Why is Silicon Valley censoring, shadowbanning and deplatforming conservatives?
Why does the media slander and demonize the “alt-right” as Nazis and killers?
Can it be any other reason other than that they’re threats to the Uniparty?
Think about it: there would be no need to censor a raving lunatic spewing patently absurd falsehoods, would there?
The Uniparty continually claims Alex Jones is a raving lunatic, a delusional conspiracy theorist, a complete fool not to be taken seriously at all, a man with zero credibility.
And then they ban him from the internet, making every effort to silence him and eliminate his voice from the public sphere.
Is this really necessary for a man who is supposedly a complete joke? They call Alex Jones a joke, but they treat him like he’s a threat.
Really makes you think.
If Alex Jones truly were the Least Credible Man In America, and everything he says is wildly false, then why was the Uniparty desperate to silence him?
Alex Jones is just one example. There are many additional voices on the right that have been censored and silenced online.
The reasons offered by Big Tech (an arm of the Uniparty) generally fall into two major categories: because someone is spreading misinformation, or because someone is spreading “hate speech” and is therefore a physical threat to others.
No matter what reason they offer, most of the time it’s a complete lie: they censor those they perceive as threats.
If you’re still not convinced the Uniparty censors those it feels threatened by, consider this question is it more likely they censor for your benefit, or for their benefit?
Are they trying to protect you from misinformation, or are they trying to hide the truth from you? Which is more likely?
Think back through history: how many examples are there of elites looking out for your best interests, and how many examples are there of elites looking out for their own interests?
Did the Catholic Church persecute Galileo because he was a fool spreading falsehoods, or because he was right and spreading a truth that threatened the power of the elites?
Why was Jesus persecuted: because he was an utter fool preaching absurdities, or because he was gaining a significant following and thus represented a threat to the power of Rome and the Jews?
These are perhaps the two most famous examples of truth-tellers persecuted for threatening the powers that be. But this is a constant theme throughout history, and America in 2019 is no different.
CNN is actually trying to get American troops in trouble.
So is Bloomberg’s Jennifer Epstein:
The troops were excited to see their President during a surprise visit on Christmas, but the evil “media” had to come in and ruin that.
“Put that Trump sign away or we’ll tell your superiors! That Trump hat is a violation of the rules!”
That’s what the US “media” is saying right now. They’re truly horrible people.
Keep in mind that if Trump had refused to sign their hats–so the media wouldn’t skewer him for “🚨🚨BREAKING THE RULES!!!🚨🚨–then the media would be attacking him for spurning the troops on Christmas.
The “media” is pure evil.
Moreover, the media is not the “American” media at all. They are the propaganda arm of the Deep State, which itself is fundamentally anti-American.
Trying to get the troops in trouble on Christmas for supporting President Trump is anti-American.
Trying to overthrow a democratically-elected President is anti-American. Supporting permanent warfare is anti-American. Everything the Deep State does, the media supports, enables and assists.
It’s an unholy anti-American alliance, and of course if you dare criticize CNN for this they’ll shriek that their First Amendment rights are under attack, because CNN is completely despicable.
This is not about the first amendment or a free press. Not even close.
The government is no threat to them. It’s the people they’ve got to worry about: the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about the people rising up against the likes of CNN and the rest of the malignant cancer cells also known as the “media.”
I’m telling you, these Enemies of the People are never going to see the revolt coming.
They know full well what they’re doing is not “journalism,” and yet they keep on gaslighting the shit out of the nation pretending to be persecuted victims instead of the persecutors.
Do they really believe they can go on doing this despicable shit indefinitely? Do they really believe Americans will sit back and allow them to be as evil and cancerous as they are forever?
Patriotic Americans see our media narking on the troops then hiding behind the First Amendment and they think “Someone has got to put a stop to this.”
CNN seems to be determined to push regular Americans to their breaking points. CNN is really trying to find out how much gaslighting and propaganda the American people will put up with.
They’re going to get another Boston Tea Party if they don’t stop being evil.
You are literally looking at the process of how the Ministry of Truth brainwashes liberal NPCs.
This is stimuli and response: the Fake News from AP (a Minitrue propaganda organ), then the righteous outrage response from a liberal famous person (an influencer/amplifier of Minitrue propaganda).
Alyssa Milano saw the tweet and then did exactly what she has been trained to do by the Ministry of Truth. She believes she’s an independent thinker and a brave truth-teller but that’s the whole point of propaganda.
