Friday 29th of May 2020

the world's crap is explained by a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital, three rats and a dozen idiots...


The (future) Prime Minister gave Hillary a poisonous critique in 2007, which did not prevent the two from meeting at the Clinton Foundation in Manhattan in 2015.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton minced no words in her opinion of the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as she spoke in an interview for this week’s issue of The Sunday Times Magazine.

Speaking in the interview, Clinton dismissed Johnson as a “grandstander” and a “blowhard,” adding that she’s “very full of himself,” as cited by The New York Times.

She compared the Prime Minister to US President Trump, to whom she she lost the 2016 presidential election, saying both leaders adhere to a “playbook of wannabe authoritarians” and claimed both of them show a “total disregard for facts.”

“I thought he was a grandstander,” Clinton said, speaking about her meeting with Johnson during his tenure as a mayor of London. “I knew Trump [before he became president] and I thought the same thing. A kind of blowhard, a blustering guy.”

She scolded Johnson for calling himself a “hero” in his fight for the UK exit from the European Union and a “champion” of the people against the government.

“I fear for your country,” she said. “If anyone says he’s a hero to anyone other than himself, I really worry.”

Neither Trump nor Johnson are fans of Hillary. Trump has long adopted the adjective “crooked” to his former Democratic rival, and coined the infamous “lock her up” chant, Johnson in his 2007 article called the former first lady “a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital,” The Post noted.

She represents, on the face of it, everything I came into politics to oppose: not just a general desire to raise taxes and nationalize things, but an all-round purse-lipped political correctness,” Johnson complained at the time. “She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”

It should be noted, however, that in 2015 Johnson retracted his comments about Clinton.

“It is an amazing measure of the goodness and generosity of Hillary Clinton’s spirit that she wants to see us in spite of those admittedly light-hearted remarks some years ago,” Johnson said after the meeting at the Clinton Foundation in Manhattan. “Secretary Clinton was extremely kind and gracious and in so far as the subject came up she was said she was pleased by some aspects of the article.”


Read more:


the pus would come out...

Iconoclast: Run, Hillary, Run! 

President Trump this week “did what every president is expected to do,” notes Matthew Walther of The Week, with a healthy dose of sarcasm. “He spoke to the dreams and aspirations of hundreds of millions of Americans, putting into beautifully chosen words the ambitions long kept hidden in the secret chambers of their hearts.” Trump’s idea? “Crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race” for president. Just what Americans want: a “straightforward soft reboot of the 2016” mess. Instead of issues, “we need Benghazi, Emailgate, the early gritty James Comey-era Russia investigation, DNC hacks, Ted Cruz convention delegate rule shenanigans, non-visits to Michigan, and thousand-word explainers on campaign websites about cartoon Nazi frogs.” Hillary should “give the people what they want,” snarks Walther. “Make America 2016 again.”


Read more:

mentally ill americans could now buy weapons more easily...

What explains this tidal wave of authoritarians taking over supposedly mature secular democracies? George Grundy reports.

IN APRIL 2017, less than three months after taking office, Donald Trump repealed legislation outlawing the hunting and killing of hibernating bears in Alaska. The news, which conservationists said would "shock the conscience" of animal lovers, was greeted with incredulity by a world more used to Obama-era morality.

At around the same time, the Trump administration also passed a law specifically aimed at allowing easier purchase of weapons by people with severe mental illness. This wasn’t one clause within a broader bill — the document specified just one thing, that mentally ill Americans could now buy weapons more easily.

Pretty much everyone, apart from fringe lobby groups, wondered the same thing: who the hell supports killing hibernating bears or allowing disturbed people to buy guns? Yet in America at least, laws written in the face of overwhelming public opposition are not that unusual. 89% of Americans (including 83% of Republicans) support background checks on gun purchases, but the 11% who oppose these measures hold sway, despite mass shootings increasing to a level where there is almost one major incident every fortnight.

Highly unpopular decisions, taken by leaders elected to serve the will of the people, are now commonplace in major Western democracies. Sure, there have always been instances in history where rulers have taken unpopular stances in the hope of guiding the public to wiser outcomes. In 2019, however, there is a sense democracy itself is in crisis as a series of extremist politicians enact consequential policies that often don’t reflect the public’s wishes at all.

Hard right strongmen (they’re all men) have taken control of some of the world’s largest democracies in a wave of authoritarian faux populism. Trump is perhaps the most extreme, but Bolsonaro in Brazil, Morrison in Australia and Johnson in Great Britain are recent additions to a club that already included Duterte in the Phillippines, Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey.

How did this happen? What explains this tidal wave of authoritarians taking over supposedly mature secular democracies?

What little consensus there is often focuses on two things: mass migration from Third World countries causing nationalist tensions in the West and the long-term effect of the global financial crisis of 2007/08, when millions fell into poverty. People who saw their once comfortable lives upended (the theory goes) were more open to the message from authoritarians who promised to smash the status quo and make their country work again.

There is, to be sure, merit in both these explanations, but it’s worth considering whether the public are actually supportive of many of the policies of these leaders. Do Americans really want to spend $25 billion on a border wall but not have universal health coverage? Do Brazilians share their President’s view that the best thing  the Amazon is an active program of deforestation? Do the citizens of Australia really think that the best response to climate change is to build one of the largest coalmines on earth?

If the answer is no, it begs the question as to why these extremists keep getting elected. It’s unlikely that residents of Sao Paulo agreed with Brazil’s approach to the environment when the city was plunged into almost total darkness in August due to the fires in the Amazon. If 71% of Americans want universal healthcare, why did they elect a man who so clearly wants to remove the inadequate coverage that’s already in place?

Again and again, it’s democratic mechanics that appear to be failing, not the people’s ability to choose good from bad. The system often dictates the outcome in a way that dramatically alters a nation’s destiny.

Below are five examples from today.

In America, Donald Trump is President, despite losing the popular vote by nearly three million votes. Indeed, Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the seven elections since 1992. As Michael Moore pointed out, on a wide range of issues, Americans consistently poll far to the left of the policies enacted by their politicians. Yet the structure of the Senate, combined with the arcane electoral college, means what Americans want is very rarely what they get.

Australia’s current government appears to have been handpicked by a billionaire who spent $60 million advertising his political party without trying to win a single seat. The British Prime Minister was handed the keys to 10 Downing Street by just 0.13% of the population, yet is now charged with negotiating the nation’s most consequential decision since World War II. Jair Bolsonaro holds the fate of the Amazon in his hands, but rose to power in the most controversial of circumstances, involving the gaoling of a political opponent who remained the most popular politician in Brazil despite not being on the ballot. Viktor Orban came to power in Hungary after an election in which his party got less votes than the man he beat.

Electoral procedures and processes, written with the best of intentions to try to level the playing field, often now seem more powerful than popular will in determining the outcome of elections.

Imagine the change to world history and to our existential environmental peril, if the votes all stayed the same but the systems were different. Imagine America after eight years of President Al Gore and now under the steady hand of Hillary Clinton — both of whom won the popular vote. Britain under a coalition government headed by Jeremy Corbyn, as would probably be the case with proportional representation. Australia led by Bill Shorten, with the Greens holding the balance of power. Without a single vote changing we would live in a dramatically different world. Given the array of despotic leaders running the world’s leading democracies today, it’s sobering to picture how different things might be if the systems were changed to something equally, if not more, democratic.

We are yet to see an example of a major democracy rejecting the rule of one of these wannabe dictators, but it is surely coming. There are plenty of examples throughout history of tyrannical regimes being overthrown and more benign governance taking its place. America overthrew the rule of the British and devised perhaps the single greatest democratic system in human history. Germany followed the Second World War with a series of leaders who overcame the horrors of their recent history and rebuilt the nation to become Europe’s strongest.

The problem is, there are few examples of transformative changes to a nation’s system of government that aren’t preceded by great tragedy. Those who hold political power have the least reason to change the system that put them there.

Change is coming. With environmental catastrophe racing across the horizon towards us, it has to whether we like it or not. But it’s very much an open question whether we can handle the dramatic changes required in our societies without first enduring catastrophe and recent evidence suggests many of the world’s leading democracies are operating electoral systems that aren’t allowing the will of the people to stave off this risk.

Read more:,13232


Read from top.


See also:

when politicians do nasty things... in loading the dice...

tell that lisping tell scummo to fuck himself instead of the ABC...

important: the changing of the order... in Is this the world that we want to live in?...

we deserve better... in our different selves deserve respect through social justice. we're not freaks...

All this is due to the sold-out "oppositions", the "liberal progressivists", the "Democrats", the "Labor/Labour parties" who are more interested in money and licking the Deep State's arse than providing "Social Justice"... This is why Assange is as much pursued by the Democrats, the Republicans and all the political parties in all these so-called democracies, because they want power for power's sake — not FOR THE PEOPLE.

See also:

let him free...


democracy in tatters...


enact brexit, with a kick up the arse: the city of london corporation and its banks have done much damage to the world..


to kill a mocking bird....


the united states of niccolò machiavelli: sub realismi cuiusdam politici…


helping the community beyond beliefs...


... And PLEASE, FORGET THE STEADY HAND OF HILLARY CLINTON! She is as much to be blamed for the shit we're in!

... and a bad joker...

Seen as a potential validation for violent glory seekers, the 'Joker' movie turns out to be not an incitement for violence but a judgement on the modern political system's flaws, philosopher Slavoj Zizek says.

The much acclaimed Todd Phillips movie starring Joaquin Phoenix has received its fair share of criticism from almost everyone, from the woke community to the US Army, who all believed it could prompt some "evil" people to commit acts of violence.

Yet, the film's critics have apparently overlooked the underlying message of the movie, world-renowned philosopher Zizek told RT, adding that it is not about some mentally-challenged person, but about the "hopelessness" of our "best ever" political order itself, which many still simply refuse to accept.

Daily life has become a horror movie

We should congratulate Hollywood and the viewers on two things: that such a film that, let's face it, gives a very dark image of highly developed capitalism, a nightmarish image which led some critics to designate it a 'social horror film', came out. Usually, we have social films, which depict social problems, and then we have horror films. To bring these two genres together, it is only possible when many phenomena in our ordinary social life become phenomena which belong to horror films.

It is even more interesting to see how reactions to the film provide a whole specter of political cohesions in the US. On the one hand, conservatives were afraid that this film would incite violence. It was an absurd claim. No violence was triggered by this film. On the contrary, the film depicts violence and awakens you to the danger of violence.

As it is always the case, some politically correct people feared that the film used racist clichés and celebrates violence. It is also unfair. One of the most interesting positions was that of Michael Moore, a leftist documentarist, who celebrated the film as an honest depiction of reality of those poor, excluded and not covered by healthcare in the US.

His idea is that the film explains how figures like Joker can arise. It is a critical portrayal of reality in the US, which can give birth to people like Joker. I agree with him but I would also like to go a bit further.

'Deadlock of nihilism'

I think what is important is that the figure of Joker in the end, when he identifies with his mask, is a figure of extreme nihilism, self-destructive violence and a crazy laughter at others' despair. There is not positive political project.

The way we should read 'Joker' is that it very wisely abstains from providing a positive image. A leftist critique of 'Joker' could have been: "Yes, it is a good portrayal of reality in the poor slums of the US but where is the positive force? Where are democratic socialists, where are ordinary people organizing themselves?" In this case, it would have been a totally different and a pretty boring film.



Read more:


Not a movie I need nor want to watch...

Read from top...