Warning signs abound in the prole reich created by democracy. Despite attempts to bolster the economy — “pump priming” — by importing the entire third world, the economy of the West falters as currency declines in value as a result of Leftist social programs:
Whole Foods had grand plans for a UK expansion too, opening its first outpost in Kensington in 2004 with plans for 40 more. But Whole Foods has stalled: like much of the retail sector, it faces economic headwinds including razor-thin margins, competition from other retailers offering organic food, and increasingly price-conscious consumers.
…One rival chain, Sprouts Farmers Market, was found to be on average 19% cheaper than Whole Foods. Other rivals, including Kroger, picked up Whole Foods customers. Last month, Barclays advised that Whole Foods had experienced a “staggering” decline in foot traffic that it estimated at 3%, or roughly 14 million customers.
Here in the mental state of Read Between The Lies you must parse carefully what the herd says in order to figure out what is rationalization/excuse/justification (REJ) and what is actual cause-effect reasoning. They speak of a number of factors, but the big one is price. Whole Foods is too expensive for what it offers.
Whole Foods and others are dying because, despite our “great” economy, most people are suffering a loss of ready cash because the cash is worth 40% less than pre-Obama money. As a result, they are avoiding places that are financial traps, and instead, quietly going to Walmart and bypassing the whole consumer retail spectacle.
As often happens, bubbles occur where a product is scarce but eventually will become easier to come by. Consumer goods were once a huge profit center in the West, but over time, the equality boom of the French Revolution faded and so consumer goods declined in value. Now, we watch that industry pass away, having made itself irrelevant by raising costs just as the audience needed it to level out.
The Left has been trying to crank up the idea that the Russians hacked our election or otherwise interfered with it on Trump’s side, probably as a precursor to attempting impeachment or invalidating the election.
The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but was not addressed to any specific individuals.
It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.
A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said.
The lügenpresse are counting on the fact that the average voter has zero experience with policy think tanks. Policy think tanks make strategic recommendations and generally have no awareness of actual policy, i.e. what is being done. Instead, they speak in hypotheticals.
For example, that the document says “it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda” does not imply that Russia was issuing pro-Trump propaganda, only that it could be assumed as a possibility and therefore, the suggestion can be made to alter that strategy.
The fact that we have two documents, both pointing in different directions, suggests that these were contingency documents, or potential position papers drawn up to deal with different events that might emerge. Nothing suggests these were adopted as policy but the implication is there in the press.
In the meantime, Trump has rebuked Russia by blowing up an airbase they helped maintain in Syria. What he said during the election was that he viewed Russia as a potential ally, not that he would favor Russia.
If we went through Washington, D.C., looking for think tanks that had made policy recommendations (which is enough to make them “Obama-linked” in the press lexicon) we would find all sorts of absurd plans recommending that the USA redirect resources that might not exist toward possible ideas that look good on paper.
This is the type of analysis this Russian think tank offers, couched in bureaucratspeak of potentialities and possibilities:
It is hardly to expect the development of Obama’s environmental agenda from President Trump, who’s known for his skeptical remarks in relation to climate change. At the same time, it seems that the general strategic course of the United States in the Arctic, outlined in the end of the XX century, will continue. An indirect evidence of the continuity of the current Arctic policy of the US is the fact that almost all the key officials of the State Department responsible for implementing the US policy in the Arctic under the Obama administration, retained their positions under the new President.
In this way, the Russian version follows a format we have seen many times before, which is to second-guess other nations and take broad policy positions, mainly as a way of alerting politicians of options and signaling across the sea (indirectly) about Russia’s concerns and thus likely future actions.
This is not the smoking gun the media wants to try to hype it into being. Behind all of these Russia-stole-our-‘lections stories we can see the hands of a powerful Establishment and the Obama-Clinton gang, who are still looking for a path to permanent, Soviet-style power.
