Trump vs The Media: Fake News Edition

Last week saw the latest round in the war between President-elect Donald Trump and the News Media, with the Jim Acosta exchange in particular drawing plenty of attention. In case you live in a cave somewhere and missed it, here it is:

That moment, brandishing a respected news organization such as CNN to be ‘fake news,’ was perhaps a seminal moment. It was the culmination of a brutal back and forth which has lasted the better part of two years. While both sides relish this fight, the media as a class have, at times tried to act as though they have been innocent victims of a brutish Trump.

They accuse Trump of threatening the freedom of the press, a concept uniquely American and central to our way of life. Referring to the press conference, Esquire writer Charles Pierce called Trump’s performance that of ‘an aspiring American dictator.’

All of this, because Donald Trump is the first politician on the right in decades who can attack and defend himself just as effectively as his ideological opponents in the press do, and then some. Some in the media are finally starting to take note of this, and are scrambling to make sense of it. For the last 18 months and more, the media has persisted with its tired tactic of screaming ‘RACIST! SEXIST! HOMOPHOBE!’ at those expressing any opinion to the right of Mao, only to find that Trump was impervious to this tactic when it was tried on him.

Having lost that battle on November 8, the press lurched to the next strategy – delegitimize Trump’s victory. This came about via the promotion of Jill Stein’s recount effort (which ended up in Trump gaining votes), the justification of violent anti-Trump rioting across the country, the justification for the Electoral College to ‘vote it’s conscience,’ the popular vote, and more emphatically, the idea that Trump is some sort of Manchurian Candidate, personally installed by Vladamir Putin.

It is this Russian meme specifically which led to the Acosta moment last Wednesday, as the night before Buzzfeed published an unsubstantiated ‘dossier’ comprised of material collected by Donald Trump’s political enemies, which was implied to have been real intelligence, and put forth as evidence that the Russians had a trove of blackmail material against Trump. (more here)

It was a document which had been floating around political and news media circles for months, and because of the fact that virtually none of it could be verified, it was never reported on, until Buzzfeed decided to introduce it to the world. This set off a firestorm, which culminated in an angry Trump lashing out at the media, and the intelligence community.

The Acosta moment has seemingly woken up the media properly to the idea of Trump as a real force to be reckoned with. The analysis so far has been summed up as ‘Trump is trying to destroy the media by divide and conquer. We must band together and fight him.’

Slate writer Will Oremus goes through this argument in detail. After describing the way Trump singled out CNN and Buzzfeed for scorn over their reporting on the ‘dossier,’ while praising other news organizations (specifically the New York Times) for not running it, he surmises that it is tactical. He writes:

Trump’s words were tactical, not literal. And his purpose became clear during the Q-and-A: to isolate and punish the two specific news organizations whose coverage he found objectionable.

It worked. BuzzFeed was so anathematized that by presser’s end, fellow journalists were picking up their lunch trays and moving to the other side of the cafeteria. “I can understand why President-elect Trump would be upset” with BuzzFeed, said CNN’s Jake Tapper, a co-author of the very story that had just been impugned in the press conference. “I would be upset about it, too.”

Trump had exploited weaknesses—not just the tendency of the press to eat itself, but also its own status anxieties. In particular, he exploited traditional media outlets’ intense desire to be perceived as sober and objective, and thus to be respected by conservatives and liberals alike—a business imperative that has been transmuted into an ethical injunction.

This last point is particularly interesting. The genesis of the battle between Trump and the press is the ideological differences between the two, as I mentioned above. In a very broad sense, Trump is a traditionalist and a nationalist. The vast majority of the press are left leaning, and thus embrace a cultural Marxist, globalist world view.

There is nothing wrong with each side harboring those views; however the press, by virtue of its purported role as a distillery for the truth, has much less room to imbue ideology and engage in opinion. That’s why Editorial Pages were invented, but it seems as though that the entirety of the mainstream media has become an Editorial page.

The reason the media desires to be thought of as completely rational and objective is that because if it is not, it becomes merely just another source of opinion in an ocean of opinions. Preserving the view that the media deals in cold, hard analysis of the truth allows it to float angelically above the rest of us.

The reality is that the media is as biased and as opinionated as the rest of us. Of the publications that most people immediately think of when one thinks of ‘respected news organizations’ (New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News), only Fox News and the WSJ do not lean demonstrably to the left.

