On Hillary Clinton’s hair DNA sequence as the barometer of freedom of speech

Hillary Clinton has become everything to us.

I wholeheartedly supported her during the elections, but I’m nobody’s “hardcore follower”. Every leader of every era has had hardcore followers, the type that accept them no matter what. I meant that opening line with another meaning.

This is not about her per se, though; it’s about that tenuous concept of ‘freedom of speech’. Is about how a man’s business ‘practice’, figuring out DNA sequence to create pharmaceutical products, became not only his downfall, but also the test for the limits of freedom of speech.

And yet! Hillary Clinton has actually become ‘everything to us’. Every time she shows her face in public there’s mass convulsion. She is the perennial she-devil that half the nation needed to block from access to the most powerful political seat in the world because they were sure she was intent on seeking the presidency to, in her evil way of thinking, destroy the world (for fun, mind you) by causing the third World War. That’s worse than being a ‘bitch’. That’s a witch.

Martin Shkreli felt compelled out of his arduous business of making life-saving drugs by her merely showing her face in public…to sell some books.

Possible humane background for Martin Shkreli need for Clinton’s DNA sequencing

Since distant times, the witches’ own hair have been used by heroes to paralyze them. Heroes of  very far away times, well, of mythology, used to cross the planet trying to pull a lock of hair from a witch’s head to make a potion with which to kill her, or to cut her head off, which always proved easier to do. Medusa comes to mind. Medusa, a man-eater. That’s the danger these witches pose to ‘mankind’.

Fast forward to the most modern and advanced millennium in (organized) human history: the 21 first’s.

Medusa, er, Clinton is the embodiment of that mythological man-eater. And Martin Shkreli is the (anti) hero in search of Clinton’s head. Except that he doesn’t carry a sword but a sack of money to pay, as he advertised on FB, any fool who dares grab her by the (head) hair and bring him the evidence of success. He is more like SALOME in that respect, isn’t he?

He can afford to pay $5 grands per hair strand because he is in the pharma business of making people pay with their blood for one vial of life-saving medication. He is a blood-sucker, i.e., a (male) vampire going after a witch. That’s rich, isn’t? He wanted to create a modern potion with her hair, figuring her DNA sequence to make the ‘antidote’ to kill her. Literally.

Well, the case is that he is now, supposedly, in a Maximum security prison for “solicitation to assault in exchange for money that is not protected by the First Amendment,” the judge said. To which Shkreli’s lawyer responded:

“Indeed, in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm,” Brafman wrote. “There is a difference, however, between comments that are intended to threaten or harass and comments — albeit offensive ones — that are intended as political satire or strained humor.”

This is where my opinion on the issue starts.

The discussion of the political issue of Freedom of speech has become as mindbogglingly ridiculous as those laws passed mostly in the western states of the US prohibiting the collection of rain water, even the rain falling on a citizen’s house roof.

In this latest case of ridiculously mind boggling use of freedom of speech it is MONEY the trigger for the dispute. Had Shkreli just asked for a few strands of Mrs. Clinton’s hair, he would still be a free vampire, um, man, but his crime was in offering monetary payment, in engaging in a business transaction, the type that has made him a billionaire, to wit, figuring out “DNA sequence” of things that would make him richer beyond our imagination. He claims now that it was all just in jest.

He got himself a direct ‘go to jail’ for offering payment, not for the many instances of abuse of freedom of speech in which he has engaged, mostly against women.

His lawyer has a point when he says that “in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm”. I propose that this satirizing of dissent is a sign of the times, a sign of the political powerlessness of the citizens of this nation.

There has been so many instances of clear abuse of freedom of speech in the past years sanctioned by the SCOTUS and by politicians that We The People are left only with “satire” to fight it off. A corporation is a person. Mind boggling, isn’t it?

Up to the last 20 years of the last century most of us  had a good idea of what abuse of freedom of speech meant, we could hear it and read it when expressed. After 9/11 that clarity has become a fog. But more than anything it is globalism which has muddled our minds with its insistence in conflating freedom of speech and freedom of doing business.

Doing business requires advertising the products created through advertisement, and the advertisement industry has  desensitized the public to their playful use of freedom of speech to sell the business’ ware with ads portraying ‘bad’ as cool. Shkreli himself prided, not anymore, on being that bad boy of social media.

We live in a world that is politically and economically disturbed. Billionaires feel that they are exempt from moral rules, just as the feudal lords of the 1800s saw themselves. Bad is good, good is bad. War is good, peace is a sign of weakness, according to the elite’s bible. And freedom of speech will continue to be mediated by how much freedom we need to take from corporations to be able  to live in a moral social agreement.

The limits of freedom of speech will be tested by how far the likes of billionaires like Shkreli can push immorality,  not by ‘DNA testing’.

That is farther down the line.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton and Anti-Feminism in images in the Presidential elections

If you were forced to choose a boss from between an incompetent but inoffensive  clown, and an evil and cruel  human monster, who would you choose? The evil and cruel boss? I doubt it.

