Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

Some More Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 27, 2019 2 comments

In the previous post of this hopefully short series, I wrote about how the release of an executive summary of Mueller’s report has sunk the hopes of many partisan democrat voters. Apparently, many of these retards were fully expecting the report to be some sort of deus-ex-machina which would magically end the Trump presidency and then “everything would just go back to normal”. As I have written in many previous posts, the election of Trump in 2016 is just another symptom of an ongoing slow-motion implosion of neoliberal status quo and imperial pretensions of USA. In other words, removing Trump from office via some sort of legal coup will have zero effect on the constellation of factors which enabled his rise in the first place. But try telling that to the hordes of partisan democrat voters clamoring for Trump’s impeachment for “collusion” with Russia.

Which brings us to an issue that I hinted in the previous post on this topic. Why were so many partisan democrat voters animated by the possibility of Trump being impeached through proof of him “colluding” with Russia? Let me rephrase that question to better explain what I am getting at. Why were they fixated on the “collusion with Russia and Putin” bullshit story when there are tons of far more legitimate reasons for legal prosecution? I mean.. we all know that the orange buffoon is a walking disaster, in addition to having a highly shady past and serious conflict on interest issues between his business empire and office since he was elected in 2016. So why did partisan democrat voters and affluent Reagan democrats (such as MikeCA?) focus on the most ridiculous accusations against this real life version of George Bluth Sr.?

On Sunday, Matt Stoller made an insightful tweet: What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate. Let me now unpack what he was talking about. See.. the peculiar obsession of partisan democrat types with the bullshit “collusion with Russia” narrative, to the exclusion of far better ways to nail the orange buffoon, make sense only if you consider the possibility that it is about validating their belief that HRC was the better candidate and destined to defeat Trump in 2016. Yep.. they desperately want validation for their comic belief that Hillary was meant to win in 2016 and the victory of Trump was due to some mysterious and nefarious actions by “Russia” and “Putin”. But why would they want to believe such tripe, especially given how democrats lost in mid-western states which were considered democrat strongholds during presidential elections for over two decades. Well.. it is both easy and complicated.

As I have written in more than one previous post (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 and two short series- link 6 and link 7) the democratic party is increasingly led and organised by “credentialed” white liberal professionals who believe in the religion of neoliberalism. But what does this have to do with their obsession about HRC being the “better candidate” who was “destined to win” in 2016. As it turn out.. everything. HRC, you see, is an embodiment of the ultimate neoliberal political candidate. She checked all the right “diversity” boxes, employed advisers and interns from “elite” universities, constantly talked in empty platitudes and gave false hope through carefully chosen words, indulged in constant triangulation on contentious issues, pretended to care about “social justice” issues and generally embodied everything which people in 2019 find repulsive and loathsome about CEOs and other corporate critters.

But it was not always like that and between 1980 and 2009, many in USA (especially middle-class baby boomers and older Gen-Xers) actually believed in neoliberalism. That is why people born before 1970 (like MikeCA?) were far more supportive, if not downright enthusiastic, about HRC’s candidacy in 2016. To be more precise, people above a certain age, income level and living in coastal states saw HRC as their perfect candidate. That is why support for the “Trump colluding with Russia and Putin” bullshit narrative was so high in coastal democrat strongholds but almost absent in parts of the country which have been devastated by decades of neoliberalism. But how does this translate into a singular focus on the bullshit “collusion” narrative while ignoring all the other shitty things Trump has done in the past and is doing right now.

Well.. it comes down to what particular narrative promises and covers up, at the same time. In comparison, blaming the rise of Trump on the effects of neoliberal policies pursued by republicans and democrats since 1980 (or earlier) implicates politicians and presidents from both parties. The “collusion” bullshit narrative allows establishment types to present the victory of Trump in 2016 as an anomaly, one which they can recover from and restore the old status quo. The alternative explanation, namely that Trump’s victory in 2016 as a sign of the old order collapsing, seems to be too frightening and depressing for them to contemplate in public. Blaming Trump’s victory in 2016 on “Russia” and “Putin” allowed establishment democrats to pretend that there is no need for fundamental change while covering up the complete lack of sustained public enthusiasm for their corporate-approved candidates. And they believe they can get away with it.

