quote from Genevieve Casagrande, a Syria research analyst from the Institute for the Study of War, a neoconservative “think tank” that has supported more aggressive U.S. military involvement in Syria and the Middle East.

“The unfortunate truth, however, is that these U.S.-backed groups remain somewhat dependent upon the Al Qaeda linked groups for organization and firepower in these operations,” Casagrande said.

The other unfortunate truth is that the U.S.-supplied rebels have served, either directly or indirectly, as conduits to funnel U.S. military equipment and ordnance to Al Qaeda.

One might think that the editors of The New York Times – if they were operating with old-fashioned news judgment rather than with propagandistic blinders on – would have recast the article to highlight the tacit U.S. alliance with Al Qaeda and put that at the top of the front page.

Still, the admissions are significant, confirming what we have reported at Consortiumnews.com for many months, including Gareth Porter’s article last February saying: “Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [Al Qaeda’s] Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it. …

“At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar.”

Double Standards

The Times article on page A9 also deviated from the normal propaganda themes by allowing a statement by Syrian officials and the Russians regarding their suspension of airstrikes over the past week to permit the evacuation of civilians from east Aleppo and the rebels’ refusal to let people leave, even to the point of firing on the humanitarian corridors:

“The [Syrian] government and its [Russian] allies accused the rebels of forcing Aleppo residents to stay, and of using them as human shields.”

The “human shields” argument is one that is common when the United States or its allies are pummeling some city controlled by “enemy” forces whether Israel’s bombardment of Gaza or the U.S. Marines’ leveling of Fallujah in Iraq or the current campaign against ISIS in the Iraqi city of Mosul. In those cases, the horrific civilian bloodshed, including the killing of children by U.S. or allied forces, is blamed on Hamas or Sunni insurgents or ISIS but never on the people dropping the bombs.

An entirely opposite narrative is applied when U.S. adversaries, such as Syria or Russia, are trying to drive terrorists and insurgents out of an urban area. Then, there is usually no reference to “human shields” and all the carnage is blamed on “war crimes” by the U.S. adversaries. That propaganda imperative helps explain why Al Qaeda and its jihadist comrades have been largely whited out of the conflict in Aleppo.

Over the past few years, U.S. regional allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, also have shifted their public attitudes toward Al Qaeda, seeing it as a blunt instrument to smash the so-called “Shiite crescent” reaching from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. For instance, in September 2013, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored Syria’s Sunni extremists over President Assad.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in an interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were with Al Qaeda.

And, in June 2014, speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position, saying Israel would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

Warming to Al Qaeda

As Israeli officials shifted toward viewing Al Qaeda and even ISIS as the lesser evils and built a behind-the-scenes alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni states, American neoconservatives also began softening their tone regarding the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Across the U.S. foreign policy establishment, pressure built for “regime change” in Damascus even if that risked handing Syria to Sunni jihadists. That strategy hit a road bump in 2014 when ISIS began chopping off the heads of Western hostages in Syria and capturing swathes of territory in Iraq, including Mosul.

That bloody development forced President Barack Obama to begin targeting ISIS militants in both Iraq and Syria, but the neocon-dominated Washington establishment still favored the Israeli-Saudi objective of “regime change” in Syria regardless of how that might help Al Qaeda.

Thus, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and its jihadist ally, Ahrar al-Sham, faded into the background under the fiction that the anti-Assad forces were primarily noble “moderates” trying to save the children from the bloodthirsty fiends, Assad and Putin.

Grudgingly, The New York Times, deep inside Saturday’s newspaper, acknowledged at least part of the troubling reality, that the U.S. government has, in effect, allied itself with Al Qaeda terrorists.

[For more background on this issue, see Consortiumnews.com’s “New Group Think for War with Syria/Russia.”]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

¿Por qué de ganar Donald Trump en EU los problemas en México aumentarían?

Arturo Huerta González*

La Jornada 30 de Octubre de 2016

El gobernador del Banco de México (BdeM) considera que el triunfo de Donald Trump a la presidencia de Estados Unidos causaría daño similar a un huracán mayor de categoría 5. Ello se explicaría porque la economía nacional depende de la entrada de dólares, y ésta disminuiría más, tanto porque caerían las exportaciones, tomando en cuenta que él instrumentaría políticas proteccionistas, y además limitaría las remesas que los connacionales envían al país. El déficit de cuenta corriente de balanza de pagos se incrementaría, se reducirían las reservas internacionales y aumentaría la devaluación del peso. Tal situación evidencia la gran dependencia de la entrada de capitales a la que nos han llevado las políticas económicas predominantes, que han atentado contra el desarrollo industrial y agrícola y han amentado el déficit de comercio exterior. Por su parte la gran entrada de capitales y de deuda externa han aumentado el pago de intereses y de utilidades de éstos, que han aumentado el déficit de cuenta corriente de balanza de pagos. Con menor entrada de dólares, la economía no tendría condiciones ni de mantener el déficit de comercio exterior ni de cubrir el pago de la deuda externa. Ante ello el gobierno responde con menos gasto público y el BdeM incrementa la tasa de interés. Todo ello contrae la actividad económica y las importaciones para ajustar el déficit del sector externo, ante la inviabilidad de financiarlo.

El aumento de la tasa de interés no frenará la devaluación. No va a promover entrada de capitales que contrarresten la caída de las exportaciones, ni frenará la salida de capitales. La tasa de interés en México viene aumentando desde diciembre de 2015 y no ha frenado la devaluación, dado que prosiguen los factores externos operando en contra de la economía y ésta no tiene capacidad para encarar tal situación, y menos lo va a lograr con políticas contraccionistas.

El hecho que BdeM haya aumentado el diferencial de tasas de interés entre nuestro país y EU no le da margen de maniobra en caso de que la Reserva Federal decida este año un incremento, como señaló Carstens el 30 de septiembre, dado que al seguir las presiones sobre el tipo de cambio, al aumentar la Reserva Federal la tasa de interés, más capital va a salir del país y devaluarán más al peso, lo que obligará nuevamente al BdeM a aumentar el diferencial de las tasas de interés.

Las medidas tomadas por la SHCP y BdeM debilitan más las condiciones productivas internas del país, y fragilizan más a la economía frente al shock externo. No se enfrenta éste contrayendo demanda, sino fortaleciendo la esfera productiva cosa que no hacen, y sus medidas empeoran la problemática económica del país y mantienen las presiones sobre las finanzas públicas y el sector externo, y sobre el tipo de cambio.

Si Donald Trump deporta a los inmigrantes mexicanos indocumentados de su país, ello le ocasionaría un gran problema a México, pues no hay oportunidades de trabajo y de condiciones de vida para ellos, dado que 58 por ciento de la población está en la economía informal y con los recortes presupuestales la economía va al estancamiento, a aumentar el desempleo y la economía informal y a menores salarios y condiciones de vida para la población, lo que aumentaría la inseguridad y el clima de violencia en el país. Cabe señalar que es difícil que Trump lo haga, pues los connacionales hacen el trabajo que los estadunidenses no hacen, y aparte ello aumentaría fuertemente los salarios en tal país, lo que le reduciría más su competitividad, dada la apreciación del dólar.

Gane quien gane en EU la economía mexicana pasará a tener menor entrada de dólares. Ambos candidatos presidenciales han dicho que revisarán el Tratado de Libre Comercio que se tiene con ellos, e impondrán medidas restrictivas a la inmigración. Sólo variará el grado de la instrumentación de dichas medidas. Al disminuir la entrada de dólares se comprometerá en nuestro país el libre movimiento de mercancías y capitales, como el pago del servicio de la deuda externa. El problema es que el gobierno insiste en el libre comercio, y es buen pagador de la deuda, por lo que pasaremos a las mismas políticas que predominaron ante la crisis de la deuda en 1982 que nos llevaron a la década perdida, de inflación y recesión económica. Éste será más severo que en ese entonces, pues hoy la economía tiene menos industria, menos agricultura y no tenemos manejo soberano de política económica para encarar tal situación.

*División de Estudios de Posgrado. Facultad de Economía, UNAM

¿LA TERCERA GUERRA MUNDIAL?

La posible llegada a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos de Hillary Clinton está generando el riesgo de una confrontación de grandes proporciones con Rusia.

En primer lugar, Hillary Clinton es la favorita del complejo militar-industrial-de seguridad, Wall Street, el lobby pro Israel, los neoconservadores (que antes tuvieron como marioneta a George W. Bush), los “intervencionistas humanitarios” y los grandes medios de comunicación (más Silicon Valley y Hollywood).

Para estos grupos de poder, lo más importante es que Estados Unidos mantenga su hegemonía política, económica y militar, sin que ninguna otra potencia pueda poner en entre dicho la misma[1].

El surgimiento de Rusia y China como posibles rivales de los autodenominados “líderes del mundo libre” ha generado en las élites estadounidenses un odio visceral contra dichas potencias, pero principalmente contra el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, quien en varias ocasiones ha detenido los planes para mantener subyugada a Rusia, tal como la tuvieron durante los nefastos años en que el dipsómano Boris Yeltsin fue el presidente de ese país.

En especial, la ayuda que Putin ha dado al gobierno de Bashar al Assad en Siria, ha evitado la destrucción y balcanización de ese país, que había sido el plan de los neoconservadores, el lobby pro Israel, el gobierno de Netanyahu, Arabia Saudita, Turquía, Egipto, Jordania y las petromonarquías del Golfo.

Numerosos intereses políticos, económicos y militares están detrás de los terroristas radicales islámicos y de los supuestos “rebeldes moderados”, quienes han sido armados, financiados y apoyados por estos países y gobiernos (más los de Gran Bretaña y Francia), con objeto de destruir a la vertiente chiíta del Islam, representada por Irán y el régimen alawita de Damasco; así como derrotar definitivamente la resistencia palestina (especialmente a Hezbollah en Líbano), para permitir que el gobierno de Netanyahu termine por ocupar los territorios palestinos en Israel y eventualmente lleve a cabo una “limpieza étnica”, enviando a los palestinos sobrevivientes a los países colindantes (principalmente a los devastados y divididos Siria y Líbano, en caso de que caiga Assad; y a Jordania, donde el débil gobierno del rey Abdalá II no podrá oponer resistencia).

Clinton ha estado insistiendo en que impondrá una “zona de no vuelo” en Siria, con la supuesta intención de detener los bombardeos rusos y del ejército sirio contra la población civil; aunque en la realidad su intención es evitar que los comandantes y miembros del grupo terrorista Al Nusra, sean eliminados, pues constituyen la última esperanza de Washington para mantener la presión sobre el régimen de Assad.

De ahí que Putin ha fortalecido la presencia militar rusa en Siria, con el envío de los sistemas de defensa anti aérea S-300 y S-400, en previsión de que la nueva presidenta de Estados Unidos (siempre y cuando Trump no le gane en el último momento), intente establecer la “zona de no vuelo”. Y de igual manera, está enviando al porta aviones Kuznetsov y varios buques de guerra más, para fortalecer la presencia rusa en Siria y así tratar de disuadir a Clinton del establecimiento de esa “zona de no vuelo”.

¿Podrán Putin y Assad ocupar el este de Aleppo antes de que Clinton tome posesión; o incluso antes de que los neoconservadores que manejan el Pentágono y la CIA inicien una acción contra los aviones de Rusia y el ejército sirio, aún sin la aprobación de un debilitado presidente Obama, que ya va de salida?

En caso de que Clinton y los neoconservadores decidan “mandar un mensaje” a Putin, derribando algún avión ruso o sirio, o atacando nuevamente al ejército sirio, como ya lo hicieron a principios de septiembre para reventar un cese al fuego negociado por Kerry y Lavrov: ¿Obligará a una respuesta militar de Putin; o se reservará la misma, tal como lo hizo cuando los turcos derribaron un avión ruso que supuestamente violó su espacio aéreo por 17 segundos?

Además, Estados Unidos y sus aliados se están involucrando cada vez más intensamente en la batalla contra el "Estado Islámico" en Mosul, Irak; y próximamente iniciarán acciones contra Raqqa, Siria (“capital” del "Estado Islámico"), lo que implica que las operaciones militares de los estadounidenses (bombardeos y “fuerzas especiales”) van a acercarse cada vez más al teatro de operaciones de los rusos y sirios, con la posibilidad de que eventos accidentales o intencionales, puedan llevar a una confrontación entre ambas potencias.

Washington, Riyad, Tel Aviv, Londres y Paris empujan cada vez más hacia un rincón a Putin, tanto con su histérica retórica anti rusa en todos los medios de comunicación occidentales, como con su irresponsable apoyo a los grupos de fanáticos radicales de Al Nusra y otros grupos opuestos al gobierno de Assad, lo que está llevando a Putin a elevar la apuesta en Medio Oriente (ahí está el envío de la fuerza de tarea naval, encabezada por el Kuznetsov), y con ello la posibilidad de que errores en el campo de batalla, malas interpretaciones o simple orgullo nacional, puedan desatar una catástrofe militar mayúscula en el Medio Oriente, entre las dos máximas superpotencias nucleares del planeta, con lo que el inicio de una Tercera Guerra Mundial, ya no parecería tan descabellado.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-pentagon-s-plan-prevent-the-re-emergence-of-a-new-rival.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

McCarthyism,’ Then and Now

Anti-Russian hysteria and the political elites

by Justin Raimondo, October 26, 2016

Antiwar.com

I’m often taken to task by some of my readers for characterizing the current anti-Russian hysteria as “McCarthyism.” After all, they say, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was right – there were, indeed, high-ranking individuals in the US government covertly sympathetic to the Soviet regime. And, yes, we now know that many of these were working directly for Soviet intelligence.

This was the predictable result of our wartime alliance with Russia: combined with the left-wing proclivities of the Roosevelt administration, and the “Popular Front” politics of the Communist Party USA during this period, it’s surprising that Soviet penetration of US government circles wasn’t more extensive than it turned out to be.

In any case, what we are seeing today with the revival of the cold war mindset is in many ways the complete opposite of the “old” McCarthyism: the target may be the same – Russia as the bogeyman de jour – but the methods and sources of the neo-McCarthyites are quite different.

To begin with, the “old” McCarthyism was a movement generated from below, and aimed at the elites: the “new” McCarthyism is a media construct, generated from above and created by the elites.

The average American, while hardly a Putin groupie, is not lying awake at night worrying about the “Russian threat.” The fate of Ukraine, not to mention Crimea, is so far from his concerns that the distance can only be measured in light-years. And when some new scandal breaks as a result of WikiLeaks releasing the emails of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, Joe Sixpack doesn’t think “Oh, that just proves Julian Assange is a Kremlin toady!” WikiLeaks is merely confirming what Joe already knew: that Washington is a cornucopia of corruption.

The Acela corridor elite, on the other hand, does lie awake at night wondering how they can pull off a regime change operation that will eliminate the “threat” represented by Putin once and for all. Ever since the Russian leader started mocking Washington’s hegemonic pretensions, criticizing the US invasion of Iraq, and pointing out how US-funded Syrian “rebels” are merely jihadists in “moderate” clothing, Putin has been in their crosshairs – and the propaganda war has been relentless.

This barrage has gone into overdrive with the launching of the Clinton campaign’s effort to smear Donald Trump as a Kremlin “puppet.” You have to go all the way back to the earliest days of our Republic, when pro-British supporters of Alexander Hamilton were sliming the Jeffersonian Democrats with accusations that they were agents of the French revolutionaries, to come up with the historical equivalent of Hillary’s “you’re a puppet” charges directed at Trump. And the media, being an auxiliary of the Clinton campaign, has been filled with even more virulent screeds purporting to “prove” Trump is the Manchurian candidate.

One way in which the new McCarthyism is very much like the old is that it threatens to poison the intellectual atmosphere in this country, endangering the very foundations of our free society and academic standards of free inquiry and debate. Emblematic of this trend is a tweet authored by Dan Drezner, professor of international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and a foreign affairs columnist at the Washington Post, in which he commented on a talk he heard at the Valdai conference, a regular event held in Russia focusing on Russo-American relations:

“At Valdai, John Mearsheimer says the Chinese and Russians love his realism. ‘I’m much more comfortable in Moscow than Washington!’"

Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of political science at the University of Chicago, the author of six books, and the leading theoretician of the school of international relations known as “offensive realism.”  He is, in short a scholar of some renown – and yet Drezner, considerably lower on the academic totem pole, feels empowered to slime him as somehow disloyal. How did we come to this sad state of affairs?

The poisoning of a society with propaganda used to take some time: today, the process is much faster, due to technological innovation, and especially the rise of the Internet and the growth of social media. In the old days, the McCarthyites had to rely on print media and radio to smear those “pinko college professors” and drive them out of academia. Today, someone like Drezner can sign in to their Twitter account and snark about how John Mearsheimer is more at home in Moscow and Beijing than in the good ol’ US of A, and his thousands of Twitter followers get the idea – that Mearsheimer is somehow anti-American – in an instant (and in only twenty words!).

The “old” McCarthyism was dangerous because, in some cases, people were targeted unfairly: anybody with dissident views was suspect, and especially anyone with vaguely left-wing opinions. And McCarthyism, which in its original form saw the main danger to America to be internal, soon morphed into something else entirely: a movement that sought a military confrontation with the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was McCarthyism that was the bridge that allowed neoconservative interventionists to invade the conservative movement and displace the “isolationism” of the Old Right.

The new McCarthyism poses new dangers that are, perhaps, more virulent than the old version and will have more immediate consequences. The above-mentioned smear of Prof. Mearsheimer encapsulates what the dangers are to academia: in the 1950s, left-wing professors had at least some protection from populist McCarthyites in that academics tended to jealously guard their turf and protect their own from outside incursions. Today, with the elites pushing Russophobia, those protections fall by the wayside.

Furthermore, the political class, where the new McCarthyism is rampant, has power – that is, it can translate its prejudices into policy more readily than any mass movement such as the one led by “Tail-gunner Joe.” If Hillary Clinton and her advisors really believe that Putin is out to defeat her and elect her opponent, then what can we expect will happen to US-Russian relations if and when she’s elected?

And while the American people aren’t exactly up in arms over the prospect of a “Red Dawn” scenario unfolding in the streets of America’s cities, the “mainstream” media’s longstanding anti-Russian crusade is clearly having an effect. A Pew poll shows that anti-Russian sentiment in the United States rose “from 43% to 72% from 2013 to 2014.” The “trickle down” effects of war propaganda work just as effectively as the “trickle-up” model, if not more so.

The real world consequences of a conflict with Russia, a nuclear-armed state, are fearsome to even contemplate: the political class in this country is playing a dangerous game of chicken, and they’re playing it with our lives and the lives of every person on earth.

Aside from the prospect of World War III, the effects of the new McCarthyism will be to distort our politics, infect our culture, and threaten our constitutional rights as Americans. It is entirely possible that a new witch-hunt will be launched by the Russia-haters in our midst, with a revived “Un-American Activities Committee” replete with congressional hearings, as well as “investigations” by law enforcement of “pro-Russian” “subversive” activities. With the media acting as a cheerleading section for these official and unofficial arbiters of political correctness, our future as a free society will be increasingly in doubt.

Finally, the new McCarthyism underscores the cynicism, opportunism, and downright viciousness of our political class, and especially the media, which has done nothing to question and everything to bolster the Russophobic propaganda put out there by self-serving lobbyists and politicians. It truly is a sickening sight, made all the more so by the self-professed “liberalism” of those who are in the vanguard of this revolting trend.

What these folks should remember is that the “old” McCarthyism was in large part a reaction to the “Brown scare” of the Roosevelt era, when “isolationist” conservatives were smeared as “agents of Hitler,” driven out of their jobs, and in some instances charged with “sedition.” This bout of war hysteria was driven, first of all, by the Communist Party and its media contingent, which had become more-patriotic-than-thou when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and the Communist line on the war changed overnight. However, when the world situation changed again, and the Soviets were in Washington’s sights, the tables were abruptly turned – and Sen. McCarthy’s crusade took off.

The same thing can happen again. If the consequences of the new McCarthyism come to fruition in an armed conflict with Russia, or even a nuclear exchange, as Americans emerge from the radioactive wreckage they’ll be looking for someone to blame – and scapegoats won’t be that hard to find.

Coalición o colusión

Pedro Miguel

La Jornada 25 de Octubre de 2016

En una entrevista publicada ayer en La Jornada (https://is.gd /MhoKpi), Manlio Fabio Beltrones expuso su propuesta de establecer un gobierno de coalición obligatoria en caso de que ninguno de los contendientes presidenciales en 2018 logre obtener cuando menos 42 por ciento de los votos. La idea, se entiende, tendría que pasar por una reforma política que impusiera a un vencedor por mayoría simple por debajo de ese porcentaje la obligación de registrar ante el Congreso un programa de gobierno y una agenda legislativa en común con otros partidos y someter a la aprobación de diputados y senadores la composición de su gabinete, salvo los cargos de Defensa, Marina y Seguridad Pública. Se trataría, según él, de una alternativa a la instauración de la segunda vuelta en elecciones presidenciales que propusieron los panistas. En ambos casos, se afirma, el propósito es dar gobernabilidad, legitimidad y estabilidad a la Presidencia.

En la lógica de Beltrones, tanto Felipe Calderón como Enrique Peña Nieto habrían tenido que pasar por el trámite de la coalición porque, según los resultados oficiales, ninguno de ellos superó el margen de 42 por ciento de los votos: 35.89 por ciento para el panista y 38.21 para el mexiquense.

Tales porcentajes fueron obtenidos mediante sendos fraudes electorales. En realidad Calderón quedó cuatro puntos porcentuales por debajo de López Obrador, pero coronó una ventaja insignificante (0.56 por ciento) con el trasvase masivo de votos priístas, gestión que tuvo a Elba Esther Gordillo como operadora principal (léase La cocina del diablo. El fraude de 2006 y los intelectuales, de Héctor Díaz-Polanco). Peña compró cerca de 5 millones de sufragios mediante tarjetas Monex y Soriana, dinero en efectivo y productos diversos. Incluso con los medios fraudulentos empeñados, ambos obtuvieron votaciones relativamente exiguas, pero lo que manchó de ilegitimidad sus respectivas administraciones no fue una débil representatividad sino las escandalosas adulteraciones de la voluntad popular.

Eso explica que panistas y priístas hayan tenido que echarse la mano para consolidar presidencias que son productos del fraude. Si Calderón logró incrustarse en Los Pinos y mantenerse allí fue porque los priístas se lo permitieron. En su sexenio se volvió inocultable la coalición de factodel PRIAN, que venía gestándose desde tiempos de Salinas y que se consolidó en los sexenios de Zedillo y de Fox. El peñato se estrenó con el Pacto por México, que amplió la alianza para convertirla en PRIANRD y que agrupa, además del partido del sol azteca, al Verde, el Panal y demás. Uno y otro se vieron forzados a subsanar su falta de legitimidad mediante un acuerdo bajo la mesa (el primero) y explícito (el segundo) que si bien no incluyeron el reparto de puestos en el gabinete sí llevaron a la distribución de toda suerte de canonjías e impunidades para formaciones opositoras que sólo lo eran en el papel.

La esencia de la ingobernabilidad e ilegitimidad crecientes que experimenta esa coalición no reside desde luego en las disposiciones electorales pasadas o vigentes sino, como ya se ha dicho, en la determinación de violarlas para mantener el poder, pero también en los propósitos y contenidos de ese poder, que básicamente se resumen en tres puntos: mantener y profundizar el programa económico neoliberal; garantizar la impunidad de los antecesores por los sucesores, al margen de qué colores y siglas se encuentren en los cargos, y preservar la corrupción en la administración pública y la política como fuente de enriquecimiento personal y faccional.

En consecuencia, si el PRIANRD fuera a conservar el poder presidencial otros seis años, la figura de la coalición sería innecesaria e irrelevante porque ya tiene sobrada experiencia una forma más flexible de compartir el gobierno: la colusión, mencionada con agudeza por el reportero Arturo Cano en la plática con Beltrones.

Tal vez el veterano priísta esté sopesando la posibilidad de que en 2018 el fraude no baste para impedir que alguien ajeno a esa coalición prianrredista llegue al gobierno y en la pertinencia de idear mecanismos para atarle las manos a fin de asegurar la supervivencia de las mafias del poder. O será que piensa en la estabilidad política, la consolidación democrática y el bienestar de México.

navegaciones.blogspot.com

PÁNICO DE LA SUBCLASE POLÍTICA POR EL 2018

Uno de los políticos más tradicionales y cuestionados del país, el príista Manlio Fabio Beltrones, ahora convertido en “politólogo”, después de que fue corrido de la dirigencia de su partido por las derrotas en las elecciones estatales de este año, propone[1] modificar la Constitución y las leyes electorales para que en las elecciones federales del 2018, si ningún candidato presidencial logra al menos el 42% de los votos, esté obligado a formar un “gobierno de coalición” con los partidos que quedaron con menos votación.

Es una fórmula para el desastre, como se ha visto en los regímenes parlamentarios, en donde difícilmente se ponen de acuerdo partidos con propuestas distintas, y a veces diametralmente opuestas, en los casos en que ninguno cuenta con la mayoría para formar gobierno (ahí están los casos español e italiano). Lo que va a asegurar esa propuesta (que casi seguramente ni siquiera se considerará en el Congreso) es que el gobierno en turno aplique políticas contradictorias (por ejemplo los tecnócratas de Hacienda restringiendo el gasto, mientras las áreas de asistencia -que no desarrollo- social proponiendo su ampliación); escenificando luchas por el poder entre los miembros de los distintos partidos y sabotajes de los secretarios de partidos distintos, al presidente.

Pero lo que refleja la inviable y estrafalaria propuesta de Beltrones es el pánico de la subclase política ante la posibilidad de que en el 2018 Morena y su seguro candidato presidencial, Andrés Manuel López Obrador tengan la posibilidad de acceder a la presidencia con una votación de alrededor del 30% del total.

El PAN también ha propuesto la segunda vuelta como fórmula de evitar que López Obrador se alce con el triunfo con ese nivel de votación, pues en una segunda ronda los panistas y príistas podrían unirse (dependiendo quién quede en segundo lugar), para derrotar al candidato de Morena.

Por lo que se ve por el momento, el PRI, el PAN y Morena podrían rondar entre el 25 y el 28% de la votación cada uno, mientras que Mancera y su coalición de minipartidos (PRD, Movimiento Ciudadano y PT) podrían estar en 15% y la candidata indígena que propondrán el EZLN y el CNI, en caso de concretarse esa candidatura, no más de 1 ó 2%.

Evidentemente quedará un panorama político-electoral fracturado, con un presidente con apoyo popular menor a la tercera parte y un Congreso fraccionado.

Sin embargo ese no es el problema real, ya que el PRI, PAN, PRD, PVEM, PANAL y PES, representan a la derecha en México; esto es la subordinación completa del país a los dictados del gobierno de Estados Unidos, los organismos financieros internacionales (FMI, BM y BID); Wall Street y la plutocracia aliada a esos intereses trasnacionales (Consejo Mexicano de Negocios). El único partido que está identificado y comprometido con los intereses de la mayoría de la población es Morena, por lo que es muy factible que a este partido y a su candidato presidencial se les opongan todo tipo de obstáculos (“legales” e ilegales), para impedir su llegada al Poder Ejecutivo Federal.

De hecho cuando López Obrador estuvo al frente del gobierno de la ciudad de México (2000-2005), todos los partidos contrarios al entonces PRD en el que militaba López Obrador se coaligaron para destituirlo de su puesto, con una acusación frívola sobre un terreno en la zona de Santa Fe (similar al golpe de Estado que recientemente los corruptos legisladores brasileños realizaron contra la presidenta Dilma Rousseff), por lo que de triunfar en las elecciones del 2018, es muy probable que se enfrentaría nuevamente a una mayoría opositora golpista en el Poder Legislativo, como las que ahora existen en Brasil y en Venezuela.

En suma, parece que el pánico de la subclase política por la posible llegada de López Obrador a la presidencia, parece exagerado, en vista de que aunque sucediera, los golpistas opositores aún cuentan con innumerables medios para sabotear e incluso destituir al líder de Morena.

---

[1] http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/10/24/politica/010e1pol

The $5 trillion wars

By Linda J. Bilmes   OCTOBER 17, 2016  bostonglobe.com

THIS OCTOBER MARKS 15 years since American troops entered Afghanistan. It was a precursor to the occupation of Iraq and is the longest military conflict in US history. Yet the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives expended in these wars have rated barely a mention in the presidential campaign.

The most recent estimates suggest that war costs will run to nearly $5 trillion — a staggering sum that exceeds even the $3 trillion that Joseph Stiglitz and I predicted back in 2008.

Yet the cost seems invisible to politicians and the public alike. The reason is that almost all of the spending has been financed through borrowing — selling US Treasury Bonds around the world — leaving our children to pick up the tab. Consequently, the wars have had little impact on our pocketbooks.

In earlier wars, the government routinely raised taxes, slashed nonmilitary spending, and sold war bonds. Taxes were raised to pay for the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War I and World War II. Top rates of federal income taxes climbed to 70 percent during Vietnam and to over 90 percent during the Korean War. These policies were all part of an explicit strategy of engaging the American public in the war efforts. In sharp contrast, the George W. Bush administration cut taxes after the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001 and again, in 2003, when we invaded Iraq. Most Americans pay lower taxes now than they did 15 years ago.

Congress has also managed to avoid painful budgetary choices. Since 2001, Congress has employed a series of so-called “temporary special appropriations” to authorize hundreds of billions of dollars for war spending, bypassing the regular spending process. Despite President Obama’s pledge to end such “gimmicks,” they have continued throughout his presidency. Thus the money appropriated for the post-9/11 wars did not have to be traded off against other spending priorities. The war appropriation also gets far less scrutiny than the regular defense budget. Consequently, the war budget has become a magnet for pet nonwar spending projects that senators and congressmen want to slip in under the radar. As a consequence, the reported war cost per troop deployed has ballooned from $1 million per year at the peak of the fighting in 2008 to $4.9 million today.

Besides ducking the immediate financial burden, most of us are also shielded from the risks and hardships of military service. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were the first major US conflicts fought entirely by an “all-volunteer” military force. Less than 1 percent of the adult US population was deployed to the combat zones — the smallest percentage at any time since the short peacetime period between the two World Wars. Instead, our small volunteer army is supplemented by a large shadow force of private contractors. In Afghanistan, contractors outnumber US troops by 3 to 1, performing critical roles in virtually every area of military activity. More than two-thirds of them are recruited from other countries, including the Philippines and Nepal.

As a result, the post-9/11 conflicts have become a “spectator war,” as Andrew Bacevich of Boston University put it, in which most Americans are neither engaged nor involved.

 All of this accounts for the absence of any real political discussion about how we will fund huge costs of the war that are still to be paid — for example, the $1 trillion in lifetime disability compensation that we have awarded to 960,000 recent veterans. Worse, no one is asking whether the current approach in Afghanistan is working. Last month the US special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, John Sopko, reported that corruption in Afghanistan is far more widespread than before the 2001 US invasion, due to US policies that “unintentionally aided and abetted corruption.” But his investigations get barely a mention in the media.

As long as the cost of the war remains hidden from public view, there is no pressure to reexamine our military strategy. Donald Trump says his secret plan is to “ask the generals.” But the Pentagon should be focused on tactics, not on deciding our national purpose. Assuming Hillary Clinton wins, she cannot lead a national conversation unless the public is paying attention.

This will change only if we are obliged to pay for war operations as we go, and to set aside money now to support and care for our veterans in the future. This is not simply about sound fiscal budgetary policy. Rather, it is about shouldering the burden of our wars and, in doing so, being open to learn from our mistakes. We all want to continue to “support our troops.” Sweeping the costs under the carpet is not the right way to do it.

Linda J. Bilmes is a senior lecturer in public policy at Harvard University and coauthor, with Joseph E. Stiglitz, of “The Three Trillion Dollar War.”

