The brazen fugue of modern politics weaves beautiful melodies. Horrible, but refined; noxious, yet alluring, like many things here. Without valorous quantities of knowing deceit, and the brilliant employment of innocently passionate paladins, the tapestry would not be what it is.
It was a gorgeous crime to anglicize, and revere as the savior of the new age, a parasitic rentier who bribed legions of Aryan and Slav women to compete for his passing nuptial fancies, then bred them and married off the spawn to his verus tribus, thereby returning the purloined superficiality of their features to the Jenomic cesspit. Yet Yael Kushner's father is not, as they say, the half of it.
In the United States, the Republican and Democratic machines have worked together with great acumen, constantly maintaining heady, simplistic, understandable contests, while simultaneously rectifying any potential awareness of their singularity. The Party has proven its genius time and again, even going so far as to fabricate and anoint its own worst enemy, who would accuse it of being a single party as part of the process of revitalizing the viability of its contests. We see this with Trump--not merely in the way that the scavengers leveraged hatred of themselves into support for their scion, but how, in majestic harmony, the same action can bolster support from both illusory sides in the single dimension of power.
The brutal mockery of the western profession of "journalism" has been exposing itself to bored children at the public park for over a century: since the U.S. Constitution was canceled in the 1860s; since the Declaration of Independence was revoked in the 1910s; since any of the celebritizations or stupidly-innocent murder statistic reviews that have filled the profession since then. The self-consuming snake of post-Enlightenment social restructuring passed the world by with little official renown, save from those sad fools who fear Eros.
Amazon.com is not driving physical retailers out of business because of a glorious surge of political energy among a vibrant, nationalistic youth, and CNN is not "losing viewers" for that reason, either. The changes were inevitable. They were foreseen, carefully legislated, and delayed in order to make arrangements for a smoother transition. Like the use of "national parks" to prevent competitors from developing land or obtaining natural resources independently of the Bank, the sequence of staggered technology release, academic acceptance of its use, and finally, its media embrace, ensured that instant worldwide communication would not be trusted by many until they had been accustomed to view it properly. Indicia of trustworthiness, seriousness, and professionalism had to be established, along with instilled cues of the opposites of those things, before everyday people could be encouraged to use the technology for news. Large audiences have been permitted to be reached now that they can be trusted to know where to congregate and whom to trust, primarily as dictated by their impression of what everyone else is doing. It is our fantasy that, all of a sudden, now that a fresh generation of rebel correspondents has been readied and popularized on a small scale, the market has suddenly been left battered and begging by our preference to buy a different version of its products.
The mob believes it is the best and largest mob for tearing down old brands and replacing them with new ones. A paper folds, a network falls. What a triumph, the fools believe, that decades after the internet, news sellers are substantially reducing their physical infrastructure costs. The fact that it took so long shows how stupid, slow, and unadaptable modern Terrans are. The fact that anyone would be celebrating this protracted miscarriage is far more embarrassing still. The agile news media owners, who will carefully take capital losses with one hand as they monopolize cheaper equipment with another, are celebrating only in polite society, while the consumer mob, waiting to give more labor and compliance in exchange for the new improved anti-protohydripid bar, thinks it has torn down the Bastille and forged the path itself.
Some of the faces, even, are the same. The Zionist pustule Ann Coulter, who has spent many of her most productive years advocating for the sacrifice of white children on behalf of eliminating secular Arab leaders in order to drive rapefugees toward Europe and America, has suddenly become the author of many a sensible article on modern population movement. More so, she is now a critic of the ways in which the mainstream media uses subtle lies to conceal violence caused by immigrants. Her July 5 column on the Nigerian murderer (whom it appears was permitted into the U.S. under Coulter's Iraq-invading buddy George H.W.) is quite good, and on point. Some--perhaps even much--of what these agents produce is true and maybe even intrinsically valuable; it is the slight adjustments in focus, and the coordinating of their work with allies and opponents targeted at different groups, that makes them so effective. Pundits who celebrate a white killer on a weekend where sixteen blacks shot their own mothers are a suitable example of this. Coulter is similar, targeting guns but not gunmen, as when she heartily and accurately criticizes Mexican drunk drivers, but puts on the kid gloves (or, more likely, no gloves at all) when talking about who put the pressure on to bring those drivers north ("leftists" with no ethnic bonds whatsoever). Accordingly, Coulter can analyze Mr. Bello, liar, and the New York Times who covered for him, liars, but not Ms. Coulter, liar, who painstakingly pushed and covered for Bush II's invasion of Iraq. Not at all ironically, her work during the Dubya administration has given her ample new fandom among the faux-non-interventionists who now use her to feel connected to the Republican Party despite an absence of demographic triage (let alone a "wall." Gonna be sad when they do actually build something and it's sorta irrelevant).
The dullards of tomorrow's establishment have been, and are still, being groomed to become the typing heads, and talking heads, of today. When Trump offends the liberal, the liberal rediscovers his passion for a media that had spent the last 8 years rationalizing
When some new dramatic faux-opposition force arises, it will reap the benefits of this new style of marketing. Will the Democrats proudly return to the American heritage of lying print media? After Obama's glorious "small donations" campaign, and Trump's "rude attacks" on journalists, BDS and antiwar are liberally irrelevant. Hillary taking a dive will help Chelsea keep the historical focus off her philandering father, and onto her brave sick tireless mother, when she runs for something herself years later. Western journalists no longer need to worry about feelings of guilt or shame, after all they've done and not done, because they'll be so distracted by Trump supporters insulting them that they can band together as a team and charge forward, droned weddings or no droned weddings. It's quite gracious, really, what the Trump administration is doing for them in return for the election, implying that their defeat was due to a bunch of people's opinions, rather than to a lack of need for modern population controllers to provision so many large buildings, cameras, and stage actors.