Home | About | Donate

'Terrorism for Dummies': Clinton’s Neo-Conservativsm Is Simply Dangerous


'Terrorism for Dummies': Clinton’s Neo-Conservativsm Is Simply Dangerous

Peter Bloom

A supposedly key advantage of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president is her superior knowledge of foreign policy. Conventional political wisdom suggests that her time as Senator and Secretary of State provides her with an edge over her less experienced rivals – in either Party.


What a dismal spectacle Hilary Clinton presents! Everything about her depresses, enrages: her faux intellectualism, her saccharine patriotism, her belligerence, her pseudo-liberalism, her bombastic imperialism, her lying humanitarianism and so on. Listening to Hilary is a task: she pretends to "experience" and "expertise," but the shit coming out of her mouth is verbatim the nonsense spouted by Bush and the other sociopaths who wallow in neo conservatism. American politicians just can't help themselves: they can't get out of the infantile, Disney narrative that the United States is the Greatest Creation in the Entire History of the Universe, and that anything done by the United States government is fitting and right. Politicians can't get out of the narratives, because they don't want to; they find the narrative too useful for their purpose. When you get beyond the age of 5 you no longer believe in the tooth fairy, but US political culture remains incredibly immature--3 years old at the most: the politicians proffer the most insipid myths and 100 million American wolf them down like ambrosia. Hilary Clinton knows the game: flatter the people and then use power ruthlessly for what you want.

In her own way, Clinton is as tiresome as Bush and Obama. All these worthies know is to play out the role of the Great American President, the Leader of the Free World, and other such rubbish. They seem not to grasp that most people in this world are not stupid: they see right through the theater that politicians are offering. Bush was an awful, awful President, an idiot who made himself a vicious war criminal. Obama has been terrible: he is more intelligent than Bush but just as murderous. Now comes President Hilary Clinton, who combines the cynicism of Bush with the odious charm of Obama. It's all so depressing....


An important cornerstone of the Homeland Security State's brand of foreign relations rests on this Big Lie:

"Instead she repeated the romanticized dogma of American exceptionalism, proclaiming “The United States and our allies must demonstrate that free people and free markets are still the hope of humanity.”

The "freedom" associated with long planned trade deals that impose upon citizens what they will eat, what health "care" they will be able to purchase, and where their tax dollars will NOT support public health & safety is anything BUT freedom.

In other words, by showing how the TPP and TIPP are absolute negations of freedom, the lie that is used to bludgeon other nations into submission might be exposed for what it is!

The same maniacs who tore up the Middle East making it a boiling inferno where violence cannot HELP but spill over have the audacity to claim that doing more of same will solve the problem they created? And on top of this, they use the lie of spreading freedom to cover up their crimes?

No wonder imbeciles who are arguably paid to use pervasive surveillance to stop terrorist events blame the ones who expose them... for their own glaring failures!


I find this analysis on a par with commentary in People Magazine.

Do you really think it's psychological--that people embrace a Disney narrative? Or is it something FAR more sinister: that in order to prop up the Military Industrial Complex, WARS are an inevitable requirement.

This isn't Disney! This is sophisticated State Propaganda replete with Official Stories, CIA-vetted "journalists," a Nazi-like homage to the soldier, and the efficacious use of lies told often.

By suggesting that those who push these War Imperatives merely suffer from romanticized versions of statehood HIDES the Dark Interests they serve.

Such a stance reminds me of the "Why do they hate us?" level of discourse.

Pay no attention to those bombs falling, those children turned into orphans... the oil commandeered from those ports.

It's "our freedoms" that they despise. Sure. Just Disney... pay no attention to that Military Industrial Complex with its cloned- J. Edgar Hoover brigade running the Homeland Security Show.


It is precisely her time as Secretary of State that should disqualify her as a presidential candidate. She didn't seem to understand the role of diplomacy and never embraced it. She sounded and acted more like a Secretary of War.

Just say no to Hillary.


"be clear-eyed about the world as it is while never losing sight of the world as we want it to become" - killary
This is a primary problem with these fanatics. They want the world to be the same vanilla, strip mall, starbucks and macdonalds on every corner the US has become. This is the culture and value we as a society export. Not to mention a bomb to fall on every home first.

I do not like their vision of the world and what they want it to become. Some of us appreciate other cultures and what they as a society have to offer.


The charge that my analysis is "on par with a commentary in People Magazine" is vicious and cutting, but I have tough skin. I'll get over it...:smile:

Do I "really believe it's psychological--that people embrace a Disney narrative?" Yes, I do. Of course, it's "psychological": how else do people come to believe something? But when I say "psychological" I don't mean that the belief in Disney is merely mental. Disney is a cultural mythology of American Goodness and Innocence. A belief like that cannot take hold simply because people have the idea that it is true. The idea is seems compelling because it is promoted by social and institutional forces. In other words, I agree with you that people come to believe because of propaganda, which is only another way of saying that power hones in on the psyche, to win the allegiance of citizens. You accuse me of over-simplification, but the charge could be leveled back at you: I am interested in how patent falsehoods which are promulgated outside of the individual mind, come to take over the mind as self-evident truth. It seems to me that any myth must have an emotional tonality to win the heart of individuals. You don't address how a social narrative becomes a personal conviction. You seem to assume that it's a simple matter of cause and effect. Society promotes the myth, individuals swallow. I would suggest that it's more complex than that. Individuals take up the myth for a variety of reasons, but one powerful reason is that myth give meaning to personal journeys. All I am saying is that the American citizenry ought to find their meanings somewhere other than in infantile fairy tales of "American exceptionalism>'


Conservatives are cowards. That's why they love guns:



My point is that you push the "look at Hillary! See her flaws" invective as a means of NOT talking about the system that has put her front and central.

I find this type of skimming the surface and being glib about superficial things as a general staple of your commentary.

Now, it could be that a person who can write as well as you really doesn't look beneath the surface; or it could be that like most persons hired by the MSM stories are kept on a personality or "team A versus team B," "Bad guy versus good guy" level of "analysis."

THAT is what I am reacting to.

Attacking Hillary is low hanging fruit.

No wonder you get a lot of "likes."

Nonetheless, I stand by what I said and i think your analysis skims the surface.


Hilary Clinton and "the system" are not exclusive of one another. Hilary represents the system. Or better yet, she IS the system, as a system is nothing, and does not exist, outside of the human agents who people it. For me, there is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between State power and actors like Hilary Clinton. Hilary Clinton EMBODIES State power. You often criticize "either/or" thinking, but, here, you fall into the trap yourself. As for my failure to go deep, you might be right, you might be wrong. But you are not right because I treat Hilary Clinton as "low hanging fruit." To me, she is the tree in its entirety. She has been around power for over 25 years. She is the very definition of a "Washington insider." A Johnny-Come-Lately she most certainly isn't.

I completely disagree with you that I favor a good guy/bad guy style of analysis? Where do I imply that? In fact, I think such a way of thinking is integral to the Disney narrative that I scorn. For the record, I don't like any of them--not Bush, not Obama, not Clinton, not Trump...I don't think Bernie Sanders is the Second Coming. I think he has some flaws. But he's a definite improvement on the barbarians who normally take up residence in the Oval Office. Is it now clear to you that I don't have any allegiance to establishment politicians? You are "reacting" to something that I never said, and never would say, because it's no conviction of mine, and never has been...


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Say NO to lying, war criminal killary! She could be elected as leader of her cell block; which should include bush/cheney, obomber, and rice!


If nothing else, thanks for the excerpt from her book. Yeeeuck; and that was just one paragraph. Can't imagine a whole tome of such self-congratulation.

Ambition, no matter how great, is no substitute for leadership. And she is, as so many have noted, just a tattered old wind sock, tracking which way the wind blows.


Sanders is far from the "anti Clinton" in his cheerleading for Saudi involvement in the "GWOT" (tm), among other stances, but the point's taken

"Madame Mayhem" is an apt moniker.


Yeah. Kansas certainly elevated the level of discourse in the rock and roll world back in those days when I was young. I was still pretty dumb though - but I'm afraid to even thing of how much dumber the young people are today without at least the bit of enlightenment from bands like Kansas. Carry on My Wayward Son...


We in liberal western democracies, as they are called, do pay a price. We are endlessly subjected to a kind of doctrinal tinnitus with such phrases as “...that free people and free markets are still the hope of humanity.” I don't know what kind of human impersonator originally came up with that well used cold war line but it certainly ranks as one of the great non sequiturs. It also couldn't be any more pernicious if the phrase 'free markets' was replaced by 'child pornography'. And yet it's placed on the altar to be worshiped.

Even the author's reference to the military coup in Honduras, in which the state dept. did its usual 'praise with feint damns' by acting as if it was an act of nature, that the coup “...replaced a left wing president with a questionably elected and corrupt candidate...”. If someone gets to be president by means of a military coup the topics of 'questionably elected' and being corrupt were already passed a hundred miles back.

The Clintons, Hillary and Bill, are an interesting case. Even as far back as the early/mid 1990's it was openly felt that the GOP venom directed towards them stemmed from their being able to play the game better than the GOP types. Few doubted that Ronald Reagan's “...well...there you go again...” routine that passed for his idea of reality would have fared too well against either Bill or Hillary. The Clintons had the chops and presentation to potentially push back at the power game in Washington. The people behind all the wealth and power are but a small percentage of the population. Countering that wealth and power requires a nation wide movement, a nation wide coordination of smaller units. That requires real resolve. But the Clintons didn't live in that world, having always been a form of GOP lite. I can't for a second imagine either one of them running for a legislative seat and fighting in the trenches for peoples' causes, year in, year out. Such as what Ted Kennedy did for decades, despite the dark cloud of Chappaquiddick that the media always remembered. As opposed to George W. Bush who went AWOL for over 9 months. AWOL more than 30 days is desertion. Or Dick Cheney, former Sec. Of Defense, former VIP, and 5 times deferment king, who patriotically explained his actions as 'having other priorities'. There's a media memory hole for those little dandies. And this is without the media shining a single tiny light on how power actually works. The purchases and consolidations of the media over the years and the laws which allowed such actions, have now for generations left us with a media, a msm, that is a mouth piece for the dark side. Understandable as the media is owned by the dark side.

Looking to the left of the present scene is Sanders, who gives every appearance that he is what Obama only pretended to be. Little wonder Sanders looks like the Second Coming. Amen, Bernie, Amen.


Fabulous post. It captures the essence of Hillary and her establishment rhetoric. The narrative has little changed since Bush the lesser damaged the nation worse than any terrorists.

The narrative (propaganda) is presented in an almost Disney-like way. I am very disappointed that so many of my fellow Democrats would enthusiastically embrace the candidacy of Hillary.


Bernie isn't cheer leading for Saudi involvement. Bernie is demanding that if the Western world wages a war against terrorism that Saudi Arabia pay their share in the costs.

Entirely reasonable especially considering the Saudis are most responsible for funding said terrorists to begin with.


Your ire is justified, but you are attacking the wrong one.

The reference to Disney-like has to do with the naive and even cynical acceptance of simplistic media-driven narrative behind the dangerous power structure you describe.

You're on the same side, but you seem not to notice.