Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

Couple Of Obvious Predictions about Potential Military Conflicts in 2020

January 12, 2020 9 comments

Since making predictions about the future is often the main reason for people writing online, let me make a couple of really obvious predictions about potential military conflicts in 2020. To make things easy, I am going to restrict myself to those which directly involve the USA- because there is no shortage of potential military conflicts which don’t involve USA. For this post, I have chosen the two most obvious, and long-standing, conflicts which this country is involved in- and have the highest potential for disastrous flareups. But before we go there, let us talk about the common thread which runs through both of them- namely, the inability of american establishment to accept that their empire is circling the drain and that it is not 1991 or 2002.

Irrespective of what the american establishment believes, the power of its empire has been in a terminal downward spiral since Sep 11, 2001. It is important to note that there are many reasons for this death spiral, and most have nothing to do with spending on military matters. In fact, one could make the argument that the ideologies of neoliberalism and financialization have made a much larger contribution (directly and indirectly) to loss of power by the dying american empire than increased defense spending or development of newer weapons by other countries. I plan to address this particular topic in an upcoming series, but getting back to the one at hand- why is the american establishment so deeply in denial about the rapidly diminishing power of its empire?

Once again, there are many reasons- but the most important comes down to the consequences of acknowledging reality. See.. the cushy and sinecured livelihood of the american establishment is totally dependent on their ability to convince the public (at least most of them) that “USA is still number 1”. To put it bluntly, they would lose all their power and status the instant most people in this country realized that USA is not a superpower, let alone the only one. And this is irrespective of what it still spends on weapon systems, USA ceased to be a superpower about a decade ago when the Chinese economy and their industrial capability surpassed them. In case you want to understand my supporting argument in a bit more detail, here is a short series.

But getting back to the topic at hand, how does the profound inability of american establishment to inhabit the real world make military conflict more likely? Well.. let us start by talking about the peculiar situation between DPRK and USA since Trump and Kim Jong-un decided to first meet in mid-2018. While this first face-to-face meeting between Kim Jon-un and Trump in Singapore was a big step forward, at least diplomatically, subsequent meetings haven’t produced anything beyond photographs of both men shaking hands. But why not? Shouldn’t this big symbolic have resulted in worthwhile progress on real-life issues between the two countries? What is main stumbling block for real improvement in relations between DPRK and USA?

In my opinion, it comes to the american establishment unwillingness to accept reality, at multiple levels. See.. after watching american behavior and actions between 1991 and 2003, only an idiot would trust any treaty signed with it. Which is another way of saying that DPRK is not going to give up its nuclear weapons and ICBMs.. ever. Let me remind you that DPRK went down the path to acquiring nukes only after 2003, after watching USA invade Iraq. Between 1994-2003, DPRK was interested in acquiring nukes but not seriously committed to that goal. If the idiots in DC had lived in the real world, and behaved accordingly, they could have achieved their alleged goal of denuclearizing DPRK. But their whiteman egos prevented them from offering any compromise which would be acceptable to DPRK, and that opportunity was lost forever after 2003.

Flash-forward to today and DPRK has thermonuclear warheads and the means to reliably deliver them to any american metropolitan area of its choice. And guess what.. both countries bordering it (also nuclear powers) aka China and Russia are fine with it, largely because USA has been also busy antagonizing them for over a decade. No amount of sanctions have changed that outcome and none will. It should also be noted that at this stage Kim Jong-un is fully aware that there will never be any worthwhile relief to economic sanctions by USA and has chosen a different path for his countries future. I would add that previous attempts by idiots such as Bush43 and Obama44 to wait for the “inevitable collapse” of the DPRK government have failed miserably.

So why do I think that this conflict might heat up in 2020? Well.. because KJU has indicated his desire to restart testing of newer ICBMs, and maybe even nukes- and he is a man of his words. Expect KJU to restart testing long-ranged missiles, specifically solid-fueled ICBMs sometime this year. He is fully aware that doing so will make Trump look weak and ineffectual, but he does not care because he has an insurance policy- aka enough nukes and missiles to reliably target large urban centers in Japan and USA. The real question then is, how will Trump and the delusional and largely Zionist neocons around him response to such actions in an election year and under the shadow of his impeachment. It will be interesting to watch..

