The 2016 Election is a hostage situation. Trump is the gun.

Why even a lesser-evil liberal/progressive should vote Trump

Years ago, I read a comment in which someone used the descriptor “this hostage situation of an article”. I enjoyed it so much that I adopted it, and have on occasion described awful things as a hostage situation… but I wasn’t entirely sure what I meant by it. When I describe this election as a hostage situation, I know exactly what I mean by it. The DNC has a gun to the head of voters — and Trump is that gun. By being unwilling to accept a Trump presidency, we are sacrificing our leverage. I am certain that of every grotesque thing put on display in this act of terrorism we call an election, this is the most important point.

It might seem farfetched to believe the DNC can have such control over the GOP and their voters. I’ll substantiate:

Let’s first look at this email from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. You’ll need to tab to “attachments” and download the PDF. (Thank you for your fine work Julian Assange).

Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate. We have outlined three strategies to obtain our goal:
1) Force all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election;
2) Undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have to make inroads to our coalition or independents;
3) Muddy the waters on any potential attack lodged against HRC.
Pied Piper Candidates
Ted Cruz • Donald Trump • Ben Carson

Wait, Pied Piper candidates? What did they mean by this?

In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.

Let me take a second to point out that the contents of the above email, again from HRC’s campaign chair, reflect (with some updates) a document previously released by WikiLeaks, but not from Hillary’s campaign. From the DNC themselves. Also, that this email was sent BEFORE Donald Trump or Ben Carson entered the race.

Okay well that doesn’t sound great, but they’re the Democrats… how much power do they really have to influence the GOP and their electorate? Well to follow me on this you’ll need to accept the premise that the DNC and the HRC campaign collude with many major media outlets to control narrative.

They bark commands at media heads.

https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/785206934140059648

They place stories, coordinate leaks, most likely including the conveniently timed “Grab them by the Pussy” bombshell.

They and their PACs do social research and use social psychology principles to train candidates and media pundits to “persuade” the public. Many media figures have had positions in the Democratic party, and many guests and experts are directly working with the HRC campaign. ABC’s chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos was a leading member of Bill Clinton’s campaign, and often acted as his de facto Press Secretary.

Here’s a screenshot from the site of The Franklin Forum, who receive obscene amounts of money from Hillary’s Correct The Record campaign, which is David Brock’s online propaganda wing that mostly pays online commenters to feign Hillary support and spread disinformation with regularly distributed talking points.

I’m honestly not even sure where to stop with the evidence of media collusion with the DNC & HRC campaign as a part of a multi-pronged propaganda effort that includes intentionally misleading and manipulating the whole of society with psychologically persuasive narratives.

If you can stand to stick with this a little longer, I’d like to show just a small sample of wildly hyperbolic headlines that I see routinely spread by the majority of the left — many of whom are my friends and people whose views and values I’ve respected for years. There has been an idea, a “meme” spread that the GOP is the party of fear. That they use the ignorant, irrational fears of their base to manipulate them into voting against their own interests. These same people seem to be terribly blind to the ways in which this is almost exclusively what’s been happening to them. There has been talk over the past few years that the religion of the left is antiracism. Bigotry of all kinds is the blasphemy of the leading ideology. It is such that being in proximity of holding a view that has any relation to a view held by one who could conceivably be Republican is evidence of the thought crime of bigotry. In this worldview, bigotry against whites who are viewed as the greatest exporter of racism is permissible or even in some cases considered an obligation. This is an article in and of itself, but I felt that context was necessary for what I’m going to show you.

Fear
Very proud of calling sensational op-eds “journalism”
Fear. Shame.
Fear. Social proof
Sensational fear.
Thank you for Correcting the Record! Fear. Shame. Sensationalism
Fear
Is that some bigotry and shame I see?
Fear!
Shameless bigotry

Again, this could go on endlessly, and believe it or not the vast majority of what I’ve shared here (with the notable exception of the Sam Harris tweet) have been collected within the past 4 days. I could have been collecting stuff like this for months. I’m disappointed that I don’t have a vast archive of this kind of thing, because I easily could. I didn’t even cover in the above the baseless McCarthy era Russia fears, the attempts to tie Trump to Russia and stir up fears of a Russian conspiracy to hijack our government. Again, this is based on little to no evidence, and people simply take it on faith that the government is simply sharing their honest expertise and findings.

Does the above convince you, perhaps, that there is a broad effort by the media to push specific persuasive narratives that drive reluctant but moral liberals to vote for someone with record unpopularity? Narratives that are directly in line with DNC talking points, and echoed across the majority of major media outlets? This truly is a red pill scenario, in which once you understand the principles at work it becomes impossible not to see the manipulations of media on an almost constant basis. Particularly when you yourself have done the legwork to know where they’re being dishonest, where they’re taking things out of context and intentionally framing them so as to persuade target demographics.

Why do they need to do all of this? If Trump is so disastrously terrible, how is it that they can’t easily defeat him with facts, and with confidence? How is it that damning evidence against him seems to be timed to release at the same time as damning evidence against HRC and the DNC?

It is because voters are not being represented by their parties.

More than half of voters are doing so out of fear, not because they are represented by their party.
Nearly 50% of voters aren’t represented by the two party system
via 538, Clinton/Trump unprecedented unfavorables and lack of trust

The above stats demonstrate that the largest voting demographic has no representation in the two party system. I also am not going to attempt to convince you to avoid lesser-evilism and vote third party, because it IS futile. Not simply because of the media blackout on independents or the debate commision’s exclusionary rules… but because of First Past the Post voting.

If you’ve accepted the premise, let’s continue. None of the above is meant as a defense for Trump, nor is it an endorsement of him. In fact, everything I’m going to say here works even if you’re a very liberal person — and in fact the idea that he is a gun by which the DNC holds us hostage can only be seen as a condemnation. Though I will say I don’t think he’s a fraction as bad as he’s portrayed. It is that his lifestyle and his very human and sometimes grotesque character flaws are extremely vulnerable to sensationalism and attack vs. highly and professionally polished politicians who have lived their entire lives concealing their humanity so that they can stand on stage and lie to you without fear of scrutiny.

Yes, Trump is a hyperbolic, serial liar with no regard for facts or exactness. That, however, does not at all frighten me. You can see Trump coming. His lies are a freight train. The deceptions of the political establishment, and let me now clarify that I do not at all find this to be a problem unique to the DNC or Democrats, is much more insidious. You do not see it coming, and you do not know when you’re under its spell. That is the intention of the broad approach to manufacturing an inauthentic version of the world for your mind to inhabit. I’m unable to find it now, and will update when I grab a source or debunk (perhaps one of you can provide), but there is a document in which Hillary Clinton discusses a strategy of psychological warfare against terrorism for the FBI/CIA to use that is patently similar to what we’re experiencing in this election.

Before I present my grand argument, a quick summary of events:

>The DNC ran a candidate with numerous scandals and record breaking issues with untrustworthiness and unpopularity.

>They did so on a platform their voters did not agree with

>They arguably stole the primary from Bernie, and used similar psychological warfare tactics in their efforts

>While doing so, they lowered the bar for themselves by ensuring the people had no other options. Third parties are non-viable, so all that was necessary to do was promote someone they could easily convince voters is simply not an option

>the HRC campaign held on to near campaign-ending material, such as the “Grab Them by the Pussy” video, and timed its release to minimize their damage instead of ending his campaign early on — ensuring no competition arises but that he cannot win

This is a hostage situation. Trump is the gun, and the DNC is holding it. We are in a system by which people have no leverage to demand representation or accountability from those that claim to represent us.

I’ve frequently seen comparisons between Trump and Brexit, and I agree with the comparison — but not because I believe we both have an uprising of hateful racists with a nihilistic disregard for their own well being, but because I believe that first world governments have learned how to peacefully maintain an agenda that is in opposition to the wishes of the people despite a supposed democracy. The people of England wanted sovereignty, they wanted to be able to decide for themselves what was best for their country and those living in it. The power structure responded, saying that their decision was one between either accepting their powerlessness against the wishes of a government that does not regard their lives as particularly important so long as relative peace is maintained — or financial and reputational suicide.

In such a situation where there are seemingly only bleak choices, it must be that removing the government’s leverage by being willing to accept the consequences of seemingly suicidal recklessness is the only hope for a positive future, even if disastrous in the (relatively) short term. This is the same principle we use when we say that our government doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. There are some forces that leave you only the choice between accepting whatever atrocity they have the power to commit, or forever inviting them and others to take whatever they want from you.

When you empower extortionists, from where do you expect incremental progress? You’re handing over the only leverage you have as a citizen and simply placing faith in people who place you as their lowest priority — otherwise they could earn your vote honestly. Only by voting for the greater evil and accepting what consequences may come can we hold any power in the modern world.

I’ll conclude with a quote from Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, who has released only 1% of the Podesta emails and will continue to release for the next 9 weeks.

What the Clinton campaign is doing at the moment is trying to say, “Well, OK, yes, maybe we’re connected to arms dealers and to Saudi Arabia, and, yes, maybe we subverted the integrity of the Democratic primaries, etc., etc., but you will just have to swallow that. You will just have to swallow that, or else you will get Donald Trump.” That’s a form of extortion. And — well, it is. It is a form of extortion. And you can’t permit — it’s very important not to allow the political process to suffer from extortion, or even yourself to be susceptible to extortion. One says one has certain principles. If these principles are not followed, then there is a price to be paid. And that creates a standard and a general deterrent. And I think it is important for those people who feel that their principles have been violated, in the way that the Democratic primary process has been run, or how Chelsea Manning has been imprisoned for 35 years and tortured, or the Espionage Act crackdowns, or many other things, to go, “OK, well, there’s a cost to violating principles,” even if — even if there’s also a cost to yourself, even if you don’t like the risk, which seems to be getting very small, but the risk that Donald Trump becomes president, that one has to have a line somewhere. Otherwise, as each election cycle proceeds, you are pushed further and further into the corner.

Thank you to my friends at DNC Leaks who have been committed to abandoning partisan politics in favor of seeking the authentic truth. Thank you to Assange, to WikiLeaks, to Guccifer2.0, to Edward Snowden, to Chelsea Manning, and to anyone else who has been committed to showing us the crimes our government has committed against us, no matter the personal cost.