The Zhou Dynasty created the Mandate of Heaven in 1046 BCE to justify their overthrow of the Shang Dynasty. The Zhou rulers believed that the Mandate of Heaven was precarious and could be lost if the ruler did not govern well.
The Mandate of Heaven justified rebellion against a ruler who was unjust, incompetent, or tyrannical. Signs that a ruler had lost the Mandate included natural disasters, peasant uprisings, and foreign invasions.
At the moment a variety of Democrat media people are trying to understand what went wrong, how did they lose so badly to, Trump?
While most everyone else is sure what went wrong — that the Zhjoe Dynasty lost the mandate of heaven due to misrule.
The Democrat media machine though, sees it differently — or at least they want to convince us that they were not the problem, the problem was in their messaging — not what they actually did and still want to do.
I just watched CNN talking head Van Jones repeat once again his now famous (but completely wrong) idea on why Democrats lost the election. It goes like this:
- Trump and his supporters focused their messaging on social media, Democrats focused on legacy media.
- Social media and podcasting have much larger audiences than legacy media like TV news.
- The younger generations don’t even watch legacy media like CNN anymore.
- That is a big reason the Democrats lost, Trump and the Republicans outsmarted them by using podcasters and gamers.
While the first 3 takes are factual and correct, the last is not. Democrats lost because of — in descending order of importance:
1. Inflation
2. Immigration
3. Crime
4. Lockdowns
5. Identity politics
6. Wars
The lockdowns were pushed by Democrats much more so than by Republicans, who were often vocally against them. The lockdowns did major damage to the working class and small business owners. That left many people very angry at the Democrats.
They then saw the Democrats give hundreds of billions of dollars for war, and to illegal immigrants — that made a lot of people even more angry at the Democrats.
They saw Democrats become obsessed with forcing young girls to play sports against boys — and obsessed with forcing them to accept boys into their private spaces because the boys “feel like girls.” Making many people even more angry with Democrats.
They saw a massive increase of crime and homelessness — most of which was blamed on Democrats due to their promoting mass illegal immigration without background checks, and without care for how that would affect the labor market or affordable housing market. It was very obvious to the working classes though that those policies would make it harder to find affordable housing and jobs — because DUH…millions of low-income migrants vying for the same small pool of affordable housing and jobs in your town is obviously going to make a lot of people very angry at Democrats — as we saw happen.
Look Van, the average voter is an independent, who is strongly attached to neither party, but more often leans Democrat. This was because Republicans always talk about cutting government spending — which to many in the working class and poorer families makes the GOP seem like they want to take away government benefits that they may need in the future or currently use.
Because of that perception the Democrats have had an advantage for years among independents — even though most Democrats actually don’t do anything to help poor people — they just say they do. The Democrats dominated everywhere that didn’t have more people who for moral reasons are against them, i.e., there is a big minority who always vote against Democrats due to abortion and other moral or religious causes. Democrats typically have complained about that type of voter like this: you vote against your own interests because Republicans want to take away government benefits and your personal freedom over your body (abortion). Yet when corporate profits were involved, freedom over your body was no longer a choice according to Democrats — or else you were not allowed to work.
So why do people like Van Jones, who is no dummy, blame the now smaller reach of mainstream legacy media? He can’t be talking about the average working-class person, or about the large poor population, or about the small business owners — because his mainstream media pals are not focused on those broad audiences anymore. They are focused on the rich, the avowed liberals, and minorities — because Fox News ate their lunch years ago by reinventing the media business model.
Fox News changed media by being solely focused on getting people to vote Republican — their opinion shows, and reporting catered to what they thought were typical Republican cultural biases. That very successful model was then copied by legacy mainstream media who did the same thing — but they aimed their reporting on getting people to vote Democrat — by catering to liberal and minority biases.
Except for their reporting on foreign policy issues.
Which is aimed mainly at the rich, and celebrities. The foreign policy reporting in mainstream media is aimed at the upper classes because they are the only types of people that the foreign policy establishment seriously cares about. Why? Because those rich and famous people have the ability to interfere with their foreign policy agendas. The rich and celebrities can influence politicians with their money or fame. So, the mainstream news media on foreign policy issues is mostly geared around managing the rich and famous —trying to keep them misinformed — so they don’t try to interfere with what the foreign policy establishment is doing.
The infamous “Blob” aka military contractors, bankers, lawyers, Invesment managers, and the CEOs, directors, or owners of the biggest corporations and NGOs — move in and out of government “service” at the highest levels in order to control US foreign policy for the benefit of their businesses, families and class. They are able to influence media owners to do their bidding because they have access to them in the same social circles they run in, i.e., the ruling class is a very real thing. It consists of the very rich plus various celebrities who move in the same social circles, go to similar elite prep schools and elite colleges, belong to the same elite clubs, go to the same parties, work for the same charities, etc. Or they are related by marriage — that is especially the case for those belonging to families who have been very rich and very influential for many generations, e.g., your Rockefellas and hundreds more rich and influential families whose members have traditionally moved in and out of government “service” in the foreign policy establishment — in order to shape the world for their class benefit.
So Van Jones, social media influencers didn’t win the election for the Republicans. Nor was it the lack of more people tuning into your Faux News—nor because Trump “outsmarted” you — it was because the Democrats pissed off most of America by their actions — the Zhjoe Dynasty lost the mandate of heaven.
No amount of people watching more of your “news for liberals and minorities” on CNN and MSNBC would have made them less angry with Democrats because of what happened in their lives for the last 4 years.
Propaganda can easily work on the rich and celebrities, as we see all the time when they speak in public. They have lives that keep them very distracted from spending the time and energy needed to learn the truth of current events. They don’t have the inclination to watch or read anything but the occasional CNN-MSNBC guff. Their wealth also keeps them from feeling the huge increase of inflation, or the lack of affordable housing and jobs, and the huge increase of street crime because the Democrats made it easy for professional criminal gangs to migrate to America with free travel, housing, etc.
The number of viewers isn’t the issue, Van Jones, it’s your content, and your obvious agenda to support Democrats at all costs — even if that agenda is causing so many big problems. Your political narratives are both empty of truth, and relevance, or it’s just propaganda meant to manage the rich and famous.
That is why you lost. All Trump had to do, ironically, was not be you.
