Putting A Trump Vote In Its Proper Context

“In a mad world, only the mad are sane.”
Akira Kurosawa

 

As the election draws near, the mere fact that Trump has more than a tangible chance of winning has several in the commentariat a little unnerved. This is shown by the bevy of op-eds and columns written in recent days and weeks which all conveyed a similar point: Please, America, don’t vote Trump – We value stability more than anything else.

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent expert on the law and Harvard Law professor crystallized this sentiment this morning, speaking with Maria Bartiromo, saying:

Let me tell you why I’m supporting Hillary Clinton: We’re living in a world of extremes, the right is getting stronger, the left is getting stronger, the center is weakening. We need a centrist president to stabilize the world, Hillary Clinton promises more in terms of being a stabilizing force than Donald Trump.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But Dershowitz showed exactly why it isn’t less than a minute later, when he said:

Look, the problem in American politics is that donors always get special treatment – from Republicans and Democrats. Pay to play is unfortunately a sickness within the American political system, equally applicable to republicans and democrats. Let’s end that – let’s strengthen the laws, let’s de-politicize the laws.

In admitting the politics of the status quo is broken, Dershowitz renders his support for Clinton, on the basis of her ‘stability,’ an endorsement of a broken political world. This is a world which has bestowed upon Clinton a $250 million fortune, incredible power, and a shot at being the first woman to be president of the United States, forever etching her name in history. Does Dershowitz, or anyone else for that matter, really think that Hillary Clinton, having been forged in that broken political world, is going to change it in any material way? Considering her now Wikileaks-revealed duplicity vis-a-vis her public statements and those given privately to the corporate donors which back her, the idea of her being a change agent stretches credulity, to put it mildly.

And make no mistake – change is needed. The political status quo has overseen America’s slide into over-indebtedness, declining educational standards, endless war and destruction in foreign lands, record poverty levels, multi decade lows in labor force participation, and even record lows in fertility.

Indeed, America as it stands today is merely a nominal representation of the colonial experiment which commenced just over 240 years ago. It could be said that the genesis of America as a country was the biggest tax revolt in human history, yet today the populace will at the most grumble angrily to themselves as they pay ever higher taxes on an annual basis.

In its early days, America debated the merits of a monetary system based on gold and silver versus central banking and fiat currency. After some trial and error, it settled on the former. Today’s American economy now relies on the latter, to such an extent that the mere differences in language used from one public statement to the next are said to have big implications on the fate of our economy.

The Federal Government has grown to such an extent that the population as a whole expects certain things from it. This, in comparison to a Federal Government which was once small, and stayed mostly out of the way.

It is telling that quickest way to be laughed out of a ‘serious’ political conversation in 2016 is to seriously advocate an abolition of the federal income tax, a return to the gold standard, and a vastly smaller government that balances its budget, let alone all of the above. As these things were once part of the formative fabric of America, it is fair to say that we currently live in a sort of Post-America.

This is further buttressed by the fact that the Constitution has been treated as toilet paper for a very long time now. Exactly how long that is depends on the individual, but one can cite many occurrences which marked the waning influence of the Constitution. The Civil War, 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act, the New Deal, Executive Order 6102, the 1971 closing of the gold window, the Patriot Act, and the Affordable Care Act, among others, are all examples of the government riding roughshod over the Constitution.

I am not going to scrutinize the merits of each individual instance. I only bring them up to highlight the fact that going by strict Constitutional originalism, the document has been violated, several times, and well before June 16, 2015, the day Trump’s campaign began. In other words, from the perspective of the principles underpinning America’s birth, and continuing on through its ascent to world power, America as it currently stands is a Mad World.

Yet it is precisely those already-departed American principles, wrapped in platitudes about our 240 year Republic and its democratic heritage, that many commentators cite when declaring Trump to be the most dangerous political force in our lifetime. Consider this from David Frum:

The lesson Trump has taught is not only that certain Republican dogmas have passed out of date, but that American democracy itself is much more vulnerable than anyone would have believed only 24 months ago. Incredibly, a country that—through wars and depression—so magnificently resisted the authoritarian temptations of the mid-20th century has half-yielded to a more farcical version of that same threat without any of the same excuse. The hungry and houseless Americans of the Great Depression sustained a constitutional republic. How shameful that the Americans of today—so vastly better off in so many ways, despite their undoubted problems—have done so much less well.

 

I have no illusions about Hillary Clinton. I expect policies that will seem to me at best counter-productive, at worst actively harmful. America needs more private-market competition in healthcare, not less; lighter regulation of enterprise, not heavier; reduced immigration, not expanded; lower taxes, not higher. On almost every domestic issue, I stand on one side; she stands on the other. I do not imagine that she will meet me, or those who think like me, anywhere within a country mile of half-way.

Not only is it true that America has eschewed its strict Constitutional Republic roots, it is not true that America successfully avoided the authoritarian temptations of the 20th century. Indeed, the America that entered the fights with the Axis dictatorships and then communism looked very different to the America that came out of them. Karl Marx’s 10 planks have been more or less instituted in America. America’s Authoritarianism, however is of a softer variety. While it doesn’t have a definitive figurehead in the shape of Mussolini or Hitler, it does have a definitive ideology spearheading it: the worship of nebulous concepts such as Equalism, Diversity and Fairness.

The most heinous crimes in today’s society are that of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, and so on. Transgressors are drawn out into the public square for admonishment via social ostracism. You could even lose your job over an ‘offensive’ post on Facebook or Twitter.

The rub is that the threshold for what constitutes offensive behavior is seemingly lowered by the day. The march to describe every slight as Hate Speech increasingly encroaches on that traditional American right of free speech. With respect to the election, and Trump in particular, even being neutral on his positions could get one in hot water.

That’s what happened to Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic series. According to this Washington Post piece, Adams’ once lucrative speaking engagements and licensing deals have dried up, owing to his attempts to explain to the public why Trump’s campaigning has been effective, from the perspective of well known Persuasion techniques. He has become a pariah for this.

In our Mad World of Political Correctness and over-sensitivity, this is just. For there can be no justification for things we don’t agree with, no matter how rational they are. More specifically, nothing can be allowed to impede the leftward march from America to Tumblr: The Country, and anyone who dares stand in the way will be run over.

clinton-machine-trump-flag-ben-garrison_orig

Indeed, Donald Trump’s real sin has been his refusal to give in to the Oversensitive Mob and give it what it wants – an acknowledgement of their frivolous charges of racism and sexism – preferably via some sort of tear-laden press conference at the mercy of the same journalists who regularly excoriate him in their columns.

What is particularly interesting about Frum is that he lists several things which in his view would be good for America. All of these things line up with what Trump plans to do, even though Frum doesn’t give him credit for that. The problem for the likes of Frum is that Trump is seemingly too mean in the way he is going about his campaigning.

What this simplistic analysis misses is a lot of the outrage generated by Trump has been intentional – a ploy to draw attention to his ideas. Trump is nothing if not a shrewd marketer and astute media manipulator. He writes about it in his books, and has had 40 years of experience with the media under his belt.

Many have been in the media have been critical of the media itself for giving him so much attention, thereby legitimizing him. You’ll often see a statistic bandied about that suggests that Trump has been given $2 billion in free exposure. The reality is that Trump earned that exposure through his media exploits of well over three decades. When Trump announced his candidacy, he instantly had 100% name recognition. News agencies really couldn’t ignore him, because they’ve never ignored him. Trump is a ratings goldmine – and media corporations live on ratings.

To be sure, the media has countered by covering him negatively, to the tune of 90% of the time according to a recent study. This has both revealed the inherent bias the mainstream media has as well as confirmed the reason why Trump campaigned the way he has. His message is an anathema to a leftist media, and as such the only way to get his message across was to wrap it in a tactical outrage.

Recall the Star of David ‘controversy’ from this summer. It started with Trump re-tweeting this image:

showimage

The media fell over themselves to use this image as evidence of Trump being an Anti-Semite, owing to the fact that the ‘Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!’ text is in an apparent Star of David.

Of course that star could easily be a sheriff star, or a normal star you would find in Clip Art. Yet the media frothed at the mouth, pushing this story for almost a week.

This meant that all over TV and the internet, this image was shown, an image which conveys a message that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.

Through enshrouding his real messages in a layer of outrage, knowing a lapdog media would spread it far and wide for him, Trump has done nothing more than display his penchant for good marketing and media manipulation.

Indeed, Trump’s initial foray into the campaign was controversial, perhaps still his most controversial episode to date. Yes, I’m referring to the moment when he ‘called all Mexicans rapists and drug dealers.’

That was the spin, and the perception that the media spread far and wide and is still used by man as a talking point to declare Trump a racist. What Trump actually did was say that a non-zero subset of those who entered the country illegally committed further crimes once in the country, and that it was a problem. His words were objectively true. However the way in which he said them cause untold outrage which reverberates to this day.

Consider the fact that Trump’s immigration ideas are now widely considered to be racist and xenophobic by most mainstream voices. However, a rational examination of his plan reveals that the vast majority of it is already codified into US law, including the wall. What Trump seemingly wants to add is a more vigorous application of the law in spots where it is currently halfheartedly applied, and in others where it is actively opposed, such as in the case of sanctuary cities.

The outrage Trump created was needed in order to call attention to an issue which has been largely neglected for many years now. If he hadn’t done it, the discussion would have been lost in the shuffle as it had been before. By raising the temperature so to speak, Trump has forced people into a box. To call Trump a racist and xenophobe for completely reasonable ideas is to explicitly advocate lawlessness. That is precisely what a Mad World does, thus to be considered a madman by that world, as Trump is, is tantamount to being the sensible one.

In a similar vein, Trump has been accused of dividing the country. However, it not Trump, but identity politics which has divided the country. In modern America, there is an increasing trend for Americans to define themselves as such, but with a prefix attached. African-American, Muslim-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and so on. Race, class, religion, and sexual orientation are the lines along which the population is increasingly split.

This ground was tread long before Trump’s candidacy. LBJ may not have said that he’d ‘have those N*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years,’ but he might as well have said it, given that politics has increasingly devolved to pandering to the varying subgroups in America. The resulting atmosphere is one in which your skin color, gender or sexual orientation becomes your uniform, and it is almost your duty to fight for your team lest you be called a traitor.

Trump’s message is simple: America First. In recent rallies, he has consistently conveyed the idea of Americans ‘working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag.’ Trump has immediately taken some heat for this, particularly the ‘one God’ part, with critics citing this as evidence Trump doesn’t understand the separation of Church and State, or that it intimates a sort of exclusion for nonbelievers.

This interpretation is of course, nonsense. His words are no different to politicians proclaiming ‘God Bless America’ at the end of speeches. The ‘God’ in both instances is open to interpretation, with the listener free to insert the deity of choice to personalize the line. But recall, we’re living in a Mad World, and as such these minor quibbles are worth vast overreactions.

The interesting thing is that Trump’s words are objectively unifying. America First as a concept should be something that everyone can buy into, because individual identity characteristics don’t preclude participation in America as a concept, at least in theory.

But, again we live in a Mad Clown World, a world in which people can’t let go of Identity, because doing so would forfeit a chance at a slice of the bounty collected by grievances and outrage. It is thus the culture as a whole which has already divided itself, not wishing to unite as one people. It is the culture itself which sees little wrong with immigrants hoisting their home flags on American soil, but increasingly views the stars and stripes as an offensive symbol.

With that as a backdrop, Trump is indeed mad. But that means he is sensible.

And what of morality? Many believe that the Billy Bush tape disqualifies Trump from the presidency. The bottom line on this is that there have been several equally vulgar individuals to occupy the role, including Bill Clinton, who had assistance from one Hillary Clinton in concealing the vulgarity. If we’re being truly honest, neither candidate is clean here.

Furthermore, the culture as a whole is in no state to pass judgement on this score. I chuckled repeatedly watching the torrent of outrage and concern for the youth of America having been exposed to Trump’s words, when the likes of Miley Cyrus trotting around stages performing topless with inflatable male genitalia protruding from her crotch likely elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders for those same people.

This hypocrisy is mirrored in the perception of Trump as unhinged, as it is pertains to foreign policy. And before I go on, a symptom of the Mad Clown World is evident in the fact that coverage of Trump’s Billy Bush moment dwarfed that of an analysis of foreign policy issues, in an age when nuclear capable world powers are positioning themselves for conflict. Sex sells, I get it, but to upstage potential nuclear war with Russia? I’d call that a bit Mad.

And on that subject, Trump is widely considered by your standard foreign policy expert to be dangerous. More frivolously, he is considered to be a national security risk because his flippant attitude may lead us to military conflict over his Twitter account, or something.

The reality is that these foreign policy experts, along with Hillary Clinton herself, have been responsible for nothing but failure for nigh on 50 years. From our excursions in Vietnam, to Kuwait, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, these status quo experts have done nothing but cause death and destruction across the globe, in the name of spreading Democracy.

It sounds like a great ideal to have, but ultimately, who are we as Americans to impose our way of life on the rest of the world? The interests of the average American, in America, haven’t been served by any of these adventures, for the most part. The only interest which has been served  is that of the Military Industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us about this.

With respect to the current challenge that faces us, Syria, we face a choice of war or diplomacy. We are already fighting a proxy war against the Russians, who are assisting the Assad regime, who the US wants ousted. The official reason for this is Assad’s atrocious humanitarian record, but some suspect there is more to the story.

It involves the establishment of a natural gas pipeline, running from Qatar to Turkey, passing through Syria. The reason it is sought by the US is because such a pipeline would allow Western Europe an alternative to the Russian natural gas it currently consumes. The goal is to marginalize Russia economically, as punishment for its refusal to get with the EU/NATO program on many other issues.

It is hypothesized that Assad has denied this pipeline, out of allegiance to Russia, and as a result the US wants regime change in Syria. In response to being attacked, Assad has invited Russian forces to the country for assistance. This is where we stand now.

Hillary Clinton has been consistent in her stance that a No Fly Zone be placed over Syria, despite the only way one could be enacted would be through a declaration of war with Syria, and thus Russia. Clinton was explicitly asked about this again at the third debate a few weeks ago and was unequivocal in her response.

Make no mistake, a Hillary Clinton presidency is most likely the pretense to war with Russia, an opponent with nuclear capabilities. If the true reasoning behind the war is correct, the US would be risking nuclear war to establish a natural gas pipeline overseas. Yet, here at home, the US finds the idea of a pipeline running from Alberta to Texas, with no war required, to be untenable. That’s the status quo for you.

It is in this light that the criticism Trump gets for being ‘friendly with Putin’ needs to be examined. The reality is that the Russians don’t want war, as evidenced by the fact they did nothing when Turkey took down a Russian jet last year. Putin’s greatest sin is his refusal to bow to Western, and more specifically US hegemony in geopolitics and the world order. For that refusal to play ball, the US has tried to hit Russia economically, and it is continuing to do so with its efforts in Syria. It is playing with fire, however, as previously discussed.

Trump wants nothing to do with this, not because he is reckless, but because he correctly understands that the US has little business in directing foreign affairs in the manner it has done for decades. To the extent we already have entanglements, they must be dealt with, but in the future the goal of a Trump administration is seemingly to tamp down American Imperialism. It is too expensive, too deadly, and too historically negative in terms of the prospects for nations who pursue such expansive ambitions.

Once again, the Mad Man is sane.

This election is probably the most stark choice we’ve seen in a lifetime. It is in many ways a referendum on the constructs of the Post World War II West: Keynesian Economics, supranational unions such as the EU and NATO, the sexual revolution, central banking, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Media-Academia complex, among other things.

While Trump doesn’t explicitly repudiate all of these things, Hillary Clinton certainly would be a continuation of them. Furthermore, she would be a continuation of the status quo, a continuation of the cultural preference of Pretty Lies to Ugly Truths, a continuation of the political preference of short term expedience over long term thinking.

Even if one who is on the fence agrees with every word I’ve written thus far, a sheer, base reluctance to change will still stand in the way of pulling the lever for Trump. I completely understand that point of view. For many, the fact that the power grid still works, and we have access to our daily Starbucks means things aren’t so bad, and there is no need to ‘blow up’ the political system voluntarily.

This is akin to inheriting $100 million, blowing $98 million of it on the proverbial hookers and blow, and feeling relieved upon seeing the $2 million bank balance in a sober moment, that relief stemming from the understanding that you are still better off than 99.5% of the planet.

Unfortunately, that is us, as modern day Americans. We inherited a country from a generations of individuals who built it up into a machine which produced untold riches. With us at the wheel, we’ve been in party mode, adopting an ‘anything goes as long as it feels good’ mentality socially and a ‘spend anything – we can print the money later’ attitude when it comes to economics. That is unsustainable. It is our job to recognize that, and correct course before crisis hits.

Trump is indeed a bonafide Mad Man. But we live in a Mad World. Sanity in this context is a continued slide into the abyss, a continued swim by an unaware frog as the temperature creeps to 100 degrees C.

There’s still time to jump out of the pot.

On Media Bias

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.

Consider this. The average Donald Trump rally goes on for something like 60 to 90 minutes. Your average news segment runs 2-3 minutes, which includes a description of the context in which whatever rally that is being reported on is taking place in. This means that at most, 30 seconds or so of actual footage of the rally will be used in the report.

30 seconds, which is 0.8% of the rally, is what will be presented to the public as representative of that rally. So which 0.8% will be used? Will it be a substantive 0.8%, in which Trump discusses the perilous economy, or the poor trade situation, or the fact that the status quo has failed us, or the deleterious effects of Obamacare, topics he discusses in every rally? Or will a 0.8% of the rally in which he makes an off color remark, or trashes the media, or speaks disparagingly of a third party, be chosen to be presented to the public?

That decision is a matter of bias.

And the media has overwhelmingly favored the latter. It makes sense; the more ‘explosive’ elements of the Trump rhetoric makes for good TV, increased ratings and all the rest of it. It also enables blowhard pundits the space to excoriate Trump for ‘failing to stick to the issues,’ as they declare his candidacy dead on a nightly basis.

Karl Rove did exactly this on Friday night. He was on the O’Reilly Factor, which I had on in the background and he cited the recent declaration by Minnesota that Obamacare was no longer affordable in his state. He went on to wail about OH MY DAYS WHY ISN’T TRUMP HAMMERING THIS INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT SEX SCANDALS THIS IS WHY HE IS GOING TO LOSE!

Rove must have missed Trump making that exact Obamacare point 24 hours prior, to his 12 million Twitter followers.

He must have missed Trump bringing it up in all of his rallies over the last few days. This is par for the course for the media coverage of Trump. They’ll take a quip about ‘second amendment people’ here, and a tweet about Alicia Machado there, and spin it into the idea that Trump spends 90 minutes talking to the tens of thousands at his rallies about nothing other than these side topics.

And the media wonders why it is so disliked.

But it goes far beyond this. The entirety of the mainstream news media has been against Donald Trump’s candidacy since the start, with the exception of a handful of personalities on Fox News. This is because Trump’s campaign represents a real challenge to the status quo, which the media is a part of.

Republicans in general receive less than favorable coverage from the press, but Trump has been on the receiving end of an intense all out blitz.

Since the conventions alone, the media has overblown ‘scandals’ such as the Khan family fiasco, the ‘second amendment people’ comment, Trump’s ‘dark’ convention speech, ‘Babygate,’ joking about Russia being involved in finding Clinton’s emails and more. Not to mention the Judge Curiel drama, the NYT story in May about Trump’s behavior regarding women, and the release of 3 pages of his 1995 tax release.

All of these episodes have been played up to ‘confirm’ the media’s preconceived notion that Trump is racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic and generally unhinged. These sagas were given wall to wall coverage on cable news networks, replete with panels of 6 and 7 pundits to go over every last syllable Trump uttered, and in what intonation, so as to properly understand the level of bigotry therein.

Despite all of that huffing and puffing, none of it really worked. Trump stayed in the game, and was even thriving, when most GOP candidates would have folded at even one of these many ‘scandals.’

The ante had to be raised, and the media was ready to oblige. At the end of the first presidential debate, Clinton brought up Alicia Machado, former Miss Universe winner, in an attempt to put a face to the ‘Trump is a Sexist’ talking point. It was buttressed by glossy puff pieces in several outlets, and a tour of interviews for Machado across the major networks.

A cursory dig into the idea of Machado as an avatar for Trump’s ‘sexism’ blew the whole thing apart: Trump was nothing but gracious to Machado in what was a difficult time for her, and it was he who saved her job. The allegations that Trump’s ‘abuse’ led to her having an eating disorder was proven false when it was discovered that prior to having even met Trump, she had been quoted talking about dealing with those struggles. And this is all before any mention of her extremely seedy past, which includes drug lords, murder, and judge intimidation.

Yet when Trump, who was 100% in the right, merely defended himself from the allegations strewn at him by the Clinton campaign, the media turned around and portrayed him as some sort of crazy man who stays up all night plotting to eviscerate poor helpless Hispanic women he doesn’t like.

These sniveling, underhanded tactics are why the media is so disliked, and now outright hated by many in the public. The media seems to expect a one way street when it comes to their relations with anyone: they dish out the abuse, and the recipient is expected to stand there and take it, and even be grateful for the attention. That Trump refuses to sit there and take it seemingly vexes the media. Already being used to bullying Republicans, Trump’s resistance been met with blatant hostility dripping with contempt from some quarters of the media.

Yet, they still proclaim objectivity.

This dynamic has escalated in the past few days, after Trump spoke at length about the media and its duplicitous role in this election. He portrayed the media as being part of an establishment, alongside the large corporations, financial institutions and politicians which seeks to rob the US of its sovereignty. The media has gone apoplectic over this speech, immediately inventing dark implications:

Just to make his pedigree clear, Donald Trump is now suggesting that Hillary Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty, in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors.”

 

What was it the Nazis called the Jews? Oh, yes, “rootless parasites,” that’s it. For Stalin they were rootless cosmopolitans.

 

Just saying.

Despite no mention of Jews in any way, the media has gone into an convulsion, comparing Trump to Hitler and Stalin. Meanwhile, Trump had been referring to this, a release from the recent Wikileaks Dump:

Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”  [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

What we have there, is Hillary Clinton, meeting behind closed doors with an international bank, discussing her ‘dream’ of a ‘hemispheric common market,’ which would necessarily be the end of American sovereignty economically, which would ostensibly be to the benefit of said international bank to whom she spoke.

In other words, relaying facts is now Antisemitic. And as stated before, to merely challenge the histrionic media in this manner is to invoke despair in the media themselves. Ironically, this reaction only serves to buttress Trump’s point – in feverishly defending the parties involved, they take the side of the establishment.

In general, when attacked, the knee jerk response of the media has been to wrap itself in the First Amendment, blubbering on about how important a free press has been to the fabric of America, and how necessary it is to prevent a tyrannical government.

That is, of course, unless that government is populated with leftists and Marxists of all stripes, as it has been for decades. In this case blatant corruption can be tolerated because to continue to press (heh) on would mean beating a dead horse or perhaps neglecting a different story about the latest mean thing Trump said, which could generate more clicks.

In short, the press is not doing its job, but is instead focusing on the molehills that are Trump’s manufactured scandals, simply because they could favor their preferred candidate. Google search trends tell a different story. It suggests that Wikileaks dwarfs Trump Sex scandals, yet is the latter which dominates media airwaves.


screenshot-from-2016-10-15-10-05-42

This discrepancy, between what the people care about and what the media is covering, should say it all.

Brian Stelter of CNN perhaps best crystallized the reason for growing media antipathy in this reaction he had to the Trump speech from last week:

For a long time, people treated Donald Trump like he was a joke. Right now, it’s a very serious drama. That speech was paranoid and that speech was dangerous. It was a speech driven with hatred. A speech driven with contempt. Railing against bankers, and corporations, and the media, and this grand conspiracy that somehow he has only been able to connect the dots of. It sounded a lot like a dog whistle to a lot of people.

 

If there is violence and unrest after election day, I think we now know why based on the hatred dripping out of that man’s mouth.

Stelter’s words can be taken as representative of most media types. The same media types who have dealt in paranoia as they saw Antisemitic Nazism in Trump’s statement of fact regarding Hillary’s Wall Street speeches. The same media types who never cease to refer to Trump as a bigot, racist and idiotic, defending Clinton’s assertion that his supporters are ‘deplorables,’ mostly uneducated losers. All of this hatred and contempt, for having the temerity to express views in opposition to the status quo.

These are the same media types who have justified violence against Trump and his supporters, and openly talk about purging what Trump represents from America entirely. It seems as though that advice has been taken to heart, as last night a GOP office in North Carolina was firebombed. On the side of a nearby building, the words ‘Nazi Republicans, leave town or else.’

When you spend month after month labeling a man who disagrees with your agenda as Hitler, frames these disagreements as the end of democracy and those who support them as deplorable, such that violence is an acceptable response, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get it. It is Trump supporters whose property is vandalized, and who show Trump support threatened at rallies. Indeed, it is official Democrat policy in some areas to create a ‘psychological environment unfavorable to such displays.’

Yet the media claims it’s Trump with hate and violence ‘dripping’ from his mouth. In short, Stelter, and the media at large are projecting. They have proven themselves to be crybullies, stabbing you in the back before moving to seek damages because they sustained a cut in the process. As such their dramatic protestations of Trump’s ‘chilling’ rhetoric ring hollower and hollower as time goes on.

The American Revolution, 2.0

For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat. This is not simply another 4-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not We The People reclaim control over our government. – Donald Trump, 13 October 2016

 

On 21 December 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu, Romania’s Communist leader, addressed the public in a speech intended to restore calm. He promised the workers increased social benefits, including a raise in wages, and declared that the casualties in Timisoara from a few days earlier were the result of foreign agitators who wished to undermine the sovereignty of Romania. He called upon the people to stand and fight against these agitators.

Ceausescu was jeered. The public knew the truth, and Ceausescu and his wife Elena would be executed four days later.

That truth was that the government had ordered the military to fire on civilians engaging in a protest in the city of Timisoara on 17 December. The protest was over an order of eviction for Laszlo Tokes, a Protestant Bishop, for speaking out against the injustices the Romanian government had perpetrated on its people.

Thousands protested, surrounding Tokes’ apartment, engaging in demonstration. This was eventually met with gunfire, from the military on its civilians. This act sparked a nationwide Revolution, which culminated in the overthrow and execution of the Ceausescus.

Though the situation in 2016 United States is much different on the surface, there are many parallels to be drawn with the situation in Romania circa December 1989. Whereas the Romanian people were suffering under the economic failure that is communism, the American people of 2016 are suffering under a similar economic failure that is best described as corporatism. In both cases, an undercurrent of dissent had been created among the masses. In Romania, it ended up becoming a wave which overwhelmed the elites. It remains to see what happens in the United States.

If nothing else, the Trump campaign should have alerted even the most dim witted among us to the fact that there is a global establishment/elite, and they exist solely to keep themselves enriched and in power. This establishment,despite the existence of conservatives, has only succeeded in driving the country Leftward. Previously, this view was the province of ‘wingnuts,’ purveyors of ‘conspiracy theories,’ and increasingly, anyone who leans right.

Consider the following from Angelo Codevilla, in his piece After the Revolution:

In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. Our imperial regime, already in force, works on a simple principle: the president and the cronies who populate these channels may do whatever they like so long as the bureaucracy obeys and one third plus one of the Senate protects him from impeachment. If you are on the right side of that network, you can make up the rules as you go along, ignore or violate any number of laws, obfuscate or commit perjury about what you are doing (in the unlikely case they put you under oath), and be certain of your peers’ support. These cronies’ shared social and intellectual identity stems from the uniform education they have received in the universities. Because disdain for ordinary Americans is this ruling class’s chief feature, its members can be equally certain that all will join in celebrating each, and in demonizing their respective opponents.

This is why Obamacare was jammed through Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court despite being unconstitutional, this is why Paul Ryan passed Omnibus, why the DNC rigged the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders.

This is why, the day after Americans celebrated the 240th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the FBI declared Hillary Clinton had basically committed a crime, but didn’t really, and thus wasn’t going to press charges. Beyond this, the mere optics of the situation say quite a bit. If chargers were to be pressed, the FBI would have had to put President Obama on the stand, who then would have had to either tell the truth, condemning Clinton and thus handing the presidency to Trump, or perjuring himself and risking all that came with that.

To avoid that catch-22, the FBI did its best to botch the case, handing out immunity to anyone with a pulse, and even allowing key evidence to be destroyed. Their goal was to make the whole case go away, cementing the idea that the elites exist to protect the elites.

This explains why Clinton, two months later, called half of Trump supporters ‘deplorables’ and ‘irredeemable,’ essentially excommunicating them from America. The mainstream media, the mouthpiece of the establishment, enthusiastically agreed with Clinton, like it agrees with and defends the establishment position generally.

The Leftward March

Despite the fact that ‘communism’ is still a dirty word in America, its elites have not shied away from borrowing the tactic of suppressing dissent, dissent against the Leftward March in particular. Codevilla provides insight as to some of the changes that march has inflicted on America over the last five decades or so:

Fifty years ago, prayer in the schools was near universal, but no one was punished for not praying. Nowadays, countless people are arrested or fired for praying on school property. West Point’s commanding general reprimanded the football coach for his team’s thanksgiving prayer. Fifty years ago, bringing sexually explicit stuff into schools was treated as a crime, as was “procuring abortion.” Nowadays, schools contract with Planned Parenthood to teach sex, and will not tell parents when they take girls to PP facilities for abortions. Back then, many schools worked with the National Rifle Association to teach gun handling and marksmanship. Now students are arrested and expelled merely for pointing their finger and saying “bang.” In those benighted times, boys who ventured into the girls’ bathroom were expelled as perverts. Now, girls are suspended for objecting to boys coming into the girls’ room under pretense of transgenderism. The mainstreaming of pornography, the invention of abortion as the most inalienable of human rights and, most recently, the designation of opposition to homosexual marriage as a culpable psychosis—none of which is dictated by law enacted by elected officials—is enforced as if it had been.

Let’s step back for a moment. One of the defining characteristics of this multi decade Leftward March has been the replacement of Christianity with a sort of secular atheism. This secular atheism is a religion in its own right; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been replaced by Equality, Fairness and Diversity. The seven deadly sins of this new religion are sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, nationalism, Anti-Semitism and Judgmentalism.

As I’ve written before, these new deadly sins are the vector through which societal control is meted out by the elites. Furthermore, the thresholds for committing one of these sins are continually lowered such that the only narrow band of thought and behavior which is acceptable is complete acquiescence to the most cutting edge of Progressive views at the time.

In 2016, the Current Year, the proles who enthusiastically support the modern tenets of leftism – such as transgender acceptance – are on the Right Side of History and can feel comfort in the fact that they are Good People.

The problem arises in the future. As Codevilla describes, things that were once unthinkable or taboo can commonplace and normal in a short period of time, and one was bandied as a bigot if one did not fully accept those changes. In the same way, a Goodperson in the Current Year 2016 may find himself or herself faced with a new test for Goodpersonhood in a future Current Year – namely the complete acceptance of things such as incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, for example.

Balking at such a test, and refusing to accept those things as normal may brand one a Bad Person, worthy of the same social ostracism one was eager to foist upon someone who wanted to stop illegal immigration in 2016. This is the ultimate flaw with leftism, in all of its guises – it’s a never ending race to the bottom which runs counter to human nature. As a result, any and all manner of Stasies, dictatorial iron fists or Twitter Trust and Safety Councils are needed to perpetually shield the March against gripping reality.

Ultimately, reality and truth win out, and the hope is it happens before there is some sort of terminal crisis. Trump’s candidacy, and concomitant movement is in may ways is that Enough is Enough moment. An email from Bill Ivey, former Clinton official, to John Podesta, Clinton campaign chair, part of the Podesta Email dump released by Wikileaks, suggests that the elites understand what is happening. Part of it reads:

 …And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.

 

The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

‘Poll driven, demographically-inspiring messaging.’ Aka playing on the seven deadly sins, which mostly involve demographics. With these two paragraphs, the entire leftist modus operandi is laid: Divide people up based on their individual characteristics, and then deliver targeted messaging based on each characteristic in order to stir emotion. Once that emotion is stirred, it can be directed towards the end of voting for leftists.

Hence the constant barrage of ‘Trump is racist, Trump is sexist, and so forth.’ This email, written in March, reveals that even then Democrats had been concerned that their standard messaging wasn’t working, as evidenced by an admitted rapid fading of compliance. Ivey recommends ‘serious thinking’ about how to restore such compliance.

All Out War

It is not a stretch to imagine that the smear campaign waged against Trump over the last week constitutes a the sort of escalation in tactics required given the failure of run of the mill ‘demographically-inspiring messaging.’

Rationally speaking, the Billy Bush tape simply displays an alpha male engaging in crude, vulgar sex talk, which while disturbing to some, is a rather accurate commentary on sexual relations. Anyone who tries to intimate that high status men do not have ‘leeway’ with women that does not apply to ‘regular’ men is at best a liar.

The women involved in the latest sexual harassment charges against Trump highlight a different, more pernicious issue. At the second debate, during discussion of the Billy Bush tape, Anderson Cooper asked Trump multiple times if he had ever sexually assaulted a woman in the way that was described on the tape. Never mind the fact that on that tape, Trump declared that women LET him touch them, owing to his star status.

Cooper asked Trump multiple times in succession, as if to warn Trump that he better be careful how he answered. That exchange was the green light for the parade of sexual assault accusers that followed. That this sort of thing was so predictable immediately raised questions. Beyond that, a few of the accusers have had holes poked in their stories since the start. It appears that at least one of them might be a Clinton plant.

Summer Zervos, the woman who nearly broke down in tears while reading her account of an alleged assault has had her account rebutted by her cousin, who claims she spoke highly of Trump until April of this year:

“I am completely shocked and bewildered by my cousin, Summer Zervos, and her press conference today. Ever since she was on The Apprentice she has had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump. For almost a decade, my cousin would talk about how much she looked up to Mr. Trump and viewed him as an inspiration – a success story she wanted to copy. Summer would also talk about how kind and caring Mr. Trump was on the show, and how he would even visit children in hospitals without telling the press. She has praised the good things he’s done for her life, and in fact she converted her friends and our family to become Trump supporters even though we’ve never been active in politics before.

 

“That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no. I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump. That’s not how she talked about him before. I can only imagine that Summer’s actions today are nothing more than an attempt to regain the spotlight at Mr. Trump’s expense, and I don’t think it reflects well.” – John Barry, Mission Viejo, CA (first cousin of Summer Zervos)

That should make for an odd Thanksgiving gathering for sure.

Jokes aside, these allegations beg the question: How is it that a man who has been at the center of media attention for 40 years, a time during which countless women were in his orbit, having had no charges of sexual assault during that time, is now all of a sudden is bombarded with a torrent of charges of sexual abuse by an Establishment which is mere weeks from possibly losing the Presidency to that same man who has an agenda destructive to that same Establishment?

Given such a question violates multiple deadly sins, do not expect it to ever be posed, let alone answered, by anyone other than Dissidents of the Leftist March.

Indeed, those on the right, the GOP establishment types in particular, were lightning quick in not only denouncing Trump’s comments on the Bush Tape, but outright withdrawing their support for his candidacy. In doing so, they highlighted what most people already suspected, which was that they never really supported Trump, and were looking for any excuse to jump off the train.

There were even internet rumblings that the source of the Bush tape was an operative from the Romney/Paul Ryan camp, which is unconfirmed at the time of this writing, but plausible given the rapidity and coordinators of the disavowals from GOP establishment Republicans.

This facet of the saga is particularly interesting, given the timidity shown by  GOPe Republicans such as Paul Ryan in standing up to anything Obama and the Democrats have attempted to do. The acceptance of the farce that is condensing  an entire budget into a single bill, which therefore just has to be passed so as not to avoid the ‘disgrace’ of shutting down the government. Meanwhile the budget is usually chock full of goodies handed out to special interests. GOPe and Democrat voices are the first to trot out the old lines about children and the sick elderly suffering because of political grandstanding. In actuality, they are preying on normal human compassion to force through handouts to their friends. It is the singular establishment mindset at work.

Even if Trump were to win, Ryan would be one of Trump’s biggest enemies in Congress. This is because Trump’s nationalist agenda is in direct contrast with Ryan’s corporate donors, who have installed him to push through legislation such as TPP, among other things. On a personal level, there is the observation that Trump, a political neophyte, came into the GOP and immediately shot to the top of the food chain. Ryan, on the other hand, has paid his dues for nearly two decades, climbing up the Party ladder. In a GOP which is all about order, and the ‘next guy in line,’ Ryan had placed himself in pole position in terms of a GOP nominee for 2020.

In the high likelihood he does harbor Presidential ambitions, Ryan would have every reason to combat Trump, and more broadly Trumpism, given Trump’s election would render his political career a huge waste of time. In other words, the ascendancy of Trumpism would simultaneously bring about the death of GOP RINOism. This fight is a fight for survival, and as such it is bound to be very dirty and very intense.

As mentioned earlier, it is not confirmed that GOPe players were behind the leak, but the fact that Billy Bush is the cousin of one Jeb Bush has done little to quell that speculation. Even if there was nothing nefarious, the sharp and swift abandonment of Trump by prominent Republicans, as well as the wall to wall coverage given to every Trump controversy by the media, and culminating with this train of sexual assault accusers, has ended up possibly, almost incredibly, having the effect of turning Trump into a victim. Trump seems to be latching on to this point in his latest speeches, in particular the speech he gave yesterday afternoon in Palm Beach:

The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means which are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy you career and your family. They will seek to destroy everything about you, including your representation.

Trump has been transformed from the Big Bad Racist Wolf to Laszlo Tokes, a dissident who saw the guns of the government turned on him for merely saying out loud what most people had already known to be true. With each attack, each slander, each new accuser who comes out of the woodwork at the most convenient of times, the idea that the elites are trying to screw over Donald Trump, the representative of The People, grows stronger.

Overplaying Their Hand

Much like the thousands who formed a ring around Laszlo Tokes’ apartment in 1989, many are doing the same for Donald Trump. It started last weekend with Paul Ryan getting heckled by his own constituents in Wisconsin, and continued that afternoon when an impromptu rally took place outside Trump Tower. When Trump came down to greet the throng of supporters, there was momentary pandemonium on the streets. It has continued all week on social media and message boards, which have become the true vanguard of the culture war underpinning this election.

And yet, the establishment, the media in particular, does not understand any of this. Throughout the multi decade Leftist March, all that was required of the press to take down a Republican was a middling scandal. An affair with a staffer, some dodgy tax returns, a questionable comment about minorities or the poor, you get the idea. These sort of things were then megaphoned into the public conscience until the offender got on his knees, groveled and begged for forgiveness. The moment that happened, the game was up, for the penalty for committing a deadly sin in politics is the death of one’s campaign.

Donald Trump has endured literally dozens of these sort of ‘controversies,’ big and small, without folding. It is not only a testament to his fortitude, but a stunning rebuke to the argument put forth by some conservative commentators that literally any other GOP candidate would have beaten Hillary Clinton. A ‘normal’ GOP candidate would have also been susceptible to ‘normal’ campaign ending takedowns from the establishment media. It’s that simple.

Having had dozens of their attacks fail over the course of the campaign, the establishment media has responded by going even harder than before. Indeed, the authors who introduced the most recent sexual assault accusers in the New York Times earlier this week, Megan Twohey and Michael Barbaro, were the same authors who wrote a piece in May which attempted to portray Trump as a serial abuser of women in the work place and his private life. Less than two days after that story dropped, the principal subject of the story was on TV refuting those implications and said that Trump treated her like a gentleman during the time they dated.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Except, at this late stage in the game, the increasing intensity and fervor of these accusations, which seem to increase by the hour, starts to feel more and more like desperation. It starts to feel like the lady doth protest too much. It starts to feel like the boy who cried wolf. Especially when it comes from the media, which has overwhelmingly lost the trust of the public, owing to its lies and obfuscations. Furthermore they’ve shown an unwavering commitment to pushing the same Political Correctness line at the exact time that is falling out of favor with more and more people. It is all done to secure the continuation of the Leftward March, but its casualties are exactly the victims this march purports to save.

To wit, in (possibly) drumming up charges of sexual assault against Trump for political gain, they have potentially done great damage to real sexual assault victims by trivializing the charge. This is in the same vein other ‘deadly sins’ such as racism and homophobia have now been rendered worthless by the ever expanding actions which now can be covered by those terms.

As a result, the media will be fundamentally altered, for the worse. A Trump victory means the death of legacy media. A Clinton victory means they go on as loyal Clinton/establishment servants for a time, but the last shred of legitimacy it had in the eyes of the people will be lost. More ominously, the media will have completed its transformation from mere dishonest advocates, to outright enemy combatants in the coming conflict.

On this conflict: it is only a matter of time before the public turns against the Leftward March and rises up to defeat it, as the Romanian people did to the communists in 1989. The most obvious event that will usher this home in America is the election of Donald Trump. If Trump does not win, the situation will be a bit murkier.

There is a school of thought that a Clinton presidency will be compromised, owing to the fact that it was so hotly contested. The ongoing Wikileaks saga and the obvious fact that she was allowed a free pass by the FBI  would render her a very weak president in the eyes of many.

I disagree with this view. I believe that Clinton does not care how she attains power, as long as she gets it. She will note the fact that the country was ‘so close’ to succumbing to fascism as a pretense for implementing fascist tactics herself, under the guise of ‘anti-fascism.’ We’re talking executive orders out the wazoo, major restrictions on the second amendment, and explicit declarations of ‘seven sins’ violations as criminal. In other words, the Leftward March will proceed at warp speed, having been motivated by the near death experience that was Donald Trump.

Given the fact that at least half the country already protests the massive, fundamental transformation of America, an acceleration of it has potentially explosive implications, up to and including war. Unfortunately, that is the only resolution when differences that are this stark exist among the populace.

The most likely scenario is that the massive war the establishment is wishing to ignite with Russia comes to pass, and the country is instantly ‘united’ in that manner. It is my view that an escalation with Russia is almost a certainty should Hillary Clinton win. Her record is no different to your run of the mill neocon who worships the military-industrial complex. She, like them, supported all American adventures in the Middle East, and supports American actions in the proxy war with Russia in Syria. She, like them, is quick to label Putin as the new Hitler (during the 5 minutes a day that comparison isn’t being made about Trump).

Trump, on the other hand has dared to put forth the idea that diplomacy with Russia is possible, and that the two nations could even be allies. The Russians agree, saying that a vote for Hillary is essentially a vote of nuclear war.

Conclusion

None of this matters however, because Donald Trump once talked about what women would LET (let, as in allow, as in consent to, LET) him do with their private regions.

This is what it has come to, unfortunately. A culture ground down by decades of cultural Marxism has allowed tabloid gossip, salacious drama, feelings and smear campaigns to supersede discussion of substantive issues, like the prospect of nuclear war. And for this we claim to be an enlightened and forward thinking generation.

Unfortunately, because we have declared ourselves so enlightened, we are also above learning anything from the multitudes who walked this earth before us. The Leftist March is all about that idea: that whatever feels good in the present IS good solely because it is in the present. History is to be ignored, which is why leftists always talk about progress as if it is a linear thing. We can’t go ‘back’ to the old way, they constantly tell us; we must keep moving ‘forward,’ even if that means straight into a buzz saw.

It is not a stretch to say that the modern slavish devotion to the Leftward March, ostensibly in the name of a constructive inclusiveness, may ultimately usher in the use of perhaps the most destructive force ever known to man, nuclear weaponry. Future historians will look back with amazement at how stupid we were to allow things to get to this point in the first place.

But for now, YOLO.

 

P***y Riot 2: More Thoughts

Upon thinking further about the Trump Tape fiasco and the Podesta emails, I’ve got some things to add to my original post, in no particular order.

  1. The fact that these two events took place is telling:

Telling because it confirms that Trump has legit support, and that support isn’t being shaken by this latest smear campaign by the media

2. There are rumors on Twitter that it was the GOP establishment who leaked it. I don’t really buy that as of yet, but it were to be confirmed it wouldn’t be a surprise. Regardless, the way several of the GOPe members of House and Senate reacted, in unison to disavow Trump highlighted several things. First it highlighted that they were never on board with Trump in the first place. On a more basic level it highlights their hypocrisy, weakness, while confirming them as backstabbers. It underlines one of the main themes of the election, which is that Trump is a true outsider fighting against both the Republican and Democrat establishment, as well as a mainstream media. All 3 of those actors are set to have their influence neutered, if not destroyed completely by a Trump presidency, and this renders their actions in circling the wagons against Trump unsurprising.

3. Whether this hurts Trump, and how much is an open question. In the cold light of day, this is a nonsensical issue, tabloid fodder. Trump spoke in an uncouth manner, but there is no man on earth who hasn’t spoken in such an ‘ugly’ manner when it’s just the guys. Politics isn’t based on rational thought however, and as such Trump might be facing a hit. this is especially true because his ‘scandal,’ and indeed all of his ‘scandals’ to date have been much more visceral and emotional sounding than Clinton’s.

The ease in which encapsulating a ‘MISOGYNIST/SEXIST/EVIL/HITLER/BIGOT’ into an easily remembered sentence or phrase compared with the relative complexity in describing Clinton’s unending corruption and active humiliation and intimidation of Bill Clinton’s rape victims, not to mention her ‘dream’ of a borderless North America and executive ordered castration of the 2nd Amendment, renders Trump’s scandals more damaging, despite being not even being real scandals in the first place. Trump will have to overcome this.

4. One plus for Trump is that he was a known playboy from the start. He was never one of these Evangelical holier-than-thou politicians. As such this sort of revelation doesn’t do that much harm because it is congruent to who he is. Americans hate phony, and tape confirming what we already knew about Trump solidifies his authenticity. For all the people who might be scared away from him, others may be drawn in because he is ‘real,’ and have themselves engaged in that sort of boorish behavior themselves.

5. I can’t stress the contempt I have for the media for pulling this stunt, and others. They promote all sorts of sexual deviance, push pedophilia, push for things like mandatory sex education elementary school children about sex, yet cry bloody murder over tape of Trump being an alpha male. It’s a disgrace, which suggests to me there is an element of desperation in their tactics. The media, being part of the establishment triumvirate which wants Trump gone is stepping up its assault because Trump is too close for comfort. As I mentioned before his support is real. Having not been demoralized by a barrage of polls with unrealistic Democrat samples, the media is trying to go after Trump in this underhanded manner.

6. Related to that is an idea I’ve talked about before – the risk of the media and Clinton overplaying their hand. For a start, the MISOGYNIST/SEXIST/RACIST/BIGOT argument isn’t a real argument, it’s a slander. It works, however, owing to the issue I raised in point 3 about irrationality in politics. These hit pieces work because play on emotion. In 2016, this has been the vast majority of the attack, which is dangerous because at some stage people will get tired of it. The blatant nature of the Trump Tape attack has a decent chance of backfiring because a large percentage of people will see it for what it is – a low blow. It’ll turn Trump into an almost sympathetic figure, which might make him even stronger.

7. The debate Sunday night is going to be for all the marbles. I have no clue how Trump will play it, but early indications are he is preparing for war. If he ‘goes there’ with Clinton, he has to get it right. But even if he doesn’t, the entire debate has to be about Trump holding Clinton to the fire for her failures. It is possible the Trump Tape attack was a wad shot too early, done as a counter attack to the Podesta emails. The latter will be a slow burn, while most of the life of these Trump Tapes has already run its course. By the end of Sunday night, the debate will take over as the main talking point, along with the further digestion of the Podesta emails.

8. As I’ve said numerous times, Trump has given Americans a true choice for the first time since perhaps the 1980 election. If Americans want to eschew that real change because it comes in a boorish package, the so be it. But I prefer a p***y monger to an open border, globalist warmonger.

 

 

 

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 5 – P***y Riot

Yesterday we got a couple leaks, one concerning Donald Trump, and the other concerning Hillary Clinton. Both links confirmed we already knew about each candidate, but I’ll go through them in turn.

First, Wikileaks dumped a pile of emails from John Podesta on us. Podesta is a Clinton operative, currently as the Chair of Hillary’s campaign, and in the past as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. The biggest concentration of dirt is contained in the emails which compile excerpts from paid speeches Hillary Clinton gave to donors, big business interests and others (see here and here), for which she got paid tens of millions in speaking fees. Some of the more choice quotes are as follows:

Clinton explicitly says it is important to be two faced as a politician to better deal with the competing interest of the public and insiders:

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

Clinton, speaking to Goldman Sachs, opines about how the blame for the financial crisis could have been handled better, from a political point of view:

“That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ’09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.  Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?  You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn’t that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

Clinton admits that the passage of Dodd-Frank was largely a political maneuver, so the politicians could have been seen to be ‘doing something’ outwardly. Inwardly though, different story:

Clinton Said Dodd-Frank Was Something That Needed To Pass “For Political Reasons.”
“And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important. And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
Clinton expressing her very globalist ‘dream’ of a Unihemisphere setup in North America, essentially dissolving the individual identities of America, Mexico and Canada:
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”  [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
In terms of foreign affairs, in particular the goings on in the Middle East, sounds Trumpian in discussing refugees:

“So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

[Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Despite knowing this full well, she wants to bring more of these sort of refugees into the country, and decries those who oppose this as bigoted racists.
Clinton admits that Saudi Arabia is the one of the largest purveyors of Radical Islam. These comments are particularly jarring given the fact that believing this, she has no problems referring to them as allies, and taking in their millions to the Clinton Foundation:
“And they are getting a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratisto go back to our original discussionbecause the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years.” [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]
There are other choice email threads, like this one in which it is indicated that HRC would have qualms using an executive order to impose gun control and liability on gun manufacturers. And this one, in which the multitude of problems with the Iran deal are outlined, not least of which being the transfer of ‘billions’ to Iran to ‘enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region,’ thereby making it, as per Trump, one of the worst deals ever signed indeed.
As I said earlier, most of this merely confirms a lot of what we already knew about Clinton. She’s a stereotype of a power hungry politician who will sell herself to the highest bidder as long as she is installed in a position of power. The end results of her actions are of little consequence.
The other leak which dropped yesterday, by the Washington Post, was of a video of Donald Trump talking on a hot mic with Billy Bush before an Access Hollywood appearance, all the way back in 2005. This is making waves because in it, Trump is describing an encounter he had with a married woman, in a crude manner. Here is a transcript of what was said:

“I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,”

 

“Whoa,” another voice said.

 

“I did try and f— her. She was married,” Trump says.

 

Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

 

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

 

At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.

 

“Your girl’s hot as s—, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

 

“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

 

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

 

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

 

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

 

“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

This led to outrage in the media. Various Republicans followed Paul Ryans lead in decrying Trump’s comments as the worst thing to ever have happened to mankind:

Paul Ryan statement

The media giddily suggested that the GOP camp was internally turning on Trump to the point where his withdrawal from the race was imminent. #NeverTrump acolytes celebrated on Twitter and other social media, sensing their finest hour might be upon them.

All because Trump confirmed to the world, in a rather blunt manner that he is indeed a heterosexual man who desires beautiful women.

Trump’s comments were indeed crude. They were not comments one would make in front of female relatives, or perhaps any female at all. They are, however, comments which are similar to those that have been made in that sort of context (amongst the fellas) by 99.9% of all heterosexual men over the age of 15 or so, in all of human history.

The outrage over this is thus disingenuous at the very least, on multiple levels.

For a start, the outrage flame is being fanned by those on the left, women of the feminist bent, and the weak willed men of the GOP establishment persuasion. This coalition outright promotes (in the case of leftists and feminists) or meekly allows(in the case of the GOPe) acceptance of any and all forms sexual deviancy, right up to and potentially including pedophilia. They’ve never heard of an ‘open marriage’ or ‘modern family’ arrangement they didn’t like.

Yet when Donald Trump speaks crudely of pursuing a woman, in a private conversation, all of a sudden these people reach into their trash cans, rummaging through the waste to find their Bibles and crosses, brush off the slime and start waving them around madly. Spare me.

Furthermore, these are the same people who praise female pornography series like 50 Shades of Grey, and made it one of the highest selling books of all time and a commercial success. This is mostly because of, and not in spite of its depictions of Christian Grey as a dominant billionaire who imposes his will on women sexually. These books are rife with intricate descriptions of rough sex and male dominance in the bedroom.

Given what we know about Trump already, and in light of this new release, what is Trump, if not an aged, real life version of Christian Grey? Despite their protestations, some women will take very well to this confirmation that Trump behaves as Grey does. There is evidence they already do, if this smattering of tweets is anything to go by:

trump fantasies

This saga has only shown what we already knew to be true about playboys, beautiful women, and fame. So again, spare me.

The legions of people in the media and politics attempting to position themselves as holier-than-thou paragons of virtue over this is, to use Paul Ryan’s terminology, sickening. In shaming what is essentially normal heterosexual male behavior in which they themselves have likely engaged in at some point in their lives, they are further cementing themselves as nothing more than weak virtue-signallers.

And in that context, the wider scope of the Trump Tape outrage is juxtaposed with the findings in the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks.

We have become a society which has devolved into being obsessed with being on The Right Side of History, with this ‘right side’ defined solely by Cultural Marxists and their ideals. Even supposed ‘conservatives’ strain themselves to adhere to this ‘right side.’

This desire to be seen as a Good Person, in the context of this election, means that one must ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most corrupt individual ever to seek the Presidency, to ignore the fact that her tenure as Secretary of State was replete with failure, criminal mishandling of state secrets, and unending war in the Middle East. One must ignore the fact that her agenda explicitly seeks to erase the identity of the United States through her antagony toward the Second Amendment, literal erasure of its borders and introduction of immigrants she knows to be potentially dangerous. One must ignore that she is firmly in the camp that wants WW3 with Russia, which indeed is depressingly close, and would be all but confirmed with her election.

We must ignore this all, confirming ourselves as Good People, because Donald Trump made some off color remarks about a beautiful woman he tried to bed 11 years ago. We must ignore it all because Donald Trump may or may not have called a woman ‘Miss Piggy’ nearly 20 years ago. We must ignore it all because Donald Trump took a $900 million loss in 1995 and may have not have had to pay taxes in the years after, because the law says you don’t have to pay taxes on a loss until you make it back all the way.

This, from a ‘modern’ culture which fancies itself to be the most progressive, tolerant, and intelligent people who have ever lived.

One of the reasons I think this is the most important election of our time is the fact that it is essentially a Referendum on Virtue-Signalling, amongst other things. If the United States willingly chooses war, soulless globalism and the eradication of its traditional culture simply because Donald Trump is a bit boorish, we’ll have all the confirmation we need of the abject stupidity of crowds, and their susceptibility to succumbing to the contemptible ‘gotcha!’ and smear politics which has dominated campaigns for decades. This highlights the ultimate failure of pure one citizen, one vote democracies.

Of course, Franklin warned us about keeping the Republic centuries ago, but it’s the Current Year now. Nothing those BadPeople of yesteryear thought or said is of any consequence. Our generation’s current stance in history is that of the proverbial 20 year old kid who knows everything, until he reaches 25 and realizes he doesn’t.

I suppose that means we’ll reach this stage of true enlightenment at some point, just further in the future. It’s just a shame that we’ll have to incur unnecessary damage, hardship and wasted time to get there. (You can strike all of this, maybe, if Trump manages to pull himself out of this).

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Volume 4 – The Larger Importance of the Machado Saga

Donald Trump further addressed the Alicia Machado saga yesterday with a series of early morning tweets on the matter:

The conventional political wisdom is that Trump stepped in a well laid trap that Hillary Clinton set for him. What he should have done was largely ignored the situation, maybe dealing with it in one abrupt sentence and then pivoting to something else. I think that this is a special case for a few reasons.

First, recall that it was Hillary Clinton who introduced Alicia Machado into the public conscience at the debate:

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has been more an anti Trump plea than a pro Hillary one. The vast majority of her case has been ‘vote for Clinton because Trump is a sexist bigot.’ The use of Machado in this manner is entirely to buttress that argument. Machado is to be the smoking gun that proves Trump is a sexist, and thus Trump is disqualified.

Yes, in reality this IS side issue. But since Clinton has made such side issues central to her argument, it was necessary for Trump to address it, in my view. Had he let it slide, Clinton would have been able to parade Machado out constantly over the next month or so in an effort to influence the public with her sob story.

Furthermore, Trump is 100% in the right on this issue. For a start, the claim that he called her ‘Miss Piggy’ and ‘Miss Housewife’ are totally unsubstantiated claims. It is only Machado who is pushing that story. The background to the whole thing as follows:

  • Trump owned the Miss Universe pageant, which Machado won in 1996, the year before Trump bought it.
  • Machado then proceeded to gain weight, about 50-60 pounds.
  • The sponsors, and Miss Universe wanted to fire her, because the weight gain was in violation of her contractual obligations 
  • Trump stepped in and saved Machado’s job, by giving her a chance to lose the weight.
  • Trump made a media spectacle about it, in which he joked about his own weight problems, while addressing the serious issue that faces us all in this regard. It is below:

That was it. Now, 20 years later, Clinton has put Machado forth as the star witness in the prosecution of Trump’s sexism.

The problem for Clinton is that the credibility of Machado has now become an issue, and rightly so if she is going to be cast in this role as star witness.

In 1998 Machado allegedly drove a getaway car from a murder scene in Venezuela. She then used her connections to drug dealers to allegedly threaten the life of the judge in the case. Less criminally, she appeared on a Spanish reality show and had sex on camera with another castmate – who was not Bobby Abreu, the baseball player she was engaged to at the time. She also had the child of a Mexican Drug Lord, who is an American citizen by virtue of being born here.

Machado also claimed that because of Trump, she developed an eating disorder that is still with her today. However, in this Washington Post article, she clearly describes her problems with eating before having won the competition, which means it was before she had even met Trump, who did not purchase the pageant until a year later:

“I was anorexic and bulimic, but almost all of us are,” Machado says without so much as a blink. “When I was preparing for Miss Universe, it was an obsession for me to not gain weight. By the time I won, I was actually recovering. But the year leading to it, I didn’t eat at all. And whatever I ate, I threw up. I weighed 116 pounds when I won. I was skeletal.”

In response to all of this being brought up, Machado had this to say in defense:

“He can say whatever he wants to say. I don’t care,” she emphatically stated. “You know, I have my past, of course. Everybody has a past, and I’m not a saint girl, but that is not the point now.”

 

“That moment in Venezuela was wrong, was another speculation about my life because I’m a really famous person in my country because I’m an actress there and in Mexico, too,” she continued. “And he can use whatever he wants to use. The point is, that happened 20 years ago.”

In short, Machado, an individual with a questionable past and shaky moral values, told a story which is uncorroborated, and then told a provable lie which goes to the heart of the very story she is trying to tell. Ye she is being treated like an ‘angel’ as Trump put it his tweet.

While it is true that everyone has a past, most people’s pasts don’t include being involved in murders and judge intimidation. Furthermore, we are actually supposed to absolve her from being involved with a murder and judge intimidation simply because it was 20 years ago. Yet, we are supposed to crucify Donald Trump for allegedly calling a woman fat…20 years ago.

It boggles the mind of anyone with the slightest bit of rationality, which explains why the mainstream media decided to go all in and bat for Clinton/Machado.

The NYT wrote the following about the allegation that Machado appeared in a sex tape:

Ms. Machado appeared in a risqué scene on a reality television show, but fact-checkers have discovered no sex tape.

I’ll allow Paul Joseph Watson to explain why this nonsense stretches credulity.

Even more hilariously, the mainstream media has dug up this video of Trump from 2000:

The video was part of a 2000 Playboy softcore film. This is seemingly the intro sequence or something, I’m not entirely sure. What it shows is Trump welcoming Playboy models to New York City by pouring champagne on a limousine on a public NYC street in broad daylight, everyone fully clothed. And this is being cited as evidence of Trump as an ‘adult film star.’ A Clinton spokesperson said this:

There’s been a lot of talk about sex tapes today, and in a strange turn of events, only one adult film has emerged today, and its star is Donald Trump.

In short:

Knowingly having sex on film which is to be publicly aired = not a sex tape

Pouring champagne on a limousine in a public street, fully clothed = adult film star

The Big Picture

I’ve painstakingly gone through these details to show what a bizarro, upside down clown world we currently live in. As long as you are a person with views outside the politically correct, establishment approved norms, you are subject to having this sort of treatment foisted upon you.

And this is the larger aspect of the Machado saga. The fact that these sort of nonsensical forays into identity politics are a staple of political campaigns is something that needs to be nipped in the bud. While other politicians of lesser fortitude would have allowed themselves to be bullied by these tactics, I commend Trump for standing up to ambushes like these, because at the end of the day they do nothing but insult the intelligence of the average person.

By virtue of Clinton dramatically introducing Machado to the world on a Presidential Debate sage in front of 100 million people, backed by a complicit media which had Machado puff pieces and TV interview spots at the ready, this was always intended to be a big campaign issue. The aim was to turn women away from Trump en masse. If Trump is able to successfully combat this pathetic mode of political attack, he might render it useless in the future, to the benefit of the political discourse of this country generally.

Beyond politics, tactics like this are meant to silence. In the context of who deserves to be president, whether Trump called a woman fat years ago has no relevance. Yet is being presented in order to push the narrative of ‘sexism,’ which in turn is a weapon wielded by leftists in order to silence dissent. In the current climate, all one has to do is utter the word ‘sexist’ or ‘bigot,’ and you win the argument by criminalizing the opposition. Trump exposing the media and Clinton engaging in this intellectually lazy behavior will benefit the country culturally.

That Clinton would even pull this sort of early ‘October Surprise,’ with such a terribly flawed case and terribly flawed ‘victim’ could smack of desperation. But beyond this, for it to work would require female voters to discount the list of women Clinton allegedly intimidated to stay silent about Bill Clinton’s mistreatment of them. It would require female voters to discount the incompetence shown in allowing 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, the corruption and cronyism alleged in the Cinton Foundation and Wall Street speeches, which allowed the Clintons to go from ‘dead broke’ to having a net worth in the hundreds of millions. Female voters would have to discount the incompetence and/or outright criminality involved in deleting emails from a private server which held classified government information, her complicity in thrusting the United States in to foreign war after foreign war costing thousands of lives and creating chaos in the Middle East and an unprecedented migrant crisis, all while accepting money from countries with atrocious records with respect to the treatment of women. Female voters would have to side with a media establishment which blatantly covers for and aids Clinton in her bid for the presidency, because it’s ‘her turn.’

All because Trump may or may not have called a woman Miss Piggy 20 years ago.

 

 

Fraying Nerves – Leftists Are Fearing the Worst: A Trump Victory

The increased gnashing of teeth among various leftists over the last week or so is indicative of fraying nerves. As we head into the debates, Hillary Clinton has had her substantial summer lead at the very least dwindle in most polls, and outright flip to a Trump lead in others. Officially, the election is currently a dead heat, but my feeling is that the tide has turned for Trump.

I suspect some on the left are starting to feel this as well, and they are not happy about it. It possibly starts all the way at the top, with Clinton herself. Consider this video today, which went viral:

I’m not sure what that video is from. I suspect it was some sort of private message to a group of donors, perhaps unions. Whatever it is, it obviously wasn’t meant for public consumption. That said, even if it wasn’t it isn’t a good showing for Clinton. She starts out speaking in a normal, if elevated tone when speaking about Trump and his aversion to unions. Then, out of nowhere, she starts screaming, wondering aloud why she isn’t ’50 points points ahead.’

The random escalation in tone, when she is speaking in a room by herself as opposed to a rally crowd, is absurd looking on its face. It just screams ‘crazy.’ That, combined with her subject matter, her disbelief that she hasn’t blown Trump away, is telling. It suggests that she expected this election to be a cakewalk. She thought that all she had to do was show up to a few events per month, talk about how ‘racist’ Trump is, sit back, relax, and prepare for her coronation in January. That isn’t how it’s gone, and she is clearly upset about it.

Of course, she still might be right. At the very least, however, Trump has made things too close for comfort for Clinton and her supporters on the left.

Some, like Charles Lane in the Washington Post article seeks to take an more measured approach to understanding why Trump is maintaining his appeal:

Why do so many Americans support Trump despite months and months of negative, truthful coverage about him?

 

To be sure, there has been too much media puffery about Trump, whether unfiltered live coverage of his rallies by cable networks or Jimmy Fallon’s sickeningly friendly tousling of the Republican candidate’s hair on “The Tonight Show.” Journalists were slow to take him seriously at the beginning of the Republican primaries.

 

The fact remains, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted in an interviewwith the Times published Sunday: “Nobody is confused about the differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. . . . Is she perfect? Of course not. But you’ve got enough information to make the choice.”

 

What must be going on is that people — an alarmingly large number of people, it seems — back Trump even though they know, or could easily learn, that he is a charlatan, clueless about policy, bizarrely sympathetic to Russia’s dictator, disturbingly prone to offending women and minorities, and a serial liar to boot.

Note how he states, matter of factly, that Trump is a racist and sexist, implies he has fascist sympathies and has no idea about policy. In reality, these beliefs are merely a list of opinions. Incorrect opinions at that. However in the mainstream, they have been elevated to a level of truism right up there with mathematical identities such as ‘1+1=2.’ To those with this very left leaning, mainstream worldview, it defies any sort of logic that someone could even think to cast a vote for Trump.

Lane goes on to explain that Trump is benefiting from a sort of ‘jury nullification’ writ large. Since the electorate feels the system is rigged, he reasons, they are more than willing to forgive Trump of the ‘crimes’ that system itself has alleged, particularly because Trump is promising to smash that system. There is some truth to this.

Lane ends by expressing a sort of sadness, that the journalist industry he is a part of has lost its ability to influence and guide the discussion.

Drew Magary has a quite different take.  He took to GQ to deliver this delectable screed. Here’s a sampling:

Nothing that Trump says, no damning piece of Trump reportage, and certainly no opinion piece like this one will stop his voters from pulling the lever. Nor will anything stop Trump from being the officious, braindead goon that he is. He will never answer for his crimes, and there’s a frighteningly large portion of the electorate that will always love him for that.

 

And so I’d just like to say to that portion of the electorate: Fuck you. No, seriously. Go fuck yourselves. I’m not gonna waste any more time trying to convince you that you’re about to do something you’ll regret forever. I’m not gonna show you old clips of Trump saying rotten things. I’m not gonna try to ANNIHILATE Trump by showing you records of his hypocrisy and greed. I’m not gonna link to a John Oliver clip and be like, “THIS. So much this.” Nothing’s gonna take down Trump at this point, so I’m not gonna bother. No no, this post is for ME. I am preaching to the sad little choir in my soul here.

