“Racism” – It's Time to Repudiate the Guilt

Does any sane person who pays the slightest attention to the talking heads from the television (MSNBC) and cable networks (CNN), or the news and opinion writers for the New York Times or the Washington Post believe that racism is ever going to lessen anywhere in the western world? Only a fool would bet on that particular outcome. Why? In a word: “Racism” is the gift that keeps on giving.

How did this come about?  “Racism” in the 1950s was a term then with a much more precise, recognizable meaning than it has today. It was largely limited in its circulation to liberal intellectuals and academics who studied the history of slavery and contemplated racial segregation in post-WWII America. Jim Crow was in place then with segregated schools, public facilities and businesses, double standards of expectations and accountability for blacks and whites, all premised on a widespread white perception that blacks were … well, generally, less capable, less reliable, less intelligent than whites. The segregation was well entrenched (de jure in the south; de facto in the north) and blacks in America were significantly poorer, less healthy, less educated than whites as well as feeling the daily sting of the indignities, along with suffering the hostilities, mistreatment and condescension of whites.

By coincidence, the American conquerors about this time were just finishing their occupation of defeated Germany, the occupation prolonged for years because the Americans felt they needed to remain as long as it took to make sure that the German people were completely free of this nasty “superior race” nonsense they had imbibed from the Charlie Chaplain mustachioed Austrian corporal and his henchmen who had brought most of Europe to ruins. Which proved finally to be a bit embarrassing for Americans, at least for those who recalled that their soldier boys, who were sent far across the ocean to dispose of the racist Hitler and stay and teach the Die Herren und Frauen to love democracy and recite Thomas Jefferson’s “self-evident” truth, “that all men are created equal,” came over in racially segregated units. President Truman’s desegregation order for the Armed Services didn’t come until 1948. Black American soldiers fighting oversees for equality came home to segregated public facilities, lunch counters and schools.

It was judged past time for a correction in these matters, and so it would be. Beginning in the 1950s, the dismantling of segregation and the criminalization of racial discrimination was launched. With the landmark “Brown versus the Board of Education” the Federal government forcibly desegregated the public schools. By the 1960s the conscience of white America was convicted of its racial iniquities. The correction was soon at top speed with the civil rights movement leading the way, and the rest, as they say, is history. In the five decades that followed the equalizing of black and white America became “mission central” with the legislatures creating and the courts enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the areas of housing, employment, government contracting and education, including the forced bussing of school children. Massive federal aid flowed to the heavily black-populated cities like Detroit, burned down by black rioters in the middle-late 1960s. Affirmative Action and EEOC, came into being with strict compliance requirements for universities and employers to make room for members of “underrepresented” groups. Across the country schools and universities focused their pedagogy on the evils of racism, the history of slavery and segregation and the moral imperative of “equality.” Blacks moved into prominent positions in every region of American culture and life, including the American presidency, Secretary of State, Attorney General and the U.S. Supreme Court. Utterance of the “n-word” for whites became a career-killer and a ticket to social ostracism.  An entire new industry, the “diversity” industry, came into being, its employees moving into business, education and government, tasked to promote the interests and guard the feelings of officially designated victims of discrimination, and to subject the would be discriminators to programs of reeducation where they learned about “white privilege,” microaggressions and how to “celebrate diversity.”

By 2009 with Jim Crow long dead and the jubilant inauguration of America’s first black President, elected in a still majority-white country, one might be tempted to think that the “racism” that marked racially segregated America in the 1950s had been vanquished or at least diminished enough to make everyone optimistic about the future of race-relations.  Wrong!  In the last year of his Presidency (2015) Barack Obama in an interview made the following observation:

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.”

Interviewer: “Racism”

Obama: “Racism. We’re not cured of it.”

What then were we to make of this “DNA” metaphor? Unfortunately, few, if any of the cognoscenti who constantly lecture Americans 24x7 on the ubiquity of “racism” and daily pounce on yet another politician or celebrity who breaks the strict rules of “Diversity-Speak,” bothered to decode the President’s remarks so that the average American might get a sense of what he was in for. They can be boiled down to: “Racism has always been the defining feature of American life and will be far into the future.” What then, we might wonder, is the “cure,” and who gets to say that it has been successful and the patient is whole and released from treatment?     

These questions expose the disingenuousness typical of Obama on the subject of race. The “our DNA” is white DNA, and the “racism” that “we’re not cured of” is “white racism” – there is no other kind in today’s America that will be countenanced. Obama chose the wrong metaphor.  His view of race is better expressed in theological terms. “Racism” is America’s “original sin.” It was, and still is, committed exclusively by white people, and no matter what metaphor you care to use, consider it a permanent fixture of American society. “We shall overcome someday.” But, sorry Pal, not today. With sin comes guilt, and white America now finds itself confronted with guilt, virtually unlimited guilt.

