◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Will the men voting for Mrs Clinton end up in Hell? I am not sure. We know that women who vote for a male candidate have a special place in hell, as the old Jewish feminist lady divined, and she should know. It is not only Madeleine Albright looks like a creature from hell, she also belongs there, for her justification of murder of half a million Iraqi children, among other deeds. But what about men who cross the gender divide? I would not condemn them. Such a condemnation would rather undermine and harm Messrs Trump and Sanders, for men have no gender voting pattern. Men vote for the cause they prefer, and they strongly dislike a suggestion that their vote has been determined by what they are, instead of what they think.
Minorities of special interest act on what they are; this makes them predictable and easy to handle. Mrs Clinton won 90 per cent of black vote in Mississippi, a result Mr Kim Jong Un of North Korea may ogle with unease. Jews gave 70 per cent of their vote to Obama, or to any Democratic presidential candidate. Identity politics make such victories possible; that’s why they were invented and applied, in the first place. By gad, you did not think the operatives really give a damn for a woman, a black, a gay, a Latina single mother or a misguided teenager trying to pee in a wrong booth?
These “causes” have been invented and applied for technical reasons, as (1) they keep people’s minds occupied with trivial nonsense, (2) they allow the perpetrators to assume the mantle of righteousness, (3) they make elections even more smooth and predictable than selection of the successor to the Saudi King or a British Queen.
They are aimed against their main enemy, The Thinking Man. Masculinity became a dirty word, says a survey that reveals that only 2 per cent of British boys consider themselves “completely male”. The Nemesis of the West, the uncouth Mr Putin is described as “macho”, a good enough reason to seek regime change in Russia. In a new remake of Ghostbusters, the courageous fighters against the evil spirits are all-female (one corpulent Black woman, for even better PC formula), while the white man applies for a position of a secretary to the lot. In the wider culture, writes Isabel Hardman, men appear on adverts as hopeless, overweight buffoons clutching a beer in one hand and a pair of barbecue tongs in the other, while the women roll their eyes and organise the house, the car, the family. In this world of defeated masculinity, the victory of Mrs Hillary R. Clinton and a consequent war is unavoidable.
Unavoidable, unless the American Thinking Man will recover his wits and his place of honour in his society. Female rule is not a new thing, and it has never been good. At the dawn of civilisation, the female cult of Cybele had led to mass castrations of young males. Female leaders lead to war and trouble even faster than the male ones. In my Israel, the most famous female leader, Golda Meir, had brought the bloody October War of 1973 upon her nation. Margaret Thatcher sent the British Navy against the Argentines, and fought a cruel war against British miners.
From Elizabeth I of England to Catherine II of Russia, queens usually pushed for wars. Frau Merkel invited the refugees’ invasion upon her land. Hillary Clinton has already some wars behind her: she supported the war for Kosovo that ended in the creation of an ISIS base in Europe. Her war in Libya created another ISIS base on the African continent and had sent waves of refugees to Europe; the feat was repeated in Syria. Perhaps she is more suitable to run for the ISIS Khalifa, than for the US Presidency.
The recent piece by Jeffrey Stacey in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs leaves no place for doubt: Clinton is for war, and her acolytes, like Stacey, approve of this way. Obama is too timid for them, while Trump is a new Hitler because (you’ll never guess) he does not want to fight the Russians. Some men, like Stacey, are born to serve Cybele.
The connection between Jewish activism and violent feminism has been made obvious in this election campaign as never before. In a classic Jewish subterfuge they sent a woman to provoke the man, and then accuse him of lack of chivalry. The Jewish female activists goad Trump and his supporters (vide the case of Julia Ioffe) in order to come to the desired conclusion: ““What happens if Donald Trump is elected?” Ioffe said. “We’ve seen the way he bids his supporters attack the media, his proposal to change libel laws to make it easier to sue journalists.” The alleged harassment from Trump supporters is not directly linked to the candidate, the newspaper admits. Yet he has fomented a culture of violence at his rallies, encouraging supporters to retaliate against protesters”.
The Russians accept the Clinton threat with cool fatalism. Vlad Putin and his people are determined to drive head on in the great Chicken Game of the nations. It does not have to lead to collision, as the world is big enough – unless one seeks collision, as Clinton apparently does. The solution is in the hands of American men: will they regain their self-esteem and send La Clinton to write memoirs and give talks to bankers, or will they send her to the White House and condemn themselves to their subservient position in the society.
Women are wonderful and lovely creatures; men pursue their love and bestow them their admiration. However, they are unsuitable as rulers. The barbarian queens were known for their cruelty, to their “sisters” as well. Hillary Clinton is likely to exceed and surpass them all, as the war she is likely to unleash will surpass the wars of old. The nuclear war with Russia and/or with China will be the last page of mankind’s history as we know it; fittingly, this will end the gender wars.
First published at The Unz Review