Thursday, August 17, 2017

CounterPunch Needs To Get a Grip When It Comes to Caitlin Johnstone


Caitlin Johnstone is an online blogger with a journalism degree. She's mainly concerned with the Defeat-o-crats' and the MSM's attempt to gin-up conflict with Russia, and potentially start a nuclear war. She was a Bernie Sanders supporter. (Supporting from afar since she's Australian.)

She has, occasionally, advocated sharing some stories from right-wingers that are critical of the MSM. (I, for instance, loath Tucker Carlson and James O'Keefe, but when the former reduced a Democratic Hillary-bot to stuttering incoherence by asking plainly for evidence about the Trump-Putin hijacking of the USA's non-existent democracy, and the latter recorded a CNN producer admitting that "Russia-gate" was mostly bullshit that they've been ordered to obsess about, it ought to be cause for reflection.)

You see, if you're the sort of person whose priorities bounce around like a pinball: ("Eeek! ISIS is the vilest group of killers on the planet! We have to DO SOMETHING!!! "Eeek! The dictators Assad and Putin are doing something about ISIS! Innocent civilians will be killed!" "DAMN TO HELL the psychopaths creating all those Syrian refugees and causing so many of them to drown in the Mediterranean!" "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in charge of the mercenary-backed rebellion in Syria that has created all those refugees, but they're not Donald Trump therefore they're progressives and our friends!" "Eek! Trump is going to start a war with North Korea!" "Eek! Trump doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia! It's TREASON!!!") Then you'll find yourself forever doing stupid things, believing stupid things, and contradicting yourself and your values on a regular basis.

Trump has ties to the Russia mafia. That's what he's trying to hide. The DNC files were leaked not hacked.

This is the sort of stuff Caitlin Johnstone writes about it. And, for reasons known only to themselves, CounterPunch has decided that she's Public Enemy Number One. It started with a really stupid article questioning her credentials as a journalist (when she's mainly writing opinion pieces) which was written by a fucking psychologist. And it's been continuing on for weeks on end, slandering her as advocating making common cause with Nazis when she's only talking about the same sort of stuff that Glenn Greenwald writes about when he agrees with Ron or Rand Paul about rejecting interventionist foreign policies and state surveillance of private citizens.

"Eek! Did you know that both Ron and Rand Paul are RACISTS!!! Do you want to associate with such scum???"

Meanwhile, mass-murderers Obama and Clinton are your allies?

Caitlin Johnstone has probably slipped-up here and there. Sometimes I have my doubts about her. Especially her having written a book about astrology for christ's sake! But this obsession of CounterPunch to bring her down is unfortunate and makes them look like bitter, irrelevant pompous asses.


Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Canadian Racism


I've worked with at least three people in three different places who were quite vocal about how they hated Blacks. Back in the 1970's I remember an inordinate hatred of South Asians amongst some WASPY-type friends and acquaintances. (To hear them tell it, "Pakis" were the dirtiest, sleaziest people who ever existed.) Among fellow white people, French Canadians and Maritimers were derided as people. The French Canadians were lazy, cowardly whiners and spongers. Maritimers came to Ontario and stole people's jobs. (When they weren't staying at home collecting welfare that Ontario paid for via equalization payments!)

But the biggest example of the racism of Canadian society is our treatment of the First Nations.

It's the thing you do when you want what other people have but don't think you should have to pay for it. You dehumanize the people whose assets you covet and this mental trickery allows you to maintain certain delusions about yourself and your culture and etc., as you rob them.

In the good ol' US of A, ... while they very much did steal the land of the Aboriginals and slaughter and massacre them, ... it was the employment of African slaves in the millions that did the most to form the country's character and values for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. (The "Indians" are very much impoverished and abused there, but their numbers are relatively small and they're isolated in remote areas for the most part. It is the Blacks, and now, more and more, the Latinos, who have white pieces of shit like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump the most fired-up.)






The point that I'm trying to make is that Canada is mainly founded upon the theft of Indigenous lands and the subsequent attempts at (first) outright genocide (such as John A. Macdonald's deliberate starvation policies and the residential schools) and (later) slow-motion genocide (with the suicide epidemic being the most grisly feature). Conservative and Liberal governments and occasional provincial NDP governments, have all participated in this. Because the nation-building project of "Canada" is still not complete. Much of British Columbia is unceded. Treaty rights in other places still hamper wholesale "development of resources" in the North. Canada is ten times smaller than the USA. Therefore the "Aboriginal question" looms larger for us.

Yes. The marching of the white supremacist losers in the USA under their grope-n-fuhrer (the "Cheeto Benito" as the Mound of Sound is want to call him) is alarming. But don't let that distract you from the enormous tasks for anti-racists here at home.


Saturday, August 12, 2017

Humanity Is Too Stupid To Survive - Part Infinity


Further evidence that humanity is just too stupid to survive: All the people simultaneously shitting in their pants about con-man Trump's blustering buffoonery with North Korea while also saying we should have voted for Hillary Clinton.

You remember Hillary Clinton don't you? The psychopath who wanted to shoot Russian fighter-jets out of the Syrian skies?

So, please, tell me, ... if you're one of those people: What is the qualitative difference between Trump's brinkmanship with North Korea and Clinton's desired brinkmanship with Russia? How does one threaten all of humanity while the other doesn't? I plead with you; by the sweet name of Jeeziz Kee-Riced, TELL ME!!!!!

Because when I walk amongst my fellow man and hear this stuff, it sounds like stupid bullshit drivel. Contradictory, incoherent raving. Am I missing something? Is there some unseen truth and wisdom behind condemning Trump's childish trash-talking and ignoring Clinton's snarling at the leash whilst she was Obama's Secretary of State?

Or (what's more likely) is it the case that you're just a symptom of the human race's incapacity to survive past this particular stage of technological development? (Don't be too embarrassed. You've got plenty of company.)


Sunday, July 30, 2017

Optimism vs Pessimism





"I'm not a pessimist! I'm a realist!" Yeah, right. No. I'm a pessimist. I am more likely to see defeat and failure than situations warrant. In doing image searches for this post, I'm thinking that pessimists are definitely a minority. Which makes sense, since the human race would have died-out long ago if everybody was like me.

Probably related, I also have a fair degree of self-hatred. (I'm also a narcissist, but those things don't necessarily cancel each other out. Especially since my self-hatred is not all encompassing.)

Why am I writing this?

Because I think that it might go some way to explaining the difference between myself and other bloggers/political progressives/activists. And this explanation is, I think, important for larger reasons.

First of all, if everyone listened to me, or thought like me, Jeremy Corbyn would have given up and retired long ago. There'd be no peace movement whatsoever. There'd be no people spreading the news about climate change. There'd be nothing.

All you people continuing to basically ineffectually bang your heads against walls would have given up and there'd be nothing. So kudos to you all.




