Thursday, 10 November 2016

Are the mass media over-reacting to the Trump victory?

No, not at all. They are hysterical and frantic - but they are not over-reacting. This is indeed a very major blow against them and everything they most 'value'  - and potentially the beginning of the end (but only the beginning).

They are, however, absolutely bewildered - they have near zero understanding of the situation; clearly the Establishment mostly believe their own lies (even if the mass of the being public-lied to are obviously not convinced).

The fact that the media-bureaucratic rulers are so stunned with surprise shows this more than anything. Nobody with common sense and normal perception and common sense levels of reasoning should have been surprised by the defeat of Clinton!

All this is exactly as I would most wish it to be: they are afraid but ignorant and deluded; they don't understand what is happening, so they are much less likely to be able to stop it - but will continue to fight imaginary enemies, while leaving the real threats to secular Leftism invisible and untouched.


11 comments:

  1. Last night I broke my self-imposed TV ban to watch some of the 'commentary' on the BBC reacting to the Trump win. Perhaps hoping to see some hysterical and over the top doom-mongering from the guests, for entertainment really.
    Well, after 10 minutes I was done. But it really shocked me how they still try to frame the whole thing in the same way as before. Their stiff and meaningless 'analysis', and so on. They did acknowledge a rejection of the elite and the establishment, BUT they are now, like always, treating this 'rejection of the establishment' (which partly includes the media) in the same way as they previously treated, say, the latest Oscars or the latest local by-election - that is, 'analyse' the hell out of it, gain some shallow 'insights', ask a few questions to a few guests; all, (as implied by the general context and non-verbal language), all still in the belief that this is something that they can understand, reason about through their media lens, and control.
    But they could be shockingly wrong. It's early to say, but this could be huge. Despite heavy media demonisation from all sides, Brexit won and despite unprecedented media demonisation, Trump won. Their spinning could be becoming increasingly ineffective and THIS is what gives me the most hope for a recovery of our spiritual integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @DA - Agreed.

    I would add that we are observing the useful idiots and seedily corrupt drones of The Establishment - at the very highest levels (a small number, globally operating) they do understand the essence of what has happened - a partial awakening to reality and first steps towards rejection of a future of despair and willed spiritual enslavement; and they are very afraid of it.

    This is as it should be.

    We, however, should not be afraid of 'what *they* might do' (that is what they want, for us to be frozen in fear of reprisals, to submit and appease) - but emboldened to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. An important key to Trump's victory is that, while not all of his supporters are Christian by any means, they all essentially want the orderly Christian society in which they were raised. The Left understands this at some level, hence the intense hatred they continue to spew toward Trump and his supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've commented on this here. They are hysterical because Trump is genuinely exposing their growing impotence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Alistair - (forgive my bluntness but...)

    From reading your blog over the past several years; I feel that you have a dwindling but real and residual attachment to Leftism which appears as an attempt to be 'balanced' about matters which are asymmetrical.

    This reluctance to acknowledge the core and culturally-dominant evil of Leftism (including its anti-Christian roots) is (currently) preventing you seeing clearly the (ought-to-be) obvious, and from really getting to the bottom of things - leading you into over-complex multifactorial analyses, but not to genuinely coherent conclusions!

    You are very often insightful (which is why I read your work), but ultimately you are still within the assumptions and scope of mainstream (and false) public discourse; and I regard this as profoundly mistaken.

    (Note to readers - I know blogger Alastair Roberts 'in real life', where we have met and conversed several times - as well as online.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. The media appears to be trying to intimidate the individual electoral voters into not voting for Trump. I've seen multiple news articles illustrating exactly how this would be done. Apparently in December they cast the official electoral vote, and there are virtually no consequences for them to not vote for the winner. I've seen these articles on multiple mainstream media websites, so it seems to be a real orchestrated attempt.

    If the media succeeds in this tactic (through increased pressure, violent protests, or perhaps even individual contact?) they will have effectively destroyed American democracy. I'm not sure what the reaction would be, but this may be a sign of just how desperate they are (despite Trump appearing to actually be a moderate secular leftist).

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Nathaniel - Another parallel to the Brexit vote - successfully challeneged in court.

    But this kind of thing is *exactly* what is most helpful to wakening people to the reality of the political situation and the nature of The System. And awakening is the most important thing.

    So I welcome it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Bruce - No need to apologize for bluntness! I always appreciate respectful forthrightness in disagreement.

    I would be interested to hear more specifically where you think that I am still operating within 'the assumptions and scope of mainstream (and false) public discourse.' I don't doubt that we differ on a number of key issues here, but I'm curious as to where you think our differences lie.

    For my part, I suspect that I am a lot more sympathetic to certain concerns of the left than you are, distinguishing the concerns of the left from the poisonous dimensions of the phenomenon of Leftism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Alastair - I don't know anything specific and personal; but as a generalisation I think residual adherence to modern Leftism among critics *such as* yourself is not so much based on reason, as the correct awareness of the catastropic consequences of overturning Leftism in a society built upon its assumptions (even though that society is self-loathing and self-destroying).

    Also, the choice seems to be between modernity (which we have grown used to, and which 'everybody' regards as true and Good); and one or another version of traditional religion - the limitations and flaws of which are obvious (most informed people would be wary of living in any actual, real past society; and reluctant to regard any such as the final word or best option for Man).

    Since neither option (past or present) seems to be both correct and appealing, critics such as yourself (I infer) try to create a *hybrid* with the strengths of both sides; which I take it is your project?

    But since the differences of past and present are metaphysical (at the level of the most basic assumptions) this project cannot succeed.

    I have found that the 'evolutionary' mind set that I find in Mormonism (mostly - plus) Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield, William Arkle has provided a coherent way out from this unacceptable dilemma. In other words, I have adopted a different metaphysics entirely.

    This recognises our present era as akin to getting stuck in adolescence and refusing to grow up - but the best 'imaginable' (destined) Christian consciousness and society lies in the future, not the past.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bruce, your program is itself a hybrid way of thinking, and I am surprised you cannot see that - indeed evolution itself is a modern concept.

    You frequently assert that your thinking is new and unprecedented, but it always seems to me like simply a hybrid of modern and traditional ideas.

    You strike me as a modern person who sees the inadequacy of modern life but simply cannot give up the key modern ideas. You are an amphibian, Bruce.

    It is an interesting predicament to be in, I confess, and one I had not thought of. Part of what led me to question modern ideas was the accidental intrusion into my life of situations which compelled a temporary rejection of key modern ideas, and noticing the completely unexpected relief and happiness I felt. If modern ideas were correct, this should not have happened.

    I was happy to reject modern ideas, but it makes sense there will be people who are conflicted and torn, who vacillate and cannot quite give up either world, and are driven to unhappily attempt a fusion of two worlds, that are in the end really not compatible with each other.

    I also think you make far too much of the fact that you and other moderns would find it hard to live in a traditional society - of course, as you are now, that isn't surprising. But one can work on oneself, instead of reinventing Christianity.

    You also seem misguided when you say the inadequacy of traditional societies should make us question traditional ideals - it's entirely possible that no traditional society did a very good job at realizing timeless ideals, and we can do better in the future. That's a legitimate stance.

    So it's disingenuous to talk about the failures of traditional societies leading you to conclude that new ideals must be found, as that does not at all logically follow.

    Rather, as a modern, you are not willing to give up your modernity, and that is very human and understandable.

    Unfortunately, I do not think your - and Barfield and Steiner - effort to fuse two incompatible systems of values will bear fruit or even lead personal satisfaction, and I believe you have frequently admitted that your unique brand of religion has not made you a better person, not given you the transformed consciousness you crave.

    That is because there is only one 'technology' which can do so, and you reject it.

    Still, you have made me think and reflect on the unhappy lot of the amphibian, which is something I hadn't thought of before.


    ReplyDelete
  11. @Dunkirk - To understand, it is necessary to study metaphysics, and the differences between metaphysical assumptions and their consequences - about which I have written many dozens of blog posts.

    Everything must inevitably and always look like a 'hybrid (ie. combinations, interpolations, extrapolations, selections etc), when metaphysics is left out.

    ReplyDelete