Yesterday’s Charlottesville post was mostly concerned with the event as a whole from a legal and constitutional standpoint. And on that score, Unite The Right, who were there protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue were expressing a first amendment right, and had gotten the OK of the authorities. Any violence that occurred was because Antifa ‘counter-protesters’ showed up with the explicit intent to bring the ruckus. The police and the government, perhaps deliberately, did little to prevent the powder keg from exploding. The authorities are ultimately responsible for spiral of violence that followed.
That doesn’t mean Richard Spencer and company can be proud of themselves for the events of the weekend. They made a substantial tactical error by continuing to permit the Nazi LARPing, even feeding into it with some of the visuals from the torch rally the night before. As I said in the post yesterday: if you actually want to win the long run, where winning is restoring America to her former greatness, extolling the virtues of 1930s German National Socialism is an odd way to do it, to put it mildly. Continue reading “The Lesson In Tactics From Charlottesville”→
Whatever you think of Unite the Right, or the demonstration against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, they had a lawful and constitutional right to stage a peaceful rally. The only reason violence “broke out” was because Antifa operate on the principle of “We don’t like you so you can’t associate, so we’ll stop you from associating by any means necessary.” This is unlawful.
To the extent to which there were Nazi cosplayers among the Unite the Right crowd is almost irrelevant. This is the United States of America, one has the right to express his or herself, no matter how terrible that expression is. Furthermore, and I reiterate – the Unite the Right crowd went through the proper channels, obtained a permit to demonstrate, working with the authorities to guarantee a safe environment. Antifa did not.
The Antifa “counter-protesters” went there with the express purpose of breaking up a legitimate, constitutionally backed assembly of individuals. That is a crime, an infringement on the rights of others. Doubly so when the means of breaking up said assembly was through violence.
Now, the argument leveled by Antifa is that the mere existence of Unite the Right/white nationalists/whatever is itself a violent act. Indeed, anyone who voices opinions to the right of Lenin is lumped together by Antifa as dispensers of ‘hate speech,’ and thus violent actors against whom counter-violence is acceptable, and even honorable. These are communists after all, and they don’t shy away from it, with hammer and sickle flags flying high above their congregations, and propaganda posters which highlight the influence of the intellectual progenitor of the movement, Bolshevism.Continue reading “On the Violence in Charlottesville”→
The entirely media-created, faux outrage laden Trump Wrestlemania Twitter ‘controversy’ took an interesting turn when CNN, unable to take its loss like a man, decided to threaten the individual who made the meme which the President so gleefully posted over the weekend.
Of course, CNN will interpret it differently, but a look at what happened would render their interpretation invalid. Analyzing this episode is important for various reasons, which will be made clear as I go on.
With respect to President Donald Trump, the Russian government, and the mainstream media, there are two narratives which have vied for the public’s attention over the past several months. They are as follows:
The Russian government conspired with the Trump campaign in some capacity in order to tilt the election in his favor.
The Obama administration ran surveillance on the Trump campaign, most likely illegally
The former narrative has been advanced by leftists, the neoconservative globalist element of the right, and the mainstream media. The latter narrative was introduced by President Trump himself, seemingly in response to the growing hysteria fomented by that first narrative.
The ultimate origin of Conspiracy #1 is the unconventional views President Trump holds on the topic of Russia. Congressman Dennis Heck referenced this during the much hyped Congressional hearing on Russian intervention in the 2016 election, dutifully playing up the idea that the Trump campaign may have colluded in the scheme:
Republicans who are always so strong against geopolitical foes like Russia, I know my colleagues on this committee take the Russia threat very seriously. Why wouldn’t the people who inhabit the White House? How else can we explain an Administration that beats up our oldest allies, like Australia and Britain, and our strongest and most sacrosanct alliance, like NATO, but never, ever say a bad word about Putin. In fact, they say a lot of good words about Putin.
An administration that we have heard decisively makes up baseless wiretapping charges against a former United States President, equates our intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany, and argues moral equivalents between a repressive, authoritarian states with an abhorrent human rights record like Russia in our free and open democracy. And yet, this Administration never, ever utters any criticism of Russia.
During the presidential election, Trump was one of the few candidates who did not, implicitly or explicitly, advocate for war with Russia. The Republicans, with the notable exception of Rand Paul, opposed Trump on this point, constantly falling over themselves describing how tough they would be on Putin and how badly they wanted to “punch the Russians in the nose,” in the words of John Kasich.
Hillary Clinton also expressed her desire for aggro with the Russians, consistently stating her support for no-fly zone over Syria, even after it was pointed out by top generals that establishing such a zone would lead to war. Chris Wallace explicitly laid this out to her in the third Presidential debate, all but asking her “do you want war with Russia?” She brushed aside the grave implications and stood by her position.
That Trump stood so steadfastly against Republican and Democratic establishment orthodoxy meant that the media establishment had no choice but to fall in line against Trump. Given that this orthodoxy was, and is an anti-Putin, anti-Russia position, the media had no problems with this course. After all, Putin is a massive check on the globalist, leftist policy prescription for world. Geopolitically he resists NATO, and culturally he has promoted more traditionalist, Christian views within Russia, and has been critical of the West and its relative abandonment of those views.
Prior to the election, the media angst over Trump’s Putin views was limited to just another bad view in a long list of bad views Trump held. The media and his political opponents were far more interested in exploring the RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBE XENOPHOBE line of criticism. To the extent Russians were mentioned before the election, it was to deflect attention away from the substance of the DNC leaks and the Podesta leaks. The fact that the Democrats were exposed as corrupt and duplicitous was supposed to be forgotten, simply because it was allegedly Russians who exposed that truth.
It was only after the election that the view that the Russian government ‘hacked the election’ for the purpose of installing Donald Trump as president took shape and metastasized to the point where a much hyped Congressional hearing on that matter took place this past Monday. Having failed in denying Trump the presidency on the basis of him being a ‘bigot,’ the coalition of leftist, neoconservative globalists and their media mouthpieces moved to paint Trump’s political stance on the subject of Russia and foreign policy as something much more nefarious than just an opposing viewpoint.
Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee which held the aforementioned hearing on Monday said in his opening remarks that Trump’s continued insistence on NATO countries paying their fair share, as they had already agreed to, was evidence of a quid pro quo, in which the Russian government hacked documents to help Trump in exchange for Trump’s tough talk:
The hacked documents would be in exchange for a Trump administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on criticizing NATO countries for not paying their fair share. Policies which even as recently as the President’s meeting last week with Angela Merkel have now presently come to pass.
Rand Paul, who, as mentioned before, was one of the few Republicans unwilling to sign on to a policy of war with Russia during the campaign, found himself in an explosive tiff with Senator John McCain last week. McCain, the foremost symbol of neoconservative globalism, wanted to put forth a resolution which would support Montenegro’s entrance into NATO. McCain was asking for a unanimous consent request which would have allowed the measure to go to a full Senate vote, without debate, had it been passed without objection.
In the stunning video below, McCain, knowing that a Paul objection was imminent, moved to declare anyone who would object to be in cahoots with the Russians. Paul remained unnerved, raised his objection and left the room.
McCain then launched into an angry invective against Senator Paul, accusing him of ‘working for Vladamir Putin.’ All because Paul wanted the Senate to have a discussion about the merits of including Montenegro, a poor country which would almost certainly end up being a ward of NATO, into the organization. The only clear ‘merit’ would be that geopolitically, it would annoy the Russians. Thus, the unwillingness of Paul to unnecessarily provoke Russia must mean that he is a Russian agent. Such is the rationale of globalists of every political bent.
Of course, there was the infamous ‘dossier,’ which contained unsubstantiated information collected by a British intelligence agent at the behest of Trump’s political enemies, which alleged that the Russian government had ‘kompromat’ on Trump which was held over his head as blackmail.
Then there was Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who during his confirmation hearings, was asked by Senator Al Franken whether he would have an issue investigating associates of the Trump campaign who had contacted Russian officials in the context of the 2016 election, as had been reported at the time.
Sessions answered that he himself, having been such an associate, did not have any contact with the Russians. It was later unearthed that Sessions had in fact had one meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and an informal meet-and-greet with Kislyak at the Republican National Convention, publicly, in the presence of several other ambassadors.
Indeed, Sessions had had over 25 similar meetings in his Senate office in the same Armed Forces Committee capacity as his meeting with Kislyak, including one with the Ukrainian ambassador the day before. Yet, this seemingly routine meeting was used as evidence to suggest that Sessions had perjured himself during his confirmation hearings, prompting calls for his resignation from the post. The Russian Conspiracy frenzy was at its highest.
Connecting the Dots
It was then that Trump dropped his infamous tweet storm, early on a Saturday Morning:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
[How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate.Bad (or sick) guy!]
The conspiracy Trump put forth was largely sourced from the first conspiracy, that his campaign colluded with the Russians. In spinning that narrative, the media continually cited anonymous officials who were essentially leaking classified information. Consider the following news items:
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
That would be the Obama White House, as all of this took place before Inauguration at noon on January 20.
Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”
Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The National Security Agency, which monitors the communications of foreign intelligence services, initially captured the calls between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russians as part of routine foreign surveillance. After that, the F.B.I. asked the N.S.A. to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls, and to search through troves of previous intercepted communications that had not been analyzed.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.
Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.
At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.
The mainstream media’s own reporting details a story of intelligence officials speaking under the cloak of anonymity to disclose classified information, or in the case of General Flynn, to disclose the fact that his name had been improperly identified as the American in conversation with Kislyak, given Flynn himself was not under investigation.
The media then went on to report with glee the manner in which the Obama administration sought to widely disseminate this information across the government to ensure that such leaks as we have seen happened.
All of this was done to buttress the Russia/Trump collusion angle with the innuendo provided by those numerous anonymous intelligence officials. The legality of the leaks were hand-waved away by political pundits as merely the sort of thing that happens in every administration, and thus was no big deal.
Trump’s tweets changed all of that. In directly accusing President Obama of tapping his phones, Trump brought the legality of the leaks front and center.
The globalist set, who were quick to exalt the leaks with religious fervor when it came to spinning the Collusion Theory, were all of a sudden on the defensive. They made sure to emphasize the fact that Trump had offered no evidence to back his tweets (despite having no evidence themselves with respect to the Collusion Theory). A clear example of the mental gymnastics invoked to contort oneself from a tricky situation was seen in this piece from Liz Spayd, Public Editor of the New York Times.
In it, she dealt with the obvious discrepancy between the Times explicitly reporting on the existence of “wiretapped communications” and the idea that Trump’s tweets were inaccurate by essentially saying that the Times never wrote that Obama himself directed the wiretapping.
Which brings me to the issue of semantics. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote a fiery piece condemning Trump based on his supposed rocky relationship with the Truth. It used as its centerpiece Trump’s claims that Obama had him wiretapped. These claims were officially shot down by FBI director James Comey and NSA chief Mike Rogers during the aforementioned hearing on Monday, giving the media the green light to officially brand Trump a ‘liar.’
This logic ultimately relies on a hyper-literal interpretation of Trump’s tweets. As in President Obama personally ordered some sort of wiretap – as in a physical method from a 1960s spy novel. It is true that no such, literal wiretapping occurred.
However, it is clear – from the media’s own reporting – that the existence of “intercepted communications,” which is the digital age equivalent of wiretapping, was involved, and indeed was instrumental to the narrative building which occurred. Furthermore, these communications were intercepted by various intelligence agencies, which, owing to their being a part of the executive branch, were under the authority of one President Obama.
Said differently, President Obama did not personally direct a fake painting crew to enter Trump Tower one afternoon and bug the place while Donald Trump was out to lunch. What undeniably did happen was that agencies in the Obama administration ran into members of Trump’s team as they were monitoring the communications of foreigners (which might have been legal), and then proceeded to leak some of the details to the media (which definitely is not legal).
Further credence to this point was given on Wednesday by Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He came forth with the revelation that information he had received indicated that individuals associated with the Trump team had been involved in an “incidental collection,” meaning that those individuals had been subject to surveillance owing to the fact they were on the other end of a call with another individual who was being monitored, as opposed to being monitored party themselves.
The magnitude of this will be more apparent as time goes on.
No matter how this saga ends up, the intentions of the globalist cohort of establishment Republicans, Democrats and the media is clear – Delegitimize the Trump presidency. One can easily see this in the hypocrisy surrounding Trump’s tweet claims vis-a-vis the assertion that the Russians ‘hacked the election.’
The propensity of the media to talk up Trump’s loose, bombastic, exaggerative manner of speaking, while somewhat accurate, renders its deliberate decision to adhere to the most hyper-literal interpretation of Trump’s tweets to be a bit odd. After all, if all Trump does is speak in exaggerations, then why were those Tweets not treated as simply another exaggeration? Why was the language in those tweets not treated as the colloquialisms they were, but made out to be gravely literal?
These rhetorical questions are relevant given the phrase ‘hacked the election’ was never scrutinized along its literal meaning with the same aggressiveness, despite being equally as colloquial as ‘Obama wiretapped my phones.’ On top of this, the literal meaning (that Russian operatives would have remotely tampered with voting machines to get certain desired outcomes), had been put down by the intelligence community on several occasions, including the Monday hearing in which it was reiterated that not one vote was altered, and that the tallies from November 8 were correct.
Even the colloquial meaning of ‘hacked the election,’ that Russian operatives via their alleged dissemination of DNC and Podesta emails, and the propagation of ‘fake news’ changed the tenor of the election in a way that favored Trump, faces scrutiny.
Stanford University conducted a study into the matter of fake news, and concluded that the phenomenon had a marginal impact at best:
The researchers also noted that, though social media is an important outlet that Americans use to get their news, only 34 percent of those surveyed trust the information they get from social media, while most still depend on television as their main source of information. In comparing the top 690 U.S. news sites with 65 fake news sites, they found that only 10 percent of total site traffic to news sites comes from social media. However, fake news sites predominantly depend on social media for views. Therefore, it is misleading to focus on Facebook metrics in citing fake news as a major issue during the election.
Allcott and Gentzkow concluded, “Our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news story would need to have convinced about 0.7 percent of Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it to shift their votes to Trump.” They added, “For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.”
Given the fact that the vast majority of Americans still depend on the television and more conventional sources of news, and given the fact that the vast majority of the coverage therein was negative to Trump, to the tune of 90%, it is more accurate to allege that the leftist mainstream media ‘hacked the election’ with the purpose of electing Hillary Clinton.
The reason for the hypocrisy is that intellectual honesty, journalistic integrity and plain fighting fair is secondary to the aim of delegitimizing President Trump’s administration in the eyes of the American public. Having failed to prevent Trump from winning the presidency, the globalist set has taken to undermine him as a foreign agent. Note the words of Congressman Heck from the Monday Intelligence Hearing:
Let’s be clear though. This is not about party. It’s not about relitigating the election. It’s not as if anything we do here will put a President from a different political party in the Oval Office. So, I hope that it’s clear that it’s about something much more important. And no, it’s not about political motivation, to my friend who said and suggested that earlier, this is about patriotism, about something way more important than party.
The game plan has been, and will continue to be playing politics under the guise of patriotism. Trump’s original sin was disagreeing with the globalists and their visions of war with Russia and continued NATO expansion. For this he is being made out to be a Russian agent, the figurehead of a Red Scare 2.0. Every time Trump orders a salad with Russian dressing, or the leaked workout routine of one of his associates is shown to include Russian Oblique Twists, the media will be there with the knives out.
It’s already begun, with CNN releasing a counter attack to the Nunes news, alleging that Trump associate Roger Stone colluded with Julian Assange of Wikileaks, and perhaps notorious hacker Guccifer 2.0. That assertion is based on various tweets and interviews Stone gave, in which he was essentially cheerleading the imminent release of Clinton information by Assange. The intimation, is that Stone, who publicly declared having spoken to Assange on several occasions, was in on it because he knew Assange was going to leak information.
It is this sort of reporting, full of innuendo, and the rehashing old narratives, which will wear thin on the American public. Much like the constant charges of racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia which laced the pre-election coverage of Trump, the Russia conspiracy will end up being the post-election version of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
With each passing report propagating the Collusion Theory (and burying deep within them the fact that there is no evidence, in order to retain legitimacy), the public will continues to see the game for what it is – an attempt at the political assassination of President Trump.
The fact of the matter remains, that to this point, the only thing that we know for a fact happened, based on public reporting, is that Trump officials had been the subject of surveillance, and had those communications illegally leaked to the media. Thus, Trump’s ‘Wiretap’ Conspiracy Theory is far closer to being Conspiracy Fact than the Collusion Conspiracy.
And it will remain so. This is a fight the globalists cannot win, and it will only be a matter of time before that is made apparent to the masses.
This is Part 3 of The Dawn of An Era, which is a series about the onset of the Trump presidency. Previous Parts: Part 1, Part 2
In part 2, I described the underlying source of the vociferous anti-Trump dissent which has only grown louder in the months since the election. Long story short, multiple decades of a shift away from more traditional mores both socially and culturally has left the US and the West in general at the precipice of something potentially serious.
Said differently, the set of individuals who want to party every night because it’s fun outweighed those who understood that we won’t pass the final exam unless we hit the books at some point. Now, the night before the exam, the Study Crew won and is demanding an all-night cram session. The Partiers are upset.
The reaction to President Trump initiating an Executive Order to restrict travel to the United States is the latest example of outsized consternation when it comes to anything Trump does. Via Conservative Treehouse:
If you review the actual text of the executive order (copied below in full) what you will immediately notice is the order doesn’t specify ANY countries to be included in the Visa suspension (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen).
President Trump is not suspending visas from countries his team selected, they are simply suspending visa approval from countries President Obama selected. Additionally, Trump is suspending ALL visa applications from those countries – nothing to do with Muslim applications.
[…] ” to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). ” (link)
In February of 2016 the Department of Homeland Security announced that was continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of additional concern.
These developments led to outrage over the weekend, with protests breaking out in several major airports. The Old Media gave it wall to wall coverage, stressing the size of the crowds (as they are wont to do with anti-Trump protests, versus ignoring the pro-Trump crowd sizes he got campaigning), and inundating the public with the usual tales of innocent families being split up, children crying and so on.
Why this outrage, when similar actions by the Obama administration, let alone the constant, daily bombings of the countries in question by said administration, were met with silence? This video of a protester is instructive:
Interviewer: In 2011 President Obama banned people from Iraq—did that not concern you?
In case the video is taken down or doesn’t work, it shows an airport protester being interviewed and asked about the similarity between the Obama and Trump actions, and whether the former’s concerned her. Her answer was that it didn’t concern her because… “I love President Obama. I wish he were still here.”
What that shows is that there is a high level logical bankruptcy in today’s political discourse which has been replaced by emotion. In this battle of rhetoric Trump’s opponents are working with a severe disadvantage. As I articulated in Part 2, the leftist position is essentially one seeks the primacy of r-selection, as opposed to K-selection. The problem for leftists is that humans as a species are K-selected animals; in terms of civilizations, they only can be established and maintained via applying K-selected traits.
Once civilizations are established, and wealth is generated, on then can r’s flourish. r-selected behavior is never the foundation of civilizational success. As such, leftists are always fighting an uphill battle against nature. It is why communists have always had to take over by force, point the guns at the populace and give them a choice: comply or die.
The battle leftists in America are fighting against is essentially one against sustainability. In a very simplistic sense, leftists live by the dictum ‘whatever feels good, is good.’ This governs decision making, and at a political level, can become government policy. The Partiers vs The Studiers conflict thus becomes deficit spending and credit-fuelled consumption versus savings and investment. For decades, the former strategy has won, with the Keynesians and Cultural Marxists supplying the intellectual backing for economic and social profligacy respectively.
This has created an r-selected society which cannot deal well with conflict and emotional pain. The Anonymous Conservative, who I referred to in part 2, has done fantastic work in this area, showing how the amygdala in the brain of leftists may be behind this trouble to deal with emotional pain. This article, courtesy of his blog, goes into detail about the plight of the Millennial generation, in that its upbringing has left it incapable of dealing with the real world:
Leadership consultant Simon Sinek has been told that millennials – people born after 1982 – are ‘entitled, narcissistic, self-interested, unfocused and lazy’ – but he believes it is not their fault.
The author’s response to the ‘millennial question’ on Inside Quest ‘broke the internet’ after he revealed why many young people may display the undesirable qualities listed by their bosses.
He explained millennials grew up in an environment where ‘every child wins a prize’ only to find the ‘real world’ after school is much different.
Where they were told they were special all the time, they were told they could have anything they want in life just because they want it.
Note that the mere broaching of this view was enough to spark enough outrage to ‘break the internet,’ only proving the point of the observer that Millennials are emotionally fragile, unable to cope with the fact that someone may have a differing opinion.
And Donald Trump might as well be an avalanche of real world, realtalking, counterattacking disagreement, descending upon the straw huts that are the Millennial amygdala with Biblical force.
With respect to Trump’s Executive Order, the logic of it is sound, despite the poor implementation of it. And it has already borne fruit, in that Saudi Arabia, which was left off the list of countries impacted, is now willing to negotiate to construct safe zones for refugees, something they had no interest in doing before.
This development would be infinitely better for the potentially millions affected in the region, who can be better housed temporarily in a part of the world which is more familiar to them than having to risk life and limb to trek halfway around the world to Western Europe and the USA, with its vastly different culture, climate and language, for a start.
However, it is Donald Trump who is doing it, so it must be bad. The direct dichotomy established by the airport protester above (Obama = good, Trump = evil, similar to the manner in which conservatives believe leftists are just misguided, while leftists believe conservatives are evil) comes from that base inability to deal with the harsh truths of the real world.
Unfortunately, after multiple decades of cultural Marxist influence, this deficiency has pervaded every strata of our society, from the general population, through to the elites in our media and in government.
A great example of this is seen in the examination of this video of President Clinton, which is now doing the rounds after the Immigration ban chaos:
Here, Clinton, speaking at his 1995 State of the Union address, sounds very Trumpian, yet he is still revered 22 years later, to the extent that he was a selling point for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Meanwhile Trump is continued to be held out as Literally Hitler. However, if Trump is Hitler, and about to turn the US into Nazi Germany, why are leftists then so keen on importing millions of refugees to be subjected to that horror? Once again, the intellectual deficiency of their position creeps through.
In terms of the leftist opposition, the media and the government will be whom Trump will be fighting the loudest battles with, and the first indications are that he is up to that fight.
With respect to the media, he has been employing the ‘flooding the zone’ strategy since his Inauguration. In the first 10 days of his presidency, Trump has signed 18 executive actions. They have been:
A regulatory freeze
Stopping US government funds going to international organizations which fund abortions
Withdrawing from TPP
Federal hiring freeze
Granting Keystone Pipeline
Granting Dakota Access Pipeline
Expediting Environmental Reviews
Using American materials to build the Pipelines
Speeding up Manufacturing Reviews
Targeting Sanctuary Cities
Building The Wall
Rebuilding the military
The Aforementioned ‘Muslim Ban’
Plan to Defeat ISIS
Steve Bannon to NSC
Lobbying restrictions for executive branch officials
With the exception of defeating ISIS, ALL of these orders are outrageous to leftists, as they either diminish the structures artificially supporting an r-selected society, or actively promote the establishment of K-selected strategies. Each of these orders on their own are meaty enough to require a minimum of two or three days of solid 95% negative media coverage, yet they have all been dropped on the media in the span of 10 days. Even as I write this, Trump has scheduled his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for later tonight, moving it up from later in the week, further intensifying the flooding of the zone.
This has led to nothing short of pandemonium amongs the chattering classes. Michael Tracey explores this further:
More than once over the past few days, I have been asked both online and off: “How in the hell am I supposed to keep up with everything that’s going on? How do I, as a non-professional, somewhat casual consumer of news, figure out how to process all this information constantly being thrown at me from every direction, knowing that some of it will be phony hysterics and misdirection, while some of it will also be gravely serious and demand my attention?”
My answer is: I…don’t know. I’m working on it.
Even journalists whose “one job” is to sort the news on any given day are failing immensely at this task — often their “heart is in the right place,” but the task is extremely daunting. For one thing, clearly Trump has calculated that it’s in some sense to his benefit when everyone is completely overwhelmed and suffering from a form of cognitive overload; it allows him to move briskly from issue to issue without staying there for very long — he’s essentially breaking the national attention span by saturating it with information, controversy, hysteria, real problems, fake problems, fights, feuds, tweets, and all the rest. He is keenly aware of how to prod the media into indulging its worst instincts, so a vicious cycle emerges where Trump does something outlandish, and then the media responds by acting outlandishly in its own right.
Why not just pause for a moment before fomenting hysteria? Creating a panic serves no useful purpose: probably even ultimately helps Trump pic.twitter.com/eTvDjsW08p
Tracey, despite subscribing somewhat to the leftist baseline view that Trump is an authoritarian dictator-in-waiting, simply for being in defiance of the r-selected primacy of Cultural Marxism, is one of the few prominent journalists who understands what is going on.
Trump is flooding his opposition with so much outrage-inducing stuff that it cannot focus on one specific thing, deconstruct it, and drive home to the public why it is bad and Trump should be admonished. Instead, the commotion is unfocused and seemingly random, such that from the outside, it looks like a bunch of children whining about everything, making incoherent noise that is probably best ignored.
The problem for the media is that Trump has unlimited ammunition in this war. He has the support of the population, which elected him, and gave him a friendly Congress to work. More importantly, he is immune to the biggest weapon the media has – shame. For decades the media has bullied anyone with a traditionally conservative view of the world into submission, labeling them knuckle-dragging racists, sexists and homophobes.
Trump does not give one scintilla of shit about any such charges leveled at him by the media. In fact, he laughs at them, both on Twitter and in real life. Chuck Schumer found this out when his emotional statement regarding the ‘Muslim ban,’ made while fighting through tears, was met with an inquiry from Trump about which acting coach he used.
In the face of near universal outrage over the immigration actions, including wall to wall crisis coverage on network nightly news this weekend, Trump’s team released a statement calling the immigration order a ‘massive success.’ In short, Trump is a master troll, who is outwitting a millennial class, who having been raised in the internet era should be wise to trolls and should know not to feed them.
But remember, we’re talking about millennials, leftists, and millennial leftists. That cohort, highly subject to emotional incontinence, packs Old Media newsrooms and left leaning upstarts, and thus these organizations can’t help but to play right into Trump’s hands.
The fight with the government should be similarly messy, but President Trump has shown he has the stones for that as well. Part of the reason the Immigration order is down to the fact that Trump is working with a skeleton crew of a cabinet, owing to obstruction from the Democrats in the Senate. This was probably what led to the messy issuance of the immigration order, and the public relations mess that followed.
I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.
It is telling that Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration until Senator Jeff Sessions is confirmed, cites the leftist, highly subjective concept of (social) justice and ‘standing for what is right,’ before concerning herself with legality. The construction of that statement speaks to the typical leftist, r-selected desire to place comfort (feel good platitudes) over cold reality (the law).
Trump responded by firing Yates hours later, in a display of business-like ruthlessness. The NYT article on the events of the day quotes Press Secretary Sean Spicer who had this to say regarding government officials who may seek to stand in the way of the Trump Doctrine, amid rumors of a mutiny in the still-Obama dominated State Department:
“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”
The defiant combativeness of the Trump administration is unlike anything we have seen in decades, certainly in my less-than-40 years on this earth. To a slothful, emotionally weak, r-selected society such as ours has become, the aggressiveness, speed and calculation with which the Trump administration has acted in just 10 days on the job is potentially fatal.
What is more, given the Trump administration is seeking moves that are towards the K direction, they have with them the Truth, as it were, if indeed buttressing and advancing Western Civilization is the goal. It is no different to the wisdom of preparation and study when one knows the exam is near, and eschewing partying until the job is done.
That orders to further American energy independence, secure a porous border and direct cities to actually follow existing US law can be deemed worthy of such a stern backlash, from the legions of protesters to the obstructionists in the highest ranks of government, only speaks to the level of the rot and the difficulty of the task. Fortunately for Trump, and those who agree with what he stands for, the solution is merely one of will. The weakness of the opposition means that it can be continually disoriented with continued jabs to the emotional midsection.
Trump understands this. Rather than take it easy with his early moves, Trump has eschewed the idea of ‘political capital,’ understanding that his power rather comes from ‘electorate capital.’ Trump understands that he has tons of it behind him, including among the rank and file in government agencies and the military, as a result of his drive and efficiency in Getting Things Done. He has used this early position of strength to double down, subjecting the opposition to continued horror by turning up the Emotional Pain dial past 11. With every tweet, signature ceremony and TV appearance he is triggering the left, which at some point will go apoplectic as a result, flaming out in a blaze of glory – a phenomenon known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The irony of all of this is the ‘tolerance’ which social justice warriors demand others show towards them, but not vice versa, was shown in spades for decades by the K-selected. They stood by as tradition evaporated, along with God, leaving behind a moral wasteland. The K’s tolerated this not because they liked it, but because of their loyalty to the group. As long as the West was chugging along in peace and continued wealth, a few gay night clubs, higher taxes, welfare and abortion clinics were ok. Now that the abundance of the West has deteriorated, and culture has frayed, the excesses have become less tolerable, and it is precisely at this time that the r-selected are demanding more excesses, and more tolerance of deviance. When this has not been granted, the response has been the outbursts we are seeing in the infancy of the Trump era.
Ask any 5 year old how well it has worked to throw a tantrum in public in an attempt to get his or her way. In all of history, the child tantrum-thrower has recorded a very low success rate. This is what is coming to the left if it doesn’t wise up. With every car smashed, with each road blocked, with each Trump supporter knocked cold, with each politician crying on television, the public will grow wearier and wearier of their antics.
This alone will gain Trump more converts, and to the extent his policies work and a saner culture devoid of the degeneracy of a decadent age emerges, the leftist, r-selected position will wither into obscurity as the very nature of social justice warriors will work against them. The same susceptibility to emotional pain, which leads them to seek comfort over anything else will lead them towards Trumpism, as the emotional pain anti-Trump ostracism will engender in the new Trumpmerica will become too great to bear.
One day, we’ll look at the Trump riots and shake our heads in amazement, wondering how anyone could have thought negatively about what he stood for, let alone being angry enough to launch a fierce, mouth-frothing, soft insurrection.
This is Part 2 of The Dawn of An Era, which is a series about the onset of the Trump presidency. You can read part 1 here.
From the first day of President Trump’s campaign on June 16 2015,to his Inauguration on January 20, 2017, there has been vociferous dissent, beyond the standard charges of ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’ that have been applied to any and all Republicans in the past. This dissent was more visceral in nature, and rightly so, as Trump’s candidacy was an existential threat to the elevation of the hyperfocus on identity politics and grievance culture.
Since the election in particular, this dissent has escalated to a fever pitch level, with a desperate anti-Trump cohort seeking to label his presidency as illegitimate. This culminated with the Women’s March which took place the day after the Inauguration.
Before that, there were more ‘intellectual’ appeals to the idea that we, as an American populace, have been had. This piece in the Huffington Post, published days before the Inauguration, sought to advance that angle by proclaiming that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States. I’ll deal with that particular piece some other time, but I brought it up to show what passed for ‘reasoned’ arguments against a Trump presidency.
Having been rebuffed in the arena of logic and political discourse, the anti-Trump argument became one of violence and protest. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on the legions which descended upon Washington DC with the express purpose of disrupting the Inaugural through violence, and the legions which appeared in Washington DC and in major cities across the globe to protest the Trump presidency, in order to make a more general point.
So what exactly were the women of the Women’s march marching against? What do they want? This article from Return of Kings, poses that question, in a quite forceful manner:
What more do Anglo women possibly want? They already spend 90% more money than they earn in the economy. They gobble up 66% of public spending from the welfare state while men pay 75% of the taxes to support this gynocentric system. Women hypocritically make up 80% of all spending decisions in the materialistic, extremely wasteful and environmentally destructive economy they later complain about as not being “green” enough.
They then hypocritically say they Don’t Need a Man™ while statistics prove them dead wrong. Without men for the government to rob women would be up the creek without a paddle.
What’s most satisfying about the Daily Mail article was reading the “Best rated” comments below the article. Nobody is buying the propaganda establishment media is crapping out anymore. User Right Auntie wrote:
“I’m not quite sure what they are protesting. Women in America can drive a car, get an education, get a mortgage and purchase a home. They can be doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers. They can be ministers or atheists. They can have children without men. They can speak their minds. I’m positive that they can still do these things now that Trump is president. This just looks like a giant hissy fit because their candidate lost. Being a sore loser is never a good thing.”
Indeed, what are these women protesting? They live such decadent lives they’re literally killing the goose that lays the golden egg as the future belongs to those whose children will be in it, and the men who made their exorbitant, selfish existence possible are either breeding with other ethnic groups or becoming genetic dead ends.
The points brought up here ultimately speak to the base difference between conservative and liberal leaning individuals, which is in the realm of reproductive strategy. I’m, of course, referring to r/K selection theory.
There has been plenty written about the subject, so I won’t dive too deeply into the biology, but only list some basic characteristics of each reproductive strategy.
R-selected traits include the following: low energy required to reproduce, limited competition, limited loyalty to the group, many offspring produced, early sexual maturity, promiscuity, short life expectancy, abundant resources, and low parental investment. K-selected traits include: higher energy required to reproduce, increased competition, high group loyalty, few offspring, later sexual maturity, pair bonding, longer life expectancy, limited resources, and high parental investment.
In recent years, this biological theory has been applied to politics and shed some insights on the right/left divide. It has also been used more cynically by those on the right to declare moral superiority over those on the left by virtue of their adherence to a more K-selected strategy.
Indeed, humans are clearly a K-selected animal generally speaking, but do exhibit strains of r-selected behavior across its ranks. And here I will make an important point: the question is not the moral superiority of one strategy versus another, but rather the effectiveness of one strategy versus another in the creation, maintenance and advancement of Civilization.
Sir John Glubb came to the conclusion in his famous work, The Fate of Empires that the life cycle of empires throughout history is as follows:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence
The limited resource environment facing pioneers and those who would conquer leads to a more K-selected existence, along the lines of what we would term as more traditional values. Then, as such a society continues to expand, and produce more and more wealth through the ages of commerce and affluence, this later environment of abundant resources leads to a more r-selected, more decadent lifestyle.
The catalyst for this transition is seemingly the age of Intellect, which according to Glubb, ends up biting off more than it could chew with respect to Civilization building:
Perhaps the most dangerous by-product of the Age of Intellect is the unconscious growth of the idea that the human brain can solve the problems of the world. Even on the low level of practical affairs this is patently untrue. Any small human activity, the local bowls club or the ladies’ luncheon club, requires for its survival a measure of self-sacrifice and service on the part of the members. In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of the citizens. The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unselfishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.
With respect to the current American Empire, this Age of Intellect by-product clearly manifested itself in the work of the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School. In promoting an ‘anything goes’ way of life, they came in direct opposition to the traditional values based upon self-sacrifice and discipline which came before it.
Consider the following passage from Herbert Marcuse, a leading intellect of the time, taken from his 1955 book Eros & Civilization:
Reason is the rationality of the performance principle. Even at the beginning of Western civilization, long before this principle was institutionalized, reason was defined as an instrument of constraint, of instinctual suppression; the domain of the instincts, sensuousness, was considered as eternally hostile and detrimental to reason. The categories in which philosophy has comprehended the human existence have retained the connection between reason and suppression: whatever belongs to the sphere of sensuousness, pleasure, impulse has the connotation of being antagonistic to reason—something that has to be subjugated, constrained.
The ‘performance principle’ was Marcuse’s description of the phenomenon by which human beings restrain their rather primitive, libidinous, pleasure-seeking energies and direct them towards productive effort beyond that necessary to sustain.
Marcuse’s main point was that if man could unchain that pleasure-seeking energy – Eros – from its shackles once sustenance was achieved, he would be better off eschewing the production of ‘surplus value’ so as to be able to experience more of the pleasure principle. The obvious flaw here is that virtually all of civilization as we know it is the direct result from this ‘surplus value.’
That is, if man had never worked beyond the point where he was fed and sheltered, man would still be living in caves. The wheel, spear, sword, ship, steam engine, light bulb, and semi -conductor are wholly unnecessary from the standpoint of man finding food to eat, water to drink and shelter to take refuge in. It is precisely because primitive man did not heed Marcuse’s ‘wisdom’ that enabled him to produce the very comforts of a modern Western world that Marcuse enjoyed when he wrote, comforts which cannot be maintained if his dictum were followed. When put this way, that Marcuse and those of his ilk are considered to be at or near the pinnacle of intellectual thought, when their advocacy essentially amounts to man being governed by his most base impulses, is absurd.
It is this conundrum which is the logical albatross weighing down the push for Cultural Marxism, and its attendant r-strategy lifestyle onto the forefront of society. The Woman’s March on the day after the Inaugural was at its core a representation of that drive.
The feminism underpinning the march, itself an element of cultural Marxism, is largely based on the idea that women and men are exactly the same, such that women and men are not bound by biology to be disposed to certain life tracks. In terms of sex and reproduction, things like The Pill, antibiotics, the ubiquity of contraception and easy access to abortion and divorce of modern times has created a sexual environment that allows men and women to essentially artificially avoid the consequences of their actions, seemingly paving the way for a Marcusian liberation and embrace of Eros.
In prior generations, this was not as true. Promiscuous women placed themselves at risk every time they engaged in a sexual encounter. At the very least, their promiscuity would see them shunned by the community. Beyond that, they could easily contract diseases or become pregnant, with little recourse, being forced to have a child on her own, with little support from the government and society. She would be a pariah.
The mere fear of being looked down upon in the group was enough to incentive behaviors that were more conducive to the ultimate success of the group, like stable marriage.
These days, thanks to the aforementioned advancements in birth control, there is a far greater reduction to the ‘penalties’ that were once meted out in prior generations. We are at point now where women are actively encouraged to be ‘independent,’ promiscuous during their child bearing years, while they pursue hot-shot careers in the same manner as men do.
The recent passing of Mary Tyler Moore is timely in this regard, as her show was the first major American sitcom to advance these themes. Despite the apparent dysfunction built into the ‘independent woman’ trope, it was ultimately glamorized and thus became a template for millions of women to follow. The approval of the lifestyle it was advocating is signaled in its opening title, with the cheerful jingle ending with the infamous line ‘you’re going to make it after all!’
Moore was the spiritual godmother of the legion of modern women who today cramp into urban apartments, seeking high flying careers, and streamline their promiscuity with dating apps. However, as sanitized as the Mary Tyler Moore Show looked, there was an ugliness lurking under the surface. Moore very much lived her life in the vein of her on screen self. She got married, had a child and then divorced, just prior to her career really taking off.
Moore admits to putting more effort into her work than her child:
“During the first year of ‘The Dick Van Dyke Show,’ as thrilled and bursting with excitement over my work as I was, I was equally without emotion at home,” she wrote of her divorce in 1961 from Meeker. “There is no question about it. By the time Richie was 5, I had already let him down. When he needed me the most, I was busier and even more self-concerned than I had been when he was an impressionable infant.”
Moore’s decision to spend her energies on her work had detrimental results on her family. She had remarried, and introduced her son to the stepdad life, another quirk of the decadence spawned from the age of intellect.
Her son did not take well to all of this, and as a result grew distant from his mother. Moore turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. On some level perhaps, she understood the horrendous decisions she had made in abdicating her main duty as mother to pursue her career, and attempted to self-medicate via the bottle. Her son, devoid of the nurturing that mothers provide, turned to drink and drugs and ended up dying via a gun in dubious circumstances.
I do not judge Moore, but her experience is instructive. She lived her life in a very r-selected manner, particularly with respect to her son. In this regard, one of the main ideals of feminism – that a woman can have it all, both high powered career and loving family – is shattered. A woman who is putting in the 14-18 hour days which are necessary to be a force in any industry by default cannot devote that time to her children in the manner they need, in particular when they are very young.
As I mentioned earlier, humans are K-selected animals, which take a long time to develop. Humans are born well before they are fully developed, unable to walk or talk for about a year out of the womb. It is not until the mid 20s that a human is fully developed mentally and physically. This represents an enormous parental investment in order to see a child to proper maturity, along with an enormous investment of the group to ensure a wider stability for those mature children to eventually contribute to.
This stark reality is why societies behaving under traditional mores demanded that a woman seek stability from her male partner before it ever got to the level of pregnancy. They understood, in particular during times in which abortions, and contraception were much less of an option, that a pregnancy itself was an acceptance of a multi-decade burden, the willingness to undertake that enormous parental investment.
In other words, this is self-sacrifice Glubb referred to as being subject to eradication as a by-product of the Intellectual age. Moore’s story is an example. Having had her child, in a traditional world she would have sacrificed her career to give her son the proper attention he needed. Applying a bit of Marcuse, in the context of motherhood, this would mean suffering the ‘surplus value’ of doing anything beyond waking up in the morning, feeding your child and then tucking him or her to bed at night. It would mean restraining her desire to experience the ‘Eros’ of a high powered career.
Feminists (and thus cultural Marxists) abhor the thought of self-sacrifice in this manner, which they consider ‘oppression,’ and thus look fondly onto Moore since she chose to experience the ‘Eros’ of being a high flying actress. A small irony is that in eschewing the self-sacrifice needed to raise her son properly Moore ended up sacrificed her son instead, to show the world through her TV exactly how to do the same. For this, she was rewarded by society with fame and fortune, where in prior generations she’d have been ridiculed.
This r-selected, Eros-seeking pathway was meant to ‘liberate’ man (in this case women), but it succumbs to Marcusian logic trap. If all women take the Moore route in life, a high percentage of children would end up on the path of her son – a drug addled alcoholic who died an early death. A generation of such individuals would not be long for the maintenance of, let alone the furtherance of the society it inherited. Hence, collapse, as per Glubb.
For America and the West generally, its status circa the 1960s as a wealthy civilization with vast resources (which were accumulated during K-centric generations from the time of Industrialization), introduced the conditions in which the r-selected lifestyle could flourish. The intellectual age, and the influence of the cultural Marxists gave the green light, and behavioral values changed. The shift towards r-selected traits such as nihilism and short term thinking, the embrace of the promiscuous lifestyle and all it entails, has generally been considered to be a good thing.
And indeed, the feminism Moore helped to glamorize has taken hold over the last few decades. We are starting now to see the results of the deterioration of traditional norms in the shape of more broken families, a rise in single motherhood and attendant poverty levels. This has put large swaths of American children on a path to failure before they reach their teenage years.
As I mentioned in part 1, the fate of our younger generations has involved the succumbing to drugs, pornography, excessive video game playing, with millions of men checking out of society both romantically and vocationally. This mirrors the downfall of Moore’s son and points to the results of the r-selected trait of low parental involvement. Society-wide, our crumbling infrastructure, failing schools and hollowed out factories point to the same kind of low investment in the future.
Where vice and an overindulgence in entertainment have eased the pains on the micro level, on the macro level our societal debt binge to the tune of trillions, which enabled us to import tons of foreign goods has afforded us the illusion of stability thanks to that abundance of goods. The problem is that it can’t last and isn’t sustainable. Enter Trump.
For the purposes of this discussion, Trump is an enigma, an example of the duality of the r/K strategies in one man. He is a man who on one hand who has been divorced twice, enjoying extensive, well documented stints as a playboy. In contrast to this highly r streak stands his status as a patriarch, with his 5 children and 8 grandchildren existing in a tightly knit, well-structured family setting which is the manifestation of K.
You can see some of this in this excerpt from an interview he did with Playboy in 2004. In talking about his playboy years, he has the following to say:
What was your wildest memory from those days?
You saw things at Studio 54 that you had never seen before. You would see not one superstar but 30 of them, and you’d suddenly realize how many so-called superstars there are. Or you’d see the top models in the world getting screwed on tables in the middle of the dance floor. You would see things you just don’t see today primarily because of AIDS and other diseases. But it was incredible. You’d see the most beautiful women in the world, the most beautiful people in the world. Then, an hour later, you’d see them making love right in front of you. And I’m there saying, “Excuse me?”
And what were you up to?
I was there having a good time. You don’t need drugs and alcohol to have a good time. You can get high on life. That’s what I do.
Were you dating a million models at the time?
A million. I was dating lots and lots of women. I just had a great time. They were great years, but that was pre-AIDS, and you could do things in those days that today you’re at risk doing. AIDS has changed a lot.
Was there a time when you worried about AIDS because of all you’d done?
There was, but I got tested. I think it’s hard for young kids today. It’s a whole different thing. I tell my sons just to get a nice girlfriend and be happy, because it’s dangerous out there. It’s Vietnam. I guess now we can say it’s Iraq—same deal, right?
Even there, he partook in the general r-infused degeneracy of 1970s NYC nightlife, while abstaining from drugs and alcohol. He dated tons of women, but advised his sons to opt for a more K-strategy of pair bonding.
One of the few things the media universally praised Trump for during the campaign were his children, who all were lauded as fantastic, down to earth people, despite being raised with tremendous wealth.
Many rightly saw it as a testament to Trump as a man that he could raise such good kids when it is very easy for the children of the rich to go off the rails, owing to their relatively unlimited abundance killing off any work ethic. In other words, the way Trump raised his children, in a manner heavily infused by K – no drugs, no alcohol and a predilection for pair boding – suggests that he ultimately understands the superiority of K as the stability-achieving strategy.
With Trump’s calling for America First, the lamentation of the destruction of the American spirit and eschewal of feel good concepts such as political correctness, Trump is seeking to reproduce that on a national scale, injecting America with a high dose of K.
In this respect, the contrast between Trump and Hillary Clinton was even clearer, given the appeal of the latter to the ‘independent,’ high flying power woman trope that shows such as the Mary Tyler Moore show popularized.
Trump’s victory on election night was a victory for K. In a society which had come to pedestalize the r-strategy, this presented a big conflict, which the riots and protests sought to address. On the surface it would seem the r-strategy, and its penchant for ‘anything goes’ and the ‘live and let live’ approach to the world should not lash out in the emotional manner in which it has. After all, K-strategies are merely a different way of doing things, and thus should be permissible in a truly liberal world.
The problem for the r is that the K strategy, and its focus on self-sacrifice, discipline and restraint necessarily inhibits the r strategy of promoting Eros. The government sanction and funding of abortion, and to a larger degree single motherhood, for example, was a prime theme of the Women’s March. Should the K strategy Trump favors return, the cost of the promiscuous, divorce on-demand lifestyle espoused by the r strategy would fall once again on those who engage in that lifestyle. People would then be forced to choose between restraint and accepting possible negative consequences for profligacy, a scenario which r’s find to be unacceptable.
Hence, the change to K is thus an existential threat to the r strategy, and this explains the violent backlash. Yet when you examine the dynamics involved, you begin to see even more clearly the foolishness of trying to adopt the r-strategy, the virulent ‘WE HATE PATRIARCHY’ strain in particular, as the basis for a stable society.
It is the K strategy and its much maligned ‘Patriarchy’ which is responsible for the high level of organization that enables the existence of the major cities in which the riots were held. It is responsible for the many modes of advanced communication which made the planning of such marches possible. It is responsible for the invention, and proliferation of mass transportation, whether that be train, rail or auto, which got these protesters to their destinations.
It is responsible for the fact that the protesters were able to march in peace, without fear for their physical safety. In this regard they were protected on multiple levels. On the ideological level, the establishment of a relatively free society came with it the idea that all voices, even ones of unpopular dissent, have a right to make their case known and to be heard. On a physical level, the loyalty to group, a K strategy, underpins the actions of the police force protecting the physical persons of those expressing an American right from those who would disrupt them. Finally, that K-selected Patriarchy, in the shape of the majority male sanitation workers of major cities, is what is responsible for restoring cleanliness to the city after being trashed by protesters and rioters.
As if this hypocrisy wasn’t enough, what of the protesters and rioters themselves? This was the same lot who labeled President Trump as a fascist constantly from the moment he initiated his campaign, yet responded to a fairly contested election with violence, property destruction and harassment of those who were only ‘guilty’ of supporting a different candidate.
All one has to do is to type ‘Trump supporters attacked’ into the search bar on YouTube to find thousands of videos from before, and after the election. This footage, in particular of a child partaking in Inauguration day rioting speaks volumes with respect to the r-strategy dynamic:
The fact that his parents either condoned him being there, or were so out of touch that they had no clue that their child was swept up in that scene, is irrelevant. Either way it smacks of the low parental investment, rapid maturity of the r-strategy. That kid should be at home playing computer games, and generally acting like a kid, as opposed to being used as a prop by his parents for their political activism.
In the Women’s March, similar vulgarity was abounding, particularly from the celebrities on show. Ashley Judd and Madonna, both living out the r-strategy to the max, took to the stage to extol the virtues of their ‘nastiness’ to the world.
