their ‘true believer’…

D

One recurrent topic among political analysts this year has to do with the lesser evil concern: which of the two mainstream contenders is the least harrowing, deplorable, etc., aspirant for leader of the exceptional nation as global hegemon.

This argument speaks to the debilitated, reckless mindset of ‘H’ as ‘feminist’ bellicose arriviste, with something to prove—once and for all—to the dominant (read: male) Beltway cohort as capital-obsessed warmongers and proxies to financiers, Fortune CEOs and the stock-portfolio opulent minority.

The inverse sexist worldview of supposedly politically correct ‘feminists’ implies that a woman possessing absolute power (q.v., Acton) has been a long time coming. That is, by virtue of the fact that a female will soon have essentially limitless command (underwritten by those who peddled their influence to her now-obvious double-dealing campaign), results not realized by the male peer will now obtain—‘and, watch!’

This runs beyond the common conceit of, e.g., media-personality egoism (the self-focused news anchor, arrogating to himself the right to dissemble, deceive, etc.) to an addled, manic radical anxious to prove her mettle to male political rivals.

The pressing concern is that ‘H’ will pursue an antagonistic, overtly hostile policy with, for example, Russia, specifically (and, miming her false, grotesque protégé Nuland’s affected-machismo ‘fuck the EU’ combative hauteur) with a ‘fuck you, Vlad’ provocation to Moscow. Here, the affected-machismo ‘we came, we saw, he died,’ matures (armed with her oft-mentioned ‘nuclear codes,’ inferred by ‘H’ as stark male aggression, sinew, coveted power as male prerogative?) into a more overt, Kubrick-inflected doom, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and ‘Love’ Putin.

Which is to note, earnest, resolute ‘H’ calculated that the Beltway would be more accessible to ‘the lady’ if she dispels any doubt about her being, for example, passive, reticent, etc. She is certainly not naturally incapable of the most malign traits and inclinations of the male aggressor (Truman-incited inferno, rampant My Lai bloodletting, etc.) but—and owing to, e.g., socio-political repression—in general, those doubtful, base features have not been given their space and moment to emerge (the latent become actualized) until, that is, a Late Capital frenzy meets the useful diversion of identity politics.

The rub being that Mr. Putin seems as yet uninterested in accommodating Empire’s supposedly ‘irresistible’ dictates (it does not appear that Moscow—immovable object—will readily yield to our ‘indispensable’ presence without friction), and her tenure, therefore, does not bode well for what remains of ‘civilization,’ such as it is. Her heedless, inhumane statecraft—aided and given assurance by the impunity which graced her spouse’s scandal-ridden regime—coupled with, e.g., current Middle East jihadi holocaust and despair, bespeak a nuclear-brinksmanship event on our horizon, but sooner rather than later. (JFK would not stand down in that perilous moment—will Mr. Putin model Khrushchev’s sanity if the MIC loses what little is left of theirs?)

Again, as the so-called sex-identified ‘glass ceiling’ has been breached—which supposed ‘progress’ being hailed and marketed this year—and, as an incautious, career zealot is game for ‘results’ (which opportunity having been denied her cohort until what is now perceived as their ‘breakout moment’), she will not now be deterred. ‘H,’ it would seem, has scores to settle, much time has been lost (in the female ‘endlessly deferring’ to the dominant partner), but here, an ethics-free corporatist satrap is, we are assured, ‘equal to the task.’

With a regard for precipitous policy schemes (e.g., Libya), contemptuous, defiantly brazen lying and vicious bravado (q.v., mentor/role model Albright’s idiotic betrayal of her own barbaric, degenerate mindset vis à vis the deaths of half a million children in Iraq), etc., in ‘H,’ the oligarchy and MIC have something more than a willing, ‘team player,’ more than a common war belligerent, more than a venal, greed-driven agent of the Beltway.

In ‘H,’ they’ve found their fanatic—the self-loathing fanatic and her ‘nuclear codes’…

[‘Over the past several years, Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment has pushed a stunning policy of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia in pursuit of a “regime change” in Moscow. This existentially risky strategy has taken shape with minimal substantive debate behind a “group think” driven by anti-Russian and anti-Putin propaganda.’ Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com]

Advertisements