Between Friends: Donald, Hillary, & Angry Plutocrats

Trump Hatred Originates With The Average Plutocrat, Not The Clintons:

The Clintons and Trumps have long been friends, their children are great friends, especially Chelsea and Ivanka, and it shows. So why all the hatred? Well, it’s manufactured, It is part of a distraction show, kabuki theater. And a genuine worry, among most plutocrats, that Trump is a traitor who plays apprentice sorcerer. The figure of the rogue plutocrat turning treacherously against plutocracy, his alma mater, his nourishing mother, is a familiar one in history

Roughly all Main Stream Media, worldwide, are owned, held, or otherwise controlled by plutocrats (yes, including the public NPR and PBS in the USA). Those plutocrats hate Trump, because Trump has dared to say, and has been saying as loudly as possible, since at least 1987 (when he attacked Reagan in writing) that globalization, as practiced, does not work for We The People. That has been proven aplenty, and now angry voters are discovering that Trump was right all along.

Amusingly, Sanders’ final success in 2016 was forged by Donald’s iconoclastic work, from way back when he fought Reagan with the exact same idea he rolls out today again (whereas the ever more popular Obama lauds Reagan; that, and not racism, is the source of the antipathy between Trump and Obama: Obama was born half white and educated by 100% whites). When crafty Bill Clinton called Obamacare the “craziest thing in the world“, he was craftily following Donald Trump too (and thus neutralizing the Donald: no need to vote for Trump to put Obamacare out of its misery, Bill will do it for you…)


The Ill Informed Sing The Praises Of The Clintons, but the Clintons are followers of Goldman Sachs, establishers of  the financial plutocracy. One, of course, has to be educated enough, and curious enough, to understand the following graph. As rabidly pro-Clinton minorities are in general not graced with as much discernment, they are rather obdurate: they suffer you know. Thus it is that the victim elect their torturers, a generalization of the Stockholm Syndrome (the feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim towards captors). It is a case of capture-bonding. 

The Clinton Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

The Clinton System Destroyed FDR’s Banking Act of 1933 and Re-established The Vicious Financial System Of 1929, On Steroids

 Since the Clinton economy affected income, median GDP per capita has lost 40% relative to the GDP of the USA. How come? The 40% went to the top, and mostly the .1%. 


We Are Friends, And Long Have Been:

Trump and Clinton roasted  each other in a funny way at the annual roast and Catholic fundraiser. Trump said he was delighted that Hillary was nominating him ambassador to Iraq or Afghanistan, and he got to choose which one. Hillary said Donald said she did not have stamina, but she had spent 4.5 hours with him, debating, and that was longer than any of his campaign managers ever did (an allusion to the fact Donald’s managers keep on resigning, or being resigned).

The host, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, said the candidates had “nice things” to say offstage.

“I was very moved by the obvious attempt on behalf of both Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump to kind of be courteous, to get along, to say nice things privately to one another,” Dolan said on NBC’s “Today.” “I was very moved by that. That was pleasant.”

Dolan, who sat between Trump and Clinton at the dinner, acknowledged the two were, like President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, “kind of awkward together.”

“But the purpose of the evening is to break some of that ice, and thanks be to God, it works. The Al Smith Dinner by its nature literally tries to — I’m sitting there between the two — and literally,I’m supposed to be kind of a bridge to bring these two people together. And I try my best, and there were some very touching moments.”

The three of them prayed together. “And after the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said, ‘You know, you are one tough and talented woman…This has been a good experience in this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been” She replied “And Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterwards.”  