So why were many coastal partisan democrat voters eager to drink the koolaid of “collusion”? To better answer that question, let talk about the other political figure who is also disliked (if not outright hated) by the biggest lay supporters of the bullshit “collusion” narrative. Does the name, Bernie Sanders, ring a bell? Yes.. there is a very strong overlap between partisan democrats who believe in the bullshit “Trump-Russia-Putin collusion” narrative and those who proudly voted for HRC in the 2016 primaries. And guess which states Bernie had many upset victories during the 2016 primaries? Yep.. many mid-western states which voted for Trump in the general election. Also remember that Bernie won far more votes from people below 40, than those past 50. The thing is, lay supporters of the “collusion” narrative are (in many ways) similar to the last generation who worship a dying religion- which in this case is neoliberalism.

Might write another post in this short series.. but not sure.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Principal Conclusions of the Mueller Report

March 26, 2019 3 comments

I would have preferred to post on topics more consequential than an initial public summary of the now infamous Mueller Report, but it seems (based on the comments section) there is a demand for this sort of writing. And this is fine by me, because posts like the current one are much easier to write than carefully thought ones about issues which actually matter. So, let us first talk with a bit about how it all started. While the exact incident which started this sadly comic endeavor is a matter of some dispute, the timing is much clearer. What we today know as “RussiaGate” started in the summer of 2016, but its origins go back a few months before that to the time when the DNC or somebody associated with that organization paid a certain Christopher Steele to write a damming dossier about Trump. FYI- this part of the origin story is no longer controversial.

The DNC, as some of you might remember, is the same stupid organization who conspired with the corporate media to highlight buffoons such as Trump and Carson (pied-piper candidates) to make it easier for HRC to win in the general election. I wonder how that “strategy” worked out. Anyway, the dumbfuck known as Christopher Steele was hired because he pretended to be a “Russia expert”. As it turns out, Steele was talking out of his behind, because other than a few years of being posted in Russia many years ago- his grasp on his alleged area of “expertise” was non-existent. And you do not have to just believe me on this.. read the dossier. To make a long story short, the entire dossier is full of speculation, hearsay, made-up bullshit and just plain lies. Some readers might wonder.. how can I be so sure that dossier is full of bullshit.

Well.. because if even a fraction of its most salacious accusations were true, at least half the Trump family would have been jailed over a year ago and Trump would have resigned or been impeached by now. But they are not and Trump has neither resigned or been impeached. In case you don’t have time to read that “dossier”, some of the accusations included such gems such as: Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague for “secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers.” and Kremlin had kompromat of Trump defiling a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show.” It turns out that these accusations were either totally made up or were wild exaggerations.

Michael Cohen was found guilty of perjury, lying to banks, tax evasion and violating campaign finance laws but not of going to Prague or conspiring with any “Russians” to influence the 2016 election. Did I mention that the Mueller investigation did not file any indictment against Carter Page? And there is no proof of the “Kremlin” or “Putin” having sexual Kompromat on Trump. So.. the whole dossier was largely full of bullshit. At this stage, I expect MikeCA to tell me how a few of the accusations in that dossier could be interpreted as correct. Well.. it does not take a genius with expertise in “Russia” to do a few internet searches that point to Trump’s interest in building or licensing his brand name to a few luxury condo complexes in Moscow. Trump being interested in making a fast buck and sticking his name onto architectural abominations is as predictable as dogs sniffing the behinds of other dogs. In any case, he did not expect to win in 2016.

I am not going to bore you with all the details of how things went down after that initial dossier was shopped around various news outlets and senators (including John McCain) once it became obvious that Trump was going to win the republican party nomination. Matt Taibbi has written a far more detailed account of how this bullshit drama unfolded. Aaron Maté has a pretty good analysis of the how the whole “collusion” theory has fallen apart. Branko Marcetic has a good piece about how “RussiaGate” helped rehabilitate previously discredited necons and the national “security apparatus. It is also telling that some corporate media outlets, like Vanity Fair,who were cheerleading the Mueller investigation as late as last week are now starting to publish posts which are far more somber about the Mueller Report and the future of similar investigations.

