The decision by Donald Trump, a few weeks ago, to enter the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination was initially seen by many as just another short-lived publicity stunt to drum up ratings for the 15th season of his reality show or perhaps a future replacement for that show. This particular assessment was largely based on his rather long and extensive history of using declarations of intent to run for political office to get tons of free publicity. It is also no secret that he has always loved public attention and consequently has been involved in the promotion of various sport competitions and beauty pageants.
As many of you know- there is no shortage of opinions, articles and posts about his campaign for getting the republican nomination. Some say that his campaign is a plant by the Clintons to derail the process of choosing an electable republican candidate, and that might be true. In any case, his entry in the race has certainly sucked the oxygen out of the competing campaign of many republican contenders such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker. His posturing on issues such as illegal immigration has also made many of his republican competitors try to adopt similar postures- something they will regret if they ever have to actually run against any democratic candidate for president.
But there is one aspect of his campaign that has puzzled many observers- from republican and democrat insiders to presstitues. How can a guy who has insulted almost every republican holy cow from John McCain (veterans), Megyn Kelly (photogenic white women), Jeb Bush and other “serious” contenders (insiders in the republican insiders) and Fox News (right-wing mass media) still be a viable candidate, let alone possess a commanding lead, for the republican nomination? Why have all those negative articles and hit pieces by main stream media pundits (in print, television and on the internet) had no worthwhile impact on his ascendancy?
There are those who ascribe this apparent invulnerability to his past experience in business negotiations and reality television shows. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) has recently written a few posts about how Trump is using language tricks to get his way-Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 and Link 4. While I certainly don’t deny that he has far more experience with being in the media’s spotlight and dealing with them than his competitors, it cannot explain his remarkable ascendancy for reasons I will explain now.
So, here is the question you should ask yourself.. Given that rich people with Trump’s personality and media savvy have always existed in the USA, why weren’t they ever serious front-runners for the presidential nomination in either party? Sure, we have had many memorable third-part candidates (especially in the 19th century) and who can forget the impact of Ross Perot on the result of the 1992 election. But that still does not answer the question- How could somebody with the background and personality of Donald Trump be a serious contender for the presidential nomination for one of the two major political parties in USA?
I believe that the answer to that particular question lies in something far deeper than open demagoguery and being especially adept at handling presstitutes. In my opinion, the ability of Trump to dominate the process for presidential nomination by one of the two main parties in USA is a symptom of an ongoing slow-motion failure of the modern nation-state.
To comprehend what I am talking about, you have to first understand the concept of a ‘modern nation state’ and why this type of institution was so successful for over a hundred years. Modern nation states are a product of the 2nd wave of the industrial revolution and it is no coincidence that many of them came into existence at about the same time (mid-1800s- early 1900s) as the areas they are situated in starting industrializing on a large scale. While they differed from previous kingdoms and nations in many ways, the most important (and relevant) difference between them and their predecessors arises from one specific arrangement between the government and people of such entities.
Modern nation states, unlike any of their predecessors, explicitly promised and largely delivered a very significant increase in the living standards of their general populace. In return for this prosperity (often gained through war and hard or soft colonialism) the average person living in such political entities was expected to be unquestioningly loyal towards the “nation” and do whatever he or she was told to do. While this bargain did result in some of the most horrific wars in history (various late 19th century colonial wars, WW1 and WW2) it worked pretty well for most people living in modern nation states.
The modern nation state model did, however, have a series of systemic structural flaws- many of which took decades (and a series of technological advances) to fully manifest themselves. Principal among this series of inter-linked flaws was the problem of maintaining an image of governmental authority and competence. But why would that be a problem? Aren’t people selected, elected or promoted to high offices of governance in modern nation states supposed to be very competent at their jobs?
Well.. not really.
See, here is the problem. The actual difference in mental capacity and competence between those who are supposed to be the “best and brightest” and the “rest” is, in reality, rather insignificant. Furthermore opaque hierarchical systems that protect insiders from the consequences of their actions tend to select and promote people who are good at lying, stealing, scamming and generally playing politics. Simply put, members of the ruling class of modern nation states are not particularly competent at their supposed jobs. Their lack of competence was, however, not that obvious in previous eras for two reasons. Firstly, the ability to steal resources from other parts of the world, often without serious opposition, made it easy for the ruling class to throw a few extra crumbs at the proles who did their dirty work. Secondly, the ability to control the flow of information via control of the mass media in the pre-internet era meant that it was actually possible to cover up many of the otherwise obvious failings (personal and professional) of members of the ruling class.
Sadly for them, both avenues for maintaining that facade of competence and authority have now disappeared. Politicians throughout the world now have a public image that has more in common with that of a used-car salesman than anything remotely suggestive of actual competence. While this process has been going on since the 1970s, the political class as a whole was able to retain their grasp on power by forming an ever closer (and subservient alliance) with rich people. The campaign of Donald Trump should therefore be seen as an attempt by a rich person to just get rid of the middleman (professional politician) who no longer commands public respect or authority.
Will write more about this topic in upcoming posts.
What do you think? Comments?
I recently came across some news articles about an upcoming indie horror movie whose storyline has more than a passing resemblance to the Elliot Rodger saga, something that I have previously written about on this blog- Link 1, Link 2 and Link 3. Anyway, to make to long story short- this upcoming film (directed by a UCSB alumn) is receiving a lot of hate on social media from SJWs and others white LIEbrals who are offended by a movie they have not seen.
Somehow these people believe that nobody should be allowed to make a movie in which a young guy in a west coastal setting decides to exact revenge on girls who repeatedly ignore his modest romantic/sexual advances. I am willing to bet that more than a simple majority of these same people were not offended by a movie that celebrate an american soldier killing over 100 people in Iraq. Ironically, the actions depicted in the later movie are a far better fit for the definition of unprovoked premeditated multiple homicide than those shown in the former. Says a lot about the nature of society in the USA, doesn’t it?
Anyway, here is the YouTube trailer for ‘Del Playa’, which also happens to be the name of a street in Isla Vista, CA.
What do you think? comments?
The act of publicly bemoaning a lack of “effective” gun control laws upon hearing news of yet another mass shooting is one of the most popular LIEbral ritual in USA. For reasons that I will get into a bit later in this post, most LIEbrals believe (or at least want to believe) that severe restrictions or outright bans on private ownership of guns will somehow magically translate into an almost total elimination of mass shootings and other incidents of firearm related “violence”. They will also tell you that the much lower rates of suicide (or homicide) by firearms in other developed countries with draconian regulation of private gun ownership support their beliefs. But is that really so?
Well.. the short answer is “no”. But the longer answer is far more interesting and provides some intriguing insight into their mindset and worldview.
FYI, this is not my first blog post expressing strong skepticism about the effectiveness of passing more gun control laws in the USA. I have previously pointed out that most mass or spree shootings in the USA are the end result of somewhat unique and systemic social problems. Also, people who commit such acts frequently have no suspicion-invoking history of violent behavior. Furthermore, trying to suppress one manifestation of a much deeper set of problems almost guarantees that they will manifest themselves in another, and even more problematic, manner. It is also no secret that those clamoring the loudest for more gun control are doing so to maintain their power and social status.
There is however something else that I have alluded to, but not discussed at length, in my previous posts on this topic. I am now going to talk about one of the core issues that underlies discussion on gun control laws but is seldom mentioned- especially in public forums.
Some of my previous posts on other topics talk about factors that influence (positively or negatively) the perceived legitimacy of any given system of government. Now, many of you might think that opinions of citizens about the degree of legitimacy of the government system they live under are largely a non-issue in “developed” countries with democratically elected governments. As I will show you in the next paragraph- perceptions and opinions about the legitimacy of government systems are far more important for policies on gun control than most LIEbrals want to believe. It really comes down to two inter-linked issues..
Firstly- even a brief reading of the previous 150 years of global history show a rather disconcerting, yet seldom talked about, pattern for violent deaths. Governments of countries (as opposed to individuals) have been responsible for the vast majority of violent deaths in populations governed by them. If you don’t believe me just add the body count of all major inter- and intra-state wars, genocides and consequences of war (such as the influenza pandemic of 1918) which have occurred in the last century and half. My point is that the vast majority (way over 99%) of violent deaths (around 150-200 million) in that time span were state sanctioned and therefore technically “legal”. Furthermore, the number of violent deaths caused by recent or ongoing conflicts such as those caused by american meddling in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan within the last decade are still many tens of times higher than a sum of the body count caused by individual mass or spree shooters in the same time span. Even the police in USA kill many times more unarmed people than mass shooters in the same calendar year. To put it another way, governments of nation states (and their subsidiaries) are by far the biggest cause of violent deaths- including those by guns. I fail to see how passing more gun control laws would have change that fact.
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 tremendously benefited from this apparent contradiction.
What do you think? Comments?