lies

Media: 90% of Protests This Year Peaceful

Weapons-grade gaslighting:

They’re lying straight to your faces and trying to tell you not to trust your lying eyes.

Maybe it’s true that 90% of protests were peaceful.

But the 10% that weren’t caused a hell of a lot of damage.

This is kind of like saying 99.9% of flights on September 11, 2001 safely reached their destinations.

I guess, though, if this is the standard, then that’s wonderful news: it means the Covid-19 pandemic should be over!

According to Worldometers, only 2.9% of US coronavirus cases have been fatal. That means 97.1% of cases were not fatal. I eagerly await the media to apply their logic on downplaying the protests to coronavirus!

Stonetoss had a great comic about it, too:

🚨Fake News Alert: Atlantic Mag Says Trump Hates the Troops

I’m not even going to dignify this accusation with a link to the article. The Atlantic is failing, so let’s not do anything to prolong the amount of time it circles the drain. I’ll just include this Twitter summary:

They’re saying Trump referred to fallen US Marines who fought in WWI as “losers” and “suckers.”

They’re also saying he said the same thing about John McCain after he died in 2018.

The best part of all of this is Jeffery Goldberg’s–the Atlantic Editor-in-Chief who was making rounds on cable news today promoting his magazine’s slanderous story–excuse for using anonymous sources. He says his sources are anonymous because they “don’t want to get angry tweets.” I’m serious:

It’s almost comical how bad this story is. Goldberg’s sources are Super Brave Whistleblowers, but they’re also too afwaid of mean tweeets.

If that’s the biggest worry you have, then just don’t go on Twitter for a while. Problem solved.

If you’re so concerned about this country that you’re willing to come forward with a major accusation like this against the President, then wouldn’t you be willing to brave a few 🤬 Mean Tweets 🤬?

That’s because the sources are either made-up, or the sources are full of it.

The first accusation–about WWI soldiers–is just obviously untrue. It literally could not be further away from who Donald Trump is. Most people, even those who are not supporters of his, would have to admit that Trump very obviously loves America, and bends over backwards for the troops. Only the most nutty and brainwashed fringe of far-leftwing Fake News Consumers would not reflexively reject this story as bogus.

I mean you’d have to literally be watching CNN and MSNBC all day long in order to be this out-of-touch with reality. Those few people who are willing to believe Trump said this stuff about fallen US soldiers are living entirely inside the Fake News artificial reality constructed by the media. What the Atlantic is accusing Trump of is cartoon villain-esque.

Unfortunately, this story is getting major play in the media, because blue checks are some of the few people this thoroughly engrossed in the Manufactured World of Fake News. The NeverTrumpers believe this stuff because, well, they’re liberals and obviously so. And the big time, blue check-having so-called “Journalists” believe this stuff because they’re actually rabidly partisan far-left Democrats, not journalists.

Exhibit A:

No, they haven’t “confirmed” anything. You’re just a leftwing hack seeking confirmation bias.

Norman Ornstein says Jeffrey Goldberg is a 10 out of 10 in terms of credibility. Yet he leaves out the fact that Jeffrey Goldberg was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq War way back when, even falsely claiming that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda. More on Goldberg’s lack of credibility here, here and here.

Unfortunately for Goldberg, screenshots are forever and so is the internet:

This guy should have been laughed out of the business 18 years ago. But unfortunately we don’t have an honest media in our country, and it is precisely because Goldberg helped lie us into war with Iraq that he has not only stuck around but been promoted. That should tell you everything you need to know about the values of the American mainstream media.

The Atlantic claimed that Trump blew-off the French cemetery trip because Trump Cares About His Hair More Than the Troops:

I honestly don’t know how anyone could read those words and believe them to be true. You have to be living in a completely different world.

But it turns out the Atlantic got that wrong, too, because FOIA-obtained emails show that Trump’s helicopter trip to the Cemetery really was canceled by the Navy due to bad weather. Credit @Techno_Fog and Jason Leopold on Twitter:

But the Atlantic does not care about this stuff, which has been public since May 2019. The Atlantic writes stories for people who want to believe Trump is Satan Incarnate. Ironically, it’s the everyday people on Twitter who have to fact-check the supposed Professional Blue Check Journalists, all of whom ate this story up (both now and back in 2018 when the Paris trip happened) without a second thought.

Also wrecking Goldberg’s credibility is former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, who publicly turned on Trump after being fired. Although Bolton is a neocon snake, in his book–which was released in June of this year–he specifically details the decision to cancel the cemetery trip, and it has nothing to do with Trump being “afraid of the rain” or hating the troops:

But, again, none of this really matters to the Atlantic and all the other blue checks obsessing over this story. Because they didn’t “make a mistake.” They lied. They’ve been consistently lying about Trump since 2016–frequently, deliberately and maliciously. The whole France story from 2018 was a lie from the start, but since it fit their “narrative” (and the fact-checking of it did not) they brought it back up again for 2020.

Now, the McCain story is another matter. Because Trump and McCain have had a very public feud for a while. Trump addressed that part as well on Twitter:

Plus, since we know the first claim in the Atlantic story is obviously bullshit, what reason do we have to believe this McCain stuff?

Trump did say of McCain “He’s not a hero” and “I like people who weren’t captured” back in 2015. But more than proof that Trump Hates The Troops, I think those comments about McCain were more an indication that Trump knows the real story about McCain’s time in Vietnam, which paints a very different picture of him from the War Hero story most people have been told.

Back in March 2015, the incomparable Ron Unz wrote a long piece entitled “When Tokyo Rose Ran for President” about John McCain. It’s very long, but if you have some time I highly recommend reading it and learning the truth about what really happened to John McCain in Vietnam. Here’s a brief excerpt that summarizes the story:

It is certainly acknowledged that considerable numbers of American POWs were indeed tortured in Vietnam, but it is far from clear that McCain was ever one of them. As the original Counterpunch article pointed out, throughout almost the entire war McCain was held at a special section for the best-behaving prisoners, which was where he allegedly produced his Communist propaganda broadcasts and perhaps became such good friends with his guards as they later claimed. Top-ranking former POWs held at the same prison, such as Colonels Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, have gone on the record saying they are very skeptical regarding McCain’s claims of torture.

McCain wasn’t tortured. He was captured by the Vietnamese after crash-landing his plane, but then treated extraordinarily well by the enemy and even recorded propaganda broadcasts for them. This was because John McCain’s father, John McCain Jr., was literally the Commander in Chief of Pacific Command during the Vietnam War–in other words, the highest-ranking Naval officer in the Vietnam War.

It’s a long story that I recommend reading for yourself. But the point is that Trump was not just talking out of his ass when he said that stuff about John McCain back in 2015. The reason it sounded so outrageous at the time was because most people don’t know the McCain torture saga is a myth.

Anyway. Back to the Fake News.

The fact that the Atlantic story was pure garbage did not stop Joe Biden from repeating its allegations while on the campaign trail today:

Biden “visibly angry,” says the Blue Check. Because Biden just cares so damn much about the troops! It literally hurts his heart when he hears the Evil Orange Man’s Evil Orange Man Words.

