Tag Archives: hillary clinton

Blog

Anti-White Clinton Harpy Jewsplains The White Man’s Burden

4 Comments

jennifer_palmieri

The rhetoric of the Clinton campaign represents the semitically correct state of the art, the culmination of decades worth of anti-White political discourse. The anti-White animus driving the Clinton campaign came to the fore especially toward the end of the campaign, in both her alt-right speech on August 24th and her basket of deplorables speech on September 9th. These speeches created controversy when they were delivered, but now in retrospect can be seen as definitive of Clinton’s campaign strategy and emblematic of the broader jew-led war on Whites.

After the election the Harvard Institute of Politics and jewsmedia figures conducted a lengthy post-mortem discussion between Clinton and Trump’s campaign managers. The most heated exchange occurred when the role of White voters came up for discussion (at about 1:35:00):

JENNIFER PALMIERI, CLINTON CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician I am glad to have laws. [interruption] Give me a minute. I am more proud of Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech than any other moment on the campaign trail.

CONWAY: Wow.

PALMIERI: She had the courage to stand up. I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.

. . .

PALMIERI: Kellyanne, his schedule didn’t concern me. What concerns me is hiring — is, is himself, you know, we’ve already gone through some of the examples of his own language, of his own positions that I believe were at odds with my values as an American of embracing diversity, inclusivity, equality. And hiring someone like Steve Bannon who has an act, with Breitbart and gives people and one of my proudest moments with her is her standing up with courage and with clarity in Steve Bannon’s own words and Donald Trump’s own words the platform that they gave to white supremacists, white nationalists. And it is a very, very important moment in our history as a country and I think as his presidency goes forward I am going to be very glad to be part of the campaign that tried to stop this.

A more telling concern was expressed by the jew Joel Benenson (at about 1:45:00), “Who are you trying to take the country back from, my grandparents who came here?”

Palmieri’s point was that the Clinton team perceived Trump’s rhetoric as appealling to White voters, and that they regarded such an appeal as unthinkably wrong specifically because the voters are White. Palmieri reiterated this point in a Washington Post op-ed:

I don’t know whether the Trump campaign needed to give a platform to white supremacists to win. But the campaign clearly did, and it had the effect of empowering the white-nationalist movement.

Trump provided a platform by retweeting white nationalists — giving their views an audience of millions. Views previously relegated to the darkest corners of the Internet also had a platform on Breitbart, the website of Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.

If Trump expects the Americans who did not vote for him to accept him as president, he needs to show that he accepts all of them as Americans. He needs to show that he understands their concerns and hears their fears.

I suggest he and his team try “hashtag ‘we are all Americans.’ ” We all have a role to play here. But it’s the winner who carries the burden of taking the lead in uniting the country. It’s the burden of leadership. It’s the burden of being the president of the United States.

Palmieri’s assertion that Trump won by “providing a platform for White supremacists” is best understood as an inversion and psychological projection. Like Clinton, Trump pandered frequently and explictly to jews and every other group except Whites. Unlike Clinton, Trump never mentioned Whites. In contrast, the entire premise and frame of reference for Clinton’s alt-right speech, which Palmieri is most proud of, and Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” rhetoric, which she used in many contexts around the same time, was utterly and explicitly anti-White.

In light of this anti-White rationale, Palmieri’s suggestion that Trump’s burden is to serve “all Americans” is best understood as a clarification and restatement of Clinton’s campaign slogan: STRONGER TOGETHER (AGAINST WHITES).

Blog

The Anti-White/Pro-Jew Regime’s Position on Genocide

51 Comments

Remarks at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Forward-Looking Symposium on Genocide Prevention, USGOV Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, 24 July 2012:

Now, this gathering is yet another example of what the museum does so well. It brings us face to face with a terrible chapter in human history and it invites us to reflect on what that history tells us and how that history should guide us on our path forward. As Sara said when we were walking in this morning, human nature did not dramatically and profoundly change in 1945. We still struggle with evil and the terrible impulses and actions that all too often result in atrocities and violence and genocide. But I want to thank the Committee on Conscience for bringing attention to contemporary cases of extreme violence against civilians.