Political brainwashing really is an incredible thing. Think about it:
> Illegals marchhundreds, if not thousands, of miles through brutal, inhospitable desert and arid terrain mostly on foot.
>US border patrol takes child into custody, gives child better care than the child has ever received in his/her life.
> Child unfortunately dies in US custody due to injuries and stress from journey.
>>> American leftists blame border patrol for child’s death.
Their first impulse is to Blame America. This is how they’ve been trained.
They don’t care about dead kids, they care about opening the borders.
Well, perhaps clueless, brainwashed bleeding hearts like Alyssa Milano truly do Care About The Kids, but the Democrats they support certainly don’t.
Democrat politicians are the most cynical and fraudulent people around: they not only voted for the Secure Fence Act in 2006, but also for tens of billions in border security within the past 5 years. Plus, none of them said a word about the “kids in cages” and use of teargas at unruly illegal invaders at the border under Obama.
David Hogg, who couldn’t even get into Cal State Long Beach, will be attending Harvard University this fall solely because he’s a vicious, angry leftwing fascist.
I’m serious. There’s no other reason.
Because it certainly wasn’t his academic merit that got him into Harvard:
If he was David Evans from Fargo, ND, Harvard would crumple up his application and throw it in the garbage.
This move totally cheapens Harvard as an institution. This kid objectively has no business attending Harvard, but because he spent he past year shrieking incoherently about politics (about a week after the Parkland shooting, he moved beyond guns, which was supposed to be his “called into action” issue, and on to full-fledged Democratic Party activism) he gets a special spot.
The “media” got this kid into Harvard.
Harvard is not an elite academic institution; it’s a partisan Democrat popularity club. If you have the right politics and you’re a “media” darling, you can get into Harvard. It’s no longer an ultra exclusive, elite academic college.
This is what it takes to get into Harvard:
“Hey, can I go to Harvard?”
“No, unfortunately your grades aren’t anywhere near what we require.”
“What if I said, ‘Ban the Second Amendment’?”
“Congratulations, you’re admitted to Harvard!”
It’ll be interesting to see if this kid’s politics get him through Harvard, or whether he drops out after a semester because the classes are way too difficult.
After all, universities have admissions standards for a reason: if you can’t meet the requirements, you will not be able to succeed.
Thomas Sowell often talks about this when it pertains to affirmative action and colleges lowering admissions standards in order to promote “diversity”: the minority students who get into top universities simply because they’re not white, and not because they qualify academically, often have a miserable time and eventually drop out of school—because they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
I don’t want to root for David Hogg to fail out of Harvard, but then again, fuck him. If he knew about this site, he’d probably try to destroy my livelihood because of my politics like he did Laura Ingraham and basically everyone else at Fox News.
We’re playing by their rules: we treat them as they treat us.
David Hogg is a nasty little shit and it’s entirely appropriate to hope he fails out of Harvard.
A largely unspoken reason why it’s so hard for Trump to drain the swamp: true “MAGA”/America First Trumpists cannot actually get confirmed by the Senate for cabinet-level posts.
To illustrate what I’m talking about, let’s consider James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense who is retiring in the near future due to his disagreement with President Trump over withdrawing US Troops from Syria.
As much as we all like Mattis the man, he’s a neocon at heart. Always has been.
This is why he’s leaving the administration. Because, like every other neocon, he disagrees with the President’s decision to withdraw from Syria and eventually Afghanistan.
First, however, I just want to say, it is very admirable of Mattis to simply resign due to his irreconcilable policy differences with the President. Most Uniparty/Establishment careerists would stay on and try to undermine and sabotage Trump from the inside, but Mattis is a man of character and integrity, so he is simply resigning. He’s not going to leak to the press to undermine Trump’s agenda, he won’t be insubordinate, he’s not going to write a tell-all book (at least I don’t think he will). And for that Mattis deserves a lot of credit, because subversion and sabotage seems to be the way many others in the administration operate. Mattis may disagree with Trump, but he’s not going to try to sabotage Trump’s agenda because of the disagreement the way so many delusional, power-loving Deep Staters would. Mattis doesn’t believe all dissent from neoconservatism is evil and unacceptable, and for that we should be thankful. He doesn’t see it as his patriotic duty to undermine Trump.
But going back to the original point: we all fell in love with the “Mad Dog” warrior monk persona of James Mattis when he was first nominated back in late 2016. It was awesome to have a badass Marine Corps General taking over the Pentagon.
We all just assumed Mattis was just like Trump: a based MAGA nationalist who wasn’t about any of that PC bullshit. And it was all because of the nickname “Mad Dog.”
