Category Archives: Election

The Fight is On

In the realm of politics and the culture, there is a street fight going on. It is starting to come to a head now, in terms of the wider public debate because one side is just starting to understand the fight is an existential one. Let me explain what I mean.

On the cultural side, the social justice set has continued the long march through the institutions its predecessors began decades ago, and are slowly but surely reshaping the United States in its progressive, Marxist image. Politically, the nexus of high level elements of the government bureaucracy, industry and their mouth pieces in the legacy media – some would call this nexus the Deep State – has seen its power grow and deepen during that same time period. Furthermore, this power has been used to advance the cultural Marxism espoused by the social justice set.

This set has achieved its gains most explicitly in the cultural arena, with an assessment of such succinctly put in the observation that as the US once put men on the moon, it now puts men in the women’s bathroom. Along the way, the “opposition,” branding itself as conservative, has tended to scream loudly before ultimately rubber stamping each and every cultural change. To the extent this conservative group provided original contributions, they came in the shape of facilitating the departure of America’s industrial base to distant lands, while advocating endless military entanglements in other distant lands.

What facilitated the transformation of America was the fact that it was very gradual, and that the vestiges of Heritage America, most notably the Constitution, were kept intact, at least on the surface.

If the founding fathers stepped out of a time machine into today’s America and were informed of the mere existence of an FBI, CIA or NSA, let alone the amount of power they are capable of wielding, they’d drop dead from the shock. Yet only a few Americans living today have qualms with the insipid justification that ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.’ Fewer still are moved enough to take active steps in shielding themselves from Big Brother.

In a recent podcast, The Z Man outlines the ways in which the Constitution, while nominally in tact, has in practical terms lost its meaning. Yes, you do have the rights and freedoms afforded to you by the document on paper, but attempting to exercise those rights and freedoms in the real world becomes another proposition entirely.

With respect to the first amendment, one does have the right to free speech and to assemble peacefully. But should you do so and choose to promote a right leaning, or more specifically anti-cultural Marxist point of view, you risk consequences that are far greater than mere “opposing speech.”

Take Roosh V, who has recently had 9 of his books banned upon the release of his new book Game, which was selling like hotcakes. Or take Alex Jones. Or Andrew Anglin, Richard Spencer, Lauren Southern, Milo, Faith Goldy, Chuck Johnson, Ricky Vaughn, Jared Taylor, James Allsup, Gavin McInnes, Tommy Robinson, Owen Benjamin, Blonde in the Belly of the Beast, Identity Evropa, Virginia Dare, American Renaissance, Red Ice, David Horowitz, Brittany Pettibone, Darren Beattie, and so on.

These individuals or groups have all been subject to life calls for losing their jobs, or when it comes to their internet presence, bans from social media platforms, payment processors, or web hosting services, not to mention trickery such as shadowbanning and algorithm tinkering. All for trafficking in wrongthink.

The fact that these sanctions were all administered by private companies enables the cultural Marxists and their nominal conservative allies to claim innocence since there is no explicit government censorship involved.

This dynamic highlights the manner in which the Marxists have operated over the years. The American Corporation, in one way or another, plays a gigantic role in the lives of ordinary Americans. Either you work for one, and thus are dependent on it for income, you are entertained by one, or you consume its products, many of which facilitate everyday activities. Marxists have infiltrated Corprate America at large, and as such they are for the most part boisterous adherents to the religion of TEPID (tolerance, equality, progress, inclusion, diversity). This poses a  danger to the would-be dissident.

He or she must now choose his or her words carefully, because offending the wrong person means a potential loss of employment, ostracism, expulsion from polite society, being barred from basic services such as payment processing, or all of the above. In a related sign of things to come, Governor Cuomo of NY not so subtly warned financial institutions that it might be subject to ‘reputational risk’ should they conduct business with the National Rifle Association.

The bottom line is that we still have our constitutional freedoms on paper, but exercising them fully is becoming more and more difficult. Our nominal conservative friends tell us that we should just build our own platforms, or some variant of that argument. That is all well and good, but with respect to social media, the reality of the monopoly Big Tech enjoys makes this difficult. Especially when you consider that the people controlling access to internet sing from the same TEPID hymn sheet. Given the propensity of nominal conservatives to acquiesce, at some point they’d be shrugging their shoulders, declaring “Why do you just build your own electrical Grid?!?”

The move to censor right-leaning voices on social media and the internet generally is a tactical response to the proliferation of such voices that resulted in complete domination of the 2014-2016 electoral cycle.

From Gamergate through Brexit and Trump’s victory, the right memed, podcasted, YouTubed and tweeted its message far and wide, bypassing the legacy media and delivering what was, and still is, the winning argument. The legacy media did not see this coming, nor was it equipped to fight back. Having had the monopoly on “objective truth” for decades it had grown lazy. It had no answer for a new medium which could provide virtually anyone the opportunity to cogently repudiate legacy media narratives, and do so in front of an audience that began to dwarf that of the mainstream press.

Instead of putting forth better arguments, the legacy media leaned on the social media companies themselves, very loudly accusing them of being hosts to “hate speech,” “propaganda,” “Russian bots,” whatever. This then led to the rush to censor and harass that we are currently in the midst of. The TEPID religion was sending a message to the non-believers who had stalled the March To Progress back in 2016: do NOT try this again.

Politically, the Deep State has done its utmost to thwart and subvert the Trump Agenda. It even admits it. The reason is that Trump represents a populist revolt against the failed paradigm of the post World War 2 era.

President Obama was perhaps the perfect president to continue the advancement of that paradigm. He was able to significantly advance leftist goals in the matters of socialized medicine, industry stifling regulations, and ‘woke’ identity politics. For the nominal right, he maintained a flow of cheap labor from south of the border, did not significantly impair neoconservative foreign policy aims, and left a parting gift of TPP, a NAFTA-style trading partnership with several countries in the Pacific.

Although many on the more radical left were disappointed in Obama, his work had to be considered within the context of a United States which, at its core, still purported to be a conservative country. That placed a check on the ability of the Marxists to go full speed ahead with their grand vision.

President Trump represented the most formidable challenge to that vision, one of a destroyed Heritage America, in decades. Trump had exposed the lies which Americans had been told for far too long about subjects such as trade, immigration and foreign policy. These were lies that on some level, most Americans understood, but could not articulate.

Trump’s messaging, while simplistic, was enough to help square the circle for the American voter. Yes, it is true that America’s issues are more complex than “China’s killing us on trade,” but to the American voter, particularly those old enough to have consciously experienced the shift from ‘Made in America’ to ‘Made in China,’ it clicked. The juxtaposition of the sober reality Trump described with the insistence of our elites that the same reality had actually been great for the economy brought about an unmistakable realization that the true price of cheaper foreign trinkets was the destruction of once healthy American communities.

It was that sort of realization that propelled Trump from strength to strength. And above that, it was his willingness to fight, unencumbered by any political debt, plus a 40 year run as an A-list celebrity in an increasingly celebrity-worshipping culture that made him truly dangerous.

Thus, he had to be taken down. From the Rosie O’Donnell debate question to the Access Hollywood tape, the Old Guard did it’s best to throw a spanner in the works. However, despite dozens of ‘scandals,’ any one of which likely would have ended the run of a standard Republican candidate, Trump still won.

And then it became real.

The 50-plus year Marxist advance was in danger of slowing down or coming to a halt. The Status Quo, the Old Order, Democratic norms – whatever you want to call it – was at risk for the first time in decades. 

A few centuries ago, Machiavelli accurately described the risks Trump faces today, when he noted that attempting to change an old order is one of the most difficult, and dangerous things one can do. Those who benefit by the old order will militantly defend it, while those who might benefit from the new order only offer lukewarm support as the unsure future success isn’t worth the short term unrest in their eyes.

So as Plan A, the slow and steady promulgation of cultural Marxism through American institutions and conventions, became suddenly under threat, another plan was necessary. Plan B, then, could only be described as a full-scale attempt to overturn the result of the 2016 election, as well as purge any and all elements which helped that result come to pass.

That part began in earnest during the summer of 2016, with the FBI ‘insurance plan’ headed by now infamous agent Peter Stzrok. The Mueller special probe which followed is not investigating any specific crime, but rather is simply investigating Trump the candidate, and his campaign. That is not how the justice system is supposed to work.

The pleas and convictions of the likes of George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are ultimately borne of an  investigation which used the power of the state to railroad its political enemies. If the Democrats retake the House in November, they will do nothing but continue to investigate Trump, in search of a crime, for the next two years.

As that has gone on, Congress, controlled by nominal conservatives, has done nothing with the opportunity it has given, proving without a shadow of a doubt that it had little interest in acting on the conservative agenda it pretended to champion, outside of token achievements such as tax cuts.

Add to this a foreign policy establishment that consistently undermines President Trump’s aims of reversing the failures of the globalists over the last 30 years. The most brazen example of this has been John Kerry flitting around the planet this week as though he was still Secretary of State. His aim has been to trash Trump, tell everyone to merely wait him out, essentially pushing the very policies and points of view which had brought nothing but failure for decades, and had been summarily rejected by voters as a result.

These sort of undermining campaigns of course has been cheered on by a lap dog press which conjures up such absurdities as Trump’s resistance to prolonging a fruitless 17 year campaign rendering him some sort of child, who had to be reined in by the ‘adults in the room.’

Then you have Brett Kavanaugh, who was subjected to a low blow attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court. She reportedly forwarded a letter from an anonymous woman alleging  possible sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh from his high school days to the FBI. The FBI has since declared it won’t investigate, but the point of it all was the sullying of Kavanaugh’s name.

For the rest of his time on the bench, he’ll have this nebulous accusation hanging over his head. For decades to come, news organizations will be able to write sentences such as “Kavanaugh, who was once accused of sexual misconduct but never investigated…” It’s as dirty as it gets.

To bring this full circle, this week has also highlighted the efforts of one Google in attempting to influence the 2016 election. Specifically, a leaked email chain showed the efforts Google went to influence the vote by goading Hispanic voters to the polls (to vote against Trump) by curating the information that these voters were subject to on Google services. It was described as a ‘silent donation’ by the executive in question.

This effort failed, and was lamented by the Google execs, both in that leaked email chain, and in this hour long video of them consoling themselves after the election defeat.

On one hand, the fact that companies with the reach of Google tried to tip the scales and failed is encouraging. But on the other hand, they were mostly blindsided by the breadth of Trumpism as a movement. They are aware now, and are taking clear steps to redress what happened in 2016.

In other words, the gloves are well and truly off. The TEPID religion couldn’t convince the populace through conventional means, and so it is now seeking to force itself upon us through censorship and intimidation. In the process, it continually sheds the pretense of an adherence to American-style constitutional republic governance, revealing the soft totalitarianism underlying the TEPID dogma.

Should that fail, the social justice set will have little compunction in going Full Jacobin. Just look at Antifa. Or the Twitter horde that threatened a commentator for a pro-life, anti ‘sexual revolution’ opinion. A man was subject to an attempted  stabbing, for the modern sin of running for office as a Republican. This, of course a year on from a man shooting up a baseball field full of Republican lawmakers. Then you have Joe Scarborough in the Washington Post comparing President Trump unfavorably to actual terrorists – on the anniversary of 9/11 to be sure – before not so slyly pointing out that those terrorists were killed before truly completing their goals. And he and his ilk have the nerve to drone on about ‘dogwhistles.’

What this all means is that there is no more time for those in the squishy Right, those like Fox News host Neil Cavuto, who closed a personal address to President Trump on a recent show with a mic-drop attempt, declaring Trump was “so darned focused promoting a financial boom that you fail to see that you are the one creating this moral bust.”

This mentality is utterly useless when the opposition has no issues with winning a fight in an unprincipled, even dirty manner.

With Marxists exercising the enormous power of corporations in circumventing the constitution in an attempt to bring dissident voices to heel; with the Deep State attempting to establish a precedent for overturning the results of a free and fair election in the United States by bureaucratic fiat, while chalking any dissent down to Right Wing Russian Propaganda…we’re supposed to be concerned about a “moral bust?”

This, in an age in which an LGBT lobby not content with the massive legislative victories attained in recent years, such that a Colorado baker must be singled out for badgering until he is forced to use his artistic abilities in a manner suitable to the mob. The same group which wants Judge Kavanaugh crucified for a possible sexual encounter when he was a teen in high school celebrated a guide to anal sex being published in an issue of Teen Vogue. And we are to believe this moral bust was created by Trump?

The other side took the gloves off ages ago. To seek a genteel rapprochement in response is fatal.

Politics as Usual: A Soft Brexit

As I write this, President Trump is in the United Kingdom concluding talks with Prime Minister May, after having spent some time together in Brussels earlier in the week as a part of the NATO summit. Much has been made of the political standings of the two domestically in light of the events of the past week. I’d like to focus on Theresa May for now.

The tenuous nature of May’s Premiership was put on display a few days ago with the resignation of her Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson. This followed the resignation of David Davis, the now-former Secretary of State of Exiting the European Union, some 24 hours earlier. The departures represent an internal vote of no confidence in May’s handling of Britain’s exit from the EU. The impetus for this rejection came from May’s first concrete Brexit plan, hatched over the weekend, and released yesterday, in full. Earlier in the week, the Financial Times provided a rough summary of what May’s plan entails:

The UK position crucially “evolves” in two ways that would allow for a Norway-style Brexit deal covering at least part of the EU single market.

The first is Britain’s proposal for a “free trade area for goods” involving the UK and the EU that in effect continues existing regulatory and customs arrangements for manufacturing and agricultural products after Brexit. This is achieved by the UK becoming a rule-taker, with a treaty-based commitment to “ongoing harmonisation with EU rules on goods”.

Just as important is Britain’s concession on enforcement. UK courts would pay “due regard” to European rulings in cases relating to EU-set rules. In other words, while Britain is a separate legal jurisdiction after Brexit, the European Court of Justice would be supreme in interpreting the UK-EU goods rule book.

There are caveats — for example the British parliament could veto changes to the rule book if it accepts the “consequences for market access”. But taken together, the safeguards offer no more freedom than Norway enjoys as a member of the European Economic Area.

This has widely been described as a ‘Soft Brexit,’ and thus not a proper Brexit. More generally, the entire Brexit ordeal which has led to this point is incredibly instructive for highlighting the still-vast chasm between what is affectionately dubbed as ‘The People’ and those who they employ to lead them – and even beyond this – the mockery which has been made of the oft-lauded democratic values which are supposed to shape the relationship between the rulers and the ruled.

Indeed, the political establishment, comprised of career bureaucrats, most politicians, foreign policy experts and mainstream political pundits did not want Brexit. The previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, the man who put the referendum to vote, did not want Brexit. Nor did President Obama, who was the US president at the time. Big business did not want Brexit. May herself did not back Brexit prior to the vote.

But The People did, and made its collective voice heard on 23 June 2016. Note that this date was over two years ago, yet it is just now that the PM has put forth a wishy washy exit plan that, despite technically removing Britain from the EU, effectively maintains the EU stranglehold by vowing to abide by whatever rulings EU courts come up with.

In other words, May’s version of Brexit says “we’re leaving the EU to stand on our own, but we are going to choose to agree with whatever the EU says in regards to regulations and prior agreements.” It is pure politics as usual. May’s proposal is reminiscent of the various legislations, regulations and even entire government bodies here in the United States which have positive sounding names or acronyms (the Patriot Act, Affordable Care act, Consumer Protection Agency, etc) which signal a bureaucracy doing right by the people, but conceals the much longer fine print which generally betrays them.

These comfy sounding titles also allow politicians to proclaim loudly about all the good they’ve done while simultaneously making very legitimate criticisms extremely difficult.  When ‘consumer protection’ is redefined as ‘public funding for exclusively leftist causes,’ it’s not hard to have concerns. However, all the sophistic bureaucrat has to do is declare “how could one be against Consumer Protection?” and rely on the base persuasion of such a sentence to do the rest in quashing those concerns. After decades of the establishment engaging in this sort of exercise in cloaking failures through language manipulation, the public has grown weary and demanded concrete change.

One great irony of the Soft Brexit proposal is that it is the precise sort of thing that contributed to the victory of the Leave campaign in the first place. For years, EU-related referenda in countries like Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Greece and even France had either been outright ignored by their respective governments or repackaged and presented as new referenda later. In the latter cases, The People were made to vote again until the establishment got what it wanted.

These instances shone a light upon the farce of bureaucratic respect for ‘the will of the people.’ And with a Soft Brexit proposal, the light shines again. As President Trump stated in a post NATO press conference, ‘Brexit means Brexit.’ That means any attempt at a deal which maintains the status quo, but is sold as ‘Brexit’ simply because the word itself appears in the header somewhere is in league with the aforementioned referenda in other EU countries. It is indicative of the establishment yet again ignoring the will of the people. Indeed, Trump signaled as much in a much publicized interview with The Sun, when he remarked that should the Soft Brexit idea go through as outlined, it would mean the US couldn’t deal with the UK in a favorable manner.

And rightly so, given that a Soft Brexit is really No Brexit. Prime Minister May can go on all she wants about the 29th of March 2019 being the day that Britain leaves the EU, but if all they’ve really done is to essentially agree to EU rules and regulations, just informally and of their own volition – so as to signal outwardly a maintaining of sovereignty – from the perspective of the US there will be no functional difference. The US would be effectively be trading with an Anglo Division of the EU as opposed to the United Kingdom. That’s all President Trump was really saying.

Given the high profile of the fight, any flouting of Brexit has very serious potential long run consequences. Here, there are parallels with the US election, also in 2016, of Donald Trump. The President, like Brexit, was not favored by the establishment, yet The People did favor him in a democratic election. Much like the British establishment and Brexit, the US establishment has not accepted Trump’s electoral victory, and has sought to neuter the Trump administration through a de-legitimization campaign centered on alleged collusion by the Trump team with the Russian government in order to rig that 2016 election.

This campaign has been waged through a feedback loop of constant disparaging aimed at Trump and his associates by the media, running constant headlines filled with insinuations of this or that nefarious connection to nebulous Russians. These are buttressed by a bureaucratically driven Special Council formally investigating these matters as it relates to the 2016 election, headed by Robert Mueller.

The goal of all of this is to at the very least hang a cloud of shadiness over every action President Trump takes, particularly in the foreign policy realm. In this sense, the foreign policy establishment, which Trump disagrees with at every turn, redefines these disagreements as treason, given its declaration that Trump is really an agent of Russia. Thus, the actions that Trump takes – actions which the voters specifically backed him to do – are to be seen as illegitimate.

At most, the establishment seeks to impeach President Trump on the back of those same disagreements, and seeks to do so through the re-taking of Congress from the Republicans this fall. All in all, the establishment has actively worked to undermine the democratically elected Trump. And as with Brexit, the extent to which the establishment is successful further undermines the rosy textbook idea of the civic role played by The People in a constitutional republic, or indeed in a democratic referendum.

That would lead to a further backlash from The People against the establishment, which would put the latter in a position of needing to exert even more naked aggression in displaying the contempt it has for the former’s wishes. At that point, things would undoubtedly get hairy.

We are at this moment in time because the era of globalism, neoliberalism and neo-conservatism that came before had simply run its course, its severe flaws exposed for all to see. It simply wasn’t working for the masses, and the twin events of Brexit and Trump’s election signified a concrete rejection of that paradigm. We are shifting to a new paradigm, and our betters would do well to accept that. The demise of the old order is inevitable. Better to take it gracefully.

Is the Political Class Mentally Stable Enough to Provide Meaningful Political Analysis?

The short answer is: no. But I don’t do short answers, so here’s the long one.

In How Dare You, I described the fact that nearly a year into Trump’s presidency, his opposition has yet to come to terms with the fact that he did actually win the election:

The larger issue here is that those who would consider themselves our cultural betters have affixed to their beliefs the status of The Truth, by fiat. What is accomplished by this is the elevation of what really are mere opinions to base maxims of the sort that are the foundation of the country, thus in theory unassailable.

And so when Trump disagrees with this or that leftist talking point, and vehemently to boot, there is a collective shock that permeates the commentariat. How dare Trump express views which aren’t in agreement with the one Truth that is Leftism in all its forms? How dare Taylor Swift not instantly condemn Trump despite having no reason to voice an opinion, and furthermore how dare Taylor Swift disagree when she is declared to be a white supremacist? How dare Sidney Crosby, a white man, turn up to the White House to accept praise from Trump?

The fact that leftism has gone without a real challenge for multiple decades, and in particular through the Obama years, has rendered the nascent Trump era to be nothing short of a hammer blow through the sensibilities of most leftists. Many still haven’t come to terms with the fact that Trump really is the president, and more fundamentally that the Leftist Truth is not held as such by a YUGE swath of America.

The recent excitement over Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, which bills itself as an exclusive inside look at the Trump White House, is further evidence that the failure to come to terms with Trump 45 is as prevalent as ever. Indeed, it seems that Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached levels that shouldn’t be possible. In the past week, this book has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media, with Wolff himself doing interviews with basically every network and media publication to drum up the hype, bolstered by stories of how the book has been flying off the shelves in record time.

President Trump has unsurprisingly said less than favorable things about the book, and in fairness it does require the reader to suspend logic at regular intervals. For a start, it tries to advance the popular meme that Trump really didn’t want to be president. Wolff’s ‘evidence’ for this is the fact that Trump actually ran the campaign of an authentic outsider.

The Trump campaign had, perhaps less than inadvertently, replicated the scheme from Mel Brooks’s The Producers. In that classic, Brooks’s larcenous and dopey heroes, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, set out to sell more than 100 percent of the ownership stakes in the Broadway show they are producing. Since they will be found out only if the show is a hit, everything about the show is premised on its being a flop. Accordingly, they create a show so outlandish that it actually succeeds, thus dooming our heroes.

[…]

The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their fundamental worldview one whit: we don’t have to be anything but who and what we are, because of course we won’t win.

Many candidates for president have made a virtue of being Washington outsiders; in practice, this strategy merely favors governors over senators. Every serious candidate, no matter how much he or she disses Washington, relies on Beltway insiders for counsel and support. But with Trump, hardly a person in his innermost circle had ever worked in politics at the national level—his closest advisers had not worked in politics at all. Throughout his life, Trump had few close friends of any kind, but when he began his campaign for president he had almost no friends in politics. The only two actual politicians with whom Trump was close were Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, and both men were in their own way peculiar and isolated. And to say that he knew nothing—nothing at all—about the basic intellectual foundations of the job was a comic understatement. Early in the campaign, in a Producers-worthy scene, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate: “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Almost everybody on the Trump team came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president or his staff.

In short, Wolff is perplexed at the fact that Trump was genuine, a trait foreign to those who work in journalism and politics. According to Wolff’s logic, the measure of Trump as a ‘serious candidate’ would have been his reliance on hundreds of so-called experts, who would have run every word he was to utter in public through carefully curated focus groups so as to craft the message which had the highest possibility of winning according to BIGDATA analysis.

Continue reading Is the Political Class Mentally Stable Enough to Provide Meaningful Political Analysis?

Quick Hit: No Moore

So Roy Moore has seemingly lost in Alabama. This is a huge deal. I mentioned in my last post that if Moore had win, it would have been monumental as it would be a display of the waning power of the media. Thus, Moore’s defeat is significant in that the establishment, and the media in particular still holds the power to bully anyone it doesn’t like, effectively waging snap recall elections against Bad Thinkers who hold office. Expect pressure to be heaped on Trump in this regard. Decide if that is the politics you want.

But for Moore specifically, a lot of what did him in was incongruity. He touted himself as a Man of God first, and this was susceptible to attacks on this level. In a way, Franken was done similalry, having touted himself as a Man of the Equalist Diversity Tolerance God, and was proven a hypocrite. American voters hate that. 

Not that we don’t need God back at the midst of American culture, but Roy Moore types are not the way to go. 

I’m in transit, so I must go, leaving you with some thoughts from Libertas from RVF.

Sadly, this was as expected. Roy Moore was never the guy. Mo Brooks was. The voters chose wrong to get Brooks out. It’s as simple as that. Moore was always scummy with or without these allegations. This whole fiasco goes to show just how big a problem these “Cuckianity” people can be, as some are fond of saying.

But no more fighting the last war. This one was lost.

The Republicans need to adapt and immediately deploy a counteroffensive. The left is going to go all in on this next year. Expect any mundane interaction to suddenly be dredged up as “sexual misconduct” (a meaningless phrase legally speaking but just sounds bad, same as “collusion”). If the Republicans try to fight that battle, whether by going harder on it, or pleading how they’re good people on it, they will lose.

The Republicans instead need to maneuver to fight in another theater, with a sword and shield strategy.

The shield: America’s instinctive revulsion to witch hunts and star chambers. They need to emphasize the importance of evidence, due process, and fact finding. Deny, deny, deny. Point out the hysteria and moral panic. You already see Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham deploying this.

The sword: While fighting on the defensive in that theater, they need to turn the offensive somewhere else, an issue that’s equally or even more greatly emotionally charged, and that issue is immigration. As we just saw in New York twice in two months, this is deeply related to terrorism and safety. The Repiblicans need to run hard on building the wall, ending chain migration, stopping the diversity lottery, passing the RAISE Act, and so on. That way the Democrats can shriek all they want about “sexual misconduct,” but the Republicans can basically say they’re the party that’s gonna fight for your economic prosperity and, more importantly, not let in people that want to addict you to drugs or kill you.

With tax reform likely to be passed, the economy should look good, so the defining, emotive, and signature issue next year needs to be immigration. If they run on it, they’ll win. If they try to fight the Democrats on their chosen battleground, they will lose.

The Democrats successfully tested a very potent strategy. The Republicans need to respond accordingly, and it needs to be by going on the defensive there while going on the offensive on immigration, and no other issue.

Will they? Sadly, I have my doubts. Expect tons and tons of vague, idiotic “misconduct” accusations to come up next year – and make sure you’re very careful in your own lives. I joke that if I could today never get away with some of the the stuff I did in my approaches in 2014-15, which wasn’t exactly free from feminist hysteria. It’s gonna get a lot worse for men of all stripes.

Roy Moore Is Not a Loss for Trump

Much has been made of the Republican Primary for an Alabama special election which took place this past Tuesday night between Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore. The reason is the amount of attention it received from higher ups in the GOP, President Trump and Mitch McConnell in particular.

The election is being held to fill the senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions as he left to take on the duties of Attorney General. Both McConnell and Trump had backed Luther Strange in the primary, with the latter holding a rally in Alabama last Friday to stump for Strange. Vice President Mike Pence also held a rally for Strange in the days leading up to Tuesday.

The voters had different ideas however, and expressed them by handing Moore the victory. It wasn’t even close. This has caused a bit of a stir in the political punditry business, as your standard politial bloviator can not conceive of a situation in which a local candidate losing with the explicit support of the President, Vice President and Senate Majority Leader as anything other than a disaster.

As usual, the conventional political analysis is wrong.

By all accounts, Luther Strange was the candidate with the GOP Establishment seal of approval, while Roy Moore was the candidate which espoused a more ‘traditionalist’ mindset, which is a large element of the Make America Great Again mindset in totality. The voters preferred the latter.

The intervention of Trump undoubtedly clouds things, and there is no doubt the fact that he backed a losing horse here is a bit of a negative. But it is more than dwarfed by the big picture, which is that Trumpism is larger than Trump the man. The media has gone to great lengths to describe how ‘crazy’ Moore is, pointing out endlessly that he was kicked from the Alabama bench twice, once for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from public display, and the other time for refusing to abide by the gay marriage law of 2015. He also famously waived a gun around on stage during a speech in show of his support for the Second Amendment.

To the standard political bloviator, these things are highly problematic. To Trump voters, however, this is the exact sort of fight that DC politicians, even supposedly conservative politicians, have failed to show for a long time. For decades, traditional minded voters have watched as politician after politician promised to uphold their values, and then subsequently went on to surrender all of those values, right down to the sanctity of the girls’ bathroom.

It is the reason Trump himself won, despite being ‘unpresidential.’ To this day, this charge is leveled against him as evidence of his failure as a President. However, the fact that he is not another Bush, Obama or Clinton is his exact appeal, as ‘presidential’ has come to mean the slow but sure destruction of American heritage and values in each and every respect. May Trump continue to be ‘unpresidential.’

Similarly, someone like Moore is a breath of fresh air in comparison to the staid ‘conservatives’ like McConnell which have polluted the DC air for too long. Indeed, it was probably the association with McConnell that sunk Strange.

In the wake of Strange’s defeat, many pundits are just now asking questions about an upheaval on the right, as though 2016 didn’t happen. Their wonderment at the result suggests they are still unaware of the realignment that has taken place over the last 18 months. Politics is no longer Republicans versus Democrats vying for which side of the Uniparty coin will be face up. It is about the establishment Republicans, Democrats, their special interests and mainstream media, which collectively making up the Uniparty, against those who want to MAGA.

In Alabama, the MAGA candidate won, and in doing so defied Trump himself. This, combined with Tennessee senator Bob Corker, Uniparty denizen announcing that he would not stand for re-election in 2018, represented a YUGE night for MAGA politics. As I wrote before, it is indicative of a Trumpism which is politically viable without Trump himself leading the charge. This is the theme for the 2018 terms.

The Dawn of An Era, Part 2: Anti-Trump Dissent

This is Part 2 of The Dawn of An Era, which is a series about the onset of the Trump presidency. You can read part 1 here.

From the first day of President Trump’s campaign on June 16 2015,to his Inauguration on January 20, 2017, there has been vociferous dissent, beyond the standard charges of ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’ that have been applied to any and all Republicans in the past. This dissent was more visceral in nature, and rightly so, as Trump’s candidacy was an existential threat to the elevation of the hyperfocus on identity politics and grievance culture.

Since the election in particular, this dissent has escalated to a fever pitch level, with a desperate anti-Trump cohort seeking to label his presidency as illegitimate. This culminated with the Women’s March which took place the day after the Inauguration.

Before that, there were more ‘intellectual’ appeals to the idea that we, as an American populace, have been had. This piece in the Huffington Post, published days before the Inauguration, sought to advance that angle by proclaiming that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States. I’ll deal with that particular piece some other time, but I brought it up to show what passed for ‘reasoned’ arguments against a Trump presidency.

Having been rebuffed in the arena of logic and political discourse, the anti-Trump argument became one of violence and protest. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on the legions which descended upon Washington DC with the express purpose of disrupting the Inaugural through violence, and the legions which appeared in Washington DC and in major cities across the globe to protest the Trump presidency, in order to make a more general  point.

So what exactly were the women of the Women’s march marching against? What do they want? This article from Return of Kings, poses that question, in a quite forceful manner:

What more do Anglo women possibly want? They already spend 90% more money than they earn in the economy. They gobble up 66% of public spending from the welfare state while men pay 75% of the taxes to support this gynocentric system. Women hypocritically make up 80% of all spending decisions in the materialistic, extremely wasteful and environmentally destructive economy they later complain about as not being “green” enough.

They then hypocritically say they Don’t Need a Man™ while statistics prove them dead wrong. Without men for the government to rob women would be up the creek without a paddle.

What’s most satisfying about the Daily Mail article was reading the “Best rated” comments below the article. Nobody is buying the propaganda establishment media is crapping out anymore. User Right Auntie wrote:

“I’m not quite sure what they are protesting. Women in America can drive a car, get an education, get a mortgage and purchase a home. They can be doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers. They can be ministers or atheists. They can have children without men. They can speak their minds. I’m positive that they can still do these things now that Trump is president. This just looks like a giant hissy fit because their candidate lost. Being a sore loser is never a good thing.”

Indeed, what are these women protesting? They live such decadent lives they’re literally killing the goose that lays the golden egg as the future belongs to those whose children will be in it, and the men who made their exorbitant, selfish existence possible are either breeding with other ethnic groups or becoming genetic dead ends.

The points brought up here ultimately speak to the base difference between conservative and liberal leaning individuals, which is in the realm of reproductive strategy. I’m, of course, referring to r/K selection theory.

There has been plenty written about the subject, so I won’t dive too deeply into the biology, but only list some basic characteristics of each reproductive strategy.

R-selected traits include the following: low energy required to reproduce, limited competition, limited loyalty to the group, many offspring produced, early sexual maturity, promiscuity, short life expectancy, abundant resources, and low parental investment. K-selected traits include: higher energy required to reproduce, increased competition, high group loyalty, few offspring, later sexual maturity, pair bonding, longer life expectancy, limited resources, and high parental investment.

In recent years, this biological theory has been applied to politics and shed some insights on the right/left divide.  It has also been used more cynically by those on the right to declare moral superiority over those on the left by virtue of their adherence to a more K-selected strategy.

Indeed, humans are clearly a K-selected animal generally speaking, but do exhibit strains of r-selected behavior across its ranks. And here I will make an important point: the question is not the moral superiority of one strategy versus another, but rather the effectiveness of one strategy versus another in the creation, maintenance and advancement of Civilization.

**********

Sir John Glubb came to the conclusion in his famous work, The Fate of Empires that the life cycle of empires throughout history is as follows:

The Age of Pioneers (outburst)

The Age of Conquests

The Age of Commerce

The Age of Affluence

The Age of Intellect

The Age of Decadence

The limited resource environment facing pioneers and those who would conquer leads to a more K-selected existence, along the lines of what we would term as more traditional values. Then, as such a society continues to expand, and produce more and more wealth through the ages of commerce and affluence, this later environment of abundant resources leads to a more r-selected, more decadent lifestyle.

The catalyst for this transition is seemingly the age of Intellect, which according to Glubb, ends up biting off more than it could chew with respect to Civilization building:

Perhaps the most dangerous by-product of the Age of Intellect is the unconscious growth of the idea that the human brain can solve the problems of the world. Even on the low level of practical affairs this is patently untrue. Any small human activity, the local bowls club or the ladies’ luncheon club, requires for its survival a measure of self-sacrifice and service on the part of the members. In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of the citizens. The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unselfishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.

With respect to the current American Empire, this Age of Intellect by-product clearly manifested itself in the work of the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School. In promoting an ‘anything goes’ way of life, they came in direct opposition to the traditional values based upon self-sacrifice and discipline which came before it.

Consider the following passage from Herbert Marcuse, a leading intellect of the time, taken from his 1955 book Eros & Civilization:

Reason is the rationality of the performance principle. Even at the beginning of Western civilization, long before this principle was institutionalized, reason was defined as an instrument of constraint, of instinctual suppression; the domain of the instincts, sensuousness, was considered as eternally hostile and detrimental to reason. The categories in which philosophy has comprehended the human existence have retained the connection between reason and suppression: whatever belongs to the sphere of sensuousness, pleasure, impulse has the connotation of being antagonistic to reason—something that has to be subjugated, constrained.

The ‘performance principle’ was Marcuse’s description of the phenomenon by which human beings restrain their rather primitive, libidinous, pleasure-seeking energies and direct them towards productive effort beyond that necessary to sustain.

Marcuse’s main point was that if man could unchain that pleasure-seeking energy – Eros – from its shackles once sustenance was achieved, he would be better off eschewing the production of ‘surplus value’ so as to be able to experience more of the pleasure principle. The obvious flaw here is that virtually all of civilization as we know it is the direct result from this ‘surplus value.’

That is, if man had never worked beyond the point where he was fed and sheltered, man would still be living in caves. The wheel, spear, sword, ship, steam engine, light bulb, and semi -conductor are wholly unnecessary from the standpoint of man finding food to eat, water to drink and shelter to take refuge in. It is precisely because primitive man did not heed Marcuse’s ‘wisdom’ that enabled him to produce the very comforts of a modern Western world that Marcuse enjoyed when he wrote, comforts which cannot be maintained if his dictum were followed. When put this way, that Marcuse and those of his ilk are considered to be at or near the pinnacle of intellectual thought, when their advocacy essentially amounts to man being governed by his most base impulses, is absurd.

It is this conundrum which is the logical albatross weighing down the push for Cultural Marxism, and its attendant r-strategy lifestyle onto the forefront of society. The Woman’s March on the day after the Inaugural was at its core a representation of that drive.

The feminism underpinning the march, itself an element of cultural Marxism, is largely based on the idea that women and men are exactly the same, such that women and men are not bound by biology to be disposed to certain life tracks. In terms of sex and reproduction, things like The Pill, antibiotics, the ubiquity of contraception and easy access to abortion and divorce of modern times has created a sexual environment that allows men and women to essentially artificially avoid the consequences of their actions, seemingly paving the way for a Marcusian liberation and embrace of Eros.

In prior generations, this was not as true. Promiscuous women placed themselves at risk every time they engaged in a sexual encounter. At the very least, their promiscuity would see them shunned by the community. Beyond that, they could easily contract diseases or become pregnant, with little recourse, being forced to have a child on her own, with little support from the government and society. She would be a pariah.

The mere fear of being looked down upon in the group was enough to incentive behaviors that were more conducive to the ultimate success of the group, like stable marriage.

These days, thanks to the aforementioned advancements in birth control, there is a far greater reduction to the ‘penalties’ that were once meted out in prior generations. We are at point now where women are actively encouraged to be ‘independent,’ promiscuous during their child bearing years, while they pursue hot-shot careers in the same manner as men do.

**********

The recent passing of Mary Tyler Moore is timely in this regard, as her show was the first major American sitcom to advance these themes. Despite the apparent dysfunction built into the ‘independent woman’ trope, it was ultimately glamorized and thus became a template for millions of women to follow. The approval of the lifestyle it was advocating is signaled in its opening title, with the cheerful jingle ending with the infamous line ‘you’re going to make it after all!’

Cloris Leachman (left), Mary Tyler Moore (centre), Valerie Harper pose, sitting on stools, wearing Seveties fashions, in a publicity portrait issued for the US television series, ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’, USA, circa 1974. The sitcom starred Leachman as ‘Phyllis Lindstrom’, Tyler Moore as ‘Mary Richards’, and Harper as ‘Rhoda Morgenstern’. (Photo by Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images)

Moore was the spiritual godmother of the legion of modern women who today cramp into urban apartments, seeking high flying careers, and streamline their promiscuity with dating apps. However, as sanitized as the Mary Tyler Moore Show looked, there was an ugliness lurking under the surface. Moore very much lived her life in the vein of her on screen self. She got married, had a child and then divorced, just prior to her career really taking off.

Moore admits to putting more effort into her work than her child:

“During the first year of ‘The Dick Van Dyke Show,’ as thrilled and bursting with excitement over my work as I was, I was equally without emotion at home,” she wrote of her divorce in 1961 from Meeker. “There is no question about it. By the time Richie was 5, I had already let him down. When he needed me the most, I was busier and even more self-concerned than I had been when he was an impressionable infant.”

Moore’s decision to spend her energies on her work had detrimental results on her family. She had remarried, and introduced her son to the stepdad life, another quirk of the decadence spawned from the age of intellect.

Her son did not take well to all of this, and as a result grew distant from his mother. Moore turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. On some level perhaps, she understood the horrendous decisions she had made in abdicating her main duty as mother to pursue her career, and attempted to self-medicate via the bottle. Her son, devoid of the nurturing that mothers provide, turned to drink and drugs and ended up dying via a gun in dubious circumstances.

I do not judge Moore, but her experience is instructive. She lived her life in a very r-selected manner, particularly with respect to her son. In this regard, one of the main ideals of feminism – that a woman can have it all, both high powered career and loving family – is shattered. A woman who is putting in the 14-18 hour days which are necessary to be a force in any industry by default cannot devote that time to her children in the manner they need, in particular when they are very young.

As I mentioned earlier, humans are K-selected animals, which take a long time to develop. Humans are born well before they are fully developed, unable to walk or talk for about a year out of the womb. It is not until the mid 20s that a human is fully developed mentally and physically. This represents an enormous parental investment in order to see a child to proper maturity, along with an enormous investment of the group to ensure a wider stability for those mature children to eventually contribute to.

This stark reality is why societies behaving under traditional mores demanded that a woman seek stability from her male partner before it ever got to the level of pregnancy. They understood, in particular during times in which abortions, and contraception were much less of an option, that a pregnancy itself was an acceptance of a multi-decade burden, the willingness to undertake that enormous parental investment.

In other words, this is self-sacrifice Glubb referred to as being subject to eradication as a by-product of the Intellectual age. Moore’s story is an example. Having had her child, in a traditional world she would have sacrificed her career to give her son the proper attention he needed. Applying a bit of Marcuse, in the context of motherhood, this would mean suffering the ‘surplus value’ of doing anything beyond waking up in the morning, feeding your child and then tucking him or her to bed at night. It would mean restraining her desire to experience the ‘Eros’ of a high powered career.

Infamous 1983 cover story which covered the trend that shows like the Mary Tyler Moore show helped to kick off

Feminists (and thus cultural Marxists) abhor the thought of self-sacrifice in this manner, which they consider ‘oppression,’ and thus look fondly onto Moore since she chose to experience the ‘Eros’ of being a high flying actress. A small irony is that in eschewing the self-sacrifice needed to raise her son properly Moore ended up sacrificed her son instead, to show the world through her TV exactly how to do the same. For this, she was rewarded by society with fame and fortune, where in prior generations she’d have been ridiculed.

This r-selected, Eros-seeking pathway was meant to ‘liberate’ man (in this case women), but it succumbs to Marcusian logic trap. If all women take the Moore route in life, a high percentage of children would end up on the path of her son – a drug addled alcoholic who died an early death. A generation of such individuals would not be long for the maintenance of, let alone the furtherance of the society it inherited. Hence, collapse, as per Glubb.

**********

For America and the West generally, its status circa the 1960s as a wealthy civilization with vast resources (which were accumulated during K-centric generations from the time of Industrialization), introduced the conditions in which the r-selected lifestyle could flourish. The intellectual age, and the influence of the cultural Marxists gave the green light, and behavioral values changed. The shift towards r-selected traits such as nihilism and short term thinking, the embrace of the promiscuous lifestyle and all it entails, has generally been considered to be a good thing.

And indeed, the feminism Moore helped to glamorize has taken hold over the last few decades. We are starting now to see the results of the deterioration of traditional norms in the shape of more broken families, a rise in single motherhood and attendant poverty levels. This has put large swaths of American children on a path to failure before they reach their teenage years.

As I mentioned in part 1, the fate of our younger generations has involved the succumbing to drugs, pornography, excessive video game playing, with millions of men checking out of society both romantically and vocationally. This mirrors the downfall of Moore’s son and points to the results of the r-selected trait of low parental involvement. Society-wide, our crumbling infrastructure, failing schools and hollowed out factories point to the same kind of low investment in the future.

Where vice and an overindulgence in entertainment have eased the pains on the micro level, on the macro level our societal debt binge to the tune of trillions, which enabled us to import tons of foreign goods has afforded us the illusion of stability thanks to that abundance of goods. The problem is that it can’t last and isn’t sustainable. Enter Trump.

For the purposes of this discussion, Trump is an enigma, an example of the duality of the r/K strategies in one man. He is a man who on one hand who has been divorced twice, enjoying extensive, well documented stints as a playboy. In contrast to this highly r streak stands his status as a patriarch, with his 5 children and 8 grandchildren existing in a tightly knit, well-structured family setting which is the manifestation of K.

You can see some of this in this excerpt from an interview he did with Playboy in 2004. In talking about his playboy years, he has the following to say:

What was your wildest memory from those days?

You saw things at Studio 54 that you had never seen before. You would see not one superstar but 30 of them, and you’d suddenly realize how many so-called superstars there are. Or you’d see the top models in the world getting screwed on tables in the middle of the dance floor. You would see things you just don’t see today primarily because of AIDS and other diseases. But it was incredible. You’d see the most beautiful women in the world, the most beautiful people in the world. Then, an hour later, you’d see them making love right in front of you. And I’m there saying, “Excuse me?”

And what were you up to?

I was there having a good time. You don’t need drugs and alcohol to have a good time. You can get high on life. That’s what I do.

Were you dating a million models at the time?

A million. I was dating lots and lots of women. I just had a great time. They were great years, but that was pre-AIDS, and you could do things in those days that today you’re at risk doing. AIDS has changed a lot.

Was there a time when you worried about AIDS because of all you’d done?

There was, but I got tested. I think it’s hard for young kids today. It’s a whole different thing. I tell my sons just to get a nice girlfriend and be happy, because it’s dangerous out there. It’s Vietnam. I guess now we can say it’s Iraq—same deal, right?

Even there, he partook in the general r-infused degeneracy of 1970s NYC nightlife, while abstaining from drugs and alcohol. He dated tons of women, but advised his sons to opt for a more K-strategy of pair bonding.

One of the few things the media universally praised Trump for during the campaign were his children, who all were lauded as fantastic, down to earth people, despite being raised with tremendous wealth.

Many rightly saw it as a testament to Trump as a man that he could raise such good kids when it is very easy for the children of the rich to go off the rails, owing to their relatively unlimited abundance killing off any work ethic. In other words, the way Trump raised his children, in a manner heavily infused by K – no drugs, no alcohol and a predilection for pair boding – suggests that he ultimately understands the superiority of K as the stability-achieving strategy.

With Trump’s calling for America First, the lamentation of the destruction of the American spirit and eschewal of feel good concepts such as political correctness, Trump is seeking to reproduce that on a national scale, injecting America with a high dose of K.

In this respect, the contrast between Trump and Hillary Clinton was even clearer, given the appeal of the latter to the ‘independent,’ high flying power woman trope that shows such as the Mary Tyler Moore show popularized.

Trump’s victory on election night was a victory for K. In a society which had come to pedestalize the r-strategy, this presented a big conflict, which the riots and protests sought to address. On the surface it would seem the r-strategy, and its penchant for ‘anything goes’ and the ‘live and let live’ approach to the world should not lash out in the emotional manner in which it has. After all, K-strategies are merely a different way of doing things, and thus should be permissible in a truly liberal world.

The problem for the r is that the K strategy, and its focus on self-sacrifice, discipline and restraint necessarily inhibits the r strategy of promoting Eros. The government sanction and funding of abortion, and to a larger degree single motherhood, for example, was a prime theme of the Women’s March. Should the K strategy Trump favors return, the cost of the promiscuous, divorce on-demand lifestyle espoused by the r strategy would fall once again on those who engage in that lifestyle. People would then be forced to choose between restraint and accepting possible negative consequences for profligacy, a scenario which r’s find to be unacceptable.

Hence, the change to K is thus an existential threat to the r strategy, and this explains the violent backlash. Yet when you examine the dynamics involved, you begin to see even more clearly the foolishness of trying to adopt the r-strategy, the virulent ‘WE HATE PATRIARCHY’ strain in particular, as the basis for a stable society.

It is the K strategy and its much maligned ‘Patriarchy’ which is responsible for the high level of organization that enables the existence of the major cities in which the riots were held. It is responsible for the many modes of advanced communication which made the planning of such marches possible. It is responsible for the invention, and proliferation of mass transportation, whether that be train, rail or auto, which got these protesters to their destinations.

It is responsible for the fact that the protesters were able to march in peace, without fear for their physical safety. In this regard they were protected on multiple levels.  On the ideological level, the establishment of a relatively free society came with it the idea that all voices, even ones of unpopular dissent, have a right to make their case known and to be heard. On a physical level, the loyalty to group, a K strategy, underpins the actions of the police force protecting the physical persons of those expressing an American right from those who would disrupt them.  Finally, that K-selected Patriarchy, in the shape of the majority male sanitation workers of major cities, is what is responsible for restoring cleanliness to the city after being trashed by protesters and rioters.

As if this hypocrisy wasn’t enough, what of the protesters and rioters themselves? This was the same lot who labeled President Trump as a fascist constantly from the moment he initiated his campaign, yet responded to a fairly contested election with violence, property destruction and harassment of those who were only ‘guilty’ of supporting a different candidate.

Random limo burned in protest of Trump’s election
Activists race after being hit by a stun grenade while protesting against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

All one has to do is to type ‘Trump supporters attacked’ into the search bar on YouTube to find thousands of videos from before, and after the election. This footage, in particular of a child partaking in Inauguration day rioting speaks volumes with respect to the r-strategy dynamic:

The fact that his parents either condoned him being there, or were so out of touch that they had no clue that their child was swept up in that scene, is irrelevant. Either way it smacks of the low parental investment, rapid maturity of the r-strategy. That kid should be at home playing computer games, and generally acting like a kid, as opposed to being used as a prop by his parents for their political activism.

In the Women’s March, similar vulgarity was abounding, particularly from the celebrities on show. Ashley Judd and Madonna, both living out the r-strategy to the max, took to the stage to extol the virtues of their ‘nastiness’ to the world.

This is the same crowd that stood aghast at some of Donald Trump’s more ‘colorful’ comments during the campaign, on the basis that ‘children were watching.’ This was the idea behind one of Hillary Clinton’s more effective campaign ads. Yet this crowd had no qualms with being colorful themselves in front of those same children, and the following video highlights that hypocrisy.

**********

This outsized response to an emotional slight is characteristic of the r-strategy. It is a particularly amazing hypocrisy for marchers and rioters who have the disposable income to spend hundreds on a whim to fly Washington DC, dressed in $200 coats, $100 sneakers, brandishing $700 iPhones and drinking $5 cups of coffee, all to either aimlessly walk around for a few hours in 40 degree weather with zero concern for their physical safety, or to break the windows of the very Starbucks cafes which are representative of the K-derived abundance which enables them to live out their r-selected predilections with little disturbance…turn around and complain of oppression.

A demonstrator smashes a Starbucks window in Washington DC

Furthermore, they, at least some of them are pushing to uphold and advance the acceptance of one such predilection, abortion, when the act is in most cases an abdication of responsibility for one’s actions, and beyond this represents the literal extinguishing of the future. And with that, the hopes for the advancement of the same civilization which afforded them the freedom and abundance to make such a weighty decision in comfort, departs. For the r-selected nihilists who have become far too common in our age, this isn’t a problem. For those who wish to see future generations truly enjoy in the spoils that we have enjoyed, it is a problem.

I’ll stress it one more time: this is not a moral dilemma as much as it is a logical one. As humans, K’s and r’s exist across populations, within them, and even within individuals. However true that may be, humans are a K species foremost, and thus the r-strategy is a secondary feature at best.

In terms of politics, it means that r-leftism is constantly fighting an uphill battle against its K-nature. It can be seen in the economics of the left, which require constant expansion of debt and credit to maintain the abundance it promises to its adherents. Given that debt cannot be undertaken indefinitely there will always be a painful day of reckoning.

It can be seen socially, as adherence to hyperleftist views have to be buttressed with drugs, porn, endless entertainment, psychiatry, prescription medicine and more to ease the pain. Ultimately, as Glubb shows, it is the K strategy which is what forms the foundation of any organized civilization, and r-strategies which signal its collapse.

This election was largely about the realization among a sizable portion of the electorate, perhaps subconsciously, that there is a K way to do things, and an r way to do things. Those that understood this also had to understand that the adoption of cultural Marxism and much of the ideology of New Left brings with it the seeds of collapse, while to the extent that we still had a comfortable society was down to the prior successes of a more traditional society.

The attempt to revert to such a traditional society from one that has been living the opposite way for such a long time will not come without friction. This dissent is embodied by the frantic explanations devoid of logic, and the riots protests of pure emotional angst. The dissent will pass with the return of true abundance, as the fundamental realities and success of the K Way take hold once again.

Election Influencers, Part 2

Yesterday, I wrote about the DNI report which was released over the weekend which declared that the Russians had influenced the 2016 election by hacking into the DNC and John Podesta, among others, as well as putting forth pro-Trump ‘propaganda’ on their state backed television networks.

I described how the charge as presented by the intelligence community is absurd; in short the fact that RT or Sputnik put forth a pro-Trump opinion, to mostly a Russian audience, speaking in Russian is hardly the most effective means to affect the US election. With respect to the leaked documents, those documents and emails were legitimate, as confirmed by the report, and thus merely exposed the bad actions that the DNC and the Clinton campaign engaged in. The net effect of ‘Russian involvement’ was more transparency and a more informed electorate, something which the US press and its lawmakers claims they are forever working to achieve.

The response by the media, and most lawmakers has been quite different. The prevailing attitude can be summed up by former CIA acting director Michael Morell, who said last month that the Russian intervention (whatever it actually was, if anything) was an ‘existential threat to our way of life’ which was ‘the political equivalent of 9/11.’

Such heightened language has become par for the course for analyzing this topic for purely political reasons. This politicization tabled by Brian Stelter in this interview with Glenn Greenwald:

After declaring that it is a possibility that there was Russian involvement, Greenwald had this to say about having blind trust in the intelligence community:

…but there’s a lesson, a really critical lesson that I thought we had learned back in August 1964, when the US Senate stood up and authorized Lyndon Johnson to escalate the war in Vietnam with two dissenting votes, based on the intelligence communities’ claims about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin which turned out to be total false, and the same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was in an alliance with al-Qaeda, and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when just months before the Snowden reporting, James Clapper, President Obama’s top security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said he wants to assure the country that the NSA doesn’t collect data  on millions of Americans.

And that lesson is, we don’t just blindly and uncritically accept the claims of the intelligence community, especially provocative claims about a foreign adversary without seeing convincing evidence presented by them that those claims are true, and we absolutely have not seen that in this case.

Greenwald is absolutely right here, yet on this issue the narrative has been established that one has to blindly and uncritically accept whatever the intelligence community says or else there will be big problems. Here’s Morell, speaking on Face the Nation yesterday:

If the men and women of CIA don’t believe the President is listening to what they have to say, to the facts the put on the table, and the fact based analysis they put on the table, their interest in working there will go way down.

[…]

The other practical effect it has is that we tell people who are spying for us, who are actually putting their life on the line to spy for us, that their information is going to the highest levels of our government, and is being used to make the world a better place. If we can’t tell spies that, if they see that on TV, they’re not going to spy for us. So I think there are significant effects if the disparagement continues.

With respect to this particular instance, the ‘fact based analysis’ put forth by the intelligence community, that revealing the truth about the rigged game the DNC was playing constitutes foreign meddling in our electoral process, to the point that we face an existential threat to our way of life, is hard to take seriously. Morell’s interpretation that having such a reasonable second guessing of the intelligence analysis could lead to a sort of mutiny in the ranks of the CIA can only stem from a political bias.

Greenwald makes this point in later his interview with Stelter, noting the fact that Republicans put forth the idea that not agreeing with the intelligence community when they advocated war in 2002 was unpatriotic. Recall George W. Bush’s repeated utterances of the phrase ‘you’re either with us or against us’ in making his case. Democrats at the time were highly skeptical of intelligence, in their general stance against war.

It seems as though the roles have reversed today, with Democrats beating the drum for retaliation against Russia for meddling in the election. However, the political fault line causing the divide is not necessarily Republican versus Democrat. It is anti-establishment nationalists versus establishment globalists. This explains why the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and pundits such as David Brooks are all on the same side as Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and the entirety of the mainstream US press.

Trump’s victory was a tremendous blow to this globalist set, and they have sought to strike back by in delegitimizing Trump’s presidency. They are in opposition to Russia, for varying reasons, which I’ve outlined before. The media, which is the mouthpiece for that establishment globalist view, has worked overdrive in recent weeks to heighten magnitude of what may or may not have happened with respect to the election, playing on patriotic feelings of the electorate to undermine President-elect Trump.

By creating this cloud of doubt around Russian involvement, the globalist defeat can be mitigated. The goal is to grind Trump down to a point where he ‘acknowledges’ that Russians may have played a role in the election. The second he does that, the intellectually dishonest narrative will be spun furiously. You can almost see the New York Times headline should Trump ever give in to some of these claims:

‘TRUMP HAS ADMITTED VLADAMIR PUTIN PERSONALLY INSTALLED HIM AS PRESIDENT’

It would be a box that would forever constrain his presidency, as anything he would hope to accomplish would be dogged by concerns about ‘Russian handlers,’ and the like. The globalists would have achieved their goal of a neutered Trump presidency. Trump is right to resist the intelligence conclusions to this point.

As for the media and lawmakers, their naked politicization of this issue will continue to harm their credibility. A facet of the intelligence report was focused on RT, the state-owned media outlet which was accused of disseminating pro-Trump ‘propaganda.’ This continues in the line of ‘fake news,’ which was a concept established after the election as an excuse as to why Hillary Clinton did not win.

‘Fake news’ is better described as ‘opinions the establishment media disagrees with,’ as evidenced by the outrageous treatment of Beppe Grillo, the outspoken Italian politician. Last week, he had the temerity to put forth his opinion that the mainstream media was the biggest purveyors of fake news themselves.

His views were met with massive backlash from globalist politicians, one of whom declared that the idea that random members of the public should decide what is and isn’t fake news ‘is called Fascism, and those who play to down are accomplices.’ His opinions and solutions were hailed as Mussolini-like. This shows you the state of mind of the globalist set. They put forth a set of options: agree with their consensus opinion, or be declared a fascist dealing in fake news.

Meanwhile, one of the organizations deemed to be ‘real’ news, the Washington Post, has just been caught publishing the most fake of fake news stories, accusing the Russians of hacking into the electric grid. Virtually every word of that article is false, yet the Post went with it enthusiastically, as it is in line with their globalist view.

The inflammatory nature of that claim that the Russians were tampering with the electric grid is orders of magnitude greater than anything that the Russians may have done in terms of hacking. It is potentially an offense warranting a military response. Yet the globalists have no qualms in falsely fanning these flames because it is in their interest.

In this vein, consider the following video from Chuck Schumer last week, in regards to the ongoing row between Trump and the intelligence community:

Shockingly, Schumer all but threatens Trump that his stance against the intelligence community would provoke retaliation by the intelligence community against Trump. It truly is a stunning thing to say, that the American intelligence community would literally strike back against the American President, as though they are mortal adversaries, all over a mere difference in opinion.

However, once you introduce the political aspect, and beyond this the ideological difference between the globalists and nationalists that trumps everything, such claims make a bit more sense.  Globalists such as Schumer, McCain and the mainstream media care more about preserving their power and the propagation of the globalist ideology than what is best for the American people. To them, saber rattling for World War 3 with nuclear-capable Russia is superior to allowing the nationalist bent of Trump and Putin to run unchecked, despite the latter having the potential to achieve real peace and prosperity for the respective peoples of the United States and Russia.

As more and more people on the ground understand these concepts, the credibility of the media and the globalist politicians they shill for decreases and decreases.

Election Influencers

This past Friday, the US intelligence community released what the New York Times would later call a ‘damning report’ about their findings with regards to the involvement of Russia in the US election. This issue was a hot subject of contention over the last 6 months or so of the election, with the multitude of WikiLeaks and other revelations from the Democratic National Committee showing the organization to be corrupt, and in many cases working in league with mainstream media outifits to its own ends.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the media and the DNC beat the ‘Russians hacked the election’ drum ever louder. Some establishment Republicans, such as John McCain and Linsey Graham cottoned on to this as well, perhaps hoping to parlay these allegations into the increased US military offensive they’d been dreaming about.

All of this noise set up the report that was released by US intelligence on Friday. It was a de-classified effort, which aimed to outline exactly what the Russians did to influence the US election. Both the report itself, and the media coverage of the report and the issue generally are important to analyze with respect to the larger issue of a legitimate Trump presidency, and beyond that, a political intelligence community and heavily biased media.

Analyzing The Report’s Findings

The meat of the report begins as follows:

We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency

Given that the report was declassified for public consumption, it makes note of the fact that it could not be very extensive in terms of providing direct evidence as this would betray some of its ‘collection’ methods and perhaps compromise sources. Thus, phrases such as ‘assess with high confidence’ are littered throughout the report in lieu of concrete evidence. In short we’re supposed to just take their word for it that the conclusions reached are valid.

According to the report, Putin masterminded an influence campaign aimed at altering the US election by undermining faith in the electoral process and harming Clinton. The Russian government had a preference for Trump, and when it looked as though Clinton would win they focused on stopping her.

If that warrants a deeper look by US intelligence agencies with a view to determining foul play, then surely the actions of the ‘globalist influence campaign’ require a second look as well. After all, the Russian government was not the only foreign entity which was shown to have a clear preference for one of the candidates in the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton says foreign leaders are privately reaching out to her to ask if they can endorse her to stop Donald Trump from becoming president of the United States.

“I am already receiving messages from leaders,” Clinton told an Ohio audience at a Democratic presidential town hall on Sunday night.

“I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump.”

The likes of Matteo Renzi of Italy (when he was still PM), and Francois Hollande of France did so publicly, and many other former heads of state such as Tony Blair and Vicente Fox did as well. UK Parliament was forced to debate a motion to ban Donald Trump from the country, after receiving the requisite number of signatures to a petition.

Furthermore, in the vein of the reports’ allegation that the Russians tactically switched focus when they thought Clinton was set to win, when Trump actually won the election, the focus of the ‘globalist influence campaign’ switched to undermining his presidency.

Nationwide rioting, Jill Stein’s recount effort, the focus on getting the Electoral College to ‘vote its conscience,’ and of course the Russian hacking angle, were all tools used to undermine the incoming Trump presidency by planting the seed that something was ‘wrong’ with outcome on November 8. To date, I haven’t seen much in the way of outrage at this blatant attempt to question Trump’s legitimacy, let alone official intelligence inquiries.

The report continues on, painting a picture of a Russian revenge plot, seeking retribution for the US-backed release of the Panama Papers, as well as the Olympic Doping scandal. Putin personally is supposedly holding a grudge against Clinton for negative comments she made about him back in 2011 and 2012.

The report says that Putin preferred Trump owing to his ‘stated policy to work with Russia’ (the horror) versus ‘Secretary Clinton’s “aggressive rhetoric.”’ Yes, intelligence community, Secretary Clinton’s insistence on a no-fly zone above Syria, an action which US Generals are adamant would lead to war with nuclear-powered Russia, qualifies as aggressive rhetoric. No need for the dismissive quotes. The report continues:

Moscow’s use of disclosures during the US election was unprecedented, but its influence campaign otherwise followed a longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, statefunded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”

By ‘cyber activity,’ the report suggests that hackers such as Guccifer 2.0 obtained access to the DNC over a period of at least a year, and leaked the information it gathered to organizations such as WikiLeaks, which are also alleged to have had ties to the Russian government. The report alleges that Guccifer 2.0 is actually a Russian, and not a Romanian as is claimed.

One of the most important lines in the entire report is as follows:

Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

In other words, the content that was released by the leaks was true. As for statefunded media, this ‘Russian Propaganda’ section of the report details the efforts of the likes of RT and Sputnik:

Russia’s state-run propaganda machine—comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls—contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences. State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.

Starting in March 2016, Russian Government– linked actors began openly supporting President-elect Trump’s candidacy in media aimed at English-speaking audiences. RT and Sputnik—another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin radio and online content in a variety of languages for international audiences—consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.

[…]

RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war between the United States and Russia.

If positive coverage of Trump by Russian media is deemed to have been a factor in nefarious intervention in the US election, then the overwhelming negative coverage of Trump by US media is also such an attempt to influence the election. Consider this chart, obtained from the Washington Post.

This overwhelming negative bias by US media has not been classed as an attempt to install Hillary Clinton as president in the way the converse claim has been, let alone received any closer scrutiny by intelligence agencies.

It was through the leaks themselves that the public learned of the ways in which the media coordinated with the Clinton campaign. Multiple reporters, including Glenn Thrush of Politico and John Harwood of CNBC were caught colluding with the Clinton campaign, allowing it to shape their reporting. Then DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was observed threatening MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski over her coverage of Hillary Clinton.

Despite the report characterizing the paradigm of press as subservient to a corrupt political establishment to be propaganda, the leaks showed that this is exactly what happened.

That comprised about half of the meat of the report. The other half was almost entirely focused on RT specifically, breaking down its political views, TV show lonely, and metrics such as its YouTube and Twitter subscribers.

As mentioned before, there is no hard evidence of any claim made in the report, and many of the claims are conjecture based on inferences and critical interpretations of fact. As discussed before, the leaked information was all true and beyond that, the report also contained this important line, with respect to Russian alleged targeting of US election boards:

DHS assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.

Again, the information which was leaked was true, and not one vote was tabulated incorrectly.

Media Response

As such, any media outlet which has used phrases such as ‘Russia hacked the election’ have been deliberately obfuscating fact. The Russians did not change the vote totals, nor did they put any pressure on any individual to vote one way or another.

At the very most, the Russians used their media outlets to express their views on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and beyond this, Russian actors may have leaked pertinent, factual information in that regard. In terms of Russian media, expressing a pro-Trump, or anti-Clinton view is not propaganda as is claimed in the report, but merely expressing a political opinion.

RT or Sputnik have not done any different to the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or CNN in terms of offering opinionated coverage of the election. If RT can be classed to have ‘influenced’ the election, in the pejorative manner that it has been accused, so too has the NYT and CNN influenced the election in this same manner.

Furthermore, RT and Sputnik together have nowhere near the level of influence over the American voter that the likes of the NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and Fox do, in total, not to mention foreign outfits such as the BBC, The Guardian, Der Speigel and Al Jazeera. The efforts of that collective favored Hillary Clinton on balance, not Donald Trump. Yet US intelligence and those media outlets themselves are asking the American public to believe that plucky RT and Sputnik outweighed them all, to such a degree that it tipped the scales for Trump.

As for the leaked content, it bears repeating – none of it was false. The intelligence report confirmed it, as did the victims of the leak by not challenging the veracity of the emails themselves. Not one person piped up to say ‘Hey! I didn’t write that!’ Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign as DNC chairman owing to the fact that the coordination among the DNC to boost Hillary Clinton at the expense of Bernie Sanders was true.

In short, what these Russian (to the extent that they were Russian) leaks showed was that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running a corrupt operation, which used the power structure of the Democratic Party to freeze out Bernie Sanders, and tried to use the media power structure to do the same to Donald Trump.

The leaks exposed the fundamentally un-American position Hillary Clinton held with respect to things such as international trade and open borders. It exposed the dubious links between Clinton, her global charity foundation, and favors done for foreign businessman, politicians and other dignitaries, implicating her as using her position as Secretary of State to personally enrich herself selling influence to foreigners.

This was all pertinent information to the American electorate. As such, the media and the intelligence community are in effect saying that it was wrong for the American electorate to know about the duplicitous and perhaps illegal activities engaged by Clinton and her campaign. It is an argument for a less informed electorate.

On top of all of this, the manner in which some of the leaked information was obtained  presents another side to the story. It was not mentioned in the report, but it is widely accepted that John Podesta was the victim of a basic phishing attack which compromised his email account. This Vox article explains what happened in further detail. In short, it was Podesta’s incompetence which was more responsible than any other factor for his emails falling in the hands of those that would leak them. It is a relief that the likes of Podesta are no longer in the halls of power on this basis.

This hasn’t stopped the media angst. From the NYT article describing the report (emphasis mine):

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.

The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr. Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that brought the leaders of America’s intelligence agencies face to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect, who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia’s role. The meeting came just two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration and was underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.

Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials released the declassified, damning report that described the sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian effort to weaken the United States government and its democratic institutions. The report — a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them — made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.

The voluminous, dramatic writing in this, the opening three paragraphs of the article, is amazing when juxtaposed with the ‘substance’ of the report – that showed that Russian media had a favorable opinion of Trump, and that Russian hackers potentially leaked accurate information pertinent to the election. Through Michael Creighton-level spy thriller narration, the media has pyramided this into a tall tale of international espionage, warranting a counter attack of sanctions and perhaps more.

This fiction is intended to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency, just as the report itself. By hyping up the scale of Russian involvement, consistently dropping in phrases like ‘the disruption of our ELECTORAL PROCESS’ to highlight the sanctity of what was done, the media establishes an Us vs Them scenario vis a vis Russia, a country with which we already have priors.

The media then takes the next step and attacks Trump, who has been consistently skeptical of the Russian hacking angle. That the dramatization of the Russian involvement has a shred of truth embedded in it has allowed media pundits to be driven into a frenzy, tripping over themselves to express their shock that ‘Trump is ‘siding’ with a HOSTILE foreign power over US intelligence!!’

What is truly shocking is the fact that the media, and the intelligence community is siding with agitators for war such as McCain and Graham, all because Hillary Clinton, the media’s favored candidate also sided with the warmongers, as discussed before.

It is little wonder why Putin favored Trump – he was the candidate which wants cooperation with Russia. As I’ve discussed before, cooperation with Russia is a non-starter for the globalist influence campaign waged by leftists, which detests the country for its refusal to play ball with American hegemony geopolitically while rejecting imposing Cultural Marxist dogma on its people.

As a result, Russia has been fashioned, incorrectly,  as the mortal enemy of the United States once again. Fake news indeed.

Election Trutherism: Putin’s Akina-Inu Ate My Homewok

Hillary Clinton, spoke on Thursday to a group of her donors, presumably reassuring them as to why the $1 billion-plus they spent on her wasn’t a colossal waste of money.  She outspent Trump massively, while also having the vast majority of academia, the media, and pop culture behind her.

To lose with that sort of advantage at the foundation of her campaign from day one certainly makes this election result a contender for one of the greater upsets in political history. It had to be a tough ask, to get in front of the money men after such a catastrophe, which is probably why it took over a month for her to gather up the courage to face that music.

When she did, she chose to adopt the ‘Russia ate my homework’ explanation which had been a part of the discussion prior to the election, and has now been screamed from the rooftops afterward:

Speaking to a group of donors in Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Putin, the Russian president, had never forgiven her for the accusation she made in 2011, when she was secretary of state, that parliamentary elections his country held that year were rigged.

“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Mrs. Clinton said.

It is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly addressed the impact of the hacks since the intelligence community concluded that they were specifically aimed at harming her campaign.

“Make no mistake, as the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperately tried to present to them during the last months of the campaign,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, which collectively poured roughly $1 billion into her effort. “This is not just an attack on me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to it. This is an attack against our country. We are well beyond normal political concerns here. This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.”

It wasn’t the fact that she was simply outworked by Trump. It wasn’t that she ran a campaign hyper-focused on an aggressive Identity Politics and a grievance culture which has long since worn out its welcome. It wasn’t that she merely assumed that because it was ‘her turn’ she would waltz to a coronation. It wasn’t that she was reckless with classified information while at Secretary of State. It wasn’t the fact that she was the poster child for modern day political corruption and pay-to-pay politics (exemplified by the very group she was speaking to).

It was the Russians and their mischievous hackers.

This Election Trutherism has been dutifully put forth by leftists and those in the Old Media who still cannot believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election. They have brought this Trutherism to a new level in recent days by lobbying for the Electoral College, which meets tomorrow, to reject the result of the election by denying Donald Trump the 270 votes he needs to become president. It is an exercise in hypocrisy and arrogance, not to mention a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.

The Charge

Last week, The Washington Post published this story, which alleged that the CIA had come to a definitive conclusion that the Russians were behind the shenanigans that took place during the election, and did so specifically to aid Donald Trump at the expense of Hillary Clinton:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

There is plenty to note here, particularly the high level of vagueness involved. A ‘secret assessment,’ found that ‘actors’ with ‘connections’ to Russia leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks, ‘according to US officials.’ There is not a shred of concrete evidence in any of these claims, and none has materialized since they were made.

Furthermore, that these alleged efforts were done with the express purpose of boosting Trump’s chances is also without evidence. The Post piece mentions that the CIA ‘findings’ had been questioned by other intelligence agencies, on the basis of there not being enough concrete information:

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

These holes in the narrative were ‘corrected’ just a few days later when the major entities which comprise the Old Media reported that the intelligence community now believe that Vladamir Putin was directly involved, instructing the hacking and how it would be used. From NBC:

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

Putin’s objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to “split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,” the official said.

In other words, the vague confirmation by anonymous ‘US officials’ that the Russians interfered with the election with the purpose of aiding Trump, was later backed up with ‘new intelligence’ from yet more anonymous ‘officials’ who declared that Putin was personally involved and even directed the whole thing.

Of course all of this vagueness can be justified as being necessary, so as to shield the sensitivity of ongoing intelligence work. The Post refers to this in its piece. However, that vagueness is also the perfect shield for narrative creation, which, in the context of the totality of the post-election events suggests that this is the likelier of the necessity of the ambiguity.

Spheres of Influence

The game is made much clearer once one advances from the contention that the Russians interfered with the election to the discussion of exactly how they interfered. Both Loretta Lynch on Thursday and President Obama yesterday unequivocally stated that there was no technical interference from Russia or anyone else in the election. In other words, voting machines were not tampered with, nor were votes incorrectly tallied, and things of that nature. This was confirmation from the highest level that the 2016 election was a free and fair one, at least in a pure technical sense.

So what is the outrage about? It stems from the fact that someone leaked emails from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee to Wikileaks, who then leaked it to the public in driblets over the final months of the campaign. The Russians have been fingered as the ‘someone,’ and this has been spun to be evidence that the election was ‘hacked,’ and our Democratic Institutions have been tampered with.

That narrative is patently false, as Obama and Lynch have confirmed for us, and any characterization of Russian involvement in this manner is designed to deceive the audience. The Russians (if it was indeed them) engaged in an old fashioned data leak. That was it. They didn’t hack anything but John Podesta’s email account, and released its contents to the public.

The public was thus exposed to new information, which it absorbed and factored in to its decision making. If this constitutes an attempt to nefariously ‘interfere’ with the election, then the leak of the Billy Bush tape, in which Trump used some vulgar language in speaking about women, also qualifiesas an attempt to ‘interfere’ with the election.

Both leaks exposed pertinent information to the public about the candidates. That the Podesta and DNC leaks may have originated from international sources is irrelevant. The information itself was true, and damaging. Michael Tracey provides a bullet point list of what those leaks revealed in this piece, and he concludes it by correctly noting that what was leaked was most definitely in the public interest.

In short, the ‘Russians’ interfered with the US election by showing how the DNC and the Clinton campaign planned to themselves interfere with the US election by colluding with party bigwigs, donors and the media to stack the deck in her favor. They rigged the Democratic Party Primary against Bernie Sanders. Both Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile came under fire as heads of the DNC, with the former having to step down as a result. The latter was caught funneling debate questions to Clinton.

It exposed the private dealings of Hillary Clinton behind closed doors, notably her insistence that it was important to have both a private and public position on issues. It shed light onto some of the more shady dealings of the Clinton Foundation which coincided with Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The leaks ultimately put some meat onto the bones of the concept that rampant political corruption goes on at the highest levels of modern government. Most people always suspected this, but lacked the concrete evidence. In many ways, those leaks provided that evidence.

It is telling that throughout the campaign, as the leaks were being delivered, those parties involved never outright denied the validity of the information being released. The most they could do was to appeal to the same sort alarm over foreign intrusion which has been taken to new heights post election.

The whole thing is reminiscent of the poker scene from the 1973 movie, The Sting, featuring Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Newman’s character, Shaw, outwits a mobster, Lonnegan, playing in a private game. The idea was to set Shaw up by trick dealing him a four of a kind, which in poker is a virtually unbeatable hand. This would induce Shaw to end up betting all of his chips, and possibly more, on such a sure thing. Lonnegan, carrying a second deck in his pocket, ‘dealt’ himself a better four of a kind, and thus would have shown down with Lonnegan, losing everything, thus completing the scam.

Shaw, wise to the gambit, was ready for it, and when the time came made a switch. The movie doesn’t show how he did it, but Shaw had originally been dealt four threes, while Lonnegan had been dealt four nines. The betting carries on until both players are all in. Shaw then turns over four jacks, to the dismay of all in the room. Lonnegan, defeated, storms into a side room angry enough to kill. His associate, bewildered, tells Lonnegan: “Doyle, I know I gave him four THREES. He had to make a switch. We can’t let him get away with that.”

Lonnegan response was famous: “What was I supposed to do – call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?”

Unlike those on the left, Lonnegan understood that you can’t call someone out for being crooked when you are crooked yourself. Having been outsmarted, Lonnegan accepted Shaw had bested him and moved on.

Instead, the left has responded by ramping up the outrage, making it seem as though they had been wronged. Again, both the Attorney General and the President of the United States confirmed that the 2016 electoral process was a free and fair one, devoid of technical interference by any perpetrator, foreign or domestic.

Despite this, democrat politicians, aided by their leftist friends in the Old Media have succeeded in driving the hysteria about Russian involvement into the stratosphere. What happened was a data leak by unknown actors, who could have been foreign. What the old media has implicated, in their usage of terms such as ‘hacked the election,’ is that some sort of advanced espionage operation took place, which was coordinated to install Donald Trump as president.

In the past week or so op–ed after op-ed has filled the pages of newspapers across the country decrying the now ‘tainted’ election, calling on the Electoral College to rectify the situation when it meets on Monday. They’ve even resorted to the failed tactic of trotting out celebs to stand in front of a white wall delivering a public service announcement instructing the Electors to stand up for America and do the right thing, which is to not confirm Trump’s presidency. Naturally, the video has disabled comments and the like/dislike button.

Suddenly, Constitutional Originalism is In Vogue

Vox wrote this piece a few weeks ago to explain why it would be a legitimate action for the Electoral College to not vote for Trump, citing the constitution and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers writings. To be sure, it would be legitimate for the Electors to do whatever they wanted, individual state rules notwithstanding. The constitution allows for them to do this. However, the standard reasoning provided by leftist for why they should vote for someone other than Trump is wrong. The Vox article writes:

Constitutional history makes clear that the founders had three main purposes in designing the Electoral College.

The first was to stop a demagogue from becoming president. At the Constitutional Convention, arguing in support of the Electoral College, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said he was “against a popular election” for president because the people would be “misled by a few designing men.” In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the electors would prevent those with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming president. They would also stop anyone who would “convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements.”

The characterization of Trump as a demagogue is a matter of opinion. The fact that political pundits in the old media refer to Trump as a demagogue nearly every time they speak about him does not make it a fact. The fact that Trump did tap into a huge wave of populism does not render his policies or his victory somehow illegitimate simply because of that populism.

Consider that Trump has been called a racist xenophobe for putting forth an immigration proposal that seeks to rigorously enforce existing law which for many years has been ignored on many levels. The fact that this is such a popular stance among his supporters and played a huge role in his victory has been used as an example of his ‘demagoguery.’

In terms of a ‘violent movement,’ to the left Trump’s campaign qualifies as such given his signal to aggressively follow the law means that those who break the law are going to be in for an uncomfortable time, to put it mildly. In the realm of immigration, this means illegal immigrants, a protected class of the left, are going to be subject to the ‘violence’ of facing consequences for breaking American immigration laws.

It says a lot about where we are as a society when calls to follow the law can be considered to be demagoguery, no matter how brash they are.

As for Hamilton’s wish to essentially banish charming, engaging, charismatic celebrity types from holding the office, if this is to be the standard, then most of the presidents in the television era are ineligible. Indeed, the 1960 Presidential Debates are immortalized based on the simple fact that the introduction of television altered the perception of the two candidates’ performances. Famously, those who listened on the radio believed that Nixon won, while those who watched on television believed Kennedy was more effective. Kennedy was the more visually appealing of the two, standing calm and assured, while Nixon famously looked a sweating mountain of nerves.

According to the standard now being imposed by the left, Kennedy’s superior charisma and charm should have been taken into account by the Electoral College, especially given the razor thin margin of his victory. Subsequent presidents in the TV era, from Reagan, to Bill Clinton, and even President Obama won, in part, on the strength of their charm, natural persuasion and ability to relate to people. They all displayed ‘talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,’ because it is a successful, almost necessary tactic in an era so influenced by television.

On the whole, this point is a non-starter, at all levels. Vox continues:

The second goal was to stop foreign interference in election. In the founding period, the framers were extremely concerned about infiltration by rivals including Great Britain. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that one major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” He said that the college would “Guard against all danger of this sort … with the most provident and judicious attention” from the electors.

There is slightly more to this point, as I’ve discussed above. However, nothing about the Russian hacking rises to the level of gaining ‘an improper ascendant in our councils.’ If anything fits that bill, it would be the behind closed doors declaration of Hilary Clinton to international bankers that her dream was to establish a ‘hemispheric common market’ across North America, that would benefit globalist interest. It would be the Uranium One deal Clinton help broker with, you guessed it, Russia, as Secretary of State.

These are the sorts of things consistent with foreign entities looking to install a puppet as opposed to a relatively mundane action like a data leak. More from Vox:

The third goal was to prevent poor administration of government. This is a less well-known purpose of the Electoral College, but it is again expressly discussed in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton wrote that “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration,” and for that reason, he said, the electors should be “able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.”

Vox claimed that Trump had violated this goal because of his popular vote defeat, but that certainly isn’t evidence of anything. In fact the Electoral College exists precisely to prevent the majority vote from potentially harming the nation as a whole. Given that the majority voted against Trump, and thus against the rule of law to favor the nebulous concept of ‘racism’ as it is defined in 2016, the Electoral College worked exactly as it should have on November 8.

So while it is within the rights of the Electors to cast their votes in a manner that would deny Trump the presidency, the threat to the republic that is bandied as the reason for doing so does not exist. Trump is not a demagogue or foreign puppet and has not exhibited a stark inability to execute a good administration. The only ones who truly believe this are leftists and globalist Republicans, who collectively find Trump to be objectionable.

The grounds on which they have been objecting to Trump are the extension of a concept I’ve repeated over the latter stages of the election; that is the idea that racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and so on are the gravest of societal sins while simultaneously being near ubiquitous in modern society. From the vantage point of this current cultural milieu, Trump is an illegitimate president, owing to his supposed racism and xenophobia.

