I thought often during the latter Trump years about the contrast with Barack Obama's "stray voltage" strategy, which involved saying provocative and often flatly untrue things to prompt discussion of Obama's preferred topics for political gain.

Ever since 9/11, we've been instructed that tiny minorities of extremists are solely responsible for their reprehensible actions. There was no greater sin than blaming law-abiding people who share some of their beliefs.

That's how we got the "lone wolf terrorist" cliche. A great herd of lone wolves swept across the world, each completely isolated from anything but the most direct support for their heinous deeds. "Tiny minorities of extremists" were blamed for "hijacking" the beliefs of millions.

The Western world did backflips to completely firewall the actions of terrorists from the larger bodies of people they claimed to represent. We hired a legion of consultants to show us exactly where the line between extremism and legitimate belief was drawn.

We wouldn't even name the adversaries of civilization. We declared a "global war" on their methods, to avoid criticizing their beliefs. The Obama administration launched a huge, expensive "Countering Violent Extremism" initiative that pointedly treated extremism as generic.

The greatest of pains were taken to draw very sharp and bright lines between violent extremism and even the most provocative and incendiary acts of legitimate speech and political organization. This was true of the race riots in the Obama years, as well as terrorism.

Around the world, very much including the Western world, real power is measured by the ability to silence criticism.

The highest reaches of power are measured by the ability to force people to speak in politically-approved ways.

The ability to silence criticism is a signifier of power. It's how truly powerful groups and regimes recognize each other. If free people can challenge your ideals or mock you without fear, you aren't TRULY powerful, no matter how much authority you might nominally possess.

And if you can force people to speak, force them to use your preferred language, penalize them socially or legally for failing to signal their support for your agenda, then you've entered the winner's circle. Your government or movement has taken a seat at the highest table.

This is one of the reasons people with authoritarian or totalitarian inclinations are constantly screaming that opponents are trying to silence them, even when it's manifestly untrue. It's a means of signaling their contempt for the opposition, of diminishing its stature.

These people would cheerfully allow themselves to be silenced by a regime or movement they truly respected. They pretend to be victims of oppression as a means of signaling the illegitimacy of leaders they despise.

Argentina legalizing abortion offers an opportunity to reflect on the great unwritten media narrative of the past few generations: the lives of women and children got worse in so many ways after Roe v. Wade.

Media would never, ever write that narrative, of course - would never string stories together and search for a pattern that could be refined into a political point - but it's the net impact of their reporting on women's issues. Everything started getting worse in the 70s.

There is a valid "narrative" to be discerned from that ocean of bad news about women and children over the past few decades. It's not a coincidence. It's a direct result of the Big Lie pushed by the abortion lobby: that only one person is involved in the decision to give birth.

That's so obviously untrue that entire civilizations are driven mad when they are forced to accept it. It's like forcing everyone to agree that the sky is green or gravity is a myth. Cognitive dissonance inflicts far more social damage than politicians or academics want to admit.

Women and (born) children suffer after abortion becomes broadly legalized because men are erased from the picture. A lot of men - including rich and powerful men - LIKE being erased from that particular picture. Others are intimidated out of insisting they belong in it.

One problem with the GOP's inability to understand or process populism is that it gets walloped by the all-populist all-the-time Democrats. Another problem is that when Republican populists do appear, they tend to be rather unfocused and undisciplined.

Political focus and discipline are very hard to come by. It takes a huge organization that spreads across both the political and private spheres to harness popularity and convert it into effective policy action. The Left spend decades building and refining its machinery.

The Left's machine spots populist talent early and begins guiding it toward politically productive ends. Detailed plans are made to move the country toward the populist's goals across multiple election cycles. Money and media influence is lined up to achieve concrete goals.

Achievable goals are important, because without them - and a serious political/financial/media machine dedicated to achieving them - populist crusades usually end in disappointment, resentment, and unfocused anger. "What was all of this FOR?" furious or dejected supporters ask.

Many of the Left's endless populist crusades seem kooky or utterly unrealistic at first, but they've got a serious political machine that usually manages to come away with SOMETHING to show for it. If nothing else, they end up with more power they can invest later.

Time once again to demonstrate that "presidents have no mandate to wield power after close elections" is a scam directed solely and entirely at Republicans. By any objective standard, Biden has less of a "mandate" than anyone in memory, but no one in the media will say that.

The "mandate" narrative is silly as a matter of constitutional law. Nowhere is it written that a president's authority is diminished if the election was close, or people who didn't vote for him think his victory was illegitimate. But that's all we heard for years after Trump won.

Of course, not a single such complaint will be leveled at Biden. No one in the political/media class will insist he has an asterisk after his name and should be prevented from exercising the full powers of office, and then some.

Biden won't have to worry about "resistance" bureaucrats sabotaging his administration from Minute One or crazy Hawaiian judges stalling his policy agenda. If anyone tries it, the media will absolutely savage them, instead of cheering them on. Their very lives would be in danger.

As a matter of politics, it's fair enough to suggest that policies should be crafted with due recognition for the feelings of the opposition, and if the election was razor-close, extra care should be taken to recognize the divided electorate.

The clearest lens through which I view the 1776 Report, Trump's apologia in response to the 1619 Project, is the same lens for viewing our overall political divisions: one of competing theories of American Exceptionalism:

Is America exceptional? How? Why? 1/x

The 1776 Report postulates that America is _inherently_ exceptional. We don't have to do anything in particular to be exceptional, and we remain exceptional no matter what we've done. It's deeply interwoven with white Christianity: a faith in inevitability of God's plan. 2/x

This religious inevitability of exceptionalism sharpens a lot about the Trump phenomenon, probably often confused for white supremacy, when it's really religious conviction. America simply can't lose, and they're defending America against critics, naysayers, and threats. 3/x

Trump's loss has caused complete disorientation. They view their faith as being challenged. They rise up in fulfillment of prophecy. They exegete the Constitution as sacred text for God's plan to keep Trump in office. They become apocalyptic at the end times. 4/x

But if the Constitution is their Old Testament, the 1776 Report is their gospel. It's important to distill the kernel of their faith: America is, always has been, and always will be inherently exceptional. That's what underlies the right's patriotic correctness. 5/x

BREAKING NEWS: Top Trump Fundraiser/Former Trump-Appointed RNC Official Elliott Broidy Charged with Federal Crimes; Broidy Is a Key Figure in the Proof Series Books on Trump's Bribery and Collusion with Foreigners—and Looks to Be Charged With Such Conduct

PS/ Broidy has a *lot* to tell federal investigators about Trump's illicit dealings in the Middle East. As with pedophile/now-federal-convict George Nader—one of Broidy's chief co-conspirators—if the feds don't cut a deal with Broidy to get info on Trump, Barr has put the fix in.

PS2/ Today is a day I want to reach out with warmth and appreciation to all readers of the Proof series—who've known this indictment was coming for well over a year and are probably as excited as I am that a key Proof-series figure is being taken down *just* as he deserves to be.

PS3/ There are associations between Broidy and Trump's mistresses, Broidy and Prince's mercenary companies, Broidy and Michael Cohen, Broidy and George Nader's illicit work with Saudi Arabia and the UAE... this is a *big* get for federal investigators, if they *want* it to be.

The NYT amazing report on Trump's post-election insanity helps explain why he has so many almost-certainly-illegal projects around the world.

Over the past 25 years, there has been an astonishing amount of illegal money flowing out of former Soviet Union and...

1/

other highly corrupt economies. Trillions of dollars. Broadly called money-laundering.

The sophisticated oligarchs used top law- and accounting-firms, banks, and big hotels to clean their money.

But there were many hack oligarchs.

2/

Who were too blatantly corrupt, too tied to terror or other bad actors, to use the "legitimate" forms of money-laundering.

Consider Azerbaijan's Anar Mammadov. He spent years and millions of dollars trying to get someone, anyone, in the US to work with him.

3/

Or Indonesia's Hary Tanoe, a man shockingly corrupt and crude even in a shockingly corrupt country.

Or the Tiah family in Malaysia. Or his partner's in Toronto, Panama, etc, etc.

These were very rich losers. They had too much risk to cross over to the legit economy.

4/

Until they met Trump.

The Trump Org, like the White House, did have some good lawyers. They wouldn't touch these deals.

So, Trump brought in Michael Cohen--who is less of a lawyer than Rudy, Lin, Sidney, and Ellis--from a taxi dispatch office in Brooklyn.

5/

20 January 2021 #MAGAanalysis

The Day After

Here's the link to soon-to-be former President Trump's Farewell Speech. It's not easy watching, I can tell you that. But we boldly do what we must,