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.

 

Century Twenty-one: the Desolate March*

Moral nihilism is not only the central feature of National Socialism, but also the common factor between it and Bolshevism.** 

                                                               Hugh Seton-Watson

The twenty-first century is well underway. We can readily contemplate the remarkable, socially and morally transforming effects of these powerful, intermingling forces that have come into ascendancy: personalism, a proto-modern ideological system that urges the pursuit and enlargement of the subjective self, liberated from the confines of repressive, traditional institutions; therapy, that seeks to nurture and speak reassuringly to that subjective self and that identifies what forces may impede its growth and development; and amusement (particularly in the electronic form) that conjures up for the restless subjective self, programs for stimulation, provides endless possibilities for self-expression, and  promises everyone diverse opportunities for temporary escape. The twenty-first century is the perfect time and place for the nihilist and the hedonist.

In such a volatile, connected world, with so many changes and so much uncertainty, one discovers what seems to be a persistent, devilish play of the ironic in human events. History has always been a perverse affair. It is also often cruelly ironic, as Edward Gibbon, writing of the decadence of an earlier great civilization, the Roman empire, brilliantly demonstrated over two hundred years ago. Human beings, when they come to be measured against the goodness and greatness of their Gods, can only be regarded as feeble, deluded creatures. Says Gibbon in one of his bitterest, ironic musings:

The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as she descended from Heaven arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian.  He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth among a weak and degenerate race of beings.

Gibbon pits the theologian against the historian. These two classes of theorists represented for Gibbon two perennial philosophical archetypes for interpreting or understanding the deep complexities of the human condition.  Theology, understood in this context, is a theoretical dreaming, the corruption of the Christian faith by metaphysics and superstition. The “theologian” comprehends (or invents) and dwells upon the possibilities of perfection—hence perhaps the delusion-based pleasure of believing that man can achieve something approximating divinity and escape his limitations. Gibbon’s theologian was transmogrified in the twentieth into the most grotesque and dangerous of all creatures, the ideologue. The ideologue, the man of total revolution, sought to recreate society and make man perfect.

The historian by contrast is a moral pathologist, a moral philosopher, actually, grounded in the knowledge of the constraining realities of human nature. He probes reluctantly, with a “melancholy duty,” into the many human aspirations that seem to descend into folly. He measures the expressed aspirations against the actual accomplishments. In these investigations, he often discovers the processes of degradation. The historian in a way has the worst of it since what he must return to, again and again, is the stark, unavoidable reality of human arrogance, folly and corruption.

History, therefore, must often become a mocking and deeply melancholy scene. The irony of history thus is all too often cruel and wildly perverse. In the narratives of success and failure, history captures painfully the disparity between the reaches of human aspirations and the reality of their achievement, grotesque applications of the law of unintended consequence—efficiency experts who produce less work, social reformers who make peoples’ lives even more miserable than imagined, spiritual leaders who degrade their followers below the level of beasts, utopias that turn into hells. History manages to highlight the dominance of human pride and arrogance. Nowhere, I would suggest, does this observation strike with more force and vivacity than in the contemplation of the events of the twentieth century. Never has there been a time in which we have collectively possessed such immense bodies of knowledge and so much material capacity to advance it. Never before have the technologies been so powerful and so rich with potential, and the aspirations so ambitious and full of confidence. Yet with all of this, the ironic lesson is the danger of losing sight of our own limitations: and with that vital loss of moral understanding we find ourselves on a desolate march.

*Excerpted from Stephen Paul Foster, Desolation's March: the Rise of Personalism and the Reign of Amusement in 21st-America, Bethesda, Md. Academica Press, 2003.
 Complete electronic copy free on demand.

**Quoted from: Robert Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, Norton, 2000.