The Creationism/Trumpism Connection

February 12th is Charles Darwin's birthday. It is also Abraham Lincoln's birthday. This past Monday was Presidents' Day (and George Washington's birthday). So I thought it would be a good occasion to look at creationism and how it has affected the media, Trumpism, and politics.

On the face of it, one wouldn't think that something like creationism has much in common with Trumpism. But at their core-values, most creationists and Trumpists are fundamentally aligned, and the tactics used to deceive the masses in both camps are identical. There's a lot of overlap on that Venn diagram! The rise of creationism really does parallel the rise of the Right-Wing Media Machine. They are both part of the same ecosystem, and while Creationism doesn’t always get overtly political, it certainly does when it comes to removing evolution from school classrooms and putting organized prayer back in. A large part of why creationism persists is because it gives Christians an imaginary excuse to invade the secular sphere, and they get very passionate about it because kids are involved. The fact that those kids don’t necessarily belong to them doesn’t phase them. In fact, it’s kind of the point. They want to indoctrinate YOUR kids without having to expose THEIR kids to anything like a contrary viewpoint.

To give an idea about how closely creationism and the Right-Wing Media Machine are interconnected, let’s look briefly at the history of creationist organizations. For the most part, organizations like this have failed, collapsing under the weight of theistic evolution, which is the notion that evolution happened, but God somehow guided or shepherded the process.

Let’s start with the Religion and Science Association, or “RSA.” It was started around 1935 or so, although nobody is certain of an exact date. Dudley Whitney was the main founder, and he teamed up with two other big champions of creationism at the time, George McCready Price and Byron C. Nelson. The organization only held one conference, and that was on March 27th & 28th in 1936 at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. The attendees were mostly Christian professors at secular universities, and there was a lot of infighting between biblical literalists, who were the “ring leaders,” and the academics in the majority who argued for “gap theory.” (“Gap theory” is a form of theistic evolution which says that there was a huge gap of time between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, where god created everything, allowed evolution to happen, and then came Adam and Eve roughly 6,000 years ago as the first true modern humans.) A planned series of papers from the conference was never published, and the group disbanded in 1938.

But that didn’t keep Whitney, McCready Price, and Nelson from trying again. They formed a new group in 1939 called the Creation-Deluge Society. They published a regular journal between 1941 and 1944, and held regular meetings in the Los Angeles area. Most of its members were Seventh-Day Adventists. (And you’ll find in the history of creationism, it was Seventh-Day Adventism that mostly kept the torch of creationism alive. There were a few die-hard extremists from the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church as well, but for the most part it was Seventh-Day Adventism that kept it alive.) But again, infighting developed between young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists. Even though one ostensibly had to be a young-earth creationist to be a member, the old-earth creationist crowd gained leadership within the organization, and it disbanded in late 1945.

But there was another group at work. It was called the American Scientific Affiliation, and it began at the Moody Bible Institute in 1941. The organization was composed of scientists who happened to be Christian, and was committed to both orthodox Christianity and modern scientific standards. It began asserting young-earth creationism, but ended up succumbing to old-earth creationism instead. By the late 1950’s, it was regarded by most young-earth creationists as an organization which was “too liberal” for their standards. But unlike the previous organizations which had a commitment to young-earth creationism written into their charter and disbanded, this one didn’t have such a requirement, and so it became entirely old-earth creationist and STAYED there. The organization still exists today, in fact!

Then, in 1961, a real breakthrough finally happened. Creationists Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb teamed up to write the first book of Institutionalized Disinformation regarding creationism, and that was The Genesis Flood, published in 1961. This was a watershed event, not only for creationism, but for conservatism as a whole. Why? Because it was here that the disinformation was codified, published in permanent form, and given the appearance of endorsement by both a high-ranking theologian (Whitcomb) and a man with a Ph.D. in the natural sciences (Morris). Now, Morris was only a doctor of engineering, not biology, but up to that point, that was the closest thing the creationist movement was ever able to achieve in terms of a scientific endorsement. All the biology-related Christians had been lost to theistic evolution. This was the first time a scientist achieved a science-related Ph.D. of any kind, and he used it to endorse absolute bullshit.

With The Genesis Flood as their second Bible in all but name, a new creationist organization committed to young-earth creationism formed, and this time it stuck. This one was the Creation Research Society, or CRS. It formed specifically because it hated the American Scientific Affiliation's commitment to old-earth creationism. It first met formally in Asbury College in Wilmore, Kentucky, and still exists to this day. Because it championed Morris and Whitcomb's book as some sort of "proof" that their young-earth creationist views were genuinely proven.

And that’s the formula: Institutionalize the Disinformation. Make it look as though the bad info has been vetted by real experts, and the masses will assume there’s something to it. The Institutionalized Disinformation is why CRS lasted, and all the earlier versions of it died.

This led to copycat creationist organizations popping up all over the nation. But other developments took place later on to galvanize both the creationist movement and the conservative movement. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. Curlett and Arbington v. Schempp that public schools could not engage in faculty-led prayer. This gave the Christians something to really bitch about. The Civil Rights movement raged throughout the 1960’s, and by 1964 came the Civil Rights Act, and also the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It became very trendy for conservative publications to demonize liberals. In a backlash, it started to gain steam by the 1970’s.

And here’s another element: Demonize the Other. Conservatives began demonizing liberals. To a certain extent this had been going on ever since Joe McCarthy in the 1950’s, when he cast all liberals as "communists." But McCarthy’s fall gave demonizing liberalism a bit of a break. By the 1960’s, however, conservatives were pushing back against liberals, gradually demonizing them more and more. It was easy during the Cold War to cast liberals as “Communists” or “Marxists,” and that slur continues to this day, long after the Soviet Union has fallen.

For creationists, demonizing the other meant casting evolution at the heart of all that is evil. Evolution got blamed for everything from Joseph Stalin’s mass murders to Adolf Hitler’s. And it all stems from the demonization of the other.

Here’s an illustration which often gets shown at creationist gatherings and within their publications. 

As you can see, evolution is blamed for all kinds of stuff. And illustrations like this have been around ever since the 1960’s when it was first cooked up.

By the 1970’s, the conservative movement was beginning to rally behind people like California governor Ronald Reagan. Demonization of liberalism again got a reprieve with the fall of Richard Nixon, but that reprieve was also short-lived. The Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, and when the newly elected Jimmy Carter, who was largely elected on the strength of the Christian vote in 1976, spoke in favor of abortion, the Christian community suddenly didn’t care how devoted to Jesus Christ he was. They all turned on him, and Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

For creationists, the 70’s meant a deeper commitment to Institutionalized Disinformation, and so they began to focus more on so-called “research.” This was, as always, designed to feign legitimacy from a scientific standpoint, and for the masses, it worked. Two new organizations cropped up which were utterly devoted to promulgating Disinformation from on-high: The Creation-Science Research Institute (CSRI), and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Both of these organizations still exist today. Both of them are firmly committed to doing “research” and then publishing that “research” as some sort of proof that God created the Earth in six days, 6,000 years ago.

And again, we see the power of Institutionalized Disinformation at work. With these two new “research centers,” creationists began flooding the zone with disinformation.

Classic examples include this 1977 book by Robert E. Kofahl, “The Handy-Dandy Evolution Refuter.” Or the 1985 book by Duane Gish called “Evolution: The Fossils Say No!” (When I wrote my counter to this I deliberately riffed off of that title, calling it “Creationism: The Bible Says No!”)

If you’ve ever had the misfortune of debating a creationist, they all know dozens of phony claims as to why they believe evolution to be false. All of which have been debunked.

• The Grand Canyon was formed and carved by a single flooding event that took 40 days and 40 nights instead of millions of years.
• Piltdown Man was a hoax and not a transitional fossil.
• Wildly discordant dates of Mammoths and Mastodons prove that radiometric dating is unreliable. 
• Probability statistics proves that evolution is impossible. 
• The moon is slowly spiraling outward. Run the clock backward and the moon would have crashed into the Earth only 50 million years ago or so.
• Shells from recently deceased clams and snails have been carbon-14 dated to be 50,000 years old.
• Fossilized dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose, Texas show human and dinosaur tracks side-by-side proving that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

On and on and on…

I used to memorize a lot of these and have rejoinders for them but honestly, nobody can know them all. It’s an absolute tidal wave of bullshit. And it WORKS! Flooding the zone with false information really does lead people to believe whatever they prefer rather than what is actually true.

