Archive

Posts Tagged ‘idiots’

Antifa Idiots are Ignorant of History and Lack Strategic Thinking

June 30, 2019 14 comments

I usually ignore worthless drama driven by attention-whores, and that is why you won’t see me writing yet another ‘hot take’ on something as insipid as the 1st debate between those all those 20 democratic candidates. Events like that pathetic clown show are less that meaningless, unless one or more of the candidates drops dead on stage. This is also why I also rarely write about the latest trends in ‘culture wars’ and other click-baity crap of no long-term significance. Having said that, I do occasionally write about such topics if their impact is potentially larger than yet another manufactured storm in a teacup. With that in mind, let us talk about antifa movement or more precisely the latest incident which has gotten them into the spotlight.

As some of you might have heard, a journalist known as Andy Ngo was violently assaulted while covering a clash between far-right and antifa demonstrators in Portland. Ironically, the link from sputniknews contains the most objective account of what went down. Also, I would rather not link to anything on breitbart, dailycaller, pjmedia etc. While you can easily find multiple clips of that incident on YouTube, it is worth pointing out that all of them show a guy with camera gear (Andy Ngo) being swarmed, sprayed and then assaulted by a bunch of guys sporting antifa gear. More importantly, there are no clips which show the guy in question assaulting antifa protesters. Here is a very short YT clip which captures the gist of what happened.

Now let me be clear about something.. Andy Ngo is a slimy grifter who is using his race to fleece aging white CONservative supporters of right-wing news outlets. He is basically an Asian version of Candace Owens or any of those forgettable and stereotypical black CONservative YouTubers whose act is predicated on them being non-white and pandering to idiots. Having said that, what he is doing is no different from what Rachael Maddow, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo etc do nightly for much more money. In other words, we cannot pretend that Any Ngo is any less of a journalist than the famous talking heads that appear on cable TV news or write in NYT or WP. And don’t pretend that such a story would have stayed small if the situation was reversed.

About two years ago, I posted a link to a clip which suggested that the alt-right in USA are much closer to the Sturmabteilung (SA) than NSDAP aka Nazis of Weimar-era Germany. The relevant point is that the antifa most closely resemble the ‘communist-type’ groups who engaged in street battles with the SA and NSDAP. The key word being ‘communist-type’ since these groups were driven less by ideology than a desire to oppose the SA and NSDAP. And yes.. I am aware that this assertion simplifies a lot of complex history. Nevertheless, it was SA and NSDAP who eventually won power for two important reasons. Firstly, the capitalist class in Germany preferred fascism since it allowed them to maintain the old hierarchy.

The second reason is, in my opinion, equally if not more important. While fascists had a relatively clear (if mediocre) set of promises for the general public and a leadership cadre, communist-types had neither. To make matters worse, they were defined by their opposition to fascists and being ‘soviet-sympathizers’ rather than as a viable option to fascists who promised to make Germany great again. The lack of sufficient public support in early-1930s allowed the fascists, with generous help from German capitalists and centrists, to seize power. The rest, as they say, is history. It is ironic that antifa types have not learned the most important lesson from history about how to confront fascists- if that is what they are.

Let me now say something that is heresy among the twitter-left and other “respectable” and “credentialed” intellectuals. The people who they identify as fascists and Nazis are in reality nothing more than pathetic grifters, disillusioned lumpenproletariat and drama queens. In other words, these alleged american fascists and Nazis are the equivalent of high-school cover bands playing some shitty music to get pussy. This is not to say that they could not one day end up becoming real fascists and Nazis. But lets be real, that is very unlikely to happen without some serious support by rich people and extenuating circumstances such as economic collapse.

Which is why the response of antifa to these morons is both comical and well as problematic. You probably guessed why its comical, now let me tell you why it is problematic. See.. a lot of people outside the twitter-left and careerists who live in a few coastal cities are not happy with liberalism in USA. To be more precise, they correctly associate liberalism with many highly problematic trends such as de-industrialization, precarity of livelihood, rent seeking through credentialization, rapidly growing inequality and the general disconnect between top 10% and everyone else.

A major part of the reason why grifters such as Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Milo Yiannopoulos etc have been able to become far more famous, than they otherwise would have, comes down to them being able to articulate half-truths about issues which have been banished from mainstream public discourse. Many people see antifa as just another extension of the hated (neo)liberal elite and their status quo. You cannot, for example, pretend that allowing large-scale immigration from Mexico and other latin-american countries has no effect on wages in USA. But try saying anything to that effect in a speech at a coastal university and tons of SJWs, “woke” activists and antifa types will try to run you out of town. The same is true for issues such as wanting due process for adjudicating accusations of sexual harassment and assault or not wanting to pretend that a man with a beard who claims to a woman is one.

And this brings us to the other reason why assaulting grifters such as Andy Ngo is such a bad idea. To put it succinctly- it converts them into them deserving victims and validates their claims of systemic persecution. While credentialed losers who spent too much time on left-twitter or within their own incestuous social bubbles in coastal cities might believe otherwise, such attempts to shut down right-wing grifters is highly counterproductive. In case you are wondering, this is why I said that antifa idiots lack the ability to think strategically.

If you want to properly disrupt people like Andy Ngo, pay a mariachi band to follow him near the protests he is covering. It achieves the objective of making him look ridiculous without allowing him to claim victim-hood and expand his grifting operation. Assaulting him in public and in front of multiple smartphone cameras, on the other hand, makes him the victim and plays into his scam. Then again, antifa-types tend to be myopic idiots obsessed with ‘virtue display’.

What do you think? Comments?

Democrat Attempts to Impeach Trump Will Help Him Get Re-Elected

June 18, 2019 4 comments

Today, I came across a couple of news items that increase the likelihood of Trump winning the 2020 presidential election. The first was a ‘leaked’ poll which allegedly showed that more than a few democrats could defeat Trump. The second was a speech by Biden in which he used this poll to promise that he would beat Trump, not only in mid-western states which Hillary lost in 2016 but also, in others such as Georgia, Texas and South Carolina. So why do I think that these two apparently positive bits of news for democrats are harbingers of a likely Trump victory in 2020? Well.. because I remember 2016, or more precisely how polls done as late at October of that year strongly suggested Hillary would won states such as Georgia and South Carolina. We all know how that turned out. But why do I think 2020 could be like 2016?

Let me start by restating the obvious. Establishment democrats haven’t learnt anything from their defeat in the 2016 election. Even worse, they seem to to have interpreted their meager gains in the 2018 election as evidence of an electorate which now hates Trump, rather than a reaction to his comically inept attempts at destroying Obamacare in addition to being unable to deliver on his election promises about reversing outsourcing etc. They seem to believe that promising a return to “norms”, throwing a bit more money at Obamacare and making some noises about education and job training will guarantee a win in 2020. In other words, they are still desperately clinging to the idea that Trump is an aberration and things will magically go back to the way ‘they used to be’ before the fateful midnight of November 8, 2016.

As many of you know, I do not think Trump is an aberration (link 1, link 2). In fact, I blame the deliberate failure of the previous neoliberal grifter-in-chief aka Obama to deliver real substantive reform in aftermath of 2008 global financial crisis as the most important reason for rise of Trump. Think about it.. would a character like that orange buffoon have gotten any traction in national politics, let alone won the presidency against all odds, if the majority of people still had any faith in the establishment and institutions of this country? Trump is therefore best understood as the crazy clown who appeared viable to a majority only because the vision and choices offered by the establishment were rotten. Some of you might remember that Hillary’s unfavorability ratings during the 2016 electoral season were often higher than Trump.

Now let us talk about how the establishment democrat obsession with Trump getting impeached will likely help him to win the 2020 election. As many of you know, establishment democrats and their supporters in media, hollywood etc spent about two years hallucinating about a future where the “Mueller Report” would magically implicate Trump in some high crime that would lead to his immediate impeachment and arrest. Well.. the report has been out for almost two months and it was unable to find evidence that Trump or his gang of idiots colluded with Russia or indeed “obstructed” justice in a manner which would stand in a court of law. The report, on which establishment democrats and public LIEbrals put so much hope, turned out to be damp squib. Of course, this did not change the narrative of establishment democrats and their MSM cronies.

To make matters worse, partisan democrat voters (who are over-represented in primaries) have become even more convinced and vocal about the need to impeach Trump despite the lack of evidence that he is anything more than a greedy and lecherous troll who used to be real-estate developer. We are now seeing a rapidly increasing amount of pressure on Pelosi and other democrat leaders to ‘do something’ and impeach Trump, or at least start the pre-impeachment investigation. While the wheels on that shitshow have not started moving yet, it is becoming increasingly likely that we will see some action on that front by the end of this year. But why is demanding the impeachment of Trump, or even starting the pre-impeachment farce.. I mean ‘investigation’.. such a bad idea? What could go wrong?

Well.. how about the fact that a non-stop barrage of intentional negative reporting by MSM on Trump has not moved his poll numbers much- either way. Such reporting has, if anything, destroyed whatever residual credibility they used to have prior to his election. It is telling that the MSM has remained focused on “collusion”. “Putin” and “Russia” (and now “obstruction of justice”) while ignoring all the other shady and outright illegal stuff which Trump had done- and it is one long list. From making up false valuations for his properties to either get loans or dodge taxes, promoting his DC hotel to earn extra income from foreign countries, having a son-in-law with really shady business dealings, being bought off by MBS and that guy who currently rules UAE to bend all sorts of rules for them and a whole lot more.

My point is that Trump has done enough shady and illegal things to get himself impeached and locked up- but colluding with Russia and Putin is not one of them. It is therefore incredibly stupid for democrats to focus on the one crime of which he is not guilty. Then again, they may be doing so because they are out of ideas and live in a “ivy-league” bubble full of other disconnected and incompetent elites. Either way, these dumbfucks don’t seem to understand or care that the vast majority of voters are far more concerned about whether they can afford whatever passes for healthcare in USA, have a job that pays and is stable enough to keep them going for the next year, whether they can ever afford a half-decent house or car etc. Only a section of primary voters (mostly baby-boomers) give a fuck about the whole Russia-Putin fairytale.

Unfortunately, these accursed boomers are over-represented in democratic primaries. We can therefore expect all the presidential candidates to make increasingly shrill and comic promises about impeaching Trump for “collusion” and “obstruction of justice”- in spite of there being no legally sound evidence for either. This stupid competition to out-hawk each other on this issue is going to eclipse the discussion of other more relevant issues. Eventually, we will reach a point when the public platform for most democratic candidates is centered around Trump- whether it is impeaching him, repeatedly telling us that “he is a bad bad man” and invoking the “norms fairy” aka how things will go back to normal once he is gone. While this might win somebody the primary, it is unlikely to ensure a high turnout in the general election.. like 2016.

More problematically, accusing Trump of the one or two crimes he did not commit (while ignoring the many others he did) makes him look like the victim of an establishment conspiracy. It is not secret than the MSM has no credibility beyond partisan democrats and a few affluent republicans. Harping on fictional crimes, without strong corroborative evidence, is going to further alienate their non-partisan audience and allow Trump to successfully spin his persecution by the MSM as martyrdom. Between this and selecting an establishment hack with little popular support beyond partisan democrats (Biden, McKinsey Buttboy, Harris, Warren), it seems increasingly likely that 2020 will be a replay of the 2016 shitshow- albeit on a much bigger scale.

What do you think? Comments?