But here's the thing: You're so ineffectual because you blindly believe it's just all going to work out somehow. "The Democratic/Liberal Party will ONE DAY stop listening to corporate interests and put the people first! They just will!" "The NDP will ONE DAY win power and everything will go swimmingly for us!" "If we keep 'spreading the word' about anthropocentric climate change, ONE DAY our leaders will abandon the fossil-fuels industry and we will totally re-align our economic systems, and it will all work out." "If we keep having bigger and bigger rallies, ONE DAY the power imbalances in our society will reverse themselves and utopia will have arrived."

Just as there really isn't objective justification for my pessimism, there is no justification for your own blind optimism. My negative attitude isn't grounded in the facts, and neither is your positive one. We're, each of us, deluded.

That means that instead of disregarding me, you should instead realize that there's cause for concern. That maybe, while I'm a defeatist, that there are things that exist, factors that need to be accounted for, upon which my pessimism is based and which you, in your optimism, are ignoring.

Finally, with regards to my self-hatred; I think it has given me the ability to abandon unproductive beliefs and opinions. I know that I've been a complete fucking idiot in the past and it makes me cringe. But here's what you won't often see me doing. Sticking to destroyed opinions and appalling politicians and policies. I am no partisan to anything except what I see as the truth.

It doesn't surprise me when your typical right-wing clod sticks by someone like Rob Ford or stephen harper. You know; people who admired Ford's "no-nonsense," "tough on crime" social views, but forgave him for routinely smoking crack with gangsters during his drunken stupors. Or who loved harper because he enthusiastically kept us in wars and they all "supported the troops" by insisting that we keep them wherever it was they were fighting and believed in whatever it was they were supposed to be doing. But when harper betrayed and abused "the troops" when they became injured, they just let it pass in silence.

But lefties and liberals, who I generally find to be, on average, more enlightened and intelligent people, do the same thing, all the intelligence or progressive credentials and supposed empathy can't make them accept that Hillary Clinton is a mass-murderer. Barack Obama is a cynical corporate shill. (And a mass-murderer.) Or that Justin Trudeau is a brazen hypocrite. When this is pointed out to you, you go silent and wait for the uncomfortable moment to pass. When the failure of your one-day protest rallies and marches is pointed out to you, you blather some inanity or look away until I'm gone.

Because you love yourselves more than I do. You believe in your opinions with greater strength because they're YOUR opinions and you are beautiful.

I was going to type more but my right pinky hurts.


Monday, July 24, 2017

Liberal & Loving Its Last Comment

I had three comments to process. Two from Opit. One from LALI. I clicked the box above all the comments to publish them all simultaneously last night. Went to reply this morning. Only Opit's comments were there.

LALI wrote something about the Alma (?) drawings and NDP policy towards Israel-Palestine.

I don't know what the Alma drawings are.

If Niki Ashton wins the leadership, NDP policy will change for the better. If Charlie Angus wins, it'll be the same mewling, stupid, pro-Zionist Imperialism "peace-process" bullshit that it is today.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

We're Heading For a Crack-Up

The "Health Care" bill passed by the Repug troglodytes in Congress didn't really phase me. The public outcry against this abomination was so strong that i was certain that even a Repug-dominated Senate would realize its toxicity and come up with something less obviously vile and that in reconciliation, reality would produce something similar to the status-quo.

The status-quo was horrid by the way.

Obama ACA premium increases may have been more important than FBI chief Comey's election announcement late in the election that they were re-opening the Hillary private-server investigation.

But Repugs are insane and the Repug Senate has produced its own bill that is overall just as vile as the one passed by the Repugs in the House. H-u-u-g-e-l-y unpopular. It will strip millions of insurance and condemn tens of thousands to death. No question. Why would they do this?

Because, for one thing, they are drunk with power. They've got both houses of the legislature. They have the executive branch. They have the Supreme Court.  In the psychopathic game of US federal politics, they rule. But, they are forgetting that they too were rejected. When the election was in its last weeks and Trump was offending half the nation and staggering around like the ignoramus/doofus that he is, pundits everywhere were pointing out how lost and unpopular the Republicans were. Getting a renegade like Trump foisted on them as their candidate, ... polling so low everywhere. When Hillary won the election it was going to be a time for those cretins to do their best to imitate what they think the word "reflection" means.

But then Trump and gerrymandering and voter-suppression and the SCOTUS gave them power. And now they're in the driver's seat. And it's the Democrats who are supposed to be reflecting. (So far, they're doing anything but. The stinky Hillary is blaming everyone else for her world-historic failure. But here's the truth about that, based on the numbers: The white working class/deplorable vote, while noteworthy, wasn't the biggest factor in Trump's victory. Most of his votes came from the well-to-do.

And Trump lied big-time about what he'd actually do. And, again, his lies sounded far better than the dullard Hillary's neo-liberal delusions.

Why did they stay home? Because, unlike partisan zombies, they looked at the Democrats' wars, the Democrats' servility to Wall Street, the Democrats' professed love for corporate neo-liberal free trade deals, the corrupt Democratic primaries, and etc., etc., ... and decided to stay home with their opoid addictions, their lay-off and eviction notices, and to work on their suicide notes.

Here's some more evidence of the futility of expecting change from the Democratic Party; despite controlling both houses in the state legislature and occupying the Governor's chair, California Democrats have rejected a promised bill for single-payer health care by claiming it needs more "study." Betraying the voters for corporate interests yet again.

Bah. I don't feel like doing the work to finish this. Here's the rest, AZ-IZ.

It's what liberals do. They believe in capitalism. They believe in the system. 

Macron in France to create more fascists

Trudeau's privatization of infrastructure and his maintenance of the surveillance state

But Repug health care bill, will hurt so many, all but the most stupid Trump supporters will realize what happened.

The centre cannot hold? How's about the whole fucking thing cannot hold. 

Monday, July 10, 2017

Monday, June 26, 2017

"Party of One" - A Belated Review


Found a signed hardcover version of this at Value Village a month or two ago. Just finished it. I hadn't forgotten how vile and loathsome stephen harper was, but this book does an excellent job of clarifying the details that demonstrated his banal evil, shallowness and stupidity. Some random impressions:

I never clearly understood just how illegitimate and sleazy harper's attack on nuclear regulator Linda Keen was. She was just doing her job and harper stupidly attacked her thereby doing a lot of damage. His reasons, obviously, were stupid, because he is stupid. Through and through.

Which compels me to jump towards near the end of the book. The Duffy scandal. It was really too bad that Senate corruption resonated more with Canadians than did contempt of Parliament and war crimes. But it was fun to read Harris's concise summary of the scandal. Coming away from it you realize these people are all insane. Duffy, to his credit, wanted to be a Senator from Ontario, but harper told him it would be PEI and this would be fine, because he, harper the great, had decreed it would be so. Turned out harper was wrong. Whatever. Because Duffy decided all by himself, that if he could lie about living in PEI, he could lie about travel and accommodation expenses. Duffy, all on his own, decided to expense to the taxpayers for food he ate at home in Ottawa. And to this day, Duffy, Wallin, ... the whole lot of these fraudsters who were shilling for the harpercon party while pretending to represent their regions in the Senate, believe they did nothing wrong. The rules were "confusing." (No. They aren't.) They made honest mistakes. (No. The didn't.) They really are entitled to expense personal travel costs to the public dime. (No.)

But the real treat is reading how harper, the coward/bully/cad & thief, put his incompetence and stupidity on constant display when he finally found himself in a crisis he couldn't run away from. One easily disproven stupid lie after another. Each contradicting the previous stupid lie. Only harper's extreme shamelessness allowed him to stand in the House of Commons and  utter these idiocies one after the other without throwing up.

I think Harris goes too easy on Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer. Although it was nice (a little) to read that she vocally expressed her disapproval of harper's evil-asshole decision to de-fund "Sisters in Spirit." It seems to me though, that Jaffer was probably engaged in some shady business and the fact of the matter is that a guy from a "law and order/lock 'em up" political party to be driving drunk with cocaine in his car is total hypocrisy. Not enough is said about this sickening double-standard. Also, regarding her alleged meltdown at a Maritime airport, Harris relies on the word of Peter Mansbridge, who says he saw the video footage and that it was nothing remarkable. Mansbridge isn't someone whose opinion I respect.

I wish Harris wrote with more vitriol about the vile and sickening election fraud perpetrated by the harpercons in the 2011 election. And I wish he were more sceptical of everyone he wrote about. I think Sona, Prescot, harper, ... all of them, the whole damned bunch, were guilty of violations. Being scum-bags, the bigger players made Sona the fall-guy, and Sona had to balance his fury at their betrayal with his understanding that they'd really make him suffer if he lashed out. Furthermore, the bullshit inquiry into the scandal is not described for the travesty that it was. This was one of the lowest points.

The part about harper's sickening betrayal of wounded veterans is done very well. You really do get a sense of what total slime-balls, thugs, liars and hypocrites they harper government was.

There's more I could type. But I'm bored. I also planned on quoting from some stupid "conservative" fuckwads who gave the book a one-star rating on amazon and go to town on them. Instead I'll just say that these idiots are irredeemable. They fart out stuff like "Harris just doesn't like Harper so instead of facts he provides page after page of innuendo and smear."

The goddamned facts are right on the pages in front of them but they're too stupid, partisan and deluded to see them.

Edited to Add: The chapter on how harper made an international conman/felon the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (the watchdog for CSIS) and had disbarred lawyer/embezzler Bruce Carson as a senior advisor, privy to all sorts of valuable information, reminds us again how incompetent and stupid harper was. It's kind of a litmus test for intelligence and morality: If you're showing off pictures of yourself with the dregs of society such as Dick Cheney, Benny Netanyahu (or stephen harper), ... you're probably a scum-bag.



Wednesday, June 21, 2017

War in Syria: Where are the protesters?

"The United States is at war with Syria. Though few Americans wanted to face it, this has been the case implicitly since the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops, really-not-there, American troops, and it has been the case explicitly since August 3, 2015, when the Obama administration announced that it would “allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” With the U.S. Air Force—under Trump, following Obama’s declared policy—shooting down a Syrian plane in Syrian airspace, this is now undeniable.  The United States is overtly engaged in another aggression against a sovereign country that poses no conceivable, let alone actual or imminent, threat to the nation. This is an act of war."

Read the whole thing. The answer to the question about where the protests are is that, while they'll never admit it, the leaders of the "Let's mill about peacefully in pubic for an afternoon to demonstrate how we feel" crowd have realized that this "tactic" (or whatever you want to call it) simply doesn't work.

And so, they're all out of ideas. 

I have ideas. But they'd take work. And nobody's in any position to do any work.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Comparing Corbyn and Trudeau

Martin Lukacs has an editorial in The Guardian in which he says that Justin Trudeau is a counterfeit progressive. He wins accolades from the international press for his "sunny ways," which appears to be mouthing progressive rhetoric and/or lying while being very, very handsome. Corbyn, meanwhile, was written off as fringe, unelectable, unstable and charmless.

Some liberal/Liberals here in Canada have taken Corbyn's recent success and linking it to the Trudeau majority as the sign of a progressive wave. Lukacs (and I agree with him) doesn't think much of Trudeau though:

Now that Corbyn has upended the rules that govern electoral life in the west, it will help us see Trudeau in proper perspective: as a smooth-talking centrist who has put the most coiffed gloss yet on the bankrupt and besieged neoliberalism of the age.
Trudeau’s coronation as a champion of everything fair and decent, after all, has much to do with shrewd and calculated public relations. I call it the Trudeau two-step.
First, he makes a sweeping proclamation pitched abroad – a bold pledge to tackle austerity or climate change, or to ensure the rights of refugees or Indigenous peoples. The fawning international coverage bolsters his domestic credibility.
What follows next are not policies to ambitiously fulfill these pledges: it is ploys to quietly evacuate them of any meaning. The success of this maneuver – as well as its sheer cynicism – has been astonishing.
In this manner, Trudeau has basically continued, and in some cases exceeded, the economic agenda of Conservative Stephen Harper: approved mega fossil fuel projects, sought parliamentary power grabs, cut-back healthcare funding and attacked public pensions, kept up the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, undermined the prospect of universal childcare, maintained tax loopholes for the richest, and detained and deported thousands of migrants.
Out of breath? He has also broken an electoral reform promise, initiated a privatization scheme that is a massive corporate handout, left un-repealed a Tory political spy bill, launched air strikes in Iraq and Syria despite pledging a withdrawal, and inked the largest-ever weapons deal with the brutal, misogynistic Saudi Arabian regime.
Not exactly what those who voted for “real change” were expecting? Before you answer, here’s something titillating to distract and disarm you: Justin and Barack Obama rekindling their progressive bromance at an uber-cool Montreal diner. Jeremy Corbyn has shown us the meaning of a politics of genuine hope: what Trudeau has deployed has only ever been a politics of hype.
Trudeau’s latest progressive posturing is over foreign policy. Last week his government announced, to wide-spread acclaim, a brave course for their military that is independent of the reviled US administration. Except they will boost wasteful military spending by more than $60bn, a shocking seventy percent budgetary increase, and are already entertaining new Nato missions — exactly as Donald Trump has demanded. The doublespeak seems to have escaped the navel-gazing pundits: this is utter deference masquerading as defiance.
Did you read that Trudeau-bots? Trudeau-Bro's and Trudeau-Sis's? Did you read those links? This isn't about only having had two years to undo stephen harper's damages. Some of those things were new policies that are terrible. And some things, Trudeau hasn't even pretended to do anything about (such as the draconian spy-bill C-51).

