"Champion of the Downtrodden?"
by Pater Tenebrarum
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard.”
– H.L. Mencken
"A mass e-mail has been making the rounds lately, and it is quite possible that many of our readers have already seen this. For those who haven’t, we wanted to share this moment of hilarity provided to us by Deep State candidate Hillary Clinton. It revolves around this picture:
Hillary Clinton delivers a speech – the topic was reportedly “inequality”. The rubes seem desperate to touch the expensive cloth clinging to the Deep State candidate. What does it feel like? Does it feel like $12,500? According to the Washington Free Beacon, “The price of the jacket constitutes roughly 40 percent of what the average American worker makes in a year.”
Hillary Clinton has actually managed to make a rip-roaring business out of her life-long occupation as a bureaucrat-politician. For instance, companies like Goldman Sachs are reportedly paying her speaking fees of up to $250,000 for a single speech. Admittedly, we have never heard any of the speeches she delivers at assorted corporate gatherings, but it is a very good bet that their content is actually not worth $250,000.
One wonders why private companies would spend this much on what very likely amounts to little more than gusts of hot air – after all, their managers are surely capable of economic calculation. This strongly suggests that the speaking fees are a quid-pro-quo, either for services rendered in the past, or for services yet to be rendered in the future, by Ms. Clinton in her function as a bureaucrat-politician.
We mention this mainly because it creates a bit of a quandary for someone like her, since she allegedly represents the interest of the poor and downtrodden and is eager to protect them from “evil corporations” and the vagaries of the market. Maybe she should donate her speaking fees to the salvation army? It’s just a thought, mind.
The quandary has recently intensified in light of the fact that a treasure trove of extremely embarrassing e-mails has been liberated from the DNC’s servers and published by Wikileaks (an overview of some of the juiciest ones can be found at Zerohedge). These e-mails have tarnished the Democratic party’s pretensions at socialism, since many of them concern the deliberate sabotage of Bernie Sanders’ chances to win the primaries. Sanders was the only candidate openly declaring himself a socialist with an anti-corporate agenda.
A side note to this: We greatly dislike that socialists have been misnamed “liberals” in the US, since the ideology of the Democrats is very different from classical liberalism. At least Bernie Sanders was honest about that. “Progressives” is yet another misnomer by the way, since socialism is antithetical to progress. Its envy-based politics have to implicitly assume that the economy is static (we will discuss this in more detail in a future post).
Bamboozling Voters in Style: As noted above, Ms. Clinton is taking $250,000 per speech from the same companies that are on top of the list of enemies Mr. Sanders intended to smite. It is therefore not too difficult to see that when Clinton pontificates about inequality and wanting to stick it to those evil companies just as badly as the Bern, her credibility is these days converging on zero – or actually less than zero.
We wonder whether the rubes who intend to vote for her really understand what or whom they are supporting? We somehow doubt it. She probably thinks its quite amusing:
This is bringing us to the picture shown above. Reportedly it was made while Ms. Clinton delivered a speech on inequality. The problem is that the jacket she was wearing is a $12,500 Giorgio Armani coat – perhaps not the most suitable attire for a would-be socialist whining about the evils of inequality.
Here is part of the text that came with the e-mail: “I’m not sending this to blast Hillary for giving a speech about inequality while wearing a $12,500 Armani jacket. I’m posting this to give props to Armani for being an excellent example of capitalism and being able to sell a potato sack with sleeves to a corrupt socialist for $12,500.” Indeed, this is the lesson worth paying attention to here: Armani actually managed to sell what looks like a potato sack with sleeves to a corrupt socialist for $12,500! That’s quite a feat, so props to Armani!
Conclusion: The people considered poor in today’s rich societies enjoy amenities ranging from refrigerators, running water, cars, air conditioning, TVs, smart phones, etc. (scroll down for the statistics here). Most of these were out of the reach of someone like e.g. alleged “robber baron” Cornelius Vanderbilt, who was one of the richest men of his age.
In more recent times, in formerly socialist countries like China and the former Eastern Bloc, literally 100ds of millions of people have escaped abject poverty and attained middle class status after the adoption of free market policies. As a result of this, the supporters of statism and socialism have been forced to resort to whining incessantly about “inequality”, since as long as even just a remnant of the free market still remains operative, actual poverty remains on the retreat. Hence the relentless promotion of the inequality narrative, e.g. via alleged “bestsellers” like the unreadable tome by French Marxist Thomas Piketty.
Ironically, central banking is universally supported by the political left. As anyone who has an inkling about monetary theory should know, the main reason (not the only one to be sure) for growing wealth inequality is credit and money supply expansion ex nihilo.
Hillary Clinton is of course not really a socialist, but she serves as a great example for the utter hypocrisy of the entire movement. Her policies are certain to retard economic progress further, but they will be mainly of the crony socialism variety (she has to deliver something for those speaking fees!). Apart from that, she is undoubtedly the preferred candidate of the military-industrial complex and the neo-con foreign policy establishment. Once upon a time it looked like Ms. Clinton was on the verge of becoming a legendary cattle futures trader. The trading world lost one of its greatest talents when she inexplicably quit. Her original explanation given in 1993 – the story has changed several times since then – as to how she managed to make a profit of $100,000 out of an original investment of $1,000 within just 10 months, was that she was an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal. That’s how easy it can be!
As a final note: this is by the way not an endorsement of Donald Trump (admittedly, we like him better than his opponent). We will post an update on our thoughts about the Donald in due course."