Tuesday, August 23, 2016 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Clinton, foundations, NGOs, and corruption with a lipstick

The FBI kept on investigating and it has found over 14,000 additional e-mails that the serial liar Hillary Clinton has pledged not to exist. A fraction of these e-mails more or less unequivocally show that Hillary Clinton has been paid-to-play through the Clinton Foundation by various donors. I say "more or less" because the causal connection between a payment and a politician's decision can almost never be proven with certainty.

The prince of Bahrain has paid some $100,000 in total and obtained some special meeting with Hillary for that. There are probably many other known cases but most of the e-mails remain classified. A week earlier, hackers released 2,500 Soros files. Those show this megajerk's obsession with his plans to destroy the state of Israel but other things could have been seen, too. For example, George Soros bought the U.S. policy in Albania when Hillary was the secretary of state.

When Hillary was the secretary of state, most of her private meetings were with Clinton Foundation donors. Wow.

Non-profit organizations, NGOs, and foundations have been praised as modern Western entities that can't be driven by the dirty money and that make the world better place. But the idea that the organization's being "non-profit" makes the people involved "saint" is utterly ludicrous, of course. People believe it because people – even in the West and maybe especially in the West – love to believe lots of communist fairy-tales.

The non-profit organizations formally don't make a profit but they still receive donations and they still make payments. The donors may have the same dirty interests and those who pay for-profit companies; and the payments may go to people – e.g. employees of the non-profit organizations but also the recipients – who are equally happy about receiving funds.

Some of these recipients of the money are just "proxies" for the main people who control the non-profit organization, anyway, so the money flows to the pockets of Soroses, Clintons, and similar individuals. The rest of the money flows to the pockets of some "friends" of the people who control the organization and these flows are usually or at least often some compensations for something else than the friends "who need the funds for a good thing" have done for the people behind the non-profit organization. The recipients usually can't pocket the whole sum but they mostly pocket a substantial part of it so the "corruption drivers" still exist and the situation is qualitatively analogous to the full corruption in which one pockets the whole amount.

As a result, the flows are as corrupt as they are in a generic company. But the motivations for the payments and choices are much less transparent. Many brainwashed people praise the very concept of the non-profit organizations and many surveys quantifying corruption end up saying that there's almost no corruption in the countries with such NGOs but the reality is completely different.

A system that is full of Soros and Clinton Foundations is about as corrupt as some notorious parts of Azerbaijan (sorry, I wanted to pick a name). The world of American NGOs is an Azerbaijan with a lipstick and the people who think that the folks similar to the Clintons let alone Soros are ethically better than the donors and recipients of funds in Azerbaijan are either brainwashed morons or blinded racists. If they were sensible and could look at least an inch beneath the surface, they would know that there's no difference. You may decide not to use the term "corruption" when the same things are taking place in America but they are "framed" nicely, with the help of lawyers and P.R. agencies. But the beef still is the same and your nice talk about this corruption only reflects your bias and racism.

Many of her voters, such as this Slate pundit, urge the Clintons to shut down the foundation and increase the chances to regain the feeding trough in the White House. This particular Josh Voorhees may be worried that most people will see through the corruption – as he has – but I am not so sure. The people's inability to see the obvious is often limitless.

Clinton and Kardashian

But it's not just corruption through "charity". The speaking fees must be a form of corruption, too. In total, Clintons earn some $10 million. Much of it is from compensations for speeches. That's a lot of money for people who don't own any significant investments, who don't produce anything, who don't know anything, and who aren't special in any way except for the fact that they have been able to connect themselves to the world of top politics.

I've never understood how it may happen that someone as unspectacular and ordinary as Hillary Clinton may be earning roughly ten million dollars a year for doing nothing. But Hillary Clinton has more successful peers. For example, a name that I was exposed to is Kim Kardashian. I was forced to notice this name because Penny forced Sheldon Cooper to learn the name and the face in S09E23 (the penultimate episode so far), too. Sheldon actually learned about 4 other Kardashian sibling names all of which start with a K. Well, I couldn't do that – I am not as social as Sheldon.

I still can't recognize the face – she looks like an average, easy-to-forget woman to me. And despite my research, I still don't understand who she is. Her salary in 2015 was $52.5 million, I read on Wikipedia. Where does it come from? A Wikipedia explanation that I partly understand is that "she is famous for being famous". This is an amusing slogan that would imply that the people considering her famous or paying her form a sub-society of circular imbeciles (they are circular because of the circular reasoning but also because they are imbeciles regardless of the direction from which you look at them) – but I think that this is exactly what describes why she is considered famous. The people who consider her famous haven't been able to notice that they were caught in the loop of circular reasoning.

After failed attempts to find her papers on INSPIRE, I found a recent reason for her to be famous: she oiled her butt. Now, that's quite some achievement but I think that there exist other women who have also oiled their butts but they didn't get $52.5 million for that. Not even $52.5 thousand. And in most cases, not even $52.50. How does this insanity accumulate in the pocket of one woman? It's a sign of some group think that has run amok. I can observe it but I have zero empathy for that. The people who consider Kim Kardashian to be an important woman look like an entirely different species to me. I could describe their behavior on par with the behavior of some birds – but not as a form of human thinking.

Again, Hillary Clinton is a Kim Kardashian light. I guess that her income comes from similarly irrational channels and is smaller by an order of magnitude, probably because her butt is a bit older.


We don't know who will win the U.S. elections in November. It's a referendum on Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton runs as the anti-Trump. Almost no one really thinks that she is a good candidate or a good woman let alone an honest woman but she is not Trump.

She looks familiar to us but at the same moment, the details of her behavior will be unreadable because she's been bought by various donors and organizers of talks and it is these people who would dictate the U.S. policies if she became the president.

These people who have been bribing the Clintons and who are still bribing the Clintons are not necessarily the ultimate devils. In average, they will probably not differ too much from the average wealthy Americans – and foreigners.

If someone wants America a better place and rationally evaluates whose interests and opinions the candidates reflect, the question will be: Is the average Clinton donor a better person with better ideas about the future of America than Donald Trump? This is the question that many analytic U.S. voters will be asking in November.

Well, the voters may also give some special advantage to Trump because the algorithm underlying his decisions and opinions are more transparent and the transparency has a value by itself.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :