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.                   


Sunday, April 2, 2017

Marquette University: the journey from Joe McCarthy to Angela Davis

Image result for angela davis wanted postersIs it possible to shame whoever is supposed to be in charge at Marquette University – The President, the Board of Trustees, a distinguished, influential Jesuit somewhere in residence, someone, anyone who might know even a little history from the last hundred years or so and understand what Communists do to Christians when they get power?  Not even remotely. The real operatives, the social justice priests at this pretend Catholic university apparently have deeply inhaled the same fetid vapors of the cultural Marxism that saturate every molecule of air at the most secular, anti-Christian universities such as Berkeley, or closer to home, the one in Madison.  From the MU website:

The Marquette Forum will host Dr. Angela Davis for a distinguished lecture on Wednesday, March 29 ….  Davis is a scholar, activist and sought-after speaker who has presented at dozens of universities….  This event is part of the Marquette Forum, a yearlong series of conversations inspired by visions of inclusion and a better world emerging from black freedom struggles.

Here is Orwell-inspired, DiversitySpeak perfected – anodyne, flawlessly crafted so as not to arouse suspicion that the foxes now guard the hen house, that the radicals at MU run the show and stage their phony PC-scripted lectures and discussions. No one can object to healthy “conversations”, especially ones “inspired by visions of inclusion.” Who could be opposed to “a better world” or cheering on the “freedom struggles” of anyone? This announcement in both content and style smacks of Soviet era agitprop, the technique of which is to show how morally immaculate you are by wrapping all the right words around yourself – “peace,” “justice,” “freedom,” “democracy.” Communist East Germany (euphemistically, The German Democratic Republic), it might be recalled, was so just, democratic, free and prosperous, that the Stalinists in charge needed to build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving and shot them whenever they tried.

What is omitted in the vapid, banal happy talk about the “scholar, activist and sought-after speaker” is that at 73 years of age, the life-long Marxist, Angela Davis, is not just some intellectually formidable village atheist imported to rattle the sheltered, complacent young Christians on campus.  Neither is she a 1960s-era, hallowed civil rights celebrity who happened to have mellowed out of a distant radical past and embraced American traditions and joined the Rotary Club. Her life’s mission continues to unfold with an unwavering, militant commitment to the destruction of what this 136 year-old Jesuit university is (supposed to be) all about. From Marquette University’s website:

Marquette University Guiding Values

Endorsed Dec. 8, 2014

In accordance with the Catholic, Jesuit mission and vision of Marquette University, we hold that all people and things are created to praise, reverence and serve God in our community and throughout the world, and thus every aspect of the university’s lifeblood and work holds this principle and foundation as its beginning and end. Therefore, we will enact the following values and behaviors in our lives and our work to serve the greater glory of God

One does not have to be a Jesuit-educated theologian or a philosopher to grasp that nowhere in any country that might have had the misfortune to be governed by this former Black Panther, FBI fugitive and Communist Party USA candidate for Vice President 1980 would any follower of MU’s Catholic, Jesuit mission – praising, revering and serving God – not find his life to be pure misery, assuming that he was not liquidated. Those at MU who extended the “distinguished lecture” invitation to Davis should review the video clip of her remarks in her pilgrimage in 1979 to Moscow where she accepted the Lenin Peace Prize, in her words,  “the esteemed peace prize bearing the glorious name of Vladimir Illich Lenin here on the soil where he led the great October Revolution.”  Sounds very reverential, doesn’t it? And, for a man whose violent hatred for religion could not be matched by anyone.
Davis was also feted in 1972 by the East German Stalinist, Erich Honecker, collecting honorary degrees, effusing praise and admiration for the GDR and denouncing her native land for its repression and racism. 

Most of those MU students who had hoped to be “inspired” by Davis’s “visions of inclusion” were likely unaware that after the “great October Revolution,” the “glorious” Lenin’s vision for the millions of Christians in the Russia he was about to turn into a “workers’ paradise” was somewhat less than inclusive.  In a 1922 letter to his ruling Politboro, Lenin outlined his approach to religious diversity in the young regime that was struggling to gain control over those who were somewhat less than enthusiastic about their prospects – show trials, followed by executions, public ones just to make sure everyone got the message.  The result,” he wrote, “of the trial is to be the execution, by public shooting, of a large number of the Chuya Black Hundreds as well as the shooting of as many as possible from Moscow and other important religious centers…  The more we shoot, the better it will be for us.” [Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999, pp 125-26, emphasis added] Lenin, and then his disciple, Stalin went on to obliterate Russian Christianity with an unprecedented savagery, as well as to persecute Islam.  The pattern was repeated by Communist dictatorships across the world, as in China, Cuba and the Soviet block in Eastern and Central Europe.  
That an institution like Marquette University would host and honor a militant atheist like Angela Davis, an implacable enemy of its sacred teachings, its religious faith and aspirations, someone who has made a life-long, worshipful embrace of Lenin’s October Revolution and the failed Communist regimes through out the last century that repressed, tortured and murdered millions of Christians all over the world, is just one more piece of the depressing evidence that resistance to the cultural Marxism that pervades even our once conservative, religious institutions has utterly collapsed.  

One of the curious and largely unnoticed ironies of this debacle is that Marquette University, so eager and enthusiastic to welcome an aging Communist radical peddling all the standard Marxist tropes, is that it is the alma mater of perhaps the most famous anti-Communist of all, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a 1935 graduate of its school of law. 
 It is a safe bet that very few of the current students at Marquette University Law School (MULS) are even aware that Joe McCarthy is an alumnus (LL.B., 1935) of the law school. This unawareness, however, is excusable. The halls, offices, and classrooms of most law schools are teeming with portraits, plaques, and busts of prominent alumni. It is not uncommon for law schools to name buildings, classrooms, courtrooms, professorships, and scholarships after prominent graduates. At MULS, however, Joe McCarthy-undoubtedly the law school's most famous alumnus and a man Lyndon B. Johnson said "will never be forgotten"-is persona non grata. [From, Jeffry S. Kinsler, Marquette Law Review, #2, 2001]

Indeed, even more than ever, Senator McCarthy remains a persona non grata at MU.  However, the irony, of course, is that this most anti- of anti-communists is an embarrassment to the cognitive-dissonant Jesuit Catholics at MU who at the same time roll out the red carpet for a speaker whose long, illustrious CV describes someone who might well be called the perfect American Bolshevik, a life-long apologist for communist butchers (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro) across the globe. Those who refuse to recognize their enemies, especially ones who are so open, consistent and brazen as Angela Davis, are a hopeless, pathetic lot.    

The pattern of philo-communism and PC-enforced, leftist identity politics is not, of course, unique to MU. It is a pervasive feature of higher education. Recently, Young America’s Foundation’s spokeswoman Emily Jashinsky told staff at the National Review “that there has been a “disturbing pattern of suppressing conservativism” on Jesuit campuses, citing DePaul University and Gonzaga University as the most recent instances of conservative speakers receiving significant backlash from university faculty.  Read more at:

For a parent seeking a Catholic university education for his child – some advice.  Skip Marquette University. Save the money and send the kid to a state university.  There is no difference.  

Sunday, March 19, 2017

The Exterminationist Left: Happy Trails to Zimbabwe


Three waves of massive extermination were conducted by Marxist regimes during the twentieth century. The first was Stalin’s Bolshevik terror famine during which five million Ukrainian farmers and their families perished in the early 1930s. It is difficult to be precise with the number of Chinese killed by Mao during the Great Leap Forward in the 1950s and 60s because the communist government of China still limits access to the archives with the demographics.  No one, however, disputes that the deaths topped off in the tens of millions.  In the 1970s Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered about a quarter of their fellow Cambodians. 

The dead victims in all three of these utopias in progress were selected by the “theorists” in charge who planned and carried out the cleansing operations guided by an ideology that had deciphered the progressive movement of history and identified those, shall we say, “irredeemables” who were not part of the improvement plan.  All three architects of mass murder (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot), by the way, died in advanced years in their beds, never to be held to account, Mao now slumbering away as a revered mummy in his ornate mausoleum in Tiananmen square.

