Search Results

Keyword: ‘democratic party current form no future’

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 4

January 5, 2017 7 comments

In the previous and third part of this series- I pointed out that the democratic party, in its current form, is highly dependent upon continued support by the professional (and wannabe professional) class. In that post, I also talked about why this particular socio-economic group has such an outsize influence on the actual policy positions of democratic party. To quickly summarize: a number of overlapping factors such as their geographic distribution, co-localization with other groups of reliably democratic voters, importance in fund-raising, filling the lower ranks of their party apparatus etc make them an especially important category of likely voters for establishment democratic candidates. It is worth mentioning that the professional (and wannabe professional) class also benefit and profit from their association with, and their support of, the democratic party.

The level and depth of support by this class of the democratic party does however bring up another seldom asked question- Why are members of the professional (and wannabe professional) class in USA so likely to support, and vote for, establishment democratic candidates? I mean.. why are people in the top 10-20% of the income distribution scale, at least on the national scale, so supportive of a party which still brands itself as pro-working-class? Now some of you will point out that not all people who make a decent income tend vote for democrats.. and that is true. There is however a big difference between people who make a upper-middle class level income for 5-20 years of their life and those who are part of that class.

A working class person with a decent paying job (cop, electrician, tradesman or some other blue-collar type) is not part of the upper-middle class even if they, in some parts of the country, make an almost upper middle-class income for a couple of decades in their life. On the other hand- somebody born in a family where both parents, and frequently close relatives, have post-graduate degrees will almost always end up as part of the professional (and wannabe professional) class. Curiously people born into that class tend to remain part of it even if they are not as financially successful, at least in the short-term, as their parents. So while the kids of a professor, doctor or lawyer might not end up in occupations similar to their parents, they are rather unlikely to end up as electricians or plumbers.

But what does our brief discussion on socio-economic class in USA have to do with future electoral prospects of the democratic party? As you will see in the remainder of this post- a lot!

To better understand what I am going to say next, ask yourself another simple question- What is the idealized self-image of the professional (and wannabe professional) class? Who, and what, do they see themselves as? What do they aspire to become? At the risk of making an over generalized statement, it is fair to say that this particular class sees itself as the truly deserving elite- though most of them would never admit it loudly in public. But why would they think like that? Well.. because it is kinda true. All highly unequal and pyramidal wealth distributions owe their continued existence to the striving of those in the levels immediately below the uppermost level of the social order. To put it another way, it is the professional class who do all the hard work that keeps the status quo going- which benefits the rich elites far more than it benefits them.

And this brings us to peculiar relationship between the professional class and the rich elites. The former, you see, want to become the later. There are however only two pathways for them to realistically achieve that goal. They can either replace them through violent revolution or ingratiate themselves further to the elites. If you have read enough history, it becomes obvious that ingratiation is by far more common than outright replacement- largely because most members of the professional class are clever but spineless creatures who are better at being courtiers than warriors. The professional class therefore spend a lot of effort imitating the moneyed elite. Such mimicry ranges from the fairly harmless copying of their masters tastes in food, drink, dress, mannerisms and leisure activities to the far more insidious process of adopting their worldview as their own.

But why is the false consciousness of the professional (and wannabe professional) class in USA so problematic for the future viability of the democratic party? And why now?

To better answer this question we have to ask ourselves: has the class composition of decision makers and their flunkies in the democratic party (aka the establishment) changed over the decades? As many of you know- the answer to that is a big fucking YES! The democratic party establishment, right upto the early 1990s, represented a far wider range of social classes than in 2016. My point is that, while the party establishment then was just as (or more) corrupt and hierarchical as it is now- it was not the near perfect echo chamber of ideological conformity we see in 2016. But why is having high levels of self-imposed ideological conformity in an organization dangerous for its future? I mean.. didn’t state communism in eastern European countries last for decades under similar levels of self-imposed ideological conformity?

Which brings me to the real reason why extensive support by the professional class is so damaging to the future of the democratic party. Rigid ideological conformity, you see, works pretty well as long as external conditions don’t change too much. Think about using cruise control on a car.. it works great as long as you are driving on a road (and under conditions) similar to the one under which it was turned on. However you cannot keep on using the cruise control setting you turned on a straight and uncrowded stretch of the freeway once you reach its more crowded sections or exit onto a smaller road with different speed limits. And you certainly cannot drive on a snow-covered road like you would do on a dry road in southern California. In other words, keeping yourself on the road requires you to adapt the way you drive according to prevailing road conditions and traffic.

Similarly large human organizations such as political parties have to adjust their mode of functioning and strategies to the prevailing conditions. But how do they “know” about changes in the political and socio-economic climate? In a democracy, elections are supposed to provide such a feedback. But what if they are unable to do so? What if the entire electoral process is so rigged and gerrymandered that most incumbent candidates of either political party keeps on winning “fair and free” elections until the whole underlying system is literally about to collapse? What if a political party is capable of consistently winning elections in certain parts of the country regardless of their policies and performance in office? In case you didn’t realize it- I was talking about the electoral process in USA.

Anyway.. my point, here, is that elections are basically unable to effect any real change in the policy directions of established political parties. Any change in that area (short of the public losing all faith in the system) has therefore to come from people inside the establishment of political parties. We already know that “leaders” and other high-ranking officials in any political party will never change their ways or accept the need for such change. And this brings us to the loyal rank-and-file of political parties. As far as the democratic party is concerned, its loyal rank-and-file = professional (and wannabe professional) class. To put it another way, the loyal rank-and-file of the democratic party is basically a large echo chamber which supports and vigorously defends the interests and worldview of rich elites.

That is why the democratic establishment and its loyal supporters have been able to consistently reelect their repeatedly unsuccessful leadership. That is why they keep on acting as if they were not badly defeated in 2016. That is why they keep on nominating mediocre insider presidential candidates like Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and HRC. That is why all the electoral reverses of the previous eight years had little to no effect on their political strategies. That is also why they are busy blaming everybody but their own strategies and policies for their electoral setbacks. That is also why they are so interested in getting the votes of “moderate” republicans rather than increasing their turnout among the working class.

To make a long story short, establishment democrats will very likely continue on their disastrous trajectory because everybody who has any real say in making that decision believes it to be the only path. Perhaps more troublingly, they will continue to win enough elections in certain populous parts of the party to keep them relevant as a national party and thereby allow them to dismiss (or stifle) emerging internal dissent in the party. Unless some combination of persons and events discredits the current democratic establishment and their flunkies, in the near future, to an extent which makes it impossible for them to be seen as a credible national political party- they have no worthwhile future.

What do you think? Comments?

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 3

December 30, 2016 7 comments

In a previous (and second) post of this series, I wrote about the largely unspoken reasons underlying the inability and unwillingness of establishment democrats to change their political strategy and choice of electoral candidates. I made a case that the “managed” version of democracy (actually an illusion of democratic legitimacy) which was prevalent in western countries over the previous 40 years has now experienced irreversible systematic failure. The real question, then, is “when” (not “if”) the current status quo will implode.

To be clear, I am not implying that this hollow and rotten edifice will come down tumbling in the near future. It is, in fact, unlikely to fail over the next few months or even the few (say.. 2-4) years. I am merely pointing out that the current setup has demonstrated its inability to maintain the status quo which perpetuates its own existence. The exact sequence of events that will trigger its final implosion are still a matter of chance. My guess is that they will unfold over a time-span of the next 2-12 years, with my best guesstimate being 3-7 years. But that is a topic for a future post or series.

Readers might recall that my previous two posts in the current series were about the numerous systemic failures of the democratic party establishment over previous 40 years. As they might also recall, these failures have become especially obvious over the last decade. But are establishment democrats the only group responsible for their own slow motion destruction and increasing irrelevance? Have other identifiable groups contributed to, or accelerated, the pace of destruction and loss of relevance for democrats? Well.. as much as I would like to assign all blame for their (own) destruction on establishment democrats, it is clear that they had lots of external help.

The rest of this post is about one external group, which more than any other, has facilitated the ongoing slow motion destruction of the democratic party. To better understand what I am going to say next, ask yourself a simple question: how can any political party, as well-funded as it might be, keep on winning elections at any level of government if it cannot get enough people to vote for it? In other words- tribal minded voters who will loyally vote for a given political party, no matter what, are crucial to the continued survival of that party. This dependence on a core of enthusiastic and tribal minded voters is especially important for political parties in stage-managed “democracies” such as USA.

