US ELECTIONS SPECIAL: Sanders, NOT Trump is the True Anti-ESTABLISHMENT Presidential Candidate.


JF-Expert Member
Oct 12, 2010
Those following election campaigns in the US are now familiar with this term “ESTABLISHMENT” Presidential Candidates. They always refer to Mr. Donald Trump for the Republicans and Mr. Bernie Sanders for the Democrats. Probably, if you listen to mainstream media like CNN, MSNBC, or FOX you may get an impression that there are two ESTABLISHMENTS, one for Democrats and the other for Republicans – WRONG.

In a nutshell, these two main political parties, Democrats and Republicans, are both in the pockets of the ESTABLISHMENT. It wasn't this way in the beginning of this great country, you know, during the writing of the Constitution (We, the people....blah...blah...blah) and the years following that. But today, this is not your great, great, grand ma's US of A anymore. It belongs to the ESTABLISHMENT.

There is only one ESTABLISHMENT. I urge you to read my article attached below. Consider it as a Primer to US Politics. It defines this ESTABLISHMENT and I believe you won't get this version from the so-called mainstream media (US & EUROPE) – the usual suspects. I wrote it in response to Ms. Maria Sarungi's (a lady I have so much respect for) article comparing CCM machinery in Tanzania to the ESTABLISHMENT in USA.

One thing to bear in mind, this ESTABLISHMENT is NOT a US entity. It is a worldwide hydra and it practically owns the whole world (maybe with the exception of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – but they all are in its cross-hairs now).

About Mr. Trump:
Mr. Trump is a businessman. Most of what he knows throughout his life is making deals. Should he win the presidential elections (I doubt it), he will flip on Americans and do the biddings of the ESTABLISHMENT. This is how powerful the ESTABLISHMENT is. You see, unlike Sanders, Trump doesn't have the ideological convictions about the ills of the ESTABLISHMENT. He will easily enter into deals with the ESTABLISHMENT and sellout.

I don't think Trump will be the Republican nominee because; if towards the end he seems to be heading towards victory, the ESTABLISHMENT will field their own candidate (maybe Bloomberg?) and present Trump with an “offer he can't refuse” and Trump will take a dive.

About Mr. Sanders:
Mr. Sanders is a life-long democratic Socialist who ran shows in Vermont and in the US Congress (most of his life) as an Independent (also means anti-ESTABLISHMENT) politician, but always caucusing with Democrats. He is ideologically invested (for life) in fighting the ESTABLISHMENT. Looking by his momentum (especially with support of young Americans) you may think he is bound to be the nominee apparent of the Democrats. I hope so BUT I am afraid the ESTABLISHMENT won't allow it. The Democrats have this weird system of Super-Delegates (you may want to read about it elsewhere) in the nomination process. I believe this is what the ESTABLISHMENT will use to torpedo Sanders' candidacy.

In an unlikely event that Sanders is nominated and wins to become the first US anti-establishment (independent) President, hold on to your pants (America and the whole world). There will be a full-blown war in America. You think President Barack Obama (an establishment president) had, and still has a hard time working with the US Congress to govern? Wait until President Sanders enters office.

While Sanders is Independent, unfortunately the whole of the US Congress is bought and paid for by the ESTABLISHMENT. Sanders has very good ideas of reigning in the ESTABLISHMENT, but he needs the Congress to effect these changes. It won't happen – period.

So, even if the mainstream media may talk about Trump and Sanders as the anti-ESTABLISHMENT candidates, in my opinion only Sanders is the true anti-ESTABLISHMENT candidate.

I like making predictions, here is one:
Neither Sanders nor Trump will be nominated by their respective parties to run for the office of the President of United States of America.

Sad, huh? I hope, this once, I am wrong with my predictions.

Let us meet here after US primaries to congratulate me for my accurate predictions or SHAME me. -- Kifyatu


The following is my article responding to Ms. Sarungi about the ESTABLISHMENT/SYSTEM (comparing TZ with USA) appearing elsewhere in this forum.
I will respond to Ms. Sarungi's article with a little bit of schooling for her. I hope she is not offended.

First of all no one should compare Tanzania's so-called "the SYSTEM" with "the ESTABLISHMENT" in USA. To compare the SYSTEM with the ESTABLISHMENT is like comparing APPLES to a SISAL PLANTATION. I will explain.

USA Political System
In the US there is only one ESTABLISHMENT. This is made up of large banking systems in Europe (like the Rothschilds, who helped to bail out Europe after WWII and created the State of Israel), their offshoots in the US (like Goldman-Sachs et al. of Wall Street), big arms manufacturers (the Military Industrial Complex), big Pharmaceutical Companies, big Oil Companies, and of late the likes of Microsoft, Google, etc. All these entities form a group (one group) that meets periodically to plan on how to control world resources - otherwise known as creating the New World Order.

All this fighting in the Middle East is not because they want to oust ISIS, no. They use that as a pretext (just like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) to balkanize Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen (break them up into tiny factions - the divide and conquer tactic) so that they can gain control of vast energy resources of Iran, Iraq, Syria, with Lebanon as essential to develop pipelines into the Mediterranean sea. I will not bore you more with this stuff but, if you are interested, you may start with a Youtube speech by Gen. Wesley Clark about this break-up plan.

Please note: Saddam's Iraq, Iran, Syria, Qaddafi's Libya, all had/have strong and stable leaders who were/are independent of western influence. They had/have to go in order to control the region effectively. This is what this hoopla in Middle East is all about. Next is Russia and China - mark my words.

The rest of the information I gave here is detailed elsewhere in the internet. Do your homework.

Now that we have defined what the ESTABLISHMENT is, let us look at the US political system.
News Flash.
USA is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy. A plutocracy is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.

What the ESTABLISHMENT does is divide itself into two groups. Each group pumps an obscene amount of money (read about super-pacs) to both Republicans and Democrats (in other words, buying candidates). So, for an ordinary American going through the motions of campaigns and elections, they get the illusion (yes, an ILLUSION) of a democratic process at work. Party members rejoice if they win and they sing songs of praise to a democratic process well in play. What they don't realize (now people are waking up with Sanders) is that it doesn't matter who wins the election, Republican or Democrat, the chosen candidate (bought and paid for by the ESTABLISHMENT) will always work for that one ESTABLISHMENT which bankrolled their campaigns. Same works for the President. This is the reason why we never had, and will never have an anti-ESTABLISHMENT (Independent) presidential candidate win an election in USA.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are some kitchen-table issues like social safety nets, etc., where a Republican representative may differ in terms of outcomes to a Democratic representative. But this difference ends there. On larger issues, especially foreign policy and Israel, these matters are decided by the ESTABLISHMENT (not the President, not the Congress) whereby some of the ESTABLISHMENT members are not even Americans. US Congress and the President are often used as rubber-stamps for the policies of the ESTABLISHMENT. Yes, US foreign policy is almost exclusively being guided and decided by outside interests, sometimes to the detriment of ordinary Americans (like sending young kids to die in wars of choice - Iraq or Vietnam). This may explain the sometimes schizophrenic nature of US foreign policies. Maybe the only exception (aberration) is the Iran Nuclear Deal agreed by Iran and the P5+1. I won't go into the details for now.

This is a short civic lesson about American political system.

Now I will turn your attention to Tanzania.
Ms. Sarungi compares the SYSTEM in Tanzania to the ESTABLISHMENT. Obviously you can see that the CCM machinery can never be compared to the corporate ESTABLISHMENT in USA. The two are not even in the same category.

What we have in Tanzania is an old party (TANU + ASP = CCM) that has entrenched itself thoroughly throughout Tanzania - I mean even into remote isolated villages. This is where CCM gets its power, the masses. If UKAWA had won, this CCM system would never have been able to control an UKAWA government. We all saw that if it hadn't been for the ineptness of UKAWA to field Lowassa (a person they had disparaged and trashed in the past), they might have won. If UKAWA had won, CCM would have been relegated to the back burners with little or no influence (I think).

Even though Ms. Sarungi says Magufuli was not well known outside his public service, what Tanzanians (voters) knew about him was enough to make him carry the day. Yes, there were (for the majority of Tanzanians) frustrations with CCM regarding their cronyism and corruption. However, Magufuli's campaign speeches were more convincing than Lowassa's terse and incoherent speeches. Also, CDM's past relentless attacks on the corruption-ridden Lowassa were used effectively by CCM to pivot and crush UKAWA's campaign messages.

Magufuli is not implementing policies that are anti-ESTABLISHMENT or anti-SYSTEM, no! He is implementing policies that are in the CCM's campaign MANIFESTO.

In the past, CCM used to create excellent manifestos but after elections the government would not implement them for a myriad of reasons, the biggest one among them being rampant corruption. This time CCM learned a lesson after realizing that there was the possibility of loosing power because people were tired of empty promises.

What happened during the nomination of candidates within CCM was a classic case of DICTATORSHIP of the ELITE at work. Top CCM echelon looked at all candidates and made a decision as to who would do the "dirty work" of cleaning CCM's image in light of the country's low expectations. This process dropped Lowassa early even though he had a popular following. Magufuli was the right candidate for this dirty work because he didn't have a group (makundi) of followers who would later demand favors if he won. Everybody, with the exception of few party elites who picked him, was fair game for his policies. We can see now in his rule, it seems no one (with some exceptions) is untouchable.

Well, UKAWA also mimicked the DICTATORSHIP of the ELITE act done by CCM and brought in Lowassa. Big freaking mistake, and the rest is relegated to the annals of Tanzanian political anthology.

I will hazard a prediction here. CDM or UKAWA (I hope we will not have UKAWA by then) will have to wait until 2025 for them to even think of twitching their pinkies towards Magogoni.

My Take. Kifyatu.

Toa taarifa ya maudhui yasiyofaa!

Kuna taarifa umeiona humu JamiiForums na haifai kubaki mtandaoni?
Fanya hivi...

Umesahau Password au akaunti yako?

Unapata ugumu kuikumbuka akaunti yako? Unakwama kuanzisha akaunti?
Contact us

Similar threads

Top Bottom