STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Criticism of Hillary’s Sociopathic Behavior Has Nothing to Do With Being Female
By Daily Bell Staff - July 27, 2016

First Woman to First Woman … When I was prime minister, I created a carbon-emissions trading program …  No one called for my execution by firing squad, as a supporter of Donald Trump did for Mrs. Clinton, but a radio talk-show host did say I should be put in a bag and dropped in the sea. Witches can’t be drowned, I cynically joked.  –Julia Gillard, New York Times

With Hillary’s formal recognition as the Democratic presidential candidate, a number of articles have appeared about how her gender is attracting criticism.

The mainstream media continues its defense of her conduct and personality and uses many techniques to ward off criticism.

We pointed out yesterday HERE a number of articles that question why she is “hated” and then answer in generalities to try to defuse the issue.

Julia Gillard has posted an editorial at the New York Tïmes HERE on the issue, concluding – unsurprisingly – that sexism played a role in her own failure as Australia’s prime minister from 2010 to 2013.

She points out that was called both a “witch” and a “bitch” and that there had been proposals to drown her.

I have often reflected how powerful it would have been if, at that moment, a male business leader, especially one who opposed my policies, said, “I may not support the prime minister politically, but Australia must not conduct its democratic debates this way.”

Her ultimate point in the article is that Hillary Clinton, whatever her shortcomings, is similarly subject to sexism.

She offers some advice to Clinton as well, explaining that what sustains someone through “the rigors of modern politics” is “passion and purpose.”

This includes understanding what you want to happen “for your nation and the world” and building a sense of self-worth that “can survive all the ugly sniping.”

Of course, as the Guardian relates it HERE, Gillard came to power by unseating a prime minister “who had not yet served out his first term in office. Voters didn’t expect it, and they didn’t care for it.”

 Gillard became the face of a treacherous assassination culture imported from Sussex Street, Sydney, a symbol of Labor’s absent moral core.

… The revelation that nice girls do carry knives was compounded by her pre-election evasion on the carbon price, which in the hands of Tony Abbott and his amplifiers became The Great Lie.

In fact, her singular achievement was “a fixed price to be imposed on carbon pollution,” which came to be known as a carbon tax. “The legislation was approved by the Lower House in October 2011 and by the Upper House in November 2011.”

While the legislation was overturned by the subsequent government, Gillard was criticized for not being honest about her intention to implement carbon legislation.

The main criticisms of her term involved “stabbing the previous prime minister in the back” and “lying about her main legislative achievement, the carbon tax.”

Gillard has much to say in her defense, but her term in office was ultimately defined in the public eye by these two actions. To speak of “sexism” as the reason for her downfall would seem to be misleading. The same goes for Clinton.

In yesterday’s article HERE we made the point that Hillary wasn’t hated for her policies but that, “In fact, there are real reasons to dislike her, and even fear her.”

A video clip of her laughing about Muammar Gaddafi’s death, the intimidation and blackmail of her husband’s lovers, the possible murder of her good friend Vince Foster and the attempt to put the entire White House travel office in jail (to replace the employees) are symptomatic of a basic lack of empathy (to say the least).

People don’t dislike and even fear Clinton because she is a woman. Their negative emotions are based on her arbitrary and vicious actions.

Also:

The reason to fear Hillary is because in these instances and many others she doesn’t seem to care about the “loose ends” she leaves. It is almost as if she takes enjoyment from flaunting what is basically sociopathic behavior. This is not just a character defect. It approaches a compulsion.

… It is not merely a lack of empathy, It is a willingness to do anything to advance her cause and goals, and often to do so in an obvious and public way. Repeating some of her myriad difficulties in a disingenuous manner … in no way minimizes the problems of her underlying character.

Conclusion: Over time and through November and the elections, we’ll be subject to many additional observations about how Hillary is being treated “differently” and subject to more scrutiny because she is a woman. But it is her character that is really at fault, an inherent, fatal, compulsive arrogance that impels her to act out in ways to prove to others that she is “above the law.” This is a dangerous personality defect and has nothing to do with her gender.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Bruce C.

