How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 4

September 20, 2019 Leave a comment

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how politicians who dutifully recite their allegedly traditional beliefs and pieties can no longer compete with those willing to push beyond previous boundaries of what was considered “routine”, “polite” or “acceptable”. We have reached this point because, over the past four decades, living standards for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or deteriorated. The majority, therefore, no longer feel that a better future is possible. This is why the stale and canned pseudo-populist antics of people such as Reagan40, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 and their ilk are no longer sufficient to win elections. Now, we will go into why the current democrat party obsession with “gun control”, “LGTBTQ issues” and other supposedly “woke issues” fashionable with the incestuous and effete “elite” of modern day america.

A couple of years ago, I first wrote about how “wokeness” is largely driven by neoliberals trying to show that they are morally superior to the rest. Since then, we have seen a concerted push by the effete managerial class and every politician who wants to pretend that they too are somehow morally superior to push “solutions” for problems which do not exist. Even worse, in almost all cases their “solutions” either make things worse, cause public backlash and provide ammunition to their equally despicable opponents in the so-called ‘culture wars’. There is a reason why almost everyone in this country, other than those who live in a few exclusive zip codes, see ideas such a “plastic straw ban” or unrealistic fuel consumption guidelines for cars as bad and stupid. And in case you are wondering, the recent proliferation of crossovers in USA has a lot to do with how such automobiles are classified for the purpose of fuel economy standards.

So what does any of this have to with the promotion of electorally disastrous issues such as “gun control”, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism by the democratic party? Well.. a lot. But before we go there, let me clear about a couple of things. While republicans screw their voter-base as much as democrats, they do so without insulting them like the later. Secondly, seemingly unconnected issues promoted by many democrats such as “gun control, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism are closely related, but not for the reasons most of you might have guessed. This is not to say that virtue display has no role in the promotion of such bullshit policies. But while virtue display can explain behaviors such as adopting non-white children, being vegetarian or vegan, driving a Prius and donating to certain charities, it t cannot explain the deep obsession of core democrat constituencies with issues such as “gun control” and promotion of LGBTQ.

But what is the difference between adopting a non-white child or going vegetarian and pushing for “gun control” and promoting LGBTQ. Well.. it comes down to doing something yourself versus trying to manipulate of force others to do things your way. For example, almost nobody who has adopted an African child or driven a Prius is forcing you to do the same. But those who allegedly believe in “gun control” and “gender fluidity” want to take away the guns of other people and castrate their children, all in the name of “social progress”. Most of the enduring, and unpopular, hobbyhorses of the democratic party center around top-down control of the lives and behaviors of those “other” people. That is right.. most issues animating the core white constituency of democratic party are about credentialed types and managers trying to control other people.

But to what end? And why are establishment democrats so tone deaf to the unpopularity of their hobby horses. Sure.. focusing on such cultural issues also allows them to ignore real issues such as the desperate need for affordable healthcare, post-secondary education, housing stock etc. Having said that, it mostly comes down to the need to exert power (for its own sake) over other people, not unlike what is presented in George Orwell’s’ 1984. Promoting issues such as “gun control”, “gender fluidity” and environmentalism is about using the framework of a traditional religion to push for its secular equivalent. Did I mention that all religions are about making other people go along with lies and bullshit fairytales to further your control over them.

Religions have another feature that is relevant to this discussion. All the “truths” and “causes” espoused by any given religion cannot be disproved or questioned. This is why establishment democrats who cannot tell the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire rifle will never change their mind on that subject. It was never about “facts”, “truth” or anything approaching reality. Belief in the righteousness of “gun control” is part of the gospel of coastal american liberalism. Similarly, belief in the validity of “wokeness”, “gender fluidity” and other similar new sacraments of american liberalism has nothing to do with acting in the best interest of other people or children. Do you really think they care if tens of thousands of gender-atypical children get wrongfully castrated and suffer permanent psychological damage because of their beliefs?

Some of you might remember that I recently posted a series about how belief in anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalyptism. In it, I also made the case that the belief in man-made climate change has massive parallels to Catholicism. The part relevant to this post is who benefited from religions such as Catholicism. To make a long story short, the only groups and institutions who really benefit from Catholicism (or any other religion) are the clergy, church, contemporary ruling elites and their stooges. Everyone else suffers necessary deprivation and immiseration. But this, you see, is a central feature of all organized religions- not a bug.

Since we are at almost 1000 words, I will wrap up this post. In the next part, I will go into why support for these liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. Yes.. I am aware that it was supposed to be in this part.

What do you think? Comments?

How a ‘X-Files’ Spinoff TV Show Ended up Predicting the 9/11 Attacks

September 14, 2019 5 comments

I considered publishing this post about three days ago, but decided to do it later for a number of reasons. In the later half of 1990s, a TV show known as ‘X-Files‘ was quite popular and I used to watch it quite regularly. In late 2000, after one of its two main leads (David Duchovny) left the show, producers tried to capitalize on the show’s brand by developing a spinoff. This new show, known as ‘The Lone Gunmen‘ was centered around a small group of recurring characters on ‘X-Files’. It was supposedly not that successful and only 13 episodes of the first season ran between March 4, 2001 to June 1, 2001. Under any other circumstances, this would be unremarkable.

So why are we still talking about it after 18 years? Well.. as it turns out, the storyline of pilot episode aired on March 4, 2001 would become relevant a bit over six months after it was aired. The episode in question was about a plot by a small clique of powerful government officials to remotely fly a airliner filled with passengers into the world trade center (in NYC) to simulate a terrorist attack. The rationale behind this plot was that such an incident would create enough public outrage to allow USA to invade a couple of middle-eastern countries, boost profits by weapon manufacturers and create a new bogeyman after USSR ceased to exist in 1991.

And now you know, why this show (especially that episode) was never re-aired on a major TV network after September 11, 2001. Here is a YT clip containing the entire episode. Enjoy.. and download it by a method of your choice, if you found it interesting. Did I mention that the flight path of fictional plane meant to fly into the WTC involves Boston Airport.

The important parts start at (29:44) link 1 and (39:37) link 2.

What do you think? Comments?

Recent Interesting Articles by Matt Taibbi on the Substack Platform

September 14, 2019 10 comments

Here are links to a few recent and interesting articles by well-known journalist, Matt Taibbi. He has written for almost two decades in mainstream journalistic publications such as Rolling Stone, The Nation, Playboy and many others. He has also written a few books based on his journalistic investigations on subjects such as Yeltsin-era Russia, the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, Trump’s victory in 2016, Drug Trafficking in USA etc. I am posting them to illustrate how my critiques of the democratic party establishment is far more mainstream than a few readers want to believe. It is, however, likely that those few will now label Matt Taibbi as a stooge of “Putin”.

Latest Russian spy story looks like another elaborate media deception

It’s a characteristic of third world countries to have the intelligence world and the media be intertwined enough that it’s not always clear whether the reporters and the reported-about are the same people. When you turn on the TV in Banana Republics, you’re never sure which group is talking to you. We’re now in that same paradigm in America. CNN has hired nearly a dozen former intelligence or counterintelligence officials as analysts in the last few years. Their big get was former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, but they also now have former deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe, former FBI counsel James Baker, and multiple former CIA, NSA, and NSC officials. Meanwhile, former CIA director John Brennan has an MSNBC/NBC gig, as does former CIA and DOD chief of staff Jeremy Bash, and several other ex-spooks.

The rise and fall of superhero Robert Mueller

Russiagate isn’t just about bad reporting. It was and is a dangerous political story about rallying the public behind authoritarian maneuvers in an effort to achieve a political outcome. Republicans who battered Mueller with questions weren’t wrong. Investigators in the Russia probe made extravagant use of informants abroad (in the less-regulated counterintelligence context), lied to the FISA court, leaked classified information for political purposes, opened the cookie jar of captured electronic communications on dubious pretexts, and generally blurred the lines between counterintelligence, criminal law enforcement, and private political research in ways that should and will frighten defense lawyers everywhere. Proponents cheered the seizure of records from Trump’s lawyer Cohen, sending a message that attorney-client privilege is a voluntary worry if the defendant is obnoxious enough.

Russiagate was journalist QAnon (Part 1)

The final revelation, tabbed MUELLER DAY, was a national emergency for most news organizations. Most every reporter and editor with profile was recalled to man barricades on the morning of April the 18th,* and await the bombshell of bombshells. Every broadcast and cable station, major newspaper, and online outlet went into crash mode, an old-school newsroom drama in which every employee coffees up to deliver nonstop marathon content about the Most Important Story In History. Will the Anchorman panda finally give birth? Will Baby Jessica come up alive after 56 hours down a well? Could there be sounds of life inside the sunken Kursk? More recently: did America’s entire “respectable” news media really spend 22-plus months humping a transparent conspiracy theory, praying out loud for a former FBI chief to save them from Donald Trump, like cultists awaiting passage to Heaven’s Gate on the Hale-Bopp Comet?