Underway for some time is another Leftist planned extermination program.  The 21st century theorists like their 20th century predecessors are Marxists.  The Marxist foundational template is the same – “Revolution”.  Revolution is shorthand for the way Marxist history is supposed to unfold – a smaller number of designated oppressors (bad people) are overthrown by a larger number of the discovered oppressed (good people). It is important to note that there is no place for the oppressors once they are overthrown. These bad people, “bourgeoisie scum,” as Lenin called them,  get what they deserve, “liquidatation.”  

There are important differences, however, in the way this extermination is currently unfolding.  First, while the Marxist template (Revolution) remains the same, the place holders have been repositioned. Economic classes (the oppressor, bourgeois capitalist versus the oppressed workers, the proletariat) have been replaced by races (white European oppressors versus non-white oppressed third world people).  Second, this revolution is a softer one.  The oppressors are not being violently overthrown, murdered in mass or exiled.  They are much more complicit in their elimination, ultimately surrendering their heritage and obliterating their identity, succumbing to a steady stream of propaganda that stresses their collective guilt, losers in a Kulturkampf where speech and behavior that is deemed “insensitive” to people of color bring severe social sanctions and ostracization. “Hate speech” is a tool for the left to monopolize power and criminalize dissent.

The left now is ramping up this soft revolution with their trifecta of the “white privilege” indoctrination of our children in the schools and universities, the relentless insistence on pervasive, ubiquitous racism in American history and society, and the advocacy of open borders.  These are all of a single piece and the goal is not a colorblind, race-neutral society, free of discrimination and ethnic hatred, but the reduction of white Europeans to social and political irrelevancy, the elimination of their history and self-identity, and the purging of “whiteness” which now carries the eternal stain of racism and a permanent stigma of bigotry. 

American history has been reduced to a narrative largely focused on racial subjugation and discrimination, so successful for several generations in defining the American experience that room has been created for supplemental stories of exploitation and oppression – sexism, homophobia, most recently Islamophobia – dramatically inflating the legions of the oppressed, and defining with more precision the identity of the oppressor, white males.

Students now in schools and universities are increasingly being subjected to a program of moral blackmail that leverages ethnic guilt. The teaching of “white privilege”bears a strong resemblance to the “self-criticism” sessions of political reeducation during the Cultural Revolution in China.  Thus, courtesy of the Southern Law Poverty Center:

White skin privilege is not something that white people necessarily do, create or enjoy on purpose. Unlike the more overt individual and institutional manifestations of racism described above, white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions. First, it provides white people with “perks” that we do not earn and that people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us. White people are immune to a lot of challenges. Finally, white privilege shapes the world in which we live — the way that we navigate and interact with one another and with the world.”

What then might be a rational response be from a white person subjected to the airing of a grievance of such magnitude? Since these sorts of tendentious deceptive semantics are impossible to refute – “whiteness” being so slippery and malleable an abstraction it can perform whatever subversive tasks are required of it – the only rational response is not to take it seriously, the way one would ignore an orating crackpot on a street corner.  But the targets for this ethnic demolition are captive children and young people who do not understand what is at stake and are not quite up to fighting off professional indoctrinators. Clearly, the whiteness of “white privilege” is no less than an inherent, unalterable corruption, and whether or not any given individual white person bows to the cudgel, the widespread importation of “white privilege” teaching into the schools and universities as a social engineering tool helps to manufacture feelings of the sort of collective guilt that sets up future generations of “white folks” who can be more easily duped, manipulated and willing to assist in their destruction.     

There is an old saying that the victors of war get to write the history of the world. White privilege works this way, too. Since white folks have been in control for so long, we have determined what is valuable or interesting or useful in terms of education. Greek and Roman mythology, Chaucer, and other canonized works have been selected and revered through the ages as critical components of any “solid liberal arts education.”

You cannot help but relish the candor expressed with this and wonder why any sane white person would cooperate with such an obvious attempt at intimidation and extortion. No dissimulation of raw, racial resentment, and not even the pretense of a win-win outcome is suggested here – whites have been in control for too long.  It is time for them to capitulate and come to know what subjugation really feels like. There is neither a moral nor a self-interested reason to respond affirmatively to this.

White privilege is the corollary of racism, ubiquitous, and so deeply entrenched in white-controlled and white dominated America, so pervasive and in so many recondite forms, that a white America without racism is virtually unthinkable. Here is how former President Barack Obama explains it to a recent interlocutor.

Obama: What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow. And that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it.

Maron: Racism.

Obama: Racism. We are not cured of it.

Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in 2016, not to be outdone by her former boss had this to add to the genetics of Obama: We all have implicit biases. They are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia. And what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them.”

How something can “almost” be in the DNA is a bit puzzling, but don’t bother. It has been a problem for thousands of years, so things will not change soon. In her 2016 Presidential campaign Hillary Clinton in a brief moment of honesty before her LGBT followers slipped out of her tightly regimented script and went full-Leninist to share her feelings about the supporters of her rival, Donald Trump.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up….  Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Yes, we know. The picture now should be coming into a very sharp focus: whether they will admit it or not, these recalcitrant, racist white folks, as any good contemporary Marxist will happily explain to you, are the oppressor class. Do not expect them to happily renounce their unearned and undeserved privilege they daily use imperceptibly to exploit and discriminate against non-white people. As our former geneticist-in chief informed us, discrimination derives from a racism that is embedded in our DNA with no “cure” in sight. Obama is being his usual disingenuous self when he says “our DNA” when he really means the DNA of the oppressor-discriminators. What Marxism 101 teaches is that the oppressor class never voluntarily steps aside to make room for the oppressed:  Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot overthrew them and then killed them.

What then to do about these DNA infected, racist irredeemables, the oppressors who dismantled Jim Crow fifty years ago, but who still, as Vice President Joe Bidden so elegantly put in back in 2012, “They're going to put y'all back in chains”?

The Stalinist, Maoist approach, so last-century, is not necessary. Bring on part three, open borders, a final solution, so to speak, that eliminates white privilege and the white racist infrastructure that keeps it in place by flooding the country with third world people in sufficient quantities to displace those“white folks”too long in control.  This has been going on in California since the 1965 immigration law change, and the most populous state is now sufficiently non-white as to give open-borders, Hillary Clinton most of her two-plus million vote majority in the last November election.  If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were to have their way, in a few short years, the entire country would be “Cali-fornicated” and that “basket of deplorables” would no longer be a problem. 

To get a glimpse of what the elimination of white privilege in its final stages looks like and how to put the oppressors out of business, African Marxist, Robert Mugabe, perhaps, best shows the way.  As Ilana Mercer illustrates in her recent book, Into Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Mugabe in a few short decades turned Rhodesia, the bread basket of Africa into a third world hell hole, expelling and murdering the white farmers who produced the food and ultimately the wealth.  But Mugabe was an illustrious member of the oppressed race, and even though he wrecked the country and murdered thousands of people, black and white, he dismantled white privilege.  This made him into an international star of sorts, a particular favorite at western universities such as Edinburgh, U-Mass, and Michigan State University where he was bestowed with tributes along with honorary degrees. 

The revolutionary freedom fighter was spokesperson and cherished idol of the anti-apartheid growth industry abroad. It took decades and piles of dead bodies before Robert Mugabe lost luster in the eyes of the American mainstream media.  Mercer, Ilana. Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa (p. 134). Bytech Services. Kindle Edition.  

Michigan State University must have forgotten Mugabe's success in dismantling white privilege and in 2008 stripped him of the doctorate awarded eighteen years prior. 
Michigan State University trustees Friday stripped Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe of an honorary law degree it gave him in 1990, citing a pattern of human rights abuses and political repression. Mugabe led the successful struggle to overcome White minority rule over what then was called Rhodesia. But he now faces wide domestic and international opposition because of Zimbabwe’s economic collapse and his crackdown on opponents.

The American people have just finished eight years of being governed by a version of Robert Mugabe-Lite. Mrs. Mugabe was anointed and waiting in the wings with, we can be quite sure, her plans for that “basket of deplorables,” her very own Untermenschen who are really not part of America.  Much to the chagrin of our sneering  overlords, she was upended by the Orange Man who may at least slow down our own miserable forced march to Zimbabwe.