The VP debate & rejecting the liberal narrative

Letters from O'Brien #66

The VP debate and Media’s Disconnect With Reality

The media has inexplicably been praising JD Vance and Tim Walz for their debate performance. Much of this media praise was directed toward Vance for his ‘kindness’ and ‘professionalism’. It seems to me that whenever the mainstream conservative and liberal media agree on championing (or simply not attacking) conservative politicians, it usually means that these politicians are either playing into the hands of the regime, or they are compromising on key issues, (thus mitigating themselves as a threat). Please indulge me for a moment, as I’ve a few thoughts on this matter. 

This vice-presidential debate stood in stark contrast to the second half of the presidential debate several weeks ago. A common theme pushed by both left and right leaning media outlets now is this idea of ‘peace and professionalism’, or some other form of pacifist unification. That is what both sides pushed for after the first Trump assassination attempt, after the presidential debate, and now, after this VP debate. Is it just me? Or do you see it as well?

It seems the left-leaning liberal order is seriously failing, and people are dropping away from the institutional narratives on both sides. The perceived legitimacy of the open-borders crowd is at its lowest ever (propped up almost exclusively by immigrants who can now vote it seems… another ‘inexplicable’). Hypothetically, this is the first time in modern US history where conservative politicians could deal a proper ‘lethal blow’ to the entire left-liberal regime; closed borders, mass deportations, educational reforms, voting reforms, recapture of the institutions, and so on.

The liberal regime is faltering on the PR front, and despite having ‘deep-state’ backing, they are now competing with the interests of the Israel lobby (who back Trump) and the Eastern Bloc nations (who also back Trump). This puts them in a position of complete weakness; in fact, the only issue the Democrats have left to run on is abortion, which depends on swinging the female vote. Thus, the institutions advocate for a weak, peaceful 'unity' that eliminates any sense of competition or urgency.

During the debate I think Vance was too nice. This is a ‘life or death’ competition, and he shouldn’t have been so nice in my opinion. What would it have been like if he had done what Trump did; got angry, got serious, and avoid any gesture of ‘arm-in-arm’ with a political opponent (and traitor in my opinion) on stage? This handshakes-and-smiles presentation the regime loves is an insult to the reality of the situation. It overlooks the seriousness of what is happening to the West. People like Walz are political terrorists. They desire to destroy the United States through mass migration and corruption. They deserve zero respect since their actions have had zero benefit to anyone. These people deserve no ‘political professionalism’ since they showed none when they were in power. As you can probably guess, I’d not be good myself at playing such political theatre.  

The media - particularly conservative media - hated Trump’s performance during the presidential debate. Why? Because he was ruthless; he did not stick to the regime’s approved playbook, and focused on several key issues, namely immigration and the crime it brings. When you cross the line and start talking about unsanctioned topics, the media lashes out.

I think the crux of the issue here is that modern conservatism, or rather ‘establishment conservatism’ will always lose if it accepts the ‘facts and narratives’ worldview pushed by the liberal order. I think we all realise this fact.  Remember also that conservatives do not, for the most part, control the institutions; they, and the narratives they spin, are either controlled by extreme leftists or foreign agencies. It is a rigged game that favours a progressive narrative, meaning that you are playing to their rules if you decide to take the ‘professional’ route in these debates and political discussions. I think this is why they knew they could press Vance on ‘the facts’ around climate change and so on, since they guessed he wouldn’t have the audacity to simply reject their question and lash out like Trump did in his debate.

I think that a lot of the corrupted ‘advisors’ on this conservative campaign have tried to convince Trump that the media is an accurate reflection of the public – which it obviously isn’t. While the media hated Trump’s debate, everyone I’ve talked to loved it and I think the feeling is widespread. It was great because it showed Trump turning back towards core issues, and this is what the regime hates.

Although I don’t have a lot of hope in establishment politicians (or the army of bureaucrats behind them), anyone who has political ambitions as a conservative must reject the liberal narrative wholesale. It is completely institutionally controlled, and if people decide to play that game on their turf, they will lose, because the artificial ‘facts’ and ‘information’ is all propaganda engineered to favour the left.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien