Pondering the nature of presidency. I saw a picture of the president of Argentina and thought “Huh, so that’s Argentina.” We stereotype countries like that. I heard that Bolsonaro was a torturer in the old days and people knew that about him when they voted for him. See the way I refer to “they”. That’s “them”. It’s “their” people, “they’re” the Brazilians. (If enough people get murdered in your city you might start liking the idea of a torturer.) Anyway, people stereotype us like that too, the left doesn’t like that they see us as “a people like that” at least at first glance. Other peoples thinking that’s who we are. Impolite is probably the most accurate way to describe how they see Trump. Many will say it’s that he’s dishonest- really, that’s just their polite way of calling him impolite. The MSM is polite, and he attacks them. That’s probably what this term will be remembered for if I had to guess. Presidential terms are battles over what the truth is. Bush’s truth was that it’s moral to invade places across the world that are a danger (we now know the less exoteric dimension of that), and Obama’s truth was that black people are not necessarily irresponsible criminals (some of us know the less exoteric dimension of that).
So there are two different levels to Trump vs. the MSM. He calls them liars and they try to smear him, that’s one level. The next level is what he calls them liars about. He doesn’t often make this explicit, mostly just dismissing him, while they in response don’t really get into the philosophy of it either, choosing instead to caricature the man with ad hominem rather than the ideas he represents. What does the MSM represent? It’s actually close to what Bush and particularly Obama represented, and Trump is an outsider in this sense. The way I think of Bush is as being concerned with people outside of the US. The MSM is similar in their pro-immigrant stance. Biden obviously is indistinguishable from the MSM in this and in the “black people are not more frequently irresponsible criminals” idea. The present-day republicans won’t disagree with this idea explicitly although the empiricism and statistics confirm it, hence I accuse them of an inherent liberalism, or as being their own kind of Democrats. The republicans do though seem to be against the Bush-like idea that we should concern ourselves with other countries, i.e. “America-Firstism”. Republicans are anti-Semitic in this sense in a way, leaving poor splinter Israel among those Muslim nazis that hate it. The basic question in contemporary politics seems to be whether the US is a charity center. Think of when I saw the Argentinian president and thought Huh that’s Argentina- Trump represents the idea that No the US isn’t a charity center. You can think of it this way- Are you going to volunteer at a soup kitchen 7 days a week? At what point will you need to have to visit a soup kitchen yourself? Don’t you want to live your life? For many leftists that is their life, and with the corporacracy the way it is, many get paid for it rather than volunteering strictly speaking. The UAE deal is a way Trump has volunteered at the soup kitchen, he volunteers a lot more than leftists give him credit for, and a lot more than I’d personally like. A lot of that is probably optics, given our soup kitchen state religion’s power. Which brings me to my main point- the stereotyping of presidents can be misleading if your research and thought about them is minimal. There’s are different layers to Trump that even people in the US aren’t aware of, similar to Argentina’s and Brazil’s I’m sure. What confuses a lot of people is that the president here is condensed into a person, a face, so it’s easier to say Huh so that’s what America is, when the reality is that we live in a “tyranny of the soup kitchen”, mandatory, enforced charity. The MSM, academy, etc etc are all in lockstep in support of this, they’re just not one face like the president is, they’re scattered, fragmented, and so this can distract people from seeing that the soup kitchen mentality is king.