The Summer of 2016 is proving to be a decisive one in both the United States and the rest of the world. The long shadows currently being thrown against the wall by history will soon morph into their full forms come November when the presidential contest is finally decided. With the longest and most ominous being the potential ascension of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the office of President of the United States of America.

Most Americans are instinctively aware of this, and it is this instinct which has seen Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable ratings rise to historic levels. This anti-Clinton aversion is born as much from experience as it is from intuition, as Americans vividly recall her Husband’s presidency and assume, correctly, that a second Clinton presidency would repeat all of the vices of the first but without any of its virtues.

Indeed, the 1990’s still loom large in the imagination of most Clintonites. The 90’s represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. A Hegemon which possessed the perfect freedom to strike its enemies, both real and perceived, with near impunity across the Globe. As the people of Serbia and Iraq learned, only too well, through horrible experience. In this sense at least, the 90’s were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama’s prophesied “End of History.”

Though Donald Trump promises to “Make America Great Again,” his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the “American Dream” of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like “Popular Mechanics” showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates.

In contrast, to Trump’s inward looking, Populist-Nationalist synthesis, Clinton offers Americans what is perhaps the most thoroughly pure version of Neo-Liberalism yet put forward on a national political stage. Consisting of both unapologetic support for international capitalist exploitation of labor as well as a virulent dedication to the continued unipolar geopolitical dominance of the United State’s burgeoning Imperium. Its explicit goal is not merely to enable its own citizens to live the good life of uninhibited, rootless hedonism (the American Dream) but also to impose this concept of “the good life” upon the rest of the world.

This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism.

A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State’s moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity.

The same cannot be said, of course, for the path a potential Clinton administration would take, however. Clinton will have no choice but to throw all of her energies behind a shrill, last-ditch defense of the American Imperium, in both its physical, cultural and psychological manifestations.

Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic.

When one looks back on the trajectory of her political career, it is not difficult to perceive it as a series of carefully calculated moves which served only to move her continually closer to capturing the presidency and the ultimate power it offers. While this is not exactly original analysis, it is still startling and instructive to contemplate the truly bizarre length and breadth of the ambition which has propelled her this far. Her husband’s philandering, which has become the stuff of legend in the United States and has resulted in at least one serious claim of sexual assault, was obviously known to her from the beginning of their relationship. Her apparent ambivalence (if not open approval) regarding her husband’s behavior is likewise an open secret and has, at least in part, contributed to the constant rumors regarding her potential homosexuality.

Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT “human rights,”  is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970’s feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton’s thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets.

It is this ressentiment which serves as the motivator for all of her endeavors, both of the past and of the future. Once Clinton secures the full powers of the U.S. presidency, she will then have the ultimate tool with which to wage war upon her perceived tormentors, i.e. all those who do not willingly affirm her particularly deviant ideological proclivities.

This campaign of revenge will be waged on two separate fronts, one foreign and one domestic and will seek an utter subjugation or eradication of her perceived enemies.

On the foreign front Clinton will immediately seek to reestablish U.S. dominance over the three primary regions of Modern Geopolitical Conflict: The Greater Middle East, the South China Sea, and Europe with a special focus on subduing the Russian Federation

The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration’s previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet.

Clinton’s stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama’s more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration.

The policy will most likely take the form of a deluge of advanced armaments to the Syrian Islamists currently at war with the Assad government, potentially including Jabhat Al Nusra whose recent split with Al-Qaeda proper will make it a tempting potential ally in the new crusade against Assad.

In addition to this new flow of arms, an attempt to establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria will be made with the expressed purpose of denigrating the Syrian government’s ability to defend its people from Islamist terrorists. How this will be accomplished is still unclear, with the presence of the Russian military posing an especially difficult challenge. However, a U.S. provocation to open war is not entirely out of the question. Especially since a Clinton administration may view Syria as a theatre which, given U.S. superiority in power projection, would potentially enable a seemingly easy victory over Russian and Syrian forces.

Everything will depend on the actions of the Russian government, whether it decides to double down on its ally or surrender to U.S. intimidation, as well as the disposition of Turkey. In this sense, the recent Coup attempt may serve as a blessing in disguise, as it is well known that, if not explicitly planned by the CIA, the Coup attempt was at the very least tacitly endorsed by the Obama administration. These facts will weigh heavily on President Erdogan’s mind if and when a request is made to use Turkish airbases to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.

