Hillary Is Secretive, Abusive Because of Psychic Scarring
She wasn’t always like this … No, Hillary Rodham Clinton was once willing to share her deepest thoughts and feelings, as she did in a 1993 speech on “the politics of meaning,” delivered as her father lay dying, in which she said the country was suffering “a sleeping sickness of the soul,” and urged her fellow citizens “to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century.” – Politico
This article attempts to convince us that Hillary is secretive and abusive because she has been psychically injured during her long career of public service.
But there are so many instances in Hillary’s past of ways she has deliberately injured others that it is difficult to believe such acts are mostly the result of ongoing injured feelings.
On its surface, therefore, this Politico article is jaw-dropping in terms of its thesis and argumentation. But there is probably another reason for its dissemination as well: More on that below.
From a surface standpoint, we are aware that she has been more than ordinarily abusive to others working with her or reporting to her. It has even been suggested that Vince Foster killed himself because of her relentless denigration when he worked at the White House as Special Council.
But another reason has recently circulated once more for Foster’s supposed suicide: He was devastated by the Waco massacre, which Hillary supposedly had a hand in triggering. See here.
It is hard to believe that Hillary pushed for the cold-blooded murder of 80 individuals including women and children because of personal psychic scarring. Supposedly, Waco was impeding the momentum of the health-care overhaul she wanted to pursue.
Perhaps Hillary was so mean in the White House because her husband was having numerous outside affairs. But the way she chose to handle these affairs was not necessarily to confront Bill but to intimidate the women by means fair and foul to ensure they did not talk.
Right from the beginning of her White House tenure, Hillary was malicious and manipulative. She fired the personnel of the White House Travel office and tried to jail individuals with phony charges of corruption. She did this because she wanted her own people in charge of the office, which generated lucrative fees.
When Hillary and Bill left the White House they stole a lot of furniture and silverware, and eventually had to give some of it back.
These are just some of the issues surrounding Hillary that seem to indicate that her behavior is not the result of psychic scarring but something more profound and even wicked.
The Politico article is firm in its thesis and analysis however:
[As a result of her speech] she was roundly, relentlessly ridiculed, most infamously in a New York Times cover story, titled “Saint Hillary,” by the late Michael Kelly, in which she expounded at even greater length on her personal passions, unaware that Kelly would use them to mock her for high-minded earnestness.
In those interviews, the public Hillary Clinton was altogether different than the one the public sees today: less guarded, more candid, far more eager to embrace the “larger message” she’s so often criticized for lacking now.
When Kelly suggested to her that she was “trying to come up with a sort of unified-field theory of life,” she responded in what he described as “excited” tones: “That’s right, that’s exactly right!”
“She is, it develops in the course of two long conversations,” Kelly wrote then, “looking for a way of looking at the world that would marry conservatism and liberalism, and capitalism and statism, that would tie together practically everything: the way we are, the way we were …
This is a good explanation of Hillary’s fundamental approach to politics and life: She wants to marry “capitalism and statism” together.
In other words, the animating drive of her adult life was to create lasting fascism and impose it on America.
She is not so far from doing so.
Presumably, in the process of realizing her dreams for the larger society, Hillary was able to justify actions most would find reprehensible.
That’s one way to look at it. Another is simply that she is a venal and manipulative person who has a sociopath’s gift for doing as she chooses without concern for the results.
In any event, it is very difficult to marry her many malicious actions with psychic scarring based on people’s unkindness.
There are many in this world exposed to worse who do not act the way Hillary behaves, and thus it is very hard to take this Politico story seriously.
But as we suggested at the beginning of this article, there may be other reasons to publish this Politico perspective.
First, we have to realize that as ridiculous as this Politico article seems it is by no means alone. There are thousands of pro-Hillary articles published on a regular basis that are nearly as illogical and naïve-seeming as this one.
It is fairly clear to anyone who pays attention that the Clintons are part of a larger corrupt system that is dedicated to removing or diminishing nation-states in order to create stronger global governance.
Part of this system involves putting into place destructive mechanisms that undermine the military, politics and even the media.
It is this last point that is important to note here. Hillary’s political campaign has forced the worst kind of biased and inaccurate reporting out into the open.
The most “prestigious” publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times as well as the country pre-eminent thought magazines such as The New Yorker and The Atlantic regularly issue article that almost anyone capable of reading can debunk.
We would argue this is not by accident. The other day (here) we made the point that it seemed Hillary’s elite backers were desperate to ensure her election. We hypothesized that her ability to lead the US into war was seen as most valuable.
It is fairly clear that the world’s economic system is worsening and that central banking actions are undermining whatever shards of solvency are still apparent. Consider this thesis as viable and then accept that it is being buttressed by reports such as the one just issued by Gallup (here) showing that Americans hold mass media in lower respect than ever.
We would argue that these two results are not unrelated. American mainstream media is being torn down on purpose along with the political process to further raze democracy and weaken the West’s functionality generally.
Conclusion: The world and specifically the West are being prepared for a major change that will feature a diminution of local authority in favor of global governance. Within this context, articles even as terrible as this one in Politico are no accident. They are designed to polarize the population and increase mistrust of mass media reporting. It is fortunate, therefore, that we have the opposition of ‘Net news.