Smart money got its start in the internet before the collapse began, working on the new frontier in the days antecedent to the time when the herd took over. Since then, the internet has become a popularity contest of highly similar ideas, each claiming to be distinct.
This is consistent with an aging market. When a technology is new, it is rewarded with high-margin results for those who conquer new spaces; as time goes on, it becomes a part of the background hum, with thin margins which encourage a competition death spiral in which all participants emulate one another and thus approximate a mean.
We are now seeing the downfall of the internet as people recognize that the internet corrupts source material by forcing it into this form designated by this dying market, which is the opposite of the “wild west” the internet once promised:
But she found that publishing on the internet often had the unintended and unconscious effect of causing her to cater to the aesthetics of those platforms. “The internet should be a place with no rules, and freedom, but it’s not,” Piñero said. “There is a certain pressure to conform to certain aesthetics.” It was something I had noticed myself. Each social-media platform tends to reward certain behaviors and styles of posting, all in the interest of building fans and followers who are invested in the performance of a persona (maybe even more so than the Geppetto-like person orchestrating it all). Instagram is a place for intimate-seeming photos, Twitter for clever quips and collaborative memes. Facebook demands an unmitigated rawness that can be terrifying at times. With all, the works are often made to fit the platform, not the other way around.
Much as content adapts to its audience, it also adapts to the medium through which it is communicated, which on the centralized internet means relatively few sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Reddit. As a result, the message is being contorted to not just fit in the medium, but to do what the audience rewards, a sort of consumerism based on imaginary internet points.
After all, these imaginary internet points determine whose content is at the top of these sites and therefore, who gets the benefit in search engines like Google and Bing. That means that social media itself has become a market for popularity such that the content which appeals to the broadest segment of the market dominates, crowding out the voices that do not conform.
This reveals a weakness in demotism itself, as expressed in systems like democracy, capitalism and social popularity. What is most popular is always wrong; what is least popular is a mix of crazy and the hard-to-identify rare moments of sanity. As a result, the herd outweighs sanity and demands that what flatters it become the norm, even if it is insane.
What this means is that the free riders game the system and by appealing to the sympathy of others, corrupt the dialogue with nonsense information:
As CBS2’s Jessica Borg reported, chances are you have probably seen something like this on your Facebook feed – a friend shares a heartbreaking photo of a baby or a teenager with a life-threatening illness.
The post urges you to “like,” “comment,” or “share.”
…Barrios said such fake posts are part of a scam called, “like-farming.” They can put your computer security at risk, or your personal data if you donate.
Humanity is learning in this century that when we set up “games,” or proxies for purpose measured by method, people take advantage of them, and the result is corruption and opportunism. The internet falls into this difficulty because of its tendency to standardize content to form, which means that the lowest common denominator clickbait wins out.
This shows us the end of the internet: a once decentralized system, which aimed to be decentralized because it knew the fallibility of centralized systems to “gaming” or other attacks, became centralized because the herd came in and demanded the same entertainment they got from their televisions.
As a result, it has now lost truth value, not so much because of the “big corporations” but because the users rapidly destroy anything good in a quest for individual self-importance, attention and profit. This mirrors what happened to Western society as a whole when individualism took over.
Someday we may learn that people are either geared toward some purpose in common, whereby they can cooperate, or they turn into bickering monkeys who tear apart everything good for the benefit of the individual. The internet was once a refuge from this, but now it merely exemplifies it, and has lost utility as a result.
Why did the American media, shortly before the Obama years, shift hard-left and stay there? One theory is that their audience defected, so they appealed to the people they could count on to keep clicking on those ads: millennial internet and social media addicts. If all you need are a few million warm bodies, you can pick any warm bodies you want, so go for the fanatics.
[R]eaders didn’t want to travel to a newsstand to buy a whole newspaper when they were interested only in one story or two. And, in so many cases, they really didn’t care all that much whose byline was at the top of the piece. Subsequently, newspaper advertising revenues fell from $67 billion in 2000 to $19.9 billion in 2014. Meanwhile, the same pummeling occurred in the book-publishing world. Many consumers didn’t want hardcover books for $25 when digital versions were available for $9.99.
Movie-theater attendance is down to a 19-year low, with revenues hovering slightly above $10 billion—or about what Amazon’s, Facebook’s, or Apple’s stock might move in a single day…Between 2007 and 2011, overall profits for the big-five movie studios—Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures, and Disney—fell by 40 percent.
Add to that the music industry being half the size it was in 1996, and the television industry still reeling from cable and now being replaced by online streaming, and we see what a larger pattern: these industries were dependent on the fact that their products were difficult to acquire, but now that the internet has obliterated that, the product is being seen in a way that is independent of its scarcity, and people are less likely to care about it because it is all (roughly) the same in quality. Call it media entropy.
In the meantime, the big events that the news-entertainment media once relied upon are now in decline, causing people to wonder if there is a future for media at all:
Hosted by Jimmy Kimmel for the first time, the 2017 Oscars are down 4% in viewership and 13% among adults 18-49 from what the 88th Academy Awards ended up snagging in its final numbers last year. Like the metered market numbers of early today, that equals a nine-year viewership low for AMPAS’ annual ceremony. In fact, the 2017 Oscars were the third-least-watched of the 21st century.
We have gone back in time to an era when news was local and newspapers served the secondary function of keeping us updated on the events in politics and industry, but had no other significance. As in that time, people get their news from other people, but now it is not about local events, but specialized events like genres, niches, in-groups and other identity adornments.
Couple this with the NFL in free fall, the press getting locked out of the White House, and the shaky performance of social media, and we see a general pattern: when media was scarce, it was valuable; now that we have seen enough of it to realize that it is all the same, it has proven itself irrelevant, and people are retreating from it.
Like many industries, media had a growth curve. When it was new and there were only a few newspapers, radio stations and movie theaters, it was highly prized; now that it is matured as a technology, it is expected as a background hum, sort of like previous technological wunderkind like search engines and electricity.
The grim fact is that most of the industries which arose with the industrial revolution were never worth as much as anticipated, and as we reduce their scarcity, they fall in value, revealing that much of our economy is based on make-work and pretense. This in turn reveals that our economy is unnecessary, and that we need to find a purpose instead of merely trying to using “it makes money” as our cause for existing.
If traditional society has an essence, it is a focus on context and pattern instead of objects themselves, because it recognizes that any thing out of place in the hierarchy and order of nature will become an all-consuming force. For example, beer is delicious, heartening and enjoyable but when pursued to excess, becomes a replacement for life much like ideology, money, power and individualism.
This applies to institutions, governments, organizations, power itself and even abstract concepts. Capitalism, for example, is the only working economic system we have found, but if left to its own devices, it produces the scenario we see in American stores: refrigerators, cheaply made in China, which have a lifespan of four to seven years and a failure rate of 10% within three months.
Once upon a time, less than a generation ago, refrigerators lasted for up to forty years. They were built solidly with few features and produced domestically. A person could expect to own two of these in a lifetime and, when parts wore out, to replace them, because the designs did not vary substantially over time.
What went wrong? We might argue that the new way is more efficient: cheaper refrigerators, newer features, and a wider variety. But underneath that glitz, the refrigerators are not cheaper, especially not in lifetime ownership, since you need to buy ten of them to equal the ownership duration of the past. Capitalism is rewarding itself by, once it has a captive audience, extracting wealth from them.
Naturally other factors are present. Is it capitalism to blame because an industry has overgrown itself and consumer, responding to new features and price, ignored the better options so that those companies then went extinct? Or, as argued here before, perhaps we should blame unions, which raised the price of labor so much that it was offshored and then, when those countries learned to manufacture refrigerators on their own, replaced entirely with imports.
Another factor is the need to keep people employed. A company, beset by regulations and a highly mobile labor force, has to hire more people and so grows constantly like a bloated beast. At that point, it must squeeze more money out of the product, so turns to “planned obsolescence.” But it is hard to argue that planned obsolescence will not be conceived of by a firm, and once it succeeds, others will follow suit to keep their own profits comparable.
This shows us a principle of existence: all things are self-serving, and if not kept in check by some form of power above them — aristocrats, culture, legal liability or media — each thing expands to take everything that it can and passes those costs on through externalization to the collective. Everyone suffers when refrigerators are constantly dying without a technological need for this to be so.