However, what generally went unsaid was that Mattis was a neocon through and through for his whole career. And he still is today. Separate the man from his policies: he is not a Trumpist. He is a neocon who would have been more comfortable working under George W. Bush or even Obama (which he did).
Ask yourself this: why did Mattis sail through his Senate confirmation vote by a tally of 99-1? At the time we told ourselves it was because Mattis was Totally Awesome and Badass and Fuck Yeah, Bro. But the reality is that anyone, or anything, that passes the US Senate 99-1 should raise major red flags for us.
Again, I know we all love Mad Dog Mattis the man. But the dead giveaway of his true colors should have been the 99-1 Senate vote. That was a loud and clear message that Mattis was a friend of the Uniparty Establishment, we just didn’twant to hear it.
Mattis supported (and probably still supports) the Obama Iran Deal. Mattis is PC: he tried to “walk back” Trump’s decision to ban transgenders from the military, and his position on women in combat roles was basically a bunch of anxious public squirming, refusing to take a decisive position and ultimately just hoping to avoid the question.
(By the way: can we please quit believing this myth that all our military generals are cigar-chomping, hardass alpha males who espouse traditional values straight out of the 1950s? They’re not. Most of them are PC AF. The days of Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, and even Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, are long gone. The Pentagon itself is very PC/“Diversity Is Our Strength”.)
Mattis is an Establishment Neocon. That’s why he passed the Senate 99-1. That vote was the Uniparty Establishment’s seal of approval above all else.
Why do you think Mattis has largely flown under the radar these past two years? Why do you think the media never attacks him and has never tried to get him fired? Because they’re fine with him. I’d wager they probably even see him as largely one of their own, however not to the extent of guys like Comey and Brennan and Admiral Bill McRaven, the last being so PC/Uniparty Establishment he recently said Trump “threatens the Constitution” by criticizing the media.
If our military generals truly were these macho 1950s badasses, they’d never say anything as pussy as that. A liberal cuck like McRaven could only rise to the top of a military that is fully part of the liberal PC Uniparty Establishment.
And that’s part of the larger point here: the talent pool of “qualified” candidates available to Trump to staff his administration with is full of people who not only don’t share his views but hate him so much that they see it as their patriotic duty to sabotage and destroy his administration from the inside.
It’s not as easy as Trump simply being able to pick anyone he wants. The problem is they have to be confirmed by the Senate, and the Senate is overwhelmingly controlled by the Uniparty Establishment.
It was easy for Obama: Obama was a PC neocon globalist member of the Uniparty Establishment, and so were all of his nominees and appointees—as well as most of the Senators voting to confirm them, and the “media” carefully controlling the public’s perception of them. (“Media” is in quotes because our media is not a media at all, it is the Uniparty’s propaganda organ.)
But with Trump, it’s totally different. He can’t pick someone who sees the world the way he does, because A. virtually all the qualified potential nominees in the talent pool came up under Bush and Obama and are thus not even close to being ideological allies of Trump, and B. even if Trump found a legitimate Trumpist to appoint, he could never get him confirmed by the Senate.
What would happen to a true Trumpist if he were nominated for a cabinet post?
Well, just look at what happened to Mike Flynn when he was named National Security Adviser. He was destroyed by the Deep State and “media” within weeks.
A guy like Mike Flynn would have never made it through Senate confirmation, which is why he had to go to NatSec, a post that does not require Senate confirmation.
This is a largely unspoken but major hurdle for Trump in draining the Swamp: it’s virtually impossible for him to fill his Cabinet and administration with true MAGA Trumpists.
And again, the overall available talent pool does not include many—if any—true Trumpists. This is what I was getting at a while back when I wrote that the real problem right now is that there’s only one Donald Trump. Running the government and draining the swamp requires a lot of people on board; the President cannot do it alone. In fact, he can be isolated and held in check by institutional Washington and the Permanent State, as we’re seeing now.
The President does not hold absolute power, and so in order to truly consolidate power and make a meaningful impact, he needs to appoint loyalists and true Trumpists to every cabinet post.
The problem is there’s very few true Trumpists who could actually be appointed.
To rise through the ranks in Washington, you need to be a member of the Uniparty Establishment. You need to be a globalist, politically correct, pro-Open borders, pro women and trannies in the military and a World Policeman Neocon. This is how it’s been for a long time, too, meaning virtually all the “qualified” (meaning: people who could pass Senate confirmation) potential nominees are nowhere near Trump ideologically. As I said earlier, virtually all of them came up under Bush and Obama. But they’re the only people with the credentials and experience to be considered serious candidates for these major posts.
