Archive

Posts Tagged ‘SJWism’

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 3

December 28, 2019 28 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about why “woke” performative agendas which are so popular among the incestuous classes in charge of LIEbral and “progressive” parties throughout the west have driven the working class vote away from them, and towards right-wing parties. It does not help that these parties, once in power, either continue the right-wing policies of previous administrations or try to “compromise” with them. To make matters worse, leadership of LIEbral and “progressive” parties desperately want bourgeois social respectability and therefore lack the spine or balls to stand up for their beliefs. I also wrote that all their talk about “environment” and “climate change” also ends up alienating working-class voters. Here is why..

Some of you might remember that I had posted a (still to be completed) series about why belief in anthropogenic climate change was a form of secular apocalypticism. The very short version is as follows: belief in man-made climate change is a secular version of Catholicism and like every other religion is about controlling other people to benefit and enrich a few. So why is belief in this secular religion so toxic for the future of LIEbral and “progressive” political parties? More than a few of you must have heard about the Yellow vests movement in France, which is over a year old and has transformed into an anti-neoliberal movement. Do you know what started it? Well.. the neoliberal leaders of France decided to raise taxes on gasoline and diesel to make up for losses from corporate handouts and fulfill “environmental” mandates written by un-elected bureaucrats.

Turns out, that this was the last straw for people living in rural and other non-urban areas of France who had already suffered a multi-decade hollowing of their local economy through “free trade” and other neoliberal scams. This combination of neglect and exploitation of non-urban working class in France is the reason why parties such as the National Front (now National Rally) have a growing electoral presence in that country. Curiously, this is the same dynamic which has bolstered popular support for parties such as AfD in Germany, Freedom Party in Austria, Law and Justice Part in Poland etc. Meanwhile the increasingly impoverished and increasingly non-white urban working class in west European countries face this same problem by turning to ethnic and religious identitarianism in addition to occasional mass car-burnings and other acts of arson.

While corporate “media” in USA does not cover “inconvenient” news from outside USA, a few of you might have heard about recent protests by farmers in Germany, Netherlands, France, Ireland etc. While the list of grievances driving each of these protests is slightly different, the common thread running through these protests is being subject to new capricious laws and regulations written by faceless bureaucrats who have never worked with their hands for a single day in their life. So why are these protests becoming more frequent and larger? Shouldn’t the mechanisms of democracy reduce such conflicts over time? So why isn’t it happening? I am guessing you know the answer, don’t you. Now tell me, why would you expect people who live in rural and non-urban areas whose livelihoods are threatened by “environmental” and other regulations to vote for the very parties pushing for them. Would you vote for somebody bent on destroying your livelihood?

Many LIEbrals try to convince themselves that Trump’s rants against LED light-bulbs, low-flow toilets, windmill farms, EPA regulations for automobiles etc don’t have traction among voters. Anybody who has talked with people without blue-tick marks on Twitter or part of the incestuous circle of establishment LIEbrals will tell you that LEB light-bulbs are far less cost-effectiveness than they promise, low-flow toilets are functionally worse than their predecessors and wind-mill farms are not a reliable source of electricity. They will also tell you that the surge of crossovers in american automobile market has to do with how they are classified by unelected bureaucrats. Or have a look at the level of knowledge about firearms displayed by politicians exposing “anti-gun” policies. Why would you vote for people who are trying to immiserate you, talk down to you and generally make your life harder and worse? Did I mention that they have shown themselves to be not knowledgeable about the topics on which they make decisions.

Do these LIEbrals and “progressive” idiots understand the consequences of people working in coal mining and oil and gas extraction-processing not having a job or livelihood? Why should they trust these incestuous losers who look and talk down to then help them transition to “better” jobs? How has that worked for all those people who lost their livelihoods after their factory was moved to Mexico and China? Hasn’t the impoverishment of flyover states in the past 2-3 decades taught LIEbrals nothing? Haven’t they figured out that the electoral success of the republican party (and right-wing parties in other western countries) in such areas has far more to with the voters feeling abandoned by all those supposedly center-left parties? Do these LIEbral dumbfucks comprehend how much they are hated by people not living the few islands of relative prosperity? Are they even capable? You know that is a rhetorical question.. right?

In the next part of this series, I will go into more detail about how the various tactics used to sell bullshit scams such as “man-made climate change” and other parts of the secular religion known as environmentalism has ended up creating far more skeptics and non-believers than would otherwise be the case. Then again, the credentialed incestuous bunch of losers known as LIEbrals and “progressives” have never shown much ability to empathize with people who do not believe in their bullshit cults. Of course, they increasingly cannot win national elections either..

What do you think? Comments?