At least Joe was nice enough to toss in the “if these statements are true” disclaimer.

I guess that’s how politics works now. I guess now a news outlet could say something like, “Per Sources, Joe Biden Has Practiced Cannibalism Since 1978.” And then Trump could give an entire speech calling him Cannibal Joe or something like that, and it’s All Good In the Hood as long as Trump says, “if these statements are true” at the end.

And apparently Biden just says whatever the media tells him to say about Trump. The media handles his messaging strategy and does all his oppo research for him. They just tee up stories for him.

Nobody who is not already way off the deep-end believes this story. It’s just not believable.

Trump loves the troops. He loves America. He goes out of his way to constantly profess his admiration and support for the military.

I ran a Twitter search for every time Trump used the term “troops” or “military” and there were too many results to count. Every time Trump endorses a Republican candidate, he cites the candidate’s commitment to the military. These are just a few examples from the past couple months, because there are so many tweets:

Being “strong on Military & Vets” is one of Trump’s biggest requirements for endorsing a candidate.

More:

Trump consistently shows us that taking care of the military is one of his highest priorities:

And finally the cherry on top:

Yeah, TOTALLY sound like a guy who would disparage WWI troops.

“Fact Checkers” Try (and Fail) to Prove the CDC Didn’t Just Admit that Only 6% of Covid Deaths Had Zero Comorbidities

The other day I wrote about the CDC website’s statement that 6% of the now nearly 190,000 Covid deaths were actually caused by Covid alone. In other words, per the CDC’s August 26th update, only 6% of the death certificates listed Covid alone–the other 94% had, on average, 2.6 additional comorbidities on top of Covid.

That story went viral on social media. Twitter removed the first post on the platform that sounded the alarm of the CDC’s update, which was retweeted by President Trump. Facebook also flagged similar posts as “misinformation.”

And now we have the so-called “fact-checkers” trying to debunk the 6% claim. Here’s Politifact’s typically snarky, know-it-all headline on it:

Really? The CDC’s website was pretty straightforward about it. Here’s the quote verbatim:

“For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.”

Only 6% of the 180,000+ listed COVID-19 deaths had zero comorbidities. The other 94% had an average of 2.6 additional comorbidities. It’s pretty simple. This is not hard stuff to understand.

But “PolitiFact” is out here trying to tell you that #ACKSHUALLY, the CDC didn’t really mean what it said:

“A small number of people have COVID ascribed as the sole cause of death. It may be they had no comorbidities or they were just not noted,” said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “However, it is also clear that advanced age and several other underlying diseases lead to bad outcomes with COVID infections. The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID.” 

A NCHS report found that, for about 6% of Americans who die from the virus, COVID-19 is the only condition listed on their death certificates. But that doesn’t mean the remaining 94% didn’t die due to the coronavirus.

People with preexisting conditions, such as cancer or diabetes, have a higher risk of dying if they contract COVID-19. Complications from those conditions, as well as comorbidities like influenza and pneumonia, can be listed in addition to the coronavirus on death certificates. In 92% of death certificates that mention the virus, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, according to the NCHS.

Okay, but none of this debunks the claim that only 6% of the listed “Covid deaths” were actually Covid and Covid alone.

Nobody is saying that Covid isn’t far deadlier for people with underlying conditions.

We’re saying that otherwise perfectly healthy people are not out here dropping dead because they catch Covid.

The fearmongers would have you believe over 180,000 perfectly healthy people in this country have caught Covid and dropped dead because of it and it alone. But that is not true.

Then the PolitiFact article tries to explain away the “average of 2.6 additional comorbidities” line by saying that when people catch Covid, it causes their respiratory systems to fail, or it causes their hearts to fail (or both), and then respiratory and/or heart failure are sometimes counted as “comorbidities” along with Covid, which is where the 2.6 figure comes from.

Okay, then why does it cause some patients’ respiratory systems and hearts to fail, but not others’?

Could it be that those Covid patients that experienced respiratory and heart failure had underlying health conditions? Maybe those underlying health conditions were not diagnosed prior to the patients dying of Covid? Just because an underlying health condition was undiagnosed does not mean it didn’t exist.

Covid does not cause respiratory and heart failure. It can lead to those complications, but it doesn’t cause them by itself. If Covid doesn’t cause respiratory and/or heart failure in most of the people that catch it, then you can’t try to say that Covid causes respiratory and/or heart failure.

It can wreck someone’s already compromised heart and/or respiratory system. But it does not wreck the heart and/or respiratory system of everyone that catches it.

It’s the same way that some people can die of the flu, while most people that catch the flu each year survive and have mild, or even totally asymptomatic, cases of it. Underlying and preexisting medical conditions play a huge role in how severe the flu is going to affect you. Same with Covid. Same with any illness.

No one is saying people who are already in bad medical shape aren’t especially at risk for Covid.

We’re saying that Covid isn’t causing perfectly healthy people to just drop dead.

PolitiFact and all the other fellow fearmongers want perfectly healthy Americans to be locked down indefinitely over a virus that is only really a threat to the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions (often one and the same).

More People Killed By Lawnmowers Each Year Than Unarmed People Shot By Police

Remember way back when terrorism was still a thing, how the #Enlightened liberals would brush it off as nothing to worry about? Their go-to rebuttal to any concerns over terrorism was usually to just call you a racist. But occasionally you’d find some who would say something like, “more people are killed by lawnmowers than terrorists every year,” or “more people fall out of bed and die every year.”

Here’s an example from 2017, Kim Kardashian, in an attempt to demonstrate the idiocy of President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” (which actually wasn’t a Muslim ban), tweeted this out:

Her tweet got almost 340,000 likes from smart, enlightened liberals who Just Knew Better than that idiot troglodyte President Trump.

But you know what? As much as we rightwingers didn’t want to admit it back then, they were ultimately right about us not having proper perspective on the true threat of terrorism. They were (and still are) wrong about Trump’s “Muslim Ban” (which wasn’t a Muslim Ban), but on the broader point of terrorism, they were right. Outside of 9-11, which was a one-off event, terrorism over the past 19 years has not been a serious danger for the average American.

We were the ones duped by the media, whipped into a hysteria over terrorism even though the statistical likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack here in the US is infinitesimal. This is not to dismiss the 14 confirmed terrorist attacks that have happened in this country since 9-11, notably San Bernadino, Pulse Nightclub and the Boston Marathon Bombing. There was a rash of terror attacks in the US from 2014-2016 which coincided with the rise of ISIS in the Middle East. Since 9-11, 97 Americans have been killed by Islamic Terrorism in total. That’s 97 people over an 18 year period.

Again, this is not to completely dismiss terrorism and trivialize those 97 people that died (and the additional people injured), but it is to say that media coverage of terrorist attacks has caused us to perceive terrorism as a far greater threat to ourselves than it truly is. And you could even go further and say that this media-fueled obsession with terrorism actually ended up causing more terrorist attacks due to military intervention in the Middle East enraging people and causing some to turn to terrorism as a way to get back at the US.