As a salesman said, “They make them cheaply in China. Sure, they’re crap — but everyone makes out like bandits on this side. We sell insurance and make a good profit. The firms keep the name here, and buy them from overseas, and that means jobs for everyone in the office, even if not in the factor. It’s just you the consumer who suffers.”
We can see this profile in other industries as well, such as the lügenpresse:
Far from the British press being the champions of free speech, as the popular buffoon Jeremy Clarkson has suggested, they are instrumental in shutting it down.
The press has an interest in suppressing free speech because free speech competes with the press. If the media offers our only perspectives on the world, then they have a monopoly on news information and will profit greatly. If others, such as citizen journalists like Millennial Woes, are able to draw large audiences, then those are a business threat.
All across the West a great cash-in has been occurring since the 1990s. Without the Soviets to compete with, we turned on ourselves, and every industry became greedy in order to comply with the parasites (unions, governments, lawsuits) and to extract as much as it could from the captive audience in the middle class. Eventually, it killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and now a backlash has begun.
In the future, our thought will not focus on deconstruction, or isolating ideas like capitalism as solutions in themselves, but on context, or how to balance different self-interested forces under the command of some purpose and principles which benefit our civilization as an organic whole. This is the only way to arrest the ongoing parasitism and restore a healthy, joyful life so we are strong enough to want to survive.
If you wonder why the media shifted SJW over the past decade, an account of its sudden loss of power makes sense out of the dilemma:
“The media world has been closed since radio,” he said, speaking to moderator Michael Kassan, the CEO of consultancy MediaLink. But the internet has changed that dynamic, removing the ability to create scarcity and giving control to consumers. “Until there was an alternative like the internet … there was only one way to buy programming. It doesn’t take more than a semi-imbecile [to realize] that once you have the opportunity, you’re going to pick what you want.”
Media — news, music, movies, television — was a bubble created by monopoly over means of delivery. Radio was limited to a certain number of channels, record labels had distributors to stores, movies had theaters and then video rental, and television had a fixed number of channels. With the mainstreaming of cable in the 1990s and then the rise of the internet, this monopoly vanished.
At that point, media needed another market that could provide equivalent numbers of warm bodies paying attention to it in order to claim profit. Music shifted to hip-hop, movies became extended television shows, and everything else went SJW as a means of finding fanatics who would be driven to attend to their media regardless of quality, which enabled studios to continue their cheap production / high resale gig.
What killed this in turn was that the new audience was powerless, relative to the original middle class viewing group, and also fickle, meaning that it had very few items to which it was particularly loyal. This created the “tentpole” pattern that Diller identifies, which is a few huge but transient best-sellers and then many niche products which barely sell at all.
As mentioned here before, the term Lügenpresse refers to the lying press and the media seems to be of two minds about it:
Reuterscalls it a “Nazi-era term,” and then admits in the article that it was from WWI.
Der Spiegelreveals that the term was used as far back as the 1840s.
The difference between these two is that the Der Spiegel article came out before Richard Spencer trolled the media with it, and the Reuters article came out afterwards. If Der Spiegel had run the piece after Spencer used the term, they would have realized that The Narrative demanded they do only one thing: emphasize that anyone other than a Leftist is a Nazi if possible, and so they might have less zealously researched the word.
In other words, the proof of the Lügenpresse is that one major news source is contradicted by another, and almost no one has noticed, and possibly the only reason this is so is that the second news source, which is a highly respected but Left-leaning paper, was not yet aware of the domain of The Narrative over the term.
The dirty secret here is that the press reflects back to us who we are, and this is why we trust it. Like a person at a social gathering, it just feels right because it says things that seem about appropriate and accurate to us, socially speaking. If it were standing before us with a PBR in one hand and an American Spirit in the other, we would be nodding along to whatever bland indie band was bleating in the background.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t.
“Wet streets cause rain.” Another way to view that is the reversed causality: “wet streets mean that it rained,” where in actuality, many things can make the streets wet. This means that the Left can perpetually blame the rain for the conditions of society, and never consider other causes, such as Leftists spraying hoses on the street.
Take for example health care. Leftists demanded socialized medicine back in the 1960s; since that did not work, they partially socialized the system with Medicare and Medicaid, and left the rest up to private industry under heavy regulation. Now, they point to the disaster they created and claim it is inefficient and so the solution is… socialized medicine.
