Connect with us

Latest

Red Pill

Analysis

What might the Clinton plan be for getting rid of Trump?

Published

on

1,539 Views

Clinton is not the snore that she appears to be.

She’s a radical, an adept of the Hegelian doctrine of the state knowing what’s best for the individual and for the family. The notion that, “Father knows best,” is a relic. Stone Age vintage.  While Hegel’s disciples may have extended his philosophy to opposite hemispheres – to the Protestant Right and to the Marxist Left – little in Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, or in her subsequent, expressed views, suggests anything but a militant Marxist perspective.

Brandishing hellfire assuredness, which some believe only the Devil can instill, she is still quite certain, despite advancing years, that with enough patience the radicalization of cultural and educational institutions will bring about the needed transformation of America prior to the advent of HER New World Order. The new dawn will see her ruling above all and everything.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

When her husband ran the show, Hillary was actively working to transform the US into a collectivist state through organizations like the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). “Operate in stealth from within,” remains a favorite axiom.

There’s only one problem with Hillary’s core identity.

Radicalism doesn’t win presidential elections. Every pundit will tell you: “Winning demands middle-of-the-road stature with just the right dash of populism.” In fact, it was the image that Bill Clinton successfully portrayed to dupe the electorate in 1992. Through their co-reign over America, Hillary zealously began injecting the radical left agenda (RLA) into diverse organizations as Bill pushed hard for globalism.

Hence, the dilemma for Hillary. She’s a radical but not the actor needed to play the middle-of-the-road game. Her heart – physicians claim she has one – wasn’t into it. At least not with a sufficient pulse or pressure to motivate even paid “volunteers.” Unlike the used car salesman at her side disguised as US President, she wasn’t enough of a hypocrite. She doesn’t have Obama’s talent at pushing hot air to get snake-oil sales. The more she presses, the more the fake laugh doesn’t fly.

Indeed, starting with the Billy-Hillary regime, the ideology of the RLA has been infiltrating the ideological vacuum in the Democratic Party. Considering the moral decay of the Washington Establishment and of politically, watered-down, Bush types, the RLA also has had little opposition among establishment Humpties and Dumpties.

It hasn’t been all downhill for the RLA. With respect to LGBTq-ism, for instance, a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats have vetoed legislation to advance LGBTq-ism. Their respective constituencies wouldn’t have it any other way. But how many of the same legislators have sought to counter LGBT promotional efforts by introducing legislation that would equate teaching the LGBTq agenda to second graders with pedophilia? Without enough of a political counterweight, the Democratic Party has been advancing in-your-face, Godless planks – the RLA seeks spiritual dominance – to replace traditional family ethics and God’s laws with its own laws.

The idea is to repackage biblical morals and to export them as a humanist, New Age Religion, throughout the world. The New Religion of the RLA repackages homosexuality as love between two humans conforming with the commandment of Jesus: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” regardless of gender. It’s not an “abomination” as scripture expressly states. RLA ideology has become theology – the spiritual component of George H.W. Bush’s New World Order.

Snowflakes routinely insult Trump’s intelligence yet he was apparently smarter than Clinton because he won. He was certainly sensitive enough and he had the right instinct to tap into the pulse of the nation’s distrust of her and her thinly-veiled, RLA planks.

Despite the best efforts of Clinton’s attendant media to sequester her shortcomings, she couldn’t fill a high school gym with paid volunteers while Trump was stretching college arenas, football stadiums and other venues to capacity. Tailgate parties comforted those who couldn’t be squeezed in. The sizes of Trump’s audiences were rarely mentioned by “news” stations. In this respect, Trump’s claim about CNN-Clinton collusion to downplay the support that he was getting is more than justified. YouTube amateur videos allowed anyone interested to gauge Trump’s draw strength. And for anyone who witnessed the buzz, it was apparent that an upset was possible.

What actually happened? 

Clinton lost because America was not ready for her, radical, collectivist vision. She couldn’t talk about it, outright, so she came across as having nothing of substance to say – as the boring, plastic lawyer-politician. The best lighting and makeup could not sequester media manipulation and topic tampering. It was specifically because she was shielded from controversial topics that she came across as a bland, listless figure. Her core faithful made it through the campaign by popping No-Doz, if not something stronger, to no end.  Enough cameras caught sight of the fainting spells. Rumors about a possible degenerative disease like Alzheimer’s didn’t help. The image of aides propping her up didn’t exactly coincide with the image of a robust Commander-in-Chief. 

In contrast to Hillary’s blasé campaign, Trump raised real, hurt issues within working America. Mostly, he projected energy. Although far from eloquent, his kitchen speech was understood by the masses, many of whom had not voted in years. Adding a few ideas of his own – which is a few more than Hillary introduced – Trump won.

Indeed, it shouldn’t have happened. Everything from the beast of the political system to the military industrial complex, as well as the Hollywood-US media syndicate, worked overtime against him. Even Bush and his CIA brotherhood refused to accept the non-establishment figure. More than one billion dollars in PAC money was stacked up against him. One can only speculate on the actual money-under-the-table sum. Nearly every mainstream newspaper endorsed Clinton. So did nearly every major television station. Illegal immigrants rode the carousels in swarms to vote several times for Clinton.  Even dead souls were resurrected. It was quite a ghoulish election night.

The tip of the carousel scandal eventually pierced Hillary’s pampered bottom when Democrats, through Jill Stein of the Green Party, backed a recount in the State of Michigan. Trump won the State by only 22,000 votes.  Curiously, the recount was abruptly halted and the media began to hush it up when results from the city of Detroit, revealed massive voting fraud in Clinton’s favor. 95% of Detroit voters voted for Clinton. Theoretically, it’s possible. But the recount revealed that voting machines in 248 of Detroit’s 662 precincts (37%) tabulated significantly more votes than the number of people who had signed in to vote. America’s a free country. Only in America do dead souls drive cars and planes, draw on Medicare, and vote in presidential elections.

“There’s always going to be small problems, to some degree, but we didn’t expect the degree of the problem we saw in Detroit. This isn’t normal,” Krista Haroutunian, Chairwoman of the county electoral commission, stated to the press. “Massive voter irregularities,” ran the NY Post headline. President Trump called the entire election “rigged in Clinton’s favor.” So-called Russian influence in the election was a tactic concocted by Clinton’s strategists, well in advance of election night. Since no proof of Russian meddling was ever presented, Clinton came across as a sore and dishonest loser.

At the Trump-Clinton debate in Nevada, Trump was asked by Chris Wallace if he would accept the election result. The question was stacked against Trump because it implied that he would be the eventual loser. Wallace said that there is a tradition in the country for the peaceful transition of power, “for the loser to concede to the winner the election result no matter how hard fought the campaign might be.” The cameras saw a smirking Clinton, bobbing her head in total agreement at the mention of “tradition,” ever-so-certain that she was of victory. When Trump said that he would decide later, whether or not to accept the result, Clinton chirped that Trump’s readiness to break with tradition is, “Horrifying.” 

The NY Times, propaganda machine headlined the next day: “Donald Trump Won’t Say if He’ll Accept Result of Election.” The opening paragraph reads: “In a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy, Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he might not accept the results of next month’s election if he felt it was rigged against him — a stand that Hillary Clinton blasted as “horrifying. 

“Horrifying?” His statement, “cast doubt on American democracy?”

A curious twist of fate, is it not? Two years have elapsed since the election and Clinton has not accepted the result, despite conceding defeat. Apparently, Obama, Biden, Soros, and other leading lights have also been unable to swallow the bitter pill of America saying, “No,” to Madame Hillary and the RLA. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is “casting doubt on American democracy?” Does she see anything “horrifying” when she looks at herself?