 

Because while Trump is a miserable bastard, YOU are the people who have handed him the bullhorn. YOU are the people willing to embarrass this nation and put it on the brink of economic ruin all because you wanna throw an electoral hissy fit. YOU are the people who want to revolutionize the way America does business by voting for its worst businessman, a disgusting neon pig who only makes money when he causes problems for other people instead of solving them. YOU are the thin-skinned yokels who clutch your bandoliers whenever someone hurls the mildest of slurs at you (“deplorables”), while cheering Trump on as he leaves a bonfire of truly hateful invective everywhere he goes. YOU are the people willing to overlook the fact that Trump is an unqualified, ignorant sociopath because DURRRR HILLARY IS BAD TOO DURRRR.

Magary’s was less ‘woe is me,’ and more ‘you’re all idiots.’ He lashed out at Trump supporters in spectacular expletive ridden fashion, living up to the stereotype of the petulant, whiny modern liberal.

The emphasized part is especially delicious. In it, he displays Vox Day’s third law of Social Justice Warriors, taken from his must read 2015 book, SJWs Always Lie: SJWs always project.

Magary first channels sort of contempt Hillary Clinton did with her ‘deplorables’ comment, and then takes it another level, before declaring that Trump supporters are ‘thin skinned,’ for not taking well to that deplorables comment. This, of course, is extremely rich coming from a SJW type, some of whom have built entire careers out of being offended.

The very idea that Trump is some sort of fantastical bigot is one that is borne out of having thin skin, since in many cases Trump is merely relaying uncomfortable truths. Going even further, Magary’s literary conniption itself is evidence of his own thin skin, given it came about because other people have the temerity to vote for a candidate he doesn’t like.

Charles Pierce at Esquire co-signs Magary’s rant in his own piece, which lambastes what he calls a normalization of stupid.

No kidding. I will never stop hating this election for the incredible deluge of Stupid it has loosed upon the country. It is the pure product of the forces driving the Trump campaign in concert with the attempt to make sense of it without accounting for the pure hate without which that campaign would not exist at all. There is nothing worthwhile about it. It does not raise serious questions with which the country must grapple. It is merely a giant loogie hocked at people whom most Trump supporters have been trained over 40 years to hate.

Or, as Ross Cardinal Douthat suggests, you can blame Samantha Bee. God, he wants to be one of those people in the red ballcaps so very badly, it fairly drips from every sentence. Moron envy is not attractive in a fellow of his education.

Me? I’m with Magary.

What stands out to me is his use of the term ‘moron envy’ to describe Douthat’s piece, which itself was an honest attempt at explaining the cultural norms that Trump supporters are challenging.

The culture industry has always tilted leftward, but the swing toward social liberalism among younger Americans and the simultaneous surge of activist energy on the left have created a new dynamic, in which areas once considered relatively apolitical now have (or are being pushed to have) an overtly left-wing party line.

…the feeling of being suffocated by the left’s cultural dominance is turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion — which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the country’s government.

Douthat raises good points. The fact that the leftist advance, from academia into all aspects of culture, from sports, to late night television, to music, movies and so forth, has so shaped ‘acceptable’ beliefs that one instantly becomes an outcast for displaying the slightest lean toward any conservative view. Note Magary’s appeal to John Oliver, late night TV host who specializes in Daily Shows-esque leftist comedy which masquerades as news commentary. And note the torrent of abuse Jimmy Fallon got last week for merely treating Trump like any of his guests, in a lighthearted, apolitical manner on his show.

fallon trump twitter

As I’ve discussed before, this election is starting to erode the power that screaming ‘You’re Racist!’ has had over political discourse over the years. This is behind a lot of the skittish behavior apparent in the commentaries by Magary, Pierce, and those who are so brutally critical of Jimmy Fallon.

They are starting to notice that repeating racist/sexist/bigot/whatever over and over again isn’t moving the needle the way it once did. This is largely because of the fact that those terms have come to describe more and more things, to the point where this saturation has completely rendered these terms meaningless. When correcting someone’s grammar can be considered a potentially racial offense, we have reached the point at which people will instinctively start to tune out when wailing ‘but he’s racist!’ is the main argument presented.

A more nervous group of individuals over Trump’s strength is the media, as well as the pundit class. Their consternation is revealed in the reports of Trump’s campaign spending, or relative lack thereof:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its allies are outspending their Republican counterparts by a factor of about five to one, according to a new analysis released Tuesday.

 

But the former secretary of State has failed to put away Donald Trump, and many anxious Democrats are baffled as to why the race remains so close.

Yet another dynamic that is being exposed during this election is the deterioration of  the legacy media, and by extension legacy politics and punditry. Hillary Clinton is running a campaign from the 80s and 90s – pandering, carefully crafted, focus group tested phrasing, accumulating a big warchest to spend on huge ad buys, etc.

Similarly, the punditry is from years gone by. Countless times I’ve heard pundits on various cable news channels going on about how Trump needed to ‘pivot,’ how his ‘ground game’ was lacking, and things of that nature. Those are chapters straight out of a conventional campaign playbook.

Trump has completely thrown that playbook out the window, and perhaps forever changed the way campaigns are run. Instead of doing huge ad buys, he interacts with his 20+ million followers on Facebook and Twitter. Because of the increasing move from TV to social media among the populace, these impressions are likely to have more of an impact than any ad buy would. It is well known that more and more people get their news from their Facebook feeds rather than the 6 o’clock evening news.

This means that in going directly to the people, with a much more robust message, Trump can circumvent the media and its gatekeepers. This, combined with the fact Trump has a more concrete message has meant that his campaign is having a much more profound impact on people. In comparison, the Clinton campaign’s traditional strategy of 30 second ads full of regurgitated soundbites are easily dismissed, if they are even seen at all by a public which is watching less TV in the first place.

To be sure, there are a few Trump-specific features to his campaign that make his robustness possible. The bottom line is that the public is starting to tire heavily of the DC class in general, which renders the hundreds of millions the Clinton campaign has and will spend utterly meaningless.

If Hillary loses, the fact that she is a walking stereotype of DC politicians will be the biggest reason as to why. Moreover, being that way for the best part of 30 years in public life, Hillary Clinton can’t change. That is simply who she is, a dying breed of politician. Even if she does manage to scrape by, she will probably be the last of her kind.

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Volume 3 – The Colin Kaepernick Protest

Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the national anthem has been a hot topic of conversation of late, with everyone from news outlets, to political shows to sports shows having guests on to weigh in with their opinion. His rationale for the protest has been the following, in his words:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.

This, combined with his decision to wear the following socks, depicting police officers as pigs, suggests that his main concern has been the treatment of black Americans by police officers.

0901-colin-kaepernick-socks-getty-zoom-3

I respect Kaepernick’s right to engage in protest of the flag, and the national anthem. Indeed, the very flag and national anthem is what confers upon him that right. Much of the discussion I’ve seen on the subject has centered around whether Kaepernick’s protest was done in the right way, whether it was wise of him to use NFL games as his platform, and things of that nature.

All of this assumes that his protest is legitimate in the first place. I contend it isn’t. Consider the following passage, taken from this recent article in the Washington Post addressing the subject of the racial distribution of police shootings:

In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).

 

But as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.

 

According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.

 

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

Passages such as this are used to buttress the point that people like Kaepernick are making with respect to police brutality. The problem with this analysis, which compares the numbers of fatalities to population, is that it assumes that each segment of the population commits crimes at the same rate. This isn’t true. From the Post article:

Because detailed FBI data on crime can lag by several years, the most-cited statistics on this point refer to 2009 data. According to that data, out of all violent crimes in which someone was charged, black Americans were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the country’s 75 biggest counties — despite the fact that black Americans made up just 15 percent of the population in those places.

The following table shows the distributions of violent crimes by race, both of the offender and perpetrator, from 2012-2013, with homicides excluded:

ncfs-table

From that chart, and the Washington Post story, we can glean that black people commit more violent crimes than their 13% population share suggests they should. As a result, we should rationally expect that there will be more run ins with police, and thus more police shootings involving blacks.

Indeed, when comparing the police shootings by race to the violent crimes committed by race, which is the relevant comparison, the distributions match up relatively well.

From the Washington Post quote earlier, from Jan 2015 to July of 2016, 49% of police shootings involved whites, who according to the Bureau of Justice stats from 2012, commit 42% of violent crimes.

24% of police shootings involved blacks, who commit 22% of violent crimes.

27% of police shootings involve the rest of the races, or unknown, a group which according to the Bureau of Justice commits 35% of violent crime.

If anyone should feel aggrieved, its whites, who are shot by police at a higher rate than they commit violent crimes, excluding homicide. Yet that isn’t the narrative.

The Washington Post tries to temper analysis such as that by claiming the crime level in a particular community doesn’t affect the rate at which police kill, and by stressing the fact that unarmed blacks are killed at a greater rate to whites:

Despite these arguments, police reform advocates and researchers as well at The Post’s own analysis has consistently concluded that there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers.

 

A 2015 study by a University of California at Davis researcher concluded there was “no relationship” between crime rates by race and racial bias in police killings.

 

….

In a report covering 2015 data, Campaign Zero compared violent crime rates of 50 major cities to the rate at which police officers killed people, concluding that there was no correlation.

 

As part of its data effort, The Post tracks the “threat level” of each person who is shot and killed by a police officer: Were they shooting at the officer? Were they threatening the officer? Were they fleeing?

 

Overall, the majority of the people who have been shot and killed by police officers in 2015 and 2016 were, based on publicly available evidence, armed with a weapon and attempting to attack the officer or someone else.

 

But an independent analysis of The Post’s data conducted by a team of criminal-justice researchers concluded that, when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are no more likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.

 

[Study finds police fatally shoot unarmed black men at disproportionate rates] 

The study also sought to answer whether officers were more likely to shoot and kill someone who is unarmed if the shooting happened to occur in a high-crime area. They concluded that is not the case.

 

“The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black,” said Justin Nix, a criminal-justice researcher at the University of Louisville and one of the report’s authors, said in April. “Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”

 

“This just bolsters our confidence that there is some sort of implicit bias going on,” Nix said. “Officers are perceiving a greater threat when encountered by unarmed black citizens.”

Regarding the point about there being no correlation between high crime areas and police shootings, that might be true, but it doesn’t show that there is any bias involved in either direction.

As for the unarmed argument, it is riddled with holes. Blacks may be more likely to be ‘unarmed’ when shot by police, but that is hardly the full story. Heather Mac Donald details this in a piece she wrote back in February:

In August of 2015 the Post zeroed in on unarmed black men, who the paper said were seven times more likely than unarmed white men to die by police gunfire. The article noted that 24 of the 60 “unarmed” deaths up to that date — some 40 percent — were of black men, helping to explain “why outrage continues to simmer a year after Ferguson.

 

 

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. It is worth looking at the specific cases included in the Post’s unarmed victim classification in some detail, since that category is the most politically explosive. The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.

Mac Donald further lists several examples of various incidents in which the perpetrator was literally unarmed, but still posing a threat to the officer in various ways. Perpetrators attacking with their fists, using the officer’s own equipment, or a car were considered unarmed. Innocent victims who may have been caught in crossfire of a police shootout are also included among the unarmed figure. The fact that blacks are more likely to resist arrest or engage in a confrontational manner is why the figures of unarmed black shootings are disproportionately higher.

And what of ‘Driving While Black?’

This was a common refrain uttered after Sandra Bland’s death last year. This goes to the notion that while perhaps police treat all suspects in a similar manner after the interaction has been initiated, there is bias in the choice of police to interact with the population.

In other words, police racial profiling is a big issue. Vox said as much in an article on the subject, stating that black people were more likely to be stopped than whites.

We also know that black drivers are more likely to be stopped by US police. In 2013, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that about 12.8 percent of black drivers reported being pulled over in 2011, while about 9.8 percent of white drivers and 10.4 percent of Hispanic drivers did.

That statement means nothing by itself. It could be, for example, that there are more repeat offenders in the 9.8% of whites who got pulled over, which wouldn’t necessarily mean there was a bias in police stops.

The very study that Vox links to has the following chart, which is more relevant to the point at hand:

contact-with-police

The relevant column is the second column, which shows that whites made up roughly 65% of street stops, and 69% of traffic stops. Blacks made up 12% of street stops and 14% of traffic stops. Hispanics made up 15% of street stops and 12% of traffic stops.

The population distribution of each group is, according to 2010 census data the following: 63.7% white, 12.2% black, 16.3% Hispanic. In short, there is little to no bias shown by police in stopping people. Vox must have missed this chart in the report they cited.

All in all,  there is nothing that shows that there is some sort of bias shown by police officers against blacks which necessitates outrage, let alone public protests from the likes of Colin Kaepernick.

The bottom line is that if you want to avoid being killed by police, you would do well to first avoid committing a crime. Failing that, or perhaps if you find yourself involved in a police stop despite not having committed a crime, avoid confrontational attitudes with the officer, do not resist arrest if it comes to that, and do not try to fight the officer or grab any foreign object in an attempt to injure the officer.

Follow that, and your chances of not becoming another statistic are quite high.

“You’re Racist” Is Losing It’s Grip as a Control Technique

In my piece on the fall out over Matt Lauer’s performance at an NBC presidential forum earlier this week, I made the point that the outrage is founded on an ever shifting understanding of objectivity as it pertains to the media. Of the outrage, I wrote:

Herein lies the crux of the angst from the media, and those on the left over Lauer. Those parties have all declared Trump to be an uncouth buffoon who says offensive things and thus isn’t fit to be president. That basic assertion is a given, a concrete foundation from which everything else follows.

To this end, Matt Lauer’s greatest sin on Wednesday night was that he didn’t spend the entirety of his 30 minutes with Trump calling him a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Islamophobe, Transphobe, whatever phobe repeatedly. That would have been ‘doing his job.’

I’d like to expand on this a bit further, if I may.

Back in January, the Huffington Post decided that a disclaimer should accompany each and every article it posts which relates to Donald Trump. It reads like this:

Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

It serves as a Surgeon General-esque warning to readers: ‘You are consuming content the subject of which is a really bad person. Be careful.’ On the back of that declaration, many mainstream journalists feel no compunction in writing about Trump and his supporters in increasingly disturbing ways.

They’ve declared Trump and his supporters to be deluded, and as such the ‘sane’ leftist has a direct duty to ‘un-delude’ the Trump supporter, as one would do if one had a friend or family member who obviously needed Institutional care. Some have taken the route that Trump and his candidacy represents the extinction of democracy, and thus is a threat to the Republic. More worryingly, others have advocated outright violence at Trump rallies.

The leftists’ recent self described abandonment of objectivity in the face of a supposed existential threat would make perfect sense if there was objectivity in their viewpoint in the first place.

On the surface, there is. The main charges against Trump – racism, sexism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia – are real phenomenon with clear definitions. The issue is that none of them actually apply to Trump, objectively speaking.

The charge of racism is based on Trump’s stance on immigration, in particular his comments on illegal immigrants from Mexico. Regardless of Trump said, the bottom line is that ‘Mexican’ isn’t a race. The charge of sexism is largely based on public comments Trump has made which ultimately amount to the same type of locker room talk men have had with each other in one form or another since the beginning of time. Women have their own version of this sort of crude talk as well. Neither of it is sexist.

Showing affection to one’s own country, wanting to advance its interests while preserving its culture and history is not xenophobic. Wanting to curb immigration from a group of people which have inflicted disproportionate amounts of terror against us does not amount to Islamophobia.

This is all objectively true, yet those on the left are steadfast in their condemnation of Trump as a bigot. Consider this  from former President Bill Clinton from a stump speech earlier this week:

In it, he says of Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign slogan that ‘if you’re a White Southerner, you know exactly what it means…What it means is that I’ll move you back up on the social totem pole, and other people down.’

Never mind that Clinton also used the phrase Make America Great Again during his 1992 presidential run, as is shown in the end of that video.

His stance on illegal immigration, as shown in the following video from the his 1996 State of the Union address, is almost Trumpian:

So why isn’t Bill Clinton, himself a white Southerner, and thus must have known what Make America Great Again ‘really meant’ when he used phrase himself, who took a tough stance on illegal immigration, a racist?

Well in some circles, he is. This is because of his 1994 crime bill which stiffened penalties for drug violations, which had a disproportionate impact on black communities and increased the black incarceration rate as a result. One of the themes of Hillary Clinton’s campaign was how she was going to distance herself from the ‘racism’ of that bill in order to assure the black community that she is on their side.

Bill Clinton is not the only leftist icon which has his legacy re-litigated in our new age of hyper political correctness and social justice. Figures such as FDR and Martin Luther King have been criticized by leftists for racism and homophobia, respectively. The Washington Post has been called for the expunging of Woodrow Wilson, one of the most progressive presidents ever, from official places of honor. This is in light of protests, ongoing at the time of this writing, over the fact that Wilson’s name still adorns one of the departments at Princeton University. The ferocity of some of the reporting suggests they would like to expunge Wilson from history entirely.

This sort of judgement of historical figures by today’s standard of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microaggressions leads me to believe that no president in history, up to and including the 2008 version of Barack Obama, is electable in 2016. The vast majority of past presidents would have been disqualified for their racism and/or sexism. The rest, including 2008 Barack Obama would be disqualified for not having the ‘right’ stance on gay marriage.

Obama eventually got with the program, and by 2012 he was singing the correct tune. He had to do so in on order to conform to an ever changing, ever ‘progressing’ culture. The modern left is infused with the Marcusian belief that anything goes as long as it feels good, and doubly so if it represents a break with moral traditions of the past. If Hillary Clinton were to win, I have no doubts that in four or eight years, the candidate that stands before us now will look like an extremist bigot compared to the politician she will end up being in order to conform to the future cultural zeitgeist.

These continual shifts in interpretations and after the fact declarations of bigotry ultimately cheapen those terms, especially since the threshold for being a bigot is continually lowered. If wanting strong borders is now bigotry, there are now hundreds of millions, even billions around the world who now can be described as bigots. The term itself is rendered near meaningless as a result.

This sets the stage for Friday, when Hillary Clinton decided to delineate  Trump supporters in the following manner:

You know, just to be grossly generalist, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

 

“Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.

 

That other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for a change. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

She said these remarks at a campaign rally, but she made similar remarks in a television interview that aired earlier in the day, suggesting that these remarks were well thought out, an perhaps even focus group approved.

In trying to demonize half of  Trump supporters (a figure in the tens of millions domestically, perhaps hundreds more globally) using terms such as racist, sexist and homophobic, she is trying to levy a serious charge on hundreds of millions. Some outlets have tried to defend Clinton, claiming that because she was disparaging something negative, so it the comments were fine.

As previously discussed, the utter meaningless of those terms owing to their overuse has weakened the charge considerably. To deem Trump supporters racists or sexists is to attempt to attach the stringent punishment for those transgressions, ostracism from society and de-legitimization, to views as simple as having a strong country with strong borders which follows the law.

In other words, you should be silenced if you don’t like illegal immigration, or, you have ever disagreed with, or said something nasty about a woman or a person who is not white. Her remarks then come across as nothing more than a declaration that a whole group of people is unworthy, hence ‘deplorables.’ It is an insult, pure and simple.

Ultimately, this is all those on the left seem to have. The charge of racist/sexist/homophobe was once so grave that it forced society to conform to the leftist dogma in order to avoid those damning labels. In 2016, we’re finally beginning to see the Law of Diminishing Returns reduce that stranglehold. People are no longer scared of those labels, not because they are more emboldened to be bigoted by a person like Trump, but because the terms themselves have less and less meaning when they’re applied to every single transgression, big or small.

In short, when everything is racist, nothing is.

On Phyllis Schlafly

Earlier this week, Phyllis Schafly died, aged 92. She was a conservative icon, and as such there was much outpouring of joy on Twitter and other apparatchiks in the leftist media.

Although I was aware of who she was, I didn’t know the extent to which she was a force for preserving traditionalist views for over half a century. Her most notable achievements came in the gender relations arena, particularly her battles to stop feminists from passing the ERA in the 1970s.

For this, she became the mortal enemy of the feminist, and therefore the eternal friend of civilization itself. Indeed, of feminism, she believed that it was “doomed to failure because it is based on an attempt to repeal and restructure human nature.”

The aspect of human nature which the feminist is interested in is the fact that men and women are different, and thus have different roles to play in families and societies as a whole. Feminism rejects the obvious biological fact that men and women are different and ascribes any differences to ‘social constructs.’ It seeks to reshape the world in its image, to the point that it’s logical extension would lead one to posit that a 5’0” 105 pound woman is equally as capable of saving people from a 10 story burning building as a 6’2” 195 man.

Schalfly stood steadfast against such absurdity for decades, and thus is deserving of respect. There is a bit of a paradox, at least on the surface. In spending her adult life championing traditional views, and exalting the traditional housewife, she was a tireless worker outside the home. She gave speeches all over country, wrote and/or edited dozens of books, learned a law degree, wrote regular columns, and appeared on radio for years.

She also had 6 children, breastfed all of them, and taught them all basic reading and writing before they entered school. In short, she ‘had it all,’ which is what feminists claim their ideology offers women.

Yet the results of 50 years of feminism don’t really bear that out. Women are less happy now than they were during the 1970’s, while men have roughly maintained their level of happiness. Women are marrying later, and the fertility rate in the US is the lowest on record.

A far cry from Schlafly, who actually attained what feminism claimed to offer. Yet, Schlafly is universally met with scorn by feminists.

What squares the apparent paradox is the fact that Schlafly, in embarking on professional pursuits, had no burden, beyond a moral one to uphold traditional views. She had married a wealthy lawyer, so she didn’t need the money from her speaking fees or book sales. She could fully concentrate on her roles as a wife and a mother, while taking the spare opportunities she had to engage in activism, which she called a ‘hobby.’

She would work on her early books after 10pm, when her kids went to bed. She didn’t go to law school until she was in her 50s, at which time her children were all at least in their teens and thus didn’t necessarily need the constant supervision toddlers would have.

She ‘had it all’ precisely because she eschewed the feminist model. She married well, had children, raised them while slowly building up her professional ambitions when she could. Then, in her 50s, after her children had grown, she embarked on her largest and most expansive efforts.

The feminist model preaches to women to do the opposite –  establish a career first, then look for a husband after age 30, then have kids, then juggle them with the expanding career. It doesn’t work, for multiple reasons. Nature, not society, has given women a relatively short window to have children. Waiting until after 30 severely limits that window, and increases the likelihood of complications. Furthermore, having a child right when professional ambitions are escalating is a recipe for disaster. Both the child and the job need one’s full attention, and by definition only one can win it.

It is little wonder that the modern woman, influenced by 40 years of feminism is so unhappy. Perhaps she would be better off to take a little inspiration from Phyllis Schlafly, and much, much less from Betty Friedan.