By Ann Kreilkamp | November 11, 2016

Woke up around 2:30 A.M., as usual, and as usual, searched for some kind of audio to eventually put me back to sleep. Chose John Paul Craig, on the Richie Allen show, his interpretation of the election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXXQh2k_JJg

What struck me about this video was his realistic attitude, neither disparaging Trump nor expecting too much from him. He says to watch who he picks for his cabinet, and especially, who he picks for Assistant Secretary of various departments. Why? Because the Secretary is a figurehead, sets the tone of the department. But the Assistant Secretary is the one who feeds him information. Craig himself was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, so he knows what he’s talking about. Also, he says that even if Trump does truly want to “drain the swamp,” he will have trouble doing it, because though both houses of Congress are now in Republican hands, all those sitting in those plush seats are beholden to the corporatocracy — the banksters, the MIC, Agri-Business, Universities, etc. — and must satisfy them if they wish to get re-elected. So, though Trump himself may be somewhat of an “outsider,” those with whom he works will be insiders, puppets in the oligarchy.

Needless to say, I found this audio too interesting to return to sleep. And, what he talked about at the end, saying that violent revolution will be necessary if Trump cannot deliver; that mass actions like refusing to pay taxes won’t work because that’s always an individual decision and then they can just come and pick you off . . . I do wonder about this assessment. Is he correct? Or could we successfully organize this kind of non-violent mass action that would decidedly drain the swamp of the money it needs to continue destroying the planet and its occupants.

Meanwhile, here are some more interesting perspectives. I love this one, and would like to give it to all the Hillary lovers who surround me in this university town.

I Would Love to Share in Your Incredulity

There are a number of interesting analyses on why everybody was surprised that the Democrats lost, including those by Robert Parry, Robert Sheer, and Glenn Greenwald. At the very least, one might say that they were blinded by the echo chamber of their bought-and-paid-for MSM which assumed their Hillary was a shoe-in.

If you’re like me, you’re still scratching your head about Comey’s strange sudden moves pre-election. Here’s a fascinating alternative theory about why he did what he did — both reopening the investigation only eleven days before the election, and then closing it down again two days beforehand. In fact, I think Michael Salla may well have hit the nail on the head. It makes much more sense than anything else I’ve come across. Worth reading carefully to see how he connects various dots.