I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.
If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.
If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.
if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.
On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.
Only one presidential candidate has wielded the sledgehammer of government against personal enemies.
The spirit of totalitarianism is very strong among today’s Left, and you can expect that a Hillary Clinton presidency would unleash and encourage a broad spectrum of attacks against those who do not toe the line.
43 thoughts on “The Rage of the Hillaryite Bullies”
Isn’t that why people call her Hitlery?
I’m reading a memoir by Sir John Wheeler-Bennet, the historian, about Europe between the wars and the people he met there. Trotsky was the only person he met who was impelled entirely by hatred. In saying that, Sir J was drawing a distinction with the senior Nazis, including Hitler, whom he found entirely evil. I suppose his point was that, however wicked they were, Hitler & co also had things they admired or loved, whereas Trotsky could only hate.
Which camp does Hillary best approximate?
“however wicked they were, Hitler & co also had things they admired or loved, whereas Trotsky could only hate.”
Hitler has become a cliche in the west. He was far more able than acknowledged, although he relied too much on his intuition.
When his intuition failed him, he got into bad trouble. On the Jews, he was a product of his time. The French merrily rounded up Jews and sent them off to the camps. So did the Dutch.
I think the Belgians did the best job of trying to protect their Jews if I remember correctly. I’m reading another book about the SOE in Britain. It’s called “Flames in the Field” and is the story of four women agents, who were dropped into France and disappeared after a time.
The French Resistance was mostly a late war fiction.
Hitler of course had the power to do what he wanted and his assistants were typical German efficient workers. Nazis, of course, were bad people but maybe no worse then ISIS which seems to have an insatiable appetite for blood.
The author also touches on the issue of whether the Dutch resistance was thoroughly coopted by the Abwehr. Leo Marx in his book goes into this in more detail and, as I have some amateur interest in cryptanalysis, I have read a bit about it.
Stalin was far more evil than Hitler but don’t ask the Left about that.
“Hitler has become a cliche in the west.” Yes.
“He was far more able than acknowledged”: yes.
“On the Jews, he was a product of his time.” I disagree: he and his cronies were far beyond being merely a product of their times.
I’ve spoken to two Germans who remember when Hitler was in power. One was sent to a prison camp late in the war for making a joke at Der Furher’s expense. Both said that as a speaker he was utterly mesmerizing, far beyond anyone else they’ve ever seen or heard.
“Stalin was far more evil than Hitler but don’t ask the Left about that.”
He had to be. He did not have “typical German efficient workers.” He had a huge uneducated and culturally diverse country to weld into a weapon to defeat Hitler. That he made the production of omelettes an industrial endeavor, was beside his point. Evil indeed, but it worked.
Level of evil of both Stalin and Hitler is so high that the calibration doesn’t matter.
Mike K….indeed, lots of anti-Semitism all over Europe…if you were a betting man circa early 1900s and had to predict where it would reach the highest level of extremity, you would probably have picked France not Germany…but in fact, in Germany under the Nazis it did reach levels not seen elsewhere in Europe.
PenGun…you are assuming that top-down management and a climate of fear is the key to efficiency. Not much evidence for that view.
Do you think the execution of a high % of the Soviet officer corps on crazy grounds increased the efficiency of the Soviet military?
@ Brian. Yes, but he was mesmerising primarily because he was telling them things they wanted to hear. He would not have been mesmerising with that message in Russia or America. Nor even in allied Japan. Charisma is highly contextual. People can come closest to imagining this by reflecting on those moments when one says “How did I ever fall in love with that woman? Listening to her now, she is nothing special.”
To the OP: Social shaming is the primary method of spreading liberalism. It is usually much milder, done with nods and tones of voice. It is the political belief of the cool kids in high school, who could undercut your status with a little condescension in public. They grew up to be professors, sometimes. Bullying is what happens when those stupid uncool kids don’t take the hint and slink away. Liberals ratchet up their insults at that point.
We should be grateful, them showing us what would work to persuade them, but we don’t make use of it. We keep trying to reason with them instead.
AVI…there was a very interesting video sequence with a man who was in Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. He was and had been strongly anti-Nazi, but admitted that when observing the mass enthusiasm at Nazi rallies, he couldn’t help wishing he could be a part of it all.
When I first saw Leni Reifenstahl’s Triumph of the Will it did seem mesmerizing, though I knew no German and was quite aware of Hitler’s evil – in other words, without much context to feel what I did. She (and he, I suspect) could really manipulate those archetypes. I was reminded of it when Trump circled and then landed in a Trump plane at early rallies; it wasn’t that effective, of course, but I wondered how aware he was of those phoenix images.
“Which camp does Hillary best approximate?”
“Which camp does Hillary best approximate?”
I don’t claim any special insight, but I would say Stalin. If HRC has anything she loves, it might be Chelsea.
Sad to say, I don’t think that the comparison to Stalin would be considered a negative to her admirers, though the alt-left might object.
(gotta be careful w/that [enter] key).
I think it ill-advised to apply the category “anti-semitic” to the Nazis, at least if the same term is to be used to describe remarks about Jews that are merely stupid and offensive. There is, as far as I can see, no continuity between the Nazi horror show, and the common continental jew-baiting of the time. Even the Russian pogroms scarcely compare.
One of my grandfathers, being an Irish Roman Catholic, was of course anti-semitic, but he wouldn’t have dreamt of beating up a Jew, never mind trying to annihilate the lot of them. There seems to me to be an unbridgeable gulf between the Nazis and almost everyone else on this score. Hell, even the wartime Hungarian regime, undoubtedly anti-semitic, didn’t try to murder all their Jews. Mussolini wasn’t anti-semitic until he became obsessed with Hitler; Franco – whose coalition included a large fascist component, the Falange – didn’t murder Jews.
What I do wonder is whether there still is an unbridgeable gulf between the Nazis and parts of the Moslem world.
PenGun – You’re beyond the age where it’s excusable to be this historically illiterate. Lenin died in 1924. Hitler rose to power in 1933. Stalin’s death toll between 1924 and 1933 was considerable.
You’re apologizing for a moral monster who starved people and shot them for trying to glean the fields after harvest. Do you have any idea what it means to be starving while working the best agricultural land in the country? That’s a special sort of cruelty.
This thread is, frankly, bizarre. The post was about the very prevalent tactics of the progressives to damage, assault, and disrupt the activities and lives of anyone who dares oppose them.
Instead, the discussion immediately launches into a pointless argument about anti-semitism, and adolf vs uncle joe.
Progs use violence and intimidation because these tactics work when there is no concern for any effective legal response, and the complicit media will bury every story it can, and refuse to pursue any follow-up questions or potentially embarrassing investigative reporting.
When and if the anti-progressive parts of the population start to respond in kind, or worse, then the now mostly silent media and cultural nabobs will erupt in howling outrage, as they have, without any sense of irony or shame, about the supposed uncouth language or sexual improprieties of various non-progs over the years.
The current onslaught of pearl clutching regarding something Trump said or did is nothing new. The same nonsense, with variations, has been employed against every candidate who challenges the prog agenda, from local issues to college campuses to political races.
It will continue until the current objects of the violence and harrassment respond both with effective legal means, where possible, or an effective response in kind.
In the latter case, the predictable attempt to blame those who are responding to prog violence must be refuted by all those opposed to the prog societal agenda, even the “high minded” types who are currently having vapors because the trumpsters are not as refined as they are.
A prime example of this latter phenomenon was the recent fuss over a tweet that Instapundit wrote advising people who are trapped by some kind of protest traffic disruption
to simply keep driving rather than stop and invite assault by the protesters.
To paraphrase a description in some novels from a few decades ago, all the usual suspects went “aaaaaaah”, and their fury was immediately directed at Instapundit, not the phony bought and paid for protesters who were the real problem.
Indeed, it is a toss-up as to which is worse—the tactics of the progs, or the faint-hearted responses of the Aunt Pitty Pats on the other side.
A catalog of anti-Trump violence:
Hitler was a bad guy. The hysteria ignores Stalin.
The thread began with a comment about “Hillaryite” and the Progressive’s intolerance.
“The same nonsense, with variations, has been employed against every candidate who challenges the prog agenda,”
An example is the post 1929 attacks on Harding and Coolidge. Harding was no worse than Roosevelt in sexual attitudes. Roosevelt had a long standing relationship with Lucy Mercer, which he revived after the death of Missy Lehand, his long term mistress and “secretary.” Mercer was with him when he died.
His long term sexual relationship with Missy was described well in leftist historian, HW Brand’s “A Traitor to his Class.”
Harding ended the brief 1920-21 Depression which followed the Wilson war-time Socialism. I keep hoping Amity Schles finishes her Harding biography that is rumored.
