Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › John Pilger: Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump
- This topic has 11 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by bnw.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 21, 2016 at 6:10 pm #55743Eternal RamnationParticipant
My apologies if this has been posted here before but recent development in the PI have it more relevant than ever.
By John Pilger on March 23, 2016 International Affairs
The following is an edited version of an address given by John Pilger at the University of Sydney, entitled ‘A World War Has Begun’.I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, “Where is that?” If I offer a clue by referring to “Bikini”, they say, “You mean the swimsuit.”
Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 – the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.
Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated. Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered “unsafe” on a Geiger counter.
Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called “Bravo”. The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women’s Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: “You, too, can have a bikini body.” A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different “bikini bodies”; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.
Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.
I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us. The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions” of democratic societies. He called it an “invisible government”.
How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It was all fake. He was lying.
The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.
A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear]weapon more thinkable.”
In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two – led by the United States – is taking place along Russia’s western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.
Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union – has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.
This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.
In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.
What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.
Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat”. According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea”.
What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation”.
What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.I made a film called The War You Don’t See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.
All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.
The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” – a Dan Rather equivalent, say – asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.
The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear-armed bombers.
This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.
In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa. In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.
In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.
Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.
According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is “unleashing the dark forces of violence” in the United States. Unleashing them?
This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.
No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.
Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.
As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.
new matilda, drone
A US Predator Drone. (IMAGE: Wikipedia).
Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician”, Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia. He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.”
One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.
Among Clinton’s biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East. She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.
A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported – such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton; such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.
Self-absorption, a kind of “me-ism”, became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signalled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality, racism and sexism.
Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening – as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.
In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.
In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right”. He says Obama has done “a great job”.
In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war. There was no debate. Silence.
What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?
Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?
JohnPilger.com – the films and journalism of John Pilger
October 21, 2016 at 7:10 pm #55745wvParticipantI cant stand the sight of either one at this point. I cant stomach either one.
I just cant even compare’em anymore. She and her machine have it won now, though. So thats that.
w
v
- This reply was modified 8 years ago by wv.
October 21, 2016 at 8:12 pm #55748ZooeyModeratorSparky pretty much nails it.
October 21, 2016 at 10:02 pm #55751ZooeyModeratorWhat has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?
Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?
Yes. But…uh. I don’t have any ideas how to stop these forces.
October 22, 2016 at 8:46 am #55768PA RamParticipantBoth parties are an international mess. This reach for empire will destroy everyone and everything. There was a joke interview with Obama and Stephen Colbert where Colvert asks: Why did you receive the Nobel Peace prize?”
Obama responds: “I have no idea.”
Good answer.
The Obama administration is also responsible for unleashing the Stuxnet virus on the world. Them and Israel.
Make no mistake–the Democrats are not a peaceful tribe. But I do take issue with the article and Donald Trump. I don’t sleep easy with him in charge either. It’s a complicated world and I don’t know how he walks back from any thing without screwing something else up.
I’m not sure that the forces that are now set in motion can be stopped.
I really do believe these are dark and dangerous times.
And neither one of these candidates are fit to lead us away from the abyss.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
October 22, 2016 at 9:43 am #55770Billy_TParticipantPilger is right about American empire and our history of horrific actions. But where he goes wrong, IMO, is in thinking Trump won’t be at least as bad, if not worse. I think on all the issues Pilger talks about, Trump will be substantially worse. He’s actually asked, with a straight face, why can’t we use our nuclear arsenal? Why have them if we can’t use them? And he’s always talking about how Obama has gutted our military, including our nuclear arsenal, and he’s pledged to rebuild both.
So, yes, Obama has radically increased US military power — much, no doubt, covertly — including nukes, and Hillary will do more of the same. But Trump (and the GOP in general) says they’ve wiped out our military, that we’re weak and waaay behind the Russians, and that he’ll make us Number One again. He is forever going on about how weak the US is, and how we have to show toughness to the rest of the world, and that it’s because we haven’t that forces like ISIS arise.
To me, the only way to deduce that Trump and the GOP would be less war-like than HRC and the Dems is by ignoring what they actually say, what they’ve actually said and done for the last several decades. Their bellicosity is a part of their supposed appeal. Their base expects this. They cheer this on with beer-hall-putsch chants of USA!! USA!! Seriously, anyone who thinks Trump isn’t going to at least be equally warmongering has just pretty much ignored this entire campaign and the GOP’s past.
October 22, 2016 at 9:54 am #55771Billy_TParticipantBoth parties are an international mess. This reach for empire will destroy everyone and everything. There was a joke interview with Obama and Stephen Colbert where Colvert asks: Why did you receive the Nobel Peace prize?”
Obama responds: “I have no idea.”
Good answer.
The Obama administration is also responsible for unleashing the Stuxnet virus on the world. Them and Israel.
Make no mistake–the Democrats are not a peaceful tribe. But I do take issue with the article and Donald Trump. I don’t sleep easy with him in charge either. It’s a complicated world and I don’t know how he walks back from any thing without screwing something else up.
I’m not sure that the forces that are now set in motion can be stopped.
I really do believe these are dark and dangerous times.
And neither one of these candidates are fit to lead us away from the abyss.
Agreed. Both parties are war parties. Always have been. Both parties work for the financial/power elite and do their bidding. But I think people are in deep denial if they think Trump is some “outsider” who will end this, and suddenly transform America into a “mind your own business” nation. Everything he talks about points to an even greater emphasis on projecting American power worldwide — including the use and proliferation of nukes. And his psychotically thin skin is very likely to cause violent confrontations where others would choose caution and perhaps diplomacy.
People too often forget he ran as a Republican, and if he’s president, he will be working with a Republican Congress. He won’t be this peace-loving independent, one bent on slashing funding to the military, choosing peace instead of war, humanitarian relief instead of military aid, etc. etc. He’s pledged the opposite. He’s pledged to radically increase defense spending and forever talks about the need for America to be aggressive against its foes.
In short, he’s not even a Ron Paul isolationist, though he shares racism and white nationalism with the Texan.
Being against the duopoly and its mad reign, IMO, is to be on the right side of the moral, ethical and humanitarian issues of our times. But choosing the more aggressively immoral, bellicose, racist, xenophobic (etc. etc) of the two money/war parties makes zero sense. That’s what people do when they choose Trump.
October 23, 2016 at 1:53 am #55802Eternal RamnationParticipantPilger is right about American empire and our history of horrific actions. But where he goes wrong, IMO, is in thinking Trump won’t be at least as bad, if not worse. I think on all the issues Pilger talks about, Trump will be substantially worse. He’s actually asked, with a straight face, why can’t we use our nuclear arsenal? Why have them if we can’t use them? And he’s always talking about how Obama has gutted our military, including our nuclear arsenal, and he’s pledged to rebuild both.
So, yes, Obama has radically increased US military power — much, no doubt, covertly — including nukes, and Hillary will do more of the same. But Trump (and the GOP in general) says they’ve wiped out our military, that we’re weak and waaay behind the Russians, and that he’ll make us Number One again. He is forever going on about how weak the US is, and how we have to show toughness to the rest of the world, and that it’s because we haven’t that forces like ISIS arise.
To me, the only way to deduce that Trump and the GOP would be less war-like than HRC and the Dems is by ignoring what they actually say, what they’ve actually said and done for the last several decades. Their bellicosity is a part of their supposed appeal. Their base expects this. They cheer this on with beer-hall-putsch chants of USA!! USA!! Seriously, anyone who thinks Trump isn’t going to at least be equally warmongering has just pretty much ignored this entire campaign and the GOP’s past.
Imo you have to ignore what both of them say because they are both pathological liars. One is a scary smart untouchable and the other an imbecilic buffoon. To me it’s imperative to look at actions , what they did , and match it up with the lies they’ve told us.Trump has done little to nothing and compare it to the blood of 1,200,000 Muslims on Clinton’s hands . All there is on Trump is speculation and bad acting. When you look at the last Republican prez and administration don’t project that on Trump when GW Bush GHW Bush and Jeb Bush along with a whole slew of neocons have endorsed Clinton. That said a vote for Dems or Repubs simply cannot be justified morally. Exactly what do they want ? They want you to believe your vote matters and you only have two legitimate choices. Myself , I’m done legitimizing their bs I will vote Green wherever they are running and against the incumbent where they are not.
October 23, 2016 at 7:02 am #55803nittany ramModeratorThing is, yes Hillary and Trump are bad, but what other democratic or republican candidate would have put a stop to build-up to war that Pilger describes? Every mainstream politician you can think of would stay the course. Bernie might have tried to stop it, but he would meet so much resistance he would be ineffectual.
October 23, 2016 at 8:14 am #55804Billy_TParticipantImo you have to ignore what both of them say because they are both pathological liars. One is a scary smart untouchable and the other an imbecilic buffoon. To me it’s imperative to look at actions , what they did , and match it up with the lies they’ve told us.Trump has done little to nothing and compare it to the blood of 1,200,000 Muslims on Clinton’s hands . All there is on Trump is speculation and bad acting. When you look at the last Republican prez and administration don’t project that on Trump when GW Bush GHW Bush and Jeb Bush along with a whole slew of neocons have endorsed Clinton. That said a vote for Dems or Repubs simply cannot be justified morally. Exactly what do they want ? They want you to believe your vote matters and you only have two legitimate choices. Myself , I’m done legitimizing their bs I will vote Green wherever they are running and against the incumbent where they are not.
Well, from where I sit, yes, we have to look at what Trump says, precisely because he hasn’t held office. We should use his words, his endlessly bellicose rhetoric, his actions in other spheres, his chosen party, and his core base to form judgments regarding his likely actions. All of it counts.
Also, neither Dubya nor Jeb have endorsed HRC. The father has, obliquely, yes. But, to me, this isn’t about a proactive vote for HRC, or choosing HRC above all others. I won’t be voting for her either. This is about Pilger saying Trump is a less dangerous, less destructive choice, and I don’t see that as logical in the slightest. Again, I see Trump as far more likely to kill more innocents and hurt far more people shy of killing them as well.
Plus, he thinks Climate Change is a hoax. Not that HRC and the Dems are good on the issue, but they at least see it as happening. They at least don’t aggressively try to shut down scientific inquiry on the subject, or the vast majority of scientific research.
As many others have said here already, we’re screwed, one way or another. But I personally have no doubt that Trump would do it faster and more viciously.
October 23, 2016 at 8:18 am #55805Billy_TParticipantThing is, yes Hillary and Trump are bad, but what other democratic or republican candidate would have put a stop to build-up to war that Pilger describes? Every mainstream politician you can think of would stay the course. Bernie might have tried to stop it, but he would meet so much resistance he would be ineffectual.
It’s that “Deep State” thing again. Perhaps it’s just me watching one too many spy thrillers, but it wouldn’t surprise me if each new president gets “the talk,” and along with “the talk” is shown a few stark, horrific images beginning with November, 22, 1963.
October 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm #55825 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.