You might have noticed that party primaries in USA tend to favor candidates who can fake fidelity to the most extreme version of what their most loyal and tribal minded voters want to hear. That is why republican primaries (at all levels of government) have traditionally been dominated by candidates who profess extreme religiosity, want to eliminate income taxes, cut “deficit spending”, expand the military-industrial and prison-surveillance-industrial complex, support racist incarceration policies and want to restrict the right of women to get abortions. Similarly, democratic primaries have historically been dominated by candidates who pretend to profess fidelity to ideals such as defending and expanding credentialism, promoting and expanding rule by technocrats, maintaining the economic status quo, paying lip service to racial equality and pretending to support expanded access to better education, healthcare etc.

In other words- beyond promoting the interests of their big money donors, candidates of any political party are most beholden to issues that animate their most loyal and tribal minded voters. And this brings us to the next question- what kind of person reliably votes for democratic candidates in party primaries? As it turns out, most of these super loyal democratic voters fall into one of two major categories. One category consists of middle-aged and elderly black women who live in predominantly urban or black-majority neighborhoods. Voters in this particular category are also promptly forgotten and ignored by establishment democrats after each election season.

The other reliably enthusiastic category of democratic voters consists of the professional (and wannabe professional) class- and they have carry more clout with the party establishment than black women. This category of voters is also an important secondary source of campaign funds in addition to providing the bulk of their electoral campaign volunteers. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the policies of establishment democrats, beyond those required by the big money financiers, are mostly driven by the concerns and needs of their professional (and wannabe professional) class supporters- who have become increasingly concentrated in a few coastal states and major metropolitan areas.

The willingness of the democratic establishment to promote ideas such as gun control, transgender bathrooms, even more credentialism, “free trade” policies, increased immigration, austerity and policy wonkism is largely due to their desire to satisfy their professional (and wannabe professional) class voters. The desire to maintain support of this particular category of voters is also behind the reluctance of establishment democrats to support ideas such as increasing the minimum wage, reducing immigration and job outsourcing, reducing growing economic inequality, investing in infrastructure development, reducing the costs of housing, education and healthcare etc. You get the picture..

But why is reliable support of professional (and wannabe professional) class so harmful to the future electoral prospects of the democratic party? And why did such support apparently not hurt them in past elections?

Well.. for starters, it has hurt them in the past. The loss of a majority in the house after almost fifty years in 1994, Gore losing the electoral college to Bush in the 2000 election, Kerry losing to Bush in 2004, the loss of a majority of state legislatures and governorships by democrats (between 2008-2016) in addition to their loss of majorities in the house (in 2010) and senate (2014) during that same time period owe a lot to major policy positions of establishment democrats and the type of candidates chosen in party primaries. I should add that HRC, who was the dream candidate of this voter class, lost the 2016 presidential election to Trump.

But it gets worse.. Establishment democrats have responded to these electoral setbacks by doubling down on widely unpopular policy positions favored by the professional (and wannabe professional) class. While there is certainly an element of ego in not admitting to screwing up, I believe that maintaining the continued allegiance of this voter class also plays a role in democrats maintaining their current course. It is not exactly a secret that winning elections without much effort in certain populous and highly urbanized states such as CA, NY and MA requires democrats to promote the beliefs and concerns of this professional (and wannabe professional) class.

To make a long story short- the 2008 financial crisis and it’s still ongoing aftermath has made it hard for democrats to win elections in non-coastal and non-metropolitan areas of the country. The majority of eligible voters in most parts of USA don’t want to vote for them or prefer the other party. It seems that the whole ‘socially liberal + fiscally conservative republican-lite’ shtick is no longer capable of convincing enough people to vote for them. Even worse, these electoral loses have made democrats even more dependent on continued electoral victories in coastal states and major metropolitan areas. In other words, trying to keep this particular class of loyal voters has forced establishment democrats to double down on the very policy positions and type of candidates responsible for their continued electoral losses in the rest of USA.

What do you think? Comments?

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 2

December 28, 2016 7 comments

In the previous post of this series, I had written about how the democratic party establishment plus its major supporters and financiers have been thrown in total disarray by the surprising (to them) election of Donald Trump. It seems that most of them are still in deep denial about the combination of factors and trends which led to the humiliating defeat of their chosen candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Even more troubling, is their almost complete unwillingness to analyse and act upon factors behind the slow-motion electoral rout of their party at multiple levels of government throughout the entire country. While the democratic establishment and its flunkies have put forth a number of reasons for their massive electoral losses at both the federal and state levels, it is clear that they are trying to avoid the proverbial elephant in the room- low turnout of voters for their candidates.

So why is the democratic establishment so unwilling to confront the real reasons behind low voter turnout for their candidates? Why are democrats so obsessed with talking about various voter suppression laws passed by republicans which have, at best, a marginal effect on the ultimate outcome? Why are they unwilling to address the far higher numbers and percentages of eligible voters who choose to not vote in any election? Would it not make sense to increase the low turnout among working class voters- who tend to vote for democratic candidates? Furthermore, why have democratic politicians been rather unwilling to actually pass legislation which would increase electoral turnout (for example- by making voting easier and more convenient) when they had the ability to do so. Why are establishment democrats obsessed with who votes for them, rather than how many cast their votes for them?

Well.. it comes down to one the conspicuously unsaid but fundamental precepts of the neoliberal worldview that is the official ideology of both major parties in USA and indeed all major political parties in countries of the so-called “democratic west”. Neoliberalism works only as long it operates in a command-control type of socio-economic-legal environment. In other words, neoliberalism cannot function in anything approaching a functional democratic socio-economic-legal environment. Now, this inherent contradiction poses a peculiar problem for all those supposedly democratic countries in the “west”. How can the government and elites in such countries retain the veneer of democratic legitimacy while continuing to act in an undemocratic and authoritarian manner? For almost 40 years, elected officials from all major political countries in the so-called “democratic” west have addressed this contradiction by increasing levels of voter suppression by consciously, and unconsciously, discouraging them from voting.

Ever wondered the rates of voter participation have kept on dropping in almost every single “democratic” western country over the last 40 years? Why are so many people, especially in younger age groups, not interested in voting? Perhaps most tellingly, why are the majority of political parties in these countries not concerned about this progressive decline? Why do they almost never do anything to address this issue beyond paying lip-service to it near election time? If you ask people who do not vote about the reasons behind their decision- they will tell you, almost to the last person, that they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. If you dig down a bit further, they will tell you they do not believe (with good reason) that their elected representatives will ever legislate in their interests.

A significant percentage of people in the supposedly “democratic” west have come to the realization that their elected representatives are not answerable to those who elected them. Even worse, every conventional political party in countries as (allegedly) diverse as USA, UK, France and Sweden is utterly beholden to elites- especially of the financial and managerial type. For a long time (late 1970s- 2012?) there was no real alternative for the rapidly rising percentage of people who were unhappy with the official range of choices for political representation. The elected representatives of conventional political parties were, however, quite happy with this situation as it allowed them to maintain the veneer of democratic legitimacy while they were servicing their moneyed elite masters. It is worth mentioning that this situation was tenable for so long largely because inertia kept covering up (if somewhat incompletely) the growing numbers of cracks in the system. Then 2008 happened..

Sophistic CONmen (academics from “famous” universities) and other assorted public “intellectuals” want people to believe that the 2008 financial crisis was the direct initiator for our current era of political instability. I would argue otherwise. The financial crisis of 2008 was, if anything, the end of an era. More specifically, it marked the end of an era marked by widespread public support for the neoliberal worldview. Prior to 2008 a majority of people in the west were willing to believe that the neoliberal way of doing things might, one day, let them become part of elite or at least the upper-middle class. The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent establishment reactions to it destroyed the last vestige of hope that kept people from challenging the increasingly disconnected and authoritarian nature of their “democratically elected” governments.

I would argue that the response and reactions of credentialed “experts” and elected officials to the 2008 crisis between 2009 and 2012, rather than the actual event, heralded the current era of political instability. The resurgence of hard leftist and populist right-wing parties in western European countries, the Brexit vote in 2016 and the election of Trump in 2016 are therefore responses to exposure of the almost complete incompetence of the conventional political establishment in those countries. It does not help that all conventional political parties in these countries are almost totally controlled by moneyed elites. The aftermath of the 2008 crisis also reopened supposedly settled questions such as the inevitability, let alone the desirability, of “free trade” and “internationalism”. In short, it made many once respectable ideas and their promoters people look like greedy tools and confabulating idiots.

But what does any of the stuff I talked about in the preceding paragraphs have to do with the future of the democratic party in USA and its inability to increase voters turnout for its candidates? As it turns out.. a lot!

The democratic party in the USA, like its republican counterpart, is a conventional political party full of politicians and advisers who cannot imagine a world that is not based in neoliberalism. Consequently they will do anything and everything in their power to maintain the status quo- even if doing so destroys them in the end. That is why the democrats keep blaming everybody except HRC and themselves for their shitty performance in the most recent election cycles. You might have noticed that even an electoral defeat as humiliating as the one dealt to them in 2016 has not resulted in any worthwhile changes in their focus, overall strategy and leadership. They have, if anything, doubled down on all their pre- Nov 8 positions and will make themselves irrelevant in the near future- at least in their current form. I predict that the republicans will also suffer the same fate once they become the incumbent (and largely unopposed) party at all levels of the federal government.

Establishment democrats are not, and were never really, interested in raising general voter turnout for their candidates because that would result in the selection and election of candidates who were not beholden to their moneyed elite patrons. That is a reason that establishment democrats punch left, rather than right. That is why HRC was far more interested in getting the votes of suburban white republican women than poor working class whites. It was always about finding enough voters who were willing to vote for perpetuating neoliberal agendas. Establishment democrats don’t hate working class whites because the later might be racist. They hate them because getting their votes requires making and keeping some populist promises. Establishment democrats love black voters because getting their votes has (at least until now) not required them to make and keep any populist promises. Similarly they love hispanic voters because getting their votes does not require them to promise anything that is not on a neoliberal checklist.

The preference of establishment democrats for getting votes by appealing to identity politics, rather than class politics, should therefore be seen as part of a strategy to win elections without making promises which might contradict the neoliberal agenda. While they have had some success with this general strategy in past elections (especially in 2008 and 2012), it is clear that it is not working- inspite of demographic trends which were supposed to make it even more successful. As it turns out, an increasing number of people are no longer interested in voting for candidates who have no desire (or ability) to improve their lives. However the magnitude of institutional inertia in the democratic establishment is still too high for it to make the necessary strategy and personal changes necessary to win in 2020, let alone 2018. I expect them to double, triple and quadruple down on their positions and ride their hobby horses into electoral irrelevancy. But don’t worry.. establishment republicans will join them in that quest within 2-4 years.

What do you think? Comments?

The Democratic Party, in its Current Form, has No Worthwhile Future: 1

December 18, 2016 5 comments

The many reactions of democratic party establishment to its loss in the 2016 presidential election have been, to put it mildly, rather amusing. On a related note- the horrible performance of democrats in this election cycle at other levels of the government such as the senate, house and state level seem to have (oddly enough) escaped the kind of scrutiny and analysis devoted to the abyssal performance of HRC in the presidential election. FYI- I am certainly not the first person to notice that establishment democrats seem to have given up trying to win elections other than the presidential one and those in reliably “blue” coastal states like NY, CA etc. But that is a topic best left for a future post.

Let us restrict this post, as far as possible, to analyzing the many reactions of establishment democrats to HRC’s “surprising” loss of the electoral college in the 2016 presidential election. As you will see, their reactions to her loss is actually a pretty good primer (and microcosm) for understanding what is wrong with the democratic party and why I think that the party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. To be clear, I am not implying that the republican party has a bright future either. Indeed, in some ways it is even more damaged than the democratic party. It just happens to be the case that the democrat facade has cracked before its republican equivalent.

And this brings us to the question why most organisations decline or fail without recovery, while others can recover (if usually only partially) and keep on going for a bit longer. A study of history shows that the resilience of an organisation, especially its ability to recover from defeats and serious setbacks, is largely related to how it reacts to negative external events. In other words, more resilient organisations seem to be better at changing themselves to adapt to new circumstances. Some even manage to partially reinvent themselves. Doomed and declining organisations, in contrast, respond to setbacks by doubling down on the very practices and behaviors that caused the setbacks in the first place.

So how have establishment democrats responded to the big setback of HRC losing the presidential election to Trump? Have they initiated any attempt at an objective analysis of the factors behind the humiliating loss? Have they replaced party leaders whose presided over them losing the house in 2010, senate in 2014 and presidency in 2016? Have they even attempted to look back at the decisions that cost them the presidency in 2016? Have they changed, or even attempted to change, what the party is about? Well.. as many of you know they have not done any of the above. In fact, they have doubled down and basically reaffirmed their fealty to their old leaders and not changed any of their public (and private) positions.

As far as the democratic establishment is concerned, it is still business as usual. Moreover they have rolled out a list of “reasons” and talking points to explain HRCs humiliating defeat in the presidential election. These include, in no particular order: Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Russian Hackers, Vladimir Putin, racist white working class men, self-hating white women, inadequately enthusiastic black voters, uninspired millennial voters, James Comey, the FBI and of course Bernie Sanders and his “Bernie Bros” (a significant percentage of whom are female and non-white). It is as if they are invoking and promoting any reason they can think of which does not require them to self-reflect or change course.

The public reaction and talking points promoted by establishment democrats and their servile presstitutes in the 4-5 weeks since Trump defeated HRC are especially telling. Readers might be aware of the non-stop “Russia hacked our elections” hysteric bullshit promoted by establishment democrats (from Obama to every democratic politician with a pulse) and more than a few establishment republicans. I have not seen so much bullshit and lies promoted by establishment media and presstitutes since.. they were predicting Trump losing to HRC as late as early evening of November 8. It is especially striking to see democrats so willing to “believe” in unsubstantiated leaks and hearsay from the CIA- who also told us that Iraq had WMDs in 2003. Furthermore, the CIA is no longer even moderately successful at doing what it is supposed to do.. look at Syria.

Many of you might also have witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of “prominent” actors and entertainers making TV and YouTube ads with the objective of sway republican members of the electoral college into not voting for Trump on December 19. You might also have come across similar pleas from “famous” “ivy-league” academics and other assorted “public” intellectuals. To put it another way, establishment democrats and their flunkies have been reduced to begging republican members of electoral college to vote for establishment republican assholes like Kasich and Pence. The fact that establishment democrats are willing to help elect people like Kasich and Pence over Trump says a lot about the current direction and priorities of that party.

Perhaps more problematically for them, establishment democrats do not appear to have learned anything from the humiliating defeat of HRC in 2016. The list of potential candidates the democratic establishment is currently trying to groom for the 2020 election is full of spineless, corporate friendly, empty talking, mildly photogenic, anti-gun, working class hating morons. In other words, all their current potential presidential candidates for 2020 are in the same mould as HRC and Obama. Corey Booker (Obama-lite), Kirsten Gillibrand (HRC-lite), Andrew Cuomo, Julian Castro are the very type of people rejected by the electorate in 2016, Even the so-called “progressives” among these potential candidates such as Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren are more known for making the right noises than for actually demonstrating a strong desire to change the status quo.

Even more troubling is the democratic establishment is still almost totally beholden to large corporations, especially rich fake-liberal donors and the bi-coastal upper-middle class. So there is still no real chance of somebody like Bernie Sanders winning the democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Also, social and cultural issues keeping up democratic donors at night such as “gun control< "checking your privilege", "transgender bathrooms", "trigger warnings" and promoting fat women in films and TV just do not resonate with the majority of people who are struggling to make a half-decent livelihood. It bears repeating that democrats have never vigorously defended actually popular socio-cultural issues such as the right to abortion.

The democratic establishment has been more than willing to sell its voters down the river through their willingness to cut (or as they call it reform) social security, medicare and medicaid. They have not demonstrated any real compassion towards the plight of people who survive on food stamps or are disabled. Establishment democrats have also demonstrated no real willingness or urgency to actually fix the criminal justice system and substantively reduce or eliminate mass incarceration in USA. They have been quite enthusiastic about scams like the charter school movement, precarious employment, mass surveillance, militarization of police and funding endless unwinnable wars. Establishment democrats have also never seen a "free" trade agreement that they did not like.

The real platform for establishment democrats for the last thirty years can be summarized as: We will do everything the republicans promise to do for their rich donors- but will do so while looking liberal, polished, professional and cosmopolitan. The problem is that many of their voters have stopped buying the product they are offering.

What do you think? Comments?