Then there is the conflict with Iran, which I have written about previously (link 1, link 2 and link 3). Without going into a ton of detail, it is fair to say that Israel and USA are trying to provoke a war with Iran. Given economic sanctions imposed against that country and the fact that Iranian leaders are not idiots to wait them out when they have other options- a conflict is likely sooner than later. The bone-headed Zionist-inspired assassination of Soleimani is not going to make war less likely. Furthermore Iran has demonstrated that its ballistic and cruise missiles are now very accurate. To put it another way, it will be basically impossible for USA to conduct airstrikes or even house troops within a thousand km (or more) of The Iranian border.

Let me remind you that Saddam never had missiles that were as numerous, accurate and varied as what Iran posses today and its domestic air defense system is no slouch either. To put it bluntly, it is not realistic for USA to launch a successful land-based invasion of Iran. Also, any airstrikes against targets in Iran will almost immediately result in the war spreading to countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia. Since I do not wish to repeat my previous posts, let’s just say that a conventional war against Iran would be uncontrollable and bad for the economy of west-European countries, who will quickly find out how important all that imported oil is for running their economies. By now most of you might be thinking- won’t cooler heads prevail? Well.. maybe they will, but history suggest another possibility.

If you have ever read the history of large and consequential wars within the last hundred or so years, one thing quickly becomes obvious- most were not started intentionally and almost nobody expected them to develop in the manner they did or result in the final outcome- for both sides. USA is an empire in rapid decline that is run by a bunch of credentialed idiots who do not want to admit the obvious and presided over by an orange buffoon with the mental maturity of a 16- year old boy. To put it another way, things are far more likely to take unexpected routes and result in disastrous outcomes- especially in an election year. Did I mention that current american policies and attitudes are certain to worsen the ongoing conflicts with DPRK and Iran? In summary, 2020 promises to be interesting year.. perhaps, a bit too interesting for some.

What do you think? Comments?

More Thoughts on Trump’s Latest Idiotic Move to Start a War with Iran

January 7, 2020 13 comments

In my previous post on this topic, I wrote that the extremely stupid decision by Trump to approve the assassination of Qasem Soleimani will have very significant and long-lasting effects on the geopolitical environment in the Middle-East. For starters, it is now virtually guaranteed that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons and ICBMs- mostly likely within next 2-3 years. They have seen the difference that acquiring such weapons made to the security environment of DPRK- a significantly smaller and poorer country than Iran. The assassination of Soleimani is also the final nail in the coffin for the influence of LIEbral faction within their government which had argued for better relationships with USA (and the rapidly declining west) through bad comprises such as JCPOA.

Events since Iran signed that worthless agreement have shown that hardliners who opposed to be far more realistic than the greedy LIEbrals who deluded themselves into thinking that USA (and west in general) would honor international treaties. The upcoming years will see a far harder shift in their foreign policy towards China, and away from catamite states in western Europe. In any case, the west (especially USA) are no longer producers of any resources or products which the world needs- let alone scientific or technological innovation. And now we shall talk a bit more about how Iran is likely to avenge the untimely death of Soleimani. As you will see, they have far more options than the credentialed idiots who appear on, and write in, western corporate media outlets are capable of imagining. We live in interesting times..

1] One of most obvious, but ignored, ways that Iranians could take revenge for Soleimani would be to go after Trump and his progeny. While this would be easier if Trump loses in 2020, they could go after his idiotic progeny even earlier. And it is much easier than you think give that this progeny often travel to countries that are far away from USA and Iran has the organisational capabilities of a large nation state, not some pipsqueak terrorist group. They are also likely counting on his low popularity among many Americans to make any such outcome far more acceptable than it would be otherwise. It would also be an especially audacious and very fitting response to the assassination of Soleimani. While something like this might seem unlikely to most Americans, let me remind you that we are not living in ‘normal’ times.

2] People such as Pompeo, Bolton, Esper, certain advisers to the Trump administration, yappy Chihuahua such as Marc Rubio and Lindsey Graham, rich Zionist donors to the Trump campaigns might also be targeted for assassination by Iran. They present far easier targets than Trump and depending on how things work out, they could put the fear of god into many more. It also helps that many of Trump’s advisers on foreign policy seem to be either Zionist or have strong Zionist sympathies- making them especially enticing targets for Iran. Also a lot of these people have to travel far more and have much less of a security detail than somebody such as Trump and his family. I wonder if idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton have considered that possibility.

