Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

Who Said It: Danny Vinyard in ‘American History X’ or Trump in 2016

November 12, 2019 14 comments

One of my critiques of HRC’s 2016 presidential campaign was that her ivy-league “credentialed” advisers and consultants focused on Trump using “bad words” and his “lack of respectability” as opposed to why his ideas were problematic. I am sure MikeCA is going to chime in and try to tell us that this was not the case. However, even a neoliberal rag such as Vox admitted otherwise. With that in mind, have a look at this clip from ‘American History X’ 1998, specifically the first two and half minutes. Doesn’t his rhetoric remind you of Trump?

Now tell me something.. did any of the ivy-league “credentialed” morons working for HRC ever run an ad campaign which juxtaposed clips from such movies with Trump’s rhetoric? Also, there is no shortage of well-known movies and TV shows conatining neo-Nazi characters expressing similar beliefs. I would have approved a series of wall-to-wall ads containing clips from Hitler speeches juxtaposed with Trump expressing similar sentiments. But the “credentialed” dumbfucks were busy running ads showing children listening to Trump using “bad words” in some speeches and surreptitiously recorded conversations. Way to go.. losers!

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Hollywood and the Trump Derangement Syndrome

October 27, 2019 15 comments

One of the more unusual features of Trump’s presidency has been the large amount of hate it has elicited from Hollywood “celebrities”. Which is odd because, prior to running for president, Trump was well-liked by the same people who now make it a point to constantly proclaim their dislike and disdain for him. So how does a guy who was always lecherous, willing to scam others, with a seriously racist worldview and numerous other character flaws go from just another Hollywood-friendly “celebrity” to an icon of everything that is wrong with this country? Now, I am sure that some of you might say that his many flaws became relevant only after winning the 2016 election and becoming president. But is that really the case?

Think about it! Almost every single character flaw which is supposed to make Trump unsuitable for the presidency would also make him a shitty human being that others would not like to hang out with. For starters, take his well-known obsession with young women, teenage girls and his eldest daughter. As some of you might know, it was widely known that he a bit rapey, unusually interested in beauty pageants and seriously obsessed with his older daughter. However none of these facts were disqualifying to the numerous Hollywood “celebrities” who hung around him during those decades. Which brings us to the question as to why a guy who is now portrayed as a “sexual predator” was once an integral part of the celebrity circuit. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Or take his well-known history of being involved in multiple failed business and likely connections with mafia in NJ. Was any of this a secret? Did any of this ever have an adverse effect on his acceptance by the Hollywood “celebrity” circuit in the past? Did they stop hanging out with him because he stiffed many small business who had done work for him? Did his rumored connections with the mafia in NJ make him a pariah among Hollywood “celebrities”? Moving on to his history of casual racism and race-colored worldviews.. Did any of the many “woke celebrities” who now condemn his racism on an almost daily basis ever stop associating with him because of his views and actions before 2016? And let us be clear, his main business interests had the subject of investigation and prosecution by the government for racist practices since the 1970s.

My point is that none of these “woke celebrities”, who now criticize Trump at every turn, cared that he was a racist lecher with a massively bloated ego before 2016. But why not? Why didn’t his old and well-known character flaws become an issue until his election on Nov 8, 2016? To understand what I am getting at, let us compare him to the two other previous presidents, namely Obama44 and Bush43. As I have written about in previous posts, the Obama presidency was a disaster for the democratic party and tens of millions in this country. One could even make the claim that popular dissatisfaction with the Obama presidency was an important reason behind the rise of somebody such as Trump. And yet, the Hollywood “celebrity” circuit and discredited lamestream media treat Obama as if he was the best president ever.

So why does an ex-president whose greatest claim to fame is that he did not fuck it up as bad as his predecessor (Bush43) become the establishment’s unquestioned darling? A major clue to this apparent paradox can be found in the recent attempts by elites to rehabilitate the image of Bush43. As some might remember, Bush43 was the single most disastrous president in living memory. Not only did he start the last two major military conflicts which USA lost, but his administration presided over a number of other shitshows such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Housing Bubble and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. So why did Bush43 get only a fraction of the hate from Hollywood “celebrities” that the orange troll gets on a weekly basis?

