Search Results

Keyword: ‘Fake Moral Outrage by Establishment against Trump will Benefit Him’

Fake Moral Outrage by Establishment against Trump will Benefit Him: 3

October 26, 2016 6 comments

In the previous post of this series, I talked about how the rapid and continuing fall of public trust in mainstream media over the last 15 years has greatly diminished their ability to hurt Trump’s chances in the 2016 general election. This fall in public trust has greatly diminished the ability of other associated organs of the media to hurt Trump’s real-life popularity. Many of you might have heard about a series of “polls” conducted by various mainstream media outlets over last 3-4 weeks that supposedly show HRC with 7-12% point leads over Trump.

So you might ask- aren’t all these recent “polls” evidence of the decline of Trump’s popularity and chances of winning the general election?I would say – NO. Here are the reasons I think that most, if not all, of the recent telephone-based polls might have been rigged to spread a false narrative about Trump losing to discourage his supporters from actually casting their vote in the general election.

1] Both HRC and Trump had better than 99% name recognition among the american electorate prior to them even entering the primaries of their respective parties. Compare that to previous presidential elections and ask yourself- did previous presidential candidates like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney had such widespread name recognition among the electorate prior to announcing their intention to run for office? Some of you might ask- why does that matter? Well.. it matters because most people make up their initial impressions about others after getting to know them and will continue to maintain that impression unless confronted with multiple lines of evidence that they were wrong.

In other words, we have all known (for over two decades) that Trump is a brash loudmouth who loves to associate and have sex with attractive and often much younger women. I would go so far as to say that revelations of Trump being a secret beta and nice guy would have done far more damage to his image and popularity than behaving like himself. Similarly, HRC has almost always been almost perpetually associated with shady deals, ‘legal’ lying, selling political favors, taking money from other rich people and generally being a robotic corporate puppet. Even her staunchest public supporters do not describe her as honest, trustworthy or a decent human being.

Given these facts, it is hard to believe that people are actually surprised by revelations that Trump enjoys the sexual company of attractive women. I mean.. he was just saying what every physiologically normal guy in the world thinks and would like to do- and most women know that too. As many of you know, HRC’s husband has actually settled charges of sexual assault by numerous women throughout his public life, while HRC was simultaneously trying to discredit them. Furthermore, the vast majority of people know that the relationship between HRC and her husband is well- business like rather than based in any emotion familiar to most people.

2] The most peculiar thing about all the polls in the previous 3-4 weeks which show HRC having a significant lead over Trump is that they are all phone-based polls. The more eagle-eyed among you might have noticed that in tracking polls (which have been historically more accurate) show the race to be fairly even between the two- with a surprisingly high number of undecideds for this stage of the race. So why is their such a large gap between the results of tracking polls and telephone-based polls? And perhaps more curiously, why did this gap open up around 4 weeks ago? Well.. here is what I think is happening.

Tracking polls unlike telephone-based polls repeatedly survey the same large group of individuals. In other words, the choice of whom to survey is made before the intensive phase of the election has started. Consequently, properly done tracking polls tend to be more accurate and far harder to manipulate than other types of polling- especially telephone-based polls. In contrast to that, telephone-based polls will almost inevitably sample a constantly shifting set of individuals. While this shifting polling base is not problematic by itself- if the polling is done honestly and with appropriate statistical corrections, it can be easily manipulated to give a desired answer.

For example- You can easily inflate HRC’s poll numbers by oversampling white-middle aged women with a college degree living in certain zip codes. You could also over-sample registered democrats or frame the questions in a way that makes the person say that they will vote for HRC, even if they do not intend to do so at voting time. It is also possible to reject responses favorable to Trump by applying biased corrections or just plain faking the numbers. I have been in science long enough to know that a significant part of research published in “top” peer-reviewed scientific journals is not reproducible and likely the result of fraud, numerical manipulation or cherry-picking of data.

3] We already know, thanks to Wikileaks, that HRC campaign operatives spend a lot of time and money cultivating “journalists” in mainstream media. We also know that these “journalists” or presstitutes are more than willing to take orders from the HRC campaign and write false news stories, hit pieces on people the campaign wants to attack. Furthermore, these presstitutes have been shown to allow the HRC campaign to write articles and hit pieces that are then attributed to others and suppress information damaging to that campaign. It does not therefore take a leap of imagination or reasoning to believe that other organs of mainstream media, such as pre-election polling, are at least equally compromised.

We know for a fact that Bernie Sanders frequently received 10-15% more votes than he was expected to, based on such polls, in the democratic primaries. We also know that the HRC campaign was busy sabotaging his campaign through rigging of the rules of who could vote in primaries, stacking super-delegates against him, getting presstitutes to write hit pieces on him and otherwise denigrating him. Some of you might remember how AP called the democratic primary, based on a lead of one super-delegate, the evening before the last set of party primaries. It should therefore not be surprising if the entire “Trump is falling behind in polls” meme is fiction concocted by the HRC campaign in close co-operation with the mainstream and corporate-owned media.

The next post of this series will contain actual examples (with links, figures and charts) of what I am implying in the current one.

What do you think? Comments?

Fake Moral Outrage by Establishment against Trump will Benefit Him: 2

October 16, 2016 3 comments

As I mentioned in the previous post of this series, there are three main reasons why the attacks on Trump by the establishment and mainstream media have failed to have any lasting effect on his standing in the supposedly “objective” polls and, perhaps far more importantly, his popularity as measured by size and enthusiasm of his rallies. Moreover you can see large numbers of his non-paid supporters routinely hitting back in the comments section of numerous negative propaganda articles put out by the mainstream media. As some of you might remember, mainstream media presstitutes have been writing articles about his campaign “melting down” or “in disarray” for almost a year now.

Even supposedly “good” presstitutes like Matt Taibbi have written more than one article on the downfall of Trump. Don’t believe me? Here is a link to an article he wrote on September 6, 2016 – How Donald Trump Lost His Mojo and here is a link to one he wrote on Oct 14, 2016 – The Fury and Failure of Donald Trump. Though both articles pretend to be different, they have an almost identical basic theme- namely that Trump is imploding. But there is a problem with them in that they do not reflect observable reality. The point I am trying to make is that all mainstream media articles predicting the imminent demise of Trump’s presidential campaign are almost totally based in wishful thinking rather than an objective analysis of events.

So what is going on? Why are even supposedly “objective” presstitutes like Matt Taibbi writing the journalistic equivalent of ‘Letters to Penthouse’ than anything vaguely resembling journalism? Why has wishful thinking and make-believe replaced anything vaguely resembling journalism? Why are so many journalists willing to believe something is happening when there is no worthwhile evidence of it happening? Why are so many journalists unwilling to see Trump supporters as anything other than stupid and racist whites? And perhaps most importantly- why do these journalists exhibit so much hate and contempt for people who support Trump?

Well.. there are many reasons for the way in which the mainstream media is treating Trump and his supporters. Some of these reasons are linked to the corporate consolidation of mainstream media outlets that has occurred in the previous three decades. Other reasons have to do with pressures linked to diminution of employment opportunities in mainstream media due to the spread and ubiquity of the internet. Still others have to do with the extreme geographical and socio-economic separation of well-known journalists and the people and subjects they write about. But the single biggest reason behind the biased reporting by mainstream media presstitutes has to do with false consciousness– as defined by Engels.

The vast majority of presstitutes who still work in mainstream media owe their jobs to their social connections and access to the establishment elite rather than their merit or ability. Furthermore, the career stability and prospects of almost all well-known or wannabe well-known presstitutes are linked to extent that they will prostitute themselves to the establishment elites. Consequently they see themselves as loyal servants and defenders of the status quo which allows their patrons to keep on screwing the majority of people. Many presstitutes also believe that cultivating subservient relationships with the establishment elite will result in them being invited to join the group. While that does work out for a select few- the vast majority of mainstream media presstitutes who toil away to impress their elite patrons are seldom rewarded with anything beyond a regular paycheck and occasional invitations to elite gatherings and similar small favors.

It is now quite easy to understand why mainstream media presstitutes will uncritically support and defend the most outrageous mistakes and behavior of their patrons- from supporting the war in Iraq, supporting the housing bubble, supporting various financial bubbles to supporting war with “insert name of country”.. you get the picture. It is therefore a mistake to see the mainstream media in supposedly democratic countries like the USA as anything more the flunkies and stenographers of the establishment elite.

Trump and his supporters (especially his supporters) present the single largest internal challenge to american establishment elite in living memory. It therefore follows that all flunkies and stenographers of the establishment (aka presstitutes) believe that he and the movement behind him must be defeated and demoralized. Unfortunately for them, we live in 2016- an era where they have irreversibly lost their previous monopoly in controlling flow and dissemination of “news” and information. It also does not help them that a very small percentage of the population believes in what they have to say. I see their futile attempts at undermining Trump as being the final major attempt of their failing and decaying vocation to influence the course of events for the benefit of the establishment elite.

What do you think? Comments?

Fake Moral Outrage by Establishment against Trump will Benefit Him: 1

October 15, 2016 16 comments

The previous week, or two, has seen the mainstream media being involved in the coordinated release and promotion of one (or more) audio recording of Trump making some allegedly lewd comments about women. They have also solicited and promoted the personal testimonies of women who have mysteriously remember instances of Trump groping them many years ago. Needless to say, these stories are poorly sourced and look very suspiciously timed. I should also point out more than a few of the accusers have direct, or indirect, links to the Clinton political machine.

