Love trumps hate. Ok, let’s say it’s stipulated.
#LoveTrumpsHate is a silly, simplistic slogan used by the Clinton Campaign. Please enjoy their hilarious play on words based on the name of Donald Trump.
But if you examine it carefully, it works perfectly only if you read it the other way around.
Let’s make a deal: I bet if you follow through my reasoning, you’ll agree I’ve surprised you, and you never saw things this way.
You can comment below re: your changing your mind or not.
Trumps loves himself immensely. I believe the entire world agrees on this bit.
But the process doesn’t stop there. Then his love is transferred to his children, family and those closest to him.
Through identification and common goals, love is projected on others: concentric circles of love are created. He loves his supporters. He loves veterans. He loves women. Ok, this may cause trouble. But the thing is, he wants to surround himself with people who love him, sharing a laugh, a dinner, a story; enjoying victories, power, good life, beautiful people laying around. And the illusion of always going up, and becoming better and stronger, being admired and giving appreciation in exchange.
This is his primary feeling. A selfish love that becomes a lot less selfish when shared, because it needs lots of human validation.
Of course he can be nasty. At times he says really ugly things and you feel sorry for him. Surely he can hate. And he does definitely use his charisma, celebrity position, clout and power to attack and destroy enemies.
But you need to appreciate the perspective. His primary focus is about this expanding circle of Trump lovers. Nasty stuff pertains to any Disturbance in the Force: ugly is met with ugly; he wants to be respected and reacts in kind. He doesn’t like to dwell on hate. He’s a fighter who wants to be done with it and get back to his magic land of loving supporters and beautiful, classy women.
You don’t have to expect unnecessary violence from him. He’s prepared but he doesn’t like it. He enjoys only the winning part of getting in a fight.
As for his love for others being insincere, I beg to differ.
He’s a master persuader (as Scott Adams puts it), so he’s selling the product (Trump) with the typical overconfident salesman’s trick of eating his own dog food: eventually you can be convincing only if you start firmly believing in what you say. Even believing your own lies, in a way.
That’s why, when he insists that he loooves veterans, and believe me he’s very persistent in stressing the concept, he’s really sincere. Maybe he wasn’t that sincere in the beginning, but he is now.
Proclaiming that you love veterans is one of the safest political statements you can make: you are being nice to a group of people that often paid a steep price to defend your country (and in many cases have been personally mistreated by the VA), and literally no one, even pacifists that resent the very idea of the military, could ever have anything against it to say.
You build from there. You get in touch with people at rallies, listen to them, absorb dramatic, touching personal stories. It grows on you. You want to give something back. It’s expedient to be good.
This is a basic concept in psychology: like the old tale of the Eskimo people who started laughing with no reason, and then were laughing because it doesn’t make sense to laugh with no reason, and eventually, after a good laugh, got to feel a lot more positive and energized… You feign an emotion, you take a stance, you cause this emotion to become real.
This is a little trickier for some, because you’ve been conditioned a lot by the media. Of course most people really dislike her, but it’s a little more complicated to actually believe the innumerable accounts that depict Hillary as a hopeless Hate Machine, disseminating resentment, sorrow and depression all around her.
Bear with me, it’s again a reasonable educated guess about a candidate’s psychology. Let’s put ourselves in her shoes.
The thing is, the inebriating effect of the Clinton family enterprise being in power for decades, being used to get away with anything thanks to direct power, allies and connections plus the intellectual prostitution from the media, has exalted her worst character traits.
It’s a long struggle, a top level war that consumes you. You make lots of enemies, but you succeed in crushing them, again and again. You end up seeing everything through this lens. The stakes are very high. Especially if you committed crimes, you can’t take any chances.
Hillary hates enemies. I think it’s clear.
But then, a lot of people can be seen as accomplices. The circle of enemies expands!
Lots of ignorant rubes don’t vote for her, for instance.
You know, she called Bernie Sanders supporters “basement dwellers”. Well, she’s probably not that far off. But you can see here that the contempt is bubbling to the surface, despite her otherwise painfully controlled composure.
Even more revealing is the episode where she had the gall to say, in a speech (!), that half of Trump supporters are a “basket of deplorables”; you know that nasty scum, like homophobes, islamophobes, racists and the like?
Now, let’s leave it for another day to answer to questions like: how exactly one happens to be labeled a homophobe or an islamophobe and what that implies, or how could you possibly put the two together? And let’s put aside for now who, how many, how relevant are the racists, and who’s giving them relevance.
But here you can appreciate a rare opportunity to get a glimpse of Hillary’s mind. That remark generated lots of criticism and for good reasons: there’s no way any of her talented speechwriters could have ever devised or approved such a counterproductive line.
She lowered her guard, being too confident in her grasp of the situation. She exposed the core.
She despises them. The revealing word isn’t deplorables. She could have used far stronger words, and probably she bit her tongue there. No, the key word is basket.
You see, people don’t live in baskets. No one thinks of himself being in a basket.
You put things in a basket. You throw stuff in a basket. That’s where she would put those puny insignificant adversaries. There’s so many of them, and they are so small… like insects…
Here she’s not just revealing that she hates them. She’s projecting her vision on reality, taking for granted that they are defined by how she sees them.
That’s a leftist that is so self-centered she can’t see a reality looming under her labels and lazy-minded pigeonholing.
