June 4, 2016

Angelina for Trump

This item from Blind Gossip says that Angelina Jolie "is actually a Donald Trump supporter, and is working behind the scenes to get him elected!"

Why?

"In her opinion, electing Trump will lead to less racial divisions and better economic opportunities in the United States… as well as a safer environment for disadvantaged women and children around the world."

Supposing she takes a more public role, this could help the campaign in several ways:

- Boost support among women (especially unattached women), young people, and Californians / West Coasters. YouGov polls suggest that she's the most admired woman around the world, and probably more so among these three groups that Trump does not already have a lock on.

- Provide a surrogate to deflate Hillary's support among women, particularly over her intimidation of the victims of Bill's sexual assaults and rapes, so they wouldn't go public and ruin the Clintons' ambitions. One of her main causes is preventing sexual violence around the world. How could Hillary of all people contribute to that, especially when she takes large bribes from the worst offenders like Saudi Arabia?

- Re-focus the concern about refugees toward allowing them to stay in their homelands, rather than struggling to absorb them here. She seems to view the refugee crisis more as a wound that must be healed -- ideally, the populations would return to their roots -- rather than a ripe opportunity to diversify first-world countries in order to lower labor costs for the corporate bottom line.

Trump has said the goal is to keep their homelands safe, and Angelina knows that the main cause of destabilization has been the Establishment's wars, which warhawk Hillary would continue unabated. He's also said the goal is to set up safety zones so that they can return to their homes as soon as possible, both to keep their families together but because nobody wants to live in a strange foreign land. They want to stay connected to their roots just like we do.

Angelina Jolie is no doubt connected to the largest globalist organizations -- the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, speaker at Davos, and most disturbingly the Clinton Global Initiative. So she will not be getting a Cabinet position in the Trump administration.

But she does seem to be more of a do-gooder who wants to improve the lives of foreigners in their own lands, where they will ideally continue to live, rather than an amoral diversity manager who wants a Balkanized America filled by refugees of all the countries we bomb for no reason.

Having her as a messenger could go a long way toward introducing common sense into what is allowable to say about the refugee crisis and mass immigration before a general election audience, as long as she and Trump coordinated their message.

19 comments:

  1. The other guess to the blind item was Susan Sarandon, but she was a public campaigner for Nader in 2000 (the item says she's never been open about a candidate or party before).

    Sarandon herself is doing a good job of loosening up California for the Trump phenomenon, since Crooked Hillary is poised to end Bernie's run:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282143-susan-sarandon-clinton-more-dangerous-than-trump

    Corrupt warmonger or guy who's going to build a border wall and get Mexico to pay for it? Sounds like a no-brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Random Dude on the Internet6/4/16, 6:34 PM

    I still wouldn't put it past Susan Sarandon to end up going for Trump in the end either as odd as that sounds. Trump is an BSD alpha and he's going to end up converting more than a few women who were once lifelong Democrats/leftists. Trump will go over like a lead balloon for the Sally Kohn lesbians of the world but the red blooded/fertile women out there will be swayed (see: Hotties for Trump Reddit and Twitter).

    Sarandon is obviously not fertile at this point but she could probably relate to the sentiment more the awkward cold fish Generation Y girls who are in their 20s and 30s like Demi Lovato (to compare celebrities), who I think is a Hillary supporter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If she really wants to get Trump elected she has to know that the most impactful thing she can do is go public and be a vocal surrogate.

    This would be one those endorsements like Bobby Knight that would actually mean something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mixed thoughts on her. On one hand, I thought the mainstream conservative criticisms of her were pretty lame and mealy mouthed: she seems more sincere and less obnoxious than most hollywood leftists; however I also think she has a pretty poor record as an actress and a really nasty manjaw. I did like Hackers a lot as a kid though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Remember, daddy Jon Voigt is one of Hollywood's open conservatives. There has to be something pulling within her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I'm not mistaken, her husband's family were "outed" as Romney supporters in 2012. By September, it will be clear Trump will be the next president...barring something awful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "however I also think she has a pretty poor record as an actress and a really nasty manjaw"

    Women / young people / Californians will think of her more as Hollywood royalty than that actress from that one movie, and as a humanitarian ambassador.

    Helping children around the world and raising lots of children, not all her own, will make her seem more maternal to the target audience than the shape of her jaw.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Angelina Jolie went off the deep end of promiscuity and wildness in her youth and then pulled herself together to become conventionally respectable and beloved.

    Her slight manjaw and promiscuity implies a relatively high testosterone level. That's probably declined as she's gotten older, leading to a more sensible and earthy temperment, but still having a tendency toward independence.

    Physiognomy is Real.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Totally unrelated but this would be nice if you've got the time

    agnostic12/21/14, 11:43 AM
    Advice to Millennials probably deserves a post / open thread of its own...

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Angelina Jolie went off the deep end of promiscuity and wildness in her youth and then pulled herself together to become conventionally respectable and beloved."

    Ivanka will be a great surrogate to represent women who grew up more or less wholesome.

    Angelina would complement that, representing women who grew up less than wholesome but who have turned dey life arown.

    The unrepentant and shameless ones can stay with the Dems. The Trump movement should open the door to the ones who grew up messed up but are changing for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't mean that that ought to be a prominent part of the Trump movement's message, since that would return it to the Culture War mindset where the theocratic base of the GOP tries to usurp the role of the church in socially and emotionally shaming those who have sinned and need to repent before being allowed back in.

    But just having that loose association -- Angelina Jolie's life story and being a prominent Trump surrogate -- would let people see that the GOP was no longer the puritanical theocrat party, without having to explicitly beat them over the head with the point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It never ceases to amaze me how averse the Bible thumpers are to evangelizing to their neighbors and other fellow Americans, and instead want to vote in a theocrat and change people's wicked or sinful behavior by the threat of the use of force (what the law is ultimately backed up by).

    Maybe an effect of the cocooning period?

    Back in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, these types were more into evangelizing than they were in hijacking the government. Now that everyone on all sides lives such secluded and withdrawn lifestyles, evangelizing is not going to return much for their effort. So they have to influence the sinful indirectly, by hijacking the government and imposing morality on the unconverted.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's something similar going on with Bible thumpers, and especially Book of Mormon thumpers, contemptuously writing off their fellow Americans and heading off to some destitute part of the world where they'll claim to believe in and practice whatever you want them to, as long as you're giving them clean clothes, warm food, and a roof that doesn't leak.

    They don't care how sincere the "conversion" is, as long as it's another notch on the membership scoreboard (and in the case of Mormons, another revenue stream from 10% income tithes).

    Outside of Jewish-dominated industries like Hollywood and Wall Street, it's hard to find such disgusting levels of misanthropy and cynicism as among the Judeo-LARP-ing theocrats.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OT (sorta), Ralph Nader on PC culture and Trump's appeal

    https://psmag.com/election-season-politics-with-ralph-nader-public-interest-crusader-82d6fbd6e13d

    "Well, and you see this when you walk past construction sites and you talk with white male workers, they feel they have been verbally repressed. It’s hard for someone your age to understand what I’m about to say. They like to stand on a corner and whistle at a pretty lady. They like to flirt. But they can’t do that anymore. Multiply that across the continuum."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nice find.

    He didn't want to be mean and spell it out explicitly, but what he's trying to tell progressives is that they have no contact with, understanding of, or resonance with the working class.

    It's because, as Michael Albert says (Participatory Economics, ZNet), progressives / Marxists / socialists are of the managerial class, and for the managerial class, as distinct from the corporate owners / stockholders / etc. above them.

    They just have a different worldview of how the working class ought to be controlled -- not according to whatever boosts the profitability to the stockholders, but according to scientific management, scientific socialism, scientific whatever-ism -- which the highly educated and credentialed managerial class has a lock on, unlike the greedy capitalists who want to blindly follow market pressures.

    When a construction worker is harassed into political correctness, he knows that it isn't a bunch of Wall Street stockholders who is trying to humiliate him. It's a bunch of overly educated managerial types, whether at his own company or in the government.

    Conservative Movement types use slight-of-hand by talking only about government-imposed PC, when corporate managerial-imposed PC is more ubiquitous and more powerful. No one ever got arrested or jailed for cat-calling a girl, but many have gotten threatened with being fired for it.

