One of the most basic lessons re: human nature: weakness invites contempt and aggression

Hillionaire has joined the other two Dem prez candidates , O'Malley and Sanders, as the target of a dressing-down from the ultimate identity-politics outfit: Black Lives Matter:

Hillary Clinton met with Black Lives Matter activists early last week, and just-released video shows the meeting got testy with an activist accusing the former secretary of State of “victim-blaming.”

Clinton spoke with the handful of activists for about 15 minutes on the sidelines of a forum about substance abuse in Keene, N.H.

One of the activists, Julius Jones, related their conversation to the topic of the forum, telling Clinton that “free black labor” was “America’s first drug.”
He adds that someone needs to “take on anti-blackness” by telling white people in the country that the mass incarceration system is like the plantation system — “a founding problem.”
Jones then accused the Clintons of being “partially responsible” for this through tough-on-crime legislation. “Now that you understand the consequences, what in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction of this country?”
Clinton listened with her hands folded, nodding at some of the things he was saying but giving him a stern look.
“There has to be a reckoning — I agree with that — but I also believe that there has to be some positive vision and plan that you move people toward. Once you say ‘this country has still not recovered from its original sin,’ which is true, once you say that then the next question by people who are on the sidelines, which is the vast majority of Americans, the next question is ‘well, what do you want me to do about it’?” Clinton said. “That’s what I’m trying to put together in a way that I can explain and I can sell it.”
“Your analysis is totally fair,” she later told the activist. “It’s historically fair. It’s psychologically fair. It’s economically fair. But you’re going to have to come together as a movement and say ‘here’s what we want done about it.’ Because you can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it…. Even for us sinners, find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives.”

But as the meeting progressed, as Clinton’s advisers were trying to urge her to move on to the next meeting, the interaction got more tense. 

“If you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what we need to do,” Jones said. “This is, and has always been, a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.
“If that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we’re going to deal with a very real problem,” Clinton fired back.
“What you just said was a form of victim-blaming,” the activist continued.
“Look, I don’t believe you change hearts,” Clinton said. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential.”

The matter was not resolved. The militants subsequently tweeted about Hillionaire's role in "systemic oppression."

Have you thought about why the Freedom-Hater candidates have come in for this, and not the Pubs (at least so far)?

Victor Davis Hanson has been thinking about it, and, characteristically, has taken the long view. He cites examples from ancient Greece, from late-1930s Europe, as well as the contemporary scene to demonstrate that when the outstretched hand is offered to entities with aggression on their minds, the latter is the party that gets results.

Consider immigration. After we had allowed well over 12 million illegal aliens into the country, permitted hundreds of sanctuary cities to be established, and de facto suspended federal immigration laws and stopped deportations, did either the Mexican government or the illegal aliens and their La Raza supporters interpret this as magnanimity to be reciprocated? Did we hear paeans to American willingness to take in 10 percent of the Mexican population and show it more deference and respect than did its mother country? Is that the message on Univision, in Chicano Studies departments, and at immigration rallies — the singular kindness of the United States in absorbing a tenth of the population of its neighbor by waiving all considerations of legality?

Here's another arena in which his thesis is proved:

Then we come to Iran. Does Supreme Leader Khamenei tone down his anti-American rhetoric — unwise though such rhetoric may seem in the midst of heated debates over the wisdom of President Obama’s negotiations — when the United States offers concessions on continued enrichment and centrifuges, or backs off from snap-back sanctions and anywhere/anytime inspections? If the U.S. Congress should defeat the treaty, reinstate even tougher sanctions, organize another global boycott, and warn the Iranians that they will be held accountable for their terrorist operatives, would Iranian theocrats keep chanting “Death to America” in their legislative chambers and press ahead with enrichment as they wink and nod to their allies about nuclear proliferation?

Here's an example from our own hemisphere:

The Castro brothers just upped their rhetoric, as Fidel demanded millions of dollars in embargo reparations as part of President Obama’s “normalization” of relations with Cuba — apparently to remind the world that the Cubans have no intention of paying back the billions of dollars they confiscated 55 years ago in American capital and property, much less of easing up on human-rights activists. Why would the Castros do that at this point, when no American president in a half-century has been more deferential to their Stalinist government? Is their defiance cheap public grandstanding for the benefit of Cuban hardliners, or a more natural reaction known to benefactors and beneficiaries alike as something like the following: “If he gave a wretch like me something for nothing, then he either did not deserve what he had or he should have given me even more”? 

A few more examples from the era of the Most Equal Comrade and Secretaries Hillionaire and Global-Test:

Why did Putin react to Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s obsequious reset with invasions of his smaller neighbors? Is the U.S. popular in Libya for removing the hated Qaddafi? Do the Palestinians appreciate stepped-up foreign aid to them and American pressure on Israel? Why did ISIS swallow Iraq immediately following our departure, when we had been told ad nauseam in the 2008 campaign that our foreign presence there was an irritant and a radicalizing force among the peoples of the Middle East? The answer is something more than just the obvious: that naïve appeasement is more dangerous than wise deterrence, or that the sober advice to keep quiet and carry a large stick trumps sounding off while wielding a toothpick.

The dynamic is applicable on any scale, anywhere. So it should be no surprise when FHers puke all over themselves to attempt to placate identity-politics militants, it merely whets the latter's appetite.