Why The Left’s Analysis of Donald Trump is Wrong and What Makes Him So Popular

The Left has basically made the same assessment of Donald Trump across all or most of its outlets.  They believe Donald Trump is some sort of racist Nazi with diabolic plans to harness the white, American, middle class in order to win the election by tapping into ignorant economic fears they have.  I have heard it over and over again but this is seriously just wrong.  I will explain why I believe Donald Trump is popular in a post Barack Obama presidency.

It is very simple why Donald Trump is popular.  They say Trump is trying to manipulate white voters, but Barack Obama, and to a much lesser extent, his predecessors, have actually been trying to manipulate minorities of all sorts.  This isn’t about the white middle classes’ fears, Donald Trump is push-back against prior propaganda.

What has actually happened is Barack Obama has harnessed racial hatred against white middle classes, a prejudice that has been a part of him his entire life.  His father was an anti-British loudmouth of sorts, his white parents and grandparents taught him that white people are essentially problematic.  So here is a list of incidents in which Barack Obama subtly manipulated minorities by stoking flames of hatred, in order to refresh your memories.

  1. In his first year he waded into a silly issue between a white police officer and a black pseudo-intellectual in what became known as beergate.
  2. in 2012, Obama encouraged Latino Americans to vote in order to punish their enemies.
  3. His attorney general refused to prosecute a case of racial voter discrimination on behalf of some Black Panthers, a racist gang.
  4. Barack Obama spoke out against a “white latino” shooting Trayvon Martin in self defense.
  5. Barack Obama has defended Black Lives Matter, a racist group that attempts to injure white America wherever possible.
  6. Barack Obama has attempted to break up good suburbs of predominantly white ethnicity by moving minorities into them.
  7. Barack Obama has invited Jay-Z to the white house on numerous occasions.  Jay-Z has a history of supporting Black Lives Matter, and his wife recently made a song with Black Power motifs.
  8. Barack Obama has halted deportation of illegal, Mexican immigrants.
  9. Barack Obama’s attorney Eric Holder held his own, special, rare, second autopsy of Michael Brown in order to find something to prosecute the police officer that shot him as an act of revenge against that officer for doing his job.
  10. Barack Obama refused to walk with European leaders, or even send a representative, in solidarity against Islamic terrorism after the Charlie Hebdo shootings.  He later despatches professional hippy clown, John Kerry, to issue a most cringe-worthy hug.

So the Left has this ridiculous analysis of Donald Trump that centers around the depravity of American, white, middle class voters when in fact they are simply fed up with being fed a continual drip of faux outrage and aggression by minorities who justify it by calling everyone else racist.

This hatred of Western establishment has carried on much farther than in America.  The hateful politically correct gang has made its way into the UK.

The thing is, people are neither stupid nor blind.  They know that there is an ultra corrupt left that has not only an ax to grind against Europeans but a motive to profit from winning the votes of minorities by pandering to their own hate and fears.

The Left’s analysis is completely backward, the hate is actually moving in the exact opposite direction they say it is.  Donald Trump is simply there to put an end to it.

 

Advertisements

PC Feminists Ruin Art, True Detective is Latest Victim

Season 1 of True Detective followed the lives of two male detectives in the American South.  I thought it was a great story and I truly enjoyed watching it, some have even said it might have been the best show on TV.  I never questioned why two, white males were featured so prominently, it made perfect sense.  Men make up the majority of police officers.  Look at this Wikipedia article, it says women are usually a minority of police officers and they score much lower on physical aptitude tests.  Police work also happens to make a great story, in fact, many roles that are mostly men happen to make great stories because of the male preponderance in dangerous positions.  Soldiers, police officers, drug dealers, spies, etc.  So I don’t think gender and race should be something we question when new literature or art are made.  When someone does this, their critique ends with the assumption that whoever created the art, is simply biased, when in fact perhaps their real-life inspiration, such as detective work, happens to have more of people with a certain gender or race.  Apart from that, race and gender shouldn’t matter.  PC art is not necessarily good art.  So of course I am disappointed when it turns out season 2 of True Detective was altered.

In a criticism of the show in the New Yorker, a female writer attacked Season 1 for focusing too much on male characters and their development and not enough on female characters.  A quote:

To state the obvious: while the male detectives of True Detective are avenging women and children, and bro-bonding over “crazy pussy,” every live woman they meet is paper-thin. Wives and sluts and daughters—none with any interior life.

