How Idiot DONALD TRUMP Could Potentially Save the West From World War III…

Posted: October 19, 2016 in (Politics) CURRENT AFFAIRS
Tags: , , , , , ,


That is to say, how he might accidentally save the world in his own bumbling, barely literate way.

I have no love for Donald Trump: he is a silly, self-worshiping, celebrity megalomaniac and a horrible misogynist, who has probably bitten off much more than he can chew.

And he may be America’s, and the Western world’s, best hope for achieving peace and averting a major military conflict.

That may be difficult for a lot of people – especially those who despise Trump (and for good reasons) – to swallow. But it’s where we are. And it is perhaps a manifestation of that famous line from the Dark Knight movie: is Trump simply the “hero” America deserves?

He isn’t really a hero, of course: everything Donald Trump does is for the glory of Donald Trump, and much of his campaign has clearly been him playing a role and developing a script that he knew would gather him the most support from the most disaffected among a particular section of American society – a section of society, at that, that he probably holds in contempt, but knows he can play like a fiddle because their crude prejudices and passions are so obvious.

He has crafted out a character and a narrative for himself and has probably, by now, bought into it so fully that it’s no longer even an act.

In considering Trump as a potential, accidental Savior of Western Civilization, I am – for the purposes of this post – putting aside my lingering suspicion that Trump has been put there by agencies linked to Clinton to ensure her victory and instead taking Donald Trump and his campaign at face value. That is to say, I’m assuming that he is for real and that his ‘act’ is actually for the sake of acquiring the presidency and not for the sake of guaranteeing Hillary’s victory.

If that is the case, then a Trump presidency is probably now in everyone’s best interests in international terms (though not necessarily in domestic American terms). Because, as problematic, insulting and generally unfit as he is, he is clearly the one more amenable to diplomacy and peace and less likely to plunge the Western world into a major conflagration.


The corporate-owned media, in collusion with the Clinton campaign, in fact portrays Trump as the reckless, ‘dangerous’ candidate who ‘can’t be trusted with the nuclear codes’, etc; when, in fact, Hillary is the open war-hawk calling for military intervention in Syria, conflict with Russia and potential war with Iran, while Trump has consistently spoken of dialogue and reconciliation with Russia. Trump has condemned Washington’s destructive policies in Iraq, Libya and Syria – the latter two catastrophes being operations Hillary was centrally involved in – while Hillary has nothing to say about Libya and, in terms of Syria, has essentially vowed to force a regime change as one of her “first priorities” if she takes office.

The simple fact is that Hillary – whose pre-existing foreign policy record is one of constant deception, covert warfare, regime change and collusion with terrorism – is firmly geared towards confrontation with Russia and quite likely World War III.

Trump, on the other hand, appears to see the situation as most Americans do: that a few hundred faceless jihadists in eastern Aleppo are not worth a military confrontation with Russia and that the US shouldn’t be covertly waging war on foreign nations via proxy terrorists anyway. His ambivalence towards NATO also strongly suggests a desire to pull back from foreign military misadventures and to focus on business matters.

Trump’s campaign is almost entirely centered on the economy and industry and appears largely uninterested in foreign affairs: Hillary’s, by contrast, seems excessively – and suspiciously – fixated on Putin, Russia and Syria.



Vladimir Putin has said himself, and in clear terms, that the US neo-con hawks are orchestrating a Third World War and that Hillary becoming president essentially makes this war inevitable. Hillary is the War Candidate and always was.

Putin’s recent warnings have been stark, but largely glossed over by most Western media. “We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know,” he says. Addressing Western and international journalists, he says, “You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore…”

Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, it should be borne in mind that – unlike high-profile Western officials like Hillary or like Boris Johnson – he tends not to make serious, dangerous statements lightly or blow hot air for propaganda purposes. If he’s saying Hillary leads to World War, then it is because he believes it.

I said ages ago that Hillary, like George W. Bush, was a ‘pre-destined’ president who had to get into the White House, no matter what: and that happens when a pre-existing agenda is dependent on a particular Elite-backed candidate being in office. In the Bush regime’s case, it was the Neo-Con plan for the ‘New Pearl Harbour’, the New American Century, 9/11 and the beginning of the destabilization of the Middle East via the invasion of Iraq.

That’s why the 2000 election result had to be rigged at the last minute.

It was also likely that Hillary was *meant* to be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and to become president back then, but that at some stage the Deep State agencies decided that Obama’s unexpected and overwhelming popularity would necessitate a compromise instead: whereby Obama could run for the presidency and Hillary would get to run the State Department – an office in which she could still exercise the necessary degree of influence on international affairs. Under Hillary’s tenure at the State Department, we of course got the bloodbath in Libya and in Syria, which served to build on the Bush regime’s Iraq War and further the destabilization in the Middle East and set everything more firmly towards global conflict.


It wouldn’t surprise me if someone literally said to her, “Look, let him (Obama) have this: we’ll get you into the State Department for a few years and then you run for president again after Obama’s second term.” In fact, come to think of it, there was that whole incident where Hillary and Obama both disappeared one night and were probably given their secret instructions. I still believe that Obama wasn’t wanted as president by Deep State agencies, but that the momentum of his campaign made the compromise necessary.

This time around, we’ve already seen electoral fraud conducted widely at the DNC to prevent Bernie Sanders from standing as the Democratic candidate; and, although similar fraud could easily be carried out to ensure a Trump defeat in November, the corporate establishment is nevertheless pulling out everything it can to turn people away from Trump before then – probably, in part, because Trump has already called out probable vote rigging.

Turning sensible people away from Trump is easy to do: because Trump is such an innately unlikable person and such a living South Park parody.

But the mass media anti-Trump coverage is also designed to keep voters focused on Trump’s scandals and largely ignorant to the dangers of a Hillary presidency. Most American voters are being bombarded with outrage over Trump’s comments about women (which are indefensible; but, remember, also being used to fool everyone into thinking Hillary is the ‘safe’ option – and why have all these accusers come out at the same time, weeks before the election, and not over the last several years?), and are entirely unaware of how dangerous a moment in world affairs we may be approaching.

So how does stupid Trump save the world?

It’s pretty simple: it won’t be out of any good intentions or ‘nobility’ on his part (because he probably doesn’t have any good intentions or nobility), but by the simple fact that – on the surface of it, at least – he appears to be completely uninterested in existing foreign policy agendas, uninterested in conflict or antagonism with Russia, ambivalent about NATO, and uninterested in interfering in Middle Eastern regimes. He could therefore diffuse the current international tensions by simply not caring about them, pull away from the regime-change project in Syria and therefore negate the further destabilization of that region.

Again, assuming that Trump is for real and not part of an elaborate sleight-of-hand, his stated outlook is clearly the one more likely to keep the peace. Sometimes it’s the bumbling idiot who impedes the corrupt schemes of far cleverer people.

On the other hand, the argument goes that the office of president doesn’t hold as much power as advertised – and, once in office, the machinery of the permanent Deep State agencies and the Permanent War Economy will force him to fall into line with preexisting agendas regardless of all his rhetoric (which, to some extent, appears to be what happened to Obama – there’s a reason most newly elected presidents appear to go grey-haired within two hours of entering office: they’re probably taken into a room and shown the Zapruder film again).

Or it may be that much of what he has said has been an act simply to win mass support as the ‘anti-establishment’ figure – and that, should he get in, everything he has previously stood for would be slowly subverted. In all likelihood, once in office, Trump will quickly assimilate into existing agendas that are much bigger than him or than the office of president and things will be no different.

But what I am specifically taking about here is averting an imminent, immediate global conflict that would involve Russia, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Europe and potentially Israel. That is where Trump could save the day – even if, later down the line, he ends up involved in things as horrible as Hillary has been involved in.

Again, putting other theories about the real purpose of Trump’s campaign aside and taking – for argument’s sake – Donald Trump at face value, he is clearly more likely to make peace and Hillary more likely to plunge nations into more war. We can easily infer that from, again, taking what both candidates have said at face value: Hillary openly talks of conflict and provocation, Trump talks about business. Hillary openly, stupidly provokes Russia and Putin and threatens Damascus and Iran, while Trump talks about mending fences with Moscow (although he does speak less kindly about Iran, it has to be said).

It seems therefore – as difficult to fathom as it may be – that the pacifist vote would have to go to Trump. Which is kind of horrible, but this is how ridiculous the American political system has become in 2016.

Of course, had Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination (which, according to many, he might’ve if there hadn’t been strategic fraud and intimidation), this would be a completely different narrative and a completely different election: and if Trump does defeat Hillary, it’s the DNC’s own fault for not being willing to let Sanders compete on fair terms.

The sad part is how rotten the state of affairs has gotten: to the extent that a misogynist, racist billionaire oligarch demagogue like Trump may be the best hope for avoiding unnecessary war.

