The Other Winners Last Tuesday

Other than the Trump campaign, and the people (should a conservative spring take hold)?

Us.  The alternative media.

We pounded the mainstream media in this election like a piece of WalMart veal.

After more than a decade of storming online to expose the national media as the serial-lying, double dealing, leftwing anarchists and activists they truly are, we have finally beaten them.

At long last our efforts to use truth to expose the media for what they truly are has resulted in these insulated, lying, cultural supremacists finding themselves so de-legitimized, so marginalized, so distrusted, disliked, and resented, that they could not do it … Summoning all of their mighty and evil powers, firing everything they had, leaving nothing on the field … they could not do it.

And the beauty of it is that the media’s targets were so precise. Everything they had was geared towards a fear-mongering hate campaign specifically designed to convince women, blacks, and Hispanics not to vote for Trump.

Moreover, the campaign was so dishonest that for 18 months we were told over and over again that the Precious Data proved poetic justice was on the way … that Trump would lose these groups by spectacular numbers.

All of those lies, all of that propaganda, and … they failed.

The “elite” media’s efforts in this past election indicates that they read the work of Dr. Albert Mehrabian – dealing with the role of media and “polling” to create a “bandwagon effect”, discouraging ones’ opponents from coming to the polls – just like I did.

18 thoughts on “The Other Winners Last Tuesday

  1. now that Hillary’s political future is “tits-up” Jesse Jackson is begging Obama to grant her a blanket pardon. Talk about a legacy! She would be the first female candidate for president pardoned for her criminal behavior. Now there’s a glass ceiling!

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/16/jesse-jackson-obama-pardon-hillary-clinton/93979554/

    point is this story will die in the Detroit Freep – if it were a Republican it would be coast to coast above the fold for a week.

  2. Speaking of MSM not getting it MPR has this sentence in their coverage of Philando Castile’s shooting:

    Despite the hundreds of times police officers shoot and kill people while on duty, it’s rare they face murder or manslaughter charges.
    This makes it sound like individual police offices kill hundreds of people in their careers – where do they teach these people to write, the Dog Gone School of Journalism?

    http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/17/charging-officers-rare-philando-castile

  3. The bright side about Jackson’s move is that the left is admitting that Clinton’s behavior indicates she could use one, no?

  4. Probably the main reason the “Alternative Media” (quotes only to signify that alternative these days is anyone not in the Democrat Party Dominated Media Culture (DPDMC). The DPDMC now includes MinnPost, CityPages, Village Voice, etc.) is doing so well is the ease with which the Alternative Media can now look back eight years ago and ask, “Why are we getting to different takes on a similar situation?”.
    Example: The other day when Trump ditched the Media Entourage to have dinner with his family in NYC, Democracy Was Threatened(TM). Eight years earlier when Obama ditched the Media Entourage to have dinner with his family in Hawaii, it was a charming story of a man who has his priorities in order, family first, business of the lone superpower second.
    It’s like the DPDMC doesn’t realize that the Alternative Media (and Emery, Swiftee & me) can easily look this stuff up. And then (get this Emery) with a few mouse clicks, copy word-for-word in context how the media reported on something years ago. We don’t have to go to the library and breakout the microfiche and wait on the lone working microfiche viewer and then pay a nickel for each copy we print.
    As noted here at SitD and elsewhere – “We Can Factcheck(TM) Your A**”

  5. I’d like to offer a remedy, as I think the largely open, largely free world we live in offers us the best chance of dealing with the challenges of the 21st century, and of bringing the greatest happiness and prosperity to the most people in the world.

    But politically, I can’t help but see the appeal of nationalism and nativism demonstrated in many countries in recent years. I see how the internet has led to the greatest proliferation of disparate truths, lies, and propaganda since Gutenberg developed the printing press. I think openness, liberalism, and freedom will be playing defense for at least the next decade or so. I hope we don’t have a depression or a big war as a result.

  6. The only war that needs to happen is the savages of ISIS and those who support them against western civilization. Id say we need to bomb them back to the stone age but seeing as they are already there and the fact that they arent fighting under a recognized flag the Geneva Conventions dont apply. Box them in, and root them out of western society. The only cure for this kind of radicalism is a bullet to the head, nothing more nothing less

  7. Emery, I certainly expect liberalism to be playing defense for the next decade or so. At least liberalism as defined by the Democrat party that depends on being able to ignore promises like keeping your doctor, cutting health care costs, and respecting the views of those in opposition (filibuster anyone?). The Democrats absolutely depended on people not being reminded of how they behaved when in the opposition to attempt to stop the GOP from doing something they didn’t like (Merrick Garland anyone?).

    As for openness, Wikileaks has done a masterful job of providing unwanted transparency for the party of the elites and well connected, and Snowden has provided a public service, too. I’d like to see more of that kind of openness in the future, or are you referring to another kind? And who more than Hillary has shown that of the two major parties only one of them is so utterly controlled by its corrupt leadership that it can control the outcome of their nominating process?

    Freedom? I’m not sure where that’s headed, but it’s not going to a worse place than it would have under Clinton. Strangely enough, I like to think that banding together to petition for government change is a good thing (Citizens United). I think that being able to defend yourself is good, so I am happy to avoid an attempt at Australian-style gun confiscation via diktat. I think that folks should be free to practice their non-violent religious conscience without interference, so I’ll be happy if bakers can deal with only the customers with whom they want to deal.

    Has the ‘net led to the proliferation of ideas? Not really, but it has allowed those of similar beliefs not approved by the traditional keepers of media guardianship to band together and become a more effective force. That the media guardians have proven to have a very different view of the proper role of the government than the bulk of the country is why the ‘net is such a good thing. Without it, the media were able to keep the majority under their control by isolating folks who had differing ideas than theirs. I, frankly, appreciate the fact that the media has been shown to be the lapdogs of freedom despising statists and crony corporatalists and is losing its ability to control the political narrative.

  8. POD: General Flynn is definitely a concern.  He co-wrote a book titled: The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies. His co-author is neocon Michael Ledeen, in which they wrote:
    “We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela.  Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamic State.”

    This is a rehashing of the “axis of evil,” and is, in reality, a bunch of incompatible and disconnected states and movements, which the authors have fashioned into an imagined global “enemy alliance.” Powell called Flynn “right wing nutty” in one of his hacked emails. That a former head of the DIA would assert an alliance that laughably includes Iran and AQ tends to support at least the “nutty” part of the remark.

    Daniel Larison at The American Conservative provides an initial, rather unhopeful prediction of the broad contours of the Trump administration’s foreign and security policy.  He concludes this way:

    “In broad strokes, a Trump foreign policy will probably be highly unilateralist, preoccupied with terrorism and Iran, and fixated mostly on the Middle East. In that sense, it won’t be as much of a radical departure as his supporters hope and his opponents fear, but it will mean continued US entanglement in unnecessary wars for the foreseeable future. Our foreign policy was already overly obsessed with both terrorism and Iran and has relied on overly militarized responses, and I don’t see a Trump administration advised by the likes of Flynn and [John] Bolton changing that anytime soon.”

  9. American liberals are not pro-freedom. They believe that one person’s freedom is paid for by the state restricting the freedom of someone else. Naturally, to a liberal, the wrong people have freedom, and that freedom needs to be transferred to members of their preferred classes.
    Hillary ran on a platform that was anti free speech, andti freedom of religion, and anti gun rights. Today’s liberals certainly oppose freedom of association.

  10. I personally think that the nativism of American Indians is galling. Also galling is native Hawaiians who believe that they should have more legal rights than non-native Hawaiians. They are a very ignorant, backward people.
    The nativistic French reaction to the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in May of 1940 was probably justifiable , given the circumstances.

  11. Old-fashioned pragmatic nationalism stokes forces (nativism, xenophobia, economic nationalism) which must be held in check by good diplomacy. It is inevitable that on a regular basis, those forces will build to the point where a collection of less-than-heroic diplomats will fail and unleash those forces leading to economic depression and/or war. In a 21st century where technology has made borders more porous and the dissemination of information easier, I would argue that the forces created by nationalism are stronger, and the ability of diplomacy to suppress them weaker. We aren’t going to see a repeat of the relatively peaceful 100 years between 1815 and 1914. More likely the effects of nationalism unleashed by the breakup of Yugoslavia.

