Hillary Clinton: the Perfect Political Organism


“You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you?” the malfunctioning robot Ash said to his largely doomed crewmates aboard the starship Nostromo in the original Alien film. “The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.”

“You admire it,” said a mortified crew member, to which Ash replied, “I admire its purity. A survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.”

We’ll have to see how the rest of our real-world horror film plays out in 2016, but there’s no question Hillary Clinton is the perfect political organism, matching up quite well with Ash’s description of the Alien.

She’s a perfectly evolved parasite, raking in a vast fortune while producing absolutely nothing of value. She and her husband get those $300K, $500K, and $750K speaking fees by delivering stale speeches to plutocrats whose real interest is currying political favor.

Despite Hillary’s absurd pretense that donors to the Clinton Foundation just wanted to help its nominal downtrodden beneficiaries, it defies simple common sense that people who write checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars wouldn’t perform the minimal diligence of learning how much of that money would actually reach the poor and suffering. The answer is about six cents, on average. Clinton Foundation donors couldn’t have failed to notice the immense sums spent on glitzy parties, lavish offices, and staff that was largely getting paid to remain on call for the Clintons’ next political campaign.

Every dollar (or other unit of foreign currency!) poured into the Clinton Foundation is a dollar that could have been given to a real charity that actually works on helping people in need, without blowing 94 percent of its budget on diamond-studded parties and luxury travel for a couple of politicians. Every dollar this parasitic foundation sucked down was taken from people who truly needed it.

Those who claim to be sincerely concerned about the scourge of “income inequality” should loathe the Clintons, because they’re a perfect example of the unnecessary rich harvesting an undeserved fortune with nothing but their connections, and their willingness to put American policy up on the block for the highest bidder. They’re the ultimate example of people who got rich beyond measure by unfairly taking advantage of other peoples’ labor and public resources. They also have the gall to sit in judgment on the ambitions and income of hard-working people who make far less money than they do. Hillary Clinton can top the yearly income of most of the CEOs she perpetually bad-mouths by giving two speeches.

Clinton defenders used to dismiss her scandals by saying her activities were more properly understood as standard Big Government influence-peddling procedure than actionable corruption. That’s the problem. She is a creature too obviously at home in a corrupt, incompetent, overbearing environment that we ought to be dusting off and nuking from orbit (to borrow a line from another Alien film.)

Listening to her defend the Clinton Foundation gives us an unpleasant sneak preview of how she’ll defend the vast sums confiscated and wasted by the bloated State she wants to run: only “intentions” will matter, and everyone who demands restraint and reform obviously hates the poor. The federal welfare apparatus is the ultimate example of a dodgy “charity” that eats dollars and farts pennies into the hands of the poor.

By now, our supposedly egalitarian, inequality-hating public should have seen more than enough of the Clintons’ aristocratic privileges. Hillary Clinton literally places herself above the law, able to disregard everything from federal statutes to State Department policies as she sees fit, defying subpoenas to destroy documents and making false statements to Congress with impunity. The latest news is that she ignored the explicit instructions of the White House to keep the odious Sidney Blumenthal away from the State Department. No matter who they are, or which party they belong to, the Secretary of State should not be ignoring the President’s directives like that… especially when the consequences include the Administration’s Benghazi lies, and possibly even the disastrous Libyan invasion itself.

The Clinton organism has such deep connections to its media host body that the notion of impartial reporting on the 2016 campaign is laughable. Countless face-huggers like George Stephanopoulos have been dispatched into the dark corners of almost every news organization. He’s only the most patently absurd case of a bias epidemic. A great deal of the media has either given money to the Clintons, or been paid by them at some point. The ideological resonance between theoretically impartial media and the Democrat Party is always troublesome, but they’re fused with the Clintons by more than ideology.

Until a Fox News reporter finally managed to rattle Hillary enough to get her to take a few brief questions from the press this week, for the first time in a month, the media seemed willing to carry her across the finish line without ever actually talking to her. Their willingness to report her staged theatrical events as lunch-counter encounters with normal people has been a constant embarrassment.

Here’s a Tweet that illustrates one reason the Clinton-media fusion is such a problem:

I doubt a very high percentage of voters would say they’re interested in many of the stories the media blows up into flood-the-zone freak-outs. No one in the press seemed interested in what percentage of voters cared about the obscure Republican staffer who received saturation negative coverage for days because she dared to criticize the Obama daughters’ wardrobe choices, for example. The percentage of voters truly interested in the “what if you had a time machine?” gotcha questions on Iraq directed at every 2016 candidate except the one who actually voted for the war is probably very small as well. People don’t care about these issues in a Pew Research-quaking way until the media tells them to, with saturation coverage and Narrative-building.

There was, eventually, coverage of Hillary Clinton’s scandals when it became impossible to downplay them. Is that coverage going to last into the campaign? Will media audiences be reminded about Hillary’s email abuse and financial scandals on a regular basis, a year from now, or will that all become “old news” like Benghazi? Nothing sticks to the sheer hide of the perfect political organism.

Hillary Clinton is also a disturbingly perfect example of the current mania for credentialism – the collectivist notion that resume bullet-points, certificates, and “consensus” group hugs from the “right people” matter more than what someone actually does. The sad low point of Clinton credentialism came when a focus group of Ready for Hillary types couldn’t name one single actual accomplishment from her entire life, no matter how many chances they were given to come up with something. What she looks like on paper, what she symbolically represents, and most importantly their hatred for her adversaries matters more to these supporters than anything she’s actually done.

That kind of thinking is killing this country, as aggressive parasites inevitably kill their hosts. Credentialism is the antithesis of individual thought and judgment. You don’t think for yourself – you point at some approved group or figurehead, chirp “Me too,” and bask in the reflection of their alleged moral and intellectual glory.

Clinton is the final evolution of intellectual bankrupt credentialism, because her credentials are so patently bogus. She’s a “feminist icon” who got everything from her husband, and repaid him by helping him get away with adultery and perjury. Her Secretary of State “resume” consists of all the exotic destinations she spent taxpayer money visiting. In an era when “divisiveness” is supposed to be the cardinal sin of political figures, she’s an acid-blooded apex predator whose political machine specializes at destroying inconvenient people and spinning paranoid theories about the sinister motives of everyone who dares to argue with her.

Supporting Hillary Clinton reveals the sheer bankruptcy of liberal thought. They don’t believe anything they say about inequality, the “One Percent,” feminism, or any of the rest of it. Their degeneration into the punitive politics of redistribution and “social justice” make them fall into line behind politicians who promise to punish the right people, no matter what it does to the nation or our cherished rule of law. They’ll forget Clinton’s scandals and fall into line behind her because they can’t bear the thought of her adversaries winning a political battle. She’ll win 200-odd electoral votes just by showing up, because the machine automatically dispenses that much electoral support to every Democrat.

The ultimate political organism doesn’t have to worry about winning elections, and is only modestly concerned about the possibility of losing one. American politics is no longer a question of what the people support, but what we can marshal the combined willpower to stop.