Therefore, from this vantage point, looking to the Constitution for guidance, and encouraging the Electors to reject Trump is a legitimate course of action. More from Vox:

Modern-day conservatives favor so-called “originalist” understandings of the Constitution. They look to history and to the original texts of our founding documents for guidance. Recent decades have seen the invocation of original constitutional institutions to address present concerns, such as when the Rehnquist Court struck down Congressional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act on the grounds that they violated an originalist understanding of the Commerce Clause.

Whether or not you agree with such decisions, they establish the broad-spectrum appeal of our constitutional institutions — particularly in times of crisis. “Make America great again” is a clever marketing slogan. But our real greatness depends on employing our institutions and values to protect our republic from those who might prey on us.

This is written without a hint of irony, given the general leftist aversion to ‘originalist’ interpretation of Constitutional texts. Just in the last year or two they belittled the originalist opposition to gay marriage laws and Obamacare. Thus, their sudden sprint into the bosom of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison is tinged with hypocrisy.

As is Election Trutherism in general, given the fact that before the election Trump was hailed a threat to the 240 year republic for merely stating that he would wait to confirm the legitimacy of the election result rather than blindly accepting it. Now that Trump has won, the same factions which decried him are not accepting the election results, owing to their disagreements with Trump’s politics wrapped in the veneer of foreign meddling.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, there would have been calls for Trump’s arrest for disrupting the ‘peaceful transition of power’ in the way the leftists are doing to Trump.

Trump is a threat because his flouting Politically Correct cultural norms threatens the source of power that leftists have used to wield their influence on society. By establishing their opinions on social issues as the moral ones, mere disagreements are thus immoral, and therefore their disruptions become justified. Of course their views are conjecture, and nothing more.

Despite the jittering protestations of the likes of Keith Olberman, in a free and fair election, Donald Trump won 306 Electoral College votes, and thus the Presidency. None of the contingencies which should prompt the Electors to intervene exist. Even if the Electors chose to overturn the electoral vote on Monday, the decision would go to the House of Representatives, who would most likely elect Trump.

Conclusion

The entire episode is part of the drive to de-legitimize the Trump presidency. It is an attempt for leftists to deny responsibility for their loss, despite having the deck stacked in its favor. In crying foul, they give themselves an out. The drudges across the political establishment, from media pundits and columnists, to polling companies, to campaign advisers, lobbyists and other insiders, all rely on the status quo for their daily bread. That they completely misread Trump’s candidacy and the American electorate, even well after the election has ended, indicates that their usefulness is over.

Unless the election was literally stolen, swindled from under their noses. In this case, it wasn’t their fault. Their world view, their reading of current events, their prescriptions for the future were actually correct; it was unforeseen injustice which got in their way. It’s incredibly self-serving.

It is also incredibly encouraging to those of us who were on The Right Side Of History the entire time. Because to us, these flare-ups and meltdowns emanating from the left confirm that they have no wish to change. They have no wish to stop trying to foist their delusions of equality and social justice on the rest of the public, through the ‘everything and everyone is racist’ mode of argument. A mode of argument which, had just received a resounding defeat in the marketplace of ideas, as evidenced by the election results, and the growing influence of internet culture.

So let the leftists continue down this line for as long as they wish. Their losses will accrue accordingly.

The Old Media Continues to Not Get It

One of the main themes of the post election landscape is the fact that the legacy ‘old media’ refuses to understand why Trump won, and has been displaying this ignorance on a regular basis. It may come to a point that their undying cluelessness will need to be serialized here. For now, I’ll focus on a few threads from this week which the media unsuccessfully tried to spin into an anti-Trump tapestry:

Voter Fraud Tweets, the Recount Effort

Last weekend Trump tweeted the following:

This is classic Trump trolling. Since the election, the only bright spot that leftists have pointed to is the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, which has led many of them to take apparent solace from the fact that most of the country didn’t want him as president. In political pundit-speak, Trump doesn’t have a ‘mandate’ from the electorate to carry out his aims. That arguement is compeltely lnullfied by the fact that the same electorate also voted for Republican control of the House and Senate ostensibly giving Trump an ‘obedient’ congress and therefore a green light to carry out his platform. Thus the electorate did give Trump a mandate.

Regardless, the popular vote issue has been and will continue to be brought up by Trump detractors. Trump countered this by declaring that millions of people voted illegally, and once those fraudulent votes were removed, Trump would have won the popular vote as well.

Naturally, the old media couldn’t let it go, and produced a slew of fact checking articles to combat Trump’s tweet, such as this one in the Washington Post. What is curious, from the persepctive of Not Getting It, is that these vociferous defenses of the integrity of the 2016 election are coming from the same publications which would have the public believe that the 2016 election was compromised by the Russian government, in order to elect Trump, its preferred canddiate.

In that light, it explains the relative lack of scrutiny over the recount efforts of Jill Stein and others on the left. Perhaps if the election was really compromised, it might make sense to have a second look. But why are the recount efforts focused on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? These are states which Trump happened to have won, and coincidentally, if the results were overturned and Clinton were to be found to have won those states, she would then have the electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Stein and co. claim that the purpose of the recount isn’t to change the result of the election. Fine. But if that is the case, the only other reason would be to make sure that the absolute totals are 100% correct. Maybe in Pennsylvania, Clinton lost by a few hundred votes less than we thought before. If that’s what they’re trying to achieve, again fine.

But if Trump is wrong to suggest that the absolute totals may not be 100% correct, Stein is equally wrong to suggest the same. The old media has gone out of its way to mentiion that Trump has no evidence backing his claim, but neither does Stein.Yet her claim is treated as though it is merely part of the process

Furthermore, had Trump lost and had been associated with a recount effort, over an alleged discrepancy involving a sum (~100,000 votes) roughly 2000 times greater than that of the 2000 recount, the old media would have been apoplectic in its admonishment of Trump. Prior to election night, when they were all convinced that Clinton would win, they declared that Trump’s correct ‘wait and see’ approach to the question of his accepting how the results turned out was unpatriotic, that it was a stance which jeopardized the fabric of the 240 year old republic.

Now that Jill Stein has gone and done exactly that, there are crickets.

Trump on Flag Burning

Another ‘controversy’ was generated by yet another Trump tweet, coming just two days after the illegal voting Tweet:

Carlos Slim’s bloggers at the New York Times tackled this tweet in a piece written by its Editorial Board, titled ‘Mr. Trump, Meet the Constitution.’

The title itself, with it’s implication that Trump is either ignorant of the very foundation of the country he is to lead, or a dictator seeking riding roughshod over that same foundation is rather rich coming from the NYT. It, like most on the left is firmly in the ‘living, breathing document’ camp with respect to how the Constitution should be intepreted, which si eally to say that the Constitution is fine when it agrees with leftist ends, but should be subverted when it doesn’t.

Later on in the piece, the Editorial Board writes:

It’s interesting that so many of the people, like Mr. Trump, who are eager to punish flag-burners are at the same time so untroubled by speech that offends minorities, women and other Americans. They rail against any concern about that kind of speech as “political correctness.” But in this country, flag-burning is about as politically incorrect as anything you can do. Where is their courageous defense of speech now? Isn’t Mr. Trump the man who stood up for the freedom to say brutally unpleasant things? Who said, at the Republican convention: “I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.”

Here, they paint Trump out to be a giant hypocrite by standing against the free speech of flag burners when he purports to be a champion of free speech. This argument falls short when looked at from a meta level. Flag burners are desecrating a symbol of that which allows them to do the desecrating. To the extent there are problems in the land over which that symbol flies, disrespecting the very symbol which allows one to voice those grievances without fear are misguided at the very best.

In this specific instance, the grievance which prompted the post election flag burning which itself prompted Trump’s tweet is Trump’s election victory, which is a proxy for the political incorrectness the NYT purports to defend, at least on the behalf of the flag burners.

The post election flag burners are, in essence, using their free speech to declare that others using their free speech to voice politically incorrect views is something that rises to such a level of injustice that the flag being burned, a denouncement of the country that would allow that, is thus a legitimate response. It is a rather anti-free speech position to take, and thus it is not surprising that the NYT would defend it.

To be sure, the opinion expressed by Trump in his tweet is wrong, constitutionally. But it is just that, an opinion, not a policy proposal or a piece of legislation. Trump is allowed to have a wrong opinion, and he is allowed to use his freedom of speech to express it.

Interestingly, the NYT piece uses the fact that Trump has now ascended to the presidency as a reason to ring the alarm bells. In the next portion of the piece the Editorial Board writes that this wrongness in opinion is possibly exponentially more dangerous now that he is the president:

Some may choose to read Mr. Trump’s social-media rants as relatively meaningless — the ramblings of a sleepless id, unmoored from thought or knowledge but tuned to Fox News, which apparently was airing a piece on college flag-burners at about the time Mr. Trump sent his tweet.

But we don’t have the luxury of merely mocking someone who is now as powerful as Mr. Trump.

In one sense, they are right. The heightened position of the president will heighten everything Trump is involved in. However, the NYT reveals its sentiments to be nothing more than feigned concern for the national good, disguising its desire to continue to yell from the rooftops the same things it merely raised its voice about during the campaign: Trump is the worst thing ever, literally Hitler, yadda yadda:

Before you tune him out, remember what the right-wing propaganda site Breitbart was celebrating on Tuesday — that Mr. Trump’s social-media presence allows him to get his message to millions, bypassing “corporate media.” He has more than 16 million Twitter followers. With Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, he can feed lies and ignorance directly to 36 million people.

He tweets, he posts, he incites. He trolls. He commands a global platform and will soon be America’s commander in chief. But it has to be said, and said again: This is not normal. It demeans the presidency.

In only a few sentences, the Editorial Board labels a differing viewpoint ‘right-wing propaganda,’ labels the political message that won worldwide in 2016 as ‘lies and propaganda,’ mocks the idea that the coterie of old media which treated Trump unfairly might need to be bypassed as a result, summing it all up by saying that the presidency is demeaned as a result. These are the words of a dying corpse lashing out with contempt at the opponent which vanquished it.

 Corey Lewandowski Blames The Media

Midweek, Harvard hosted a gathering of the top operatives in the Clinton and Trump campaigns for a tradtional discussion of the election how it went. The full event is below:

Natrually, this one was testier than it was in years past. It also included several gems from the Clinton camp (Jen Palmeiri in particular, who fought tears seemingly incessantly) which served as confirmation that the right side won owing to the fact that such small minded victors would have presaged a turbulent time for America.

One of the gems the old media took issue with was the following from Corey Lewandowski:


The strangest criticism of the media, however, was by Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.

 

His complaint: Journalists accurately reported what Trump said.

 

“This is the problem with the media. You guys took everything that Donald Trump said so literally,” Lewandowski said. “The American people didn’t. They understood it. They understood that sometimes — when you have a conversation with people, whether it’s around the dinner table or at a bar — you’re going to say things, and sometimes you don’t have all the facts to back it up.”

The clearest example of what Lewandowski was talking about was the furor generated over Trump ‘instructing’ the Russian government to find the emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server while she was Secretary of State. For a refresher, here is the video:

Trump was clearly being facetious, perhaps mischievously so, about emails which he old media had assured the public were of little consequence anyway. To the extent they did pose an intelligence threat, operatives from all over the world would have already looked into it, well before the campaign had even started.

Yet the old media transformed this into a matter of national controversy, with some sections of the old media claiming the above video was treasonous in nature. It was used as a springboard to further the idea that the Russian government was actively controlling the election, a narrative which persist to this day.

And when being called on such constant willfully ignorant hyperventilation in service of Hillary Clinton by Lewandowski, how does the old media respond?

By pleading innocence, dashed with a pinch of snark. ‘We were only reporting on what he literally said, what is so wrong about that? What a strange criticism.’

As far as I’m concerned, the old media can keep on keeping on.