Sunday, September 11, 2016

Actual Election Analysis

All anybody wants is "U.S. election stuff." What happened to you people? You were supposed to be different than the media machine. Remember? The idea of having a computer, an internet, a blog, a platform, was so that you could feel superior to the ordinary newspapers by setting your own agenda. And here we are, and all anyone can talk about is what is currently popular, or how our own pet philosophies relate to what is currently popular--which it always can, if we cull articles the right way--and most blogs have found out that they have the same problems as the thing they're supposedly replacing. They can't generate original ideas, so instead they apply their time-honored analysis to the new day's news issues.

"See, I told you socialists were stupid!"

"See, I told you white privilege was a problem!"

"See, I told you naggers were violent!"

"See, I told you the environment was failing!"

"See, I told you the greenies were lying!"

Blogging is a homily. We are using this vehicle to reaffirm our faith. We browse the familiar links seeking small pieces of vindicated pleasure by watching as someone with whose opinions we agree analyzes why a new happening has satisfied our previously understood truth. People tell conversion stories, but they do not convert on screen. By the time the blog has been created, the definitive moment--if it ever happened--is in the past. We talk about why we became a Christian, why we realized society was in error, why we realize the blogging process was in error, why we've decided to support Donald Trump: we talk about all of those things, but we don't suddenly post, "Omigod guys I just realized I was completely wrong about last week's post, and in fact, my analytical method was flawed, and has been flawed for the past three years, so all those posts were wrong, but please stick with me while I work through this." No--that's not comforting. When that happens, we change names and start a new blog. Our conversion story must remain in the past.

It's not fun to do philosophy or science. Those things are work. They're a duty. Perhaps they result in pleasure or satisfaction, but the doing of them is not the fun part. The fun part is already having a philosophy, having people who agree with you, and pontificating about it. It's not fun to embarrass yourself, even network-vicariously, by asking non-rhetorical questions about serious issues; by being stunned, legitimately stunned, by the news. It's not fun to read people who are doing that, either. It's challenging and it's exercising and it's probably discomfiting. It's not what you want when you're looking for a soothsayer. You expect a finished product--not in the sense of polished graphics and someone who can distinguish between "you're" and "your," but in the sense of a completed idea, which you generally understand. You can seek vindication from someone with whom you disagree (because look how dumb they are and how smart you are by comparison, and let's analyze their blog on our blog so we can dissect their failures) and someone with whom you agree (because look how right they are and how smart you are for agreeing with them, and let's zoom in on this part a little bit more), and you can read historical reviews explaining the past in light of what your current philosophy is, but you don't want any part of the exploratory process, because it's not comforting. We've proven ourselves cowards. We gained all the tools and it turned out that the printing presses and the big offices and the "access to the whole world" were not really the differences distinguishing us from them. We just want to spin our version of what the AP already sent to everyone else. After all was said and done, we turned out to be not only no better than the old newspaper readers, but no better than the old marketing agents. We blather about how TV shows are good or bad, we insult bread and circuses, we serve up our own more or less complex bread and circuses, confident that we're laying the intellectual vanguard for a revolution it would be inefficient to start too early. It's too embarrassing to not have your game ready before you click "publish."

Blogging is not journalism. It is not the heroic replacement of corporate news-sourcing by interpersonal news-sourcing. It is conversation. There has always been conversation, and the fact that people might be having conversations now a little bit more than they did before, and reading the Times now a little bit less than they did before, does not mean that blogging has "replaced" journalism, or become the "new journalism," or any of that. We run out of things to say, so we say the same things, repeating ourselves day after day, year after year, linking articles that prove our core thesis. The corporate media still drives all of this. The world socialists and the Bernie Bros and grumpy conservatives and the Social Justice Warriors and the National Social Justice Warriors all derive their substance from the same old media empire. You need the Times to critique the Times. The ADL and the Daily Stormer are both connected to the same IVs, what an irony, what an irony.

Okay, there's an "election," and it's "important," and that's what you want to hear about. All right, well, what doesn't matter is swing states or demographics or media coverage. You want to analyze little maps and talk about redistricting and evangelical voters and illegals and hacking? Irrelevant. Gore beat Bush in 2000 and they even got snippy on the phone with each other and it didn't matter. The recent American trend shows that Presidents are chosen for that firm based upon the manner of intended future warfare. Democrats are chosen for gigantic wars, Republicans are chosen for little wars, and Democrats are chosen for hidden wars. If the TV chooses Hillary, it means either epic war with Sino-Russia, or nasty little starve and carve operations in various places, new or old. If the TV chooses Trump, it means decisive semi-honest war against some easy opponent. We can guess at who or how or why, but there's no way to be sure. Will Hillary be used for the epic war that switches global power away from America and to Sino-Russia, where physical Israel is sacrificed and/or liberated, and a new Talmudic Han elite disavows the actions of their predecessors while ruling the world with documented higher ability? Or will Hillary be used for the epic war that stops Nazi Putin? God, what a boring sequel either one would be. Or, will Trump get serious about ISIS and finally give them the full Syrian occupation they want? It'll be a big happy partnership with Russia and all the Euro-Americans will be so happy, a coalition of the willing, and life goes on much as before. Pre-1965 America got Fed and FDR and Woodrow Wilson and "the" World Wars, ergo a dearth of mestizos and/or Boomers does not a nation salvage.

Whatever happens, I'm sure it will vindicate us. "Look how stupid we are" or "look how we finally turned things around," depending on who we are and what we've been saying. Perhaps Attorney General Cotton Mather will execute a few score for debauchery, or perhaps Surgeon General Julian Castro will announce the mandatory estrogenation of America's drinking water. Either way, I plan to be vindicated. And I know you'll be right here with me. In spirit.


  1. That's a great analysis of blogging and bloggers (including me). Our minds for the most part ARE closed, we ARE still dependent on the traditional media, and we tend not to admit our errors.

    I suppose the only thing that makes an "aha" moment even more of one is to experience that moment with a slightly red face, and you just provided that for me.

  2. Well, the truth is only one, but the ideologies were many. If that was not the case, there would be too many bloggers and professors with nothing to do.

    I don't care about blogging, the problem is that the exact same thing is the norm in the social sciences.

    1. Agreement seems to make people more talkative, not less. People run away from disagreement and toward agreement. I can go to a MRA or feminist site right now, and find hundreds of people enthusiastically typing up agreements to a post summarizing why they're all correct and how great it is to have been so correct for the past ten years. And if I disagree with either of them, they laugh and ban me, then spend the next week talking about how much they all agree.

      Academic journals are distressingly similar, except that there, there are even fewer perspectives.

  3. The truth shall set you free.
    But, first, it will piss you off.

    Any scientific understanding of society is greatly sabotaged by the furious opposition that inevitably results from interests affected by exposing naked the actual processes taking place. Making things worse, those who are supposed to produce this knowledge and understanding, are directly interested in the continued obfuscation of reality, and so we go on and on about the effects of such and such bullshit program on student achievement. Burn in hell, assholes.

  4. * well, I'm a little drunk. will, not shall. etc. Burn in hell part is correct. But they already do (just too stupid to realize it). If you want to see some of the worst people ever, check:

    This is the caricature of the profane establishment social scientist. Not to be confused with the social scientist in closed elite structures and institutes, who is less stupid, less clueless, but a lot more evil.