Guilt that comes in unlimited quantities can be a very valuable commodity for the right sort of “entrepreneurs” who know how to make it pay out in long term dividends, particularly when those dividends are of, shall we say, a material kind. Guilt makes most people feel really bad, remain highly vulnerable and willing to do things of an extreme nature to be free of it, things that may have little to do with the source of the guilt and may be highly detrimental to their self-interest and well being.

Guilt, in effect, can open the door to a form of extortion, moral extortion, if you will. When you feel guilty because you believe that you have done something harmful to someone, the person you have harmed has a moral advantage over you, so to speak. That person is the innocent party; you are the guilty party. You are in his debt. You owe him … something.  It may be an apology, change of behavior or attitude, or maybe compensation.  Relieving the guilt becomes a moral transaction and both parties (the injurer and the injured) have a responsibility to act in good faith and bring the transaction to a conclusion.    

Ah, yes, “the conclusion” and here is the rub. Atonement is the performance side of guilt – giving what you owe to the innocent party, doing what you need to do to atone for the wrong. The corollary of unlimited guilt is unlimited atonement (no conclusion), and when what you “owe” becomes unlimited the person you “owe” is no longer innocent, and you are no longer a free, accountable person making moral-spiritual restitution. You are a pawn being manipulated, being used to someone else’s advantage. Good faith has given way to exploitation. From being the sinner, you are now the sinned-against.

Unlimited guilt is what makes Obama’s “racism” a tool of moral extortion. An extortionist never says, “OK, your debt is paid; your obligation is fulfilled.” No, the blackmailer always comes back for more and ups the ante. “Not enough; I need more – until you are cured. I’ll let you know when that happens. Trust me.” “Racism,” however, never, ever, diminishes. Rather it becomes ever more insidious, protean, if you will, with forms and manifestations, heretofore unheard of – “systemic racism,” “economic racism,” “environmental racism,” “institutional racism,” the inventory expands almost daily. Moreover, “racism has provided the “ism” template (“sexism,” “ableism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “transphobia”) for the rapid expansion of the diversity industry, with other large groups of the suitably injured and aggrieved, recruited to leverage new categories of guilt and make them pay dividends. 

How does the “racism” create the moral leverage that makes the extortion work so effectively?  First, it opens up a vast moral distance between the accuser and the accused. When someone denounces someone else as a “racist,” this act publicly affirms both, the accuser’s moral superiority, and the moral degeneracy of the accused. Since racism is the very worst of human pathologies, deeply embedded in the personality, the accuser by virtue of both recognizing and confronting this evil individual, gives confirmation of a moral superiority and rectitude of the highest order.  And, since the targets of racist are members of oppressed and exploited groups, the accuser’s virtue shines even brighter since he is speaking truth-to-power, he becomes a beacon of moral courage, taking a stand against bigotry and hatred. 

There is another kind of leverage that makes the extortionist demand virtually invincible. With “racism” being in one’s “DNA,” as Obama put it, the guilt is indisputable and inextinguishable. Remember, “we’re not cured of it.” No white person has ever convinced his accuser that he is not a “racist” and never will. Apologizing (Please, I am not a racist) or indignantly denying it simply ups the extortionist leverage of the term while the accused squirms like a worm on a hook. It’s a Catch 22. Once “racism’ is entrenched (“in our DNA,” “not cured”), game, set, match. This, of course, gives a lie to the rhetoric of “healing,” “reconciliation” and ultimately to “forgiveness,” cover-language used to soften and disguise the coercion and give the extortion a patina of moral legitimacy. But the accuser has no interest in reconciliation or incentive to forgive. With reconciliation, the “gift” would have to stop giving. Diversity professionals would have to find another source of employment.  Al Sharpton would not longer be called, “Reverend, ” and would likely be in prison.

A turning point in American history was the 2016 Presidential election when the obsession with “racism” was raised to a level of collective hysteria with Donald Trump routinely characterized by the entire main stream media and the opposition party as another Adolf Hitler, a 21^st-century, pogrom-planning fascist, broadly supported by voters (62 million people) motivated entirely by racial prejudice and hatred. The most memorable and appalling moment of the contest was Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” denunciation of Trump supporters as “racists, sexists … you name it.”

With the improbable outcome of the election the hysteria has only increased, the most recent manifestation of its ferocity the unhinged outpouring of hatred from social media sources and the hostile and dishonest coverage of the national media of an incident involving a group of white, Catholic high school boys from Covington, Kentucky (Boyd Cathey) who encountered a native American protestor in Washington D.C. “The smile of one of the students, Nick Sandman, captured in a now famous photograph, was twisted by the virtue signalers into a disrespectful ‘smirk,’ a kind of  ‘racist dog-whistle,’ a symbol of ‘white privilege,’” all the standard tropes of today’s emboldened character assassins. Reigned down upon Sandman and his fellow students was a torrent of condemnations of in the thousands via social media that included death threats, demands to publish names and addresses, appeals to have them expelled from their school, rejected from universities, and encouragement to kill them and their families. All of this from Social Justice Warriors who decry the “hatred” of Trump supporters.

So, in contemplating this grim state of affairs, we need to ask now: to where has this 60-year battle against “racism” taken us? Sadly, it has taken us to a point where it should be clear that “racism,” now saturating the commentary on every facet of American experience, is not a word that describes the behavior or personality of any particular individual.  “Racism” does not depict any state of reality. It is merely a word of condemnation to complete a ritualized chant. “You are a racist” is a performative act in an excommunication ceremony (an expulsion ritual) whereby decent, normal individuals are pronounced to be moral lepers, unfit for civilized society and cast into the darkness. Recall the conclusion of Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” slur, “they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.” This expulsion ritual is now frequently and routinely conducted by a vast network of moral police who occupy positions in government, the media, education and entertainment. They target white Americans who look back and wonder why the massive, decades-long efforts of atonement for racism have only intensified black resentment and hostility, why Black Lives Matter thugs are allowed to rampage and tear down historical monuments, why blacks are still burning down the cities, why millionaire, celebrity black athletes scorn the national anthem. These targets recognize that the “racism in our DNA” is the veiled language of the extortionists who use guilt as an instrument of intimidation, domination and revenge.  The guilt must be repudiated. Whites who succumb to the accusation of “racism” are embracing a future of their own destruction.   

 

   

Stephen Paul Foster's  newly published novel

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                        

 

Democrats, Pronouns, and Muslim Immigrants

 

 “We go forward together. And we go forward stronger than ever. We're not going to let them win...We'll go about our business. Be New Yorkers. Live your life. Don't let them change us.”

Crocodile tears, Andrew Cuomo style. This was the New York Governor at a news conference shortly after Sayfullo Saipov, an immigrant who came in 2010 on a lottery “diversity” visa from Uzbekistan, killed eight people and injured 14 others with his rented truck on bike path in the Big Apple.  It was no surprise to learn from ABC News that he was quite proud of it all.

                 

How well does your gag-reflex work these days? This is the sort of ass-covering drivel one expects from the likes of Cuomo, the kind that comes out when suddenly he has to interrupt his daily glad-handing, smiley shakedown routines, fake a somber visage for the cameras and reporters, and do a “Show’s over, folks – time to move along” shtick. It was a bizarre concoction of insult, misdirection and non-sequiturs, not to mention a curious display of the contempt Cuomo must hold for the intelligence of the New Yorkers who elected him.

 “We... we...we...” the Governor with this fake, weasel pronoun hoping to make the echoes of “Allahu Akbar” quickly disappear. So, who exactly is the “we ” going “forward together...stronger than ever”?   What “forward” means for eight of the “us,” the audience for this disgusting, patronizing riff, is a slab in the morgue and a cemetery plot, plus the grief and sadness that will long engulf the lives of their friends and families betrayed by the multi-culturalists who launched this on-going train wreck and then have to pretend that they care about the damage. “Live your life” pours obscenity on the wounds, making a mockery of innocent lives snuffed out in service to the corrupt ideology that Cuomo lives by. And “stronger than ever”? Who is he trying to con? Not likely in the cards for the fourteen broken bodies who survived this assault.

 

But before we curb our “Islamophobia,” resume the celebration of our diversity and, at the behest of the Governor, “go about our business,” let’s dumpster dive deeper and see where Andy’s fetid, pronoun shell game takes us. We’ve noted the fake “we…we…we”, but what is he up to with “them”?  “We’re not going to let them win.” Leftwing politicians like Cuomo, Obama and Hillary often speak in code, and so you should have your hermeneutical decoder ring handy and be ready to start twisting away. Who are the “them” who are not going to win, and how would we know if they did?  Cuomo can pretend not to notice, but unfortunately, there is already a clear winner, who happens to be Mr. Saipov, patched up from his wounds, celebrating the death of those eight infidels he ran over and enjoying, it seems, the anguish of their families, clearly the losers. So, in keeping with the Governor’s admonition to not let them win, somewhat might want to ask New York’s Chief Poseur, what should a pedestrian or bicyclist do the next time one of our imported jihadist is bearing down on him and his wife and kid in his truck? 

Don’t forget, however, those who designed, manage and promote the system that lets the sort of people into the country who enjoy killing and maiming their hosts. It is not as if there is not some recent history with markers that would reliably indicate what sort of folks they might be and where in the world they might be coming from. These deep thinkers apparently concluded that New York rather than Uzbekistan, with no infidels to speak of to irritate the faithful, was a more suitable place for a man whose given name, Sayfullo, translates as “Sword of Allah.” Are they winners or losers? Perhaps one of the Governor’s “diversity” advisors can shed some light on this. 

Finally, we need to decipher “Don’t let them change us,” one last slippery pronoun in this verbal smog to ponder as we twist the ring. Who does this man think he is talking to? Eight people, very much alive on a bike trail having a nice outing have already been permanently changed – into corpses by an angry Muslim in a rental truck. “Change” doesn’t get more profound and irreversible than this, and, as noted above, somebody, obviously, let this happen to us, somebody who should have grasped the obvious, that fewer angry Muslims in the U.S. means safer sidewalks and bike paths and, for those who care, less Islamophobia. How do we make sense of what seems to be apparent nonsense straight from the Governor’s mouth? 

What we learn from the decoder ring is that the “them” Cuomo is imploring us to resist are not the fanatics, completely open about what they are about, imported by the cult-Marxists to make us more tolerant and diverse. An occasional, unpredictable mass-murder is price of admission paid by the victims. The “them” are those millions of Americans who populate the “basket of deplorables,” the racists, Islamophobes and xenophobes who Hillary fingered last fall during her failed Presidential campaign. These are the folks who Cuomo is signaling are not going to be allowed to win. They recognize that Muslims in America are the left’s latest clients and need their protection as one more victim class, and hence are inclined to challenge their betters to justify the treachery they have put into place. Hence the invention of “Islamophobia” to create one more class of bigots to demonize and shut them up when they complain when they see people in their own country murdered by devotees of the religion of peace.  

Now the man makes perfect sense, ideologically speaking. Cuomo’s pronoun shell game is another artifice of the left. The “we’s”,  “us’s” and “them’s” are elusive and protean, very useful to confuse, distract and misdirect. They are the basic elements in the left’s “science” of attention management, the success of its practitioners measured by how well it augments their power and the extent to which the American people continue to embrace the illusion that they are free citizens rather servile (“irredeemable”) subjects and that their leaders can be held to account for their crimes.

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 be 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.  

Hillary Clinton: The Horror Movie

At the time of this writing it is impossible to know if Hillary Clinton consigliere, Huma Abedin, born in of all places, Kalamazoo, Michigan, has upended the opening of the Horror Show of the millennium, scheduled for release on January 21^st, 2017.

Not to be confused with the Netflix serial drama, House of Cards, this thriller features the Clinton crime family, Clinton Crime Incorporated (CC Inc) as they return to the Washington DC home they vacated and looted in 2001.  You can take the Clintons out of Arkansas, but you can never take Arkansas out of the Clintons.

This time the starring roles are reversed with Hillary Hugo Chavez Clinton cast in the lead.  In the trailer we find the pant suited president late morning staggering around the Oval Office refreshing her martini and planning a not-so-fun future for that “baskest of deplorables” who voted for Trump. So many enemies, so little time. She has just made a call to her IT staff about her new private email server.  She pauses between sips and wonders what Bill, now as First Laddie is up to. 

Well, you don’t need to be a drama critic to guess. In a superb performance in his new supporting role, surprise, surprise, the new Bill is still the old lovable lunk.  He’s slower and grayer, but that old dawg can still hunt. Cigar in hand, he’s feeling like Elvis on Viagra, prowling the White House halls in search of one of those nubile teenage interns he met and recruited on one of his excursions with Jeffery Epstein on his flying libido, “The Lolita Express” to “Orgy Island.” “What are money, power and connections good for if you can't enjoy yourself?” quips the horny Slickster with a wink wink.

Chelsea, a CC Inc junior partner, plays her spoiled, entitled self.  She is now CEO of the Clinton Foundation and from her $6,000,000 Manhattan penthouse she manages Hillary’s White House calendar. Those donors from places like Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan are getting real persistent.  Sometimes, though, her face darkens and she wonders, who might be her real father?  But then she smiles and remembers how Mom would respond:  “what difference does it make now, anyway?”  

Where then are the Weiners?  Anthony and Huma find themselves pondering a very long list of CC Inc heavy lifters who, so to speak, outlived their usefulness to the family. These were folks, some very high up, like Ron Brown, former DNC Chair and Commerce Secretary who  died along with 39 other people when the T-43 (a converted 737 used by the Air Force) carrying the group on a trip to Bosnia crashed while approaching the Dubrovnik airport.  On the verge of being indicted, he stated publicly his willingness to make a deal with prosecutors, Ron Brown's death brought to an end his ability to testify.  THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#ixzz4OfZ5ug4N

 

The Weiners in this production enter a witness protection program arranged by the FBI and are last seen boarding a plane, destination unknown.

Like in many popular horror movies, the plot lines are too far fetched to be convincing, the characters too simple and crude to be believable.  The acting in this production, however, is first rate. Not recommended for a mature audience.