The press gets away with what it does because its message is popular. The secret to humans is that people prefer lies. That gives them the feeling of group sympathy, the sense that everyone else in the group is as wounded as they are and that a fiction shared between all takes away the pain. It at least gives them a way to separate from those who are not wounded, and a way to use guilt to pound those not-wounded people into the pavement.
When it comes time to write an interpretation of complex events, the press always chooses to side with the angry proles at the outskirts of society. Its goal is to sell newspapers, and this means that it must find an audience, preferably the easiest audience possible. If — for example — ten percent of the population buys newspapers, newspapers must find a ten percent who will buy it.
The point there is that the ten percent can vary. They can sell to the ten percent who have been in the military, or the ten percent who hate broccoli, or… all they need to do is get a certain number of warm bodies in the door, and it does not matter who they are. This is why consumer commerce is ultimately egalitarian. If one customer is too hard to satisfy, it finds another.
Under a sane society, there would be a fixed ten percent who make all the consumer decisions because this group tends toward wanting good things — truth, realism, sanity, health, value, long-term utility, low waste, efficiency — and therefore, if we put them in charge of the products, we all benefit.
However, products have been democratized, or expanded to the lowest common denominator, including news. They sell to whoever is buying, and since discerning and discriminating consumers are hard to tell to, they pitch it to morons. A moron is equal to a genius at the voting booth, in a crowd of people socializing, and when spending a few bucks (or a click and ten minutes) on the news.
Even worse, the news seeks out morons. People who have no other inclination in life make up the bulk of journalists: they had no direction, and/or are unhappy, and want control, so they become journalists. In former times they would have been priests, relishing the power to condemn or approve that was entrusted to them. Now they do the same, but with political morality instead of religious morality.
This is why the news reflects back to us what we are. They tell us not what is actual, but what their audience wants to believe is true. They do it by leaving out some facts, which enables them to commit the “wet streets cause rain” fallacy of inverted causality; they just fail to mention the firehose, overflowing river or other sources of water, and then mention the streets before the rain, and it seems as if they are correct.
That little sleight-of-hand allows the press to then commit its next sin: the broad conclusion. If wet streets cause rain, and rain is the source of inequality because it falls more on the houses of the rich, we must wage war against wet streets in order to achieve equality. This sets the useful idiots off to dry out streets, which obstructs any useful activity, resulting in more crises for the press to write about.
Make no mistake. They are the Lügenpresse: their goal is to sell you lies by telling you only part of the truth, and like any good con man would, play to your sympathies and desires instead of actual truth. They are entertainment and sympathy, not an actual depiction of reality. Smart people instinctively know this, but the knowledge is trickling down, and with that, the Lügenpresse is losing its grip on the collective mind.
It is time we face an obvious truth: pundits and academics make their money not by telling the truth, but by coming up with interesting theories that avoid the blunt truth, because we all want life to be more complex and more interesting than it is.
After this historic 2016 presidential election, the writers and conversationalists are out in force telling us all of their creative and imaginative but unrealistic theories about the election. All of them have missed the most basic point: this was an election against diversity and globalism because people finally saw what those were like in practice.
Americans were OK with the Hollywood version of diversity where people come from foreign lands and become just like us. But as they saw this more in practice, they realized that this meant the erasure of us. We were being replaced, genocided and destroyed, and the elites proudly approved of this practice, which meant the elites were insane.
Ferguson elected Trump as much as anything else. When Americans see a group of minorities rioting in defense of someone who has obviously shot not for his race but his ongoing and out-of-control criminal activity, they realize that those minorities are not concerned with truth, but identity. The dead guy was one of our own, so the guys in charge — whitey, we presume — must be to blame.
At that point, Americans saw the tragic nature of diversity. Someone is always to blame, and for minority groups, there will never be the comfort of knowing they are in a society created by their own people for their own people. We have stolen pride from minority groups and forever relegated them to secondary status through diversity.
In addition, diversity means that white people are always targets whenever things do not work out so well for someone who is a member of an ethnic, religious, sexual or (perceived) gender minority. Whitey is always to blame, usually by other white people, who arrogantly assume that white people are in control.
Diversity does not work. It cannot work. It never has. If as a writer I have any contribution to this debate, it is the knowledge that our ongoing racial and ethnic warfare in the USA has never been about Blacks or Indians being bad. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, or — as is wise to assume — the truth is more varied and nuanced than either of those extremes.
But the real culprit is diversity because it pits different groups against one another because for the society as a whole, there can be only one ethical, moral, values, and legal standard, and that will always reflect the group that created it.
The Right-wing media is currently digging its own grave by trying to explain away the anti-diversity nature of this election.
For example, the normally insightful Victor Davis Hanson side-steps the issue this way:
Finally, the more Clinton Inc. talked about the Latino vote, the black vote, the gay vote, the woman vote, the more Americans tired of the same old identity politics pandering. What if minority bloc voters who had turned out for Obama might not be as sympathetic to a middle-aged, multimillionaire white woman? And what if the working white classes might flock to the politically incorrect populist Trump in a way that they would not to a leftist elitist like Hillary Clinton? In other words, the more Clinton played the identity politics card, the more she earned fewer returns for herself and more voters for Trump.
No, Vic: identity politics are a side effect of diversity. When you put different groups in the same country, they are all competing for whose self-interest gets to rule. This creates a fragmentation of social standards, and so the groups split further, with women and sexual minorities breaking out as well. Soon everyone is fighting for their own tribe — which is a mixture of race, ethnicity, religion, politics, culture, values and lifestyles — because that is the only way to avoid being assimilated, or destroyed, both in culture and in the self-esteem it conveys.
Culture is more than practicality. We know it arises from genetics, and that it is unique to each group; it is therefore somewhat arbitrary, but more likely, represents the intersection between environmental adaptations and ideals that make each group what they are.
To take this away is to make the group a conquered people. Assimilation into a 1980s culture of shopping malls, fast-food courts, Dale Carnegie/Willy Loman salesman culture, and materials science which could provide explanations but not prescriptions, may have destroyed white people in America — and other groups know it will surely destroy them. And so they oppose it.
Americans are in the first stages of realizing that diversity does not work. It is not about letting the right groups in, or admitting only exceptional individuals, but that we do not need it at all. We have enough genetic variation inside of a single population, say, Germans, to avoid inbreeding and continue evolution. We do not need outsiders for that, or to do the jobs we used to do, many of which could be avoided anyway by having a smaller, more focused population that is less likely to favor mass culture because it has a culture of its own.
The often-insightful David Brooks hits on this in what seems like an off-the-cuff comment:
Sometimes you get the sense that the campaign barely matters. People are just going with their gene pool, and whatever it is.
Of course that is what they do. Genes determine inclinations, and those translated through real-world options direct behavior. How could it be anything else?
Yet for the last two hundred years, in pursuit of an opiate god named Equality, we have refused to believe this. People are all the same, they say. It is the rules and economic incentives which determine what succeeds or fails.
In reality, none of that is true. People exist on a scale that is both vertical and horizontal. The vertical is quality, and the horizontal is specific adaptation and fitness at that, as happens with creatures in an ecosystem. Hawks rise above mice, but some mice are better at being mice than others. Sometimes, that leads to predation; sometimes, more rarely, to the birth of a new species that optimizes itself for a new function based on the original choice by an individual mouse.
That knowledge threatens people. It means that they are not omnipotent gods as their big brains tell them they are, but mice in the field, hoping to make the right choice, and becoming changed by their choices when they want to be static, unchanging, eternal and immortal. It says that we are not “in control.” We can make choices, but those are either informed by reality, or lead us into illusion, and this means that we have not “free will” but the need to make analytical, results-based decisions. That in turn kills our illusion of our intent alone, our whims and judgments, being the essence of us, which allows us in turn to continue with the I-am-God assumption.
Arrogance and pretense on the level of individuals find confirmation in The Crowd, a group of mutually deferential people who affirm the illusions of the individual through group assent. This is why they act like a cult, a gang and a nasty social clique all at once:
“This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing, [its] unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there would be a winking ‘we did it’ feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar, and saved the republic.”
This election refuted that behavior, too, which is problematic because it is the basis of Leftism and its modern quasi-conservative hybrid, liberalism. Interestingly, the Leftist press is closer to identifying the anti-diversity nature of this election than the conservative press, which shows that the “in group” is clueless on both sides, but that the Left has been shocked into action.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who recently branded Trump a “hate preacher,” has said he is preparing for “difficult times.” The chancellor herself also reminded the president-elect that “democracy, freedom, respect for the law and for human dignity, regardless of ancestry, skin color, religion, gender and sexual orientation” are all values that must be defended — the very ones that the Republican candidate more or less openly questioned during his campaign.
In other words, Trump has replaced blind ideological loyalty to “Equality” with the principle of identity, or that each group has its own standards — and is worth preserving for its uniqueness alone, whatever we think of its merits.
Sea change of this nature only happens when something has thoroughly failed. The continued refugee rape wave in Europe, Palestinian violence in Israel, and domestic racial unrest in America have proven that diversity is a dead letter. With the shift of the Left from anti-Establishment rebels to pompous Establishment nanny state globalists, Leftism has died too.
At least the Left seems to understand this. They also understand that the concept of democracy is changing. It is no longer about letting everyone vote, but having each group have self-determination so that if voting is retained — a foolish idea, given how people behave in groups — the group votes for changes that apply only to itself, by itself.
But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Do you see the shell game here? Neoliberalism can either be a goal, or a method. It is not an ideology in itself, but a means of implementing world Leftism, this time by using economic forces (something learned from the failure of the Soviet Union to do so during the Cold War) instead of political ones.
Blaming “neoliberalism” is a clever way of shifting the blame from the master to his tools. The agenda — equality — remains the same, and requires diversity/globalism to achieve that end. No wonder it comes from a Leftist newspaper.
The truth is that the media is in trouble. They have an audience to whom they need to sell a product. The difficulty is that this audience purchases only that which confirms its worldview, which it uses like a crutch to justify its lifestyle and make it feel better about its position in life.
For this reason, the Left-press (93%) will continue to repeat the same illusions it did during the election. They have no choice; their audience wants to buy a Left-product (really: justification of individualism) and so will tolerate nothing else.
In the past, competition kept the press somewhat sane. Leftist newspapers hit the stands next to the right-wing newspapers, and if there was too much disparity between the two, the audience would fragment, so there was convergence. Thanks to the victory of the Left in the 1990s as the 1968 generation matured and took public roles of power, the right-wing press is all but dead, and as a result the Leftist press is on its own.
Even so, the right-wing press is still trying to feel out a milder version of the NeverTrump drama. They are beaten, marginalized, and want to achieve social respectability by repeating mainstream opinions, which are Leftist, with a slight right-wing spin. The problem is that the audience they seek will simply go to the Left-wing papers.
That audience likes to scream about how “racist, sexist, and homophobic” Donald Trump is, but offer no proof. They are onto something, but in inverse. The normal people out here want the death of Political Correctness, and they realize that this requires legitimizing opinions formerly seen as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as normal.
This means not the death of the Left-wing press, but the demise of its cultural dominance. It is no longer seen as the voice of moral authority but as a special interest which attempts to assert its worldview to the exclusion of all others so that it can seize power.
Trump connected to the segment of the population that was prepared to believe that racism was realism, misogyny was locker-room talk, inconvenient facts were media myths, and viciousness was the new normal. Just as surely as he has redrawn the electoral map, he has radically altered the Overton window.
In other words, these people reject the Leftist definitions that awareness of racial differences and a desire to live among people like oneself is “racism,” that noticing that men and women serve different roles is “sexism” or misogyny, and that the media is objective and unbiased. This is a population awakening from a nightmare of mental control.
For seventy years, the Left has made diversity its implement of control. Those who do not get onboard with the program of worldwide racial mixing are Hitler, but those who do get the best jobs, prestige, fame and wealth. This election demanded a stop to that slide into oblivion, and if the Left cannot accept that, they will be forced into obsolescence.
Nobody gets what happened in this election except for a bunch of quiet, average, frustrated Americans. Not too many of the important people care what they think. They would probably fail to get it if they did. Which explains why Donald J. Trump’s election was like D-Day. It was only the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
Hillary believed that Donald J. Trump was a joke. She chose him to run against. It was in the bag. Hillary had done her Operations Research. She had made the fight completely unfair and was now destined to be our next president. Only one thing held her back from fabulous victory. It was what she truly believed about average, everyday Americans.
Hillary Clinton lied frequently during her professional career; but not when she talked about The Basket of Deplorables. She spoke from her wretched, hoary heart. This was what this woman thought of me, personally and socially; as a human being. I was irredeemable. I was lost and needed to be buried in the cat box. In the parlance of The Right Stuff Blog, I’m ovenable in Hillary’s Amerika.
You know who else thought Trump was a joke? The party he LBO’d, gave back to the people, and dragged kicking and caterwauling across the line to victory. They were warned. They were vastly too intellectual to listen.
You just have to laugh. If you don’t understand that you are being deliberately played. He wants you to scorn him so that he can use you as a foil. He sets it up like it’s him against the world and that big, bad world is goin’ down like The Andrea Dora! This is boffo showmanship. I can think of an even better analogy than H. Ross Perot. There was that time Jesse Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota. We all laughed at Jesse. His candidacy was a joke. It was so funny Ventura got elected. Kinda makes those jokes about THE DONALD stop seeming so funny.
So how could the sideshow known as THE DONALD evolve and maneuver until he was President Trump? Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t the only person in Amerika to want to put all those ovenable Trump in a Basket of Deplorables. The Kakistocracy Blog gave us a 10-point message that the GOP geniuses had for Trump voters.
1) Not Hillary
2-4) Trump sucks
5) You’re in a cult
6) I’m the professional, not you
7-9) You’re idiots
10) Vote Republican
So these people in the Uni-party just fed the fire. They kept feeding the fire. It burned them. But they just don’t get it. We get accused of “Whitelash.” I’m afraid I’m just not interested in any of Van Jones’ fetishes this fine morning. Leftists who desire to actually become as smart and with it as they like to claim they are should do what they typically do and read Maureen Dowd in the New York Times.
“As flawed a candidate as Trump was, he had his finger on the pulse,” Kevin said. “The polls were off because nobody wanted to admit that they were going to vote for him. But it’s a populist revolt and a lot of people believed in Trump’s message: too much regulation, too much government. The whole thing is a bunch of guys getting rich on Capitol Hill and not paying attention to the people who elected them. They stay in Congress a couple years, then move on to K Street and call on the same people who replaced them.”
But everybody is smart enough to figure this out. There is very little in Washington, D.C. worth respecting since the Leftist big takeover. The Liberals and the Cucks both know this. It is a wilful ignorance inspired in part by greed and in part by fear. Everything wrong with Wall Street is wrong with Washington is wrong with Amerika. If they don’t start getting this, or if they are not all fired or replaced, the end will come for the United States of America, and deservedly so.
As mentioned here before, the evidence of deliberate Russian state intervention by hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails is unconvincing for two important reasons:
No mention of how many phishing emails sent.
If the number is low, the group was specifically targeted; if many emails were sent out, this was just an attempt to hack as many people as possible in order to get valuable information. That this was then released to Wikileaks suggests the group responsible found no way to make money from this information and wanted notoriety instead.
Lack of strong connection to the Russian state.
From outside of these hacking groups, it is impossible to tell the difference between “state-sponsored” hacking and a group that merely paid the right bribes to be able to keep operating. That the IP address is in Russia is in fact indicative of the group not being Russian, since many hackers use Eastern European relay sites because of lax law enforcement.
That in turn suggests that this group is not state-sponsored, but for-profit and independent. Whether Wikileaks then chose to release documents at key times in order to embarrass Hillary Clinton, perhaps for her possibly facetious suggestion that Julian Assange be droned, remains unknown.
As always, it is unwise to trust the media. Like these Russian hackers, media is a for-profit business and it has zero obligation to be accurate, only to create something resembling “news” that many people want to buy. Its modus operandi is to mention only some of the relevant facts and to omit others, creating a “spin” or assumption that a certain narrative is true when it is at best partially true.
Some are finding themselves surprised — shocked! shocked, I tell you — that neither big media nor presumed “conservative” sources like Fox News are playing this video, which shows Leftists celebrating the violence they instigate and Trump rallies and chastising the Right for playing within the rules.
This is not anomalous, but business as usual, because of what news media is: a business.
When civilizations are new, goals are clear. The forests must be cut down, the city built, crops planted and enemies defeated. The task is the action that needs to be taken. But when civilization ages, tasks are administered through proxies or intermediates where the task is to satisfy rules or objectives removed from end results.
For example, a modern citizen may be told to go to a certain location, dig a ditch and put in a concrete platform. He will not know what goes there, or why it is important; there is only the task.
Proxies create the necessity of “playing the game.” This means satisfying the rules and the bosses, not getting the task done. This tends to make people lazy and resentful because there is less of a connection between the immediate act and the reward of having something completed.
This gives rise to the type of people who play the game well. This process selects for people who do not care about the results of their actions, but want the intermediate reward of money and social acclaim. These are naturally manipulators, salesmen and narcissists.
Your average celebrity, politician and bureaucrat all fit into this pattern.
What this means is that news media is there to win the game because the people in it are there to win the game. That means that truth is never the goal; popularity is, specifically by advancing the narrative that everyone out there is a victim and that is why things have not worked out for them.
The only viewpoint that fits the narrative is the Leftist viewpoint, which implies that a lack of equality — not the incompetence and moral baseness of most people — is the problem with life. Fix the lack of equality, and you have Utopia. For Leftists, this is the only moral good.
Leftists view breaking the rules as a necessary sacrifice. Rules, decency, culture, God, family… these are all secondary. Only the ideology matters. For our forward-thinking brains, this is like crack and heroin mixed together. It shuts down all other processing, bringing sweet oblivion to the big questions of existence.
This is why Fox News rarely runs conservative news, and when it does, it slants to the Left. That is where the audience is. Many conservatives are in fact mostly Leftist in outlook, although they would scream if you pointed out that “small government, muh freedumbs, diversity and equality” are not conservative values.
We think of the news as an agency with the purpose of telling us the truth. It is not; the news is there to distract from the truth and instead pitch you a product, which is that you are a victim and all you need is freedom and equality. The news is entertainment.
Thus it is not surprising that you see very little of real life and real thinking mentioned there.
The media has two allies: its own complicity in simultaneous advancement of a narrative from multiple sources, and the “memory hole” created by a constant barrage of new stories and drama. For this reason, most have already forgotten the JournoList Scandal:
JournoList e-mails obtained by the Daily Caller reveal what anybody with two neurons to rub together already knew: Professional liberals don’t like Republicans and do like Democrats…In 2008, participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama’s racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such “objective” news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time, and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.
…In the 1930s, the New York Times deliberately whitewashed Stalin’s murders. In 1964, CBS reported that Barry Goldwater was tied up with German Nazis. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers and found that journalists identified themselves as liberal by a factor of 3 to 1. Their actual views on issues were far more liberal than even that would suggest…In other words, JournoList is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is not a secret conspiracy but something more like the “open conspiracy” H. G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.
The scandal here is not their views, but that the perpetually Leftist press was caught coordinating coverage in order to spin a narrative and effectively make their “objective” newspapers, magazines and television shows into propaganda organs.
Under the guise of an article explaining why the list was not collusion but a resource, one of the participants wrote in ultra-Left Slate what amounts to an admission of guilt if one reads between the lines and focuses on terms like “should”:
The “JournoList scandal,” which came a month later, was that the old listserv of several hundred journalists and academics and operatives occasionally indulged in threads about how a story (Jeremiah Wright, Palin’s rise) would hurt Barack Obama and what should be done to fight back.
…The point was that it connected a bunch of people in divergent but related industries, all liberal or left-wing, and gave them space to talk about what they were/should have been working on.
In other words, he fully admits that this list coordinated thinking between different media establishments, and that the list was entirely biased to favor the Left.
To Leftists, this is not a scandal; they believe that egalitarianism (Leftism) is ineffably correct and that anyone who opposes it is bad, so what they “should” be working on is how to smash the opposition.
As we venture into yet another discovery that the American media reports with a Leftist slant, only hires Leftists and fires any non-Leftists that it can, it is important to remember that what we are seeing and hearing is not the product of independent minds coming to the same conclusion, but coordinated attacks where the slant and timing are arranged in advance.
These simultaneous attacks are very effective because they create an echo chamber. Change the channel and see more of the same; pick up a paper instead, or a magazine, and read the same thing at the same time. It creates the impression that all of society agrees on this judgment, when in fact it is a small cabal who work together to create what is effectively a controlled media.