As almost every one of you knows by now, Bernie Sanders resounding victory in the New Hampshire democratic primary has left Hillary Clinton and her cronies shaken, if not overtly panicking.. at least yet. The fact that this overwhelming victory comes on the heels of a technical and shady tie in the Iowa democratic caucus has suddenly made Hillary look far more vulnerable than she would have preferred. Most of you might have also heard all those noises coming from Clinton supporters and protegees about how Hillary will still win the democratic because of her alleged popularity among “Black” and “Hispanic” democratic voters.
But what if the course of events don’t work out that way in 2016? What if her professional supporters and protegees are lying to others or being self-delusional? What if her public viewpoints from the 1990s come back to wreck her quest for the “Black” and “Hispanic” vote in 2016? In other words, could her campaign to win non-white voters in 2016 be sunk by widespread public dissemination of her public views about those groups in the 1990s?
Let us look at the facts..
It is a matter of public record that her husband, Bill Clinton, actively supported laws that caused disproportionate damage to the Black and Hispanic community when he was president. He also promoted laws that caused a lot of damage to the black community as a whole. While he has recently acknowledged many of the racially biased laws passed during his presidency were a “mistake“, it means little to the millions of non-whites who life has been irreversibly damaged by these inherently racist laws.
Now some of you might say that a wife cannot be held accountable for the actions of her husband. Well.. that would be a reasonable line of argument if Hillary was a politically uninvolved 1950s-era housewife- but as you all know, she was anything but apolitical. In fact, there are tons of video clips of her actively defending her husband’s policies- whether they were about increasing levels of racially targeted incarceration or supporting welfare “reform” policies that targeted non-whites. To put it another way, she was a willing and enthusiastic collaborator in the design and support of policies that destroyed the lives of millions of black citizens.
And that is a big problem for her, especially in an era where media is no longer centralized and under the control of a few people and corporations. A recent and widely shared article by Michelle Alexander openly points out that the Clintons have done nothing to deserve the votes of black people. Even a borderline Clinton shill like Ta-Nehisi Coates has now found it hard to openly support Hillary Clinton. It does not take a genius to figure out that we will be soon seeing tons of official and unofficial attacks ads and articles which use public positions taken by the Clinton’s in the 1990s against them in 2016.
The continuation of Black and Hispanic support for Hillary is therefore heavily dependent on suppression of their public positions from the 1990s. While doing so was trivial in an era with three TV networks, a few cable channels and a handful of national newspapers- doing that today is impossible. In fact any attempt to suppress such facts today would achieve the reverse- a phenomenon known as the Streisand effect.
It is also worth mentioning that Blacks and Hispanics in 2016, unlike many of their counterparts from the 1990s, are no longer naive enough to strive for respectability and acceptability by an aging and declining white population. Furthermore, the growth and ubiquity of the internet (and smartphones) have exposed the gross and systemic racial inequalities in the treatment of Blacks and Hispanics in the USA. It is no exaggeration to say that Blacks and Hispanics born after 1970 have a very different view of the 1980s and 1990s than their parents.
To summarize, any serious public exposure of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s views and actions during the 1990s would make Hillary repulsive to non-white voters- especially those born after 1970.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you might have heard, a Muslim husband-wife “team” shot up an office Christmas party in San Bernardino yesterday. While we still lack enough information to understand their precise motivations, currently available evidence suggests that the religious beliefs of shooters played a major role in their decision to do what they did. Having said that- this particular incident raises some interesting, and as yet unanswered, questions.
Question 1: What drove Syed Rizwan Farook to shoot up his own office Christmas Party? and why his own office Christmas Party?
Syed Farook was an US born 28-year old guy with a stable and well paid job with the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health for five years prior to the shooting. There is, currently, no evidence that he had any prior history of mental health issues or a significant criminal record. He also had no history of aggressively proselytizing his religion or expressing hatred for non-believers. By all accounts he was a quiet, polite and otherwise normal co-worker. There is also no evidence that his job or career was in any jeopardy. Perhaps most significantly, he was not on any watch-list for potential terrorists or religious radicals.