Interview with al-Nusra commander "The Americans stand on our side"
By Jürgen Todenhöfer  September 26, 2016 moonofalabama.org
It was the seventh trip by my son Frederic and me to the civil war country Syria. We were there for 13 days. Words can only barely describe the extend of damage and suffering on both sides.
We conducted the interview ten days ago with a commander of the al-Qaida branch "Jabhat al-Nusra". Abu al-Ezz reported quite openly about his financiers Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. We were able to exactly research the identity of the man and know practically everything about him.
Interview in the stone quarry in Aleppo
The interview was arranged by a rebel from Aleppo. I have had contacts to Syrian rebels for years. It was conducted outside of Aleppo in a quarry in direct sight- and shooting-distance of Jabhat al-Nusra and could only be reached safely by a member of al-Nusra.
His fighters were partially not masked, i.e. easily identifiable. Part of his statements were nearly verbally confirmed shortly thereafter by a mufti in Aleppo. Other assertions about the lack of interest of rebels towards a ceasefire and an international aid-convoy also bore out. Just like his predictions about planned military activities in several cities of Syria.

Abu al-Ezz, commander, says about Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda): "We are one part of al-Qaeda. Our principles are: Fighting vice, pureness and security. Our affairs and our way have changed. Israel, for example, is now supporting us, because Israel is at war with Syria and with Hizbullah.
America also changed its opinion about us. Originally "IS" and us were one group. But "IS" was used in the interests of big states like America, for political reasons, and was steered away from our principles. It became clear to us that most of their leaders work with secret security services. We, Jabhat al-Nusra, have our own way. In the past they with us, they were our supporters.
Our aim is the downfall of the dictatorial regime, the tyrannical regime, the regime of the apostate. Our aim is the conduct of conquests, like [the great Arab general] Khaled ibn al-Walid made them. First in the Arab world and then in Europe."
Part 2 - The Interview by Jürgen Todenhöfer with the rebel commander Abu al-Ezz
Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?
Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the "TOW" missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the "BMs" - multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American "TOW" that we have the situation in some regions under control.
To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?
No, the missiles were give directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the "road" was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.
What did those officers do?
Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras ...
Were there also American experts?
Yes, experts from several countries.
Including Americans?
Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer "Battalion 47". Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the "al-Muslimiya" infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.
From the governments or from private persons?
From the governments.
The fight is difficult, the regime is strong and it has support from Russia ...?
We will fight until the downfall of the regime. We will fight Russia and the West because the West does not stand on our side. The West only sends us mujahedin, it facilitates the way of those fighters. Why doesn't the West support us properly? We have many fighters from Germany, France, Great Britain, America, from all western countries.
You have many fighters from Europe in Aleppo with the "al-Nusra front"?
Many, many, many!
How many?
Many.
What do you think about the ceasefire?
We do not recognize the ceasefire. We will reposition our groups. We will undertake in the next, in a few days an overwhelming attack against the regime. We have rearranged all our armed forces in all provinces, in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama.
You do not want those 40 trucks with aid supplies to bring those into the eastern part of Aleppo?
We have demands. As longs as the regime is positioned along Castello road, in al-Malah and in the northern areas we will not let those trucks pass. The regime must retreat from all areas in order for us to let the trucks pass. If a truck comes in despite that, we will arrest the driver.
Why did a few of your groups pull back a kilometer or 500 meters from the Castello road?
The regime used highly developed weapons against us. We received a backlash. That is why we silently retreated, to recover and to attack the regime anew. But this attack must lead to the downfall of the regime.
So that was a trick, a military tactic?
Yes, it was a military tactic.
Was the aim of this tactic to receive food or the reallocation of fighters?
We did not agree to the ceasefire.
Does that hold only for the al-Nusra Front or for all other groups, the rest of your allies?
The applies to all our integrated groups, who are our allies.
Islamic Front, Islamic Army?
They are all with us. We are all the al-Nusra Front. A groups is created and calls itself "Islamic Army", or "Fateh al-Sham". Each group has its own name but their believe is homogeneous. The general name is al-Nusra Front. One person has, for example, 2,000 fighters. Then het creates from these a new group and calls it "Ahrar al-Sham". Brothers, who's believe, thoughts and aims are identical to those of al-Nusra Front.
Is that your own opinion or also the opinion of higher management levels?
That is the general opinion. But if someone comes to you and makes you a 'moderate fighter' and offers you to eat and to drink, will you accept that or not?
450,000 people were killed in this war. I have been to Aleppo and Homs. Many parts are destroyed. If the war continues the whole country will be destroyed. Millions will die. ... In Germany we once had the 'Thirty Years' War' ...
We are now only 5 years at war, that is comparatively short!
Would you accept someone from the Assad-regime within a transitional government?
We accept no one from the Assad-regime or from the Free Syrian Army, which is called moderate. Our aim is the downfall of the regime and the founding of an Islamic state according to the Islamic sharia.
The people of Aloush, who traveled to Geneva for negotiations, accepted a transitional government.
There are Syrian mercenaries. Aloush fights with the al-Nusra Front. The groups Turkey houses and from which the Free Syrian Army was created have earlier been with al-Nusra Front. These people are weak people, they received a lot of money, they sold themselves. They must follow the orders of their sponsors.
The "Islamic Army and the "ISlamic Front" negotiate in Geneva
Because their leaders were produced in the West. They are counseled and paid by western secret services and the secret services of the Gulf states to fulfill the aims of those countries.
We are here at the most forward observation point of the Sheik Said area. This are is under our control. Behind those houses and al-Majbal are regime soldiers. Our armed forces are 200 meters from here.
-End-

You can read the original German version of the interview at the Kölner Stadtanzeiger

CLINTON, LA FAVORITA DE LAS ÉLITES DEPREDADORAS; TRUMP EL PREFERIDO DE LOS BLANCOS XENÓFOBOS

Ayer se realizó el último debate entre los candidatos presidenciales de los partidos Demócrata y Republicano por la presidencia, Hillary Clinton y Donald Trump, sin que realmente cambiara mucho el panorama para las elecciones del próximo 8 de noviembre, habida cuenta de que Clinton lleva una ventaja en las encuestas de entre 7 y 10 puntos porcentuales; lo que sin embargo no descarta una sorpresa de último minuto, como sucedió en la votación para el Brexit en Gran Bretaña, y en el reciente referéndum en Colombia sobre los acuerdos de paz.

Las élites depredadoras que manejan a la superpotencia, es decir el complejo militar-industrial-de seguridad, Wall Street, los grandes medios de comunicación, Silicon Valley y el lobby pro Israel, están volcados en favor de Hillary Clinton, quien durante toda su vida y carrera política, ha jugado en favor de esos intereses, junto con su esposo, el ex presidente Bill Clinton, quienes protegerán los objetivos de estos poderosos grupos, o sea, la hegemonía militar, política y económica estadounidense en todo el planeta, sin aceptar compartirla con otras potencias (de ahí la rivalidad aguda con Rusia y China); y el vasallaje de Washington a Israel, en su plan de balcanizar al mundo musulmán en el Medio Oriente, esparciendo el caos y la destrucción en toda la región, para que Israel se mantenga como la potencia hegemónica en la misma y ocupe definitivamente los territorios palestinos, eventualmente expulsando a dicha población hacia otros países, sin sufrir represalia alguna de la comunidad internacional por tales políticas.

Por su parte Trump, a pesar de pertenecer a esas mismas élites, se ha separado de las mismas (al menos durante el proceso electoral), al rechazar la globalización económica y la presencia militar estadounidense en todo el planeta (aunque apoya en todo a Israel, un sine qua non de todo político en ese país), así como su autoproclamado papel del “policía del mundo”, convirtiéndose en el portavoz de la mayoría blanca que ha visto descender su nivel de vida a causa de la política de apertura comercial indiscriminada, preeminencia de las prácticas usureras, especulativas y fraudulentas de Wall Street; y de los intereses corruptos de una clase política enquistada en el poder, a la que sólo le interesa quedar bien con los intereses y objetivos de las élites depredadoras.

Trump ha exacerbado el odio de esa población blanca hacia todo lo extranjero (migrantes ilegales, productos extranjeros, tratados comerciales, apoyo a países aliados, etc.), como la causa principal de la pérdida de liderazgo de Estados Unidos y la caída en el nivel de vida de esa mayoría blanca, que con el aumento de la migración (legal e ilegal) en un par de décadas, podría convertirse en la “minoría más grande”.

Así, estos dos candidatos representan lo peor de cada parte del espectro político estadounidense, pues la candidata demócrata, que supuestamente debería defender a las mayorías de su país, pues dicho partido así se ha presentado a lo largo del último siglo y medio; en los hechos está defendiendo las políticas depredadoras de las élites estadounidenses que han exacerbado la desigualdad en ese país y han profundizado las intervenciones militares y las guerras en el mundo.

Durante los años de gobierno de George W. Bush habían sido los republicanos los principales defensores de esos intereses (globalización e intervencionismo militar); pero Trump cambió las prioridades, lo que descolocó a las élites tradicionales del Partido Republicano, por lo que una buena parte de dicha clase política ha preferido abandonar a Trump (con el pretexto de su conducta sexual), e incluso apoyar a Clinton, pues es ahora la que representa los verdaderos intereses de la clase dominante estadounidense.

De manera inverosímil Trump, un tramposo multimillonario, narcisista y por lo que se ve depredador sexual, acabó defendiendo los intereses de la población blanca, aún mayoritaria, de Estados Unidos, en contra de los miembros de su clase social, que ahora lo desprecian (y más aún porque ha puesto en entredicho la “honradez” del sistema electoral de ese país, al negarse a aceptar de antemano los resultados electorales).

Lo que demuestra que las élites depredadoras pueden saltar de un partido a otro, pues en realidad no les importa ningún tipo de “ideología”, sino que los utilizan sólo como instrumentos para defender sus intereses. De hecho ambos partidos lo hacen, aunque las élites se decantan en mayor medida por uno u otro en los procesos electorales, dependiendo de las circunstancias y el momento en que se encuentra el país y el mundo.

Lo más probable es que Clinton gane y así las élites depredadoras podrán seguir impulsando su política de caos deliberado en el Medio Oriente en favor de Israel; enfrentando con todo (incluso con la guerra) el desafío de Rusia a su hegemonía, ya que Moscú no está dispuesto a ser un vasallo más del imperio; así como el de China, que está por convertirse en la primera potencia económica del mundo, algo que es inaceptable para los usureros-especuladores de Nueva York y los intervencionistas, promotores de la guerra permanente de Washington.

Sin embargo, aún existe la posibilidad de que Trump les gane de último momento, lo que generaría una crisis de proporciones mayúsculas entre las élites depredadoras estadounidenses.