By the mid eighties, this misinformation flood really began taking off. Duane Gish and others like him challenged college professors to debates, and during those debates they would flood the stage with so many points of disinformation that the professors often couldn’t keep up, making it seem like the creationist debater had won. Duane Gish was particularly good at this, and that’s why the dissemination of multiple points of fake evidence all at once is today referred to as a “Gish gallop.”

It’s right around this same time period that traveling showmen like Kent Hovind began traveling all over the U.S. giving “seminars” on counter-evidence to evolution. And, of course, creation-themed “museums” began popping up all over the nation. Most of them were small, stupid affairs, but they finally built a really big one in Kentucky around 2007 or so. It’s still there. (I call it the “Kentucky Fried Museum.”)

I think it was also about this time that somebody in the Republican Party really began to take notice regarding what creationists were able to accomplish. Some political analyst looked at this and said, “Man, if we could only do something like this to the liberals, we’d really have something!”

And sure enough, Ronald Reagan helped make that happen. In 1987, he put two cronies of his on the three-man panel of the FCC, and immediately they repealed the Fairness Doctrine. This was a requirement that radio and television stations present both sides of any controversial issue. Well, with that gone, right-wing radio personalities could go on the air and be as partisan as they please.

Rush Limbaugh was one of the first out of the gate. If you really want an education as to the craziness of the Right-Wing Media Machine, take a look at what Limbaugh was prior to this stroke of luck. He was a penniless ne’er-do-well who floated from one gig to another. He did poorly in high school, dropped out of his local community college, and floated from one DJ job to another, usually lasting no more than a year or so before getting fired. Eventually he landed a semi-regular job as an event publicist for the Kansas City Royals, but eventually he left that job to become a DJ again and got fired from that too. Finally, in 1985, he ended up as a late-night DJ where his political wise cracks didn’t get the radio station in too much trouble. Then, 1987, the Fairness Doctrine fell, and Rush could suddenly say whatever he liked with little or no reprisal. By 1988, CBS radio offered him nationwide syndication and it was off to the races for that motherfucker.

Pretty soon, there were lots of copy-cats of Limbaugh’s style. Radio station owners quickly realized that angry right-wing rhetoric could drive up ratings in a way that left-wing rationality simply could not. So the rhetoric became more radical, which drove up more ratings, which caused more radical rhetoric, which drove up more ratings, which led to more radical rhetoric, and so on and so forth.

But the politicos behind the increasingly radical talk show rhetoric were taking a different tactic: They were disguising the true intentions of the politicians so that moderates wouldn’t be able to pick up on the real agenda. So, tax breaks for the rich became “supply-side economics.” Funneling taxpayer money to religious schools was proposed by an economist named Milton Friedman in the form of vouchers. It’s "free-market competition," not shelling out tax money to religious schools.

By the 90’s, creationists had kicked it up a notch, too. Unsatisfied that the existing creationist groups weren’t radical enough, an Australian named Ken Ham set up shop in 1993 with a new creationist ministry called Answers in Genesis, perhaps because Americans are simply more gullible than Australians. The unapologetic attacking style of Answers in Genesis fit right in with the newly radicalized Right-Wing Media Machine, and it grew to be even bigger than its rival, CRS.

Here, creationism took a nastier turn. Only this time, instead of Republicans borrowing from the creationist playbook, the creationists borrowed from the Republican playbook. They disguised their true agenda. A 1987 Supreme Court ruling called Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that creationism was religion, not science, and so “creation science” couldn’t be taught in public school classrooms. So, instead of pushing for creationism to be taught in public schools outright, they tried to sneak it past the gatekeepers by calling it, “Intelligent Design Theory.” Their landmark attempt at this was the 1989 book, “Of Pandas and People,” which the creationists tried passing off as a textbook. over the next decade and a half, religious groups tried to force this book into the classrooms as a way of indoctrinating public school children who didn’t belong to them.

It ALMOST worked. Things finally came to a head in a landmark 2004 court case called Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which eleven parents sued the Dover school district to keep this so-called “textbook” out of the classroom. (I rafted the Grand Canyon with the National Center for Science Education in 2005, and I met some of the plaintiffs in the case!) The media dubbed this “Scopes Trial II,” which it often did whenever creationism was taken to court, but this time the headlines were correct. This really was as big as the Scopes Monkey Trial, and newspapers started calling it the Scopes Panda Trial. In 2005, the federal court ruled that Intelligent Design Theory was religious doctrine and couldn’t be taught in classrooms.

What happened after that was truly interesting. Instead of just backing off outright, they tried softening the sell again. This time they tried getting creationism into public schools by advocating that schools “teach the controversy!” They reasoned that if they couldn’t get creationism in directly, they could at least muddy the water. “Evolution is controversial, teach kids about how controversial it is!” In other words, get kids doubting evolution right away so that they’ll be more receptive to a creationist’s message later on.

On the Republican side, they seemed to pick up what the creationists were doing here and echoed it. During the 2004 elections, Republicans muddied the water as much as possible rather than attack directly. They manufactured outrage about gay marriage and made that a key issue for conservative Christians. Then they spat a bunch of disinformation regarding the military career of John Kerry, the Democratic candidate at the time. Since Kerry had been a swift boat pilot during his military service, this sort of disinformation campaign became known as “Swift-Boating.”

Creationists certainly seem to have learned from this. They did a Swift-Boating move of their own. The several creationists who happened to have scientific Ph.D.’s (there are still not that many) got together and formed a team called RATE, for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. These people deliberately and maliciously concocted bad data regarding radiometric dating, disseminated it in a very scientific-looking book, and falsely declared that the “millions of years” hypothesis had been disproved.

I mean, you have to admire the commitment to the bit, on a certain level. This two-volume publication is truly a monumental achievement in utter bullshit!

Institutionalized Disinformation works in any sphere of bullshit, whether it be Mormonism, Flat-Earthism, Holocaust Denialism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Moon Landing Denialism, etc., etc. The bad ideas all subsist on the institutionalization of that which is empirically false. And then people assume, wrongly, that so much superstructure wouldn't or couldn't be built upon pure crap. But of course, it would, it can, and it has been.

Today, creationism has been waning. The latest polls show that the creationist view, which Gallup defines as humans being "created pretty much in present form," has crashed, from a steady 47% of Americans through 2006, to 37% today. About 34% are theistic evolutionists, believing that humans evolved, but God guided the process. And the number of Americans who feel that evolution happened without God's guidance at all has grown to 24%. That means 58% of of America accepts evolution now. Up from 45% prior to 2007. If you want to see the poll numbers yourself, click here.

Creationists know they are losing.

So what do they do? They go all-in for Trump, hoping he can force the issue rather than have them try to compete in the free marketplace of ideas, where they are steadily losing.

But it's a fools' hope. In siding with Trump, American Christians have signed the death warrant on Christians being a majority. Already, the number of Americans who never or seldom attend church has swelled to 56%. Young people increasingly hate Trump, are leaving every church which supports Trump, and that means the next generation of leaders will be solidly Secular.

Almost as if they feel that coming, the Right-Wing Media Machine has amped up its commitment to Institutionalized Disinformation. The lessons it learned from the creationists about pushing disinformation are being applied on a massive scale. They may have even destroyed the nation permanently already!

Certainly, they've destroyed most of the news media. Most of it, especially the social media aspect of it, has been lost to disinformation and outright propaganda.

In short, our nation's institutions have become, essentially, one giant Creation Museum, not unlike the one in Kentucky.

The superstructure is a lie, people. The superstructure is a lie.

Eric

**

How Mexico and Canada SHOULD Retaliate

Just over two weeks ago, Donald Trump threatened massive tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Then backed off when that boneheaded move caused the stock market to nosedive. When he did so, he declared a 30-day "pause" on these tariffs. 

Which means, exactly 2 weeks from today, March 5th, we'll be right back at square one with this dumbfuck blunder all over again. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has vowed to retaliate with a matching 25% tariff on all American goods. Mexico has threatened a similar move.

But I think that's the wrong move on the part of both Canada and Mexico. Here's why:

Remember NAFTA? It was the free trade agreement struck by the USA, Canada, and Mexico during the Clinton administration. And most Americans have since felt that it was a betrayal, causing jobs to be lost here at home and sent abroad more easily. They were right.

So, Trump vowed to do away with NAFTA. It sounded to his supporters like a good idea at the time. But what Trump replaced NAFTA with was "USMCA." That treaty was, in essence, almost a carbon-copy of NAFTA, but with a different name. The rich got to continue to get richer moving jobs abroad, and Trump got to proclaim that he did away with NAFTA, basking himself in glory over the accomplishment when in actuality, he did no such thing.

But USMCA had one key difference: unlike NAFTA, it put huge IP restrictions in place. Essentially, that meant that Mexico had to enact an anti-circumvention law making it a crime to tamper with "digital locks." So Mexican mechanics can't bypass the digital locks US car companies use to lock-out third party repair, Mexican farmers can't fix their own tractors, and Mexican software developers can't make alternative app stores for mobile devices. Instead they MUST sell their software through US Big Tech companies like Apple or Android, and they take a massive 30% cut of every sale. Canada was also forced to embrace similar restrictions, but unlike Mexico, most of them were already in place by 2012. It was worth it, they reasoned, to pay Apple or Android 30% on all apps in order to not have to pay a tariff on a new smart phone.

So, here's a radical idea: Instead of Mexico and Canada retaliating with mirror-tariffs on the U.S. why don't they retaliate a different way? Why don't they simply toss out the IP restrictions instead?

Consider what that move does: Apple and Android can no longer reap the huge benefits of having a monopoly on apps. Canada and Mexico can begin to reap the economic benefits of being able to jail-break machines and devices. American farmers will begin using Mexican or Canadian software to repair their own equipment (which should have remained their right in the first place!). Mexican and Canadian apps will circumvent the 30% cut Apple takes with the apps it produces. Americans would flock to this new market to obtain more affordable software, and more importantly, be able to move around their own music collections with ease, not having to pay Apple or Spotify a subscription just to be able to use the property which is already rightfully theirs. Canadians and Mexicans could even make affordable apps for X-Box and Playstation. And any Tesla vehicle could be repaired at home without having to pay one of Elon Musk's official repair facilities.

In short, it's a move that hits the oligarchs who put Trump in office right in the 'nads!

I can't claim to have come up with this idea first. This actually comes from the remarkable brain of Cory Doctorow, the man who coined the term "enshittification," and one of the small percentage of humans who is demonstrably smarter than me. If you want to read his original essay on the matter, you can read it here. It's really not that dissimilar to the way Ukraine cashed in on being able to jail break John Deere tractors, only on a more massive scale.

Imagine being able to buy a jailbreaking kit that frees your printer from subscription services and the anti-competition features that detect third-party printer ink? Imagine color toner cartridges that actually become affordable through Canadian dealers. Imagine how so many other forms of software, from Adobe to Zoho, becoming ownable for ONE payment instead of forced subscriptions paid out month after month, year after year! Imagine Canadian streaming devices which are coded to get around the limits of 6 or 7 household users per streaming service, allowing dozens and dozens of people to stream more affordably!

I like the prospect of such an outcome. And if Trudeau is smart, this is what he'll do. Retaliatory tariffs of 25% will hurt Canada far more than it will hurt the U.S., mostly because Canada relies so much more on American imports than vice-versa. But reversing the IP laws and jail-breaking the technology is simply giving us all something that should always have been ours in the first place! That's a brilliant move which will net Canada huge economic benefits, and wreak maximum hurt on the American pro-Trump oligarchs, especially Elon Musk.

Hopefully, someone in Canada is at least paying attention to Cory Doctorow, if not to me.

Eric

**

Kill The Algorithms!

This is the second blog post dealing with how we can restore fairness and balance to the media. In this case, the social media. (If you want to read my initial blog post, check here.)

We complain a lot about social media algorithms, don't we? They are designed to take the data regarding what we see, and then feed us more of what we tend to look at more. So if a bunch of extremist stuff engages us, it will shove even more extremist stuff into our feed. Which causes even more online engagement, which leads to more extremist stuff, which causes more engagement, and even more extremist stuff, and before you know it you (the user) have become completely radicalized.

The thing is, we really don't need algorithms in our social media! The only people who need the algorithms are the owners of the platforms.

Here's how it works: The more engagement being driven by the social media platform, the more it can charge for advertising on it. (It's just like the Neilsen Ratings System, except it's accurate.) So it's in the best interests of Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk to push algorithms into the system to drive up user engagement, lure more eyeballs into the media, sell more advertising at a higher price point, and thus make a bigger profit.

And if some people go off the rails as a result, launch a riot, shoot a CEO in the back, engage in a mass shooting, or sack our nation's capital, well, those are just externalities, aren't they?

But it's possible to have social media platforms without algorithms. That's exactly what Facebook was to start with. Twitter, too. Just people posting things. And what determined which things you saw, and in what order? Why, nothing more than the chronological order of what your friends and liked pages posted. And if you don't have any of either, random pot-luck.

And that model is sustainable today. Look at BlueSky. Another social media platform without an algorithm.

And it's beautiful!

So, since algorithms only benefit the grifters at the top, and have zero actual benefits to the user whatsoever, then the standard is clear: algorithms must be outlawed on social media platforms.

Kill the algorithms!

Notice how this does not impinge anyone's freedom of speech! Everyone gets an equal say in the social media sphere. Everyone except, perhaps, the wealthy owners, who can't push their agendas in front of our eyeballs in order to fatten their own purse anymore. They also can't favor their own political viewpoint on your feed. (Looking at you, Elon!)

And you know what? GOOD. That's the way it should be.

If Musk and Zuckerberg don't like it, too bad, so sad. B-O-O H-O-O, cry me a river.

Now let's make it happen!


Eric

**

I.M.A.!

Our news media needs a protection agency, much like our food industry does.

Today, there is the FDA, which regulates food products and keeps them safe. But there was once a time in our nation's history when food products were frequently unsafe. People were poisoned with impure products or spoilage. Unscrupulous people would try to maximize their profit by cutting flour with sawdust or other similarly gruesome tricks. Meat products especially were prone to contaminants and spoilage. People sometimes got sick from what they ate.

All that changed in 1906 when President Teddy Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drugs act into law. The agency that resulted from that piece of legislation is known today as the FDA.

As a result, federal regulations safeguard what we eat. If we (for example) look at a can of soup, we see on the label a list of ingredients. It is against the law to put any ingredients into that can which are not listed upon that label. Why? Because the FDA understands that if someone unknowingly eats something that isn't listed there, that person could get seriously sick.

We need a similar law for our news media consumption, and for precisely the same reason!

A federal agency can monitor news sites and help ensure that what is being disseminated is actually news which is free of bias. We could call this new agency "IMA," for "Information Media Administration."

Let the jokes begin. "IMA good news outlet!" "IMA bad news outlet!" "IMA hater of this new over-bloated government bureaucracy," etc., etc.

Essentially, this means a return of the Fairness Doctrine, in which any controversial topic must present both sides of the argument with equal time. It would also make sure that propaganda is not disguised as news, and relegate opinion shows to some other outlet.

What happens if a news media violates these standards? Why, they have the title of "news" removed! Fox "News" would have to change its name to "Fox Infotainment," or some such.

Notice how this does NOT impinge anyone's freedom of speech! Those outlets which have the label of "news" stripped from them can go on saying whatever stupid nonsense they want. They just can't do so with quite the veneer of authenticity. 

The Institutionalized Disinformation (you know, that thing I so often rail about in blog post after blog post?) is actually diminished!

There is a certain amount of "laissez faire" involved, here. The FDA cannot prevent consumers from making bad choices regarding what they eat. And so they are free to consume all the poly-saturated fat, cholesterol, and high-fructose corn syrup they want. But it is generally understood that such food is "junk food." In like manner, IMA will not be able to prevent people from consuming crap such as Sean Hannity, Greg Gutfeld, The Five, or Joe Rogan. But anything re-quoted from these sources can at least be countered with the truthful statement, "Oh, but that's not news." Which would be true! It's junk news!

And I wish Rachel Maddow all the success in the world - on Max, or MTV. But her particular brand of editorializing doesn't belong on a news network any more than Laura Ingram's does.

That's how fairness and balance gets restored in the legacy media.

In my next blog post, I'll discuss how to restore fairness and balance in social media!

Eric

**

Feeling Betrayed, Yet?

Wow. There's incompetent, and then there's incompetent.

Trump says he wants the U.S. to take over Gaza and redevelop it into prime real estate. Remember, I warned all of you that exactly this would happen. But if you happen to be a pro-Palestinian Muslim living in Michigan or Pennsylvania, you voted FOR this! Either by voting directly for Trump or by withholding your vote. You believed the fake propaganda that Kamala's husband, Doug Emhoff, was somehow a "Zionist" (of all stupid, bullshit claims!).

Are you feeling betrayed, yet?

If you're a Latin/Hispanic voter, you were told over and over again that legal immigrants and naturalized Latino citizens wouldn't be arrested. But that happened. Over, and over, and over again. He is literally sending friends and family of yours off to Gitmo! He is leaving crops unharvested and unplanted by blocking migrant farm labor, just as we warned would happen. 

Are you feeling betrayed, yet?