Let me begin by acknowledging that here in this museum, it’s important to note that every generation produces extremist voices denying that the Holocaust ever happened. And we must remain vigilant against those deniers and against anti-Semitism, because when heads of state and religious leaders deny the Holocaust from their bully pulpits, we cannot let their lies go unanswered. When we hear Holocaust glorification and public calls to, quote, “finish the job,” we need to make clear that violence, bigotry will not be tolerated. And, yes, when criticism of Israeli Government policies crosses over into demonization of Israel and Jews, we must push back.

Here at this museum and in the work that many of you do every day, we are countering hatred with truth. Thanks to the museum and institutions like it and scholars and academics and activists around the world, we have accurate histories. We have memorials and archives that record the stories of those who survived and those who did not. And because we know what happened, our call to action is that much clearer and compelling. Bringing that dark chapter into light helps clarify and sharpen what we mean when we say “never again.”

But despite all we have learned and accomplished in the last 70 years, “never again” remains an unmet, urgent goal. At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, we have seen campaigns of harassment and violence against groups of people because of their ethnic, racial, religious, or political backgrounds, and even some which aimed at the destruction of a particular group of people, fitting the definition of genocide.

Clinton, presenting the official policy of the US government, advocates a baldly pro-jewish narrative, a view of history and morals dictated to the rest of us by a vengeful and vindictive people whose ghoulish museums and incessant guilt-tripping demonizes Whites.

Though Clinton spoke quite a bit about Africa, she made no mention of the harassment and violence Whites in Zimbabwe or South Africa have suffered.

President Obama was clear when he stated that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest as well as a core moral responsibility. So if a government cannot or will not protect its own citizens, then the United States and likeminded partners must act.

The rhetoric concerning “core national security interest” and “core moral responsibility” is utterly dishonest. The various groups of peoples living in the United States do not constitute a nation, and of these groups nobody but Whites are expected to be responsible to serve any group’s interests but their own. Open borders and forced integration are an effective way of destroying us. The current government of the United States does not protect it’s citizens (or anyone else) from this destruction, it helps inflict it.

Well, genocides and mass atrocities don’t just happen spontaneously. They are always planned. Genocides are preceded by organized, targeted propaganda campaigns carried out by those in power. Extremist leaders spread messages of hate often disguised as something else – a song on the radio, a nursery rhyme, or a picture book. The messages filter down. Those in power begin to dehumanize particular groups or scapegoat them for their country’s problems. Hatred not only becomes acceptable; it is even encouraged. It’s like stacking dry firewood before striking the match. Then there is a moment of ignition. The permission to hate becomes permission to kill.

Indeed.

Unfortunately for Whites, in the jewish narrative Whites can only be perpetrators of genocide, and only non-Whites can be victims. The thoughts and morals of the people currently in power are driven by this anti-White narrative. This is why the US government ignores violence against Whites. This is why it imposes open borders and forced integration. This is why it abides the dehumanizing and scapegoating of Whites in general, even as it defends jews.

A Jerusalem Post article regarding Clinton’s speech adds:

According to a poll unveiled at Tuesday’s event, 55 percent of the American public believes the United States should take military action against Syria, with 24% saying the US shouldn’t. At the same time, Syria ranked low on a list of foreign policy priorities.

The majority (55%) also felt Americans should provide ground forces in Syria, but only as a part of an international force.

In general, 69% of those surveyed said the United States should act to stop genocide in other parts of the world, with only 25% opposed. Another question worded slightly differently found that 78% support the US taking military action to stop genocide or mass atrocities with just 18% opposed.

I imagine Whites would be even more likely to support military action to stop their own genocide, if only they would come to understand what’s happening in such terms. To do so Whites must first overcome the constant anti-White propaganda, the scapegoating, the demonization, and realize that we have a more legitimate, more moral responsibility to defend our own interests than anyone else’s.

Blog

CNN’s Anti-White Election Commentary

26 Comments

From the transcript of Tuesday’s CNN primary coverage:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we have been looking at some of the exit polls from Kentucky, in particular the issue of race. Voters who said that race was important in making their decision or is the factor in making their decision.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is more disquieting news I think for Barack Obama as he looks for the general election.

COOPER: One in five I think.

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

COOPER: And that is people that would admit it to a complete strangers taking these exit polls theoretically it would be even larger those who would not admit it.

