| Analysis | Notes on the hypothesis-Gabbard


Notes on the hypothesis-Gabbard

May 15, 2019 – The current instability in the USA is total, more than she has ever been without doubt, more than during the intense period of trouble that we have known since 2016 and which seemed to establish an unbeatable paroxysm. In fact, nothing came to an end with the November 2016 election, and we continued this steady and compelling upward and intense progression of Washington DC's "sustainable climax": just as the altermonde invented "sustainable development" by discovering anti-system, Washington D.C. has become "D.C.-la-folle" by inventing the "sustainable paroxysm"in the person of Donald Trump.

The situation of the USA is more of "D.C.-la-folle" than Washington D.C.we understood it. Uncertainty is totalconcerning the major reference sectors that usually flourish politicians' speeches, with "objective" data (on the economy, on the social) generally totally counterfeit and in no way subject to any truth-of-situation.

As for the power itself, uncertainty and disorder also. The continual pressure by Trump's entourage (including the Kushner-Ivanka couple) to unleash a conflict (with Iran) may either actually lead to a conflict (with Iran) but with dimensions that are hard to imagine and under that no one can sketch; either on a major crisis in the White House, within the elusive structures of the trumpist power that would once again be plunged into chaos; either on a widening of the crisis with a continual confrontation and even revived between Trump and the Democrats (in the House of Representatives) … All these elements confirm that here again the paroxysm of 2016-2017 has continued and seems to have to prepare a new paroxysm price increase (ninth paroxysm paroxysm, if you will) as we approach 2020 and for these elections.

Conditions of a hypothesis-Gabbard

Once again, the "objective" factors considered by analysts are no more crucial than they were in 2016, and they are less so if it is possible. Taking into account the Trump-2016 phenomenon, which has been hastened to make a new "objective factor" to predict its certain reelection, – new Trump-2020 cup, but a suit already known and guaranteed in terms of pure Americanism, – constitutes here too, a rational approach that is likely to be swept away by the unpredictable and paroxysmal circumstances of USA-2020.

All these constitute circumstances remarkable enough to introduce hypotheses which are normally regarded as completely marginal, if not fantasized, by the rational minds of the experts who observe the current life in the USA and see nothing to come. But let us make a barely audacious remark: the experts, today, in general, are placed in such ways that they provide us with near-certainty : what they announce us in the name of their rational expertise, or their expert rationality is according to, has no chance of happening. Hence a new push of our interest in Tulsi Gabbard

We will thus make a quick analysis on the possibility that Tulsi Gabbard in the upcoming elections for 2020, would find himself in an environment, in a "climate" that should be appreciably favorable. If we stick to the money habits that dominate in the US, the dominant media attitude, the "climate" that prevails as we communicate the media, Gabbard has absolutely no chance. If we take the hysteria prevailing in the US, and which should reach a new climax in 2020, and in absolutely impossible to determine perspectives according to the fact that no appeasement took place after the tumult of 2016 elections and the election of Trump, as should have been the case, we must consider other possibilities because we are again in front of prospects that have no precedents.

Gabbard, "our Henry Wallace"

To begin the development of the subject, we will resume in part a very recent article by John Wight, which makes a comparison between Gabbard and the precedent of Henry Wallace, vice-president of FDR from 1940 to 1944.