The more cynical of you might attribute this to the relative absence of social media platforms during the Bush43 presidency. While the lack of smartphones and relative newness of Twitter, FakeBook etc did reduce the amount of dissenting voices during that era, there were two far bigger factors which kept “celebrities” from criticizing Bush43 to anywhere near the levels they do for Trump. Firstly, Bush43 was part of the establishment- even if the credibility of that entity was coming apart in front of everyone. As a consequence of that, the majority of criticism about his administration came from people who were not part of the establishment- either centrally or peripherally. The thing is.. majority of Hollywood “celebrities” see themselves as part of the establishment- if only in their minds.

In their eyes, Trump’s real crime is that he is not part of the establishment. Yes.. you heard that right. They express their dislike for the orange troll, not because he is an incompetent, lecherous and cruel loser or a delusional blowhard- but because he is not part of the right crowd (as they see it). Bush43’s actions resulted in the loss of many hundreds thousands lives, trillions of dollars and ushered the beginning of end for USA as a superpower. By those lofty standards, Trump is a bumbling doofus who hasn’t been able to cause a fraction of the damage caused by the Bush43 presidency. But Bush43, unlike Trump, was part of the right crowd.

An even bigger reason for why Hollywood “celebrities” dump on Trump has to do with the nature of north american society. The thing is.. many of you believe that societies like DPRK and China are the most conformist societies in existence today. However having met and interacted with a number of people from all over the world, I can say without a shadow of doubt that USA is by far the most conformist society on earth today. It is of course true that people in this country spend tons of money and expend much effort to pretend they are individualistic- and then go about showing it in a highly conformist manner. As I mentioned in an old post, a society usually lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute it portray itself to be full of.

The entertainment sector, aka Hollywood etc, is especially full of unimaginative conformists who spend a lot of time and resources pretending they are individualistic free-spirits. However when they hear dog-whistles from the few who have tons of money and power, almost everybody falls in line. That is why dissing Trump has become a competitive sport among Hollywood “celebrities”. Furthermore, we have reached a stage where simulacra have become more important than reality for many people in this country- at least in the short term. Everybody in that sector seems to be displaying fashionable, curated and attention-grabbing versions of themselves. And who can fault them for doing so in a world where only the best fake displays of opinions, behavior and outrage will ensure their continued fame, visibility and relevance.

What do you think? Comments?

Quick Thoughts on the 4th Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate

October 19, 2019 6 comments

I had originally intended to post this on the day after the latest democrat debate, but decided to wait for a couple more days. In retrospect, that turned out to be a good decision as subsequent events have further bolstered my initial conclusions about that farce. And yes.. the show was just another piece of bad political theater. While you can find tons of hot takes, paid hackery, outright lies and bullshit about that debate in the “respectable” corporate MSM, I prefer to focus on the relevant stuff. So without further ado, let us go into the many reasons why that debate (like its predecessors and political theater in general) was a big steaming pile of shit.

1] If you were drunk or masochistic enough to watch that entire show, you might have reached the conclusion that banning semi-auto guns and RUSSIA are the dominant issues for american voters. Let us start by talking about the incredibly stupid idea of banning guns aka ‘gun control’ as pushed by multiple candidates in that debate. As I have written in numerous older posts, the democratic party has an unfortunate obsession with “gun control” which has cost them important national and state elections in the past and will likely cost them the 2020 election. But why is the push for “gun control” such a bad political move? Well.. I have also previously explained the many and interlinked reasons for that outcome, but let me summarize them once again.

