Posts Tagged ‘democarts’

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 2

December 23, 2019 21 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how the weird focus of ‘leftist’ parties throughout the west has caused their electoral downfall over the past two, and in some cases more, decades. You will be aware that their focus on issues such as gender pronouns, contemporary feminism, identity politics, political correctness, gun control, environmentalism and other issues which most people either don’t care about or actively despise are a significant part of why they keep losing elections. As I also mentioned in that post, LIEbral and other leftist parties stopped caring about the real concerns of the working class many decades ago. But what caused supposedly leftist parties throughout the west to embrace performative ‘wokeness’ decades before that particular term entered our popular lexicon. In other words, why did that trend start?

In my opinion, this shift occurred at around the same time that credentialism became the latest excuse to sustain the lie known as meritocracy. Confused.. see, prior to the 1970s, the cadre of leftist or left-leaning parties came from the real ‘working class’ aka people who actually worked with their hands for a living and had no illusions about being petit bourgeoisie. However most of the cadre of these parties after the 1970s and especially after 1980s came from the credentialed “professional” class. Unlike their working class predecessors who harbored no illusions about the nature of class struggle, most of these credentialed weasels harbored delusions of being just a few steps away from becoming rich or at least petit bourgeoisie. It should be noted that this shift did not occur in just Anglo countries. Indeed, the magnitude of this particular change was larger (if less visible) in other west-European countries such as Scandinavian and Germanic countries

It is therefore not surprising to see that formerly socialist, LIEbral and other left-wing parties in the west are run by people who look the same, talk the same and act the same- irrespective of the countries they claim to represent. But why does any of this matter? After all, don’t these ‘leftist’ parties win elections once in a while and allegedly provide vocal opposition to right-wing parties. Well.. as it turns out in real life, LIEbral and supposedly left-leaning parties in power almost never try to reverse the negative effects of previous right-wing rule. In fact, more often than not they reach an accommodation with right-wing parties to further immiserate the working classes.. all in the name of “pragmatism”. And why wouldn’t they? The top cadre of these LIEbral and left-wing parties don’t perceive themselves as working class. Instead, they see themselves as part of the same “meritocracy” which created extreme socio-economic inequality. But if they are no better than right-wing political parties, why do they lose elections more frequently than them.

It comes down to something the ‘left’ does which the right’ does not- at least when compared to the ‘left’. To put it bluntly, the “enlightened left” in addition to screwing over the working class in cooperation with the ‘right’ repeatedly tries to display its moral superiority to the proles- whose interest it claims to represent. That is why those in LIEbral circles are always chasing the latest opportunity for overt virtue display- whether it is adopting children from Africa, supporting the transgender ideology, pretending to care about intersectional feminism, lecturing about the ‘sins’ of consumption while living large houses, often staffed by desperate immigrant servants and travelling around the world in private airplanes to exclusive resorts. There is a reason why slurs like ‘limousine liberal’ were so effective in 1980s. This is why all those ‘celebrity’ endorsements have virtually no effect on voting patterns and why Trump defeated HRC in 2016.

To make matters worse, if that is even possible, these “enlightened” idiots have managed to antagonize the working class in another way. Ever heard of plastic straw bans in certain cities, trying to ban incandescent lightbulbs, trying to force people to buy often shoddily made and expensive LED bulbs which last for far fewer hours than advertised, forcing people to buy poorly made “environmentally friendly” low-flow toilets, legislating fuel-economy standards that often have the opposite effect, trying to destroy reasonably well-paying jobs in the natural gas and oil industry, trying to destroy what are often the only half-decent jobs in poor coal-mining regions. I could go on and on.. but you get the picture. LIEbrals and left-wing types are busy trying to destroy whatever little joy there is left in lives of working class people- and all of this so they can circle-jerk with their ilk about their “moral superiority” via acts of performative “wokeness”.

Right-wing assholes, with all their malice towards the working class, are not delusional enough to fuck over their voters via such effeminate and passive-aggressive means. And to add insult to injury, let us focus on what these LIEbrals and left-wing types done to improve the lives of the most vulnerable among the working class? Have they been able to reduce the extremely high incarceration rates in USA to any significant degree? Have they been able to resists the growing police-surveillance state in this country? Have they been able to actually improve the lives of undocumented immigrants they claim to love? Have they been able to do anything about the massive de-industrialization of this country over past four decades? Have they done anything substantive to end all those foreign ‘interventions’ aka wars that are costly and unwinnable?