I can barely stomach the NDP. And in some cases, they've been worse than the Liberals. I saw so little difference in them that i voted Liberal last time. I'm thinking of not voting ever again.

But let's not fool ourselves that Trudeau is our friend. He's a bullshit artist. As I said here, being socially liberal is irrelevant to the project of capitalism. And capitalism requires imperialism. Hence all the US-initiated wars around the word and Canada's role as camp-follower.

Corbyn is the real deal. A leftist stalwart who never expected to be leader of the Labour Party but who has been embraced by the millions of ordinary people fucked-over by the system and sickened unto puking from the oily deluded Blairites.

That, by the way, is the proper Labour leader to link Trudeau to. Tony Blair. And years from now, he'll be just as rotten as Blair is.


Sunday, June 18, 2017

Murderous "Bernie-Bro's"



So, the racist scum-bag who knifed three guys trying to stop his harassment of a Muslim woman on a Portland train (killing two and wounding one) was found to be a Bernie Sanders supporter. Then, a week or two later, the guy who shot the Republican politicians who were trying to practice baseball (between helping Wall Street rob people and helping health insurance companies kill people when all their money is gone) was also a Sanders supporter.

What does this prove? The innate pathological violence of the Left that right-wing trolls are always mentioning (when they're not saying how they'll make our blood run in the streets)?

No.

It remains the case that people whose main concerns are economic justice and individual equality are, on average, less violent than people whose main concerns are individual profit and race wars.

The Portland murderer's defining traits were stupidity and the subsequent insanity that springs from such an intense level of mental deficiencies. His racism and his conspiracy theories were the biggest factors driving him. He would probably be appalled at Sanders' deep commitment to the Civil Rights struggle, but he also would have liked Sanders' clear condemnation of Wall Street criminals. The Nazis in Germany had many followers who saw themselves as "little people" being victimized by corporate elite interests. (Especially those run by Jews!) But their political-economic analysis is marred by their stupidity and so they embrace fascism. Which is what fascism is: Socialism for stupid people.

The baseball field killer was a violent man. Spousal abuse, attacking his neighbours. He had a history of mental instability. (None of which prevented him from legally owning the weapons he took with him to Washington D.C.) Such a man is still capable of seeing if a group of people (such as Republican politicians) are antithetical to his own best interests.

This is what I mean when I say that we shouldn't get stupid (or insane) people angry. Your average Toronto Sun reader might be occasionally obnoxious and irritating, but as long as they have a job and a decent income, their antisocial tendencies tend to stay under wraps. But stir-up a bullshit war with "Islam" (through Zionism and the deliberate encouragement of Jihaadist groups for other twisted reasons) and so many of these people will start braying out their Islamophobic nonsense. Fuck-up the economy and deprive them of employment and protect the capitalist criminals who exploit them, and they'll start to get murderously desperate.

I had thought that Donald Trump would at least have made token efforts to bring back manufacturing jobs and bring down pharmaceutical costs. I would never have voted for the dunce if I was a US-American, but i thought he'd make a show of trying. But he's done the exact opposite. And the rest of his party never even promised to do those things.   Both Obama and Hillary Clinton remained steadfast in their devotion to job-destroying corporate rights deals and to cossetting Wall Street criminals and other parasite scum. Therefore things have gotten horrible.

And things will only get worse since we, as a people, as a species, are too stupid to change.


Monday, June 12, 2017

10,000 BC

"10,000 BC" is a silly movie. It's got an 8% rating on "Rotten Tomatoes" (meaning it's ROTTEN). I bought it for a few bucks back when I liked to get high and watch CGI. I have a bunch of such DVDs and I now only pull them out when the internet is down or so fucking slow that it might as well be down. I have stuff playing in the background as i work on my comics. And I'm usually high when I'm drawing. So I've now seen "10,000 BC" twice. Here's the things I like about it:

I don't believe in magic but I think it's neat how there's a witch in the tribe who looks Neanderthal. As if that lost race had magical powers. She's "the last of her kind."

The tribe is only partially white. The older warrior appears to be of some Central Asian ethnicity. The young tag-a-long is mixed-race. Sure the hero is obviously white. But I can see a director faced with a choice of a white male hero or not getting funding for the movie at all.

It throws in a nod to "Androcles & The Lion" as one of the things that helps the hero.

The slaves are working on a variant of "The Tower of Babel." Which happened a long time ago.



I thought those giant birds that chase them were creepy.

I thought it a neat device to have the "god king" being attended to by slaves who had been blinded, thus preserving his remoteness and authority.

I didn't like it that the slave-owning urban elites were portrayed as effeminate, "decadent" perverts while the tribal people were all stalwart heterosexuals.

The slave-driver who kidnaps the love interest occasionally brought some decent facial expressions to his role.

There was another nod to an iconic ancient legend, but I can't remember it now.

Don't see this movie. You'll be pissed-off with me if you do.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Oh Those Fucking "Conservatives"!


I'd never heard of Katie Hopkins before. Apparently she's a British right-wing racist scribbler, known for her "outrageous" outbursts of stupid bigotry. (A UK version of uber-hypocrite shit-stain Ann Coulter.) But she took it too far when in the wake of the Manchester concert bombing she tweeted a call for a "Final Solution" to the "problem" of the existence of Muslim people. Supposedly she came to her senses soon afterwards and deleted the tweet but many had seen it by that point and saved screen-shots. Hopkins was fired by her employer, radio station LBC.

Reading that story at the link led to another suggested link wherein a writer goes to interview Ms. Hopkins over lunch to see if she's really as angry as she seems, or whether she's just trolling, or what:

[I can't decide which of the several quotes I should pick to go into detail on, so I'll just put a bunch of them down all in a row and provide my overall take on them:]

... When tens of thousands of people bay for Hopkins’ blood and exhaust dictionaries finding new ways to deride her, she laughs and cheerfully fires out a tweet about how migrants are of equal worth to the contents of a vacuum cleaner bag, or something.How can someone be so fireproof?“You haven't separated what you've written from your writing,” she advises. “For me the thing that would hurt me is if people suggested that I was bad at writing.”...I ask about this separation she sees between herself and what she writes.“It’s massive, massive. I completely separate the two things. So here's my view that I'm purporting [not sure if that was a malapropism, but it was a good one if so] through copy or radio, and here's the way I've written it.“Now if I can draw you through 500 words I've done a great job. If you don't agree with my view at the end of those, that's great too, that's fine, but if I've got you through an issue that you don't agree with me on, that's good writing. For me I can see a distance between ‘this is what I've written’ and ‘this is me the person’.”I counter that your writing should be inextricable from you, which I think she finds quite darling....It’s incredibly incendiary wording, but she maintains everything she writes she believes, and that she isn’t a troll.“I really believe the stuff I say. Yes, there is definitely this gap, but it’s not a gap between 'Oh she's controversial for a reason and this is the real Katie' - it’s not that kind of a gap - it's a gap between a very public RAAGH RAAGH RAAGH Katie versus this super private person behind a wall.”...Her second husband, ‘lovely Mark’ as he’s known, is apparently the polar opposite to her - quiet, and culturally and politically liberal. “People say to my husband 'Oh I didn't think you'd be married to that’.” It’s an unlikely dynamic, but it seems to work. “I married myself the first time round and that was really bad, a terrible thing to do.”...Contrary to what you might expect, Hopkins is very genial in person. She is polite, courteous and unpatronising. If you had no prior knowledge of her on first meeting, you would never expect her to be the kind of person who discounts other humans on name alone.This could be evidence that the belligerent Hopkins we see in the media is a facade, but I don’t actually believe she is a troll. To answer my original question, the Katie Hopkins ranting on This Morning is the same Katie Hopkins sat in front of me, albeit with the volume turned down somewhat.

