Saturday, December 14, 2024

Alexis de Tocqueville and DEI


“Americans are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political philosopher who visited the United States in the 1830s with a view to discovering why the American experiment in republican democracy was becoming so successful.  When the United States became independent (in effect, in 1783 after the Revolutionary War), and set up a republic, there was a lot of mocking, scoffing, and laughing in Europe.  “What do those dumb Americans think they are doing?  They’ll never be successful.”  You see, the British had tried republicanism in the 1650s after they executed their king, and it had been a miserable failure in less than 10 years.  Then, the French dismembered their king in the 1790s and established a “republic” with the same catastrophic results.  What made the Americans think they could succeed where the more (politically) advanced English and French had failed?

Well, by the 1830s, it DID appear to be working in the United States and de Tocqueville wanted to find out why.  He investigated and traveled and wrote the two-volume “Democracy in America,” which has become a classic.  He had a lot of good things to say, and the quote at the beginning of this article is one of the more intriguing.

I find the quote interesting, especially since it was written in the first half of the 19th century.  Americans have always believed in an equality of sorts—“all men are created equal,” endowed by their Creator with certain natural rights, “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.”  But that equality had a strict definition.  In early America, it was “equality of opportunity” (except for slaves, of course), not “equality of outcomes.”  Did de Tocqueville have the vision to perceive what would happen in future America?

It has long been an axiom that, if people are free, they will not be equal, and if they are equal, they will not be free.  We all have different talents, abilities, personalities, ambitions, intelligence levels, etc. etc., and they create great differences of results.  My bank account will never match Elon Musk’s.  I’ll never be able to throw a baseball like Nolan Ryan could, or quarterback a football team like Tom Brady.  The only way Elon’s and my bank accounts will ever be equal is if his money is forcibly taken from him and given to me.  That’s not freedom of opportunity, that is freedom of outcome, and the only way this “equality” can be attained is by force—unless he voluntarily gave me his money, which he hasn’t yet informed me he intends to do.  If Elon is left “free,” his bank roll and mine will never be “equal.”  I just don’t have his money-making abilities, though maybe I have some talent he does not have.

America started out with the ideal of freedom of opportunity which, they understood and accepted, would lead to inequality of outcomes.  But de Tocqueville indicated that, in his opinion, Americans have such a great love of equality “they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”  Many Americans do not—and never have—believed that, of course, but...DEI?  Isn’t this exactly what DEI is?  “Let’s make sure that all races, genders, and sexual preferences have equal outcomes.”  This is an outcomes-based, results approach, not a merit-based, freedom approach, and DEI has been roundly criticized for that very reason.  But it is a cardinal principle of the current Democratic Party, who would rather have us all “equal in slavery” than “unequal in freedom.”  It is one of the greatest battles being fought in America in our age.  

Lyndon B. Johnson perhaps put the Democratic Party on the road to DEI with the following statement he made in a speech at Howard University in 1965:  “We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.”  “Equality as a result.”  This became the revolution that has, in many ways, torn America apart in the last two generations.  Johnson himself was the man who signed into law the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 which gave all Americans equality before the law; ten years prior, the Supreme Court had declared school segregation unconstitutional, though it persisted for many years afterwards.  

But notice Johnson’s words:  we do not just seek “legal equality”—that’s equality of opportunity.  Everybody equal before the law, the same right to pursue their own happiness in accordance with the laws of God.  It took America nearly two centuries to get to “legal equality,” but we finally did.  It isn’t practiced perfectly, and it never will be by imperfect human beings.  But that IS the law in America today.

However, Johnson said that’s not good enough.  We seek “equality of result.”  Ok, Elon, give me a call and I’ll tell you my bank account number and you can start shoveling it in...

People who are dependent upon government for their sustenance or upward movement in society are slaves to government.  That’s part of what de Tocqueville is talking about.  Minorities and women are protected by the same laws today as all Americans are and thus have the same freedom of opportunity as everyone else.  And millions of them have seized their opportunities and made great successes of their lives.  And kudos to them.

But that doesn’t buy votes for the Democratic Party, which was the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and now DEI.   And because many Americans would rather be equal in slavery than take the opportunities they now have...well, that’s why today’s Democratic Party exists.  It’s about power and buying votes.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about it almost two centuries ago.  It’s called “history.”  We don’t know much. 



at

Welcome to Orwell’s World


George Orwell, that idealistic socialist disillusioned by the Soviet “Workers’ Paradise” (what the great Ronald Reagan called the Evil Empire), took special note of how communists perverted language. Famous, in 1984, the motto was “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”  In our time, as well, our speech is polluted by words that do not speak the truth but cover it up. Here are some of them.

“Islamophobia”

Phobia is a Greek word Sigmund Freud chose to label the mental disorder of a baseless, irrational fear. Islamophobia thus purports to dismiss fear of Islam as irrational.

However, look at some of what Muslims have done in the last 52 years:

  • massacred Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics (1972)
  • kidnapped 52 American diplomats in Iran (1979)
  • blew Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Scotland (1988)
  • generated Hell on Earth on 9/11 (2001)
  • bombed London’s Tavistock Square and tube station leaving 52 dead (2005)
  • murdered 13 and wounded 30 at Ft. Hood, Texas while yelling “Allahu Akbar!” (2009)
  • bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding 280 (2013)
  • slaughtered 16 and wounded two at a Christmas office party bombing in San Bernardino (2015)
  • slaughtered 12 people in Paris at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine, at a kosher supermarket, and (a police officer) on the street
  • bombed the Bataclan theater in Paris, killing 130 and wounding 350 (2015)
  • used a truck as a weapon at Berlin Christmas Market truck killing 12 and wounding 56 (2016)
  • used a truck as a weapon in Nice, France, killing 86 and wounding 434 (2016)
  • raped, tortured, and slaughtered 1,200 civilians in Israel (2023)

Those who do not fear Islam are the ones with a mental disorder.

“Gay sex”

This is simply impossible. The role of the sex organs is procreation, which cannot be accomplished by two people of the same sex. What “gay men” do is not sex. “Gay sex” is verbal camouflage for sodomy and fellatio, behaviors that disgust normal men. This perversion is nothing but hedonism, mutual masturbation, and the separation of the intense pleasure of procreation from procreation.

The G-d of the Jews’ Bible says, “Be fruitful and multiply,” and because He wanted that, He made procreation a most enjoyable procedure. Someone else once said, “There may be some things better than sex but nothing quite like it.” Thus, sexual deviance is a kind of embezzling of God-given pleasure separated from being fruitful and multiplying.

“Gender”

There is no such thing as “gender,” as this word is misused today. Before the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1972 went crazy and removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, gender was a grammatical term used by many languages (if not English) that categorizes nouns, adjectives, and sometimes verbs as either male, female, or neuter.

The sexually disordered pilfered the term to label an inner delusion that seems to them to be male or female, or a combination of the two, and this inner experience is more “authentic” than one’s human anatomy, male or female—though no physician can locate it in the human body or brain. “Gender” used like this is nothing but a psychological fantasy.

“Sex Change”

No human being in history has ever been turned into the opposite sex. A sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, a woman representing her sexually bent-out-of-shape American generation, could not define the word woman when it is self-explanatory.

The Bible teaches that males and females are made of the same stuff, but what distinguishes them is their organs of reproduction. The woman is a woman by virtue of her womb. She is a hu-man (sic) with a womb, a womb-man. (Forget about checking for x and y chromosomes in athletes. This should be the test.)

No man has ever been surgically fitted with a womb, fallopian tubes, ovaries, or milk-producing breasts, and no person has ever “transitioned” from one sex to the other. No male calling himself “transgender” has ever known the desire to become pregnant and give birth to a baby to love and kiss, cuddle, nurse, feed, bathe, play with, and tickle. He has never in his life experienced this desire because only those humans with wombs can know the feeling. (Cf. Bonnie Raitt’s musical and lyrical masterpiece “Nick of Time”)

“Homophobia”

More Orwellian deceit. Male-to-male sodomy is medically contraindicated for it is known to damage the colon and cause other serious conditions. After the APA’s decision, the AIDs virus germinated wildly via massive homosexual orgies and ended worldwide the lives of over 40 million people, far more than COVID-19. There is nothing irrational in fearing the spread of homosexual behavior.

“Reproductive freedom”

The demand that there should be no restriction on the right to an abortion because it is allegedly an assault on a woman’s freedom to reproduce is plainly a lie. Communist China instituted such a prohibition, but no other country has. On the contrary, those in favor of abortion-on-demand are completely free to reproduce. What they really want is approval for the right to commit intrauterine infanticide after creating human life.

“Progressives”

These are more accurately described as “regressive,” representing an earlier stage in human development when the common man had no say in the governing of his society. Today’s “progressives” are the enemies of democracy and the values of individual freedom and liberty. They were the ones during the Communist Chinese-produced COVID plague dictating the imperative of immunization or losing one’s job and the obligation to wear face masks.

“Islamist/Islamism”

There is no such thing. Muslims themselves never use these words. They were invented and promoted by non-Muslim Western academics for their own psychological and political needs to shield Islam from being associated with the satanic terror atrocities perpetrated by its adherents. The term wants you to believe there are “Muslims” and there are “Islamists” and they are not the same. But no “Islamist terrorist” ever calls himself that. The term is meant to portray Muslim terrorists as unrepresentative of Islam, such as the ignorant American President Bush, 43, on 9-11 when he declared that Islam is a religion of peace.

“Palestinians”

These are Arabs about whom there is nothing “Palestinian.” They have no national language and practice no religion native to Palestine. They teach their school children that their nation has been living in Palestine for 5,000 years, even though there is no evidence in history of the presence of such a nation in Palestine, that synonym for the Jews’ “Land of Israel.”

“Radical extremists”

Another verbal smokescreen. When Muslims invaded Europe in 711 and attacked Vienna in 1683, not one victim of their aggression called them “radical extremist Islamists.” People just called them Muslims.

“Israeli apartheid”

Plainly an antisemitic lie. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word in use in South Africa from 1948-1998, referring to the system in which every citizen had a national identity card imprinted with the color of his/her skin, white, black, or mixed, that regulated his life. Israel has no laws about anybody’s skin color.

The great English writer Tom Paine (1737-1809) coined the expression The Age of Reason.

Ours is the Age of Orwellian Deceit.



at

X22, Red Pill News, and more- Dec 14

 




at

The Year of McDonald’s

 


McDonald’s is central to American life, both physically and culturally. The last few months have provided two massive news stories that have emphasized this. At the end of October, there was the viral, and controversial, Trump campaign stop, where he “worked” for 30 minutes at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. Then, this week, there was the news that Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, was caught in a McDonald’s—also, coincidentally, in Pennsylvania—because he was spotted by a group of morning regulars and employees.

The reaction to both stories in certain parts of the media has proved that a lot of commentators don’t understand what McDonald’s means to ordinary Americans—which basically means that they don’t understand ordinary Americans, period.

Let’s start with the most recent. After Mangione was arrested, I saw two questions raised. The first was: Why would someone “so careful” as Mangione go into a McDonald’s? The second was: How in the world was he noticed—given that it is a soulless franchise where you should be able to easily blend in, since each is the same bland, and heavily trafficked space?

I can answer both questions. I’ve spent over a decade sitting in McDonald’s all over the United States—I believe I’ve visited over 500 franchises. Roughly half the conversations I had for my 2019 book Dignity took place in a McDonald’s—in fact, my working title was, Everything You Want to Know About America Can Be Learned in a McDonald’s, because I sincerely believe this. Nowadays, I keep a Substack about walking around the world, and all my pieces about the U.S. have pictures and stories from McDonald’s. As a walker, I use them for the same reason everyone else does—they are welcoming, social, inexpensive, and have Wi-Fi, good food, great coffee, and clean bathrooms. They are also a great way to learn about a place from the bottom up.

Over the years, I’ve come to understand the role McDonald’s plays in the day-to-day life of Americans, especially those toward the bottom, and those suffering from mental illness. That’s why I could have scripted the chain of events that led to Mangione’s capture, down to the appearance of the regulars who first noticed him (like the white-haired man with a chain round his neck who seemed friendly but not entirely at ease speaking into a CNN mic.)

I’m going to go out on a limb here, despite it being too early to do so, and say that the theory I find most convincing is that Mangione could be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I’ve met a lot of people like this in McDonald’s, because the franchise is often one of—if not the only—place in the “real world” where they can go, grab a cup out of the garbage can, sit at their corner table, and fit in, at least for an hour or two, without encountering too many dangers. It becomes, for many deeply troubled people, their only lifeline to normal society.

It’s a role McDonald’s, to its credit, has accepted. Or some of its staff have, at least. I’ve witnessed many occasions when employees and morning regulars have gone out of their way to help those who are suffering. I’ve seen people offer free food and calls for assistance, and I once heard a female customer call her husband, tell him to come to the parking lot, and repair a broken-down car, free of charge.

Which is why the fact that Mangione was noticed isn’t surprising at all. Each McDonald’s is a community.


I’m writing this from the McDonald’s in my town in upstate New York, where I do most of my writing when at home, and I “know” almost all the two dozen or so oddballs who come in, like me, sit in a corner, and either stare at the wall, rant into a cup, or work on their beat-up laptop. I know the morning regulars—the evolving group of five or so guys who are at the door when it opens at 5:30 a.m.—as well as the afternoon regulars. All the employees also “know” these oddballs, and should a new one come in, sit in a corner, and start acting a bit off, they’ll notice. That almost always leads them to offering help, or in this rare case of Luigi Mangione, calling the police.

The larger question here is, how is it that McDonald’s, a business founded and designed to make eating as quick and transactional as possible, has become America’s default community center?

The answer: It’s happened because people are fundamentally wired to make meaning, and because having a community you feel you belong to is foundational to who we are. If you provide people with a landscape of banal franchises, they will form communities and make meaning in a banal franchise.

But to the educated elites—what I call the front-row—this kind of community is seen as embarrassing and a bit backward. Which brings us back to the first news story that proves McDonald’s is central to American life: Trump’s photo op. Here is a great illustration of what many in the front-row still miss about his appeal.

The Year of McDonald's
A couple plays dominoes at a McDonald’s in Gary, Indiana.

Trump’s superpower has long been signaling to working stiffs that he’s “just like you,” despite being on the surface nothing like them. His love of McDonald’s, which I believe is as genuine a feeling as any politician can ever have, is one of those signals. In fact, it may be his most effective, because it goads his critics into signaling that they are not “just like you.”

McDonald’s is wildly popular with every group of Americans—urban, rural, male, female, middle or working class; it unites every demographic in the U.S., with a single exception: the highly educated, especially academics. They alone, as a group, seem to have moral issues with McDonald’s, and while they might use it, they do so grudgingly, usually to appease crying kids or for a rest stop on a long trip.

So Trump’s embrace of McDonald’s becomes a political twofer. It shows he’s one of you: He is a back-row guy at heart. But it also shows that while he should be a member of the front-row, given his education and wealth, he’s not, because such people despise him for many of the same reasons they look down on you: for what he eats, how he talks, for what he believes in, and for how he arrives at those beliefs, which isn’t by spending years reading through approved syllabi, but having gone out into the world and learned from it, one mistake after the next.

The Year of McDonald's
A father and son dine at a McDonald’s in Bakersfield, California.

The press, and his opponents, used the McDonald’s photo op to point out all the obvious absurdities. “The former president, before cosplaying as a successful businessman, was the quintessential elitist,” bleated MSNBC. “So what are MAGA die-hards and faux-centrist Trump apologists talking about when they praise his drive-through stint as ‘amazing and hilarious’?” Obviously, the article didn’t actually pose this question to any normal American, and instead just started quoting statistics.

Criticism like this fell flat because Trump also recognized the absurdities of his stunt, and didn’t care. And anyone who did could be seen, by him and his supporters, as the same old pedantic scolds—people who are so absorbed in their books that they can’t see the real and bigger truths of the world, including the idea that cosplaying as a McDonald’s employee for an hour, especially working the drive-through, is simply fun.

This is the thing about the front-row: Their framework doesn’t fully understand what makes the average American tick. By focusing on what can be measured, they often miss what is meaningful. In their eyes, systematically imposing ideas from the top down is the route to building the best society, and a human is a transactional, rational, economic thing. They congratulate themselves with the increase in America’s wealth, and ignore our declining life expectancy due to drug overdoses, suicides, and reckless diets—which is all evidence of a nihilistic despair, as is a growing and desperate loneliness.

That communities exist in almost every McDonald’s should be all the evidence one needs to understand that people need to feel part of a society larger than themselves, especially “spontaneous” ones, built organically from the bottom up. These communities are the flowers growing between the cracks of the cement parking lot: a reminder that life survives, and often thrives, in the harshest environments, such as the modern world—which, though impressively built on the back of science, and despite being very wealthy, is still a pretty harsh, cold, and despondent place.

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-year-of-mcdonalds-trump-luigi-mangione?utm_campaign=email-post&r=rd3ao&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

at

Joe Biden Considers A Scorched Earth Policy On His Way Out The Door


Scorched earth is one of the most brutal strategies in war. It can be an offensive or a defensive strategy and usually leaves a wasteland of destruction and starvation in its wake. It seems that Joe Biden, on his way out of the Oval Office, is using this strategy against America.

One of the most famous examples of an offensive use of scorched earth is Sherman’s “March to the Sea“ from Atlanta to Savannah from November to December 1864. Sherman not only burned Atlanta to the ground, but he also left a trail of destruction for a wide swath all the way to the ocean, everything from military targets to infrastructure to crops.

The obvious goal, of course, was to damage the military by impeding logistics and commerce. The larger goal was to break the morale of the South, to ensure that they lost all hope that they could ever win while showing them that their lives would be destroyed if they continued to fight. He succeeded in spades, and his campaign proved critical to the Confederacy’s surrender five months later.

The most famous defensive use of the policy was probably that of Emperor Alexander I when facing an advancing Napoleon during the French invasion of Russia in 1812. As the French advanced further, the Russian troops embarked on a campaign of taking whatever supplies they could carry, then setting fire to or destroying virtually anything that the enemy could use.

In Moscow, many buildings were spared because they were largely empty husks by the time Napoleon arrived. Having far outdistanced his supply trains and unable to live off the land, Napoleon began his slow retreat from a campaign that would leave 350,000 dead French on the fields of Russia.

Another use of scorched earth is retribution. The Romans in Carthage after the Third Punic War in 146 BC provide what may be the most famous example. Wanting to inflict revenge against the city that had loosed Hannibal on them half a century before and ensure their greatest rival never threatened them again, the legions leveled the city down to bricks, burned farms, forced citizens to relocate 10 miles inland, and barred them from rebuilding. Carthage would remain a desert for a century until Caesar recognized its strategic value and began rebuilding it.

Joe Biden, who, unlike Sherman, Napoleon, Hannibal, or Caesar, will be forgotten the moment he exits the stage, is nonetheless looking at the scorched earth policy with a keen eye.

Biden, the politician who’s never had a job that didn’t come from the government, has contempt for the Republic. For him, America, and in particular the government, is just a vehicle for accumulating power and money.

The man is an inveterate liar. He lies about important things and trivial. He lied about riding the train, the death of his grandfather, and being shot at in Iraq. He lied about the truck driver who killed his wife and daughter in 1972, claiming that the man had been drunk despite police records of the time showing no such thing. He cheated in college, lied about his standing at graduation in law school, and, fatally for his 1988 presidential run, plagiarized Neil Kinnock, a British politician.

If there is a legacy to Joe Biden pre-Barack Obama, it is his destruction of the confirmation process for the Supreme Court. For most of our history up until that point in 1987, Supreme Court nominations were largely collegial processes that focused mainly on the candidate’s knowledge of the law and their qualifications for sitting on the bench. Joe Biden and fellow liberal urchin Teddy Kennedy savaged Bork for his conservative views and, as the New York Times suggested, the Bork nomination “in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics.”

From that point forward, politics was no longer an arena where ideas were debated as a sidebar to American life. From that point forward, Democrats shifted hard left, and in less than two decades, the cancer of the left would infect virtually every element of American life.

Joe Biden did that.

Not satisfied with ruining our economy, adding trillions to the national debt, and allowing 10 million illegal aliens to invade the country, on his way out the door, Joe Biden may be getting ready to eviscerate what’s left of our justice system and the rule of law.

Presidents have used their pardon power for years, with the most famous being that of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford. Last week, Joe Biden, despite saying he would not do so, pardoned his son for every federal crime he may have committed over the last 11 years, both those for which he had been convicted and those he had not. That ensures that the Trump administration cannot charge the younger Biden once it takes over the White House.

Biden’s pardon was unprecedented. Most pardons are for specific crimes, and while Ford’s pardon of Nixon was a similar blanket immunity, it was specifically tied to the dates he was President. The younger Biden’s, however, is far from specific and applies to no official duties. It just happens to coincide with the moment Junior joined the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, despite having zero experience in or knowledge of the energy business.

Controversial pardons are nothing new. Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists in August 1999 and, later, his brother. Still, Biden is said to be mulling doing something extraordinary: He may preemptively pardon the people who used the justice system to persecute Donald Trump and his supporters, including the treacherous Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff.

There’s also Anthony Fauci, the COVID liar, and General Milley, the traitor who thinks it’s his job to inform enemies of his Commander in Chief’s plans. There are undoubtedly many others he’s considering, including Mayorkas and Garland. And to top it all off, Biden is being encouraged to, and is no doubt considering, offer a blanket pardon to all illegal aliens in the United States.

Combined with the $2 million the DOJ paid Page and Strzok for releasing their text messages about conspiring to keep Trump from winning in 2016, what we’re seeing Biden contemplate here is a scorched earth destruction of the rule of law. Basically, one party is telling its stormtroopers they can use the police power of government to persecute their opponents with no limitations because if they succeed, their opponents never make it into office to hold them accountable. If they fail, their crimes can be pardoned before the enemy ever takes over. Heads we win, tails you lose…

If Biden burns down the Republic on his way out the door, Democrats had better take cover. The Constitution is, as John Adams said, “made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Democrats have shown themselves to be anything but. If they see fit to torch it, they should not be surprised if the GOP doesn’t decide to stop playing the patsy, limiting themselves to the Constitution’s Marquess of Queensberry Rules. There’s a reason FAFO videos are so popular. Americans covet justice; Democrats flout it at their peril.



at

Idiocy Doesn't Stray Far from the Radar

Sunlit7 op




 Some people are just incapable of getting a clue if it was written on paper and handed to them with the answer.  Such as with the case this morning among democrats and republicans.  On one side you had the liberals warning of the pearls involved of falling into the trap of the fascist dictator in chief to be while the other side sent out warnings to the president elect to beware.

"David Pepper, former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, warned that things won't go well for the donors."

"Because he owns The Washington Post, Bezos would know more than anyone that one of the first scandals in the first Trump term was the excess and graft involved in Trump’s inauguration operation, orchestrated by the cast of shady characters who put it all together," he wrote. "As for those business leaders cozying up to Trump to curry favor, they might want to read 'Garden of Beasts' to see the effectiveness of their strategy (or ask Justin Trudeau)."