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar In Below The Belt Considerations. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

Trump: Sometimes Vulgar Below The Belt. Clinton: All Too Often An Awfully Vulgar Laughter Which Looks Like Something A Donkey Would Do. Made For Each Other

So much love! Not like the “arrogant” Dylan who, members of the Nobel committee loudly whine, has refused to acknowledge their glorious, yet most generous existence. Well, what do they think? It is embarrassing, that Nobel is embarrassing and Dylan knows it. (At least he did not get it just because he received power and brown skin!) If I were me, i would accept the Nobel, if i were Dylan, I would refuse it. The Nobel should be used to reward what, and, or, whom, deserves to be discovered, not one of the planet super stars. (Salman Rushdie was supposed to be a runner-up for the literature Nobel, Rushdie is a martyr of the struggle against fanatical, lethal theology, yet how come I get bored to death reading a few pages of his books? At least Dylan, I appreciate, and not just the music.)

So who hates Trump, if not the Clintons? Well, in the last presidential debate, Hillary accused Donald to be a “puppet” and he angrily retorted:”No, you are the puppet“. She meant he was a caricature, he meant she was something whose strings were pulled by multi billionaires (Soros, Buffet, the Gates, etc…) They both knew that they were right, and in which different ways. (Clinton may have enough of a temper to break a few strings, though…)


Hatred Against Trump Is Self Interested Among the Mighty:

Typical is the hatred of the (light weight, yet courageous) billionaire-intellectual-charming corruptocrat,  Bernard-Henri Lévy who nebulously accuses Trump of “possible infidelity to America itself. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan has been commandeered by a corrupt demagogue…”

To put Eisenhower and Reagan in the same category is embarrassingly ignorant: Eisenhower launched FDR New Deal style massive programs (for example the construction of a continental size FREE freeway system, all the way to Hawaii! Or several massive defense programs reminiscent of FDR again). To pay for them, Eisenhower brought up the tax on the wealthiest up to 93%. Free, highest quality public university system went up in the USA, for example the University of California. In shocking contrast, Reagan, an enemy of cognition, established a tuition at the PUBLIC University of California, starting the great movement of making it so that only the wealthiest are fully human (Thatcher would pursue it much later) 

By comparison, in 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

The result was pandemonium (see the second graph in that’s when the rich started to get ever richer, and the poor, poorer). Reagan was the anti-Eisenhower (but Reagan’s followers were even worse! All those who laud Reagan in any way are just ignorant, Neoconservatives, or worse, clueless clowns. And most probably, all the preceding. Logically enough, as Trump blasted Reagan during his presidency, Trump hatred and Reagan loving are two sides of the same coin (many of Trump partisans, or their parents actually believed in Reagan, before realizing later that they had been had… hence their indignation).


Plutocracy strikes aging societies. Just like metastatic cancer strikes older individuals, and for similar reasons: the corruption of entrenched nefarious mutations. When a society is struck by plutocracy, it needs a revolution. That is why France, the core of the European civilization, went through so many revolutions: precisely to rejuvenate itself, from revolution to revolution (and France implemented a revolution machine in England, which worked for many centuries; even Brexit is a form of revolution, however flawed and misguided…)

Trump, by lashing back against plutocratic globalization, is refreshing. He is also sincere: his mood against some aspect of globalization can be found in a campaign he made against Reagan. Trump’s campaign against the “Politically Correct”dates from the early 1970s. It is not clear what Hillary will do against corrupting globalization, as she did a 180 degrees on the Trans Pacific Partnership (she said the details changed, she didn’t). The Democratic platform adopted several of Sanders’ propositions.

In any case, the differences between Hillary and the Donald are less great than feared by the young and naive. The difference of either of them with Obama, will be more marked: the impulsive Donald and the Hilarious One have lots of experience with the system, and do not really need said system, to become somebody: they are already superstars, and they think highly of themselves. But progressives have to understand they have to exert continual pressure if they want progress, be it Donald, or Hillary. Just making a blind Hillary cult after 8 years of blind Obama worship will mean ever more plutocratization, same as what we have been going through.

And keep in mind that the grotesque racist campaign against Trump is an example of how much manipulation is going out there. After a visit with John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, the Ecuadorean president, Correa, cut Wikileaks’ Assange his Internet access. Assange had been revealing various Clinton manipulations all over. The strident accusations of the US administration against Russia in the US electoral process, mean, precisely, that it takes one to known one. 

Hillary is a monster: a good sign. Devils know best how to fight evil. Maybe she will gobble Bill and his financial puppet masters too.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

20 Responses to “Between Friends: Donald, Hillary, & Angry Plutocrats”

  1. Gmax Says:

    That electoral commission, with its sexually obsessed kindergarten questions contributed lots to this travesty of a democracy. They should have read your stuff and point at these graphs you show, and ask Clinton if she understood them.
    Anyway thanks to all the she said, he said, Trump is toast. Do you think his ideas will survive?


  2. SDM Says:

    The strong influence of Sanders and Warren may well keep HRC from straying should she be elected. HRC is running on a more progressive platform as a result of Sanders’ strong challenge.

    HRC has made her money already and although she needs campaign contributions, she may yet prove to be more anti-pluto than characterized.

    Trump’s rhetoric is mostly anti-immigrant with some claims against trade to bring jobs back. His track record in business does not inspire much confidence that he will do so. His branded products are imported mostly and then his only overt anti-pluto rhetoric is perhaps the trade deals. Then he adds the orange colored blustering twittering clown petulant bigoted sexist sensibility that his supporters love.

    HRC faces the sexism that can be as ingrained as the racism of US society. She has been under attack since 1992 at the national level and it has not stopped. No one can deny her tough persistence.She can be her own worst enemy but it looks more and more as if she will get her day – will she lean left even more or will she perceive that the trump disgruntled are beyond her reach and trend more pluto? She needs Sanders support and Warren as well so they may make or break a HRC presidency. And she should not follow Obama in praising Reagan….


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That she would turn more anti-Pluto than hoped by Plutos was my old hope. I guess I will have no choice, but go back to it. Especially when the cities are aflame… Trump may also keep her more anti-nasty-globalization, especially if he starts a TV channel organized as a protest vehicle, something I suspect he may do… (It’s the natural thing to do.)

      That Trump is ‘mostly anti-immigrant’ may be true in the present campaign, but that’s new. Trump in on the (long term) record as a critic of other things. He employed thousands of immigrants, married two, so… I do think he was frustrated by what happened under Bush and now Obama, and that he found the latter insufferable (hence the birther thing, just to mess up with Obama; but Trump got out-maneuvered, as Obama let the birther thing rot away, as exhibit number one of the blatant racism he was victim of….)

      Sexism there is. In society. But not so much against HRC. HRC has been very good at milking it, and drinking that… The 1992 thing, she looked for it, because it was exactly the sort of plot which led to Obamacare. She should have made an open forum, not a secret society.

      Obama does more than praise Reagan: he breathes Reagan. At least, both Trump and Hillary are an improvement that way.

      Yet, when I see her lie 100%, with a straight face… I can see the going is going to be fascinating…


    • oatmealactivist Says:

      This is a naïve reading of Hillary Clinton. She will adopt whatever campaign rhetoric is necessary to get elected, but as Wikileaks has revealed, his public pronouncements have little in common with the private policy preferences – the latter being purely plutocratic in practice. Wall Street understands this, which is why they have invested so heavily in the Clintons.

      Trump’s rhetoric isn’t ‘anti-immigrant.’ It is, of course, anti-illegal immigrant. Sanders has made the same argument: illegal immigration raises unemployment and suppresses wages. Trump hasn’t made the argument that illegal immigration, especially when coupled with an official multiculturalism that discourages assimilation, causes cultural divides, social stress, taxes resources and weakens democracy by encouraging people to vote as ethnic blocs. The Democrats love this, of course.

      There has been significant effort by the media to conflate legal and illegal immigration. And to associate criticism of either with racism.

      Hillary should face no criticism because of her sex – but that issue is largely overblown. Can you recall any serious questioning of her fitness for office because she is a woman? The glass ceiling has been broken – and we know it has because no one thinks twice about a woman being president. That is her achievement.