    I have two main concerns about Clinton’s supporters. One is that they have become so inured that they actually think the status quo is acceptable and want current trends to continue. The other is that all the criticisms of Hillary will further galvanize their convictions that she will be ruthless and unstoppable in achieving her objectives which they think will benefit them.

    More abstract concepts – like “absolute power corrupts absolutely” or her having the character traits of some of the most murderous and destructive “leaders” in history or even just setting the precedent that elite politicians, and the US Presidency in particular, are above the law will be the final nail in the coffin of the US Republic as established in the Constitution – they seem incapable of comprehending or believing.

    That said, I don’t think it’s going to happen. For better or grid lock (not worse, that I can tell you) Trump is going to win the Presidency, and win BIG.

    • Praetor

      Yep! There are a lot of people that make a living off the government, and they fear being thrown off the gravy train. That includes corporate welfare and their employees living off the taxpaying public. So, they continue to ride that train. If we could just get them to see there are no tracks down the road and the train is getting ready to crash!!!

    • Don Duncan

      “…Republic as established in the Constitution…”? A republic was hoped for, and the Constitution was acknowledged as an experiment, not a guarantee. The anti-Federalists (minarchists, slavery-lite) tried to calm the fears upon ratification by reminding that the populace out-gunned the govt. and could always be the ultimate “check & balance”. Our quasi-republic started going down hill fast, e.g., dictator Lincoln’s war against state sovereignty. So why no envisioned revolt? The govt. brainwashing of youth, i.e., public school, reinforced by govt. funded propaganda. The US Empire replaced the shaky US Republic over a century ago. The “state” feeds itself on wars, big & small.

      The Confederacy would have been a check on federal power, if it had used non-violent rebellion. But birth of a nation by violence was a crippling model. We are now left with no violent option and that may be a good thing. Gandhi proved an overwhelmingly strong empire can be dealt with peacefully.

      • Bruce C.

        “birth of a nation by violence was a crippling model.”

        Do you mean the revolutionary war or the civil war? I assume you mean the civil, but would not the same principle apply to “the beginning?”

        Are you saying the American experiment was doomed from the start, or the Civil War was the beginning of the end (or the end of the end), or was there some other event that convinced you it’s over?

        • Don Duncan

          Gene Sharp made a convincing argument that the Revolutionary War could have realized all its goals without violence. The standing army was never disbanded and the financing of that mistaken approach left a big debt, leading to the Whiskey Rebellion.
          Yes, the method used to achieve the nobel, paradigm changing American Dream of equal rights was a political system based on initiation of violence, which could only lead to right’s violations.
          If a non-violent rebellion were used, the British merchants would have put pressure on the king to give in.
          Slavery in GB was ended bloodlessly by non-violent means.

          • Bruce C.

            What’s interesting about what you’re saying is that “government” could be okay as long as it’s set up in a certain way. HAD “The United States of America” won its independence from GB “non-violently” the mentalities involved in that decision would have produced a different ‘Declaration’ (if one at all) and a different Constitution (if one at all?) and – presumably – all politicians/statesmen who came after “the Founders” would maintain THAT system and not corrupt it (and/or the citizenry would have, unlike what happened in our probability.)

            That’s actually refreshing around here, because most think ANY government no matter how it starts or how it’s designed is doomed. It’s anarchy or slavery (even though anarchy would probably lead to slavery IMO).

          • Don Duncan

            That word “anarchy” means “without govt.” but what is govt.? I define it as a state, or an involuntary political control system, or self enslavement. People can choose to not choose, i.e., turn over their lives to an elite who initiate force, or threat thereof, or fraud as a control mechanism. This kind of control mechanism is extremely difficult to reverse. In fact, complete reversal has only happened once.The colonists overthrew their master, GB, and enjoyed self control or self governance, no ruler, no ruled. They lived in a state of anarchy, even if de facto due to: 1. The unique rebel independent spirit, living daily as politically equal, as spelled out in The DOI. 2. A very small cancer (local govt.) held in check by popular demand.
            Meanwhile, back at the city, those with devious minds, and no scruples, planned to undermine the DOI. It was made possible by the fact that the DOI was an idea that had to be passed down to each generation, and little thought of how that idea would be kept sacred, protected was worked out. When the federalists claimed to be the defenders of American ideal, the anti-federalists “smelled a rat”, but had no plan, only a goal. They were undermined, and they suspected it, but they were not prepared to identify a mechanism of social interaction that was consistent with their goal of rights for all. They failed to understand the power of group dynamics in a voluntary society, a society that valued the sovereign individual. Some understood how that worked in commerce (Adam Smith), but did not translate it to the political realm. No one uses the political model in private sector commerce. It is called “slavery” and recognized as grossly inferior to voluntary commerce, capitalism. But capitalism was not used as a political model, in fact, the opposite. Coercion was the chosen political paradigm, not voluntarism, or non-violence. And so the coercive political model fed off the productive private sector, unchecked, and grew like a cancer, while pretending to be a cure for a free (voluntary) economic system. Freedom in the economic sphere was vilified as dangerous. Coercive control was sold as a protective mechanism. When the “sale” was rejected, it was forced, as the USSR did, for 74 years. When force is finally rejected, as in Russia & China, no clear, clean break is made with the old system of force. Hence, a confusing mix of violence and voluntary everywhere.

          • Bruce C.

            ” the DOI was an idea that had to be passed down to each generation, and
            little thought of how that idea would be kept sacred, protected was
            worked out.”

            As “the Founders” (probably Adams in particular) the Republic was intended for a religious people, which I take to mean ones who believe in “God” as their creator and ultimate authority – not men or government. As we both know religious convictions have been modified by secular/scientific/rational ideas so there isn’t the same conviction.

            Secondly, Jefferson advocated very decentralized “semi-public” education that has slowly come under control of the federal government and so the citizenry don’t understand what’s gone on.

            Thirdly, the main reason for the DOI and Constitution has been lost. For many reasons – possibly even because of so much prosperity – people have lost their MIS-trust in government, as evidenced by their lack of understanding of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms was to literally give the citizenry a fighting chance of defending themselves from government tyranny, not just the freedom to hunt or protect their property for ordinary criminals. IMO too many people still trust government too much.

          • Don Duncan

            T.J. was diplomatic. He was an atheist, anti-slave, non racist who didn’t preach these beliefs, in fact hid them from public view to avoid controversy. His philosophical (ethical) innovation was the concept of rights. This had not been used as a basis for creating govt. He advocated that it was the only moral basis. But he didn’t say how rights should be protected, only that govt. existed for protection of them. But how would govt. do that? Today govt. violates rights, to protect national security, the common good, public safety. These excuses were not authorized by the DOI. or the new Americans who founded the states in North American that formed a confederation to fight against foreign intervention. Americans did not create one new nation, they created 13. Lincoln created one all powerful nation, to expand his power, and for the benefit of those banking interests he worked with.

            Citizens don’t know this for two reasons: 1. The govt. hides it. 2. Govt. school’s goal is to discourage independent thought and reward obedience to authority. This makes the society weaker, the govt. stronger, in direct proportion. Govt. has proven to be unworkable. Any trust it enjoys is undeserved. It should be abolished by popular demand. But even without popular support, a voluntary society can emerge and its superiority to involuntary govt. will be apparent, just as the private commercial sector is superior to the public sector. Free association works, forced does not.

          • Bruce C.

            “But he didn’t say how rights should be protected, only that govt. existed for protection of them. But how would govt. do that?”

            That’s key. And my answer is that it is/was the citizenry who were to corral government. The Constitution was to provide a legal framework but it was the citizenry who were to enforce it. It’s a misnomer – and largely an explanation of why we’re here – that the government was supposed to govern itself. The entire basis of the Constitution was that government is a “necessary evil” so it must be contained by the people. It’s not all that different than “anarchy” in that it is a system of agreements, but the agreement is that “government” is given certain powers, but no more.

            What I find surprising – shocking even – is that there were not clear mechanisms included in the Constitution or any other document that lays out the proper procedures for redress. Consequently, government has usurped areas of authority that were never intended either because the citizenry accepted it or because they didn’t know how to counter it.

            Significant growth and transformation of government began under Woodrow Wilson when the restrictions imposed by the Constitution were dealt with by having Congress DELEGATE its authority to “experts” – the beginning of the DB’s “technocracy.” Although unConstitutional, the citizenry allowed that, and Congress welcomed not having to be held accountable. It’s now gotten to the point that Congress literally claims that “its hands are tied” because some agency (e.g., EPA) has decided such and such. It’s all become such a complex bureaucratic mess that nobody knows how to untangle it.

            My vote is for wholesale top down firings (hint, hint). Put the onus on “them”. If they don’t want to walk away peacefully, then they forfeit the framework of law and order – and government for the people, by the people, and of the people – that they were supposed to represent.

          • Don Duncan

            “…wholesale top down firings…”? TPTB will never “fire” themselves, i.e., give up their power, even in the face of mass (99%) disapproval. TPTB will change the faces of their “front men”, but no real change comes from the top. It’s the very essence of the system that attracts the dregs of humanity. A saint will be seduced by political power because it is virtually unlimited. Once granted (delegated?) it is extremely difficult to withdraw, but withdraw it we must, and replace it with a return to individual sovereignty. Either each of us is sovereign or the ruling elite is sovereign, but not both. TPTB will “walk away” when few recognize their authority or believe their lies of “law & order”, so few that they can’t hide the destructive nature of their rule, their initiation of force.

          • Steven Hotho

            Great, let’s have anarchy; each person his/her own government. I’ll check back with you in a few years and see how that’s working out.

          • Don Duncan

            I made that choice in 1950. I can report it has “worked out” that I don’t sacrifice for or worship outside governance. I chose my ethical standards, my law. I have broken the laws others live by without the slightest qualm. I do not bow to the moral/legal authority of others. I submit to overwhelming force or threat thereof, when practical, noting that I do so under duress. I find this mindset makes me virtually impervious to propaganda, state fraud. No state does not mean no rules, no cooperation, no independent thought.

  • “Clinton’s are fundamentally liars. They lie mercilessly even to themselves. Clinton’s lie about everything. Meaning by everything literally “every single thing”. You can’t have a simple truth from a Clinton. Even or the most insignificant thing. I guess there must be some psychiatric, anthropological and sociological explanations for that lying compulsive behavior. There’s no more racist and disgusting slogan than “I’m with her” It looks like derived from that slogan, Clinton’s are taught and trained in their bedroom not to try and do anything but oppress peoples. For that purpose they lie again and again. Clinton’s give God a bad name”

    • Heywood Jablome

      Bill and Hillary are both, compulsive liars, along with a host of other sociopathies

  • Praetor

    Correct! There are two diverse types of humans, men and women. And each have a individual nature.

    Hillary has a weak nature. She, has give over to the baser instincts greed, a lust for power, lying and the worst character flaw, causing the death of another person. If there is anyone with a suspicious character that be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    I think Hillary loses because people don’t like her flawed character, her nature is ugly!!!

  • nathenism

    hillary is so transparently awful that they had to create an imaginary “dire threat” coming from a trump presidency to get people to support her..there is no way trump is really a threat to the establishment..this meme also transfers her own obvious desperation to “our” desperation to keep trump out of the white house..she is constantly trying to justify herself even when no one is challenging her..her running mate was asked a question by i think scott pelley, a question that had nothing to do with her, and she jumped in and started justifying herself again..she must be very much aware of how transparently full of shit she is..