GERGEN: And from her point of view, over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision. And it really means — I mean, she’s been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.

You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn’t say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, I don’t want your vote. I don’t want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.

COOPER: Do you see her saying that?

GERGEN: Well, she has been a champion — she’s been a champion of civil rights for a long, long time. She and her husband both have I think well-earned reputations in the civil rights front. She’s never had redneck votes before in her life.

I see no reason why she couldn’t take the high road here in the closing days of his campaign and try to take this on and take on the Reverend Wright issue to say, “Look, I campaigned with this fellow for 15 months. I know a lot of you people don’t think he shares your values that somehow Barack thinks like Reverend Wright. Not true. I know him. I have been with him. And race should come out of this.”

I think she could do a lot by taking a high road.

COOPER: Reverend Wright also showed up in these exit polls.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the state of Kentucky, 54 percent of the voters said Barack Obama shares the views of Reverend Wright. That’s something we saw also in West Virginia.

And does Barack Obama share your values? 53 percent of the voters in Kentucky said, “No, he doesn’t.” This is some of the repair work that he’s got to do in terms of the voters that Hillary Clinton is getting.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hillary Clinton ought to keep in mind, I think, the long view here. She’s got many more years in public life ahead of her. Taking the high road at this point, saying I don’t want racists to vote for me, saying that this is about something bigger than just strategizing the last few races. I think that would stand her in very good stead.

BORGER: Very late for that. What in Montana and South Dakota?

TOOBIN: I mean, she might as well say it, because I think it would make a difference. This race has been so polarized along the issues of race and, frankly, I think most people blame her for that than they blame Obama. And to leave, if she’s in fact leaving on the high road, would do a world of good.

GERGEN: She could do it on Reverend Wright. She could still take that on before she leaves this race.

Here’s video.

For a while now the pundits have been expressing concerns that the White vote is going 60-40 or even 70-30 for Clinton. They generally don’t think the black vote going 80-20 or 90-10 for Obama is more noteworthy, and it certainly isn’t ever something they criticize. If anything they tell us this is perfectly understandable.

As the primary wears on the Clinton camp is getting desperate. The Obama camp is getting frustrated. Both view Whites, especially “working class” Whites, with distaste.

On Tuesday all was good and right in Oregon, where the “more highty-educated” Whites voted in large numbers for Obama. There was however a problem in Kentucky. There poor, under-educated, “working class” Whites had failed to act as the pundits desired:

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin translated this into a call for Clinton to disown the “redneck” vote, to distance herself from “racists”.

Note the conclusion they’re juming to: if race is a factor for you, and you are White, and you vote for Clinton, then you are a racist.

This vicious anti-White meme has been hailed and echoed in the liberal blogosphere. See for example Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, or David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote, or Visionary moments in punditry: David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin call on Hillary Clinton to stop courting racists.

Anti-racists pride themselves on being hyper-sensitive to and hyper-critical of any whiff of demonization or hate. But in this case they seem more than willing to set those concerns aside. They seem not at all skeptical or objective or sympathetic when nasty things are said about Whites. In fact they seem absolutely gleeful and eager to add their own bile.

Pandagon, for instance, thought this was worth highlighting:

Kentucky has one of the country’s highest proportions of people who are not college graduates.

If you read the CNN transcript you can see this echoes what the “more-educated” Blitzer and King were talking about just before Gergen burbled out his hate. The assumption is that “smart” people vote for Obama. Because like, duh, anything else is just racist.

Momocrat thought this nasty slander was worth repeating:

On our chat last night, a Kentucky voter joined in during the last hour to say that in rural parts of her state, people are literally being told that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. And people believe it! And the MSM pundits wonder why Obama didn’t spend much time in West Virginia and Kentucky?

Hmmmm. Or maybe Obama didn’t do well because he didn’t spend much time there. Maybe?

Bang the Drum says stop the world:

Please blog this, tweet this, and digg this. Let’s get some legs under what really was an historic moment in TV.

Time to crap on Whites! Get some legs under this! It’s historic!

Or is it just mind-numbingly normal?

All sarcasm aside, there’s a far more substantial problem here. What the anti-racists are doing is demonstrating their own hypocritical hate. They do so not only by being willfully blind to reasonable explanations Whites have to poll and vote as they did, but also by so thoroughly misinterpreting the statistics. They are eager to see only the “racism” they want to see.

