Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The Sudden Fall of Milo Y.

You have probably heard about the rapid fall from "grace" that was Milo Yiannopoulos. If not, that dark thing over your head is a rock and this is a pretty good explanation as far as it goes. If you want to read exactly one other thing on Milo's operations, read this: On the Milo Bus With the Lost Boys of America's New Right. It makes the case that the people who have thrown in with Milo are not so much hard-core Nazis as lost young men who have little idea what they are doing--it also, thankfully, doesn't excuse them.

What If: It Wasn't Pedophilia?

The Omnivore has a suspicion about the Milo backlash, and it's this: It wasn't really about pedophilia. Why not? Wouldn't that be enough? Sure it would--of course--but is over the line for "almost everyone"? Nope--check out Milo's Facebook page--people--thousands and thousands--still love him. Voat's Pizzagate forum, the 'Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayers of peophilia' are also largely in defense of Milo. You'd think if anyone would be ready to lead the pitchforks and torches crowd against someone offering even a potential defense of pedophilia, it'd be them? Right?

If you said "no," you're smart!

So if not, then what got him?

Basically? His usefulness ran out and nobody liked him. Milo's main value-prop was in triggering liberals--creating campus riots that are politically useful to conservatives. He's not a deep conservative thinker. He is gay--so having him "on your side" is kinda useful rhetorically--but so were the Log Cabin Republicans and they didn't get CPAC-love. Now, having been smeared with pedophilia and ousted from CPAC, it gives every college a legitimate reason to refuse him and most platforms a significant down-side to including him--so he's useless.

What if a lot of people who seemed like "friends of Milo" really hated him and when he wasn't useful anymore, they ejected him? Consider this: numerous Breitbart staffers threatened to quit if he wasn't fired. The Omnivore suspects they knew him--and to know him (to have to work with him) is to hate him.

What If The Same Thing Applies To Trump?

Keep in mind here that there are thousands and thousands of Milo supporters still hanging on. There are people who loved what he was doing as a bomb-thrower and don't care what the hell else he said or did. The same applies to Trump, for certain: there are plenty of people who will never acknowledge a problem with him no matter what he does. If he turns out to be a Russian puppet, they'll decide they're okay with Russia.

Putin is dreamy.

But the people with reputational value to protect (CPAC, Simon and Schuster) are not going to want to burn themselves on the pyre of identity politics. The same may go for Congressional Republicans--especially Senators.

Right now Trump is useful--but how many people in power actually like him? It's hard to say, since no one will admit to not-liking-him--but The Omnivore thinks it's pretty obvious that the Milo rule applies here too--if Trump becomes less useful . . . the about-face could be rapid and severe.

What Would That Mean?

This guy thinks it would mean Civil War. The Omnivore isn't so sure--and if it did, well, bring it. If Trump  goes down for collaborating with the Russians The Omnivore would expect America to win that war, actually. The problem here isn't that we're on the edge of a Second American Civil War, it's that we've got someone in power that is only really loved by a faction of people who are very, very divergent from the rest of the country. Note that while Republicans generally like him a LOT more than Democrats, he's not doing great with Independents. Also, while Republicans have, for example, warmed to Russia / Putin, most Americans have not.

The Omnivore suspects that if Trump starts to be seen as toxic to re-election or to have difficulty passing conservative legislation, the end may come quickly and with little warning. The same as with Milo.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Sympathy for the Devil

Today in the NYT, an article asks "Are Liberals are Helping Trump?" The idea is that liberals have gotten so hostile to reluctant Trump-voters that they may be pushing those reluctant-Trump voters further into the arms of The Donald--rather than wooing them back.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”
He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”
The Omnivore thinks this has a pretty obvious diagnosis. The reluctant Trump-voter has very little idea of how the non-Trump voter (either conservative #NeverTrump or various liberals) see him. To them:
  • He is very, very possibly compromised by Russia--a foreign enemy.
  • He has conflicts of interest that go well beyond anything the Clinton Foundation ever approached. He is blatant about them, for example, hiding his tax returns.
  • He has clear, extant connections to literal white supremacists and American Nazis. He, for example, refuses to repudiate antisemitic threats and violence on national TV.
  • He seems to be running a chaos-ridden White House that corrects none of the supposed problems of moneyed interest in power (his staff are mostly 1%'ers) and alienates or antagonizes our allies.
  • He lies--blatantly, and trivially--about all manner of things--with flimsy excuses (or even non-excuses such as "alternative facts"). He does this non-stop and seems unable to restrain himself from it.
On the other hand:
  • He nominated a decent Supreme Court judge (for the #NeverTrump conservatives, at least).
For people who were not in Trump's camp to begin with Trump has done nothing to reassure them that he is remotely suited for the job. Furthermore, to the unconvinced (which is most of the voting populace and, by polling, most of the country), we are one serious crisis away from a disaster.

