A new year (and a look back)

When it comes to 2016, it seems everyone is singing the blues.  On the surface, this is understandable; it’s true that we lost a lot of great people and the United States was put through a very exhausting election cycle.

But to me, it was more than that.  Love it or hate it, we witnessed an unprecedented political upset that was predicted by virtually no one, a victory on par with a revolution – such is the possible impact.

There were some golden moments.  Such as:

  1. Pepe the Frog, longtime meme, was declared a “hate symbol.”
  2. “Please clap”
  3. A Presidential nominee actually read aloud some Brietbart headlines, among them: “Would you rather your child have Feminism or Cancer?” (In Clinton’s infamous alt-right speech)
  4. The election couldn’t be rigged.  Until Trump won.  Then, it was rigged.
  5. The election couldn’t be hacked.  Until Trump won.  Then, it was definitely hacked.  By Russia, somehow.
  6. A political assassination, similar to that which triggered a world war a hundred years ago, seem to spur only memes within minutes (!) of its happening.

It was a strange year.  But I choose to be optimistic, unlike all the people who were so over-dramatic in their lament of Trump’s victory.  I didn’t support him, but I am more than willing to give him a chance, especially in light of the Russian situation.

The most important thing that occurred in 2016,  the thing I think will have the most long term impact, is the beginnings of a new style of Conservatism.  It’s a younger conservatism, at once more libertarian and more nationalistic than traditional conservatism.  Although it is typically derailed as the “alt-right,” it is not that; young conservatism seeks the perpetuation of western values such as freedom, equality, and toleration.

While Trump’s main base of support was necessarily traditional conservatives, Trump’s unfiltered ideals and philosophies seem to be more harmonious with this new style of conservatism.  We can only watch to see where it will lead.


Anyway, I’d like to take this chance to wish all my readers and friends a happy and healthy new year, which I hope will be happy and successful for all of you.  Along with, of course, my gratitude for your support over this past year.


The Russian Fiction

This last afternoon was the most desperate display on the part of the left to blame their embarrassing loss on anyone but themselves.

All these new concepts: among them fake news and Russian hacking, cannot be proven or tangibly observed.  No matter.

Now, it matters, because the outgoing president has just promised some sort of “action” in response to a “compromise” of the election.  In reality, the integrity of the election occurred when the democrat party a) favored Hillary Clinton’s nomination from the start, and, b) allows the use of superdelegates.   There was no integrity to this election, no matter the result.  Does this sound conspiratorial?  Yes.  Evidently conspiracy theories are now in fashion, because it benefits the left.  Indeed, the left that normally mocks the right wing conspiracy theorists is now engaging in them; fearing these fictions that they have created.

I’m so astonished at what I just heard at this press conference, that my thoughts may seem a little disorganized.  Nevertheless, here they are:

  • They ignore the content of the Podesta and DNC leak, and rather on fixated on how those leaks happened.  If the tables were turned and right wing emails were leaked, the left would be fixated on the content, as opposed to how they came to light.
  • The majority of America receives it’s news from the mainstream news sources.  Fake News or Russian propaganda (?)  is in the American context relatively obscure and cannot be blamed for the outcome of an election.  The domestic “real” media can be blamed, for reasons described in a previous article.
  • The outgoing president has said that Russia is “contrary” to what Americans stand for.  I would be immensely appreciative if someone could explain the rationale behind this statement.  It would be true if this was thirty years ago, or Russia was still under a communist regime.  But they aren’t.  The interests of our two countries do not clash or contradict.
  • I’m also quite curious what form this retaliatory “action” will take.  And, after all, it’s a bit hypocritical of us, we who have compromised the “integrity” of elections of many different countries to suite our interests.

If Putin supported a certain candidate in our election, is it any small wonder that he would have supported the candidate that supports peace with a major nuclear power, instead of continued provocations?  For this we cannot blame him.

In all this I can’t help but thinking, if the shoe were on the other foot and Putin supported Clinton, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.  The right wingers who would be concerned in this hypothetical about Russian involvement would be dismissed totally as “conspiracy theorists.”

In other news, it’s interesting to see Alex Jones dismiss a conspiracy theory…


Was “Fake News” Responsible?

The election is over, but in a way, it isn’t really over.  We will be talking about this for a very long time, or at least until something more captivating takes our attention.  In the meantime, people are looking for the reason why Trump won this victory, but they ignore the obvious.  Now, they are blaming a new phenomenon called “fake news.”

Fake news, or anything that doesn’t come from big media sources (as if their reporting isn’t riddled with inaccuracies) cannot really be the cause of Trump’s victory.

I glanced over a list of fake news sources a couple days ago; included among them was “100 Percent Fed Up” “The Onion” (could there have been any doubt about that on!?) and “Infowars.”  To be fair, it also included “Occupy Democrats” – but all of these have one thing in common.  Not inaccuracy, necessarily, but all of these “news” sources were consumed by people that had very likely already made up their mind.

Who else but conservatives share clickbait from “100 percent fed up” or “Infowars”?  Who else but conservatives take the bait, open it up, and read them?

No, the reason is still obvious.  Trump offered something different, and the voters want something “different” as they often do, every eight years, when the policies of either party aren’t working.

But as regards the press!  Throughout the campaign season, it wasn’t anything to turn on the TV and see a Trump rally being broadcasted, in full.  It seems the press grew accustomed to abdicating their journalistic responsibility, turning the Trump feed on, kicking their feet up and hope that he says something explosive.  No one can deny the man can entertain, and if he did say something even the least bit inflammatory, it would give the media something to chew on for the next twenty four hours.

A perfect arrangement!  Except, with one unforeseen consequence:  Donald Trump was thus broadcasted into millions of homes, for all the voters, raw and unedited.  Despite all the opinion and analysis of the talking heads, the voters (at least in the places it mattered: North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, etc.) liked what they heard, rendering the media’s usual function meaningless.

I think we’re all growing a little tired of trying to place blame when it could be nothing but the mediocrity of the Democrat candidate.  You know, this election was in no way “stolen” from her, nor was she in any way entitled to the victory.

Is the Big Blog of Freedom and Justice “fake news” – well, it isn’t news at all really, it’s just opinion.  And I fear that too often we confuse the two.