“War is politics by other means.”—von Clausewitz

“Politics is war by other means.”—any Democrat since 1968

Killing the Golden Goose

It’s pretty clear the Democrats know they are handing Trump an easy re-election. The middle class, in particular, seems to really enjoy the economic benefits they’ve earned over the last three years. Many disadvantaged minority groups are finding themselves moving into the middle class, thanks to increased wages and record employment numbers.

A month ago, Democrats pushed the idea that their best bet in defeating Trump in 2020 would be his immigration policies. But polling rapidly showed that middle class voters felt the economy was too good, and they were probably going to re-punch Trump’s ticket.

Two weeks ago, Democrats were sure that gun control would be the winning solution to crushing Trump in 2020. However, again, the economy was just too good to mess with. Without the middle class on their side, Democrats had little hope in those polls showing urban and suburban communities would vote for Joe Biden. In fact, the numbers Hillary Clinton had at this point in the campaign were better than Biden’s, and well, they all remember what happened in 2016. Now add a strong economy to Trump’s voters, and things look grim.

If only there were a way to defeat Trump’s economic record. Early attempts to dismiss it as a Potemkin boon only benefiting the ultra-wealthy—you saw this in the Democrat debates—didn’t jive with the fatter paychecks lower class and lower middle class folks were finally depositing in parched bank accounts. Time for the Ultimate Weapon: in order to win the election, the Democrats would need to destroy the economy.

So, in late July, orders were issued from the DNC to start creating panic and fear in the voter’s hearts. Recession is coming! It’s almost here, the message went like some Game of Thrones fantasy (which is how an increasing number of voters understand politics). Within hours, the headlines appears on all the major outlets.

Just Google “economy beat trump recession,” and behold the hundreds of news articles warning voters that a recession is certainly coming, all written in the last two weeks.

Although a third of economists agree that a recession is imminent (specifically, those that vote for democrats), the other two-thirds might remind you that you can’t declare a recession until you’ve had at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. It’s not like predicting a hurricane, where you can easily expect days of rain; it’s more announcing the Yankees will win two consecutive World Series. That’s a tough call.

We know this because we heard it from the Obama presidency all the freaking time. Remember how he repeatedly declared he solved the recession because there were a couple of non-consecutive quarters of slight improvement? Technically, he was right.

Recession? What’s a Recession?

In truth, you can predict a recession if there’s a significant enough event—like the end of the Cold War, the housing crisis, September 11th, and so on. But the biggest reason you might see a recession in 2020—right at election-time, it so happens—is due to bond yield inversion, with Libra passing into the house of the moon, and a polar vortex pushing humidity out, or something. It’s basically theoretical nonsense.

But there’s an easier way to predict a recession: you manufacturer one.

And the media are great at this: they’ve done it before, particularly when a Democrat needs help.

This happened in the early 1990s. The end of the Cold War resulted in the Fed tightening money supply, the spike in the price of oil, and unemployment shuddering through the defense industry. But—we forget—this lasted only about three quarters, and things began to improve by the middle of 1990. By 1991, it seemed as if Bush could easily win re-election, so the media pumped out the R-word repeatedly, artificially lengthening its duration.

We saw it again in 2000. Popular memory seems to attribute this recession to the dot.com bust, the Y2K non-event, and the witches’ chant of bond yields (sound familiar). But the other Bush beat Gore, and by early 2001, the economy was back and happy again.

And again in 2003. There was a strong chance that Kerry might blow the election in 2004, especially with folks doing so well. Once more, the media rolled out their Recession taiko drums and began the rapid beat of terrifying voters. Remember this one? Chances are you don’t: the recession that preceded that election was not two quarters long, so it didn’t count. That one, too, was about a flux capacitor in the investment trust divestitures, or something.

Doubtless you readers can name other examples. But here’s a simple test to see if the media are driving the recession or if the recession is what economists would call a… well, a recession:

(a) Do you understand the reason for the recession?
(b) If not, it’s media-faked.

When the average person can explain to his or her family the cause, it’s real: a massive event occurred in the world, or in banking, or in international relations, and now everyone is suffering. But if the explanations about recession are about yields, or internal reserve tightening, or quantitative easing, or anything that makes your eyes glaze over, there is a solid chance the media is lying to you.

Look, the Czar isn’t saying that negative bond yield curve inversion isn’t a real thing. But if you don’t know what that means, what are the odds Antonio Spraytan on the Mass Media News on channel 5 knows what it is, either? If you can’t explain what’s causing a current recession, the media can’t, either. They’re making it up.

How To Do It

Tanking the economy is pretty easy if you control the message. The easiest way to destroy a good economy is to provide a recession. And the simplest way to do that is to scare the middle class into saving their money.

First, you’ll see predictions coming about how a recession is probably imminent. You’re seeing this now. One-third of economists agree (or, two-thirds disagree) that a recession is either imminent or long overdue. Some headlines might have subheads that we’re seeing “signs” of a recession, whatever those are. Technically, there’s only one sign of a recession: six-months of negative growth or more.

Second, which you’re starting to see, are checklists of how to prepare yourself for a recession. These are starting to appear. They’ll contain useless but obvious things like eating out less frequently, or vacationing closer to home, or stocking up on bulk store purchases.

Third, which should start in a few weeks, you’ll see vox pop interviews with people asking them how the recession is affecting them. Basically, assume there is one.

The idea is to create fear in the minds of the average person: maybe we shouldn’t buy that new car. Let’s not get that new washer and dryer. Let’s hold off on that Jamaica trip until next year.

Once that happens, it’s a matter of sitting back and watch what happens. Inventory for appliances, cars, and other major purchases piles up. Manufacturing slows down as supply increases. Bills are not paid on time. Layoffs follow. As the dominos spread outward to small businesses, more layoffs occur. Fewer bills get paid on time, so cash flows across the country wither and fade. Costs of groceries and gas go up. Real estate prices drop as inventory exceeds demand.

Eventually this all begins to correct itself—eventually, you will need a new car. You will have to take a family trip for a wedding or funeral. Someone will need to buy your house. And little by little, the country emerges from the recession—and if the media have timed it right, just when a Democrat gets elected.

It’s all about Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. There’s no actual trigger for these recessions—the real ones, like 2007, last for years. These smaller ones are intended to hurt the majority of American just long enough to switch to a Democratic vote. And that’s plenty easy.

A follower of ours on Twitter pointed out the awful immorality of such a move. Tanking the economy—hurting innocent people—just to win an election. But any Democrat will tell you that, hey, the Allies had to bomb Dresden to win the war. Or, as one of their intellectual leaders was rumored to say, sometimes to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.