For these people a reluctant--but not repentant--Trump voter seems to have put their imaginary needs over the country's--over their fellow voter's. Essentially the partner in a marriage who took the family's life savings and bet it on a horse-race because they have faith in a "system that can't lose."

If this happened to you--if your partner bet, and then appeared likely to lose, a ton of your money--how warm would you feel to them.

This is beyond the "identity politics" dimension which most reluctant Trump-voters cannot or will not examine.

Trump and Identity Politics

From the article:

Late last year, he hit it off with a woman in New York he met online. They spent hours on the phone. They made plans for him to visit. But when he mentioned he had voted for Mr. Trump, she said she was embarrassed and didn’t know if she wanted him to come. (He eventually did, but she lied to her friends about his visiting.)
“It invalidated anything that’s good about me, just because of how I voted. Poof, it’s gone.”
Trump, on TV, talked loutishly about trying to sleep with a married woman and then exulting in his celebrity status that allowed him to grab women by the pussy because he was so attractive to them. Some indications are that older women simply expect that behavior from men--even if they don't condone it--so it isn't a deal breaker.

That, should you have nodded your head, can be safely read as older white women. Why? Well, it turns out that for minorities--gays, blacks, Muslims, etc. And for younger women, they feel, rightly or wrongly (rightly--but let's talk to the reluctant Trump-voter for now) that they have things to lose

Aside from the controversial ones like the right to an abortion or their fear of getting shot by a police officer without repercussions simply because they are black, let's talk about the smaller--but still every-day things: garden variety racism. Some sexism.

Things that go on from cat-calling to haranguing or the odd loutish remark from someone in your real-life personal space.

For the reluctant Trump-voter, this is a new experience! A woman on Tinder doesn't want to date you because of your vote! Horrors!

For the reluctant Trump-voter, this has never happened because of his skin color. But trust The Omnivore, far more people have been swiped left (turned down) because they're black than because of a vote. If you feel like your vote invalidating you was wrong--how do you think people feel about their skin color invalidating them?

Is that "tearing the country apart"? Everything "good about you--poof, gone"?

To quote Sarah Palin, who you thought was a solid VP candidate: You betcha.

Sympathy For The Trump Voter

The disconnect here is not on the side of the non-Trump voter: It's on the side of the Trump voter. How does The Omnivore know? Simple logic: If you voted for Trump, you voted for a change agent. You wanted a non-politician who would shake things up. You wanted something that was new, different--and more like you.

You got it. Trump is not a politician. He doesn't seem to understand government, foreign policy, or the executive office and the Constitution. He doesn't spell things correctly, he plays games with the truth. His rambling 77 minute press conference convinced a highly qualified ex-Navy Seal not to come on board as the National Security Adviser. 

That's a change agent right there. That is totally what you voted for. The problem is that for most people the negatives really, really outweigh the positives: if the system wasn't working before it looks like it's headed for even worse now (US Treasuries tanking). If you thought racial politics were bad? Going to get worse under Trump who is inexplicably friendly to White Nationalists (well, explicably if you look at his cabinet--but let's pretend you can't see that).

Basically you voted for dramatic change--you got it--but you don't want to own it. It's not everyone else's job to accommodate that for you.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Democrats and FakeNews

The Upshot notes that there is an increase in "liberal-based" conspiracy theory--that the Trump White House is testing an elaborate coup, that violence at political protests are caused by right-wing infiltrators, or that, perhaps, the Russian scandal is about to bring down not just Flynn, but the whole Trump administration and, with luck, the entire Republican party! Needless to say, none of this is likely and it falls into the category of conspiracy-theory which, when ingested by a large enough group wholesale is extremely toxic.

