The Gloves are Coming Off
First a little bit of recent history. Readers are probably aware that some questions about the occasionally malfunctioning Deep State android… no, wait, we’ll start again. Questions have recently been raised about the health of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton by various “alt-right” tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists, such as this one.
The monsters are normally hiding under Hillary’s bed, but lately they have come out into the open and are getting way too many you-tube hits.
Naturally, we wish her all the best, and normally we would say her health is no-one’s business but her own. But she’s not just anyone – she may well become the president of the world’s foremost nuke-studded superpower. Any health issues she might have are therefore rightfully subject to public scrutiny.
As Paul Joseph Watson notes in his video (same link as above), there is really no telling what exactly is wrong with her, but something is (obviously, she cannot have everything he speculates about). Even if she is only a narcissistic emotionally illiterate sociopath, it would be great if voters knew about it.
Not surprisingly, all these conspiracy theorist debates about Ms. Clinton’s health (as well as discussions of her lax treatment of classified material using a private email server) have attracted the attention of the thought police. Courtesy of Zerohedge, we have learned that the official arbiter of what may or may not be discussed is the Washington Post these days (a newspaper owned by Clinton supporter Jeff Bezos).
At the WaPo, a certain Chris Chillizza seems to be responsible for telling the world which topics are off limits – and Ms. Clinton’s health is evidently one of those. As you can see below, he is not really known for applying the same criteria to the health of every presidential candidate.
A reminder that the intertubes never forget.
And then, this happened:
Ably assisted by her numerous minions, Hillary Clinton stumbles into her van at the 9-11 memorial ceremony.
As one commentator remarked, it could be seen as a gesture of solidarity. First the South Tower collapsed, then the North Tower, then (rather mysteriously) the WTC 7 building, and finally Hillary Clinton. The upshot was though that “we” can apparently not “just stop talking about Hillary’s health” in line with Mr. Chillizza’s command.
Given this unfortunate development, the WaPo has decided that the gloves are coming off now. Superficially, it appears as though the idea was that they would show those conspiracy-mongers how it’s done, by donning their own tinfoil hat and demonstrating its awesome powers.
Alas, we are well-versed conspiracy theorists ourselves, and we have naturally discovered that there is far more to this than meets the eye. A nefarious plot was set into motion, but it seems to have failed.
Killing Two Birds with One Stone
Realizing that Mr. Chillizza’s assertion that “The simple fact is that there is zero evidence that anything is seriously wrong with Clinton”, is no longer going to fly, the WaPo decided to join battle with a conspiracy theory of its own.
To this end, it has sent Ms. Cindy Boren into the breach with an article entitled “The man who discovered CTE thinks Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned”.
This was based on two tweets by the obviously completely unbiased, non-partisan Dr. Bennet Omalu (just look at his twitter stream and you will see what we mean), who delivered his own long-distance diagnosis of Ms. Clinton, together with what is obviously the only logical conclusion:
It is possible that Mr. Omalu was still under the impression of Ms. Clinton’s last press conference (the first she has given in ages), which incidentally dissolved into one of her famous uncontrollable coughing fits (Chillizza: “If suffering an occasional coughing fit is evidence of a major health problem, then 75 percent of the country must have that mystery illness”).
On occasion of said press conference, Clinton was beating on her new hobby horse: linking Trump with Putin. This is an admittedly brilliant idea of her campaign advisors, designed to distract from the embarrassing revelations of the DNC email hack.
By accusing Putin of being the mastermind of the hack (a “story” that has by now mushroomed into “Putin is hacking our elections”) and twisting Trump’s jest that Putin would do us all a favor by releasing everything he has, the focus has been shifted from what is actually important.
Note that the leftist mainstream press has unquestioningly accepted and repeated the Clinton campaign’s allegation that Trump “urged Russia to hack” her no longer existing email server (thousands of emails have been destroyed by her staff, as well as all mobile devices ever linked to the server, which have been smashed to bits with hammers; there is obviously nothing left to hack).
In reality, Trump said the Russians should share what they already have with the FBI. Obviously it was meant as a joke, but he later repeated that just in case anyone did have these emails, it would be very interesting for all of us to get hold of them – which is undoubtedly true. As noted above, twisting this around has been a truly brilliant stroke by Clinton’s campaign.
Ever since Trump expressed a preference for talking to Putin rather than provoking a war with Russia, the war party has been on his case. For many years, Putin has been portrayed as evil incarnate in the mainstream press (this began long before the Ukraine altercations), so the imaginary “bromance” between Trump and Putin has become a rallying cry for the neo-con chickenhawk brigade, to which Hillary Clinton belongs (she is clearly the candidate favored by the military-industrial complex, its apoligists and assorted other war racketeers. Let us not forget that by mentioning the possibility of peaceful solutions, Trump is seemingly endangering what is undoubtedly the greatest racket of all time – see “War Racket Update” and “The Greatest Racket of All Time” for some color on this).
Photo via 123ru.net
As an aside to all this, we strongly recommend checking out Justin Raimondo’s take on Trump’s conflict with the war party and recent events related to it. Even if one doesn’t agree with everything Raimondo says, his articles are thought-provoking and as a rule are chock-full with corroborating links; he always makes it easy for his readers to fact-check his assertions (here is a representative selection: Trump Enrages the War Party, Who Hacked the DNC?, It’s Getting Scarier Every Day, The Campaign to Blame Putin for Everything).
We are somewhat less convinced of Trump’s anti-war credentials than Justin Raimondo seems to be, but we certainly acknowledge that he will probably alter the course of US foreign policy and is far less likely to seek or provoke military confrontations with enemies du jour (particularly Russia) than Hillary Clinton. We also happen to believe that despite his image as a “tough guy” and alleged racist, Trump is not lacking in empathy the way Clinton is. Admittedly we cannot prove this, but it is an impression we get when we hear his children talk about him.
By linking Trump to Putin, the Clinton campaign and its backers are hoping to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. All seriousness aside though, what is this nefarious plot we spoke of above? Why is the click-baity title of this post referring to an assassination attempt? Are they trying to literally kill two birds with one stone? Bear with us.
So here is our hard-hitting counter-conspiracy theory to the recent WaPo conspiracy theory. We suspect editors of the WaPo must somehow have heard of a secret weapon the British Empire has employed to great effect in WW2. Here is a brief documentary on said weapon:
Secret weapon of the British Empire: the Killing Joke
Clearly, the article by Ms. Boren was an attempt to recreate the Killing Joke, in a version tailored to be deadly for Trump and Putin specifically. It was hoped they would laugh themselves to death upon reading this piece of violent comedy.
While neither the Kremlin nor the Trump campaign have as of yet replied to our enquiries as to how the two managed to survive this assassination attempt, we have our suspicions.
Our guess is that unbeknown to the WaPo, Trump and Putin always have somber music playing softly in the background to immunize themselves against deadly comedy attacks. Moreover, we are quite sure they have modern, more effective versions of the Lament Chanters of the Q Division employed, just in case an attack happens to get through.
As for the WaPo, we would like to remind its editors that joke warfare has been banned by the Geneva convention (see the above documentary).
Obviously, Trump and Putin are harder to kill than surmised by their would-be assassins.
Meanwhile, DC Leaks has released emails from Colin Powell’s hacked gmail account, which is a treasure trove of interesting and at times embarrassing revelations, (see these stories at the Intercept: Powell on the email server, Iraq war architect Jack Straw happy that Brexit distracts from Chilcot inquiry, etc.). One of these mails (from a summary at the Daily Mail) lends support to Paul Joseph Watson’s musings about Ms Clinton’s narcissistic streak. It comes from one of her main donors, who cannot be accused of being biased against her:
A wealthy private equity investor told former Secretary of State Colin Powell that Hillary Clinton ‘HATES’ President Obama in newly leaked emails between the two men that were leaked by D.C. Leaks and obtained by The Intercept.
Jeffrey Leeds wrote to Powell in one email which was posted on Twitter by Lee Fang that all Clinton wants is to win the upcoming election, and that she might not win in the end. He then went on to say: ‘It’s the one prize she wants. She has everything else. And she HATES the President (‘that man’ as the Clintons call him) kicked her a** in 2008. She can’t believe it or accept it.’
In another March 2015 email exchange between the two the men talk about Clinton’s health, with Leeds stating that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse informed him that ‘she could barely climb the podium steps’ when the two gave a speech at the same event a few months prior. Leeds also wrote to Powell about other problems he believed Clinton would be facing in the upcoming election.
‘No one likes her and the criminal thing ain’t over,’ wrote Leeds.
‘I don’t think the president would weep if she found herself in real legal trouble. She’ll pummel his legacy if she gets a chance and he knows it.’
What we find interesting is her motive for wanting the presidency – namely “it’s the one prize she wants, she has everything else”. So, it’s not because she wants to “make America great again”, to name an alternative possibility. :)
Lastly, here is a disclaimer with respect to Mr. Trump: he is a fascinating figure, but we see him mainly as a symptom of a deteriorating social mood. What we find most interesting about him are not his positions (which are at best a mixed bag). We are also not laboring under a naive belief that he somehow can or will rescue the nation. What interests us most is the reaction of the establishment and the media to his rise.
Stefan Molyneux has provided an interesting compilation in two videos which document how the mainstream media have distorted perceptions about Mr Trump. They are accessible here: “The Untruth about Donald Trump”, Part 1 and Part 2. We hasten to add that there are a lot of things worth criticizing about Trump. These videos mainly serve to show how untrustworthy the mainstream media are.
Allow us to also point out here that perceptions about Ms. Clinton are no doubt distorted by her opponents as well. As far as we are concerned, we are deeply suspicious of anyone who has been a lifelong professional politician or bureaucrat. Ms. Clinton happens to be one of the politicians we particularly detest, for a very long list of reasons. We sometimes wonder about people who genuinely support her – this requires a level of confusion that is beyond the scope of our otherwise quite large imagination.
The only politician we ever managed not to be cynical about was Ron Paul. This is not to say that we always agreed with everything he said (although we obviously agreed with a lot of it). But we always felt that he was sincere and a true idealist, one of the rare birds not in the game for power or money, and informed by a sound economic and political philosophy to boot.
Mr. Trump is not a professional politician, which is a big plus in our book, but we are at odds with many of his ideas (especially his position on trade, which we think is extremely misguided. We are not against every “populist” stance, but protectionism is popular for all the wrong reasons). We greatly appreciate his entertainment value though, which is currently without peer.