MONOKULTUR

Lad os se på, hvad den tidligere Første Frue, New York Senator og Udenrigsminister Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton bruger sin ytringsfrihed til. Til MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, beklagede hun, at pressen ikke behandlede Trump dårligt nok, sikkert på baggrund af at han stadig er i live

Sadly the press is still not able to cover Trump the way that they should. They careen from one outrage to the next. What was outrageous three days ago is no longer on the front pages, even though it threatens the physical safety of so many people, particularly, as you pointed out, immigrants, that he and Vance have decided to demonize.

Fra en uhyrlighed til anden er ikke en upræcis observation, når vi ser at Clinton føler sig snydt kun dage efter det andet mordforsøg på 45/47 – men det er også lidt af en projektion. Så hvorledes læser hun pressens formål og etik?

And I don’t understand why it is so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is. You know, the late great journalist Terry Evans, one time said that journalists should really try to achieve objectivity. And by that he said, I mean, they should cover the object. Well, the object in this case is Donald Trump.

Som et våben, er svaret. Kandidat Joe Biden sagde det samme i 2020, da han blev spurgt om han ville ‘pakke Højesteret’, altså reelt underlægge den dømmende magt flertallet. Og da USA ikke har sikre valg, hvor man ikke kan føre audit og hvor valgmaskiner er let manipulerbare, de fleste etablerede medier reducerede til konspirationsteoretiske propaganda maskiner og de store IT giganter, bortset fra Musks X, censurerer villigt på statens vegne.

Så når man nu ved, at oppositionen er truslen mod demokratiet, hvorfor så ikke skrue endnu mere op for den morderiske retorik? Så tænkt, så gjort

His dangerous demagoguery, his danger to our country and the world, and stick with it. They were merciless about what they saw as president Biden’s problems in the debate and calling for him to withdraw. I believe Donald Trump has disqualified himself over and over and over again to be a presidential candidate, let alone a president. 

Med “merciless about what they saw as president Biden’s problems” mener hun vel at medierne har dækket over hans åbenlyse kognitive forfald de seneste fire år? Clinton siger ikke så meget konkret, som Scott Adams også bemærker, men bruger blot ord, der bekræfter en forudindtagethed hos basen og forankrer den hos vælgere, der ikke følger så meget med, eller er fanget i de overlejrede mediers boble. 

The second thing though, is that, part of what Trump is counting on is for people to get desensitized. I mean, ‘oh my gosh, did you hear what he said yesterday? Did you hear who he attacked? Did you hear the viciousness?’ And it’s just like with a shrug, okay, fine, we’re moving on.

Hvis man tror han er Hitler, så er det ikke så ophidsende når han taler. Men heri har Scott Adams en god pointe, for trumps valg at ordet “fight” 6/1-21 ville aldrig have vagt opsikt, hvis ikke medierne koblede det til de optøjer der opstod… blev fremelsket, undskyld, på Capitol. Alle bruger ordet kæmp i politisk sammenhæng, for man kæmper for sin sag, kæmper mod nogen og med noget. Der er endda et begreb, der hedder klassekamp, der har en revolutionær oprindelse, som man bare slynger om sig i sikker forvisning på, at der ikke ‘sker en skid’, som Hausgaard engang reminiscerede.

Mordforsøgende er ikke Demokraternes skyld, forklarede Tammy Duckworth, der er kampagneleder for Kamala Harris, til CNNs Wolf Blitzer, for deres retorik er uændret: “He’s always been a threat to Democracy, we’ve always said that.” Karine Jean-Pierre, Det Hvide Hus talskvinde svarede “Your question is incredibly dangerous” da Fox News Peter Doocey, spurgte om de ville bruge et andet ord end ‘trussel’ om Trump. Farlige spørgsmål… Og den dag i dag, fem år efter at den blev endeligt lagt i graven, sidder MSNBCs Joy Reid og insisterer på at ‘Russia Collusion’ er en realitet.

Det er Trumps brug af alt, der er farlig, for det er ham, der er farlig. Farlig for den overlejrede magt, der langsomt men sikkert trækker os frem mod at militært opgør med Rusland, et opgør der ikke kan vindes. Det sindssyge kvindemenneske fortsætter ufortrødent

Well Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally. He has said what he wants to do, he and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator, at least on day one. All of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be willing to endure frankly what is discomforting and, to some extent, kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents.

Amerikanerne skal ikke se Trumps humor, de skal se den parodi Demokraterne og medierne tegner – Partiets endelige bud! Og alligevel fortsætter hun

 And then finally, the hopeful side of this is that I do think more and more Americans are rejecting the kind of chaos that he represents. We can’t go back. That’s what the Harris campaign says all the time. We’re not going back to what he failed to do to protect American lives during covid. We’re not going back to the romance with dictators that puts innocent lives at risk and America’s security in danger.

We can’t go back and give this very dangerous man another chance to do harm to our country and the world. 

Bemærkede nogen et argument? Spredning af had er en del af ytringsfriheden og det er vel godt, at den gamle fascistgimpe bruger den til det yderste. 

I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as Muller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.

Altså… Nej, Jonathan Turley har skrevet noget, det er bedre, om det totale omvendtslev, som Demokraterne udspyer med mediernes megafoner på Systemet CIAs vegne. Det var Hillary Clintons egen valgkampagne, der spredte den falske historie om, at Trump havde en gænge med ‘russerne’, en falsk historie oprindeligt opfundet af et russisk drikkelag, nu ber’ jeg Dem.

Clinton efforts were so obvious by July 2016 that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The Russian investigation was launched days after this briefing.

Her general counsel, Marc Elias, his former partner Michael Sussmann, and the campaign were later found involved in not just spreading the false claims from the Steele dossier but other false stories like the Alfa Bank conspiracy claim.

It was Elias who managed the legal budget for the campaign. We now know that the campaign hid the funding of the Steele dossier as a legal expense.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said that Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Elias was also seated next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was asked about the role of the campaign, he denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Even assuming that Podesta was kept in the dark, the Durham Report clearly shows that Elias knew and played an active role in pushing this effort.

The Clinton campaign lied to the media, spread false claims of Russian disinformation, and was accused of being a conduit for Russian intelligence. So would the “better deterrence” have been for Clinton herself to be arrested?

“For a person who is on her fourth memoir, Clinton is remarkably hostile to free speech” skriver Turley videre. Og det er selvfølgelig kun andres frihed, hun har et stramt forhold til, som da New Yorks guvernør Kathy Hochul sagde, at byens konfiskation at en stor del af Trumps formue, ikke ville danne præcedens – ingen panik forretningsmennesker, alle er bare ikke lige for loven!

Som jeg har siddet og transskriberet dette fæle stykke retorik, så slår det mig, at Trump vandt over Hillary i 2016 og nu skulle være i problemer mod Kamala, hvis man skal tro mediefortællingen. For bortset fra en række ‘you know’ så taler Hillary Clinton fuldkommen flydende og hun balancerer sikkert sine insinuationer uden at stå på mål for dem direkte, som en professionel politiker. Velartikuleret ordflom, der ikke efterlader lytteren i tvivl om, at verden er på hovedet og at de skal opgive alle principper for at redde principperne. For Hillary er en virtuos sofist, der drager de logiske slutninger af den falske præmis. Når vi nu ved, at Trump er skurken, hvorfor så behandle ham som en ukendt faktor, der skal undersøges, som alle andre spørgsmål?

Sammenlign med Kamala Harris, der siger ting som “I offer a new generation of leadership for our country that is particularly about turning the page on an era that that sadly has shown us attempts by some to insight fear..” og på spørgsmål om,, hvorledes hun vil nedbringe amerikanernes leveomkostninger med “One is bringing down the cost of everyday necessities including groceries”. “Kamala has wine days and pill days” sagde Jimmy Failla og tilføjede “Today was a pill day”. Chardonnay don’t help!

Og hov, skrev Marlene Wind ikke det samme forleden?