The Omnivore, however, an internationally recognized expert in fake news, is here to tell you that things aren't quite the same on both sides of the aisle. The GOP has ingested fake news longer--and far, far more deeply than the Democrats have--and the results, for them, are much, much worse. Let's take a closer look.

Point 1: The Conspiracy is No Longer A Theory

First off, we have pretty solid bi-partisan confirmation that something happened with Russia, the election, and the Trump administration. It may not have been outright treason but it's also not imaginary. Given a real, legitimate basis in fact, of not only some shady dealings but a cover-up (which is what, we are told, got Mike Flynn), there is more basis for conjecture than there was for Benghazi (don't @ me).

Point 2: Liberals Have Not Monetized Conspiracy Theory

It is important to keep in mind that a huge portion of what happened to the GOP was specific personalities with high-trust (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc.) monetizing conspiracy theory against the establishment. These people used their positions to hawk questionable wares by elevating outrage and selling visions of the apocalypse (less so Limbaugh--but he was also more entrenched earlier). This has yet to happen to liberals and may not (see up-coming point #3).

We don't see people trying to sell firearms, gold, or freeze-dried food to liberals so they can "survive the coming Trump Coup." Until we do, there are some bridges yet-to-be crossed.

Point 3: The Democrats Have A Functional Immune System

In the same way that the HIV Virus attacks the immune system before something else ravishes the host, conservative media disabled trust in almost every mainstream media outlet and gave credibility only to the most biased outlets (which then competed for that slice of the pie). This never happened to the mainstream Democrats. They may not love the coverage of CNN or the New York Times--but neither do they dismiss it outright as purely partisan lies.

The result is that while conspiratorial speculation can run rampant, actual fake-facts can still be fact-checked by the Democrats which prevents fake news from truly metastasizing in their political world-view.

Point 4: The Left Has Always Had Conspiracy Problems

The Omnivore draws a key distinction between the Left and the liberals or Democrats. This is in much the same way that The Omnivore sees a bright-line distinction between principled conservatives and ultra-partisan Republicans--or the generally saner GOP establishment and, say, the Freedom Caucus.

The Left--the Bernie/Jill Stein crowd--has always been more susceptible to conspiracy theory than the mainstream democrats. This is partially because the mainstream media won't carry their (goofy) narratives so they have no choice but to distrust them, weakening their immune system. Secondly, they have lost not just to the GOP--but to mainstream Democrats as well (Sanders lost by around 3MM votes in the primary) and their need to explain that away leads directly to conspiracy-land.

These groups, nominally integrated with the Democrats, will be a factory for a good deal of bullshit in the coming months or years. It will have an advantage over right-wing theory in that (a) it will play in large part to liberal's world-views/wishes and (b) it will be coded with their language and symbology. Watch for that.

Point 5: Fake-News Tolerance

Conservatives have a love-hate relationship with fake news that liberals generally don't. For the more intellectual conservatives there is clear value in stories that promote solidarity among the base, even if they are completely false--this is true for liberals as well, don't think it isn't--but there is far less actual experience of those benefits.

Secondly, liberals don't get as much value from signaling with fake news as conservatives--they can debunk each other without being "out of the club." This has always been contentious for Republicans (The Omnivore has watched people on the same ideological side struggle with debunking stories they know are false but like the net-message of). This will help prevent the spread of fake news through social media channels for the left in a way that the right generally couldn't.


The Democrats, being out of power, being outraged, and trying to enhance ideological cohesion is going to be more susceptible to conspiracy theory and manipulation. They have some "immunological" advantages which they will need to strengthen and rely on to get through the next 4 years (or more) without succumbing to the same memetic disease that has consumed the GOP.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

How Bad Is The Deep State?

It has become clear that, for a few possible reasons, the White House is now in conflict with the Intelligence Community--sometimes referred to as The Deep State. The implications of this are significant. Firstly, Trump is facing an adversary that, in theory, works for him. Secondly, the battle is being fought not in the courts, nor in the shadows, but in the press.

Flynn is the first causality--but several more are theorized: Will Trump be taken down? Will some of his circle be forced out? Could there be a coup? Also, in question: just how bad is this behavior?

We don't know where it will go--but The Omnivore has a pretty good standard by which to address the question of whether targeted leaks by the IC are a good or a bad thing. Should liberals be cheering?

Would You? Could You? Punch a Nazi?

We all remember the Nazi-Punching, don't we? Several days (it seems like months) ago, Nazi Richard Spencer got punched in the head while holding forth on the street. Immediately the hand-wringing started: was it okay to punch a Nazi? Couldn't that lead to a lot of other punching? Were liberals supposed to punch Nazis? Etc.

It turns out? There's a pretty easy answer to this.

The Ticking Terrorist Torture Time Bomb?

You know the scenario: there's a ticking time-bomb on a school bus. You've got the terrorist who set it off. If you can make him talk, you can save the kids--but you don't have time to be nice about it. Should your by-laws allow you to get out the pliers? Or not? Liberals fret. Conservatives have the easy answers. What does someone who finds torture pretty abhorrent--but would like it to be legal to save the kids do?

It turns out? There's a pretty easy answer to this.

It's The Same Answer: No.

No. Torture must always remain illegal. And, No. You should definitely be philosophically anti-Nazi punching. Are you surprised by The Omnivore's bleeding heart liberalness? If so, then consider:

  1. The Omnivore thought the Nazi-Punching was groovy. He would not convict the puncher if on the jury.
  2. The Omnivore would rip the terrorist's eyeballs out to save the kids.
The fact is that what your preferred position should be is this: you break the rules, you face the consequences. The consequences must always err on the side of right-and-just. You do your bit. You throw yourself on the mercy of the courts. The Omnivore suspects that if he saved the kids, no jury would convict--but even if one did--it would be worth it.


So, what about the Deep State?

Is The Trump-State Worse Than The Deep State?

If you think there's an easy answer to this, you're kidding yourself. We don't know. Not really. Firstly, Trump is a dumpster-fire. He's running his administration into the rocks on a daily basis. He's a humiliation for America.

He's also the elected President of the United States. Having him Praetorian Guarded out of office is not the outcome that any American should prefer. Even a partisan. Even with Trump.

That's right: EVEN. WITH. TRUMP.

The United State's institutions are worth more than that. The people leaking on him may or may not be giving us everything. They may have agendas (such as not liking being compared to Nazis) that are simply not leak-to-kill worthy. We don't know.

If they have film of him committing treason--literal treason--why not just release that? What exactly do they have? We don't know. We also don't know what he did, exactly. Telling the Russians that Trump might well drop sanctions if elected and having them go all-in for him might not be actual treason (just like him saying in a debate that he'd like it if they turned over Hillary's emails wasn't actual treason).

This is doubly true if Flynn did it and you can't prove it was Trump's will (remember, everyone not a Liberal thinks Obama okayed the IRS to go after the Tea Party and there wasn't a smoking gun--so no conviction).

So, no. You don't get to think it's cool for the Deep State to depose Trump.

Ah--But . . .

On the other hand? It's happening. It's happening right now. And from The Omnivore's perspective the Trump-State might turn out to be just kind of philosophically evil (White Supremacists)--but more basically incompetent--and we might muddle through.

But that's just the base-line. Trump could also be catastrophically disastrous. In fact, there are, to The Omnivore, some indications in that direction: Russia and North Korea seem to have decided to test him. He's making noises like he could 100% back Israel (probably not 100%--but who knows?). In the face of these events, it is possible that he could seriously destabilize things in a way, say, Pence (or Hillary) would not.

Also: We don't know what the Deep State knows. Maybe the do know he's done something really wrong--but won't release it because it'll compromise sources? We don't know.

So right now, in the real world, this is playing out. 

The Nazi got punched--and might get punched again. The ticking-time-bomb scenario, never actually having happened outside of a movie, is ticking down now. The Deep State is opening fire. We get to see where it goes--and we get to be the "jury" on this.