While this critique largely focuses on the numerous public failings of the LIEbral and left-wing political parties and class in USA it is, with some modifications, applicable to similar parties throughout the west. In the next part, I will finally go into why the obsession of LIEbrals and left-wing types with “environmentalism” and “climate change” is likely to further alienate the working class. Then again, LIEbral types are heavily into performative “wokeism” rather than seizing and wielding power for those who elect them. Will also go into how LIEbrals have deliberately ignored the negative effects of corporate consolidation, monopolies and oligopolies on the working class.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 1

December 15, 2019 37 comments

Over the past few days, you might have heard that the Labor party in UK suffered a particularly humiliating electoral defeat in the most recent election in that country. Those who listen to dying lamestream news outlets might try to tell you that this something to do with Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘socialist’ policies. Other paid losers, might want to push the laughably bullshit narrative that this has something to do with the labor party being ‘anti-semitic’ which is now a code word for not giving carte blanche to Zionists. I plan to write, in another post, about the unpleasant blow-back brewing in most countries in response to this particular conflation. But for the moment, let us focus on why Labor lost in this election, but also why it did so well in first post-Brexit election of 2017. That is right.. Labor under Jeremy Corbyn did very well in 2017, but really bad in 2019.

The delusional losers, who constitute a rather large percentage of what passes for left-wing public intellectuals, want to pin the defeat down to anti-Corbyn propaganda by the establishment and its media lapdogs. Except that this was as big an issue in 2017 as in 2019. The few rational types among what now passes for the left have correctly pointed out that in 2019, Labor tried to go “normcore” by promising to hold a second vote which, for all practical purposes, was an attempt to negate the original Brexit vote. In contrast, the 2017 platform of Labor explicitly accepted the will of the people (in England, at least) and simply promised to negotiate withdrawal from the EU on terms which would cause the least disruption to the lives of most people. It is therefore no surprise that they gained votes during 2017 election in traditionally de-industrialized and poorer areas which had voted for Brexit, but then lost those same areas and more in 2019.

But the problems with Labor, and equivalent parties in other western countries go much deeper. The original attraction of people like Corbyn (and Bernie) was that they, unlike the credentialed neoliberal leadership class before them, could relate to the needs and aspirations of common people. Their focus on the problems of class, critiques of economic policies and understanding the needs of average people is what endeared them to their supporters. But that is not the focus of contemporary ‘left- leaning’ parties in the west. Instead, they and their cadre of advisers.. I mean credentialed circle-jerkers, spent most of time addressing “social” issues and taking ideological positions that are either irrelevant to most people or now frequently antagonistic. Confused.. let me explain. Let us start by talking about the support of the credentialed elite of these political parties for the transexual agenda, fake “wokeness” and politically-correct speech.

Tell me something.. in a country where more than half the people are struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck (both USA and UK), how is supporting thetransexual agenda going to get the majority to support them. This is especially relevant since many people rightly see promotion of that agenda as an attempt to interfere in their personal lives and make them say ‘2+2=5’. How is blind support of the most delusionary parts of white woman feminism a winning strategy when a lot of men (white and non-white) have shitty jobs or often nothing going for them? How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged? How many times can you tell men who have lost their house in a divorce that they deserved that fate? How often can you tell men that they are irredeemable sexist pigs? And just how do you expect those who you sneer at, look down and belittle on a daily basis to vote for you come election day?

And it does not get any better when dealing with the ‘working class’. How many of the politicians in the Labor of 2019 (or democrats) actually have a working-class background or some real-life exposure to the realities of that lifestyle? More importantly, how many trace their roots to the petite bourgeoisie and professional types. Do they understand why these “working class’ types are opposed to immigrants who compete for jobs involving manual labor? Calling people racist, stupid and xenophobic because they are not gung-ho about polish or mexican immigrants, without credibly addressing the dismal states of many areas which aren’t parts of a few select prosperous cities is not a recipe for electoral success. Similarly, dismissing ‘working class’ cultural mores as cis-normative patriarchal or the latest “woke” epithet is not likely to win their votes.

To make matters worse, look how easily these parties crumble in the face of fake criticism from elite circle-jerkers. Did Corbyn stand up for all the politicians who had to resign because of clearly fake ‘antisemitism’ charges? Did he ever tell the elite circle-jerkers pushing those lies to just stuff it? Did he ever take a stand against the pushing the trans agenda, even though it is based on lies and will result in the mental scarring and physical mutilation of tens of thousands of kids? Did Labor pay back CONservative propaganda ads and bullshit in the same currency? Why should people trust you to represent their best interests against the rich and multi-national corporations if you can’t event stand up to a few vocal peddlers of the trans ideology? Why should voters trust political parties that do not really like them, cannot stand up for themselves and fight with one hand tied behind their back- all of which they are allegedly doing to restore the system.

See.. the thing is, the vast majority of people understand that the current system is shitty and incapable of substantive reform. They just want to burn down the whole thing and will go along with whoever promises that particular course of action. That is why Trump won in 2016 here and CONservatives in 2019 in UK. The problem with people like Corbyn and Sanders is that, though they understand public sentiments, they still want to save the system. Which is why both enter into compromises with people and vocal minorities who should instead should be subject to public ridicule. Treating political opponents with kids gloves, trying to maintain civility, bowing to whims of SJWs and worrying about your ideological legacy is how you lose to people such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. In the next part, I will go into why all that progressive talk about the “environment” and “climate change” is further alienating them from most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

The Fundamental Problem with Selling a Trump Impeachment to Voters

October 13, 2019 43 comments

Regular readers might have noticed that I did not post much last week. As it turns out, being on a couple of work-related cross country trips took much of my spare time. Anyway.. so now that I am back and rested, let us talk about the latest development in most recent pathetic attempt by democrats to impeach Trump. While I am no supporter or fan of the orange troll, it hard to deny that every stupid attempt by democrats and their deep-state allies to pull of a “legal” coup ends up making him look more sympathetic. Even worse, every failed attempt which ends with orange man retaining his presidency makes the democrats look desperate and impotent. I am sure that a few readers (MikeCA?) will write long comments about how the latest accusations against Trump are somehow the “real deal” which will create a groundswell of public opinion, finally resulting in his impeachment and removal from office. If wishes were horses..

Now let us get back to the real world and talk about how the voting public see the latest chapter of this three year long farce. As mentioned in the previous post on this topic, trying to impeach Trump in an election year is a really bad idea with multiple downsides and no realistic upsides. As mentioned in that post, we do not live in the 1970s or even 1990s. USA has been on a terminal downward spiral for most of its people during the past two decades. The ability of (white) people to be shocked by political malfeasance and abuse of power has irreversibly diminished, largely because they are now struggling to remain solvent and notionally ‘middle-class’. Only retards are still capable of believing that politicians (as a class) do not use their office to enrich themselves, their progeny, relatives and friends. CNN and MSNBC shouting from the rooftops that Joe Biden’s son did not benefit from his father’s position, if anything, makes him look more guilty.

And he is not alone. Chelsea Clinton seems to have gotten the boards of many corporations over the years in addition to “working” in highly paid sinecures in the lamestream media. A quick look at the Bush family tree shows many similar instances of family and relatives benefiting from the presidencies of Bush41 and Bush43. In fact, the progeny and relatives of almost every politician at the national, state and local level in this country keep getting plum jobs or contracts from the private sector. But.. but.. what about Trump using his position to get a “foreign” country to dig up dirt on the progeny of his potential opponent in the general election? Turns out, such behavior is as american as apple pie. Nixon’s election campaign sabotaged peace talks to end the Vietnam war to help him win in 1968 and he was not impeached for it. Reagan’s election campaign tried to delay resolution of hostage crisis with Iran in 1980 to help him win the general election.

My point is that presidents or presidential candidates colluding with foreign powers for help with winning elections is far too common in recent history to bother most voters. Let us not forget that Hillary’s 2016 campaign was one of the major funders of the so-called “Steele Dossier”. To make a long story short, even a recording of Trump making a request to investigate Joe Biden’s son to the Ukrainian president with an explicit linkage between it and future funding to that country will not make the orange man look any more guilty that Nixon, Reagan or Hillary Clinton. Most voters assume that their elected representative are greedy crooks. Trying to paint Trump as an abuser of power in 2019 is like trying to paint him as a serial pussy grabber and bad businessman in 2016. We know how that strategy worked in 2016.. don’t we. Then again, democrats seem to still have their heads up their asses. Old habits die hard, especially for incestuous circle-jerkers.

Now let us talk about the most obvious, but seldom mentioned, reason that trying to impeach is a hilariously bad idea. Let us travel back in time to the Bush43 presidency.. you know, the one that lasted from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009. While this country had many mediocre to bad presidents, the eight years of Dubya stand out as the worst in living memory. What began with a stolen election against a lackluster democrat progressed through ignoring the signals of 9/11, to that event, its aftermath, disastrous and failed invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, subsequent insurgency in Iraq, shoddy response to Hurricane Katina, the housing bubble and Global financial Crisis of 2008. It is no exaggeration to say that Bush43’s two terms in office started the final death spiral of american empire. The Trump presidency, even on its worse days, has not still anywhere close to equaling the colossal clusterfuck that was Bush43’s eight years as president.

And yet, Bush43 was not impeached inspite of more than a few of his actions being worthy of impeachment. We can start with dereliction of duty pre-9/11, manufacturing evidence to justify the failed occupation of Iraq, the massive levels of corruption and corporate kick-backs made possible by that misadventure, whatever went down in New Orleans after Katrina, the role of his administration’s policy in inflating the housing bubble which contributed to the GFC of 20008. The democrats had many valid reasons to impeach him after winning back the house and senate in 2006, and yet they did not. Instead they just allowed him to finish his second term and then retire in peace. Even worse, these same democrats have been trying to rehabilitate the image of Bush43 since 2016. Have a look of some photographs of establishment democrats and their media flunkies being extra chummy with Bush43 within the past two years.

If democrats could not get themselves to impeach Bush43, how can they demand that Trump be impeached. Bush43, more than any other modern american president, presented the strongest case for impeachment and removal for office. And yet.. democrats did nothing at that time. Even worse, establishment democrats such as Nancy Pelosi are busy rehabilitating the image of that idiot who presided over a eight year long nightmare. The Trump presidency, for all its warts and faults, has still not caused a fraction of long-term damage caused by the village idiot from Texas.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Democratic Party’s Unfortunate Obsession with Gun Control

August 26, 2017 35 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?