Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He offers his own reflections on organizing and the state of America's declining empire....
- Name: Bruce K. Gagnon
- Location: Bath, Maine, United States
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Friday, May 20, 2016
Heading to NYC
- MB and I are on the train heading for New York City. We'll be attending the annual Left Forum where I will speak in two different workshops - on the Situation in Ukraine (organized by UNAC) and the other called 'Just Transition' about the need to convert the war machine to peaceful and sustainable production. Also while there I will be interviewed by John Pilger for his new film and possibly another interview with Russian TV. During the past week I've done one Russian TV interview via Skype and a radio interview from Riga, Latvia. Russian TV-5 wanted to get me in the studio while in NYC so that might just work out. They are much more interested in discussing the US-NATO war exercises on the Russian border than media in this country.
- This morning we learned of another Okinawan woman having been killed by an American man working for the US military. People in Okinawa have been dealing with rapes and killing by soldiers and civilians working for the Pentagon since US bases were established on the island following the end of WW II. The people of Okinawa want US bases closed and their lands returned to the people. The tide is turning against the US military empire. The world has had enough of US bases and all the hypocrisy, environmental degradation, violence and sadness that comes with these outposts for corporate domination and endless war. Unfortunately the US media (for obvious reasons) doesn't give much coverage to these cases because of the negative impact on Americans 'exceptional' identify.
- I submitted yesterday an Op-Ed to our local newspaper in Brunswick, Maine about Washington's attempts to get the Japanese government to kill Article 9 of their constitution that says they must not have an offensive military and that the Japanese people must 'forever renounce war'. Every year our local peace groups (PeaceWorks & VFP) march in the Memorial Day parade - the theme this year is 'Remember Pearl Harbor'. So it seemed like a good opportunity to bring the issue of the US trying to remobilize Japan to be a full partner in US 'containment' of China which was brutally occupied by imperial Japan during WW II. The current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is the grandson of a 'Class A' war criminal who served on Japan's imperial war cabinet. We made a special banner that we will carry and flyers to hand out to the crowd along the parade route. This is another subject that most Americans know nothing about.
- Obama's announced visit to Hiroshima is connected to all this. The Japanese are having another election in July and Obama wants to put his arm around Shinzo Abe and give his right-wing government a boost in the polls. Obama will talk about the need to get rid of nuclear weapons at the same time the US is planning to spend one trillion dollars on Pentagon nuclear modernization. Obama will likely point the accusing finger at China, North Korea and Russia and blame them for the breakdown in nuclear arms reduction talks. But the truth is that US deployments of so-called 'missile defense' encircling Russia and China (and NATO expansion) are the real reasons that nuclear disarmament negotiations have come to a stand still. Obama's 'legacy visit' is just all about 'perception management'.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Washington Turning Up the Pressure on Russia
Putin Is Being Pushed to Abandon His Conciliatory Approach to the West and Prepare for War
By Alastair Crooke (The Huffington Post)
BEIRUT — Something significant happened in the last few days of April, but it seems the only person who noticed was Stephen Cohen, a professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University.
In a recorded interview, Cohen notes that a section of the Russian leadership is showing signs of restlessness, focused on President Vladimir Putin’s leadership. We are not talking of street protesters. We are not talking coups against Putin — his popularity remains above 80 percent and he is not about to be displaced. But we are talking about serious pressure being applied to the president to come down from the high wire along which he has warily trod until now.
Putin carries, at one end of his balancing pole, the various elites more oriented toward the West and the “Washington Consensus“ and, at the pole’s other end, those concerned that Russia faces both a real military threat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a hybrid geo-financial war as well. He is being pressed to come down on the side of the latter, and to pry the grip of the former from the levers of economic power that they still tightly hold.
In short, the issue coming to a head in the Kremlin is whether Russia is sufficiently prepared for further Western efforts to ensure it does not impede or rival American hegemony. Can Russia sustain a geo-financial assault, if one were to be launched? And is such a threat real or mere Western posturing for other ends?
What is so important is that if these events are misread in the West, which is already primed to see any Russian defensive act as offensive and aggressive, the ground will already have been laid for escalation. We already had the first war to push back against NATO in Georgia. The second pushback war is ongoing in Ukraine. What might be the consequences to a third?
Putin is being pushed to wield the knife — and to cut deeply.
In mid-April, General Alexander Bastrykin, the head of Russia’s Investigative Committee (a sort of super attorney general, as Cohen describes it), wrote that Russia — its role in Syria notwithstanding — is militarily ill prepared to face a new war either at home or abroad, and that the economy is in a bad way, too. Russia, furthermore, is equally ill prepared to withstand a geo-financial war. He goes on to say that the West is preparing for war against Russia and that Russia’s leadership does not appear to be aware of or alert to the danger the country faces.
Bastrykin does not say that Putin is to blame, though the context makes it clear that this is what he means. But a few days later, Cohen explains, the article sparked further discussion from those who both endorse Bastrykin and do precisely mention Putin by name. Then, Cohen notes, a retired Russian general entered the fray to confirm that the West is indeed preparing for war — he pointed to NATO deployments in the Baltics, the Black Sea and Poland, among other places — and underlines again the unpreparedness of the Russian military to face this threat. “This is a heavy indictment of Putin,” Cohen says of the revelations from this analysis. “It is now out in the open.”
What is this all about? For some time there have been indications that a key faction within the Kremlin, one that very loosely might be termed “nationalist,” has become deeply disenchanted with Putin’s toleration of the Washington Consensus and its adherents at the Russian central bank and in other pivotal economic posts. The nationalists want them purged, along with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s perceived Western-friendly government. Putin may be highly popular, but Medvedev’s government is not. The government’s economic policy is being criticized. The opposing faction wants to see an immediate mobilization of the military and the economy for war, conventional or hybrid. This is not about wanting Putin ousted; it is about pushing him to wield the knife — and to cut deeply.
What does this faction want apart from Russia preparing for war? They want a harder line in Ukraine and for Putin to reject U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s snares in Syria. In short, Kerry is still trying to force Assad’s removal and continues to push for further U.S. support for the opposition. The American government is reluctant as well to disentangle “moderates” from jihadis. The view is that America is insincere in trying to cooperate with Russia on a settlement and more intent on entrapping Putin in Syria. Perhaps this is right, as Gareth Porter and Elijah Magnier have outlined.
The Obama administration is acting to weaken Putin and Lavrov’s hand, and therefore strengthening the hand of those in Russia calling for a full mobilization for war.
What this means at a more fundamental level is that Putin is being asked to side with the nationalists against the internationalists aligned with the Washington Consensus, and to purge them from power. Recall, however, that Putin came to power precisely to temper this polarity within Russian society by rising above it — to heal and rebuild a diverse society recovering from deep divisions and crises. He is being asked to renounce that for which he stands because, he is being told, Russia is being threatened by a West that is preparing for war.
The prospect of the seeming inevitability of future conflict is hardly new to Putin, who has spoken often on this theme. He has, however, chosen to react by placing the emphasis on gaining time for Russia to strengthen itself and trying to corner the West into some sort of cooperation or partnership on a political settlement in Syria, for example, which might have deflected the war dynamic into a more positive course. Putin has, at the same time, skillfully steered Europeans away from NATO escalation.
But in both of these objectives the Obama administration is acting to weaken Putin and Lavrov’s hand, and therefore strengthening the hand of those in Russia calling for a full mobilization for war. It is not coincidental that Bastrykin’s alarm-raising article came now, as the Syria ceasefire is being deliberately infringed and broken. Is this properly understood in the White House? If so, must we conclude that escalation against Russia is desired? As Cohen notes, “the Washington Post [in its editorial pages] tells us regularly that never, never, never ... under any circumstances, can the criminal Putin be a strategic partner of the United States.”
Is the die then cast? Is Putin bound to fail? Is conflict inevitable? Ostensibly, it may seem so. The stage is certainly being set. I have written before on, “the pivot already under way from within the U.S. defense and intelligence arms of Obama’s own administration” toward what is often referred to as the “Wolfowitz doctrine,” a set of policies developed by the U.S. in the 1990s and early 2000s. The author of one of those policies, the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance, wrote that the DPG in essence sought to:
... preclude the emergence of bipolarity, another global rivalry like the Cold War, or multipolarity, a world of many great powers, as existed before the two world wars. To do so, the key was to prevent a hostile power from dominating a ‘critical region,’ defined as having the resources, industrial capabilities and population that, if controlled by a hostile power, would pose a global challenge.
In an interview with Vox, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter was clear that this was broadly the bearing by which the Pentagon was being directed to sail. Then again, there is the rather obvious fact that, instead of the much-touted U.S. military pivot ostensibly being to Asia, the actual NATO pivot is being directed to Central Europe — to Russia’s borders. And NATO is plainly pushing the envelope as hard as it dares, up and against Russia’s borders.
Then there is the rhetoric: Russian aggression. Russian ambitions to recover the former Soviet Empire. Russian attempts to divide and destroy Europe. And so on.
Is conflict inevitable?
Why? It may be that NATO simply presumes these envelope-pushing exercises will never actually come to war, that Russia somehow will back off. And that continuously poking the bear will serve America’s interest in keeping Europe together and NATO cohesive, its sanctions in place, divided from Russia. NATO is due to meet in Warsaw in early July. Perhaps, then, the Western language about Russia’s “aggression” is little more than America heading off any European revolt on sanctions by stirring up a pseudo-threat from Russia and that the Russians are misreading American true intentions, which do not go beyond this. Or do they?
The extraordinary bitterness and emotional outrage with which the American establishment has reacted to Donald Trump’s probable nomination as a presidential candidate suggests that the U.S. establishment is far from having given up on the Wolfowitz doctrine. So has Putin’s strategy of co-opting America in the Middle East been the failure that the Bastrykin faction implies? In other words, is it the case that the policy of gaining cooperation has failed and that Putin must now move beyond it, because America is not about to cooperate and is, instead, continuing the process of cornering Russia?
As the Texas Tribune reported on May 4, “For the first time since his own presidency, George H.W. Bush is planning to stay silent in the race for the Oval Office — and the younger former president Bush plans to stay silent as well.”
To get a sense of the war within the Republican Party (and the Democrats are no less conflicted), read this reaction to that story by the two-time Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. Here’s a small selection:
Trump’s triumph is a sweeping repudiation of Bush Republicanism by the same party that nominated them [the Bush’s] four times for the presidency. Not only was son and brother, Jeb, humiliated and chased out of the race early, but Trump won his nomination by denouncing as rotten to the core the primary fruits of signature Bush policies ... That is a savage indictment of the Bush legacy. And a Republican electorate, in the largest turnout in primary history, nodded, ‘Amen to that, brother!’
Buchanan continues in another piece: “The hubris here astonishes. A Republican establishment that has been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans” — a reference to Paul Ryan’s attempts to make Trump adhere to Bush Republicanism. “This is difficult to absorb.”
But here, in this crisis, is an opportunity. America could be heading into recession, corporate profits are falling, huge swaths of debt are looking suspect, global trade is sinking and U.S. policy tools for controlling the global financial system have lost their credibility. And there are no easy solutions to the global overhang of increasingly putrid debt.
Trump can simply say that American — and European — national security interests pass directly through Russia, which they clearly do.
But a President Trump — were that to happen — can lay blame for any perfect economic storm on the establishment. America is all knotted up at present, as the presidential nomination melee made clear. Some knots will take time to undo, but some could be undone relatively easily, and it seems that Trump has some sense of this. It could start with a dramatic diplomatic initiative.
Historically, most radical projects of reform have started in this way: overturn a piece of conventional wisdom and unlock the entire policy gridlock — the momentum gained will allow a reformer to steamroll even the hardest resistance — in this case, Wall Street and the financial oligarchy — into making reforms.