Trumpists are not able to rise through the ranks in Washington. You have to have the “right politics” to move up in that town, and everything Trump stands for in anathema to Official Washington. It’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop. This is why the available talent pool for high-level government posts is full of globalists: they’re the only ones who rise through the ranks in Washington.
One genuine MAGA Trumpist who actually made it into Trump’s cabinet was Jeff Sessions, but Sessions was basically neutralized within the first month when for no legitimate reason other than that he was under heavy “media”/Deep State/Dem pressure, he recused himself from the “Russia investigation” and thus allowed the Mueller Witch Hunt to take off and eventually get completely out of control.
See what I mean? Sessions was as big an immigration hawk as you were going to find in Washington. He was one of Trump’s earliest and most public supporters back when it was considered career suicide to be seen even remotely receptive to Trump. Sessions was legit, and that was why the Deep State made it such a priority to go after him.
The only reason Sessions made it through Senate confirmation was because he was a Senator himself and knew all the people who would be voting on his confirmation. And even then, he still barely squeaked through: the vote was 52-47.
Wherever and whenever the Uniparty Establishment has a say, it will not let a genuine Trump-style MAGA Nationalist anywhere near a position of meaningful power. And in the event a Trumpist does somehow beat the odds and obtain power, the Uniparty will work relentlessly and maliciously to destroy him.
Think of it another way: Trump himself could not have been confirmed by the Senate for a Cabinet post. He’s just too populist and too much of an outsider. His views on immigration, trade and almost everything else are unacceptable to the Uniparty establishment, and if it were entirely up to them, they wouldn’t let Trump anywhere near a position of power.
Fortunately the Presidency is the one office that’s not under their control. They certainly tried to stop him, and they’re still trying today, but they ultimately couldn’t.
Are there any legitimate based nationalists/Trumpists who could possibly be tapped for a cabinet post or high-level White House job?
Ted Cruz comes to mind. Cruz definitely “gets it” and is one of the most uncucked guys in Washington. But I don’t think he’d be able to get 50 votes in the Senate. It would be very close, to the point where you wouldn’t even want to risk it. But the fact that Official Washington hates him tells you all you need to know about him: he’s not one of them. He’s one of us.
Another Senator: Tom Cotton. More than just being a genuine badass military vet and bona fide genius, Cotton is a real immigration hawk who doesn’t just want a border wall, he wants to cut legal immigration levels in half.Tom Cotton is MAGA as hell. Perhaps he could replace Mattis at the Pentagon.
On the House side, you’ve got guys like Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert and Steve King. But none of those guys could ever get confirmed by the Senate. And that’s the problem.
Trump’s own son Don Jr. is based AF and totally gets it. Don Jr. would be awesome in a cabinet post or White House job, but unfortunately we have Ivanka (who is beautiful, smart, charming and a great representative for America on the world stage, but ultimately a bleeding heart when it comes to policy) and her globalist husband Jared. And Don Jr. would never be confirmed by the Senate.
Do you see what I’m talking about? It’s virtually impossible for Trump to stock his cabinet with people who truly believe in his vision.
True Trumpists, outside of Trump himself, are few and far between in Washington. And even if Trump does manage to find one, getting him confirmed by the Senate is so much of a long shot it’s not even worth the time and effort.
All the true MAGA Trumpists are not among the realistic talent pool for high level government posts. People like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson: they could never get confirmed by the Senate, obviously. Yet I believe if Trump had it his way, he’d be surrounded by people like them, not Official Washington.
But it’s really not up to him. His hands are largely tied when it comes to cabinet posts and major positions. So trump has had to settle on so, so many nominees.
In theory, he’s the President and he can pick anyone he wants.
In practice, he’s severely limited both by the Senate having confirmation power, and by the available talent pool being heavily skewed towards people whose politics are antithetical to his own.
The President needs to know just how many people are with him on this.
We do not give a shit about a “GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!!!!!!!!”
The Democrats and their media propaganda organs will try to scare him into backing down by saying the American people will be furious over a government shutdown, but this is an outright lie.
No one will be outraged over a shutdown–not anyone that voted for him, at least.
But we’ll be pissed if we don’t get a border wall.
We don’t care about government shutdowns. They don’t affect us. Over 80% of the federal government will still be functioning during this “shutdown”. The military will still be functioning, the VA will still be operating, Social Security checks will still go out–the so-called “government shutdown” is a myth.
Besides, what’s the point of a federal government if it doesn’t protect and enforce our borders? This is a basic prerequisite of governance: defend the integrity of our borders.
If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country.
A federal government that does not defend the borders is not a federal government at all. I’m not sure, exactly, what it is at that point, but it has failed on a fundamental level.
President Trump needs to know the American people are with him on this–for as long as it takes, too.
Now, I have no idea how this money will actually be delivered to the appropriate government agencies to build the wall. I have no idea if this is even a legal way to fund the wall, and I’m sure the Dem-stocked federal bureaucracy will find some way to invalidate this effort.
Brian Kolfage, the disabled vet who started the GoFundMe, wrote this on the page:
“We are working with a law firm on a legal document that will bind the government to using the funds for the border wall itself, nothing else.”
Pretty vague, but the important thing is that this shows how serious the American people are about getting this wall built.
Since I started typing this post about 10 minutes ago, the page received over $70,000 in new donations. So clearly this thing is taking off.
To put things in perspective, this is already one of the most successful GoFundMe campaigns ever. Here are the current most successful campaigns:
“Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund — US$21.51 million
The fund connects people who have experienced sexual harassment or assault in the workplace with public relations and legal teams. The campaign is still accepting donations and says the money will ultimately be administered by the National Women’s Law Center.
Las Vegas Victims’ Fund — US$11.87 million
The fund was set up for the victims of the Oct. 1, 2017 shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas where 58 people were killed. The beneficiary — the Las Vegas Victims’ Fund — began distributing donations in early March.
Support Victims of Pulse Shooting — US$7.85 million
The campaign set up to support the victims of the June 2016 shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla., where 49 people were killed. The money was disbursed in September 2016.
Funds for Humboldt Broncos — C$9.2 million (about US$7.3 million)
The online fundraiser for the victims of the April 6 bus crash in Saskatchewan is the largest ever to come out of Canada on the GoFundMe platform. The campaign was launched on April 6 and is still accepting donations.
Stoneman Douglas Victims’ Fund — US$6.82 million
The fund was set up to support the victims of a Feb. 14, 2018 shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., which left 17 people dead. The campaign is still accepting donations.”
The “Build The Wall” effort will likely end up as one of the most successful GoFundMe campaigns ever, and that shouldn’t be a surprise because the people want the Wall.
I know it’ll never change Congress’ mind. The Democrats don’t want the wall because they rely on illegals for future votes, and the Republicans don’t want the wall because their donors forbid it.
But hopefully President Trump gets the message and forces the wall to be built by any means necessary.
Also, who else thinks the entire federal government should be funded this way? Let the people decide what they actually want to fund.
Calculate your personal income tax number and then distribute that amount to those government agencies and efforts you actually support.
I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that we’re not getting the wall. It’s not just because the Democrats don’t want it but also because most Republicans don’t want it. Republicans—at least those that haven’t been fully converted to full-on “Diversity Is Our Strength!” cultural leftism after spending years enmeshed in DC—know deep down that we need the wall, it’s just that they rely too much on donations from corporate America and thus will either never allow it or just keep it far down on their priority list (the latter is effectively the former, just a more cowardly and corrupt way of going about it.)
We elected Trump to build the wall, drain the swamp and reclaim America from the corrupt globalist Uniparty, but it turns out the corrupt globalist Uniparty is simply too vast and powerful that not even the President of the United States can make a difference.
The only thing that can save America is a revolt like we’re seeing in France. I’m pretty much resigned to this fact by now.
I’m going to reiterate that I don’t want a revolt. I don’t want social upheaval and possible collapse.
I want peace and prosperity and America. I don’t want this country to be turned into a third world hellhole.
I just want what we voted for.
But the Uniparty is determined to prevent us from getting it, and at that point there’s really no other option for us, is there?
What is the last resort of people who are continually trampled and abused by their supposed public servants, who in reality have become rulers? When the elites have for all intents and purposes killed democracy, there’s only one other option.
We’ve almost lost the revolutionary spirit over the past few centuries because democracy has more or less worked for the vast majority of American history. Elections actually meant something and people had no need to revolt because democracy actually worked. You could actually achieve real, substantial change simply by voting.
But now the game is rigged. The outcome is predetermined. Trump sort of threw a monkey wrench into the Uniparty’s plan of continued dominance and higher profits for multinational corporations by winning the presidency but it turns out the presidency is just one part of the equation. The Uniparty still controls Congress, the federal bureaucracy (especially the Justice Department), and the media, and that’s enough to cancel out having Trump in the White House. They are able to hold him in check.