If you're a young, black, male voter, you may have voted for Trump. More of you voted Republican this past election than at any time since Eisenhower. But already, Trump has suspended payment of benefits of your families and removed DEI programs that would have eventually given black people economic parity. He has also reversed the executive orders Biden put in place after the murder of George Floyd. With a stroke of the pen, the banning of choke-holds by police is out. Permitting police to use force only as a last resort, nixed. The database which identifies and reports abusive police officers who shuffle from department to department, is gone. The boot-heel of the cop is descending upon your head, and you were so pussy-whipped by Candace Owens that you voted for it.

How about you? Are you feeling betrayed yet?

How about you apologists for Trump, who insisted that Trump was just using bravado when threatening to impose huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico; who argued repeatedly that he would only free the non-violent January 6th insurrectionists; who said that when Trump said he would only be a dictator "on day one" that he was just kidding. How do you feel now that he's embarrassed you? Proven you wrong for all to see? And not for the first time!

Do you feel the betrayal?

And then there's all of America, together. Right now, Trump has allowed Elon Musk to take over the U.S. Treasury. All the payment information you give to the IRS with every tax return, your address, phone number, Social Security number, and your direct deposit bank account information, is now his! The only thing preventing Elon from emptying your bank account completely right now, is your password. And Elon can probably find a way to obtain that, too.

In fact, if your banking password happens to be the same as your X.com password, I recommend you change it. Now. Like, right now!

And it's not outside the realm of possibility that, with this new power, he can try to force America to adopt cryptocurrency instead of the dollar.

Are you feeling betrayed, yet?

We knew Trump would be bad. We knew Trump would be incompetent. But holy fucking shit, even the most pessimistic among us didn't think he would be this big a klutz!

And the most disgusting thing? The Right-Wing Media Outrage Machine is still running so unchecked that many people actually think Trump is doing a good job!

If only someone had warned you. And warned you. And warned you again. And again.

If only someone had listened to me instead of the Right-Wing Media Outrage Machine.

Well, you certainly will now, won't you?

Eric

**

Elon Musk Is A Nazi

It's official: Elon Musk is a Nazi.

The reason we know this with 100% certainty isn't the so-called "Nazi salute" he gave at one of Donald Trump's inauguration celebrations. Conservative pundits have been screaming that anyone claiming Elon's gesture was a Nazi salute is absolutely lying. And you know what? For once, I agree with them. I don't think it was meant to be a Nazi salute. But I do think it was a Freudian slip on Elon's part. Taken by itself, it might be dismissible.

But then Elon didn't bother to deny it. In fact, he said nothing about it one way or the other at all. He made no attempt to distance himself from it, and no attempt to excuse it. All he said was, "Frankly, they [the Democrats] need better dirty tricks. The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired." [Sleep emoji.] That would be damning enough. But then...

Musk addressed a meeting in Halle, Germany, on January 25. Not just any meeting, a crowd of AfD supporters. AfD, for those who don't know, is Alternative für Deutchland, a far-right extremist party which has resurrected Antisemitism in Germany, primarily in the form of opposition to Muslim immigration. Now, I have no love for Islam either, but there's no point in beating around the bush, AfD is Naziism. And it has resurrected itself in the very country that placed a sign in the middle of Hamburg saying "Nie wieder Faschismus" (Never again fascism).

Oh, the shame.

Musk merely acknowledging this group at all would be damning enough. Him saying anything at all to this group would be damning enough. But what he said at the address was even worse.

Here's the complete transcript of what he said:

“First of all, I wanted to really say that I'm very excited for the AfD, and I think you're really the best hope for Germany. I think some things that are just very important are that people take pride in, Germany and being German. This is very important. You know, it's okay to be proud to be German. This is a very important principle. It's okay. It's good to be proud of German culture and German values and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything. We want to have unique cultures in the world. We want to have people, we don't want everything to be the same everywhere where it's just one big sort of soup. We want to have something where you go to different countries, and you experience a different culture, and it is unique, special, and good. That the German government takes actions to protect its citizens and make sure that it seeks the health and well-being of the German people.

"The German people are an ancient nation, it goes back thousands of years. I was reading Julius Caesar's account of first encountering the German tribes in the Gaul campaigns, and he was like, wow, very impressive. These are very powerful warriors.

"So, I think there's too much of a focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that. Children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents, their great-grandparents, maybe even. [Emphasis mine.] You should be optimistic and excited about a future for Germany. That's really my message, is be optimistic, excited, and preserve German culture and protect the German people.

"There are some other things that I think would be very helpful too, which is you want more self-determination for Germany and for the countries in Europe, and less from Brussels. That's my opinion.

"I think there's too much bureaucracy from Brussels, too much control from the global elite. [Like you, Elon?]

"When I've given talks at these global government conferences, what I've said is there should be less global government. There should be more determination by individual countries. 

"And so, I very much hope that the AfD does well, and that Alice Weidel does become Chancellor. I think that would be very good for Germany. I hope that your people unite and strongly support AfD. So, you're doing the right thing, is what I'm saying. Let's go, guys! Let's go. Fight for a great future for Germany! Convince your friends, convince everyone. If you want to make the future great, if you want the future to be great, you need to make it great and fight for the future to be great. That's how it becomes great. 

"I think we should fight for an exciting, bright future where people can be optimistic about what's going to happen. Where you wake up, and you look forward to the future, and the best way to ensure the future is good is to fight for a good future every day. And it will be great. So, I think this election coming up in Germany is incredibly important. I think it could decide the entire fate of Europe, maybe the fate of the world. That is the significance of this election. So, that's why it's very important to talk to your friends and family and convince them to consider voting for AfD. And then, just go with it, like a chain reaction. Convince one friend, talk to another friend. 

"Do you want this? Do you want more of the last 10 years? Or do you want something different? I think the people in Germany want something different. And if you want something different, you have to vote for a different party. This is just a fact, this is logic. So, you are the future of Germany. Make it happen.

"But I can't emphasize enough: Go out there, talk to people, convince people, one vote at a time. There's a need for change. And this election is so important, it's extremely important. I do not say it lightly. I think the future of civilization could hang on this election. 

"Obviously, you have my full support. I think the Trump administration is also supportive. I think the policies that I've heard from AfD make a lot of sense. They're really just, to me, when I look at the policies, they're common-sense policies. Just like President Trump has common-sense policies.  Getting things done, getting the government out of people's way so that you can get things done and give people back personal freedom, and protecting the people from dangers. These are fundamental things that, frankly, the current government is not doing. The current government is suppressing speech very aggressively. And really, when you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy.

"People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. [You would know, suppressor!] So, this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech, so people can make an informed vote, and it can be a true democracy. [Physician, heal thyself!] This is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. So, we need to restore freedom to the people of Germany, have freedom of speech, and have less government oppression in general. So anyway, I can't emphasize enough, go do everything you can, full blasts. Put every effort you can into this election. 

"The fate of the world, I think, rests upon this election in Germany. It's extremely fundamental. Once again, Go, go, go! Fight, fight, fight!”

Really? Too much emphasis on past guilt?

The "Freudian-slip salute" was a clue. The silence afterwards was proof. Saying anything approving of the AfD was an absolute slam-dunk item of proof.

But telling a crowd of ultra-right Germans to get over their Holocaust guilt?

Jesus H. Christ! The only thing Elon lacked was a toothbrush mustache!

If you see the video of this address, you see Elon's face on a giant jumbotron, like something out of Citizen Kane. It's eerie.

Now, a little bit of what Elon says is harmless. It's fine to take pride in one's heritage. I happen to be of German descent myself, and I'm proud of that. But unlike Elon, I don't say that my own cultural identity should be the only one that defines a certain geographic area. I don't tell people of a different ethnicity to get out, or support their deportation, legal or not. I also see nothing wrong with humanity being "some sort of soup," Like Elon complains about. In fact, that's what the Great American Melting Pot is supposed to be all about. Diversity and intermarriage makes us stronger. The Melting Pot is for everyone, not just white people. I think its safe to conclude that Elon doesn't believe in the Great American Melting Pot, or any melting pot, for that matter, and that means he doesn't truly believe in America.

It is further proof he is a Nazi.

And the irony of Elon Musk calling for freedom of speech is delicious. We all know, based on how he's run Twitter/X, that when he says "freedom of speech," what he really means is freedom of speech for himself and his cronies. Anyone who criticizes Elon in a substantive way gets their account suspended or otherwise tampered with. We've seen it multiple times. Elon Musk saying he supports freedom of speech is like, well...

...like a Nazi saying he supports Jews.

Eric

**