Home » Media

Category Archives: Media

Victory

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising  — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t  let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.

Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.

I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of  petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.

I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.

Shock and denial

Posted on by | Leave a comment

‘…there is nothing new under the sun.‘ – Ecclesiastes, 1:9

That was written by Solomon many centuries ago. And it’s true, even when it comes to human depravity. Some of us say that today’s world is much more depraved than the recent past, and at least on the surface, that view can be defended. There was a brief period, under the influence of Christianity, when human evil was somewhat diminished, or at least, to take a more skeptical view, driven underground.

Critics of the Bible, who are more outspoken today than ever, frequently like to point at certain incidents in the Old Testament which they say constitute proof that the Bible is ‘full of filth’. Yes, there are some very distasteful and shocking episodes in those books of Scripture, but they are there as a stark illustration of what unredeemed humanity is capable of. In no way are they meant to titillate, or to sensationalize, much less to excuse human evil.

On the other hand, we have Christians who are so high-minded that they avoid such passages because they prefer a Christian faith that is all sweetness and light; they don’t like to be confronted with the ugly side of this world. Then there are the many Christians of today who don’t believe in the supernatural; they may (or may not) believe in the virgin birth, or Jesus’ miracles of healing, or his walking on water — but they don’t believe, truly, in a Devil. One of my highly-educated Christian friends says she does not believe in a ‘literal’ Satan, only in the fact of a human ‘shadow side’ that we all possess, and that we must all ‘own’. That’s not the same, though, as the Biblical view that all human beings are fallen; she believes we are ‘basically good’.

For these people, any talk of various forms of depravity being practiced by prominent and powerful people is not credible, because it does not fit the complacent worldview these people have cobbled together for themselves. It shakes their very idea of life itself and of human nature to even ponder the possibility that some of the worst rumors may be true. They don’t want to believe it.

We see that expressed here on this Reddit thread, where several people who appear to be very worldly-wise are voicing extreme shock about some of the allegations that are being bandied about. Yet I myself am not shocked, nor do I rule out the real possibility that where there is smoke, (which has been evident for many years), there may just be fire. And this, considering that I don’t watch modern movies or TV shows because of their decadence and vulgarity;  therefore I’ve developed no tolerance to it, as have many of those who consume it avidly. It does have a way of inuring people, making them shockproof, as I call it. Yet many people are seemingly shocked by what is being discussed these last few days.

Ann Barnhardt writes briefly about the allegations on her blog, and points out that she has been warning of this for years. Maybe it takes someone who seriously believes in such a thing as ‘spiritual wickedness in high places’ to accept the plausibility of it. I think that she has written about similar allegations regarding the highest circles in the Catholic hierarchy. So these things are not unheard of; where were all these oh-so-stunned people all these years?

Remember, too, the ongoing accusations against the rich and powerful in the UK? Maybe many Americans are not as familiar with those stories. There were many, many people of both sexes who reported being the victims, as teens or children, of certain celebrities like the late Jimmy Savile.

But Jimmy still has his staunch fans who defend his ”good name”, saying that the accusers were liars looking for attention or money. And that response to their stories explains, in part, why we don’t hear from the purported victims — there are powerful forces who will stifle their claims, and there are just plain stupid people, fans of the ‘celebrities’ and the politicians who are the accused, who will shout ‘liar!’ at the victims.

More examples? Rolf Harris, yes, the ‘Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport’ guy. “Oh, but he was so warm, so funny, so witty, he just couldn’t do things like that!” Same with Michael Jackson in this country.

Another factor in these cases is the “normalcy bias” which I referred to the other day. People are strongly invested in protecting their particular, comfy version of reality. It seems to pose a threat to people’s mental well-being to imagine that they may have been wrong to trust in a predictable and mostly benign world and people.

But we might dismiss the accused celebrity deviates as just being the typical ‘artistic’ personality, the type who dabble in the transgressive. Michael Jackson was just eccentric and misunderstood. Savile just liked kids. Same with Rolf Harris, et al.
But what of the very powerful, who presumably have ‘everything to lose’? Have people forgotten, or maybe they never heard of, the Belgian scandals?

The link above may be considered biased by some, but here are other accounts:

From the left-wing BBC

and as we see here, Wikileaks was also involved in publishing details of the Dutroux case several years ago, which implicated people at the highest levels in Belgium and possibly elsewhere.

Why, then, is there still an unwillingness to even consider the veracity of the allegations? It’s not as though it’s unprecedented. Maybe the fact that only those who are sneered at as ‘tinfoil hat’ sources have written about these things, while the “mainstream” controlled media, in recent years, shies away.

I suppose we should be encouraged to see that there are still Americans who are capable of being shocked at the mention of these things. Yet if we avert our eyes and insist that it’s just too much to believe, then we are enabling such things, which do in fact happen in this fallen world.

Christians in particular are called to be ‘wise as serpents’ yet harmless as doves. But if we are to be  ‘dove-like’ when confronted with evil, what use are we?

Old nations, new countries

Posted on by | 4 Comments

Germans and Swedes were recently told via advertising and other propaganda that their countries are essentially gone, and that they must integrate into a ‘new country,’ apparently multicultural and multiracial.

Despite the fact that we’ve all been watching this unfold, and we’ve all heard that the endgame is submersion of the indigenous peoples of Europe in a Third World tidal wave, it’s still shocking to hear it said so blatantly.

In Sweden, a tax-funded TV ad created by a government-backed “charity” called “Individuell Manniskohjalp” (Individual Relief), or IM, informs Swedes that their old country is never coming back. Translated to English, the slogan for the campaign is #TheNewNation. “There is no way back,” the ad begins. “Sweden will never be like it was. Europe is changing and Sweden is needed as a safe space for people who seek refuge. Now we must look forward and find a way to live side by side.”

As African and Middle Eastern faces intermixed with Swedish faces cycle through on the screen, the ad informs viewers that Sweden is in for some dramatic changes. “It’s time to realize the new Swedes will claim their space, and will take up room with cultures, languages and customs,” the narrators say in Swedish, alternating between male and female voices. “It’s time we see this as a positive force. The new country is about shaping a new future.”

The closest “our” country has come to spelling it out has been in the incident in Minnesota, in which Governor Mark Dayton told his constituents, the taxpaying citizens of that state, that if they don’t like mass Somali (and presumably, other) immigration, they must get out of the state, and find new homes.

The increasingly explicit message, in Germany, Sweden, and in Minnesota is: you citizens and native-born people no longer have any rights in your birthplace. You are not citizens but subjects in a totalitarian state, one in which you have no say, and no rights, except the right to shut up or get out. But if some wish to get out, per Mark Dayton’s advice, where do they go? The globalist regime is implementing the same twisted and tyrannical plan everywhere in the West.

We can see the handwriting on the wall as the situation in France worsens, with France on the brink of some kind of armed conflict. The recent attack on four policemen in Viry-Châtillon, where the officers were set on fire, has escalated things. Tiberge at Gallia Watch tells us that France is preparing for an ethnic civil war.

This is the entirely foreseeable and inevitable result of forcing mass immigration, mainly from Mohammedan countries, on France. Because anyone with an ounce of good sense could predict the outcome of decades of coerced ‘diversity’, it is inexcusable that those in authority continue to push more and more immigration and ‘tolerance.’ It beggars belief to blame this on just malfeasance or blundering; it’s deliberate. I concluded long ago that the explanation had to be either extreme stupidity and incompetence, or deliberate malice. And I don’t believe that the Oligarchs are that stupid and clueless.

Interestingly, Tiberge’s piece at Gallia Watch contains this passage:

Philippe de Villiers revealed the existence of secret, discreet agreements of submission, beyond the pale of legality, with the complicity of the French State, to surrender quietly portions of French territory to Islamic sharia law. The collaborating State is already negotiating with the invader.”

Not long ago I posted a link to piece quoting from a supposed ‘inside source’ in the UK who spoke of a plan in which at least some European leaders had a covert agreement with the Islamics to cede certain areas to them, or implicitly, to surrender the whole country provided they retained their positions as quisling puppets, presumably, within their respective countries. Nobody seems to be discussing that subject, though it is hinted at here and there. It seems more and more plausible to me that the deal is already done, and that the governments are now feeling bold enough to take off the masks and lay down the law, as the German and Swedish authorities (collaborators?) are doing.

Of course we’ve been aware for ages that there is a globalist agenda, and a plan to eradicate nations under some kind of One World system. But just because it hasn’t been officially announced in the Mainstream Media, some still insist that this is tinfoil-hat paranoia. But here it is, being put out in the open.

And when I speak of eradicating ‘nations’, I don’t just mean the geopolitical entities or the governmental apparatus, but ‘nations’ in the original, true sense: nations are peoples. They consist of flesh-and-blood human beings. The quote in my previous post, from Corneliu Codreanu, was dead-on; it’s about destroying nations.

Note: For an interesting piece on Philippe De Villiers, and the validation of some of his predictions about France, see this.

A generation’s passing

Posted on by | 1 Comment

Tom Hayden, one of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s, is dead. Some will be familar with the SDS in connection with Bill Ayers.

Hayden may also be known to some people as the ex-husband of Jane Fonda.

Now, just for those who keep track of these things (namely the ‘boomer-haters, who are cheering on the deaths of their favorite villains) Hayden was born in 1939. Do the math. Or to make it easy, he was a member of the ‘Silent Generation‘, the one before the hated baby-boomers, who were born beginning a year after WWII ended. From what I remember reading, that generation was the ‘don’t rock the boat’ generation, a sort of go-along-to-get-along group of people. This source credits that generation with giving America ‘Civil Rights’, and it is a fact that the Civil Rights coup took place well before the boomers were out of grade school.

And speaking of the Sixties and the influential figures of that era, many of them were not political activists as such. For instance Bob Dylan, born Bob Zimmerman, or (((Bob Zimmerman))), as if anyone does not know, just won a Nobel Prize in literature of all things. Whatever. I confess I listened to Dylan when I was young, although from the first his song lyrics seemed opaque and excessively arty, but then in the Sixties ‘folk’ music was all about messages and social causes and protest; it was not meant to be just music to dance to or to express teen-age angst, like rock ‘n roll.

Dylan was for obvious reasons a hero to the left in the 60s and on into the 70s and even the 80s. Somewhere along the line he professed to be a born-again Christian, but in time that passed and he was reported to be involved in the Lubavitch sect of orthodox Judaism. Who knows what his beliefs are; he seems truly to have no fixed beliefs. It is odd that among many ‘traditionalist’ conservatives he is revered; why, I don’t get. Tastes vary.

Whatever he is or was, Christian, Jewish, ‘progressive’, conservative, he was not a baby-boomer, though to many people he will likely always be a symbol of that generation, rightly or wrongly.He was also a ‘Silent Generation’ member like Hayden. His politically-tinged songs, often with themes of the downtrodden, minorities, social justice, etc., did more to advance those causes, in my opinion, than did the work of the political activists like Hayden and the SDS, who were on the fringe.

It is odd that many figures on the left, or who spearheaded the social upheavals that gave birth to the counterculture, were members of older generations. An example: Timothy Leary, the LSD guru and pioneer, the ‘turn on, tune in, drop out’ guy, was born in 1920.  1920! He was a ‘Greatest Generation’ member — and possible government agent, according to the link just above.

Does it matter, this categorizing of people by their year of birth, or by an arbitrary generational label? It certainly matters to a lot of younger people, who are eager to apportion blame for all that is wrong in today’s world.

We live in a world which forbids us to notice obvious patterns, or to make sweeping generalizations. That’s bad, for reasons which are self-evident. We are not to notice race or ethnicity or color, and now we are told that our sex, determined at conception, is not to be defined; we are to pretend there are no patterns. But there is such a thing as making overly sweeping judgements based on something as vague as generational categories, which are, after all, arbitrarily defined

But whoever is responsible for what (going back to Adam and Eve, if you want to be thorough about this blame-fixing), what’s done is done. And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, during this election season, the older generations are less likely to vote Democrat and liberal in general than are each of the successive generations. Those facts need to be noticed and taken to heart, rather than be ignored as lefties are wont to do.

Evangelicals prefer Trump

Posted on by | 2 Comments

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Stop the ‘gaslighting’?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Some of the commenters at Steve Sailer’s blog are upset by the use of the term ‘gaslighting’. Somehow they seem to find it especially annoying and tiresome, so much so that comments like the following have appeared:

Whenever people become newly acquainted with a thinky new concept, the use of which they believe will show off their intellectual chops, they tend to over-apply it prodigiously. It’s been an unhappily acquired hobby of mine to track these ripples in thought-space, as a once obscure term starts showing up in one columnist’s repertoire after another with increasing frequency before fading off again

Well, I guess two, or any number, can play at this game. An example, in the paragraph above: the word ‘thinky‘. Is that even a word?  I had to turn to that great fount of erudition, The Urban Dictionary, to learn how it is used.  So  a word like ‘thinky’ is good, but ‘gaslighting’, which is a term that has been in use for some years, is not?

I confess I am one of those offenders who has used (recently, in fact) the term gaslighting. So that makes me one of the ‘intellectually vain‘? This man says so, so it  must be:

“Gaslighting” is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.”

I probably will be tempted to use the term again, making me a repeat offender. I use it because it has a precise meaning, one that is not hard to understand, and it therefore serves a purpose — one for which I will probably employ it as I see fit.

Someone else on that thread said that the verb ‘to trick’ is a simpler and better way of expressing the idea behind gaslighting. Not so. ‘Trick’ is a much less precise term. Unfortunately the term ‘gaslighting’ was adopted some years ago by people in the psychology trade and they do often use it in the sense of ‘psychological abuse’ of women by men. I can’t help that they’ve taken the meaning of the term in another direction.

In the movie versions of ‘Gaslight’, the villain had a specific strategy of making his target think she was going insane, as he manipulated reality to produce false perceptions. As I recall, he also made others doubt the woman’s sanity as she was made to appear delusional, and as a result she began to lose her mental stability.

No need to make this a feminist issue: we, the normal members of the public, are manipulated by a devious and cunning system to doubt our own perceptions. We are being made to feel as though the problem is with us: we are paranoid. We are ‘conspiracy-mongers’, extremists, unhinged. We are ‘phobic’ in some way or another.  Even worse, our collective history is being manipulated and altered by the rewriting of history in which we are made out to be the cause of all evils and all problems. News stories disappear, like the stories of the post-Katrina Superdome events, or the 2000 ‘Election that wouldn’t die’, as the Democrats concocted tales of flawed ballots, leading up to months of drama over vote recounts, ‘hanging chads’, culminating in the Supreme Court decision that ended months of such insanity. And now the national media and the Left feign horror at the idea that Trump might ‘not accept the results of the election.” As if such a thing had never ever happened before — when they themselves refused to accept the 2000 election results. Or maybe we just imagined that happened. Yes, that must be it.

Of course the young millennials never heard of those events, and even if they were told of it they would likely scoff — because if it had really happened, why had they not been taught about it?

That’s gaslighting. One day those of us, as the survivors of that era who still remember those days, will be told outright that we imagined it; it’s all a senile delusion.

So can we sum up all those processes by using the word ‘trick’?  It’s just not an adequate word to the task. If people don’t understand the nuances of the term ‘gaslight’, perhaps because they never saw the movie which gave rise to the term, well, that’s no one’s fault but theirs.  Perhaps they don’t like old movies or ‘passé’ popular culture.

From my point of view, I often don’t get the meaning of various current pop culture references, which are used everywhere on the Internet. I expect the people who use pop culture references would dismiss me as out of touch for failing to grasp their allusions to Harry Potter or The Matrix or whatever the current pop culture fads are. But if I am, it’s by design. I don’t find much of any value to me in such trends du jour. Does that make me a ‘snob’? Everybody looks down on certain aspects of pop culture; to some, everything that’s recent has more cachet than old movies, so it is not surprising that an old movie reference is viewed as hackeneyed and cliched by most people. The thing is, every cliche and every so-called ‘hackneyed’ phrase was once new and fresh. Cliches are popularized because they seemed apt — and fresh, once.

If I could vote down certain terms I would say I am sick of the overuse of the verb ‘to pivot‘ — I’ve never seen it used so much in my life as in this current election season. Who knows why it has become so overused? People are copycats, for the most part, herd thinkers.

 

 

Big revelations no surprise

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The Drudge headline about the Enquirer’s ‘stunning revelations’ about Hillary gives the impression that these stories are something new. In fact, as most people are aware the rumors and allegations have been circulating for decades. So the ‘revelations’ are about as surprising as Shep Smith’s admission that he is gay. It’s old news.

Will it have any effect on voters? I can’t imagine those who are supporting Hillary turning against her, as that demographic is already fully programmed with the pro-homosexual belief system; they can only see it as a plus that Hillary may be ‘gay.’ Being ‘gay’ is now hailed as an act of ‘bravery and courage’, though how it is ”courageous” to be what one is supposedly born to be is unclear to me. According to the ‘gay gene’ believers, homosexuals have no choice in the matter; they are simply genetically gay. No matter; things don’t have to make sense to the PC crowd; their brains are full of all kinds of conflicting beliefs and contradictions. They don’t even see that, so lost are they.

So Hillary’s core supporters will not turn against her, but will likely hail her for these ‘revelations’, and/or accuse those who are reporting the story of being ‘homophobic bigots.’ She will be twice as heroic because she might become more of a victim, and all the world loves a victim today.

Will some of the liberal ‘evangelicals’ who are horrified by voting for Trump be shocked by these stories, and change their vote from Hillary to Trump? No, those people are usually pro-”tolerance” already. Many of the churches, even some of the more conservative, historically Calvinistic churches, are adopting gay-friendly policies; “love the sinner, hate only the sin”, as their spiritual exemplar Gandhi said.

I’ve said before that there are no social conservatives left anymore; that may be a slight exaggeration. There are, however, vanishingly few Christians, let alone non-Christians, who object to homosexuality or any kind of sexual misbehavior anymore. The GOP, which was for a while the home of something called the Christian Right, is for the most part willing to welcome homosexuals. What kind of resistance did the political right put up against same-sex ‘marriage’?

As the GOP tolerates the presence of people like Lindsey Graham, obviously they are not going to suddenly go all moralistic about a story like this one about Hillary. No doubt there are quite a few closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party; remember Larry Craig? Then there was Denny Hastert, whose history was more reprehensible because it involved minors. So no, the Republicans don’t have room to throw stones here. They too have become corrupt and compromised.

One charge that could be made here with the Hillary allegations is hypocrisy; why has she not openly announced her sexual preferences, if true? It can’t be because of “homophobia” or fear of an intolerant public, because society has become almost infatuated with gays, thanks to concerted efforts by homosexual ”activists” and a complicit media. So why would anyone not want to capitalize on their ”special” sexuality, in a perverse age that hails such things as ‘heroic’? Why not cash in on that capital and make use of it? There’s no reason to fear coming out these days, while remaining closeted could be seen as not just hypocritical, but cowardly.

But not to worry; I don’t think this will change things one way or the other.

Illegal alien crimes

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Here’s a blog devoted to reporting crimes by illegal aliens (including some refugee crimes, apparently). While their efforts are worthwhile, seeing as how the lying media probably under-report and downplay such crimes, I can’t help reiterating that legal or illegal, the issue should be that the quality of the immigrants we now admit to our country means that more crime in our country is the result.

I don’t see why so many immigration restrictionists want to reduce the issue to one of ‘illegal vs. legal immigrants’, with legal=good and illegal, bad. It is not that cut and dried. Even apart from the serious crimes committed by immigrants of all kinds, we just do not need more immigrants, especially those from violent, unstable, high-crime countries.

A ‘Startpage’ web search yielded a slew of articles by a range of sources, from the Wall Street Journal (yes, they of ‘There Shall Be Open Borders’ fame) to PBS, the WaPo, some libertarian open-borders sources, and so on. Skewed much? In any case, reading those sources would have us believe that immigrants are much more law-abiding than natives of this country. Maybe — depending, of course, on which ‘natives’ you mean.

Even alternative search engines seem to give heavily biased results.

This article from American Thinker says that it appears illegal immigrants commit murder at a higher rate than the native-born population. Whether there is any data on the difference between immigrants here legally vs. those here illegally, it isn’t easy to determine.

Yet what logical basis could there be to believe that only those who enter the country illegally are even potentially lawbreakers? I suppose there is just the vague unsupported assumption that a criminally-prone person would not ”go by the rules” in coming to this country. But what of those who come here via chain migration, as relatives of legal immigrants or legal residents of foreign birth? Or refugees? Are they vetted thoroughly, and as has been asked often, how can we vet people from third-world countries, where good public records are not kept, or not available?

Donald Trump has taken a lot of flak for saying that Mexicans commit a lot of rape in this country. Some sources, even the normally immigration-skeptical CIS, have argued that data shows immigrants commit less crime, but as is pointed out here, it isn’t that simple. The methods used in collecting data (including self-reporting, in many cases, by offenders) and the unwillingness of government departments to collect and collate such data means that even the government really has no definitive answers.

It’s simple common sense to look at the countries from which most of our immigrants come; are those countries high-crime, high-violence countries, reflecting cultures of that type? In the vast majority of cases, the answer is yes. Why, then, should those immigrating here suddenly become law-abiding and peaceable, when their countries are violent and dysfunctional, and in many cases, downright lawless? It requires a great deal of credulity to believe that people from countries where violence and crime are a way of life would suddenly become model neighbors here in the United States.

We are being misled by the media and by the powers-that-be, as in so many things.

Wikileaks on deleted e-mails

Posted on by | Leave a comment

From Wikileaks latest, Hillary Clinton and her people deleted 33,000+ e-mails, knowing that it was illegal to do so.

This brings to mind the Nixon tapes during the Watergate hearings back in the 1970s, wherein the media treated as shocking the idea that Nixon’s secretary (on his orders, allegedly) purposely deleted parts of those tapes. All of 18 minutes of the tapes! Compare that to the potentially damning material in tens of thousands of e-mails. Notice the obvious difference in the way the media treats the two situations.

Hillary? Give her the benefit of the doubt, by all means. Maybe she wasn’t aware she was doing anything illegal — yes, she’s supposedly a brilliant woman, has been a ‘co-president’ with her reprobate ‘husband’, was supposedly a hot-shot  lawyer and an Ivy Leaguer with a high IQ but she didn’t know? Which is it? Brilliant woman, or simply ignorant of the law?

But Nixon and the missing 18 minutes? He was an evil, diabolical man who was obviously covering up some kind of serious wrongdoing.

And remember, the genius Hillary was one of those who was part of the Watergate investigation. It’s ironic that now she is caught doing the kind of thing for which Nixon was so reviled by the likes of Hillary and the leftist media. Does this fall under the heading of ‘karma’ to which the lefty New-Agers are always alluding? If so, then it’s fitting.

An inside job

Posted on by | 1 Comment

No doubt I’ve grown more suspicious and cynical about politics over the last couple of decades (especially in the post-Clinton years) but this media-created Trump scandal smacks of an inside job, probably planned by the GOPe/Never Trumpers. Ted Cruz is now ‘considering’ withdrawing his half-endorsement of Trump; I think he only did it knowing full well this ‘bombshell’ was coming in October, then he could affect a stance of moral outrage and withdraw his support. Likewise, Ryan.

And it’s possible, at least according to this, that the whole thing may have been co-ordinated with Hillary’s people, who may have given a ‘heads-up’ to the GOPe.

This is all just more evidence that both parties are hopelessly corrupt and that they are in fact a ‘uniparty’ who merely put on a ‘pro-wrestling’ type of show of being antagonists, each claiming to represent the people. To them, we are just dupes and fools, apparently. A plague on both their houses.

Trump should really run as an independent although I am sure that would prove to be more difficult than it sounds.