And yet, that was the choice the media and pseudo leftists’ propaganda presented to the American voters: Hillary Clinton was the evil and cruel feminist candidate, and Trump the incompetent but inoffensive buffoon. The printed media, TV/cable ‘news’ and the pseudo-leftists media fed the voters, on a daily basis, that fake opposing characterization. These two cartoons encapsulate that message to perfection.

Even today, despite Trump’s cruel and unlawful actions with regard to immigration, the public still refers to him as a clown and buffoon. And despite having been ‘vanquished’, the pseudo-leftists and the mainstream media still refer to Hillary as the bitch, the power thirsty feminist who gave us Trump with her “incompetence”. Susan Sarandon went so far as to promote the propaganda that Hillary is more dangerous than Trump; that Hillary is evil and Trump a “clown”. No betrayal is more painful than the one coming from your own group.

The hatred promoted against her puts her, today, in danger of being dragged back into the cauldron of ‘send her to prison’ animosity. Bernie’s followers would happily unite with the ‘deplorables’ if Trump were to rekindle the promise to “investigate” her for the emails. She would be a good distraction for him; so, I’m actually waiting for him to go that way to keep us from attacking him.

PROPAGANDA

Communication in these modern times is heavily based on images, even more than on word content. Even WordPress suggests new bloggers make ample use of images to illuminate their blog content. Images seem to be more powerful than words, and their effect or impact is almost instantaneous. We are aware that printed media is in decline, that social-media is the new vehicle of fast and effective communication. So, these two cartoons are just two examples. If you google Hillary Clinton memes, you are treated to ugly Hillary; do it for Trump, you get goofy images and him saying stupid things. It’s like what we had with Bush Jr. and Cheney: one was a clown president, the other the evil vice president. Except that no one cursed any of them for being ‘bitches”, or evil men. Not even the second time, when it was clear that Bush Jr. was no inoffensive clown. No one said ‘we have had men presidents for over 200 years, it’s time to not vote for one’, they are corrupt and cruel’.

For Hillary, Sanders demanded she be a Virgin Mary, just as he was almost blessed by the Pope.

With Hillary…the problem with her, the REAL problem no one dared to pronounce, was, not only her gender, but her feminism. I discussed that “real” problem many times on this blog. I still believe that the US, the white male elite in power can’t tolerate a feminist woman as their ‘boss’. So, they “supported” her while bashing her 24/7 about the emails and her ‘corrupt’ personality. No one liked her, according to the fake news media and the pseudo-leftists; despite having won the popular vote by three million votes!

When Trump spoke about his “high energy”, as compared to Hillary’s, it was a clear anti-woman statement. The pseudo-leftist kept referring to her as “that woman”, “that power thirsty woman”, and many other sexist insults. Gender and anti-feminism was at the top of the issues; no one wanted to touch that one with a long stick.

Until women come to accept that anti-feminism is here to stay and they must fight it in the open, here in the USA we will have to wait another 100 years before we get a woman president. We must be anti-imperialists, anti-racism, anti-everything you want. But we must NEVER again push the interests particular to half the population of the planet in the back burner.

The oppression of women has nothing to do with imperialism; it has existed since men learned to use their thumbs. Nations that are not imperialists today are guilty of abusing women even more than imperialists nations.

So, let’s get moving, girls. You are the revolutionary class today!

Trump should thank ‘Black male’ voters and Misogyny

Yes, the WaPo reports that Trump said, correctly, I may add, Trump says blacks who stayed home were ‘almost as good’ as those who voted for him.

The “big league” fact ignored by the WaPo in the statistics it included with the article is that, per official reports, 98% of black women voted for Hillary Clinton. The political significance of that fact should be as clear to see as the sun on a cloudless sky; but I know it isn’t to many folks.

Don’t blame them for missing the huge point; the media, MSM and leftists alike, succeeded in keeping most people blind to their stealthy war against women during the elections. They would never ask this question in that article or any:

Who were the “blacks” who stayed at home or voted for Trump? The numbers tell you it was male black voters.

I propose to you that that  answer would have being a ground-shaking event.

It would have forced open the door to the discussion about misogyny and anti-feminism in the presidential campaign. And we all know that violence against half the world’s population can NEVER become the main issue in any struggle for political power. It must, per tradition, be relegated to the last-before-animals-rights list of things to take care of.

I’ll even go Kamakaze on you: I propose, and intent to prove in an upcoming post, that this presidential election cycle was a battle against a feminist presidency.

It is a fact  that Trump ran on his alpha-male, “high energy” (meaning ‘testosterone’), ‘ruthless man of business’ image, a modern El Duce image, while Hillary Clinton ran on an out-of-the-closet feminism: let’s give hope to our daughters kind of message. She meant ‘let’s stop treating women as garbage’ and “women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women rights“.

That men saw her campaign as focusing on feminism and were not pleased by it was stated in their ‘analysis’ of why she lost: “she lost because she focused on feminist issues”. Sanders said it, I mentioned it on this blog.

For the moment, keep in mind that at the top of the list of issues discussed in this presidential election cycle was a struggle to empower women. All that Hillary-hating was part of that struggle.