USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!!

[Paul Rigby]

Dances with Bears

HOW COME CLINTON VOTERS LIVE IN THE CITIES WHERE THEY ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE ANNIHILATED BY THE WAR WITH RUSSIA CLINTON HAS BEEN PREPARING?

By John Helmer, Moscow

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16763

The geography of US election votes this week has never been seen before. Also, it has produced the biggest defeat ever inflicted on modern literacy this is the capacity of Americans to understand the truth value of what they read and are told by television, radio, the social media, and the internet.

Almost 90% of voters in the centres of the largest American cities voted for Hillary Clinton these are the cities along the eastern and western seabords. In aggregate they amounted to most of the 60.3 million in Clinton's ballot total (47.7%). The 59.9 million (47.4%) voters who won the election for Donald Trump live everywhere else. The map of votes by county shows this is most of the country:

http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads...%BA1-5.png

The gap of less than 340,000 votes between the candidates in a total count of more than 120 million means little compared to the isolation of the blue in the territory of the red. Pollsters and sociologists will explain that Trump won his majorities county by county, state by state, as counted by the Electoral College, from the suburbs of the big cities; from the medium to small cities; and from the rural areas. They were not detected by pre-election polls because the surveys were weighted differently from the way the Electoral College decides the election outcome. These voters also kept their votes secret. They were ignored, carelessly as well as contemptuously, by the mainstream media, university academics, think-tanks, commercial experts, and the government-financed propaganda machines because all of them work in the big cities.

What kind of a mistake is that how is it possible for the centres of the Clinton electorate to be located in the areas most likely to be targeted if the war with Russia they have been stoking and advocating for two years actually began? Can Clinton voters have been so gung-ho on war they failed to understand they would be its certain casualties?

The answer is paradoxical but simple. Clinton and her advisors have been pathologically violent when it comes to wars against people who lack serious means of retaliation. But deep down maybe not so deep they never believed themselves to be at risk. In other words, they didn't believe what they were writing and broadcasting to others. They were lying; they meant others to believe their lies about war with Russia; they didn't take that to be a serious danger to themselves, their livelihoods, their families.

The Trump voters were just as self-interested and literate. But they did not believe what they were being told or what there was to read. The literacy effect is exceptional. The defeated half of the US electorate turns out not to believe the truth value of what they themselves have been saying or writing. The victorious half of the US electorate understands that the truth value of the media is zero, so they have switched off and stopped reading.