Trump can simply say that American — and European — national security interests pass directly through Russia — which they clearly do — that Russia does not threaten America — which it clearly does not — and that NATO is, in any case, “obsolete,” as he has said. It makes perfect sense to join with Russia and its allies to surround and destroy the so-called Islamic State.
If one listens carefully, Trump seems halfway there. It would cut a lot of knots, maybe even untie the policy gridlock. Perhaps that is what he intends?
~ Alastair Crooke, Former MI-6 agent; Author, ‘Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution’
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Ain't No Life in Ukraine Anymore
The US coup d'etat in Ukraine destroyed the nation - intentionally - in order to create chaos along the Russian border. The plan by Washington and Brussels was to bankrupt Ukraine and force Russia to have to deal with the economic consequences of their neighbor's collapse. All this being aimed to help fulfill the goal of eventual regime change in Moscow.
The abrupt severing of the traditional ties between Russian and Ukrainian businesses, due to suicidal Kiev-imposed regulations, resulted in a 10.7% decline in GDP in 2014 and another 13.4% drop in 2015. Foreign trade, both imports and exports, decreased by one-third. The naive expectations of the incumbent government in Kiev – that Ukrainian products could obtain access to European markets – have been torn to shreds.
Sadly many Ukrainian people at first took the bait and supported the coup in Kiev. But now the misled people of Ukraine are finding that the promises from America and Europe are hollow - like an empty well. They've given up their independence, lost their economy, seen their country turned into a war zone and the once promised 'future in the European market' has turned out to be an illusion. In the meantime the few assets of Ukraine are being sold off to foreign pirates at bargain basement prices. This is how a nation is robbed and destroyed.
All this has been done in the name of freedom and democracy. In the end the only freedom is for the pirates to gain wealth and the democracy, like in so many other places, in just words with no real meaning.
Corporate War on Africa
Every drone flown by the U.S. military has inside a piece of the Democratic Republic of the Congo--a valuable mineral, of which the DRC has trillions of dollars worth buried underground.
For five centuries, the continent of Africa has been ravaged by the world's Empires for its vast untapped treasure. Today, the U.S. Empire is increasing it's military role through their massive command network, AFRICOM, carrying out several missions a day.
With the Congo being arguably the biggest prize for imperialist powers, Abby Martin is joined by Kambale Musavuli, spokesperson for Friends of the Congo, to look at Empire's role in their history and current catastrophe.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Western Media Taken Over by Corporate 'Group Think'
|In the west anyone who dares offer a balanced view of Russia is declared to have been 'Putinized'. The 'group think' in western circles indicates that a new Cold War is being created come hell or high water.|
The Danger of Demonization
By Robert Parry
Does any intelligent person look at a New York Times article about Russia or Vladimir Putin these days and expect to read an objective, balanced account? Or will it be laced with a predictable blend of contempt and ridicule? And is it any different at The Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN or almost any mainstream U.S. news outlet?
And it’s not just Russia. The same trend holds true for Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries and movements that have fallen onto the U.S. government’s “enemies list.” We saw the same pattern with Saddam Hussein and Iraq before the 2003 U.S. invasion; with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya before the U.S.-orchestrated bombing campaign in 2011; and with President Viktor Yanukovych and Ukraine before the U.S.-backed coup in 2014.
That is not to say that these countries and leaders don’t deserve criticism; they do. But the proper role of the press corps – at least as I was taught during my early years at The Associated Press – was to treat all evidence objectively and all sides fairly. Just because you might not like someone doesn’t mean your feelings should show through or the facts should be forced through a prism of bias.
In those “old days,” that sort of behavior was deemed unprofessional and you would expect a senior editor to come down hard on you. Now, however, it seems that you’d only get punished if you quoted some dissident or allowed such a person onto an op-ed page or a talk show, someone who didn’t share Official Washington’s “group think” about the “enemy.” Deviation from “group think” has become the real disqualifier.
Yet, this conformity should be shocking and unacceptable in a country that prides itself on freedom of thought and speech. Indeed, much of the criticism of “enemy” states is that they supposedly practice various forms of censorship and permit only regime-friendly propaganda to reach the public.
But when was the last time you heard anyone in the U.S. mainstream say anything positive or even nuanced about Russian President Putin. He can only be portrayed as some shirtless buffoon or the devil incarnate. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got widespread praise in 2014 when she likened him to Hitler.
Or when has anyone in the U.S. media been allowed to suggest that Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and his supporters might actually have reason to fear what the U.S. press lovingly calls the “moderate” rebels – though they often operate under the military command of Sunni extremist groups, such as Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception.“]
For the first three years of the Syrian civil war, the only permissible U.S. narrative was how the brutal Assad was slaughtering peaceful “moderates,” even though Defense Intelligence Agency analysts and other insiders had long been warning about the involvement of violent jihadists in the movement from the uprising’s beginning in 2011.
But that story was kept from the American people until the Islamic State started chopping off the heads of Western hostages in 2014 – and since then, the mainstream U.S. media has only reported the fuller story in a half-hearted and garbled way. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.” ]
Reason for Conformity
The reason for this conformity among journalists is simple: If you repeat the conventional wisdom, you might find yourself with a lucrative gig as a big-shot foreign correspondent, a regular TV talking head, or a “visiting scholar” at a major think tank. However, if you don’t say what’s expected, your career prospects aren’t very bright.
If you somehow were to find yourself in a mainstream setting and even mildly challenged the “group think,” you should expect to be denounced as a fill-in-the-blank “apologist” or “stooge.” A well-paid avatar of the conventional wisdom might even accuse you of being on the payroll of the despised leader. And, you wouldn’t likely get invited back.
But the West’s demonization of foreign “enemies” is not only an affront to free speech and meaningful democracy, it is also dangerous because it empowers unscrupulous American and European leaders to undertake violent and ill-considered actions that get lots of people killed and that spread hatred against the West.
The most obvious recent example was the Iraq War, which was justified by a barrage of false and misleading claims about Iraq which were mostly swallowed whole by a passive and complicit Western press corps.
Key to that disaster was the demonization of Saddam Hussein, who was subjected to such unrelenting propaganda that almost no one dared question the baseless charges hurled at him about hiding WMD and collaborating with Al Qaeda. To do so would have made you a “Saddam apologist” or worse.
The few who did dare raise their voices faced accusations of treason or were subjected to character assassination. Yet, even after their skepticism was vindicated as the pre-invasion accusations collapsed, there was very little reappraisal. Most of the skeptics remained marginalized and virtually everyone who got the WMD story wrong escaped accountability.
For instance, Washington Post editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt, who repeatedly reported Iraq’s WMD as “flat fact,” suffered not a whit and remains in the same prestigious job, still enforcing one-sided “group thinks” about “enemies.”
An example of how Hiatt and the Post continue to play the same role as neocon propagandists was on display last year in an editorial condemning Putin’s government for shutting down Russian activities of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy and requiring foreign-funded groups seeking to influence Russian politics to register as foreign agents.
In the Post’s editorial and a companion op-ed by NED President Carl Gershman, you were led to believe that Putin was delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations was a threat to Russian sovereignty.
However, the Post and Gershman left out a few salient facts, such as the fact that NED is funded by the U.S. government and was the brainchild of Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director William J. Casey in 1983 to partially replace the CIA’s historic role in creating propaganda and political fronts inside targeted nations.
Also missing was the fact that Gershman himself announced in another Post op-ed that he saw Ukraine, prior to the 2014 coup, as “the biggest prize” and a steppingstone toward achieving Putin’s ouster in Russia. The Post also forgot to mention that the Russian law about “foreign agents” was modeled after a U.S. statute entitled the Foreign Agent Registration Act. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts.”]
All those points would have given the Post’s readers a fuller and fairer understanding of why Putin and Russia acted as they did, but that would have messed up the desired propaganda narrative seeking to demonize Putin. The goal was not to inform the American people but to manipulate them into a new Cold War hostility toward Russia.
We’ve seen a similar pattern with the U.S. government’s “information warfare” around high-profile incidents. In the “old days’ – at least when I arrived in Washington in the late 1970s – there was much more skepticism among journalists about the official line from the White House or State Department. Indeed, it was a point of pride among journalists not to simply accept whatever the spokesmen or officials were saying, but to check it out.
