Just As Intended: The U.S. Election Is Tearing Us To Shreds - by Suzie Dawson

The only credible narrative about the US election is that both the main candidates were shit and the system is fundamentally broken.

Hi everyone :)

One of the commenters on another article I posted wanted to know - what do I think of Trump? What do I think of Clinton? Having already covered this in long form, I decided that for today's post I would dig out the below article from my archives, which was published just a few months shy of the 2016 US General Election.

It pleases me to realise when I look back over my old articles that I still stand by every word.

The fallout from the 2016 election has been socially catastrophic, not just for America, but for the World. It feels like the election that never ends. Likewise, it has cleaved the activism world in two, as countless people who should have known better, fell for the endless puppetry theatre and neatly divided themselves into either of the two main camps.

But some of us didn't, and continue to defy the Divide and Conquer regardless. I am one :)

So without further adieu, here is my take on Trump, Clinton, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, in the context of the horror movie that was the 2016 US general election.

Love,
Suzie

Just As Intended: The U.S. Election Is Tearing Us To Shreds

The only credible narrative about the US election is that both the main candidates are shit and the system is fundamentally broken.

The third-party candidate, while enjoying organic growth in public support, is largely blacklisted by media and in the last election cycle was handcuffed to a chair for a prolonged period of time in order to prevent her from participating in the Presidential debates at all.

In the backwards Orwellian nightmare we live in, exercising common sense or stating things as they quite plainly are and thus expressing views that oppose the monied and complicit status quo, is deemed a 'radical' and untenable position.

Radical because too few have the proverbial balls to openly speak their mind or own the full extent of their true opinions in public, making those of us who do a rarity.

Untenable because doing so makes you a target for relentless persecution or worse; a deterrent which is highly effective against those who treasure their public perception or persona, possessions, property, prosperity or (perceived) privacy above the need to appease their conscience by calling a spade a spade, honouring their humanity and openly advocating for the sociopolitical evolution we so desperately need.

It was only a few years ago that millions of people were emboldened to speak up and demand radical (read: common sense) change. The relative speed with which they were largely subdued and corralled back into the political mainstream is frankly shocking and testament to the lethal efficiency of the systems of social control that surround us.

Even Occupy Has Forgotten What Occupy Is About

"No true democracy is obtainable when the process is determined by economic power." - The Occupy Wall Street General Assembly

The founding declaration of Occupy Wall Street needs to be periodically revisited, to remind us of what birthed the movement.

It is poignantly read below, by Keith Olbermann.

Unfortunately, the societal conditions described remain to this day and have become even further entrenched; exacerbated by the passage of time. Every word of the founding statement holds true, yet the spirit of resistance in which it was authored, has been mostly co-opted by the same politicians and organisations who it once critiqued and decried.

During Occupy, the idea that our main social media accounts - @OccupyWallSt & @OccupyWallStNYC would be used to congratulate politicians, would have led to a massive outcry, but we have become so used to the blatant co-option of our movement that few barely even notice it anymore.

"Our Revolution Endures" etched in the colours of a political party, above a "Paid For By Bernie 2016" campaign disclaimer makes a complete mockery of the word revolution:

"Not the billionaires" it says inside parentheses, the words spelled out in a pale grey scale - as if, as I predicted in December 2015 that he would, Bernie hasn't just sold his campaign supporters out to Hillary and the very same billionaires he spent so long decrying.

I got the month wrong - April rather than July - but it was clear from the outset that Bernie Sanders was B.S.

Occupy was born of the betrayal of the broken promises of Obama.

Of course the elites knew that ruse would work again. It always has. Generation after generation, we never learn.

And thus - when the politician full of attractive rhetoric eventually sells us out - the cycle of disillusionment, civic rage and institutional violence, oppression and then political co-option renews.

It isn't revolution at all.

It's a cycle and it's perpetual. Manufactured by the elites. They just pull the levers and watch it spin, around and around again.

I smelled it coming when the compositional horror story that is the band "Nickelback" released the song "Edge of a Revolution." I can't even embed the video here because it is so revolutionary that anyone who uploads it to You Tube is instantly hit with a copyright notice and removal.

Bless her soul, even Jill Stein isn't immune to using the word 'revolution' to describe a political campaign. I retweeted and liked the tweet despite it, because I also think if Bernie was worth his salt that in the wake of the betrayal, he would have joined Stein and not Clinton.

The real revolution started by Occupy and not yet finished can be quantified in the bodies of the literal dead - the hopes crushed, the houses lost, the citizens exiled, the relationships and careers destroyed, the homeless re-disenfranchised by the evictions, the property stolen and destroyed.

Every time a politician says the word 'revolution' that is all I see. Tents being ripped to shreds, the People's library being hauled away in rubbish trucks ultimately paid for by the same People whose will was being subverted, whose dreams lay shattered.

Those who gave everything they were and had, to bring the movement to prominence, only to be completely betrayed and violated by the societal infrastructure that was supposed to protect us.

We are spat on every time the language of our struggle is misappropriated for temporary political gain.

The Age Of Hypocrisy

This is the age of hypocrisy that we live in. We know the political process is bullshit - we knew it in 2011. Prior generations knew it, railed against it and lost, just like us. But here we all are, participating in it once again nonetheless.

I know full well that it is all just a great big reality TV show. But I have still voted every election cycle of my adult life.

Most of the people who know me, with the exception of those few who are in even deeper trouble for their honesty and principles than I am, would tell you I am the most 'radical' person they have ever met.

Yet even I find myself writing tweets and articles - albeit criticisms, including this one - that feed the electoral monster just by giving it breath.

My own inadvertent complicity scares me almost as much as the corruption and the collusion behind the political farce - because it indicates the level of saturation of the message that participation in the political process - even the critique of it - is a requirement of a properly functioning democracy.

But we knew in 2011 that the process was irredeemably broken.

Just like we knew it in 2000. In 1986. In 1963. In 1935.

George Bush's brother handing him the presidential election was "democracy" in action.

JFK getting shot in the head on live TV. That was "democracy" in action.

Wall Street making billions while everyone else goes bankrupt. Police beating, pepper-spraying and mass arresting protesters, while "protecting" a bronze bull statue. That was "democracy" in action.

The same nepotism, grand larceny, financial crimes and human rights violations that the USA accuses everyone else of but themselves. That, is "democracy" in action.

We don't need or want it and desperately have to find a way to get free of the political mousewheel, for good.

In a real revolution, no one would be allowed to own luxury holiday homes in seven different cities that sit empty 50 weeks per year, while retirees and veterans sleep on park benches.

Every bedroom in the White House would be open to homeless families.

Public money paid for every luxury in that building, yet the public are restricted from even seeing the inside of it let alone enjoying it.

All politicians, including the U.S. presidents are the same ilk of usurpers, usurists and tinpot dictators that they so frequently decry.

A real revolution would put direct democracy into the hands of everyone, and undermine the power of the few.

It is long overdue.

Snowden Nailed It

The U.S. election is an illusion of choice and that fact, at least, is more widely accepted than ever before.

Edward Snowden's publically expressed distaste for both political candidates tracks back quite some time.

WikiLeaks Led The Charge

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks' criticism of Trump tracks back even further.

Largely as backlash for the wildly successful #DNCLeak, the world's corporate press are currently accusing WikiLeaks of essentially being a front for Russian hackers and/or favouring Trump.

Yet in a September 13, 2015 interview with Assange by Argentinian newspaper Página/12, Assange was asked about his opinion of Trump.

A rough translation of his response was:

I look at it from the following perspective. I followed Hillary Clinton for years, you know that I have a personal issue with Hillary because she was Secretary of State when we published diplomatic cables and more recently emails refused to disclose. And she is much more warlike than Obama. What happened in Libya, the destruction of that country and the collapse of its state, it was mostly a war of Hillary. Hillary was behind it all. Pentagon generals opposed to intervene but Hillary pushed for that bombing. So now comes in Donald Trump, who is more 'guerrero' than Hillary. So whoever wins will be even more aggressive than Obama. The Trump phenomenon is interesting. At this time there is not a massive flood of Latin Americans wanting to enter the United States. Then it is interesting to see where does this phenomenon. Trump is appealing to the same grotesque nationalism can be seen in discussions on refugees in Australia and Europe. The issue of immigrants really was not on the agenda significantly until Donald Trump began to lift. The rest of the Republican Party has more decency and more willing to like voters Hispanic roots.

[Note: The Google translation of the word 'guerrero' made little sense so I left the word in Spanish and linked to another translation of that specific term which seems to explain it]

More recently, Assange made his feelings even more plain:

If essentially calling Donald Trump "Gonorrhea" isn't enough to convince you - time for more hard evidence than merely opinion.