It is most peculiar that the mainstream media is promoting these suspiciously timed stories about Trump while simultaneously ignoring the still ongoing releases of John Podesta’s hacked emails by WikiLeaks. As some of you know, the emails released so far by WikiLeaks contain many revelations relevant to the electability of Hillary Clinton in the general election. Also,if you do not know who John Podesta is or need to refresh your memory of him- here is a link about him.

These leaked emails, among other things, highlight the extremely close relationships between her and large corporations and financial institutions- thereby justifying the commonly held belief that she is a tool of corporations and the elite. Other emails from the same leak have shown her disconnectedness and contempt for non-elite americans, especially if they are white and resident in non-coastal states. We now finally have full transcripts of at least three paid speeches given by her to Goldman Sachs (at about 230k per speech) and damaging excerpts from many similar speeches given to other banks and corporations.

Perhaps more disturbingly, these speeches have revealed that she admits (public positions vs private position)that she will say anything to get elected. It certainly does not help her credibility to privately say that Saudi Arabia and neighboring gulf Emirates fund and support ISIS/ISIL and then accept millions of dollars from them- including a million dollar check birthday check for Bill Clinton. There are others where she privately calls “common core” a failure, defends fracking, is against legalizing marijuana, is still totally for gay marriage.. you get the picture.

However almost none of these important revelations about HRC are being discussed in the mainstream media. The mainstream, or more properly the establishment, media is full of endless interviews of poorly aging white women who claim that Trump sexually molested them years ago. Oddly enough, none of these women made a formal or informal compliant about his alleged behavior at that time. Infact, many of these accusers continued to be on very good terms with him until he announced his intention to run for the presidency. Furthermore, there is no way to verify the veracity of their claims via third-party testimony or other forms of objective evidence.

The endless promotion of such news items about Trump while simultaneously refusing to cover the Podesta leaks strongly suggests that the mainstream media (in collusion with the Clinton campaign) is deliberately running a massive fake news operation against Trump to stop his democratic election to the presidency.

While there are those who think such negative coverage by the media will hurt Trump over the long-term, I think otherwise. And here is why.. How many of you remember the attacks on Trump’s emotional stability from three months ago, or the attacks originating from the Khan family a couple of months ago or those by Alicia Machado from three weeks ago. In every single case, these attacks had no real lasting effects on Trump’s standing in the polls. At best, these attacks appeared to have some negative effect in some polls for a few days followed by a rebound. In a future post, I will also share my thoughts on the apparently odd behavior of major pre-election polls.

So why are all these attacks on Trump by the Clinton campaign and mainstream (old) media failing to have any real effect on his popularity? Well, there are many reasons.. but they can be broadly classified into two categories. Firstly, it comes down to credibility or the lack thereof. It is no secret that constantly repeating stories and allegations with the same themes in absence of support from events in real life hurts credibility of those sources. The mainstream media have been crying wolf for so long that very few people (as a percentage of the population) still believe them.

Moreover, the internet allows Trump to issue his rebuttals and make counter-accusations to an audience that is far larger and more engaged than that now available to mainstream media. Some of you might know that many of Trump’s recent campaign speeches have between 200-300k YouTube views (per speech) within 48 hours of uploading them. Furthermore the footprint of people who believe him, or follow him, on various social media platforms is in the tens of millions. Between that and his very well attended rallies, he has a far larger non-traditional media presence than HRC.

Secondly, the public image he has cultivated over three decades is such that controversies that would sink conventional politicians have no negative effect on him. Everybody knows that he is brash and rude rich guy who likes the company of attractive women. That is part of his image and appeal. Nobody expects him to speak like Obama or anybody else from an east-coast ivy league university. His lack of pretense about enjoying fast food or wearing ill-fitting suits makes him look normal and real in comparison to politicians with HRC who are incapable of anything approaching spontaneous or normal human behavior.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, people have grown to associate the media image of politicians like HRC with greed, corruption, lying and systemic decay. It does not help that public trust in institutions, from the medical establishment to journalism, is at an all time low- and still going down. In this environment, a candidate like Trump appears more viable and reasonable than all those credentialed expert-types whose only apparent skills seem to be finding new ways of scamming and looting the majority of people. We also cannot discount the possibility that some of his supporters want to elect him for the express purpose of destroying the status quo- one in which they have no worthwhile future.

What do you think? Comments?

2019 and 2020 Will be Much Bigger Shitshows than 2015 and 2016

May 30, 2019 14 comments

As regular readers know, I often make predictions on a number of topics which later turn out to be right (or pretty close) with a high rate of success. More importantly, I am able to accurately identify the underlying dynamics, trends and forces responsible for the ultimate outcomes. Now let me make another seemingly obvious prediction, but with far greater insight and details than possible for quacks.. I mean credentialed “experts”. My prediction is that 2019 and 2020 will be far larger and more problematic shitshows than 2015 and 2016. Some of you (MikeCA?) might argue that every day since the election of Trump has been a shitshow.. and that is technically sorta true. But if you think that 2017 and 2018 were shitshows, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

There are many reasons why this period of 1.5 years will be an epic meta-shitshow of the likes we haven’t witnessed in living memory. However, it is not simply the sheer number or magnitude of individual shitshows that will make this period memorable, but how one shitshow will feed into another and so on.. you know, synergy. But before we go there, let us talk about why 2015 and 2016 marked the beginning of our current era of shitshows. It all began with an orange Buffoon riding down a gaudy escalator alongside a trophy wife with a face pumped full of cosmetic Botox. Initially it seemed that his campaign for the republican presidential nomination was just another publicity stunt to obtain a larger payout from the reality show in which he was starring.

However it became obvious to me within 4-6 weeks that his outrageous and colorful persona had far more public support than effete Washington DC ‘insiders’ realized. And yes.. I never changed my opinion on that issue and turned out be right. And ya.. I also predicted he would win against Hillary in early 2016, even at times when even the most radical presstitues.. I mean journalists.. thought that HRC might somehow prevail against him on election day. I also explored the real reasons why HRC would lose to that buffoon– before the election took place. FYI- majority of my accurate predictions have been about issues and topics other than Trump. But enough about the orange buffoon. Let us now talk about Brexit- more precisely, why the ‘remain’ side lost.

MSM news outlets in that rapidly decaying country (UK) want you to believe that Brexit was due to the stupidity of poorly educated people in that country. However a simple look at the geography of that vote tells you all you need about Brexit. Long story short, post-2008 austerity measures in UK hit parts of the country that are not London pretty hard. People who live in those regions, aka most of that country, got progressively disillusioned with the shitty status quo. They expressed their discontent by voting against something which stood as a placeholder for the widely reviled status quo. You know.. just like people in the Mid-West finally got tired of Obama’s 8-year long lie about “Hope and Change” voted for Trump over the symbol of continuity aka HRC.

But both these shocks to the Establishment, their aftermath and colorful rhetoric accompanying both those changes are nothing compared to what we will witness in 2019 and 2020. While I will restrict my predictions to USA, things are also likely to get interesting in other parts of the world- maybe a bit too interesting. But before we go to the list, a word of caution. The most obvious reasons are unlikely to be the most consequential. The less glamorous reasons, further down the list, carry far more weight than the shiny but superficial ones which are obvious. So let us start by listing them in order of apparent obviousness.

1] Ever since Trump won the republican nomination in mid-2016, democratic establishment and deep state types have been trying to find enough dirt to stop his victory in the 2016 presidential election (which they failed) or impeach him. As things stand today, they have not uncovered anything more scandalous than Trump getting his disgraced lawyer to pay hush money to two women he had sex with while married to his current wife. While this revelation does provide fodder for supermarket tabloids, it is totally unsurprising and in line with Trump’s past behavior. More importantly, the Mueller investigation has not uncovered evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia or Putin. Nor has it shown any definitive evidence for obstruction of justice by Trump. And I know MikeCA will have something to say about my characterization of that report.

But these severe setbacks have not stopped an increasing number of democrats from demanding his impeachment, because face it.. they always knew he was “guilty” of something impeachable. Today, the patron saint of pro-impeachment brigade aka Robert Mueller came out and all but openly encouraged democrats to start the impeachment process, even though his report does not contain enough evidence to prosecute Trump for either “collusion” or obstruction of justice. And ya.. I am aware of the legalese bullshit about not being able to exonerate him- but let us get real, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It also helps to be rich and white, but that is a topic for another post. My prediction is that democrats will initiate pre-impeachment proceedings against Trump, irrespective of potential negative effects it might have on their electoral prospects in 2020. But how does this translate into a nasty shitshow?

Well.. for a few reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely Trump will be impeached, tried and made to resign before November 3, 2020. Secondly, the pre-impeachment investigation is going to be long and highly contentious. It will also overshadow democratic primaries and possibly the presidential election to such an extent that other issues will be effectively sidelined. So be prepared for a democratic primary in which candidates offer endless paeans to bipartisanship, civility in politics, reestablishing “norms” and impeaching Trump at the expense of all the other stuff most voters in the general election actually care about. You know.. stuff like antitrust action against various monopolies and oligopolies, medicare for all, doing something about student debt etc. Think of HRCs “what will the children think” 2016 campaign on steroids. But in some ways, this will be smallest shitshow of them all.

2] Stupid old losers who constitute a majority of democratic primary voters in large states seem to be enamored by “gun control” aka banning civilian ownership of guns. Given that everyone in the packed clown car of democratic candidates is expected to appeal to them, one should expect increasingly shrill and strident anti-gun ownership rhetoric. While appealing to these losers might help one win the primary and a few coastal states in general, it is almost guaranteed to backfire in swing states- especially those with large rural and semi-urban populations. Now add in a few random mass shootings (almost inevitable?) between now and Nov 3, 2020 and you can imagine how nutty this could get. Expect the Democratic house to pass one or more atrociously written anti-gun ownership laws and a few high profile court cases.

To make matters worse, if that is possible, we have seen a recent trend by private corporate monopolies/ oligopolies based in heavily democratic states to deny services based on ideology. Here are a few recent examples.. Software Maker Salesforce Tells Gun Retailers to Stop Selling AR-15s, YouTube Alternatives for Gun Videos & Content Creators and Bank of America to Stop Financing Makers of Military-Style Guns. I, for one, don’t see how pissing off millions of well-armed and single-issue voters who live in gun-ownership friendly jurisdictions is a smart idea when your party has to win their votes in 2020. Then again, this is the same party which think that Joe Biden in 2020 would make the best general election candidate. Or maybe the Democrats don’t want to really win national elections. Who knows..

The large number of democratic candidates vying for the party nomination will make things even weirder than the republican field in 2016. We have all seen how small campaigns which use far less costly traditional advertising and advisers can prevail over larger “mainstream” operations. Between this and the proliferation of small donors, expect far more candidates to remain in the race even after the first major primaries are over. And the DNC and other party establishment are going to try hard, and ineffectually, to stop Bernie by hook or crook. Don’t be surprised if the 2020 democratic convention is held under even more acrimonious circumstances than 2016. And there will be anonymous leaks, just like last time. It is going to get real ugly by mid 2020.

3] Let us now turn to the less obvious, but far more consequential, trends which promise to make 2019 and 2020 the biggest shitshows in living memory. Long story short, we are due for at least three independent nasty blowbacks from Trump’s foreign and trade policies. Let us start by talking about Iran or more precisely how his stupid policy towards that country has the potential to backfire in a spectacularly disastrous manner. It is no secret that idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton, urged on by Zionists and Saudis, are trying to start a war. What they don’t understand, or are willing to understand, is that any war with Iran in addition being unwinnable would make the Iraq misadventure look like quaint in comparison. The outcome of such a war would include Iran finally developing nuclear weapons (perhaps with Chinese assistance), prolonged and massive oil shortages with resultant price hikes and many other bad long-term effects (on USA).

Moving on.. Kim Jon-un has repeatedly conveyed to USA that unless economic sanctions are at least partially removed by end of 2019, he will restart testing ICBMs. My guess is that DPRK will demonstrate an entirely solid-fueled ICBM in early 2020, unless Trump and the idiots running “foreign policy” in USA openly abandon the idea of DPRK giving up its nukes and ICBMS- because the later ain’t going to happen. Which means that sometime in 2020, Trump will have to decide on how to respond to new ICBM and perhaps even nuclear tests by DPRK. To make matters even more interesting, this escalation will likely occur around the same time as Iran is likely to finally leave the JCPOA and restart its uranium enrichment program at maximum capacity. But wait.. it gets even better, or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

As most of you know by now, Trump is involved in an unwinnable trade-war with China. And here is why.. China’s economy and manufacturing capacity is far larger than USA in real terms. While the american economy and system will implode without Chinese imports, the converse is not true. There is also no other country in the world that has as large, varied and sophisticated a manufacturing base as China. Did I mention that USA and rest of the “West” are economically stagnant, demand saturated and in overall decline. China is not going to compromise on Huawei, give in to demands of american corporations or basically change anything significant about how it works or does business. It is the USA and rest of “West” that will have to ultimately eat crow. And they will start hurting USA by screwing over Boeing and make life interesting for every american corporation which does significant amounts of business there or dependent on its exports.

Tensions with Russia could exacerbate further given the current political climate in USA and provide opportunity for yet another shitshow. Did I mention how conflicts between internet monopolies and right wingers could spill into the real world with potentially disastrous results for the former. To summarize, the rest of 2019 and whole of 2020 will almost certainly witness far larger and problematic shitshows than anything in living memory. Even worse, many of these shitshows could feed into each other to create meta-shitshows.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Fake ‘Liberalism’ of John Oliver, Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee

March 24, 2017 5 comments

As many of you might have noticed by now- Trump’s 2016 election victory has had some interesting, and highly entertaining, effects on establishment “liberals”. Hardly a day goes by without some rich “liberal” celebrity saying, tweeting or posting a melodramatic rant about Trump. Curiously, only a minority of these rants are about something real- like all the bad decisions made by his administration since January 20, 2017. Instead, these rich “liberal” celebrities spend most of their bandwidth hyping dubious allegations about collusion between ‘Trump and Putin’ and generally demeaning people who voted for Trump (or did not vote for HRC).

While the anti-Trump rants of most “liberal celebrities (including some famous presstitutes) are secondary to their career, a few have made a living out of it or used it to boost their public visibility. While the demand for anti-Trump agitprop by partisan democratic voters has created a cottage industry of minor celebrities ranting against him, a few stand out- largely because of their public visibility and hypocrisy. I am specifically talking about three minor “liberal” celebrities with their own comedy shows on cable TV who used to be on previous incarnation of “The Daily Show”.

But before I skewer the fake “liberalism” of John Oliver, Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee, let us talk a bit about why Jon Stewart’s version of that show was so successful and influential. As some of you might remember, Jon Stewart was not the first host of “The Daily Show”. Nor was his version an instant hit. In fact, in its first two years, the show was largely a combination of clever but fairly mild mockery of public figures (especially politicians) with a short studio interview of some celebrity at the end. In other words, it was sufficiently different enough from traditional late-night shows to get some attention but not bold enough to be a trendsetter.

Then a series of events made that show far more relevant than in its first two years. The disputed presidential election of 2000 and the events of 9/11 were unique in the recent history of USA as far as their scale and impact was concerned. But perhaps more importantly, commentary on those two events could not be packaged within the narrative space of traditional late-night shows which largely shunned any serious political discussions. Jon Stewart’s show, on the other hand, was ideally equipped to deal with politically oriented satire- something that was non-existent on basic cable TV at that time.

The disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and a really large number of bad or stupid decisions by the Bush43 administration created a gold mine of opportunity for political satire. Jon Stewart’s ability and willingness to mock the Bush43 administration was in sharp contrast with the spineless deference to them by rest of MSM. In other words, he had no serious competition for his product on cable TV between 2003-2008. I should also point out that this occurred in the era before widespread penetration of social media platforms, video streaming services and alternative news sites.

To make a long story short, this led to his show (and all those associated with it) becoming media celebrities- especially among viewers of a vaguely liberal mindset. I, however, always saw that show as somewhat disingenuous because it was about promoting impotent and smug ridicule of ‘those people’ for ratings. Now.. I am not exactly a fan of CONservatives or people who vote for republicans- but it was obvious that democrats and establishment ‘liberals’ were not better. Neither wanted to push for single payer healthcare with universal coverage. Neither wanted to do anything about the looming financial crisis in the 2004-2008 span. Neither wanted to really not invade Iraq under false pretense or get out of there once it became obvious that occupation of Iraq was a failure.

My point is that establishment republicans were not really different from their democratic counterparts. Yet, night after night, that show would try to portray democrats as being much better than republicans. So how could they do that? Well.. as it turns out, the superiority of democrats was largely based on them being less openly bigoted than their republican counterparts. Yes.. I am saying that the biggest difference between democrats and republicans, as portrayed on that show, was that the former were more image conscious and careful about what they said than the later. Yet, the show tried to portray this as proof of fundamental superiority of neoliberal democrats over neoconservative republicans.

After eight shitty years under Bush43, the nation got tired of republicans and elected Obama in November 2008. Suddenly, that show (and other like it) could not stop praising the newly elected president. This uncritical praise of Obama continued even after he revealed his neoliberal colors by bailing out big banks, screwing over mortgage holders, passing an insipid republican healthcare plan and not fulfilling the vast majority of his campaign promises. So what happened? Why did that show, and others like it, stop holding Obama accountable like they tried to do this predecessor. To be fair, Bush43 was a bigger fuckup than Obama44. My point, however, still stands. That show spent infinitely more time fawning over him than holding him to account for breaking his many promises.

But what does any of this have to with the fake ‘liberalism’ of John Oliver, Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee? Why is a brief history of ‘The Daily Show’ relevant to my critique of them? And what is fake ‘liberalism’?

Let us consider the last question first. Fake ‘liberalism’ is just another word for neoliberalism. People who believe in, and promote, this ideology espouse a number of causes which at first glance appear progressive or liberal. For example- they support a number of “progressive” causes such as LGBT rights after the causes have already become safe to support. They never tire talking about how they support “diversity”, “empowerment” and similar nice-sounding but empty ideas. They will however never want to confront large systemic issues such as class, race, rent-seeking, economic inequality etc

To put it another way, they have no interest in real socio-economic reform. Indeed, they want to keep the status quo going on for as long as possible since they greatly benefit from it. They just want to find and promote new ideas that help legitimize their parasitism. As I wrote in a previous post, the vast majority of the public actions and behavior of these establishment “liberals” and celebrities are about virtue signalling and trying to create a moral justification for their ill-gotten wealth and power.

So how do John Oliver, Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee fit into all this? The short answer is- very well. The somewhat longer answer is that their entire career is based on promoting this fake “liberalism” while pretending to be progressive. Here is a person-by-person breakdown.

John Oliver: Though he pretends to be of middle-class upbringing, even a quick look at his background suggests that he came from a pretty connected background. OK, so he is not exactly upper class, but he is what you might call solidly upper-middle class. Note that he was able to move from performing in comedy festivals in UK to being hired by the Daily Show within a few years. Now I am not saying that he was incompetent or undeserving, but it is clear that he always moved in the right circles to be ‘discovered’ for big-time gigs. And this brings me to an odd question- why would you hire a guy from UK for a show about the minutiae of american society and politics? As an outsider with a fresh perspective? Perhaps.. but there is a much better explanation.

In my opinion, he was hired by that show to play a particular archetype. To be more specific- he played the role of a witty, oxbridge educated englishman to comment on american society and politics while still being accessible enough to generate ratings. And that is his shtick, his only shtick. Sure.. since he got his own show on HBO, he has devoted many shows to obvious critiques of the many flaws and problems in american society. Also, his critiques are, by and large, factually correct and accurate. But all of his critiques almost always miss the source of the problems he claims to be exposing. As an example- his show about predatory lending barely touched on the central role of low minimum wages in USA in creating that problem in the first place. Another example- his segment on police accountability treats the issue of police brutality as a fault of the system rather than as its central feature.

In other words, his principal shtick is to sell outrage at various symptom of the underlying rot rather than directing attention to the cause. So why he do that? Well.. because it is popular and profitable. People like him derive their livelihood from being the secular equivalents of “revolutionary” religious preachers of old who were largely in it for public adulation, money and power. Like their secular equivalents today, those preachers had no interest in actual reform which would improve the lives of others. Similarly, most of their promoters and audience went their sermons to feel good about themselves and morally superior to those not in attendance. Also, it helped give their audience the illusion of righteous action.

Trevor Noah: When he took over as the host of ‘The Daily Show’ after Jon Stewart retired, many wondered as to why Jon chose a South-African comedian over, say, somebody from USA. The official answer was that he had the most potential of those who were available (and willing) to fill that spot. Once again, I am not going to say that he is incompetent and undeserving of the position- because there is no evidence for those assertions. In fact, Trevor is a pretty decent all-round comedian. However, I do think that his ancestry had a worthwhile effect on his selection for that job. In my opinion, It really helped that Trevor (like John Oliver) can convey a particular archetype. Specifically that of a sharp, competent, confident black comedian who is still culturally white enough to retain the core viewership of the show. It also helps that he was born in apartheid-era South Africa and therefore serves as an example of somebody who is achieving the American Dream.

So what makes him a promoter of fake “liberalism”? Well.. the simple answer is- who and what he promotes on his show. And yes, I am aware that he does not have full editorial control of the show. Since he started hosting the show, it has pretty much been a love-fest for establishment “liberals” and “conservatives”- much more so that when Jon Stewart hosted it. Also, during the 2016 election cycle- he was plugging establishment propaganda and tropes as if he was part of the establishment. You might have also noticed that the show now spends an inordinate amount of time of just plain mockery of all those ‘other people’ and SJW-type issues than on anything approaching an intelligent or clever critique. Of course, saying any of this in public or on social media will result in busy-bodies calling you a racist.

Samantha Bee: Another alumni of ‘The Daily Show’ whose main shtick can be largely summed up as- “I have a cunt, therefore, I must be respected and admired”. As some of you, in her previous jobs, she had pretty much one single specialty- make funny faces during interviews that were then edited to support whatever point she was trying to make. That is the exact same specialty as her husband. Nowadays, her secondary shtick is to support any cause that can be vaguely sold as feminist or “empowering to women”- which is something that is still in demand. Curiously, all of her public professions of support for the down-trodden, non-white, women and other “protected” groups does not seem to extend to her personal life. It is a matter of public record, that she and her husband, are opposed to integration of kids from lower-income families at the school which their kids attend. To put it another way, “diversity” is good for the ignorant masses but not for affluent “liberals” like us.

