Paul Craig ROBERTS + Glenn GREENWALD about Trump and US intelligence agenc

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 20.02.2017

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy (1975 -1978) and associate editor/columnist for the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, recently notes,

„… that the hoax “war on terror” was used to transform intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, and criminal investigative agencies, such as the FBI, into Gestapo secret police agencies.
Trump is now threatened by these agencies, because he rejects the neoconservative’s agenda of US world hegemony that supports the gigantic military/security annual budget.“ (1)

Roberts refers to an interview in which Glenn Greenwald explains Amy Goodman that the CIA is after Trump, because Trump’s announced policy of reducing the dangerous tensions with Russia conflicts with the military/security complex’s need for a major enemy. (2)

“The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all.

It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from — in fact, in opposition to — the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.“

“And you go — this is not just about Russia. You go all the way back to the campaign, and what you saw was that leading members of the intelligence community, including Mike Morell, who was the acting CIA chief under President Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and the NSA under George W. Bush, were very outspoken supporters of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Michael Morell went to The New York Times, and Michael Hayden went to The Washington Post, during the campaign to praise Hillary Clinton and to say that Donald Trump had become a recruit of Russia.

The CIA and the intelligence community were vehemently in support of Clinton and vehemently opposed to Trump, from the beginning. And the reason was, was because they liked Hillary Clinton’s policies better than they liked Donald Trump’s. One of the main priorities of the CIA for the last five years has been a proxy war in Syria, designed to achieve regime change with the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton was not only for that, she was critical of Obama for not allowing it to go further, and wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria and confront the Russians. Donald Trump took exactly the opposite view. He said we shouldn’t care who rules Syria; we should allow the Russians, and even help the Russians, kill ISIS and al-Qaeda and other people in Syria. So, Trump’s agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted. Clinton’s was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they’ve been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him. There’s claims that they’re withholding information from him, on the grounds that they don’t think he should have it and can be trusted with it. They are empowering themselves to enact policy.

Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. You just listed off in your news — in your newscast that led the show, many reasons. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that.” – emphasis, m.z.. –



Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win The Election By „Discrediting“ Hillary Clinton | Zero Hedge


Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win The Election By „Discrediting“ Hillary Clinton | Zero Hedge

„We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.“

Quelle: Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win The Election

Immanuel WALLERSTEIN: The U.S. Election: It’s over at last, or is it?; 15.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis




Dear all,


in his distinctive manner Wallerstein dissects the US presidential election results – internal and external and entirely reverse to the frantic media-speculations hastily interpreting every Trump-tweet/guff.


Recent days some serious articles on the same subject were published – e.g.  F. William Engdahl’s The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency  (see: ) or Gregory R. Copley’s Geopolitical Overhaul: What Will A Post-Obama World Look Like? (see: )  —  both articles are attached (pdf-file)  —



Martin Zeis




The U.S. Election: It’s over at last, or is it?



Commentary No. 437,

Nov. 15, 2016


Almost everyone is astonished at Trump’s victory. It is said that even Trump was astonished. And of course now everyone is explaining how it happened, although the explanations are different. And everyone is talking about the deep cleavages that the election created (or it reflected?) in the U.S. body politic.

I am not going to add one more such analysis to the long list I’m already tired of reading them. I just want to concentrate on two issues: What are the consequences of this victory of Trump (1) for the United States, and (2) for U.S. power in the rest of the world.



Internally, the results, no matter how you measure them, move the United States significantly to the right. It doesn’t matter that Trump actually lost the national popular vote. And it doesn’t matter that if a mere 70,000 votes in three states (something under 0.09% of the total vote cast) had been lacking to Trump, Hillary Clinton would have won.

What does matter is that the Republicans have gained what is called the trifecta – control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. And while the Democrats might win back the Senate and even the Presidency in four or eight years, the Republicans will hold on to a Supreme Court majority for a very much longer time.


To be sure, the Republicans are divided on some important issues. This is apparent just one week after the elections. Trump has already begun to display his pragmatic side and therefore his priorities: more jobs, tax reduction (but certain kinds), and saving parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that are widely popular. The Republican Establishment (a quite far right Establishment) has other priorities: destroying Medicaid and even Medicare, different kinds of tax reform, and rolling back social liberalism (such as abortion rights and gay marriage).

