Television? What’s that?

If Americans can’t get reliable information from the subverted legacy media, then we’ll find other routes.

by Adam Mill for American Greatness

One could almost hear the network executives and public officials screaming into their bluetooth headsets when the early ratings came in. “What is a Woman?” had more than 170 million views. Tucker Carlson’s new Twitter broadcast? 85 million. With numbers like that, companies that buy advertising are starting to visualize a Superbowl on Twitter. 

On February 12, advertisers paid $5.5 million per 30-second spot to show commercials to the Superbowl’s approximately 200 million viewers. As another basis of comparison, only three of 100+ cable news networks managed ratings over a million. Following Governor Ron DeSantis’ presidential candidacy announcement on Twitter, CNN scoffed at the event as a ratings3 flop. Yet with all of its infrastructure and dedicated cable platforms, CNN’s ratings rarely crack 1 million while DeSantis’ Twitter “flop” scored approximately 3.4 million viewers as of Thursday, May 25. 

The jaw-dropping scale of Elon Musk’s ratings triumphs is causing heads to explode like movie theater popcorn. And do stock up on the popcorn, because Musk has now demonstrated the capacity of Twitter to debut feature-length movies. 

Since at least 2016, the legacy media coordinated news coverage with their friends in the permanent government. They notoriously abandoned objectivity to get Trump before pivoting to COVID. Why should Americans watch television news anymore? Because it’s free? It’s not free. Cable television is among the largest utility expenses in American households, often exceeding the gas, water, and refuse collection bills—often combined. Why trick out expensive studios in Manhattan with elaborate glass and electronics? Tucker Carlson moved some boxes around in his barn to prepare for his address to 85 million viewers. 

COVID really was the last straw for the credibility of corporate-based media. Under the watchful eye of the government, the news media spouted a series of lies and guesses about the pandemic. It covered for the four governors who forced nursing homes to retain COVID-positive patients while villainizing anyone who left their useless cloth mask in the car. It made multiple claims about the virus and its origin that turned out not to be true and continued censoring and canceling people for noticing that the vaccine wasn’t working as advertised. Then it deliberately lied to the American people to manipulate the 2020 election. Next, it came out that the government and social media coordinated to censor political speech that offended bureaucrats. The Knight Foundation now reports, “Fifty percent of Americans feel most national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public.” The only shocking thing about that statistic is there are still people who don’t think that.

One day we may learn the circumstances and terms under which the legacy news media surrendered its independence to the permanent government’s operation to control and manipulate domestic political opinion. Totalitarian governments can look with envy upon the message discipline across the supposedly independent American media outlets of our supposedly free press. But like so many other things the Left touches, it destroyed the legitimacy and effectiveness of the legacy news media. Americans can tell when they’re being manipulated. So they’ve increasingly turned off television news.

To paraphrase Matt Walsh’s movie title, “What is a television?” That flat screen mounted on your wall might be capable of receiving televised signals from broadcasters. But more likely, the “television” on your wall has become just another screen on which to watch videos streaming from the internet. If you want to watch cable television, you probably need to find an airport or to go pay your grandparents a visit. Otherwise, there’s no longer any need to suffer through the coordinated Soviet-style propaganda.

Listen carefully and you can hear their panic. How are we going to prevent “misinformation” from influencing voters to vote the wrong way? What if the public starts changing its mind about the Ukraine war, climate change, or sex change operations on children? 

Bureaucrats unironically claim that allowing voters to freely choose between candidates “threatens democracy.” Corporations are howling after falling in line for the agenda and beginning to notice the economics of backlash. “It has to be Biden,” former FBI Director James Comey recently said in an interview, effectively encouraging even more election intervention by the FBI. 

But Comey is wrong. It doesn’t have to be Biden. The American voter, not the FBI, is in charge of deciding what’s best. And if we can’t get reliable information from the subverted legacy media, then we’ll find other routes.

X22, Red Pill News, and more- June 10

 

Hope you enjoy what I have posted below today.

Remember the Khmer Rouge

Historical ignorance isn’t bliss; it’s suicide.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

A forgetful society lives on the precipice of history’s abyss. Lloyd Billingsley reminded us of this when he warned, “as ever, the struggle against genocide is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

Billingsley was referencing the Communist Khmer Rouge’s democidal frenzy of 1975-1979 that killed over 2,000,000 people, specifically “Cambodian children were clubbed to death and babies smashed against trees.” He provided a link to an historical, contemporaneous 1977 account of the communist regime and its bloodthirsty Angka Loeu (“organization on high”) leadership’s initial crimes against the Cambodian people and humanity:  Murder of a Gentle Land: The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia, by John Barron and Anthony Paul. It is a horrific chronicle of how the insidious tactics and crimes into which the murderous ideology of communism metastasizes and, ultimately, consumes a people. 

It is a lesson of history that humanity ignores at its peril. Consequently, in the hope of reminding the present about the past to preserve the future, let us delve into Barron and Paul’s reportage of the survivors’ accounts of the Khmer Rouge’s barbarity perpetrated in the name of the very people these communists tortured and killed.

When he was deposed and in temporary exile in Mao’s China, in his attempt to return to power Prince Norodom Sihanouk became the titular leader of Cambodia’s Royal Government of National Union. It was not long until the communists controlled this organization.

Thus, through little enterprise of their own, the Cambodian communists almost overnight achieved a textbook objective of communists everywhere—a coalition that cloaked them with respectability and put at their disposal the resources of others. Stigmatized as foreign agents, they could not attract popular support. Now, with their real identity and aims obscured in the coalition, they would appeal to the people in the name of a prince trusted and esteemed by much of the populace.

Having taken power in now “Democratic Cambodia,” the Khmer Rouge regime and its Angka Loeu leadership immediately went about emptying the cities and purging the populace.

In assaulting the material manifestations of Cambodian culture and civilization, the communists were striking at the concepts the objects of their fury symbolized. And the assaults presaged systematic attempts to undermine or eliminate entirely the traditional concepts of family, home, religion, education, commerce, and technology that formed the foundations of society . . . Having emptied and vandalized the cities, Angka Loeu proclaimed the birth of ‘Democratic Cambodia’ and proudly declared, ‘More than 2,000 years of Cambodian history have virtually ended.’ It is difficult to dispute that claim.

Human dignity and core liberties were immediately ended by the communist regime, as the cities and large villages were arbitrarily emptied and their residents forced into the countryside and jungles. No dissent was too small to go unpunished. 

 [A man said] ‘your order won’t work . . . How will we get to our destination without a car?’ ‘Now is the time of revolution! And you don’t talk back to Angka!’ the soldier shouted in response. Then he sprayed the man with bursts of machine-gun bullets. The man immediately crumpled to the ground, and several others around him also fell.

Indeed, all free speech brought a death sentence. How eerily familiar to present ears echoes the edict of a Khmer Rouge communist officer who, after shooting a vocal dissident, shouted, “In times of revolution, protest is forbidden!”?

Parental rights were abolished; the family unit decimated by communist design.

And children were singled out for the most intensive brainwashing, calculated to estrange them further from their parents and transfer their loyalty from family to Angka Loeu. In the village of Khna Sar university student Ung Sok Choeu observed: ‘The only subjects the students were being taught were revolutionary thinking and the aims of the Khmer Rouge struggle and how to detect the enemies of both. As a result, all the children turned into little Khmer Rouge spies, reporting everything that was said at home.’

Angka Loeu directed Khmer Rouge soldiers to lead reeducation sessions for those who were not starved, shot, or dying of treatable diseases that the communist regime deemed potentially useful to their new “Democratic Cambodia.” 

Angka spokesmen attempted to indoctrinate the prisoners at night, repeatedly sounding a basic refrain: ‘All of you are technicians. You are educated men, and the simple village people didn’t dare reeducate you. But we, your brothers from the army, are happy to reeducate and reshape you. In two years’ time, maybe, when you have adapted yourselves to the new regime, you will be allowed to return to Phnom Penh and your former profession. Meanwhile, you have to help Angka produce rice, to defend the country. Never refuse Angka’s orders, and stop thinking about your families.

Yet, the Cambodian people did keep thinking about their families, at least those they hoped were still alive, wherever the Khmer Rouge sent them. For these heartbroken family members, and those who recalled life before the regime, Angka Loeu declared them afflicted by a mental condition: 

Simultaneously, Angka identified and proclaimed the existence of a dreaded new malady—chhoeu sattek aram, literally, ‘memory sickness.’ Angka considered that a person was suffering from ‘memory sickness’ if he or she thought too much about life in precommunist Cambodia . . .  Angkaattempted to cure the ailment by halving the rice ration of the afflicted. Sometimes the punishment for presumed malingering was more swift and direct.

Overall, the Khmer Rouge’s aim was to create “true communism” by eradicating everything:

An Angka official in the Mongkol Borei district declared, ‘To build a democratic Cambodia by renewing everything on a new basis: to do away with every reminder of colonial and imperialist culture, whether visible or tangible or in a person’s mind; to rebuild our new Cambodia, one million men is enough. Prisoners of war [people expelled from the cities and villages controlled by the government on April 17, 1975] are no longer needed, and local chiefs are free to dispose of them as they please.’ [Emphasis in the original.]

This was not an isolated instance. It was Khmer Rouge policy:

The commander of a thirty-man communist detachment stationed at a large farm 8 kilometers west of Sisophon summoned New Villagers and warned: ‘Everything which belonged to the old society must be banished.’ All behavior henceforth had to be ‘revolutionary’: all conversation was to be conducted in ‘revolutionary terms;’ any lapses into ‘old ways’ would be severely punished.

During its heinous reign, by its own admission what were the achievements of Democratic Cambodia under the communist Khmer Rouge?

After the destruction of more than 1,000,000 human beings, a once happy country and a whole civilization, the premier of Democratic Cambodia sums up the accomplishments of Angka Loeu: In short, we have not made any noteworthy achievements except the revolutionary movement of the masses.

As Pol Pot indicated in the interview, Cambodia today is a land without universities. It also is a land without cities, commerce, art, music, literature, science or hope. And as the young refugee said, ‘There is no love anywhere.’

By 1979, the killing fields were stilled. The Khmer Rouge’s tyrannical rule over Cambodia was in history’s dustbin, but its butchers were not before the bar of justice. For those Khmer Rouge who were not internally purged by the regime, the wheels of justice ground far longer than did the “wheel of history” that Angka Loeu claimed compelled the democide. Decades passed. Ultimately, trials were held, though the justice wrought was scant. Given the depths of the Khmer Rouge’s crimes against humanity it is impossible to imagine a justice that would have been comprehensive. Still, one could hope for more than the meager justice meted out to these bloodthirsty bastards. 

In Cambodia and some foreign quarters, compassionate people honored the dead and heralded the survivors’ courage, vowing to never let the victims and their suffering be forgotten. Yet most of the world forgot, if they had even paid attention at the time. This lesson of history, paid for by the suffering and slaughter of the Cambodian people, was cavalierly lost in the mists of memory and indifference. So doing, the world only serves to ensure “never again” will be vowed yet again and again over the bodies buried in the latest killing fields by murderers masquerading as their victims’ saviors. 

Historical ignorance isn’t bliss. It’s suicide. 

How does communism affect our society today and how does American education influence people's opinions? I spoke with @JesseKellyDC about his new book, "The Anti-Communist Manifesto" and how American education is affecting our kids. pic.twitter.com/rq90IBpeaJ

— Stu Burguiere (@StuDoesAmerica) June 8, 2023

Greater Idaho Movement: A Prelude to a National Divorce?

posted by Jeff Charles at RedStateVIP 

Here’s an interesting one for you. The “Greater Idaho” movement, which advocates for several counties in Oregon to secede from the deep blue state and join Idaho, has sparked a passionate debate among residents and politicians. Supporters argue that secession would allow conservative-leaning counties to align themselves with a more politically compatible state, while opponents believe it would be detrimental to all parties involved.

But this regional debate raises another issue: the possibility that it could be a precursor to a national divorce.

A significant chunk of Oregon’s counties has signaled that they wish to leave the state and join up with Idaho:

One-third of Oregon counties have voted in support of the “Greater Idaho” movement to secede from Oregon to join their conservative eastern neighbors.

Wallowa County became the 12th in Oregon to join the initiative after officials finalized the special election results Tuesday, according to Fox News.

The movement started in 2019 when Oregonians living in rural areas of the state decided they would be better off if they could become part of Idaho, a red state whose politics line up more with theirs. On the website, the organization points out that “[s]tate lines have been relocated many times in American history because it just takes an interstate compact between two state legislatures and the approval of Congress.”

Supporters of the movement highlight several key points. First and foremost, they argue that joining Idaho would better represent the values and interests of the rural and conservative counties involved. They believe that the current political landscape in Oregon, particularly in the more populous and liberal western regions, does not adequately reflect their beliefs and priorities. By becoming part of Idaho, they anticipate a stronger representation of their conservative views in state governance.

Proponents also argue that secession would lead to improved economic conditions. They contend that Idaho has a more business-friendly environment and lower taxes, which could attract investment and spur economic growth in the region. Additionally, they claim that being part of a larger, more prosperous state would provide better access to resources and infrastructure development, benefiting local communities.

On the other side of the debate, detractors raise several concerns about the Greater Idaho movement. One of the main arguments against secession is the potential negative impact on Oregon’s political balance. Losing these rural counties would disproportionately favor the political influence of urban areas, exacerbating the urban-rural divide and diminishing the diversity of voices within the state.

Furthermore, there are concerns about the economic consequences of secession. The counties seeking to join Idaho receive substantial funding and resources from the state of Oregon, and losing that support could have detrimental effects on public services, infrastructure, and education. Of course, this would just mean that the state of Idaho would have to fill in the funding gap.

Additionally, critics question the feasibility of merging the two states, as it would require complex legal processes and could result in administrative challenges and disruptions. As the website explained, there are many difficult legal obstacles to overcome before this endeavor could be fulfilled.

Opponents of the Greater Idaho movement also highlight the potential social and cultural impacts. They argue that secession could further polarizecommunities and exacerbate divisions within the region. Some worry that leaving Oregon could isolate the counties from the rest of the state and diminish opportunities for collaboration, shared resources, and cultural exchange.

This is an interesting conversation as it pertains to the autonomy of local communities. But it also reflects a deeper reality bubbling under the surface. While the movement itself is currently focused on a regional secession, it seems reasonable to suggest that it could set a precedent for broader divisions within the country.

Let us explore this perspective further.

Proponents of the idea of a national divorce argue that the United States has become increasingly polarized along political, cultural, and ideological lines. They accurately point out that the vast differences between regions have created a seemingly unbridgeable divide, hindering effective governance and exacerbating societal tensions. Allowing regions with distinct identities and values to separate would lead to more harmonious governance and allow for the formation of more homogenous communities.

Furthermore, supporters of a national divorce argue that the federal government has become far too powerful and centralized, leaving little room for local governance and decision-making. Even further, Americans have been conditioned to focus more on national politics while essentially ignoring what is happening in their own communities.

Supporters of a national divorce believe that partitioning the country into smaller, more autonomous entities would empower local communities, enabling them to make decisions that align more closely with their unique needs and preferences.

Opponents of the idea, however, raise significant concerns. They argue that a national divorce would be detrimental to the unity and stability of the United States. They contend that dividing the country would lead to economic disruptions, administrative complexities, and the loss of shared resources and infrastructure. They fear that such divisions would only further deepen societal divisions, exacerbating tensions and hindering progress on critical national issues.

Additionally, critics argue that a national divorce would undermine the fundamental principles of the United States as a unified nation. They believe that the strength of the country lies in its ability to embrace diversity, encourage dialogue, and find common ground. They emphasize the importance of working towards bridging divisions and fostering a sense of unity, rather than promoting further fragmentation.

While the “Greater Idaho” movement and similar secessionist initiatives have captured attention and fueled discussions about a national divorce, it is important to note that the concept remains highly controversial and largely theoretical at this stage. The complexities, legal challenges, and potential consequences of such a significant restructuring of the United States make it a highly unlikely scenario in the near future. Still, the Greater Idaho movement shows that the idea of secession is a conversation worth having, especially among those who prefer less centralized government.

Americans Can See What Is Going On

CSPAN callers respond to the indictment.  Americans can see what is happening, listen:

Biden Admin Sends Ukraine Another $2.1B in Military Aid Citing 'Unwavering Support,' Zelensky Says Thanks

Brittany Sheehan reporting for RedState 

On Friday, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced more American taxpayer money will go to the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration is sending off $2.1 billion, allotted for a “new security package” for America’s “unwavering support for Ukraine.” The package is said to include “critical air defense and ammunition capabilities” for Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky thanked President Joe Biden on Twitter, writing:

Thank you @POTUS for the $2.1 billion security assistance package. We appreciate the strong leadership support of [Ukrainian flag] in our fight against Russian aggression from the [American flag] people. Amid unprecedented [Russian flag] terror and ecocide due to the explosion of the Kakhovka HPP, this is more important than ever. Step by step we are getting closer to the liberation of [Ukrainian flag] land!

Last month, the total of U.S. foreign aid sent to Ukraine, earmarked as humanitarian, financial, and military support was reported to be $75 billion since the start of the war. 

Per a fact sheet provided by the DoD, “security assistance” has totaled more than $40 billion under Biden’s tenure, and $39.7 billion of that came after the Ukrainian-Russian conflict began in February of last year. According to the State Department, much of that military assistance is accomplished through a mechanism called, “the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority,” which they had used thirty-seven times, as of last month, to funnel tens of billions of dollars to Ukrainian military operations. A military drawdown is a transfer of U.S. military equipment and resources. The statutory authority is found in section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA).

The Dept. of State wrote:

Pursuant to a delegation by the President, we have used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on thirty-seven occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine approximately $21.1 billion in military assistance directly from DoD stockpiles.

But, the newly announced multi-billion dollar package is not being provided under the drawdown authority and instead is coming through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). The DoD describes the initiative as :

The USAI is an authority under which the United States procures capabilities from industry or partners. This announcement represents the beginning of a contracting process to provide additional priority capabilities to Ukraine.

So, instead of sourcing from U.S. military stockpiles, it looks like the U.S. will be funding new contracts for Ukraine.

The USAI is described as providing support for Ukraine’s defensive training, military equipment, and advisory services. A Congressional report updated in February revealed that in Fiscal year 2022, appropriations also directed that USAI funds be provided for logistics support, supplies, and services; salaries and stipends; sustainment; weapons replacement; and intelligence support. The USAI is actively involved in countering Russian cyberattacks by supporting cyber defense and strategic communications.

DoD’s press release:

Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced a new security assistance package, underscoring the unwavering U.S. support for Ukraine. This package, which totals up to $2.1 billion and includes critical air defense and ammunition capabilities, is being provided under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI).

This USAI package illustrates the continued commitment to both Ukraine’s critical near-term capabilities as well as the enduring capacity of Ukraine’s Armed Forces to defend its territory and deter Russian aggression over the long term.

Unlike Presidential Drawdown authority, which DoD has continued to leverage to deliver equipment to Ukraine from DoD stocks at a historic pace, USAI is an authority under which the United States procures capabilities from industry or partners. This announcement represents the beginning of a contracting process to provide additional priority capabilities to Ukraine.

The capabilities in this announcement include:

• Additional munitions for Patriot air defense systems;
• HAWK air defense systems and missiles;
• 105mm and 203mm artillery rounds;
• Puma Unmanned Aerial Systems;
• Laser-guided rocket system munitions;
• Support for training, maintenance, and sustainment activities.

The United States will continue to work with its Allies and partners to provide Ukraine with capabilities to meet its immediate battlefield needs and longer-term security assistance requirements.

 

Jeff Clark Gives Solid Take on DOJ Trump Indictment Scheme

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Rather than write 10,000 highly specific and legally granular words to deconstruct the Trump indictment, I will share the opinion of others with supporting analysis and add some substance to the issues. Later I will compile all the various points of analysis into one very granular article.

First, it is important to always remember why this indictment is taking place.  The DOJ, specifically Lisa Monaco, are continuing the offensive against Trump in large part to cover for the actions of the Obama administration in the originating targeting of their political opposition.  Originating Spygate operations (’15-’16), Russiagate (’16-’17), Mueller (’17-’19), Impeachment #1 (’19-’20), Durham (’19-’23) and Jack Smith ’22-present, are all part of one long continuum of weaponized DOJ and FBI operations.  The entirety of the effort is to protect the actions taken by the Obama administration. [Note to congress: Questioning Durham this month is defense key #1]

In this interview {Direct Rumble Link} Jeff Clark gives his opinion of the statutory weaknesses that exist in the case as outlined in the indictment.  The first two defense approaches will likely be: (1) the Presidential Records Act supersedes the issues of document holding as noted in the use of the Espionage Act. (2) However, if the Espionage Act [Statute 793(e)] has to be defended, the originating issue of “unauthorized possession” will be the second approach heading to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  WATCH:

Granular note, putting aside the fact that classification is irrelevant to the statute being used, within the indictment please notice how the DOJ states 102 classified documents [pg 27], some that were never marked classified as noted in the indictment [count 11, page 30] but defined as classified after DOJ review, were discovered after the Trump affirmation of compliance in July 2022.  This is the predicate for the FBI raid.  Again, a total of 102 documents were identified as classified by the FBI/DOJ.

They were unable to use classification status as a legal mechanism to attack President Trump; instead, they use the non-production as an evidence enhancement to the ridiculous claim that Trump lied to them (sec 1001); but notice how there are only 31 documents [31 counts] outlined as national defense security issues.  This would mean approximately 70 classified documents are memory holed by this special counsel.

70 defined “classified” documents retrieved, no description provided, those documents not a part of any legal contention – they just disappear.   I suspect we know what those sets of documents pertained to, and they have everything to do with DOJ and FBI conduct in Russiagate.

CTH has a years-long research library on all of these Trump-Russia investigative issues, including the in-real-time background stories that encompass them, and that library is massive.

If you have a specific question, ask me in the comments section and I will do my earnest best to review and answer.

Tell me what questions you have, and I will do my best.

Be of good cheer, I really don’t think this indictment will past the first defense challenge, The Presidential Records Act.

Elitists Hate Trump Because He Gives The Wrong People Hope

At the end of the day, they hate Trump because he gives everyday Americans a reason to keep fighting.

by Samuel Mangold-Lenett for The Federalist

If it wasn’t already clear, the anti-Trump right’s resistance to economic and cultural populism embraced by the MAGA movement is predicated almost entirely upon an aesthetic revulsion toward a people whom they consider inferior and inconvenient.

A few days ago, a short video of a pair of late-middle-aged white Americans dancing alongside a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump with moonshine went viral on Twitter after being shared by an account named “Republicans against Trump.”  

“Live shot from Magadonia,” the caption reads.

In a large, unkempt outdoor space, trucks, American flags, and piles of yard waste are in clear sight. The couple bobs and jives to a recording of “I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow” from the Coen Brothers’ “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” What looks to be a medical mobility device appears partially on screen as the woman in her daytime pajamas works her way across the video’s threshold, and the pair’s dog is preoccupied with something it seems to have found on the ground.

The couple is energetic; they’re undeniably excited. We don’t know why, but they’re clearly having a good time. The generally clean cutout of Donald Trump stands in stark contrast to the couple’s rugged appearance and the thick puddles of mud on the ground.

It’s apparent that “Republicans against Trump” — which call themselves “pro-democracy conservative[] Republicans fighting Trump & Trumpism” and use their platform to repeat the same braindead, reheated talking points about democracy and decency in an attempt to restore Bush-era establishment norms — shared this video solely for the sake of belittling their countrymen for enthusiastically supporting the 45th president.

But why? Under Donald Trump, Americans were happier, richer, and safer abroad. Under Trump, the U.S. attained full employment, conservative judges flooded the judicial branch, and the country attained energy independence. These are just a few of the Trump administration’s successes; no conservative, let alone any Republican, can deny them in good faith. 

So why do the ostensible establishment Republicans appear to genuinely despise those who continue to celebrate Trump? 

In a 2010 essay for The American Spectator titled “The Ruling Class,” the late Angelo Codevilla argued that entrenched political interests are so insulated and detached from the rest of the country, the people they purport to serve, that they develop a sense of holier-than-thou resentment.

“Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country,” Codevilla said. “They think, look, and act as a class.” This paradigm obviously extends beyond the political and applies to business, finance, and culture as well. 

And this is where Trump thrives because, beyond the policy, he is a cultural figure who, despite being part of America’s elite circles, sided with the people and agreed with them that they were being screwed by tyrants in benefactors’ clothing. 

Sure, they hate Trump, but they really hate you. They hate you so much they’ll ridicule the clothes on your back, the teeth in your mouth, and the way you pronounce your words; but don’t you dare disrespect the Democrats or disregard the norms that led us to a state of cultural freefall and decay. 

Campaigning on a message of “hope” and “change” in the wake of the Great Recession and the Iraq War, among other things, Barack Obama was able to turn an extraordinarily pessimistic cultural and political environment into one of hopeful optimism. He failed to capitalize upon this and subsequently became an incredibly divisive and toxic individual who turned Americans against one another for his own political gain while the nation continued to circle the drain. But he was initially able to amass immense loyalty because he inspired hope.

Trump entered the political arena with nothing to gain and everything to lose and was verifiably able to change the country for the better. In doing so, in temporarily reversing the decay, he gave millions of Americans hope. He still does.

The Republican and Democrat parties, Big Business, entertainment conglomerates, et al. convinced the American people the country’s best days were behind them. Trump convinced them to step into the arena and keep fighting. 

But when cynical elitists see common people expressing a love of country grounded in something other than a love of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, they recoil in disgust because they know their grip on power is not absolute.