In most other regards, I don’t have much positive to say about Trump: and his presidency probably would cause serious social, and potentially racial, tensions and problems domestically, as well as meaning that so many self-respecting, progressive-minded American women will have to spend four to eight years with the indignity of knowing that their president is someone with such a poor view of women. He is an offense to basic decency and his opportunistic legitimization of Hate Politics and excessively right-wing sentiment could probably be dangerous at the domestic level.

But that might actually be the price of peace in this Washington Horror Story.

It has all gone beyond farce by now, of course; and a Trump presidency may bring all kinds of other problems, from societal breakdowns and revolts to possible Martial Law or NWO style scenarios. But what it won’t bring is war with Russia.

All of that being said, I still feel like there’s something fishy and manufactured about the entire Trump vs Hillary situation and that there may be something going on that’s even more Machiavellian than we suspect.

  1. It does indeed appear set up for Hillary to win. Then, what? Phoney Russian cyber attack and US retaliation…? I keep wondering just how mad these people are and I can find no limit so far. But the media are madder still – why, as Putin asks them, given such evidently dire circumstances, are they still complasiant? Indifference is destroying us. So I’m not sure what can possibly save us, but looking to ‘the Donald’ to come to the rescue is really clutching at straws. Might be funny to see him in the White House though – at least we could laugh ourselves into oblivion!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not singing the Donald’s praises, by any means – just saying that, in these very specific, perverse circumstances, he might be the ‘safe option’.
      As for the complacency of the media, it’s pretty scary how uninformed so many people are about this danger. The major US media networks are clearly maintaining a cover up until Hillary is in office (assuming she wins).


  2. You are right – on the face of it, at least, ‘the Donald’ is perversely the least blatant existential threat (taking him at his word, which is near impossible to do). However, if I were American I simply couldn’t vote for either one and so thank my lucky stars I’m not forced to seriously consider such a diabolical choice. Alien vs The Predator is the way I see it – I don’t need to say which is which!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, even for everything I said in the post, I’m not sure I could bring myself to vote for Trump. By the way, if you look at the post again you’ll note that the video of Putin threatening World War III has gone. Evidently it didn’t last very long on You Tube before being removed.


  3. Did you read Dennis Kucinich’s short article in Counterpunch today? Here’s a flavour:

    “It is abundantly clear from our dark alliance with Saudi Arabia and our conduct in support of jihadists in Syria that our current leaders have learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as we prepare to plunge head-long into the abyss of a world war.”

    Just who else needs to speak out about our “plunge headlong into the abyss” before the media and relevant others actually take heed?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lindsay Cooper says:

      the current leaders got what they wanted from those other wars as they will from a third world war. more money.

      Liked by 1 person

    • There’s an odd mixture of great intelligence/intellect and seemingly suicidal insanity in a whole bunch of our Western officials. And I don’t get it. But I think the invasion of Iraq was a key moment where the officials and agencies behind it suddenly realised ‘shit, we can do *anything*!’


  4. truthisstrangerthanfiction says:

    Greetings and thanks for another great piece of journalism presenting facts and perspective in an objective manner not available elsewhere. For the record… in my wanderings for Christ I stumbled on a group of believers who were followers of one William Branham, a religious leader who is on record for a profetic vision he received back in1933 stating something to the extent that the last president of the United States would be a powerful woman.

    On a separate note… It is also rumored by some that have reachings into the Trump family inner circles that nobody expected Donny to get as far or as high in the race as he has in the presidential race, and that there HAS been some deliberate rhetoric to derail his campaign (whether by him intentionally or by those around him it is unknown). This of course, is hearsays, so take it with a grain of salt.

    As for the chaos wought in the Middle East and as for.US relations with Russia, the ultimate beneficiaries of a weak Middle East are the modern day inhabitants of the land of Canaan; and as for who benefits from the US and Russia being at odds, the answer is clearly China.

    Liked by 1 person

    • truthisstrangerthanfiction says:

      One more thing, i recently watched the idiotic Back to the Future II flick and i couldnt help but make a connection between Bif, the antagonist character who had his name prominently displayed on his casino tower, and our illustrious real life candidate – the similarities in appearance and grandeur were almost scary.

      Movie: Back to the Future II (somewhat unpalatably zany)
      Psalm 76: Promotion comes neither from the East or the West…


    • I’ve never heard of William Branham, will look him up. I have been told a bunch of times that there was a ‘prophet’ or clairvoyant called ‘Baba Vanga’ who apparently predicted Obama would be the last US president.


  5. […] the various speculations that have been going around for months now about possible war, escalation of conflict with Russia, civil unrest in American cities, and whatever else (which also has more […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.