It remains to be seen if Trump can win against Paul Ryan (who is the key figure in the Congress-based rightwing), or Paul Ryan can push back Trump. The key figure in this struggle seems to be Vice-President Mike Pence, who has positioned himself remarkably as the real number two in the Presidential office (as had Dick Cheney).


Pence knows Congress well, is ideologically close to Paul Ryan, but politically loyal to Trump. It was he that chose Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff for Trump, preferring him to Steve Bannon. Priebus stands for uniting the Republicans, while Bannon stands for attacking Republicans who are less than 100% loyalists to an ultra-rightwing message. While Bannon got a consolation prize as an inside counselor, it is doubtful that he will have any real power.

However this intra-Republican struggle turns out, it is still the case that U.S. politics are now significantly further to the right. Perhaps the Democratic Party will reorganize as a more leftwing, more populist movement, and be able to contest the Republicans in future elections. That too remains to be seen. But Trump’s electoral victory is a reality and an achievement.



Let us now turn from the internal arena in which Trump has won and has real power to the external arena (the rest of the world) in which he has virtually none. He used the campaign slogan “make America great again.” What he said time and time again was that, if he were president, he would ensure that other countries respected (that is, obeyed) the United States. In effect, he alluded to a past in which the United States was “great” and said that he would recover that past.

The problem is very simple. Neither he nor any other president – be it Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or for that matter Ronald Reagan – can do very much about the advanced decline of the erstwhile hegemonic power. Yes, the United States once ruled the roost, more or less between 1945 and circa 1970. But ever since then, it has been steadily declining in its ability to get other countries to follow its lead and to do what the United States wanted.


The decline is structural and not something within the power of an American president to stem. Of course, the United States remains an incredibly powerful military force. If it misuses this military power, it can do much damage to the world. Obama was very sensitive to this potential harm, which accounts for all his hesitancies. And Trump was accused throughout the electoral campaign of not understanding this and therefore being a dangerous wielder of U.S. military power.

But while doing harm is quite possible, doing what the U.S. government might define as good seems virtually beyond the power of the United States. No one, and I mean no one, will follow today the lead of the United States if it thinks its own interests are being ignored. This is true not only of China, Russia, Iran, and of course North Korea. It is true as well of Japan and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, France and Germany, Poland and the Baltic states, and our erstwhile special allies like Israel, Great Britain, and Canada.


I am fairly sure that Trump does not yet realize this. He will boast about the easy victories, like ending trade pacts. He will use this to prove the wisdom of his aggressive stance. But let him try to do something about Syria – anything – and he will soon be disabused of his power. He is most unlikely to retreat on the new relationship with Cuba. And he may come to realize that he should not undo the Iran agreement. As for China, the Chinese seem to think that they can make better arrangements with Trump than they would have been able to do with Clinton.


So, a more rightwing United States in a more chaotic world-system, with protectionism the major theme of most countries and an economic squeeze on the majority of the world’s population. And is it over? By no means, neither in the United States, nor in the world-system. It’s a continuing struggle about the direction in which the future world-system (or systems) should and will be heading.

—  emphasis, Martin Zeis  —


Diana JOHNSTONE: Von der Gefahr einer hysterischen Opposition gegen Trump

Elke Schenk globalcrisis/globalchange NEWs 

Von der Gefahr einer hysterischen Opposition gegen Trump
Diana Johnstone 18. November 2016

