Wednesday, September 14, 2016
"Hillary Deflates? A Setback For War"
"Hillary Deflates? A Setback For War"
"As libertarian (former) Congressman Ron Paul pointed out recently (here), the “deep state” elects whom it wants and it seems to have wanted Hillary Clinton. And even after Hillary’s most recent collapse, articles are appearing in the mainstream media pointing out that Hillary is better than the alternative. This is no coincidence. The mainstream media is owned by a relatively few people and they are surely supported by others, hidden influencers for the so-called deep state. And it is this deep state that requires, if possible, the services of Hillary Clinton.
The question is why? One theory (our current theory) is that a big war is evidently being planned at the highest levels. And Hillary is seen as the best individual for numerous reasons to prosecute this war. It may not be a nuclear war, of course. In fact, as we've pointed out (here and here) previously nukes may not work as well as advertised, or may only work at certain times or in some cases not at all. In fact, whatever is planned could simply be a series of expansive regional wars. But the wars already exist and no doubt they are to be elaborated on.
We have been taught in our academies and universities that wars are fairly spontaneous eruptions, unplanned in other words, because no one wants war. But this Internet era has shown us otherwise. Neither world war in the 20th century was the result of unforeseen events. These two wars along with numerous others in the 19th, 20th and 21st century seem to have been laboriously planned. We call their production “directed history,” in fact.
Hitler was funded by Western bankers and World War I commenced after its two most ardent opponents were attacked and one was killed. The one killed was Archduke Franz Ferdinand who was staunchly anti war. The Russian monk Rasputin was stabbed nearly at the same time and lived: He was an ardent anti-war voice in Russia.
Somebody certainly wanted World War I to proceed and was willing to kill off prominent anti-war voices. Both wars were obscenely costly, and both wars contributed significantly to the building of the global state. It is bankers, mostly, who want the global state and thus comes the saying, “all wars are bankers wars.” (Here.)
It seems another big one is being planned. And it starts in this case with little ones. These little ones make little sense: No Middle Eastern war we can think of going back to the turn of the century has been justified. But they have occurred nonetheless and kept the Middle East, especially, ablaze for well over a decade.
The Afghan war was aimed at “Taliban” that clearly did not blow up the World Trade Center. The Iraq war commenced because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction– but he didn’t. There was never any real reason given for the Libyan war except that Muammar Gaddafi was “oppressive.” Likewise, the Syrian war has proceeded without much overt justification.
They continue nonetheless, and as they do, Russia and China are gradually drifting toward confrontation with the West.
Within what will eventually become a larger war, it seems Hillary was to be an important element. Perhaps Hillary’s political longevity and familiarity with those planning this wider war made her presence as president valuable. Perhaps it was her gender, which was seen as making it more difficult for opponents to attack her as a warmonger. Maybe it was simply her political style. Having a female presenting the rationale for war– and doing so in a calm but determined way– was seen as the preferred mechanism to unlocking and advancing World War III.
It does seem true, if one looks at wars going back to World War II that these wars coalesced around individuals as a mechanical matter. Modern wars at any rate seem to demand a strong personality on either side. One can make the case for instance that the Vietnam war fell apart partially because of Lyndon Johnson’s unpopularity. And without Hillary at the fore wide, upcoming war, perhaps that war becomes at least somewhat more difficult to prosecute.
Ponder, for instance, World War II and then consider what would have happened if Hitler had passed away in 1938. Perhaps the war would not have been nearly so long nor resolute. In fact it might not have happened at all.
We would suggest that Hillary’s unavailability as a candidate– if that occurs– may indeed retard potential upcoming hostilities. We would suggest as well that these larger considerations may have generated the apparent desperation to get her into office.
We’re not suggesting a wider war won’t happen no matter who is the US president. And certainly we’re not suggesting that it cannot happen without Hillary. But presumably it might be more difficult.
We don’t discount Donald Trump of course. We notice some of his recent pronouncements track Hillary’s: He seems increasingly anti-free speech and seems to be growing more pro war as well. However, it’s hard to tell if Trump’s recent comments are merely an attempt to reduce friction with representatives of the deep state or if his positions are changing. But, then again, he is not ordinarily that clear about his positions to begin with.
One can also hypothesize that Hillary’s self-destruction has been in a sense pre-planned for a variety of reasons. But perhaps, just perhaps, elite determination to see Hillary elected was somehow sincere. Perhaps, just perhaps, she was the “indispensable man” who had the necessary credibility and public persona to usher in the upcoming war most easily and with the appropriate resolute spin. If this is the case, and if she cannot run and win, then an upcoming major war may be more difficult (at least a little) to ignite and pursue.
Conclusion: There’s no doubt that war was a political priority for Hillary throughout the Middle East and with Russia too. Without her, is it possible the bloodlust could lag?"
Paul Craig Roberts, “Russia Is Ready For War”