I should also point out that she uncritically supported and plugged HRC, both during the democratic primaries and the general election in 2016. It is noteworthy that she did that by repeatedly ignoring and dissing Bernie Sanders and his message of populist economic policies. In that respect, she is more openly neoliberal that John Oliver or Trevor Noah. Also, pointing out that she is not especially funny is evidence your ‘misogyny’ rather than your opinion about her competence. In her opinion, rubes like you are too stupid to appreciate the comedy of constantly swearing and screaming hysterically at the camera. Also, not appreciating the comedy of misleadingly edited interviews is a sign of your poor taste- rather than fatigue at seeing the same crap for almost a decade.

I am now going to stop adding to this post because it is already a bit too long. Might write a sequel later.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Implosion of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: 1

November 12, 2016 14 comments

As some regular readers of this blog might know, many of my predictions about the 2016 presidential election in USA have turned out to very prescient. But why take my word for it? Here are links to some older posts that predicted how the presidential campaign would shape up..

I first wrote that Trump was likely to the republican presidential candidate on August 31, 2015. Infact, I wrote a whole series of posts on why Trump was likely to win the republican nomination at a time when most people saw his candidacy as a joke or an act of self promotion. And it only gets better from there because I also wrote (on February 20, 2016) that Hillary Clinton would lose the presidential election against an even moderately competent Republican opponent. I also predicted that many blacks who voted for Obama would not vote for Hillary Clinton, in a post of February 11, 2016. I also predicted that the HRC ‘private email server and deleted emails’ controversy would be exposed as an example of legal corruption in a post on January 21, 2016.

I also wrote many other posts on why Trump’s numerous inflammatory statements and gaffes would not hurt his chances on August 9, 2016. I also wrote a short series on why all that fake moral Outrage by the ‘establishment’ against Donald Trump was unlikely to hurt his chances in the election. I even wrote about why HRC was losing in the raw polling data numbers to Trump and why attempts to prop her up my media and pollsters were likely to backfire on them. The point is that I was able to correctly predict the course of events weeks and months before they occurred. Most importantly, I did not back off on my predictions based on the latest flavors of bullshit propaganda propagated by the noise making machine known as the mainstream media.

So how was I able to make so many correct predictions, with proper reasoning, in an election season where almost every establishment presstitute, pundit , expert and pollster got it so horribly wrong? Well.. it is quite simple. I looked at all available evidence in an objective manner and without prejudice to its source- as long as said source did not try to hide its bias. Furthermore, some of my earlier posts on the decline of functional institutions in society had laid the groundwork for understanding this phenomenon. Having said that, let us look at the major reasons behind HRC’s loss to Donald Trump.

Firstly though HRC will eventually end up with slightly more total votes than Trump (who won the electoral college), she received somewhere between 9-10 million fewer votes that Obama in 2008 and about 5-6 million fewer votes that Trump in 2012. Think about that for a second.. HRC got a few million fewer votes than Obama in either of this two presidential campaign. In contrast to that, Trump’s final tally of total votes will be about the same as McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Perhaps even more problematically, HRC was not able to turn out all those supposedly democrat-voting white working class voters in ‘rust belt’ swing-states like Michigan and Wisconsin- which she lost. She even came close to losing supposedly ‘solid-blue’ states like Minnesota and Virginia.

Curiously, many of these working class white voters had no problem voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012- and were a large part of the reason he won the presidency with large margins in the electoral college on both occasions. Obama in 2008 and 2012 had also no problem winning the majority of votes of those making less than the average and median income, while HRC in 2016 barely won that demographic segment. HRC was not able to turn out as many black voters as Obama did in 2008 and 2012. Indeed, her inability to get enough black voters enthused by her candidacy probably cost her the election in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Then there is the issue of the HRC’s inability to get younger voters to vote for her in numbers they did for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I will post detailed figures and charts with graphical representation of these numbers in the upcoming post of this series. Until then, here is a quick synopsis of the immediate effects of HRC’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

1] The Clinton ‘brand’ and money-raising machine in the democratic party have been damaged beyond repair. Though the current members of DNC are downplaying the monumentality of this defeat, it is clear that the DNC and democratic party will have to reinvent and re-brand themselves. They will have to do this by getting rid of most of their current Clinton- and corporation- friendly members.. one way or the other

2] Main stream media outlets in USA (and many other countries) has publicly lost whatever shreds of credibility they still possessed. The same goes for all those “public intellectuals”, “talking heads” and “credentialed experts” who were almost unanimous in incorrectly predicting a HRC victory. Most pollsters, campaign advisers and strategists have been exposed as the borderline frauds they always were.

3] Trump has managed to destroy the credibility and future of both the Clinton and Bush political dynasty. As some of you might realize, there has been a Bush or Clinton on the presidential or vice-presidential ticket for most elections since 1980. This american version of dynastic politics is now over- at least for those two families. Hopefully, this starts an era where people who are not so connected to the political machines of either party have a decent chance of succeeding in politics at the national level.

What do you think? comments?