This is the same crowd that stood aghast at some of Donald Trump’s more ‘colorful’ comments during the campaign, on the basis that ‘children were watching.’ This was the idea behind one of Hillary Clinton’s more effective campaign ads. Yet this crowd had no qualms with being colorful themselves in front of those same children, and the following video highlights that hypocrisy.
This outsized response to an emotional slight is characteristic of the r-strategy. It is a particularly amazing hypocrisy for marchers and rioters who have the disposable income to spend hundreds on a whim to fly Washington DC, dressed in $200 coats, $100 sneakers, brandishing $700 iPhones and drinking $5 cups of coffee, all to either aimlessly walk around for a few hours in 40 degree weather with zero concern for their physical safety, or to break the windows of the very Starbucks cafes which are representative of the K-derived abundance which enables them to live out their r-selected predilections with little disturbance…turn around and complain of oppression.
Furthermore, they, at least some of them are pushing to uphold and advance the acceptance of one such predilection, abortion, when the act is in most cases an abdication of responsibility for one’s actions, and beyond this represents the literal extinguishing of the future. And with that, the hopes for the advancement of the same civilization which afforded them the freedom and abundance to make such a weighty decision in comfort, departs. For the r-selected nihilists who have become far too common in our age, this isn’t a problem. For those who wish to see future generations truly enjoy in the spoils that we have enjoyed, it is a problem.
I’ll stress it one more time: this is not a moral dilemma as much as it is a logical one. As humans, K’s and r’s exist across populations, within them, and even within individuals. However true that may be, humans are a K species foremost, and thus the r-strategy is a secondary feature at best.
In terms of politics, it means that r-leftism is constantly fighting an uphill battle against its K-nature. It can be seen in the economics of the left, which require constant expansion of debt and credit to maintain the abundance it promises to its adherents. Given that debt cannot be undertaken indefinitely there will always be a painful day of reckoning.
It can be seen socially, as adherence to hyperleftist views have to be buttressed with drugs, porn, endless entertainment, psychiatry, prescription medicine and more to ease the pain. Ultimately, as Glubb shows, it is the K strategy which is what forms the foundation of any organized civilization, and r-strategies which signal its collapse.
This election was largely about the realization among a sizable portion of the electorate, perhaps subconsciously, that there is a K way to do things, and an r way to do things. Those that understood this also had to understand that the adoption of cultural Marxism and much of the ideology of New Left brings with it the seeds of collapse, while to the extent that we still had a comfortable society was down to the prior successes of a more traditional society.
The attempt to revert to such a traditional society from one that has been living the opposite way for such a long time will not come without friction. This dissent is embodied by the frantic explanations devoid of logic, and the riots protests of pure emotional angst. The dissent will pass with the return of true abundance, as the fundamental realities and success of the K Way take hold once again.
Is this what Chuck Schumer was talking about last week when he said that the US intelligence community had countless ways to strike back at Trump for daring to question them? Yesterday evening, CNN posted this article, about an alleged briefing of President Obama and President-Elect Trump concerning allegations that Russian intelligence had been collecting compromising information about Trump for years:
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.
The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
One reason the nation’s intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.
The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.
The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.
The first thing to note is that there are a lot of words like ‘alleged,’ ‘unsubstantiated,’ ‘unconfirmed,’ and of course the sources are vague ‘senior officials,’ and British and Russian ‘intelligence operatives.’ In short this is one giant pile of innuendo. Indeed, as the New York Times points out, this story has been circulating for months. Earlier this morning, Tom Brokaw, speaking on Morning Joe on MSNBC, stated that he had received this information four months ago. He and his team tried to verify it, and could not, which rendered the story ‘unreportable,’ to use his word.
Other journalists came out on Twitter implying they had been approached with the story, including Julia Ioffe.
Okay, fellow journalists, raise your hand if you too were approached with this story. (I was.)
Apparently, the Clinton campaign had the memo as well, but obviously didn’t use it. That a Trump-hating Russophobe such as Ioffe couldn’t be persuaded to run a story that surely is the stuff of dreams for her, let alone the Clinton campaign, which could have easily ended Trump’s chances had this been true, is a clear sign that the story is garbage. Furthermore, if the likes of Tom Brokaw had it, all of the ‘top’ news organizations had it, and like Brokaw, none could verify the story to a ‘reportable’ level.
So why is it leaking now? To this point we’re not entirely sure, but there are some interesting theories. It starts with the fact that the document itself reads like opposition research from Never Trump Republican types and the Democrats during the election. The Never Trump angle of this is particularly of interest, given the following Pastebin:
On january 10, Buzzfeed posted a story under the byline of Ken Bensinger, Mark Schoofs and Miriam elder titled “these reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia” and posted a link to a document alleging, among other things, that russia has been cultivating trump for 5+ years, that trump has been in constant contact with the kremlin for information on his opponents, and perhaps most inflammatory, that there are many recorded instances of blackmail of trump in sexual misconduct. A prominent claim is that trump rented the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in moscow, where he knew that the Obamas had slept in; he them hired a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden shower’ (pissplay) on the bed and in the room.
Noted #nevertrump voice Rick Wilson later commented on twitter, stating that the report “gave a new meaning to Wikileaks” and that the report was the reason everybody was fighting so hard against the election of Trump.
The remarkable thing? It’s all fake. And not only fake; it’s a prank perpetuated by 4chan, on Rick Wilson himself. A post on 4chan on october 26 stated “mfw managed to convince CTR and certain (((journalists))) on Twitter there’ll be an October surprise on Trump this Friday” along with a picture of a smug face with a hash name.
on november 1, a person without a picture but is assumed to be the same person posted “So they took what I told Rick Wilson and added a Russian spy angle to it. They still believe it. Guys, they’re truly fucking desperate – there’s no remaining Trump scandal that’s credible.”
on january 10, moments after the story broke and began to gain traction on social media, a person with the same smug grin face, and the same hash title for the picture, stated “I didn’t think they’d take it so far.”
This story has taken on something of a life of it’s own. Going through Rick Wilson’s twitter, you can find many different stories from the time that he had shown the story to a wide number of anti-trump news sources, trying to find a news organization that would actually publish the story. During that time period, he referred to it often as ‘the thing’, and often playing coy with followers on the content with the story with anybody who was not also a #Nevertrumper. Unconfirmed sources has people as high up as John McCain giving the story to FBI Director James Comey to attempt to verify the story. Given that Rick Wilson runs in Establishment circles, it is not an impossible scenario that long-serving senators are falling for what amounts to a 4chan troll trump supporter creating an ironic October Surprise out of wholecloth to punk a GOPe pundit who derogatorily referred to them as single men who masturbate to anime.
Leaving out the possible 4chan element (which would really take this saga into a new level of ignominy), and leaving out NeverTrumper Rick Wilson, consider John McCain. This article from The Guardian confirms that McCain forwarded this dossier to the FBI last month.
Now, consider the players here, and consider the nature of this dossier. On one side you have CNN, Buzzfeed, John McCain and the FBI (part of the Intelligence Community), and on the other side you have Donald Trump. This is basically a continuation of the same split which has been in place for the better part of two years now, in which the globalist, establishment interest in the media and in both major political parties have been fighting against a nationalist interloper in Trump who poses a threat to their standing.
Every single step of Trump’s rise has been met with severe resistance from this establishment group, their goal being to stop him from becoming president. Having failed at achieving that goal, they went on to delegitimize the President-Elect at every turn, by bringing up the meaningless popular vote, by heavily publicizing recount efforts in targeted states, by inciting post-election riots, and finally by hyping up the narrative that Russian involvement was at least partially responsible for Trump’s victory.
This latest dossier leak is an extension of that Russian angle, released at a moment just after the intelligence community released its ‘comprehensive’ report asserting that Vladimir Putin himself directed hacking attempts into the DNC to leak information with the view to assist Trump. This dossier, with its ‘compromising information’ is the next phase of the Russian involvement, seemingly showing that the Russians have Trump by the short hairs. In that, given the ‘fact’ that the Russians did the dirty work to get Trump elected, Trump better do what they say or else that compromising information would be released.
Note that this leaked hours before Rex Tillerson, Trump’s pick to run the State Department, is set to have his confirmation hearings. Tillerson has been criticized for his ‘soft’ stance on Russia. The circus created by this dossier leak simply muddies the waters for his confirmation hearings. It will certainly be brought up in the hearings, and Tillerson will be grilled about it.
McCain being involved in this sort of thing is not surprising, but it should really highlight what is going on here. McCain and the globalists, which include leftist politicians and the leftist media, really hate Russia. This story has shown that this Russian antagonism in those quarters has gotten to a point that any slight information, regardless of how absurd it is on its face, is jumped upon as though it were a smoking gun. These interests seemingly won’t rest until there is nuclear war with Russia.
CNN and McCain in this instance are proxies for the wider globalist interest, and in concert with the intelligence community (the much maligned ‘deep state’), it has taken its fight with Trump to the next level. It’s a sign that, despite its defeat, the globalist interest has no plans of relinquishing its place in the world. It is also a confirmation that Trump really is a threat to that order.
But the farcical nature of the information itself renders the whole gamut to be impotent. Yes, in the eyes of the unthinking masses, it may look as though Trump is a Manchurian Candidate. And given that half of the American electorate sides with the Republican and Democratic establishment, the media, a politicized intelligence community, as well as academia in hating Trump and everything he stands for, the slightest of improprieties, real or perceived will be taken to the highest of heights in no time.
This is exactly what happened on Twitter last night in the wake of the Buzzfeed release. The millions who dislike Trump immediately jumped on it, uncritically and dutifully believing that he hired Russian prostitutes to pee on a Muscovite bed that President Obama may have slept on years ago. It goes beyond wishful thinking, and highlights the deluded nature of the anti-Trump crowd.
The irony is that the same globalists, backed by the intelligence community, accused the Russians of interfering in our election in part by creating chaos, when those same interests have been interfering with the start of the Trump era by creating chaos over questions of his legitimacy.
The final aspect of this is the media. As stated before, this dossier had been making the rounds for months, yet it was such nonsense that no respected journalist could run with it. CNN took the plunge yesterday, and when it, a ‘respected’ name had already gone out with the story, other mainstream outlets were almost obliged to follow, in fear of losing clicks, ad revenue and so on to CNN and Buzzfeed. CNN gave them cover, as long as they made a reference to the original CNN report.
Without being dramatic, we are potentially seeing another nail pounded into the coffin of the mainstream press. As mentioned before, they conspired to take Trump down from day one. Having lost that fight, they blamed it on every outside factor they could think of, including the now maligned ‘fake news,’ which they defined as any news item or opinion which ran counter to their world view.
To this end, consider this tweet from Donald Trump, in response to the leaks:
Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?
Trump, the President of the United States, referring to mainstream, leftist organizations like CNN and Buzzfeed as ‘fake news,’ is further driving home the current divide that exists. The already waning trust of the public in these institutions will continue to slide. This tweet also highlights Trump’s unique trolling ability, adding in the ‘Nazi Germany’ swipe, which is relevant given that the leftist old media continually compared him to Hitler. Using this story to reframe the situation as the ‘lugenpresse’ having one last shot at him outlines his mastery of the media.
In any case, by putting forth this dossier as a real news story, the old media has forever ruined its right to be the arbiters of ‘fake news,’ if it ever had that right in the first place. Indeed, just the other day, the Washington Post was begging the public to retire the term, having observed that it had been overrun by those on the right, who were correctly redirecting the term to mean ‘the intellectually dishonest drivel emanating from old, legacy media,’ not to mention the outright lies that publications such as the WaPo themselves post.
This saga is yet another example, and given the nature of the salacious details involved, gives new meaning to the term ‘yellow journalism.’
Hillary Clinton, spoke on Thursday to a group of her donors, presumably reassuring them as to why the $1 billion-plus they spent on her wasn’t a colossal waste of money. She outspent Trump massively, while also having the vast majority of academia, the media, and pop culture behind her.
To lose with that sort of advantage at the foundation of her campaign from day one certainly makes this election result a contender for one of the greater upsets in political history. It had to be a tough ask, to get in front of the money men after such a catastrophe, which is probably why it took over a month for her to gather up the courage to face that music.
Speaking to a group of donors in Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Putin, the Russian president, had never forgiven her for the accusation she made in 2011, when she was secretary of state, that parliamentary elections his country held that year were rigged.
“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Mrs. Clinton said.
It is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly addressed the impact of the hacks since the intelligence community concluded that they were specifically aimed at harming her campaign.
“Make no mistake, as the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperately tried to present to them during the last months of the campaign,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, which collectively poured roughly $1 billion into her effort. “This is not just an attack on me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to it. This is an attack against our country. We are well beyond normal political concerns here. This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.”
It wasn’t the fact that she was simply outworked by Trump. It wasn’t that she ran a campaign hyper-focused on an aggressive Identity Politics and a grievance culture which has long since worn out its welcome. It wasn’t that she merely assumed that because it was ‘her turn’ she would waltz to a coronation. It wasn’t that she was reckless with classified information while at Secretary of State. It wasn’t the fact that she was the poster child for modern day political corruption and pay-to-pay politics (exemplified by the very group she was speaking to).
It was the Russians and their mischievous hackers.
This Election Trutherism has been dutifully put forth by leftists and those in the Old Media who still cannot believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election. They have brought this Trutherism to a new level in recent days by lobbying for the Electoral College, which meets tomorrow, to reject the result of the election by denying Donald Trump the 270 votes he needs to become president. It is an exercise in hypocrisy and arrogance, not to mention a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Last week, The Washington Post published this story, which alleged that the CIA had come to a definitive conclusion that the Russians were behind the shenanigans that took place during the election, and did so specifically to aid Donald Trump at the expense of Hillary Clinton:
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
There is plenty to note here, particularly the high level of vagueness involved. A ‘secret assessment,’ found that ‘actors’ with ‘connections’ to Russia leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks, ‘according to US officials.’ There is not a shred of concrete evidence in any of these claims, and none has materialized since they were made.
Furthermore, that these alleged efforts were done with the express purpose of boosting Trump’s chances is also without evidence. The Post piece mentions that the CIA ‘findings’ had been questioned by other intelligence agencies, on the basis of there not being enough concrete information:
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
These holes in the narrative were ‘corrected’ just a few days later when the major entities which comprise the Old Media reported that the intelligence community now believe that Vladamir Putin was directly involved, instructing the hacking and how it would be used. From NBC:
U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin’s objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to “split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,” the official said.
In other words, the vague confirmation by anonymous ‘US officials’ that the Russians interfered with the election with the purpose of aiding Trump, was later backed up with ‘new intelligence’ from yet more anonymous ‘officials’ who declared that Putin was personally involved and even directed the whole thing.
Of course all of this vagueness can be justified as being necessary, so as to shield the sensitivity of ongoing intelligence work. The Post refers to this in its piece. However, that vagueness is also the perfect shield for narrative creation, which, in the context of the totality of the post-election events suggests that this is the likelier of the necessity of the ambiguity.
Spheres of Influence
The game is made much clearer once one advances from the contention that the Russians interfered with the election to the discussion of exactly how they interfered. Both Loretta Lynch on Thursday and President Obama yesterday unequivocally stated that there was no technical interference from Russia or anyone else in the election. In other words, voting machines were not tampered with, nor were votes incorrectly tallied, and things of that nature. This was confirmation from the highest level that the 2016 election was a free and fair one, at least in a pure technical sense.
So what is the outrage about? It stems from the fact that someone leaked emails from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee to Wikileaks, who then leaked it to the public in driblets over the final months of the campaign. The Russians have been fingered as the ‘someone,’ and this has been spun to be evidence that the election was ‘hacked,’ and our Democratic Institutions have been tampered with.
That narrative is patently false, as Obama and Lynch have confirmed for us, and any characterization of Russian involvement in this manner is designed to deceive the audience. The Russians (if it was indeed them) engaged in an old fashioned data leak. That was it. They didn’t hack anything but John Podesta’s email account, and released its contents to the public.
The public was thus exposed to new information, which it absorbed and factored in to its decision making. If this constitutes an attempt to nefariously ‘interfere’ with the election, then the leak of the Billy Bush tape, in which Trump used some vulgar language in speaking about women, also qualifiesas an attempt to ‘interfere’ with the election.
Both leaks exposed pertinent information to the public about the candidates. That the Podesta and DNC leaks may have originated from international sources is irrelevant. The information itself was true, and damaging. Michael Tracey provides a bullet point list of what those leaks revealed in this piece, and he concludes it by correctly noting that what was leaked was most definitely in the public interest.
In short, the ‘Russians’ interfered with the US election by showing how the DNC and the Clinton campaign planned to themselves interfere with the US election by colluding with party bigwigs, donors and the media to stack the deck in her favor. They rigged the Democratic Party Primary against Bernie Sanders. Both Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile came under fire as heads of the DNC, with the former having to step down as a result. The latter was caught funneling debate questions to Clinton.
It exposed the private dealings of Hillary Clinton behind closed doors, notably her insistence that it was important to have both a private and public position on issues. It shed light onto some of the more shady dealings of the Clinton Foundation which coincided with Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The leaks ultimately put some meat onto the bones of the concept that rampant political corruption goes on at the highest levels of modern government. Most people always suspected this, but lacked the concrete evidence. In many ways, those leaks provided that evidence.
It is telling that throughout the campaign, as the leaks were being delivered, those parties involved never outright denied the validity of the information being released. The most they could do was to appeal to the same sort alarm over foreign intrusion which has been taken to new heights post election.
The whole thing is reminiscent of the poker scene from the 1973 movie, The Sting, featuring Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Newman’s character, Shaw, outwits a mobster, Lonnegan, playing in a private game. The idea was to set Shaw up by trick dealing him a four of a kind, which in poker is a virtually unbeatable hand. This would induce Shaw to end up betting all of his chips, and possibly more, on such a sure thing. Lonnegan, carrying a second deck in his pocket, ‘dealt’ himself a better four of a kind, and thus would have shown down with Lonnegan, losing everything, thus completing the scam.
Shaw, wise to the gambit, was ready for it, and when the time came made a switch. The movie doesn’t show how he did it, but Shaw had originally been dealt four threes, while Lonnegan had been dealt four nines. The betting carries on until both players are all in. Shaw then turns over four jacks, to the dismay of all in the room. Lonnegan, defeated, storms into a side room angry enough to kill. His associate, bewildered, tells Lonnegan: “Doyle, I know I gave him four THREES. He had to make a switch. We can’t let him get away with that.”
Lonnegan response was famous: “What was I supposed to do – call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?”
Unlike those on the left, Lonnegan understood that you can’t call someone out for being crooked when you are crooked yourself. Having been outsmarted, Lonnegan accepted Shaw had bested him and moved on.
Instead, the left has responded by ramping up the outrage, making it seem as though they had been wronged. Again, both the Attorney General and the President of the United States confirmed that the 2016 electoral process was a free and fair one, devoid of technical interference by any perpetrator, foreign or domestic.
Despite this, democrat politicians, aided by their leftist friends in the Old Media have succeeded in driving the hysteria about Russian involvement into the stratosphere. What happened was a data leak by unknown actors, who could have been foreign. What the old media has implicated, in their usage of terms such as ‘hacked the election,’ is that some sort of advanced espionage operation took place, which was coordinated to install Donald Trump as president.
In the past week or so op–ed after op-ed has filled the pages of newspapers across the country decrying the now ‘tainted’ election, calling on the Electoral College to rectify the situation when it meets on Monday. They’ve even resorted to the failed tactic of trotting out celebs to stand in front of a white wall delivering a public service announcement instructing the Electors to stand up for America and do the right thing, which is to not confirm Trump’s presidency. Naturally, the video has disabled comments and the like/dislike button.
Suddenly, Constitutional Originalism is In Vogue
Vox wrote this piece a few weeks ago to explain why it would be a legitimate action for the Electoral College to not vote for Trump, citing the constitution and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers writings. To be sure, it would be legitimate for the Electors to do whatever they wanted, individual state rules notwithstanding. The constitution allows for them to do this. However, the standard reasoning provided by leftist for why they should vote for someone other than Trump is wrong. The Vox article writes:
Constitutional history makes clear that the founders had three main purposes in designing the Electoral College.
The first was to stop a demagogue from becoming president. At the Constitutional Convention, arguing in support of the Electoral College, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said he was “against a popular election” for president because the people would be “misled by a few designing men.” In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the electors would prevent those with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming president. They would also stop anyone who would “convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements.”
The characterization of Trump as a demagogue is a matter of opinion. The fact that political pundits in the old media refer to Trump as a demagogue nearly every time they speak about him does not make it a fact. The fact that Trump did tap into a huge wave of populism does not render his policies or his victory somehow illegitimate simply because of that populism.
Consider that Trump has been called a racist xenophobe for putting forth an immigration proposal that seeks to rigorously enforce existing law which for many years has been ignored on many levels. The fact that this is such a popular stance among his supporters and played a huge role in his victory has been used as an example of his ‘demagoguery.’
In terms of a ‘violent movement,’ to the left Trump’s campaign qualifies as such given his signal to aggressively follow the law means that those who break the law are going to be in for an uncomfortable time, to put it mildly. In the realm of immigration, this means illegal immigrants, a protected class of the left, are going to be subject to the ‘violence’ of facing consequences for breaking American immigration laws.
It says a lot about where we are as a society when calls to follow the law can be considered to be demagoguery, no matter how brash they are.
As for Hamilton’s wish to essentially banish charming, engaging, charismatic celebrity types from holding the office, if this is to be the standard, then most of the presidents in the television era are ineligible. Indeed, the 1960 Presidential Debates are immortalized based on the simple fact that the introduction of television altered the perception of the two candidates’ performances. Famously, those who listened on the radio believed that Nixon won, while those who watched on television believed Kennedy was more effective. Kennedy was the more visually appealing of the two, standing calm and assured, while Nixon famously looked a sweating mountain of nerves.
According to the standard now being imposed by the left, Kennedy’s superior charisma and charm should have been taken into account by the Electoral College, especially given the razor thin margin of his victory. Subsequent presidents in the TV era, from Reagan, to Bill Clinton, and even President Obama won, in part, on the strength of their charm, natural persuasion and ability to relate to people. They all displayed ‘talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,’ because it is a successful, almost necessary tactic in an era so influenced by television.
On the whole, this point is a non-starter, at all levels. Vox continues:
The second goal was to stop foreign interference in election. In the founding period, the framers were extremely concerned about infiltration by rivals including Great Britain. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that one major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” He said that the college would “Guard against all danger of this sort … with the most provident and judicious attention” from the electors.
There is slightly more to this point, as I’ve discussed above. However, nothing about the Russian hacking rises to the level of gaining ‘an improper ascendant in our councils.’ If anything fits that bill, it would be the behind closed doors declaration of Hilary Clinton to international bankers that her dream was to establish a ‘hemispheric common market’ across North America, that would benefit globalist interest. It would be the Uranium One deal Clinton help broker with, you guessed it, Russia, as Secretary of State.
These are the sorts of things consistent with foreign entities looking to install a puppet as opposed to a relatively mundane action like a data leak. More from Vox:
The third goal was to prevent poor administration of government. This is a less well-known purpose of the Electoral College, but it is again expressly discussed in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton wrote that “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration,” and for that reason, he said, the electors should be “able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.”
Vox claimed that Trump had violated this goal because of his popular vote defeat, but that certainly isn’t evidence of anything. In fact the Electoral College exists precisely to prevent the majority vote from potentially harming the nation as a whole. Given that the majority voted against Trump, and thus against the rule of law to favor the nebulous concept of ‘racism’ as it is defined in 2016, the Electoral College worked exactly as it should have on November 8.
So while it is within the rights of the Electors to cast their votes in a manner that would deny Trump the presidency, the threat to the republic that is bandied as the reason for doing so does not exist. Trump is not a demagogue or foreign puppet and has not exhibited a stark inability to execute a good administration. The only ones who truly believe this are leftists and globalist Republicans, who collectively find Trump to be objectionable.
The grounds on which they have been objecting to Trump are the extension of a concept I’ve repeated over the latter stages of the election; that is the idea that racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and so on are the gravest of societal sins while simultaneously being near ubiquitous in modern society. From the vantage point of this current cultural milieu, Trump is an illegitimate president, owing to his supposed racism and xenophobia.
