The “Basket of Deplorables” – Long Reign the Trumpster

“Mao then turned on Jiang Qing: ‘You're someone who has grandiose aims but puny abilities, great ambition but little talent. You look down on everyone else.’”

Roderick MacFarquhar. Mao's Last Revolution (Kindle Locations 2753-2754). Kindle Edition.

------------------------------------------------------

Does this sound like another woman we all knew too well?  In reading this castigation by Chairman Mao of his crazy, radical wife during the Cultural Revolution one wonders if Hillary Clinton could have once endured a similar scolding from her President husband.  It would be difficult to render a more fitting and succinct tribute to her character and abilities.  

Case in point: on September 9^th Hillary Clinton was speaking at the LGBT for Hillary Gala in New York City on Sept. 9, 2016.  This was how the standard bearer for party of tolerance, compassion and inclusion chose to describe the rank and file of the opposition party.

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables …. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it….  Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/

Well, yes, “thankfully” she had all of those NYC transgendered folks around her to keep her grounded in the real America, not like, say, the coal miners she wanted to see unemployed and were enthusiastic about a candidate who did not want to turn them into welfare clients.

In more normal times, such a scurrilous, vicious smear from a major party Presidential candidate would have reverberated across the news outlets and media channels as a colossal blunder.  But these were not normal times and Hillary Clinton was not a normal candidate.  When I say “normal” I am not speaking of the usual boundaries of personality that typically circumscribe a nationally prominent political candidate. Trump  certainly broke the mold in that regard, and to the extent that Hillary had a personality at all it is hard to imagine that it was composed of anything other than the dueling banjos of ambition and avarice.

By a “normal” candidate I mean one who operates, broadly speaking, within the traditions and norms of American politics.  Instead this U.S. election with the suborning of the FBI and the unprecedented collusion between Clinton’s campaign and the organs of the mainstream media resembled more the sort of a sleaze-filled farce of shadowy fixers and fraudsters that you would see coming out of a fake Presidential contest in Argentina or Ukraine. 

In an article “No Consequences From Media Peers for Reporters Caught Colluding With Hillary” in Observer Politics Evan Gahr wrote:

“[I]f you’re a Politico or New York Times scribe or CNBC anchor John Harwood and hacked emails emerge that reveal you outright colluding with Hillary Clinton campaign—by giving advice or providing the communications director “veto” power over what to include from your interview with the candidate or allowing campaign chair John Podesta veto power over your stories … [y]our media friends will not censure you or even scold you—in fact, they don’t bother to contact you directly. Instead, you can hide between a crafty spokesman who won’t even answer specific questions but acts like he’s the publicist for some elusive Hollywood star and that a journalist determined to ask standard pointed questions is actually pining to profile him for Vanity Fair.” http://observer.com/2016/10/no-consequences-from-media-peers-for-reporters-caught-colluding-with-hillary/

Clinton was exempt from rules everyone else had to play by, was in cahoots with the top people running the news coverage for the campaign. The so-called guardians of the “independent” fourth estate were part of the Democrats campaign team.  Some of them ended up as moderators for the television debates, Hillary stooges who gave her a pass and beat up on Trump while pretending to be journalists.  They were carrying on the Candy Crowley tradition of openly flaking for whoever was the Democrat candidate.

Here is Howard Kutz from Fox News. “Carl Cannon, executive editor of Real Clear Politics—and no Trump admirer—says that if Clinton wins, “the 2016 election will be remembered as one in which much of the mainstream media all but admitted aligning itself with the Democratic Party.”  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/25/are-media-taking-victory-lap-over-donald-trump.html

This massive display of corruption and collusion seemed to have no negative fall out for the Clinton campaign. Of course.  This was news, and the news-people were in the bag for Hillary. Did Pravda ever blow the whistle on Brezhnev?  It turns out, however, that the mainstream media organs had soiled themselves so completely that their biases and distortions no longer  resonated. To experience schadenfreude like none other, look at some of the pre-election You Tube videos with mainstream media pundits giddy in their predictions of a landslide victory for Hillary, and then the shock and horror when Hillary's  victory turned into a cruel mirage. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5nPi85x4CA) When evidence of the doom of Trump's electoral victory became certain, watching the meltdown of certified fantasist, Brian Williams, and the usually smirking Rachael Maddow on MSNBC could not be more enjoyable.
 

Being one of those un-Americans in that “basket of deplorables” I have a good idea what she had in mind for all of us who are beyond redemption (the “irredeemables”) once she was in power -- the Platonic form of vindictiveness.

An unfettered Hillary Clinton in office would resemble the East German Stalinist, Erich Honecker. She had called the Republicans the “enemies she was most proud of”. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-has-no-regrets-about-calling-republicans-her-enemy-they-say-terrible-things-about-me-2/  What fetters or impediments could have possibly obstructed a President Hillary Clinton ? 

The Supreme Court?  Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer likely had their retirement letters ready and waiting for President Clinton, and with the vacancy of Justice Scalia’s seat, in a very short time the court would have been stocked with those sort of “progressives” to rubber stamp whatever depredations Hillary had in mind. A vastly expanded application of “hate speech” to rationalize an attack on talk radio and more generally to suppress dissent would have been put into place. We would have seen efforts at consistent law enforcement to be further undermined by an officially sanctioned “implicit racial bias” (every cop a presumed racist) creating a permanent “state of war” between minority communities and local police.  More rioting anyone? More Al Sharptons?

The Republican in Congress?  First of all, there would be fewer of them as Hillary would have flooded the red states with third world immigrants, more clients and voters for the regime.  Remember when Republicans used to be able to compete for the electoral votes in California? Not since 1984.  Did third world immigration over the last three decades have anything to do with changing that?  California would have been Hillary’s model for the entire country.  The 2020 Presidential election would be a Democrat landslide of 45 or more states. 

Second of all, the Republican establishment had turned out to be less of the “enemy” of Hillary than she may have thought, preferring the certainty of her corruption to the anti-establishment Trump.  Since they stabbed Trump in back and despised the rank and file who nominated him, those deplorables (a very large chunk of Republican voters) no longer trusted them and would no longer vote for them.  Why should they have? Since the Republicans would have had no serious constituency for the Democrats to respect or fear, Hillary and her cronies would treat them with the contempt and disdain they deserve.

The Press and the Media?  We now know what to expect from this bunch – trained seals who want to be cozy with the rich and powerful. 

The universities, academia, the intellectual class committed to the pursuit of truth and the sanctity of free expression?  Just kidding.

There would have been nothing in Clinton’s path and her revenge against the “basket of deplorables” would have had two broad features.

First, with the assistance of the media, the marginalization of political opposition.  The primary instruments used would have been a stepped up the “hate” smear campaign and relentless attacks with charges of racism, sexism.  “[Y]ou name it”, as Hillary said to LGBT faithful as she rattled off the list of the standard smears.  This would have been a lot more from where that came from. 

Hillary's strategy all along was to turn all potential opposition on the right into Klansmen or Nazis, stereotyped creatures of low intelligence and primitive animosities.  People like this, of course, have no place on the political spectrum other than the far fringes where they can be alternately ridiculed or ignored, or perhaps even, punished.  Hillary and her pitchmen were constantly trying to link Trump to Klansman David Duke, notwithstanding her friendship and expressed admiration for ex-Klansman, Robert Bird, Democrat Senator from West Virginia.  See: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/25/hillary-clinton-friend-mentor-robert-byrd-kkk/

Second, Hillary would ramp up the Progressive modus operandi of pathologizing her opponents' resistance to the massive encroachment of government into every aspect of social life and the progressive assault on religious freedom.  Homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, “you name it,” as she clucked to the trained seals in her transgendered audience. 

This proliferation of “phobias” is by design of the left yet another way to marginalize people who disagree with them.  Phobias are a kind of mental illness, and hence irrational. Irrational people cannot be taken seriously except as threats to themselves or those around them.  If you object to unrestricted immigration from the various hellholes across the world, you are a “xenophobe”.  If you have a traditional view of marriage, you are a “homophobe”.  If you think bringing a lot of young Muslim males into the country from places like Syria and Somalia is not a good idea you are “Islamophobic.”  You do not argue, debate or reason with phobic people. You ignore them, or, if necessary, repress them.  They “thankfully” as Hillary said are “not America”, that is that social-political part of America where people get to compete in making their case for their beliefs and their way of life. By being “sick” in this intended psychiatric-phobic sense, a person loses the respect and consideration for his wishes and opinions and potentially even the legal protection of his freedom and property.  Refuse to sell a wedding cake to gay couple and see what happens. Don't want your daughters to share bathrooms and shower with guys who like to think they are girls?  This was just the beginning. 

So, rather than watching Hillary waddle into the White House totting her 30 years of documented corruption and an unrelenting hostility toward what a lot of us still believe are great American values and traditions, in stepped the Great Refusnik, the Orange Man, Donald Trump.   “Clintonism” with its 3 “Cs” – corruption, collusion, coercion -- is in the dustbin of history. Long reign the Trumpster.  

  

   

   

If Hillary Wins

“But we – Communists, the party – will not divide power with anyone.”

These words were uttered by Anatoly Lukyanov, Secretary of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1987 at a time when just four years separated the Soviet Union from collapse and dissolution. Some thirty years later the U. S. is on the brink of destroying its political-cultural system of limited government.  The words of Lukyanov suitably edited compose the “Vision Statement” of todays Democrat party.  This vision underlies its drive to a one party state where it completely owns all of the power.  No competition allowed.  We are almost there.

To achieve its goal of making the U.S. like Brazil or Argentina, the Democrat party with no shame or conscience has surrendered to a grifter of herculean stature, a Brezhnev-like robot straight out of a dark political satire.  That this dreary, humorless harridan is triumphantly waddling toward the White House cheer led by the propaganda organs of the media syndicates, Wall Street and the Hollywood idiots, signals the inauguration of a one-party state and the descent into a full blown kleptocracy.  Hillary will be our very own Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the Argentine corruption-queen President who followed in the footsteps of her President husband, Néstor, after he croaked.  The parallels with Bill and Hillary really are quite disturbing, although the randy ex-president has been more physically durable than his Latin doppelganger, Mr. Kirchner.

The Democrats have ceased to regard the Republicans as a party of loyal opposition.  Obama calls them his “enemies”.   Hillary has reduced them to Klansmen, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.  You don’t do business or share power with your enemies. You don’t respect and cooperate with Nazis: you eliminate them.  

The Republican establishment has yet to figure this out. They still think that American politics operates with Marquess of Queensberry rules:  the Democrats, however, have for a long time been channeling Vladimir Lenin and have only one rule, which is: there are no rules.  Whatever puts them in power – lying, suborning, cheating, character assassination, pay-to-play – stays in the playbook. “You gotta do what you gotta do”,

as Bill Clinton quipped to Bob Dole after he whipped him in 1996.
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/you-gotta-do-what-you-gotta-do-bill.html

Obama, the community organizer, has normalized the Bolshevik-inspired Alinsky approach to politics in his now nearly eight years in office, employing his favorite Alinsky rule, number five: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.” Republicans have typically been about concessions, trying to show the Democrats and their propagandists that they really are not the bigots and racists that Democrats unrelentingly accuse them of being.  Please, I am not a racist! How can I show you?  Not a real strong bargaining position. Donald Trump and his Republican supporters are now the target of a massive, unprecedented campaign of ridicule and character assassination. Trump has been cast out of the mainstream, not to be considered as a legitimate contender for power, but as the tool of brutal atavistic political chauvinism, a water carrier for the KKK.  There is a close analog here with how the Communist Party in the Soviet Union denounced any and all opposition to their rule as “fascist”, thus completely outside the pale.  Racism is the American version of fascism for the Democrats.  If you oppose them, you are a racist and racists are not legitimate competitors, they are enemies, “haters of people not like themselves”.  “Racism” is the ultimate “Orwellianism” of our time as it is the tool of powerful ideologues who use race as a political weapon of division, vituperation and rancor and who despise anyone outside of their ideological orbit as morally and intellectually defective.

We now appear to be close to an end-game. The Republican establishment has thrown in with Hillary fully immersed in the delusion that their party can survive yet another Clinton presidency.  Some of them appear to believe that Hillary will be a one-term president, being awful enough that the Republicans can look forward to a restoration in 2020.  This is laughable. The Clintons, aligned as they are with the major organs of social and political power, now have no fear of accountability or lawful constraint. In the next four years Hillary will turn the Supreme Court a mutual admiration society of Marxist intellectuals pleased to stamp their imprimaturs on her depredations. President Hillary will flood the red states with federal dollar handouts and third world immigrants to enrich the Democrat client base and turn the country, electorally, into what we now see in California. Al Sharpton will likely have a cabinet appointment and ex-President Obama will be ubiquitously bloviating and excoriating his former “enemies”, the Republicans before his trained seals in the mainstream media. The 2020 Presidential election will be a Democrat landslide of 45 to 48 states with the Republicans blamed for the deteriorating economy and the continuous black rioting in the Democrat-run, rotting American big cities.

 

Twenty-First Century Leninists

The republicans are a bunch of moronic idiots!

                                                          Bill Maher

 

The man who took Communism from theoretical enchantment into gruesome reality for millions of people entered the world in 1871 in a backwater providence of the Russian empire as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.  Before 1917 he was little known outside of professional revolutionary circles and the Okhrana, the Russian Imperial Police. When he died in 1924, he was famous world-wide as Lenin, the number one Bolshevik, master-mind of the October Revolution and architect of the first Socialist society.  His party had toppled the Provisional Government, in place nine months after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.  Lenin personally ordered the defenseless captive Tsar to be murdered along with his entire family. The savage killing of the royal family was a foretelling of Bolshevik humanity for all those whose “backgrounds” would make them unfit to participate in the new order.

In death, Lenin left for his revolutionary posterity, Leninism, a fearsome ideological assault arsenal used to frame the enemy, stalwarts of the old corrupt order in the most violent, scurrilous fashion and render them as fully dehumanized objects of loathing and contempt.  From the verbal violence then proceeded the physical abuse and destruction. 

It was, Lenin, a master of scorn and vituperation who invented a raging disputation style that would become the twentieth-century prototype of Communist polemical abuse for vanquishing rivals.  Stalin would perfect it. In order to grasp the full import of Leninist polemics and why it seems to be a permanent fixture in contemporary Left-wing discourse one must first grasp the Leninist view of the political universe.

Lenin was an anti- modernist  in politics, if one understands by “modern” in politics a willingness to vie for power within a framework  of mutually agreed upon rules (formal and informal) of competition, procedural protocol and power sharing.  The emergence of the concept and practice of “loyal opposition” found in constitutional governments embodied a set of norms, including mutual respect, civil disagreement and political compromise, that permitted vigorous political competition and orderly and non-violent transfers of power within a stable political and legal system.   

This kind of modernism was an anathema to Lenin and his followers.   Politics for them was and is total war.  When they possess power no opposition is permitted, loyal or otherwise; when they have to compete for it they seek to destroy the opposition.  Politics-as-total-war was derived from the absolute certainty Lenin held for his ideological convictions.   His intellectual arrogance rendered him incapable of imagining that he might be mistaken and that his opponents might have something to offer.  Lenin’s opposition was not just wrong; it was morally debased, fit only to be purged.   Lenin did not debate, argue or converse with his opponents.  He harangued and insulted them.  Language for him was not an instrument of persuasion.  It was a weapon used to malign and dismiss.   He possessed an expansive lexicon of abuse:  “scum”, “insects”, “cockroaches”, “bedbugs” and “vermin” were some of his favorite designations for those who resisted his plans or were insufficiently enthusiastic.  Lenin was particularly loathing of religion and when in power sought to exterminate every vestige of it.

Lenin as a theorist, however, was very modern, if one understands by “modern” in theory, a recondite etiology of systemic oppression that is couched in a ponderous language of rarified abstractions by our contemporary post-modern illuminati who occupy the scholarly chairs in our universities.  “Theory” for our post-modern practitioners is always about identifying, “unmasking” as it is usually said, a class of exploiters and oppressors who hide behind a façade of conventional morality that justifies their privilege.

When we move nearly one hundred years forward from the Bolshevik Revolution and their consolidation of power, the Leninist-style of political discourse is enthusiastically embraced in many quarters, but is especially a staple of contemporary Leftist polemics.  The blue collar, robustly anti-Communist Democrat Party of the 1950s and early 1960s has moved far to Left and is now comprised of trial lawyers, teacher union activists, angry feminists, preening Hollywood celebrities and the Ivy League professoriate.  They combine self-righteous moral indignation with abuse and scorn for those whose social and political views differ from their own.  Convinced of their own vast intellectual and moral superiority they are all about sneering, mockery and vituperation. They do not comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with their ideas, oppose their programs or resist their policies.  And so those who do must fall into one or more of the following categories: they can only be stupid, greedy or bigoted.  There is no need to debate, argue or converse.  Insults and abuse are the order of the day.  They, of course, exude compassion for the less fortunate, care about “the planet” and evince a complete grasp of the complexities of the modern world.

Their Republican adversaries look out only for the very rich, do not care if they pollute the water and the air, force women into back allies for abortions and know nothing about science or art.  They are routinely denounced as Nazis, as racist bigots and as ignorant, stupid Neanderthals. Those who embrace traditional Christianity are regarded as particularly offensive and are targets of mockery and disdain.  Special vitriol is reserved for politically conservative women by the influential media-entertainment impresarios. Recently one of the Democrats prominent pundits, Bill Maher, whose abusive and foul routines pass for his many followers as witty and enlightened commentary, referred Sarah Palin as a “cunt” and a “dumb twat.”     

          The Democrat Party has become Leninist in its attitude and style, especially in the undisguised contempt its leaders and spokesmen routinely show for their fellow citizens who hold different political views.  Politics for them is indeed total war. This is evident from their language, their relentless ad hominem attacks, the complete absence of any sense on their part of fair play and loyal opposition.  It is not difficult to envision what Maher and his followers would like to do to the “scum” who displease them if they were able.