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

September 20, 2019 14 comments

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 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 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?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 1

August 31, 2019 11 comments

As regular readers know, I have written a series about why the Democratic party does not have a bright future– to put it mildly. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Republican party is going to fare any better. It will be interesting to observe which one becomes irrelevant first. As things stand today, my money is on democrats becoming irrelevant few years before their republican compatriots suffer a similar fate. While there are many reasons behind this particular guess, one stands out because of its connection to the ongoing clown car show of presidential candidates. It seems that the democratic establishment, and almost every single candidate in the fray, has not learned any useful lessons from the 2016 debacle when their candidate lost to that orange troll.

There are those who believe that the democratic party will ultimately prevail because of changing demographics, aka “coalition of the ascendant”. I am old enough to remember this bullshit idea was floated, in its current form, over 10 years ago when democrats briefly won the house, senate and presidency. Of course, as we all know, things did not quite work out that way. Between 2008 and 2017, democrats lost multiple governorships, over a thousand seats in state legislatures, the house, senate and finally the presidency. I am sure some of you (MikeCA?) will try to portray the slight majority in house won by democrats in 2018 as a harbinger of further electoral victories. I for one, am not sure that this will be the case and here are the reasons.

The electoral victories of democrats in 2018 had far more to do with the incredibly inept handling of “healthcare reform” by Trump and republicans at state as well as national levels. The level of tone-deafness exhibited by orange man and his fellow republicans towards the concerns of tens of millions of voters about their healthcare coverage was the deciding factor in them losing the house and numerous governorship and seats in state legislatures to democrats. I am sure that there are more than a few partisan democrat voters who believe that the Mueller sideshow or newer disclosures about Trump’s extramarital liaisons had an effect. But who are we kidding? The popular image of Trump as a lecherous conman with mediocre business instincts hasn’t changed since 2015. Everyone who voted for him did so in spite of all his public shortcomings.

The real question we should be asking ourselves is: why did so many voters in many states either vote for a orange troll or, more importantly, not vote for HRC. And let us clear about something else, the number of non-voters in USA has exceeded those of the winning presidential candidate for many decades. Indeed, in at least 3 of the last 8 elections, the number of non-voters came real close to being larger than all candidates combined. The percentage of people who vote in USA, especially at national level, has historically been lower than other democracies. But why? Well.. there are many reasons, but most can be summarized in one sentence- majority of voters correctly believe that voting has no real positive impact on their lives. But, once again, why is that so? What makes the USA a Potemkin democracy as opposed to a real one?

To understand what I am talking about and how it relates to the subject of this post, let me ask you another question. Why is the democratic party today unable to win elections in many states which used to be its strongholds in the recent past. The conventional explanation invoked by idiots aka “political pundits” involves something about post-1965 (voting rights act related) political realignment. And there is a sliver of truth in that explanation. The democratic party did pay a considerable electoral price for all the civil rights related laws passed in 1960s. However the damage was largely restricted to ex-slave owning states in the deep south. Democrats actually gained seats in the house in 1968, 1976 and 1988. They also held the house in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1992. Heck, democrats were competitive in states such as Texas, West Virginia, Kansas etc into the late-1980s.

My point is that while passage of civil rights laws damaged democratic party prospects in deep south, things were pretty OK for them in rest of country for over twenty years. In other words, sorry state of democratic part in the post-1994 era has little to do with legislation passed in the mid-1960s. So what caused voters in many states, especially non-coastal ones, to abandon the democratic party? In a post from about two years ago, I pointed out that ascendancy of issues such as ‘gun control’ in democratic party started at around the same time as its leadership and upper echelons were increasingly populated by the credentialed professional class who tends to be concentrated in large coastal cities. While there are, once again, many reasons why this shift occurred, it resulted in the needs of working class (especially white) being ignored. Consequently, these voters either started voting republican or simply stopped voting altogether.

But why would many white voting class voters start voting republican, even though doing so was not in their own interests? Well.. we can blame a small part of this on sheer stupidity. But a much larger reason was that there wasn’t much difference between the two, politically speaking. Both parties were controlled by the same big corporations and super-rich who wanted to impoverish the working class and suck them dry. Even today, establishment democrats cannot stop talking about ‘bipartisanship’ aka passing laws and rules to fuck over everybody other than their rich campaign donors. But this still does not explain why people who seemingly gain nothing from voting republican continue to vote them into office.

In my opinion, it comes down to how each party treats the majority of its voters. The republican party, while busy fucking over their voters, provides lip service to ‘social issues’ (abortion, church, guns etc). More importantly, they don’t treat most of their voter base with the disdain with which democratic party treats its own. Confused.. see, unless you are a member of the credentialed professional class, you are a deplorable nobody to the democratic party. It does not matter if you voted for them or not, being anyone other than a member of the credentialed class makes you an object of contempt, derision and neglect. That is why they have kept focusing on ‘gun control’ since the 1980s, even though it has been electorally disastrous since early 1990s.

To put it another way, they see people who are not credentialed professionals as nothing more than undeserving retards whose beliefs don’t matter. Democratic politician and candidates, in turn, remind most voters of the shitty middle managers who make their working lives miserable and the HR harpies who fire them. To summarize, many working class voters in flyover states vote republican because it does not insult their beliefs while fucking them over. The democratic party, in contrast, believes that it has a god-given right to harangue and insult it voters while also fucking them over. In the upcoming part, I shall go into the many reasons why the much hyped “coalition of the ascendant” has turned out to be a damp squib and will likely remain so for the future. We shall also talk about how democratic party positions on issues such as “anthropogenic climate change”, “gun control” and “LGBTQ issues” are insulting to most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on Trump’s Upcoming Order About Internet Monopolies

August 13, 2019 3 comments

A few days ago, I started seeing articles about people within the Trump administration leaking various drafts of an upcoming executive order which would allegedly “break the internet”. Other presstitutes have written pieces about how this order would “censor” the internet, and still others claim it would be “illegal” or something along those lines. As usual, my thoughts on this topic are nuanced and about the larger picture as opposed to most clickbait-type ‘hot takes’ found on the internet. Also, I am not going to pretend knowledge about the final version of that executive order nor will my views on this topic be popular with everyone.

So let us start by talking about the real reason why we are even having this discussion. It is no secret that the public image of internet monopolies, tech companies and basically anything they touch has suffered an irreversible decline during the past decade. Remember how you used to believe about Google, Amazon, FakeBook, Twitter, Apple etc were “innovators” in 2008-2009? Remember that time when most of you believed that Google could make no mistake and how their search engine used to just work. It might be hard to believe, but there was a time when Google did not deliberately crappify their products through generations of bad design or shove unpopular and monopolistic changes down their user’s throats. They once even had OK customer service. I know the previous sentence is hard to believe.. but it is true.

While Google has gone down the proverbial shitter to become an inferior version of IBM from the 1960s, it is clearly not the only tech company which taken that route. Indeed, I cannot think of a single internet or tech company which has not become an unpopular, inferior and shittier version of itself over the past decade. Adobe, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, FakeBook, Cisco, Twitter, Apple and even Intel have become sorry excuses of what they used to be a decade ago. Sure.. they have become more profitable and made their upper management much richer, but have lost the battle for their public image. But why would this matter? After all, monopolies and oligopolies don’t have to care about what their customers think.. right?

Regrettably for their autistic founders and sterile drones.. I mean workers, public image matters- even if you are a monopoly or oligopoly. That is why totalitarian governments in “communist” eastern bloc countries fell so quickly in the late 1980s to early 1990s. That is also why ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ works so well in China. The ability to deliver adequately, on time and fulfill public expectations is the most important predictor of whether an organization or institution retains public trust and good will. But why is it important to retain good will, if (as some autists at Google believe) one can manipulate perceptions at will. Well.. for starters, you cannot manipulate public perception over any significant length of time. Isn’t that obvious by now?

The second reason is more important and, as you will soon see, goes to the heart of the issue. Turns out, popular legitimacy is extremely important for medium- to long- term survival of any institution. Without such legitimacy even the most tyrannical institutions become fragile and implode under the slightest external stresses. Ever wonder why people in China have a far higher opinion of their government than people in USA. Here is a clue.. look at photos of the same part of any city in China from 1990 and today. Now do the same for USA. It is important to note that people who grew up in USA between 1933 and 1974 have a far higher opinion of government because they saw it largely deliver what was promised.

But how is any of this relevant to a proposed executive order which would gut legal protection to large social media platforms currently granted under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. See.. if something like this had been proposed by even an allegedly popular president like Obama in 2008, 2012 or even 2014, it would have elicited massive public outrage. There would have a series of large movements against such an idea, and a groundswell of popular support for tech companies. Do you see anything like that now, and don’t forget that Trump is an unpopular president by historical standards. So what changed between 2012-2014 and 2019? Well.. a lot, and none of it has helped the public image of internet and tech monopolies.

The precise moment when people started hating internet and tech monopolies varies from person to person, but here are some important milestones. For some, it was the progressive crapification of google maps and email starting sometime in 2012. For others, it was the SJW-led censorship in the wake of Gamergate in 2013. Many detested the underhanded tactics used by Microsoft to push Windoze 10 (aka spyware as operating system) on its customer base starting 2015. Others were mortified by Snowden’s disclosure about the nexus between large tech corporations and government surveillance agencies in 2013. Others started hating them after learning about how most smartphone apps spy on their users without explicit consent.

Still others got tired of a seemingly endless series of hostile site redesigns. Some got burned by interactions with Amazon, Paypal, Yelp, Uber and other “darlings” of tech sector. Many others have come to hate these corporations because of how they constantly mistreat and abuse their customers and this includes everyone from Microsoft and Apple to all those “voice assistants” which spy on you 24/7. Then there is Internet of Shit.. I mean Internet of Things, an idea so horrendous from a security viewpoint that I am still not sure whether anybody who buys “connected” and “smart” devices has any capacity for rational thought. And we haven’t even talked about arbitrary censorship etc on social media and sites such as YouTube.

To make a very long story short, internet and tech monopolies are now so hated and despised that a significant minority would vote for a presidential candidate whose sole campaign promise was to torture and kill anybody and everybody associated with this deeply tainted sector of the economy. And this is the environment in which Trump is going to sign his executive order about regulation internet monopolies in the near future. Regardless of how bad a solution his stupid flunkies come up with, it will be widely seen as good- if only because it shits on the aspy losers in Silly Valley and Seattle. And we have seen this dynamic before.. in 2016.

As some of you might remember, I was able to predict Trump winning the republican nomination and presidency because of my ability to sense the depth of hatred, contempt and disgust most people felt towards all those establishment parasites.. I mean politicians. It was this popular hatred for, and lack of trust in, certain institutions which allowed that orange conman to defeat 16 republicans and then HRC. We are likely to see a repeat of this, where even the most ineffectual and counterproductive legislation by Trump will be welcomed by a majority of people just because they enjoy seeing somebody finally kick Silly Valley types in the balls.

I cannot resist pointing out that the democratic party had multiple opportunities over the last decade (and even past 2 years) to start reigning in internet and tech monopolies. But they did no such thing, given how much Silly Valley contributes to their party. In fact, Obama went further than doing nothing and encouraged consolidation in tech sector and turned a blind eye to their ever increasing abuses. Let me make another prediction.. most people are going to get boners watching the aspy losers of internet and tech monopolies squeal like a pig after such an executive order is passed- even if its bad, stupid and dangerous in the long-term.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control

August 26, 2017 33 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a short series enumerating the many reasons why the democratic party, in its current form, has no worthwhile future. Some reasons, such as the nature of their core support base and institutional inertia, are systemic in nature. Others, like their obsession with promoting certain allegedly “social causes”, are a cover for the neo-liberal policies promoted by them. But a few do not fall neatly into either of these two categories. One of the best example from this category is the obsession of the democratic party establishment with implementing severely punitive gun control policies.

As some of my regular readers might remember, I have written many posts on why attempts at tight gun control are unworkable, futile and likely to backfire in more ways than at the ballot box. The very short version of those posts is that deaths due to guns in USA are largely the result of socio-economic factors (suicide, financial problems, lack of job security) and explicit government policies (“war on drugs”, abandoning poorer areas). To make a long story short, attempts at stricter gun control do not address the far larger and much more dangerous underlying systemic issues which drive the relatively high incidence of deaths by guns in USA.

However, time after time, we have seen the democratic party establishment try to use every newsworthy shooting to push for stricter gun regulations. Of course, we have also seen the democratic party lose election after election in many areas of the country during that period. As it stands today, the democratic party does not have control of any elected branch of the federal government and almost 2/3rds of state governments. The democratic party of today is so weak and impotent on the national stage that they cannot even properly exploit the ongoing train-wreck of the Trump presidency, which would otherwise be a god-send to a marginally competent opposition party.

Of course, there are many reasons why the democratic party has been on a downward path since the mid-1990s. Firstly, their embrace of neo-liberalism and its policies such as “free trade” and laissez-faire regulation of corporations which started during the Clinton era have antagonized a significant part of the population, especially in non-coastal states. Secondly, the leadership (and top cadre) of democratic party is full of people who either got in during the 1960s-1980s or are ivy-league credentialed C-grade actors who look ridiculous and phony in 2017. They would rather hold on to their premium berths on the ‘Titanic’ than change course and avoid the iceberg.

But none of this provides a satisfactory answer for why establishment democrats are anti-2nd amendment. I mean.. wouldn’t a political party in semi-permanent political wilderness prefer its supporters to be armed than not? Also, it is fairly well-known that taking an anti-gun stand was a factor in them losing the 2000, 20004 and 2016 presidential election- in addition to many more at the states level. So why persist in pushing a cause that does not make sense from the viewpoint of winning elections? And let us clear about something- politicians, regardless of their party affiliations and stated ideologies, are in to win power. Some are more corrupt and easily bought than others but basically all politicians compromise on their beliefs.

So how can you account for establishment democrats repeatedly pushing an electorally bad ideology? One theory I have seen being floated is that democrats think that decrease in overall rates of gun ownership will somehow translate into future success of their campaign to criminalize civilian ownership of firearms. While that might sound like a nice story, ground reality as measured by sales of guns and relaxation of rules and regulations surrounding gun ownership since 1994 suggest otherwise. It appears, then, that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was the high point of democratic success in legislating for greater gun control. It has been downhill for them since then.

Another theory, I have heard, suggests that the establishment democrat obsession with gun control is linked to institutional stagnation within the party. There is some truth to the idea that political parties whose establishment is led by people who are mentally in the 1980s and 1990s might try to maintain what they believe to be the status quo and keep pressing for more bad policies, especially if their positions within the organisation are secure from competition. But that does not explain why the somewhat younger establishment types (Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand etc) in that party are still pushing such disastrous ideas.

Well.. I have a theory that can explain the obsession of democrats with gun control. You see, it comes down to appealing to their core base of supporters and volunteers- to be more specific, the credentialed professional class. As I have said in some of previous posts, a lot of the odd behavior displayed by democratic party makes sense once you realize that its most important non-corporate supporters are people who owe their well-compensated livelihood to credentials obtained from “famous” educational institutions. It is also no secret that most of those who work for or volunteer at higher levels in that party have such socio-economic backgrounds.

But why would that translate into support for gun control? Why would such a socio-economic group, or class, be interested in gun control? Let me try to explain it in the nicest possible language.. never mind- because they are greedy and insecure parasites. The credentialed class (especially in USA) derives its income, livelihood and social status from thievery and extortion through law and rules. That is why doctors in USA makes much more money than other developed countries while not being any better than them. That is why tenured professors at large “famous” universities in USA can make so much extra money though side projects. That is why pretty much any credentialed or licensed professional makes more in USA than other developed countries.

The degree of parasitism displayed by the credentialed professional classes in USA is second only to outright legalized theft and extortion practiced by corporate entities. But why then are corporations not especially interested in gun control? Why the professional class but not corporations? The answer to that is simple- because corporations already have the full might of the state behind them. Credentialed professionals, on the other hand, are in that peculiar zone where they are visibly doing better than others in a rapidly impoverishing society but lack any special protection by the state. In other words, they can feel (if only on a subconscious level) that they will become targets for popular rage if the proverbial shit hits the fan.

And that is why the credentialed professional class, which is the 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of most of their party establishment cadre want to disarm “less deserving” poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop the party. Credentialed professionals perceive the widespread ownership of guns as a threat to their cushy livelihoods which depend on theft and extortion via laws and regulations. However, unlike corporations, they are not powerful or singularly important enough to get special protection by the state.

Attempting to ban widespread ownership of guns, then, appears to be the second best option. And that is why the democratic establishment keeps on pursuing a policy that has brought it repeated electoral failure in parts of the country that are not New York or California. On a side note, I do not think that their obsession with gun control is going to change even if they perform poorly in the 2018 and 2020 elections. As long as they can still win a few coastal states, they will keep shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? Comments?

Funny YouTube Clip: Why the Democratic Party Is USELESS

March 13, 2017 2 comments

Here is a really funny montage of establishment democrats telling you, somewhat unintentionally, why the democratic party in its current form has no real future. Came across it on YouTube channel of TYT Politics. While I certainly do not agree with everybody on that channel or TYT (especially some democratic establishment apologists), their content is generally superior to the outright corporatist crap you see on TV news channels like CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.

“They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing”― popularly attributed to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.

Enjoy! Comment?

Why the El Paso Shooter’s Manifesto is Relevant to Elections in 2020

August 7, 2019 6 comments

By now, most of you must have heard that the guy (Patrick Crusius) who shot up a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas posted his short manifesto on multiple social media sites. As regular readers will know, I like to read manifestos of mass killers since they provide an insight into their mind and the society they used to inhabit. For example, Elliot Rodger manifesto and videos gave us a view into the world of hapa male children as well as the social mores of rich white people in SoCal. Anders Breivik’s manifesto gave us an insight into how a rapidly increasing number of white men in some Nordic countries feel about the world around them. Some might want to dismiss these works of literature as the output of a deranged mind, and they are free to do so. But look at how well some manifestos anticipated changes in popular culture before they were obvious.

In the case of Elliot Rodgers aka ‘Supreme Gentleman’, his 2014 manifesto not only shone light on the unspoken racial hierarchy of sexuality in USA but also was the first instance of the general public becoming aware of a growing number of incels within western countries. Since then, many far more “respectable” outlets and “scholars” have repeatedly identified the same drop in sexual activity among young males without a corresponding drop in females of the same age group. Or take Anders Brevik’s manifesto. While he shot up those 69 children in 2011, many of his critiques about unrestricted immigration, mass influx of refugees and the publish backlash against them came true. If you don’t believe me, have a look at how many anti-immigration parties have either come to power or increased their vote share in west-European countries over past 5 years.

In other words, we should not ignore the manifestos of spree killers just because we find their actions icky. And this brings us to the contents of Patrick Crusius’s manifesto. Though short (4 pages long), that document verbalizes some ideas that are highly relevant to the 2020 elections. So what makes a guy who lived in Allen, Texas drive over a thousand km to El Paso for shooting up Hispanics. Also, here is an interesting fact about Allen, Texas.. it has more people of Asian than Hispanic ancestry. Anyway.. now let us talk about the main issues Crusius discusses in his manifesto. According to him, the current set of politicians (both republicans and democrats) want to import Hispanic immigrants in this country on a large scale for working in low-paid jobs and eventually changing the racial demographics of USA.

Democrats and their stooges in the corporate media are now calling it a conspiracy theory, even though they have repeatedly making the exact same claims for over a decade. Here is a book talking about that issue from 2004. The so-called ’emerging democratic majority’ or coalition of the ascendant’ has been masturbatory fantasy for democratic wonks for almost 15 years, which is especially ironic given how poorly they performed at the federal and state level during Obama’s presidency from 2009 to 2016. Despite what some would want to believe, the electoral setbacks suffered by republicans were largely due to fucking up on the ACA. All of which means that part of the ‘white replacement conspiracy’ is the official policy of the democratic, and to a lesser extent, republican party. And I, being non-white, am perfectly OK with that change.

He goes on to talk about issues such as job loss due to automation, outsourcing and competition from immigrants. Again.. his thoughts on these issues are pretty mainstream. He them moves to the issue of the educational credentialism race and how attaining more educational qualifications is becoming worthless as more people get them. He also mentions how corporations require ever more desperate immigrants to work at shitty and poorly paid jobs which american-born people won’t or cannot accept. Again.. most of this is pretty mainstream and also a significant part of the reason why a troll like Trump won against the establishment candidate, aka HRC, in 2016. He then goes off on a screed about how it is all damaging to the environment, which is a common “concern” among white people who want to be racist but cannot do so openly.

There is more in his manifesto such as how he chose guns and ammo, thoughts on race mixing, likely legacy etc. However, the thing which should really concern establishment politicians is how these sentiments, especially the more main-stream socioeconomic concerns are now so widespread that a young guy in some medium-sized city in Texas can effectively summarize them in a couple of pages. It is no secret that, for 90% of its population, life in this country has been a slow downward spiral since 2008. This is the reason Obama got fewer votes in 2012 than 2008 and why he would have lost in 2012 had the republicans selected someone less repulsive than Mitt Romney. Yet even today, establishment democrats spend more time and energy in chasing “RussiaGate” than even attempting to present a better vision of the future to potential voters.

To some extent, this is because the political establishment and elites are too incompetent and intellectually bankrupt to think creatively. But far too many of them also live in a social bubble where regurgitating self-validating bullshit and lies to each other is a way of life. That is why all their attacks on Trump have not decreased his approval ratings below 40-45%, which is where they were when he was elected in late-2016. And yet, after three years of consistent failure, these ivy-league credentialed losers are doubling down on strategies which don’t work. Perhaps, they might want to think a bit more about why the approval ratings for mainstream corporate media are now far lower than the orange troll they are trying to target.

But why do the consents of his manifesto matter for the 2020 elections. Well.. because it shows the depth and spread of hopelessness about the future and disenchantment with status quo. As some of you might remember, Trump was able to exploit these issues to win the presidency in 2016. The reaction to manifesto and shooting by establishment democrats highlights their lack of an alternate vision of the future. It is as if democrats have not learned a single useful thing from their humiliation in 2016. Everything they are doing in the wake of this shooting is a redux of what they have done in the past and failed at miserably (calls for banning guns, more useless and dangerous laws etc). And I am not even going to start talking about the clown car of mostly insipid and phony neoliberal candidates in the ongoing democratic presidential primary.

What do you think? Comments?

The NRA is Finally Experiencing a Much Needed Membership Revolt

July 2, 2019 4 comments

As regular readers know, I have long held the belief that trying to implement “gun control” or ban them is a stupid idea. It is also my opinion that democratic party has an unfortunate obsession with gun control, which will likely cost them the 2020 election. Curiously, I have also said that the NRA, in its current form, does not have a viable future in spite of internet activism against the NRA being counterproductive. At this point, some of you might be confused about what I am trying to say. So let me quickly restate the obvious. Firstly, any attempt at “serious gun control” is unlikely to have any significant effect on incidence of homicide by firearms, largely because violence in any given society is a factor of massive inequality and (often racial) polarization. That is why countries such as Mexico and Brazil have far higher numbers and rates of homicide by guns than USA, while its is very low in others such as Vietnam and India.

Secondly, even though successful suicide attempts accounts for the majority of firearm deaths in USA, banning guns is unlikely to change its incidence. Indeed countries such as Japan and South Korea have far higher rates of suicide than USA, even though both have ridiculously stringent laws against civilian gun ownership. Having said that, the NRA is a dying organization (for more than one reason) and is increasingly at odds with the views of most gun owners in USA today. That organisation, as it exists today, is stuck in the political landscape of 1980s-2000s. But what does that mean? What was so different about those 2-3 decades. Time for a quick history lesson.. the ‘gun control’ movement in USA as we know it today started in the late 1960s in coastal cities and was racist. It reached its peak in the late 1980 and early 1990s and started dying out after the electoral disaster caused by that infamous 1994 bill about “assault weapons”.

The NRA, as we know it today, can be best understood as manufactured opposition to stop anti-gun laws aimed at non-white people from accidentally infringing on the rights of white people. That is also why it supported many “gun control” laws which preferentially disenfranchised non-whites and went along with cosmetic laws that allowed politicians to claim that they were “doing something about guns”. In other words, the NRA was never meant to be an effective organization for defending 2nd amendment rights. And their scam worked for almost three decades, allowing that organisation to grow by increasing its membership. Then a confluence of trends exposed their impotence and growing irrelevance. The first one was decline of the democratic party in non-coastal parts of the country. Once democrats became irrelevant in many non-coastal states, the coastal hardline “gun control” types became far more prominent in that organization.

To make a long story short, the NRA appeared strong for 2-3 decades only because it colluded with both parties. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the national political landscape changed to the point it could get by with republican party support. And ya.. the much diminished democratic party increasingly became the extreme anti-gun rights party. Some of you might have noticed that, during the last decade, NRA increasingly became a mouthpiece for all sorts of economic right-wing bullshit which had little (if anything) to do with gun rights. It also became a bloated organization full of incompetent parasites who used its financial resources to live a cushy lifestyle- not unlike NGOs, most “non-profits”, charities, universities and political parties. This went on for a decade or so and then November 8, 2016 happened.

The election of Trump and the nature of those in the so-called “resistance” (coastal establishment types) caused a renewed push to ban guns among democrats. A few large mass-shootings in the first two years of his presidency did not help things. To make another long story short, a number of events driven by coastal elites and SJWs such as deplatforming gun-rights people on social media, denying them certain banking services, getting chain stores to stop selling ‘scary looking’ guns, banning novelty items such as bump stocks etc exposed the impotence of NRA. While this would have no consequence if the affected people were black or brown, they were not. Add to this internal fights over monetary issues between Wayne LaPierre vs Oliver North and their cronies. It all came at around the same time and made that organization look corrupt and impotent to its membership and many other gun owners.

As a consequence of this, the NRA has been experiencing a pretty serious membership revolt and disengagement over past few months. But coastal liberal idiots should not rejoice. The gun-right organisations which will replace it are going to be much more demanding than the NRA. Even a rebooted NRA will be far more ideologically rigid and unwilling/ unable to compromise than its predecessor. Furthermore, the proliferation of liberal post-modern bullshitters, SJWs and other assorted ‘virtue display’ peddlers in large corporations has actually hardened the resolve of people to defend their gun rights. And all of this is going to play out during 2020 election season, which promises to be quite the shitshow.

Relevant Clip #1

and

Relevant Clip #2

What do you think? Comments?

Some More Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 27, 2019 2 comments

In the previous post of this hopefully short series, I wrote about how the release of an executive summary of Mueller’s report has sunk the hopes of many partisan democrat voters. Apparently, many of these retards were fully expecting the report to be some sort of deus-ex-machina which would magically end the Trump presidency and then “everything would just go back to normal”. As I have written in many previous posts, the election of Trump in 2016 is just another symptom of an ongoing slow-motion implosion of neoliberal status quo and imperial pretensions of USA. In other words, removing Trump from office via some sort of legal coup will have zero effect on the constellation of factors which enabled his rise in the first place. But try telling that to the hordes of partisan democrat voters clamoring for Trump’s impeachment for “collusion” with Russia.

Which brings us to an issue that I hinted in the previous post on this topic. Why were so many partisan democrat voters animated by the possibility of Trump being impeached through proof of him “colluding” with Russia? Let me rephrase that question to better explain what I am getting at. Why were they fixated on the “collusion with Russia and Putin” bullshit story when there are tons of far more legitimate reasons for legal prosecution? I mean.. we all know that the orange buffoon is a walking disaster, in addition to having a highly shady past and serious conflict on interest issues between his business empire and office since he was elected in 2016. So why did partisan democrat voters and affluent Reagan democrats (such as MikeCA?) focus on the most ridiculous accusations against this real life version of George Bluth Sr.?

On Sunday, Matt Stoller made an insightful tweet: What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate. Let me now unpack what he was talking about. See.. the peculiar obsession of partisan democrat types with the bullshit “collusion with Russia” narrative, to the exclusion of far better ways to nail the orange buffoon, make sense only if you consider the possibility that it is about validating their belief that HRC was the better candidate and destined to defeat Trump in 2016. Yep.. they desperately want validation for their comic belief that Hillary was meant to win in 2016 and the victory of Trump was due to some mysterious and nefarious actions by “Russia” and “Putin”. But why would they want to believe such tripe, especially given how democrats lost in mid-western states which were considered democrat strongholds during presidential elections for over two decades. Well.. it is both easy and complicated.

As I have written in more than one previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 and two short series- link 6 and link 7) the democratic party is increasingly led and organised by “credentialed” white liberal professionals who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. But what does this have to do with their obsession about HRC being the “better candidate” who was “destined to win” in 2016. As it turn out.. everything. HRC, you see, is an embodiment of the ultimate neoliberal political candidate. She checked all the right “diversity” boxes, employed advisers and interns from “elite” universities, constantly talked in empty platitudes and gave false hope through carefully chosen words, indulged in constant triangulation on contentious issues, pretended to care about “social justice” issues and generally embodied everything which people in 2019 find repulsive and loathsome about CEOs and other corporate critters.

But it was not always like that and between 1980 and 2009, many in USA (especially middle-class baby boomers and older Gen-Xers) actually believed in neoliberalism. That is why people born before 1970 (like MikeCA?) were far more supportive, if not downright enthusiastic, about HRC’s candidacy in 2016. To be more precise, people above a certain age, income level and living in coastal states saw HRC as their perfect candidate. That is why support for the “Trump colluding with Russia and Putin” bullshit narrative was so high in coastal democrat strongholds but almost absent in parts of the country which have been devastated by decades of neoliberalism. But how does this translate into a singular focus on the bullshit “collusion” narrative while ignoring all the other shitty things Trump has done in the past and is doing right now.

Well.. it comes down to what particular narrative promises and covers up, at the same time. In comparison, blaming the rise of Trump on the effects of neoliberal policies pursued by republicans and democrats since 1980 (or earlier) implicates politicians and presidents from both parties. The “collusion” bullshit narrative allows establishment types to present the victory of Trump in 2016 as an anomaly, one which they can recover from and restore the old status quo. The alternative explanation, namely that Trump’s victory in 2016 as a sign of the old order collapsing, seems to be too frightening and depressing for them to contemplate in public. Blaming Trump’s victory in 2016 on “Russia” and “Putin” allowed establishment democrats to pretend that there is no need for fundamental change while covering up the complete lack of sustained public enthusiasm for their corporate-approved candidates. And they believe they can get away with it.

So why were many coastal partisan democrat voters eager to drink the koolaid of “collusion”? To better answer that question, let talk about the other political figure who is also disliked (if not outright hated) by the biggest lay supporters of the bullshit “collusion” narrative. Does the name, Bernie Sanders, ring a bell? Yes.. there is a very strong overlap between partisan democrats who believe in the bullshit “Trump-Russia-Putin collusion” narrative and those who proudly voted for HRC in the 2016 primaries. And guess which states Bernie had many upset victories during the 2016 primaries? Yep.. many mid-western states which voted for Trump in the general election. Also remember that Bernie won far more votes from people below 40, than those past 50. The thing is, lay supporters of the “collusion” narrative are (in many ways) similar to the last generation who worship a dying religion- which in this case is neoliberalism.

Might write another post in this short series.. but not sure.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 26, 2019 3 comments

I would have preferred to post on topics more consequential than an initial public summary of the now infamous Mueller Report, but it seems (based on the comments section) there is a demand for this sort of writing. And this is fine by me, because posts like the current one are much easier to write than carefully thought ones about issues which actually matter. So, let us first talk with a bit about how it all started. While the exact incident which started this sadly comic endeavor is a matter of some dispute, the timing is much clearer. What we today know as “RussiaGate” started in the summer of 2016, but its origins go back a few months before that to the time when the DNC or somebody associated with that organization paid a certain Christopher Steele to write a damming dossier about Trump. FYI- this part of the origin story is no longer controversial.

The DNC, as some of you might remember, is the same stupid organization who conspired with the corporate media to highlight buffoons such as Trump and Carson (pied-piper candidates) to make it easier for HRC to win in the general election. I wonder how that “strategy” worked out. Anyway, the dumbfuck known as Christopher Steele was hired because he pretended to be a “Russia expert”. As it turns out, Steele was talking out of his behind, because other than a few years of being posted in Russia many years ago- his grasp on his alleged area of “expertise” was non-existent. And you do not have to just believe me on this.. read the dossier. To make a long story short, the entire dossier is full of speculation, hearsay, made-up bullshit and just plain lies. Some readers might wonder.. how can I be so sure that dossier is full of bullshit.

Well.. because if even a fraction of its most salacious accusations were true, at least half the Trump family would have been jailed over a year ago and Trump would have resigned or been impeached by now. But they are not and Trump has neither resigned or been impeached. In case you don’t have time to read that “dossier”, some of the accusations included such gems such as: Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague for “secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers.” and Kremlin had kompromat of Trump defiling a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show.” It turns out that these accusations were either totally made up or were wild exaggerations.

Michael Cohen was found guilty of perjury, lying to banks, tax evasion and violating campaign finance laws but not of going to Prague or conspiring with any “Russians” to influence the 2016 election. Did I mention that the Mueller investigation did not file any indictment against Carter Page? And there is no proof of the “Kremlin” or “Putin” having sexual Kompromat on Trump. So.. the whole dossier was largely full of bullshit. At this stage, I expect MikeCA to tell me how a few of the accusations in that dossier could be interpreted as correct. Well.. it does not take a genius with expertise in “Russia” to do a few internet searches that point to Trump’s interest in building or licensing his brand name to a few luxury condo complexes in Moscow. Trump being interested in making a fast buck and sticking his name onto architectural abominations is as predictable as dogs sniffing the behinds of other dogs. In any case, he did not expect to win in 2016.

I am not going to bore you with all the details of how things went down after that initial dossier was shopped around various news outlets and senators (including John McCain) once it became obvious that Trump was going to win the republican party nomination. Matt Taibbi has written a far more detailed account of how this bullshit drama unfolded. Aaron Maté has a pretty good analysis of the how the whole “collusion” theory has fallen apart. Branko Marcetic has a good piece about how “RussiaGate” helped rehabilitate previously discredited necons and the national “security apparatus. It is also telling that some corporate media outlets, like Vanity Fair,who were cheerleading the Mueller investigation as late as last week are now starting to publish posts which are far more somber about the Mueller Report and the future of similar investigations.

Heck.. even NYT is now starting to publish pieces which talk about the long-term deleterious effects of the media’s role in hyping RussiaGate on the national psyche. And before I forget, here is a piece by Michael Tracey about how democratic politicians and sympathetic media spent all their energies fanning this fake scandal when they could have put that same effort in uncovering the numerous real scandals of the Trump administration. I am sure that readers will see many more pieces such as these in coming weeks, as corporate media outlets try to back-paddle from their previous positions on Russiagate. FYI- Michael Tracey, Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and a handful of others were among the very few who consistently maintained that RussiaGate was a fake scandal which would not result in Trump being impeached or resigning.

They also correctly predicted that RussiaGate would end up vindicating Trump’s rants about how the “Deep State” was trying to screw him over- in addition to making it far harder for subsequent real charges of malfeasance to stick to him. And that is where things seem to be headed. It is very likely that all those investigations of Trump and his family by SDNY and a few other DAs sympathetic to democratic establishment will be seen as continuation of the ‘witchunt’ against Trump. WSo.. what has this investigation achieved thus far, apart from making Trump seem sympathetic and justified in his paranoia against establishment types?

Well.. for starters, it has done wonders for the bottom line of cynical cable news networks such as MSNBC and CNN. Con artists such as Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon (and many others) owe a good art of their recent viewership numbers to peddling this scam. Many NeoCons such as David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot and many others who were relegated to dustbin of history after the Iraq war turned out to be a disaster have now been rehabilitated. Incompetent sociopaths such Comey, Hayden, Clapper and Brennan have also been rehabilitated as senior public intellectuals. And it gets worse. Gullible partisan democratic voters have been swindled out of billions by montebanks who sold them fiction masquerading as investigative journalism. Late-night “comics” cannot make “jokes” which do not involve fantasies of Trump getting arrested or impeached.

In summary, the Mueller investigation and the artificial hype surrounding it have done a lot of long-term damage to the credibility of american journalism.. well.. whatever was left of it after 2003. In the next post on this topic, I will show you how establishment democrats peddled and promoted RussiaGate to avoid any self-analysis after their anointed candidate was defeated by that orange buffoon in 2016. As somebody on Twitter quipped- What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate.

What do you think? Comments?

Recap of Previous Posts on Futility of Attempts at “Gun Control” in USA

March 25, 2018 4 comments

As more regular readers of this blog know, I have written more than a few posts on why attempts to implement “gun control” in USA are doomed to failure in addition to being worse than useless. While I often link to 2-3 older posts in each newer one on that topic, I thought it was a good idea to create a more comprehensive link list for the major ones. Also, it is Sunday and I am trying to finish up another post on a related issue.

Mass Shootings Occur in USA Because It is a Third-World Country (from February 2018)

First world countries are defined by the quality of life enjoyed by their median resident, as are third world countries. For example- Japan, South Korea, France, Germany etc are seen as first world countries because of the high quality of life for their median residents. Living in such countries is characterized by things such as excellent universal healthcare, fairly stable and well-paying jobs for the majority of its residents, reasonably good formal and informal social safety nets and an overall lack of extremely poor and desperate people. In other words, life for the median resident in these countries is very good and even the less fortunate are doing better than treading water.

Now contrast this to the overall quality of life in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, India and yes.. USA. While these countries have no shortage of billionaires and lesser rich people with fabulous lifestyles- things are pretty shitty for their median residents. Most people in these countries have precarious jobs and livelihoods which often do not pay enough for the ever-increasing costs of sub-standard housing, healthcare and education. The government in these countries work solely for the benefit of the rich minority and does not provide adequate social goods such as healthcare, education, housing, sanitation or a usable social safety net.

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control (from August 2017)

And that is why the credentialed professional class, which is the 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of most of their party establishment cadre want to disarm “less deserving” poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop the party. Credentialed professionals perceive the widespread ownership of guns as a threat to their cushy livelihoods which depend on theft and extortion via laws and regulations. However, unlike corporations, they are not powerful or singularly important enough to get special protection by the state.

Attempting to ban widespread ownership of guns, then, appears to be the second best option. And that is why the democratic establishment keeps on pursuing a policy that has brought it repeated electoral failure in parts of the country that are not New York or California. On a side note, I do not think that their obsession with gun control is going to change even if they perform poorly in the 2018 and 2020 elections. As long as they can still win a few coastal states, they will keep shooting themselves in the foot.

On the Futility of Attempts at Gun Control in the USA (from July 2015)

And this brings us to the second issue- namely, that a significant minority of people do not perceive the current government system as being legitimate. But why does that matter? Don’t people in other developed countries have similar views about their governments? Well.. it does matter, because people in other developed countries do perceive their governments to be significantly more legitimate than people in the USA see their own. But why? What makes people in Japan, Germany or even the U.K feel that their government is legitimate? The simple answer is that the perceived legitimacy of a government is directly proportional to the consistency and effectiveness of its efforts to maintain the quality of life for the median citizen.

It is therefore no surprise that gun control measures seem to work in countries where the government directly or indirectly intervenes in favor of the median citizen. I should also point out countries with such government systems always had very low rates of deaths by individual acts of violence- especially in the post-WW2 era. In contrast to that, countries in which governments routinely and overtly abuse the majority to benefit the rich minority always had rather high rates of non-state sanctioned homicides. That is why certain countries such as Mexico, Brazil and South Africa have rather high rates of non-state sanctioned homicides despite highly restrictive gun ownership laws. My point is that the USA has always been more like Mexico, Brazil and South Africa than Japan, Germany or the U.K.

LIEbrals push for more gun control laws because they do not want to acknowledge that the USA has always been an affluent third-world country and that they have greatly benefited from this situation.

Non-Gun Mass Killings Will Become the Next New Trend (from August 2012)

It seems that we can hardly go a week without some quiet, lonely and otherwise law-abiding guy shooting up a few people. Such mass shootings have created an outcry among morons who think that guns kill people. There is however considerable evidence that killing lots of people without guns is actually quite easy, if the persons doing it is so determined. Moreover there are excellent contemporary examples, such as the ongoing drug wars in Mexico, that show the inefficacy of legal gun control in preventing people from acquiring guns.

Now I don’t know whether these weekly mass-shootings will become more frequent (likely) or deadlier (somewhat less likely), but that discussion is best saved for another post. But there is another and far more interesting trend that I predict will emerge regardless of whether lawmakers try to pass more restrictive laws about gun ownership. I have partially tackled this issue in a previous post. People who are unhappy with the system, and see no viable future, will increasingly kill others through means that are not gun or explosive linked.

Why (New) Gun Laws Won’t Prevent Mass Killings (also, from August 2012)

Attempts to control the legal ownership of guns are superficial “do something” acts which so not address the underlying causes of the malady. The reality is that there is really no way a failing society can stop such acts. Do you really think that people who have nothing to lose will follow laws and regulations? Do you think they won’t get firearms through extra-legal channels? Do you think a failing government can control the system? Do you think James Holmes would have done less damage with a couple dozen Molotov cocktails and a few matches in a crowded theater? Are you going to regulate gasoline usage next? The only way to effectively reduce the incidence of mass killings is through the creation of a socio-economic system which treats people with a basic level of human dignity.

But I don’t think that will happen. The whole modus operandi of the USA as a society has been to abuse, steal and murder others to get rich and impoverish those who survive. For a long time, they mostly did it to outsiders and minorities, but they eventually ran out of them as far as profit is concerned. That is when they turned to (and on) each other. While it looked fairly harmless in the beginning (early 1980s), things have got worse with each passing year. The reality is human beings, especially the so-called clever ones, are too short-sighted to appreciate the effects of their own actions.

What do you think? Comments?