Indeed, many would scoff at the fact that I even included Fox News in a list of ‘respected’ news publications given it its place in American society as the butt of jokes about objectivity. That the most right-leaning publication on this list also is subject to the most scorn is exactly the sort of isolation and punishment that Oremus accuses Trump of doing to Buzzfeed and CNN.

On the ‘status anxiety’ of the media in general, he writes:

There are status anxieties and resentments within the media just as surely as there are in the electorate, and on Wednesday, Trump deftly seized on them. Americans’ trust in media is at a low point, thanks in part to a highly effective conservative campaign to discredit mainstream outlets as biased. Fake news, a phrase coined to describe fabricated stories devised by hoaxsters, has become the default conservative epithet for historically respected institutions such as CNN and the Times. For journalists at those sorts of outlets, who worked for decades to reach the summit of their profession, nothing could be more deflating. It gives them a pressing incentive to distinguish and distance themselves from less-esteemed outlets, including upstarts such as BuzzFeed, whose “irresponsible journalism,” as CNN’s Tapper put it, “hurts us all.”

Oremus puts the blame for the increased perception of the media as biased on an effective conservative campaign. The reality is different. As mentioned before, the contrast between the cultural Marxist globalism of the left, and the traditionalist Nationalism of the Trump Right underpins the current ideological battle for hearts and minds.

To that end, it is the former viewpoint which has the most currency in modern culture. Concepts such as equality, diversity, and tolerance, as defined by leftists, are the highest ideals sought. This cultural Marixist, globalist view has risen to the level of being the objectively rational way to view the world. The media, in all of its forms, has aided this ascent what is really mere opinion to the level of perceived inviolable laws of humanity over the last three or four decades and more. Trump, who is considered to be in constant opposition to the achievement of these leftist-defined values, has thus become an enemy.

The result has been a sort of Clown World in which expressing a view which does not comport with leftist orthodoxy is a marker for insanity. In that world, the media, by virtue of being leftists, are afforded the position of veneration it seeks, as arbiters of Truth.

This is why the ‘campaign to discredit mainstream outlets’ necessarily has to come from conservatives. That conservatives and mainstream outlets are opposition says a lot – the latter can hardly paint themselves as truly objective if they wholly reject any conservative view to the point it is considered insanity to hold such views.

The ‘fake news’ saga Oremus refers to is indicative of this point. Oremus laments the fact that the term has been transformed from referencing made-up news stories by hoaxers to being used to criticizing anything conservatives don’t like. That would be a fair gripe, until one notices that it was the mainstream media who first used the ‘fake news’ terminology as one of the many excuses as to why Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Actual fake news, as in Macedonian pranksters writing stories about the Pope endorsing Trump and spreading it on Facebook, were hardly consequential in terms of shifting the electorate into voting for Trump. For a start, the actual fake news mostly resided in the realm of social media, the domain of the young, who are both smaller in number and turn out to vote at lower rates than their elders. Furthermore, these older generationsstill get most of their news from ‘traditional’ formats, such as television, radio and newspapers.

The mainstream outlets cleverly paired the ‘epidemic’ of fake news on social media with the rise of the ‘alt-right,’ inserting the likes of Breitbart, Infowars and others into the fray when the discussion of ‘legitimate news’ was being had. Consider this article from The Guardian, which leads with the following subheading:

The ‘alt-right’ (aka the far right) ensnared the electorate using false stories on social media.

In the aftermath of the election, lists like this one from a liberal professor were widely disseminated, but lumped opinion sites which leaned Right in with the fake news. This New York Times article in part disparaged Mark Dice, a YouTuber who regularly roasts progressives, in an article tiled ‘As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug at the Truth.’

In short, it was many left leaning, mainstream media voices that started using the term ‘fake news’ to reference any ‘hyper-partisan’ view from the right. The goal of that effort was to reestablish the Clown World Order I described earlier – Leftist views are objective reality, anything else, insanity. Such a drive was necessary thanks to the victory of Trump, a data point which called that Order into question in the most grand way possible.

To the extent there was a ‘conservative campaign’ to co-opt the ‘fake news’ terminology, it was merely a counterattack to this attempt to delegitimize non-left opinions. It succeeded because it had the truth on its side, in that leftists and rightist opinion is just that, opinion, and the mere fact that the former is in vogue does not render the latter to be illegitimate. Thus, the death of the term ‘fake news’ as a weapon.

Dossier-gate showcased a different sort of media warfare. CNN in particular went to great pains to justify its reporting, on the basis that it merely reported on the existence of said dossier, rather than the sordid details within.

However, by doing so, it made the existence of the document news, in a way in which hadn’t been done before. It was the equivalent of someone coming up to you and saying ‘hey, I know something that could totally change your life forever, but I can’t really tell you what it is.’ You’ve done that person no favors at all; in fact you’ve harmed that person by introducing something that will play on his or her mind until that secret information is revealed to them.

CNN may have not published the specific details, and even went to considerable lengths to repeat how unsubstantiated and unverified they were, but they did make it known exactly where such details could be found, nudge nudge, wink wink.

The goal was just to get the information out there in the public domain, because once there it could be used to stir up chaos. Remember, that this dossier was released after a lengthy campaign by the media and the intelligence community to paint Trump out as some sort of Russian state actor personally installed by Putin, a campaign which has been blared with unbearable loudness over the last few weeks in particular.

The Russians having compromising video of Trump cavorting with Russian prostitutes in The Ritz Carlton Moscow is fiction, but it is fiction that comports with the general post-election narrative of Trump-as-Manchurian Candidate, if you hold a predilection for that erroneous view. It allows the media to discredit Trump on the grounds that he was not legitimately elected, and in the future it allows the media to question any and every action of his it dislikes on the grounds that the action in question might be Trump just doing the bidding of the Russians.

Putin’s response to the dossier was classic, not because of him making light of the idea of Trump needing to indulge in prostitutes after having access to supermodels all his life, but for denouncing those who push the dossier as the worst sort of individuals:

Prostitution is an ugly social phenomenon… But those people who organize such frauds, which have been circulated and promoted against the elected president of the United States, those who fabricate information and use it in the political struggle, they are worse than prostitutes, they have no moral limits.

Putin is absolutely right. In citing the fabrication of information to use in a political fight, he describes the way the mainstream media generally does business with respect to those it opposes. More importantly, however, it draws the mainstream media into the realm of the same ‘fake news’ domain it sought to relegate others to. This is what worries the media the most, hence the seminal nature of the Acosta spat.

I’m not saying that the media prints outright lies, although it has happened before. What the media does do more frequently, however, is to deal in willful misinterpretation, editorializing, and intellectual dishonesty. This is the only way you get narratives such as ‘Russia hacked the election,’ or ‘Trump committed treason by imploring the Russians to breach US national security by attacking Hillary Clinton,’ or the intentional mention of ’17 US intelligence agencies’ in nearly every report about the Russian hacking saga, solely done to give undue weight to what would follow, which was a statement of unverified opinion about who hacked what. It has been repeatedly stated that not one vote was tallied incorrectly, and Trump’s ‘call’ for Russian hacking was a tongue in cheek mocking of the media, when viewed in context.

Another blatant example of this was shown in the CBS reporting of the kidnap and torture of a disabled white teenager by four of his black peers in Chicago a couple weeks ago. The following report was given on a CBS radio station:

The viral video of a beating and knife attack in Chicago suggests the assault had racial overtones. CBS’s Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally-challenged teenager.

In the video he is choked and repeatedly called the n-word. His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife. His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump. Police are holding four people in connection with the attack.

That account is factually true, but it is constructed to convey something completely different to what took place. It starts by saying that the attack had a racial component before describing how the victim was called the n-word, with several references made to Donald Trump. Given that description, combined the narrative advanced by those on the left that Trump is a racist who wants to return black people to slavery, any listener would conclude that the victim was black and that the assailants were white, when in fact it was the other way around.

Even more spectacular is that this video, as the report notes, went viral. It was a widely discussed topic for several days so what exactly was this report trying to do by being do deceptive? In this light it reads as a petulant attempt to lash out at the destruction of a popular narrative.

This sort of brazenness is what colors the likes of Jake Tapper’s thinking, when he denounced Buzzfeed’s irresponsibility as ‘hurting us all.’ It completely exposes the game for the public to see, and makes it that much harder for the media to claim the solemn objectivity it craves. When the true, leftist views of many in the media are made so naked, more and more of the public recognize that most of these reporters are in the business of disseminating opinion disguised as news, and they’ll act accordingly, as shown already in diminished views of the media, as Oremus notes.

This phenomenon of the media exposing themselves as uniformly opinionated vis a vis Trump isn’t new – it has been a feature of his campaign. What is new are the heights to which Trump took the manner of his riposte this week – elevated by his stature as the elected President – when he referred to CNN as ‘fake news.’

This, in conjunction with Putin’s smackdown yesterday means that Putin and Trump, having access to the loudest megaphones on earth, are prepared to turn the ‘fake news’ moniker around on the mainstream media itself. Trump has already done this several times in his Tweets in addition to the Acosta moment. Even before that moment, some in the media saw the writing on the wall and were begging for the term to be gracefully put down. Too late. That’s an own goal the media will have to live with.

The reality for those in the media is that the two most powerful men in the world have positioned themselves as a traditionalist, nationalist tag-team who won’t fold under their pressure. And they control the bulk of the world’s nukes.

It’s little wonder why those cultural Marxist globalists in the media are squirming.

Was Trump Really Against the Iraq War From the Start?

One of Donald Trump’s biggest claims during this election is that he was against he Iraq war. This places him in opposition to Hillary Clinton, George Bush, basically the entire government and the public at large, who sanctioned the war. In the end, the war was proven to be a mistake, at least in terms of execution, if not the decision to start it in the first place. That the outcome of the war was so bad has opened a lane for those to play the ‘I told you so’ card.

With respect to the 2016 election, Trump has been chided for his lack of experience and judgement, which renders him unfit to be the president, so the argument goes. Trump points to his call about the Iraq war as proof that his judgement is sound. This would be a great argument, if indeed it were true. But proof has been lacking.

Many in the media have pointed to the following interview Trump did with Howard Stern back in 2002, and declared it the smoking gun that definitively closes the issue and confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is a big liar (start at 1:30):

Stern asks Trump point blank: “Are you for invading Iraq?” Trump responds, “Yeah, I guessss….soooo.”

Anyone who hears that, and  has a modicum of understanding of human beings can hear the doubt in his answer. The phrase ‘I guess’ is one of the most non-affirming affirmations in the English language, and the way he drags out that 4 word answer is further indicative of his uncertainty.

At the very least Trump was conflicted. At most, he was against the war but was wary of giving an answer which would have been extremely unpopular in 2002. Given that it’s Donald Trump we’re talking about, arguing that he might have shied away from a controversial comment is hard to believe. However, even the most fervent anti-Trump diehard must clearly see that his response is hardly a full throated endorsement of an Iraq invasion.

Trump points to this Esquire interview as his proof that he was against the war at the time. It is (to my knowledge) the only recorded evidence of his claim. The problem for him was that it was in August 2004, nearly 18 months after the Iraq war began in March 2003. Esquire has conveniently added a disclaimer to the article to make sure the reader knows this, and coming just short of outright calling him a liar.

The interesting thing is that even despite this, Trump does come off very well in the interview. Consider the following passage (emphasis mine):

My life is seeing everything in terms of “How would I handle that?” Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have.

 

What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!

 

I would have been tougher on terrorism. Bin Laden would have been caught long ago. Tell me, how is it possible that we can’t find a guy who’s six foot six and supposedly needs a dialysis machine? Can you explain that one to me? We have all out energies focused on one place—where they shouldn’t be focused.

 

When I look at some of the things that happened in government, I can’t believe it. Countries that we’re protecting are screwing us on oil prices. It’s unthinkable. I wouldn’t stand for it. How would I handle that? That’s what it feels like to be me.

He shows what proved to be superior understanding of the situation, both in terms of the basic flaw with our Middle East adventures, and the strategic implications of our skirmishes. On the first front, he is correctly arguing that the US trying to bring democracy and liberal Western values to places which do not value them, and never have, is an exercise in futility.  Secondly, he accurately understood the destabilization involved would lead to the most vicious assuming power. Which is exactly what happened, with our Regime Change philosophy producing ISIS and Iran on the path to full nuclear capabilities.

At the end of the day, I’d say Trump is shooting par. While he did answer in the affirmative to the question of invading Iraq, the answer was clearly tinged with conflict and doubt. His more full throated disapproval came after the war had already started, yet it did show a superior understanding of the situation and Middle East dynamics than can be expected of a civilian.

This is not an insignificant point. To date, the argument over Trump’s Iraq war stance as it pertains to the election has ignored the fact that Trump was a civilian at the time, while Hillary Clinton was a member of the Congress that carried out the war, and who personally voted for it. Thus, Clinton at best can only try to bring Trump down into the realm of the Incorrect as it pertains to this issue.

And even if she is successful, and it is proven that Trump was for the war at first and then changed his mind later, it does absolve Hillary Clinton, and those who voted yes for the colossal mistake they made in sending our troops to Iraq. Whether the decision was made on an outright lie, faulty intelligence, or a combination of the two, there’s no hiding from the fact that the blunder that was made calls into question the judgement and leadership abilities of the establishment, of the incumbents, of the old guard that guided us during that time. And the end result isn’t favorable for that lot.

In this way, this episode of the campaign is a microcosm of the decision Americans will have to make. From a strictly political perspective, are we going to go with the old guard candidate, which has proven to be a failure, simply because she has ‘been there before?’ I would think not, but you never know. At the very least, this country will have had a real choice for once.

On #Brexit

At the end of last year, I was struck by the following quote from this article in the FT, which tried to set the table for the coming political year in the West.

Countries such as France, the UK and the US are already multicultural and multifaith societies. Attempting to reverse those social changes is both unrealistic and a recipe for conflict. It is legitimate, however, to insist all citizens subscribe to certain values, to make multicultural societies work.

To me, it was emblematic of the fundamental problem with progressivism in all forms – it is completely focused on maintaining short term comfort above all else, and it has the seeds of its own destruction within its tenets. And here was the FT brazenly putting forth that line of thinking.

This sort of religious adherence to maintaining the Status Quo, regardless of its effectiveness,  is often justified by an appeal to one’s aversion to the unknown. The biggest banks and corporations, for example, simply had to be bailed out by taxpayers and central banks in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis, because the alternative would have been unknown, and therefore worse. Thus, the system and all its machinations, which had brought about the one of the worst panics in the history of the modern economy, had to be maintained at all costs.

**********

23rd June 2016 has the potential to go down in history as a date in which those costs finally proved to be too much for the average citizen to bear. In voting to leave the European Union, Britons sent a message to the globalist elites – We’ve Had Enough.

The nature of the EU itself made it a foregone conclusion that a portion of its membership would eventually reach the conclusion the Brits did. The EU, in short, is a soft fascist dictatorship. Before I get accused of hyperbole, here is the dictionary definition of fascism:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

While there is no singular face of EU dictatorship in the vein of a Hitler or Mussolini, the collection of ‘Eurocrats’ in Brussels, all with their unwavering promotion of ‘The European Dream,’ does suffice. Indeed, even the most ardent proponent of the EU admits, through gritted teeth, the existence of the euphemistic term ‘democratic deficit.’

The endless regulations emanating from Brussels satisfies that condition of fascism relating to government control of the capitalist setup. In terms of suppressing the opposition, the means the EU favors is a combination of outright ignoring certain democratic decisions made by voters, and a perverse level of political correctness which shames people into submission. To date, the EU doesn’t point guns at its subjects per se; rather it points the threat of being labeled racist, xenophobic, or Islamophobic.

**********

Consider the fact that the St. Georges cross is increasingly being redefined as a racist symbol of hate, such that English people who proudly display their national flag are deemed racist by extension. The aim is to suppress pride in English culture and heritage, so as to replace it with the amalgamation of ‘European.’ As such belligerent nationalism is merely replaced by belligerent pan-Europeanism.

Even of one still refuses to agree with my assessment, one cannot deny that the EU at the very least saddles its citizens with yet another layer of bureaucracy which must be waded through. It’s of little surprise that, with stagnating growth and a slow and steady decline in industry over the past four decades, Britons decided to have a rethink as to the virtues of EU diktat, and the ‘open market.’

Then, of course there is immigration. David Frum, writing in the Atlantic, had this to say about the immigration issue as it pertained to the UK.

The force that turned Britain away from the European Union was the greatest mass migration since perhaps the Anglo-Saxon invasion. 630,000 foreign nationals settled in Britain in the single year 2015. Britain’s population has grown from 57 million in 1990 to 65 million in 2015, despite a native birth rate that’s now below replacement. On Britain’s present course, the population would top 70 million within another decade, half of that growth immigration-driven.

 

British population growth is not generally perceived to benefit British-born people. Migration stresses schools, hospitals, and above all, housing. The median house price in London already amounts to 12 times the median local salary. Rich migrants outbid British buyers for the best properties; poor migrants are willing to crowd more densely into a dwelling than British-born people are accustomed to tolerating.

….

Is it possible that leaders and elites had it all wrong? If they’re to save the open global economy, maybe they need to protect their populations better against globalization’s most unwelcome consequences—of which mass migration is the very least welcome of them all?

 

If any one person drove the United Kingdom out of the European Union, it was Angela Merkel, and her impulsive solo decision in the summer of 2015 to throw open Germany—and then all Europe—to 1.1 million Middle Eastern and North African migrants, with uncountable millions more to come.

 

David Brooks, another mainstream writer, voiced similar concerns during an appearance on PBS Newshour following the vote. In it, he expressed sadness at the result of the referendum, but his real regret seemed to be that the elites merely pushed too hard in their actions. In other words, they had essentially dumped too many immigrants too soon on populations like the British.

This sort of mass migration set about a culture clash which had been bubbling under the surface for years, but is rapidly coming to the fore. The mainstream progressive narrative of the joyous nature of multiculturalism is becoming exposed as less than truthful on almost a daily basis. In the quote I opened this piece with, the FT insisted that because multiculturalism was already here, it must persist, albeit with a base level of values everyone must adhere to.

This sort of thinking goes out the window when you have to start handing out pamphlets to which explicitly detail that things like hitting women and children, fondling or groping women, and urinating in swimming pools, among other things, are frowned upon.

This is further exacerbated by the existence of a generous benefits system. The truth, which is becoming more apparent by the day, is that open borders and generous welfare states cannot coexist. One must pick one or the other. A failure to do so will lead to a situation in which new entrants to the country don’t even have to learn the language in order to be taken care of. And from there, the host culture is on the path to a slow, but sure destruction.

**********

These realities made the EU an unworkable construct, and the Leave vote an inevitable one. Given the Remain coalition was made up of the vast majority of government officials, in the UK across Europe, and worldwide; academia, mainstream media, and multinational business interests, it is clear that the referendum was also in part a referendum on the viability of the elites and their globalist agenda.

In rejecting the bid to stay in the EU, the voters made their thoughts clear. In response, so did the elites, as it were. The night of the referendum, I watched the BBC broadcast of the results trickling in. As the Leave vote looked more and more certain, the mood of the panelists and the hosts continued to sour. The grave mood was befitting the death of an important head of state, or an act of terror, rather than a democratic vote to determine the level of self-determination the country would have going forward.

In the days following the referendum, the media have played up the ‘buyer’s remorse’ angle, using the movements in global financial markets to buttress their arguments. All of a sudden, the fact that the Leave campaigners may have exaggerated some of their claims is evidence of callous treachery, despite the fact that politicians have never been strangers to such discrepancies between rhetoric and action. In most cases, however, the discrepancies favor the dominant narrative, and as such are swept aside.

More cynically, they have attempted to paint a picture of the average Leave voter being an uneducated white racist from a rural part of the country, while prominently featuring anecdotes of anti-immigration abuse both on and offline.

That these sorts of tactics have been generally well received, and even amplified on social media reinforces the fact that the progressive, globalist view of the world is still the most dominant, if not the most loudly proclaimed. On Twitter, sentiments such as the following were put forth as the new reality for the future of Britain in the context of Europe as a whole.

CltNvdcWgAAevsU

This picture, posted on twitter, was supposed to represent the ‘cost’ of Leave, in that the fine wines, pastries, fruit and waffles of the continent were to be lost, with only the drabness of baked beans left for the British to enjoy.

A shockingly high number of people don’t see the inanity of that attempt to crystallize the Brexit consequences. It isn’t as though the UK is going to start floating off into the Atlantic Ocean, away from the continent. The goods and services the continent does well are still going to be accessible in the UK, and vice versa.

More importantly, those delicacies are only made possible thanks to the differentiation in cultures that exist. In prioritizing this push to a ‘European’ culture, you lose Italian Culture, French Culture, German Culture, Spanish Culture, and so forth. The attributes unique to each culture and group of people which are responsible for the products known and loved the world over are lost in the transition to an amorphous blob of dedifferentiation that is pan-Europeanism.

For those who purport to champion the superiority of diversity, it is strange that they can’t seem to understand that such diversity is only possible if, at some level, peoples are permitted to do things their own way. In this regard, the negative stigma applied to nationalism is unwarranted.

**********

One of the more curious aspects of the vote and the subsequent fallout is the complete lack of foresight shown by those in the media, financial and political class. It was all but assumed that the Remain vote would win the day, and as such the stock markets around the globe moved higher in celebration.

A huge part of the reason for the optimism came from the fact that the most recent polling had shown a clean victory for the Remain side. That actual voting resulted in a firm victory for the Leave side pointed to the fact that there was a significant ‘hidden’ Leave contingent.

The explanation for this is that the Remain position was touted as the view which ‘respectable’ and ‘tolerant’ members of society held. Thus, it is natural that anyone who dared to see some logical points in the Leave argument would want to keep it to themselves so as to not subject themselves to the emotional shaming tactics which are part and parcel of the progressive/globalist toolkit of debate.

In other words, normal, hardworking, respectful people who are not by any means racist or xenophobic were kept silent in public simply because they dared to disagree with the Remain argument. In the privacy of the ballot box, where the threat of ostracism was voided, they were able to make their voices known. This dynamic is the antithesis of a free society.

**********

As such, the result of this referendum is only the beginning, or as per Churchill, the end of the beginning. Fascist dictatorships just hand their power away once it has been attained. Ideologies which depend on bullying those for the crime of disagreeing don’t admit defeat when outclassed in logical debates. It is vitally important that Leave voters make the result stuck by establishing a government that will follow through on the referendum’s aim.

David Cameron has volunteered to step down as Prime Minister; he must be replaced with a PM who was an ardent Leave campaigner and has no qualms about going the full distance. Half measures will only make things worse.

As I mentioned earlier, the subsequent financial tumult is being used as evidence that a mistake was made. S&P, a ratings agency which should have no credibility owing to their shenanigans leading up to the last Financial Crisis, has cut the credit rating of the UK. Any further fall in markets, or slowdown in the economy will be blamed on Brexit. As will any future terrorist attack which takes place anywhere in Europe.

These claims would be unwarranted. For a start, the global markets have been on a knife edge for nearly two years, making minimal gains in that time, on aggregate. The ‘recovery’ of the post Financial Crisis in developed economies has been tepid at best, with policy makers attempting to blow a bubble to replace the last bubble which popped in 2007.

It is only a matter of time before the post Financial Crisis bubble pops, and it is true that Brexit may be the straw that broke the camel’s back. But that is only because of the existence of the other straws.

**********

If Brexit is to be truly successful, it will be because it rids itself of the EU morass completely. That means replacing the rules and regulations which hampered British industry with…nothing at all. It must totally eliminate the extra layer of bureaucracy instead of merely replacing it with another, more British flavor. During the campaign, many Leave proponents pointed to the success of Switzerland as a model for the UK post EU. What was less mentioned was the fact that Swiss success owes largely to their greater degree of liberty and lesser degree of regulation and government control, in comparison to their continental neighbors.

Unless Britain goes down the same path as the Swiss in all aspects, the Brexit vote will not be a blow to globalism. Rather it will be a loud scream from a tied up victim which can easily be rectified by a strategically placed piece of duct tape.

In terms of this larger context, as a person who favors less government, less regulation, and a higher level of liberty for individuals, I am enthusiastic about what happened on the 23rd of June. Even if it turns out to be a false alarm for the globalists, the cat will be out of the bag. Through events such as this and the US election, the public is becoming more and more aware of the fact that their disillusionment is not without merit and the policies of progressivism and globalist thinking are mostly to blame.

The media, big business and political establishment which have got this wrong, and have been getting it wrong will start to lose their influence. The proliferation of the internet has meant that information can no longer be controlled and shape to fit the ‘approved’ narrative. Ideas and narratives must now stand on their own two feet, which can only bode well for the values of liberty and freedom.

**********

The stakes are high. Even before the Brexit vote, there were growing sentiments across Europe that the EU project is disagreeable. Anti-EU sentiment was already much greater in many countries around Europe, which suggests that multiple referendums along the lines of Brexit are on the way. Should more countries leave, the financial, political, and cultural burdens will be that much greater on the remaining countries, which will further increase the discontent. This downward spiral could essentially be the way the EU ends.

It will be the breakdown of the post-WWII order, a paradigm which was 60 plus years in the making. If elements of it have proven to be a failure, it is right that these elements are dismantled and replaced with something better. That will not come without pain, or discomfort. It is not unlike the pain the body most endure when going through chemotherapy. However, if the end result is a cancer free life, the temporary loss of hair, weight and general sickness and discomfort will have been worth it.

That point, perhaps more than any I’ve made, is the most important one to get across, for we live in a world which has a hyperfocus on short term comfort above all else. If the very culture that affords us the many comforts we enjoy is to be maintained, the opposite focus must be attained. Historically, only a major crisis has forced people to change their thinking. Much of the promise in the Brexit vote lies in the fact that the emergence of longer term thinking at the expense of the short term has happened before the point of existential crisis.

It is a sign that there is hope for those who value Western Civilization and want to see it preserved and propagated.

A Few Words On The Belgium Attacks

There is something going on…Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.

You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it’s like living in a hellhole right now

  • Donald J. Trump (26 Jan 2016)

 

I’m not going to beat around the bush here. What happened in Brussels was a direct consequence of the weak, appeasing doctrine that is multiculturalism, and its parent doctrine cultural Marxism. I’ve written about this doctrine multiple times on this blog, and at its core is a view that the West is full of unnecessary repression which must be removed so man can be truly free.

In the context of culture, Western civilization was erected on things like the rule of law, individual rights and personal freedoms. Whatever it is about Muslim culture, it doesn’t mesh very well with Western values. You can come up with whatever reasoning you like as to why, but the basic truth is that it is not compatible with Western ways.

This is not in any way racist or ‘Islamophobic.’  I have no issues with a multi-ethnic society. That is, a multi-ethnic society that retains the same Western values, specific to the nation involved. A multi-ethnic nation which speaks the same language, follows the same customs, respects the same traditions upon which that country was founded and made into an attractive place to live. This is all fine.

What is not fine is the importation of various world cultures into one nation and expecting the foreign cultures to have a say in the daily life of the host country. That is an invasion, an erosion of what made that country attractive in the first place.

****

The cultural Marxist appeal to tolerance seeks to promote the views of the ‘oppressed’ at the expense of the ‘oppressors.’ In this context, the (nominally) Christian oppressors in the West must be held down in order to appease the oppressed Muslims. This is how you get nonsense like the following:

jt2cls

To be sure, the #stopislam trend on Twitter is not the most appropriate response in the world, but the idea that being offensive on the internet is worse than a terrorist attack in which over 30 are killed, hundreds more injured, infrastructure damaged and thousands of lives irreparably damaged is incredibly disturbing.

There were many tweets similar to the one posted above in response to the hashtag. In addition to that, there were countless voices who preemptively struck down the ‘right wing racist rhetoric’ that was sure to follow in the wake of the attacks.

To me that shows the level of indoctrination that is rampant in the West today. It has reached, dare I say, nearly the same levels that Nazi Germany reached, albeit not in the same way. The Nazis convinced their people that anyone who didn’t look like the ‘master race’ was basically subhuman and rife for Nazi control.

Cultural Marxism preaches something similar, except that anyone who does look like the master race, or is a member of the master gender, master sexual orientation or the master religion should not be tolerated. Cultural Marxism is on some level a reverse Nazism.

That’s the only way you can cultivate a mentality that places the ridicule of an ‘oppressed’ minority religion as a greater offense than the slaughter of nearly three dozen of your countrymen.

At some point, the average citizens will start to sour on the notion of multiculturalism, and the cultural Marxist viewpoint in general. The empty platitudes of Prime Ministers, candle light vigils, and lighting up of tourist attractions in the colors of affected countries will start to enrage people rather than sadden them.

The social media ‘activism’ which involves trendy hashtags and Facebook filters will also continue to ring hollow, given the same people participating in these ‘look-how-solemn-and-grave-I-am-for –remembering-the-dead-and-showing-solidarity’ exercises are the same people who declared that anyone who wanted to think twice about allowing hordes of Syrian refugees into the country no questions asked was a bigot.

The truth is that these ‘bigots’ were more interested in the preservation of their culture than submitting to politically correct concerns. That is the same choice the United States electorate will have in the fall. Piers Morgan wrote a strikingly accurate column today in the Daily Mail. Surprising, because I rarely agree with Piers Morgan. But I suggest you read the column in full. I’ll leave you with his closing comments:

Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognise the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it.

 

They may not win him the Politically Correct Pontificator of the Year award. But how many more scenes like this morning’s appalling images from Brussels are we going to tolerate before we try a non-PC option to beat these disgusting excuses for human beings?

 

At the end of our interview, I asked Donald Trump to send a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us.

 

‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I’m just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they’re not reporting it, they’re absolutely not reporting it and that’s a big problem.’

 

Is he so wrong?