But if we’re going to put the true threat of terrorism in perspective by pointing out that you’re almost 35x more likely to be killed by a riding lawnmower than you are by a terrorist, we should also do the same thing with the current topic of media-fueled mass hysteri a: police brutality caused by racism.

Each year on average, 69 Americans are killed by riding lawnmowers. Yet according to the Washington Post, since January 1, 2015, 125 unarmed black Americans have been killed by police. That’s an average of 21 per year. If we do Americans of all races, the number is 356 over that same time span, or 59 per year on average.

There are more Americans killed in lawnmower accidents each year than there are unarmed Americans killed by police.

And this is including all incidents of police killing unarmed black people–meaning the justified killings as well as the unjustified ones. Meaning the number of unjustified police killings is way lower than even 21 per year.

How many of these infamous police killings of black people in recent years have actually been legitimate instances of officer wrongdoing? I know the media treats all of them as completely unjustified acts of racism by the cops, but really, how many of the major incidents since Trayvon Martin (who wasn’t even killed by a cop) have actually been unequivocal cases of unjustified police brutality? And even in that handful of incidents, how many were plausibly attributed to racism?

Face it: the media warps our realities and makes us believe things like terrorism and police brutality are far more prominent than they truly are. Simply by giving certain events more coverage, and other events less (or zero) coverage, the media has the ability to determine our priorities and fears.

From 2014-2019, there were an average of 73 shark attacks worldwide annually. That’s one every five days on average. If the media wanted to, it could give each and every one of these shark attacks massive and hysterical coverage and within a year or two, we’d all be terrified to go in the ocean.

The media has people fooled. Worse than that, it has people afraid. And it’s not just terrorism and police. If the media covered coronavirus honestly, we probably wouldn’t be under this six-month lockdown that has driven so many people crazy and caused so much economic destruction. The CDC, over the weekend, just updated its website and admitted that only 6% of the 187,000 Covid deaths were caused by Covid alone–the remaining 94% had an average of 2.6 additional comorbidities that were as much if not greater contributors to the remaining 178,000 “Covid” deaths.

It’s time for people to admit they were duped by the media. The country would be far better off if people just admitted they were duped, and learned their lesson: never trust the media again.

Another Media Lie: Jacob Blake Was NOT “Breaking Up a Fight.” The police Were Called Because of Blake.

This article from Madison365 attempts to bury the important development under the headline “Kenosha police opened fire less than 5 minutes after being called: scanner audio.

As if that proves anything at all. What does it matter how long it took for them to open fire? They were reacting.

No, the real news in this story is this:

“According to the audio obtained by Madison365, someone called police to report that Blake was at her home and wasn’t supposed to be, and that he had taken her keys and was refusing to give them back. A dispatcher relayed this message to patrol officers at about 5:11 pm Sunday.

About 30 seconds later, she let patrol officers know that there was “an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject,” apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued for Blake’s arrest. Court records indicate a warrant was issued on three charges — two misdemeanors and one G-class felony — on July 7. Court records indicate no previous criminal charges in the state of Wisconsin.”

So Blake WAS NOT just an innocent bystander just trying to break up a fight between two women.

You are drunk if you think Biden is winning the White vote

Lately I’ve seen some polls that show Trump either losing or narrowly winning white voters. There have been lots of blue checks on social media getting their hopes up that Biden is going to win white voters:

This Forbes article from a week ago cited a poll that showed Trump and Biden tied with white voters at 48%.

It was an NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist poll.

The Washington Post gleefully reported that “white voters are turning on President Trump”:

At a website called “Politics USA,” an article from June declared that “White voters are fleeing Trump and flocking to Joe Biden.” It cited analysis by the New York Times‘ poll nerd Nate Cohn, but we’re not going to link to the NYTimes because they’re the enemy of the people. But you can read an excerpt from the article at the Politics USA link.

It’s because of headlines like these that I’ve been continually saying the polls are wrong: because Biden is not going to do well with white voters. Not anywhere as well as the polls are showing. And probably not even as well as Hillary did with white voters in 2016. 

The media has been saying white voters are abandoning Trump. This has been a consistent wishful-thinking narrative of theirs since mid/late 2017.

It’s not true. Not at all.

Trump is not losing white supporters. Not by a long shot. You have to understand the type of person who voted for Trump in 2016: these are not people that are going to abandon him over bad press. These are not people who are going to abandon him over his tweets.

All of this stuff was known in 2016. And they voted for him anyway. They will not be shaken loose easily.

They don’t believe a word the media says. They haven’t for a long time. If you think any of the media’s malicious lies against Trump—Russia, Charlottesville, Ukraine, Impeachment, etc.—are going to change any 2016 Trump voters’ minds, you are utterly delusional. They don’t believe a word the media says. They didn’t in 2016, they don’t now.

If the media and the Democrats really want to shake Trump’s white supporters loose, they would attack him from the right. Because while he’s been pretty good about keeping his promises, and while by any objective standard he’s been at least an above-average president during his first term, there definitely are a lot of 2016 Trump supporters who have been underwhelmed by his first term.

But at the end of the day, they know There Is No Alternative (TINA) to Trump. They will not get better results with Biden in office. Even the self-described “accelerationists” who think that by making things worse it will hasten the kind of revolution they want, these people are A. Mostly all talk, B. Mostly under the age of 30 and therefore don’t know what they’re talking about (despite the fact that the alt-right are admittedly generally in the top-95%+ intelligence tier), and C. Very small in number.

There Is No Alternative to Trump. And every last one of his supporters knows this. No matter how disappointed some of them may be in Trump’s first term—which has largely been hampered by bureaucratic and Congressional obstruction, as well as the media’s scandalmongering and heinous lies—they know there is no way in hell that voting for Biden advances the football for them in any conceivable way. Deep down, they know that they’d be fools for making perfect the enemy of the good.

And this is why Trump is not going to lose support with white voters: because if there are any white voters disappointed in him, it’s because he hasn’t been rightwing enough. Not because he’s been too far to the right.

The likelihood of Trump losing white support from 2016 to 2020 is extremely low. His white supporters voted for him in 2016 the because they wanted the Wall and out of disgust over the corruption of the Clintons. They are not going to abandon him for the party of open borders and, uh, the Clintons. They see Biden as one and the same with the Clintons: they know they’re all part of the same Democratic inner-circle. This is why it’s mind-boggling to see polls that show Trump and Biden tied with white voters or even with Biden winning white voters. 

That is not going to happen.

If you don’t believe me, then ask yourself if this political climate—the one of BLM, race riots, rampant anti-white racism and, above all, steadily growing white consciousness of the changing demographics of the country—is one that is likely to make Trump the first Republican since 1964 to lose the white vote. Be honest with yourself. 

Trump will not be the first Republican to lose the white vote since 1964. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

Let’s look back on past elections just to get a frame of reference for how Republican candidates—good ones, so-so ones and bad one alike—historically perform with white voters. All data via Cornell’s Roper Center:

  1. Trump won white voters 57-37 in 2016. 
  2. Romney won 59-39 in 2012. 
  3. McCain won whites 55-43 in 2008. 
  4. Bush won 58-41 in 2004. 
  5. Bush won 55-42 in 2000. 
  6. Dole narrowly won white voters in 1996, 46-44 over Clinton. Perot won 9%. 
  7. Bush won the white vote in 1992 41-38 with Perot taking a whopping 21%. 
  8. 1988: Bush won whites 60-40 over Dukakis. 
  9. Reagan won whites 66-34 in 1984. 
  10. Reagan won the white vote 56-36-8 in 1980 over Carter and third-party candidate John B. Anderson. 
  11. Ford won the white vote 52-48 in 1976. 
  12. I couldn’t find data from 1972 but I’m certain Nixon won white voters given that he won the election in one the biggest landslides ever. And he probably won them in 1968, too.

The last time a Republican lost the white vote was 1964. We know this because the country was over 85% white back then and LBJ won by a national popular vote margin of 61-38.

Republican average of white vote share since 1976: 55%. And that’s including the three elections (1996, 1992, 1980) where a third-party candidate won a meaningful number of white voters.

Since 2000, Republicans have averaged 56.8% of the white vote.

Democrat white vote average since 1976: 40.2%.

Since 2000: 40.4%

So, since 1976, Republicans have won the white vote by an average margin of 55-40%. 15 points.

And since 2000, Republicans have won the white vote by an average margin of 56.8% to 40.4%. That’s an average margin of 16.4%. 

Biden will not be the first Democrat to win the white vote since 1964. I would stake my life on this. 

White voters—mainly non-college whites—are ride or die for Trump. They stuck by him through all the bullshit and slander of 2016. If they were going to abandon him, they would have done so before the 2016 election—like the media kept predicting would happen then, kept pretending like it was happening after Trump was in office, and is to this day pretending is happening.

All of the media’s hoaxes and scandals did not dislodge Trump’s white voters. They just didn’t. Trump has not betrayed them but even if white voters have been underwhelmed by his first term, that still would not be cause to vote for Biden. Any white voter disappointed by Trump’s first term is not voting for Biden. Because if Trump disappointed at all, it was because he didn’t go far enough to the right.

Trump supporters are loyal. They knew full well what they were getting into in 2016. Nothing that Trump has done since he took office has been “too conservative” for the people that voted for him in 2016. He has not been anything other than the guy they thought they were voting for in 2016.

Because that’s the only reason you’d switch from Trump 2016 to Biden 2020, right? If Trump was too rightwing for your tastes. I’m telling you: nobody who voted for Trump in 2016 has caught the vapors over his brashness or his tone.

All of the weak-kneed “But His Tone!” Republicans who would be prime targets for the Biden campaign to flip probably didn’t even vote for him in 2016 to begin with. They were scared away from him from the very start.

If anything a lot of those voters have seen the light and become Trump supporters over the past four years. I personally know at least ten people who fall into this category. Imagine how many more there are out there.

Any poll showing Biden winning white voters has zero credibility. 

There’s a better chance of Trump winning 40% or more of the Hispanic vote than there is of Biden winning 45% or more of the white vote. Take it to the bank. 

I would be less surprised by Trump winning 13% of the black vote—something no Republican has done since Ronald Reagan in 1980—than I would by Biden winning 45% of the white vote.

White voters have not abandoned Trump since 2016. The idea that they did not know what they were getting into, or the idea that as President Trump has been completely different from what people thought they were getting in 2016: absolute and utter nonsense. It’s all wishful thinking by the media and the beltway elite.

If anything Trump is going to improve with white voters. Notably college educated whites who thought he was icky in 2016. So many of them who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him but also couldn’t vote for Hillary and either sat out 2016 or voted independent: they’re going for Trump now, and there’s a lot of them out there.

That’s why I’ve been saying for four years: 2016 was Trump’s floor. The mere fact that he won was an eye opener for a lot of people: “Oh wow, maybe there is a method to his madness. Maybe the media had this guy all wrong…” that was the thought process for lots of conservative leaning voters who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. 

Remember for a long time there were Republicans who thought Trump was trying to throw the election for Clinton, that he wasn’t actually conservative, or that he was trying to run as a publicity stunt. They didn’t think he was serious right up until election night. And then he won and they realized he was for real.

The moment Trump won in 2016, a lot of conservatives who had been either ambivalent towards him or even outright opposed to him realized, “Oh, wow, this guy knows what it takes to actually win, unlike those losers Romney and McCain.” These people have become some of the most hardcore Trump supporters around. And even though the media hasn’t given them any coverage, they’re out there, they’re pissed, and they’re voting for Trump on November 3rd.

I would not be surprised if Trump even expands on his margin with white voters this time around. If you think that’s doubtful, just ask yourself if the Democratic Party has done anything—anything at all—to make itself more appealing to white Trump voters since 2016. No sane person would say they have. In fact, it’s kind of incredible to see just how much the Democrats have managed to alienate white voters in such a short period of time, the last three months in particular.

Biden was already fighting a major uphill battle with white voters before the George Floyd Riots. Remember, Hillary lost white voters by 20 points in 2016. That was Biden’s starting point. Over the past three months, it’s almost as if the Democrats were trying to shed white voters. You’d have to be on serious Schedule-1 narcotics to believe the events of the past three months have made Biden more popular with white voters.

The idea that Biden is even remotely competitive with white voters—much less leading, or even tied—is so outlandish that it’s honestly hilarious to see blue checks say with a straight face that it’s happening.

Has Trump Handled Coronavirus Poorly, and if so, Will It Hurt Him in the Election?

All data used in this post comes from worldometers.info/coronavirus

______________________________________________________________________

A main talking point throughout 2020 is that Trump has completely mishandled the response to COVID-19 and that things would have been much better for America had Donald Trump not been our President. His incompetence has cost thousands of lives and this alone is reason enough to vote him out resoundingly on November 3.

Now, it should be noted that this is a talking point put forth almost entirely by people who hated Trump before the pandemic, and who were planning on voting against him in November regardless.

Most Trump supporters completely dismiss this as bad-faith partisan cynicism. Many Trump supporters (myself included) go further than that and say that the virus itself is more or less an election year hoax that is almost completely a product of media hysteria rather than the actual danger the virus poses to the average American.

But who’s actually correct? Just because Trump’s critics hate him doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong. And just because you support Trump and plan on voting for him in November no matter what does not automatically mean he’s handled the Coronavirus pandemic as well as he could’ve.

Here’s an example of a typical criticism of Trump:

Screen Shot 2020-08-06 at 9.49.57 PM

She brings up three points: national lockdown, mass testing and “contact tracing.”

Let’s go over those point-by-point:

National lockdown: more on this later, but Trump was ripped by his critics for not issuing a national “shelter-in-place” order. But there’s a reason for that, and he has defended himself by basically saying it’s up to the states. This is a quote from April 1:

“Trump said it would be difficult and uneven to arbitrarily call for all states to remain home for coming weeks. He used the example of states in the Midwest not being as widely affected by the coronavirus. It would be unfair, he said Wednesday, to edict all residents stay home in states that do not have “thousands” or “hundreds” of cases.

