Am I Insane? Part II

I really wanna know, y’all.  Because I’m 100% convinced of something that seemingly everyone else in the whole world views the complete opposite way.

I say they’re stuck in the old paradigms — they don’t realize the world has shifted.

They… well, they don’t say anything, because this is a blog with about four readers, two of whom only come here to tell me how wrong I am.  But if they ever did read RC, they’d think I’m building an elaborate delusion bubble — one billion Chinese can’t be wrong, &c.

Anyway, it’s going to be clear soon enough who’s right.

That “Allahpundit” guy at Hot Air, re: rumors that Fox’s Roger Ailes is out to get Teh Donald:

Both Trump and Ailes concluded independently that they have more to lose by waging this war than by reaching detente. For Ailes, Trump is a threat to Fox’s populist cred. Their whole gimmick is that they’re giving you fair and balanced news that left-leaning establishment outfits won’t; now Trump is telling conservatives that Fox is part of the establishment itself. That’s awful for the brand.

That part is half right, half bullshit of the purest ray serene.  The supposedly-fair-and-balanced, but really-mouthpiece-for-the-GOP, network attacking a guy that would win the Republican nomination in a landslide if it were held today IS bad for the network’s brand.

It is, however, fantastic for Trump’s brand.  And here’s why I keep thinking I’m crazy, because nobody seems to see the 800 lb gorilla in the room:  Trump’s shtick is attacking The Establishment.  A huge media conglomerate like Fox is, by every conceivable definition, part of The Establishment.  I’m half tempted to ask Morgan to put up something on his site about this and attribute it to George Washington, just so his fucking Cuttlefish trolls can chime in with their patented circle-jerk-on-the-dictionary routine.

The Media is The Establishment.  Fox is part of The Media.  How fuckin’ hard is that?

Look! An 800 lb. gorilla!  Am I the only one seeing this?

Look! An 800 lb. gorilla! Am I the only one seeing this?

Allahpundit continues:

For Trump, meanwhile, sneering at Megyn Kelly has some downside with no real upside. It makes him look petty to still be whining about the debate three weeks later, especially at the expense of the most widely respected member of the Fox primetime (and arguably the most influential woman news anchor on TV right now). Even Ingraham, a loyal Trump defender, is on him here for wasting his time picking fights with Kelly when he could be talking about immigration instead. There’s just no money in this feud for either side, unless/until Trump is finally ready to do an interview with Kelly herself. There’ll be some money in that, I dare say.

Au contraire.  Sneering at Megyn Kelly — and Laura Ingraham, and whoever else — is an integral part of the shtick, because they are The Establishment.  Let’s break him out again:

Here, maybe this will help:

2013-02-08-SadGorillaGivingFingerI just can’t grok how people who are so perceptive about the other side’s failings have zero understanding of our own.  You know how Our Betters, the Liberals, are forever exempting themselves from their own rules?  Like, they crow about how they’re all tolerant and inclusive and whatnot, then throw out everything and everyone that doesn’t agree with them 100%?  Or, they assume that if you raise taxes on something, people will still keep doing it, because nobody responds to incentives?  It’s infuriating, ain’t it?

We are doing the same damn thing, y’all.  We’re somehow pretending that Fox isn’t part of The Establishment, even though they’re the one and only mainstream “conservative” news chanel in the entire world.  We’re somehow pretending that Megyn Kelly isn’t what Rachel Maddow is to them — a mascot, a flagship, whatever you want to call it.  And we somehow can’t grasp — and this baffles me above all else — that The Media, of which Fox is a major part, cannot, can NOT, deep-six Trump in any conventional way.  If they attack him, they prove his point.  If they “no platform” him, they lose a gazillion eyeballs.  Indeed, the only way The Media can sink him is by devoting every single second of airtime to him — following him around with a camera and an open mic 24/7 and waiting for him to do or say something unforgiveably egregious.  And they won’t do that, because they hate him, even as he makes their ratings explode.

Lastly, there’s this:

There’s just no money in this feud for either side, unless/until Trump is finally ready to do an interview with Kelly herself. There’ll be some money in that, I dare say.

Dude, you’re clearly not grasping the core concept here. Trump would be seventeen kinds of stupid to even be in the same building as Megyn Kelly before he secures the nomination.  At that point, sure, make nicey-nice (by which I mean, demand “how ya gonna help me beat the Dems?”). But sitting down with major media figures — conventionally known as The Enemy to anyone remotely conservative — is something ordinary politicians do, and the minute people think Trump’s just another politician, he’s toast.