The Leftist press is currently engaged in damage control. Voters, who are an inert bunch because the demands of socializing with others require avoiding extreme opinions, finally woke up to the Obama-Clinton disaster when the economy really crashed. But how bad was it? One source provides a overview of the disaster of the Obama economy:
First, let’s establish that the American economy really is sick. From 2011-2016, we observed the poorest economic expansion on record. Usually, recoveries from sharp recessions are equally sharp. This recovery was a dud. Barack Obama was the first president without a year of 3 percent real GDP growth while in office. Further, from 2011-2016, annual growth averaged more than a full point less than growth from 1965-2010, a period that includes drag from multiple recessions. Similarly, growth in real personal incomes and wages lagged behind the long-term historic average, and by several measures income inequality increased.
Second, the diagnosis. Three factors drive an economy: growth of the labor force, growth of the capital stock, and what economists call total factor productivity—how much output is produced by each unit of labor and capital. The poor economic performance of late cannot be blamed on the labor market. From 2011-2016, employment expanded rapidly, though the wages paid by those jobs were decidedly subpar. But from 2011-2015 (the last year for which data are available), capital formation plummeted—by almost 50 percent compared to the average annual growth rate observed from 1965-2010. Total factor productivity declined even more, from a long-term historic average of 1.1 percent to just 0.4 percent, a plunge of nearly two-thirds.
The media, academia and government elites — the Cathedral — feigned disbelief at the rejection of Obama and everything like him, but the numbers tell the tale. The American middle class was suffering from the burden of redistributing wealth, and they needed relief. For this reason, they elected Donald J. Trump to clean up the mess, and the rest is history.
A cultural shift is occurring across the West: people are moving away from ideology, or the ideal of what “should” be based on concerns for socializing with others, toward results-based thinking that emphasizes actual production and civilizational stability.
This manifests in a number of entertaining ways:
For the past eight years, and the sixty-three years before that, the West has been ruled by increasing degrees of Leftism. In 1968, they had their social triumph, and then in the 1990s, a political triumph, after which they produced the zombie ideologues who became Millennials and thronged for Obama.
During that time, it was considered normal behavior to be a “free rider,” or someone who took from the society as a whole and contributed less back. This is not solely a measurement of work and money, but often social order. Many people were content to behave badly and let others clean up the mess and struggle to restore the order that once was there.
But once the adults came back into the room, that type of behavior appeared as self-serving and parasitic as it is. This means a cultural shift based on the cultural shift that caused Brexit and Trumprise: people no longer view ideology in itself as a justification for “anything goes.” They want social order again.
This cultural shift is leading to a society that is less focused on symbolic acts for the purpose of socializing, or making others feel good about themselves, and more directed toward actual achievement, guided by principles and standards.
The last eight years showed us a president who was prone to both emotionality and bluster. When Trump made his inaugural speech, Leftist commentators wondered why he did not show emotion as Obama did, who was wiping away a tear during many of his speeches. On the other hand, when Trump dealt with Mexico, he showed not only no emotion but no bluster. He stated his position and kept to it.
America under the Return of Daddy will be quite a different place. Will it be enough? Not in itself, most likely, but instead of viewing this as a pendulum, we should think of it as a change in direction of the nation as a whole. Once we were heading inward, further toward human emotions. Now we are heading outward to subdue the chaos in our world.
We know the Lügenpresse has a clear purpose, but it is not to report the news. It is to present an information/entertainment product that people enjoy, and since the major media consumers are Leftist people looking for alternatives to reality, itleansleft.
There has been an enormous, brutal argument between the media and the administration about the size of Donald Trump’s Inauguration crowd. The administration has pushed back on media reports that it was sparsely attended. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer leveled a full-throated attack against the press for reporting on the attendance, calling Trump’s Inauguration the “most-watched” in history.
This image went viral, comparing the attendance of both Inaugurals. It has since been proven misleading, at best.
The best part is that the proof is open and visible, thanks to the CNN Gigapixel, which reveals the crowd during the inauguration ceremony and not after or before as the Lügenpresse image comparison posted above portrays.
All of this serves as prelude to an important question: why are we engaged in a penis-size-comparison-contest about crowd size? The Left always wants direct democracy, or whatever is most popular in social circles at that moment wins, but the Right recognizes that humans are mostly muddled thinkers who in groups are subject to fads, manias, panics, phases, trends, paranoia and peer pressure; for that reason, the Right tries to limit democracy, if it does not outright oppose it on the basis that it is the handmaiden of civilization decline.
We are seeing Crowdism in a literal form as the herd attempts to equate popularity with correctness, and use that as a basis to seize power. And yet, this approach has never served anyone well, because whatever is popular is usually the surface viewpoint, a distraction, scapegoat, deflection or other surrogate for actual activity. If our era has an epitaph, this will be it.
U.S. and Polish forces will participate in a large “massing” exercise in Poland at the end of January as part of a series of measures aimed at reassuring U.S. allies in Europe after Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine.
…NATO countries say their planned deployments to eastern NATO countries are purely defensive, but Russia has rebuked what it sees as an aggressive western buildup in eastern Europe.
“Tanks never create peace anywhere,” said Christian Goerke, who heads the party in Brandenburg state. “Quite the contrary, a troop deployment of such a scale is part of always increasing buildup and provocation.”
Unless we think Russia is actively planning to invade the Baltics and Eastern Europe, this buildup makes sense only as a political ploy designed to provoke the Russians, possibly into a preemptive attack.
A war would give Obama an opportunity to indirectly seize control of the United States Government on a permanent basis. He would be able to do this through control of the media if he deemed that subversive forces were making use of it:
It shall be unlawful for any person during any war in which the United States is engaged to knowingly or willfully, by physical force or intimidation by threats of physical force, obstruct or retard or aid in obstructing or retarding interstate or foreign communication by radio or wire. The President is authorized, whenever in his judgment the public interest requires, to employ the armed forces of the United States to prevent any such obstruction or retardation of communication.
In this light, the recent government-memes of Russian interference in the election and “fake news” make sense when combined. Obama, using his typical broad interpretation of his powers, might in the advent of war with Russia declare that Russia is interfering with the media and seize communications. From that base, he could stage a coup, and become permanent General Secretary of the globalist American initiative.
“We have, by no means overcome the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and colonialism and racism” – President Barack Hussein Obama
So speaks a man who has profited off of the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, idiot Klansmen, et al. like nobody else alive today in the United States of America. So he can’t be unfair and declare these people vanquished. To declare victory over the nefarious forces of ¡RASCISM! would do for his fellow Community Organizers what Uber’s driverless cars will do for the taxicab industry. There must be ¡RACISM! or there won’t be an ongoing job description.
Just how vile is the creeping white death in Amerika these days? Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex attempts to run the Nefarious Calculus of Whitelash and tell us just how vigilant we all must be….
According to Wikipedia on KKK membership: As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total. The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog.
If you Google “trump KKK”, you get 14.8 million results. I know that Google’s list of results numbers isn’t very accurate. Yet even if they’re inflating the numbers by 1000x, and there were only about 14,000 news articles about the supposed Trump-KKK connection this election, there are still two to three articles about a Trump-KKK connection for every single Klansman in the world.
And then there are the online crazies who admire Klansmen like President Woodrow Wilson once did. Alexander’s math gets fuzzier, but he still needs a microscope to see the extent of the organized racist cabal. “…about 50,000 poorly organized and generally dysfunctional people, many of whom are too young to vote anyway.”
Let’s say ¡RACISM! Inc. gets tepid support from moderately bigoted white people who don’t rear all the back on the Cat O’ Nine Tails when they unload the Whitelash. David Duke’s recent Senate campaign attracted 3% of the electorate (58,581 votes). If we assume Louisiana is no more and no less ¡RACIST! than your average US state, and assume about 123 million voters will show up for the election, we get just short of 3.7M people nationwide who will vote for an openly White Nationalist candidate.
In 2008, 13% of the US Electorate was African American. It went for Barack Obama by 95% to 4%. If we call this Black Nationalist vote or The Blacklash, we get a total of 12% of the electorate totaling 128 million or about 15 Million. That would be over a 4:1 ratio when comparing Black Nationalist vote to White Nationalist.
To point out the true dishonesty of this particular Obama quote, let’s examine what 2008 would have looked like if the entire Caucasian Persuasion voted WN by a ratio of 95% to 4%. Whites were 74% of the electorate, so 91% of this group would be 67% of the electorate. Out of 123 Million people, that would be in the ballpark of 82 Million. That’s what a Whitelash would look like.
So Trump, in all his vile Klannishness could motivate 3.7 Million people nationwide to vote WN. He’s getting maybe 4% of what a true Whitelash would look like. That’s low-energy, Folks. That’s not winning bigly. It would have taken 2/3 of that vote to get Trump up to parity in California. Pepe wouldn’t even consider it a legitimate frog fart. Nary a Kek would be given.
Why are WNs such scapegoats? Because they inspire the left and all of the hate that will never get written up on the $PLC Hatewatch Blog. If Amerika ever overcame slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism or the Rev. Al Sharpton having a bad hair day; ¡RACISM! Inc and the Dems who rely on it would be destined to languish between the trees. Sorry, Amerika, we $hall never overcome.
As the Obama years wind down, people are wondering what went wrong. He was, in theory, a popular president who was then soundly rejected by winning votes for the other side in the presidency and both houses. This means that while he was popular, the results of his actions were not.
Zooming up to a higher altitude than how most politics are transacted, we see that Obama was hired to do a job by people who believed he could do it. Their hope was for a “post-racial” presidency, or that by finally electing an African-American to the office of president, America could overcome its vast racial fracture.
In other words, Obama was elected to heal the racial divide. Showing the arrogance common to people less intelligent than the role they are acting out requires, he did the exact opposite, and inflamed racial tensions. This is why he will go down in history as the least intelligent American president: he was elected for one task, and he failed it.
Thankfully, the result of this is that white Americans — and soon, Europeans — have backed away from the “diversity can work” ideal, and have started to realize the obvious truth: diversity cannot work. Groups have different self-interest, and diversity pits them against each other. Only the homogeneous nation can work, which is the concept of nationalism.
In that way, Barack Obama has been an unparalleled success.
Chairman Obama, preparing for war with the Russo-Chinese Alliance, fears the wild west, or any information landscape not curated by those who have an intent toward managing it so that it is “safe” for humans and will force the “correct” result:
“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.
Human intent seems safe to us. We want to reduce risk, and produce a world controlled by us or something like us. This is why we favor a management style to society where there are rules and enforcers and the purpose is not to guide with principles, but to use their opposite — control — to eliminate potential threats and to force everyone to work together and be included equally. It is basically social pacifism, designed for individuals who then form collectives to enforce it.
This approach requires formalization, or the creation of proxies which reward and punish people according to their compliance with goals which are the same for all participants. These proxies — laws, rules, certifications, education, jobs — become a substitute for the end results of our activities. This is the eternal human error: we replace the question of realism with a much narrower “game” which reflects our intent, but misses may details and the interconnection of parts which is reflected in nature and organic human civilizations.
The wild West was an informal situation. In the absence of government and laws, people did what seemed right. Sheriffs were appointed to instill order as they best saw fit; ordinary citizens opened fire on those who were doing what those citizens saw as wrong. These conventions were based on the need to survive and have civilization, and anything outside of that wide behavioral conduit was fair game for gunplay.
When the internet was designed, it was intended to be more like a wild West because its order emphasized flexible routing. It was anticipate that parts of it would fail and other parts would ad hoc take up the slack. It was not centrally managed, at least until services like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia created de facto centralization.
Formalization seems difficult to oppose because it is well-intentioned, or eusocial. Intent however focuses on effects, and not causes, and so poorly manages the indirect approach that one must take to the complexity of life, nurturing rather than commanding. Control clashes with the organic, and formalized systems end up becoming inversions of what they were originally intended to be.
Obama has stumbled into a vast wave of de-formalization in the West. It turns out that human intent is a poor yardstick for determining how to survive, and that what humans want to be true is not often true. Even worse, humans in group compromise their intent by making it social, instead of realistic. And so people are turning against two centuries of managed, bureaucratic life and preferring the wild, wild West instead.
The President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte felt that American President Barack Obama needed a timely reminder. The Philippines were once a territory of the United States. Duterte grew concerned that President Obama didn’t intend to properly recognize the change in status which had granted The Philippines their independence. He explained a few things to Obama below.
Duterte responded: ‘I am a president of a sovereign state and we have long ceased to be a colony. I do not have any master except the Filipino people, nobody but nobody. You must be respectful. Do not just throw questions. Putang ina I will swear at you in that forum,’ he said….
Barack Obama responded by canceling a previously scheduled condescending and insulting lecture that he had intended deliver to President Duterte. Duterte, you see, had become considerably more vigorous in the enforcement of narcotics laws than President Obama, or any other members of The Choom Gang, would typically appreciate. Duterte has been dubbed “The Punisher” because north of 2,000 suspected narcotics dealers have turned up at room temperature since Duterte was sworn in as President. One of the Global Elite’s favorite sex and narcotics tourism stops hangs precariously in the balance here.
And this is precisely the fundamental conceit of the Duterte effort to forcibly reassert sanity and civilization in a sad, sad land that has been turned into pervert’s amusement park and an object of nasty patronizing contempt. This has triggered a predictable social and religious reaction. The radical Muslim terrorist outfit, Abu Sayyef has coined a young fortune convincing people disgusted by current moral state of the Philippines to engage in kidnapping and ransom operations. Given the strong Roman Catholic tradition also present on the Philippine Islands, reaction on moral and religious grounds is hardly an Islamic monopoly. Nor will this be strictly limited to The Philippines.
When a beleaguered, hard-working Filipino Police Officer gets his hands on a rich Amerikan with an 8-ball of cocaine and a 14 year old prostitute, that makes it a pretty good Saturday Night. It almost as if they’d rather forego all the wonderful Keynesian Aggregate Demand that gets created when our scum-bag tourists troll the streets seeking to rent out a good catamite. The Filipinos that love their nation and want it to turn into a decent and civilized place burn with a resentment and hatred for most of the first world. If globalism has perpetrated assault and battery on working class Americans, it has literally raped a generation of poor and middle class people around much of the Pacific Rim. These people want more than anything for their nation to stop being the bodily fluids dumpster where wealthy, arrogant Americans go for cut-rate libertinism.
The Thinking People laugh. They belittle Duterte and call him a barbarian. Thomas P.M. Barnett would tut-tut the caboose-breaking going on when Duterte’s newly-empowered enforcement personnel scythe through the scuzzy ghettos like a grim reaper. The “civilized” world sees 2,000 dead drug dealers and pimps and doesn’t like all the ugliness. The Filipinos who wish their cities could be described as civilized think of it as a nice down payment on the dream of an orderly and decent society.
Meanwhile back in America a similar sort of insurgent candidate gets a respectful hearing in the heart of our urban dysfunction, Detroit, Michigan. Donald Trump has asked the victims in Amerika’s valley of ashes what in the hell they have to lose. If the answer includes a couple of thousand dirt-napped thugs and the good opinion of “civilized” people, that may not amount to much. It didn’t in the Philippines, which is why the reaction against moral rot is well under way. Maybe, after election 2016, The Philippines will not be fighting the evil empire of Liberal moral rot all alone.