“States are different,” the president said. “I understand that Florida issued one today. That’s good. That’s great. There are some states that don’t have much of a problem. … You have to give a little bit of flexibility.”

I don’t understand how someone could have a problem with this. I just can’t wrap my head around it. If the virus is raging in New York, it might seem like a sensible move to issue a shelter-in-place order there. But that does not mean places where the virus is not raging–say, Wyoming, for example–need a shelter-in-place order as well.

It makes far more sense to ban all recreational interstate travel than it does to put Idaho under lockdown because the virus is raging in New York City. But heaven forbid we do  that. Better to just put the whole country under lockdown even if the epicenter is largely confined to a few large urban areas.

Come on. That’s just silly. Lockdown policies should be implemented on a state-to-state basis. County-to-county is even better.

Next point is “Mass testing”: This one is simple. We’ve done over 63 million tests, which is more than any other country in the world other than China, which claims it has done 90 million tests. Russia is the next closest to us at 29 million.

Now, in terms of tests per million people, we rank 18th in the world, but ahead of us are many tiny countries like Luxembourg (pop. 636k), Monaco (pop 39k), the Faeroe Islands (pop. 48k), and Gibraltar (pop. 33k). The only countries over 50m population that have done more testing per million than we have are the UK (257k per 1m) and Russia (203k per 1m).

But even testing per million isn’t a great measure given that it’s much easier for smaller countries to have a high tests per million number. The smaller the country, the fewer tests you have to manufacture to get a high tests per million number. America has produced more coronavirus tests than any other country but China. It’s more impressive that we’ve managed to manufacture over 63 million tests when nobody else has manufactured even 30 million thus far.

Let’s use Australia as an example: they have done about 181k tests per million, slightly behind America’s pace. But they only had to produce and administer 4.6 million tests compared to our 63 million tests.

So total tests do matter, and in that category we have done far better than anyone but China. And who knows if China’s data is accurate at all?

You can’t say America should be doing more tests when we’ve produced and administered more tests than any other country.

Third point is “Contact Tracing,” which is basically putting the whole country under a police-state. This is from an article published today in BBC about Britain’s second attempt to develop and release a contact tracing app. Tell me if this sounds like something that would appeal to you:

“A second attempt at a Covid-19 contact-tracing app for England will soon be tested by members of the public.

Officials hope to confirm the date for the limited roll-out within a few days. It could be as soon as next week.

The app will let people scan barcode-like QR codes to log venue visits, as well as implementing Apple and Google’s method of detecting other smartphones.

But efforts are still ongoing to deliver medical test results within the product.

Users will get alerts if others they have recently been close to declare that they have been diagnosed with the coronavirus.

The software will provide information about the prevalence of the disease in the local area to encourage people to be more cautious if levels rise.”

An app that tracks you 24/7 and tells the government your every move? No thanks.

Trump should be applauded for not subjecting Americans to this type of system. Ironically it’s the people who shriek that Trump is a FASCIST DICTATOR who are complaining that he isn’t being more of a Fascist Dictator.

Additionally, Britain is over five months into the COVID pandemic and they still haven’t rolled out their contact tracing app.

So those are the three main gripes with Trump’s coronavirus policy. In my view, none of the three are valid criticisms.

What Should Trump Have Done Differently?

The same people saying Trump dropped the ball are the same people that would have been screaming bloody murder had he taken actions that would have prevented the virus from affecting us, namely closing the border and shutting down international trade. This is why it’s patently ridiculous to say that we would have been better off with the Democrats–the party of open borders–in charge during COVID

But the real problem is in the assumption that Trump is the be-all, end-all on Coronavirus policy. It’s a totally false argument to pin everything on Trump when he’s not the one making the final call.

Is Trump Even In Control?

As we went over above, coronavirus policies vary significantly from state-to-state. South Dakota has different policies in place than New York State.

And that’s the way it should be: both states are very different in terms of population, population density, demographics, etc. There is no reason there should be a one-size-fits-all nationwide policy.

States are largely in charge of their own policies. All the federal government does is make recommendations, and states can choose to base their own policies off of that, but they do not have to by any means. Everyone knows this, too. They know it’s the governor in their state that sets the policies on masks, businesses opening/closing, permitted gathering sizes, etc.

Think about it: who has imposed more COVID rules on you, Trump or your state’s governor? Can you think of a single rule that Trump has imposed on you? No, that’s because the mask orders and everything else come from state and local government.

It’s not up to Trump to open schools in the fall. If it was, they’d all be opened. It’s up to the state governments and the individual school districts.

The media knows this too, yet blatantly contradicts itself in its “reporting”: it blames Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for being too lax about COVID policy, but then it turns around and blames Trump for his handling of the virus. Which is it? Is Florida’s governor in charge of his state, or is Trump? If it’s DeSantis’ fault, then how can it be Trump’s fault? And vice versa.

The only constant is that the media is just trying to shift the blame away from Democratic Governors in the worst-hit places like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Republican governors like Ron DeSantis (FL) and Brian Kemp (GA) are held to wildly different standards than Democratic Governors like Cuomo and Phil Murphy (NJ).

Wide Variance Between States

Along those lines, virus data in America varies significantly from state-to-state. For instance, New Jersey has a death rate of 1,793 per 1 million residents, whereas Wyoming only has 47 deaths per 1 million residents. New Jersey’s death rate is 38x higher than Wyoming’s, and 3.6x higher than the national average of 491.

Now there are obvious reasons why New Jersey would have a higher death rate–population, population density, proximity to NYC–but the point is that the impact of the virus has varied greatly around the country. New York State and New Jersey represent over 30% of US COVID deaths, but only 12.6% of total US cases.

Furthermore, Florida (21.4m) and New York (19.4) have similar populations and similar COVID case totals (510k in FL, 448k in NY), but wildly different death rates: New York has a death rate of 1,687 per 1 million, while Florida has a death rate of 361 per 1 million. New York’s death rate is 4.7x higher than Florida’s.

23 states each have fewer than 1,000 total COVID deaths, while the top six states in terms of COVID deaths have more combined deaths than the other 44 states combined.

The point is, because there is such a wide variance in how individual states have been affected by the virus, the idea that it all goes back to Trump is a double-edged sword: if he’s to blame for the terrible numbers in the Northeast, then shouldn’t he get credit for the low death rates in other parts of the country?

It just doesn’t make sense to pin it all on Trump, good or bad.

Comparing America and Europe

Have we actually been hit harder than everywhere else? And if so, is it Trump’s fault?

The only half-decent country-to-country comparison we can make is with Brazil. It’s about the same size as America geographically, however Brazil only has about 2/3 of the population as America (212m vs. our 330m).

In terms of cases, Brazil has 2.9 million compared to our 5 million. They have 98k deaths compared to our 162k deaths.

  • Cases per million:
    • USA: 15,193
    • Brazil: 13,716
  • Deaths per million:
    • USA: 491
    • Brazil: 464
  • Total tests:
    • USA: 63.1 million
    • Brazil: 13.2 million
  • Tests per million:
    • USA: 190k
    • Brazil: 62k

Our cases and deaths look very similar to Brazil’s. The only difference is we’ve done way more testing than they have. So their cases and deaths are probably under-counted.

