Since I don't have a press agent or PR guy, I have to step out of my normally humble, even comically self-effacing default mode and do something I'm not normally comfortable doing - promote myself here:
Over a year ago I wrote the very first major 'left wing' oriented article on why the left must support Trump in this election. These weren't just meanderings on a blog read by a few hundred or thousand people, but was published on several large platforms with a reach of millions of readers. Trump has a team dedicated to mining the press for these well thought-out articles, and making what they can from them. These are part of the process in developing the campaign strategy and messaging.
Over the course of this election, numerous friends and colleagues have pointed out to me when things in this bizarre election eerily resembled things I had forecasted or recommended 18 months ago.
Going into the debate, we knew that what Trump had tried to shake was this 'pussy' comment. This was intended by the Clinton crime syndicate and their coordinated MSM henchmen to be the 'knock out blow'. The neo-cons who support Clinton, that fraction of which that had to support Trump for a number of reasons, then were called to do the treacherous work of turning on Trump at that precise coordinated moment.
The plot failed. I will try to explain why.
I am not a particular fan of Trump, but let's remember that he's also a master of the art of the come-back. But I have to say that the arc of transformation that I said over a year ago would be necessary for Clinton to manage and pull off, was done by Trump here instead.
Here, my attention was drawn to what is either a major coincidence, a matter of common sense and simply an affirmation of the soundness of my strategy advice, or perhaps evidence that my viral article's advice in some small way was considered in Trump's campaign.
What I wrote in September 2015 was that:
If Clinton really looks like she's losing, there is really just one last thing she can do - it's her Hail Mary. At the climax of the campaign, just when things look like they cannot get worse, she must perform the 'arc of transformation'. It can be done through a - yes! - "very convincing, very public, but not too drawn-out repentance." She must cry, and we will cry with her ... "The world is a cruel place, and I had wrong ideas about what success meant." Then she changes, the country changes, and we change with it.At the climax of this campaign, which is now, it is Trump which was called to task. Let's look at Trump's exact words in his apology, which aired just the day before the debate. Let's see to what extent they mirror my words from last year, above. But these are said by Trump, instead of by Clinton
"I've never said I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not. I've said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more-than-a-decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologise. I've traveled the country talking about change for America, but my travels have also changed me.Clinton is incapable of giving heartfelt apologies, because she is incapable of communicating to people with her heart. She is scripted, she talks 'at people' not with people. Even her entrance that night onto the Town Hall floor was bizarre and scripted, saying weirdly toned 'hi, hello' words to nobody in particular, because when she rehearsed, there was actually nobody sitting there. She is a robot.
But Trump gave a heartfelt apology. And he shows he is capable of change. Change - the arc of transformation - is the single most inspiring and affinity-building process which an audience can witness, that brings them to self-identify with and 'root for' the protagonist in any narrative script. In fact, it is the foundation of what makes a protagonist.
In that same article I laid out, originally, how and why it was that Trump had gotten involved in the race either with the Clintons' blessing, or even at their behest. I explained that in numerous focus groups, the only candidate that Hillary could beat - since it is known that Hillary motivates no one, stands for nothing, believes in nothing, and has no marketable product - was Trump. And this Trump would have to be made into David Duke meets Serial Rapist X (and then a Russian agent!) for him to be beaten.
Comment: WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton
According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook's assistant, to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed his legitimacy as a candidate. WikiLeaks' release shows that it was seen as in Clinton's best interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. "We think our goals mirror those of the DNC," stated the memo, attached to the email under the title "muddying the waters."
The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the memo noted.
I then explained that given who Trump was, though, that it was also possible that Trump was conning Clinton, and would decide to take the campaign serious and try to actually win it. This is because Trump - master of the Art of the Deal, could see all of Crooked Hillary's blind spots, and Hillary doesn't truly understand how hated and beatable she is - and if the machine itself can at least be partly split in favor of Trump (due to policy failures primarily in foreign policy, and a decision to follow the plan B advice which is to warm up to Russia to split Russia from China - what Trump appears to be part of or a reflection of), then Trump can win.
And this process of splitting Russia from China is something which the US has done before, and it was this that was critical in destroying Russia's last power incarnation in the form of the USSR.
A sign that there is backing for Trump in the deep state, which is what is necessary to win in the US, is that following his meeting with the Israelis, he has begun to include vicious attacks on Iran in his talking points, and attacks Obama-Clinton for not being hard enough on Iran.
Then in practically the same breath, he, in this same Town Hall, would go on to say that it is only really Iran, Syria, and Russia who are fighting ISIS. And this is a true fact, and this is a Russian talking point too, and it is something which the US MSM all around has been fighting Trump over, due to endemic Russophobia and the present consensus policy on Russia which is not an actual reset, but on a flawed idea that through European pressure and sanctions, combined with hot wars in Ukraine and Syria, Russia can fold.
But Russia simply resorted to Import Substitution Industrialization in response to sanctions, which improves the local economy, and anyone looking can see that the Ruble has, since its weakest point, rebounded over 30% since that time.
What I said on international television on several different networks at the end of January of 2015 is that the Ruble high of 70 to 1 USD would not be the norm, and that in fact Russia had no debt driven GDP growth and plenty of gold reserves, and a relatively diversified economy - and that central bank policy would find a happy place around 65.
I'm very happy to say that my confidence in the Ruble made me an easy 3k earlier this week, just by buying 10k in rubles at their cheapest point in January of 2016. When it went over 83, I knew it would go back down. It just had to.
The Ruble is today at 62, and if the Ruble can stay stable in the 60's through the election period, and if Russia keeps Ukraine stable, and continues advancements in Syria as it is doing, it will seriously give US elites a reason to get behind a Trump presidency which will signify the shift explained above.
Again, I make it clear that I am first and foremost of the ''anyone but Clinton'' persuasion here, and her criminality and entitlement aside, this is about - yes - representative politics. It's the elites in the final analysis that will decide the president - Trump represents the strategy mentioned above, and a return to a Monroe Doctrine, and allowing Europe to have normal relations with Russia, while the US takes Latin America - and the contest remains with China, and over Africa. I see this as a more manageable course in terms of human life and stability in the face of war.
So I treat the campaign as entertainment, and signals about US culture and its strange evolution, and in that sense a weather vain - but it has other meanings, as said above, but also more than can be given fair treatment here today.
It's not too different from professional wrestling, so it was of course symbolic and hilarious to see Vince McMahon, owner of WWE and Trump's former business associate and co-star on WWE TV nonsense, attend the first Trump-Clinton debate.
That said, in terms of an analysis of the blow by blow and net effect of this campaign, I'm astonished to have to say this, but the 'morning after' popular news chit chat on TV shows like on Fox and MSNBC's Morning Joe, were actually rather on point. What MSNBC had to do, however, while recognizing the reality of Trump's big win, was maintain the absolute fiction that Trump is down either in absolute terms, or by way of the electoral college.
Yes, the world has really been turned on its head when we get a more accurate picture of anything connected to reality, on Fox News. But Hannity and all of the rest of the psychos over at Fox actually have this one right. And it is strange to hear Newt the grinch Gingrich actually make sense and give a sober appraisal of the state of the Trump campaign, and what the effect of this second debate indeed was.
Therefore, there is really very little for me to say about the blow by blow. Certainly Trump's few zingers were actually not zingers, but paradigm shifting words of historical importance - never before in such a context have we heard what we heard a promise about Clinton being criminally investigated, and of course the off the cuff rejoinder 'because you'd be in jail', will go down in history.
Comment: That it will. In fact, we think it deserves an encore right about now:
As I explained in my Katehon article on the last debate, Trump's goals are not to sway undecideds, but to mobilize his base because he needs a ground campaign. This is now becoming the regular observation and 'talking point' of the TV reportage on the goals of the debate for the Trump camp.
Clinton has, and has always had, a tremendous advantage, and that is the deranged insistence on the educated class in the US on focusing on the 1990's culture war issues, while the roof is literally caving in. They are, forgive me for intentionally mixing expressions here, but they are arguing over which fiddle playing is more or less appropriate, while Rome burns.
The educated class is more concerned with a new form of twisted 'keeping up with the Joneses', called 'Virtue Signaling'.
This is a relatively new form of moral depravity, which confuses symbols and signals for reality. This is what Trump is cutting against, and something highly laudable.
But this is critical in understanding why the educated, upper-middle-class, so-called liberal sub-elite, can overlook Clinton's actual crimes, murders, abuse of women and children, war mongering, and imperialism, and financial fraud - and quite literally ignore these in the place for a **symbolic representation** of these things - a billionaire white male, in the form of Donald J Trump.
Clinton's other two advantages are the media machine around her, and organized labor. Clinton's ground campaign is organized labor, even though the average union worker will do worse and continue to do worse under the present capitalist paradigm. Her slogan 'Stronger Together' isn't because of anything that has to do with her campaign, contrary to her assertion, but as I previously wrote, it was taken from an SEIU (labor union) organizing slogan from about 10 whole years ago. So was Obama's 'Yes We Can', taken from the UFW's 'Si Se Puede'.
Clinton relies on this ground campaign, but there are NO words that she says, that will change her ground support. Because the filtration system between the Clinton campaign and the ground campaign goes through organized labor, who have active lines of regular communication between the field organizers and internal organizers, and the workers/members. So it doesn't matter here.
This campaign is about a few undecideds, but really getting the third party vote over to Trump, and really mobilizing every single registered Republican in the country to turn out on election day.
And attacking the criminality of Clinton, and promising to investigate her in such a way that will lead to a prosecution and even imprisonment, will activate this base, which since the time of Bill Clinton has been hanging onto every word of fat idiots like Rush Limbaugh who, nevertheless correctly, have pointed to the crimes of the Clintons (while still promoting the other side of that same Mafia, the Bushes).
My conclusion is that Trump absolutely mopped the floor with Crooked Secretary Clinton. Crooked Clinton relied on having two goons ready to go to bat for her, Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper - who attacked Trump at every opportunity, and the first part of the debate was mired in Anderson's insistence on trying to get Trump to admit to something which wasn't there to admit to. Anyone who heard the 'recording' can see that this was just locker-room talk.
Comment: It wasn't necessarily just locker-room talk (we guess that depends on what people consider locker-room talk), but it wasn't necessarily what Anderson was portraying it as either. From Dilbert creator Scott Adams's "14 reasons why the 'Trump tapes' don't matter":
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don't assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)Some women have now come forward. The questions to ask now are these:
- Did the abuses in question actually occur? Or are the claims false and politically motivated?
- If they did occur, why are the women coming forward now, one month before the election?
But I think this backfired, because Raddatz is a particularly arrogant and presumptuous character, with a grating voice. And as a proxy for Clinton - who did not debate at all, whatsoever - this perhaps worked out badly for Clinton as Trump successfully called these out as they happened. And this Clinton strategy went as Robbie Mook has been saying it would not; Clinton will not be debating and has explained to audiences rather that the Moderators would be called on to 'fact check - i.e. - debate in the name of Clinton.
So let's call 'fact checking' what it really is - proxy debating. It is debating in the place of a person who, in any number of focus groups, comes off more dislikable whenever she defends herself or challenges a point - even though these are two of the main pillars in a debate.
The media focus on 'upsetting words', 'inappropriate words' - treating words as actions, feeding into the tumbleristas fixation now in Culture Wars part III, with fat shaming, call out culture, and every other abstract or autistic distraction possible, exposes a serious mental health problem in American culture, and the culture of middle-management and office politics of 'PC' - where this concept and nebulous term 'inappropriate' has taken off a monstrous life of its own. It is connected to the role of 'nanny-like' female HR managers, and work place laws and cultural norms which remind us of The Princess and the Pea. We all know that women behind closed doors, in the company of women, are much obsessed with sex talk and dick size gossip. Sex and the City wouldn't have been a smash hit show among a vast majority female viewership for the decade or so that it ran.
But women are prone to 'social lying', something they are often not self conscious of, and in fairness shouldn't be called lying in reference to women - it is simply a different way of experiencing and describing reality - but in male terms, it is lying: this is a form of establishing their 'class' - because historically and perhaps biologically for women, 'class' is what class you signal and what class you are associated with and can marry into, it is a set of indicators and behaviours based in acting and appearing, and not per se what 'class' in the strictly Weberian or Marxist sense that you belong to by way of income or relation to the means of production. This produces the Princess and the Pea phenomenon where suddenly everything becomes 'inappropriate'.
So what you end up is a culture based on feigned indignation, and hypocritically, and unrealistically so.
And this push to make the entire social sphere and civil society be framed on this basis has been a large part of PC culture in the Anglosphere. And it has nothing genealogically to do with 'the left' or 'cultural Marxism', but everything to do with the democraticization (or trickling down) of Victorian and Puritan gender conceptions related to class and social behaviours. This is why it is pervasive in the Anglosphere, these double standards, and yet struggles to find a footing in Latin, Slavic, and Middle-eastern cultures (or, in the Mediterranean, where these three all collide)
Trump has effectively destroyed this PC cult of 'inappropriateness', where acceptable discourse has reached the lowest common denominator of what we'd want our 4 year old daughter to be exposed to, even in the majority of situations where no children are present.
Trump reminds us that we are all human beings, and that people say these things. It is true - and people who say that they do not say these things, in the US, are either lying, or are not people we'd want to have a beer with. We all say these things, men talk about big asses and who'd they'd love to f***, what women are actually prone to do, what sorts of things they like to hear, and what things turn them on - nowhere here is this about assault - assaulting women, raping women, this is not locker-room talk - at least not the talk of men with many friends. And this was not the talk of Trump. Trump was talking about what things a woman knows about a man that makes her want to give consent, i.e. 'they let you'. And he never specifically said that he HAD done this (grabbed a woman by the pussy); anyone with basic understanding of conversational English and hypothetical propositions vs. recountings of past events, would know this. Yes, he spoke from a position of hypothetical experience, but in this audio tape, its clear what he didn't say and did say. Listen to it! But the foundation of Trump's comments IN FACT reflects a great degree of respect for women's bodies and autonomy. He talked about failed attempts to pick up on women, and never talked about forcing himself on women. The pussy comment was about what women would CONSENT to.
It is not his fault that at least 'some' women, if not a majority, find fame, wealth, and power to be an aphrodisiac. Does he even reinforce these things? Really? Imagine a world in which Trump doesn't exist. Would it be fundamentally different, or even different at all? No.
He is speaking a fundamental truth, and yet we live in a time when some fundamental truths cannot be said. And this 'awful' truth is what was offensive to some women. And I have no respect for the maudlin sentimentality and forced/phony reactions - truly white knightery - on the part of the male chattering class. No one living in the real world is like this, except for this strange (but not strange if you understand America) cross section comprised of random weird repressed conservative beta male Christians with long sleeve plaid shirts buttoned up to the neck, liberal arts students flirting with anarchism who are 'male allies of feminism', and fake ass politicians. No one else is really offended. Media can hype that people were offended. But the polls tell a different story.
And on second thought, here too I'm confronted with a strong sense that women were also not offended, but rather there are these cultural norms that dictate that some women feign indignation when there is this 'social cue' that it is time to appear offended as to appear upright, but in reality they have either said or done worse themselves - because they are also actual human beings living in reality, and not lifelong nuns who magically end up with an average of 4-6 male sex partners, and 2 children.
Trump reminds us all, also, of a fundamental moral truth - that words matter far far more than actions. Bad words, yes, are a little bad. But bad actions - actions like the Iraq War, like Libya, like tax breaks for the rich, like badgering little girls who were raped - all of Clinton's actions make us see that she is an actually horrible human being of the worst kind, and entirely irredeemable.
Clinton can't change, she would have to admit to being very wrong about something, in order to change significantly. That is the logic of change, and that is something that Clinton cannot do - that is her weakness - her deranged form of narcissism - and even Colin Powell said so in an email, since leaked.
So now we understand that the Arc of Transformation is what is critical in this phase. Trump has gone from saying that he isn't a politician to, in between the 'scandal' and the Town Hall, that he is a politician. He is saying this to underscore the Arc. When he said those things, he wasn't a politician - now he is. He has changed. Yes, it is a strength of Trump's that he ostensibly was not or is not a politician. But now he's using this distinction to his advantage. Becoming a politician now means saying the right things, and not saying the wrong things. But Trump's branded 'commitment' (tm) is nevertheless to say only those things which he thinks are true.
Trump has honed in on this. He is undergoing this transformative arc, and Clinton is not, will not, and cannot. She can't 'be real'. There's no 'real' there, to be. This is why we are hearing, and will continue to hear more of what Trump has honed in on: "Secretary Clinton can't change, she will never change''.
He's got her by the ovaries here. She can't answer. If she doesn't answer, it goes unanswered - bad. If she answers that she doesn't need to change - also bad, public hates this. If she answers that she can change, - even worse - Trump was right in implying that she needs to change.
Oddly, 'change', Obama - change we can believe in - how this campaign has come back around to the theme of believable change. But not social change, but the ability of the candidates themselves to change. This is the arc of transformation.
Hillary is incapable of speaking to the electorate from her heart, because her heart is a cinder and two sizes too small.