The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
Hillary Clinton

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

From What Happened by Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Okay …

“This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.”

Why didn’t I ever notice before that the theme of 1984 is that we should “rely on: our leaders” more, that we must not mistrust the press?

Big Sister says: “Rely on our leaders!”

This could make a good SNL skit if they were still in the market for funny stuff about politicians: as part of the healing process, Hillary joins a Chappaqua ladies reading circle, but every single book turns out to be, in her intensely felt interpretations, about herself:

What Heinlein is showing us in Starship Troopers is that if military veterans were the only people allowed to vote, then terrible, trashy, white developers wouldn’t get elected, just selfless, competent women.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Screenshot 2016-09-16 01.45.01

Hillary Clinton and her affiliated media, such as The Economist (whose board includes Hillary’s great friend Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild), have gone to war against Pepe the Frog.

To be fair, the frog started it.

Still, why is the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party doing this?

Is it because during Hillary’s bizarre “alt-right” speech, some guy in the crowd shouted out “Pepe?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30y78SQo14

I dunno.

One possibility is that Hillary remains locked into an obsession with fundraising, even though she probably has vastly more money than she could need compared to Trump.

Last Friday, for example, even after Hillary was supposedly diagnosed with pneumonia, she harangued an LGBT fundraiser at 55 Wall Street in the grandiose former home of the New York Stock Exchange about how a quarter of American voters belong in a “basket of deplorables.” This followed Barbra Streisand singing a funny update of Stephen Sondheim’s “Send In the Clowns” about Trump’s dubious net worth:

Is he that rich?
Maybe he’s poor?
‘Til he reveals his returns
Who can be sure?

Tickets for this fundraiser ranged from $1,200 to $250,000, with the $1,200 ducats immediately selling out a month ahead of time. The well-heeled audience found Streisand’s lyrics about Trump’s doubtful wealth to be hilarious.

After physically collapsing 36 hours later on 9/11/16, Hillary had to beg off flying to Hollywood for two more fundraisers:

2nd UPDATE, 7:19 PM: Suffering from pneumonia, Hillary Clinton will not be coming to Hollywood for fundraisers at Seth MacFarlane and Barry Diller’s homes, her campaign said tonight. No word on when or if the deep-pocket September 13 events will be rescheduled.

Why was Hillary ruining her health still pursuing rich gay donors, when she had a huge fundraising lead stockpiled (e.g., Goldman Sachs banned employees from donating to Trump) when she could be appealing to ordinary voters?

A few reasons seem apparent:

- First, Hillary really, really likes money. She is pretty obsessive about it. Back in the 1980s when she was First Lady of Arkansas, she used to declare on her and Bill’s joint tax returns that they had donated all of Bill’s used underwear to charity, itemizing Bill’s briefs at $1 or $2 each. When I read this in The American Spectator decades ago, I tried to be scandalized, but I ended up thinking, “Wow, Hillary’s really thorough. I bet Chelsea will appreciate the ample size of the estate she is left. I hope our kids forgive their parents for not being so diligent.”

Smug Pepe

- Second, Trump’s strategy is to use Free Media, despite its fervent hostility to him, to get his message out to the nation. Hillary’s natural strategy would be to spend heavily on advertising and get-out-the-vote drives in crucial Electoral College states such as Pennsylvania to thwart Trump’s appeal to the nation.

- Third, Hillary is the rare candidate who draws bigger crowds at four figure fundraisers than at free rallies. She seems to give ordinary Americans the creeps. So it’s more fun for Hillary to preen before a packed house of rich gay Wall Streeters than in some half-full depressing high school gym somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Moreover, Hillary’s message is more fine-tuned to appeal to rich gay Wall Streeters than to average voters:

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

So, then, what is the Democratic nominee’s jihad against the cartoon frog about?

President Harambe

(And will Hillary turn next against the dead gorilla?)

The Economist’s article “Pepe and the Stormtroopers” offers some clues:

That is why the term Alt (short for “alternative”) Right is misleading. Mr [Jared] Taylor—whom Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a watchdog, describes as the movement’s “intellectual leader”—says it represents an alternative to “egalitarian orthodoxy and to neutered ‘conservatives’.” That characterisation elevates a racist fixation into a coherent platform. And, if the Alt-Right is not a viable political right, nor, in the scope of American history, is it really an alternative. Rather it is the latest iteration in an old, poisonous strain of American thought, albeit with new enemies, such as Muslims, enlisted alongside the old ones.

“Fifty years ago these people were burning crosses,” says Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable anti-racist group. “Today they’re burning up Twitter.”

The SPLC and the ADL, of course, are world class fundraisers.

Their specialty is terrifying affluent elderly Jews into fearing that, unless they write big checks, the New Czar’s Cossacks will be riding again.

Perhaps Hillary figures that Pepe the Frog, in all his baffling inscrutability, can horrify semi-senile rich people in Shaker Heights into a final paroxysm of donating to the Clinton campaign to stop the new pogroms?

Smug Harambe

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Alt Right, Hillary Clinton 
🔊 Listen RSS

The first 2016 general election poll of September is also the first poll to show Trump beating Hillary. From May through July, Hillary was up by anywhere from 12 to 24 points over Trump. He’s now up by five points, continuing a trend in Trump’s direction in August:

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 8/11 – 9/3 45.8 43.4 Clinton +2.4
SurveyUSA 9/2 – 9/3 900 RV 3.3 40 45 Trump +5
PPP (D) 8/28 – 8/30 1254 RV 2.8 46 44 Clinton +2
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 1563 RV 2.5 45 41 Clinton +4
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 51 45 Clinton +6
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5

The demographics in this new SurveyUSA poll are interesting, although the sample sizes are small.

They are pretty much the opposite of the conventional wisdom. Relative to traditional Republican candidates, Trump is doing very well among blacks (down only 25-59) and Asians (leading 41-39) and doing reasonably well among Hispanics (down 31-50). Among whites, however, Trump is leading Hillary only 51-34, which might be a little under what would be expected for a Republican up 5 points.

Trump is winning heavily (54-36) among those who say they pay a lot of attention to politics, and is winning 48-40 among college graduates.

Trump’s strongest region is the Midwest, where he is up 49-31.

The news that Trump, who tends to strike hip-hop fans as having the kind of style that they’d want to have if they were a rich old white guy and whose positions on immigration and trade sound more likely to help black Americans earn a living than just about anybody else’s, is on track to win, say, 30% of the black vote will likely start to panic Democratic strategists, especially if it holds up in additional polls.

Expect to see a concerted effort to demonize Trump among blacks. Obama carried the Great Lakes Rust Belt (outside of Indiana) in 2012 by running up huge margins among blacks while the Romney-Ryan ticket kept whites in the region depressed and divided. A Republican who is strong in the upper Midwest is an Electoral College nightmare for the Democrats.

One thing that’s going on is that Trump is benefiting from the Revolt of the Comedians. Awhile ago, beloved elder statesman Jerry Seinfeld spoke up against comedy-killing campus conformity, citing his friend Chris Rock as support. Some people wondered why I wrote a Taki column recently quoting at length the somewhat obscure comedian Colin Quinn. But he’s an old friend of Seinfeld, Rock, and some other well-known comedy names, and I suspect Quinn articulates in public how a lot of comedians feel in private.

Trump is not himself hugely funny (except in a meta sense, in which he’s hilarious), but he exemplifies an American value that we feel slipping away: liberty. Americans used to say, “Well, it’s a free country.” They don’t anymore. The Statue of Liberty once stood for an American’s right to say what he felt was true. Now the Statue of Liberty has been repurposed as an icon of how Americans had better shut up about immigration and diversity.

Donald J. Trump is the living embodiment of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, there are a lot of foreign policy issues on which the President really shouldn’t mouth off. For example, the official stance of the United States government since February 1972 has been that China and Taiwan are one country that should be under one government; we just won’t say which one.

Granted, that’s ridiculous, but, at least so far it has worked. And therefore the President shouldn’t say it’s ridiculous even though everybody knows it is.

A low energy guy like Obama, who more or less was raised to be some kind of Foreign Service diplomat, is probably not going to tell an interviewer that of course China and Taiwan are separate countries: everybody knows that. But a President Trump might.

In contrast, domestic policy (e.g., immigration policy) should be far more of a free for all than it is under the current rules of what’s respectable. Obama’s diplomatic Blank Screen approach where nobody is supposed to get the joke about why we elected this guy President has been a slow-moving disaster. I suspect that deep down Obama feels bad about how his Administration has, in effect, agitated blacks to murder each other, all in the name of #BlackLivesMatter. But “personnel is policy” and a lot of Obama’s appointees, such as Eric Holder, have been too dim to figure out what they are doing to America.

When it comes to domestic policy, Congress and the courts have huge says, so the President using his bully pulpit is a good thing: the embodiment of democracy.

But much of foreign policy, perhaps too much, is handed over to the President under the guise of the National Security state. So the President has less freedom to spout off his opinion about whatever comes to his attention, such as, say, the division of Cyprus into Greek and Turkish spheres. Trump the Dealmaker might just be able to spitball aloud some wacky Cyprus innovation he dreamed up that actually improves that less-than-optimal but 4-decade long stable situation. But Trump the President could also destabilize it by sounding off about how everybody on the island would be better off if only they’d work out a deal and the U.S. wants change.

Did, say, Obama blow up the Arab world (with the present dire consequences) by going to Cairo in 2009 and making an ambiguous speech? Perhaps.

Trump has a little under a year and a half to grow into the job. It’s a challenge, but not impossible. Mostly, he needs to get across that he’s not going to upset settled foreign policy just for fun.

There are two sides to Trump:

- The no-publicity-is-bad-publicity-as-long-as-they-spell-”Trump”-right TV time hound

- The expert negotiator who plays his cards close to the vest

The good news is that Trump likely doesn’t care much about foreign policy, especially areas like Taiwan and Cyprus where sleeping dogs can probably be let lie a few years longer. Moreover as President, Trump would hardly be in pressing need of more publicity by stirring up unneeded foreign policy controversies beyond the ones in which he has a carefully decided upon strategy for making a deal on his terms.

 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation