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.
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.
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.
This is Part 2 of The Dawn of An Era, which is a series about the onset of the Trump presidency. You can read part 1 here.
From the first day of President Trump’s campaign on June 16 2015,to his Inauguration on January 20, 2017, there has been vociferous dissent, beyond the standard charges of ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’ that have been applied to any and all Republicans in the past. This dissent was more visceral in nature, and rightly so, as Trump’s candidacy was an existential threat to the elevation of the hyperfocus on identity politics and grievance culture.
Since the election in particular, this dissent has escalated to a fever pitch level, with a desperate anti-Trump cohort seeking to label his presidency as illegitimate. This culminated with the Women’s March which took place the day after the Inauguration.
Before that, there were more ‘intellectual’ appeals to the idea that we, as an American populace, have been had. This piece in the Huffington Post, published days before the Inauguration, sought to advance that angle by proclaiming that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States. I’ll deal with that particular piece some other time, but I brought it up to show what passed for ‘reasoned’ arguments against a Trump presidency.
Having been rebuffed in the arena of logic and political discourse, the anti-Trump argument became one of violence and protest. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on the legions which descended upon Washington DC with the express purpose of disrupting the Inaugural through violence, and the legions which appeared in Washington DC and in major cities across the globe to protest the Trump presidency, in order to make a more general point.
So what exactly were the women of the Women’s march marching against? What do they want? This article from Return of Kings, poses that question, in a quite forceful manner:
What more do Anglo women possibly want? They already spend 90% more money than they earn in the economy. They gobble up 66% of public spending from the welfare state while men pay 75% of the taxes to support this gynocentric system. Women hypocritically make up 80% of all spending decisions in the materialistic, extremely wasteful and environmentally destructive economy they later complain about as not being “green” enough.
They then hypocritically say they Don’t Need a Man™ while statistics prove them dead wrong. Without men for the government to rob women would be up the creek without a paddle.
What’s most satisfying about the Daily Mail article was reading the “Best rated” comments below the article. Nobody is buying the propaganda establishment media is crapping out anymore. User Right Auntie wrote:
“I’m not quite sure what they are protesting. Women in America can drive a car, get an education, get a mortgage and purchase a home. They can be doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers. They can be ministers or atheists. They can have children without men. They can speak their minds. I’m positive that they can still do these things now that Trump is president. This just looks like a giant hissy fit because their candidate lost. Being a sore loser is never a good thing.”
Indeed, what are these women protesting? They live such decadent lives they’re literally killing the goose that lays the golden egg as the future belongs to those whose children will be in it, and the men who made their exorbitant, selfish existence possible are either breeding with other ethnic groups or becoming genetic dead ends.
The points brought up here ultimately speak to the base difference between conservative and liberal leaning individuals, which is in the realm of reproductive strategy. I’m, of course, referring to r/K selection theory.
There has been plenty written about the subject, so I won’t dive too deeply into the biology, but only list some basic characteristics of each reproductive strategy.
R-selected traits include the following: low energy required to reproduce, limited competition, limited loyalty to the group, many offspring produced, early sexual maturity, promiscuity, short life expectancy, abundant resources, and low parental investment. K-selected traits include: higher energy required to reproduce, increased competition, high group loyalty, few offspring, later sexual maturity, pair bonding, longer life expectancy, limited resources, and high parental investment.
In recent years, this biological theory has been applied to politics and shed some insights on the right/left divide. It has also been used more cynically by those on the right to declare moral superiority over those on the left by virtue of their adherence to a more K-selected strategy.
Indeed, humans are clearly a K-selected animal generally speaking, but do exhibit strains of r-selected behavior across its ranks. And here I will make an important point: the question is not the moral superiority of one strategy versus another, but rather the effectiveness of one strategy versus another in the creation, maintenance and advancement of Civilization.
Sir John Glubb came to the conclusion in his famous work, The Fate of Empires that the life cycle of empires throughout history is as follows:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence
The limited resource environment facing pioneers and those who would conquer leads to a more K-selected existence, along the lines of what we would term as more traditional values. Then, as such a society continues to expand, and produce more and more wealth through the ages of commerce and affluence, this later environment of abundant resources leads to a more r-selected, more decadent lifestyle.
The catalyst for this transition is seemingly the age of Intellect, which according to Glubb, ends up biting off more than it could chew with respect to Civilization building:
Perhaps the most dangerous by-product of the Age of Intellect is the unconscious growth of the idea that the human brain can solve the problems of the world. Even on the low level of practical affairs this is patently untrue. Any small human activity, the local bowls club or the ladies’ luncheon club, requires for its survival a measure of self-sacrifice and service on the part of the members. In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of the citizens. The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unselfishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.
With respect to the current American Empire, this Age of Intellect by-product clearly manifested itself in the work of the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School. In promoting an ‘anything goes’ way of life, they came in direct opposition to the traditional values based upon self-sacrifice and discipline which came before it.
Consider the following passage from Herbert Marcuse, a leading intellect of the time, taken from his 1955 book Eros & Civilization:
Reason is the rationality of the performance principle. Even at the beginning of Western civilization, long before this principle was institutionalized, reason was defined as an instrument of constraint, of instinctual suppression; the domain of the instincts, sensuousness, was considered as eternally hostile and detrimental to reason. The categories in which philosophy has comprehended the human existence have retained the connection between reason and suppression: whatever belongs to the sphere of sensuousness, pleasure, impulse has the connotation of being antagonistic to reason—something that has to be subjugated, constrained.
The ‘performance principle’ was Marcuse’s description of the phenomenon by which human beings restrain their rather primitive, libidinous, pleasure-seeking energies and direct them towards productive effort beyond that necessary to sustain.
Marcuse’s main point was that if man could unchain that pleasure-seeking energy – Eros – from its shackles once sustenance was achieved, he would be better off eschewing the production of ‘surplus value’ so as to be able to experience more of the pleasure principle. The obvious flaw here is that virtually all of civilization as we know it is the direct result from this ‘surplus value.’
That is, if man had never worked beyond the point where he was fed and sheltered, man would still be living in caves. The wheel, spear, sword, ship, steam engine, light bulb, and semi -conductor are wholly unnecessary from the standpoint of man finding food to eat, water to drink and shelter to take refuge in. It is precisely because primitive man did not heed Marcuse’s ‘wisdom’ that enabled him to produce the very comforts of a modern Western world that Marcuse enjoyed when he wrote, comforts which cannot be maintained if his dictum were followed. When put this way, that Marcuse and those of his ilk are considered to be at or near the pinnacle of intellectual thought, when their advocacy essentially amounts to man being governed by his most base impulses, is absurd.
It is this conundrum which is the logical albatross weighing down the push for Cultural Marxism, and its attendant r-strategy lifestyle onto the forefront of society. The Woman’s March on the day after the Inaugural was at its core a representation of that drive.
The feminism underpinning the march, itself an element of cultural Marxism, is largely based on the idea that women and men are exactly the same, such that women and men are not bound by biology to be disposed to certain life tracks. In terms of sex and reproduction, things like The Pill, antibiotics, the ubiquity of contraception and easy access to abortion and divorce of modern times has created a sexual environment that allows men and women to essentially artificially avoid the consequences of their actions, seemingly paving the way for a Marcusian liberation and embrace of Eros.
In prior generations, this was not as true. Promiscuous women placed themselves at risk every time they engaged in a sexual encounter. At the very least, their promiscuity would see them shunned by the community. Beyond that, they could easily contract diseases or become pregnant, with little recourse, being forced to have a child on her own, with little support from the government and society. She would be a pariah.
The mere fear of being looked down upon in the group was enough to incentive behaviors that were more conducive to the ultimate success of the group, like stable marriage.
