The social engineering of the US Presidential Election

Thursday, 28 July 2016

All roads lead to Rome – or in this case, globalization. This election boils down to the question of means, not ends.

The setbacks of each of the presidential candidates are well-known by anyone with even a cursory interest or understanding of American politics. As such, these topics will not be discussed here. Instead, what will be offered is an examination of how the narrative of this election is being shaped, and what outcomes flow from the interpretations of these narratives.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, narrative is that an outlandish character named Donald Trump has been created in order to drive Hillary Clinton into the White House, thus furthering the Globalization Project led by international financial interests. The second narrative is that the nationalist law-and-order candidate (Trump) has captured the anti-establishment mood of the country, which he will be able ride into the White House and be the change the electorate is desperately clamoring for.

There are, however, despite the lack of clarity about which of the two previous narratives will ultimately come to fruition, phenomena which will occur in both instances leading up to and beyond the election in November. First, massive vote fraud via the purging of voter rolls, man-in-the-middle/MIM (aka, Kingpin attacks) computer hacking of voter machines, and the use of provisional ballots (which are not counted) will occur. Second, Gladio-style false flag terrorist attacks will continue across Europe and the Middle East, with perhaps more attacks in the United States. Third, leaks of some kind will affect the race – be it tax return issues vis-à-vis Trump, or hacked emails from Clinton’s private server related to her time in the State Department (which could include the Clinton Foundation). Lastly and most importantly, the U.S. dollar will continue to be transitioned out of its world reserve currency status, with the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights taking its place.

Parenthetically, it is important to keep in mind that all leaks, whatever their content, should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism as it relates to their ostensible source. Cui bono is a useful heuristic to apply, but will not necessarily shed light on the source of the leak, as many players are often involved.

Let us take a moment to review the orthodox political calculus in voting for one or the other candidate. Trump is generally understood as an isolationist, while Clinton is an interventionist, broadly speaking. The former would help to support a multipolar international environment, while the latter would further expand the Globalization Project. Their slogans reflect these ideologies: “Make America Great Again/America First” and “Stronger Together.” The only problem with political orthodoxy is that it requires that the political system be rational and free of ubiquitous fraud, which it is not. In particular, the orthodox understanding of politics requires that there exist a coherent and just system of government that is responsive to voters, i.e. electing a politician has the power to fundamentally change society in order to reflect the will of the people. Therein lies the primary flaw of the orthodox political paradigm, as it exists within a larger context which is de facto totally immune to the influence of the American electorate.

“The argument that the two political parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method….”

(Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, pp. 1247-8)

Regardless of whether America will be “Great Again” or “Stronger Together” is of little practical significance to the fact that the election will be fraudulent; state-sponsored terrorism (aka “lone wolf terrorism”) will continue to roil Europe and the Middle East; and international financial interests will continue to attenuate the United States’ international economic hegemony. The ultimate victor in November will ensure that the Globalization Project will continue unabated. Until then, the American electorate will continue to watch the “battle of means” between two Democrats from New York.