I realize I have to explain this in more detail. This is because the media, our schools, and the liberal anti-racists who run them have done a very thorough job of brainwashing everyone that White = racist, and racist = bad. Please be patient and read on. I’ll spell it out as clearly as I can, especially for the benefit of the outraged anti-racist liberals who may drop by.

– – –

My first thought on hearing so many Whites had told pollsters that race was a factor for them was, gee, that’s awfully honest. Whites don’t expect applause for speaking frankly about race. In fact, they expect exactly the opposite. The topic is a minefield. Consider for example how the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been greeted.

My second thought was, well of course race is a factor for White voters. There were those revelations about Obama spending 20 years associating with Reverend Wright, a man who has spouted all sorts of black-centric and anti-White rhetoric, which many blacks have said they do not find objectionable or even out of the ordinary. Then there was Obama’s “bitter, clinging” statement. That certainly made it seem as though he didn’t understand or sympathize with working class Whites. Then there was his “typical White person” characterization of his grandmother. Do you think Whites without a college degree may have heard that blacks are voting 90-10 for Obama? Perhaps they think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last of all, probably because the media has gone to lengths to keep it buried, there is Michelle Obama’s thesis, which revolves around her blackness and her concern for the black community. In fact it’s all about race!

Can an honest person sum up all these things as having to do with race? Which of them is not a legitimate concern? Can an honest White get credit for being honest? Why are Whites the only group whose voting patterns are not only scrutinized but criticized?

Everyone in the CNN studio Tuesday night was well aware of Wright. The exit polls reflected his impact. Were the pundits not listening? Apparently not. A few months ago David Gergen defended Obama by downplaying the importance of these race-related issues. He thinks anyone who can’t set aside Wright and overlook Obama’s gaffes must be irrational and is therefore a racist.

Other pundits seem equally blind and/or biased. They find it easier to accuse Whites of being stupid and ethnocentric than to admit that Obama and the people he associates with are more overtly ethnocentric. They can’t face the possibility that Whites are justified in not liking or trusting Obama. They’d sooner slur and defame Whites than accept the possibility that Whites are right.

My third thought was, wow, 9 out of 10 voters who said race was a factor voted for Clinton. But that means the other 10% voted for Obama. So how many blacks voted? How many voted for Obama? How many of them said race was a factor?

For some strange reason the answers to these questions are not easy to find. It’s surprising because CNN, and especially the AP story cited by Pandagon, reported plenty of statistics about Whites. They could have provided the black numbers for comparison, but they didn’t. Wouldn’t it have helped illustrate how Whites differed? Wouldn’t it just be fair and informative to provide those numbers?

The AP writer says:

Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college.

No black statistics. I’d like to have the raw data CNN and AP used, but they don’t offer it, and I can’t find it.

WaPo, however, did provide some important numbers:

In Kentucky, Obama won by better than 9 to 1 among black voters, but they made up just 9 percent of the electorate.

So more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Wow. CNN and AP didn’t mention that.

What’s more intriguing is that 8-9% of Obama’s voters were black and 10% of the voters who said race matters voted for Obama. What was the overlap between these groups? Might it have been larger than the 19% of Clinton’s White voters who said race matters? In other words, could a deeper examination of these statistics reveal that race was just as much or more of a factor for Obama’s black voters than it was for Clinton’s White voters?

Did David Gergen or Jeffery Toobin or anyone else in the CNN studio that night think such thoughts? Why did Gergen use the epithet “redneck” in explaining the thoughts he did have? Why didn’t anyone there object to that epithet or the hateful anti-White conclusions he and Toobin were jumping to?

Gergen and Toobin and the anti-racist bloggers who consider them heroes think a large fraction of Whites saying race affects their vote is wrong, something to be concerned about, something to renounce. But it seems likely Obama’s black voters are equally human. If White voters who say race is a factor are racist, then aren’t blacks who say it racist too?

Will CNN or AP share their raw data? Will Gergen and Toobin or any other media pundit go on prime time cable to apologize to Whites? Or will they call on Obama to reject the votes of black racists? Are there any liberal anti-racist bloggers who will admit they made a mistake and renounce their own anti-White hate?

I doubt it.