How does a guy with such a benign and unassuming profile go about shooting up his own office Christmas party? Why would this guy build an arsenal of pipe bombs and improvised explosive devices in his house? Shooting up a large group of people is not the result of a momentary lapse of mind. What would get a married guy with a 6-month old daughter and a decent and stable job to harbor such deep-seated resentment against people he worked with? What was in it for him?
Question 2: What was the role of his wife and co-shooter, Tashfeen Malik, in the shootings? Why was she so willing to participate?
It is no secret that the perpetrators of mass shootings are almost always male. The active participation of his wife in this mass shooting does therefore raise the next big question- What was in it for her? This is especially so because she had a 6-month old baby daughter. There is also no evidence that she neglected or abused her daughter. So what makes a 27-year old university-educated woman with a 6-month old daughter leave her daughter with the grandparents and go on a shooting spree with her husband?
There is also the question about the exact circumstances under which she first met her husband. While currently available information suggests that she met him online, we still don’t know where exactly they first crossed paths. Where does a supposedly devout Muslim woman living in Saudi Arabia meet a guy living in Southern California? What were the shared interests that initially brought them together. At this moment, we simply don’t know enough about the backstory of this couple.
Question 3: Why did they chose to shoot up his office Christmas party? What made it a more attractive target than a mall, theater or concert?
Terrorists tend to kill people in a manner that results in the maximum casualties as well as the maximum media exposure. Given their proximity to the Los Angeles metropolitan area which is far richer in soft targets, it is odd that they chose a venue with relatively fewer (70-80) people. I am actually surprised that they did not go on multiple shooting sprees in the LA metropolitan area- especially since they had more than enough ammunition to kill many more people. What made shooting up the office Christmas party more attractive than killing more at other venues?
Question 4: How much did their family and friends really know about their plans? Were they in contact with similar minded people in that part of the country?
Most of you have probably seen his relatives say something to the effect that they had no idea he was so radicalized. But is that really the case? It is clear that he was on good terms with more than a few of his close relatives. Did they really not notice that he was building pipe bombs in his townhouse and garage? Did they really not notice that he was making multiple improvised explosive devices in his house? Then there is the question of whether he was working with like-minded people in that part of California. Why would he make so many explosive devices for his own killing spree? Could more than a few of those devices have been made for some of his like-minded friends?
Question 5: Why is there no internet manifesto or video explaining his motivations for doing what he did? And what is the reason behind the couple destroying their smartphones and computer hard drives before embarking on their shooting spree?
As many of you know, mass shooters often leave behind some sort of written manifesto or video explaining what drive them to do what they did. So why did this couple not do so? This is especially puzzling as there are reports of them recording the mass shooting with GoPro-type body cameras. Why record something if you don’t want to share it with others? Or.. have they already sent that video to somebody in another country? Also, why destroy their smartphones and hide (and or destroy) the hard drives in their PCs? Who or what were they trying to protect?
In my opinion, this particular atypical mass shooting raises many more questions than previous events with similar body counts.
What do you think? Comments?
In the previous two posts of this series, I talked about why the current success of Trump’s campaign for the republican nomination is an almost inevitable consequence of voters seeing that professional politicians are not especially qualified for their jobs. It is also quite obvious to most voters that professional politicians are pretty incompetent at doing their jobs. It is therefore not surprising that most voters see professional politicians as marginally clever professional liars whose actions principally benefit the very wealthy minority who in turn pay to have them elected and also create cushy post-politics positions and sinecures for them.
In other words, the median person in developed countries now see professional politicians as little more than the marginally attractive mistress of rich older men who will say and do everything to keep the money flowing in their direction. It is therefore no surprise that so many have a far higher opinion of independent politicians like Trump than establishment loyalists such as Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
But this, by itself, does not explain why Trump can get away with saying almost anything about anybody. Many presstitutes, pundits and politicians cannot seem to figure out why insulting a supposed war hero turned politician like John McCain, a pretty white blond talking head (and body) like Megyn Kelly and pretty much anybody else who antagonizes him has no effect whatsoever on his rapidly rising public popularity. How can a politician who does not play by the rules of fake niceness and propriety so thoroughly trounce those who spent a lifetime studying and practicing those rules?
Presstitutes have put forth a variety of clever-sounding explanations to explain Trump’s ability to remain unscathed by whatever public outrage is generated by his criticism of his opponents- political or otherwise. Some attribute it to his extensive experience in reality TV. Others attribute it to his business acumen. Still others attribute it to his intuitive understanding of human psychology. But is that really the case? Can any of these theories really explain the continuous increase in public support for his candidacy?
Why doesn’t his ever-increasing support base care about the continuous stream of negative articles about him, his speeches or his tweets? Why has the progress of his campaign been so unusually gaffe-proof?
I have an explanation for this phenomena that is both rational and somewhat depressing for the perpetually positive types. It is based on a realistic look at the dynamics of contemporary human society, especially the version prevalent in USA and similar countries. A little over two years ago, I had written a post about how the dominance of an anodyne style of communication has played a major role in destroying societal trust. In that post I had said the following:
The nature of corporate communication has now become disturbingly similar to the fake biochemical signals used by metastasizing cancerous cells and viruses to use, abuse and subvert the host. But there is another dimension to this issue which makes it far more problematic in human societies. People, unlike cells, emulate and imitate strategies which are seen as successful for the individual, even if doing so destroys the social system that keeps things going. Consequently the ‘corporatese’ lies and selective truths that permeate large institutions and organisations seep into smaller versions of them and ultimately into general society. Soon almost everyone is communicating to each other with the same attitudes, mindsets and expectations as impersonal sociopathic corporations.
Another way of reading that paragraph is that we live in a society where anyone who appears to be unusually friendly, excessively polite and willing to help for “free” in the beginning is often (almost always correctly) seen as a crook, scam artist or inveterate liar or worse who is using his relative position or some aspect of the legal system to rob, scam, abuse or kill his or her unsuspecting victims. It goes without saying that societies with such high level of systemic mistrust are very brittle, unstable and well.. unlikely to last for any significant length of time (more than a few decades)- but that is a topic for another post.
Coming back to the topic at hand, it is common knowledge that the public persona of professional politicians are basically identical to those projected by corporations. Both try to portray themselves as being moral and upright persons with high ethical standards- basically an antithesis of their real selves. Both spend an unusual amount of time, effort and money in appearing professional, knowledgeable, competent, caring, altruistic and otherwise deserving of unquestioning obedience. Of course, even a cursory look at the world around you exposes these pretensions for what they really are.. clever-sounding lies to perpetuate continued exploitation.
But what does any of this have to do with Trump’s campaign being so successful and gaffe proof?
Well.. a lot. A society where almost every single conman, fraud and parasite is projecting a carefully put together persona tends to see people who don’t have such personas as being especially honest, authentic and trustworthy. This is doubly so if that person is willing to talk about issues and subjects that the “put together”-types deflect or avoid altogether. In other words, the societies in countries such as the USA are so screwed up that Trump is correctly seen as being less dishonest that somebody like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. It certainly helps that he was already rich enough to never have entered politics to make a living. Now contrast that to almost every single politician who is completely dependent on continued presence in the political arena for making a living. Even extremely rich and famous politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney owe almost all of their considerable wealth to being in, or around, the political arena.
The nature of contemporary society is such that an overtly arrogant, reasonably intelligent and independently rich guy trolling the easily offended will be (correctly) seen as being far more honest and competent than people with carefully manufactured and manicured personas whose livelihood is intimately connected to continued presence in the political arena.
Will write more about this topic in upcoming posts.
What do you think? Comments?