3] Regardless of whether Israel was directly, or indirectly, involved in this assassination- it is reasonable to assume that Iran is now going to explicitly target senior Israeli officials and their families. While there was a peculiar unwritten truce between those two countries on the issue of killing members of each other’s government officials- that is now history. It is even more likely that Iran will target Israel assets working in Middle-Eastern countries, regardless of the passports they hold. It will get especially ugly in places where both countries have a presence.. such as Lebanon, Turkey, UAE etc. For too long, people working for that country have felt protected. This is likely the end of that era. It would not be surprising if Iran also started targeting people from that country when they were on vacation in other countries.

4] We cannot also forget the extent of dislike between rulers of Sunni gulf states and Iran. Once again, for a long time this dislike did not degenerate into trying to kill each others rulers and senior government officials. But things have changed now, and what was once unthinkable is now firmly within the realms of possibility. Expect lots of random bombings etc targeting gulf royalty and senior government officials in those countries. I also predict that the uneasy ‘truce’ between Iran and Saudi Arabia is finally over and one can expect Iran to start pouring weapons in Shia areas of Saudi Arabia. Things are about to get very interesting in those countries. It is hard to predict where this is all going to lead, but it will be interesting to watch.

5] While it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will now target american soldiers and mercenaries in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc- we should not forget their native support staff. See.. for each american solider or mercenary, there are probably 5-20 local people who support their presence. It certainly helps that targeting the ‘help’ would be far more easier, and rewarding, for Iran. Very few people are willing to make an extra buck if such a gig comes with a reduced life-expectancy for themselves and their families. This outcome is especially likely in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is no shortage of other locals (proxies) who hate those who work for whatever is left of the american occupation. Readers might have noticed that most of the possible actions Iran might take in response to Soleimani assassination are not conventional warfare.

In an upcoming part, I will go into some detail about what conventional warfare options are available to Iran. As you will see, they are far more numerous than most “credentialed” western idiots in the MSM are willing to admit.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on Trump’s Latest Idiotic Move to Start a War with Iran

January 3, 2020 25 comments

In the previous post, I wrote some very preliminary thoughts on the fallout of orange troll’s latest brainfart- specifically the totally bone-headed move to assassinate Qasem Soleimani when he was on official business in Iraq and on his way to meet government officials to Turkey. And let us be clear about something else, Soleimani’s travel schedule was not secret and he traveled openly to represent the interests of Iranian government. So what are the likely repercussions of this very stupid move by orange buffoon? As it turns out, there will be many consequences both immediate and secondary- and none of them will be good for people in USA.. to put it mildly. I have a feeling that Trump nor his neocon Israeli cronies have a grasp of what they have unleashed. And yes, I am implying that the “chosen people” are not clever as they delude themselves into believing.

1] The most significant, but almost ignored, consequence of this stupid move by Trump and his neocon advisers is that Iran is now definitely going to acquire nuclear weapons and ICBMs. As mentioned in a previous post, the main reason for Iranian government to not go down the route taken by North Korea took was that a significant number of them believed that some sort of long-term peace deal with USA was possible. However developments in past three years have clearly shown that Kim Jong-un’s plan to acquire nuclear weapons and ICBMs which could reliably target american cities for the purpose of deterrence was the correct one. In contrast, the LIEbral faction within the Iranian government which wanted better relations with the “west” even if doing so meant capping their nuclear and missile ambitions have been shown to be wrong.

2] The assassination of Soleimani by USA should be seen as the inflection point when credibility of western-leaning LIEbral faction in Iran went below zero. To say that this shift will have major consequences is an understatement. From now on, the viewpoint of hardliners in Iranian system becomes the dominant and almost universally accepted one within that country. For uninformed western readers, the hardliners in Iran are far more driven by nationalism than religion- like how the North Vietnamese were far more into nationalism than communism. One can safely assume that any new deal between Iran and USA or its catamite western allies is basically impossible in the foreseeable future. And who needs USA and the west, when you have China aka the country with the largest and most diverse real-life economy in the world.

3] Talking about China.. as many of you know, Trump and his stupid “advisers” have done many stupid (trade-related) things in past three years to convince the Chinese that letting USA hang itself is necessary. And let us be realistic about something else- there is nothing which USA manufactures today which the world would really miss if the country vanished from the face of this planet tomorrow. It also does not help that Trump, in spite of what idiots such as MikeCA believe, has done much to antagonize Russia. Long story short, neither country will be unhappy to see the USA militarily humiliated and further drained of resources in the Middle-East. China, in particular, rightly sees the USA as a dying empire in its terminal phase. They will be more than happy to let another country, such as Iran, accelerate the demise of USA and the west in general.

4] Maybe the orange buffoon and his Zionist advisers are trying to make themselves believe that Iran will finally fight on a battlefield and schedule which suits american arms doctrine. However anybody who is not delusional enough to believe that they are the “chosen people” because of their race (whites in USA) or religion (another country in the ME) understand that Iran has a history of fighting on a battlefield of their choice and a schedule of their choosing. To put it another way, you can expect a lot of.. well.. unrest in surrounding countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan which will likely target people who look american. There is historical precedence for this sort of targeting- and it can be most persuasive and effective.

Does Trump really think that he can protect every single american and his family working in Iraq and Afghanistan? To be clear, I am talking about people who work in non-military occupations, such as those who work in the oil and gas sector. Do you really think that Iran will not start targeting select oil and gas facilities in Iraq- especially in areas with western companies? FYI- Iran did not do this for many years because it wanted to normalize relations with USA and the west, but since there is no chance of that occurring in the foreseeable future it makes sense to go after soft targets which were forbidden in the past. Similarly, don’t be surprised if that Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan suddenly receive huge caches of weapons along with advisers.

A few well publicized incidents will likely result in most westerners avoid travelling, let alone living, in that country. Let me remind you that most people in Iraq and Afghanistan already hate white americans. And ya.. it works. Just ask Israelis why they had to withdraw from Lebanon by 2000. Another long story short, it was just too expensive and too hard to operate without suffering serious casualties- even for its armed forces. Now imagine what Iran can do in its neighboring countries and half a world away from USA. And don’t worry, countries such as Russia and China will be more than happy to supplement the efforts of Iran in those countries. If you thought that the previous failed occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were unmitigated disasters, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Then again, that is the logical endpoint of american policy.

In the next part, I will focus on how the orange buffoon’s desire to satisfy Saudi Arabia and Israel, in addition to looking “tough” during the 2020 election campaign, are going to backfire on him. Then again, cannot think of somebody who deserves it more.. except perhaps all those establishment democrats who are as desperate to enter into a new war in that part of the world.

What do you think? comments?

Very Quick Thoughts on Trump’s Latest Idiotic Move in the Middle-East

January 2, 2020 10 comments

Trump is finally on his way to becoming the most disastrous president in contemporary american history. In case you are wondering, until yesterday Trump hadn’t done the one thing which would make him a bigger fuckup than Bush43 aka starting a new war in the Middle-East. It seems that he has crossed that barrier, in a manner that basically guarantees that outcome. I, for one, am happy that Trump has chosen his true destiny- as the dummy who presides over the implosion of a slowly dying empire. While I have much more to say on this topic, here a few older posts to tide you over till tomorrow. Also, things could change a lot between now and tomorrow.

Some Thoughts on How a War Between Iran and ‘USA’ Might Unfold

The ideal situation, as far as Iran is concerned, is for USA to attack it without significant preparation (troops on ground) and not expect a serious response. But once they do attack Iran, expect it to systematically target and destroy Saudi and UAE ports, oil storage installations, pipelines, desalination plants, brine-pumping plants etc. Iran wants to cause enough damage to shut down the oil output of those countries for at least a few months. And they have enough cruise and ballistic missiles with the requisite range and accuracy to pull that off.

It goes without saying that such a large-scale but unconventional attack across neighboring countries would cause mass panic and result in the abrupt departure of many ruling families- in addition to yet another refugee crisis. The perceived inability of USA to protect the interests of their local stooges will further damage whatever residual credibility it still has in that region. To summarize, given available options and capabilities, Iran is likely to rapidly exacerbate war with USA, by going after its oil-producing client states in that region.