What the Deep State is doing is wrong in general. It may well be wrong here. But we all get to watch and then, when the dust settles, however it settles, make up our minds.

That's a simple position--but it might not be all that straight-forward after all.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

What If It Was Obama?

The Omnivore got a question recently: What if "they" (the press, the opposing party) had done to Obama the same things that "they" (the press, the Democrats) are doing to Trump? Wouldn't it be unfair? Wouldn't it be . . . an atrocity?

To be honest? It takes some serious lack of introspection to even ask that question--but let's do it.

What Are The Charges?

According to this person, the things "they" are doing to Trump are:

  1. Delaying his cabinet positions through procedural techniques
  2. Calling him a liar, constantly, on TV
  3. Riots when Trump was elected (and after)
  4. Attacks on Trump's 10-year-old son
  5. Attacking Trump's ban--but not Obama's

So--What if "They" Did That?

We don't have to wonder. They did. 

Delay Of Appointments

The GOP blocked more of Obama's federal judge appointments than any congress for decades. This isn't even the Supreme Court pick which (a) was a moderate with bi-partisan support, (b) did not even get a hearing, and (c) went a record number of days for no really good reason.

Oh, because they were waiting for the people to speak with the election, you say? Yeah--that's what you say. Ted Cruz said "Eight Judges forever" when it looked like Hillary might win. But you knew that--you just hoped we didn't.

Where was the outrage? Oh, there was some--but not much. Sorry guys.

Calling Him A Liar On TV

Obama was called a liar to his face on national TV during the State of the Union. Surely you remember that. Were you outraged? No, you were not. But your selective memory is even worse. Firstly, Obama's "If you like your health care plan you can keep it" was deemed the Lie of the Year by PolitiFact. But, yeah, you hate them coastal elite fact checkers, The Omnivore knows.

Secondly, well, Trump and his surrogates are lying their assess off. On TV. To You. And you don't know/can't tell. That's why we need CNN to do this:

Let The Omnivore test something out with you: The Bowling Green Massacre--that was Kellyanne Conway substituting a word (terrorists) for another word (massacre), right? Did you know she did it at least twice more on the record before then? Maybe you knew that. Maybe not. That's not a slip-up. It's a lie--or a really, really bad mistake. Of course now half of Trump voters think the Bowling Green Massacre was real--Do you think it was real?

If you realize there was no Bowling Green Massacre, then maybe CNN is doing the right thing with the administration's other lies? Right. Heh. The Omnivore didn't think so--but he had to try.

Partisanship is a hell of a drug.

Anti-Trump Riots

There were Tea Party protests after Obama was elected. Some of these included threatening slogans ("If Brown Won't Do It, A Browning Will"). These were covered. Presumably if Republicans had done similar things they would have been covered too. There would have, yes, been some derision from the other side. BUT, let's talk about one riot in particular--the big one--you know, the women's riot.

What are we talking about? Oh, you remember--Sheriff Clarke--your law-n-order hero who says anti-Obama things with black skin? Here he goes:

A total collapse of the social order?? There were zero arrests. A "Women's Riot"? Really guys? The Omnivore will explain this to you in small words: If the GOP had staged a "women's riot" like the one Trump got, the Democrats would have been terrified--they'd feel they were losing a core-constituency. That's what would have happened.

But wait--there was at least one assault. The manly wall of meat--the Bikers for Trump--were brutally assaulted at the Women's Riot.

Attacks on Baron Trump

There were a few, yes. One person, a Saturday Night Live writer was suspended for her's. Chelsea Clinton came out in Baron's defense as did everyone else. This is pretty normal stuff--someone crosses the line and gets shouted down or sanctioned. Of course you remember this, don't you?

Sure you do--you were outraged. You were--what? No? Riiiight.