Therefore, from this vantage point, looking to the Constitution for guidance, and encouraging the Electors to reject Trump is a legitimate course of action. More from Vox:
Modern-day conservatives favor so-called “originalist” understandings of the Constitution. They look to history and to the original texts of our founding documents for guidance. Recent decades have seen the invocation of original constitutional institutions to address present concerns, such as when the Rehnquist Court struck down Congressional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act on the grounds that they violated an originalist understanding of the Commerce Clause.
Whether or not you agree with such decisions, they establish the broad-spectrum appeal of our constitutional institutions — particularly in times of crisis. “Make America great again” is a clever marketing slogan. But our real greatness depends on employing our institutions and values to protect our republic from those who might prey on us.
This is written without a hint of irony, given the general leftist aversion to ‘originalist’ interpretation of Constitutional texts. Just in the last year or two they belittled the originalist opposition to gay marriage laws and Obamacare. Thus, their sudden sprint into the bosom of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison is tinged with hypocrisy.
As is Election Trutherism in general, given the fact that before the election Trump was hailed a threat to the 240 year republic for merely stating that he would wait to confirm the legitimacy of the election result rather than blindly accepting it. Now that Trump has won, the same factions which decried him are not accepting the election results, owing to their disagreements with Trump’s politics wrapped in the veneer of foreign meddling.
Had the shoe been on the other foot, there would have been calls for Trump’s arrest for disrupting the ‘peaceful transition of power’ in the way the leftists are doing to Trump.
Trump is a threat because his flouting Politically Correct cultural norms threatens the source of power that leftists have used to wield their influence on society. By establishing their opinions on social issues as the moral ones, mere disagreements are thus immoral, and therefore their disruptions become justified. Of course their views are conjecture, and nothing more.
Despite the jittering protestations of the likes of Keith Olberman, in a free and fair election, Donald Trump won 306 Electoral College votes, and thus the Presidency. None of the contingencies which should prompt the Electors to intervene exist. Even if the Electors chose to overturn the electoral vote on Monday, the decision would go to the House of Representatives, who would most likely elect Trump.
The entire episode is part of the drive to de-legitimize the Trump presidency. It is an attempt for leftists to deny responsibility for their loss, despite having the deck stacked in its favor. In crying foul, they give themselves an out. The drudges across the political establishment, from media pundits and columnists, to polling companies, to campaign advisers, lobbyists and other insiders, all rely on the status quo for their daily bread. That they completely misread Trump’s candidacy and the American electorate, even well after the election has ended, indicates that their usefulness is over.
Unless the election was literally stolen, swindled from under their noses. In this case, it wasn’t their fault. Their world view, their reading of current events, their prescriptions for the future were actually correct; it was unforeseen injustice which got in their way. It’s incredibly self-serving.
It is also incredibly encouraging to those of us who were on The Right Side Of History the entire time. Because to us, these flare-ups and meltdowns emanating from the left confirm that they have no wish to change. They have no wish to stop trying to foist their delusions of equality and social justice on the rest of the public, through the ‘everything and everyone is racist’ mode of argument. A mode of argument which, had just received a resounding defeat in the marketplace of ideas, as evidenced by the election results, and the growing influence of internet culture.
So let the leftists continue down this line for as long as they wish. Their losses will accrue accordingly.
Bias is a part of humanity, and there really isn’t anything wrong with it. Anyone who reads the stuff I write will know where I stand. I don’t hide anything. Even if you hate things like free markets, Western Civilization, the gold standard, traditional American values, and Donald Trump, you can’t be annoyed with me personally because I do not hide the fact that I support these things and tailor my words accordingly.
What people don’t like is duplicity. And for decades now, the mainstream media has been guilty of it in spades. This is because it (by ‘it’ I mean the collective of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and even Fox News, as well as the New York Times, Washington Post and numerous other major papers) purports itself to be objective actors who merely act as sieves, filtering the torrent of news that comes out in a particular time frame into the most pure elements.
In the past few days, Liz Spayd, public editor of the New York Times, has come under fire from those in the leftist old media, merely because she veered into the land of objectivity, which organizations such as the NYT hold themselves out to be. Brian Stelter of CNN implored is fellow journalists on TV to refer to Trump as an authoritarian strongman. Time magazine awarded Trump the ‘Person of the Year,’ but just couldn’t graciously give him the honor without adding some snark in the subheading, calling him the ‘President of the Divided States of America,’ as though he did the dividing as opposed to merely exposing existing divisions:
The old media has been exposed bare during this election cycle, and they are showing no signs of learning from what happened.
The Spayd saga started when she went on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News to discuss a few tweets by NYT reporters which Carlson felt to be unbecoming:
Carlson’s point was that most of those journalists had no business injecting their personal criticisms of Donald Trump into the discussion via their tweeting if they still wanted to be called journalists. He spoke in tougher terms, naturally, but Spayd didn’t necessarily disagree with Carlson’s overall point.
To be sure, some of the tweets in question were rather tame, but a couple of the examples Carlson brought up were instructive:
Those tweets, as Carlson points out, give the impression that the media did its job by actively trying to keep Trump from getting elected, but failed because the pesky electorate wanted what they wanted. This is particularly true of Barbaro, who tried oh so hard to craft a narrative of Trump as Sexual Predator, with two major hit pieces in the NYT over the course of the campaign.
That backlash is telling, in that it seems that for some of these leftist old media types, objectivity is potentially an antiquated thing in 2016. The NYT themselves famously struggled with this issue over the summer. The problem for the old media is that a push away from objectivity in the face of an adversary they don’t like is only going to backfire. Consider Brian Stelter’s assertion this weekend that the media should explicitly refer to Trump as an authoritarian strongman, and to ‘start using those words on TV.’
Stelter bemoans the fact that in authoritarian countries, the first thing a strongman does is to de-legitimize the press. While this is true, Stelter doesn’t realize that his position on Trump is what is doing the de-legitimizing, in that he is, and has been subscribing to the ‘Trump is literally Hitler’ argument for a year now, merely because he disagrees vehemently with Trump’s views.
In the article that accompanied the announcement of Trump as Time Person of The Year, while accurately describing the Trump phenomenon in some parts, was chock full of passages such as this:
His rhetoric had in fact opened up a new public square, where racists and misogynists could boast of their views and claim themselves validated. And to further enrage many Americans, Trump regularly peddled falsehoods, without offering any evidence, and then refused to back down from his claims. He promised to sue the dozen women who came forward to say they had been sexually mistreated by him over the years. He said he might not accept the outcome of the election if it did not go his way. He described a crime wave gripping the country based on a selective reading of statistics.
Rich, considering the Exhibit A of Trump’s ‘racism’ was the fact that in his announcement speech he ‘called Mexicans rapists, murderers and drug peddlers,’ which is only true through a ‘selective reading’ of what Trump said in full, in addition to erroneously thinking that ‘Mexican’ is a race.
As I’ve mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with bias, we all are biased to some degree. I don’t think reporters such as Stelter or Barbaro should be blamed for being biased. But what they do is ascribe an air of objectivity to what is really subjective bias, such that anything that opposes that is conspiracy, or more fashionably, ‘fake news.’
In constructing that paradigm, and then treating those who then disagree with it as thought criminals and worse, the old media is behaving like the authoritarians they accuse Trump of being, while painting the part of the public which doesn’t share their views into a corner. The fact that Stelter’s show is called ‘Reliable Sources’ is a bit of irony that underlines this point.
When disagreement is a social crime, dissidents are going to retreat into the underground and build its own resistance. This is what the alternative media is all about. The objectivity void created by the old media will be filled by others who are equally biased, but simply represent the other side of the argument. And given the old media’s side has shown to have bankrupt messaging, that other argument will become more and more attractive.
In economics, the term ‘bubble’ will mean different things to different people, but it’s safe to say that a bubble involves a dramatic mispricing of an asset or an asset class which leads to severe dislocations when those mispricings are brought back into line.
These mispricings are caused by inflation, or the increase in the money supply, credit supply or both. This increase provides the demand which is used to bid up asset prices. This rise in prices tends to be the foundation for a wider paradigm dependent on the continued trend of asset prices. For example, the recent housing bubble was fueled by the increase of cheap credit, which was a response to the post 9/11 recession. On the back of that, increases in stock and commodity prices, prospects in related businesses, and local small business activity all took shape. What culminated in the 2008 collapse started a few years before when housing prices started to slow, and by the depths of the crisis in late 2008, the damage had radiated to commodities, stocks, bonds, and local businesses, ultimately leaving the financial system as a while in a perilous situation.
Given the fact that the high asset prices seen were dependent on the increase in money supply during the early phases of bubble, the tapering of the monetary spigot brings with it the collapse as the asset price rises cannot continue upward without fresh injections of money or credit. If prices stop rising, they level off and then fall, exposing the weaknesses in debt structures and business models predicated on high asset prices.
That basic blueprint of bubbles-as-economic-growth has been at the heart of the post gold standard modern economic machine of the last 50 years or so. From the stagflation of the 1970s, to the 80s Savings and Loan crisis and 1987 crash, to the Internet bubble of the 90s, to the housing bubble of the 2000s, the economy has lurched from bubble to bubble, each one a bit larger than the last. As I write we’re in the midst of yet another bubble, constructed in the wake of the 2008 collapse to mitigate its effects.
A similar bubble has taken shape over that time in the cultural arena. We can term this the ‘social justice’ bubble, which has burst over the course of this past year in spectacular fashion, culminating in the election of Donald Trump.
Much like bubbles in economics, the social justice bubble was built on the back of an inflation, of sorts. Instead of the money supply increasing, what artificially increased was the value of certain words, to the extent that these words now have entirely new meanings or suddenly deemed to encompass things they didn’t originally. Thomas Sowell did a more comprehensive job of outlining this inflation, in addition to comparing it to the monetary variety, in his 1995 book The Vision of The Anointed. He writes:
[O]rdinary vicissitudes of life become “traumas.” Any situation which they wish to change becomes a “crisis,” regardless of whether it is any worse than usual or is already getting better on its own.
Verbal inflation, like monteary inflation, would have no effect if everyone understood what was happening and could adjust to it immediately. A ten-fold increase in the price level would mean nothing if everyone were free to add a zero to the sums in all contracts, laws, cash on hand, etc., and do so immediately. Inflation has an economic effect precisely because there is no such instantaneous and total flexibility. In the real world of lagging adjustments, borrowers pay back less than they owe, workers are paid less than they were promised, and the government cheats its way out of part of the national debt by paying it off in dollars that are worth less than the dollars that were borrowed. Verbal inflation likewise enables some people to cheat others. When “harassment,” “discrimination,” or even “rape” are redefined to include things going far beyond the original meanings of these words, there would be no real change if everyone understood what the inflated words now mean and neither social stigmas nor the penalties of the laws applied to the vast range of new things encompassed by these new meanings.
In both cases, runaway inflation us not just a zero-sum game. Monetary inflation not only redistributes benefits but can also reduce the sum total of those benefits, by undermining the credibility of the monetary unit and with it undermining the predictability of the whole system of which it is part, causing the economy to be less productive as people restrict what they do and plan, in order to avoid vastly increased risks. For similar reasons, human relations suffer when the verbal common currency of social interaction loses its meaning and predictability, so that people now protect themselves from new risks by various ways of withdrawing from one another and reducing their cooperation.
The intellectual justification for monetary inflation as a policy comes from the mostly Keynesian view that falling prices are a grave danger to an economy. Beyond this, it is viewed by many economists as a cause of recessions and depressions, and as such there is no good reason why inflationary policies should not be pursued, if the alternative is to allow prices to fall. The end result is to effectively take the position that unless prices rise higher and higher in perpetuity, the world will come to an end. Indeed, this is where most name brand economists, like Paul Krugman are, having never seen an inflationary policy proposal that wasn’t the right thing to do at the given time.
This paradigm is reflected in the cultural Marxist ideas of ‘social justice,’ and ‘tolerance.’ Much in the same way prices can never decline lest the economy collapse, social justice acolytes hold that culture can never become more traditional. Consider this quote from a prominent 20th century cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse, taken from his essay Repressive Tolerance:
This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period–a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.
There are two important things to note. First is the admission that ‘tolerance’ really means ‘acceptance of all viewpoints apart from the ones we disagree with.’ The second is the logical reality of Marcuse’s view means that tolerance is an ever fluid concept. At the time he wrote this, in 1965, for example, homosexuality was very much an attitude which was suppressed. According to Marcuse, ‘tolerance’ in this instance means to be intolerant of anti-homosexuality.
Applied to 2016, you can substitute transgenderism for homosexuality. The issue is that as time goes on, any and all things which were looked down upon for any reason become subject to a Marcusian appeal to ‘tolerance.’ Taken to its logical extension, it means that human standards for decency are always negotiable in accordance to this tolerance doctrine.
The verbal inflation that Sowell describes is a tool used to prop up the social justice complex in the same manner as monetary inflation is used to prop up the price level. In both instances, the props are needed because the underlying foundations are extremely weak.
For example, in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance,’ the physical standards required to serve in the armed forces have been decreased in order to allow women to pass the threshold. This means that the armed forces are being filled with objectively less fit, less strong individuals than before. However, to speak out against it is deemed as ‘sexist,’ the word in this case referring to the truism that men and women have different capacities for physical undertaking and thus are not going to be equally suited to performing the same exact tasks.
The effect of the social justice bubble has been to elevate words such as ‘sexism,’ to great heights, to the the point they supersede reality. The violations of racism, sexism, homophobia and others have been crudely redefined in modern discourse to mean ‘disagreeing with anyone apart from straight white, Christian males for any reason.’ Thus, once charged with such a violation, at the very least the conversation is over. You have ‘lost’ the argument. It is in this manner that ‘dissidents’ are silenced, in accordance with the intolerance of their position as espoused by Marcuse.
It creates an environment in which pretty much everything becomes a social justice cause, with every slight an assault on humanity. In other words ‘ordinary vicissitudes’ suddenly become traumatic, as Sowell described. The totality of this can be described as ‘political correctness.’
The cultural Marxist influenced academics at Western universities gave the intellectual green light for the social justice bubble, and the media which megaphones it far and wide facilitates its spread to the public at large, so as to steer it in the right direction, away from traditionalism and towards a more nihilistic world.
During this expansion phase of the bubble, crazy things start becoming the new normal. During the housing bubble it started to be normal to see basically any space with a toilet and a sink going for seven figures merely because of their location in metropolitan areas. This was seen as a good thing because it was evidence of the ‘robustness’ of the market. If everyone wanted these properties such that prices were rising, it must mean that they were truly valuable. Basic supply and demand, they would say, not understanding that the ‘demand’ was artificial in nature.
Similarly, the social justice bubble has yielded similar madness. The sensitivity to ‘microagressions,’ the very existence of ‘trigger warnings,’ the need for ‘safe spaces,’ the looming threat of ‘rape culture,’ the never ending scourge that is ‘cultural appropriation,’ among other things, are the everyday symptoms of the bubble. Social justice defenders say these are good developments, because they show the robustness of the ‘tolerance’ movement in their acquiescence to anyone with a grievance, no matter how small.
Witch hunts for those who dare to disagree with the cultural Marxist line are the order of the day. Indeed, even not voicing your approval loudly enough is sufficient to get you into hot water, as Brett Favre found out last summer.
Seemingly every week there is a new celebrity being put on trial in the court of public opinions for some comment he or she made that might be deemed offensive to some group. At the very least, these trials end in ostracism for the defendant, and often times they result in boycotts, terminations and blacklistings. Look no further than Billy Bush, who got fired from the Today Show for merely laughing at Trump’s crude talk 11 years ago.
The sort of madness that allows for such absurd housing valuations and offensive comments to be worthy of termination is par for the course in a bubble. It also means that the demise of the bubble is baked into the cake. An economic bubble requires a never ending expansion of credit and debt at ever greater amounts. This is impossible for the simple fact that production, and thus incomes do not rise in the sort of exponential manner needed to keep up with the required debt expansions.
At some point, there will be ‘too much debt,’ which will require debt loads to lessen, which in turn reduces the impetus for asset price increases, which in turn threatens the house of cards which was founded on such asset price increases. This is what happened in the Great Financial Crisis of 2008.
In terms of the social justice bubble, the requirement of a never ending expansion of grievances was always going to test otherwise well meaning people who merely wanted to be left alone. That idea, being an anathema to the social justice warrior, has resulted in the insertion of the social justice cause being inserted into all facets of life, from the regulation of Halloween costumes, to concerns over the symbolism of one’s flag, to the politics of public bathrooms. You can’t even watch a ball game without being lectured to about some social justice cause or another.
At some point, when faced with constant charges of racism or sexism, used as an attempt to bully someone out of their ‘offensive’ position, the defendant will finally respond: ‘I don’t care.’
Indeed, this ‘I don’t care’ was a significant part of Donald Trump’s campaign to Make America Great Again. This was highlighted in the first Republican Debate of the Primary season, in the now infamous exchange Trump had with Megyn Kelly.
Kelly opened the debate with a question about several ‘misogynistic’ things Trump had said over the years on social media and elsewhere and asked if that represented the temperament befitting a President. The totality of the situation is illustrative of the social justice bubble in that Kelly, in this instance a proxy for the media generally, was raking a potential President of the United States over the coals for high crimes against social justice, and doing so in front of a record national audience to maximize the level of social ostracism. That it was the first question of a debate to help determine who holds the office of the Presidency further highlights the importance ascribed to social justice by its purveyors.
Trump responded in a playfully dismissive way, and then made the more serious point that the United States no longer had time for political correctness. In doing so he signaled that he was not going to allow the media, the megaphone of the social justice bubble, to bully him as they had done to Republican candidates in the past.
More significantly, he gave the green light to others to finally say ‘I don’t care’ without fear. Trump’s campaign was the bursting of the bubble, yet it wasn’t until late on election night, when Wisconsin flipped from blue to Trump red that the social justice set realized that something had gone horribly wrong.
Up until that point they had surmised that the vast majority of the country held their views on social justice issues, and agreed with their methods of wielding power over the population through constant programming via the news and entertainment media, indoctrination of youth at colleges, and public shaming of dissidents.
This was evident in the way Hillary Clinton campaigned, using the enormous sums raised at six-figure per head dinners in the Hamptons and Hollywood to fund her attack through the use of legacy media. She relied heavily on celebrity endorsements, who used that legacy media platform to blare the message that it was ‘cool’ to vote Clinton because famous people said so.
They didn’t entertain the idea that there were huge swaths of the country, namely the parts beyond the city limits of NYC, San Fancisco and Los Angeles who not only didn’t buy into the social justice bubble, but were actively against it, in part because of the fact that bubble was built disparaging people like them. When you turn on the television and see caricatures of rednecks with funny accents and their ‘Jesus freak’ attitudes being made fun of, you tend to feel that the new social justice order might not be for you. Throw in your small town being decimated by the factory shutting down, and you’re ripe for revolution.
And it came on November 8. That night was to the social justice bubble what the failure of Lehmann Brothers was to the housing bubble. It was the moment when no one could further lie to themselves about the true state of the world. It was an incontrovertible rebuke to the idea that the housing mess was contained to subprime and that the economy was set for a new expansion forthwith. It was an incontrovertible rbuke to the idea that Trump’s rally sizes didn’t matter, that the mainstream polls were fundamentally underestimating the true nature of his support, that demographics meant that Hillary Clinton was an overwhelming favorite to win.
Yet, it wasn’t viewed as such. One of the most curious features of modern bubble thinking is the fact that the inevitable burst of the bubble leads its cheerleaders to deny vehemently that they were fundamentally wrong about the causes of said bubble. Instead, they prefer to believe the mistake was a more tactical error. If only the Federal Reserve hadn’t raised interest rates so fast, or if only XYZ regulation had been put into place, they would say, the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened, or it would have been much less severe.
Furthermore, they go so far as to promote the reconstruction of a new bubble to replace the mess left by the bursting of the old one. This is what happened in late 2008 and early 2009, as a bevy of bailouts, interest rate cuts, money printing, and debt expansion took place in order to prop up an economy savaged by the burst housing bubble. The falling prices symptomatic of the busting of a bubble and a recession/depression had to be actively combated, according to conventional economic thinking, no matter how much money printing and new debt was needed. The fact that prices had collapsed precisely because they were too high in the first place, such that artificially forcing them back to crisis-inducing levels doesn’t make sense, is summarily ignored.
Similarly, the bursting of the social justice bubble, and with it the idea that everything is racist and sexist, has been responded to by merely repeating those charges, but a bit louder than before. This started on CNN during election night, when Van Jones declared that the election was a ‘whitelash.’ Most of the usual suspects in the mainstream echoed this language. Consider the opening few sentences from this Slate article, tiled There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter:
Donald Trump ran a campaign of racist demagoguery against Muslim Americans, Hispanic immigrants, and black protesters. He indulged the worst instincts of the American psyche and winked to the stream of white nationalists and anti-Semites who backed his bid for the White House. Millions of Americans voted for this campaign, thus elevating white nationalism and white reaction to the Oval Office.
This is nothing more than misguided conjecture, but in the eyes of social justice bubble thinking, this rises to an accurate description of reality. The narrative has gone from ‘Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobe,’ to ‘The United States is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic country for electing him.’ Instead of reexamining their worldview, the social justice left has chosen to double down.
It is in this context that the post-election protesting, rioting, and assault on the Electoral College is taking place. And more than anything else, it is highlighting the reasons Trump won, and the reasons the social justice bubble was popped.
All of that was shunned by the electorate on election night, and for good reason. Despite this, the post election outrage suggests that the social justice left will not go quietly into the night, and will try to reconstruct the burst bubble anew. At the vanguard of the reconstruction efforts has been the media, just as it was at the vanguard of the construction of the bubble.
It was the media which megaphoned the social justice agenda far and wide, and it is the media which hounds non-adherents to the social justice agenda into submission. With respect to the election, the media airwaves were essentially a nonstop Trump bashing exercise, with the exception of a handful of personalities on Fox News.
If the media hadn’t presented anyone with the temerity to have disagreements with the status quo in politics and the culture as a whole as literally Hitler 2.0, the reactions to a Trump victory would have been far less hysterical. Furthermore, had the media presented an accurate picture of the electorate, rather than believing that the entire country thought the same way as liberals in NYC and San Francisco did, they would have better prepared its audience for the strong possibility that Trump could win. It didn’t, with most major news outlets believing, even on election day, that a Clinton victory was a 80-90% certainty.
Looking with horror as the pieces of the burst bubble are strewn across the floor, tactics such as this, and the incessant gaslighting (Trump’s transition team is in shambles! Trump is breaking his promises! Trump might put Neocons in his cabinet!) are blatant attempts to wrestle back control. The simple fact is that ‘citizen journalists’ like Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Vox Day, Stefan Molyneux, Bill Mitchell and others were spot on throughout the course of the election, while the legacy media did nothing but create a false narrative based on faulty polls and faulty political analysis.
In their death rattle, these legacy institutions are using their last shred of credibility to attempt to strip those who were on the right side of the argument of their own credibility. These citizen journalists dominated the internet and social media during the campaign, using their much smaller but much freeer platforms to engage in ‘real talk,’ circumventing the legacy media and its singular, social justice approved messaging. Even President Obama admitted as much, lamenting the fact that narratives are much harder to implement on the masses thanks to the freedom that is the internet.
The key to the success of the alternate messaging was that it was grounded in truth. The social justice bubble was founded on the cultural Marxist idea that anything goes as long as it feels good. Such a principle, if you can call it that, is unsustainable, much like the attempt to expand credit indefinitely is unsustainable. The opposition to the social justice bubble was successful because it was full of truisms that people knew deep down, but were afraid to say publicly. Multiculturalism doesn’t work. Men and women are different. Illegal immigration is bad.
It is why this opposition will not falter now that it has been unleashed. In order to reconstruct the social justice bubble, its proponents will have to be ever more radical, ever more violent and ever more punitive in its efforts, and in so doing will expose even further the intellectual, moral and historical bankruptcy of their position.
To paraphrase Von Mises, there is no way to avoid the collapse of a boom brought about by expanding credit. The only determination is whether that collapse will be voluntary, via a cessation of credit expansion letting the chips fall where they may, or the final collapse of the currency itself as a result of an unending credit expansion.
In terms of the culture war, the US chose to have a voluntary collapse on November 8, by symbolically halting the verbal inflation decimating the culture. From here, it is incumbent that the country and culture moves forward to truly positive heights, such that the results of rejection the social justice bubble are sufficient enough to render those who want to restore that bubble to look unequivocally outrageous.