Guardian Shill Attacks Susan Sarandon

sarandonOK, the US Democrats were salty when Sarandon endorsed the Green party in the 2016 election. Why is a columnist for the UK’s leftist newspaper The Guardian still upset, and delusionally crying Protest all you like, Susan Sarandon; in effect you work for Trump?

Sensational news for people who thought Susan Sarandon couldn’t get arrested in Hollywood after her imbecilic suggestion during the 2016 US presidential election that there was no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

I agree that her claim was wrong, but her point was that neo-liberal Hillary was basically neo-conservative Jeb Bush in a dress.

She’s been arrested! Not metaphorically, admittedly, and not in Hollywood – the Thelma and Louise star got picked up by police at a sit-in in Washington, protesting against Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policy. It was, she later remarked, “worth it”.

Makes sense. She is a far leftist. She probably thinks open borders are a good idea. Why wouldn’t she protest zero-tolerance on illegal aliens?

Hang on, you may be thinking – I’m puzzled as to what Susan was doing there in the first place. Didn’t she, in effect, vote for Trump, with her showy endorsement of third party Green candidate Jill Stein? Yes. Yes she did. And if she disagrees with that paraphrasing, she’s welcome to come and have a sit-in at the Guardian’s offices about it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sarandon endorsed a candidate to the left of Clinton. How the hell is that a vote for Trump? You are an idiot!

Mmm. Obviously, Susan is far from the only person to get that little bit of electoral prediction wrong. In fact, she doesn’t even make the cut of the top 100,000 people to be wrong about it, vast numbers of whom were journalists.

Yep. So why harp about it?

She may, however, be one of the last remaining persons to still deny they got anything wrong AT ALL.

Her and Hillary Clinton.

Only a few months ago, Susan was explaining to this newspaper that had Hillary been elected: “We would still be fracking, we would be at war. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.” As she concluded of Hillary: “I did think she was very, very dangerous.”

And she is not wrong.

If your retort to that is “at least she’d have let us be in charge of our own fannies tho”, then hold tight. We’ll get to that. For now, you need to understand that Susan’s got a big old theory about how you jump-start history – one that is hugely similar to Steve Bannon’s, coincidentally. As she told an interviewer during the 2016 run-in: “Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in. Then things will really explode.”

She’s not wrong about that either. If a more moderate Republican candidate had been nominated and won–which is actually a big if–they would likely not have seen the ‘resistance’ Trump has from the hack mainstream media, corporate democrats, and the progressive left.

In some ways, it’s the only thing Susan’s been right about. And yet, it is faintly difficult to conclude that her brand of vaguely-gestured-towards creative destruction is the sort of thing you get to say when you can afford to hang around waiting for the revolution in between starring in Ryan Murphy shows.

Its the sort of thing you say when you’re an honest person.

If you’re being separated from your children right now, or losing your healthcare, or wondering about the imminent danger to your abortion rights, it may feel like Susan’s whole “let’s see where the cards fall” approach borders on the self-indulgent. And you know, it’s a highly porous border. It’s basically the Schengen Area of only-slightly-delineated types of twattery.

What a load of clap-trap.

As indicated, Susan appears to have had zero moments of self-doubt since the election. She seems to yield to self-reflection about as much as Tony Blair, another individual unshakeably convinced of his own moral rectitude (see also Jeremy Corbyn), who will doubtless go to his grave thinking history will judge him right to have invaded Iraq with an aftercare plan slightly less comprehensive than that you’d get if you purchased a houseplant. “If you think it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now,” Susan explained loftily before the 2016 election, “then you’re not in touch with the status quo.” Strong words – and yet, spoken not entirely like someone who’d been wandering the Appalachians in search of a clue for the past two years.

Maybe you should do some self reflecting. Your lousy candidate failed to win people like Sarandon and Jimmy Dore’s votes. That was her job.

As far as perspectives go, hers appears not even to have been altered by the prospect of Donald Trump preparing to appoint his SECOND justice to the supreme court, in a decision likely to place various settled rights for immigrants and minorities, and Roe v Wade, right back on the table.