" Speech after Speech, Interviews, Social Media, – Hawaii Democrat MP Tulsi Gabbard continues to impeach US militarism, noting that Washington's defense budget, grossly inflated, its dependence on wars regime change ', the subversion of sovereign governments and the pursuit of total hegemonic domination which is at the heart of the evil doctrine of neoconservatism and liberal interventionism, harms the interests of the American people rather than protecting them.
" The injury is measured by an "official" poverty rate of 12.3%, or 39.7 million people; a homelessness crisis of criminal proportions affecting more than 500,000 people. In this country which is one of the richest in the world, tens of millions of citizens are deprived of health care.
" The money and resources that could be used to mitigate the aforementioned crises and other crises that engulf America are instead thrown into the black hole of a military-industrial complex that maintains more than 800 US military bases officially recognized in more than 70 countries around the world, the goal being to make the world safe not for democracy but for American and Western companies to exploit the natural and human resources of the world for the benefit of the country's economic elites. (…)
" In a group of nomination contestants that includes former Vice President Joe Biden, former MP Elizabeth Warren and Socialist Democrat Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard stands out as the only person willing to submit the sacred cow to the American hegemony for deeper scrutiny and even harsher criticism, thus creating the growing opprobrium of an American political and media class that is firmly committed to the belief that US strength and power is the greatest hope of the US humanity. (…)
" Tulsi Gabbard, in short, has demonstrated remarkable intrepidity in his willingness to confront the neoconservative and liberal interventionist establishment of the United States with a political vision defined by hostility to hegemony and war, a vision that she expresses with passion and eloquence. Oh, and by the way, she also served in the military, ticking an increasingly necessary box for presumed leaders in a country where the cult of the armed forces is the most widespread cult of all. (…)
" Although very small in opposition to American hegemony as concomitant with human progress and civilization, the emergence of Tulsi Gabbard fills a glaring gap in a Washington political culture afflicted by the moral and enraged illness of an empire entered in its phase of furious madness.
" In this quest, she evokes another great American champion of peace rather than war, the substitution of human bonds for American exceptionalism and the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter of respect for international law, sovereignty national and self-determination.
" His name was Henry Wallace, a true progressive who had been Roosevelt's vice president between 1940 and 1944, before being replaced by Harry Truman, Wallace had campaigned for a vision of the rest of the twentieth century at the end of the war as the "Century of the Ordinary Man". It did not deter him from the mass of Americans who had seen loved ones die and be mutilated forever, physically and psychologically, during the war, but arms dealers and war hawks in Washington for whom permanent war was the only way to the Roman peace in which they believed.
" What a different story we would have had if Henry Wallace had always been Vice President, not Harry S. Truman, on Roosevelt's death a month before the end of the war in Europe!
" Co-authors Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick made an important place for Henry Wallace in their 'Untold History of the United States' and included a speech he made in New York in April 1946, for the first anniversary of the death of the FDR. In that speech, Wallace opposed the Soviet Union's confrontation with the Soviet Union in his infamous 'Iron Curtain Speech' delivered in Fulton, Missouri the previous month.
" Wallace: "A month ago, Mr. Churchill exalted the 'Anglo-Saxon century'. Four years ago, I rejected the idea of ​​an 'American century'. Today, I reject the idea of ​​an 'Anglo-Saxon century' with even more vigor. The people of the world will not tolerate a recrudescence of imperialism, even under the enlightened auspices of the Anglo-Saxon atomic bomb. The destiny of the English-speaking world is to serve the world, not to dominate it. "
" Tulsi Gabbard is our Henry Wallace, a person whose vision of a world torn apart by cold wars and open wars for the cause not of democracy or freedom but of the hegemony of empire and domination in the name of moral and ethical superiority. His steadfastness in spreading the truth and denouncing the belligerents and warmongers is testimony to a woman inspired by Wallace's example.
" As in his time, the crucial question for us is whether America is ready to hear this particular truth – the truth about the real motives and vested interests that drive American foreign policy and the commitment to Washington with the world – and act accordingly. "

Does Gabbard exist?

Her case is quite surprising … On the one hand, we would judge that she has a very structured position with a political program of extraordinary audacity, a popular base that begins to form. The comparison with Henry Wallace is ideologically pleasing and may seem to conceal a historical dimension that is to his credit; one could also notice that there are similarities of situation and character between his candidacy and that of Ron Paul, to better outline his abilities, but also some of his insurmountable limits; except, of course, that Ron Paul was in 2008-2012 and Gabbard is in 2020, and in the meantime a lot of things have happened.