  12. I think you are reaching too far, Emery. The nationalism we are seeing expressed today basically seeks to reverse two and a half decades of the globalism that became possible after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    Free trade and open immigration tips the balance between labor and capital to capital. This is not necessarily a good thing. Many, many more people live off of their labor than off of their capital.
    It is simply not true that free trade helps everyone. Even Bloomberg has taken notice of the elephant graph.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/get-ready-to-see-this-globalization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again
    The Democrats like to point out that 2016 saw a big shift in the votes of white men with no college degree to the GOP. This represents an economic class more so than a racial or education level category. White men with college degrees also tended to vote GOP over Democrat, but the margin was much smaller than white men w/o college degrees.
    A bigger issue by far than the small reaction against globalization we are seeing this year is the increased consumption of resources by industrializing nations.

  13. We aren’t going to see a repeat of the relatively peaceful 100 years between 1815 and 1914

    Huh? Going off memory, the Mexican-American War, 1848 socialist uprising, Civil War, Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, Prussia-Austria, Prussia-Denmark, Spanish-American War, Boer War, Indian wars….OK, the world wars were worse, but to call that century relatively peaceful is just to boggle the imagination.

    Regarding the elephant graph, what’s really going on there is simply that China, India, and the rest of the world afflicted by socialism and Communism (about 3/4 of the population) gradually got freed from that….so you’ve got a mix of Chinese, Indians, and others being vastly better off along with some suppression of labor wages in developed countries. I don’t think that you can responsibly spin this as globalization being a universal negative, really. I for one am pretty darned glad that people in China and India are getting more than one bowl of rice per day–people that associate the U.S. with their own betterment are less likely to wage war on us, and quite frankly there are a lot of people there.

  14. The Reformation and also the Thirty Years War, including the creation and subsequent violent oppression of various religious and political groups that went on for centuries.

    Before Gutenburg, the truth was what the feudal lord and the parish priest said. That was not democratic, but it contributed to stability. After the printing press, anybody could print anything, truthful, deceitful, hateful, or otherwise, and they certainly did. It took centuries before society developed reliable common sources for truth (generally, established wide-circulation newspapers) that allowed a return to something approaching stability in politics.

    The internet is ushering in a new era of disruption. Democratic, yes, but dangerous.

  15. Bikebubba,

    The years from Waterloo to 1914 are often called the “Pax Brittania”; the world (meaning “Europe”) was at large the most peaceful it had been. You correctly point out that there were all sorts of wars in that time – including the worst one the US ever had – but compared to what Europe had been through from the 1000s through 1814 – Crusades, Turkish incursions, conquest and reconquest of Spain, the Hundred Years War, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars), the western world was fairly tranquil. Europe’s wars were on the periphery (the Boer and Crimean wars) or territorial pissing matches (Prussa-Denmark, Austria-Italy) or rather than continental cataclysms.

  16. I agree with your 12:07, Emery, but I would add that mass communication can spread lies and propaganda as easily as it can spread the truth. The underlying cause of the Reformation (one of the big causes, anyhow), was a bourgeois that increasing in numbers, wealth, and political power. Demand for the written word created the printing press.
    One of the fascinating things about the Reformation is that it didn’t succeed everywhere. There are far more self-identified Catholics in Europe than Protestants: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-regions/#europe.

  17. And another thing!
    Before the Reformation, wars within Europe, between Christian nations, were not wars of conquest. They were dynastic wars. One nation did not go to war to displace its people and take their land. Even William the Conqueror claimed that England was his, legally, by the bequest of English King Edward the Confessor (who had died childless). Many of the Medieval dynastic wars were fought because different nations had conflicting traditions and laws concerning succession.
    In any case, there was no mass movement of ordinary Frenchmen to England after 1066, and within three and a half centuries English was once again the language of the English court. Wars of conquest could, and were, carried by pre-Reformation Christians against non-Christian nations.
    Compare this with Cromwell’s founding of the Ulster Plantation (‘plantation’ in older usage was synonymous with ‘colony’).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.