    That's why the white working class is so energized for Trump. He's not an elitist prog trying to shame them for their politically incorrect beliefs and behaviors, nor is he a disingenuous Conservative Movement jerker-offer who won't talk about what an elitist prick his boss is for threatening him with getting fired if he makes cat-calls on the job.

    Trump is the Blue Collar Billionaire.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Working-class people respond more to multi-billionaire who promotes noblesse oblige, than to a sub-eight-figurer promoting Scientific Whatever-ism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm sure Nader is also tired of strivers who throw people under the bus for minor infractions. We've got the biggest prison population in the word; we glorify the most ruthlessly competitive brutality (as MMA and the current nauseating idolatry of Muhammed Ali show). The PC gatekeepers are always trying to impress the "right"(snarky-ass liberals and bow-tied dandy conservatives) kind of people by keeping the "wrong" (garrulous cultural conservatives) people out.


    "It never ceases to amaze me how averse the Bible thumpers are to evangelizing to their neighbors and other fellow Americans, and instead want to vote in a theocrat and change people's wicked or sinful behavior by the threat of the use of force (what the law is ultimately backed up by).

    Maybe an effect of the cocooning period?

    Back in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, these types were more into evangelizing than they were in hijacking the government. Now that everyone on all sides lives such secluded and withdrawn lifestyles, evangelizing is not going to return much for their effort. So they have to influence the sinful indirectly, by hijacking the government and imposing morality on the unconverted."

    There's definitely an impotence here, seems to be a cocooning thing. In the 30's-early 60's, similar to the 90's-today, people seem to get paranoid and morose about getting involved.Instead of locking horns, facing the issue and not getting bent out of shape about politicians or laws.

    Notice how 70's and 80's movies often portrayed lawyers as the lowest form of life. The enemies of clarity and alacrity. Then in the 90's there was huge surge in lawyer related culture. They went from being a nuisance to being rather popular. John Grisham and such. I guess we figured that the average person was so powerless (or so misguided) to effect any real improvement that we needed experts and committees to debate and legislate solutions.

    When we've got lives it builds confidence. We can take on anything, and maybe even win some of the time. Not every time of course, but we don't expect to lose. That defeatist mentality wears you down.

    In terms of condemning others, I think the preachy types are quite hard on themselves. If they really were proud, they'd be more willing to engage people. These cocooners seem to just hate everyone and everything. Why else is cocooning music so dull? We don't even want to be entertained in cocooning periods. We're too checked out and self-conscious. We don't want any energy, or color, or spontaneity, or joy, or boldness of anything. Someone might get jolted. Cocooners want repetition, order and structure to everything.

    The PC thing too is obviously an anal-retentive thing. Cocooners need to have elaborate rules of etiquette since cocooners don't know how to deal with surprises or even sincerity. Or listen to someone who want to go off-script. Better to just bounce cocooner friendly talking points off each other than be more creative. PC restricts by default the range of acceptable feelings and topics. Kinda like how pop music since 1991 doesn't allow singers to express too much unbridled emotion. It's instead calculated to only express a narrow range and shallow depth of emotion. Again, it's just too weird to hear someone who sounds unstructured and not entirely in control of things.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Notice the changing tone of taboos. In the 80's it was being pro-homosexual. Cuz, gays are not only, like, pedophiles and gross weirdos, they're also a narcissistic drag. What kind of straight person would want to hang out with them?

    But once we crept into humorless scold territory in the 90's, well, then it became trendy to flirt with alternative crap. To say that suburban white boys were worthy of ridicule and mullets were the low-point of Western culture.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "All the time. There were Negro-joke books, Jewish-joke books, Polish-joke books, Italian-joke books. They used ethnic jokes to reduce tension in the 1930s, ’40s, ’50s."
    Reminds me of Slavoj Zizek's account of how ethnic jokes helped alleviate animosities in the former Yugoslavia. Old school leftists aren't perfect, but they generally didn't have time for ID politics distractions. Nader is also clever to point out that corporate America has played a big role by opportunistically adopting PC pieties http://takimag.com/article/the_business_end_of_freedom_james_miller

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."