A sign that it is not really so non-existent as this, we find it in the extraordinary eagerness put by the press System to show 1) that it is totally non-existent, and 2) that if it were not non-existent, she would be such a catastrophic candidate with her program of a real "betrayal" that she would become nonexistent.

The proof of Gabbard's lack of existence can be found in the important publication in Washington, DC The Hill, as reported by on May 9, 2018:

" A report by The Hill on the Democratic candidates who qualify for the party's debates includes a flagrant omission: Hawaiian MP Tulsi Gabbard.
" The Hill quoted a New York Times report detailing all Democratic candidates who met the requirements to be able to appear on the scene of debates between favorite candidates during the primaries. Gabbard is one of 10 candidates who qualified above both the donation and the vote thresholds, yet she was the only one of those candidates missing in Hill's report on Thursday.. "

… Finally, is there really ?

More generally, and in order to better define Gabbard's position, where it comes from, what it represents, the obstacles it must overcome, the notoriety and discrete, if not secret, importance it enjoys, – or disposes, we will resume an excerpt from our text of February 16, 2019

"As we have seen, the attack against her was fierce from the announcement of his candidacy, to a point that took by surprise those who should naturally be his supporters, and who for many are recruited (necessarily) not in the same party (democrat) as she. Finally, we can have a general approach to the so-called "anti-System dissent" reactions in terms of national security through two articles, both published on the site UNZ.Review, almost the same day.

• The article Saker-US (also on his own website) is extremely well-argued, detailed, etc., with a pen that is drenched in the ink of the deepest and most contemptuous skepticism about the system of Americanism. His systematic judgment on Trump is revealing in this respect. And yet, finally, the Saker US can not conclude, leaving open three possibilities : (1) Gabbard will return her jacket, (2) she will be imprisoned like Trump, or finally (3) wild jokers, she will really try to make the promised policy but it is necessary to fear then that she will suffer the fate of JFK.

• The article by Philip Giraldi, the same February 15 reviews candidates (especially candidates) Democrats for 2020 and ends up stopping Gabbard he takes very seriously. " Does Tulsi Gabbard exist? Title article, and the answer is clearly positive.

Finally, a reaction of a reader of Giraldi's article gives quite a general feeling that one gets from reading these articles (and others, already mentioned) – the strength of the candidate but also the frightening attacks it will suffer, especially since it appears incomparably more "serious" and more determined than Trump on these issues of national security .. " Of course, it's impossible to predict if it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike those other candidates (Antiwar) in the past, she places her rejection of the neocons and the regime changes so much in the center of her campaign that it must be assumed that she is serious, – otherwise it would be too flagrant betrayal. However, if she is serious about it and if she is elected, she will be fought by the deep state and her media allies much harder than Trump, who is not consistently anti-neocon but not really pro-neocon . What they would probably do in this case would be laughable by comparison Spygate, Russiagate and Mueller investigation. She could end up like JFK (a vice president who would be just as anti-neocon as she could increase her chances of survival). "

It's obvious that the records to destroy Gabbard are ready, provided, extremely edifying, full of modernist and democratic moralityetc. This may offer some distraction for some to venture on these paths of anathema – including that of the far-right conspiracy that is always recipe. It would seem more reasonable, in this atmosphere of rumors and suspicions where the reality is totally disintegrated to stick to the simplest possible rules… For example, we can watch and listen to such video "to demolish rumors" (Sham Sharma Show) and accept the recommendation made, to more or less hold his judgment on Tulsi Gabbard, to refer to this quote by Jimmy Dore (Jimmy Dore Show): " Do not (Gabbard) do not judge his friends but those who are his enemies », That is to say establishment pro-war of both Democratic and Republican parties, and also the press Warmongering system, etc., all those who hate her literally (to make quickly: between 01'05 "and 01'30" on the video).

For now, it's important to stick to that. In this postmodern system of communication pushed to extremes and radicalism of language and affectivism, hatred against one or another personality is a precious measure things and actions, a kind of truth-of-situation. It expresses itself in all "freedom" (!) And in all fury, freed from the conformism imposed by the System, as soon as the very affirmed possibility of an anti-system attitude is identified. This is the case with (against) Gabbard. It is Gabbard's concern, given his (low) notoriety, his youth, etc., great communication performance in a few weeks to be so seriously taken as to provoke such hatred that JFK's fate would be evoked. (…)

What we know of assured today is that nothing, less than ever, is assured. We often come back to the only circumstance of the last ten years when we really did go to war, where even these idiots of French (these French-become-imbeciles) believed that they would go to war, gloriously and with the famous Holland to their head in the stupidest of wars, – this circumstance, the famous attack "scarcely missed" against Damascus in late August-early September 2013, after a chemical attack obviously mounted from scratch. We did it – the mistake, the accident or the ultimate fear – of one man, of President Obama, when it was not so, that there was in a very different way an unexpected and collective movement which upset everything in Washington's bellicose mechanism. We never miss, and the old Captain PhG either, to remind him at every possible opportunity, texts and documents in support:

" There is a precedent, that of the attack on Syria of August-September 2013. So many people have forgotten the real circumstances, only to say that Obama had launched the threat of an attack, had hesitated then had retreated. The reality of this sequence is that the attack decided after and despite an unfavorable vote of the House of Commons of London on the British participation, Obama entrusted the decision to the Congress: Suddenly, the accelerated erosion of the popular support acquired until the attack, which parliamentarians, solicited by the letter-writing of their constituents, translated into increasingly unfavorable voting intentions a catastrophic institutional defeat from which Obama was saved in extremis by the intervention of … Putin. (See the texts on this site, about this sequence: August 27, 2013, August 29, 2013, September 02, 2013, September 06, 2013, September 10, 2013, September 12, 2013.)
" This phenomenon has never been really analyzed, it has even been quickly distorted and buried like "the memory" made today with the historical facts, then forgotten by the political direction and the communication-System as much too destabilizing for the policy system so that we can only have a distant echo… "

This is to say that everything is possible and that nothing is assured, more than ever in these times of disorder (and confusion) (…)

This disorder and this confusion are the characters exactly opposite to those needed by the System to remain in its overpower mode without falling into its self-destructive tendency. These characters seem to have finally settled in Washington DC since the events of 2015-2016 transformed this bastion of the System into a "D.C.-la-mad" which no one can manage to regain control. The August-September 2013 event recalled above indicates how unexpected and paradoxical collective outbreaks can suddenly appear in Washington DC, – and much more, of course, when Washington D.C. is become completely and decisively "D.C.-la-mad". (…) Everyone is crazy at "D.C.-la-folle", so why not events ? Such a comment is so crazy that it seems … "

And suddenly, the press System became Gabbardian …

An episode in this sense should be mentioned, to illuminate what we have been suggesting recently and continue to suggest: a pacifist push, if you will, that could lead to a tipping of the popular push, or what is the popular push like this was the case from August-September 2013, – on the contrary, scandalously unlike anything that has been reported and so-called since.

(In our opinion, we have never seen an event in its deepest causes and developments to be completely distorted, without brutal censorship or police surveillance of the writing, but by simple "(self) consent production" of the elites (see Chomsky, but concerning another class, oh how much) on a completely manufactured version, that this episode of August-September 2013 when Obama ordered an attack on Damascus and finally came back completely on this order, – suddenly invaded by the perception of a popular push hostile to the attack, relayed by the feeling, the perception and soon the votes of the parliamentarians …)

We give two different texts on this feeling that prevailed a few days ago, when the tension with Iran, or rather the US pressures for a war with Iran were (are) particularly strong, to the point where one would think that conflict would become inevitable.

May 9, 2019, a US media review by RT-com …

" The mainstream media and the Democrats are suddenly worried about President Donald Trump's warmongering advisers, questioning his administration's policy on Iran and Venezuela. Has the United States rediscovered peace or is something else being put in place?
" "The war is in the air," Conor Friedersdorf told The Atlantic on Friday, warning senior Trump administration officials to engage in new "war of choice" wars without congressional approval. "Showing contempt for the Constitution and the anti-war sentiments of the public".
" "It's a dangerous moment for the republic," Friedersdorf writes
" Remember, two years ago, when Trump was threatening North Korea with torrents of "fire and fury," the same people who are wringing their hands about Iran today accused him of rhetoric. dangerous and inflammatory, – to turn on the moment and denounce it again, but this time because it "legitimized" Kim Jong-un by meeting him to seek a peace agreement for the Korean peninsula.
" Previously, the only moments when the media and the Democrats stopped their antiTrump criticism and gave it a positive cover, even if reluctantly, were those where it abandoned its anti-war program of 2016 and launched airstrikes against Syria, intensified its commitment in Afghanistan, supported the change of regime in Venezuela … Today, even that is changing.
" Barely twenty minutes after Friedersdorf's article, one could read a tweet from the editors of The Economist bemoaning the "collision race" between the United States and Iran and demanding new negotiations. The London magazine, which generally reflects the views of transnational neo-liberalism, is suddenly concerned about the prospect of a war between the United States and Iran.
" Yet just a few weeks ago, he was on board with Trump and his advisors, everyone seeking a change of regime in Caracas, replacing his profiling image on social media with sexy photos of the "acting president" of the Venezuela, Juan Guaido. (…)
" This sudden change has nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election, as out of 20 Democrats vying for the nomination, only Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel have established a principled anti-war agenda, and their voices are drowned by (ostracism of which they are victims).
" One possibility that seems more and more likely is that "Russiagate" has lost all its appeal with the publication of the Mueller report: Trump's critics who have blasted him for years on the basis of this argument are now desperately seeking another benchmark for continue this same attack from an overwhelming moralizing position. "

A second text, pure commentary that one, was published the same May 9, 2019, a general text to try to understand the policy of the Trump administration and the own evolution of the president himself, – without success this attempt, let's say – immediately, – and the warmongers becoming pacifists because Trump seemed to really become, him, a super-warmongering and that there was no question of finding himself on the side of Trump …

It is precisely in the light of this change that Nebojsa Malic made a comment for RT-comégalement. This coincidence of the source signaled how much the Russian network, and its correspondents in Russian institutions and expert circles, had felt with force this phenomenon of these two-three days …

(In this respect paroxysmal developments and a collective psychology exhausted at "DC-la-folle", the Russians are, and by far, the best observers, the most intelligent and all the least partisan, they who, at contrary of all our experts and connoisseurs of BAO and Parisian of course, often say in fine (as Malic writes openly) " If there is one thing that is absolutely necessary to do with regard to what President Trump intends to do, it is to wait to see what he is actually doing.… ".)

Malic, so … " President Donald Trump seems to make Americans hate the empire again, embracing war, or perhaps pretending to do so, against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and God knows where else.
" One thing to keep in mind about Trump is that his critics tend to instinctively oppose everything for what he is, regardless of what they may have thought in the past.
" Take this video, for example, which compares the strangely similar rhetoric that underpins George W. Bush's campaign for the war against Iraq and the current drumbeat of the Trump administration for the war with Iraq. Iran, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, National Security Advisor and Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney.
" Trump pushes us to the brink of war with Iran, and all this sounds familiar, but this time alarmingly.
" Where does the change come from? It was produced by, a group of Democratic activists created in 1998 to oppose the removal of President Bill Clinton, and financed by George Soros. They are the same democrats who did nothing to oppose the Clinton war against Yugoslavia in 1999, Obama's intervention in Libya in 2011 or the real war in Iraq. But now they warn against the war with Iran, – because the man with the orange wick is bad! "

… And the movement seems to continue in a certain way, as we see today with the alliance Pentagon-NYT against Bolton, – but there, horror, rallies the NYT to President Trump since Bolton-Pompeo are accused of hiding from the president their intentions to prepare a war against Iran. Indeed, disorder and confusion …

From Simulacre-A to Simulacre-B

Be that as it may, we will allow ourselves to judge the "incident" particularly significant, although we can not measure its eventual durability, nor the depth of its impregnation. Meanwhile, and by the way only reporting on the agitations of the administration, the Washington DC media resumed their reports on the hawkish turmoil, relaying for example – but without overemphasizing it – the interpretation given by the sources of the administration of four strange tanker sabotage in the Emirati enclaves, of course interpreted as an act of "provocation" of Iran.

No, this "incident" is very significant in that it gives an extremely significant measure, precisely, of the power of hatred, this feeling so violent and so irrational that persists in all strata of theestablishment progressive-societal (and one could even say theestablishment anyway), against Donald Trump. Nothing disarms such a powerful feeling despite the development of a hawkish policy consistent with the wildest dreams of this world. establishment, especially theestablishment progressive-societal already singularized in this analysis.

Admittedly, one will immediately object, things having once rocked by 180 ° in two-three days, – in all cases of such at such a Crisian front (there is no lack of it to demonstrate the virtues of chaos), – in all cases in appearance, – in any case if we go from Simulacre-A to Simulacre-B (which is better than the team-A and the team-B of the Iranian Foreign Minister's ranking), – it will be objected that anti-trumpet hatred could be found in front of the spectacle of the big Pompeo practically in the arms of the end and phlegmatic Putin; because finally, here Russiagate income, and in front of the stage again, and with what a spirit of revenge by betrayal ! On admettra tout de même qu’il y a un peu du bât qui blesse, puisque Pompeo qui, avec son frère siamois Bolton, recevait il y a quelques jours les félicitations les plus enthousiastes, les plus antitrumpistes, les plus bellicistes et les plus antirusses de Rachel Maddow, comme un salut qu’on fait à des hommes, – des vrais, ceux-là, de vrais hommes ! – conduisant leur propre politique guerrière en forme de bras d’honneur au président postiche-simulacre… Et puis soudain ! Le gros Pompeo dans les bras du fluet Poutine, et qui ne l’étouffe même pas, – des vrais hommes, ça ?! Pauvre Rachel…

(Nous noterons à ce propos que la visite de Pompeo à Moscou, remise d’un jour pour passer en revue les troupes ministérielles de l’UE à Bruxelles, a bien du mal à nous impressionner. Quant aux Russes eux-mêmes, toujours prêts à nous dire qu’ils sont prêts à rétablir des “relations normales” avec leur “partenaire” américaniste, le ferme et intraitable Trump, nous serions inclinés à accorder plus d’importance, pour les activités du jour, aux déclarations de Poutine sur les armes hypersoniques, et à sa visite spéciale à des MiG-31 équipés opérationnellement du tout-nouveau et premier de ces missiles hypersoniques, le Kinzhai.)

De la haine plus forte que la guerre

Même si cela ne devait durer que les deux-trois jours que nous avons connus, il s’agit tout de même d’un formidable événement de la psychologie washingtonienne de ce temps et de sa si étrange époque, que les fantastiques pathologies de la psychologie washingtonienne conduisent à vous faire haïr au point de vous faire préférer la paix à la guerre. Notre morale-humanitaire, qui sait bien de quel côté est l’humanité, en demanderait des sels pour ne pas défaillir.

En effet, que s’est-il passé durant cet intermède ?

Le formidable affectivisme qui domine les psychologies et les esprits, et les consciences, et les âmes, – si le bazar est complet, – de nos élites-zombie qui nous tiennent enchaînés au nom du Système, s’exprime majoritairement dans une extraordinaire, une inexpiable haine contre Donald Trump, le faux-président, l’usurpateur, l’épouvantable épouvantail manipulé par Vladimir Poutine, réincarnation de Lénine et de Staline à la fois ;

Le non moins formidable déterminisme-narrativiste qui règne conjointement à Washington D.C. et à “D.C.-la-folle” oblige bien entendu à dénoncer le complot mondial russe contre les USA et la paix tout aussi conjointement, et par conséquent à soutenir toutes les entreprises guerrières de défense de la civilisation, de la vertueuse et efficace communauté de sécurité nationale soutenu par le DeepState.

Mais il faut être sérieux, enfin… Cette contradiction, dès lors que Trump fait ce qu’il fait le plus souvent, est extrêmement douloureuse et aussi énigmatique que l’énigme du Sphinx. Que cela en soit arrivé à ce point où, pendant cette période qu’on a signalée, l’affectivisme de la haine ait pris le dessus sur le déterminisme-narrativiste de la guerre américaniste et sans-fin pour dénoncer la marche à la guerre contre l’Iran, voilà qui représente un événement psychologique considérable. Nous nous garderons bien, ici et maintenant, et pour l’immédiat, d’en déduire quoi que ce soit qui ressemblât à une suggestion de prospective. Nous nous contenterons d’observer qu’on trouve là, si cela était nécessaire, un signe de plus mais un signe presque métahistorique et porteur d’inversion eschatologique du formidable désordre qui règne à Washington D.C. aussi bien qu’à “D.C.-la-folle”.

Ce qui nous ramène à Tulsi…

Revenons-en à Gabbard

En effet, il était au départ question de Tulsi Gabbard et de l’impossibilité quasi-absolue où elle se trouve d’espérer quelque possibilité que ce soit de figurer disons normalement dans la course à la désignation démocrate, – pour ne pas parler de la course à la présidence… (Rendez-vous compte, noble lecteur, cette jeune femme qui annonçait, hier encore, que, devenue présidente, elle ordonnerait de renoncer à toutes les pôursuites du gouvernement US contre Assangre et Snowden !) Mais juger de cette “impossibilité absolue”, c’est évidemment juger rationnellement d’une situation dont on sait suffisamment qu’elle n’a de rationnel qu’une toute partie d’elle-même, et que de toutes les façons la rationalité présente est le plus souvent utilisée au service d’une irrationalité complète.

Tout cela permet donc d’apprécier que beaucoup de choses peuvent arriver à “D.C.-la-folle”, et notamment celle-ci dont on a vu un précédent important il y a cinq ans (août-septembre 2013 et l’attaque contre la Syrie avortée), et des signes actuels pouvant conduire dans ce sens, d’un renversement complet, inattendu et inarrêtable sous une pression donnée, de l’orientation vers les guerres extérieures. Dans ce cas, bien entendu, Tulsi Gabbard deviendrait une candidate idéalement placée, ayant par ailleurs les avantages très LGTBQ d’être une femme et une membre d’une minorité.

Une telle poussée, dans de telles conditions, auraient déjà un énorme impact même durant les primaires, où Gabbard deviendrait une concurrente importante ; bien plus encore, évidemment, si elle parvenait par extraordinaire à être désignée candidate du parti démocrate. Mais nous ne doutons pas un instant qu’une telle hypothèse impliquerait par ailleurs une situation intérieure plongée dans un désordre extraordinaire, – ce qui est d’ailleurs l’“option” (pour la raison mentionnée ou pour une autre) la plus souvent envisagée pour les présidentielles de 2020 qui sont explosives avant même de commencer.

Dans ce cas, une candidature Gabbard ayant un certain succès ne serait plus qu’un élément important parmi d’autres éléments importants d’une crise majeure qui concernerait rien de moins que l’interrogation sur l’existence structurelle des USA. C’est dire si l’hypothèse est concevable, mais c’est dire aussi qu’on ne s’arrêterait pas là même si les qualités de Gabbard restent indiscutables.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

14 + 4 =