These days, thanks to the aforementioned advancements in birth control, there is a far greater reduction to the ‘penalties’ that were once meted out in prior generations. We are at point now where women are actively encouraged to be ‘independent,’ promiscuous during their child bearing years, while they pursue hot-shot careers in the same manner as men do.
The recent passing of Mary Tyler Moore is timely in this regard, as her show was the first major American sitcom to advance these themes. Despite the apparent dysfunction built into the ‘independent woman’ trope, it was ultimately glamorized and thus became a template for millions of women to follow. The approval of the lifestyle it was advocating is signaled in its opening title, with the cheerful jingle ending with the infamous line ‘you’re going to make it after all!’
Moore was the spiritual godmother of the legion of modern women who today cramp into urban apartments, seeking high flying careers, and streamline their promiscuity with dating apps. However, as sanitized as the Mary Tyler Moore Show looked, there was an ugliness lurking under the surface. Moore very much lived her life in the vein of her on screen self. She got married, had a child and then divorced, just prior to her career really taking off.
Moore admits to putting more effort into her work than her child:
“During the first year of ‘The Dick Van Dyke Show,’ as thrilled and bursting with excitement over my work as I was, I was equally without emotion at home,” she wrote of her divorce in 1961 from Meeker. “There is no question about it. By the time Richie was 5, I had already let him down. When he needed me the most, I was busier and even more self-concerned than I had been when he was an impressionable infant.”
Moore’s decision to spend her energies on her work had detrimental results on her family. She had remarried, and introduced her son to the stepdad life, another quirk of the decadence spawned from the age of intellect.
Her son did not take well to all of this, and as a result grew distant from his mother. Moore turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. On some level perhaps, she understood the horrendous decisions she had made in abdicating her main duty as mother to pursue her career, and attempted to self-medicate via the bottle. Her son, devoid of the nurturing that mothers provide, turned to drink and drugs and ended up dying via a gun in dubious circumstances.
I do not judge Moore, but her experience is instructive. She lived her life in a very r-selected manner, particularly with respect to her son. In this regard, one of the main ideals of feminism – that a woman can have it all, both high powered career and loving family – is shattered. A woman who is putting in the 14-18 hour days which are necessary to be a force in any industry by default cannot devote that time to her children in the manner they need, in particular when they are very young.
As I mentioned earlier, humans are K-selected animals, which take a long time to develop. Humans are born well before they are fully developed, unable to walk or talk for about a year out of the womb. It is not until the mid 20s that a human is fully developed mentally and physically. This represents an enormous parental investment in order to see a child to proper maturity, along with an enormous investment of the group to ensure a wider stability for those mature children to eventually contribute to.
This stark reality is why societies behaving under traditional mores demanded that a woman seek stability from her male partner before it ever got to the level of pregnancy. They understood, in particular during times in which abortions, and contraception were much less of an option, that a pregnancy itself was an acceptance of a multi-decade burden, the willingness to undertake that enormous parental investment.
In other words, this is self-sacrifice Glubb referred to as being subject to eradication as a by-product of the Intellectual age. Moore’s story is an example. Having had her child, in a traditional world she would have sacrificed her career to give her son the proper attention he needed. Applying a bit of Marcuse, in the context of motherhood, this would mean suffering the ‘surplus value’ of doing anything beyond waking up in the morning, feeding your child and then tucking him or her to bed at night. It would mean restraining her desire to experience the ‘Eros’ of a high powered career.
Feminists (and thus cultural Marxists) abhor the thought of self-sacrifice in this manner, which they consider ‘oppression,’ and thus look fondly onto Moore since she chose to experience the ‘Eros’ of being a high flying actress. A small irony is that in eschewing the self-sacrifice needed to raise her son properly Moore ended up sacrificed her son instead, to show the world through her TV exactly how to do the same. For this, she was rewarded by society with fame and fortune, where in prior generations she’d have been ridiculed.
This r-selected, Eros-seeking pathway was meant to ‘liberate’ man (in this case women), but it succumbs to Marcusian logic trap. If all women take the Moore route in life, a high percentage of children would end up on the path of her son – a drug addled alcoholic who died an early death. A generation of such individuals would not be long for the maintenance of, let alone the furtherance of the society it inherited. Hence, collapse, as per Glubb.
For America and the West generally, its status circa the 1960s as a wealthy civilization with vast resources (which were accumulated during K-centric generations from the time of Industrialization), introduced the conditions in which the r-selected lifestyle could flourish. The intellectual age, and the influence of the cultural Marxists gave the green light, and behavioral values changed. The shift towards r-selected traits such as nihilism and short term thinking, the embrace of the promiscuous lifestyle and all it entails, has generally been considered to be a good thing.
And indeed, the feminism Moore helped to glamorize has taken hold over the last few decades. We are starting now to see the results of the deterioration of traditional norms in the shape of more broken families, a rise in single motherhood and attendant poverty levels. This has put large swaths of American children on a path to failure before they reach their teenage years.
As I mentioned in part 1, the fate of our younger generations has involved the succumbing to drugs, pornography, excessive video game playing, with millions of men checking out of society both romantically and vocationally. This mirrors the downfall of Moore’s son and points to the results of the r-selected trait of low parental involvement. Society-wide, our crumbling infrastructure, failing schools and hollowed out factories point to the same kind of low investment in the future.
Where vice and an overindulgence in entertainment have eased the pains on the micro level, on the macro level our societal debt binge to the tune of trillions, which enabled us to import tons of foreign goods has afforded us the illusion of stability thanks to that abundance of goods. The problem is that it can’t last and isn’t sustainable. Enter Trump.
For the purposes of this discussion, Trump is an enigma, an example of the duality of the r/K strategies in one man. He is a man who on one hand who has been divorced twice, enjoying extensive, well documented stints as a playboy. In contrast to this highly r streak stands his status as a patriarch, with his 5 children and 8 grandchildren existing in a tightly knit, well-structured family setting which is the manifestation of K.
You can see some of this in this excerpt from an interview he did with Playboy in 2004. In talking about his playboy years, he has the following to say:
What was your wildest memory from those days?
You saw things at Studio 54 that you had never seen before. You would see not one superstar but 30 of them, and you’d suddenly realize how many so-called superstars there are. Or you’d see the top models in the world getting screwed on tables in the middle of the dance floor. You would see things you just don’t see today primarily because of AIDS and other diseases. But it was incredible. You’d see the most beautiful women in the world, the most beautiful people in the world. Then, an hour later, you’d see them making love right in front of you. And I’m there saying, “Excuse me?”
And what were you up to?
I was there having a good time. You don’t need drugs and alcohol to have a good time. You can get high on life. That’s what I do.
Were you dating a million models at the time?
A million. I was dating lots and lots of women. I just had a great time. They were great years, but that was pre-AIDS, and you could do things in those days that today you’re at risk doing. AIDS has changed a lot.
Was there a time when you worried about AIDS because of all you’d done?
There was, but I got tested. I think it’s hard for young kids today. It’s a whole different thing. I tell my sons just to get a nice girlfriend and be happy, because it’s dangerous out there. It’s Vietnam. I guess now we can say it’s Iraq—same deal, right?
Even there, he partook in the general r-infused degeneracy of 1970s NYC nightlife, while abstaining from drugs and alcohol. He dated tons of women, but advised his sons to opt for a more K-strategy of pair bonding.
One of the few things the media universally praised Trump for during the campaign were his children, who all were lauded as fantastic, down to earth people, despite being raised with tremendous wealth.
Many rightly saw it as a testament to Trump as a man that he could raise such good kids when it is very easy for the children of the rich to go off the rails, owing to their relatively unlimited abundance killing off any work ethic. In other words, the way Trump raised his children, in a manner heavily infused by K – no drugs, no alcohol and a predilection for pair boding – suggests that he ultimately understands the superiority of K as the stability-achieving strategy.
With Trump’s calling for America First, the lamentation of the destruction of the American spirit and eschewal of feel good concepts such as political correctness, Trump is seeking to reproduce that on a national scale, injecting America with a high dose of K.
In this respect, the contrast between Trump and Hillary Clinton was even clearer, given the appeal of the latter to the ‘independent,’ high flying power woman trope that shows such as the Mary Tyler Moore show popularized.
Trump’s victory on election night was a victory for K. In a society which had come to pedestalize the r-strategy, this presented a big conflict, which the riots and protests sought to address. On the surface it would seem the r-strategy, and its penchant for ‘anything goes’ and the ‘live and let live’ approach to the world should not lash out in the emotional manner in which it has. After all, K-strategies are merely a different way of doing things, and thus should be permissible in a truly liberal world.
The problem for the r is that the K strategy, and its focus on self-sacrifice, discipline and restraint necessarily inhibits the r strategy of promoting Eros. The government sanction and funding of abortion, and to a larger degree single motherhood, for example, was a prime theme of the Women’s March. Should the K strategy Trump favors return, the cost of the promiscuous, divorce on-demand lifestyle espoused by the r strategy would fall once again on those who engage in that lifestyle. People would then be forced to choose between restraint and accepting possible negative consequences for profligacy, a scenario which r’s find to be unacceptable.
Hence, the change to K is thus an existential threat to the r strategy, and this explains the violent backlash. Yet when you examine the dynamics involved, you begin to see even more clearly the foolishness of trying to adopt the r-strategy, the virulent ‘WE HATE PATRIARCHY’ strain in particular, as the basis for a stable society.
It is the K strategy and its much maligned ‘Patriarchy’ which is responsible for the high level of organization that enables the existence of the major cities in which the riots were held. It is responsible for the many modes of advanced communication which made the planning of such marches possible. It is responsible for the invention, and proliferation of mass transportation, whether that be train, rail or auto, which got these protesters to their destinations.
It is responsible for the fact that the protesters were able to march in peace, without fear for their physical safety. In this regard they were protected on multiple levels. On the ideological level, the establishment of a relatively free society came with it the idea that all voices, even ones of unpopular dissent, have a right to make their case known and to be heard. On a physical level, the loyalty to group, a K strategy, underpins the actions of the police force protecting the physical persons of those expressing an American right from those who would disrupt them. Finally, that K-selected Patriarchy, in the shape of the majority male sanitation workers of major cities, is what is responsible for restoring cleanliness to the city after being trashed by protesters and rioters.
As if this hypocrisy wasn’t enough, what of the protesters and rioters themselves? This was the same lot who labeled President Trump as a fascist constantly from the moment he initiated his campaign, yet responded to a fairly contested election with violence, property destruction and harassment of those who were only ‘guilty’ of supporting a different candidate.
All one has to do is to type ‘Trump supporters attacked’ into the search bar on YouTube to find thousands of videos from before, and after the election. This footage, in particular of a child partaking in Inauguration day rioting speaks volumes with respect to the r-strategy dynamic:
The fact that his parents either condoned him being there, or were so out of touch that they had no clue that their child was swept up in that scene, is irrelevant. Either way it smacks of the low parental investment, rapid maturity of the r-strategy. That kid should be at home playing computer games, and generally acting like a kid, as opposed to being used as a prop by his parents for their political activism.
In the Women’s March, similar vulgarity was abounding, particularly from the celebrities on show. Ashley Judd and Madonna, both living out the r-strategy to the max, took to the stage to extol the virtues of their ‘nastiness’ to the world.
This is the same crowd that stood aghast at some of Donald Trump’s more ‘colorful’ comments during the campaign, on the basis that ‘children were watching.’ This was the idea behind one of Hillary Clinton’s more effective campaign ads. Yet this crowd had no qualms with being colorful themselves in front of those same children, and the following video highlights that hypocrisy.
This outsized response to an emotional slight is characteristic of the r-strategy. It is a particularly amazing hypocrisy for marchers and rioters who have the disposable income to spend hundreds on a whim to fly Washington DC, dressed in $200 coats, $100 sneakers, brandishing $700 iPhones and drinking $5 cups of coffee, all to either aimlessly walk around for a few hours in 40 degree weather with zero concern for their physical safety, or to break the windows of the very Starbucks cafes which are representative of the K-derived abundance which enables them to live out their r-selected predilections with little disturbance…turn around and complain of oppression.
Furthermore, they, at least some of them are pushing to uphold and advance the acceptance of one such predilection, abortion, when the act is in most cases an abdication of responsibility for one’s actions, and beyond this represents the literal extinguishing of the future. And with that, the hopes for the advancement of the same civilization which afforded them the freedom and abundance to make such a weighty decision in comfort, departs. For the r-selected nihilists who have become far too common in our age, this isn’t a problem. For those who wish to see future generations truly enjoy in the spoils that we have enjoyed, it is a problem.
I’ll stress it one more time: this is not a moral dilemma as much as it is a logical one. As humans, K’s and r’s exist across populations, within them, and even within individuals. However true that may be, humans are a K species foremost, and thus the r-strategy is a secondary feature at best.
In terms of politics, it means that r-leftism is constantly fighting an uphill battle against its K-nature. It can be seen in the economics of the left, which require constant expansion of debt and credit to maintain the abundance it promises to its adherents. Given that debt cannot be undertaken indefinitely there will always be a painful day of reckoning.
It can be seen socially, as adherence to hyperleftist views have to be buttressed with drugs, porn, endless entertainment, psychiatry, prescription medicine and more to ease the pain. Ultimately, as Glubb shows, it is the K strategy which is what forms the foundation of any organized civilization, and r-strategies which signal its collapse.
This election was largely about the realization among a sizable portion of the electorate, perhaps subconsciously, that there is a K way to do things, and an r way to do things. Those that understood this also had to understand that the adoption of cultural Marxism and much of the ideology of New Left brings with it the seeds of collapse, while to the extent that we still had a comfortable society was down to the prior successes of a more traditional society.
The attempt to revert to such a traditional society from one that has been living the opposite way for such a long time will not come without friction. This dissent is embodied by the frantic explanations devoid of logic, and the riots protests of pure emotional angst. The dissent will pass with the return of true abundance, as the fundamental realities and success of the K Way take hold once again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hillary Clinton, spoke on Thursday to a group of her donors, presumably reassuring them as to why the $1 billion-plus they spent on her wasn’t a colossal waste of money. She outspent Trump massively, while also having the vast majority of academia, the media, and pop culture behind her.
To lose with that sort of advantage at the foundation of her campaign from day one certainly makes this election result a contender for one of the greater upsets in political history. It had to be a tough ask, to get in front of the money men after such a catastrophe, which is probably why it took over a month for her to gather up the courage to face that music.
Speaking to a group of donors in Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Putin, the Russian president, had never forgiven her for the accusation she made in 2011, when she was secretary of state, that parliamentary elections his country held that year were rigged.
“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Mrs. Clinton said.
It is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly addressed the impact of the hacks since the intelligence community concluded that they were specifically aimed at harming her campaign.
“Make no mistake, as the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperately tried to present to them during the last months of the campaign,” Mrs. Clinton told the group, which collectively poured roughly $1 billion into her effort. “This is not just an attack on me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to it. This is an attack against our country. We are well beyond normal political concerns here. This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.”
It wasn’t the fact that she was simply outworked by Trump. It wasn’t that she ran a campaign hyper-focused on an aggressive Identity Politics and a grievance culture which has long since worn out its welcome. It wasn’t that she merely assumed that because it was ‘her turn’ she would waltz to a coronation. It wasn’t that she was reckless with classified information while at Secretary of State. It wasn’t the fact that she was the poster child for modern day political corruption and pay-to-pay politics (exemplified by the very group she was speaking to).
It was the Russians and their mischievous hackers.
This Election Trutherism has been dutifully put forth by leftists and those in the Old Media who still cannot believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election. They have brought this Trutherism to a new level in recent days by lobbying for the Electoral College, which meets tomorrow, to reject the result of the election by denying Donald Trump the 270 votes he needs to become president. It is an exercise in hypocrisy and arrogance, not to mention a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Last week, The Washington Post published this story, which alleged that the CIA had come to a definitive conclusion that the Russians were behind the shenanigans that took place during the election, and did so specifically to aid Donald Trump at the expense of Hillary Clinton:
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
There is plenty to note here, particularly the high level of vagueness involved. A ‘secret assessment,’ found that ‘actors’ with ‘connections’ to Russia leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks, ‘according to US officials.’ There is not a shred of concrete evidence in any of these claims, and none has materialized since they were made.
Furthermore, that these alleged efforts were done with the express purpose of boosting Trump’s chances is also without evidence. The Post piece mentions that the CIA ‘findings’ had been questioned by other intelligence agencies, on the basis of there not being enough concrete information:
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
These holes in the narrative were ‘corrected’ just a few days later when the major entities which comprise the Old Media reported that the intelligence community now believe that Vladamir Putin was directly involved, instructing the hacking and how it would be used. From NBC:
U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin’s objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to “split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn’t depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,” the official said.
In other words, the vague confirmation by anonymous ‘US officials’ that the Russians interfered with the election with the purpose of aiding Trump, was later backed up with ‘new intelligence’ from yet more anonymous ‘officials’ who declared that Putin was personally involved and even directed the whole thing.
Of course all of this vagueness can be justified as being necessary, so as to shield the sensitivity of ongoing intelligence work. The Post refers to this in its piece. However, that vagueness is also the perfect shield for narrative creation, which, in the context of the totality of the post-election events suggests that this is the likelier of the necessity of the ambiguity.
Spheres of Influence
The game is made much clearer once one advances from the contention that the Russians interfered with the election to the discussion of exactly how they interfered. Both Loretta Lynch on Thursday and President Obama yesterday unequivocally stated that there was no technical interference from Russia or anyone else in the election. In other words, voting machines were not tampered with, nor were votes incorrectly tallied, and things of that nature. This was confirmation from the highest level that the 2016 election was a free and fair one, at least in a pure technical sense.
So what is the outrage about? It stems from the fact that someone leaked emails from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee to Wikileaks, who then leaked it to the public in driblets over the final months of the campaign. The Russians have been fingered as the ‘someone,’ and this has been spun to be evidence that the election was ‘hacked,’ and our Democratic Institutions have been tampered with.
That narrative is patently false, as Obama and Lynch have confirmed for us, and any characterization of Russian involvement in this manner is designed to deceive the audience. The Russians (if it was indeed them) engaged in an old fashioned data leak. That was it. They didn’t hack anything but John Podesta’s email account, and released its contents to the public.
The public was thus exposed to new information, which it absorbed and factored in to its decision making. If this constitutes an attempt to nefariously ‘interfere’ with the election, then the leak of the Billy Bush tape, in which Trump used some vulgar language in speaking about women, also qualifiesas an attempt to ‘interfere’ with the election.
Both leaks exposed pertinent information to the public about the candidates. That the Podesta and DNC leaks may have originated from international sources is irrelevant. The information itself was true, and damaging. Michael Tracey provides a bullet point list of what those leaks revealed in this piece, and he concludes it by correctly noting that what was leaked was most definitely in the public interest.
In short, the ‘Russians’ interfered with the US election by showing how the DNC and the Clinton campaign planned to themselves interfere with the US election by colluding with party bigwigs, donors and the media to stack the deck in her favor. They rigged the Democratic Party Primary against Bernie Sanders. Both Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile came under fire as heads of the DNC, with the former having to step down as a result. The latter was caught funneling debate questions to Clinton.
It exposed the private dealings of Hillary Clinton behind closed doors, notably her insistence that it was important to have both a private and public position on issues. It shed light onto some of the more shady dealings of the Clinton Foundation which coincided with Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The leaks ultimately put some meat onto the bones of the concept that rampant political corruption goes on at the highest levels of modern government. Most people always suspected this, but lacked the concrete evidence. In many ways, those leaks provided that evidence.
It is telling that throughout the campaign, as the leaks were being delivered, those parties involved never outright denied the validity of the information being released. The most they could do was to appeal to the same sort alarm over foreign intrusion which has been taken to new heights post election.
The whole thing is reminiscent of the poker scene from the 1973 movie, The Sting, featuring Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Newman’s character, Shaw, outwits a mobster, Lonnegan, playing in a private game. The idea was to set Shaw up by trick dealing him a four of a kind, which in poker is a virtually unbeatable hand. This would induce Shaw to end up betting all of his chips, and possibly more, on such a sure thing. Lonnegan, carrying a second deck in his pocket, ‘dealt’ himself a better four of a kind, and thus would have shown down with Lonnegan, losing everything, thus completing the scam.
Shaw, wise to the gambit, was ready for it, and when the time came made a switch. The movie doesn’t show how he did it, but Shaw had originally been dealt four threes, while Lonnegan had been dealt four nines. The betting carries on until both players are all in. Shaw then turns over four jacks, to the dismay of all in the room. Lonnegan, defeated, storms into a side room angry enough to kill. His associate, bewildered, tells Lonnegan: “Doyle, I know I gave him four THREES. He had to make a switch. We can’t let him get away with that.”
Lonnegan response was famous: “What was I supposed to do – call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?”
Unlike those on the left, Lonnegan understood that you can’t call someone out for being crooked when you are crooked yourself. Having been outsmarted, Lonnegan accepted Shaw had bested him and moved on.
Instead, the left has responded by ramping up the outrage, making it seem as though they had been wronged. Again, both the Attorney General and the President of the United States confirmed that the 2016 electoral process was a free and fair one, devoid of technical interference by any perpetrator, foreign or domestic.
Despite this, democrat politicians, aided by their leftist friends in the Old Media have succeeded in driving the hysteria about Russian involvement into the stratosphere. What happened was a data leak by unknown actors, who could have been foreign. What the old media has implicated, in their usage of terms such as ‘hacked the election,’ is that some sort of advanced espionage operation took place, which was coordinated to install Donald Trump as president.
In the past week or so op–ed after op-ed has filled the pages of newspapers across the country decrying the now ‘tainted’ election, calling on the Electoral College to rectify the situation when it meets on Monday. They’ve even resorted to the failed tactic of trotting out celebs to stand in front of a white wall delivering a public service announcement instructing the Electors to stand up for America and do the right thing, which is to not confirm Trump’s presidency. Naturally, the video has disabled comments and the like/dislike button.
Suddenly, Constitutional Originalism is In Vogue
Vox wrote this piece a few weeks ago to explain why it would be a legitimate action for the Electoral College to not vote for Trump, citing the constitution and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers writings. To be sure, it would be legitimate for the Electors to do whatever they wanted, individual state rules notwithstanding. The constitution allows for them to do this. However, the standard reasoning provided by leftist for why they should vote for someone other than Trump is wrong. The Vox article writes:
Constitutional history makes clear that the founders had three main purposes in designing the Electoral College.
The first was to stop a demagogue from becoming president. At the Constitutional Convention, arguing in support of the Electoral College, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said he was “against a popular election” for president because the people would be “misled by a few designing men.” In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the electors would prevent those with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming president. They would also stop anyone who would “convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements.”
The characterization of Trump as a demagogue is a matter of opinion. The fact that political pundits in the old media refer to Trump as a demagogue nearly every time they speak about him does not make it a fact. The fact that Trump did tap into a huge wave of populism does not render his policies or his victory somehow illegitimate simply because of that populism.
Consider that Trump has been called a racist xenophobe for putting forth an immigration proposal that seeks to rigorously enforce existing law which for many years has been ignored on many levels. The fact that this is such a popular stance among his supporters and played a huge role in his victory has been used as an example of his ‘demagoguery.’
In terms of a ‘violent movement,’ to the left Trump’s campaign qualifies as such given his signal to aggressively follow the law means that those who break the law are going to be in for an uncomfortable time, to put it mildly. In the realm of immigration, this means illegal immigrants, a protected class of the left, are going to be subject to the ‘violence’ of facing consequences for breaking American immigration laws.
It says a lot about where we are as a society when calls to follow the law can be considered to be demagoguery, no matter how brash they are.
As for Hamilton’s wish to essentially banish charming, engaging, charismatic celebrity types from holding the office, if this is to be the standard, then most of the presidents in the television era are ineligible. Indeed, the 1960 Presidential Debates are immortalized based on the simple fact that the introduction of television altered the perception of the two candidates’ performances. Famously, those who listened on the radio believed that Nixon won, while those who watched on television believed Kennedy was more effective. Kennedy was the more visually appealing of the two, standing calm and assured, while Nixon famously looked a sweating mountain of nerves.
According to the standard now being imposed by the left, Kennedy’s superior charisma and charm should have been taken into account by the Electoral College, especially given the razor thin margin of his victory. Subsequent presidents in the TV era, from Reagan, to Bill Clinton, and even President Obama won, in part, on the strength of their charm, natural persuasion and ability to relate to people. They all displayed ‘talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,’ because it is a successful, almost necessary tactic in an era so influenced by television.
On the whole, this point is a non-starter, at all levels. Vox continues:
The second goal was to stop foreign interference in election. In the founding period, the framers were extremely concerned about infiltration by rivals including Great Britain. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that one major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” He said that the college would “Guard against all danger of this sort … with the most provident and judicious attention” from the electors.
There is slightly more to this point, as I’ve discussed above. However, nothing about the Russian hacking rises to the level of gaining ‘an improper ascendant in our councils.’ If anything fits that bill, it would be the behind closed doors declaration of Hilary Clinton to international bankers that her dream was to establish a ‘hemispheric common market’ across North America, that would benefit globalist interest. It would be the Uranium One deal Clinton help broker with, you guessed it, Russia, as Secretary of State.
These are the sorts of things consistent with foreign entities looking to install a puppet as opposed to a relatively mundane action like a data leak. More from Vox:
The third goal was to prevent poor administration of government. This is a less well-known purpose of the Electoral College, but it is again expressly discussed in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton wrote that “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration,” and for that reason, he said, the electors should be “able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.”
Vox claimed that Trump had violated this goal because of his popular vote defeat, but that certainly isn’t evidence of anything. In fact the Electoral College exists precisely to prevent the majority vote from potentially harming the nation as a whole. Given that the majority voted against Trump, and thus against the rule of law to favor the nebulous concept of ‘racism’ as it is defined in 2016, the Electoral College worked exactly as it should have on November 8.
So while it is within the rights of the Electors to cast their votes in a manner that would deny Trump the presidency, the threat to the republic that is bandied as the reason for doing so does not exist. Trump is not a demagogue or foreign puppet and has not exhibited a stark inability to execute a good administration. The only ones who truly believe this are leftists and globalist Republicans, who collectively find Trump to be objectionable.
The grounds on which they have been objecting to Trump are the extension of a concept I’ve repeated over the latter stages of the election; that is the idea that racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and so on are the gravest of societal sins while simultaneously being near ubiquitous in modern society. From the vantage point of this current cultural milieu, Trump is an illegitimate president, owing to his supposed racism and xenophobia.
Therefore, from this vantage point, looking to the Constitution for guidance, and encouraging the Electors to reject Trump is a legitimate course of action. More from Vox:
Modern-day conservatives favor so-called “originalist” understandings of the Constitution. They look to history and to the original texts of our founding documents for guidance. Recent decades have seen the invocation of original constitutional institutions to address present concerns, such as when the Rehnquist Court struck down Congressional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act on the grounds that they violated an originalist understanding of the Commerce Clause.
Whether or not you agree with such decisions, they establish the broad-spectrum appeal of our constitutional institutions — particularly in times of crisis. “Make America great again” is a clever marketing slogan. But our real greatness depends on employing our institutions and values to protect our republic from those who might prey on us.
This is written without a hint of irony, given the general leftist aversion to ‘originalist’ interpretation of Constitutional texts. Just in the last year or two they belittled the originalist opposition to gay marriage laws and Obamacare. Thus, their sudden sprint into the bosom of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison is tinged with hypocrisy.
As is Election Trutherism in general, given the fact that before the election Trump was hailed a threat to the 240 year republic for merely stating that he would wait to confirm the legitimacy of the election result rather than blindly accepting it. Now that Trump has won, the same factions which decried him are not accepting the election results, owing to their disagreements with Trump’s politics wrapped in the veneer of foreign meddling.
Had the shoe been on the other foot, there would have been calls for Trump’s arrest for disrupting the ‘peaceful transition of power’ in the way the leftists are doing to Trump.
Trump is a threat because his flouting Politically Correct cultural norms threatens the source of power that leftists have used to wield their influence on society. By establishing their opinions on social issues as the moral ones, mere disagreements are thus immoral, and therefore their disruptions become justified. Of course their views are conjecture, and nothing more.
Despite the jittering protestations of the likes of Keith Olberman, in a free and fair election, Donald Trump won 306 Electoral College votes, and thus the Presidency. None of the contingencies which should prompt the Electors to intervene exist. Even if the Electors chose to overturn the electoral vote on Monday, the decision would go to the House of Representatives, who would most likely elect Trump.
The entire episode is part of the drive to de-legitimize the Trump presidency. It is an attempt for leftists to deny responsibility for their loss, despite having the deck stacked in its favor. In crying foul, they give themselves an out. The drudges across the political establishment, from media pundits and columnists, to polling companies, to campaign advisers, lobbyists and other insiders, all rely on the status quo for their daily bread. That they completely misread Trump’s candidacy and the American electorate, even well after the election has ended, indicates that their usefulness is over.
Unless the election was literally stolen, swindled from under their noses. In this case, it wasn’t their fault. Their world view, their reading of current events, their prescriptions for the future were actually correct; it was unforeseen injustice which got in their way. It’s incredibly self-serving.
It is also incredibly encouraging to those of us who were on The Right Side Of History the entire time. Because to us, these flare-ups and meltdowns emanating from the left confirm that they have no wish to change. They have no wish to stop trying to foist their delusions of equality and social justice on the rest of the public, through the ‘everything and everyone is racist’ mode of argument. A mode of argument which, had just received a resounding defeat in the marketplace of ideas, as evidenced by the election results, and the growing influence of internet culture.
So let the leftists continue down this line for as long as they wish. Their losses will accrue accordingly.
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:
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
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:
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
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.
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.
“In a mad world, only the mad are sane.” Akira Kurosawa
As the election draws near, the mere fact that Trump has more than a tangible chance of winning has several in the commentariat a little unnerved. This is shown by the bevy of op-eds and columns written in recent days and weeks which all conveyed a similar point: Please, America, don’t vote Trump – We value stability more than anything else.
Alan Dershowitz, a prominent expert on the law and Harvard Law professor crystallized this sentiment this morning, speaking with Maria Bartiromo, saying:
Let me tell you why I’m supporting Hillary Clinton: We’re living in a world of extremes, the right is getting stronger, the left is getting stronger, the center is weakening. We need a centrist president to stabilize the world, Hillary Clinton promises more in terms of being a stabilizing force than Donald Trump.
On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But Dershowitz showed exactly why it isn’t less than a minute later, when he said:
Look, the problem in American politics is that donors always get special treatment – from Republicans and Democrats. Pay to play is unfortunately a sickness within the American political system, equally applicable to republicans and democrats. Let’s end that – let’s strengthen the laws, let’s de-politicize the laws.
In admitting the politics of the status quo is broken, Dershowitz renders his support for Clinton, on the basis of her ‘stability,’ an endorsement of a broken political world. This is a world which has bestowed upon Clinton a $250 million fortune, incredible power, and a shot at being the first woman to be president of the United States, forever etching her name in history. Does Dershowitz, or anyone else for that matter, really think that Hillary Clinton, having been forged in that broken political world, is going to change it in any material way? Considering her now Wikileaks-revealed duplicity vis-a-vis her public statements and those given privately to the corporate donors which back her, the idea of her being a change agent stretches credulity, to put it mildly.
Indeed, America as it stands today is merely a nominal representation of the colonial experiment which commenced just over 240 years ago. It could be said that the genesis of America as a country was the biggest tax revolt in human history, yet today the populace will at the most grumble angrily to themselves as they pay ever higher taxes on an annual basis.
In its early days, America debated the merits of a monetary system based on gold and silver versus central banking and fiat currency. After some trial and error, it settled on the former. Today’s American economy now relies on the latter, to such an extent that the mere differences in language used from one public statement to the next are said to have big implications on the fate of our economy.
The Federal Government has grown to such an extent that the population as a whole expects certain things from it. This, in comparison to a Federal Government which was once small, and stayed mostly out of the way.
It is telling that quickest way to be laughed out of a ‘serious’ political conversation in 2016 is to seriously advocate an abolition of the federal income tax, a return to the gold standard, and a vastly smaller government that balances its budget, let alone all of the above. As these things were once part of the formative fabric of America, it is fair to say that we currently live in a sort of Post-America.
This is further buttressed by the fact that the Constitution has been treated as toilet paper for a very long time now. Exactly how long that is depends on the individual, but one can cite many occurrences which marked the waning influence of the Constitution. The Civil War, 16th Amendment, Federal Reserve Act, the New Deal, Executive Order 6102, the 1971 closing of the gold window, the Patriot Act, and the Affordable Care Act, among others, are all examples of the government riding roughshod over the Constitution.
I am not going to scrutinize the merits of each individual instance. I only bring them up to highlight the fact that going by strict Constitutional originalism, the document has been violated, several times, and well before June 16, 2015, the day Trump’s campaign began. In other words, from the perspective of the principles underpinning America’s birth, and continuing on through its ascent to world power, America as it currently stands is a Mad World.
Yet it is precisely those already-departed American principles, wrapped in platitudes about our 240 year Republic and its democratic heritage, that many commentators cite when declaring Trump to be the most dangerous political force in our lifetime. Consider this from David Frum:
The lesson Trump has taught is not only that certain Republican dogmas have passed out of date, but that American democracy itself is much more vulnerable than anyone would have believed only 24 months ago. Incredibly, a country that—through wars and depression—so magnificently resisted the authoritarian temptations of the mid-20th century has half-yielded to a more farcical version of that same threat without any of the same excuse. The hungry and houseless Americans of the Great Depression sustained a constitutional republic. How shameful that the Americans of today—so vastly better off in so many ways, despite their undoubted problems—have done so much less well.
I have no illusions about Hillary Clinton. I expect policies that will seem to me at best counter-productive, at worst actively harmful. America needs more private-market competition in healthcare, not less; lighter regulation of enterprise, not heavier; reduced immigration, not expanded; lower taxes, not higher. On almost every domestic issue, I stand on one side; she stands on the other. I do not imagine that she will meet me, or those who think like me, anywhere within a country mile of half-way.
Not only is it true that America has eschewed its strict Constitutional Republic roots, it is not true that America successfully avoided the authoritarian temptations of the 20th century. Indeed, the America that entered the fights with the Axis dictatorships and then communism looked very different to the America that came out of them. Karl Marx’s 10 planks have been more or less instituted in America. America’s Authoritarianism, however is of a softer variety. While it doesn’t have a definitive figurehead in the shape of Mussolini or Hitler, it does have a definitive ideology spearheading it: the worship of nebulous concepts such as Equalism, Diversity and Fairness.
The most heinous crimes in today’s society are that of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, and so on. Transgressors are drawn out into the public square for admonishment via social ostracism. You could even lose your job over an ‘offensive’ post on Facebook or Twitter.
The rub is that the threshold for what constitutes offensive behavior is seemingly lowered by the day. The march to describe every slight as Hate Speech increasingly encroaches on that traditional American right of free speech. With respect to the election, and Trump in particular, even being neutral on his positions could get one in hot water.
That’s what happened to Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic series. According to this Washington Post piece, Adams’ once lucrative speaking engagements and licensing deals have dried up, owing to his attempts to explain to the public why Trump’s campaigning has been effective, from the perspective of well known Persuasion techniques. He has become a pariah for this.
In our Mad World of Political Correctness and over-sensitivity, this is just. For there can be no justification for things we don’t agree with, no matter how rational they are. More specifically, nothing can be allowed to impede the leftward march from America to Tumblr: The Country, and anyone who dares stand in the way will be run over.
Indeed, Donald Trump’s real sin has been his refusal to give in to the Oversensitive Mob and give it what it wants – an acknowledgement of their frivolous charges of racism and sexism – preferably via some sort of tear-laden press conference at the mercy of the same journalists who regularly excoriate him in their columns.
What is particularly interesting about Frum is that he lists several things which in his view would be good for America. All of these things line up with what Trump plans to do, even though Frum doesn’t give him credit for that. The problem for the likes of Frum is that Trump is seemingly too mean in the way he is going about his campaigning.
What this simplistic analysis misses is a lot of the outrage generated by Trump has been intentional – a ploy to draw attention to his ideas. Trump is nothing if not a shrewd marketer and astute media manipulator. He writes about it in his books, and has had 40 years of experience with the media under his belt.
Many have been in the media have been critical of the media itself for giving him so much attention, thereby legitimizing him. You’ll often see a statistic bandied about that suggests that Trump has been given $2 billion in free exposure. The reality is that Trump earned that exposure through his media exploits of well over three decades. When Trump announced his candidacy, he instantly had 100% name recognition. News agencies really couldn’t ignore him, because they’ve never ignored him. Trump is a ratings goldmine – and media corporations live on ratings.
To be sure, the media has countered by covering him negatively, to the tune of 90% of the time according to a recent study. This has both revealed the inherent bias the mainstream media has as well as confirmed the reason why Trump campaigned the way he has. His message is an anathema to a leftist media, and as such the only way to get his message across was to wrap it in a tactical outrage.
Recall the Star of David ‘controversy’ from this summer. It started with Trump re-tweeting this image:
The media fell over themselves to use this image as evidence of Trump being an Anti-Semite, owing to the fact that the ‘Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!’ text is in an apparent Star of David.
Of course that star could easily be a sheriff star, or a normal star you would find in Clip Art. Yet the media frothed at the mouth, pushing this story for almost a week.
This meant that all over TV and the internet, this image was shown, an image which conveys a message that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.
Through enshrouding his real messages in a layer of outrage, knowing a lapdog media would spread it far and wide for him, Trump has done nothing more than display his penchant for good marketing and media manipulation.
Indeed, Trump’s initial foray into the campaign was controversial, perhaps still his most controversial episode to date. Yes, I’m referring to the moment when he ‘called all Mexicans rapists and drug dealers.’
That was the spin, and the perception that the media spread far and wide and is still used by man as a talking point to declare Trump a racist. What Trump actually did was say that a non-zero subset of those who entered the country illegally committed further crimes once in the country, and that it was a problem. His words were objectively true. However the way in which he said them cause untold outrage which reverberates to this day.
Consider the fact that Trump’s immigration ideas are now widely considered to be racist and xenophobic by most mainstream voices. However, a rational examination of his plan reveals that the vast majority of it is already codified into US law, including the wall. What Trump seemingly wants to add is a more vigorous application of the law in spots where it is currently halfheartedly applied, and in others where it is actively opposed, such as in the case of sanctuary cities.