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?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Latest Incarnation of Political Grifterism

September 11, 2019 16 comments

Ok.. the title is a bit clickbaity, however the main point it makes still holds. But before we go any further, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly.. this post is not a criticism of all policies (allegedly) supported and promoted by AOC. In fact, many of them such as establishing universal single-payer healthcare or taxpayer funded post-secondary education are perfectly reasonable . Similarly, raising the minimum wage to 15 $/hr, building new multi-family housing units in cities, spending money on building better public transport systems and infrastructure rather than expensive and unwinnable “wars” on the other side of globe are reasonable and populist ideas. Sure.. I don’t care about the “New Green Deal”, “gun control” and other similar bullshit. But my point is, the policies she supports are not what make her a grifter.

Secondly, I am not implying that she is somehow a bigger or more pernicious grifter than people such Reagan40, Bush41, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 or Trump45. One could easily make the argument that vast majority of people who have been elected to office in every single democracy are grifters. Nor am I suggesting that she is any more corrupt and power-hungry than the generic establishment politician of your choice who has been elected to office. The point I am trying to make is as follows: AOC is simply the latest incarnation of political grifterism in american political system. Also, I do not have an issue with elected politicians being grifters. My real problem with her brand of grifterism is that it is will likely damage residual voter trust in system far more than the outright corny bullshit spouted by people such Reagan, Bush or Clinton.

In other words, her grifterism is more problematic than that displayed by your run-of-mill politico because too many people still see her as a genuine person. In contrast, only the brain-damaged or senile idiots ever believed a single word that came out of the mouths of scammers such as Reagan, Bush or Clinton. To understand what I am talking about, let us go back about a decade or so to a then rising presidential candidate known as Barack Obama. As some of you might remember, I wrote a short series about why the Obama presidency was a disaster for democrats. The very brief version is as follows: Obama pioneered a new form of political grifterism which combined great-sounding but completely empty electoral promises, appeals to identity politics, and the media-abetted scam of being somehow relatable.

While that grift got him elected, once with a commanding mandate and subsequently a barely adequate one, it destroyed most of the residual voter trust in system. As you might remember, Obama44 came after Bush43, a person whose administration was infamous for losing a massive amount of voter trust in aftermath of failed occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, mismanagement after hurricane Katrina, Housing Bubble of 2003-2007 and Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Which is another way of saying that public confidence in the system was already on a steep downturn when Obama came into the picture. While Obama ran an entire campaign centered around “Hope and Change”, he did not deliver on those promises- at least as far as the 99% were concerned.

His administration largely doubled and tripled down on the neoliberal policies of previous ones and immiserated the majority while rescuing the 1% and to some extent, another 9% aka the flunkies of the 1%. It is no accident that the opioid epidemic began under Obama. While his 2008 campaign was about “hope and change”, his policies led to the destruction of most residual hope left in USA. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the anger and betray felt by most people during two terms of Obama led to a ridiculous orange troll beating HRC in the 2016 presidential election. Just as deliberate failures by Bush43 administration led to election of Obama44 in 2008, engineered failures of his administration led to the election of Trump45 in 2016.

So where does AOC fit in this picture? Well.. her grifterism is distinct from the one pioneered by Obama- though many of you might not be be able to tell them apart. Obama’s grifterism was formulated in the last days of neoliberalism before its image was permanently damaged in mind of voters. It relied heavily on being credentialed, appearing “cool”, talking like a CEO, projecting predictability and acceptance by rich white people. It also relied on identity politics and careful triangulation to make sure that he appeared promising to black voters while doing nothing to actually improve their lot. AOC’s grifterism is based on projecting fake “authenticity”, which is not surprising since we live in the era of YouTube, FakeBook, Twitter and Podcasts. It is also based on her being a woman, which is different from Obama’s identity politics of race.

Interestingly, AOC uses her Hispanic ancestry as a way to make herself look authentic than for race-based appeals. She has certainly learnt from the ultimate failure of Obama’s grifterism. But why do I keep saying that she is a grifter, just like almost every other politician? It has to with an observation about what she supports and what she does not. See.. the very few non-grifters in politics distinguish themselves by taking public positions which subject them a lot of ridicule by establishment. In other words, they frequently stand up for ideas that are unpopular with those in power. In contrast to that, AOC stands up for ideas that are either already popular (healthcare, education, housing) or are supported by a large part of the establishment (“gun control”).

The few somewhat unpopular ideas she stands for (new green deal” etc) are the ones that she knows have no real chance of becoming law. Compare her milquetoast positions to somebody like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib who are actually willing to confront the establishment on some pretty controversial stuff such as the special relationship to Israel. Whether you agree with their positions or not, it had to deny that they actually stand for something. It is also not surprising that the dying MSM chooses to promote AOC in a far more positive light than somebody like Omar or Tlaib. And this brings us to why AOC’s grifterism is problematic.

See.. its main audience is made up of those who have not comprehended the enormity of Obama’s letdown or are naive enough to believe that “it will be different”. The letdown this time around is going to be as bad as that after Obama got reelected in 2012 and will destroy most residual trust in system. But at least somebody will get rich and powerful till that occurs.

What do you think? Comments?