Monday, 20 February 2017

Anatomy of a Trump Fandango

Just checked the BS news & here is a perfect example of what has come to be known as "4d chess" - the cat and mouse game that Team Trump are playing, which runs rings around the main stream press narratives:
I call it the "Trump Fandango" after the aggressive latin dance.
It basically goes in five phases:
1) Bumbling vague remark.
In this case, he lists off a list of countries experiencing problems with migrant crime.  Something I refer to as "pattern recognition", but which we are taught is dangerous bigotry, that will end in genocide. Literally Hitler...
2) MSM point and snark.
Ha! Trump just made up a fake terrorist attack in Sweden to scare the populace into accepting his Hitlerian ideas.  (Note - he's not mentioned anything about terror yet...)
3) Double Down.
He will come out in the next few days & point to the fact that stats show more than one person gets raped by a migrant every night - or will point to an under-reported, yet horrific specific crime.
4) Split hairs.
MSM will go apoplectic in disbelief that, having been caught in a flagrant falsehood, Trump is trying to cover his tracks. However, their ineffective narrative will effectively either be - "Trump was making out that Sweden had a terrorist attack, but now admits it was just a few thousand Swedish women raped by aggressive third worlders, who we keep pretending are women and children refugees that you are morally obliged to let into your country." Or alternatively "Trump lied about five afghans raping a teenage boy last night.  That happened two weeks ago!!!".
5) Smack Down.
As you can see - the media win the argument on a technicality, but lose the moral ground.  This is all that matters in politics.  Strangely though - this is traditionally the point at which there is an expectation of restraint, as if the whole thing were an exercise in politeness.  Somehow (and I'm unsure how/why this happened for so long) one was expected to rise above the level of gloating, or name calling.  Trump, however will make sure to remark, publicly & prominently, on how disgusted he is by their moral purblindness & outright dishonesty, in very basic terms.
In the early days, I used to think this was all quite haphazard; a bit "Millenium Falcon", if you like.  Chaotic, but somehow agile enough to maneuver through an asteroid field.  (or through the debris of a planet destroyed by megalomaniac statists, to be more accurate...) but this is exactly how he won the election & he has done it far too many times to be a coincidence.  
His strategist Steve Bannon is said to be the brains behind most of it. Its also the diametric opposite of the strategy conservatives have used to conserve the sum total of naff all for the past 50 years. It's amazing how journalists don't seem to have learned the pattern yet.  It makes one wonder how many are genuine autists? After all, how many non-Asperger's sufferers think hairsplitting, at that level, is a winning strategy? 
The dispassioned, spock-like mode of discussing how left wing politics results in worse outcomes for immigrants and increased racial inequality, and interracial hostility, is known as DR3 (Demoncrats "R" the "R"EAL " R"acists).  
Having read excellent, scholarly books such as Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", I was firmly in this camp myself for many years & used to get incredibly frustrated that people couldn't see this.  It was the middle path that would lead to a global enlightenment if only I could bring right minded, but wrong thinking people to see the light. 
It took me a while to realise that the problem with this approach is that it accepts the debate on the left's terms, and simultaneously ignores the fact that the debate is being held on emotional rather than rational terms.
Aylan Kurdi
To see the mirror image of this mindset, let's go back to "beach boy" - Aylan Kurdi, the toddler who was pictured washed up on a beach.  The mainstream presses ran overtime gleefully churning out that unsavory image, in a massive outpouring of feels, to show how caring and moral they are, with little critical journalistic insight.  It was only days, or weeks later that we discovered that his father was a people smuggler, taking enormous risks (presumably for huge sums of cash) to leave a safe country to get dental work.  
The correct response should have been:  "Look at how horrendous these people are - if they take chances like that with their own kids, just think what a risk they pose to our own societies."
Instead, we got:  "What poor people, how desperate they must be. We must do everything we can to help them".  
The first response is the correct one from both a factual and moral standpoint.  It also displays a kind of moral strength. Instead, conservatives push the angle of "but, if we let them in, more people will die in the inevitable rush that follows", which is factually true but weak, in that it argues ineffectively on the other side's terms.  I naturally feel sorry for the dead kid, but in all truth, less than I would if he were from my own family, neighbourhood, country, or kin.  Not only is this is normal and healthy, it is also the attitude most likely to prevent further tragedies of that nature.  The moral weapons of mass disruption that the left deploy in their eternal blitzkrieg against anyone who dares to express rational self interest have finally lost their effectiveness - on me, at least. To see somebody throwing them back in their faces, like paper darts - as Trump is doing, is impressive and heartening.
Passing back the buck.
In arranging for the creation of safe zones in Syria, and de-escalating tensions with her legitimate leader, Bashar al-Assad, Trump has brought about the beginning of the end of the biggest threat currently facing Western Civilisation.  This is an impressive thing to have done in his first month in office, which really underscores how inept all the others have been, with their moral preening and posturing.  
Our mortal allies in ISIS openly state that their primary strategy is to sneak in, disguised as refugees, so that they can commit atrocities which will fuel hatred against the Muslim populations residing in those countries.
Once the problem is dealt with at source & the displaced Syrians have a safe place to stay, it stands to reason that there will be a desperate rush for the border as that strategic window closes  This is plain, common sense.  For some reason, activist judges have seen fit to recklessly dabble in the executive and political realms, by refusing to support this common sense measure.  Again, Trump has been unrestrained by the usual faux humility that presidents are expected to show when judges choose to ignore legal precedent, as well as what the law actually says, in favour of naked partisanship.  Don't believe me? Here is the law which grants the president the same executive powers that Obama used, multiple times, during his two presidencies:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
It is amazing to watch the energy with which the new President executes his plans, knowing full well they will meet with all kinds of partisan resistance.  The differentiator is the way he makes clear that if you obstruct him, you own the problems he is trying to solve.