The second theatre, which will serve as the medium-term priority, will be a renewed attempt to further isolate and weaken the Russian Federation. This will involve both new deployments of American Military forces and equipment to both the Baltic states and Eastern Ukraine. The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the “territorial integrity” of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded,  regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia.

The third theatre, which will serve as the long-term priority, will be attempting to contain China from asserting its sovereignty in the South China Sea and the island of Taiwan. This will be by far the most difficult task facing a potential Clinton administration. China will possess a distinct military advantage over U.S. forces in the region owing to its advanced area-denial capabilities which will enable it effectively to neutralize the main tool of U.S. power projection: the aircraft carrier. The exact course a Clinton administration would take in a potential showdown with China is still unclear but given her past proclivities; it would not be a stretch to assume a choice for confrontation over compromise would be made.

Clinton’s domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise.

This will involve not only formal purges of journalists and academics (which has already become a regular occurrence in the U.S.) but also a renewed push to further hollow out what remains of the American Middle class, as well as continuing to push an intrinsically violent LGBT ideology further upon America’s children.

Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating “safe work environments”.

Tax exemption for religiously affiliated schools and nonprofit organizations will be revoked unless they agree to adhere to anti-discrimination laws which will require the affirmation of LGBT ideology.

The most transformative effects will be felt on the level of education, as new standards (which are already being applied in many municipalities) will be enacted nationwide. From the Kindergarten level onward, children will be required to undergo thorough indoctrination in both the legitimacy of Sodomite “family” structures as well as the “reality” of the concept of gender fluidity. The push for the normalization of Transgenderism amongst children is already on the rise in the United States, with the tacit approval of the Obama administration. This will continue and become much accelerated under a Clinton presidency, with children as young as 8 beginning the process. The Genital mutilation of children will become a normal part of life under a Clinton Administration in 21st century America.

The ideological pogroms enacted upon the American populace will serve as a stalking horse for Clinton’s geopolitical ambitions as well. LGBT theory will become the primary ideological export of the United States in the 21st century, even more than at present.

As U.S. Vice President Joe Biden remarked to a group of sodomite rights activists at a 2014 gathering: “I don’t care what your culture is…Inhumanity is inhumanity is inhumanity. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice…there is a price to pay for being inhumane.” The message of this could not of been more clear: submit to the degenerate social programmes of the U.S. Empire or be prepared to pay the price.

It is no coincidence then that the Russian Federation’s enaction of laws designed to prevent the spread of Sodomite propaganda within its own sovereign borders was greeted with such shrill fanaticism from the U.S. State Department. It is not at all outlandish to intuit that it was this act alone which caused the Obama administration to change its overall perception of Russia. From that of a friendly rival which could be “managed” and potentially worked with on important geopolitical issues to a mortal enemy which needed to be destroyed with haste and vigor.

Indeed, Clinton even bragged in an interview that she had “gotten into shouting matches with top Russian officials.” over the laws and stated that some countries “just need to be brought along” on the issue. Put in any kind of Historical perspective; this is a truly bizarre behavior for a Nation’s top diplomat to display, especially in regards to such a seemingly trivial concern. This behavior can only be explained by assuming she has a deep, irrational investment in the issue.

Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, as well as various Asian and African countries, have laws concerning homosexuals which are far more draconian than Russia’s rather permissive ones. Russia is still consistently singled out as being a dangerous den of bigotry and backwardness by the various Propaganda outlets of the Neoliberal Imperium.

This may seem puzzling at first until one recognizes the profound symbolism contained in Russia’s stance. By choosing to adhere to the traditional morality of historical Christendom, it presents itself as a direct civilizational alternative to the Atlanticist model. Its example is particularly potent due to Russia’s status as historically both a European and Christian power, in a way that African, Middle Eastern or East Asian nations simply do not. This is why Russia’s actions are seen as so profoundly dangerous to the Atlanticist order as it alone amongst world actors is able to provide a civilizational alternative to NeoLiberalism which may resonate with sympathetic dissidents in the West.

It is for this reason that Russia’s act of open defiance is perceived in Washington as nothing less than a direct act of violence against the Atlanticist order. For in a world where, as Clinton asserted in her 2011 speech “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” Russia’s very existence becomes an unacceptable existential threat to the Globalist Imperium.

If Clinton is to prevail in the November election, as seems very possible,  the world will become an incredibly dangerous place for any and all opposed to her designs for Global domination.  For Clinton’s coronation will signal the beginning of a new age of blood, terror, and intimidation which can end only in either the complete victory of Atlanticist totalitarianism or its final destruction. Let us all pray together fervently that it be the latter.

Source: katehon.com