So, to sum up; Hopkins really is murderously bigoted, but in her private life she's quieter about it. And her husband, is apparently, diametrically opposed to his wife's core beliefs, but they "click" and so it's all good. Me, I've never understood how one could make a life partner out of someone whose views you find repugnant, as is the case with the husband here. But I think that I understand Hopkins' ability to do that. She's too intellectually and emotionally shallow to grasp how hateful and vile her views are. Somehow she's able to compartmentalize her racist bigotry and general "conservative" stupidity and appreciate her "darling" liberal husband and be an agreeable lunch companion to a non-threatening liberal reporter. Because, unlike myself and anyone else with a higher degree of empathy than she possesses, Hopkins simply has no clue about what words and ideas really mean.

But this is shameful:

Admitting to being a troll would obviously be career suicide though and is something I’m not going to get her to do (not that I’m convinced she is one), so I get back to the abuse thing. Has she become de-sensitised to it through the prism of the internet?“I think that's super true, being anti-my opinions or views, I'm impervious to it all.” Hopkins rationalises the bile she receives through the belief that her detractors simply aren’t smart enough to critique her properly. “They don't mean they want to rape you with a machete, they mean they really want you to shut up, they just didn't have the language,” she says. “They all go under that folder in my head - ‘didn't have the language, should have tried harder at English, what a shame’. I slide it all away.”
Now, anyone who reads this blog knows that I have a fair degree of hatred for a lot of people. But I do not post murderous fantasies. One, because they're illegal, and (more importantly) because I don't relish the idea of physically harming anyone. I'd like to see stephen harper in prison and Ezra Levant unemployed and destitute. But not harmed. I'd like them to learn from their mistakes. Or at least give those shit-heads the chance to learn.

Speaking of Ezra Levant: More stuff ---- Porter Airlines has joined a growing list of companies pulling their advertising from Levant's hate/propaganda-site. Like most career criminals and con-artists, Ezra pulls the race card, whining about anti-Semitism. Pathetically, he calls for a boycott of Porter Airlines. I read about Levant's response in the free Sun News daily "24 Hours." I can't find a link for it, but trust me, if you were the typical proto-fascist dullard who agrees with their shit, you wouldn't be able to figure out that Levant is the one reacting. It's written as if he's targeted Porter.

It's sad that Canadian journalism is so debased that people are forced to write such drivel. Or, what's more likely, that Canadian society and humanity in general are so debased that we produce people who believe in all the shit that Ezra Levant and Sun News push out.


Sunday, June 4, 2017

Terrorism in the UK

So, apparently there was a terrorist attack on London Bridge carried out with a van and knives. A suicide attack. Then there was the Manchester concert bombing.

Now, we know that the alleged perpetrator of the Manchester bombing was the member of a family of anti-Qaddafi Islamic extremists and that their war against the Libyan dictator was aided and abetted by British intelligence. This was "blow-back" of the most obvious kind.

Time for some creative speculation: It seems to me that there are terrorists in the UK who have been assisted by British government/police/intelligence services for years now. They are being allowed to carry out their campaigns against secular Arab rulers. Obviously, the British police and military also hunt them down and kill them. Both of these sets of facts are true. These are crazy people we're talking about.

We know for a fact that terrorism is a manufactured product courtesy of Washington-led imperialism. Saudi Arabia is the biggest fomenter of the kind of terrorism we're fixated on and it is a coddled ally. Washington deliberately arms and funds these groups to target regimes that they don't like. Terrorism is also the big excuse for violating our liberties and our rights. (They say they have to "keep us safe" from the monster they've created and sustain. They also expand the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest.)

We know that police forces and other institutions of state violence and coercion have received ample funding and new powers since this whole farce took off in 2011. They are going to be devastated should it come to an end.

Is it possible that all of these deluded scum-bags are fearful of the rise in the polls of Labour's Jeremy Corbyn? He who promises an end to the nonsense that is the "War on Terror"? If these imbeciles imagine that terrorist attacks will work as in the past, they will allow/engage in them, and then the status-quo Tories can chant "only we can keep you safe." But that didn't work after Manchester and Labour is now ahead of the Tories in some polls (in comparison to 20 percent behind before the snap election was called). Corbyn hasn't drunk from the kool-aid and he meant what he said when he said the current response isn't working. The Terrorist-Police-Industrial Complex doesn't know anything else though, so they launched a quickie attack using ready-at-hand weapons such as knives and vans. Now cancelling the election was floated but abandoned.

These are desperate, fucked-up times.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Operation Medusa


Recently, hysterical Liberal Party hack Montreal Simon had been swooning about attacks against Liberal Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. Apparently Sajjan wilfully overstated his role in the planning of one of the Canadian Forces' biggest operations; "Operation Medusa." Now, some political columnists who I tend to respect (and you can check this blog and find out that I do respect several of them) said that this was a pretty serious faux-pas on Sajjan's part. Obviously, the Opposition parties, being who they are, were out for blood. Was that fair? I don't know. Sometimes when you lie on your resume and it's found out, that can get you fired, even if you had been doing good in the actual job. To lie about your contribution to a major initiative as Sajjan did would be similar I suppose. To tell you the honest truth, I'm not sure where I stand on that issue. Perhaps that makes me a racist? But I don't care too much about this incident wherein the Defence Minister is a fabulist.

