Saturday, June 24, 2017

Angela Merkel, Stalin in Drag

Image result for angela merkel as stalin

 Back in the Pleistocene era in 1989 the Berlin wall went down.  Most of the East Germans, who had likely contemplated with envy the “freedom” enjoyed by the Jurgens and Gretas next door in the West, must have wondered with great anticipation what life in a post-Stalinist world would be like.  No Stasi knuckle crushing snoops in every crevice to monitor and record what you read, said, or might be thinking, no need to pretend that the stupid government propaganda was anything more than attempted manipulation and control.  How relieved and optimistic they must have been, and no one trying to peer into the future then, even with the wildest imagination, could likely have conjured up as a Frau-Fuhrer so ghastly a phantasm as the Teutonic Stalin-in-drag, Angela Merkel. 

A Stalinist world, such as the USSR, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, or Erich Honecker’s GDR, is an alternative universe, one where everything is the opposite of what it is said to be and where just pointing that out amounts to a serious crime.  “Democracy,” majority rule, is the imposition of diktats by the bosses in the Politburo. “Equality” is rigid caste system of privileged party overseeers.  “Freedom” is a one-way ticket to forced labor in the Gulag for those unenthused about life in the workers’ paradise, getting shot trying to escape from East Berlin, or sliding off a crude raft and drowning in the waters off Havana.    

Which bring us to today’s Germany where Boss Merkel has resurrected and summoned the Stalinist Stasi who now pursue the unenlightened ones who exhibit, shall we say, inappropriate emotions.  No room for Germans who do not like the way that they are told to feel about what the apparatchiks are doing to them, a bit like it was in back in the GDR.  Consider, below, this Orwellian description of what German politicians and German police do to German people who fail to understand the proper boundaries of expression.  From a report on recent German government crackdown on social media users.

In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion and incitement to racism. The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action,” Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said in a statement. “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.

As officialese goes, this is hard to top for its sheer self-contradictory stupidity, and its bullying, sinister intonations. To begin, “The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action.”  "Hate posting"?  Well, this does sound serious: police action must ensue to stamp out, yes, hate posting. The German people are in grave danger.  But then, try not to laugh, as we learn that the Federal government launched a “coordinated campaign across 14 states” in a country of no less than eighty-one million people, to ensnare a grand total of 36 folks plunking away on social media. Sounds eerily like the Stasi of the GDR, searching far and wide, making sure that no one steps out of line with the approved thinking and guidance of Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker.  This does not describe the action of a government protecting the security and interests of its citizens: it is the work of a propagandizing regime of ideocrats chasing down a few hapless, harmless dissenters. With highly publized punishment for the recalcitrant few, you can cower the many.

These 36 people were “accused of hateful postings over social media” and please note the anonymity, a Kafkaesque nameless specter which accuses but cannot be identified, questioned, countered or even understood.  Who were the accusers and what was the exact nature of the accusations beyond the big old umbrella of “hateful”?  Vague and general works best for government enforcers.  “Hateful” in its normal usage is pretty subjective, but Merkel and the German political establishment have politicized the word so that it is objective, precise and, most important, applicable – “hateful” is disapproval or criticism of state-defined victims – but yet conveniently vague and abstract – producing “a climate of fear” – so as to be able to criminalize whomever they have determined has dissented from the state-imposed multi-cultural orthodoxy.  “A climate of fear” is a nice tool for the government bosses. They can pull it out when needed, supplemented with the lexicon of invectives – “xenophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “nativist” “fascist” -- and unleash their repressive organs, selectively, on whomever offends the the noble sensibilities of the moment.  

Incitement to racism” as a crime is particularly troublesome to contemplate since “racist” is now applied so promiscuously, particularly by leftwing politicians all over the planet, as to be meaningless beyond its intent as an insult, shorthand for “a stupid, mean-spirited right-winger, lacking in compassion for the unfortunate who has no place in our progressive society.”  In the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump supporters were “racists” and hence, “irredeemable,” which to a lot of people sounded rather hateful, not to mention, threatening. Unlike other crimes, e. g. murder, assault, burglary, jury tampering, it is impossible for one to prove that he is not a racist (no one I have ever heard of has of yet ever pulled off this feat), which makes it so handy and versatile.  Safe to say, no leftwing politician in the U.S in the last twenty years has not at some time resorted to calling someone he or she didn’t like a racist. And, speaking of “incitement,” and “hate speech,” reeved up on a steady stream of Trump-hatred from the likes of the NYT scribblers and CNN, MSNBC talkers, a leftist from the Bernie Sanders camp recently attempted to murder a couple of dozen Republican congressmen in suburban Washington DC.  

