Last week, retired Major League Baseball pitcher and analyst for ESPN Curt Schilling was suspended by the sports network for posting a “controversial” meme about Muslims on Twitter. The tweet in question allegedly compared Muslims to Nazis via a quote that said in part, “Only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis …”
Which is, is one may have surmised, quite accurate.
Most people have heard of the phenomenon of “projection.” Rather than being a generic descriptor, this term originates in the field of psychology. It refers to the practice of an individual transferring – or “projecting” – objectionable traits they possess onto others. It’s a defense mechanism. Right now, I’d imagine some have just made the connection between this psychoanalytical theory and the character of innumerable arguments made by leftists.
Over the last week, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton engaged in some rather blatant projection at which we shall have a look.
At an Aug. 27 campaign stop in Cleveland, Ms. Clinton leveled the charge that the current lineup of Republican presidential candidates hold views on women’s issues that are akin to those of terrorist groups.
Was this outrageous? Extreme? Well, we’re talking Clintons here, so probably not.
The next day, before an audience in Minneapolis, Clinton employed verbiage evocative of the Holocaust to slander the GOP field. Suggesting that these scoundrels wish to “pull people out of their homes” and put these illegal immigrants in “boxcars,” she was no doubt attempting to reduce the candidates to the status of Nazis in the eyes of voters.
These were, as White House correspondent Keith Koffler stated, “obvious references to the German roundups of Jews in the last 1930s and early 1940s.” He also claimed that Clinton “knows exactly what she’s doing … whatever it takes to win mentality, devoid of scruple or any sense of decorum or morality.”
Or rather: Standard Clinton Operating Procedure.
Hillary’s comparison of Republican candidates to terrorists was outrageous (by civilized standards, not a Clinton’s) and slanderous, but it was not tactically sound, being a “glass house” offensive. In other words, her comparison threw the door open wide to a discussion of the Clinton Foundation taking millions of dollars in donations from terrorist-supporting, misogynistic primitives.
Which is what qualifies her words as projection.
As for her subsequent comparison of the GOP candidates to Nazis, Clinton’s relationship with the aforementioned well-heeled misogynistic primitives is actually the tie-in.
It is well and proper to scrutinize the Clinton Foundation’s donor list, their practices and whether donors paid for political influence when Ms. Clinton was secretary of state. It is also appropriate that we point out the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton taking money (via the foundation) from entities that grossly violate principles she ostensibly upholds.
But why not pursue this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion?
Once again I turn to Chuck Morse’s book, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini,” an analysis of the working relationship between Islamists and Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The book illustrates the philosophical kinship between the Nazis and their Islamist contemporaries, as well as their cooperation after World War II.
Hitler’s friend Haj Amin al-Husseini was the leader of Arab Palestine during World War II; Nazi Germany shipped arms to Arab insurgents in Palestine, and al-Husseini aided the Nazis in the recruitment of Eastern European Muslims to fight in German SS units. He also had a hand in urging the Nazis and pro-Nazi governments in Europe to transport Jews to death camps.
After the war, Al-Husseini would mentor the next generation of Arab Islamists (one was PLO leader and terrorist Yasser Arafat) in his role as leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jerusalem.
Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama has been instrumental in the Muslim Brotherhood advancing its goals worldwide. Many Americans probably accept his relationship with them, or rationalize it away due to notions of political correctness or Obama’s familial ties to Islam.
The same accepting, rationalizing Americans would probably be surprised to learn that Bill and Hillary Clinton have enjoyed a very profitable, decades-long relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a wealth of evidence substantiating this; the depth and breadth of the Clintons’ dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood – whose stated mandate is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” – is truly astonishing.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the wellspring from which all Sunni Muslim and Wahabbist terror organizations flow. Further, aside from their historical hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, Nazi philosophy that was inculcated through their association with the Third Reich is now well-ingrained into the belief system of these groups.
So, Hillary Clinton knows a great deal about terrorists and Nazis; she and Bill have been collaborating with them for years. In projecting onto Republicans, the (perhaps calculated) risk she took was that they might exploit the tactical error and reveal these connections.
Which of course the Republicans did not.
Instead of broadcasting the Clintons’ treasonous associations from the rooftop of the Capitol, the Republican National Committee had their press secretary make a statement demanding an apology from Ms. Clinton for her dumb old icky mean words.
Why hasn’t anyone among the GOP leadership brought this damning evidence to light considering Ms. Clinton’s rash comments? Well, that has to do with a certain aversion people have to self-incrimination. Many Republican power players are, shall we say, in a somewhat compromised position when it comes to Islamist front groups, so they’re a bit reluctant to break open that wholesale outlet-sized can of worms.
But that’s a story for another time …