It goes like this.. people who see “gun control” as a major issue are a small minority who already vote for democrats. Raising the specter of gun confiscation aka “gun control” does, however, reliably energize a much larger block of pro-gun voters, many of whom are not regular voters. To make matters worse, states with high rates of gun ownership have seen considerable expansion of gun rights in past two decades without an increase in rates of homicide by guns. Indeed, many have seen significant reductions in rates of crime and homicide during that period. Selling gun confiscation to voters outside a few pockets in coastal states is a losing proposition.

And yet, democratic candidates are trying to outdo each other when it comes to supporting gun confiscation aka “gun control”. While the idiot from Texas aka ‘Beto’ is the worst offender, others are not far behind. It is not an exaggeration to say that all democratic candidates for 2020 have vociferously supported some level of gun confiscation. What makes this especially odd is that “gun control” is not an important issue during national or even state elections in most parts of the country. It is as if democrats are pushing an unpopular solution in search of a problem. Pushing “gun control” is not going to help them win all those so-called ‘swing’ states during the 2020 presidential election. Way to go.. losers.

2] Moving to the second obsession of democrats aka RUSSIA/Putin/Ukraine or anything which will lead to the promised land of a Trump impeachment. While I am certainly not the only one to see the long-term problems associated with the deep-state trying to pull off a “legal” coup against a duly elected president, most gloss over the even larger problem associated with such a course of action. See.. every minute devoted to masturbating about the latest useless revelations in the current scandal du jour is one minute less devoted to talking about issues which matter to voters. In a country where more than half the population have less than a few hundred dollars on them, are an illness away from bankruptcy, trapped in usurious student loans and employed in unstable and poorly paid jobs, wasting their time talking about superficial “decency” in politics is a surefire way of not getting them to vote for you in elections.

In other words, the most important reason to not focus on bullshit made-up “scandals” is that they take time and effort away from convincing voters to vote for you because you can deliver them a better life. Of course, neoliberals in both political parties definitely don’t to improve the living standards of their voters. So ya.. it is understandable why democrats focus on bullshit “scandals” rather than put out credible plans to significantly improve the lives of those who vote for them. I cannot resist the irony of pointing out that the allegedly totalitarian Communist Party of China has done infinitely more for people in that country than allegedly “democratic” parties have done for their voters in the allegedly “liberal” west for the past forty years.

And let us be clear about something else.. in 2016, more than 60 million people voted for the orange troll in spite of his lack of political experience, lecherousness, propensity for corruption and numerous other character flaws because they felt that the option (aka HRC) would be worse for them. Think about it.. what would make 60 million people choose the orange troll over HRC except for their complete distrust and contempt for the system? And why should they trust HRC or other establishment democrats and republicans when almost everything they have done in past four decades has slowly destroyed their quality of life? Would you trust establishment politicians if you lived in the de-industrialized Midwest? Would you trust them if you lived in the south, parts of which now have a lower quality of life than Mexico?

3] Now let us move on to a couple of related events which have occurred since that “debate”. The first concerns that stupid photo of Nancy Pelosi appearing to stand up to Trump. While that photo gained a lot of traction in the circle-jerking class of DC, the sad reality is most voters are too busy with their daily struggle to care about posed photos of multi-millionaires pretending to stand up to billionaires. It is as if establishment democrats did not learn a single useful lesson from their humiliating defeat in 2016. Then again, what do you expect from a degenerate and incestuous ruling class who are serviced by an equally inbred and out-of-touch bunch of flunkies credentialed from few “prestigious” universities?

These dumbfucks are delusional enough to believe that people outside their incestuous circles are fans of sad bullshit shows like “The West Wing”. To be fair, they are not alone as numerous “actors”, “celebrities” and other talking heads have also succumbed to the Trump Derangement Syndrome. But guess what.. their public opinion don’t matter, because if it did Trump would not have won in 2016. Yet for some reason (maybe peer approval) these multi-millionaires living in the few remaining affluent parts of coastal states act as if they are personally affected by the Trump presidency. Of course, these delusional attention-whores don’t seem to understand that vast majority of people do not see them as anything other than entertainers aka paid clowns.

Let me wrap up this post by talking about something that blew up on Twitter yesterday. As some of you know, the establishment media and political class are most unhappy with Tulsi Gabbard being a candidate in the democratic primary. To this end, they have gone to considerable extents to smear her with false accusations. Yesterday (or day before that) HRC went on some podcast and suggested that Tulsi was a “Russian Asset”. Of course, she never explained how a person who had served multiple tours of duty in middle-east and is currently an elected representative in house could be a “Russian Asset”. Apparently, things like evidence and reason are irrelevant.

Long story short, Tulsi fired back on Twitter and rightly called HRC “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long”. Of course there was a reaction from the Clinton network and her paid bots, which was met with an even bigger reaction by Tulsi supporters. While I found the exchanges to be most entertaining, something caught my attention by its absence. See.. nobody in the Clinton network who tried to smear Tulsi further were able to provide any evidence for their assertions. Even more tellingly, HRC supporters did not try to counter Tulsi assertions about HRC. These two things, in a nutshell, tells you everything you need to know about the present generation of incompetent and delusional political “elites” and their underlings in this country.

What do you think? Comments?

The Fundamental Problem with Selling a Trump Impeachment to Voters

October 13, 2019 42 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?

Attempting to Impeach Trump Will be Disastrous for Democratic Party

October 4, 2019 12 comments

By now, most of you must have heard about the latest drive by democrats to impeach Trump aka the orange troll. As Michael Tracey posted a few days ago, Ukraine-gate is the perfect extension of the failed ‘Russia’ narrative. In that article he wrote that “if Donald Trump were on the phone with the president of Angola or Singapore appearing to solicit foreign assistance, it would barely register on the outrage meter”. The point being that Ukraine-gate is an inferior surrogate for the “Russia” and “Putin” narrative which democrats have tried to push for the past three years. It is telling that their replacement narrative is a hastily assembled and far shoddier version of “Russia-gate”. Then again, professional politicians in declining post-industrial countries and their famously credentialed flunkies are not known for their ability, competence or imagination.

As many of you have also seen, establishment democrats and their ass-kissers in MSM are busy trying to concoct news of Trump’s imminent impeachment. They seem to under the impression that their repeated and failed attempts to unseat Trump using similar techniques have remained unnoticed by the general public. Or maybe they never heard the famous children’s tale about the boy who cried wolf. I cannot resist pointing out that their attempts to impeach the orange troll using made-up bullshit about his alleged attempts to collude with the current president of Ukraine are especially pathetic, given that there are far more legitimate reasons to impeach him. We can start with how Trump uses his post to increase occupancy at his hotels, his continued support for failing Saudi war against Yemen, using extra-legal means to stop legal immigration etc.

But democrats, in their infinite stupidity, have decided that trying to impeach orange troll based on gossip and hearsay is the hill on which they want to die. So here are some my thoughts and predictions on this topic. I have a feeling that certain readers (MikeCA?) are going to really dislike my take on this doomed venture. And yes.. I think that attempts to impeach Trump based on the manufactured scandal of Ukraine-gate is likely to backfire on democrats during the 2020 election season. But why do I think it is a disastrous idea? Haven’t all the talking heads on cable news told you that Trump will fall, just like Nixon. Then again.. they also told everybody, stupid enough to believe them, that the Mueller report was guaranteed to put Trump behind bars. We all know how that worked out.. don’t we? So without further ado, here are the main reasons why attempts by democrats to impeach Trump is a bad idea.

1] Trump is not Nixon and 2019 is not 1974. You must have come across extensive instances of comparison between Trump and Nixon on cable TV “news” and a couple of national newspapers, for the past three years. Yes.. that is right, many mainstream presstitutes are under the delusion that repeating Trump’s and Nixon’s name in the same sentence will conjure up the legislative and popular will to impeach the former. So let us quickly talk about why Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment. The main reasons for his resignation were as follows: a] Nixon was widely disliked among his own party because of how many others he had run over to attain power; b] The political establishment needed a fall guy for the humiliating defeat in Vietnam, exposure of secret bombing campaign in Indochina, contemporaneous exposure of many illegal government programs and stagflation; c] But most importantly, Nixon was a creature of the political establishment and lacked significant independent support from voters.

2] Trying to impeach Trump makes him look like victim. In their boneheaded pursuit to avenge the loss of the 2016 presidential election, democrats have achieved the almost impossible feat of making Trump look like the victim to a large percentage of the electorate. Contrary to what ivy-league educated idiots believe, most people aren’t stupid enough to believe politicians. Few believe that Hunter Biden getting 50k per month to serve on a Ukrainian companies board of directors in an area in which he had no previous experience was kosher. The same applies for all the high-paying jobs held by Chelsea Clinton. Nor do they believe that Trump or his progeny are paragons of entrepreneurship and competence. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that american presidents have (especially over past 30-40 years) used their office to push for all sorts of personal favors and gains from domestic corporations and foreign governments. Trump’s behavior is widely seen as the rule, not the exception.

3] Attempts to impeach Trump will overshadow the democratic primary and the general election. As many others have previously pointed out, the shit-show of multiple impeachment hearings and proceedings are guaranteed to overshadow the democratic primary contest to the extent that any of Trump’s tweets is going to garner far more media attention than major electoral promises made by the candidates. Even worse, all candidates will have to join in this madness and spend a good percentage of their public appearances talking about impeachment rather than why they are the better candidate. To make things even more horrible, they will have to deal with a situation where the democrat-controlled house votes to impeach Trump but the senate chooses to keep him in office. Have democrats considered the inevitable fallout from a failed attempt to remove Trump from office and what it will do to the voter-base of both parties?

4] Trump will exploit a failed impeachment and its fallout to the maximum. See.. before the latest democratic brain-fart, Trump did not have much to show for the wild promises he made during the 2016 campaign. His trade war against China was going badly, he was unable to build the wall, the promised manufacturing jobs were not coming back, his policies were inconsistent and a mess, he almost ended up alienating gun owners and much more. In other words, his presidency had been a sad failure for everyone except a few charlatans in his administration. But with impeachment over a made-up controversy looming, the orange troll finally has something approaching a genuine reason as to why he was unable to deliver on his ridiculous promises. He can now credibly claim that he is the target of an “legal” coup perpetrated by establishment politicians and the deep-state. You can bet that he will promote that narrative at every chance.

Might write a followup post to this one, depending on reader responses.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: Renegade Cut

September 29, 2019 11 comments

A few months ago, I came across yet another interesting channel, known as Renegade Cut, which uses movies and TV shows to analyse philosophical ideas and ideologies. While I don’t agree with everything on that channel, some of the content makes sense and is thought-provoking. Here are two clips which many of you might find particularly interesting.

Clip #1: Saturday Neoliberalism This one uses short clips from SNL (the “comedy” show) over multiple decades to show how all of the so-called “subversive” comedy in neoliberal countries such as USA was, and is, always about commercial considerations than being truly subversive or standing up to power and money. It explains why shows such as SNL loved HRC in 2016 while dumping on Bernie and has hated Trump since his election. The explanation also holds for all those other “celebrities” who expose supposedly LIEbral causes.

Clip #2: Frank Grimes – The Cult of Work The second one uses the famous character of Frank Grimes in “The Simpsons’ to show how CONservatives view the world around them. It provides some very interesting insight into why those losers fetishize “work” and who they scapegoat for everything wrong with the world. To make a long story short, CONservatives willingly suffer from multiple delusions including the one where they will all attain salvation, also known as becoming rich.There is a reason, I have always found CONservatives a bit more detestable than LIEbrals.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 5

September 25, 2019 12 comments

In the previous part of this series, I promised to finally go into why support for certain superficial liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. I also made the point that most allegedly “popular” causes in liberalism, such as “gun control” and “LGBTQ” issues, are secular religions in all but name. So let us ask the next question- which traditional religion does modern liberalism most closely resemble? While modern liberalism displays some similarities to Christianity, especially its Catholic variant, it differs from from the later in some very important aspects. Specifically, liberalism is heavily dependent on the use of identity politics, constantly changing taboos and a peculiar form of abstract “spirituality” to enforce its writ among followers.

In other words, modern liberalism cannot function without increasing inter-group factionalism, constantly changing taboos and overt public displays of abstract “spirituality”. Enumerating all the stuff it ignores is even more revealing. For example- liberalism does not care about gross income inequality, horrible working conditions, shitty personal lives and many other issues that actually affect most people living in post-industrial societies. In contrast to liberalism, many traditional religions such as Christianity and Islam try to increase group cohesion, get new members, keep taboos clearly defined and to a minimum in addition to (at least) giving lip service to ideas such basic human equality, dignity and charity. So.. is there a closer match for Liberalism?

As it turns out.. Hinduism is a far closer match to modern Liberalism than almost any other major traditional religion. As I repeatedly mentioned in a previous (and still incomplete) series, almost every major problem that has plagued the India and its people since about 300 AD can be traced back to Hinduism- specifically the spread and consolidation of the ‘jati’ system throughout India. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Hinduism, as has existed since about 300 AD, is nothing more than an excuse to perpetuate the ‘jati’ system. So what makes Hinduism the traditional equivalent of modern Liberalism? Well, let us start by talking about how both use identity politics to divide society into ever smaller groups that hate each other.

Some of you might want to believe that white liberals invented identity politics, but that is simply not true. The ever fragmenting ‘jati’ system in India pioneered and refined identity politics many centuries before white liberals were a thing. The core of Hinduism (as understood and practiced by most believers) is identity politics. That is why most Indians still make important decisions, from voting to marrying, almost exclusively based on whether the other party is of the same or similar ‘jati’. But why are ideologies that preach social fragmentation bad? The simple answer is that societies which accept such fissiparous ideologies end up becoming unable to get stuff done. There is a reason why China was able to achieve in 30 years what India appears unlikely to get done anytime in the foreseeable future.

This is also why India was colonized by followers of two foreign monotheistic religions for over a thousand years. Long story short, societies which are based around identity politics lose their ability to get stuff done and become vulnerable to domination by more cohesive ones. But what does any of this have to do with the democratic party losing the elections in 2020 and beyond? As mentioned in previous posts, the public image of democrats is increasingly defined by being part of the top 10% or aspiring to join that group. But why is that a problem? Think about it this way.. the number of eligible voters who did not vote for either candidate in the 2016 election was larger than the number who voted for either HRC or Trump. Also the plurality of vote cast by the non-professional or credentialed class go to republicans.

Some of you might attribute this to racism and there is some truth to that viewpoint. However a far larger issue, which I have alluded to in a previous post, concerns how each party treats its voters. Republicans do not insult their voters while they are fucking them over unlike their democratic counterparts. To put it another way, the republican religion is a noticeably more inclusive than its democratic equivalent. But isn’t their appeal restricted to white voters? Well.. yes, but as many of you saw in 2016- democrats were unable to motivate enough young non-white voters to go out and vote for them.

A secular religion centered around “gun control”, “forced diversity”, “manmade climate change”, MeToo”, “gender fluidity”, “wokeness” and numerous other fashionable causes and ever changing social taboos simply cannot compete with another which is far more straightforward, inclusive (as long as your are white) and does not require you to debase yourself quite that much. The secular religion of democrats also does not provide solutions to far more prevalent problems such as inadequate healthcare, poor job security, ever increasing cost of university education etc. Their democratic brand of secular religion is simply too exclusive and full of useless and ever-changing rituals to appeal to the majority of voters across this country.

Will write more about this point of view in next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?