Sunday, February 25, 2018

Hillary, the Normies, the Alt Right and Groucho Marx

Trump knows that, when in doubt, pillory Hillary:
"A lot of bad things happened on the other side, not on this side, but on the other side. And somebody should look into it, because what they did is really fraudulent and somebody should be looking into that and by somebody, I'm talking about you know who," Trump told Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, a reference widely interpreted to mean Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Trump's Russian pals hacked all sorts of Democratic emails. The FBI recovered most of the 30,000 emails which Trump still says went missing. So where was the evidence of these evil deeds?

Everyone knows that if any member of the 2016 Democratic campaign were to come forward with some tale of malfeasance on Hillary's part, the right-wing media would toss millions of dollars at that person. Everyone knows that the Justice Department and the intel community are headed by Trump appointees. Everyone knows that the right has been playing the "pillory Hillary" game since 1992. Everyone (except, it appears, Benjamin Wittes) knows that Ken Starr headed a lavishly-funded witch hunt which tossed the innocent into prison on bullshit charges to force them to tell lies about the Clintons.

And yet there is no evidence that Hillary has ever done anything wrong.

If Hillary Clinton did not exist, the right would have to invent her. She is Emmanuel Goldstein. When she dies, many on the right will probably believe that she still lives, just as First Century Christians spread the rumor of Nero's survival.

Kill All Normies. I have somewhat mixed feelings about Angela Nagle, since she seems uncomfortably close to the despicable Bernie-ites. I refuse to hide my contempt for anyone who doesn't yet understand that Bernie Sanders was a witting (and probably blackmailed) party to the conspiracy to elect Trump.

Nevertheless, her work is important. At first, I was going to direct you to one of her many podcast interviews, but something about Nagle encourages her hosts to develop "interruptitis." Nagle is a brilliant speaker who unintentionally challenges her interviewers to try to outshine her. I wish that more podcasters would simply allow the woman to speak.

One of her primary insights is that annoying progressives bear much blame for creating the right. This dynamic has been visible since the late 1970s, when holier-than-thou progressives did their level best to transform working class voters -- people who had benefited from the New Deal -- into Reagan voters. Since that time, the left has obstinately continued its crusade to alienate as many as possible.

Time to face a simple truth: Identity politics is repellent. Identity politics is a loser. Identity politics always insures the victory of the right.

If you go to a white male worker who has lost has job, who feels depressed and angry because he's poor and can't get laid, whose life is in every measure worse than his grandfather's life, you are not going to win him over by telling him that his white skin means that he was born evil. You will not appeal to him by telling him to bend the knee before his gay black female handicapped moral superiors.

That is not the way to keep rural Wisconsinites from voting Trump.

Neither will you win them over by banding behind someone like Bernie Sanders, who is on video at a rally with people shouting anti-American slogans, and whose ties to outright Marxism will be exposed the moment he wins the Democratic nomination in 2020.

(Which he will. That outcome will be the greatest triumph of Roger Stone and Vladimir Putin. Watch it happen.)

Unfortunately, most progressives are so wedded to their resentments -- so wedded to their blind hatred of white males (or perhaps hatred of all males) -- that they would rather live under fascism than give up on identity politics.

I predicted a Trump victory in 2016, even when everyone thought that Hillary had the thing locked up. I now predict that the Republicans will not lose either House of Congress in 2018; they may even gain seats. I also predict a Trump victory over Bernie Sanders in 2020.

Libertarianism, socialism and fascism. When you watch the documentary based on Nagle's book, pay special attention to the brief segment in which a fascist libertarian discusses the need to reach out to the Sanders voters. The libertarian even admits that the movement will have to include some elements of socialism. This contradiction may become a source of tension within modern fascism, although I'm quite sure that the Ayn Randroids will lose that fight.

Many have noted that we would have had Medicare For All in this country a long time ago if we lived in a racially homogeneous culture like Sweden's. In America, most white working people -- even the ones with black friends, even the ones who voted for Obama -- would literally rather die than see their tax dollars go toward paying for a black person's health care. They won't admit (even to themselves) that they feel this way, but that's how they feel. The followers of Richard Spencer instinctively understand that an ethnically-cleansed America will suddenly become safe for various measures which the libertarians would denounce as socialism. Until that time, libertarianism serves as the "go to" economic ideology of the right.

The politics of transgression. In her interviews, Nagle has noted that the Alt Right's appeal is founded, in large measure, on transgression. I understand this appeal. Though my beard has many gray hairs, I can recall my teens and twenties quite vividly. Young males test boundaries and explore the extremes. Always have done; always will do. If the internet had been around back then, I'd probably have felt far more attracted to 4chan (cesspool that it is) than to wherever-it-is that the SJWs call home.

Once again, we see how the failure of the left created the neo-Nazi right. Young men need to go through a transgressive phase, an outlaw period, a time of pretending to be Billy the Kid. They need this every bit as much as they need to get laid.

The left said: No. You may not act in any way we consider un-virtuous. And no sex for you, either. You want to fuck a young woman with a pretty face and large breasts? You're EVIL!

Lefties keep saying these these things in part because they are "on a power trip" (as we used to say back in the '70s), and in part because they are as psychologically screwed up as anyone else.

Then they wonder why this message isn't attractive. And they wonder how someone like Trump could possibly get elected. They probably wonder why anyone would say that the crusade to ban porn will hurt the left politically.

Paradoxically, the left helped give birth to the Alt Right by deifying the very concept of transgression. The left embraced transgression when 19th century Parisian rebels erected the first street barricade.

This isn't the place to talk about art, which lefties arrogantly consider "their" realm. I'll simply say this: Art died when transgression replaced transcendence as the ultimate virtue. 

The rise of the Third Reich should have taught us that the right are the supreme masters of transgression. What can be more transgressive than advocating the abolition of democracy? What can be more transgressive than ramming your car into a crowd of people? What can be more transgressive than calling someone "Nigger"? What can be more transgressive than adopting the motto Viva la muerte? What can be more transgressive than thumbing one's nose at science? What can be more transgressive than bending reality itself to fit the dictates of one's Will?

The young will always feel the lure of transgression. Such is their right. Yet the love of transgression-for-its-own-sake leads to catastrophe. We need to comprehend this paradox.

For more than thirty years, I've felt that the last scene of the Marx Brothers film Duck Soup offers a useful metaphor for the relationship between politics and transgression. If you haven't seen it, here's the gist (which I hope I correctly recall): Freedonia wins the war. The Marx Brothers celebrate by tossing pastry in the general direction of the enemy. Margaret Dumont -- the personification of capital-T Tradition -- begins to sing the national anthem. Immediately, the Marxes start tossing pastry at her. Fade out.

Young males will always want to be Groucho. Even after Groucho himself has completely faded from cultural memory (he's largely forgotten now, alas), young people will always side with the forces of gleeful anarchy, which Groucho represented.

In the 1960s and early '70s, anti-war activists like Paul Krassner idolized Groucho. The early films of the Marx brothers were probably more popular at that time than they were on first release.

But in the decades since, progressives turned into Margaret Dumont. I need not cite examples to prove the point; the Dumontization of the left should be apparent to all. Dumontization inevitably leads to demonization.

Trump won because Trump is Groucho -- a big, stupid, vulgar, reactionary, narcissistic, hate-filled version of Groucho.

Folks, we're not going to win unless we find some way to step out of the Margaret Dumont position. Grab a cigar, don a greasepaint mustache, and start tossing pastry.
Everyone knows that if any member of the 2016 Democratic campaign were to come forward with some tale of malfeasance on Hillary's part, the right-wing media would toss millions of dollars at that person.

Exactly, Joseph. And so far that person...has never appeared, because said person simply does not exist.

Of course, none of this will penetrate the thick skulls of those like HA-HA Goodman, who insists that Hillary is the true target of Mueller and that she will be indicted and locked up...for something, a set of charges Goodman is ready to pull out of his ass and feed to the suckers who follow him (the same can be said about such charlatans like Jimmy Dore).
A more recent version of Duck Soup would be Animal House. The creativity of youth dies in Middle Age look at Billy Joel his talent faded and he started drinking. I can't remember the title but one of the villains was Diana Moon Gompers charged with ensuring all were physically and mentally equal. When did it morph from Equal Opportunity to winning the birth lottery is evil. Not to be confused with White Supremacists.
Everyone knows that if any member of the 2016 Democratic campaign were to come forward with some tale of malfeasance on Hillary's part, the right-wing media would toss millions of dollars at that person...Toe sucker Dick Morris comes to mind.
I will skip Nagel's book. I saw the Amazon except, and I was NOT impressed with the way she makes shit up. Her attitude about second-wave feminists proves she doesn't know shit what she is talking about. She is completely and totally off-base about "men's rights" and its origins. I doubt she was even alive then, yet she pretends like she is some kind of authority when she isn't. She is Irish, so she really has no business even talking about anything remotely close to the American alt.right. Her book sounds like total junk.
I consider the use of the "n" word the same as giving away the end of a movie, please warn me first so I can decide whether or not I want to read the word.

I did an "N" word search for your site and without actually seeing who wrote the "n" word, it did come up in 15 different articles or in the comments section. Not that much when compared to the thousands of articles this sit has, but still, it's about 15 times too many in my opinion. I don't need to read the "n" word if I am also not allowed to say it in public, why is that so difficult for writers to understand?
Obviously Hillary Clinton is Snowball from Animal Farm. Still not sure why no one has yet to sue the Mainstream media for hardly ever using disclaimers after one of Trump's lying, slanderous, opinionated claims that he bellows as if it is fact.
"The left said (...)(')You want to fuck a young woman with a pretty face and large breasts? You're EVIL!(')"

I'd like to agree with this, but George Soros gave me a limpy.
"(M)ost white working people -- even the ones with black friends, even the ones who voted for Obama -- would literally rather die than see their tax dollars go toward paying for a black person's health care."

I was appalled to read this. Questions arise:

* could this explain why the US, compared to other "advanced" western countries, has a state health insurance system that is such crap?

* surely the attitude prevalent among working class whites is prevalent among middle class whites too?

* could this also explain why so many among the humane section of the middle class whites in the US have bought into the "identity" bullshit - as some kind of compensation for not addressing the underlying problem, which may boil down to a) there's unfinished business from the civil war and b) Big Pharma? (Whatever it boils down to, it's not the absence of equal opportunity.)

* what about Hispanics?

In other news, as the apocalypse approaches, Big Pharma is on the march in

* Britain (US companies looking to grab parts of the NHS after Brexit)

* France (Emmanuel Macron an asset of Big Pharma - the president whose "president's party", named after himself, whooshed its way to a majority in the national assembly soon after being formed)

* Germany (the CDU's Jens Spahn, who may well become chancellor, is another asset of Big Pharma, and the big issue that was swept under the carpet in almost all media coverage of the CDU-CSU-SPD coalition agreement [+] was the CDU's plan to privatise a lot of the state health insurance system in the country)

(+) It may still get scuppered. NoGroko!
Yes to most of your observations about healthcare in the US.
I came across the view expressed by a white middle class ex-ultraleftist British guy who has lived in the US for a long time that the reason for the huge growth in debt that caused many big banks to seem as though they were on the edge of insolvency after the Lehmans crash was that "political correctness" had caused overlending to working class black people. It took me aback to read such a completely idiotic idea asserted by a person who some of the time appears reasonably sane. Moneylenders play their part in manipulating ideology (debt is heavily marketed), but as for finding themselves in deep water because they themselves are influenced by it, nope - that's not how moneylending or ideology work.

Is that crazy view widespread in the US? It sounds as though "breathing while black" is considered by some to be a crime against how things should be.

The difficulty in the left appropriating the slogan "All lives matter" shows the extent of the problem maybe?
b, back in 2008 and 2009, if you tried to google the phrases "recession caused by" or "financial collapsed caused by", the first autocompletions were always "too much regulation." Not "Too little." It was "too much."

People really believed this. Many still do.

When you clicked on the various links, you found out that what they were talking about were Clinton-era efforts to outlaw redlining. These were interpreted as FORCING banks to lend to undeserving black people.

Of course, this was a completely absurd view of what really happened. Nothing in Clinton-era legislation allowed making loans to people who could not pay. In 2001-2007, the banks gave "liar loans" to anyone who could breathe. And then they took the loans and used them for credit default swaps and other weird instruments of financial chicanery.

So the country unfairly blamed Bill Clinton for being too lenient with black people, even though he was by far the best friend black people ever had in the White House (including Obama). Of course, when Hillary ran for President, Clinton was -- as you will recall -- accused of HATING black people.

Anti-Clintonism has driven this country mad.
Anti-Clintonism has driven this country mad.

Actually, Joseph, I think that's not being forceful enough--I think the words "fucking insane" fit better.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?