It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the “overwhelming and bipartisan” standard, and Nancy Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now. There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

What do you think? Comments?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Latest Incarnation of Political Grifterism

September 11, 2019 16 comments

Ok.. the title is a bit clickbaity, however the main point it makes still holds. But before we go any further, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly.. this post is not a criticism of all policies (allegedly) supported and promoted by AOC. In fact, many of them such as establishing universal single-payer healthcare or taxpayer funded post-secondary education are perfectly reasonable . Similarly, raising the minimum wage to 15 $/hr, building new multi-family housing units in cities, spending money on building better public transport systems and infrastructure rather than expensive and unwinnable “wars” on the other side of globe are reasonable and populist ideas. Sure.. I don’t care about the “New Green Deal”, “gun control” and other similar bullshit. But my point is, the policies she supports are not what make her a grifter.

Secondly, I am not implying that she is somehow a bigger or more pernicious grifter than people such Reagan40, Bush41, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 or Trump45. One could easily make the argument that vast majority of people who have been elected to office in every single democracy are grifters. Nor am I suggesting that she is any more corrupt and power-hungry than the generic establishment politician of your choice who has been elected to office. The point I am trying to make is as follows: AOC is simply the latest incarnation of political grifterism in american political system. Also, I do not have an issue with elected politicians being grifters. My real problem with her brand of grifterism is that it is will likely damage residual voter trust in system far more than the outright corny bullshit spouted by people such Reagan, Bush or Clinton.

In other words, her grifterism is more problematic than that displayed by your run-of-mill politico because too many people still see her as a genuine person. In contrast, only the brain-damaged or senile idiots ever believed a single word that came out of the mouths of scammers such as Reagan, Bush or Clinton. To understand what I am talking about, let us go back about a decade or so to a then rising presidential candidate known as Barack Obama. As some of you might remember, I wrote a short series about why the Obama presidency was a disaster for democrats. The very brief version is as follows: Obama pioneered a new form of political grifterism which combined great-sounding but completely empty electoral promises, appeals to identity politics, and the media-abetted scam of being somehow relatable.

While that grift got him elected, once with a commanding mandate and subsequently a barely adequate one, it destroyed most of the residual voter trust in system. As you might remember, Obama44 came after Bush43, a person whose administration was infamous for losing a massive amount of voter trust in aftermath of failed occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, mismanagement after hurricane Katrina, Housing Bubble of 2003-2007 and Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Which is another way of saying that public confidence in the system was already on a steep downturn when Obama came into the picture. While Obama ran an entire campaign centered around “Hope and Change”, he did not deliver on those promises- at least as far as the 99% were concerned.

His administration largely doubled and tripled down on the neoliberal policies of previous ones and immiserated the majority while rescuing the 1% and to some extent, another 9% aka the flunkies of the 1%. It is no accident that the opioid epidemic began under Obama. While his 2008 campaign was about “hope and change”, his policies led to the destruction of most residual hope left in USA. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the anger and betray felt by most people during two terms of Obama led to a ridiculous orange troll beating HRC in the 2016 presidential election. Just as deliberate failures by Bush43 administration led to election of Obama44 in 2008, engineered failures of his administration led to the election of Trump45 in 2016.

So where does AOC fit in this picture? Well.. her grifterism is distinct from the one pioneered by Obama- though many of you might not be be able to tell them apart. Obama’s grifterism was formulated in the last days of neoliberalism before its image was permanently damaged in mind of voters. It relied heavily on being credentialed, appearing “cool”, talking like a CEO, projecting predictability and acceptance by rich white people. It also relied on identity politics and careful triangulation to make sure that he appeared promising to black voters while doing nothing to actually improve their lot. AOC’s grifterism is based on projecting fake “authenticity”, which is not surprising since we live in the era of YouTube, FakeBook, Twitter and Podcasts. It is also based on her being a woman, which is different from Obama’s identity politics of race.

Interestingly, AOC uses her Hispanic ancestry as a way to make herself look authentic than for race-based appeals. She has certainly learnt from the ultimate failure of Obama’s grifterism. But why do I keep saying that she is a grifter, just like almost every other politician? It has to with an observation about what she supports and what she does not. See.. the very few non-grifters in politics distinguish themselves by taking public positions which subject them a lot of ridicule by establishment. In other words, they frequently stand up for ideas that are unpopular with those in power. In contrast to that, AOC stands up for ideas that are either already popular (healthcare, education, housing) or are supported by a large part of the establishment (“gun control”).

The few somewhat unpopular ideas she stands for (new green deal” etc) are the ones that she knows have no real chance of becoming law. Compare her milquetoast positions to somebody like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib who are actually willing to confront the establishment on some pretty controversial stuff such as the special relationship to Israel. Whether you agree with their positions or not, it had to deny that they actually stand for something. It is also not surprising that the dying MSM chooses to promote AOC in a far more positive light than somebody like Omar or Tlaib. And this brings us to why AOC’s grifterism is problematic.

See.. its main audience is made up of those who have not comprehended the enormity of Obama’s letdown or are naive enough to believe that “it will be different”. The letdown this time around is going to be as bad as that after Obama got reelected in 2012 and will destroy most residual trust in system. But at least somebody will get rich and powerful till that occurs.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Sep 9, 2019

September 9, 2019 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Amateur Topless Selfies: Aug 29, 2019 – Amateur topless cuties taking selfies.

Amateur Selfies: Sep 2, 2019 – Slim amateur selfies taking selfies.

Amateur Topless Selfies: Sep 2, 2019 – Amateur topless cuties taking selfies.

Amateur Busty Selfies: Sep 9, 2019 – Busty amateur cuties taking selfies.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 3

September 8, 2019 13 comments

In my previous post of this series, I pointed out that the upper echelons of democratic party are so full of effete professionals that it can no longer win national elections unless the other party screws up hard. And to reiterate, racist white anger after the passage of civil rights legislation in 1960s is not the main reason behind the decline of democratic party in most states since the early 1990s. If that was the case, why did a few coastal states such as California, Oregon and Washington go from being reliable republican strongholds in early 1980s to reliably democrat by early 2000s? My point is that something else is at work.

Here is a clue. The shift of any given state (historically non-slave owning) from the democrat to republican column almost always occurs after many years of economic stagnation, permanent job losses, systemic deindustrialization, increase in poverty and zero hope for a better future. On the other hand, those which fare better under the neoliberal regime of “free” trade (predominantly coastal states) end up becoming democrat strongholds. You might have also noticed that the propensity of a state or even a city to vote for democrats after 1992 has a peculiar correlation with its percentage who have office jobs and others that require “credentials” or “licenses” of some sort. So why does this connection exist?

To make a long story short, it comes down to which socio-economic group benefits from the real policies of each party. White university “educated” petite bourgeoisie are the core constituency of modern democratic party. Notably, this group is heavily dependent on government spending and “regulation” for keeping their often useless jobs and professions protected from the negative effects of globalization, while simultaneously being able to use outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and influx of desperate undocumented immigrants to inflate their own living standards. Think of them as the modern equivalent of white people who weren’t rich enough to afford tons of slaves but had enough money for a couple of slaves.

But aren’t there tons of the mythical small-business owners who are reliably conservative and vote republican? Well.. there used to be. Right till the end of 1980s, the business environment in USA was reasonably conducive to the establishment and growth of small to medium businesses. Since then, the neoliberal consolidation of businesses and financialization of the economy resulted in the slow-motion destruction of small to medium sized enterprises. The vast majority of “small businesses” in this country today are now single-person entities used to process earnings from side-gigs or unstable contractor-type jobs.

Corporate consolidation has now created a system that is almost totally dominated by monopolies and oligopolies. Most petite bourgeoisie in america are, therefore, now mostly professionals, people in “licensed” professions, middle to upper management types and those aspiring to join their ranks. These people also happen to be concentrated in larger cities, especially on the coast. Now you know why democrats are so desperate to gain votes from richer white suburbs who are still marginally republican. Ok.. but why do so many black people, especially from the older generation, vote for democrats.

Well.. there are a few reasons for that pattern, but it largely comes down to two major ones. In the early 1960s, the democratic party (at national level) moved from its previous pro-apartheid position to one which supported civil rights. A large number of black people, especially those born after 1930 but before 1970, see democrats as the party of civil rights. They also actively recruited a few black politicians in its ranks. The other reason is that republicans, after 1968, became the party of working class whites. Some of you might wonder as to why republicans focused on working class whites instead of focusing on the entire working class.

The superficial reason for that choice is as follows: the demographic and racial profile of USA in 1960s-1980s was such that restricting oneself to working class whites was a viable political strategy. But the real reason is far more interesting. Both parties have always been controlled and beholden to the very rich and large corporations. Also, electoral politics in USA has always been a stage-managed show. But why did it appear to work? Well.. because a combination of circumstances and situations in the first seven decades of 20th century created enough spare wealth to duct-tape over a lot of systemic problems.

Until the 1980s and even 1990s, the overall economic situation for most people was good enough for them to ignore class-based politics. The peculiar history of USA and its racial demography in those decades. also, made it much easier to push race-based political divisions. In other words, restricting your electoral support to the white working class was a very viable strategy. And that is why republicans became so obsessed with “crime”, “law and order”, “war on drugs” and all that other bullshit after 1968. But note that even in the late-1970s, rates of incarceration (except in deep south) were comparable to other western countries.

But what does any of this have to with democrats in 2019 wanting to implement strict “gun control” laws, trying to outdo each other at being “woke” and do meaningless token bullshit such as banning plastic straws and passing other stupid laws to “protect” the environment. And why are these virtue-display based strategies likely to be counterproductive? To better understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a simple question- why did Trump win the republican nomination and then the presidency in 2018. So let us start by answering the first part, namely how he was able to beat 16 other candidates, some with especially deep pockets.

While some of you might still want to believe that it had something to do with “Russia” or “Putin”, the real if somewhat unpleasant explanation is that his success in the primaries was the logical culmination of post-1968 direction of republican party. Trump was (and is) not an aberration. He was just far more open about his worldview. More interesting, but seldom explored, is why all those other generic mediocrities failed. Why did all those republican politicians duly reciting republican beliefs and pieties fail against Trump? To make a long story short, their performance of the republican version of virtue displays could no longer compete with Trump’s pretense of caring for the white working class.

A slightly longer version is that since 2008, or even a few years earlier, public trust in institutions and systems have fallen in a precipitous and irreversible manner. Performing the same virtue displays which would have guaranteed victory in republican primaries as late as 2008 are not longer sufficient. A few years ago, I wrote a post on how anodyne communication styles have destroyed societal trust. But how is any of this connected to the current clown car of democratic presidential candidates? Well.. it comes down to what that party has learned, or not learned, from their humiliation in 2016. As it turns out, democrats haven’t learned anything useful.

As I wrote in my previous post in this series, people in 2019 care far more about issues such as being able to afford “healthcare”, cost of university education, poor job and career security than the urgent need to ban guns. Face it.. this issue only matters to some credentialed professionals living in urban areas of certain coastal states. However these parasites are highly represented in the social bubble inhabited by the upper echelons of the democratic party. I cannot resist pointing out that this situation is analogous to that time in 2015-2016 when many republican candidates (except Trump) tried to portray themselves as morally upright family men educated at famous universities. Guess what.. most republican voters did not give a shit about the personal moral standards of their elected representatives.

So why did all those allegedly mainstream republican candidates in 2015-2016 keep on reciting these pieties? Here is a clue.. it had to do with their social circle and bubble. In the past thirty years, most politicians of both parties have lost the ability to relate with people outside their carefully insulated social bubble. Consequently they keep harping on stuff which is fashionable and ‘hip’ in their social circles but is seen as out of touch in the real world. Democrats talking about their “wokeness” or being “totally supportive” of LGBTQ issues is similar to republicans talking about their “christian faith” and “virtues of hard work entrepreneurship”. The average voter perceives both as comically inept hypocrites and parasites.

In the next part, I will finally get into some detail about why democratic support for causes such as “gun control”, LGBTQ+ issues and environmentalism are going to be especially disastrous during the 2020 elections.

What do you think? Comments?

Historically Significant Clip: Kanye West on TV After Hurricane Katrina

September 6, 2019 2 comments

Over the past two years, Kanye West has become increasingly infamous for wearing a MAGA hat and supporting Trump. However, in my opinion, he has a unique place in the history of american empire- specifically, as an unintentional commentator on its public decline. See.. after seemingly “winning” the cold war in 1991, USA appeared to be the only and uncontested global hyperpower for almost ten years. However three events in the first decade of this century showed the rest of world that USA was neither a hyperpower nor especially competent. Somewhat fortuitously, all three events occurred in the month of September, albeit in different years.

The first one, is especially well known, occurred on September 11, 2001. Enough said. The third one, also known as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, came into its own on September 15, 2008. While the last one marked the official end of american empire, the second or middle one is often overlooked or not seen as such. I am talking about the completely inadequate response and public debacle in aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, Kanye West’s famous remarks on September 2, 2005 at A Concert for Hurricane Relief about the clusterfuck which occurred after Hurricane Katrina are historically significant because they are the most concise and best record for the second act in terminal decline of the american empire.

Enjoy the clip in all of its 240p glory!

What do you think? Comments?