That’s my read, anyway.  What do y’all think?  Do I have a case, or should I send for the men in the white coats?

Loading Likes...

5 thoughts on “Am I Insane? Part II

  1. Jay Carter

    What was Donald Trump to do?

    Stand there and become Megyn’s personal punching bag?

    On the streets of Queens NY, (where I grew up) I was taught to expect a reply if I “started something”.

    Megyn Kelly gets no sympathy from me.

    She started it!

    And payback’s a bitch.

    Jay Carter

  2. RW

    I don’t watch TV. I’ll go to Ace or RealClear for topical news items. I used to read NRO, but rarely do so now. I discover new blogs (like this one) which are, as Z Man says, Badder Thoughts. So I have been gradually radicalized since about 2006.

    Is this just a spiraling trend – Hanson to Fernandez to Ace to Z to Derb to Severian et al? I don’t know, but the realization that Conservative Inc. exists, and that it is pretty much Kabuki theater like the Institutionals, has been growing stronger and stronger.

    So what does one do with one’s anger at the Left, the “Right”, and above all, the Media? Is The Donald a legitimate voting option for changing the downward trajectory? I thought voting was finished in this country. I thought it was just a matter of waiting for the crash and the darkness. Human nature dictates that I would like to believe otherwise, but optimism is very hard to come by.

    Are you crazy? No, but that doesn’t mean that you’re prescient. But I’d like to think that you’re on to something, because just about anything would beat the present malaise and this seemingly irreversible decline.

  3. severian Post author

    No, but that doesn’t mean that you’re prescient

    That’s what I mean. Everything that’s happening now has happened before, and it shouldn’t be too hard to spot. If you have a basic college (graduation year < c.1990) or high school (grad year < c.1970) education, this is History 101 stuff. It should all be obvious... ...but it's NOT obvious, not to a whole heck of a lot of people whose intelligence I respect. Which is why I wonder if I'm crazy. I say the Whigs blew up in one election cycle, which is why the GOP is dead in the water... but I'm assured that can never, ever happen. I point out that "old left + old right = fascism," and I'm told that this is conspiracy nonsense, even though it's basic European history. I say that anger is the primary motivator of the electorate, but I'm assured that we're all quite rational, and that cooler heads are sure to prevail... though nobody can point out a single "cooler head." Somebody's way wrong, I know that. And since there's one of me and a zillion of them, I naturally want to go with the law of averages and assume it's me. But I just can't do it... Thanks for stopping by, by the way. Always great to have new readers.

    1. RW

      The study of history has lost the position it used to occupy, don’t you think? Otherwise intelligent folks have given up on attempting to read current trends in terms of historical patterns.

      I might read a historical text and think “yes, it’s true that human nature is basically the same through the ages and that some universal causes and effects can be identified as they occur and reoccur, but people in the 17th century did not look at the world around them exactly the same as we currently do”. There were huge milestones which fundamentally altered the way that Man views himself in relation to the world around him: the Reformation, the Enlightenment, etc. But this doesn’t invalidate studying history to help understand the present.

      Perhaps the arrogance of the elite makes them think that they’re so stinking new and wonderfully improved that they are now post-historical. I wouldn’t bet on that and your analysis appears sound to me. If you disperse flour in the air inside a building and then strike a match you get a big explosion. But it’s just flour; can’t happen here, right? I’m too old for explosions or apocalypses in any regard. It’s like the final scene in the movie remake of The Thing: the two surviving characters eye each other with distrust. One asks the other “what do we do now?” The other responds “let’s just sit here and wait awhile . . . see what happens”.

      1. Severian

        I agree that history has been marginalized. That tracks pretty closely, I think, to the degree it has been “academicized.” Because we can now point out the six million ways the 16th century differed from our own, we regard 16th century people as some kind of alien life form, who have nothing at all to teach us….

        …and if we go by the products of a typical college history department, that’s right — Left Handed Hemophiliac Seamstresses in Amsterdam, 1594-1596, really IS worthless outside of pure antiquarian interest. Meanwhile, nobody points out that formerly empowered people who have been rendered powerless all tend to react the same way, be it in Imperial Rome, or 15th century Amsterdam, or the Sung Dynasty, or Weimar Germany, or 21st century America.

        That last is a problem, too. We’ve always regarded ourselves as God’s chosen people — it can’t happen here, whatever “it” is. But it can, and it will, because we’re just as human as everyone else.

Comments are closed.