Sure enough, towards the middle of this article talking to the show’s creator, Nic Pizzolatto, he admits that this criticism affected him and he found himself taking it into account.  In Season 2, one of the main characters out of the detectives seen so far is a female, Ani Bezzerides, played by Rachel McAdams.

Now, I can’t say yet that this has been a bad choice for the show, although her role does seem the most out of place, as a damaged woman who apparently comes from a hippy commune past.  However, I can say that the idea that the creative process has been hijacked by a feminist credo is sickening.

Consider the following.  Let’s say you are limited to two or three main characters for a show.  There are three different ways to group these characters by gender.  1) an all male cast, 2) a mixed cast, and 3) an all female cast.  The feminist agenda demands that option 1 be excluded.  They might say they are actually being inclusive, but in fact all they can ever do or will ever do is complain about 1.  So they are actually exclusive.  As I said, men are often in more dangerous roles and that seems to be a requirement for many stories; the danger.

Ironically, artificially creating a female character will probably make that character “paper thin” and the more out of place or stretched that characters seem, the worse the show will be.  Spoiler Alert: There is a dialogue scene in episode 2 where Ani is discussing what it is like to be a female detective, where men can easily over power you with Ray Velcoro.  She carries knives in order to be able to defend herself from men who are bigger and stronger.  Not only does she state that she is mentally stronger than men because she must constantly cope with the thought of all the men around her being able to overpower her, but she claims any man who lays his hands on her will bleed out in under a minute.

So this seems like a trope to me now.  When you place a female in a male role, you must give her some sort of compensating powers such as incredible knife skills and extreme mental toughness.  It is like a glorification of the female in the male role.  So it causes a cascade of at least slightly less than likely features to be added in to a story as compensation.

Not only this but there doesn’t seem to be a demand by the PC agenda to place more females in criminal roles.  In fact, the movie Gone Girl, which I will write about in the future, was strongly disliked by feminists for featuring a female antagonist.  The demand made by the liberal critics is basically that there must be a heroine who is equally capable or more capable, in the sense of mental and physical faculties, than any male heroes that exist on the show, even if this is unrealistic.

True Detective seems to have been influenced by that message.  So far I wouldn’t say I utterly dislike the show, or even that the show has been ruined by the inclusion of a female character.  There are female detectives, whether they look like Rachel McAdams is another story, but the point is more that there is a PC feminist agenda that is forcing itself upon people in the creative process and I think we should be diligent about it.

Tim Cook’s Op-Ed on Gay Rights

There is something strange afoot.  Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple.  He writes an op-ed discussing gay rights, alleging that religious freedom and rights laws that would allow companies that choose not to serve gays for religious reasons to be allowed that right.  Presumably, if a crazed racist homophobe bigoted Christian walked in to an Apple store and went on a rant about how awful gay people are, and the geniuses there said they wouldn’t serve him, people would not object or start civil rights law suits.  But that is not the strange part, it is more that the opinion of Apple’s CEO matters.

Apple has traded its total market cap back and forth with Exxon Mobil, which for all intents and purposes, is considered the larger company over the last 10 years, but Apple may well presently and in the future be a larger company.  No one knows or cares who the CEO of Exxon Mobil is.  If he wrote about his opinions on gay marriage or any other topic, I don’t think people would notice, because his name isn’t a household name, or in the league of celebrity like Tim Cook’s name is.

I think that is strange, that some companies have celebrity CEO’s and some companies don’t, it doesn’t matter how large the company is.  Perhaps Steve Jobs aura is to blame here for this, and this may well be part of the brand that is Apple is the cult of celebrity that follows whoever the CEO is.

With the column, Tim Cook even managed to get a plug in for his own company.

Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.

Hmm, I wonder if this sort of publicity is good for business.

Stranger still is that Apple is associated with the Left.  Why would they be?  They sell electronic products, electronic products aren’t political.  In fact, if anything, the Left should hate Apple.  The Left hates Walmart, Exxon Mobil, and there was a time the Left hated Microsoft back when the anti-trust lawsuits were in the news.  The Left probably dislikes Johnson and Johnson and may or may not hate Berkshire Hathaway.  The Left likes Google and Apple.  No other electronic device company is loved by the Left.  The Left doesn’t necessarily like small business but it definitely dislikes big multinational corporations.  In fact, usually the word multinational is used as a synonym for “big and evil filled”.  Apple fits the criteria of a business the Left should hate.  Despite this, Apple is associated with the Left.

It isn’t very common that a household brand is so politically aligned.  That may just be part of the overall marketing strategy some of these companies have.  The reality may be that much of politics and choices in electronic products are actually aesthetics.  That is what makes Tim Cook’s writing stick out.  His opinions are a part of that aesthetic.  But the law isn’t supposed to be about aesthetics or emotions.  In fact, the RFRA is meant to protect people with religious sensibilities from being discriminated against should they choose to not serve people.  You could go farther than that, there are laws against discriminating against gays and while technically religious discrimination laws may protect Christians, the reality is that there is a hierarchy of groups, the higher of which are normally granted these protections and the lower are ignored.  So Tim Cook says he is opposed to discrimination but I do wonder how many of these gay rights campaigners have spoken out against discriminating against Christians.

The Myth of the Conservative United States

It is often held as a fact that in the United States, people are all very conservative.  People from both within and outside of the country say things like “Americans are all ultra-conservative religious freaks”, or “Americans have been taken over by the Tea Party”.  These sentiments are based on how Hollywood and Big Journalism portray the country, or more cynically, may just be people expressing hatred of Americans from a leftist perspective.  Americans are the biggest haters of Americans, so the American Left is largely responsible for promoting the myth.  A quick look at the statistics and a few other points and one can see the myth is false.  In fact, the United States is mostly a leftist country with a few notable exceptions that receive all the media attention.

To start with, Americans elected Barack Obama not just once but twice.  Before they elected Barack Obama, they elected a Republican who espoused “compassionate conservatism” which is a centrist idea that panders to the working class, minorities, and women.  Before George W. Bush, came a leftist Democrat Bill Clinton, and before Clinton was another President Bush, George H. W. Bush and he also ran an election and a presidency that deliberately tried to go left of Ronald Reagan.  In fact, Ronald Reagan was the last true conservative elected to the Presidential Office in America, and it has been nearly 30 years since then.

Back to Barack Obama, yes, Americans elected him and then re-elected him.  They did this by a 4 point margin.  To start, there were more self identified conservatives who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 than there were liberals who voted for Mitt Romney.  Mitt Romney himself is not even truly a conservative and was considered to be a centrist during the election, and especially during his tenure in Massachusetts as governor.  Further, all minorities voted for Barack Obama in far greater than 50% of their respective populations, blacks 93%, asians 73%. and hispanics 71%.  The only trend for religious votes was that Mormons voted for Mitt Romney in 78% and Jews for Barack Obama in 69%. Mormons are a very tiny population.  56% of Protestants voted for Mitt Romney but that is not far from a little more than half.  Even by age group, the most conservative group was 65+ and only 56% voted.  The 40-65 year age group was just barely on the side of Romney, and all younger groups were approximately 55-60% on the side of Barack Obama.  The groups that were very clearly voting Republican hardly exist, whereas the groups voting for Barack Obama have more in number and are more prominent.

The population trend by race is that the European, white population is shrinking and the Hispanic and Asians groups are growing, both solidly leftist groups.  Black people, another solidly leftist group, are growing as well.  White European Americans are the most conservative, and only slightly so, and their population is shrinking, according to New Republic.  In the future, the numbers of leftists will clearly be greater than the numbers of conservatives and this assumes you can even refer to white Americans as conservative, they aren’t really.

So what about that myth then?  Isn’t the typical American a fat, conservative racist?  According to Azelia Banks, Americans are mostly ignorant, fat, white, racist, conservatives, they are the “meat of the country”, she says it here.  It is funny that the newspaper thinks this is sophisticated and insightful commentary, but I digress.  The fat, racist, whites she speaks of don’t exist anywhere.

The year the Tea Party formed is circa 2008.  They existed in 2012 and were defeated soundly.  White people are only marginally conservative, and even among white people, it is mostly men who are conservative, and of those men, they are not nearly as conservative as other groups are liberal.

The reality is that the myth is just a straw man, or an effigy, created to burn by people that hate conservatives.  They live in cities like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago and dominate on the coasts.  They run technology companies, run as politicians, and they completely control almost every university in the country save for a few tiny evangelical Christian colleges scattered through the country.  We can safely say that 99% of universities are radically leftist, and with 75% of high school grads going to these schools, the idea that America is conservative is silly.

Why do these people hate conservatives?  For a variety of absurd reasons that at some point I would like to discuss, but the hate doled out does not fit the facts.  Even just today, the media began to accept that the false rape accusation at University of Virginia was nonsense (video).  The “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative was founded on a lie.  The left was happy to hate conservatives when these stories were in the media, fully believing, even perhaps hoping that conservatives are racists who shoot innocent, surrendered men and perpetrators en masse of sexual assault on campus.  But obviously, that isn’t the reality, sexual assault and racial violence awareness are vastly overrated, so the left just hates a caricature of conservatives they created themselves.  We shall discuss this, but for now, I will definitively say that the United States is not a conservative country.  Myth disproved.

David Axelrod Consulting for Labour Party, What it All Means.

David Axelrod has apparently been consulting for the Labour Party.  His past crowning achievement was to help elect Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency in both 2008 and 2012.  He did this by first portraying Barack Obama as the opposite of President Bush in 2008, lending assurances to every group you can imagine that they would somehow benefit from voting for him.  However, the strategy in 2012 that David Axelrod masterminded went for the jugular.  Instead of trying to unite people, the election campaign tried to convince women, all women, that Republicans were waging war on them for some reason.  They did this by telling everyone that Mitt Romney planned on banning birth control.  Saying this is roughly equivalent to saying that you should not vote for Mitt Romney because he may be considering banning eyeliner.  In other words the whole thing was, bizarre, misleading, and targeted to women.  Of course, women completely believed that these were Mitt Romney’s plans.  I suppose the outrage of it all outweighs any sort of effective thought.

So what does it mean for the Labour Party and the UK in the upcoming election of 2015?  Well, David Axelrod is a specialist in convincing one group to vote for his party to protect them from another group.  So, I expect that some sort of “war on women” propaganda will begin to appear.  As a matter of fact: David Axelrod Brings “War on Women” to Britain. You might also hear talk about inequality.  Labour will likely tell everyone that the poor are poor because rich people stole all their wealth.  They might show a fluid statistic about wealth distribution and then assure everyone that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor, because the rich apparently have nothing better to do than spend all their time ruining poor people’s lives.  In fact, SNP used similar rhetoric.

David Axelrod isn’t a man who brings honesty or genuine concern for the disadvantaged to his dealings.  His specialty is to exploit, or short-circuit people’s brains through the use of propaganda with half-truths or outright lies.  He targets groups by figuring out what fears they have or what they are susceptible to believing and then uses this to his advantage.  Politics in some ways have always been a dirty business, and in others they have become worse as people learned more about how to fear-monger.  David Axelrod is among the worst of the worst as far as tactics.  I would consider Labour to be extremely formidable as they have extremely sophisticated meme generation and fear mongering techniques now that he is on their side.  I am not sure how the other parties, particularly the Tories, will respond to this tactic.

Why Women Join ISIS Despite the Dangers

Women are joining ISIS and nobody can understand why.  They are assuming women must have been coaxed or lied to somehow because there is nothing attractive to women about ISIS.  There is an article on this site here detailing some of the cases.  In fact, the women who join are getting more media attention than any of the men.  There is also an assumption that violence is only a male thing and not a female trait.  However, I think there is another reason not being talked about.  The reason women are joining ISIS is romantic.

In order to say that women who go to join ISIS have been misled, there are some assumptions that must be in place.  These women must not watch the news or be aware of what is going on, yet they are being recruited through social media by ISIS.  ISIS broadcasts all of its violent acts by social media, so if women are able to contact ISIS through social media, they most certainly are aware of the violence ISIS perpetrates.

Another assumption in place is that women are non-violent, men are the violent ones.  So if women are joining ISIS, they must be mistaken because ISIS is violent which is a male-only thing.  This is a sexist way of thinking about things.  In fact, women are joining Hamas and being trained in order to kill Israelis and they are frequently used in suicide bombings or other attacks.  Women are aware of the violence, and women are quite capable of perpetrating it themselves.  There is no reason to suppose that because ISIS is a violent group, that women wouldn’t be attracted to it, or that they wouldn’t themselves be interested in committing violent acts.

Another assumption is that women don’t ordinarily like violent men.  This is also not true at all, in fact, many serial killers or other violent criminals receive fan letters from adoring female fans.  It is perfectly rational to suppose that women are and can be attracted to men who are murderers.

The last assumption is that women don’t want to be under Sharia law or have their western rights stripped away from them.  Despite this, 40% of Muslims in the UK have said they want to live under Sharia Law(You can search any claim I make).  This 40% is not all men, it includes women.  Women are perfectly willing to live with fewer rights than women in the West and in fact, many consider women in the West to be whores or prostitutes.

This brings us to the real reason that women are joining ISIS.  A recent study found that women are joining for similar reasons that men are, that they are looking for a thrill and excitement.  Some are joining because their husband has joined, others, I suspect just want a powerful masculine presence in their lives they can relate to.  Their dislike of Western society, and their ties to their own Muslim religion and culture have caused them to look towards their own for a hero with prominent status.  It is a violent, romantic fantasy.

ISIS strives to achieve status, it is a prestigious group to join because of its success.  That kind of status, and the allure of the young men in it, and the anti-Western ideals are appealing to young women.  These words may be very offensive to people in the West because of the belief that women are innocent, which is just absolutely not true, look to any all-women’s penitentiary for proof.  Of course, not all women want Sharia law, and not all Muslim women or men are violent.  Even non-Muslim, Western women do violent things.  But as far as the young, Muslim women who join ISIS, to say that they are unaware of what ISIS is doing but that the men who join are aware is sexist.  To say that women are not interested in violence is sexist as well.  Also, to say that Muslim women and Western women share the same beliefs is wrong.  These young women are joining because of a romantic attraction to the ISIS movement.  If you want to stop them from joining, a better plan would be to disrupt ISIS’ ability to broadcast its violence, and more importantly, put a stop to them.

Hillary Clinton Breaks the Law

Hillary Clinton has broken the law by using a private email address for official state purposes, something that is a shockingly arrogant thing to do when one is the Secretary of State.  This is indeed illegal for anyone doubting it, the article Yes, Hillary Clinton Broke the Law explains the relevant laws.  Despite this, the media and her “people” are covering for her.  So far, we have seen two different excuses given.  The first is that her emails would have been stored if she had emailed anyone else who worked for State or other US government agency because her message is chained to some other employees emails.  The second is that she is technologically challenged, and unaware of how to use email properly so she is innocent and this is all just a big mistake.  Reminiscent of her Benghazi testimony, one can hear her saying “What difference does it make”?  Needless to say, this shouldn’t be a valid excuse given repeatedly in a variety of contexts.  Both of these stories don’t hold up.

First, her excuse that if she emailed other government workers, that her emails would be stored is ridiculous.  Can you imagine if everyone in the government decided to use a private email account?  No one’s emails would be stored.  To prevent chaos, everyone should use official email accounts, that much should be obvious to a woman familiar with how government works, and a Yale Law School graduate.  Additionally, and more importantly, if she had emailed anyone or any address that was not managed by the US government, then these emails would not be stored for part of legal records keeping requirements.  Suffice to say that it is most probably the case that in all of her official state emails, not all were sent exclusively to people who had emails managed legally by the US government so that all records are stored.  She probably emailed people not working for the US government.  This excuse is a very bad one.

The second excuse is that she just didn’t know what she was doing.  You can read about it here, Hillary’s email scandal gets worse and worse.  So the facts are that she was using the domain clintonemail.com for her private emails.  Let’s think about this for a moment.  She would have to have someone buy this domain, set up an email server to respond to this domain (a non-trivial task), run the server out of her private house, set up the software on her server to run as an email server (also requires skill), and then set up software on her computers to connect to this server and read her email.  She apparently hired someone to do all this for her.  The fact that she hired someone to set up this complicated email server for her to use, and not just use the state provided email, shows evidence of a sophisticated plan.  We are told that a technologically incompetent person somehow came up with a plan to use a separate email address and have it set up at her home as opposed to just using an already provided email address.  There is no way someone who doesn’t know how to use email services mistakenly came up with this idea by chance.  The complexity of her private email’s technology is too much for anyone to think this woman had no idea what any of it was, its design would require too much thought and planning.  It appears to be designed deliberately to evade recording requirements.

I think Hillary will walk away from this just like she did from Benghazi.  Just consider the arrogance she must have to do illegal activities while being the Secretary of State and then know she can walk away from it because the media would cover for her.  This isn’t rule by law, this is mob rule by media.