Come to think of it, nothing!

Andrew Sullivan: What I got wrong about Trump 

Conclusions are often reached -- with a jump, sometimes a leap.

I've read some of Andrew's considerable punditry over the decades. Born in the UK, he was a Gay supporter of the 1980s Super Conservative, Magaret Thatcher -- a rather select demographic in the USA, but the Labor Party had screwed up so badly in the 60s and 70s (with help from a rather timid Tory establishment) that he may have had considerable company at Oxford. After his move to America, he joined The New Republic -- a not-quite far-left magazine -- and branded himself a "gay conservative" who was also a principled anti-communist (The Cold War was still on). But when you live among progressives, it's easy to think you are a conservative. Progressives have a two-step program: 1) Give Us Power! 2) Wonderful Things Happen!

Conservative Progressives also have a two-step program. 1) Give Us Power...2) Wonderful things happen? If you change the exclamation mark into a question mark, while sounding a bit less sure of yourself, you have the difference. Don't ask too many questions, though, because the answers might make you an actual, Constitutional Conservative. Defending constitutional interpretations that help your political movement doesn't count (Trump's an Insurrectionist, yay! So take their guns away!).

In 2016, I told progressive friends, who seemed too confident about Hillary Clinton's chances, to watch a Trump rally on YouTube rather than just repeat a Trump "quote" ad infinitum. Rather than making a prepared speech, he spoke extemporaneously. He would wander off-topic for a few minutes and then, almost magically, pick up where he left off. Often the "quote" was a spontaneous remark that got twisted by a Trusted Commentator with Reliable Sources (certified by The Political Commentator Cartel). It is like taking a vaguely complimentary remark Trump made about Vladimir Putin and using it to prove he's a Russian Spy (oh, wait, they did that). But as you watched Trump at his rallies, you actually felt like you knew him. He certainly was not trying to fool anyone.

I feared Trump would leave a lot of Obama's people in place and they would undermine his presidency, which is what happened (he left office with a dozen knives in his back). As a businessman, he assumed the people would do their jobs and not do him dirty. Obama put ideologues in place, and they were loyal to the movement, and their knives were out. The bureaucracy voted 97 percent for Hillary (some voted for the Green Party), so thinking Trump could become a dictator is delusional. When I watched Trump rallies, I didn't get those Mussolini vibes (who was, by the way, a socialist). 

Trump was immediately framed as a Russian spy by the Clinton Campaign and Democrats in the bureaucracy and Congress (OK, some were pretending to be Republicans). Somehow, that doesn't make Congressman Adam Schiff, who lied daily to the voters about Trump's supposed "Russian Connections," a threat to Democracy.  Indeed, the Democrats think that qualifies him for the Senate.

After these efforts fizzled, Nancy Pelosi impeached Trump because he wanted to investigate obvious Biden family corruption in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Biden family took millions from Ukraine, and are now giving billions back -- but that's no reason to question their motives.

Trump deported thousands of ruthless gang members here illegally, who no doubt promptly returned when Biden opened the border. Who cares more about actual minority Americans?

If Andrew really worries about Dictatorship he would worry about the Democrats who went after Trump supporters and locked people up without trial. The DC Dems are actively defending their Democracy by destroying America's.

Will Trump's assuming office in 2025 entail risks? Of course. But endorsing the course the Statist Democrats have set, with their fake frame jobs and divide and conquer tactics, entails much greater risks. So, on balance, I'll go with the Donald.

The snake that eats its tail also bites its ass.

 Hmmm. More on France's "Summer of Love."

US State Department-Trained French Activist/Arsonist Pouring Fuel on the Fire

"Critical Theory" started in Europe after World War One with the Frankfurt School in Germany.

Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy, Horkheimer critiqued both the model of science put forward by logical positivism, and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism. He described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them".

Intellectuals of the World Unite! You've nothing to lose but your mental chains -- and maybe your mind.  

When the National Socialists took power, several prominent figures fled to North America and helped the theory take root in Major American Universities. After World War II, some French thinkers contributed their thinking (or what passes for such) to the movement. Some simple slogans in English made it to US campuses in the 60s. After a massive investment in "Higher Education," we got Critical Race Theory and expensive, preachy Hollywood Movies -- not to mention riots and rotting inner cities.

So that particular flaming bag of poop has landed on France's doorstep. It's like "return to sender."

As for the US State Department, it is chock-full of the sort of people "Europe" tells us to listen to. If it is any consolation, they also want to subvert the US, not just France.

Knowing Gnosticism

 TIK History: The REAL Religion Behind National Socialism is Gnosticism. TIK explains what that is.

To understand politics progressive politics you need to understand Gnosticism and what I call "the deeper truth" that only a select group can perceive and is unavailable to the ignorant masses.  It's OK to lie and distort when talking to the rubes, as long as those lies conform to "the deeper truth" and move events in the right direction. Framing Donald Trump as a Russian spy was not a lie, it was just a way of conveying the deeper truth that Donald Trump was a threat to the progressive movement that is "moving" to a better future. The frame job was a way of conveying that truth to the superstitious rabble, who suffer from false patriotism.  True American Patriots are not loyal to the flawed status quo but to a future America washed clean of the sins of the past and present.

The left will often champion people who are guilty of crimes.  This confused me for a time. Then I would learn that their reasoning for why the person should be set free was, well, esoteric. Finally, it occurred to me that anyone can rally around an innocent person but it will take a potential convert to the movement to promote the cause of the esoterically innocent -- in other words, when he really did shoot the deputy.

Nevermind the Gap

There's a gap in the chart! Jeff Snider at Eurodollar University has a video where he discusses "real personal income excluding transfer receipts" (think government handouts), which fell "off trend" in 2020 and hasn't recovered. Transfer payments backfilled the gap for a time. Here's his chart:

I fear the "off-trend" has become the new trend. Perhaps people in 2020 were rioting for the wrong reason.

I blame "Cronny Class Consciousness" and the governing philosophy of "Feudalism with the Right People in Charge" for the developing economic malaise.

At its center, the Crony Class consists of politicians, hacks, bureaucrats, and those who acquire power through their ability to influence government action -- the lawyer, lobbyist, and dark-money crowd. This group took to heart the advice of Scarface, "first you get the power, then you get the money, then you get the girl." Confusingly, we now have to add the lawyer/lobbyist girls who want to be "the man" while still blaming "the man" when the man is actually, you know, a man.

The outer ring includes those who benefit from government action, such as corporations that fear bureaucratic overreach or seek government favor or the education establishment which devours government resources while avoiding societal accountability. To this add the legions of minions whose livelihoods depend on promoting Crony Class Interests, such as MSM Journalists (not to be confused with reporters), aspiring academics (not to be confused with actual scientists), and "house experts" (not to be confused with people who know what the hell they are talking about). The tentacles of this class reach far and wide, and gives the appearance of "Nerds working for Sociopaths."

"Crony Class Consciousness" allows them to act as a unit to protect class interest with a minimum of actual coordination. They framed Donal Trump (a minor threat) as a Russian agent for three years, knowing it was bunkum from day one. When it no longer played, the media Emily Litellas said, "never mind," and moved on to the next set of feeble accusations class members are required to promote. Objectively, these are the actions of horrible people. Subjectively, they have their reasons. This beast is hungry and needs to be fed. Those gaps in the charts are just the start.

"Feudalism with the Right People in Charge," says the rulers should come from an accredited, pseudo-intellectual caste (the true nobility of the mind), not a military one. The philosophy provides the justification for the rule of the Crony Class (i.e. Climate Change requires their control of resources) and the rationale for keeping their "expert" descendants in charge (having a lot of kids -- which will expand family contacts in an influence-peddling system -- is frowned upon). Diversity-Equity-Inclusion is sold as the ability to include but is actually the power to exclude. Everyone should get in their place and stay there. Mind the Queue.

Think of a War Where Only One Side Is Allowed to Fight

Media outlets keep promoting 'forest defenders' and ignoring that they shot a police officer

If the left campaigns to free an accused person, that person is likely guilty. When they are not trying to get the guilty off, they are trying to destroy the innocent (see: Sacco and Vanzetti = framed; Justice Kavanaugh = corrupt, and Joe Biden = honest). Even when I was on the left this tendency among those who claim to want a better world puzzled me. I came up with several reasons.

Recruitment: Most people would want an innocent person freed but only a potential true-believing, money-donating, self-deluding activist will campaign to free the guilty.

Delegitimizing the Justice System: The guilty person is on the "right side of history," combating an entrenched evil and therefore not just innocent but heroic. It's the other-way around for the so-called innocent person who is actually a cowardly defender of privilege.

A Display of Power: Freeing the guilty and destroying the innocent will attract supporters to the movement and discourage opponents. Also, it will strike fear in the souls of possible apostates (black conservatives, for instance).

The political left wants power above all else and believes that a highly disciplined and properly led band of activists can gain control during social chaos, hence "the worst the better" for the far left. Many would rather be a camp guard in a socialist state than a factory worker in a capitalist one.

Choose one from each group

Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda.

Thus writes Paul Krugman of the New York Times, as he wondered if Barack Obama is a Ronald Reagan. Now at what point in the campaign did we know Reagan was Reagan and what being Reagan meant? And here Sen. Obama has the nomination in hand and we don't even know if Obama is Obama. And we sure don't know what it means to be an Obama.

Mr. Krugman continues his clue search as he expands the comparison to Bill Clinton:

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque...Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.

Decades ago I lived in North Beach in San Fransisco where a lot Italian restaurants ran lunch specials. For $2.50 you could choose what you liked from a group of appetizers; choose one from a group of main courses; choose from a group of side dishes and deserts and beverages. And actually put together quite an inexpensive feast.

What we have here is the "choose one from each group" candidate. For each issue he takes three positions. The position that most excites you is the one he holds. The other two are necessary political panders he has to make to get elected. He does this -- sacrifices his integrity -- so he can put your solutions into practice. Some might call him a politician. He will endure this for you. And he will work hard (never worked harder!) to do right by you. Wait. In fact, wait some more.

So he is neither Clinton nor is he Reagan. He is the man who, once elected, will have a mandate to do whatever he wants. Because the Media will tell us so. After all, the left has already made its choice. If their every choice is not yours, you did not choose wisely.