WikiLeaks, it turns out, as part of the very same leak they are copping so much criticism for, actually published Donald Trump's donor list.

WikiLeaks - A Library Besieged By Barbarians

For the Empire, WikiLeaks getting 16,202 retweets on a single tweet is a nightmare from hell. Especially when the tweet in question was an epic release of US government insider information from inside the political party of the sitting US president.

The corporate media are no doubt equally apopleptic over WikiLeaks getting 14,304 retweets on a tweet like this:

Even the spelling mistake couldn't stop such a pertinent point about the obvious mass media politically-motivated collusion and hypocrisy from going viral.

Yet politically-motivated collusion is what those already proven to be engaged in, are so eager to accuse WikiLeaks of. Along with a slew of associated accusations that ultimately just serve to distract from the actual content of the disclosures, which have been catastrophic for the Democrats.

Their subsequent National Convention has devolved into nothing short of a circus, as disillusioned Democrats find their voices and raise them in unison.

Julian Assange has famously compared WikiLeaks to the ancient Library of Alexandria. A colossal treasure trove of authentic documentation - a catalogue of human knowledge and historical documents, unmatched in modern times and besieged by barbarians who wish to bury, burn or suppress that knowledge by any means possible.

The barbarians in question are a who's-who of the military industrial complex, as well as politicians in positions of significant power in many governments around the world who have been embarrassed, inconvenienced or angered by WikiLeaks publishing hidden truths.

The Greenwald 'Slate' Interview

Hyped by Snowden last night, was this 99% amazing interview with my favourite journalist, Pulitzer Prize-winner Glenn Greenwald.

His insights are really welcome and the interview is filled with original thought.

The interview debunks a slew of the criticisms against WikiLeaks.

On leaks versus hacks:

Information is constantly stolen by intelligence agencies the world over, for their own ends - yet when it is "stolen" and released to the public for the public good, the same governments who profit from the antics of their intelligence agencies, suddenly take affront at the methods by which the information in the releases are obtained.

Greenwald tackles this beautifully, with his comparison to Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers:

With regards to criticisms (which are prevalent but for which no actual evidence has been provided by critics - only conjecture) that WikiLeaks withheld the DNC release until the most politically expedient time, for maximum damage - Greenwald entirely debunks the theory, stating that -if- this was done, that it is a common practice for news media to withhold stories, for a variety of reasons.

"I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in criticizing WikiLeaks for that." - Glenn Greenwald

The journalist presses him on the issue, but Greenwald stands strong in the face of continued questioning. He goes on to tackle some of the major anti-Trump talking points also; pointing out that criticism of NATO's interventionist escapades (especially post-Libya) and a desire to tone down the aggression against Russia does not actually make Trump an agent of Russia - that these are legitimate aspects of foreign policy debate that should be had regardless of who is standing.

The pushback gets even firmer when Greenwald states:

Burn!

It gets better. Reading the next part, I'm literally applauding in my seat. Finally, finally, a major mainstream figure is speaking the righteous rage of the people, without co-opting the message to a particular political platform.

The quote is so incredible it really needs to be read twice.

The reason [Brexit] resonated is that people have been so fucked by the prevailing order in such deep and fundamental and enduring ways that they can't imagine that anything is worse than preservation of the status quo. - Glenn Greenwald

Absolutely correct and this sham of an election is just adding fuel to the fire.

America saw martial law in how many states last year? Three? Four? Neither Clinton nor Trump are going to address any of the prevailing social conditions that have led to that situation. As was made famous by the Occupy Oakland activist and livestreamer BellaEiko - and as I have heard repeated so many times by people around the globe - "Shit is FUCKED UP and BULLSHIT!"

I don't usually litter my articles with swear words and neither does Greenwald usually propagate them in his interviews either. But this is the level of frustration we are experiencing.

Nothing meaningful has changed since 2011. And we are all sick to death - literally - of that. No justice - no peace.

The Slate interview is long and comprehensive and there is a ton more worthy content in it than what is discussed above. It is well worth your time to read.

Old Grudges Rehashed

Unfortunately the debunking of so much of the anti-WikiLeaks hysteria has been predictably overshadowed by the singular criticism Greenwald upheld - and not for the first time.

In a media environment where few words and fast output equals easy money for beleaguered "journalists" - a single tweet by Snowden often spirals into global news.

Few journalists are interested in the "big picture" unless it can be explained in a paragraph or two and in a way that aligns with their own strategic career goals.