An even better comparison than Brazil would be Europe–not each country individually, but the figures of its five biggest countries put together: UK, Spain, France, Italy and Germany. Combined, those five countries have a population of 324 million people, which is right around the US’s total population of 330 million. Add in the fact that America and Europe have similar levels of technology, medicine and living standards, and this is about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as we’re going to get in the world.

Now, in terms of total cases, the US dwarfs the European Big Five: they have a combined 1,322,711 cases, while the US has 5,031,732 cases, which is more than 3.8x as much.

You might say that’s a product of us doing more tests, and while we have done millions more tests than those five countries combined, it’s not 3.8x as many tests. They’ve done a combined 44 million tests, we’ve done 63 million.

But here’s the thing: in terms of overall deaths, we are are only barely ahead of them:

  • Total US COVID deaths as of 8/6/20: 162,780
  • Total Europe Big Five COVID deaths: 149,664

So despite having 3.8x as many COVID cases, we only have about 13,000 more deaths than the European Big Five.

But, remember, we have about 7 million more people than their combined population.

In terms of deaths per million, it gets even closer: the European Big Five, when you take the average of their deaths-per-million, is 490 per million.

In the US, it’s 491 per million.

It’s pretty remarkable that it’s that close.

In terms of deaths as a percentage of the total population:

  • USA: 0.00049%
  • Europe Big Five: 0.00046%

Our deaths as a percentage of total cases are way lower:

  • USA: 3.23%
  • E5: 11.3%

However, I don’t know how much stock to put into this figure given that our death rates are so remarkably similar. If anything, I think this major disparity shows the US has had a lot of false positives. If we have 3.8x the number of documented cases but right around the same number of deaths, either it means America is significantly better at curing people when they get COVID. It could simply mean we have falsely diagnosed a lot of people who didn’t actually have it. Or it could mean we’ve over-tested and are counting asymptomatic cases in the same category as symptomatic cases.

A rundown of the numbers broken down by country. . .

  • Deaths as a percentage of total cases:
    • France: 15.5%
    • UK: 15%
    • Italy: 14%
    • Spain: 8%
    • Germany: 4.2%
    • USA: 3.23%
  • Deaths as a percentage of the total population:
    • UK: 0.00068%
    • Spain: 0.00060%
    • Italy: 0.00058%
    • USA: 0.00049%
    • France: 0.00046%
    • Germany: 0.00011%
  • Deaths per million:
    • UK: 683
    • Spain: 610
    • Italy: 582
    • USA: 491
    • France: 464
    • Germany: 110

One thing that sticks out is Germany’s dramatically lower death rate. Why is this? My first guess would be that they count their deaths more accurately than everyone else. In America, we count deaths with COVID in the same category as deaths of COVID, and everyone knows those are two very different things.

Probably the biggest factor in Germany’s significantly lower death rate is that they aren’t labeling COVID deaths willy-nilly.

An article from late March noted the wide disparity in COVID deaths between Italy and Germany as a product of the way each country defines a COVID death:

“The latest figures from the Robert Koch Institute show that Germany has a  (CFR) of 0.3 percent, while the World Health Organisation (WHO) figures from Italy seem to show a CFR of nine percent. The case fatality rate from coronavirus in Germany records the underlying health conditions as the cause of death, instead of reporting the death as the result of the pathogen. Doctor John Lee, a recently retired professor of pathology and a former NHS consultant pathologist, said: “The data on COVID-19 differs wildly from country to country.

“Italy has 69,176 recorded cases and 6,820 deaths, a rate of 9.9 percent. Germany has 32,986 cases and 157 deaths, a rate of 0.5 percent. We ought to suspect a systematic error, that the COVID-19 data we are seeing from different countries is not directly comparable.”

The former pathologist argues the death rate is not being calculated uniformly across the world, he said: “Recording cases where there was a positive test for the virus is a very different thing to recording the virus as the main cause of death.”

BBC Broadcaster Andrew Neil has tweeted in support of Doctor John Lee’s data methodology theory. He tweeted: “Germany, I’m told, records as cause of death any underlying condition, if there is one, even if they had coronavirus. We record it as coronavirus death if they had the virus regardless of underlying conditions.”

That’s why Germany’s death count remains far lower than its neighboring countries. They’re just stingier on what they label as a COVID death.

If we counted our deaths the same way as Germany, I’m sure our total deaths would be way lower than the current number. And, if Germany counted their deaths the same way we and most other countries do, then Europe’s death total would probably be higher than our’s.

The point is, there’s little discernible difference in how America has been affected by the virus compared to how Europe has been affected by it. Our numbers are right in the same ballpark as their’s–and Brazil’s as well. So if Trump has failed, then both Europe and Brazil have failed as well.

Or maybe the reality is that global pandemics happen from time to time, and when they happen a lot of people will get sick, and a lot of those people will die. The closeness of the numbers in America, Europe and Brazil indicate that our policy responses are most (but not completely) futile, and that the best course of action is to just let it run its course.

***

All this is to say that contrary to the media narrative, Trump’s perceived response to the coronavirus is unlikely to matter much in the election. The people who already hated him and were already planning on voting against him are, unsurprisingly, the biggest critics of his coronavirus response. And the people who supported him before COVID hit are not abandoning him over his response to the virus.

I seriously doubt Trump’s response to the Coronavirus will cause a significant number of voters–pro- or anti-Trump–to rethink their vote. People are, for the most part, already locked-in. This, more than anything, is why I don’t trust the polls. I just find it extremely hard to believe a candidate can gain or lose 5% support over the course of a few weeks. I don’t think the candidates’ support levels fluctuate that much throughout the course of the campaign. Most voters are not persuadable anyway, and the ones that are have a good idea of whether they’re going to flip parties well before election day.

What’s more, the small number of voters that are still up for grabs this year and are basing their vote on how well they perceive Trump’s coronavirus response, are probably not very bright individuals. This is a virus that has killed, at most, 0.00049% of the U.S. population over a span of five months. The only way you’re highly concerned about the virus is if you’re in the high-risk category (diabetic, overweight, old, preexisting conditions) or if you pay way too much attention to the Fake News Media.

I wouldn’t worry too much about Trump losing support over his supposedly poor handling of the virus. There’s little evidence that he’s handled it poorly, and even though there are lots of people out there who think he’s handling it horribly were never going to vote for him in the first place.

Anthony Fauci Thinks You’re an Idiot

Anthony Fauci, Unassailable Expert of Science™️ and America’s Heartthrob who no one may ever question, started off the MLB season at the Nationals-Yankees game with a botched first pitch, then went into the stands (which us Normal People are not allowed to sit in) and yakked it up without a mask on, and definitely not socially distanced:

He thinks you’re an idiot. He thinks you’re a sucker. He thinks he’s better than you.

Masks are all for show to this guy–but you have to wear one. Social distancing is a crock of shit to him–but you still have to do it.