2016 stellte das grundlegend undemokratische Zweiparteiensystem der USA die Bevölkerung vor die Wahl zwischen den beiden meistgehassten Kandidaten der US-Geschichte. Die gebotenen Alternativen waren so abstoßend, dass über dreiundvierzig Prozent der Wählerinnen und Wähler den Gang zu den Urnen gar nicht erst über sich brachten. Alle hassten den einen oder den anderen oder alle beide Kandidaten, und eines war klar: Wer immer gewinnen würde, würde sogleich auf erbitterte Opposition stoßen.
Der unerwartete Schock des Sieges von Donald Trump hat eine weitverbreitete Hysterie ausgelöst, bei der in Tränen aufgelöste Massen auf den Straßen gegen den Wahlausgang protestieren – eine nie da gewesene Reaktion auf ein unumstritten korrektes Wahlergebnis.
Diese Art von hysterischer Opposition ist nicht die beste Grundlage für den Aufbau der neuen Bewegung, die jetzt benötigt wird, um ein weithin verabscheutes politisches Establishment zu bekämpfen.
Dabei kommt der größte Teil des Gejammers und Geschreis nicht von den Unterstützern von Bernie Sanders, die ohnehin auf das Schlimmste vorbereitet waren, sondern von jenen, die der Behauptung der Clinton-Kampagne aufgesessen sind, Trump repräsentiere nichts weiter als alle möglichen Arten des „Hasses“ auf andere: Sexismus, Rassismus, Homophobie, Fremdenfeindlichkeit usw. Die Antwort darauf ist, nun selbst Trump zu hassen. Das ist steril und führt politisch nirgendwohin.
Trumps Ruf als rassistischer Schurke basiert weitgehend auf überzogenen Statements wie seinem unerhörten Versprechen, eine Mauer zu bauen, um mexikanische Einwanderer daran zu hindern, ins Land zu kommen – unerhört nicht zuletzt deswegen, weil die Mauer ja schon existiert! Außer dass sie bis jetzt „Zaun“ genannt wird.
Washington wird in nächster Zeit nicht von Nazis regiert werden, sondern von reaktionären Republikanern, was schlimm genug, aber nichts Neues ist. Wenn Trump in einigen Punkten besser als sie ist, sollte das zur Kenntnis genommen und ermutigt werden. Eine effektive Opposition sollte imstande sein, zwischen heißer Luft und wirklichen Fragen zu unterscheiden und letztere aufgrund ihrer jeweiligen Meriten zu beurteilen.
Die Clinton-Kampagne basierte auf dem Anspruch der „Identitätspolitik“, Frauen und Minderheiten vor ihrem Feind Trump zu beschützen. Eine Oppositionsbewegung, die auf der Weiterführung dieses Anspruchs basiert und sich darauf fixiert, wie furchtbar Trump als Person ist, wird wahrscheinlich auch andere Aspekte der Clintonschen Kampagnenlinie schlucken, darunter besonders ihre antirussische Propaganda. Mit Beifall der Mainstreammedien läuft die „Linke“ Gefahr, die Clinton-Beschuldigung nachzubeten, der „Diktator“ Trump kungele zu sehr mit dem „Diktator“ Putin herum. In diesem Fall wird die hysterische Opposition sich gegen das eine positive Element in Trumps Kampagne stellen: die Bestrebung, geschäftliche statt kriegerische Beziehungen mit Russland zu unterhalten.
Es ist bezeichnend, dass die deutsche Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen sofort verlangte, Trump müsse sich entweder auf die Seite Putins oder auf die der NATO und „unserer gemeinsamen Werte“ stellen. Das ist ein Zeichen, dass nicht nur die Kriegspartei in den USA, sondern auch die europäische NATO-Maschine Druck auf Trump ausüben wird, genau dieselbe kriegerische Politik zu betreiben, wie sie von Hillary Clinton favorisiert wird. Und die enttäuschte Opposition von Clinton-Anhängern geht und wird mutmaßlich nicht auf die Straße gehen, um Widerstand gegen Kriege zu leisten, sondern um sich gegen Trumps Opposition gegen Kriege zu stellen, all das im Namen unserer gemeinsamen demokratischen und humanitären Werte und unserer Gegnerschaft zu „Diktatoren“.
Darin liegt die Gefahr einer hysterischen Opposition gegen Trump. Sie wäre eine Fortsetzung der schlimmsten Aspekte dieses grauenhaften Wahlkampfs, der sich total auf die Denunzierung von Individuen konzentriert und dafür ernste politische Fragen beiseitegelassen hat.
Eine progressive Opposition sollte den Clintonismus hinter sich lassen und ihre eigenen politischen Positionen entwickeln, angefangen mit der Opposition gegen Kriege zur Herbeiführung von „Regimewandeln“ – und zwar sogar dann, wenn auch Trump gegen solche Kriege ist. Tatsächlich sollte sie Trump dazu drängen, diese Position beizubehalten, da er in Washington unter dem starken Druck stehen wird, sie aufzugeben. Die Opposition sollte fordern, dass Trump sein Versprechen einhält, Kriege zu vermeiden, und sich dabei gleichzeitig seiner reaktionären Politik im Innern entgegenstellen. Andernfalls steuern wir auf die schlechteste beider Welten zu.
Übersetzung: Michael Schiffmann 
Mehr zum Thema: Diana Johnstone, „Die Chaos-Königin. Hillary Clinton und die Außenpolitik der selbsternannten Weltmacht“[1], erschienen im Westend Verlag. Diana Johnstone ist Journalistin und lebt in Paris, wo sie sich seit dem Vietnamkrieg in der Friedensbewegung engagiert. Von 1989 bis 1996 war sie Pressesprecherin der Grünen im Europaparlament.