From the moment Trump was elected, and even before that, the Uniparty has sought to destroy Trump. Their mechanism for doing this centers on the false narrative of “Russian collusion” that they created in order to delegitimize Trump and, more importantly, launch an endless and boundless investigation into him in hopes of impeaching him. They all want it. The media talks daily with hope and delight about “the walls closing in” on Trump. Impeachment is so transparently their prime objective they don’t even really try to deny it.
Republican voters, don’t get mad at Trump. He’s the only one actually on our side. It’s just that it’s impossible for him to actually do what he said he would because the Uniparty is too pervasive and too powerful.
If you want to know what the Uniparty is just look at any image of the Obamas, Clintons and Bushes together. An example is Bush 41’s funeral: the Uniparty was assembled and in full display. The media was gushing. You’d never think the Bushes were Republicans given the way the media was singing their praises. But Trump made the media realize who its real enemy was, and also that the Bushes were basically on their side. Look at how they treated Trump: he was the unwanted guest, the Party Crasher. At least they invited him to 41’s funeral: McCain’s funeral they wouldn’t even let him attend. McCain’s funeral was strictly Uniparty.
Trump was the last best hope of defeating the Uniparty democratically and peacefully. And two years in it’s pretty clear that he is unable to do so.
Eventually it will come to revolt. I don’t know when, but it will. I’m sure of that. Because when voters don’t get what they voted for, they don’t just forget about it and give up. They get even angrier and their discontent with the status quo only gets worse.
Working on Capitol Hill for a member of Congress, I spent all day taking calls from constituents and the one thing I remember is that people were pissed. Super pissed. This was over four years ago and I don’t remember all the issues they called about specifically but the one constant theme was that people were at wits end over not getting what they voted for. Taking the House in 2010 midterms did nothing. Adding the Senate in the 2014 midterms got them nothing as well. They would always ask why the hell they keep giving Republicans more power in Washington and yet nothing changes.
In hindsight I should have seen Trump coming from a mile away after hearing from all those constituents day after day. They were fed up. They were done with getting shit on by Republicans who would promise the moon and deliver nothing. The callers correctly realized there was little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats: no matter who you voted for you always got the same thing. So of course they were going to take drastic measures and go with the outsider candidate to turn Washington on its head.
Those people haven’t just calmed down over the past few years. They haven’t given up. They haven’t simply accepted that they will keep getting the same Corporate-approved, politically correct globalist garbage shoved down their throats want no matter who they vote for.
They vote Republican and carry the party to power, and they expect to see results. They’re never going to be okay with the fact that they’re not allowed to simply get what they want. They weren’t okay with it in 2011, they weren’t okay with it in 2015 and they’re not okay with it now.
Maybe they could partly accept not getting what they wanted when the Republicans weren’t in full control of government, but were finishing up two years of full Republican control of the federal government and the people still haven’t gotten what they voted for. This is something they’re definitely not fine with. This is something they won’t tolerate. You can’t tell people who represent the majority that they still can’t get what they voted for. That does not go over well.
And yet somehow the Uniparty still believes the opposite is the case: the people will eventually learn to accept all this. Your country WILL be overrun with illegals and foreigners, your jobs WILL all be shipped overseas or taken by robots, and there is nothing you can do about it.
People can only take getting screwed over so much. They won’t just accept the fact that they’re powerless and don’t have a say in how their country is run.
And why on earth would they ever? They’re Americans for God’s sake. They know the history of their country. They know it was born of revolution and rebellion against tyranny. Sure the Uniparty is trying to erase their history and ruin their past by stigmatizing all their heroes as RAAAAAACISTS, but people still have that sense of American don’t-take-no-shit independence.
We know who we are.
Americans are hardwired to reject tyranny. We just are. This country was founded on the idea that we don’t have to take crap from some ruler. Try as the Uniparty might, it cannot stamp out the American spirit of self governance. It can never turn red-blooded Americans into passive subjects who will simply accept that do not have a say in how their country is run.
People who historically have known nothing but self-governance and freedom will not simply wilt into downtrodden peasants who accept the top-down dictates of their self-appointed ruling class. It’s just not gonna happen.
Sooner or later the Uniparty will push the American people to their breaking point.
This, of course, is a major reason the Uniparty has been working so hard for so long to import an entirely new electorate of foreigners who are more accustomed to obeying a ruling class in exchange for handouts and benefits.
But the Uniparty will fail. I’m sure of this.