Perhaps the Democrats should have thought of those prospects too, instead of putting forward such a weak, unlikable candidate.

Donald Trump! Possibly a Russian asset, definitely a massive and monstrous arsehole, to say nothing of being the obvious purchaser of around 987 abortions down his years of what he described as “my personal Vietnam” – trying not to catch STDs as he screwed his way round Manhattan. He couldn’t make actual Vietnam, you’ll recall, owing to something called heel spurs. Incredible, really, that he’s yet to tweet about how fewer US servicemen would have died at Khe Sanh if he’d been there, and not detained by his urgent need to hump a model. As always, it is our place to simply thank him for his service.

Muh Russia! Muh sexism! Pathetic.

As for Susan’s service, if only it weren’t so tireless. If only there had been some kind of learning curve for her, other than stuff like the fact she served as co-chair of the national steering committee for third party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000. Another tight election that worked out well, there. If only this doctoral student of absolutely everything was familiar with the famous observation Clement Attlee once made of Labour party chairman Harold Laski: “A period of silence on your part would be welcome.”

Keep telling people they have to vote corporate Democrat, and maybe Trump will win a second term.

Still, if onlys aren’t going to butter many parsnips. Sometimes direct action is called for. So here goes. Susan! If you can’t face up to the fact you dropped a bollock, please don’t expect to be lionised for protesting things not-unrelated to decisions you still believe were unimpeachable. In fact, please expect to be used for it – by the enemy. Until you come to some sort of personal and public reckoning with the sillier shit you’ve said, in effect you work for HIM. You are a MAGA asset. Every piece of showbiz posturing offers his base another chance to internalise the idea of ludicrous liberal arrogance, embodied in someone who – for all her theoretical pretensions – is really operating at the same analytical level as “but her emails”.

If you can’t face up to the fact that Clinton lost because she was an unlikable war monger who insulted a good number of the people who might otherwise have voted for her, and to this day blames everyone but herself for her loss, expect to be used by the Republicans. They would love to run against Clinton again.

Or, to put it more fawningly: we – as beautiful, strong, powerful, is-that-enough-trite-adjectives women – hereby endorse you to cough to the fact that the right to control who we buy our weed off is simply less important than the right to control our own bodies and keep hold of our own children. Thanks for your time!

What a lunatic.

Susan Sarandon had the guts to stand up for what she believed. Clinton lost fewer votes to the Greens than Trump did to the Libertarians. Keep pushing the left away, and maybe the Democrats and the Greens will split the vote in the midterms. Keep promoting corporate Democrats, rig the primaries for one as your 2020 presidential candidate, and maybe Trump will get another 4 years.

About jimbelton

I'm a software developer, and a writer of both fiction and non-fiction, and I blog about movies, books, and philosophy. My interest in religious philosophy and the search for the truth inspires much of my writing.
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Guardian Shill Attacks Susan Sarandon

  1. nice jim, a common sense , debunking of what is essentially a complete propaganda hatchet job
    very reminiscent of the character assassinations by jthe notorious HUAC and Joe McCarthy way back when…. dont mistake the Guardian as Leftist … it has always been on the Side of the powerful , it just used to be more subtle.. for example they have done every possible thing they could to attack Jeremy Corbyn a genuine anti-war old style Labor candidate.. attacking him as an Anti Semite a Putin Shill etc …. they Loved Tony Blair kissing his arse for years until they started losing so many readers ,they bought with minor dissent the Sadam WMD bullshit .. you name it

  2. jimbelton says:

    “Left leaning establishment” might be a better characterization, I guess. Like all mainstream media companies, I suppose the Guardian is beholden to its owners.

  3. Hi Jim , this might explain something
    The Guardian seemed to really change around 2013, most of the traditional left Journalists were either fired or left for example Seumas Milne ..and John Pilger, they have been accepting Foundation Funding for some time…. i’m sure it isnt just the Rockefeller Foundation…. in fact they have their own Foundation as well ….
    Best Regards… Marc

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s