Nick BERNABE: Actually, „Nobody“ Won The 2016 Presidential Election; AntiMedia, 11.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 14.11.2016

Nick BERNABE points to the broadly covered fact, that „around 193 million people did not vote for Trump or Clinton. That’s nearly two-thirds of the population of the United States. … The majority of Americans don’t vote anymore because the political system no longer represents them. We’ve been disenfranchised by decades of corrupt, unrepresentative politicians. The United States, according to a highly-cited academic study, is effectively an oligarchy “elected” by a minority of voters ruled by a smaller minority of disliked politicians who represent an even smaller minority of billionaires and special interests.“

It will be seen which faction of the US-Oligarchy – for quite some time entangled in a controversy about a geopolitical realignment after the 1990ff-full-spectrum-dominance „vision“ crashed – prevails in the wake of the presidential election outcome.

11.11.2016 – via zerohedge

Actually, „Nobody“ Won The 2016 Presidential Election… And It Was A Landslide
Submitted by Nick Bernabe via

Nobody for President, that’s my campaign slogan,” Nick Cannon asserted in “Too Broke to Vote,” his viral criticism of the American electoral process from March of this year. (1)

Now, it turns out nobody for president won the 2016 election in a landslide.

According to new voter turnout statistics from the 2016 election, 47 percent of Americans voted for nobody, far outweighing the votes cast for Trump (25.5 percent) and Hillary (25.6 percent) by eligible voters.

The Anti Media – 2016 Presidential Election – Turnout Rate
49,9% Don’t Vote
25,6% Voted for Clinton
25,5% Voted for Trump
1,7% Voted for Johnson

And the “I voted for nobody” group is actually much larger than the 47 percent reported because that number only includes eligible voters. How many millions of Americans under the legal voting age — not to mention the countless millions who have lost their voting rights — voted for nobody, as well? (2) Factoring in those individuals, around 193 million people did not vote for Trump or Clinton. That’s nearly two-thirds of the population of the United States.

Nobody also seemingly won the presidential primaries, with only 9 percent of Americans casting their votes for either Trump or Clinton.

So when does nobody take office? Nobody won the majority of votes in the primaries or the general election, and the two main candidates who were running didn’t “win” the popular vote — they simply slightly outcompeted each other considering neither garnered over 50 percent of the eligible voters’ ballots.

That’s where the real debate begins.

As I wrote back in August when the primary voter turnout rates came in, one could argue that Trump (and Obama) do not have a legitimate mandate to rule over the people of the United States. Trump did not win the majority of Americans’ votes — not even close.

When all Americans are included, Trump only garnered the votes of about 19 percent of us. This means the United States will be ruled over by a small minority of voters who elected someone to continually impose their political positions on the other 81 percent of us.

Of course, as is the case with Democrats looking to assign blame for Hillary’s loss, pundits and political pontificators argue the people who didn’t vote have no right to complain about the outcome. After all, a non-vote or a vote for a third-party candidate was, in actuality, a vote for Trump. But that logic is flawed. The majority of Americans don’t vote anymore because the political system no longer represents them. We’ve been disenfranchised by decades of corrupt, unrepresentative politicians.

The United States, according to a highly-cited academic study, is effectively an oligarchy “elected” (3) by a minority of voters ruled by a smaller minority of disliked politicians who represent an even smaller minority of billionaires and special interests. You know it, I know it, hell, even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter knows it. (4) The majority of Americans voted for nobody not because they don’t care or because they are apathetic — they voted no confidence in a political system that forgot about them a long time ago.


D o k u m e n t i e r t : Rede von Donald Trump nach seinem Wahlsieg; 09.11.2016 (dt. übers. epochtimes)

Betreff: D o k u m e n t i e r t : Rede von Donald Trump nach seinem Wahlsieg; 09.11.2016 (dt. übers. epochtimes)


Martin Zeis, 09.11.2016


Rede von Donald Trump nach seinem Wahlsieg *

Übersetzung des Transkripts seiner Rede (engl., Nov 9, 2016, 3:06am EST), veröffentlicht auf (URL: ) Einfügungen von

— pdf-Version im Anhang —

„Danke an alle.

Ich habe euch schon warten lassen. Kompliziertes Business.

Ich habe gerade einen Anruf von Staatssekretärin Hillary Clinton erhalten. Sie hat UNS gratuliert, zu unserem Sieg. Und ich habe ihr und ihrer Familie zu diesem sehr, sehr hart geführten Wahlkampf gratuliert. Sie hat sehr hart gekämpft. Hillary hat sehr lange Zeit und sehr hart gearbeitet und wir schulden ihr eine große Portion Dankbarkeit für ihren Dienst an unserem Land, und das meine ich sehr ehrlich.

Nun ist es Zeit für Amerika, die Wunden der Spaltung zu heilen.

Wir müssen zueinander finden. Alle Republikaner und Demokraten und Unabhängige unserer Nation rufe ich auf: Es ist Zeit für uns, zueinander zu kommen als ein vereinigtes Volk.

Ich verspreche jedem Bürger unseres Landes, dass ich der Präsident alle Amerikaner sein werde. Und das ist mir so wichtig.

An alle, die sich in der Vergangenheit dazu entschlossen hatten, nicht mich und zu unterstützen – und das waren ein paar Leute: Ich reiche euch die Hand und bitte um euren Rat und eure Hilfe, damit wir zusammenarbeiten können und unser großartiges Land vereinen.

Wie ich schon von Anfang sagte: Unser Wahlkampf war eigentlich keiner, sondern vielmehr eine unglaubliche und großartige Bewegung von Millionen hart arbeitenden Männern und Frauen, die ihr Land lieben und sich eine bessere, hellere Zukunft für sich und ihr Familie wünschen. Es ist eine Bewegung von Amerikanern aller Rassen, Religionen, Backgrounds und Überzeugungen, die wollen – und erwarten – dass unsere Regierung dem Volk dient. Und dem Volk dienen, das wird sie.

Gemeinsam werden wir die dringende Aufgabe angehen, unsere Nation neu aufzubauen und den amerikanischen Traum zu erneuern.

Ich habe mein ganzes Leben in der Geschäftswelt verbracht und mich mit dem unerschlossenen Potential von Projekten und Menschen in aller Welt beschäftigt.

Und das möchte ich jetzt für unser Land tun. [Da gibt es] riesiges Potential. Ich habe unser Land sehr gut kennengelernt – enormes Potential. Das wird eine wunderschöne Sache. Jeder einzelne Amerikaner wird die Möglichkeit haben, sein oder ihr vollstes Potential zu entfalten. Die vergessenen Männer und Frauen unseres Landes werden nicht länger vergessen sein.

Wir werden unserer Innenstädte in den Griff bekommen und unsere Autobahnen, Brücken Tunnels, Flughäfen, Schulen und Krankenhäuser neu bauen. Wir werden unsere Infrastruktur renovieren, die – nebenbei bemerkt – unvergleichlich werden wird. Und wir werden Millionen Menschen in Arbeit bringen mit dieser Renovierung.

Und wir werden außerdem – endlich – unsere großartigen Veteranen versorgen, die so loyal waren. Und ich habe viele von ihnen kennengelernt auf dieser 18-monatigen Reise. Die Zeit, die ich mit ihnen während der Kampagne verbrachte, gehört zu den größten Ehren, die ich erlebt habe. Unserer Veteranen sind unglaubliche Menschen.

Wir werden ein Projekt des nationalen Wachstums und der Erneuerung starten.

Ich werde die kreativen Talente unseres Volkes nutzen und wir werden die besten und hellsten aufrufen, ihre enormen Talente zum Wohle aller freizusetzen. Das wird passieren. Wir haben einen großen Wirtschaftsplan. Wir werden unser Wachstum verdoppeln und die stärkste Wirtschaft der Welt werden.

Gleichzeitig werden wir mit allen anderen Nationen gut auskommen, die mit uns gut auskommen wollen. Das werden wir.

Wir werden großartige Beziehungen haben.

Wir erwarten, großartige Beziehungen zu haben. Kein Traum ist zu groß, keine Herausforderung zu riesig. Nichts, das wir uns für unsere Zukunft wünschen, liegt außerhalb unserer Reichweite. Amerika wird sich nicht länger mit irgendetwas anderem als dem Besten zufrieden geben.

Wir müssen das Schicksal unseres Landes wieder in unsere Hand nehmen und große, stolze und wagemutige Träume haben. Wir müssen das tun. Wir werden für unser Land wieder Träume haben – von schönen und erfolgreichen Dingen. Der Weltgemeinschaft sagen, dass wir – während wir Amerikas Interessen immer auf Platz 1 stellen werden – fair mit jedem umgehen werden. Mit jedem. Mit allen Menschen und allen anderen Nationen.

Wir werden gemeinschaftliche Basis statt Feindschaft suchen. Partnerschaft statt Konflikt.

Und nun möchte ich diesen Moment nutzen um den Menschen zu danken die mir bei diesem, wie sie sagen „sehr sehr historischem Sieg“ geholfen haben.“

(Dank an Familie und Mitarbeiter Trump dankte im folgenden seinen Eltern, die nun auf ihn herabschauen würden. Außerdem seiner Familie und seiner Frau. Dann seinem Unterstützer-Team, dass er namentlich vorstellte, darunter auch New Yorks Ex-Bürgermeister Rudy Giuliani.

Er bedankte sich auch bei den Personenschützern vom Geheimdienst und der New Yorker Polizei, die oft unterschätzt werde.)

„Es ist das, was man ein historisches Ereignis nennt. Aber damit es wirklich historisch wird, müssen wir einen großartigen Job machen, und ich verspreche euch, dass ich euch nicht enttäuschen werde. Wir werden einen großartigen Job machen. Ich freue mich sehr darauf, euer Präsident zu sein.“

Nun, da der Wahlkampf vorbei sei, beginne erst die Wirkliche Arbeit seiner Bewegung:

„Wir werden jetzt ab sofort für das amerikanische Volk arbeiten“, schloss Trump. Dies sei ihm eine Ehre:

„Ich – liebe – dieses – Land!“

* Quelle:


First Thoughts On The „Not-Hillary“ Election Results — Moon of Alabama

So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World War III was called off. Trump won, Clinton conceded. His victory speech is fair and integrating. My „not Hillary“ hunch for the election was right. That is,…

über First Thoughts On The „Not-Hillary“ Election Results — Moon of Alabama

„Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger“; John Pilger Special (video + full transcript), 05.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 05.11.2016

A few days back Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.

Now the full interview is published headlined „Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger“ (see:

– YouTube Video, 24:52 min)

Simultaneously appeared the full transcript by (see attachment – pdf, 6p – and URL: )

In the following some excerpts (subheadings by RT).

“ … ‘Clinton made FBI look weak, now there is anger’

John Pilger: What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton?

Julian Assange: If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable. The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no-one can resist us. But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak. We’ve published about 33,000 of Clinton’s emails when she was Secretary of State. They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 — to herself, and we’ve published about half.

Then there are the Podesta emails we’ve been publishing. [John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations. [These emails are] combined with the cover up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.


‘Saudi Arabia & Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton’

JP: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.

JA: And twelve million dollars from Morocco …

JP: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.

JA: For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].

JP: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East. Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.

JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.

JA: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.

JP: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

JA: Yes.

JP:That’s extraordinary.

