Grab them by the quid pro nihil

Venom for peace
Vote as if you had a brain

As I am watching, reading and listening to the news, I am in a permanent state of amazement observing the political left’s ability to get away with ever more disgusting manifestations of their immorality.

I am not the first to notice the steady radicalization of the ideology of the left. Radical socialism is going mainstream. What is not talked about enough is how strategy and tactics are getting extreme as well.
The destruction of the family and civil society, corruption of science and education, the suppression of free speech, the radicalized identity politics are strategic goals to prepare the grounds for the collectivist future. The policies advocated are tactical tools to achieve the above, but propaganda, bribery, all the -isms, speech codes and censorship are not enough. The left cannot win the battle without destroying those who disagree with them. What is hardly ever analyzed is the methods employed to gain the upper hand in that fight. Let’s look at just a few of them.

The tactics

  1. Accuse your opponent of the wrongdoing you are guilty of yourself.
    It has amazing advantages. It confuses the outsiders. They don’t know what is going on. Who is the corrupt one exactly? Until there is proof, it is safest to assume that they both are. If there is clear evidence against you, that clearly proves that we did not look hard enough to find the evidence to prove the guilt of the other guy. Redirecting the attention from your crimes tarnishes your opponent and protects you.
  2. Draw moral equivalence to ‘normalize’ your wrongdoing.
    The above always has an element of this, but this tactic adds another layer to it.
    The things compared do not have to be the same. Raping a woman and cat-calling is not the same. Confessing to something is not the same as being accused of something. Verbal violence is NOT equivalent to physical violence. Randomly spiking trees with large nails to stop their harvesting is not equivalent to blowing up a dozen civilians in a market or a bus. Taking a bribe is not equivalent with asking someone to investigate bribery.
  3. Interpret, assume and insinuate, have a ‘concern’, then refer to it as an established fact.
    Opinions, suspicions and accusations are not facts. Calling someone a fascist does not make him one. Having a concern about the possible interpretation of an event does not alter the event itself.
  4. Project feelings and turn everything personal.
    The victory of Trump was NOT an assault on America. Someone not wanting to pay for your gender reassignment surgery, or the cost of you murdering your child is NOT an assault on you. Disagreement is not violence. Having a fantasy does not create reality, no matter how strongly you feel about it.
  5. Make outrageous claims, suggestions and insinuations to make your extreme ones look normal.
    The Russia dossier had some salacious and supposedly videotaped details about prostitutes pissing on beds on Trump’s request. The point is not just that outrageous nature of the claim makes people consider it, but that it makes the underlying claim more plausible. ‘They must have SOMETHING on him!’
  6. Lie, then repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat until you can use the consensus fallacy.
    It appears to be an established fact that Trump is a sexual predator, got into power with the clandestine help of the Russian government and blackmailed the Ukrainian president into helping him with his re-election campaign. The mainstream media are referring to them as established, proven and incontrovertible FACTS.

The arguments in the above are all based on actual manifestations. The examples are running in the thousands. Just watch CNN, MSNBC and the late-night talk shows or read the mainstream press. Here is just three. Each have thousands of manifestations.

The Russia collusion

It never happened. Three years of ‘investigations’, millions of dollars spent to come up with absolutely nothing. But I have to correct myself. There was collusion. Between Hillary’s campaign and the Russians.
The Trump collusion claim was never more than an attempt to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.
If there was ANY accountability in the American Media, 80% if its personalities would have to be fired. If not for lying deliberately, then for sheer incompetence. Close to the same number could and should be held legally liable for slander.

In the end, the media won. According to this Ipsos poll, nearly half of Americans believe that Trump colluded with the Russians and would not be the president today without that help.

Grabbing women by the pussy

What happened? What did Trump actually do and what people think that he did? How did the media present it?
If you ask somebody today, they will most likely tell you that Trump was bragging about sexually abusing women. I listened to the recorded conversation. Trump was making a point to someone. He said that if you have money, women let you do anything to them. If you are rich, he said, they will let you to grab them by the pussy. He did not say that he did it or that he would or that anybody should. He expressed a rather cynical view on women in a crass manner. You may disagree with him, I do not. My experience tells me that if you have money, it is a lot easier to get laid than it is if you don’t.

In the end the media won. If you ask just about anybody, they will tell you that it is a proven fact that Trump is a confirmed sexual predator.

Collusion and Quid pro nihil

What Barack Obama did by authorizing the spying on the Trump campaign was ten times worse than what forced the resignation of Nixon. Joe Biden is corrupt to the core. Through his son he received millions in bribes from the Ukrainians and the Chinese. The evidence against him is overwhelming, he actually bragged on tape about the way he blackmailed the then president of the Ukraine into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s involvement. Absolutely clear case of quid pro quo.
Compared to that there is nothing on Trump except accusations, insinuation, interpretations and misrepresentations. A big pile of nihil pro nihil.
But that is apparently enough in American politics for an “impeachment investigation procedural rules vote” This name alone proves that they have nothing.

This war is still going on, but the media have already won. The point is not to find the truth about Trump, but to delegitimize him with the incessant mud slinging all the way to election date in 2020.
The media have won, they are getting something for nothing. Quid pro nihil.
And the partisan garbage is global. Everybody in the worldwide left is on it. This article is from Canada’s  Globe and Mail: “How Donald Trump will escape impeachment’s clutches

The article

“The evidence against U.S. President Donald Trump on the charge that he abused his power by trying to induce the Ukrainian government to assist his re-election bid does indeed look damning.

Never mind the proverbial gun; there’s now a smoking cannon.”

Flat out lie. Nobody mentioned elections, nobody asked for assistance. There was a suggestion that for everybody’s sake, they should investigate the corruption going on in their country.
….but calling it a smoking cannon is a nice touch. It makes the claim sound much more serious. If it is a cannon, there can be no doubt.

“Mr. Trump appeal to Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate political rival Joe Biden.”

Another lie. Biden was not mentioned on the call.

“… a President who claims, with his customary bludgeoning force, that it is just another witch hunt.”

What is it, if it is not a witch hunt? What exactly makes his claim ‘bludgeoning’? What is the proper way to claim one’s innocence?

“The outcome of the House vote will likely be framed as illegitimate, a result of partisan zealotry.”

‘Framed’? So what will it be? Can the author really claim that there will be bipartisan support for this circus? Isn’t it far more likely that some house democrats will vote against impeachment to protect their own political future?

“Revelations on Mr. Trump’s scheming with Ukraine have been pouring in for weeks. Not many find them shocking, not in the context of the standards he has already set.”

Another flat-out lie claiming a preponderance of evidence. I am writing this almost a week after the publication of the article, but I’ve no new revelations. The sentence is just another reiteration of the lie.

“If it so happens that the Senate not only votes to impeach but also to bar Mr. Trump from ever seeking public office again, that’s still not necessarily the end of the convulsive Trump drama. There are other Trumps waiting in the wings, most notably Don Jr., to pick up the torch. He could well enjoy the support of his father’s base. He could run in his place.”

This is the best. A perfect example of the outrageous claim to make the extreme one look normal.

This is a dirty fight and the cleanest person in it happens to be Donald Trump.

I can understand Obama’s concern. If Trump does not quit soon and the investigation into real collusion and corruption goes on, even he may end up in jail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.