This will be the first in what I think will be 3 parts. The rise of Trump laid bare major splits in the country. These splits have ended friendships and even families. Moreover, based on what occurred in DC recently, an actual split of the country is not as far fetched as it was prior to 2016. I think that people who have been subject to the mainstream media narrative have a really distorted view of how Trump rose even if it was a squeaker. This part of the series is going to explain, at least for how I saw it, the rise of Trump. Sure there are and were "white supremacists" who want and wanted the return of the white man to power but really, this is 2016, they are not anywhere near as numerous as they were in the 1900s. Just as I have the running days since Trump has been in office without re-introducing slavery, the constant hyperbole regularly used by Democrats should be seen as the fear-mongering distraction that it is
You cannot understand the rise of Trump without looking back to the Obama presidency. Just as the Obama presidency was made possible by the abject failure of GW Bush. As said in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So we start with looking at the Obama presidency.
Obama came to power after the "war everywhere" administration of Bush. The Democratic party then was anti-war and hadn't handed the reigns to various communists and socialists. So at that time I was supportive of the DNC (even with issues with certain policies which would occur with any party). But the Obama admin was not anti-war. While I continued to be anti-war and anti-American imperialism, fellow blacks who were up to that point anti-war, suddenly became OK with American aggression. Obama, unlike Bush, had the Somali pirates killed. That was early in his first term in office. I said to myself, isn't it strange that the first black president is the one to escalate the confrontation with [poor] Africans to killing?
Fellow "pro black" and "free the land" black folks collectively shrugged their shoulders and said "meh, if Obama thought it was a good idea, then I'm good with it".
To say I was alarmed by this sudden turnabout is an understatement. Honestly, I disconnected from a lot of people over that. Reason being that I can't deal with that type of hypocrisy. Look, if you say you believe in X and you consistently promote X regardless of who is or is not doing X, then even if I disagree with you, I can respect that because at least your being consistent with what you state to believe. Also, if you say you believe X and then you change to believe A and you explain with facts and data as to why you changed your mind, then I can respect that too. Why? Because we are all subject to failure so recognizing that one could be wrong and move to correct that position is admirable and a sign of high character.
But when one changes your position solely on the basis of "I'm the captain now", which is what happened to a LOT of black folk when Obama got into office, it is odious, LOW CHARACTER and unworthy of respect.
So Obama was doing weekly (or daily) kill lists which sometimes included innocents and those not on a field of battle, went without commentary from the anti-war types.
Then Obama teamed up with the French to overthrow the government of Libya.
Once again, the first black president of the US, who has an African father, conspired with a European country to overthrow an African government.
Not a peep from 'Free the land" black folks. Well no, there were some who had something to say. But these were few and far between.
So at this point I lost all respect for so called black leadership. Done. And for the regular black on the street I was annoyed and dismayed by the sudden "pro black" attitudes when these same people would say "Chancellor who?' and "Walter What?" if you started asking them about foundational history texts that were required reading during my awakening.
Turning to the domestic front there were two, three things that I believe set up Trump.
The Ferguson Effect:
The media and many Democrats went all in on the idea that Michael Brown was "murdered" by Officer Wilson. All the available evidence said otherwise, including testimony by his buddy and a black eyewitness who actually feared for his life and that of his mother. Yet this narrative continued to get pushed. There were black people that actually called for lynchings of white people.
But at this point it became impermissible to discuss black crime or facts of black crime and specifically how it informs the number of blacks incarcerated and shot by police.
As a result of the false narratives pushed by left media, a few police officers in NYC and Dallas were killed. What did Democrats say? "Well if the police had checked their privilege..."
Really?
Imagine being white and seeing these obvious lies being broadcast.
The Rising Fascism:
When the state of North Carolina declared they weren't going along with the Tranny bullshit corporations lined up to financially blackmail the state. The Obama admin was cool with that.
When the ACA demanded that businesses pay for contraception and abortions even if they have conscientious objections, it was all hands on deck to punish those companies.
This marked a serious growth in the cancel culture that had been percolating across the country. Before this we had random, usually ex Bush cabinet members being uninvited from graduation ceremonies and things like that. But this was really the first high visibility event where the state and corporations joined hands to punish a state for doing "democracy" simply because they didn't approve of the outcome. In other words, corporations openly engaged in economic blackmail against it's enemies. And the alarming thing was that the left was OK with it. Prior to Obama, the left was very wary of corporate power. They were particularly wary of corporate power to use money to influence or direct "democracy" but the Obama era saw this change and the left embraced corporate "cooperation" with state apparatus.
Government By The People For The Foreigner:
The coup de grace though, IMO, was the transformation of the US government into a agent of foreign nationals, referred to "immigrants". In a sane country, immigration is limited and immigrants are extremely grateful to have been allowed to enter and stay. People not in the country legally live in fear of being found and deported, as they should be. Trespassers should ALWAYS be worried about being caught.
This was a stated position of Democrats (even though they actually didn't mean it) as recently as Clinton.
That the government should exist for the benefit of citizens first and legal resident aliens second was never ever a point of contention prior to the Bush administration. The Obama presidency took this to a new level.
That there were over 11 million illegal aliens living in the US (and it's FAR LARGER than 11 million) was a abject failure of government. The mass job displacement, which depressed wages and had an outsize effect on black Americans should have been something that Obama and orgs like the CBC should have been concerned about. Nope.
Why was this being pushed? Because, as I've discussed before, immigration is and was a weapon. The point of allowing high levels of both legal and illegal immigration for Democrats is to solidify one party rule where they already rule (NY, CA) and to change the demographics of the places they don't currently rule (GA, VA). Democrats cannot win elections, nationally, if white people dominate the population centers of various states. Hence by shipping in immigrants over the long term, their children are automatically citizens who will vote largely Democratic, As the latest election showed (we're going to set voting irregularities aside) Many Democratic state wins were actually large population cities surrounded by red. That is, the state is red, but the cities are blue. But that's for another post.
Looking For A Voice:
So with these issues (and certainly others) in the minds of not left leaning people. When the primaries started two people shot to prominence for almost the same reasons; Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
The reason for these two men rising was that they were seen as outsiders (though Bernie was in office, as a "Social-Democrat" he was seen as an outsider). Both candidates were calling the government corrupt and they were both right. The issue was that their solutions came from two different starting points. Bernie being a socialist essentially wanted to gut the rich and, importantly get them off the government teat (and vice versa). Trump declared that there was a swamp and that swamp needed to be drained. As you can seen both men had in common that the government was broken. Hence the rise of Bernie Bros and MAGA. This isn't a post on Bernie so I won't get into his fall.
Trump has always been media savvy. He knew how to get attention and keep it. He got free publicity for the entirety of his run. What got him support was his willingness to say the things that were politically verboten such as the crime of illegal aliens. It doesn't matter how little crime you think illegal aliens commit, they shouldn't be here committing any. Period. This shouldn't even be controversial. It certainly wasn't controversial when Barbara Jordan was in congress. The DACA and DAPA that was created, unconstitutionally, by Obama was not only a slap in the face of citizens but of those resident aliens who had done everything by the book. But we already know WHY these things were done: demographics.
So Trump's pitch was that America was being plundered and "fake media" was enabling this plundering. What was needed was an America First policy which returned the government to benefiting it's citizens first. What's most disturbing thing about this was that it needed to be said. What sane government doesn't operate for the benefit of it's citizens first? A sane Republican and Democratic party would not have had a Trump in it because his platform was already presumed. Let me repeat. Trump's platform, as recently as say the Clinton administration would have been met by "Of course. What else you got?"
Of course Mr.s Clinton helped by calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables". This was the first time in memory that a major candidate for one of the major parties openly insulted half the population. There wasn't even the pretense that Clinton was trying to be president of Americans. No, she was the president for the people who she approved of. The rest were deplorable people who should do as they are told.
Had Clinton simply gone after Trump the man and said HE was deplorable. That HE was immoral. Then that would have been different. I know people who feel that way about Trump. If that is important to them then who am I to tell them different. Some people will not support any leader, no matter how effective if they see them as immoral. Others are not looking for moral leadership from a president. Each are, in my opinion, fair considerations. But to say that those that Trump appeals to ARE deplorable is an entirely different matter. That means those that hold to free speech are deplorable, Those who hold the 2nd Amendment rights are deplorable. Those who believe in the enforcement of immigration law are deplorable (again, a position that was standard DNC until Obama). If you insult the candidate I'm partial to, I may change my mind, But if you insult ME, then no way no how you get my vote.
An Assist From Antifa:
One of the big things that helped Trump was Antifa's antics. The assaults on people attending Trump rallies along with escalating deplatforming of persons who though "conservative" didn't even like Trump soured a lot of people. The freedom to speak and assemble without being assaulted is a foundational concept. For those who hold to that concept every time they see a speaker violently opposed, they gravitate to the abused speaker and those who support him. Certainly, the more I saw this political violence and cancel culture the less I supported Democrats. That Democrats did not come out against this behavior but instead insisted on called the abused white supremacists and the like turned me off.
That E-Mail Server:
The antics around Clinton's e-mail server put off a lot of people as well. It was clear to anyone who had principles that had anyone other than Clinton did what she did, they would be in jail. Clinton was example number one of The Swamp that Trump had campaigned on. Clinton was already not liked by a lot of people but that server issue, I believe, put Trump over the top; if barely. Certainly, Comey's non-indictment after laying out the evidence of actual law breaking didn't help Clinton. Of course, Sanders candidate wouldn't have had that baggage and I believe would have beaten Trump.
So these are the general reasons I see for why space had been created for a candidate Trump. It was 16 years in the making. That is the failure of Bush that seriously damaged the Republican brand *among Republicans and the excesses of Obama which unnecessarily inflamed racial issues, particularly in his second term that opened the way for Trump. The media was shocked by Trump's win in large part because they did not and DO NOT understand half of the country. In fact I would say more than half because I believe that while many Democrats vote liberal they live lives that are far more moderate than the party has become.
Trump won, statistically speaking, due to former Obama voters in the mid-west who flipped to Trump. This fact is something to keep in mind for later parts of this series.