‘Clinton has been eaten alive by her ambition’



M. CHOSSUDOVSKY: Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game ?, 01.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 02.11.2016

In past days we’ve seen scenic occurrences and disclosures by Wikileaks (possibly from inside the US governmetal machinery) in regards to the presidential election process – in particular illicit, criminal practices by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Prof. Chossudovsky considers the questions:

Who is behind Wikileaks which released the E-Mails?

Who is behind FBI Director James Comey?

Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided?

What happens, if both candidates (Clinton, Trump) are “dysfunctional”. Is there a Plan B?

Below excerpts of Chossudovsky’s examination … full text is aattached.


01.11.2016 —

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Since the release of FBI Director Comey’s Second letter to the US Congress, the presidential elections process has gone haywire, out of control. The bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis.

“I FBI director [James Comey] am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

Two important questions:



In both cases, we are dealing with powerful interest groups. CUI-BONO?

Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided? This is something to be carefully investigated.

FBI Director Comey (image right) did not take this decision on his own. While he was described as responding to pressures from within the FBI, the crucial question is: Who are the power brokers behind James Comey? What mechanism incited him to take that decision?

Does he have a relationship with Trump? Several media have even intimated that Moscow could have been behind Comey’s second letter. An absurd proposition.

The Trigger Mechanism (…)

The corporate elites are not monolithic. Quite the opposite. There are major divisions and conflicts within the ruling corporate establishment. What seems to be unfolding is a division between competing media conglomerates, with Murdoch’s News Corp Group (which includes the WSJ and Fox News) supporting Trump and the Time Warner – CNN Group supporting Clinton. In turn, these media conglomerates are aligned with powerful and competing factions within the corporate establishment.

Those who triggered the release of the WSJ report were fully aware that this would lead to a response by FBI Director James Comey, which in turn would contribute to weakening and undermining Hillary Clinton. (…)

Opposition to Hillary Clinton from within the Armed Forces

There is also evidence of resentment to Clinton from within the Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their opposition to the adoption of a “No Fly Zone” in Syria, which could lead to a war with Russia. Both the “No Fly Zone” as well as Hillary’s nuclear option “on the table” are the object of debate by America’s top brass. Referring to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Hillary said “we will obliterate them”.

What Happens if She is Elected? If elected president, Hillary’s criminal record would haunt her throughout her term in office, leading to the possibility of an impeachment. The presidency would become totally dysfunctional from the very outset, which her corporate sponsors including the defense contractors and Wall Street would prefer to avoid. … If Trump is elected president, there will also be attempts to unseat him, calling for his impeachment.

If both candidates are “dysfunctional”. Is there a Plan B?

National Emergency Measures, Martial Law? Continuity in Government (C.O.G.)

Unquestionably the entire US bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis including US foreign policy, marked by the breakdown of diplomacy, America’s military agenda and the unfolding confrontation with Russia.

While it is difficult to predict what might occur in the wake of the November 8 elections, the unfolding political impasse –coupled with rising geopolitical tensions in Syria, Iraq as well as Eastern Europe on Russia’s border– could potentially lead at some future date to the suspension of Constitutional government under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) HR 1540, signed into law by president Obama on December 31, 2011. Most media have failed to analyze the far-reaching implications of this legislation.

The present impasse in the electoral process is a crisis of legitimacy characterized by the criminalization of the US State, its judicial and law enforcement apparatus. In turn, Washington is committed to a hegemonic US-NATO “war without borders” coupled with the formation of giant trading blocks under the TPP and TTIP proposals. This neoliberal macro-economic agenda has since the early 1980s been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

These developments coupled with a potential constitutional deadlock point in the direction of rising political and social tensions as well as mass protests throughout the US which could lead America at some future date into outright suppression of constitutional government and the imposition of “martial law”.

There are multiple US “martial law” legislative procedures. The adoption of the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), HR 1540) would be tantamount to a repeal of civil liberties, the surveillance state, the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. (…)


East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War | Zero Hedge

The narrative of a coming conflict between the East and the West has been boiling steadily as the U.S. election nears its end. Even the mainstream media is insinuating the potential for shots fired. Some believe the results of the election will determine the odds of war. There is a different position. It seems the rhetoric of East vs. West and nuclear exchange is being exploited as a distraction away from a different but almost equally catastrophic end game – the death of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

Quelle: East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War | Zero Hedge