The mainstream media keeps setting new highs in hysteria and ridiculousness. From Michael Tracey at unherd.com:
It seems like only yesterday that America’s leading organs of elite consensus were engulfed by a full-fledged panic that the country was on the cusp of all-out Civil War. The means by which this prophesied conflict would be instigated — much less fought — were never made exactly clear, but that wasn’t the point. After all, logistical or operational specifics are immaterial when it’s already been ordained that something unimaginably, harrowingly catastrophic is just around the corner.
“This is not a drill. The Reichstag is burning,” blared a five-alarm-fire warning in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank, who may want to consider a title change from “columnist” to “in-house hysteric”. Not to be outdone, establishment weather-vane Thomas Friedman joined the fray in the New York Times with an equally shocking exhortation: “I can’t say this any more clearly,” he hyperventilated. “Our democracy is in terrible danger — more danger than it has been since the Civil War, more danger than after Pearl Harbor, more danger than during the Cuban missile crisis […]”.
If these fevered prognostications even bore the faintest resemblance to political conditions in the United States, it might seem a bit odd that the pundits in question have since moved on to other subjects. Or to put it this way: if they really believed their own fantastical rhetoric, shouldn’t they have spent the past few weeks taking action more tangible than rattling off a few throwaway columns and browsing Twitter? Not that any “resistance” brigade composed of pallid middle-aged journalists would be especially formidable on the battlefield, but the point is that their conduct doesn’t come anywhere close to matching the incredible alarmism of their words.
The whole planet is enthralled, appalled, shocked and awed by the spectacle of democracy as enacted under the shadow of messianic imperialism – complete with a slew of slimy, smoking gun October Surprises.
We’re in total Frank Underwood territory. And as befits the ultimate “society of the simulacrum” pictured by Baudrillard back in the swingin’ 1980s, all those similarities with a Wrestlemania spectacular are obviously not mere coincidence.
Let’s start with the polls.
All manner of polls are circulating like whirling dervishes. Most highlight myriad Dem paths to victory and an inexorable Highway to Hell for Trump. A poll by The Economist gives Joe “Walking Dead” Biden a whopping 91% chance – remember Hillary in 2016? – of winning the Electoral College.
A Dem-fueled consensus is emerging that Trump – relentlessly depicted as a deranged, lunatic proto-fascist who’s bad for business worldwide – will dispute results in any Republican-led state which he may narrowly lose, as in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Yet on the campaign trail, it’s a completely different story. Evidence shows that on The Walking Dead’s rallies, there are more people from the Biden bus and reporters than flesh-and-blood Dem voters. The Biden-Harris campaign, demonstrating its matchless P.R. skills, spins these rallies as campaign secrets.
Better write Trump off, the polling arm of the mainstream media says Joe Biden has a double-digit lead…just like they said Clinton had a double-digit lead in 2016. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:
A couple weeks ago, a lot of folks were channeling 1929 stockbrokers and crowding the ledges, poised to leap off into the void because the vibe was definitely that Donald Trump was finished. But you can’t take out the Jason Voorhees – and I mean that in the best possible way – of American politics. He keeps coming back to wreak his unholy vengeance, not upon sex-crazed teens but upon the garbage establishment.
Trump is back and this is a real race. I think we will win it.
Except all the polls are telling us Grandpa Badfinger is up +37, right? Weird how four years ago right now, we were hearing the exact same thing. Ignore the spinners who are solemnly informing you that your lying eyes are lying again and the 2016 polls were akshually very accurate. Baloney. A key component of effective gaslighting is plausibility, and I was there. You were there. All we heard in 2016 was how Trump was going down to a landslide defeat. Instead, everyone in the smart set got blindsided by the Trump Train.
And it can happen again.
Now, it doesn’t have to happen again. Nothing is written, and we have to fight for our victory. There are a lot of stupid people around – my district regularly re-e-elects Ted Lieu – and Oldfinger could build a Coalition of the Drooling to put him in the White House. But I think the Trump lightning will strike again.
Remember, the polls are the only data point in Biden’s favor. The only one. And as we have seen they screwed up last time and their proponents have an interest in them being bad for Trump.
If you can’t find something truthful to hit Trump with, make something up. From Conrad Black at the Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:
The unutterable nonsense that President Trump is somehow responsible for the plan of a group of lunatics in Michigan to kidnap their governor, Gretchen Whitmer, succeeds the asinine theory that Trump was endangering the health of his security unit by driving around the block at Walter Reed Hospital in his car last week waving to well-wishers.
Like an immense mythological monster, Media Trump Hate must be hurled each week, or sometimes more often, in an arsenic-laced dosage of malicious fiction at the Trump campaign.
There have been so many of them that very few can now be remembered even those that were momentarily taken seriously by reputable observers, such as the idea that lawyer Michael Cohen paying blackmail to Stormy Daniels, constituted an illegal campaign donation.
Since Trump paid Cohen’s bill for allegedly unspecified services it wasn’t a donation and since Stormy was trying to do the blackmailing, it was only an offense in the demented imagination of CNN’s momentarily favored candidate for president, Stormy’s beleaguered counsel Michael Avenatti, (whom she soon fired for over-billing).
The governor’s own erratic imagination suggested that Trump somehow motivated those who imagined that they could kidnap the governor of Michigan and extract concessions while the rest of the country including the federal government looked on as if it was an attempted coup d’état in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Since Trump had been highly critical of her encroachment upon the First Amendment rights of assembly of the people of Michigan, by restricting their ability to engage in most collective activity including churchgoing, and in the absence of convincing evidence that such impositions reduce the incidence of the coronavirus, the governor naturally accused the president of inciting criminal and life-threatening behavior directed at her.
Colonel Alexander Vindman took deep umbrage at President Trump for having the temerity to think that he, not State department bureaucrats, set foreign policy. From Philip Giraldi at unz.com:
During last year’s impeachment process directed against President Donald Trump, Congress obtained testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in what was inevitably being referred to as UkraineGate. It centered around an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provided some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born to a Jewish family in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing U.S. policy towards that country, but at that time it was sometimes noted that he did not really understand what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the U.S. government’s sole genuine Ukrainian expert, he should have become a good source for consideration of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow’s involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement before congress, which advocated for a specific policy, read. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which had already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.
Part of Vindman’s written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: “”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”
Hillary Clinton told Joe Biden not to concede the election under any circumstances, but somehow its become Trump who’s the danger not to recognize the results of the election. From Mark Hemingway at americanmind.com:
Scaremongering Democrats protest too much.
In August, two retired military officers published a piece in Defense One which literally encouraged America’s top military leadership to have the 82nd airborne to descend on Washington in the event of a disputed election and escort President Trump out of office.
“In the Constitutional crisis described above, your duty is to give unambiguous orders directing U.S. military forces to support the Constitutional transfer of power,” they write. “Should you remain silent, you will be complicit in a coup d’état.” In other words, the military must prevent a coup by staging one of their own. Thankfully, the Pentagon publicly condemned John Nagl’s and Paul Yingling’s musings.
In some regards it is unremarkable in a nation with millions of military veterans that two of them would have some kind of Clockwork Orange-style MSNBC viewing party and put crayon to paper long enough to come up with this violent fantasia. However, the problem isn’t so much that Nagl and Yingling gamed out this scenario—every election that I can remember for the last 30 years has featured fringe voices expressing concern that the current occupant will refuse to leave.
The real problem is that, for once, a respectable media outlet went ahead and published it. If anything, the Defense One op-ed was just the most explicit example of the anti-Trump coup pornography that’s become a staple of mainstreammedia. And when the media is not baselessly fretting Trump will refuse to leave office, they’re outrageously and falsely characterizing Trump and his administration in ways that justify his violent removal.
Trump getting elected will be the only way Obamagate is traced back to Obama. If it is, he and his cohorts may be looking at indictments (we can only hope). From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
Back during the early days of the Democratic primaries I told you that the real story behind the scenes was a three-sided civil war for control of the DNC.
Not quite an equilateral triangle, the two major factions were the Clintons and the Obamas with the Soros-backed squad pushing them both farther and farther left, through the fake Progressivism of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
And with the ascension of Joe Biden as the candidate, triumphing over the inept Hillary-backed challenge from Mini Mike Bloomberg, it was clear that the Obamas won the internal battle.
Hillary eventually bent the knee and endorsed Biden along with everyone else.
After her failure to beat Trump in 2016 it became clear that Obama was the choice by The Davos Crowd to deliver the U.S. into their hands weak, divided, literally on fire and close to irretrievably insane.
In the words of Bush the Lesser, “Mission Accomplished.”
But what’s been sticking in the back of my mind for months was Trump’s tweet from May:
If the establishment wins, the rest of lose, as we’ve been doing for the last several decades. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
We have known about, and have had abundant evidence of, the Obama regime’s criminality ever since a FISA Court judge resigned on the grounds that the Obama regime had intentionally misled the court and the court had not taken sufficient action against the regime for purposely deceiving the court.Little doubt, the rest of the court thought it more important to defend “America’s First Black President” than to defend the law and civil liberty. The politics of social engineering took precedence over justice. They could not allow the First Black President to be perceived as a criminal and a failure.
Despite the known facts and abundant evidence of the criminal actions by CIA, FBI, and Obama regime officials in the Russiagate hoax, President Trump’s Attorney General has failed to move forward with indictments and prosecutions.The reason is simple. Attorney General Barr is a member of the establishment, and the establishment protects establishment members and institutions.
Here’s an unlikely Trump supporter. From Noor bin Ladin at spectator.us
Why do I support Donald Trump? Look at his record
Noor bin Ladin in a picture from her website
Americans are, in my experience, the warmest, most kind-hearted and open-minded people in the world. I have found this to be true for my whole life, despite being the niece of Osama bin Laden and sharing the same last name (albeit spelled slightly differently — bin Ladin is the original translation). Americans base their judgment on the content of someone’s character and actions, not on the color of their skin — or their last name. This was reaffirmed last month, after I voiced my love for America and support for President Trump. The response to ‘My Letter to America’ has been overwhelmingly wonderful, and I am most thankful to all those who took the time to read it and send kind messages, including Spectator readers. But in my private life, I have lost a few so-called friends for backing Donald Trump over the past five years. Coming out publicly was a step too far for some, and the vitriol I received for stating my political beliefs revealed unflattering sides to certain characters. From a sociological standpoint, it is quite interesting that in some elitist circles being pro-Trump has caused me more grief than carrying the name bin Ladin.
Even more striking were the contrasting reactions to President Trump’s COVID diagnosis. Gleeful comments devoid of compassion flooded social media, some even going as far as to wish for his death. Kim Jong-un showed more sympathy than many of the President’s detractors. Yet for all the hate, there was an outpouring of love and well-wishes from his supporters. One take from a favorite Twitter account of mine (@HonorAndDaring) expressed it best: ‘Trump is the first and only President that I’ve actually cared about. That’s because he’s the first President in recent memory that seems to care more about Americans than an abstract ideology or just enriching his donors.’ This sentiment is clearly felt by many Americans, who come out in droves for the President wherever he goes, including Walter Reed Medical Center during his stay: if he can’t hit the road, the rally comes to him.
You can probably count on one hand the number of people in the US who don’t have a strong opinion on Donald Trump. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:
Nothing partisan today, sorry, and thank you very much, just an observation. Which is that Trump keeps an unparralledly (can I buy a vowel?) divided America together simply because the entire nation focuses on him. One half out of support, the other out of “hatred”, but still. Anyone who saw even part of yesterday’s VP debate knows exactly what I mean. Boring! And that’s one thing Trump is not.
There was this headline that said: “Joe Biden will be a president who brings our country together”, and I thought: does anyone believe that, anywhere on the political spectrum? The purpose of Biden is to give the Democrats the power, not to unite the nation, that’s just rubbish. But yeah, they dragged him all the way out to Gettysburg, to claim some sort of link to Abraham Lincoln. Hoping nobody remembers that Lincoln was a member of the Republican party. Joe even quoted the Republican Lincoln verbatim:
Joe Biden delivered a forceful appeal for national unity from the battleground state of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, as the nation lurched from crisis to crisis and the president continued to downplay the severity of the coronavirus after being hospitalized for Covid-19. From the storied civil war battlefield of Gettysburg, a symbol of the divisions that nearly tore the nation in two, Biden cast the election as a “battle for the soul of the nation” and emphasized the stakes this November. “Today, once again we are a house divided,” Biden said, framed by a row of American flags with the rolling hills of Gettysburg behind him.
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.