Heck.. even NYT is now starting to publish pieces which talk about the long-term deleterious effects of the media’s role in hyping RussiaGate on the national psyche. And before I forget, here is a piece by Michael Tracey about how democratic politicians and sympathetic media spent all their energies fanning this fake scandal when they could have put that same effort in uncovering the numerous real scandals of the Trump administration. I am sure that readers will see many more pieces such as these in coming weeks, as corporate media outlets try to back-paddle from their previous positions on Russiagate. FYI- Michael Tracey, Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and a handful of others were among the very few who consistently maintained that RussiaGate was a fake scandal which would not result in Trump being impeached or resigning.

They also correctly predicted that RussiaGate would end up vindicating Trump’s rants about how the “Deep State” was trying to screw him over- in addition to making it far harder for subsequent real charges of malfeasance to stick to him. And that is where things seem to be headed. It is very likely that all those investigations of Trump and his family by SDNY and a few other DAs sympathetic to democratic establishment will be seen as continuation of the ‘witchunt’ against Trump. WSo.. what has this investigation achieved thus far, apart from making Trump seem sympathetic and justified in his paranoia against establishment types?

Well.. for starters, it has done wonders for the bottom line of cynical cable news networks such as MSNBC and CNN. Con artists such as Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon (and many others) owe a good art of their recent viewership numbers to peddling this scam. Many NeoCons such as David Frum, Bill Kristol, Max Boot and many others who were relegated to dustbin of history after the Iraq war turned out to be a disaster have now been rehabilitated. Incompetent sociopaths such Comey, Hayden, Clapper and Brennan have also been rehabilitated as senior public intellectuals. And it gets worse. Gullible partisan democratic voters have been swindled out of billions by montebanks who sold them fiction masquerading as investigative journalism. Late-night “comics” cannot make “jokes” which do not involve fantasies of Trump getting arrested or impeached.

In summary, the Mueller investigation and the artificial hype surrounding it have done a lot of long-term damage to the credibility of american journalism.. well.. whatever was left of it after 2003. In the next post on this topic, I will show you how establishment democrats peddled and promoted RussiaGate to avoid any self-analysis after their anointed candidate was defeated by that orange buffoon in 2016. As somebody on Twitter quipped- What Democrats really wanted from Mueller is evidence Clinton was a good candidate.

What do you think? Comments?

End of Mueller Investigation and ‘Trump-Russia-Putin Collusion’ Bullshit

March 23, 2019 10 comments

Unless you have been living under a rock since Friday morning, you must have read or heard that the Special Counsel investigation aka Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s alleged collusion with ‘Russia’ and ‘Putin’ during the 2016 presidential election is finally over. While an executive summary of its findings should be available sometime this weekend, it is noteworthy that there are no new open or “sealed” indictments. Which is a fancy way of saying that the Special Counsel has not been able to indict one single person from Trump’s presidential campaign, including the orange buffoon himself, of collusion with “Russia” or “Putin”. Every single person who has been indicted by Mueller’s team has landed in that position because of criminal actions unrelated to 2016 campaign or committing perjury. In other words, the establishment democrat/s desire to see Trump impeached has taken a massive and unrecoverable hit.

Even worse, they have finally validated Trump’s defense of this investigation being unfair and a ‘witch hunt’. Way to go, dumbfucks! Of course, there are still tons of dead-enders who keep babbling about “SDNY” and other similar bullshit. But let us get real.. the majority of people will now no longer believe in the results of any future investigation of Trump. In fact, just over 50% of Americans were seeing it that way before the Mueller investigation wrapped up– without a single indictment for collusion with Russia. It is now increasingly likely that Trump will use the report as an important plank of this campaign for re-election in 2020. And you know what.. if establishment democrats are stupid enough to rig their primaries (like they did in 2016) for a corporate-anointed loser such as Biden, Beto or Kamala- he might actually win in 2020.

Matt Taibbi has written an excellent post about how Russiagate is contemporary equivalent of the WMD fiasco of 2002. In it, he goes into considerable detail as to how a bullshit “dossier” written by a greedy British hack and paid for by the DNC started one of the most darkly comic chapters in recent american history. I would strongly suggest you read his entire post- even if it is a bit on the longer side. While the circumstances surrounding the start of this investigation, which began around June 2016, are almost too comical to be real- it keeps getting better and more absurd. Taibbi also skewers all the national news outlets, “respectable” journalists, cable news anchors, talking heads, Twitterati and “celebrities” who got into the act- if only to make a quick buck. Once again, I strongly suggest you read his post- preferably more than once.

Moving on.. the obsession of establishment democrats with ‘Trump-Russia-Putin’ is now going to get much harder to justify. But don’t worry, I am sure that they will find a few new ways to fuck themselves by focusing on something which the majority see as hacky partisan bullshit with no connection to the worsening quality of their lives. Between this pile of bullshit, renewed calls for “gun control” and mouthing empty platitudes which deceive nobody in 2019, they will find a way to lose to that orange buffoon in 2020. And let us be honest about something.. establishment democrats would rather lose to Trump than defy their corporate masters and campaign on popular policies such as universal single-payer healthcare, student loan forgiveness, higher minimum wage etc which might actually get the majority of voters to elect them.

I might write another post about this topic soon, preferably after reading the executive summary of the Mueller Report. Till then, have a look at the hysterically comic bullshit which was being passed off as real journalism by cable news networks- narrated by the always funny Jimmy Dore.

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?

Trump Presidency Has Made Hollywood Scriptwriters Look Uncreative

December 24, 2018 8 comments

In a previous post, I wrote about my theories on the reasons why Trump is publicly despised by entertainment “celebrities” after he ran for the presidency and won in 2016. And this got me thinking.. how does Trump compare to some of the more “colorful” and unconventional political characters depicted in movies and on TV. As some of you may know, there have been more than a few unflattering depictions of political figures in film and TV over the years. For example, the persona of the titular character in Bob Roberts (1992) has noticeable similarities to Trump. Then again, the main character in that movie was running for a senate seat and not the presidency.

Bulworth (1998) is another movie in which the central character has some resemble to the Trump persona– though most policies advocated by him in it are closer to those of Bernie Sanders. In case you are interested, here is another list of movie which have a main character with some sort of resemblance to the Trump persona– though only 3-4 of them are close enough. My point is that even the normally outrageous imagination of Hollywood scriptwriters could not come up with anything close to the reality of Trump. If you do not believe me, just read a small selection of his official Tweets from the past eight days. Here is part one of the screenshots..

Still not satisfied.. here is part two.

What do you think? Comments?

Explanation for the Intense Hatred of Trump by ‘Hollywood’ Celebrities

December 23, 2018 13 comments

The election of Trump on November 8, 2016 has had many interesting and peculiar effects on the state of public and private discourse in this country. For example, we have recently seen multiple prominent democrats and their surrogates loudly proclaim that Bush43 was not as big a disaster as Trumpdespite the incredibly bad track record of the former. As some of you might be aware, there is an ongoing effort to rehabilitate the public image and legacy of Bush43 and his recently deceased father (Bush41). In case you require help remembering how incredibly disastrous the Bush43 presidency really was, let me remind you it began with a stolen presidential election, went through 9/11 and its aftermath, a failed invasion and occupation of Iraq, the incredibly poor response to aftermath of hurricane Katrina and ended with the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.

And this brings me to an interesting observation about the difference in reaction of Hollywood and entertainment “celebrities” to the presidencies of Bush43 and Trump45. Why did a president as disastrous such as Bush43 never get anywhere near level of hate as that ineffectual orange-haired buffoon is getting right now? Think about it.. Bush43 presided over many monumental fuckups which were unusually expensive in terms of human lives and money, not to mention the other irreversible representational hits to this country. In my opinion, he makes Trump45 look positively benign by comparison. Yet, we never saw anything close to the continual attempts by entertainment “celebrities” to ‘take down’, ‘destroy’, trash-talk or fixate on Trump45 during the two terms of Bush43. My question is.. why not?

Some of you might believe that this has something to do with social media and the internet being far more ubiquitous in 2018 that in 2001, 2003, 2005 or 2008. Well.. that is a small part of the story. But a much larger part concerns how the inadequacies of each president were presented by the corporate media and seen by the deep state. Bush43, for all of his horrendously expensive failings, was seen as a borderline brain-damaged guy who could be reliably counted on to rubber-stamp whatever the elite and deep state types wanted. Oddly enough, though Trump45 has also been largely beholden to the wishes of elites and deep state types- he somehow elicits multiple magnitudes more hate and contempt from entertainment types than Bush43. What makes this even more peculiar is that Trump was quite popular with them before running for the presidency.

So.. how did Trump go from being somebody who was very acceptable to socialize with prior to 2016 to the literal embodiment of everything wrong about this country? Let us be honest.. his basic personality has not changed over the past few decades. He has always been a narcissistic blowhard and pussygrabber who loved the media spotlight, in addition to being moderately racist. To put it another way, he did not suddenly transform into what these “celebrities” claim to hate after he announced his presidential campaign in 2016. His lack of business acumen has been common knowledge for years and his odd interest in his eldest daughter (Ivanka) is an open secret. Just google ‘ivanka donald trump sitting lap‘ and see for yourself, or not.

My point is that all these entertainment “celebrities” who now claim to denounce and hate Trump with every breath had zero issues hanging out with him and (in some cases) even having sex with him before mid-2015. And they had far more knowledge about his numerous oddities and shortcomings than the general public. So what explains their sudden change in behavior towards Trump. How did he go from just another billionaire they hung out with (often, a lot) to a hated and detested pariah- in their eyes. And let us get real, the entertainment sector is filled with some of the most mentally screwed up and depraved people alive today. Have you heard these allegedly moral “celebrities” condemn the misadventures of Henry Kissinger in Cambodia or Bush43 in Iraq to anywhere near the level they rail against every single brain-fart.. I mean Tweet.. posted by Trump. Have they ever questioned HRC about the disastrous effects of her policies (as secretary of state) in countries such as Libya or Syria?

Anyway.. let us get back to the main focus of this post and talk about my explanation(S) for the newfound and peculiar hatred of Trump by entertainment “celebrities”.

1] A significant part of the public hate displayed by entertainment “celebrities” towards Trump after he became president comes down to virtue signalling. See.. in a place like Hollywood (used to describe the film, TV, music and related sectors), there is far more talent than there are opportunities. Consequently, everyone and their dog is trying to make sure that they maximize their chances of getting that first break or next assignment which will either make them famous or maintain their position. Since most of the hiring and casting in that sector is based on highly subjective criteria, everyone who cares about their next big paycheck (or simply a paycheck) has to make sure not to disqualify themselves. That is why everyone (who has not hit the big time yet) appears to have an unusually sunny and optimistic mindset. Face it.. that is also why there so are so many gurus, cults and other new-agey bullshit in that sector.

2] What is the common factor which unites the most vocal anti-Trump “celebrities”? Think about it.. what is common to Debra Messing, Alyssa Milano, Kathy Griffin, Jimmy Kimmel, Meryl Streep, Chelsea Handler, J.K. Rowling, Robert De Niro, Madonna and Ben Stiller. Let me give you a hint.. think of the last time they were successful in their field. In most cases, their last big hits were over ten years ago. Sure.. those were big hits, but nothing they have done since then have been significant. Perhaps they want to feel culturally relevant again? Another class of minor “celebrities” such as John Oliver, Lena Dunham, Aziz Ansari, Amy Schumer etc are leveraging their public displays to further improve their visibility. And let us not kid ourselves, the anti-Trump bandwagon has proven to be quite profitable for some people such as Stephen Colbert, Alec Balwin in addition to subscriptions for NYT and WP.

3] It is well-known that the entertainment sector tends to attract people with unusually high levels of narcissism. That is why, for example, cults which promise enhanced personal development to their followers can recruit so easily in that sector. Such levels of narcissism also translate into believing that they are somehow special, enlightened or chosen to guide others. To be fair, a lot of the elite class in this country suffer from that affliction. Just look at how CEOs in Silly Valley want to “make the world a better place”, ivy-league dipshits who are certain of their superior mental capabilities or neo-liberal politicians who never had a real job in their lives talk about hard work and meritocracy. Long story short, some of Trump’s haters are getting high on their own drug supply- which is darkly comic.

In conclusion, Trump is an incompetent and ineffectual orange-haired buffoon. However, all the “celebrities” who go to considerable lengths to demonstrate their dislike and hatred of him are dishonest and cynical narcissists. In my opinion, they truly deserve each other.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Trump’s Faux Populism Appealed to People Such as Cesar Sayoc

October 28, 2018 30 comments

The last few days have seen the terminally declining cable “news” networks get their panties into a twist over some idiot from Florida mailing them, and prominent establishment democrats, what appear to be non-functional physical facsimiles of pipe bombs. Most journalists have tried to focus on the.. well.. odd life history of the alleged perpetrator, Cesar Sayoc. Some of you might have heard media pundits put forth theories ranging from Sayoc being moderately mentally retarded to merely suffering from mental illness. Very few seem to be interested in why a character like Sayoc got involved in what can be best described as the ‘Cult of Trump’. So what pushed a 56-year old man to mail pipe bombs to famous people?