Indeed, Trump wasn’t supposed to win. The entire electoral system, including the corrupt Establishment from both political Parties and their attendant presstitutes sided against Trump. The Bush family led the charge against him from the “Republican” side of the aisle. They, too, have since confirmed their unwillingness to accept democracy, considering that Trump made mincemeat out of Jeb Bush in the primaries. All of it shouldn’t have happened, which is why the election night turnaround was a true miracle – perhaps, the most thrilling result in 150-plus years. Poll projection manipulations failed to coronate Clinton. It was genuine democracy, the popular will of the people – something that had been lacking, for so long. Voters saw through it all.

The RLA introduced during the joint reign of Bill and Hillary, slowed down during the Bush years. It came out of the closet under Obama. Nonetheless, the corrosive influence of the RLA has been eating away at the social fabric of America since the radical 60s when Hillary was salivating over the Luciferian ideals of Saul Alinsky, her “college mentor.” That’s Lucifer aka Satan or the Devil. 

Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” is a primer for overturning society. It’s dedicated to Lucifer who Alinsky honors on the dedication page as “the first radical.” Clinton only differs from Alinsky in one major way. She always believed that the system can be changed from within. And she has been at it ever since Billy made it to the White House. What did he address, first? Apparently, nothing was more life-line important than the issue of gays in the military. Americans weren’t aware it was an issue until Clinton’s made it one.

Credit her determination. Hillary has held true to the RLA course and she has succeeded in advancing radicalism from within. Is the world a better place for it?

Perhaps, one should ask the families of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocents who were killed by way of US policies and armaments in Serbia, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Ukraine, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Pakistan, in Yemen, and in Syria. What has Obama-Clinton & Clinton adventurism brought to these nations?

Taking note of how the War Party profits from blood, the Bush-Cheney, crime syndicate followed up on the model. In this respect, its arm-in-arm with Clinton Murder, Inc., with the Establishment Swamp, and with Peace Laureate Obama – the first, two-term president to have the honor of being at war for all eight years. Quite the distinction. Are Americans better off domestically or internationally because of War Party deeds? Let it not be forgotten that America is in the sights of a RLA transformation. Will it happen? Not likely, under Trump. It has been said that Satan always gets his due. Scary, is it not?

In the past, election wounds healed because of debate, patience, tolerance, and compromise – balm for the passions. Besides, differences between Republicans and Democrats were never significant. Anybody from the establishment can become president and every four years another anybody has been elected. President Anybody kept God at arm’s length and he didn’t encroach on the family regarding how to rear children. It was always, “Father knows best. 

To sum up, Obama-Clinton are categorically at odds with Christian tenets, with traditional family values, and with the libertarian ideals on which the US was founded. That is, they’re against liberty for the masses as the core principle, they’re against maximum, political freedom, and they’re against individual freedom of choice despite statements to the contrary.

Obama-Clinton collectivists are little different than Bolsheviks in the sense that they seek liberty for themselves and equality for the masses. History is a witness of the catchphrase lie: “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Where equality exists there is not much liberty or fraternity and, certainly, not much prosperity. In every knot of history, otherwise referred to as revolutions, a ruling elite feeds on the blood and passions of the hoi polio until the privileged, inner circle consumes itself. Need anyone be reminded what Bolshevism did to Russia and to neighboring nations? Enough Americans saw through the Hillary façade to say, “No thank you,” to her RLA. Today, Trump is a finger in the dike restraining it.

What might the Clinton plan be for getting rid of Trump? Fact or fiction, the Clinton body count is impressive. 

See Part 1

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
5 Comments

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
LeaHelga FellayCudwieserJPHTheCelotajs Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

Hillary Clinton is one evil bitch. She has been all her life and would make Joseph Stalin look like a Saint.

JPH
Guest
JPH

Article seems waste of space. Apart from wanting power and money Clinton is far too close Wall Street Banks and corrupt money schemes like Pay-to-Play Clinton foundation to make this writer’s assertions about Clinton adhering to any ideology credible. Yes, Clinton knows to cater to a certain public to win their votes but that’s simply a tactic and nothing to do with her ideology which is egocentric to the hilt.

Cudwieser
Guest
Cudwieser

Bill, Hill and Chill (Chelsea) will be irradicated if anythinhg happens to Trump, just as a matter of reflex. What happens after is beyond imagination.

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

The Hillary this author describes can’t possibly be the same women the rest of us love to hate – there is nothing “left” about this neocon/neoliberal war hawk who is Henry Kissinger’s best buddy and never saw a war she didn’t like. She destroyed Honduras, Libya and the Ukraine. Her defining moment will always be that video interview when she said with glee “we came, we saw, he died hahahahaha” describing the torture and murder by being sodomized with a sword of the great pan-African leader Gaddafi – with utter amusement, something which only a completely soulless sociopath could do.

Lea
Guest
Lea

Does the author even know what a Marxist perspective is? Honestly, please American authors, try to educate yourselves before you write. In the eyes of any educated European, what you write comes out sounding like gibberish. Not to mention that you only add to the general confusion.
Words have definitions, and by no stretch of imagination is Hillary Clinton a Marxist. She is your run-of-the-mill American plutocratic psycho politician, only with even less brains than Obama, Bush the Lesser or Bill Clinton.

Latest

Bercow blocks Brexit vote, May turns to EU for lifeline (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 112.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Theresa May’s latest Brexit dilemma, as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, shocked the world by citing a 1604 precedent that now effectively blocks May’s third go around at trying to pass her treacherous Brexit deal through the parliament.

All power now rests with the Brussels, as to how, if and when the UK will be allowed to leave the European Union.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Bloomberg


Theresa May claims Brexit is about taking back control. Ten days before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union, it looks like anything but.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow’s intervention, citing precedent dating back to 1604, to rule out a repeat vote on May’s already defeated departure deal leaves the prime minister exposed ahead of Thursday’s EU summit in Brussels.

Bercow, whose cries of “Orrdurrr! Orrdurrr!’’ to calm rowdy lawmakers have gained him a devoted international following, is now the pivotal figure in the Brexit battle. May’s team privately accuse him of trying to frustrate the U.K.’s exit from the EU, while the speaker’s admirers say he’s standing up for the rights of parliament against the executive.

If just one of the 27 other states declines May’s summit appeal to extend the divorce timetable, then the no-deal cliff edge looms for Britain’s departure on March 29. If they consent, it’s unclear how May can meet Bercow’s test that only a substantially different Brexit agreement merits another vote in parliament, since the EU insists it won’t reopen negotiations.

Caught between Bercow and Brussels, May’s room for maneuver is shrinking. Amid rumblings that their patience with the U.K. is near exhaustion, EU leaders are girding for the worst.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

The mainstream news media has traded informing the public for indoctrinating them, but the change got called out by an “old-school” journo.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News reported on March 19th that one of America’s most well-known TV news anchors, Ted Koppel, noted that the once-great media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have indeed traded journalistic excellence for hit pieces for political purposes. While political opinions in the mainstream press are certainly within the purview of any publication, this sort of writing can hardly be classified as “news” but as “Opinion” or more widely known, “Op-Ed.”

We have two videos on this. The first is the original clip showing the full statement that Mr. Koppel gave. It is illuminating, to say the least:

Tucker Carlson and Brit Hume, a former colleague of Mr. Koppel, added their comments on this admission in this second short video piece, shown here.

There are probably a number of people who have watched this two-year onslaught of slander and wondered why there cannot be a law preventing this sort of misleading reporting. Well, Russia passed a law to stop it, hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook. It is a smart law because it does not advocate imprisonment for bad actors in the media, but it does fine them.

Going to prison for reporting “the truth” looks very noble. Having to pay out of pocket for it is not so exciting.

Newsmax and Louder with Crowder both reported on this as well.

This situation of dishonest media has led to an astonishing 77% distrust rating among Americans of their news media, this statistic being reported by Politico in 2018. This represents a nearly diametric reversal in trust from the 72% trust rating the country’s news viewers gave their news outlets in 1972. These statistics come from Gallup polls taken through the years.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending