Electoral Aftermath
2024 American election bulletin
Surely you’ve heard by now—and if you somehow missed it, I can’t express my envy—but after a campaign season that saw lawfare against a former president, an assassination attempt against the same, his opponent’s withdrawal due to obvious dementia, the anointing of another rival who scrambled even to assemble her policies, and a second assassination attempt on the challenger, Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the most recent U.S. presidential election. I suppose that news is important enough to warrant posting one our informational bulletins on Sunday, instead of the customary Wednesday release.
Though many readers will have seen the spectacle that we broadcasted last week about this contest, which covered the civil unrest and international conflict we could expect under either winner, the news is indeed momentous enough to merit a review of its coverage from elsewhere in the independent media. First among them: Dr. Richard Wolff from Democracy at Work, who appeared the day after the election to discuss its results with psychotherapist Dr. Harriet Fraad and fellow economist Dr. Shahram Azhar.
Wolff begins by criticizing both Trump’s and Harris’ economic policies as unrealistic or insufficient, arguing that the former’s promises to protect the economy through immigration control and tariffs on China are nonsensical, while judging the latter’s proposals are too minor to address significant economic issues. In his view, the election results reflect a desire for change among Americans, but neither candidate offers meaningful solutions. Delving deeper (at ~2:49) into the victor’s economic policies—particularly immigration and tariffs—Wolff argues that the idea of 10–12 million undocumented immigrants causing significant economic problems for a country of 330 million is ridiculous, while tariffs are essentially taxes paid by American importers and consumers, and not by China as Trump has claimed.
Offering further context on expected economic changes, Fraad discusses (at ~17:43) their impact on personal relationships and gender dynamics. She notes that women are increasingly opting out of traditional marriage roles due to economic pressures and changing social norms, with the majority of women in the U.S. now single, and 70% of divorces initiated by women. Azhar provides (at ~26:08) his own perspective as an immigrant living in central Pennsylvania, arguing that Trump’s supporters aren’t driven by by racism but by economic anxiety across various demographics. Accordingly, he criticizes the elitist bias in how Trump voters are portrayed by liberal commentators.
The trio’s discussion turns (at ~32:11) to the question of whether significant change is likely in the coming years. Fraad argues that change is inevitable, and that women’s rights and abortion access represent some of the most likely areas in which that change will arise. Meanwhile, Azhar emphasizes the need for community organization and solidarity to effect change. On that note, Wolff proposes (at ~41:10) establishing a new political party that could offer a genuine alternative to the two-party system by addressing issues of class, social justice, and community building. (Who knows whether he’s heard of the American Communist Party founded earlier this year, though his previous comments on the ideology of “MAGA Communism” which preceded that party’s founding suggests to me that he wouldn’t support it.) Both Fraad and Azhar express their support for this idea, emphasizing the need for inclusivity and a focus on service rather than personal gain in politics.
Naturally, Wolff wasn’t the only one to step up and offer a next-day analysis: trend forecaster Gerald Celente (featured in our July bulletin following Biden’s withdrawal) spoke about it with Andrew Napolitano to offer their own commentary.
Celente begins with a mea culpa: “I got it wrong. I thought Harris would win and obviously she lost […] I thought abortion […] would be a major issue. And it wasn’t.”
“We both thought that Harris would win, and we both thought abortion would be a major issue,” Napolitano tells his friend. He continues:
The issue was a guy whose name was not on the ballot, Joe Biden, who really is one of the worst presidents in modern times in terms of domestic policy and in terms of foreign policy, and the public profoundly rejected that. On top of that, Trump—notwithstanding his eccentricity, his narcissism, his bravado, his alienation from the truth—seems to have crafted, much like Reagan did in 1980, a new Republican Party consisting of non-college educated white males and Hispanic males and females tending toward a more conservative culture policy.
However, that shift in Republican voter demographics doesn’t excite Napolitano quite as much as one might superficially expect from a former Fox News analyst: “Our conservative Republican friends should be careful what they ask for,” he adds (at ~2:40). “They are about to see the most authoritarian occupant of the White House since Abraham Lincoln, and there will be no limit to those after whom he will go using powers that the Congress over the years has given to the presidency and which he will inherit on January 20th.”
Their conversation then shifts (at ~3:11) to foreign policy—which, Celente notes, only 4% of voters named as their top concern, surprisingly enough—and, particularly, to the subject of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Both criticize Trump’s support for the Zionist regime, and the pair discuss a few selections from the long list of reprehensible actions by Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu, including the recent firing of his defense minister. The discussion also touches (at ~9:15) on Trump’s potential cabinet picks, with Napolitano expressing concern about neoconservative influences. On a more positive note, the former jurist predicts (at ~14:25) that Trump will end the futile U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, which he describes as one of the worst foreign policy disasters in history.
Interestingly, the analysts also discuss (at ~16:55) the future of the Democratic Party. For them, Trump’s decisive victory—and the failure of high-profile Democrats like Barack Obama to influence the election—represent a mandate against Biden’s policies. Accordingly, these signal the need for the Democrats to establish a new platform not founded on “hard left woke-ism” and find new leadership, possibly in the mold of JFK.
Of course, it wasn’t just Americans who were interested in hearing an analysis of the elections: the next day, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou interviewed Mel K—author of Americans Anonymous (2024)—about the results on The Duran.
Discussing the significance of the U.S. election results, Mercouris emphasizes (at ~2:14) the obvious importance of democracy and of “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution, before K details how this forgotten principle of political representation demonstrates the need for transparency in government operations, citing (at ~6:17) events like the JFK assassination and the creation of intelligence agencies as examples to illustrate that need for transparency and accountability.
From there, Mercouris and K go on (at ~14:29) to discuss the impact of intelligence agencies and global organizations on American politics and foreign policy, further emphasizing the need for public oversight and institutional transparency. For K, it seems (at ~18:40–23:41), it can’t come soon enough—either for the U.S. or for the rest of the world:
But if the American people continue to sit out their own destiny and […] just picking a fake side, R or D, then nothing’s going to change. What needs to change is the American people need to redefine their relationship individually with their government and their fellow citizens and what their responsibility is. You know, when Ben Franklin said, “You have a constitutional republic, if you can keep it,” he meant literally if you can keep it. And that meant continuing down the path of getting together locally, discussing things. The people should be the oversight for the taxpayer dollars that disappear. The people should be the oversight for who’s getting the local no-bid contracts. The people should be the oversight for the surveillance state that has been installed in every nook and cranny of America and getting rid of it. You know, there’s just a lot that people can do on the local level. […] We need to be the oversight of our own domain, our own land, our own piece of America. We have to take what’s happening here personally and not be distracted by reality TV and fake 24-hour news nonsense […] they work for the public-private partnership that runs America like they’re a parent company and that we the people are just lucky to live here first and foremost […] at this point, if you ask me, I believe that the intelligence blob that came out of the Patriot Act—that would be DHS, [Director of National Intelligence], TSA, all of that was—used to be weaponized not against Donald Trump, but against any opposition to the long game plan of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030—which, of course, Barack Obama, without the consent of the governed or even explaining that it was a post-nation-state plan, signed us on to in 2015—and what I was worried about is a lot of Americans, while we were seeing all the pomp and circumstance of the wag-the-dog Kamala campaign […] what they weren’t seeing was that Barack Obama had signed us on to something that would fundamentally transform the nation out of being the United States of America, and more into being a globalist-controlled (now that they have the technology to actually pull it off) communist-slash-socialist entity run by the .001% of stakeholders that go to Davos and Bilderberg and [Conference of the Parties] conferences, and those guys don't care about the nation-states, they really—just as Kissinger laid out—they care about regional control like at the EU. And I believe that if they were going to go forward, Harris-Biden had put out in September 2023 a renewed commitment to achieving Agenda 2030 by 2030 […] and then delineated 17 goals and about three trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to all of the entities that are part of the octopus of global control […] at the UN and all of its agencies and the people that run it, [and] the banking cartel above them. So I think that all the plans were laid.
(We presume, of course, that K means “communist-slash-socialist” in the same sense that Jay Dyer used the term “corporate socialism”—and which we translated as “fascist globalism”—in last month’s dispatch.)
However, K tells us, President Trump’s policies from 2016 to 2020 challenged global alliances and agreements, such as withdrawing the U.S. from UNESCO, the WHO, the Paris Climate Accords, and questioning the purpose of NATO. These actions disrupted a “globalist” agenda, which then prompted influential leaders—including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, whose influence in financial sectors and whose ties to the World Economic Forum give him an outsized command in geopolitics—to take a more direct approach, exemplified by the COVID-19 response. That pandemic response accelerated a “public-private partnership” model that shifted traditional government frameworks toward a centralized global governance. The Biden Administration further enabled this infrastructure through various executive orders, setting up digital public infrastructure for greater control and surveillance. For K, such constitutes an international “color revolution” that tried to turn the world against American values, to diminish the role of the U.S. Constitution in the country’s own government, and to stifle public resistance—executing a premeditated plan to restructure governance and limit individual freedoms on a global scale.
(If you tuned in to Radio Free Pizza last February, then you already know we absolutely agree that the coronavirus pandemic certainly represented a premeditated plan.)
Accordingly, K views Trump’s latest victory as a significant blow to globalist plans and to the network of domestic and international influence efforts undermining American democracy and individual freedoms. These opaque think-tanks and 501c3/c4 tax-exempt organizations serve merely as vehicles for foreign and corporate influence, operating under the guise of philanthropy. K argues (at ~45:29–51:51) that these organizations, often funded by billionaire interests, act globally in ways that do not align with American interests and should face stricter regulations.
Still, these influence efforts come with the support of military-grade psychological manipulation and “mind control” techniques originating from WWII-era experiments, which have since evolved into powerful influence tactics bolstered by advanced technology and media control. In addition, figures like Cass Sunstein (of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Obama) worked to reshape language and policy to weaken public understanding of rights and constitutional principles. This legal manipulation is tied to efforts to keep the U.S. border open indefinitely, and therefore to undermine American sovereignty. Meanwhile, changes in education represent an intentional effort to create a populace that is less informed about their rights under the U.S. Constitution and less capable of critical thought, resulting in a society that is more easily controlled. Accordingly, K calls for a return to constitutional language and principles, asserting that “globalist billionaires” aligned with intelligence agencies have worked to erode America’s democratic institutions for self-serving ends. K believes that opposition to Trump in the name of “protecting democracy” is more about preserving their own power rather than protecting the public’s interests, and so urges reform shepherded by continued citizen involvement in the political process to address these issues.
The same day as Mel K’s appearance above, Parallel Mike, Monica Perez, and Hrvoje Morić—whom you can blame for launching me last year as an (infinitesimally minor) figure in independent media—gathered once again as the Cognitive Dissidents to explore various aspects of the election outcome, its potential implications, and broader geopolitical concerns.
As the trio’s only U.S. resident, Perez describes the post-election atmosphere in the country—noting the euphoria among Trump supporters and shock among opponents—and highlights the religious overtones in Republican rhetoric and the economic optimism reflected in the markets. As an American living in Mexico, Morić expressed his relief at a potential reduction of “woke madness” in the U.S., while cautioning against excessive political fervor. They go on discuss (at ~4:09) the smooth transition of power after Kamala Harris conceded defeat, with Morić mentioning various scenarios he had considered—including the possibility of civil unrest—before they touch on global reactions, including comments from figures like Peter Thiel.
Their conversation shifts (at ~40:24) to the religious aspects of Trump’s campaign, with a rapid infusion of religious elements following the first assassination attempt. Mike notes the emergence of figures like comedian Russell Brand in supporting Trump, leading the group to debate the authenticity of the former’s recent conversion and the implications of this religious narrative.
This, of course, dovetails perfectly with the current war in the Middle East, and so the trio explores Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy and the potential for escalating conflicts in the region. On that subject, Perez expresses (at ~1:04:35) her concern about Trump's aggressive stance towards Iran, while Morić raises the possibility of a “divine moment” narrative being used to justify military action.
With regard to domestic concerns, Mike points out (at ~1:23:27) the challenges Trump might face inheriting a struggling economy with high inflation and a weak job market, before the trio debates the likelihood of Trump fulfilling campaign promises like tax cuts and debt reduction. Accordingly, they forecast the possibility of a major crisis or war developing for the sake of stimulating the U.S. economy.
Towards the end of their conversation, the trio turns (at ~1:34:54) to potential future scenarios, including the likelihood of increased authoritarianism, technocratic control, and the restructuring of global power dynamics. Despite these serious topics, however, all three express personal optimism and contentment in their daily lives, emphasizing the importance of focusing on local and personal matters amidst global uncertainties—complementing, we might say, the political localism for which Mel K advocates above with a personal one.
In light of the U.S. presidential election and the insights provided by independent commentators, it’s clear that both the nation and the world stands at a pivotal moment, with strong sentiments on both sides about the future direction of the country. Amid concerns over authoritarianism, foreign influence, and the erosion of constitutional values, a shared theme emerges: the pressing need for genuine, citizen-led reform to restore democratic integrity. Each analyst highlights issues that spark the public’s distrust in institutions—from unchecked lobbying by globalist fronts and psychological influence operations to the role of corporate and intelligence networks in shaping policy.
As these voices suggest, a new path forward may lie in re-engaging citizens at the grassroots level, holding both political and corporate elites accountable, and fostering a more informed, critically-thinking populace. Of course, we shouldn’t neglect either the need that Fraad describes above for any new U.S. political party to be psychologically astute and inclusive, focusing on kindness and solidarity in the interest of building a community for like-minded people who see the need for significant political change and which offers a genuine alternative to the two-party system that addresses issues of class and social justice.
Whether through community organizing, independent media, or a renewed focus on constitutional principles, we believe Americans should begin their work immediately to reclaim their civic power in shaping policy and governance. With Trump’s victory, many anticipate a shift in how national sovereignty and individual rights are upheld, though domestic challenges to these principles are likely to persist. Additionally, it remains questionable whether the U.S. will end its imperialist adventures in the Middle East (or even those in the devastated Ukraine) under the next administration, despite how much the costs of such adventures impoverish the American people.
This election and the ensuing discussions reinforce that sustainable change will require not just new leadership but a reawakening of civic responsibility across all levels of society. While we must take seriously the proposals from Mel K and the warnings from Monica Perez in the clips featured above—for a comprehensive audit of intelligence agencies and their operations, and to monitor the restructuring of the Secret Service following the assassination attempt for signs of its evolution into a more centralized national police force, respectively—nonetheless, we shouldn’t let our focus on geopolitics under fascist globalism distract us from the imperative for citizens to take responsibility for local oversight and participation in government. Should the U.S. avoid neglecting that imperative, then it seems perhaps more likely than ever that the country might become not “the leader of the free world” as which it has long postured, but instead join a free world that it truly helped to liberate.