But it’s not just about enemies. She’s lived for decades in a protected environment, escorted by guards, with lots of servants, far removed from the toil of the commoner.
Her raise to the top is in her view, I think, something the Universe owes her. That’s why she really hates enduring public photo ops with all those needy, noisy supporters who insist on telling her insignificant personal stories, forcing her to fake interest and smile profusely.
Her campaign struggles to make her appear likable and understanding.
She’s too self-important, and focused on high goals, to put up with inconveniences caused by some housemaid or Secret Service agent. And it shows.
Plenty of people, be it agents or low level staff, testified on her prohibiting them to greet her. Keeping their head low and moving out of her way.
Just disgruntled ex-employees? Consider this example: the testimony of an ex Secret Service agent:
“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously,” Kessler explains. “As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”
He adds: “Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi.”
“Hillary would cuss at Secret Service drivers for going over bumps.”
Still not convinced? This account comes directly from an official FBI report:
“[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere. Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”
You probably never heard of this stuff, if you listen to the mainstream networks and browse casually some Huffingtonic websites and respectable newspapers. Ask yourself why.
And it doesn’t end there. You see, even people close to her, her inner circle of loyal employees, are bound to disappoint her from time to time; more importantly, they can always be potentially suspect of betrayal.
See this example of her real character, when cameras are off. Hillary agrees to a TV interview where, it seems, all questions were scripted and pre-approved by her campaign; and yet, the interviewer Matt Lauer added a challenging, unexpected question on his own. Reportedly, she waited for the broadcast to end to rail against her staff, for their inability to prevent the incident.
Her outburst began immediately after she left the stage, with her first throwing a full glass of water into the face of her assistant, with manic, uncontrolled screaming beginning at that point. The source described Clinton as the “most foul-mouthed woman I’ve ever heard, and that voice at screech level – awful.”
If you think this testimony is probably just a made up story by some loony conservatives, remember that they are the same bunch of people routinely accused to attack Barack Obama because they are supposedly racists. But then, ask yourself: why no one ever tried to accuse Obama of having fits of rage, while this is such a persistent trait of stories from people who got close to Hillary Clinton?
See how this woman who worked for her at the White House describes her tenure there. A sinister operation, extremely cavalier on security, but absolutely paranoid about enemies.
Here the idea that her close friend and collaborator Vince Foster was pushed to the brink of suicide, is actually a defense against the accusation that they may have actually murdered Foster, a man who knew too much.
“Hillary oversaw everything that followed in the aftermath of Vince Foster’s death. Hardly mourning, she sprang into action like a field commander. The very night he died, her aides were packing up and moving boxes of files to the residence.”
The circle of enemies gets closer and closer to her, to the point there’s literally no one she doesn’t suspect, despise or hate.
Do you think she loves her husband Bill?
Eventually, living such a cold and bitter life takes a toll on a person.
She saw the Presidency, a goal she’s worked so much to finally reach, potentially jeopardized by her poor health conditions.
Imagine how disappointed she should have been to discover that her body was giving up on her!
Now you see it. We have come full circle. The circle of enemies is so large that eventually she got to hate everyone, including herself.
Listen to how she’s fed up for not having obtained (ahead of time, to boot!) a crushing advantage worthy of some questionable banana republic regime, getting at least 75% of the prospective votes…
look at her face, listen to her voice. In essence she means “Victory should be mine, I deserve it, I own it. Why aren’t you little people delivering already?!?”
This is self-explanatory.
Donal Trump is set to win a tight election, despite the unprecedented barrage of opposition, that this time included not only the entire Democrat-Media Complex, but also some prominent, misguided conservative voices and in essence the entire Republican Party Apparatus, alongside Fox News, as more or less covert enemies: sometimes pretending to be outraged by a fabricated story or a scandal, sometimes pretending to get along with the candidate chosen by the Republican base.
Trump fought against all of this; he couldn’t do much on his own actually, but it was the base itself, a core American constituency with a strong motivation to stop Obama’s Fundamental Change of America, that made possible this unprecedented underdog campaign success.
Therefore, as we have seen happen time and again, Trump trumps. And trumps. And trumps. And he’ll win!
P.S. Love doesn’t trump hate
Oh, by the way, the entire premise of the slogan is false. Saying that love wins is a good idea to write in a cookie fortune, but things in real life work differently. Ask anyone who knows history, any victim of past or present human-caused tragedies, from Genghis Khan to Hugo Chavez, from Attila to Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler or some mafia boss/bully who lives a few blocks from where you live now…
We’d love love to win. It’s just not happening in this Universe, safe for a few exceptions, built with lots of work, care and intelligence.
This slogan is Progressive Thinking 101: the most simplistic and childish idea, projecting hopes and feelings. Desiring reality to be something you can easily get a grasp on by lazily following the lead of people around you; wanting to be one of the good guys.
Love and hate are hardly the only feelings in play; feelings are not necessarily a good thing, in fact you need to learn to control them. More importantly, most decisions shouldn’t and aren’t based on feelings, at least the effective ones. You need knowledge and rationality.
With the crude oversimplification of letting others teach you about who’s the good guy who loves and who’s the evil villain who hates, you’ll always fail to comprehend basic facts of life or to make reasonable choices. Act childishly, and you’ll be handled and controlled like a child.
Only people who are dead set on manipulating and exploiting your support will be effective in convincing you.