Let us now hear from the head German policeman, Herr, Holger Münch, speaking like he was trained by the editors of Pravda.  “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.”  Orwellian Newspeak like this leans toward first-person plural pronouns – “Our free society…” –  there is, of course, no “our”, in possession of a "free society."  This is an intentional misdirection which camouflages the master-slave relationship of the German people and their German governors, the actual power exerted by an elite, privileged class over those whom they regard as their inferiors, some of whom, many perhaps, who resent the imposed mass migration of needy third-worlders and who don’t feel free to complain about it. Of course, we don’t know what the “threats,” “criminal violence” and “violence” are that filled the social media messaging of these now 36 criminals tracked down by the German Feds, but one suspects that the laws upon which the prosecution will be based have been written with  a maximum, "enemy of our freedom" scope and flexibility as to assure conviction and that the presiding magistrates will spare no effort to inflict maximum punishment.  Examples must be made.   

One “climate of fear” that does not seem to trouble Holger Münch much comes from the spectacle of secular, liberated German women accosted in mass by young immigrant Muslim males whose views of women are shaped by the texts of a seventh century prophet from a desert, and whose behavior, coming from German men, would put them for long stretches in prison.   From New Year’s Eve, 2016:

The world reeled following reports that as many as 1,000 women had been sexually assaulted - groped, robbed, intimidated and separated from their friends - at Cologne's central train station on New Year's Eve. Many of the perpetrators, it was alleged, appeared to be of North African or Arab descent…”  

Oh, yes, no jumping to conclusions too quickly: the “alleged” North African and Arab-descendent robbers, gropers and sexual assaulters numbered at least 1,000.  They collected around one gathering place in a single city in contrast to the 36 Die Herren und Damen in 14 different states at home on laptops posting mean, angry stuff on their Facebook pages, probably read only by the flunkies in the governments' PC surveillance department who sicced the policemen on them.  Who, really, should be afraid of whom?  In the new GDR only Angela and her Handlangeren get to say.  But let’s pursue the conversation about fear.  There was a lot of it on the streets of Cologne and elsewhere in Germany from the criminal violence of Merkel’s protected class of victims.  The perpetrators, however, are not the concern or target of the nouveau Stasi Federal police chief.  Instead, room for more of them must be made so that Frau Merkel’s globalist, multicultural, bona fides remain in tact.  This is a “climate of fear” that the Germans will be expected by Merkel and her crew to get used to.

The hate-speech/hate crime legislation that Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada and other western European countries have put into place is a predictable, logical extension of their capitulation to third world mass migration.  In the U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, who was instrumental in the passage of the 1965 immigration law that led to the flooding of the country with third world immigrants, later became a strong advocate in the Senate of hate-crime legislation.  Mass immigration and hate-crimes are hand in glove measures for leftists. First you flood the towns with aliens and then punish the locals when they complain.

In the same news release cited above, Heiko Mass, the German Justice Minister, is now said to be pushing for a new law that targets “hate speech” on social media.  As the elites’ strategy of the ethnic replacement of their native populations becomes a painful reality to them, it becomes politically necessary to ramp up the criminalization of the inevitable expression of resentment that results, and to punish resistance and opposition to the planned destruction.  The criminalization of speech based on emotion is one more step toward completing the soft totalitarian society desired by the left with its coerced uniformity of thinking and behavior.  Somehow, somewhere down the road we will all be equal the way, God, no, sorry, history intended.  Don’t worry, be happy.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Edward "Teddy" Kennedy: How the Lecher became the Lion

Image result for fat teddy kennedy on his yacht
Let us cut to the chase.  Edward “Teddy” Kennedy was one miserable, contemptible excuse for a human being.  But happily dead he has been for eight years, so why bother now sifting through the sordid details, the mountainous offal strewn in the wake of his long and epically degenerate life?   

It happens slowly, but at some point you consciously begin to feel it and convulse.  You are chocking on one more chunk of the thick stew of distortion of America’s heritage, the smearing of the greats and elevation of frauds and profligates. Time to pause and reflect on how we have come to this sorry state. In full throttle is the Bolshevization of American history, an ideologically motivated démarche to de-moralize and ultimately criminalize resistance and dissension to the forced march to equality.  The left through its capture of America’s culture-shaping institutions – the schools, the universities, the media and vast entertainment complex, and the courts – rewrites American history as a vast and singular expression of racial and ethnic exploitation and oppression. The ubiquity and pervasiveness of “racism” means that our language must be constantly monitored to repress this impulse (which according to Barack Obama is in our DNA), and that our public spaces – the statuary, monuments, the names of buildings, schools, streets, etc.  – must be purged of any historical references, symbols or imagery that might offend the delicate sensibilities of social justice warriors: nothing can remain in any form that does not depict the suffering of their selected victim classes and excoriate the oppressors, who are?  Well, go to a local school or university and discover “white privilege.” Confederate monuments are being torn down, schools are being renamed, speakers who fail the test of orthodoxy are banned and sometimes assaulted: soon the conformity and uniformity will be complete.

How then does the defunct Teddy, “the Lion of the Senate” Kennedy fit into this scene of wreckage and ruin?  He was a principal agent, a man who performed far above his meager talents.  But this answer leads to a more complicated and fundamental question.  How was he able to do it? How was this arch hypocrite, a man so intellectually mediocre, so personally dissolute and debauched able to rise to this pinnacle of political power, eulogized at his death as a champion of the disadvantaged and downtrodden, officially “lionized” as a great Senate statesman?   
One might reasonably argue that Chappaquiddick was for Edward Kennedy his defining moment both as a man and as a politician.  The decades that followed were merely exposition and commentary on this shameful episode of moral immolation. As a man?  A coward, a libertine, a liar, a fraud, complicit in a homicide from one of his countless alcohol fueled, philandering escapades.  He abandoned a young woman in his submerged Oldsmobile he had driven off of a bridge, then fled the scene and sobered up.  She could have been saved, but the Senator was busy huddling with his handlers with the more important task of concocting a story to thwart the law and to salvage his political career, letting his girlfriend of the moment slowly drowned.  As a politician? He used the wealth and influence of his family and the power of his office to suborn the local authorities, buy off the Kopechne family and ultimately to evade responsibility for actions that would have sent any other man to prison.

He was never completely able to escape the shadows and shame of Chappaquiddick, but the voters of Massachusetts had to have a Kennedy in Washington, perhaps to keep the women in the Bay state safe, and with the passage of time and the crafting of a fashionable leftish championing-the-underdog image, his abandonment of Mary Jo to die became a mere peccadillo, collateral damage of the sort happily overlooked so as to keep a playboy with a magic name in a high place. Here then is the beginning of the answer to the question posed above:  how did the lecher become the lion? 

With gusto Kennedy positioned himself firmly on the left embracing its antinomian trends and leading the charge of American identity politics.  Rewarded with the unconditional support of its pandered-to beneficiaries, he was thus in large part able to immunize himself from the sharper edges of the contempt he deserved.  Teddy never came to endure what should have been an outpouring of disgust and repudiation for a man with the moral fiber of a bunko artist and the life-style of Caligula.

The easy life of a protected rich wastrel and reprobate was, however, not enough for Teddy. He was, after all, a Kennedy, committed to what he liked to call “public service” a laughable, crude piece of unintended irony for someone wholly self-indulgent in his gross personal conduct and self-serving in his public role.  A life devoted to beakers of Johnny Walker and whoring was not enough to, as they say, “make a difference.”  Kennedy needed to inflict himself on the nation. And so he did … make quite a difference. Two of his signature pieces of mischief, that pushed the country toward its current state of anguish, deserve mention here.  First, his support and active selling of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 which produced the opposite of what he promised.

From the Center for Immigration Studies
 Although the 1965 bill was intended only to end discrimination, some people feared a major increase in immigration and a change in the source countries of immigrants. Supporters of the measure assured doubters that this would not happen. Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.” [emphasis added]

In the “final analysis,” we are talking about the word of Teddy Kennedy.  Most apropos is a single phase -- Kennedy “reassured his colleagues and the nation,” the same sort of reassurance, perhaps, he gave Ms. Kopechne in watery bowels of his Oldsmobile – “don’t worry, honey, I’ll get you out of here.”  He lied with the verve of a true Bolshevik – “everything is the opposite of what I say it is.”  The country wasflooded with millions of immigrants” who dramatically changed “the ethnic mix of this country.” America, thanks in large part to his man, has been transformed, ethnically, culturally, economically by this law. California, once a competitive and healthy two-party state is now because of the immigration influx unleashed after 1965 entirely controlled by a single party.  Hillary Clinton’s nearly three million vote margin over Donald Trump in the 2016 election came out of California, a Democrat clientele of Kennedy’s creation.  Her plan, upon election, was to turn the rest of the country, politically, into California. Aside from the increasingly isolated, gated, tony enclaves of the predominately rich white Democrats such as Hollywood, Silicon Valley, parts of San Francisco, and Palm Springs, California will increasingly come to resemble a vast enlargement of Tijuana with the drug trafficking, the crime and the poverty.

Catering to a burgeoning, resentment-laden set of victim classes and importing lots of needy people into the country along with the extraction and redistribution of resources from its largely middle class citizens to support them would create a cultural and political backlash that would threaten the power structure and its overseers.  Thus, the second piece of the Teddy Kennedy legacy: “hate” legislation.  From a peroration in the Senate in 2007, “Standing Against Hate.” 

I'd like to speak … regarding the Hate Crimes Amendment -- at a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at home. Now more than ever, we need to act against hate crimes and send a strong message here at home and around the world that we will not tolerate crimes fueled by hate…..  Since the September 11th attacks, we've seen a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims, Sikhs, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent…..  Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism…. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. [emphasis added]

What a vapid collection of useless abstractions and non-sequiturs from a man who ceaselessly preached but never practiced.  At a time when our ideals are under attack from by terrorists in other lands”?  Terrorists do not attack “ideals”: they attack and kill defenseless people which is what makes them so terrible.   Not clear as well is why terrorists would be attacking our ideals in other lands, but this is Ted Kennedy talking, oblivious to minimal standards of evidence and coherence. Why, a rational person might ask, do we need to send this “message” to the world that “we will not tolerate crimes fueled by hate”?  Since there was absolutely no evidence that we did tolerate such crimes, why was he talking like this?  To distract people from the obvious fact that so much of the terrorism going on around the world was being done by people of “Middle Eastern descent,” and to hope people might not wonder why politicians like Kennedy were so eager to put more of them in their neighborhoods.  No one in the political establishment from President Bush after 9-11 on down was speaking of Islam as anything other than the “religion of peace.”  One has also to ponder: how America had managed to stave off collapse until 2007 by ignoring these crimes, now morphed into “domestic terrorism” against, first, “entire communities,” then, “the whole nation” and then, yikes! America’s foundational “fundamental ideals.”  Once again, we are supposed be traumatized by terrorists attacking those wonderful “ideals” – what specific ideals he doesn’t bother to say, but the more nebulous and vague the abstractions, the easier it was to keep his multicultural scam going.  And the scam?  Import millions of third world people, many of whom are resistant to assimilation, some of whom are hostile to American norms.  Then, stigmatize the resentment of the American hosts who bear the cultural, financial burden as “bigotry and prejudice.”  Gotcha! Welcome to twenty-first century America where lechers are lions and where the politicians have christened half of the citizens as “irredeemable” racists, xenophobes and bigots because many of them believe that it is not a good idea to let anyone and everyone into the U.S. who simply wants to come. 

The mumbo-jumbo of “Standing Against Hate,” late in a career of pretending to be a statesman was unfortunately one of Teddy’s many signature incoherent episodes of Senate oratory. Since his death in 2009 it can be said in fairness to him that he did leave his mark; he did make a difference: to the American people he did figuratively what he did literally to Mary Jo Kopechne fifty years earlier. 

Saturday, May 27, 2017

In Defense of Hatred -- the Right Kind

These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness that speaks lies, and he that sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 6: 16-19

What is to be done about hatred?  I mean “hatred” -- yet another word coopted and perverted by the left.   It has become an almost exclusively a political-ideological weapon, and in the world of meta-politics, a word that the left owns and uses to their advantage.  They wield it to stigmatize and delegitimize persons or institutions insufficiently enthused about the forced march toward the “equality” they envision and those who resist the relentless assaults on their speech, their faith, their traditions, their heritage.  If you have a traditional, Christian view of marriage, you hate homosexuals. If you question affirmative action you hate blacks.  If you are uneasy about the flood of third world immigrants, you hate foreigners.  If you suggest that entitlement programs are out of financial control and should be reformed, you hate (check all the boxes) – the poor, the sick, the homeless, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  Donald Trump, who during his Presidential campaign, proposed a more vigorous vetting of Muslims entering the U.S. because Muslims, these days, seem to be the busiest of our new comers with mass-murder (the Orlando night club slaughter, a recent example), was roundly derided as the candidate of hate, while Hillary Clinton who referred to her opponent’s supporters as “deplorables”, “irredeemable, but thankfully they not part of America” remained the exemplar of compassion.   

For the cultural Marxists, their politics of “social justice” is the practice of selective compassion: the selection of victim-classes of oppression and bigotry and crafting the narrative of their suffering; the identification of the recalcitrant oppressors and the undeserved fruits of their exploitation; and the inevitable denouement, the oppressors unmasked and excoriated – bigots, incapable of human compassion, motivated by that primitive tribal emotion, hatred.  Once convicted as haters, they can be pushed outside the boundaries of common humanity and rightfully denied any moral or political space to compete with their ideas and practice their beliefs, pushed to the fringes where, if they remain compliant, they can be “safely” ignored. This crude, delusional juxtaposition of selfless compassion (them) versus gross visceral hatred (us) fuels the lefts’ sense of its vast moral superiority and is the source of authority for its claim to impose its diktats and regulate the details of everyone’s life.

Consider for a moment the frequently referenced, self-proclaimed authority on “hate groups”, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a disseminator of agitprop whose executors are able to live in considerably high style by selling the absurd fiction of a threatening, powerful Ku Klux Klan.  From its website: The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Simple and irresistible (how can you not be against hate and bigotry?), tested and marketed to appeal especially to a well-heeled, high minded clientele that embraces a politics of arrested development. Being rich and being white can be a problem – white guilt aka “white privilege”, about which, of course, the SPLC has a lot to say.  And, they can help with that:  with a generous tax deductible check comes some guilt relief with the bonus that one gets to imagine oneself as part of a courageous anti-fascist, anti-racist crusade battling the multitudinous hordes of neo-Nazis and right wing bigots pouring out of the small towns and farms of white America.

The pure cynicism beneath this fake idealism, manufactured heroism, and virtue signaling comes straight out of Bolshevik playbook of the 1930s, drafted and perfected by Stalin himself.  From the Constitution of the USSR, adopted in December 1936, under Stalin’s direct supervision:
ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

No one could surpass the Stalinists in their professed enthusiasm for equality and no one could question their anti-racist credentials.  But with the Stalinists there is always the absurdity and the irony that emanates from their alternative universe where everything is the opposite of what they say. This “equality” constitutionally guaranteed as “an indefeasible law” was drafted and promulgated during the very time when the grey tunic wearing General Secretary of the CPSU, dedicated to advancing the well being of the toiling masses (the “most vulnerable members” of society as the SPLC would put it) was practicing his unique version of “hatred and contempt” with the staged show trials of his old Bolshevik compatriots and a behind the scenes massive political purge that sent hundreds of thousands to the Gulag and slaughtered many thousands more. 

Contemporary Stalinists like the ones who run the SPLC have imitated their predecessors and perfected a style of propaganda that disguises their goal, the destruction of political opposition, by intensively moralizing their self-image with the language of compassion and fairness and, conversely, demonizing the face and personality of the opposition.  The moralized Stalinist of the 1930s was a little-guy-champion, anti-Fascist, an image designed to make him always come out the winner in the game of “which side are you on?” Even better, “Fascism” was, and still is, an expandable-contractible sort of label, easily adjusted to fit whomever and whenever the occasion demanded. The twenty-first century moralized Stalinist of the SPLC ilk is an anti-racist, which means, if he doesn’t like you, then well … forget the groveling and self-criticism Chinese Cultural Revolution style.  It does no good.  You have to join that other camp of the properly shunned, that “basket of deplorables”.  “Racism” like its cousin “Fascism” has a similar flexibility which makes it suitable for attachment to those disagreeable sorts far and wide.

“Hatred” is one of a number of popular resorted to slurs in the left’s agitprop lexicon.  It joins “Fascist” “Nazi”, “Racist”, all words that rely heavily on the imagery of Europe in the 1930s – Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain and, of course, Hitler’s Germany.  How ironic is it that today’s “progressives” like Barack Obama who claim to see in history an “arc that bends toward justice” have constructed a stark, historically frozen moral universe where Hitler never really dies – he just perpetually reappears with broad support in contemporary incarnations, for the moment, Donald Trump – and where they cannot conceive of themselves as anything other than the moral obverse of the Brown Shirts and goose-steppers?  Of course, the more morally repugnant and malignant your opposition, the greater by contrast the glow of your own goodness and virtue.  Without Nazis to fall back on, the moralism of todays progressives would go poof.

With the frenzied and indiscriminate attachment of “hatred” to its critics, the left exhibits its grossest defects, its rank hypocrisy and incapacity for critical self-reflection.  The unprecedented outpouring of contempt by the left for Donald Trump and the sixty-two million Americans who voted for him suggests that the hatred so eagerly attributed to so many others is a projection of their own hatred and loathing to which they are astonishingly oblivious.   

There is, finally, as we see in Proverbs (above) a “righteous” hatred, the hatred of a just God for wickedness – lying, the killing of innocents, vanity and deceit -- all deserved to hated.  But this is not the hatred that the left rails against. Hatred for them is completely and ultimately political, something that is only found on the right, something somehow that they themselves in all their rectitude never experience. This approach of turning your critics into deeply immoral, “irredeemable” people enables the left to advance even further toward what they seek, a complete monopoly of power.  Hatred then as a political weapon achieves its perfection when it moves from de-moralizing the opposition to its full criminalization -- hate crimes. With the criminalization of hate, the full, unimpeded power of the state can be brought to bear on unpopular thinking and speech. No competition allowed: the monopoly is complete.  Hate crime laws have paralyzed the right in Europe and Canada and cowed their populations.  Hillary Clinton’s unexpected derailment has only delayed the coming tsunami.  Get ready.  

Monday, April 10, 2017

Hillary Clinton & Nicholas Kristiof: Bringing Self-Pity and Self-Righteousness Together

To put your gag reflex to the ultimate test, try watching the entire 55-minute interview of Hillary Clinton at the Women in the World  Summit  Women conducted by New York Times columnist and fake humanitarian, Nicholas Kristof.  It is hard to say which of the two is more revolting.  Hillary Clinton,  just when we thought she might go away, like Jason in the Friday the 13th horror franchise – is  back, or, Nicholas Kristof, the Walter Duranty of our time, a relentless self-promoter, a tireless virtue signaler and a full-time water carrier for Hillary.  

The New York Times was one of the leading propaganda outlets for Hillary’s most recent failed bid to become the North American counterpart to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the Argentine (now, ex-) President, currently under indictment (Kirchner-corruption).  For those who don’t closely follow the horrors shows that make up South American politics, Nestor and Cristina Kirchner were the Bill and Hillary of the Pampas. This ambitious duo began as law school classmates. They married and quickly morphed into ruthless, leftist kleptocrats who ascended to the highest office in Argentina, governing as good Peronists always do, which is, to paraphrase President Obama  in 2010 addressing his adulators, “punish your enemies and reward your friends.”  

Cristina was luckier than Hillary, and not having the personality of an East German border guard probably didn’t hurt her either.  Unlike our own Lady Brezhnev of Chappaqua, la Señora Kirchner was able to succeed her husband, Nestor, as the first-elected woman President of Argentina in 2007.  He was bogged down by scandals and ill health and stepped aside after this first term for his wife to run. Nestor then in 2010 finally did his patriotic duty and died of a heart attack at age 60, leaving Cristina alone to complete the looting and exit office with multiple felonies hanging over her head.  One cannot help but wonder: if Hillary had won the recent election how soon Bill would have followed his Latin doppelganger to the great beyond.  The timing would have been perfect for her.  She no longer needed him. She never trusted him. She enjoys revenge and he did plenty to make her want it. Being a grieving widow for the Great Slickster would boost her poll numbers. No downside.

Back to the interview. The testosterone deficient Kristof who talks and comes off, for the lack of a better word, like a big sissy, one of those, goody-goody, suck-up-to-administration nerds from tenth grade student council, is always painful to watch.  A long-time Hillary court-lackey, Nicky was the right “woman” interlocutor in this Woman in the World Summit to bring out the inner-Hillary, the very best we have come to expect from the only Presidential candidate of a major party to run for office while under a major Federal investigation. 

Thus, he opens the conversation with the woman (shoe-in candidate) who shocked the world by losing to the man who Kristof spent months in his columns mocking as a clown, a buffoon, Mussolini-redux, who had no chance of winning: “We should offer you condolences, but maybe you should offer us condolences.”  This is vintage Kristof, oily, ingratiating, and, of course, needing to articulate at the beginning the premise of what this Summit is all about – holier-than-thou rituals of the privileged down-trodden, or as Bertrand Russell put it, the superior virtue of the oppressed.

Next comes the question we have all been breathlessly waiting for: “My social media followers want to know how Secretary Clinton is doing. So, [with a gentle therapist inflection] how are you doing?” Again, this is Kristof at his best.  Granted, he is a certified, high-placed Hillary-worshipper, but also being a Walter Duranty-style self-promoter, he wants everyone to know about his many “followers”.  He is not just any ordinary NYT leftwing know-it-all columnist like Tom Friedman: he feels your pain.  He is the voice of the voiceless, the personification of a movement.  Kristof knows well how his role in this encounter is to be played.  He must, Oprah-like, hit all the right therapeutic, inspirational cords.  Everyone has to feel good -- self-esteem can be fragile.  Shortly after the November election one of Kristof’s columns was “a 12 Step Program for Responding to President-Elect Trump.”  In the interview Kristof also had to adroitly channel the audience’s warmth, admiration and affection, but most importantly, the appreciation for Hillary’s goodness and selflessness had to be enhanced.    

This lead-off question, the “humanizing” question, is also the entrée into the perfectly choreographed, perhaps, first ever coronation of a loser.  Hillary’s response is, well, very Hillary with a minute or two about “long walks in the woods”, being a grandmother and some smelling the roses falderal.  The irony, of course, is that Hillary’s efforts to humanize herself simply make her look even more like what she really is and always has been– a soulless, political robot. Her answer comes off as – “let me get this obligatory and annoying preliminary Grandma nonsense quickly out of the way, and get down to the fundamentals: how wonderful I am, how terrible for the country that I lost and how unfair it all is to me.”  Welcome to a vast, collective spectacle of self-righteous self-pity.

What is so remarkable about this interview is how timeless it is, capturing Hillary as we have known her for decades.  There is not the slightest trace of humility. She always projects her short-comings on to her enemies who thwart her at every turn.  She appears to have no sense of responsibility for her failure and a barely dissimulated, pathological resentment for any and all who might question her sense of entitlement to power.  In her mind and in those of her followers, she did not lose the election. It was stolen from her.  She had underestimated the size of the “basket of deplorables” and the depths of its depravity.  A country with more of the right kind of people in it would have responded to her with a landslide. America last November was just not good enough for her.  With her superior virtue, talents, experience, whatever political legitimacy remains in the land rightfully belongs to her, and now, after a couple of “walks in the woods” she is rested and back. She intends to be “the real” President: Trump is the pretender.

Lest this be doubted, view the portion of the interview which is really the only piece in this self-serving farce that matters. Kristof finally gets to the point:  will you ever run for office again?  Everyone knows in advance what the real answer is.  Disappointing but entirely predictable is the artless response starting with fake hyperventilating, frantically clutching her bosom and some spastic head bobs, followed by several minutes of the usual sort of incoherent verbal smog that Hillary blows out whenever she gets a question she does not want to answer.

The question is not, will she run for office again, rather, it’s how much millage is left in the Clinton political machine.  As long the rich donors (foreign and domestic) give her money, potential rivals back off, and the stooges in the commentariat like Kristof continue to faun over her she will never give up.  There is nothing inside of her other than her sociopathic drive to be in power.  Right now it looks as if once again, we need to be Ready for Hillary.