Western Attempts at ‘Regime Change’ in Venezuela Will Fail or Backfire

February 25, 2019 3 comments

While I try to focus on topics of more lasting relevance than the latest ravings of mobs on social media, some contemporary events are worthy of coverage because they fit into larger themes. As many of you know, USA and some of its west-european catamites.. I mean allies.. seem to have embarked on a tragically comic project to effect ‘regime change’ in Venezuela. Trump, led by Pompeo and Bolton (henceforth referred to as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on), seem to think that they can depose Maduro in Venezuela and set up a puppet regime in that country, without significant problems or negative consequences. Trump, in particular, seems to be stupid enough to believe people as incompetent and strategically stupid as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. Then again, that orange buffoon also thinks that Sebastian Gorka (a Hugo Drax impersonator) is a genius.

In the rest of this post, I will tell you why this poorly thought brainfart will fail and backfire. But before we go there, let me ask you a simple question. Why didn’t Obama ever push things to this level- whether it was with Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia or China? Why did he instead prefer to either make some half-hearted effort, not do anything or try to cut a deal? The answer is that Obama being a neoliberal was a couple of notches smarter than a neocon. He looked at these conflicts carefully and came to the conclusion that they were either unwinnable or carried a very high risk of failure. He knew that being a mediocre non-failure was vastly superior to being seen as the second coming of Bush43. Furthermore, Obama’s post-presidency plans for making his millions via writing, speeches etc were highly dependent on being seen as a non-failure.

And let us clear about something else.. Obama has no qualms about extending the ‘war on terror’ BS in some poor African countries. Neither did he any issues with actively supporting the Saudi and gulf state funded effort to prop up ISIS and similar religious nutters in Iraq and Syria. To put this another way, Obama was no anti-imperialist or supporter of democracy and ‘human rights’. And yet, on certain issues, he chose to stop at strong words- rather than concrete action because of concerns related to self-preservation and not being seen as the loser. Trump, on the other hand, being less intelligent than Obama actually seems to trust the judgement of chronic failures such as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. Perhaps the orange buffoon thinks that he will achieve some kind of “victory” which could translate into better prospects during the 2020 electoral season?

Now let us get back to the reasons why Trump’s attempts to effect ‘regime change’ in Venezuela will fail- regardless of whether he eventually approves an actual military invasion of that country. Yes.. you heard that right, the USA-led project of ‘regime change’ in Venezuela is doomed to failure regardless of the course of action taken by Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. To make it easier for readers to follow the rationale behind this prediction, the rest of this post is sub-divided into a couple of main points followed by an explanation for each one.

1] Military and non-military influence of USA has been in decline since end of WW2. The speed of this terminal decline has greatly accelerated since the late 2000s.

Ok.. many of you might have come across lists circulated by white academic leftists which show USA interfering in the governance and elections of many countries since 1945. While that list might look long, it reveals an important trend in the terminal decline of USA. For example, in the 1950s USA could successfully interfere in the governance of countries as distant as Italy, Greece, Iran and Japan. However, starting in the 1960s, that ability fell pretty sharply and soon the USA could succeed only in African countries and Latin America. The defeat in Vietnam and upset in Iran constricted this ability even further and by the late 1970s, they could do so only in smaller Central and South american countries (including the Caribbean). By the mid- 1980s, it had atrophied to the point where they were restricted to small countries with barely an army.

Some of the jingoists might counter by pointing out that USA was able to depose Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi in addition to helping Yeltsin win in 1996. Well.. let us for a minute ignore that Saddam was hated by over 2/3rds of his population for a number of reasons (religious and otherwise) and Libya was always an artificial entity stitched up from groups who hated each other- ask yourself, what was the lasting impact of these actions? In the case of Iraq, deposing Saddam and going after Sunnis made Iran the most important power in that region. Also, USA lost that war of occupation. Libya has not been a functionally unified country for years, is a major base for smuggling African refugees into Europe and its oil output has declined since then. Did I mention that the reaction to what USA tried to do in 1996 ended up giving us Putin.

In other words, USA as nation-state has been the loser in these recent attempts at ‘regime change’. Sure.. it made a few people in its military industrial complex much richer, however that wealth was taken away from the 99% in the country making them even poorer. Did I mention that USA is also the loser in its attempt to depose the government in Syria. They lost there too. Then again, this is how dying empires behave..

2] South and central american countries are not what they used to be, in more ways than one.

So understand what I am getting at, ask yourself another question- what is the defining common characteristic of south and central american countries? Hint: it is not their language or last names. Ok.. they are all racial hierarchies in which whiter people (irrespective of competence or ability) end up at the upper end of income and power while the less whiter ones end near the bottom regardless of how hard-working or competent they are. While racial hierarchy was never as rigid in those countries as USA, it has always been there and has had some rather negative consequences. Ever wonder why those countries still make most their money by selling raw and semi-processed natural resources to the outside world? Or why they have been always been so politically unstable and easy to manipulate from the outside?

The answer to that question requires us to appreciate something which is seldom mentioned nowadays- namely, that the elites and upper class in those countries have long obtained their legitimacy by virtue of their cultural and economic connections with the west. Even worse, for many decades, the less whiter members of those countries and societies used to believe in that crap. Which is a fancy way of saying that those countries were filled with white-worshiping losers. That is why they would rather import weapons from the west, send their kids to western universities and trade almost exclusively with the west. The flip side of this mindset is that they never funded their own educational system properly or developed institutions which were equivalent to those in the west. The world, however, changes irrespective of what people want.

The first of the two important changes which have occurred in those countries concerns their demographic makeup. To put it bluntly, fertility of the whiter members of their population has declined far faster than those of their less whiter members. There is a reason why the population of countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela look less whiter than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. There is a reason why countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil increasingly have had leaders who look like the majority of their population. Moreover, this change have also occurred in their civilian bureaucracy and armed forces. Also, whiter south-american countries such as Argentina have not done better than their less whiter neighbors.

And this brings us the second, and related, issue of money and trade. See.. for the longest time, the west was the largest market for south-american commodities. This is also why USA could influence events in that part of the world even after it lost the ability to so in Africa. But the world keeps on changing and the USA is no longer the top industrial producer in the world. Long story short.. it is Asia, especially China, whose trade with these countries has exploded over past two decades even as their older trade with the demographically stagnant west has well.. stagnated. However, unlike their white western counterparts, Asians have no special racial connection with the rapidly shrinking numbers of white elites in those countries.

Asian trade partners have no interest in supporting one racial group over the other beyond what is necessary to keep the wheels of commerce running. And all of this is occurring in the backdrop of USA losing wars of occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. The present state of affairs in Venezuela has gone on for more than a few years and as I wrote in a previous post, things are likely nowhere as bad as they are portrayed in dying western white-imperialism funded media. The thing is.. less whiter south Americans no longer see the USA, its aging white population and decaying capabilities as something they cannot win against- specifically in a war of occupation. The Vietnamese realized they could defeat white nations in 1954 and that is why they persisted against USA and won in 1975.

What do you think? Comments?

American ‘HealthCare’ System Has Been a Scam for Over Two Decades

February 10, 2019 6 comments

What do you call a service which keeps on getting expensive much faster than general monetary inflation but which does not improve? How about calling it a scam. In the past, I have written a few posts about this general area such as the american ‘healthcare’ system is crap, a majority of people now see doctors as no better than credentialed scammers and how life expectancy in USA has always been about class, not race. Yesterday, I came across a tweet in my twitter feed containing a graph which tracked the amount of money spent on healthcare in USA since 1960. Intrigued, I looked up the source and used the more realistic inflation adjusted option. Having seen many other graphs and infographics about the ‘healthcare’ system, I noticed something right away. Here.. have a look at the attached figure to spot what I am talking about.

You might have noticed that the increase in calculated average life-expectancy at birth from world bank data has a peculiar relationship with cost in USA. For starters, the calculated average life-expectancy at birth has improved by just shy of 9 years since 1960. But isn’t that a good thing? Well.. sure, but have a look at how it correlated with cost. It had already reached the 74 year mark in 1981, when the total cost was about 440 billion USD (inflation adjusted)- which is about 1/4th of what it costs now. But it gets better.. or worse. In 1998, the average calculated life-expectancy at birth was 76.6 years and cost about 1,016 billion USD (inflation adjusted). Long story short, average life expectancy has increased by only 2 years over the previous 20 years- but the costs have more than doubled over the same time span.

Even worse, average life-expectancy has been slowly falling over the past two years– but costs keep on going up. While USA spends a bit over 18 % of its GDP on ‘healthcare’, other developed countries achieve significantly better results by spending less than half that amount and their average life expectancy is 3-4 years higher and still rising slowly. So what is happening in the american system? Well many things.. first, the income of doctors started rising a lot after 1980 due to the introduction of billing codes. Impressed by the ability of doctors to extort the system, hospitals joined in the act and used their leverage to out-exploit them starting in the mid-1990s, which is also when pharma got in on the act. So far, none of the three want to stop. And why should they? Too many boomer idiots still want to delude themselves into believing that the american ‘healthcare’ system is the “best in the world”. Keep believing..

What do you think? Comments?

Why Internet “Activism” Against the NRA Will be Counterproductive: 2

March 17, 2018 1 comment

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about why manufactured internet “activism” is based in wishful thinking and why current attempts by “socially responsible” corporations to de-platform gun and ammunition sales were either meaningless or likely to backfire on them. Some of you might wonder.. how can anybody make predictions such as these? After all, corporate media outlets and “respectable” and “credentialed” talking heads keep telling everybody that “it is different this time around” (without explaining why) and how the younger generation has “no interest in defending the right to own firearms”, etc.

Then again, corporate media outlets and the same cast of “credentialed” experts also told their audience that HRC was certain to beat Trump (in the electoral college) in November 2016. They have, in the past, also pushed obvious fairy-tales such as how Saddam possessed “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in early-2003, how american military involvement in Libya would create a secular democracy or how North Koreans were too poor and stupid to develop thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs, etc. My point is that anything coming from these official stenographers has been repeatedly shown to have a very high probability of being incorrect, false and misleading.

And this brings me to why idiotic ideas such as attempts to “target the NRA” through legislation and corporate behavior will have the opposite effect. Perhaps, you might have heard about the infamous and ultimately ineffectual Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. What many of you might not know is that it was simply the culmination of a number of anti-gun laws enacted in the mid-1980s and early-1990s. These included other ineffectual idiocies such as the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the 1989 ban on importing “scary looking assault rifles”. As the gun owners know, these and other similar laws did have any real effect on overall availability of semi-auto rifles and handguns in USA. They, also, did not reduce the incidence of spree shootings.

These laws did however greatly benefit the NRA and did wonders for fundraising and membership drives. In fact, it is not a stretch to say that the NRA we know today was largely created by public reaction against stupid and ineffectual gun laws. Prior to 1980s, the NRA was a fairly mediocre organisation involved in things such as promotion of shooting competitions, training people to use guns safely and basically doing some low-key defense of gun owners rights. It involvement in the political arena was largely a non-issue since most democrats and republicans were fine with gun-ownership. That started to change in the 1970 after a small number of coastal politicians started pushing for “gun control” aka criminalizing private gun ownership.

It was obvious to people capable of independent though, even then, that “gun control” did not address the root causes of increased crime levels during that era. It is no secret that the late-1960s, 1970s and 1980s saw a large increase in levels of crime (as perceived by average people) largely because pent-up racial, social and economic tensions were rapidly unmasked in those years. The majority of gun owners, rightly, did not see a connection between their lawful gun ownership and crimes caused by poverty and racial discrimination. FYI, a previous post of mine talks about why establishment democratic and professional-types are so concerned about gun ownership by all those “other” people.

The passage of many ineffectual anti-gun ownership laws in the late-1980s and mid-1990s did however convince a lot of people that the government was out to get their guns. Between 1933-1974 things in USA were run to benefit average people (at least the white ones) in addition to corporations. However institutional changes and corporation-friendly policies since the late-1970s convinced many people that the government had stopped caring about their welfare and saw them as inconveniences to be suppressed and marginalized. Let us just say that the raft of anti-gun legislation passed in the late-1980s and early-1990s merely validated their beliefs. This is also when the current movement to defend private gun ownership started.

But why were gun owners so contemptuous of all these laws and regulations for “sensible gun control”? Well.. because they were not sensible and were about ultimately ending private gun ownership. Let me give you some examples of why those laws were counterproductive, in addition to being ineffectual. The 1989 law by the Bush41 administration to ban import of foreign-made “assault rifles” was intended to stop the importation of surplus AK-47 type guns in USA. The ban on importation of those and other rifles simply led to them being manufactured in USA. The end result of is that today you can buy pretty much any semi-auto firearm of foreign origin, because it is made in USA.

Similarly, the law banning select-fire (full auto) weapons made after 1986 from being registered in USA had no impact on their use in crimes because.. legally purchased full-auto weapons are almost never used in committing crimes. Also, well made guns last for many decades when cared for properly and used sparingly. Passage of the AWB of 1994 was, however, the biggest disaster for the “gun control” movement. As some of you know, the many regulations within that bill clearly displayed that “gun control” advocates had little real life experience with handling and using guns. And that is the most polite way to say they were clueless.

Between the bizarre,hilarious and ineffective regulations on magazine capacity, pistol grips, and gun barrel accessories and their supporters inability to distinguish between semi-auto and select-fire weapons, let alone the internal mechanisms- it is fair to say that the AWB of 1994 did more to increase public support and monetary contributions to NRA and other gun-rights organisations than anything they put out themselves. In many respects, the overall environment is even more unfavorable for similar “gun control” legislation, or other measures, today. As things stand now, establishment democrats are out of power at the federal level and in most states. Even worse, they have manged to lose to unabashedly pro-corporate and anti-populist republican candidates.

The socio-economic environment (for average people) is far bleaker today than it was even eight years ago. Between that and the now-overt loss of public faith in institutions and “experts”, it is safe to say that manufactured “activism” against the NRA and gun owners in general is not a pathway to win elections in most of the country. In my opinion, such “activism” is doing more for the NRA and similar organisations than the AWB of 1994 could ever achieve. To make a long story short, half-assed attempts at creating bad laws and regulations always end up having the opposite effect- and this is not exception. Might write another part based on feedback or further developments in this area.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Internet “Activism” Against the NRA Will be Counterproductive: 1

March 4, 2018 15 comments

Just over a week ago, I wrote a post about why frequent mass shootings are almost unique to the USA- at least among allegedly “developed” nations. The very short version of that post is that the USA is, and always has been, a third-world country.. albeit an affluent one. The way things work in USA, especially as it concerns how people view each other and the institutions around them, is similar to what one might see in Mexico or Brazil rather than Japan, France or Canada. People in USA, therefore, behave and react in a manner similar to those in the former group of countries than the latter.

But what does any of this have to do with the recent wave of manufactured internet “activism” targeting the NRA and gun owners? Why do I think that this wave of internet “activism” and worthless corporate displays of virtue are manufactured? And what makes me think that it will backfire in a spectacular manner, perhaps destroying the chance for the democratic party to win either the house or senate in the 2018 election? Also, why now and not after the Oct 31, 2017 Vegas shooting? Let us start by talking about supporters and enablers of this alleged wave of internet “activism”.