Because when I read the words "Operation Medusa" this is what I think of:

First:
Razik’s clandestine smuggling operations have spilled over into the allied fight against the Taliban, thereby bolstering the widely held perception that the ISAF and the central government are favoring certain tribes and marginalizing others. Soon after he assumed power at the border, Razik began to feud with elements of the Noorzai tribe, particularly the Sultanzai, a rival smuggling clan spread between Spin Boldak and Chaman. One notorious incident took place during the summer of 2006 in Panjwaii District, a volatile area just west of Kandahar city. A predominantly Noorzai district, Panjwaii is a lush river valley crisscrossed by thick orchards and mud-walled compounds, and it provides an excellent springboard for attacks on Kandahar city. During the course of the summer, Taliban fighters had infiltrated the valley, and eventually the district governor, an Achakzai, called in Abdul Razik’s border force.
What followed was a debacle. The Noorzais, fearing their tribal enemies, rose up and joined forces with the Taliban. Razik and his men responded to the unexpected resistance with brutality. “They were killing women and children,” said Ustaz Abdul Halim, a Noorzai and former mujahideen commander who lives in Kandahar city. “After that, everyone was with the Taliban.”
Capitalizing on the tribal dynamics, the Taliban installed a Noorzai, Mullah Rauf Lang, as their commander in Panjwaii District. Later that fall, newly arrived Canadian troops in the area would launch Operation Medusa, a large-scale assault that killed hundreds of fighters and scores of civilians in weeks of close combat and withering bombardments. Today, the area remains one ofthe most violent in Kandahar Province—the Canadians suffer many of their casualties there and have recently abandoned two untenable forward operating bases in the area—and anti-government sentiments still run high.
Second:
Warmaking trumps "reconstruction" In early September, the 2,300 Canadian troops in Kandahar launched a massive ground assault in Panjwaii district, code-named "Operation Medusa" and backed by U.S. troops and airpower. Residents were warned in advance of the offensive to leave their homes and villages.
The assault was declared a huge success several weeks later. "More than one thousand" enemy fighters were said to be killed. But reporters saw few bodies of resistance fighters.
Canadian and NATO authorities admitted that fighters had staged an orderly retreat and appealed for more troops into the area. Canada quickly dispatched several hundred more soldiers, and for the first time it will be deploying tanks. Deadly attacks on Canadian and other NATO forces resumed within days of the "victory."
Meanwhile, some 20,000 residents were made homeless after their homes, villages and crops were destroyed in the fighting. Winter is approaching and they face an uncertain future.

[Please note: The above quotes are not my own. They're pasted from my original blog posts wherein the original sources are linked. In case anyone thinks I'm overstating my contributions here.]

Also, given Sajjan's relatively high rank in the field, what did he know about our detainee policy wherein Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin stated every single one of the prisoners we handed over to the Afghan authorities was tortured? We were all pretty riled-up about that issue when harper was the enemy. Perhaps Sajjan could now shed some light on the subject?

Or not.

Anyway, Niki Ashton for PM!


Saturday, May 13, 2017

Bob Cesca: Stupid Fucking Liberal

Bob Cesca thought he was going to make a clever point about the "extremes" of the right and the left in the US of A. He talks about how both serial sexual predator Bill O'Reilly, and generally decent liberal sap John Oliver, both paint a harsh picture of Barack Obama:

On one hand, there was Bill O'Reilly who continued to push for a stronger response to Islamic jihad. Not only should the president seek to hire a mercenary army of 25,000 privateers, but we should also somehow recruit Zombie Patton to roll into Syria with the Third Army from 1944 and annihilate everyone in sight. The takeaway is the usual one: the president is a weak-willed, lead-from-behind appeaser with obvious terrorist sympathies. Indeed, some factions of O'Reilly's side of the debate even believe Obama is offering up a swath of land in New Mexico as an ISIS safe-haven. I'm not making that up.
On the other hand, there's the former correspondent for The Daily Show, John Oliver, who hosted a 13-minute segment Sunday night in which he deliberately scared the shit out of his audience regarding Obama's unprecedented use of predator drones against terror targets overseas. Not only did Oliver point out that Obama has ordered exponentially more drone strikes than George W. Bush (Oliver failed to note Bush's use of other weapons to achieve the same results), but he also repeatedly emphasized that Obama has literally ruined clear, blue skies -- terrorizing grandmothers and children in the process, and making them look forward to cloudy days when drones are grounded. I'm not making that up, either.
Now, here's the thing though: JOHN OLIVER WASN'T MAKING IT UP EITHER YOU STUPID FUCK!!!
Zubair said that fear over the drone attacks on his community have stopped children playing outside, and stopped them attending the few schools that exist. An expensive operation, needed to take the shrapnel out of his leg, was delayed and he was sent back to the village until his father could raise the money, he said.
“Now I prefer cloudy days when the drones don’t fly. When the sky brightens and becomes blue, the drones return and so does the fear. Children don’t play so often now, and have stopped going to school. Education isn’t possible as long as the drones circle overhead.”
Now, Bob Cesca makes a pretty decent living from his stupid, ignorant scribblings. If I made the money he did, i would AT LEAST do the amount of research that I put into an unpaid blog post. For fuck's sake! John Oliver includes the testimony of the 13-year old from Pakistan saying he no longer prefers blue skies, but now he prefers cloudy skies, in his segment!

Read again how Cesca describes serial killer Obama's killing spree:

"Sunday night in which he deliberately scared the shit out of his audience regarding Obama's unprecedented use of predator drones against terror targets overseas."

"Terror targets"! The stupid fuck! Slightly more research (like, say LISTENING to what John Oliver says in the presentation you're critiquing) would tell you that they kill people based on their being the same fucking height as an actual "terror suspect." It goes as murderously wrong as killing three men in a junkyard foraging for scrap metal because one of them was tall and thin like Osama bin Laden. (We all know of bin Laden's passion for scrap metal dealing before he was allegedly gunned-down and had his hands chopped off and his body dumped in the sea out of respect for Muslim customs.)

Cesca goes on to provide a more nuanced description of Obama's bloodlust than those provided by the imbecile rapist O'Reilly and John Oliver. But by this point, Cesca has revealed himself to be a shit-head with a shaky grasp of reality so who cares?

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Civilization is Doomed: Part III


Last time I talked about the weakness of Trump's opponents among the Republicans. Today I'll talk about the weakness of his rival from the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton. Yes, yes. Hillary won the popular vote. But that doesn't decide US presidential elections. Hillary knew that. By the rules of the game she agreed to play, she lost. She lost to a widely unpopular, appalling, narcissistic ignoramus. Why did she lose? Because people were either disgusted with her, or with the whole rigged game she represented. Blacks voted for Barack Obama but with less enthusiasm the second time around. Because Barack Obama did very little for them. They saw even less reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Now, a lot of liberals and fraudulent progressives keep nattering on about how we have to choose the "lesser of two evils" and that Hillary Clinton was the lesser evil to Donald Trump. Personally I've never denied that Donald Trump is obnoxious and vile. Also, he is, as I've said before, a con-man. He's clearly extremely sexist and racist. Hillary is not sexist. She is not obnoxious.  But she is an insane war-monger. Far worse than Trump. And that ought to count for something. Death by nuclear missile is death, even if it's a composed, slightly stilted, female career politician who has brought it to you, rather than a ranting, ignoramus real-estate developer. Okay? Death is death. And all those liberal hypocrites trashing people who voted for Trump thinking he'd bring factories back and who forgave him his racism because of that, .... well those liberals are obviously okay with the death and trauma inflicted on Libyans and Syrians and Iraqis and Hondurans and etc., by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But working-class Trump voters, voting against their own self-interest? Yes they were. But in thinking he would bring the jobs back they were making a positive decision as opposed to voting for the job-destroying status-quo that Clinton represented. It's become depressing for me to go on the internet and read supposedly left-wing/progressive Canadians, so infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they're standing-up for goddamned NAFTA. It's even worse with the US-Americans who now believe that Obama's insane claims to have the right to assassinate people without trial and his drone strikes and his support for autocrats, and his protecting of Wall Street criminals, and his adherence to anti-worker trade deals, and etc., etc., were all the progressive policies of a progressive friend to working people.