There was plenty of enough evidence – from the Tonkin Gulf lies to the Watergate cover-up – to justify a critical examination of government claims. But that tradition has been lost, too. Despite the costly deceptions before the Iraq War, the Times, the Post and other mainstream outlets simply accept whatever accusations the U.S. government hurls against “enemies.” Beyond the gullibility, there is even hostility toward those of us who insist on seeing real evidence.
Examples of this continuing pattern include the acceptance of the U.S. government line on the sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, on Aug. 21, 2013, and the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. The first was blamed on Syria’s Assad and the second on Russia’s Putin – quite convenient even though U.S. officials refused to present any solid evidence to support their claims.
See the rest of this important article here
~ Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
Wikileaks Exposes U.S. Brazil Coup
Wikileaks catches Washington red-handed doing another coup d'etat on behalf of corporate interests. How can the American people idly sit back and continue to watch Washington topple country after country? In recent years Honduras, Ukraine and now Brazil have been taken down.
It's obvious that 'democracy' in the US does not exist. How the hell can the corporate state in Washington think it has the right to decide who can run a particular nation?
Ten countries have rejected this US-sponsored coup and have pulled their ambassadors as they refuse to recognize the new 'government' installed in Brazil. Those countries are Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, El Salvador, Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Russia and China.
Where are the voices from the rest of the nations around the globe? Are they under the control of Washington as well?
Monday, May 16, 2016
Latest Public Access TV Show
My latest 'This Issue' public access TV show where I interview Lisa Savage, a long-time Maine educator and peace activist.
She talks about military recruiting in Maine's schools, and her newly-organized Maine Natural Guard, which is raising awareness about the huge carbon bootprint of the Pentagon, the amounts of money spent on wars and weapons, and the lack of coverage of these wars and other real issues in our mainstream media.
We also briefly discuss the situation in Palestine and the current Boycott, Divest, Sanctions campaign against Israeli apartheid.
Lisa is always a great guest - she got alot of information into this show.
Thanks to Eric Herter for uploading the show for us. Also thanks to Dan Ellis and Donna Frisoli for their quick thinking when one of the two studio cameras stopped working in the middle of the show.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Those 'Brave' Nazis at it Again
A World War Two veteran has died after her sister, also a veteran, was attacked by nationalists. They threw a green dye at her during Victory Day celebrations in a city in central Ukraine.
May 9 was the day that people throughout the former Soviet Union celebrated the defeat of Nazi German forces during the WW II invasion of Russia that cost more than 27 million lives.
Ironically today the US-NATO, with German forces, are holding war games on Russia's border. See here for more on that provocative military exercise.
Chaos in the Democratic Party
This video is from the Nevada state Democratic Party convention yesterday. They were deciding on the final delegate count for the national convention - how many delegates would Clinton or Sanders get? (The last 5:30 minutes give the best explanation as to what actually happened.)
As far as I can tell the Clinton forces pulled a couple of fast ones and changed the rules midstream and ended up giving Clinton more delegates than she actually earned to the national convention. The Sanders people obviously didn't like the dirty tricks.
At some point a fight broke out and the police were called.
The bigger picture here is what is most important. My guess is that Clinton knows that Sanders is closing strong with expected victories in most of the final primaries. Clinton is going to use every tool possible at these state conventions to pad her numbers before the national convention.
This Nevada event will do nothing to reassure Sanders voters across the country that Clinton is an upstanding leader. As this story is replicated across the country in the next few months, and it will be, we'll see the growing disillusionment of the Sanders legions.
It is actually unreasonable for anyone to expect that a party under the control of Clinton's corporate backers would ever allow a truly democratic process to take place - especially when so many people have lined up across the country to oppose her corrupt campaign for the White House.
There is alot of money at stake in this election. Clinton represents the interests of the war machine, Wall Street, resource extraction companies, insurance and pharma industries, big agriculture and more. Those embedded corporate players don't give a damn about democracy.