So.. what makes this incident different from that one which occurred about four months ago and resulted in the deaths of three times more people (59 vs 17) and many more injuries (422 vs 14)? Isn’t it odd that the corporate media and certain internet companies did not promote the views of those killed and injured in the Oct 31, 2017 Vegas shooting to even a tiny fraction of what they did for this one? What accounts for the manufactured fascination and promotion of certain students in that school by the corporate media? The short answer to that question is the corporate media will only provide free promotion to those who will support whatever agenda they want to push.

That is why the corporate media does not like to talk about the ongoing genocide perpetrated by Saudi Arabia in Yemen but is totally willing to give tons of airtime and publicity to a 7-year old girl in Syria who allegedly tweets in perfect English though she can barely comprehend that language. Long story short, the first example casts a negative light on the policies of their masters while the later is a desperate attempt to legitimize western (mostly american) military intervention in the ongoing Syrian conflict. But what does this have to do with the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting?

I cannot be the only one who noticed that certain students from that high school who supported gun control were intensively promoted by the corporate media within less than 24 hours of the shooting? I mean.. how come something like this never happened after the Oct 31, 2017 Vegas shooting? Also, how do you account for the almost simultaneous publication of articles by corporate media which push the exact same narrative (example 1, example 2, example 3) about these “activist” students? And isn’t it peculiar that their small protests and meetings with state politicians were unusually well covered by the corporate media (example 4, example 5, example 6).

Why was so little attention given to the fact that the Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, was responsible for the botched response to that shooting in addition to inadequate followup of all those previous tips and complaints against Nikolas Cruz. You might remember that he was busy talking to everyone in the media, in the first few days after that shooting, about how ‘police should be given more power’ and how ‘he supported sensible gun control’. You might also remember how they initially cheered him on and then dropped him like a hot potato after the level of his incompetence and corruption was accidentally exposed.

But it gets worse.. or more darkly hilarious. Many of you might have heard or read about all those noises made by the corporate media about how big corporations are “cutting their links to the NRA”. First of all, the vast majority of such virtue signalling by corporations is meaningless bullshit. For example, one airline which stopped a program to give small meaningless discounts to NRA members had to acknowledge that only 13 people had used that particular discount in the previous calendar year. In other words, most of the manufactured news about how “corporations are cutting their ties with the NRA” is hogwash.

Secondly, all those breathless “news reports” about how certain large box stores deciding to stop selling ‘scary assault rifles’ or put new illegal age-limits on selling guns and ammunition are also meaningless because of the sheer number of small and medium size private business who will continue to do what they have been always doing. Also expect the big box retailers to quietly walk back from their current position within a few months or get sued and lose in court. Did I mention that this type of empty “moral” posturing by corporations has occurred many times in the past- especially in the aftermath of mass shootings.

Then there is the issue of banks and financial institutions trying to enforce gun control by de-platforming gun sales. Once again, there is the pesky issue of legal challenges to such actions. However, the far bigger problem for such actions is that many elected officials would lose their seats and political careers if they did not vigorously oppose such actions. Also, guns and ammo are far cheaper than cars and houses and therefore cash transactions would simply replace those through neoliberal financial institutions. And this brings us to the major problem with fallout of such pathetic attempts to use internet “activism” against the NRA.

Attempting to enact gun control in 2018 or 2020 is political suicide for democrats as well as “moderate” republicans. As many of you know, democrats are hoping that Trump’s failure to follow up on his populist election promises and generally ineffectual governance will result in a windfall during the 2018 cycle. That belief is however too optimistic, because they still have not come up with a better message than “Trump is a bad, bad man”. Given that control of the house depends on winning a number of very close electoral races, pissing off a fairly large body of single-issue voters who will come out in large numbers and vote against you seems like a really bad idea.

In the next part of this short series, I will talk about why every historic attempt at “targeting the NRA” has made it and the pro-gun lobby stronger and how these attempts have paradoxically led to the loosening of regulations on guns.

What do you think? Comments?