At a time when the temperature of establishment rage towards WikiLeaks is well past boiling point, it was inevitable that any criticism levelled at them by a usually sympathetic figure, or anyone who may have been viewed as an ally, would be immediately picked up and capitalised upon.

And whoomp - there it is:

Snowden sharing the Greenwald interview? 610 retweets. Snowden concurring with the singular Greenwald criticism of WikiLeaks? 5,100 retweets.

Which really makes you wonder how many people lauding the criticism actually bothered to read the full interview.

But the point Snowden was making isn't new. He's said it all along.

Snowden's tweet counts 138 characters. (Yes, I'm such a geek as to have checked). Which might account for some of the problematic language. Being, the diminutive "helped", when WikiLeaks has arguably engineered, advanced and championed their field, at extreme risk and sacrifice; and the inflammatory "hostility".

Hostility unfairly implies emotion rather than ideology, at least to my reading.

The tweet itself generated plenty of hostility - predictably dividing respondents into three categories - those who agree with WikiLeaks on principle, those who agree with Snowden on principle, and those who don't want to see them criticising each other for whatever reason, and just want them to play nice and get along.

The emotiveness of the tweet is reminiscent of counter-criticisms that track back years regarding Snowden's strategy for his release of information. I think both parties are so conditioned to receiving torrential waves of abuse regarding their every choice and utterance, that they are understandably tender from the constant bruising.

Snowden and Assange are not silly people. They are in fact, the smartest and most strategic thinkers on the planet. Neither are prone to rashness. They know full well the impact and consequence of their actions. I suspect there is likely much more at play than meets the eye, more than any of us observing can know or guess at.

The Slippery Slope

WikiLeaks' immediate and biting retort focused on the ideology of digital curation - selective redacting or editing of content.

The issue of curation is an interesting one to me, because in order to have curation, you must have a curator, or curators.

Snowden often makes the point of the behemoth surveillance apparatus - that it isn't just about who controls the infrastructure and calls the shots now - but who will in the future.

The logical answer would be to have an editorial board, but in these times of freedom of information organisations being under siege - what guarantee is there that any such board would also remain in tact?

We have just witnessed the wholesale firing of the entire board of the Tor Project - or to be politically correct - their "graciously stepping down" en masse... on the back of revelations of a Central Intelligence Agency employee literally having left the agency one day and started work at Tor the next.

WikiLeaks is arguably THE most under-threat journalistic organisation in the entire world. (Which for the record, Greenwald has covered extensively in a long string of brilliant articles about the US persecution of Assange, WikiLeaks and associates).

So the question for me is, where would the curation start and where would it end? Every person has their own ideas of precisely how such curation should or could be done and it would be extremely difficult to get a unified consensus on every single instance.

For their particular threat model, having one fixed rule that can provide a benchmark and carry on for future generations seems the safe bet.

Then of course, there is the significant issue of resourcing. WikiLeaks has been under a historic banking blockade for years now. They can't place ads in newspapers and hire staff. They rely on an extemely rare breed of people who are willing to quite literally dedicate their lives and risk losing everything they have, in order to skill share with the organisation.

It is high risk and often thankless work.

That they manage to produce what they do, under the circumstances they are daily confronted with, is frankly miraculous. None of their detractors could compete with their output. None are. Their tally was at over 10,000,000 documents some time last year. Over a dozen major releases in 2015 alone.

Many, many stones are cast but who can even begin to claim achievements on a similar scale?

It's not even just a matter of their journalistic output - they somehow not only manage to keep their head above water while facing unprecedented levels of danger, obstruction, interference, infiltration, oppression and difficulty - but they also support others who are endangered.

Recently, they have constantly had the stuffing kicked out of them by some staff at organisations who they continue to support and promote on their pages.

At what point do we actually collectively pause, consider what they endure in a field few else are endeavouring to compete in and have the graciousness to say THANK YOU WIKILEAKS!!!!!!!!!!

Their publishing models and releases have been capitalised on by multiple news organisations who have made bank off their work and then stabbed them in the back. Yes, I'm looking at you New York Times and The Guardian, in particular.

News organisations all around the world have their own SecureDrop installations - and what is the genesis for the concept? WikiLeaks.

Brother Vs. Brother, Org Vs. Org, Friend Vs. Friend

I recently said on Twitter: "The US election is a public exercise in Divide & Conquer and the extent to which it is working is frankly depressing."

I can't help but wonder how many people all over the United States are falling out with each other over the Trump-vs-Clinton dichotomy. How many family members. How many workmates? Employers and employees? Siblings? Lovers? Husbands and wives?

Does this ridiculous, unnecessary side show result in divorces? Broken homes? Is the price really worth it?

What exactly do the public stand to gain?

The obvious irrationality of both candidates, and their unsuitability for office, is so obscene it would be hilarious if it weren't so horrific.

The wife of an impeached president versus a casino, golf club and supermodel tycoon. And it's even worse: this is the reality that few will confront, but everyone is really having to subliminally reconcile regardless:

The image on the left is a Huffington Post article begging people not to turn a blind eye to the current child rape allegations against Trump.

The image on the right is a Free Beacon article containing leaked audio of Clinton bragging about how she got a child rapist's 30-year possible sentence reduced to 2 months time served.

The devastating follow-up article by The Daily Beast is a really, really hard read, including details of the traumatic ordeal of the victim and the manipulation and callousness she subsequently suffered.

Journalism In The School of Hard Knocks

Many people, especially this year, have been referring to me as an investigative journalist. I actually wouldn't call myself that, because I'm not classically trained in investigative journalism and that hasn't been my primary focus.

Nearly 5 years ago now, I began reporting live from events then blogging about them afterwards. News spotting in my spare time. Keeping a close eye on what was happening to our fellow independent media teams in occupations around the world and working with them to the best of my ability.

Amplifying for anyone I felt wasn't getting the attention for their issues that they deserved.

I morphed into a long-form journalist by necessity - in a chronically nepotistic media microcosm (New Zealand) - telling as many people as possible about the corrupt political and media antics being wielded against people in my home town of Auckland. It wasn't really journalism so much as whistle-blowing. Over and over and over again. Whistle-blowing on police, on civic authorities, on the intelligence agencies, on the military industrial complex.

I eventually came to the conclusion that that is what a good journalist is. Someone who blows the whistle and never stops.

It's usually circumstantial rather than deliberate. I get curious and dig, or I accumulate scraps of information over a protracted period of time, or I witness things myself. My mental data-microwave goes "DING!" and out pops an article.

Overall what drives me is the realisation that I'm in a unique position to contribute and I feel morally obliged to, despite the obvious drawbacks.

Whenever our media team was burning out, overtired, overstressed, suffering from lack of resources and the strain constantly imposed upon us by state and private agencies and saboteurs - when we really didn't feel like going on anymore - we would look at each other and say, "if not us, then who?" Then we'd get off our butts and go do it all again. That is the spirit in which I write.

I think the real reason I am being described as an investigative journalist is because I have a habit of unearthing significant information that corporate media haven't or won't. What few realise is how easy that is to do, and what an indictment it is on the mainstream press that they so often either fail at it, or refuse to look.

How did I find out WikiLeak's position on Trump? I searched "@WikiLeaks" + "Trump" on Twitter.

The idea that the dozens if not hundreds of journalists falsely accusing WikiLeaks of being a front for Russia and/or Donald Trump didn't do the same thing, is astonishing. Or that if they did, that they didn't amplify the obvious.

But among the learned and free thinkers - there is consensus. Assange thinks, as does Snowden, and apparently Greenwald, that Trump is as bad as Clinton.

For what it's worth, so do I.

As Greenwald stated in the Slate interview, much better than I could:

I think in general there is no effort on the part of media elites to communicate with [Trump sympathisers] and do anything other than tell them that they are primitive, racist, and stupid. And if the message being sent is that you are primitive, racist, and stupid, and not that you have been fucked over in ways that are really bad and need to be rectified, of course those people are not going to be receptive to the message coming from the people who view them with contempt and scorn. I think that is why Brexit won, and I think that is the real danger of Trump winning. - Glenn Greenwald

As for the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with Russia... that has already long since been dealt to. It is an unfounded and ridiculous allegation. A smear.

If only the mainstream media would get the memo and cast off their willful blindness.

But that is merely wishful thinking. while money, promotions and status remain largely bestowed upon those most beholden to the corporatocracy that are the true string-pullers, the shadow governments of the West.

And while the vanguard of the people; namely WikiLeaks and Julian Assange; remain Public Enemy Number One.

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. Suzie lives in exile in Russia with her children and due to her status as an asylum seeker is unable to seek conventional employment. If you respect and value this work, please consider helping to support Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!