Coolidge, one of the most successful presidents in economics is vilified and Coolidge is only understood in her biography of him.
I have written a number of blog posts on Coolidge which are in this series.
I would note that the response has to cause consequences not only to the actual assailants, but also to those who defend and justify them in word, print, and media. In both cases, the consequences have to be serious enough to act a deterrent.
I guess that “spirit of totalitarianism” hung the Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree.
Which camp does Hitler best approximate?
Cue sardonic laughter.
“You’re apologizing for a moral monster who starved people and shot them for trying to glean the fields after harvest. Do you have any idea what it means to be starving while working the best agricultural land in the country? That’s a special sort of cruelty.”
WTF TM. I’m not apologizing for anyone. I said he was more evil than Hitler, I’m not sure where we go for scale after that, Cheney?
PenGun – You’re technically right that “He had to be” is not an apology for Stalin. It’s excusing his evil by putting it down to necessity which, I guess, is a different sort of failing. I’ll try to categorize our disagreements more accurately in future.
But the man was what he was before Hitler rose to power and so the excuse doesn’t really work, does it?
“I’m not sure where we go for scale after that, Cheney?”
Standard leftist knee jerk. Nothing is beneath you.
Do you even know anything about Cheney ?
“But the man was what he was before Hitler rose to power and so the excuse doesn’t really work, does it?”
James Edward O’Keefe III is an idiot. Emulating him, fits you well.
“Do you even know anything about Cheney ?”
Come on Mike K, it’s an obvious joke.
“Come on Mike K, it’s an obvious joke.”
A lame left wing “joke” that assumes the hearer agrees that Cheney is evil.
Mike K. Consider the source. When a Leftist gets called out on a statement, factual or opinion, by someone who is not a Leftist; suddenly what the Leftist says is a “joke” and the non-Leftist has no sense of humor.
When someone who is not a Leftist says something that is a joke, is in a comedy routine or performance, and a Leftist hears it and disagrees with it; then the Leftist will accuse the non-Leftist of all sorts of psychopathic disorders, evils and acts against a G-d that the Leftist does not believe in, and claim that that the non-Leftist is “deplorable” and “irredeemable”. And internally be planning the layout of the re-education camps that the non-Leftists will be sent to.
We are two different nations, hostile, with nothing in common; language, history, or culture.
It is what it is. ;-)
Wow, we are a damaged crowd. I may be difficult to place as I am neither a leftist idiot or a right wing fool. I understand we need both wings to fly.
Looking at the flightless birds who stuff the governing bodies of most first world countries, and most particularly, the US, one can easily see the no flight zone, that is your politics. A seriously constipated system. ;)
As to joking about Cheney, he has been portrayed as the devil, by many American TV shows. Looking for a scale, if you remember the cause of this, of evil, brought me there for a bit of humor. I think he is probably quite an evil man, but not on a world class scale with Hitler and Stalin.
Evil? Probably. And I wouldn’t go shooting with him.
” I think he is probably quite an evil man”
“Evil? Probably. And I wouldn’t go shooting with him.”
I’m disappointed, Dearie.
Cheney is one of the men in public life I most admire. He has had a very interesting life and is still of value as a stable presence in a world for grifters and phonies.
His biography is worth reading. He has never made any effort to be liked by those who are silly leftists. That might be an error but I suspect he doesn’t care.
Anyone who gets shot as that man was shot by Cheney, should know well that it is their own fault. You stay in a line and always know where the others are.
The other man was not following the rules and only the silly press who know nothing about hunting and less about guns, was talking about it being Cheney’s fault.
Cheney was (or is this wrong?) a leading force behind the reckless, stupid attack on Iraq which reduced that country to murderous savagery, and was not remotely likely to have any other consequence. I’d say “evil” might be suitable for that.
Cheney hate is so completely silly. In 2000 he was the very definition of a boring, middle-manager DC insider type, chosen as VP due to a decades long, conventional, entirely non-controversial resume. The Dems/MSM became so invested in their picture of W as a bumbling moron that they couldn’t simultaneously portray him as an evil mastermind, so they suddenly turned Cheney in that evil puppetmaster caricature. It’s utterly unserious.
Brian is right.
” a leading force behind the reckless, stupid attack on Iraq”
We have discussed the reasons for the invasion too many times here to go into it again.
My most recent contribution is here.
The short version is this:
The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.
The WMD argument was to prop up Tony Blair and, in my estimation, was probably a mistake. The CIA had no assets in Iraq and, like 9/11, they gave Bush bad intelligence.
Of course, Bill Clinton ignored good intelligence about Osama.
A lot of people, and I am disappointed to see you among them, confuse results with what we knew before. If fortune tellers were real,they would all be rich.
Somehow Bork morphed from brilliant, innovative legal scholar to cartoon villain.
Somehow Cheney morphed from competent, mild mannered executive and libertarian Congressional backbencher to cartoon villain.
Somehow Palin morphed from competent, popular libertarian governor to cartoon dumb blonde.
Somehow Romney morphed from competent, moderate governor and executive to cartoon villain.
Somehow Scalia morphed from brilliant legal scholar to cartoon villain…
I don’t know. Could there be a pattern here?
What Jonathan said. +1
You can add W to that list. Moderate and competent re-elected governor of Texas following Ann Richards having to clean up her mess. Not a dumb guy by any stretch IMHO. His biggest mistake was listening to Rumsfeld rather than Cheney and Shinseki, again IMO.
I have always been a fan of Rumsfeld and friends in the military agreed with me that he was an excellent DoD Sec.
His autobiography is excellent and he took a lot of blame for Iraq that should have gone to Bremer.
“You go to war with the Army you have” is so true it is odd it is controversial.
Heck, Trump could fairly easily have decided to be a populist Democrat, and now he’s Worse Than Hitler. (I’m still not sure why he never decided to make a big deal out of the pic of Bill & Hillary in ecstasy at the honor of being invited to Trump’s wedding.)
And we all know that whoever the next GOP presidential candidate is will be slandered as being even worse than that.
Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld both struck me as honest men, patriots, who gave of their time to do what they thought best for the USA.
They were attacked by the Left and MSM, perhaps as adjuncts to the MSM attacks and diatribes against G W Bush.
For the most part, none of the three responded to the attacks. Immediately after 9/11/2001, it seemed all of the House and Senate became patriotic, but that patriotism was soon turned into political attack material when things did not go as perfectly as they desired.
Prime examples are Senators Reid and Clinton, one stating ‘the war is lost’, and the other demeaning the military by claiming a need for ‘the suspension of disbelief’, a more polite way of calling someone, under oath, a liar.
Both are not patriots, and both used and use their office for personal gain, beyond any other previous record.
IOW, they certainly have demonstrated their faithlessness in ways Rumsfeld and Cheney were only accused of. They DID it and accused Rumsfeld & Cheny of what they themself were guilty of. IMO.
People forget, or never knew, that both Rumsfeld and Cheney were very successful in private industry. Rumsfeld navigated the GD Searle Company for 12 years through the rocks and shoals of the pharmaceutical industry under Carter.
During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company’s financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company.
Cheney’s net worth, estimated to be between $19 million and $86 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton. His 2006 gross joint income with his wife was nearly $8.82 million.
Cheney’s career in private industry is more controversial as Halliburton is in the oil business and that is controversial. He was very reluctant to return to politics as Bush’s VP.
Halliburton did not want him to leave.
Right. Both Rumsfeld and Cheney were evil. Quite evil in fact. It was largely these two that started and maintained torture as an American policy. This has disgraced your country. As it was never shown to be useful, apart from any intentional norms and conventions, very evil, is about where they belong.
“A lot of people … confuse results with what we knew before”: that won’t wash. I knew before the Iraq attack what the likely outcome would be, and it proved to be just what I feared. I’d have gone on the great anti-war march in London if not for my reluctance to march with so many marxists and mullahs. When those swine were right, and you were wrong, you really ought to reflect on why.
When those swine were right, and you were wrong, you really ought to reflect on why.
Perhaps the Marxists and mullahs, being against the democratic West, had the right instincts here.
“When those swine were right, and you were wrong, you really ought to reflect on why.”
So, you prefer that Saddam evade the sanctions and resume his course in the Middle East. There certainly is an argument that we should have allowed him to take Saudi Arabia, too.
Unfortunately, we didn’t yet know that fracking would come along and free us from the Saudis.
Also, Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.
My belief then and now was that if any Muslim country could be ruled by other than a tyrant, it was post Saddam Iraq. I was wrong but it was worth a try.
I have said all along that Bush’s mistake was not the invasion for reasons I have explained.
His mistake was Bremer. Of course, World War I was a mistake, too.
Comments are closed.