A Nobel Prize for Hillary

By Hans Vogel

So it is now official: Hillary Clinton will be running for president! Given the nature of the US political system and taking into account the track record of mrs. Clinton, there seems little doubt this woman will make it to the White House. Everything seems set for making her the first woman to enter the WhiteHouse in another quality than as First Lady (And you bet she’ll also consider herself First Lady since she will never again allow her husband to be first anything!). Hillary will become the first female president, which is fitting, because after the first black president, a female president should follow. After all, US feminism was inspired by the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and has been following the black lead ever since.

By the way, the example of Obama serves to show it does not make any difference who is President of the US. Obama merely continued the policies of his mentally challenged predecessor, but in a more cynical way. Thus will Hillary merely continue Obama’s policies, more cynically yet. All a president has to do nowadays is to sign the papers that are put on his desk, read speeches and travel the world to bully foreign leaders into obeying the orders of the Washington regime. And here the US might encounter trouble, because Hillary does not seem to be the kind of person to take orders happily. This woman is quite dangerous because she actually believes in what she does. Bush II was too stupid to believe anything he said while Obama is too smart to believe anything he says. Mick Jagger once remarked about Madonna (the US entertainer) that she was a thimbleful of talent in a ocean of ambition, Hillary isjust an ocean of ambition. Indeed, after Bush II and Obama she seems the logical choice for those who run the Washington regime.

No doubt millions of US voters (many of them women) will give a female candidate their vote. Just because she is a women (as if that made a difference!). Can you think of a more frivolous reason to give someone your vote? I think it ought to be a reason for immediate disenfranchisement. What more proof is needed to classify the US political system as a total sham. Indeed, as Michael Parenti once pointed out, it is a “Democracy for the Few.”

KKnowing that Hillary is an ambitious woman (and that is an understatement), I’ll bet she will insist on getting a Nobel Prize. After all, Obama got one no sooner had he been enthroned. That means Hillary also deserves to get one, after all, she already holds a half dozen of honorary doctorates. All right, which Nobel Prize then? A Peace Prize is out of he question, since Obama turned out to be as ruthless a killer as any Mafia boss. There are five more fields: chemistry, physics, medicine, literature and economics. It would not surprise me if the US ambassador in Stockholm would already be busy conferring with the Nobel Prize authorities as to which Prize would have to go toHillary. She needs the Prize not just for the prestige she thinks it will confer on her, but she is also after the fat check that comes with it.

Chemistry and physics seem outrageous for someone with only a law degree (the study of law being no more than an extended form of primary education). Medicine would be a possibility, since Hillary was involved in surgery (surgical strikes against Libya in 2011) and since this cost the lives of at least 60.000 Libyans (we all know that sometimes patients die under surgery).

However I think the chances are greater of Hillary getting a Nobel Prize for either literature or economics. Her latest book, a thick volume called Hard Choices, was translated into many languages and marketed in dozens of countries. Few people would read it anyway, but that would be all the more reason for awarding her a Nobel Prize for Literature. How many people read anybook written by Halldór K. Laxness? Yet this unknown and now forgotten writer did win a Nobel Prize for Literature.

As for economics, this is a field that over the recent decades has lost all significance as a scholarly or scientific discipline: you just have to look around in order to understand that economics has more to do with theology than with science. A quick look at the winners of this Prize over the last couple of decades confirms this view and makes one thing obvious: Hillary would fit perfectly in this list. Hey, she might even receive this award with some justification.


  1. Bij dat fysieke uitnemen, heb ik het trouwens niet over een door netwerkende ‘adapted compensated/corporate psychopaths’ zoals Zur Lippe Biesterfeld uitgevoerde moord als op John F. Kennedy, maar op een NOODZAKELIJKE verdedigende actie door ECHTE overheden.

  2. Lieden als Wietse zijn volgens (echte) deskundigen een groter probleem dan psychopaten.

    Deze veel grotere groep maakt het (niet gehinderd door noemenswaardige deskundigheid) mogelijk dat psychopaten volledig ongestoord (en kenmerkend abnormaal energiek) met hun -steeds op absolute macht en controle gerichte- projecten verdergaan.

    Halfwassen figuren die dus een -i.c. richting loopgravenhumor neigende- ludieke actie opzetten als ‘Send Hillary a cigar’, hebben geen idee waar ze mee bezig zijn. Ze denken dat ze mogelijk toch ergens op iets menselijks zullen stuiten bij Hillary en dat haar hierdoor -als bij een echt mens- misschien de schellen van de ogen zullen vallen v.w.b. haar schaamteloos verschijnen in het publiek/haar driedubbel dito kandidatuur voor het presidentschap.

    Dat is echter niet mogelijk.

    De enige die er garen bij spint, is de USMAIL.

    Hillary treint gewoon machinaal door.

  3. De ludieke actie ‘Send Hillary a cigar’ heeft kennelijk niet geholpen.

    Onder andere schaamte, is een emotie waarover psychopaten (anders dan evt. geacteerd) NIET beschikken. Vreemd genoeg lijkt dit voor de goegemeente op een “krachtige persoonlijkheid” te duiden.

    De mechanisch orerende ezelheks is dus niet te stoppen, behalve door haar fysiek uit te nemen.

    Zoals alle psychopaten.

Geef een reactie