There will be no obituary for the liberal narrative

If the progressive / media narrative was to be totally obliterated, what would that look like? We on the right spend a lot of time deconstructing the propaganda, with the unspoken expectation that, if we keep at it, if we keep exposing the logical failures of their position, and provide a more internally consistent depiction of reality, that eventually the truth will be unavoidable. It's a common theme in movies where a character finally realizes the error their ways and comes to the right side of things.

But it's naive to think we're going to have some hero's victory moment. The left is not going to come forward and admit they were wrong. The best we can hope for is quiet sidesteps. The people who were loudly liberal will become quieter. The people who were once quietly liberal will start to become quietly conservative. And the people who were quietly conservative become loudly conservative. The over-simplifies the dynamics, but the point is we aren't going to see a headline in the New York Times to the effect of Liberal Narrative Crushed, Conservatives Vindicated. The transition won't be broadcast in the literal sense, but it will be apparent to the informed observer.

We're there. Perhaps I'm not the most informed observer, but I'm calling it. What has happened this week is the spasmic death throes of the mortally wounded liberal narrative. They just went all-in on a shitty hand and lost the bluff. Yes, they went all in. They followed the kill-shot playbook. First, the New York Times runs an opinion piece suggesting that the actions of the Trump team constitute treason. This is the left's strongest possible move. The New York Times is still considered to be the paper of record. The left pretends they are a credible organization that refrains from hyperbole, and many moderates just assume that it must be so. When the NYT runs something like that, the argument is if it's in the highly respectable New York Times, there must be some validity to it. Then the rest of the mainstream media gets license to run with it as if it was credible. There's a cost to all this. They erode the credibility of their supposedly sober institutions, like the New York Times, which weakens their ability to use the tactic in the future. There are two motivations for this behavior: irrationality (get Drumpf at any cost!) and framing the public discourse. Like a magician who misdirects away from the trick, the liberals do not want the media to have to focus on the activities of the Democrats so they distract at any cost. They are buying time, trying to run out the clock. What they are buying is weeks and months of narrative control, but they are paying for it with institutional credibility that takes years and decades to build. In the long run it's a losing strategy. It's like the corporation who buys out a popular company just to own the brand name. They cut quality but maintain the prices that people will pay for the brand name. The corporation sucks the life out of the brand like a vampire. The left is willing to cannibalize its own institutions, rather than backing off to rest and regroup.

That's the dynamic generally. Established media like the New York Times take on substantial risk when they run with uber-partisan treason-bait hyperbole. But in this case there is so much more downside than the normal situation of being called out for false reporting and, as we've seen lately, having to issue retractions or even sacrifice staff. This move left a huge gaping flank against the group they're ultimately trying to protect and promote: the liberal elite. Here is just some of the blowback out of this. It's so severe one wonder is the Trump team didn't leak the DJTJ emails themselves.

• Reopens Hillary's collusion with Ukraine. She's done just exactly what Trump's team may have shown interest in doing. It's like berating a guy for showing interest in killing his wife (but not doing it) when you killed your own wife. (Standard Alinksy tactic.)
• Reopens Hillary's actual collusion with Russia
• Reminds us that Hillary's team took a no-ethics approach to receiving any helpful information, such as when they accepted debate questions from CNN.
• Opens an investigation into why this Russian lawyer, whose social media shows routine anti-Trump material and her participation in anti-Trump events in the US, was seen associated with Democratic officials (even sitting with them in Congress) at around the same time she was supposedly collaborating to help Trump steal the election.
• Opens an inquiry into why the Obama's Justice Department allowed this Russian spy into the US without a valid visa under "extraordinary circumstances." The only circumstance here is the insane level of circumstantial evidence.
• Opens the question of how the New York Times got DJTJ's emails. Was he hacked? Did a government agency acquire them and leak them to the press, which they've been doing nonstop since before Trump even took office. Which reminds us, in case people had forgetten because of all the media distractions, Barrack Obama was wiretapping a presidential candidate, and then the president elect.

Not only does this expose each of these six incidents to public scrutiny, each far more significant than the Trump's decision to see if the lawyer really had serious dirt on Clinton corruption, but it might have actually helped us tie together the Democrats' nefarious plotline. It seems highly likely that the Russian lawyer was a honeypot set by the left so that the Obama administration could justify a FISA warrant against Trump. I posted DJTJ's emails a couple days ago, and the part from the Russian lawyer reads very much like, "I am high level Russian government lawyer with top secret information regarding Hillary Clinton and would like to visit you from Moscow to rig American capitalist election."

So there's all that, but even more significant has been the public response to this. I've still got a ton of liberals on facebook, but I didn't see much at all about the DJTJ emails. This was being billed as a smoking gun by none other than the New York Times. The left came out swinging hard and their own people kinda of balked at it. Maybe they're getting as sick of this shit as we are. Then the right responded with the obvious contradictions (like Clinton doing almost exactly what Trump didn't actually do) and all the other points listed above, and the story got dropped like a hot potato. I don't think we've seen a major fake news story die in two days like this. 

This is all they have left. You don't throw those kinds of hail mary's unless you're completely desperate and the clock is running out. Today my google news feed said nothing about what was the biggest and virtually only story in the news just two days ago. Instead, I saw something about Sessions Russia connections (lol) and a story about how the CBO says Trump's budget won't balance. They're either going back to old news that already went no where (seriously waiting to start hearing about tax returns again soon) or giving, gasp, valid and deserved criticism of Trump's policies. And in this case, one that edges on the side of being a conservative argument. Ye gods! Is the insanity over? You can bet it isn't, but the liberal attack machine has been defeated this round. They've lost the Dump Trump crusade, and paid a mighty price for the war. Now it's time to start talking about this Obama wire-tapping and Democratic election rigging.