Attacking Trump's Ban--But Not Obama's

The final plank of stupid in this list is due to the administration's attempt to blame their ban on Obama's ban. What's going on with that? The Omnivore will give you some real talk.
  1. Trump campaigned on a Muslim Ban.
  2. Rudy Giuliani went on national TV and explained that he was asked by Trump how to legally create a Muslim Ban and came back with the ban that mimicked Obama's (kinda).
  3. The Trump administration went way, way further than Obama's ban did by denying visas in process.
  4. The Trump administration went all out un-American by deporting green card holders.
  5. The Trump administration's roll out was amateur-hour chaos--that's if it wasn't intentionally designed to create chaos.
Of course you knew all of this--you're just hoping we don't.

Right? You're not really that dense? Are you?


The question anyone stating any of the above should be asking themselves is what they would be doing if the roles were reversed? If the Intelligence Community were saying that Obama was compromised by a foreign country? If Obama was taking calls about Nork in a crowded restaurant and reviewing material by pointing unsecured cell-phones at it? If Obama wouldn't release his tax returns and had foreign holdings all over the place?

What would you be saying. Well, we know--"Lock Her Up," "Impeach," and "Release The Birth Certificate." What if Obama was playing golf 3 out of 4 weekends at his private golf course?

See, that's the problem: We do know. And now we know you didn't mean any of it.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Donald Trump: The Real Dangers

The media maelstrom around Trump has been so fierce in the first <30 days that it is hard to get a read on the real state-of-play. The Omnivore wants to take a few steps back and try to look at the bigger picture from a risk-assessment point of view.

To put it another way: excepting all the rhetoric and the daily churn, what should we be concerned about? Here are The Omnivore's picks.

1. China Escalation

The Trump administration has shown an inclination to incite China. The potential down-sides to this could go all the way to nuclear exchange (but that's thankfully very unlikely). The real danger here is that the Trump admin plays the word-games (such as recognizing Taiwan) and inadvertently provokes China who, for real, is not fucking around.

Provoking China leads to escalation as an embattled Trump-administration feels it cannot be seen to back down. Outcomes to watch for:

  • A very unpleasant trade-war which damages the US (and Chinese) economy.
  • China, free of pressure from the TPP, expands its economic influence in the APAC region, leading to a number of knock-on effects that haunt the US for decades to come.
  • Military one-upsmanship which has a real risk of shots-fired.

2. Iran Escalation

There is evidence that the Trump administration naively believes that Russia can be used as an ally against Iran (or Syria). This is fantasy--however, if enough of the administration thinks that military pressure on Iran will have some positive outcome, they may engage in a show of force. Iran, however, will answer in meaningful ways and with tacit Russian support. The result of this would be:
  • Sudden regional instability, further alienating traditional US allies (Europe)
  • Expansion of Russian influence along the Iran/Syria axis
  • Possible exchange of fire with Iran's actually-dangerous military
  • Iran escalates nuclear weapons program forcing the US into a dangerous corner

3. Bungle

The signature strategy of the Trump White House has been accurately described Ready, Fire, Aim. Part of this is first-time growing pains--but part of it may be ideologically driven (a belief that, for example, Congress is inherently un-trustworthy and cannot be relied on as any kind of partner). In this scenario the Trump administration does something really stupid domestically during a moment of crisis. Potential risks:
  • Elevated constitutional crisis. Don't believe that the happy-path is impeachment. The GOP has no will to impeach Trump (and what happened to Nixon won't happen to Trump without actual for-real criminal charges). In this case, Trump is just doing damage to American institutions for no good reason.
  • Severe unintended side effects. While Executive Orders are limited, it is possible that Trump could do things that have serious unintended side effects--such as not enforcing the ACA individual mandate--which would, yes, kill Obamacare--but would do so at the expense of the entire medical insurance industry

4. Dramatic Polarization

Trump's strategy for dealing with bad press is, quite clearly, to lie. If you are a Trump supporter and do not believe this, The Omnivore is sorry, but you're an idiot. The press is also caught in a 4-hour news-cycle that it can't keep up with--which, yes, leads to bad reporting--but Trump is constantly telling whoppers and getting caught at it.

This has the effect of further separating Trump-believers from the rest of the country. The further apart and more entrenched the country gets, the harder it is to come back from that or attempt re-unification. Things to watch for:
  • Admin leaking "bad info" to the press - in an attempt to further discredit the press, the administration tries to set up "leaks" that can be disproven. If successful, further erodes the 4th estate.
  • Violence against minorities by Trump-supporters. For now things have been simmering. If a substantial number of Trump-supporters believe, for example, that Mexican-origin citizens are voting illegally by the millions and take violent action against that, we've got a serious problem.


The Omnivore suspects that the Trump administration is playing with fire--the net-negative impacts at this point may well be to the Republicans more than the Democrats (or the country as a whole). This is due to the terrible optics of what Trump is doing. It may not stay that way, however: if the Trump administration doesn't get its act together (and fast) America herself may sustain significant, long-lasting damage.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Yes, Bannon's a Nazi. Yes, Breitbart is His Voice.

Most of The Omnivore's readers don't really need to read this.

What you see above is a picture of Dylan Roof wearing his "colors." The colors in question are two flags: The flag of apartheid-era South Africa and the flag of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He's wearing them because (a) he knows what they mean and (b) you don't. You don't--because you're not a Nazi.

Both of them send a message: THIS is what happens when black people take over. The 'THIS' is chaos and destruction.

People like Dylan Roof go to these symbols because you'd recognize a Swastika. Bet you did Nazi that coming!

Take-Away: People in the White Power community are very much in to these symbols.

Hypothesis: Bannon Is A Nazi And Breitbart Is His Voice

Bannon knows he can't publish The Daily Stormer (a for-real Nazi site). He'd get punched in the face like Richard Spencer. So he creates an "alt-right" haven that more ordinary people will visit and exploits their ignorance (willful and otherwise) of the larger picture. White nationalists feel right at home at Breitbart along with less vile perspectives and thus he spreads his voice and message.

Here are some sign-posts:

America First

America First was the slogan of a pro-Nazi / antisemitic movement in the early 1900's. Here's Dr. Seuss trying to wise you up. America First was also the slogan of Trump's inauguration speech, which Bannon wrote.

Yes,  America First sounds fine and dandy to you. What? Should it be America-Second?? However, keep in mind that you also don't know what the heck the flag of Rhodesia looked like. Trust The Omnivore: the people out there who needed to hear it heard it.

Taking the Jews Out of The Holocaust

Anyone who thinks that Trump wrote his Holocaust-Remembrance Day announcement should keep in mind that he often can't get the spelling right on a tweet. For the first time ever, the Holocaust remembrance day didn't mention the Jews. The 'Final Solution'--you should recall was not aimed at the gypsies or the homosexuals--it was specifically about the Jews. This isn't controversial.

Here's the Daily Stormer crowing about Trump's speech:
In case you are having a hard time read it, The Omnivore will repeat that last bit here:
This is the first time in history the President of the United States has made no mention of Jews, anti-Semitism, or the science fiction Zionist folklore about ovens and gas chambers so prominent in (((Hollywood))) narratives.
Surely this is all coincidence, right?

There's plenty more (the reporter that Breitbart sent to the White House goes by the nickname   "Isla She Wolf of the SS"--not a joke, for real)--but this is enough. The fact is: Breitbart is signaling like crazy that Bannon and the whole production are friendly advertising for the Nazis and you can't tell because you're not a Nazi.

But You ARE Receptive To The Message

Bannon knows that he can't just tell you black people are bad for America--you'd know what raw racism sounds like. No, he has to convince you. The good news is that people have figured out how to do that. Behold: the Black Crime Tag.

Breitbart makes a point of ensuring that any crime which reflects badly on black people makes it into your viewing space in an organized, pointed manner. This kind of reporting is the active ingredient in radicalizing people like Dylan Roof who came to believe in an Us-vs-Them world view.  You will remember that Dylan Roof read a bunch of the Council of Conservative Citizens--a group that initializes to CCC kind of like that other group with similar sounding letters? As The Omnivore said, these guys are really into symbolism.

The CCC presents a white race under attack by savage black criminals. This is the world-view that led Roof to gun down innocent, unarmed grandmothers.

Bannon doesn't want shooters, though, he wants voters. He's getting them. Breitbart is very good at it--and it's nationalist message is the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down.

Also: you don't read the comments. Bannon knows that--he's counting on it.

And he's right.