The outrage Trump created was needed in order to call attention to an issue which has been largely neglected for many years now. If he hadn’t done it, the discussion would have been lost in the shuffle as it had been before. By raising the temperature so to speak, Trump has forced people into a box. To call Trump a racist and xenophobe for completely reasonable ideas is to explicitly advocate lawlessness. That is precisely what a Mad World does, thus to be considered a madman by that world, as Trump is, is tantamount to being the sensible one.
In a similar vein, Trump has been accused of dividing the country. However, it not Trump, but identity politics which has divided the country. In modern America, there is an increasing trend for Americans to define themselves as such, but with a prefix attached. African-American, Muslim-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and so on. Race, class, religion, and sexual orientation are the lines along which the population is increasingly split.
This ground was tread long before Trump’s candidacy. LBJ may not have said that he’d ‘have those N*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years,’ but he might as well have said it, given that politics has increasingly devolved to pandering to the varying subgroups in America. The resulting atmosphere is one in which your skin color, gender or sexual orientation becomes your uniform, and it is almost your duty to fight for your team lest you be called a traitor.
Trump’s message is simple: America First. In recent rallies, he has consistently conveyed the idea of Americans ‘working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag.’ Trump has immediately taken some heat for this, particularly the ‘one God’ part, with critics citing this as evidence Trump doesn’t understand the separation of Church and State, or that it intimates a sort of exclusion for nonbelievers.
This interpretation is of course, nonsense. His words are no different to politicians proclaiming ‘God Bless America’ at the end of speeches. The ‘God’ in both instances is open to interpretation, with the listener free to insert the deity of choice to personalize the line. But recall, we’re living in a Mad World, and as such these minor quibbles are worth vast overreactions.
The interesting thing is that Trump’s words are objectively unifying. America First as a concept should be something that everyone can buy into, because individual identity characteristics don’t preclude participation in America as a concept, at least in theory.
But, again we live in a Mad Clown World, a world in which people can’t let go of Identity, because doing so would forfeit a chance at a slice of the bounty collected by grievances and outrage. It is thus the culture as a whole which has already divided itself, not wishing to unite as one people. It is the culture itself which sees little wrong with immigrants hoisting their home flags on American soil, but increasingly views the stars and stripes as an offensive symbol.
With that as a backdrop, Trump is indeed mad. But that means he is sensible.
And what of morality? Many believe that the Billy Bush tape disqualifies Trump from the presidency. The bottom line on this is that there have been several equally vulgar individuals to occupy the role, including Bill Clinton, who had assistance from one Hillary Clinton in concealing the vulgarity. If we’re being truly honest, neither candidate is clean here.
Furthermore, the culture as a whole is in no state to pass judgement on this score. I chuckled repeatedly watching the torrent of outrage and concern for the youth of America having been exposed to Trump’s words, when the likes of Miley Cyrus trotting around stages performing topless with inflatable male genitalia protruding from her crotch likely elicits little more than a shrug of the shoulders for those same people.
This hypocrisy is mirrored in the perception of Trump as unhinged, as it is pertains to foreign policy. And before I go on, a symptom of the Mad Clown World is evident in the fact that coverage of Trump’s Billy Bush moment dwarfed that of an analysis of foreign policy issues, in an age when nuclear capable world powers are positioning themselves for conflict. Sex sells, I get it, but to upstage potential nuclear war with Russia? I’d call that a bit Mad.
And on that subject, Trump is widely considered by your standard foreign policy expert to be dangerous. More frivolously, he is considered to be a national security risk because his flippant attitude may lead us to military conflict over his Twitter account, or something.
The reality is that these foreign policy experts, along with Hillary Clinton herself, have been responsible for nothing but failure for nigh on 50 years. From our excursions in Vietnam, to Kuwait, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, these status quo experts have done nothing but cause death and destruction across the globe, in the name of spreading Democracy.
It sounds like a great ideal to have, but ultimately, who are we as Americans to impose our way of life on the rest of the world? The interests of the average American, in America, haven’t been served by any of these adventures, for the most part. The only interest which has been served is that of the Military Industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us about this.
With respect to the current challenge that faces us, Syria, we face a choice of war or diplomacy. We are already fighting a proxy war against the Russians, who are assisting the Assad regime, who the US wants ousted. The official reason for this is Assad’s atrocious humanitarian record, but some suspect there is more to the story.
It involves the establishment of a natural gas pipeline, running from Qatar to Turkey, passing through Syria. The reason it is sought by the US is because such a pipeline would allow Western Europe an alternative to the Russian natural gas it currently consumes. The goal is to marginalize Russia economically, as punishment for its refusal to get with the EU/NATO program on many other issues.
It is hypothesized that Assad has denied this pipeline, out of allegiance to Russia, and as a result the US wants regime change in Syria. In response to being attacked, Assad has invited Russian forces to the country for assistance. This is where we stand now.
Hillary Clinton has been consistent in her stance that a No Fly Zone be placed over Syria, despite the only way one could be enacted would be through a declaration of war with Syria, and thus Russia. Clinton was explicitly asked about this again at the third debate a few weeks ago and was unequivocal in her response.
Make no mistake, a Hillary Clinton presidency is most likely the pretense to war with Russia, an opponent with nuclear capabilities. If the true reasoning behind the war is correct, the US would be risking nuclear war to establish a natural gas pipeline overseas. Yet, here at home, the US finds the idea of a pipeline running from Alberta to Texas, with no war required, to be untenable. That’s the status quo for you.
It is in this light that the criticism Trump gets for being ‘friendly with Putin’ needs to be examined. The reality is that the Russians don’t want war, as evidenced by the fact they did nothing when Turkey took down a Russian jet last year. Putin’s greatest sin is his refusal to bow to Western, and more specifically US hegemony in geopolitics and the world order. For that refusal to play ball, the US has tried to hit Russia economically, and it is continuing to do so with its efforts in Syria. It is playing with fire, however, as previously discussed.
Trump wants nothing to do with this, not because he is reckless, but because he correctly understands that the US has little business in directing foreign affairs in the manner it has done for decades. To the extent we already have entanglements, they must be dealt with, but in the future the goal of a Trump administration is seemingly to tamp down American Imperialism. It is too expensive, too deadly, and too historically negative in terms of the prospects for nations who pursue such expansive ambitions.
Once again, the Mad Man is sane.
This election is probably the most stark choice we’ve seen in a lifetime. It is in many ways a referendum on the constructs of the Post World War II West: Keynesian Economics, supranational unions such as the EU and NATO, the sexual revolution, central banking, the Military-Industrial Complex, the Media-Academia complex, among other things.
While Trump doesn’t explicitly repudiate all of these things, Hillary Clinton certainly would be a continuation of them. Furthermore, she would be a continuation of the status quo, a continuation of the cultural preference of Pretty Lies to Ugly Truths, a continuation of the political preference of short term expedience over long term thinking.
Even if one who is on the fence agrees with every word I’ve written thus far, a sheer, base reluctance to change will still stand in the way of pulling the lever for Trump. I completely understand that point of view. For many, the fact that the power grid still works, and we have access to our daily Starbucks means things aren’t so bad, and there is no need to ‘blow up’ the political system voluntarily.
This is akin to inheriting $100 million, blowing $98 million of it on the proverbial hookers and blow, and feeling relieved upon seeing the $2 million bank balance in a sober moment, that relief stemming from the understanding that you are still better off than 99.5% of the planet.
Unfortunately, that is us, as modern day Americans. We inherited a country from a generations of individuals who built it up into a machine which produced untold riches. With us at the wheel, we’ve been in party mode, adopting an ‘anything goes as long as it feels good’ mentality socially and a ‘spend anything – we can print the money later’ attitude when it comes to economics. That is unsustainable. It is our job to recognize that, and correct course before crisis hits.
Trump is indeed a bonafide Mad Man. But we live in a Mad World. Sanity in this context is a continued slide into the abyss, a continued swim by an unaware frog as the temperature creeps to 100 degrees C.
Trump was able to strike a happy medium between the first debate in which he was rather incoherent and defensive, and the second debate when he was on point but extremely aggressive. In the third debate, he was more ‘presidential,’ whatever that means. One of his biggest problems to date has been the fact that the uninitiated voter thinks he’s a crazy madman, so he had to convince those viewers that he could withstand attacks without blowing up. He did that, avoiding getting too deep into the weeds on side issues and was able to get a lot of points across firmly and effectively.
He was able to put Clinton on the defensive on several issues, such as the fact that she takes donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries like Saudi Arabia, which throws gays from rooftops and treat women poorly. He also brought up the James O’Keefe video in which DNC operatives were bragging about how they paid people to incite violence at Trump rallies. Clinton’s ‘dream’ of an open border for the hemisphere, as revealed through Wikileaks was also brought up.
In each instance, Clinton had no answer. She pivoted to blaming Russia, or outright ignoring the issue brought up. Her main avenue for scoring points on the night was through emotion. She tried it with abortion, with the typical politician tactic of telling a tale of how some random person from the campaign trail just happened to personify exactly the point wished to be made. She tried it with the use of the THINK OF THE CHILDREN angle with respect to both guns and Syria, and finally with the ‘this is not who we are’ cliche with respect to Trump’s supposed misogyny.
It listens well, but in the end it’s tired. Trump was able to bring new arguments into the fray which both bolstered his case and the case against Hillary Clinton. It still remains to be seen whether the public will see through the emotional manipulation of Clinton, however effective it may be in the moment.
Trump’s ‘Refusal’ to Accept the Result of The Election
Chris Wallace asked Trump (and not Clinton) whether he would accept the result of the election. He was also asked of it by Lester Holt at the first debate. This is a bit curious for reasons I’ll get into later. But Trump’s response is getting most of the play in the mainstream media today (H/T ZeroHedge):
The media has gone apoplectic over the fact that Trump said that he’d keep us in ‘suspense,’ about how he would respond to the election results. Plenty of words were written and spoken last night about the GRAVE DAMAGE TRUMP HAD DONE TO A SANCTIMONIOUS PILLAR OF OUR 240 YEAR OLD REPUBLIC.
For a start such hyperbole and spewing of platitudes is hypocritical given the allegations that George Bush had stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections, which came from the same people who are today lambasting Trump. It was enough to make Joe Scarborough, hardly Trump’s greatest fan, laugh at the latest faux outrage:
The latest response to the ‘but Gore!’ argument from the left is now something along the lines of ‘but he accepted it!’ Yes, a month later, after it was brought to the Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t Trump be afforded that same level of skepticism if something fishy happens on election night?
The mere fact that Clinton is running for an office with the highest security clearance in the land, after provably mishandling classified information in a prior position in govenment, thus disqualifying her from access to such information ever again, is mind boggling. But thanks to the media, the DOJ and the FBI, the public has been conditioned to accept Clinton as a legitimate candidate.
In a similar vein, the constant media pushback of Trump’s assertions that the system is rigged (despite scores of prominent Democrats saying the same thing for years), and the watery-eyed appeals to the history of our 240 year Republic and its pristine elections, are potentially conditioning the public to accept what might ultimately be an illegitimate election result.
It’s not a stretch for Trump to be wary of shenanigans on election night, given everything discussed here, in addition the vociferous objections to things like voter ID and the removal of the dead from voter rolls, when the only conceivable objections to either of those things would be to commit fraud. As Scaborough said, those opposing Trump on this can bathe in the hypocrisy.
A Hillary Clinton Presidency = War With Russia
This is perhaps the most chilling, and important takeaway from the night, but it might get lost in the shuffle given the media hysteria discussed above.
The proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia has escalated in recent weeks and months, and last night Hillary Clinton reiterated her desire to impose a no-fly zone over the area, to ‘hasten the end of the conflict.’
This is in opposition to President Obama, who feels that such a move would entangle us deeper into the region, and in the face of concerns from Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that a no fly zone would mean war with Russia:
This was how Clinton outlined her support for the no fly zone:
A few things: Clinton noted her awareness of the ‘legitimate concerns’ of the President and the General Dunford. In fact as far back as 2013, she understood the fact that imposing a no-fly zone would create all sorts of problems and cause the deaths of scores of civilians. We know this, thanks to a Wikileaks release of her transcripts to Wall Street bankers (see page 66). Back in 2013, she said this, relating to a Syrian no-fly zone:
So we’re not as good as we used to be, but we still — we can still deliver, and we should have in my viewbeen trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone— Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians. [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
So Hillary Clinton wants to do something – which by her admission requires at the very least the killing of ‘a lot of Syrians’ – in order to save lives. She took the nonsensical logic a step further in that clip when she spoke of the refugees which are being displaced as a result of this civil war (which she started), and how she couldn’t just stand by watching as people got slaughtered:
I am not going to slam the door on women and children. That picture of that little 4 year boy in Aleppo, with the blood coming down his face, while he sat in an ambulance, is haunting.
Clinton is, in effect, justifying war with Russia, a nuclear power because of a humanitarian crisis created by US involvement which she led, and is using dead children as an emotional impetus to do it. Truly disturbing.
Furthermore, she believes a no fly zone, the establishment of which would lead to war, would then lead to diplomacy in which a deal could be struck. Even if this were true, how could one trust the bargaining skills of Clinton given her tenure at the State Department and her consistent failures in diplomacy with respect to the Russian reset, Libya, Egypt and more?
In the end, a vote for Clinton is a vote for war, potentially of the nuclear variety. It is shaping up to be just that simple. I’ll refer you back to the video above of General Dunford’s hearing. After he declares that a no-fly zone is tantamount to war, leaving the room in a momentary stunned silence, Senator John McCain can be heard grumbling in the background. He then takes over the discussion and angrily guilt trips Dunford for honestly answering the question he was asked, saying:
No, what he asked was should we have a no fly zone so we can protect these people form being slaughtered. That’s what he’s talking about, that’s what we’re all talking about.
Dunford immediately backs down and almost apologetically says that maybe we wouldn’t have to go to war after all. But the annoyance which McCain showed at the original answer was telling. It was as though he was upset that the real consequence of establishing a no fly zone was mentioned, by such an authoritative figure on the matter so as to leave no doubt. Note how he glibly knocks away such concerns about the no fly zone by enveloping it in humanitarian concerns, just as Clinton did last night.
It is thus ironic that Clinton has such support from leftists, despite her taking the same warmongering position as a notorious neocon warmonger. These are the same leftists who were up in arms during the Bush administration owing to the endless Middle East adventures the US embarked on. Hillary Clinton has done nothing but continue them as Secretary of State, and definitively promised to continue further last night.
Despite the fact these unnecessary adventures could directly result in nuclear war, these same leftists are not only standing behind Clinton, but have the audacity to declare that it is Trump who might get us into a war frivolously.
Clinton’s actual record of promoting just that, frivolous war, is apparently meaningless, because Donald Trump says mean things sometimes. It truly is a clown world we live in.
Not really a huge takeaway, but I was wrong in my debate preview about Chris Wallace. He did a good job last night, particularly compared to the moderators in the other debates. He was fair to both sides, and equally tough, which made for a substantive debate.
How this will play out on election night is to be seen, but from where I sit, the dynamic of the election is as follows: Trump is seemingly wearing a clown suit and speaking with helium gas, but what his actual words amount to the fact that two plus two is equal to four. Clinton speaks with professorial calmness and assuredness, but does so in relaying the argument that two plus two is equal to twenty-two.
It is up to the electorate to note this, and act accordingly.