Some will point out that he had previously threatened to bomb some building, in 2002. So what stopped him from going through with that threat and why did he not try something similar for the next 15 years? More interestingly.. how did a half-white man in his mid-50s with a sketchy life story end up becoming such an enthusiastic supporter of a faux populist such as Trump? The more cynical among you might attribute this to him living in Florida, and there is some validity to that idea. However, attempts to explain his behavior through some combination of mental status, state of residence or life history miss a much larger issue. Why was the Trump’s 2016 campaign able to attract people with some rather peculiar views on how USA should be governed?

To understand what I am hinting at, here is an older article by me about how the Simpsons Show is a good marker for ongoing demise of middle-class in USA. To refresh your memory, the family depicted in that cartoon series had what was widely seen as a barely middle-class lifestyle when it first started airing in early-1990s. Today that same lifestyle, unchanged from what it was since the shows’s beginning, is seen as distinctly upper-middle class. Think about it.. is it still possible for a family to support three kids (let alone own a modest house) in 2018 if the only bread-winner is a man without college education and a blue collar-ish job? And don’t forget that it was popularly considered feasible as late as the mid-1990s?

So what happened between.. 1990 and 2016? And what does any of this have to with the rise of Trump, the ‘alt-right’ and the behavior of Cesar Sayoc since 2015. The very short version is that systemic implementation of neoliberal economic policies by corporate-funded politicians of both political parties have eviscerated the middle-class in USA. A combination of deindustrialization, outsourcing, runaway financialization and passage of laws and regulations favoring corporations, oligopolies and monopolies over everybody else has reduced what once used to the largest middle-class in developed world to a mere shadow of its former self. Moreover, the vast majority of people have still not recovered from the 2008 global financial crisis.

The downstream effects of this artificial financial death-spiral (for the majority) has created an incredible amount of anger, hatred and distrust towards the Establishment. This is why voters in republican primaries of 2016 overwhelmingly went for a faux populist such as Trump. It is also why so many black voters in certain mid-western states decided to not vote for HRC in 2016 presidential election. Long story short, the under-performance of HRC in the midwest (and hence the electoral college) can be traced back to deliberately inept handling of the global financial crisis by Obama in addition to his unstinting support for “free trade” and other neoliberal nostrums. HRC having an incredibly fake public persona did not help either.

But what does any of this have to with the radicalization of Cesar Sayoc? Well.. here is an article by Trevor Aaronson at The Intercept which explains that in some detail. The quick summary is as follows: Sayoc was one of those guys who had big dreams but constantly struggled throughout his life. It did not help that he born at the tail end of ‘baby boomer’ generation and was therefore too late to benefit from most of the economic advantages of being born in that cohort. It seems that he evidently hit rock bottom sometime between 2009-2012 when the bank foreclosed on his home, he was left with no financial assets and had to move in (once again) with his mother.

As I have mentioned in older posts, the biggest hurdle to democratic party winning elections across USA is that they offer no concrete solutions to the problems faced by most voters. It is not secret that establishment democrats are against universal healthcare, taxpayer-financed higher education, higher minimum wages, tight regulation of financial institutions and other popular progressive ideas which have been successfully implemented for decades in other developed countries. To put it another way, they had zero interest in acknowledging and addressing (let alone solving) the problems faced by people such as Sayoc. It was therefore not surprising that a faux populist, like Trump, could animate many of the people left behind by the establishment wing of both political parties. And this how you get this..

So what finally drove Sayoc to mail all those pipe bombs to famous democrats and their rich supporters? We may never know for sure, but there are some clues. Over the last two years, Sayoc increasingly lived out of his van and had many precarious low-paying jobs. The simple fact is that someone with his life history had no real hope for a better future in this increasingly dystopic country aka USA. Maybe this is why he was so willing to believe that establishment politicians and establishment media figures were his personal enemies- and to be fair, that is a quite accurate characterization of the behavior of establishment types towards somebody like him. Who knows.. maybe he saw life in prison as more secure than the one he was living.

What do you think? Comments?