Attending sports games is too dangerous to be allowed–but he and his elderly friends who are most at-risk for dying of Coronavirus can do it. Also BLM “protests” attended by tens of thousands of people in urban areas are just fine.

If Fauci not taking his own advice on 🦠 😱THE VIRUS 🦠 😱 then why should we? He is almost 80 years old and clearly has no fear of the virus. It’s almost as if it’s a big ass lie.

Joe Biden, who is actually two years younger than Fauci, has been sequestered in his basement for the past four-and-a-half months because apparently it’s too dangerous for him to go outside of his house and campaign (and presumably debate), what with the 🦠 😱GLOBAL PANDEMIC 🦠 😱 and all.

Really makes you think.

Is BLM Racist or Marxist?

Jeremy Carl of American Greatness makes the case that BLM is not Marxist, but racist:

“Radio host Mark Levin called BLM “Marxist and violent surrogates” of the Democratic Party, while former talk show host Neal Boortz said, “Black Lives Matter has been hijacked by Marxist revolutionaries.” Rudy Giuliani has called BLM a “Marxist” organization, as has former police chief Bernard Kerik, who referred to BLM as a group that “uses black lives to promote their Marxist and communist agenda.”

I don’t mean to pick on these individuals in particular; many of them are good patriots and conservatives who have explicitly denounced BLM’s racial politics. But at the same time, we must be clear: Marxism doesn’t define the Black Lives Matter movement—anti-white racism does. 

It is understandable that some conservatives—in particular, older conservatives—are more comfortable speaking the language of anti-Marxism than anti-white racism. Marxism is a traditional enemy for all conservatives, while many conservatives, particularly older ones, have been relentlessly trained by our left-wing media to parrot the canard that any mention of the Left’s anti-white racism is a sign of “white identity politics” or even worse, “white nationalism.”

But there are two problems with accepting this dubious formulation.

First, BLM is fundamentally driven by racism and not Marxism. Second, the structural dynamics of BLM are diametrically opposed to a Marxist analysis of class struggle.

To understand why BLM’s racism is a much greater threat to America than its Marxism, we should remember that even among our miseducated American youth, there is precious little desire in the United States for actual Marxism.By a generous count, anything resembling a true Communist Party took far less than 1 percent in the 2016 presidential election. 

But while Marxism thankfully still has a very small market share in the United States, anti-white racism unfortunately has a significant and growing one.”

Hold up. The claim is that: “Marxism has a very small market share in the U.S.” because the Communist Party didn’t even get 1% of the vote in the 2016 election.

That is not sufficient proof that “Marxism has a very small market share.” For one, a self-described socialist (Bernie) nearly won the Democratic Nomination. He got 43% of the vote in the primary. Marxists don’t need the Communist Party–they have a significant foothold in Democratic Party, despite the fact that its Elite stole the nomination from Bernie (twice). At the very least they’d conclude a path to power is far more realistic by taking over the Democratic Party than forming a third party.

A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that 76% of Democrats would feel comfortable supporting a socialist for President. What’s worse, 45% of independents said the same.

It is definitely not safe to assume that “Marxism has a very small market share in the United States.” Just because I don’t vote for the Official Communist Party USA Candidate in an election does not mean I am not a Marxist.

That’s a silly claim by Jeremy Carl. But let’s move on and see what else he says:

“America is now just 60 percent white non-Hispanic and a majority of those under the age of 16 are now ethnic minorities. 

And while America’s white population is wealthier than the black population,  Asian-Americans—who constitute a much smaller percentage of the overall population—now earn far more money than whites. The sad and ugly truth that the “BLM is Marxist” crowd ignores is that Black Lives Matter is a movement about dispossession and disinheritance—dispossession of America’s cultural heritage through attacks on statues of American heroes such as Washington, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, and dispossession of material inheritance through unwarranted demands for financial reparations. 

In other words, it’s a shakedown operation based in hatred.

This overt call for dispossession and disinheritance makes the rapidly declining white majority uncomfortable—particularly older people who grew up in 1960s and 1970s America where 85 percent or more Americans were white and non-Hispanic. It’s much easier for them to talk about “Marxism,” than to face reality.”

And that reality is that the Black Lives Matter’s reparations scam is just an updated version of the old Al Sharpton shakedown operations of the 1980s—but it is now part of a much larger and more powerful coalition that can make more onerous demands without the crudity and overtness that characterized the work of Sharpton or fellow race hustler Jesse Jackson.”

This is a good point. BLM is the new Al Sharpton. We know this because we haven’t heard really anything out of Al Sharpton throughout all of this, have we?

But still, that does not address the fundamental reality of reparations. What are reparations but a massive, Marxist redistribution of wealth?

Carl finishes up:

“Black Lives Matter is not, in any meaningful historical sense, a Marxist group, and conservatives need to stop saying that it is. Indeed, it is a movement that is supported overwhelmingly by corporate America, one that just this week announced hundreds of millions of dollars of support from billionaire vulture capitalist George Soros.

It is a group of race-slanderers that seeks to dispossess millions of Americans of all backgrounds who value America’s heritage and history, but is particularly keen to focus on white Americans as targets. It is run by a cynical rainbow coalition of “community activists” and corporate overlords who hope that the tiger they have unleashed eats them last, or even better, that it will be so sated by feeding on the desperation of America’s beleaguered middle class that it will not even bother to notice them.

We need to be clear on what Black Lives Matter is if we are going to win in our struggle against the group. They’re not Marxists, they’re racists.”

Let’s grant that BLM is genuinely anti-white. It is a full-blown black supremacist organization with lots of people who believe, like Nick Cannon does, that white people are “a little less,” “closer to animals” and “true savages.” I don’t think BLM wants to kill all white people–nor do most of the clueless NPCs who claim loose affiliation with BLM simply because they agree with the statement “black lives matter.”

But I’ll grant that many of BLM’s most die-hard members probably envision a future for America where white people are a severely oppressed and persecuted minority.

But here’s the question: What then?

What is the end goal of anti-white racism? What does BLM believe white people are depriving them of? There has to be a reason to go after white people. I just don’t believe BLM is a psychotic and genocidal group that wants to slaughter all white people just for the hell of it. If that was their goal, then why haven’t they started doing that? Why don’t they attack white people on sight?

Why do they allow white people–in fact, lots and lots of white people–into BLM?

To me, it’s simple: the real goal isn’t to eradicate whitey, it’s money and power. That’s the whole point of the racial grievance industry & victimhood narrative in general.

Anti-white racism is a means to an end. Marxism is more of an end than racism, but still leaves a lot of questions.

BLM and the reparations movement is Racial Marxism: instead of advocating for a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, they want a massive redistribution from white to black. It’s both racist and Marxist.

When you take away all the virtue-signaling upper-middle class liberal white women who just want to feed their egos, what is the core appeal of BLM and the “racial justice movement” in general? It’s a material/financial improvement in one’s life through political activism and/or political violence.

It’s “You wronged me, now pay me.”

It all relies on the same Marxist rhetoric of the Wicked Exploiters vs. the Noble Exploitees: the White Man stole the land from the Natives, then built up all his wealth and power on the backs of black slave labor. So now it’s time to rise up against the White Man and take what’s rightfully ours! That’s the 1619 Narrative of America.