On the Inevitability of Iran Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Within 5 Years

The thing is.. one faction in the Iranian government was extra-greedy and thought it could make tons of money by using the nuclear program as a bargaining chip. And that was the case- at least in the short run. Of course, they did not anticipate a weak, greedy and stupid man such as Trump to be elected in 2016. And mark my words, Trump will be the reason why Iran finally ends up developing, testing and deploying nukes. The orange buffoon with a Zionist son-in-law and Bush43 administration rejects such as Pompeo and Bolton, thought that he could do what Bush43 also thought he could but failed miserably.

DPRK, under KJU, has demonstrated the inexorable impotence of the dying west. He has also shown that negotiating from a position of open and obvious strength is the only realistic way to deal with the senile west and its delusions of past grandeur. Until 2016, Iran had (for reasons largely linked to monetary gains) played by the decrepit West’s rules- which did not ultimately get them what they wanted. Now their leaders can no longer pretend it was a good deal. Regardless of whether there is any military action against Iran in near future, it is now almost inevitable that Iran will develop, test and deploy nukes within next five years.

2019 and 2020 Will be Much Bigger Shitshows than 2015 and 2016

Let us start by talking about Iran or more precisely how his stupid policy towards that country has the potential to backfire in a spectacularly disastrous manner. It is no secret that idiots such as Pompeo and Bolton, urged on by Zionists and Saudis, are trying to start a war. What they don’t understand, or are willing to understand, is that any war with Iran in addition being unwinnable would make the Iraq misadventure look like quaint in comparison. The outcome of such a war would include Iran finally developing nuclear weapons (perhaps with Chinese assistance), prolonged and massive oil shortages with resultant price hikes and many other bad long-term effects (on USA).

Moving on.. Kim Jon-un has repeatedly conveyed to USA that unless economic sanctions are at least partially removed by end of 2019, he will restart testing ICBMs. My guess is that DPRK will demonstrate an entirely solid-fueled ICBM in early 2020, unless Trump and the idiots running “foreign policy” in USA openly abandon the idea of DPRK giving up its nukes and ICBMS- because the later ain’t going to happen. Which means that sometime in 2020, Trump will have to decide on how to respond to new ICBM and perhaps even nuclear tests by DPRK. To make matters even more interesting, this escalation will likely occur around the same time as Iran is likely to finally leave the JCPOA and restart its uranium enrichment program at maximum capacity.

There are Two Pathways for Trump’s Presidency to Implode in Real-Life

Let us, now, talk about the consequences of new wars. As many of you know, Saudi Barbaria and that Zionist state want Uncle Sam to fight full-scale wars against Iran and Syria. Of course, they don’t care about consequences and outcomes of such wars or the monetary costs of these misadventures- or maybe, they have not thought through these issues carefully. Regardless, both potential conflicts are highly problematic- albeit for different reasons. Iran is far larger, much more united and way more populous than Iraq. Imagine invading a country that makes most of its own weapons, is about 1/5 th the size of USA and about 1/4 th the population. Did I mention that they fought a pretty long war with heavy casualties for eight years?

But.. but.. wouldn’t “superior” american airpower decimate their air-force or something like that? Well.. have a look at the location of that country and the major route for global oil transport. Do you really think that USA can keep the strait of Hormuz open- even if they had three aircraft carrier groups stationed next to that bottleneck? Did I mention they have tons of good anti-ship missiles, not to mention other means of disrupting oil transport directly. Then there is the issue of what their less-official forces might do with missiles to oil storage hubs on coast of Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries. Remember that they do not have to be especially effective to disrupt global flow of oil and send prices through the roof. Who wants to pay 300-400$ per barrel of oil?

What do you think? Comments?

Why Nixon Was Almost Impeached and Had to Resign the Presidency

January 1, 2020 2 comments

In early 2013, I wrote a post on why Nixon was still the most reviled president in recent american history. Since that time (especially post Nov 8, 2016) things have.. changed. While establishment democrats have been busy trying to sell the bullshit farce of Trump’s impeachment via a totally partisan vote in the house, I thought it would be a good time to return to topic of impeachment- specifically focusing on the last president who resigned rather than face impeachment. As many of you know, dying corporate media figureheads have been futilely masturbating at the possibility of Trump resigning or being removed from office ever since he won the election in 2016. So let us talk about why Nixon resigned rather than face removal through impeachment and why the later possibility was realistic in the early 1970s, but is laughably improbable in 2020.

1] The 1970s and 1980s were the last decades when the electorate and politicians in this country were not ideologically polarized. It is noteworthy that 1973 was immediately after the last great political realignment of 1968-1972, which was caused by passage of civil right and other similar legislation and resulted in a realignment of the political fortunes for both major parties. After that realignment, democrats started winning in traditionally republican constituencies and regions while republicans started winning in democratic strongholds in the south. But more relevantly, the reasonably good economic times (or at least their recent memory) along with the relatively minor differences in public positions of both parties in combination with lots of deal making in smokey rooms made something like bipartisan impeachment of the president a real possibility.

2] While Nixon won the 1972 presidential election by a large margin, he was never personally a popular president with a loyal base. To make matters worse, he had stepped on the toes of many fellow republicans during his rise to power. While politicians as a group are not known for loyalty to their colleagues, having a long history of pissing of your fellow partisans makes such decisions that much easier. Nixon had, over the eight years of his vice-presidency under Eisenhower and first term as president, amply demonstrated his tendency to be untrustworthy to his own party members as well as hog the limelight. Read a bit about the machinations which got him selected as republican candidate in 1962 and 1968. It is no wonder that so many of his own party members were, at at best, ambivalent in their support for him.

3] Nixon was unlucky to be elected at a transitional period in american history. His victory in 1968 came in an era of much racial and social conflict, not to mention all those “mysterious” political assassinations. He was also unfortunate to come to power at the same time as formerly popular but now exposed assholes such as Curtis LeMay, J. Edgar Hoover, Robert Moses etc had started to lose their positions of authority and power. In other words, the public was increasingly associating men of his type and generation with abuse of power and general malfeasance- sorta being like catholic priests in the past decade. While this, by itself, would have not been deadly to his political career – it occurred alongside many large failures over which he ended up presiding.

4] Nixon was also unlucky enough to be the president when USA had to finally withdraw from erstwhile south Vietnam. As I have mentioned in some previous posts, USA has not won a single large armed conflict since WW2. However their previous defeats such as an inability to win the Korean war had been sold to the american public as stalemates. The defeat in Vietnam was however simply too obvious to spin and though Nixon did not initiate the american involvement in that conflict, he was the president when the maximum number of american soldiers died in that war. Leaks about the “secret” mass bombings of Laos and Cambodia did not help his public image either, not because the racist white american public cared about innocent Asian lives but because the expenditure of all that money, white lives and bombs did not prevent their defeat in Vietnam.

5] Nixon was also unlucky be president towards the end of three decades of post-WW2 prosperity enjoyed by americans. He was the president when Stagflation became a thing and his attempts price control measures did not work as intended. the USA also looked impotent in the aftermath of the oil shock of the early-1970s. The achievements and optimism of the 1950s and 1960s had given way to defeatism and pessimism of the 1970s. Nixon became increasingly associated in the minds of the public and politicians with a country that was past its prime and on a path of decline. We also cannot forget the numerous investigations into illegal activities by governmental agencies such as the Church Committee were started after leaks such as the Pentagon Papers and other similar revelations which permanently damaged the public image of many american government agencies and institutions. Much of this occurred while Nixon was president.

To make a long story short, the impeachment of Nixon had nothing to do with “maintaining the rule of law” or any other moralistic-sounding bullshit. It, however, had everything to do with an attempt to rebrand the american government and institutions by forcing out an already disliked president who just happened to be the public face of many failures suffered by the american establishment in the late-1960s and early-1970s. They just wanted to replace an old mascot of declining popularity with another one who appeared better on TV and did not instantly remind americans of the numerous recent failures suffered by their elites and institutions. After Nixon resigned, being able to maintain a positive public image became the defining attribute of any president. And that is why establishment media and their willing catamites still obsess about the image of politicians rather than their actions and impact of their decisions.

What do you think? Comments?

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

December 23, 2019 22 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 38 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?

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 16 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 43 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Comments?

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?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 4

September 20, 2019 14 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how politicians who dutifully recite their allegedly traditional beliefs and pieties can no longer compete with those willing to push beyond previous boundaries of what was considered “routine”, “polite” or “acceptable”. We have reached this point because, over the past four decades, living standards for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or deteriorated. The majority, therefore, no longer feel that a better future is possible. This is why the stale and canned pseudo-populist antics of people such as Reagan40, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 and their ilk are no longer sufficient to win elections. Now, we will go into why the current democrat party obsession with “gun control”, “LGTBTQ issues” and other supposedly “woke issues” fashionable with the incestuous and effete “elite” of modern day america.

A couple of years ago, I first wrote about how “wokeness” is largely driven by neoliberals trying to show that they are morally superior to the rest. Since then, we have seen a concerted push by the effete managerial class and every politician who wants to pretend that they too are somehow morally superior to push “solutions” for problems which do not exist. Even worse, in almost all cases their “solutions” either make things worse, cause public backlash and provide ammunition to their equally despicable opponents in the so-called ‘culture wars’. There is a reason why almost everyone in this country, other than those who live in a few exclusive zip codes, see ideas such a “plastic straw ban” or unrealistic fuel consumption guidelines for cars as bad and stupid. And in case you are wondering, the recent proliferation of crossovers in USA has a lot to do with how such automobiles are classified for the purpose of fuel economy standards.

So what does any of this have to with the promotion of electorally disastrous issues such as “gun control”, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism by the democratic party? Well.. a lot. But before we go there, let me clear about a couple of things. While republicans screw their voter-base as much as democrats, they do so without insulting them like the later. Secondly, seemingly unconnected issues promoted by many democrats such as “gun control, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism are closely related, but not for the reasons most of you might have guessed. This is not to say that virtue display has no role in the promotion of such bullshit policies. But while virtue display can explain behaviors such as adopting non-white children, being vegetarian or vegan, driving a Prius and donating to certain charities, it cannot explain the deep obsession of core democrat constituencies with issues such as “gun control” and promotion of LGBTQ.

But what is the difference between adopting a non-white child or going vegetarian and pushing for “gun control” and promoting LGBTQ. Well.. it comes down to doing something yourself versus trying to manipulate of force others to do things your way. For example, almost nobody who has adopted an African child or driven a Prius is forcing you to do the same. But those who allegedly believe in “gun control” and “gender fluidity” want to take away the guns of other people and castrate their children, all in the name of “social progress”. Most of the enduring, and unpopular, hobbyhorses of the democratic party center around top-down control of the lives and behaviors of those “other” people. That is right.. most issues animating the core white constituency of democratic party are about credentialed types and managers trying to control other people.

But to what end? And why are establishment democrats so tone deaf to the unpopularity of their hobby horses. Sure.. focusing on such cultural issues also allows them to ignore real issues such as the desperate need for affordable healthcare, post-secondary education, housing stock etc. Having said that, it mostly comes down to the need to exert power (for its own sake) over other people, not unlike what is presented in George Orwell’s’ 1984. Promoting issues such as “gun control”, “gender fluidity” and environmentalism is about using the framework of a traditional religion to push for its secular equivalent. Did I mention that all religions are about making other people go along with lies and bullshit fairytales to further your control over them.

Religions have another feature that is relevant to this discussion. All the “truths” and “causes” espoused by any given religion cannot be disproved or questioned. This is why establishment democrats who cannot tell the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire rifle will never change their mind on that subject. It was never about “facts”, “truth” or anything approaching reality. Belief in the righteousness of “gun control” is part of the gospel of coastal american liberalism. Similarly, belief in the validity of “wokeness”, “gender fluidity” and other similar new sacraments of american liberalism has nothing to do with acting in the best interest of other people or children. Do you really think they care if tens of thousands of gender-atypical children get wrongfully castrated and suffer permanent psychological damage because of their beliefs?

Some of you might remember that I recently posted a series about how belief in anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalyptism. In it, I also made the case that the belief in man-made climate change has massive parallels to Catholicism. The part relevant to this post is who benefited from religions such as Catholicism. To make a long story short, the only groups and institutions who really benefit from Catholicism (or any other religion) are the clergy, church, contemporary ruling elites and their stooges. Everyone else suffers necessary deprivation and immiseration. But this, you see, is a central feature of all organized religions- not a bug.

Since we are at almost 1000 words, I will wrap up this post. In the next part, I will go into why support for these liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. Yes.. I am aware that it was supposed to be in this part.

What do you think? Comments?