      • Gmax Says:

        Very sharp and astute analysis, thanks. As a woman I saw no one saying Clinton should not be president because she is a woman. Her achievement, indeed. And I will vote for Trump because of the reasons you said


  3. John Michael Gartland Says:

    ‘Hillary is a monster: a good sign. Devils know best how to fight evil. Maybe she will gobble Bill too’
    Don’t cry for me mis seguidores, mis ventosas, mis Clintonistas…I am one of you, los descamisados..


  4. John Michael Gartland Says:

    John Michael Gartland: The diversion and obfuscation of this freak show is brilliant. If politicians didn’t exist man would have to invent them


  5. indravaruna Says:

    Bernard-Henri Lévy is the French ZOG in “person”.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      For those who don’t know zog from zig, or zag:

      BHL indeed conspired and made billion(s?) from an outrageous conspiracy with French governmentS (I have documented this in preceding essays, long ago). However his main co-conspirators (Mitterrand, Pinault (?), Chirac) were not Jews, but representants of “France-Afrique” a loose mood of corruption conspiring on the ruins of the ex-French administrations in Africa. Last time BHL peddled his “genius of Judaism” book, on ONPC, the audience did not applaud him, not even politely. Considering the problems with Islam and that in a strong sense Judeo(-Christianism) invented Islam…

      In any case the irony is that BHL accuses Trump to be what he has been. BTW, the influence of BHL is well beyond France: he has a home in NYC, at least one palace in Morocco, etc.


  6. Paul Handover Says:

    I really think that we are now at a stage where the established order is running scared. For the rise of the internet, of blogging, of the ability to have ‘news’ moved around the world almost instantaneously is creating, sorry has created, a new order. The truth can no longer be controlled and manipulated by the few.

    I have frequently been asked my views on US politics and all I say is that it is not a case of left versus right, it’s a case of bad versus good government. For too many years, in too many countries, there has been bad government. Self-serving governments that offer prestige, wealth and life-time ‘pensions’ to those that want to become insiders. The Argentinian model possibly.

    We need federal governments for the big nation-building projects: transport; communications; justice and defense. But for most other things in our social worlds our local communities are so much better and so much more effective (read cost effective).

    Brexit in the UK was a protest vote by many angry, ordinary people who were aghast to win (and now don’t know what to do!). Trump likewise.

    Except that maybe, just maybe, a President Trump would know what he stands for, and would make it work. HRC is just more of the same (and I write as someone who does not have the vote in this nation).

    Let me republish a recent email sent to me by very long-term friend Dan Gomez, and republished with Dan’s permission:


    Trump is tough hombre, bull-in-a-china cabinet and loud-mouthed sexist, racist. OK, we get it. It’s splashed over 80% of the media outlets – every day.

    But, what is Hillary?

    The latest scandal to hit and not being reported and is very damning.

    Pay-to-play, destroying emails to avoid prosecution, destroying and covering up evidence in death of an ambassador in the middle-east and now revealing news on why the FBI did not prosecute her for illegally using a private server/email system while Sec. of State…..

    You can’t find this anywhere this morning and it was investigated by the Wall Street Journal. This stuff will pursue her for years if she wins and continue to tarnish America’s global reputation.

    Crazy world.


    Very interesting times.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thank you for your comment Paul. It makes many interesting points. First, whether people can vote or not in the coming US elections does not really matter: the US president, to a great extent, functions as a world president. Or at least president of democracies. Plus, BTW: you are a “US Person” already.
      I think we are in total agreement about Trump versus HRC. The established order is running scared. However, it is confident that, by cranking up the propaganda, it can get its way. And that is exactly what it is doing. the debate with Trump, instead of being about the issues, has been a series of lewd trumped-up charges, many of them probably made up, because, had they been real, the pseudo-victims would have sued (Trump has been famous since 1970).

      If someone just mishandles a “C” (Classified) document, the consequences are extremely grave. I have known people within the establishment, who told me they were told that punishment would not be bounded by law (pre-emptive death threats are actually made in sensitive areas, some of those who got them told me). So of course Clinton, as candidate of the Deep State (the Clintons were doing dirty work for reagan in the 1980s) can get away with anything.

      Times sometimes can get a little bit too interesting.


  7. oatmealactivist Says:

    Trump is running as Gracchus, offering necessary reforms to save the republic.

    Consider the proposals of his Gettysburg speech from last week:
    1. Term limits on members of Congress.
    2. Hiring freeze for the federal bureaucracy.
    3. Five-year ban on executive and legislative staff become lobbyists.
    4. Lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments.
    5. Total ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for US elections.
    6. Oppose TPP.
    7. Renegotiate NAFTA.

    He’s striking at the heart of symbiotic relationship between plutocrats and corrupt politicians.

    Hillary has only adopted planks from Sanders’ and Trump’s reform agendas to get elected. Her track record shows that when in power, she serves the rich and her own lust for power.

    Trump is polling in the mid-40s even against fierce headwinds blowing from the establishments of both parties, Wall Street, Hollywood and the mainstream media. His supporters appreciate that he is ‘real’ (hence the excuses made for his loutishness), but a more polished but still grounded messenger would be running away with this election.

    We will either give ourselves a chance save democracy and the republic… or we will elect Hillary Clinton as imperatrix.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed to all. Both what you say, and the proposed reforms of Trump. Thanks for listing (some of) them.

      Clinton would be an “Augusta”, the feminine of “Augustus” (Rome had one in the 5C and more later). She was pretty good.
      Clinton could surprise, because she is a survivor. However, it’s more likely, as you say, that she will do her best to save the establishment, and that is what the establishment thinks. It is frightening to see her condemn Bill Clinton’s main policies, without ever mentioning that it was Clinton who put them in place. For example the incarceration graph (putting one million minorities in prison), or the inequality graph (from the FRED, reproduced in the essay).
      In 2004 the wealth of Blomberg (who loudly supports Clinton), a financial operator, was 4 billion dollars. now it’s $30 billion.

      Trump supports good reforms. Clinton supports porn stars and suspected murderesses making allegations against Trump…


      • oatmealactivist Says:

        What I find most alarming is that many Sanders supporters I know are blindly supporting Hillary now. They are not doing this, as you might, out of a kind of necessary optimism to help stave off despair. They truly are blind to her character and ignorant of her 30-year history as a vampire in Washington, feeding on taxpayers and donors.

        One conclusion is that much of the Sanders phenomenon was not a response to his policy proposals, but fashion. Supporting Sanders was fashionable, and many in my age cohort followed suit without considering the man or his ideas. Very unfortunate, as it didn’t equip them with the understanding necessary to reject Hillary.

        I come from a New England family with deep roots in Democratic politics. I am a millennial, went to an elite college also in New England, am Jewish (half but the right half), am gay and now live in west Los Angeles. I should be a solid Hillary voter. And yet for the first time in my life, I will be voting for a Republican. I no longer recognize myself or my country when I look at the Democrats. Instead, I see a party seized by corporate interests, consumed with bigoted identity politics and run by moral busybodies who want the government to dictate the minutiae of our lives.