So whenever you see Uniparty elites celebrating this victory or that over Trump, just know that one day they will have their comeuppance. Don’t get caught up in the daily manufactured drama of Failure Theater, whereby Republicans talk a big game of finally putting their feet down and doing what they’ve been promising to do for years, yet end up folding at the last minute, giving Democrats everything they wanted and getting no concessions whatsoever. Don’t fall for the act.
It’s simply the Uniparty trying to trick you into believing there isn’t a Uniparty aligned against your interests. The outcome of whatever they were pretending to disagree over was never in doubt. That’s just to maintain the illusion that the parties actually disagree and that there is a reason to continue voting.
Each time they thwart or obstruct Trump, it is only hastening their downfall.
Each time they deny us what we voted for, it only further solidifies the fact that the people will rise up and stop playing their rigged game.
The rules were written down clearly at the beginning: the people will govern themselves. They will not be subjects of a ruling class, in fact just the opposite will be true: the elected officials will be public servants of the people.
But somewhere along the way the whole thing was flipped and the public servants became the rulers while the public became the servants.
And so because the rulers stopped playing by the rules, it won’t be long before the people do the same.
You’re probably aware the stock market has been tanking lately. This has lots of people wondering whether we’re about to enter a protracted bear market, defined as a drop of 20% of more from record highs. While no one can possibly know what the future holds, it is worth discussing the matter given that as of today the S&P 500 sits more than 12% beneath the record high it hit earlier this year.
Here is the context of the recent sell-off:
Without getting too much into the chart, we can see that the market hit an all-time high in early October and then had a sharp sell-off. It rebounded slightly by mid-October, then fell to new lows by the end of the month. It attempted to rally in early November, but was unable to retake previous highs, and tumbled down to 265. Late November saw a minor rally to about the same point as the early-November rally, and then a drop-off in early December. The market sort of hesitated for a bit, then sold off again giving us the current drop we’re in now.
The main things chart analysts look for are new highs and new lows. A good sign is the market continually making new highs, a bad sign is the market making new lows. This should be pretty obvious stuff.
Another important thing is that the chart shows us not just stock prices but investor moods. The chart represents investor sentiment. New highs mean investors are willing to pay more today than they were yesterday. New lows mean investors won’t pay as much today as they were willing to yesterday. This means something changed.
We can see that after the early-October correction, the market tried three times to rally back to its highs, but all three times it failed to break out above the 280 level. That’s what technical analysts call “resistance”. Chart watchers look for “floors” and “ceilings”, also known as “support” and “resistance.” The blue line at the bottom of the chart showed the market’s previous “support” level at around 265, and we can see that it has dropped beneath the support, which generally means further pain ahead. If the market had bounced off of the 265 support level (again, the blue line), that would have been a good sign. But since it fell below the support line, it’s likely there’s further downside. It’s not guaranteed, of course, because anything can happen.
The bottom line is that lower lows and lower highs equal bad things. Higher highs and higher lows equal good things. What we’re seeing now is lower highs and lower lows: the current sell-off has reached lower lows than the October sell-off.
If we zoom out to take a bigger-picture view, we can see that the market is sitting on a fairly long-term support level not seen since April of this year, and prior to that, February. The 252-256 level seems to be a critical support (blue line again), and if we see the market drop below 252, it probably means even more pain.
So we’ll have to wait and see. As far as buying and selling recommendations go, I don’t want to get into that because I don’t want to be responsible for anyone else’s personal finances, but for what it’s worth I’m considering selling given that my portfolio is barely down right now. That’s just me, though. I’m not telling you to sell, I’m not telling you to buy. That’s just what’s going on in my head. Also keep in mind our brains are not wired to succeed in the stock market: we are wired to be risk-averse, and so our natural instinct is to want to sell when the market is going down and there’s red everywhere, in order to avoid further loss of principal. Yet that’s often the best time to buy.
Obviously the long-term approach to the market is to buy low and sell high, and times like this underscore how hard that truly is in practice: so many people thought it would be a good time to buy in October when the market was at record highs, because things seemed to be going well. But now, when people can buy the same stocks at lower prices, they want nothing to do with the market because things seem bad.
If you think about it, a stock you liked at $100 should be far more attractive after it has fallen to $75, no? But that’s not how our minds naturally work. Our minds believe that a stock that has fallen from $100 to $75 will keep falling (eventually to zero), even though it’s more likely that the stock has probably been oversold and is due for a rally (barring any extreme situations like Lehman Brothers in 2008 or Enron, where a company has gone belly-up, in which case it most certainly will go from $100 to $75 and eventually to zero). We also believe that a stock that has risen from $75 to $100 will keep rising, even though the most likely scenario is that the gains have already been had and the stock is more likely to go down than up.
