For years, conservatives warned of liberal totalitarianism. It turns out it was really them all along that want a state similar to the Soviet Union.
By using the phrase and placing himself in such infamous company, at least in his choice of vocabulary to attack his critics, Mr. Trump has demonstrated, Ms. Khrushcheva said, that the language of “autocracy, of state nationalism is always the same regardless of the country, and no nation is exempt.” She added that, in all likelihood, Mr. Trump had not read Lenin, Stalin or Mao Zedong, but the “formulas of insult, humiliation, domination, branding, enemy-forming and name calling are always the same.”
I've said this for years. Whenever conservatives bitch liberals being ____________, it's invariably them that are being ____________.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Jordan Greenhall's piece entitled "Situational Assessment 2017: Trump Edition – Deep Code" is the current "darling post" making the rounds in alt right circles. I've decided to offer my own "deep code" of it because it's quite possibly the most arrogant, self important, and ideologically blind piece I have ever read. There are several profound flaws in it and I will detail each one as they appear throughout his piece.
Greenhall mentions the “Trump insurgency” and how it will affect change in our country against what he perceives as the status quo. The problem with this line of thought is that it’s no longer an insurgency. Donald Trump is president. Steve Bannon is a senior adviser. Trump’s staff is filled with insurgents with alt right bloggers and pundits now regular staples of the White House. All of this means they are no longer insurgent but in charge. They are now responsible for leading this country. To continue to claim that they are some sort of rebels is not reflective of reality and makes me wonder if they know any other way to behave. Certainly, they are going to find out because the American voter will hold them responsible.
His lack of comparison to the 2000 election and his attempt at synergy with the American revolution are both in error. As with the 2000 election, the 2016 winning candidate lost the popular vote and this time by nearly 3 million votes. Some “revolution.” Further, the margins in the states that put Trump over the top in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were so small that they clearly betrayed a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate. In fact, the voters that won it for Trump are the same ones that voted for Obama twice. Again, what revolution? That’s merely people perpetually voting for change.
The comparison of the alt right to the American revolutionaries has become rather tiresome. Honestly, it’s overly self important and arrogant. The Tea Party did it 8 years ago and it wasn’t really applicable then. The federal government is not a monarchy with a mandate from heaven. The media is not some ogre like entity bent on destroying the US Constitution. No king is stopping people from getting involved in the political process. People are represented by the people they elect who are mostly Republican these days.
Greenhall’s analysis of the communications infrastructure makes no sense whatsoever. Donald Trump has been a part of the legacy sensemaking system. He has been a huge drive of multiple elements within the Deep State network for three decades. He is still an executive producer for a show on NBC! How is that insurgent? New media is dominated by political viewpoints all across the political spectrum. The “insurgency” isn’t merely limited to the alt right. Does Greenhall think that Benie Sanders grew out of a vacuum?
No one in the mainstream media is preventing people from posting on blogs, social media, or their own web sites. There is a veritable multitude of information outlets out there, so much so, that the real challenge is to sift through it all and find accurate information and critical thinking. Clearly, Greenhall is not embracing the such thinking as he openly derides the criticism of “fake news.”
What he perceives as a threat to their way of life, critical thinkers in outfits like the New York Times and CNN see fake news for what it is: lying. When you have a group of people leading our country who regularly engage in ignorance of facts, people are going to lose their lives. It’s just that simple. Now, either they are doing this because they are ideologically stubborn (bad) or they are doing it because they are delusional (worse). Either way, we have to have an acceptance of fundamental reality.
If someone posts something that is factually incorrect just because they feel like it, this same person should not be excused simply for the sake of insurgency.
Donald Trump is not a leader of a “nomadic war machine.” He’s an authoritarian fronting a group of like minded individuals who only want to follow the laws they like and hate being told what to do. These are folks that are proud nationalists who embrace xenophobia and are openly antagonistic against anyone who is different from them. There is no plurality here which makes me wonder just how large this “insurgency” actually is.
Greenhall’s prediction of old media’s downfall is ludicrous. They still have a ton of money and are more popular than ever. Check out the recent ratings of Saturday Night Live. Moreover, the money behind new media is from folks like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both “smug, liberal elites.”
I’m not sure why the Russians hacking our political system is put in quotations. Does he truly believe that this was a hoax? If so, this betrays an even deeper problem. It’s one thing to look critically at information that comes from our national intelligence agencies. It’s yet another to dismiss ALL information about this as “deep state propaganda.” Does Greenhall not want to admit to being used as a Russian dupe?
His analysis of globalists smacks of mercantilism and protectionism, two ideologies that have been shown, time and again, to be deeply flawed. Free trade and economic liberalism has raised both income and life expectancy in the world. Given Greenhall’s success in the business world from these policies, I wonder how truly genuine he is about this aspect of his analysis.
The whole “Blue Church is killing us” is basically code for, once again, not wanting to follow rules that help society but might be a little inconvenient. And that’s where the rest of his piece descends into Alex Jones territory and I found little merit in what he was saying.
As mentioned in the other answers, Greenhall seems like he’s trying to disseminate propaganda for the alt right to lap up and, in return, heap glorious adulation upon him. It’s as arrogant, self important, and ideologically blind as the people he is trying to impress.
Check out some of the other reactions to it on Quora.