  • Cynthia McKinney PhD

    I used to think that women as policy makers would be different; more peace-loving, more nurturing, more community-oriented. Dr. June Terpstra’s work, “Hollow Women of the Hegemon,” jolted me back into reality reminding me of Madeleine Albright, Dr. Susan Rice, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, topping it all off with Hillary Clinton. Terpstra’s work provides clear evidence that some women actually deserve to be treated differently—not because they are women, but because of the pernicious effects of their policy choices.

    • Grim Fandango

      Her success in politics is due to her extreme psychopathy. (traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.)

      Her cackling ‘we came, we saw, he died‘ comment tells you all you need to know about this beast of a woman.

      • …. such beasts disguised as women (and men) were well known since remote ancient times. The Greeks had dozens of them, e.g. Megaira, Medusa, Lamia, etc, the Hebrews had Lilith, the Celts had Banshees, etc….. it all boils down to one and the same recurrent theme. The many ugly faces of evil incarnate in disguise within men and women… like a Hydra.

    • Heywood Jablome

      You could add Samantha Power, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett, Pelosi Feinstein and Boxer to the list of sociopathic personalities who cannot fall behind the panacea of being women and deserve to be treated as such, but need to be considered for their perfidiousness, and disingenuity.

      • RED

        Excellent and highly appropriate additions to the list of sociopathic Femi-fascists!

    • Heywood Jablome

      I forgot that other paragon of social responsibility, Victoria Nuland….

  • Deplorable Donna

    no different than the past 8 years where any criticism of Obama’s treason and incompetence was blamed on racism instead of his actual poor performance

    He is exempt from impeachment because representatives are afraid to be labeled doing from racism, just like hiliary would be exempt from impeachment for fear of be being labeled misogynists.

    Liberals protect their stupidity, corruption and incompetence by screaming racist and bigot whenever their poor performance or moronic decisions are questioned

    • Bruce C.

      Most of the women I know at least say that they don’t feel that “the system” is against them, so I wonder if most women will fall for that.

      After all, she’s gotten away with so much already it seems hard to make the case that she’s been a victim, and she’s been influential or responsible for so many policies that it seems hard to claim that she’s being criticized just because of her gender.

  • Don Duncan

    We have a choice, and it’s not the lessor of two (or three) evils. We can choose to boycott voting on principle. Supporting the NAP requires not voting to empower a thug. The system of institutionalized initiation of violence is morally wrong and impractical. Trying to use it to limit it, is irrational, based on past attempts, and theory.

    Should someone use the line, “I want the power to coerce, but I won’t use, except maybe to do good” they don’t understand the principle involved. Few do. Even J.R.R.Tolkien didn’t. But he dramatized the overwhelming seduction of political power with “the one ring to rule them all”. Even T.J. fell under its spell.

    Our only check & balance is voluntary social interaction enforced by a culture that abhors coercion and expresses it with a new political paradigm that applies the same morality to public life as to private life.

  • John Concerned

    Spot on analysis and conclusion.

  • WOW… I Had Forgotten All This… You Too? https://lnkd.in/eC9gqQ4
    Bill Clinton Lied in Democrat National Convention speech, says DICK MORRIS [who was a], FORMER Senior Political Advisor to President Clinton

  • Kevin C

    “The only thing more dangerous of being an enemy of the Clinton’s is being a friend.”

  • Renov8

    Most feminists would argue the point “how are men any different?”

    • disqussted999

      No difference, if it is their “character that is really at fault, an inherent, fatal, compulsive arrogance that impels [them] to act out in ways to prove to others that [they are] ‘above the law.’” One might also note that very rarely do men argue that they are being disrespected or are being “subjected to more scrutiny” because they are men.

      • Renov8

        Hillary uses the sexism charge as the Blacks use the racism charge anytime someone questions them or their narrative…..how apropos.

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.