Evidently, he missed that Amazon was a donor in Trump's first inauguration only to a lesser extent than currently.  He was and still is one of the shady characters involved.  This time around it's a "check mate" by the king of excess and graft and all the shady other characters that have been crawling out from behind the woodwork.  


This was hardly the internet of the day stupid winner quote, that is reserved for one of the numbskulls who thinks Trump still needs the "look squirrel" warning.


"But it wasn't just liberals who were upset. Some pro-Trump commenters were also enraged at what they saw as attempts to influence the president-elect's agenda by a number of wealthy businessmen, some of whom have criticized him in the past."

"Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos & Mark Zuckerberg are all donating $1,000,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee to try to 'get on the good foot' with the new administration," wrote right-wing podcaster Joey Mannarino. "Don’t be fooled. These men haven’t changed and $1,000,000 to them is sofa change. They’re bad actors. Period."

The headline says it all really, the fury is directed at the donors while Trump escapes any fury for accepting the money because they can't accept acknowledging to themselves that if there was something worse than the deep state it would be the elevation of these bad actors.  It's a little late on the period emphasis.  


I guess they didn't put much forethought into getting rid of the deep state who would fill the vacuum  The only one not mentioned on this gala list of bad actors is Peter Thiel who simply said there was no longer a reason to donate money to political campaigns or accept a job in the current administration without elaborating his company is the biggest defense contractor paid by the government.  Why downgrade to job that would cause him "depression" and drive him "crazy" he was quoted as saying.  As low key as he'd prefer to stay about it, killing people is much more enjoyable.  Thiel though, known to hold strong authoritarian beliefs, doesn't like to be hamstrung, and government does a pretty good job of that.


"You can't go full-time into government if you've been in a tech position like I have. It's just — the sort of things you have to be realistic about, what you can and can't do."


Which is why he put to good use his defensive expertise to undermine the republican party for a takeover by the tech billionaires.  


"Worth $14.8 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index, the 57-year-old PayPal confounder was one of the first Silicon Valley leaders to espouse conservative views."

 The left had done gone over the cliff whereas high jacking the republican base was merely a matter of asking for forgiveness of having seen the errors of their way.  Playing on the emotions of God, guns, and country was a lot easier than playing on the emotional mess the democratic party had become.  


Operation Sensibilities, which I'd like to call it, has been won.  After getting his tech buddies aboard, funding the operation with millions of dollars to get Trump and JD Vance elected, the mission has been accomplished, and he feels no more needs to be accomplished on his part.


Now it's just a matter of tearing down all those things they can't do using the man they installed as president.  There's no more naivete involved in this.  You don't see Trump returning any of the millions they have donated or telling Zuckersmuck where he can stick his Zuckerbucks.  Or telling the Fake News Washington Post Bezo, no tax monopoly Amazon player he's not invited, or not thanks to genocide Thiel he's not needed, or Elon that his cars truly suck. It's not going to happen, because these are your new vacuum players, Trump's "secret new friends", with each one of them having high stakes in this game as Zuckersmuck will continue his censorship, Bezo will win a monopoly over the entire postal system, Elon will go on to privatize space travel and force you into electric vehicles, and Thiel will continue on managing Trump's new paradigm for the middle east.  What, from what's been being said the last few days, you'll get out of the deal is no consumer protections, no FDIC insurance backing your deposits, no regulatory regulations for crashes out on the roads, and a "I don't think I'll be able to reduce food cost" quoted by Trump as he moves to tariff and do trade deals rising prices and selling abroad more of the food supply.  He'll undermine the gas-powered vehicles by raising tariffs on every part. When they get done, state actors, aligned with non-state actors will control and own everything and you'll be lucky if you don't end up eating Bill Gates bugs.  

'Pay up and pray': Fury from all sides hits tech billionaires after $1M gifts to Trump

Peter Thiel says he wouldn't take a 'full-time' Trump administration job: 'I'd be depressed and crazy'

at