Here are the main points for the stock market:
All bull markets come to an end.
This one has been running since March 2009, meaning it is the longest in US history.
The previous longest bull market in US history lasted nearly 10 years, from October 1990 to January 2000. However, the 1990 bear market was arguably not a “real” bear market in that the market only fell around 20% over a span of just four months. Prior to that, the market was on a long run that began in 1983, and was only punctuated by the infamous Black Monday of 1987 when the market dropped 22% in one day and -36% in total over a particularly brutal four months. But even after that, the market was back in an up-trend just a few short months afterward. I consider the period from 1983-2000 to be one long bull run given that the two technical “bear markets” within it only lasted a few months, and were not the typical multi-year down periods we generally classify as “bear markets.”
Meaning, this could be the end, but then again the market could continue to run upward for years to come, even if we experience some short-term pain, perhaps even very severe short-term pain. But, so long as there is no deterioration in the underlying economic data (meaning GDP growth, unemployment, etc.), the threat of a long bear market is minimal despite the threat of a very sharp short-term drop.
The bottom line is that true bear markets (again, extended periods of negative returns) happen when the economy goes into recession. The early 2000s bear market (2000-2003) coincided with the 2001 recession, although the bear market was more severe (-50% in the S&P 500) than the recession, which was very mild. The late 2000s bear market coincided with the Financial Crisis/Great Recession (late 2007-mid 2009) and saw the S&P drop nearly 60%.
History shows that there’s no reason to worry about a major bear market unless the economy itself is going into recession. On that front, the economy grew 3.5% in the third quarter, which is certainly nowhere close to a recession. But, then again, the fourth quarter numbers could show economic contraction. For what it’s worth, the Atlanta Fed, which forecasts GDP, says the fourth quarter number should be 2.8% growth. While the Atlanta Fed forecasts are not always correct and are not to be treated as the Word of God, they’re generally pretty accurate.
Again, no one knows what will happen next. The market could bounce off of support at around 252-253 and this correction could be over soon. Or perhaps the market breaks below the support level and goes down even more, potentially even a lot more. But, barring a recession, I don’t see a major bear market coming soon. So keep an eye on the economic data.
That said, we are definitely due for a bear market and a recession sooner or later. All bull markets come to an end, and all economic expansions come to an end. Bear markets and recessions are facts of life.
What are the political implications? That’s almost a topic for another day given that I could go on for a while discussing them. Someday soon I’ll write a piece about how the economy no longer accurately predicts the swings of American politics given our increasingly tribal divisions, but we’ll operate here off of the long-running assumption that politicians’ political fortunes are more or less tied to the economy.
I’ll put it simply: if the clock runs out on the current economic expansion, Trump is probably screwed in 2020. That’s how American politics has worked for a while: when the economy is good, the party in power remains in power. When the economy tanks, the voters turn on the party in power and the White House usually changes hands.
But with the economy in good shape, Trump probably doesn’t have much to worry about as it stands right now. Sure, the market may be in rough shape, but in the grand scheme of things, this current 12% drop is nothing major. Obviously it could get worse, but the economy itself is not indicating any sort of long-term bear market or recession. Trump’s real worry should be getting the wall built.
One final thing to be aware of: the market’s “valuation.” Is the market over-valued or under-valued? Knowing this can help us figure out whether the market has further upside or significant downside risk. We can determine valuation by looking at the market’s overall price-to-earnings ratio. A high p/e ratio means overvalued, a low p/e ratio means undervalued. Overvalued, in turn, means there’s not much upside to be had as most of the value has probably already been squeezed out.
The Shiller P/E ratio chart goes back to 1870, and it’s probably the best metric to determine whether the market is over- or undervalued. Right now, the Shiller P/E chart shows the market is very overvalued:
We can see that at the current level of 28.3, the market has only been this expensive two times: in 1929 and during the Dot Com Bubble of the late 1990s. History shows us that the market probably doesn’t have much value left to be extracted. This is where we have to worry about “mean reversion” and that’s a bad thing because the long-term mean is right around 15.
It’s important to know where we stand in the grand scheme of things. In late 2007, just before the Great Recession and the accompanying bear market, the Shiller P/E ratio was about where it is today. The stock collapse took the market’s P/E ratio down to 15, which is close to the long-term mean.
That will happen again. It’s just a matter of when.