(08-11-2016, 11:17 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: The Establishment are clearly scared sh*tless of Trump. The yesterday trump has spilled the beans of what was behind the creation of ISIS.
ISIS formed in 1999. It shows signs of dying when Barack Obama is President. It grew dramatically when Sunni soldiers defected when they found that ISIS was receptive to Ba'athist butchers and fanatics. So what could relatively secular Ba'athists (arguably the most secular of any political cause in the Islamic world except for Communists) have in common with Ba'athists? Like other fanatics, being murderous True Believers. Think of all the renegade socialists like Doriot, Laval, Quisling, Goebbels, Mussolini, and Stephenson (KKK leader and mercifully for the world, failed) who became fascists and Nazis.
As Eric Hoffer puts it, the opposite of a raging fascist is not a raging Communist. The opposite of a raging fascist is a sober liberal.
Daesh is scared of Barack Obama and wants him dead as a traitor to Islam (because his father was a Muslim and he is not he is an apostate in their view), but more significantly the Peshmerga (the Kurds) and the Iraqi Army.
...The American Establishment distrusts demagogues who don't have their heads on straight, so to speak. With Hillary Clinton the Establishment at least has someone predictable to deal with, someone less likely to bungle the way into a catastrophic war that threatens elite assets and profits, create a trade war, foster domestic strife, or initiate an economic meltdown. The elites of course want maximal profit, but they will settle for quiet if the alternative is danger. The Establishment, if one means the privileged elites (big landowners, industrialists, financiers, business executives, senior military officers, and intellectual shills) prefer an orthodox conservatism that endorses the harshest possible exploitation of the masses. As a rule it does not want anyone who would bring about a Götterdämmerung that destroys the wealth and privilege of those elites.
Who says that a Götterdämmerung couldn't take on characteristics of a Socialist revolution? The Establishment well know what people will be the first to go before a firing squad in the event of a Socialist revolution. If implicated in a war for profits by victors the Establishment will at the least risk being dispossessed, divested of their wealth and privilege on behalf of the victors or even on behalf of the common man.
So what would happen if America went bad and instigated a Crisis war that went badly? Victors with any decency at all would seize the property and end the privileged careers of war criminals. So someone who made propaganda videos on behalf of the defeated state might be barred from even acting in a little theater for ten years or so. Owners of enterprises that went criminal would be divested of shares and wealth derived from corrupt profit. Occupiers might choose who gets their sympathy first, and as in liberated Germany, Italy, and Japan the people most trustworthy were industrial workers who got nothing from fascism but toil to exhaustion, near-starvation pay, and the dubious opportunity to become cannon fodder.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.