Quel que soit le regard que l’on jette sur l’un ou l’autre candidat, la caract\u00e9ristique essentielle de la situation de l’\u00e9lection USA-2016 est sans aucun doute une exacerbation d’une sorte d'\u00a0\u00bbhyperviolence de la communication\u00a0\u00bb et l’on peut difficilement \u00e9carter l’hypoth\u00e8se que ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne ne soit pas porteur, d’une fa\u00e7on ou l’autre, de violences d’un autre type une fois l’\u00e9lection accomplie<\/strong>, – d’ailleurs dans des conditions dont nul aujourd’hui ne peut se porter garant ni \u00eatre assur\u00e9 en aucune fa\u00e7on. Cette exacerbation de cette d’hyperviolence de la communication, qui affectait jusqu’alors essentiellement les troupes organis\u00e9es de Clinton-Soros<\/a>, touche d\u00e9sormais les adversaires de Clinton.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (Nous pr\u00e9f\u00e9rons ce terme plut\u00f4t que \u00ab\u00a0partisans de Trump\u00a0\u00bb, car il s’agit bien d’une hyperviolence g\u00e9n\u00e9r\u00e9e par le personnage et les actes de la seule Clinton, par cette sorte d’impunit\u00e9 et cette arrogance provocatrice affich\u00e9es de l’ill\u00e9galit\u00e9, de la corruption. Nous croyons qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une strat\u00e9gie d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e de Clinton, mais d’une situation et du caract\u00e8re d’un personnage qui s’est totalement immerg\u00e9 dans une narrative<\/em> de privil\u00e8ges, de position \u00ab\u00a0au-dessus des lois\u00a0\u00bb, etc., et parfaitement confort\u00e9 dans ce sens par un entourage tri\u00e9 sur le volet qui est \u00e9duqu\u00e9 dans cette voie de constamment confirmer la candidate dans ses conceptions et jusque dans ses perceptions. C’est le pendant clintonien de la \u00ab\u00a0narrative infranchissable<\/a><\/em>\u00a0\u00bb d’Obama.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Un exemple de cette hyperviolence de communication se trouve, \u00e0 notre sens, dans la tr\u00e8s courte interview que Lew Rockwell a donn\u00e9e le 3 septembre<\/a> \u00e0 RT, concernant les derni\u00e8res p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties<\/a> affectant Hillary Clinton. Nous lisons \u00e9pisodiquement mais r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement Lew Rockwell, directeur d’un institut \u00e9ponyme, ami proche de Ron Paul et l’une des influences majeures au sein du mouvement libertarien. La section blog<\/em><\/a> de LewRockwell.com<\/em> contient un nombre impressionnant de contributeurs parmi les plus brillants historiens, politologues, etc., antiSyst\u00e8me actuellement aux USA ; Lew Rockwell est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral pond\u00e9r\u00e9, volontiers ironique, jamais emport\u00e9 ni furieux, selon des analyses qui valent mille fois toutes les sottises et lieux communs pompeux des grands \u00e9ditorialistes couverts de dollars extr\u00eamement serviles (les dollars autant qu’eux) de la presse-Syst\u00e8me. Ce portrait permet de mesurer d’autant plus la vigueur de cette hyperviolence de l’interview de Rockwell \u00e0 RT et l’importance de sa cause <\/strong>; pour Lee Rockwell, comme pour tant d’autres de plus en plus, Clinton est une personne diabolique, menteuse, provocatrice par ses vices \u00e9tal\u00e9es, quelque chose avec quoi l’on ne peut plus composer tant l’agression est patente… Il faut lire cette interview \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des \u00e9v\u00e8nements qui viennent, et qui seront l\u00e0 dans tr\u00e8s peu de temps, – une question de quelques semaines…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n RT: « <\/em><\/strong>How is it that the FBI was not able to find any of the 13 devices used by Hillary Clinton to send her emails?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lew Rockwell: « <\/em><\/strong>I think she is a criminal, so she attempted to hide what she was doing. She was at the very least selling favors from the government to get money for the Clinton Foundation for herself, her husband, and the rest of their crew. That is why she used the special program to prevent retrieval, or so she hoped, of the e-mails that she erased. We should see it all; we should see everything about Benghazi, about every other thing she was involved in. She is a warmonger; certainly the way she talks she’d like to bring back the Cold War times seven; she’s very dangerous. So the more we can find out, the more we see her funny excuses about why her health is perfect, but she can’t remember everything, she had such a fall and hit her head<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n RT: « <\/em><\/strong>What can we make of this Clinton \u00ab\u00a0could not recall\u00a0\u00bb defense? Is it an attempt to avoid responsibility?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lew Rockwell: « <\/em><\/strong>No, it is just typical. She is a lawyer herself. That would be the typical lawyer advice, because they feel you can’t be gotten for perjury if you can’t recall. Of course there must be some things you can’t recall. But it is interesting she can’t recall the really key stuff and she blames it on her fall, which was a serious brain injury. But again, is that having an effect today? Shouldn’t she have a neurological exam? Shouldn’t we hear about what is actually wrong with her? We know what is wrong with her in terms of criminality, or at least we know some of it, but we need to know much more about this, before she is allowed into the White House, not her and the rest of the Clinton crew.<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n RT: « <\/em><\/strong>Doesn’t it seem that the mainstream media, for example, is more interested in the fact that the leak occurred rather than the content of the documents that were leaked?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lew Rockwell: « <\/em><\/strong>You can tell, and the American media doesn’t even pretend anymore to be balanced, or to be fair. They are 100 percent in Hillary’s pocket. They are promoting Hillary; they hate her opponent; they hate anybody who says anything against her; they don’t want to say anything bad about her. When they are forced, when there is a huge story like this, they feel they have to cover it. But of course they don’t want to cover the meat of the story – they want just to talk about the extraneous material<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n » We shouldn’t pay any attention to that; we have to do our own reading, our own research. I hope there will be many more people weighing in on this – people who know far more than what we’ve been told so far. It is very encouraging [that] there is more to come, more about her crimes – both in terms of foreign policy and personal corruption with the very corrupt Clinton Foundation. This is all to the good, bring it all out, tell the American people; tell the whole world by the way – this woman threatens the whole world. The whole world should know what she’s done and what she’d like to do and all the crimes she’s committed<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Quelques semaines\u00a0\u00bb, en effet, c’est-\u00e0-dire jusqu’au 8 novembre. Ce qui est remarquable, – \u00e0 nouveau un fait sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent dans l’histoire \u00e9lectorale US, – c’est que la r\u00e9flexion, la prospective pol\u00e9miques sinon confrontationnelles d\u00e9bordent d\u00e9sormais largement le cadre de l’\u00e9lection. De plus en plus de textes paraissent, bien entendu dans la presse alternative ou antiSyst\u00e8me, qui s’interrogent sur l'\u00a0\u00bbapr\u00e8s-8 novembre\u00a0\u00bb, comme on l’a d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu r\u00e9cemment sur ce site. C’est justement ce texte que nous reproduisions le 31 août<\/a>, qui est utilis\u00e9 comme une des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences par Mike Adams, \u00e9diteur d’un site de contestation sur les questions de sant\u00e9, NaturalNews<\/a><\/em> (\u00ab\u00a0nouvelles concernant la sant\u00e9 naturelle\u00a0\u00bb, – The world’s top new sources on natural health<\/em>), qui publie sur The Daily Sheeple<\/em>, le 1er<\/sup> septembre<\/a>, un texte extr\u00eamement alarmiste, mais qui se veut circonstanci\u00e9 : « Chaos will erupt across America in less than 100 days… No matter who wins the election<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Pour compl\u00e9ter le texte, on observe d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale beaucoup de scepticisme dans les r\u00e9actions des lecteurs concernant ce sc\u00e9nario impliquant des mouvements de r\u00e9volte, en mettant en cause l’apathie du public. Cette sorte de r\u00e9action est pour nous difficile \u00e0 d\u00e9chiffrer, d’abord avec peu de connaissance de l’orientation du site ; ensuite avec la connaissance de la tendance tr\u00e8s r\u00e9pandue des lecteurs de cette sorte de sites alternatifs de r\u00e9agir surtout lorsqu’ils sont en d\u00e9saccord du point de vue de la tactique tout en partageant l’orientation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale ; enfin, avec l’hypoth\u00e8se que ceux des lecteurs qui sont d\u00e9cid\u00e9s \u00e0 agir, si c’est le cas, et s’ils s’organisent \u00e9ventuellement, ne se d\u00e9couvriraient certainement pas dans ce sens en r\u00e9agissant dans des commentaires qui pourraient les faire identifier… Ci-dessous, un extrait de l’article de Mike Adams.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « The clock is ticking for America. There are 70 days remaining until the presidential election, and after the results are counted, America will be a tinderbox ready to explode no matter who wins.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » What follows is an educated analysis<\/strong> of the political friction now escalating in America. Note carefully that nothing in this article should be construed as any intention to call for violence of any kind. I do reference such acts, however, as part of human history as well as likely outcomes in our near future. What I’m offering here is an analysis and a warning, along with a call to prepare for what’s coming.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » As I’ve publicly predicted numerous times over the last year, if Donald Trump wins, the radical extreme leftists go on a violent rampage that leads to the rest of us begging for martial law. After half a dozen cities burn with riots and looting, Trump invokes a national emergency, deploying National Guard troops across the most devastated urban areas, and the radical left finds itself in a shooting war with the government.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » If Hillar<\/em>y Clinton wins, all the Trump supporters who have been violently assaulted, spat upon and physically attacked by the radical left un-holster their concealed weapons and start shooting back. This quickly escalates into open warfare between lunatic leftist Hillary supporters and armed Trump \u00ab\u00a0Second Amendment\u00a0\u00bb people who basically figure they’ve got nothing left to lose anyway, so why not fight to save America?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » This was all pointed out in an insightful reader comment posted to The Burning Platform<\/a> on August 29th: \u00ab\u00a0With the rise of Donald Trump, the plan of the political elites has been to provoke violence and blame it on him, thus scaring the normal populace. Early-on there were the road-blockings, the threatened riots, the cancelled events in Chicago and Cincinnati, the beatings, the police ordered to ‘look the other way’…and it has continued: The screaming harassment and physical attacks on Trump supporters as they leave his rallies. The spitting. The intimidation. The thrown eggs. The shoves and punches. The cars blocked and damaged. The hats snatched off people’s heads, stomped on, and then burned on the ground…\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » The people<\/a> who support Trump are increasingly well-armed, and increasingly seething with justifiable rage. For now they hold back. Donald Trump himself has repeatedly observed that \u00ab\u00a0the safest place in America<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb for anti-Trump protesters is at Trump rallies. And that is true. For now (except for the one old cowboy who punched out the protester, he was an octogenarian outlier). Why is this? Why the docility in the face of clear provocation?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » It is because Trump supporters understand that any retaliatory violence now will be instantly, widely, and incessantly portrayed by the whorish mainstream media as proof that \u00ab\u00a0Trump is dangerous\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0Trump’s movement is violent\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0Trump invites violence.\u00a0\u00bb So his supporters endure the abuse. They endure the spittle. They endure the shoves and punches. They endure the theft of their possessions. They endure the damaged cars and the incessant harassment. For now, for the sake of their political movement and the candidacy of Donald Trump, they do not strike back…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » But what happens after the election? It matters not who wins. If Hillary Clinton is elected, by hook or by crook, the mass movement harnessed by Donald Trump will be free to respond to physical attacks. If Donald Trump wins the Presidency, there will similarly be no reason to continue to endure physical attacks and humiliations by the street thugs of the Democrats. Whether Trump or Hillary Clinton is in the White House, there will be no reason to hold back<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Hundreds of millions of guns across America are now in the hands of people who are fed up with being stomped on, ridiculed and marginalized by a corrupt leftist regime that’s destroying America. <\/em><\/strong>Do the math on this one: You’ve got 44% of U.S. households that now own guns (and not just one gun each, but several different types of guns). Over the last 8 years, President Obama’s anti-gun rhetoric has resulted in the largest surge of gun sales to private citizens ever recorded in American history. As a result of Obama’s criminal efforts to try to destroy the Second Amendment via false flag operations such as Operation Fast and Furious, more Americans than ever now own battle rifles such as ARs, AKs and PTR 91s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » People bought all these guns for a reason<\/em><\/strong>. And they sure didn’t buy them just to turn them over to a corrupt criminal government<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Les pr\u00e9cisions chronologiques que donne Adams pour d’\u00e9ventuels troubles soul\u00e8vent un probl\u00e8me int\u00e9ressant, sur lequel on ne s’st pas attach\u00e9 jusqu’ici, qui est celui de la transition. L’\u00e9lection a lieu le 8 novembre, jusqu’\u00e0 la prise effective du pouvoir le 20 janvier 2017 ; soit plus de deux mois pendant lesquels l’exercice du pouvoir et la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l’exercice du pouvoir sont dans des mains diff\u00e9rentes, et des mains qu’on peut supposer hostile si Trump est l’\u00e9lu<\/strong>. On \u00e9voque cette question pour l’\u00e9ventuel vote du TPP, qu’Obama essaierait de faire passer pendant la transition, mais pas pour des troubles populaires. De toutes les fa\u00e7ons, le passage \u00ab\u00a0en force\u00a0\u00bb du TPP pendant la transition, alors qu’un Trump-\u00e9lu y serait oppos\u00e9, constituerait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un acte extr\u00eamement d\u00e9licat, voire un cas d’affrontement institutionnel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n