They were not. Obama was lying to the US-American electorate from the start. And progressives need to learn this and feel this and absorb this and incorporate it into their analysis if they don't want to continue to marginalize themselves.
Remember that not even a year after the taxpayer took the brunt of the damage from the banks’ idiotic gamble on subprime loans, he was out there inspiring rallies of people with his talk of hope and change, but at the exact same time as he was promising the American people that he would take Wall Street to task, in private he was allowing Citigroup to handpick his cabinet.
Just let that sink in for a minute. He was out there galvanizing and re-energizing the whole progressive movement, commanding giant rallies of people with his inspiring words and heartfelt promises, but at the very same time, he was emailing Wall Street to get their list for his cabinet appointments. Remember, this email wasn’t after he’d won. He’d engaged in this transaction while he was still campaigning, still sucking up every bit of hope America had for reversing the ravages of neoliberalism. He. Was. Lying.
You see, there are a lot of stupid people out there. Stupid people tend to be racist. They believe in stupid things. When things go bad for them, they lash out in stupid ways, attacking the wrong people. They attack the people who elites dupe them into hating; socialists, feminists, minorities, LGBT, environmentalists. You don't want to get these people enraged. Unfortunately, if you lie to yourself and others that Obama and the Clintons were their friends and that they were progressives, you commit yourself to perpetuating the economic system that has gotten all the stupid people riled up. And so, society becomes increasingly polarized and fascistic.

The same goes, to a lesser degree to ignorant people. Ignorant people don't pay attention. They don't go out of their way to find out stuff. They pick up information from the general environment, which in our case, is the corporate-dominated news and celebrity drivel. As such, they'll sympathize with white male privilege, capitalist propaganda and other traditionally dominant bullshit. And it doesn't help that progressive frauds and liberal hacks are themselves peddling obvious bullshit. Telling them that a job-destroying, mass murdering Wall Street imperialist shill is their progressive friend, if such nonsense does penetrate their bubble, reality itself will discredit the message and you've lost a potential supporter for real change.

The most depressing thing for me though is the liberals' hysterical ranting about Russia. Until the end of time it will be true that Trump calling for better relations with Russia was one of the only sane things he ever said. And yet, shit-head liberals have bought-in completely to the idea that Trump is Putin's puppet, and that there's clear evidence that they colluded to steal the 2016 election. Yes, yes. It was awful of Wikileaks to expose Hillary Clinton's corruption and how she stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders so that she, the super-unpopular, uninspiring career hack politician could run a shitty campaign and lose to the dangerous imbecile Trump. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of collusion. It doesn't matter that the deranged ranting of US-American liberals about this collusion is rancid hypocrisy given the USA's blatant meddling in elections and politics worldwide, including Russia's. It doesn't matter that without a clear electronic trail there is only conjecture and conspiracy theories. In fact, the absence of a clear electronic trail pretty much means that there was no collusion or at least that there is no real evidence of it. It's like accusing someone of shooting someone else to death only there's no gun and no bullet.

Fuck-you. All of you stupid liberals. You literally make me nauseous.

Civilization is doomed because you can't escape from the empty binary of Democrat-vs-Republican. You will cheer on nuclear war if your partisan blinders tell you to do that. You will resign yourselves that decades of anti-worker/anti-environment/anti-human economic policies are "progressive" just because someone from your team is implementing them. I'll leave it at that. This is depressing to write about.


Monday, May 1, 2017

Civilization is Doomed: Part II

Yesterday I wrote about some of the reasons why Donald Trump was popular among a certain segment of the US-American population. (And having met Canadian Trump supporters personally, I can attest to this not being a specifically US-American phenomenon.) These people are ignorant. Ignorant of Trump's sleazy con-man past. Ignorant of the true nature of their country's (and the world') political-economic structure. Many of them are racist. Many of them are stupid. Many of them are gullible: "Hey! The famous rich white guy from the TV is saying he'll bring our jobs back!" They are impressed with the gaudy trappings of Trump's wealth and fame.

(I also started that post with a reference to our planet's place in the galaxy. The point of that was to eventually demonstrate that this single case of sentient life in the vastness of space-time might possibly be extinguished. We are too stupid a species to survive. We were able to build the capability to win the struggle for survival for several centuries, but in the end, we weren't wise enough to control our creations. Trump's election is a symptom of that fatal flaw.)

Now I'm going to write about another factor contributing to Trump's tepid victory. The low quality of his opposition. This began with his rivals in the Republican Party. It was a clown car, but I'll only deal with the few that I remember.

Marco Rubio - the boy senator from Florida.



Now listen; the Republican Party of the United States is a vast apparatus of creeps, crooks, closet-cases and cadavers. Racist too. They blatantly service the rich and base their appeals to the chumps in the grassroots by appealing to their bigotry and their religious and patriotic delusions. Such an institution is inherently incapable of producing anyone of talent or ability. "Rising stars" within the party (such as Rubio was) are inevitably going to be sleazy imbeciles. Which is what Rubio was. Lazy, entitled, stupid. Rubio wanted to talk about his memorized talking points about free trade and tax-cuts, but Trump managed to turn the conversation about how much Rubio sweated on stage and made allusions to Rubio having a small penis. When Rubio saw that Trump's buffoonery was helping Trump in the polls, he tried to respond in kind, but only embarrassed himself further.



(It should be noted that Trump was assailed on all sides for having relatively small hands. Some did this to imply that his penis was also relatively stunted, while others piled on only because the insult was known to infuriate him. Unlike most top-tier politicians, Trump was unashamed to stand on a national stage and confront the issue head-on ... so to speak ... by telling America and the world that he had, in fact, a big penis. And his supporters, hearing this, and perhaps recalling the string of beautiful trophy wives he has had, replacing them with younger versions as the years pass, probably thought to themselves: "I bet he's tellin' the truth 'bout having a big dick." ....... Such was and is the level of political debate in that wretched land.)

Ben Carson - At one time a talented neurosurgeon, Carson was either an idiot-savant or, more likely, some sort of affliction caused him to lose his fucking mind.


Carson is Black. So his candidacy gave the less-racist portion of the Repuglican base the opportunity to say: "See?!? We're not racist! If a Black fellah becomes a famous doctor and tells other Black people to smarten-up and work hard and praise Jesus, he's okay with us!"

For about a week, Carson was one of the front-runners. But a series of truly bizarre, idiotic statements about the pyramids of Ancient Egypt, crime, and other topics subjected him to increased scrutiny. Carson was clearly not used to explaining the strangely shaped turds that dropped out of his mouth and he soon grew tired of it all and retreated back into irrelevance.

Ted Cruz


Ted Cruz is, apparently a naturally unlikable guy. I mean, I don't like oily, capitalist shills with a hypocritical devotion to Christian delusions, so I don't like Ted Cruz. But apparently his own fellow travellers hate him. They can't stand him. A former college roommate described him as one of the most nasty people he'd ever met. Watching him during the primaries, you got a sense of this. Somehow, every word, every action, magically appeared to turn out the worse for him. His young daughter scowling and trying to avoid a kiss from him. Punching his wife in the face as he tried to raise their arms in a gesture of triumph. Knocking his chosen running-mate (former failed CEO and then failed primary candidate Carly Fiorina) off the stage in yet another attempt to portray campaign exuberance. Things just don't seem to go right for the guy. His physical actions back-fire. His spoken words grate. I'm surprised he's come as far in life as he has.

But Cruz, like Carson, Rubio, Rick (butt-splooge) Santorum, Chris Christie, Fiorina, ... the whole stable of Trump's repug opponents, had the problem of campaigning on an extremist version of the neo-liberal snake-oil that both they and the Democrats had imposed on the US electorate and which had become toxic. Semi-veiled appeals to racist bigotry, hatred of the poor and unemployed, homophobia and "Christian" values were having less and less effect as more and more voters were abandoning racism, homophobia and religion, and more and more of them were struggling in the face of job losses, wage stagnation and the systemic criminality of the US economy.

In the face of Trump's decades of celebrity, his flaunting of opulence and sex (of his trophy wives and his public appearances with beautiful women), and, most importantly, his populist calls for forcing capitalists to bring the jobs back to America, get tough with the pharmaceutical industry, ... they had no chance. But they couldn't even keep the racist vote because, unlike Trump, they often tried to veil their racism. Trump embraced it full on, allowing him to get both the votes of ordinary right-wing US-Americans and the racists (including actual self-described fascists). This came easy for Trump because he is a bona-fide racist. He was one of the biggest brain-farts of the whole "birther" conspiracy, saying that Barack Obama could not be President because he was Black born outside the USA in Kenya.


Well, that's all the time I've got now. Part III to come. Eventually.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Civilization is Doomed: Part I

 
It's the joke of the galaxy, if not the universe! There's a planet halfway outside one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way, where intelligent life arose. The turn of events made it so that the USA became the greatest power of all the competing groups of the human life form. Its culture was the dominant culture. If humanity was to become united, one species, self-governing, the USA would have been the leading element at the beginning of this process.

Alas alack! The USA was run by kleptocratic, dogmatic capitaist scumbags and imperialists. "Politics" was "inverted totalitarianism." Make-believe democracy, consisting of empty contests between public relations industry created drones (like Barack Obama) or long-time party-hacks (like John McCain or Hillary Clinton). It was all stage and spectacle. (Something the US-Americans are quite good at.)

But things got out of hand. An "outsider" named Donald Trump, who only hoped to add some further notoriety to his name (with his public persona being a major prop in his "brand" of snake-oil) by running for president, revealed just how shallow, dumbed-down, regressive and ugly US culture had allowed itself to become. First he hired some actors to show up at the NYC skyscraper he owned to cheer him as he rode DOWN an escalator to make his announcement. Late-night comedians laughed.

And why shouldn't they have laughed? Trump is a buffoon. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth. A crass, ugly, pushy real-estate developer, serial bankrupt, corrupt, boorish, racist, sexist, publicity whore, ignorant, arrogant, ... creepy, .... reality-show star. A lot of nothing behind a garish exterior. This move was, obviously, just about keeping Trump's name in the news, because Trump is a character and having that character run for president is a great way to do that.



And, in spite of the fact that Trump won the Repugnican nomination and, through the Electoral College, eventually the presidency, notoriety and publicity WERE the primary reasons for Trump's run.

What he did was ask some political advisors: "What are the rubes all upset about?" He asked this with no previous allegiance to any specific Republican or Democratic policy platform. When his advisors told him that ordinary US-Americans are concerned about jobs being lost to off-shoring, and job losses due to illegal immigrants, and the supposed illegal immigrant crime wave, and the high cost of healthcare, he said he'd reverse off-shoring, make better deals for the people on pharmaceuticals and health care generally, and clamp down on illegal immigration. To this he added his own idiosyncratic take on US foreign policy, to whit; Any idiot can see that the results of US invasions in the Middle East have been disasters. (He didn't know that "managed chaos" is the actual goal of psychopaths like Hillary Clinton and her ilk.) Any idiot can see that military brinkmanship with nuclear-armed Russia is insane. Trump said he'd stay out of further entanglements in the Middle East and pursue better relations with Russia. Then he topped it all off with promises to himself about massive tax-cuts for the super-rich and de-regulation of the economy. Trump also believes that global warming is a hoax, so full-steam ahead for the carbon economy. (In contrast to Obama who reduced US-American reliance on coal while boosting the extraction of other carbon fuels for a net impact on climate change of zero.)



Things didn't go well for Trump at the very beginning. At the very beginning, on the Repug-friendly FOX News Network, right-wing anchorwoman Megyn Kelly asked the ignoramus some questions he wasn't prepared for and he was discomfited. The next day however, the world turned for Trump.

You see, Donald Trump is a rich, white male. He's on the tall side. He's been in the popular culture (to his benefit or not) for decades. He had a highly rated show on that thar tee-vee machine.  To certain impressionable, gullible minds, Trump's CELEBRITY is intoxicating. More intelligent people are dismissive of such empty fame and of such non-accomplishments as being a tall, rich, white man. But that's what makes us such elitist pin-heads. By gawd, Trump is FAMOUS! He was in "Home Alone 2"! He was on "The Cosby Show"! Plus, he's gonna bring our jobs back, kick out the Mexicans, and beat-up the pharmaceutical companies! Oh yeah! And those uppity Blacks declaring war on innocent policemen? He's gonna clamp down on them too! Law and Order!

Trump essentially said that Megyn Kelly was mean to him because she was on her period. FOX News (never particularly concerned with the dignity of their female employees) was deluged with angry criticism from its viewing customers and sided with Trump against Kelly. From then on, it was a wave that Trump rode all the way to White House. (Although the wave just barely got him there. As mentioned, he needed the Electoral College to do it, having lost the popular vote by 3 million.)

Well, I'm bushed. I'll continue part-two tomorrow.