Skip to content

Faking the news

If only but the thought is nice

arrested-rioters

Via Instapundit

The Swedish model

One day the media will actually hit on a genuine scandal and we will never hear the end of it. They are trying as best they can and have gone through Russia hacked the election, then Mike Flynn, and now yesterday’s non-terrorist non-horror in Sweden. So far, not only have they come up with nothing they have tended to harden the Trump side of the political divide. The Swedish example is an interesting one since it is impossible not to know the problems its immigration and refugee programs have caused. But a loose word and the jackals of the press are there in pack numbers.

There is then this, going back to Mike Flynn which has led to this article, President Trump Has Been Far Too Nice To The Mainstream Media, in this instance in relation to the electronic eavesdropping on Trump’s National Security Advisor prior to his appointment.

Here’s the real story – the intelligence community under the Obama administration was obviously eavesdropping on Trump’s campaign in violation of practically every law ever written. Whether it was direct tapping of phones and emails, or illegally accessing the communications swooped up by the NSA in its nets, it’s clear that Obama’s people were spying on Obama’s political opponents. The transcript excerpts of Flynn’s phone call with the Russian diplomat leaked because it could be played off as targeting the Russian, though this was still an outrageous disclosure of American spying capabilities. What these criminals can’t do is release the communications between Americans that they possess because doing that confirms what we all know – that Obama’s people spied on his political opponents like his IRS persecuted them. The only question really is what did Obama know, and when did he know it – interestingly, on his way out the door, Obama made it easy to hide the source of the leaks by opening up access to the information across a bunch of agencies. There’s your story, a scandal that makes Watergate seem microscopic, and the mainstream media will not touch it because it would destroy the media’s political allies.

That is true, and everyone understands it perfectly well, but where are the media hounds when we have a story bigger than Watergate?

The true measure of each story’s significance is that the media – meaning the left – still get to decide what is and what is not news, what is and what is not a scandal, and it is still able to enforce what it decides on our daily conversations. And while the left never relents and never appears to learn, the right has its traitors who would do anything for a favourable mention on the news tonight.

A Student of Military History Who Sees Similarities in All Wars

This is number five in an article on H.R. McMaster: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know. McMaster is being nominated for National Security Advisor and as the article notes, is a student of military history. Economists, on the other hand, think history is bunk, which explains a lot about what’s wrong with economics. This, for me, is quite reassuring.

In a 2012 interview with McKinsey & Company, McMaster said that his interest in military history has been an influence on his career. Even though part of his current job is about looking to the future, there are factors of war that never change.

McMaster said in 2012 that one of the failures of the Iraq and Afghanistan policies was planning for “a sustainable political outcome that would be consistent with our vital interests, and it complicated both of those wars.”

He also noted that war is “an inherently human endeavor,” and that no matter how technologically advanced the U.S. is, there is still a human factor.

“We assumed that advances in information, surveillance technology, technical-intelligence collection, automated decision-making tools, and so on were going to make war fast, cheap, efficient, and relatively risk free—that technology would lift the fog of war and make warfare essentially a targeting exercise, in which we gain visibility on enemy organizations and strike those organizations from a safe distance. But that’s not true, of course,” McMaster explained to McKinsey & Company.

During an interview with TBO.com in April 2015, McMaster stressed the importance of knowing how people act and interact when predicting the future of war.

“What we have to do is really develop the ability to think clearly about future war,” McMaster explained in 2015. “And what we have to do is identify changes in the so-called human domain and understand what is fundamentally driving conflict, which is human in nature.”

Of course, you should now read the other four as well

A paranoid fear of the known

I discussed The Diplomad’s own discussion of the madness of the left which brought forward this very insightful comment from AndrewZ:

It’s important to understand that identity politics creates paranoia.

It divides society into categories based on personal characteristics like race, gender and sexuality. It then labels some of those groups as oppressors and some as victims, and teaches that all interactions between the members of different groups must be interpreted in terms of a hierarchy of power.

It also teaches that the personal is political. This is a natural consequence of defining the political factions in society in terms of their personal characteristics. But it means that every aspect of life then has to be interpreted in political terms, and in the framework of identity politics that means that every single thing in the world must be seen as an expression of the power relationships between the oppressors and their victims.

Now imagine what it means to really internalize that worldview. For example, a woman who has come to believe that men are her oppressors will come to see all men as a threat. She will become acutely conscious of the presence of men and will feel unsafe when there are any males nearby. She will begin to believe that she is surrounded by predators who want to do her harm and who have society’s permission to do so. Every social interaction will begin to seem dangerous and loaded with hidden messages about power and privilege. Political disagreement becomes intolerable because if the personal is political there is no difference between political disagreement and a personal attack.

In other words, the logic of identity politics naturally leads to paranoid thinking, and the more seriously a person takes it the more paranoid he, she or xe will become.

This results in a demand for “safe spaces” from which the designated oppressor groups are excluded. It also leads to rage, because people who feel that they are constantly under threat will come to hate the thing that threatens them even if the threat is largely or wholly imaginary. This in turn leads to outbursts of violence and hysteria as a means of releasing the psychological pressure of living under constant siege.

Now imagine how Donald Trump would appear to someone with that mindset. He’s a rich, white, alpha male Republican. Their ideology teaches them that a man like him is the apex predator of oppression, and the paranoia that it induces will make them feel that all this terrible danger is aimed at them personally. Even if they could somehow bring Donald Trump down they would soon feel just as threatened as they did before, because they cannot let go of their own self-image as victims without admitting that the whole conceptual framework of identity politics is fundamentally wrong.

But when the personal is political, changing your opinion on anything becomes a matter of changing part of your identity and that is never easy for anybody, so don’t expect the left to calm down anytime soon.

This was followed by a second comment by Anonymous also along the same theme:

Leftism and paranoia — correlation or causation? This post argues that leftism induces a persecution complex. Perhaps. But I think it is even more insidious than that. Naturally, paranoid people will tend towards leftism because it promises — falsely — the protection of a paternalistic state. We all know how well that works. But our gloriously failing educational bureaucracy from nursery school through college now actively teaches students to become paranoid. Yes, the main function of contemporary education in America is to induce a sense of persecution in all students. This causes them to become lefties. So, I think the most critical problem is that we are now breeding generations of cry-babies who will fundamentally alter the character of the nation. To make leftism work, you must create paranoids. This is, I believe, the most important link in the correlation-causation chain.

What sort of syndrome is it to be fearful of the known and totally welcoming of the unknown even though everything you do know about this particular unknown will wreck everything about the life you are presently leading?

“A scandal that makes Watergate seem microscopic”

This is from President Trump Has Been Far Too Nice To The Mainstream Media in relation to the electronic eavesdropping on Trump’s National Security Advisor prior to his appointment.

Here’s the real story – the intelligence community under the Obama administration was obviously eavesdropping on Trump’s campaign in violation of practically every law ever written. Whether it was direct tapping of phones and emails, or illegally accessing the communications swooped up by the NSA in its nets, it’s clear that Obama’s people were spying on Obama’s political opponents. The transcript excerpts of Flynn’s phone call with the Russian diplomat leaked because it could be played off as targeting the Russian, though this was still an outrageous disclosure of American spying capabilities. What these criminals can’t do is release the communications between Americans that they possess because doing that confirms what we all know – that Obama’s people spied on his political opponents like his IRS persecuted them. The only question really is what did Obama know, and when did he know it – interestingly, on his way out the door, Obama made it easy to hide the source of the leaks by opening up access to the information across a bunch of agencies. There’s your story, a scandal that makes Watergate seem microscopic, and the mainstream media will not touch it because it would destroy the media’s political allies.

That is true, and everyone understands it perfectly well, with the true measure of the story’s significance in that the media still decides what is and what is not news and is able to enforce what it decides.

“There is a large element of mental disturbance”

Here’s the title from The Diplomad, Madness and Chaos: the Left in the Time of Trump with the stress in the article on madness. Others are certain to start picking on this, since it gets truly nerve wracking to live in an asylum, even if the inmates are no longer in charge. This is the quote that matters in which the he is Donald Trump and the them is the left:

He has, in short, exposed them as, no other word for it, crazy. Yes, crazy.

He then asks the question I have asked. My way of asking it is to wonder what will become worse by the lights of the left if Trump pursues his agenda. Here the question is put about what the left is in favour of, but you will see the point.

So they hate Trump but what are these protestors and their media enablers for?

As far as I can tell they are for children but also for killing unborn ones with no restriction, no apology, and no need for a fee. They are for LBGT and women’s “rights,” but ally themselves with Muslims who practice FGM, oppose abortion, treat women like cattle, and promote and engage in honor killings, and advocate death for LBGT people. They are for women’s rights, but want men who think they are women to use women’s washrooms. They are for free speech, but shut down anybody who disagrees with them, and, of course, ally themselves with Muslims who oppose freedom of speech and thought as part of their core dogma. They are against racism but try to stir up old racial animosities and conflicts that had long been resolved, buried, and forgotten. They are for poor working people, but oppose the tax and the regulatory structures that create jobs. They are for poor working people but favor unrestricted immigration that drives down wages, crowds out jobs, and absorbs the funds of public welfare schemes. They want free education for all, but oppose letting poor and middle class people have the right to choose their schools, unlike the rich people who do. They shout “Love Trumps Hate!” as they bash opponents with bricks and poles. They have spent decades denouncing the military, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI as oppressors of the people, but now want those agencies to sabotage an elected president. The wealthy ones denounce gun ownership and walls but live behind protective shields of men with guns and walls around their exclusive properties. Hollywood stars who made millions living in the land of make-believe denounce non-existent Trumpian “brownshirts” and bravely proclaim their resistance! They are for the environment and prove it by flying to environmental rallies in their private jets. They, well . . . you can go on with this sad litany.

And at the end he comes back to the same point that he began with:

I think when all is said and done we have to conclude that there is a large element of mental disturbance. Facts don’t matter. Logic is absent and even abhorred and shouted down. The emotion is the thing. The posturing is the thing. The slogan is the thing.

They are crazy.

They are psychotic.

And they are not just fruit loops but dangerous as well.