That’s fundamentally Marxism, just through a racial lens. It’s Racial Marxism. It relies on anti-white resentment to achieve a Marxist redistribution of wealth and power.

The Democratic Party has been making Marxist appeals for at least the past 10-12 years. At first it was the classic economic Marxism pitch, which made sense in the wake of the Financial Crisis and the bailouts. People were hurting financially back then, and Economic Marxism had more appeal. Remember Obama’s “You Didn’t Build That” remark? The 2012 election was, in many ways, framed as a battle between Socialism and Capitalism. Apparently, in 2012, the two most searched words in the dictionary were “socialism” and “capitalism.”

But not too long after the 2012 election (specifically after Trayvon Martin and Ferguson) the Marxist appeals from the left shifted from economic to racial.

There are two possible reasons for this shift:

  1. With 5-6 years having passed since the Financial Crisis, people were in better shape economically and no longer harbored as much class-based resentment. So the Elite had to find a new way to keep people angry.
  2. OR: the Elite feared the class-based resentment and anti-rich, anti-corporation anger they had been cynically stoking was at risk of getting out of control and actually posing a threat to them, so they had to quickly redirect all that rage somewhere else, and they chose police/white privilege.

Whatever the reason, there was clearly a shift around 2014 from class war to race war.

Jeremy Carl is correct to bring up Corporate America’s support for BLM. You can’t be Marxist if George Soros and most of the powerful tech billionaires support you, can you?

In theory, no. But more than anything, corporate sponsorship of BLM reveals the split in the movement between the cynical upper echelon and the useful idiot masses. The leaders of the movement secretly have very different goals from the foot soldiers and True Believers in the streets. All the Marxist rhetoric is a means to an end.

There’s a reason “real communism has never been tried.” It’s because it’s never been about real communism. Marxism has always been used as a vehicle to overthrow an existing regime and replace it with a new one–a way to redistribute power from one group of elites to a new group. It’s sold as a way to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor masses, but that’s only to garner popular support.

Marxism isn’t even about Marxism: it’s about wealth and power. Evil, manipulative men use Marxist rhetoric to convince disgruntled masses to mobilize and ultimately overthrow some ruler or ruling class identified as the root of all evil. In reality, the evil, manipulative leaders of the Marxist revolution have no intention to reward their followers, they just use the masses to take somebody else’s money and power for themselves.

And right now, the Power Elite in America have tricked BLM into believing Trump and his mostly-white supporters are the root of all evil and must be overthrown, and then Racial Justice will be achieved. And then I’m sure those fat reparations payments they’ve been talking about lately will be close behind.

Now I’m not saying that Trump has no power. Obviously, yes, Trump is the President and that counts for something. I’m not trying to say he has zero power. But his first term has shown that Official Washington and the whole American power edifice in general is in many ways stronger than the President. They have plenty of options at their disposal to counter Trump’s moves. The White House is far from the be-all, end-all.

Trump is up against not only the media, not only Fortune 500, not only Silicon Valley, not only all the big city mayors, not only Hollywood, not only Academia–he’s also up against the government he’s supposed to be in charge of. The intelligence community, the pentagon/military industrial complex, the State Department, the Congress, and often the Federal Judiciary. Even the CDC and Fauci, who seems determined to make Trump look as bad as possible and draw out the lockdowns until after the election.

The government is full of bureaucrats and officials whose names you’ve never heard and who nobody ever voted for who nevertheless believe it’s their duty to oppose Trump’s every move even if it means blatant insubordination to the President. The three administrations prior to his were part of the Globalist Uniparty Elite, meaning the government Trump inherited was and largely remains fully stocked by people on-board with the Globalist Uniparty agenda. And it’s not like he can just fire them and replace them with real Patriots and MAGA Agenda people, because for three decades the only people able to move up the ranks in government are those on-board with The Agenda. So they’re the only ones with the qualifications, and the only ones who could pass a nomination vote in the Senate.

In short, Trump is in the lion’s den, atop an executive branch full of Uniparty Loyalists who are trying to undermine him at every turn. He’s an outsider in a town of insiders who very much liked the way things were running before those flyover state morons elected the nasty orange man to derail the gravy train and spoil the fun.

So this is why despite being President, Trump is still a major underdog, and it’s wrong to view him as “The System” or the sole possessor of power in America. The American power establishment is made up of far more parts than just the Presidency, and right now, those other parts are trying to retake the Presidency by convincing BLM that Trump and his white privilege-having voters are the source of all their problems.

Elite support for Black Lives Matter is about keeping the American people divided, distracted and docile. It might seem crazy to describe America in 2020 as docile, but do you really think the Elites couldn’t squash these riots and looting and protests in a second if they actually wanted to? Of course they could.

They want the riots to continue. They want the chaos. The rioters are not threatening the power elite whatsoever. The riots are the opposite of threatening to the Elite because the riots are against the Elite’s enemy, Trump.

I have a few theories on why the Elite supported and funded the riots and none of them have anything to do with either racial genocide or a Marxist revolution:

  1. They were “bait” for Trump. The elite figured Trump would respond with massive police and military force to crush the rioting and protesting, at which point the media and Democratic politicians would at long last have their proof that TRUMP IS A RACIST FASCIST RACISTFASCIST!
  2. They were organized in order to allow people to blow off steam after several months of quarantines. If you recall, prior to the George Floyd incident, there were actual grassroots protests against the quarantines and business closures. Those were widely condemned by the media and squashed by state and local governments. The Race Riots were to distract people from quarantine, and hopefully have them channel their rage towards Trump.
  3. Guilt weak-willed white people into supporting Joe Biden as penance for the murder of St. George Floyd, while also stoking black rage and hopefully translating that into higher black voter turnout for Biden in the election.

I think it’s probably a combination of the three. But ultimately, the elites want the American people fighting one another, rather than fighting the elites. They want people blaming all their problems on Trump (the avatar of “white America”) instead of the real oppressors.

Of course the corporations and the elites support BLM: BLM is marching and rioting and screeching against Trump, who is the enemy of the elite.

BLM isn’t part of a grand, long-term plan. There’s no way the elites would fund and support a nascent Marxist revolution that will one day be their own demise.

And they don’t want BLM to eradicate the white race.

The elites have already succeeded in reducing the white population of this country from 90% to 60% since 1965. They’re waging the real race war through mass immigration, birth control, abortion, pornography, turning American men into beta soyboys via the war on traditional masculinity, promoting feminism (aka Man Hating), ruining women by encouraging them to be whores, and encouraging women to go into the workplace instead of having kids.

The Elite have already got the War on White People under control. They don’t need BLM’s help there.

The Elite’s support of BLM is more improvised and ad-hoc than you think. It is 100% about getting rid of Trump.

Black Lives Matter uses racism, Marxism and Racial Marxism to appeal to the masses, but the Elite and corporate support for BLM belies its true purpose: keep most of the country divided and distracted with a burgeoning race war, and help get Donald Trump out of the White House.