        And I’ll add – I am not comfortable revealing that to most people I know or work with. Political tribalism is so intense here, there seems to be no greater sin that supporting Trump, judging from the vitriol (and ignorance) with which he is almost variably discussed by my fellow citizens of La La Land.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I read your cogent comment yesterday, and thought I should develop it into an essay. But time, unfortunately, is short. We live in the age of the superficial. For example, people love Obama, because he cracks jokes, and, while being telegenic and sophisticated, in some ways, with chosen words, he is also not flying higher than the local guy obsessing about the local sport team, or doing a “little blow” (cocaine, something which sends real black guys in prison, for life; I have been involved in getting some out, who got life for NON MEASURABLE quantities of rock cocaine… whereas Obama can talk and write, in complete impunity, about it!!)
          So people who want to consider themselves as “blue” or “progressive” love Obama, just because of the appearances. Same for Clintons. They have no idea of the policies, the histories, the decisions, the graphs…

          Clinton made the election about character, having piled up the insults on Trump first. The Main Stream Media did this. Unfortunately, Trump was not smart, and fell into all the traps. He self-inflicted wounds, probably from hubris after the GOP convention (like the fight with the family of that dead Muslim hero serviceman, Khan…) And the MSM, held by standard Plutos, played it like a violin, ignoring all the issues…


  8. SDM Says:

    Trump is getting out classed and out maneuvered by HRC- he met his match with her. Taking on the GOP clowns was relatively easy with his bluster and bullying tactics but now he is howling ever louder that he sees he is getting slapped around by- omg- a woman. The whining is a bit pathetic. He thought he could use WJC ‘s indiscretions against her but that blew up in his face.

    Sanders found out the same thing- she is hard to beat – too many tricks up her sleeve. Once the GOP establishment began to fall in behind her, it got scarier. Not a pretty sight when they openly endorse her over GOP nominee.

    Question remains, if she is elected, will she stand by the progressive platform? Warren and Sanders will be on her the whole time so we shall see how much influence they really have. HRC would do well to ignore WJC and lean Sanders/Warren if she wants to serve 2 terms.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, indeed, it has been Hillarious, the Dark Side, Trump met the Darker Side, Hillary. What Trump did not expect is that Clinton would run a sex scandal campaign against him. Considering, naturally enough, the sex history of the Clintons, he enjoying his power, her protecting him… I must admit I am in awe. She is magnificently dirty. Even using Machado, well known to be an attempted murderes, was a new height of cynicism. The sort of Putin strength manipulation, which have come to rule. Rodrigo Duterte (Philippino president) better watch it. He probably knows this, so he is rushed before she comes to power… In 2 weeks…

      In 2 weeks the fun brown guy in the White House is replaced by the Queen of Darkness, the self-declared “non-natural”… True she out maneuvered Sanders and Trump in exactly the same way: Sanders haughtily refused to use the “damn emails” although that was in several ways at the heart of Hillary’s smugness.

      Eight years ago I advised Obama to hire Clinton. Then she infuriated me by going back to plutocratic service of the most blatant way. Now, well, she is the most Machiavellian of them all, so she may actually surprise everybody, not just Sanders and Trump. What is important is that the best ideas of those two survive (and even then that would not be enough, of course; neither talked about “Dark Money” for example). It’s a battle of ideas and moods, not people (so voting Trump is a good idea to put heat on HRC; the more Trump gets votes, the more HRC will go… LEFT and progressive, as president, because Trump himself pushes the GOP left!)


  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    On the coming President Hillary:


  10. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    I actually generally don’t agree with you on facts. In fact you are one of the sharpest analysts of facts I have ever come across
    But how you wield the facts sometimes shows me the level of justified anger in your view
    I’m almost certain you are a 1 stroke 5 in the enneagram
    5s are the redeemers of mankind
    They are the only ones with the mind vision to connect all the facts
    But the 1 is often a slave to angry projections
    And yes that’s where I notice our metaphysical differences.
    The way I see the world is actually incredibly hard
    To do
    I get it in theory
    But to live it is very hard
    You are a great pragmatist
    But also someone who believes that people are insane
    I feel people are insane too
    But the critical difference is that I don’t think it is my right mind that believes that
    Sure all the evidence makes that almost impossible to deny
    In fact one cannot
    But the metaphysics I subscribe to sees somehow that that is just a temporary state and healing is only possible at the level of the individual that is open to questioning what his senses report at a very deep and subtle level


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: