Det kommende midtvejsvalg i USA er ikke helt, som de fremstår. Ekspertisen fokuserer på traditionelle politik punkter som inflation, arbejdsløshed, benzinpriser, krigen mod Iran osv. Det tages for givet at det er traditionelle partier overfor hinanden med den Orange Anomali i Det Hvide Hus. Men Trump markerer og fremmer et paradigmeskifte for USA og sikkert flere andre vestlige demokratier, fra en liberal hegemoni ude og hjemme til en civilisatorisk og populistisk ude som hjemme.
Republikanerne er derfor i tråd med det tektoniske skift, mens Demokraterne stadig tror at verden bliver ‘normal’ i 2029. Det syn virker stadig mindre sandsynligt og ej heller tillokkende på vælgerne. Og det gør den sårbare for at blive kannibaliseret indefra af kommunister og mænd i dametøj, der vil overtage ‘produktionsmidlerne’ og give asyl til alle. Deres fremgang i partiet er partiets undergang.
Mark Halperin herunder, pointerer at medierne fokuserer på de traditionelle Demokraters problemer med den fremvoksende socialisme i deres parti. Hvorledes forandrer det partiet, og underminerer det partiets chancer for at vinde valg, og står fjenden automatisk til højre, hvilke vælgergrupper vil man gerne tiltrække og hvem er man bange for at støde fra sig…
Det er fordi medierne – som Halperin ikke kalder MSM, overlejrede/nedarvede/døende medier, men de dominerende medier fordi det stadig er dem, der sætter den offentlige diskurs – automatisk sympatiserer med det traditionelle Demokraterne – de er jo trods alt deres propaganda arm. Men ingen fokuserer på de fremstormende socialisters frustrationer med at blive repræsenteret i et USA befolket med mestendels voksne og normale mennesker, der kan sige fra.
Socialisterne mener at de etablerede Demokrater bare vil holde fast i magten med deres ‘super pacs’ og ikke er interesserede i at ændre samfundet til fordel for de svedende masser hvorfor Republikanerne har magten i Det Hvide Hus og på Kongressen. At de har vind i sejlene blandt unge mennesker, fra en generation, der generelt synes at det er uretfærdigt at man skal arbejde for sine penge. De køber ikke argumentet om at deres kandidater er for kontroversielle til at være valgbare, når de etablerede Demokrater stillede først med en dementos og derpå en alkoholiker. De vinder ud fra reglerne og vil derfor ikke reduceres til stemmekvæg. Og så peger de også korrekt på at Bernie Sanders blev snydt i 2016 og 2020 (man kunne tilføje 2024, hvor de salvede daværende vicepræsident Kamala Harris efter at have presset Joe Biden ud, uden at spørge partimedlemmerne i et haste primærvalg). Halperin siger
Both sides have their grievances, both sides believe that while there is plenty that unites them, including hatred of Donald Trump, and wanting to put a check on Donald Trump, these divisions are real. And I was wrong about whether they could stay in check before the midterms. I now think I was wrong about whether they could be ‘finessed’ in 2028. This is a huge division within the party and it is fueled not just by ideological differences on things like the economy – it’s fueled by grievances on both sides!
Nu vi taler om valg, der ikke synes at være helt fair, hverken overfor Trump eller Sanders
Og det er nogle selvretfærdige ideologer, som de traditionelle magtorienterede Demokrater er oppe imod. “Many of the tactics that we employed over the last 5 years didn’t work” siger transeren nedenunder “That includes a strategy of cutting off relationships” og det er en illustrativ psykologi
Alt handler om kampen, om at vinde kampen, hvad end den handler om. De er ikke for noget, når det kommer til stykket, blot imod alt der er normalt. Det er derfor man kan høre dem skrige om at kvinder skal have safe spaces, samtidig med at de vil tillade psykotiske mænd adgang til kvinde-toiletter og kvindesport. En kvinde sagde endda at hun var helt fjong med at slippe alle voldtægtsforbryderne løs fordi fængsler var kolonialistiske relikvier eller noget. Ligemageriet går hånd i hånd med den grasserende identitets-dyrkelse og det medfølgende rettigheds hierarki.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez fortalte ABCs politiske kommentator Jon Karl at hun ikke ville anbefale den socialistiske guvernør kandidat for staten Wisconsin Francisca Hong, fordi valg var lokale og hun tog sig af det nationale. Hong havde gjort sig bemærket med udtalelser om, at Thanksgiving højtiden var en kolonialistisk undertrykkelse mekanisme, som mange ‘in our community’ led under. Hun havde også betroet omverdenen med, at hun, der er halvt asiat, havde det svært med sin søns delvise hvidhed. Var det at gå for langt med woke, ville Karl vide
Ocasio-Cortez: You know, I think that, I think that during this time, and during, especially during COVID, there was a huge opening of the Overton window. We were shut down. There was some of the highest unemployment rates that we have seen because of those shutdowns. Yeah. And I think that the, the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the discussions that were had in that time were quite fruitful.
Discussions! Fruitful! Quite a way to describe “Woke 1,” the first pass at saturation-bombing America with race paranoia, scarlet-lettering, and threats in an effort to produce grotesque public displays of ideological obedience.
Ocasio-Cortez went on to say, “Of course, during lockdown, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.” What she means is, “We tried to shove it down your throats through the sheer power of our freakout before. This time, we’re going to get elected first.” AOC has to refer to “Woke 1” because “Woke 2” is now ascendant, and its primary characteristic is its effort to remarket itself as a viable electoral movement, less insane than that initial run from a screeching mob of torch-bearing half-literate buffoons who tried to burn the American project to the ground. Since Woke 2 is, like AOC, dusting itself off to run for office, it wants you to forget this earlier incarnation, even though none of its adherents have apologized or changed their minds:
George Floyd was killed on May 25, 2020, commencing an all-out blitz by NGOs, politicians like AOC, and media to force America to change the way it talked about whole ranges of things. AOC gushes about this. “I think that when we talk about crime today,” she told Karl, “it’s fundamentally different than the way that we talked about crime” before. Everyone uses different language now, and even though “woke” ultimately became a punchline that helped elect Donald Trump in 2024, she’s happy it succeeded in moving the Overton Window.
How? Take the most obvious change. Before that May 25th, “white supremacist” was a term reserved for neo-Nazis, the Klan, the Patriot Front, Vanguard America, and other groups that could plausibly be described as white supremacist. After May 25th, every part of American life was white supremacist: not just policing but museums (which suddenly faced calls to be abolished as “monuments to white supremacy”), schools, the judiciary, marriage, sports, classical music, the national park system, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, books, “apolitical” video games, Christianity (which had a “white supremacy problem,” according to the New Yorker) and, well, everything else. We were to “decolonize everything,” because that period of “a little crazy” redefined American society from top to bottom as a single evil in need of a teardown.
“Democrats Announce You Aren’t Allowed To Remember What They Did A Few Years Ago” skrev The Babylon Bee.
Bill Maher’s Audience GASPS When He Reads What Democratic Socialists Actually Believe. Dat nuthin. En af Hongs tidligere partnere er Hasan Piker, der har en stadig mere fremtrædende rolle på den Demokratiske scene. Zerohedge har et hurtigt rids af hans mentalitet, der støttes af en meget overvejende hvid fanskare
Piker calls on his followers to “kill capitalists”:
Piker: “We want more immigrants to come into your countries and then they’re gonna f**k your sisters and then your daughters. We’re here to destroy the White Race, Bitch.”
Piker: “Overall, my favorite flag is Hezbollah.”
Piker: “America deserved 9/11. I do not support the United States of America.”
Piker: “I don’t have any sort of patriotism in my heart for America.”
…deserves considerable scrutiny.
Piker’s close proximity to DSA-aligned candidates, combined with anti-American rhetoric and revolutionary Marxism that is hostile to America’s political and capitalist system, has federal investigators examining the possibility that revolutionary activity is being supported by foreign subversion networks:
Det er en dødsspiral, for som der kommer flere grotesker ind i partiet, forlader flere normale Demokrater det, hvilket efterlader stadig færre til at tage kampen op. Det er en situation som Demokraternes medier selv har deres andel i, da de har valgt at give stemme til alting anti Trump. Da Trump er pragmatisk populist, en politisk PT Barnum, giv folket hvad de kan lide, på lange stræk, sammenholdt med hans stærke syn for nødvendigheden, indtager han alle de samlende meninger og efterlader aggressiv opposition til groteskerne, der ikke tøver med at forfægter de skøreste af synspunkter, så længe det gavner dem selv og deres sag.
En serie debatmøder under Demokraternes primærvalg i 2020 ledet af CNN, blev af en eller anden grund inddelt i enkelt emner. Et debatmøde handlede om ulighed, et andet om minoriteter, et tredje om klimaet og så fremdeles. Det efterlod grundlæggende kandidater til at konkurrere om at overbyde hinanden ud i det sekteriske. ‘Hvis det KUN handler om klimaet, er der ingen grænser for hvornår man har gjort nok, hvis det KUN handler om ulighed, er der ingen grænser for spender-buksernes livvidde. Og ingen minoritet må gå ned på rettigheder.
Jeg har ikke kunnet finde det klip, hvor Senator Cory Bookers liv passerede for hans øjne, som han blev spurgt, hvad han specifikt ville gøre for transseksuelle med indiansk oprindelse i Wyoming. Hvis de i stedet havde grebet det traditionelt an, ville kandidater have kunnet præsentere en politisk tilgang, hvor man må prioritere drømme og problemer ud fra givne ressourcer. Sådan voksent-agtigt, du ved.
Klogt holdt Joe Biden sig, eller blev holdt, væk fra det og holdt i stedet sine egne traditionelle valgmøder, hvor han grillede pølser og bøffer for folket uden hensyn til hverken klimaet eller ortorektikerne. Det gav ikke blot indtryk af at han ikke var bimlende skør, det understregede at der var ham og så var der alle de andre. Demokraternes medlemmer valgte som bekendt Joe Biden, der allerede dengang var i tydelig kognitiv opløsning – andet ville have været hjernedødt.
“These are troubled times for self-described liberals in both of America’s major political parties” skriver Daniel McCarthy i Spectator
They are without heirs: the future of the Democratic party belongs not to liberals but to the Democratic Socialists of America. The Republican party already belongs to Trump voters, and the GOP’s next generation appears to be, if anything, even less liberal: it’s socially conservative, economically populist and skeptical of more wars for the “liberal international order.”
The DSA speaks for itself, but the young right has no institutional voice. Charlie Kirk was the closest thing there was to a spokesman for his generation of Republicans, and younger ones, but he was silenced by an assassin’s bullet and since then the young right has been defined by its enemies, who have even invented a new literary genre for the purpose. Journalists who want to portray the young right in an ugly light simply give anonymity to sources from the older, liberal right who also have an interest in making younger Republicans look bad. This produces stories in outlets such as the New York Times and Politico that brand the young right as radicals or “groypers,” a label that in a strict sense denotes admirers of the anti-Semitic influencer Nick Fuentes, but which gets loosely applied to any young person to the right of David French.
There are, of course, young anti-Semites and racists, just as there are old ones. The liberal Republican party of the 1990s – which favored free trade and didn’t make immigration restriction a priority – was a party whose elected officials and staff often had more than a passing acquaintance with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a successor group to the segregationist White Citizens’ Councils. Left-liberals of that era insisted this meant the GOP was scheming to bring about a return to Jim Crow, when in fact the party of George W. Bush wasn’t even interested in stopping anti-white affirmative action. There’s no shortage of bigotry among Democrats, either, including bigotry toward the groups the party claims to champion. Any black, gay or Jewish Republican can tell you just how tolerant the liberal left really is, to say nothing of liberal bigotry toward Christians in general and Catholics in particular. It’s also telling when anonymous old-guard liberal Republicans given anonymity by the mainstream media refer disparagingly to Americans from “Pennsyltucky.” If hate is the story, older liberals of both parties must be included in it.
Medierne er selvfølgelig fokuserede på højrefløjens unge ekstremister, men de er ikke vigtige, siger han videre; “what’s new here is the abandonment of liberal orthodoxies among young people on the left and right alike ”
Liberalism was the “end of history” 30 years ago, and young Americans have been brought up in a thoroughly liberal America, with liberal schools and universities, a liberal economic order and liberals in charge of the Democratic party the Clintons had remade and the Republican party of the Bush dynasty. Every institutional incentive and every channel of education and instrument of propaganda was in the hands of liberals. Yet still they couldn’t reproduce their values in the next generation.
Jeg har også en opfattelse af, at tre årtier er sluttet som en historie, mens man undervejs har fulgt dem som flere. “End of History“, indvandring og multikulturalisme, global opvarmning, globalisme, universiteterne og uddannelsessystemet generelt, medierne, ting op i anus… Jeg har selv fulgt det, uden dog at være så klartseende, som man er i retrospekt, hele vejen fra den Kolde Krigs afslutning (som skete i min gymnasietid, hvor det gik op for mig at islam var den store falscifisator). Og mit grund instinkt placerede mig tidligt i opposition til de/den dominerende paradigme(r). Nu er jeg klar til at blive en gammel mand, der kan fortælle sære anekdoter fra svunden tid, når de unger spørger: Hvad fanden skete der lige for jer der, Onkel Morbror?
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar