During her campaign, Clinton, who I suspect will be the next president, is moving left on social policy and right on foreign policy. Hillary and Trump represent two trends I have been predicting for a long time. I have thought that the SJWs and the neocons would start to merge with a common program of totalitarian humanism in domestic policy, and Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist imperialism in foreign policy. I more or less recognized this trend in this article I wrote almost ten years ago, and Hillary represents this trend:
“The emerging ideology of the Western, particularly American, ruling classes can, I believe, be described as follows:
Militarism, Imperialism and Empire in the guise of ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, modernity, universalism, feminism and other leftist shibboleths.
Corporate Mercantilism (or ‘state-capitalism’) under the guise of ‘free trade’.
In domestic policy, what I call ‘totalitarian humanism’ whereby an all-encompassing and unaccountable bureaucracy peers into every corner of society to make sure no one anywhere, anyplace, anytime ever practices ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’, smoking, ‘sex abuse’ or other such leftist sins.”
I’ve also thought that as totalitarian humanism/neoconservatism became more entrenched there would be a backlash from the Right that cause the Republican Party on the ground level to start looking more like the Euronationalist parties (like the Front National of France or UKIP). That seems to have happened as well with Trump.
By Alexander Griffing
Hillary Clinton is by far the best known commodity on either side of the U.S. presidential primaries, and that’s both her greatest asset and her biggest liability. She’s also a liberal interventionist of the old school — the only candidate in the field to have advanced the decapitation of a dictator — and that foreign policy philosophy means she stands alone in the field of candidates for the U.S. presidency, even though Republican presidents are its better-known latter-day flag-wavers.