Tag: politics

Corrupt Hillary Clinton

Someone was a very naughty girl while playing Secretary of State Barbie:

While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh’s prime minister to aid a donor to her husband’s charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business.

The Office of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina confirmed to Circa that Mrs. Clinton called her office in March 2011 to demand that Dr. Muhammed Yunus, a 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner, be restored to his role as chairman of the country’s most famous microcredit bank, Grameen Bank. The bank’s nonprofit Grameen America, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative.  Grameen Research, which is chaired by Yunus, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000, according to the Clinton Foundation website.

As the God-Emperor said, she’ll be in jail.

Darkstream: no vindication for the establishment

Even the media recognizes that there has been a massive shift in the political divide in Europe, as in the USA, from Classical Liberal vs Socialist to Nationalist vs Globalist.

A Le Pen loss, however, will hardly be a knockout blow for populism — or a ringing vindication of the establishment.

If anything, the French campaign has solidified the new fracture lines in modern politics, which bear little relation to the relatively modest differences marking the old left-right divide. Instead, the choice voters face on Sunday illustrates the profound new chasm in the West: between those who favor open, globalized societies and others who prefer closed, nationalized ones.

“What’s the common ground between Macron and Le Pen? There is none. What we’re seeing is historic: a choice between two completely different modes of organizing a society,” said Madani Cheurfa, a professor of politics at Paris’s Sciences Po.

This transcontinental political transition is still much closer to the beginning than it is to the end. I discuss this in more detail in my post-French election Darkstream.

Too soon for France

The results of the French election will be announced soon, and I expect the globalists and their pet media to celebrate Macron’s victory in much the same way that they did when Golden Dawn was defeated in Greece and the Freedom Party was defeated in Austria. But they shouldn’t, nor should nationalists despair in the least, because this is not the election cycle in which Europe’s nationalists were expected to come to power.

I wrote this in 2015. It still applies today:

The Fascists and the National Socialists came to power in the 1930s because they were the most credible options available to the Italian and German publics at the time. Don’t confuse the beginnings with the ends; 1933 was not 1941 or even 1939. Fascists were not elected with the idea that they would throw in with German imperialism (it is usually forgotten that Mussolini was an ally of France and Great Britain and only threw in with Germany after Great Britain betrayed Italian interests), and the National Socialists were not elected because they promised they would invade the Soviet Union, slaughter the Jews in Eastern Europe, and get Germany into a war with the USA.

One can’t learn anything useful about the future prospects of revolutionary parties by what other revolutionary parties did AFTER they came to power, one can only learn about their prospects by looking at what the other parties were doing BEFORE they came to power.

The worst thing about the established anti-nationalist European parties is that they have failed so spectacularly that even the violently murderous anti-immigrant parties will be preferred to them by even the most sane and civilized elements of the electorate. In a time of invasion, it doesn’t matter how dangerous the only party willing to defend you might be, what matters is that they are the only ones willing to defend you, your family, and your children.

As for those who are historically ignorant enough to point out that Golden Dawn only won 18 seats in the Greek parliament with 7 percent of the vote and therefore will never come to power, I will type very, very slowly and point out that in 1928, five years before they took power, the National Socialist Workers Party won 12 seats in the German parliament with 2.6 percent of the vote.

Two election cycles. And then you will see an absolute sea change in Europe. And if the EU attempts to entirely abandon even the pretense of democracy in defense of the invasion, the change will come even faster. And harder.

What is remarkable about the election today is that the French people have already turned against the established anti-nationalist parties, rejecting both in the first round of voting. But while they are willing to reject both sides of the establishment, they are not yet ready to turn to the nationalists. In this, Macron plays much the same role as Trump; he is a nominal outsider who, despite his elite connections, was not a player in either establishment party.

Macron will fail abysmally, of course, which is why I expect the Front National, possibly led by Marine Le Pen’s more telegenic niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, to come to power in the next election cycle.

Americans who cannot fathom this reluctance to vote for the nationalists in light of the events in Paris and Nice would do well to recall their own history. Did Americans turn against immigration, foreign interference, and the establishment parties immediately after 9/11? Of course not. It took 15 years, and three full presidential cycles, before they were ready to turn to the God-Emperor, and even then it was a close-run thing.

National electorates are like very large ships. It takes them a while to change direction. But, once they genuinely turn – and I am not counting choosing one color faction of the bi-factional ruling party instead of the other – that’s when real and substantive change can take place.

Of course, I could be wrong. And if I am wrong, and Marine Le Pen does manage to pull of an upset today, that will send a absolutely cataclysmic message to the masters of the collapsing European Union.

UPDATE: The current count shows 61 percent to Macron and 39 percent to Le Pen.

Shutting down government

Ann reiterates… build the bloody wall already!

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall? 

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown. 

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government.

The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending our borders — not Ukraine’s borders.

It’s not that hard.

  1. Build the wall.
  2. Drain the swamp.

If it’s truly necessary to fight a war with North Korea, so be it, but don’t let a little thing like nuclear war get in the way of the primary national interests. And if the swamp is excessively resistant, well, just park the USS Carl Vinson in Chesapeake Bay.

Responsible governing means failure

Rush Limbaugh quite reasonably asks why anyone should vote for Republicans if the result is simply more of the same old swamp:

Why is anybody voting Republican, if this is what happens when we win?

We won the House, we won the Senate, we won the White House, and the Democrats thwarted everything we supposedly said we were going to do with our victory. Well, I don’t want to use the word “we,” ’cause I’ve got nothing to do with this. This is another reason why I do not get close to these people. I do not… I would not relish having to have you call here today and make me justify what all happened here, had I been out there promoting and ballyhooing. That’s why I keep my distance from these people, ’cause I don’t have any control over what they’re gonna do or say, what their policies are going to be.

But I think this illustrates a much larger problem that we are going to have to recognize, and it’s the real reason Donald Trump was elected. It’s the real thing that he has got to do, and he’s got to start doing it. And it is not going to happen if he continues to work with Republicans, because it is obvious, for whatever reasons — and we can get into them — the Republican Party has no intention of defunding Planned Parenthood, no intention of defunding sanctuary cities. They don’t want to pay for a wall. Who knows what they really want in Obamacare. But then again, is it really the Republicans? I think there’s something much larger going on.

There’s no reason to keep electing Republicans if this is what we’re gonna get with this budget deal, which pays — continually pays — for sanctuary cities, funds Obamacare, funds the EPA, gives money to Planned Parenthood and no money for the wall. If you’re asking, “What am I voting for Republicans for?” you have a legitimate question. This is one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected. This is the swamp. This is what needs to be drained: The way the budget happens, the way legislation happens, who’s responsible for it. I’ll tell you where I’m going with this. I want to go back and play a sound bite from me on Friday’s program. This is the direction that I’m thinking this has to go…

Where’s Trump on this? For crying out loud, Trump’s elected president! Trump’s got a mandate. This was clearly part of it. Like building the wall, like any number of other things, repealing and place Obamacare was mentioned at every rally, so why doesn’t the president go in there and tell them what-for?

Let me try to explain this as best I can. When I saw this headline, it brought some things into focus for me, because this is gnawing at the edges here of irritation. The impression that I’ve had — you’ve had it, too — that something’s out of whack, something’s not right. We won the election. I’ve described it, I don’t see the glow of victory on Republican faces. I don’t see optimism. I don’t see happiness. I don’t see confidence. I don’t see an attitude that says, “Man, what an opportunity we have.” And as I say it’s just been eating away at me.

It seems to me that this is precisely what the presidential veto is for. Trump needs to be willing to call the bi-factional ruling party’s bluff. Let them shut down government. Let them show the entire country how unnecessary it is.

And build the damn wall. It’s pretty simple. No big beautiful wall, no second term. The wall is Trump’s “no new taxes”. If he doesn’t build it, for any reason, he loses his base. All the other stuff, being presidential and responsible and exhibiting gravitas and sportsmanship is irrelevant.

The God-Emperor should begin each day by looking at his schedule and telling himself two things.

  1. Does this help me build the wall? 
  2. Does this help me drain the swamp?
If anything on his schedule does not fit into those two categories, he should cancel it and replace it with something that does.

Mailvox: what does Le Pen need to do?

What does Le Pen need to do in the brief time between now and May 7 to win the French election?

To win the French election, Marine Le Pen needs to convince the
anti-EU French Left that national sovereignty is more important
than the precise shape of domestic policy in the next few years.
This will be challenging, since one of the chief attributes of the
Left is its inability to think in the long term.

First steps towards Frexit?

France goes to the polls for the first round of the Presidential vote. Results are expected around 2 PM Eastern.

PARIS (AP) — Amid heightened security, French voters began casting ballots for their next president Sunday in a first-round poll that’s being seen as a litmus test for the future of Europe and the spread of populism around the world.

More than 50,000 police and gendarmes were deployed to protect 66,000 polling stations for Sunday’s election, which comes just three days after a deadly attack on Paris’s famed Champs-Elysees Avenue in which a police officer and a gunman were slain. Another 7,000 soldiers are on patrol.

The presidential poll is the first ever to be held while France is under a state of emergency, put in place since the November 2015 attacks in Paris left 130 people dead.

Voters are choosing between 11 presidential candidates in the most unpredictable contest in generations. The current president, Socialist Francois Hollande, is not among them, having decided that his historic unpopularity would hurt his party’s cause.

“We really need a change in this country, with all the difficulties we are facing and terrorism,” Paris resident Alain Richaud said as he waited to cast his vote.

“There have been surprises (this year), there have always been scandals,” said Le Touquet resident Pierre-Antoine Guilluy.

Opinion polls point to a tight race among the four leading contenders vying to advance to the May 7 presidential runoff, when the top two candidates will go head to head.

Polls suggest far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, an independent centrist and former economy minister, were in the lead. But conservative Francois Fillon, a former prime minister embroiled in a scandal over alleged fake jobs given to his wife and children, appeared to be closing the gap, as was far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon.

The best chance for Le Pen is if Melenchon finishes second behind her. The problem with the two-round runoff system is that it essentially gives the mainstream two chances to keep out the populist riff-raff. But if it’s between the Front National and the far left, Le Pen should win relatively easily.

That doesn’t mean Le Pen can’t beat Macron or Fillon; Fillon was supposedly a sure thing only three months ago. But it would be more difficult and would probably require another incident of Muslim misbehavior or two to put her over the top.

UPDATE: It will be Macron vs Le Pen in the second round.

Run, Chelsea, run!

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Last White Hope of the Democratic Party turned out to be Chelsea Clinton in 2020?

Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you couldn’t interrupt, not even if you’re on TV at NBC, where she was earning $600,000 a year at the time. “When you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish,” Jay Kernis, one of Clinton’s segment producers at NBC, told Vogue. “She’s not used to being interrupted that way.”

Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and you really need to let me finish. I’m not used to interruptions.

What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.

Vanity Fair isn’t waiting to fire a few shots across the bow in an attempt to dissuade her before she even announces her decision to run for president: PLEASE, GOD, STOP CHELSEA CLINTON FROM WHATEVER SHE IS DOING. The last thing the left needs is the third iteration of a failed political dynasty. 


Regardless, 2020 will likely be the last time Democrats even consider running a white candidate. I would tend to assume it will be a black candidate, assuming a credible and reasonably crime-free one can be found, offered up as a sacrificial lamb to the God-Emperor, after which the Asians and Hispanics will take over the party.

It’s not just the French coming apart

A French intellectual observes the demise of the Left-Right political spectrum in France:

The laid-off, the less educated, the mistrained—all must rebuild their lives in what Guilluy calls (in the title of his second book) La France périphérique. This is the key term in Guilluy’s sociological vocabulary, and much misunderstood in France, so it is worth clarifying: it is neither a synonym for the boondocks nor a measure of distance from the city center. (Most of France’s small cities, in fact, are in la France périphérique.) Rather, the term measures distance from the functioning parts of the global economy. France’s best-performing urban nodes have arguably never been richer or better-stocked with cultural and retail amenities. But too few such places exist to carry a national economy. When France’s was a national economy, its median workers were well compensated and well protected from illness, age, and other vicissitudes. In a knowledge economy, these workers have largely been exiled from the places where the economy still functions. They have been replaced by immigrants.

While rich Parisians may not miss the presence of the middle class, they do need people to bus tables, trim shrubbery, watch babies, and change bedpans. Immigrants—not native French workers—do most of these jobs. Why this should be so is an economic controversy. Perhaps migrants will do certain tasks that French people will not—at least not at the prevailing wage. Perhaps employers don’t relish paying €10 an hour to a native Frenchman who, ten years earlier, was making €20 in his old position and has resentments to match. Perhaps the current situation is an example of the economic law named after the eighteenth-century French economist Jean-Baptiste Say: a huge supply of menial labor from the developing world has created its own demand.
“The young men living in the northern Paris suburbs feel a burning solidarity with their Muslim brethren in the Middle East.”

This is not Guilluy’s subject, though. He aims only to show that, even if French people were willing to do the work that gets offered in these prosperous urban centers, there’d be no way for them to do it, because there is no longer any place for them to live. As a new bourgeoisie has taken over the private housing stock, poor foreigners have taken over the public—which thus serves the metropolitan rich as a kind of taxpayer-subsidized servants’ quarters. Public-housing inhabitants are almost never ethnically French; the prevailing culture there nowadays is often heavily, intimidatingly Muslim.

One thing that is readily apparent about multiculturalism is how frighteningly fragile it is. It is completely dependent upon government funding being provided to the invading minorities. Which means, of course, it can be rapidly weakened by combining aggressive repatriation measures combined with a radical modification of the welfare system to provide only for those ethnically eligible.

Imagine how few foreigners would enter the United States if they were provided with no public services and no public dollars. There may not be sufficient support for that yet, but if the Alt-Right were to promise to take all of that money and provide two-thirds of it to pre-1965 Americans, I expect the measure would find majority support among those who would benefit greatly from it. And for the fiscally sane, it would represent about a forty percent cut in transfer payments.

Yes, it would certainly be better to altogether destroy the welfare system, but that’s not presently politically viable because female voters will never permit that. So, the winning strategy is to play the identity game, and play it to win.