|
|
|
Hi guys,
Let's talk about the question of whether or not Trump is a cult leader and all things considered (joke - understood if you watch my video!).
Please watch and let me know what you think.
Cheers
Modified by Jim at Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 17:21:54
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jim.
I can't see any video here but not a video watcher anyway, can you tell me what your views are in a post?
I don't believe there is anything to be done to improve the future of our world except in terms of pain relief.
Doesn't mean I'm not interested, as ever. The view I have of Trump is that it's like watching a very large monster climbing into view, wanting to take a very large throne.
Considering how successful crowd manipulation is, something we have all had a firsthand lesson in, I can't just discount the possibility of him succeeding.
|
|
|
|
Hi Lesley,
Here’s the link now. I tried to post it in the link slot but it only works in the body of the text:
I’m rushing to catch a ferry and can’t explain everything I put in the video now on the fly. That’s why I did it that way. Won’t you please indulge me and watch it? There’s a lot to say but I don’t get your metaphor. Why do you see him as a monster? What throne? The presidency? Yeah, that’s a pretty powerful position. That’s how it’s designed. What’s the issue?
But please do watch the video. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Im having a quick coffee before going to a bridge game so not long to reply but I did watch the video earlier, thanks.
The truth is up for grabs, nothing substantive needed? yes agreed. Unfortunately that is used as an argument to substantiate believing whatever you are being told.
my conspiracy theory friend showed me a video of a rocket being launched by a group of friends who had built it and it went so far, above where planes fly according to the numbers on a scale, and then it was like it had met an invisible wall and she, someone who has lived on three continents, is happy to accept this as evidence (more compelling than anything NASA can offer) that the earth is a disc with a dome over it. Why? it's more fun. She doesn't seem to understand her brain is splattered.
Why Trump looks like a monster to me will have to wait, its such a big topic but having a shot at it - plenty but plenty of little monsters for sure, but not many who have amassed so much money and attention as Trump. Sorry to hear you are a fan, I can appreciate the fun in it and I can appreciate he says some cool things but yes here in Australia we saw footage of an American middle aged woman saying if they put Trump in jail there are a million citizens who will go home and get their guns. I repeated this to a neighbour and he said oh the Americans are too sensible, they won't go to war.
I hope he's right, I think he's right. What do you think?
And do you think he will attack the value of the Constitution, or has he done that already, I hope not, but unfortunately, I expect him to. hmm. Or declare himself the embodiment of the Constitution, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, my fundamental point is that you can’t possibly understand what’s happening in American politics if you trust and rely upon the legacy media. I offered a few examples of media outlets, print or otherwise, that are ideologically driven, indifferent to traditional journalistic respect for truth but rather have become shameless propaganda machines every bit as unscrupulous and misleading as the old Soviet media like Pravda we used to feel so superior to.
The NPR editor who dared to publicly express his concern for how badly NPR has lost its journalistic integrity and calcified instead into a relentlessly progressive echo chamber is a perfect example. NPR doesn’t do truth. It does leftist right-thinking instead.
So how can we know anything if our media is so generally misleading? It’s doable if not easy. Good old fashioned critical thinking about which no one seems to talk anymore is key.
As for Trump, this essay by Bruce Bawer says it best:
The Remarkable Uniqueness of Donald Trump | Frontpage Mag
|
|
|
|
okay so I read that article. I hope you're not suggesting it's an example of critical thinking! It's an opinion piece.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, that’s like saying I hope you’re not suggesting that’s a dessert, it’s got flour in it.
Of course it’s an opinion piece and Bruce Bawer is also an excellent and well-informed, indeed brilliant social commentator. He was nothing but prophetic about Islamic supremacism when he wrote “While Europe Slept” decades ago now.
So where do you take issue with him? What do you think of his argument and why?
|
|
|
|
sorry Jim, that was an accidental press, I am in the middle of writing a more substantive reply, that was the opening sentence.
|
|
|
|
When I first exited and read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins he set a benchmark for me of respect for reader.
I loved his honesty - the way he would either present evidence or state up front where he didn't have it and yet still wanting to convince the reader of his opinion.
Bruce Bawer definitely falls short of that doesn't he. His whole article is seeking to convince, no holds barred. It's not an example of critical thinking - I found bits that I enjoyed, bits that were interesting and bits that made me laugh but tbh for me it was a lot of bracing myself and wading through because I wanted to complete reading the article.
I don't really think he made an argument for anything. I agreed with some of his opinions and disagreed with others. I thought he was disingenuous in thinking history would not repeat itself under Trump.
He's a Trump fan. That's what the article was about, supporting Trump for the presidency.
|
|
|
|
okay so I read that article. I hope you're not suggesting it's an example of critical thinking! It's an opinion piece.
It did answer one of my questions - looks like Trump has already taken the position of embodiment of the Constitution and declared himself defender of the blue collar worker.
And he compares Trump to Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler - ie making the same observation of him being a monster that I did. Though going on to say that he is a good monster - can't remember the words he used but suggesting he is a saviour not an oppressor.
Jim, no more articles please. If you want to talk talk, use your own words. And if you want to converse with me then next step would be to answer my other question - do you think there would be fighting if Trump were put in jail?
|
|
|
|
And he compares Trump to Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler - ie making the same observation of him being a monster that I did. Though going on to say that he is a good monster - can't remember the words he used but suggesting he is a saviour not an oppressor.
Lesley, please, Bawer didn't at all call Trump a "monster", good or bad. The comparison was in one respect only and that's his singular impact on the the world stage:
"The point is that the Trump ascendancy is, in modern times, unique. To find a rough counterpart to his utter domination of the society and culture, you have to look to the great dictators, from antiquity right up to the twentieth century – Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao. The big difference, of course, is that Trump, whatever his detractors may say, is the furthest thing from a dictator: he’s a liberator."
(Emphasis added)
Which, when you think of it, makes great sense, doesn't it? Just in how these last nine years have been preoccupied with Trump to an unprecedented degree. The questions then follow as to why and all that but that was Bawer's point. You twisted it.
And this "embodiment of the Consitution" -- what does that mean? Biden and the Dems, in my view, are doing so much to erode the Constitution in myriad ways. There are countless examples of them breaking with precedent, some going back to the nation's inception, some at least the 19th century, to undermine and dismantle the structure of the constitutional republic with its carefully balanced power-sharing between the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Do you know what I'm talking about? If you had to guess, could you? I ask because people, both American and certainly foreigners like yourself, are often willing to casually throw these kinds of accusations against Trump and Republicans with no apparent recognition of how it's the Dems who are ignoring and attacking the constitution at every step.
Just this week, for instance, failing to take up Mayorkas' impeachment in the senate was unsuprising now, given how radical the Dems have become, but still a sad step towards weakening the very foundation of congressional oversight.
And what were the Republicans trying to impeach him for to begin with? Nothing less than being the point-man on Biden's abandonment of the southern border, opening the floodgates to at least 10 million illegal aliens so far, encouraging them to cross into America, secretly flying planeloads across the country and subsidizing their unlawful encampment to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and at the expense in all ways, personal safety not the least of them, of actual citizens. Can you imagine if the Australian government did that? Do you know why Biden's doing it anyway? Any ideas?
But back to the point -- the senate has never simply turned away an impeachment from the house without a trial before.
Nor, of course, have we ever seen this outrageous deployment of the criminal justice system against a presidential candidate. All of the cases are ridiculous but none more than the current one Trump's facing as we speak. Do you know much about it? Anything? Do you have even the slightest idea of all the ways it's an astoundingly unique manipulation of the law simply to crush Biden's opponent? I could go through it all, sure, but I wonder first, what do you know about it? You're asking me to speculate on how Trump supporters would react if Trump were jailed but isn't there a more fundamental question -- How in the world is this even happening? -- that you're casually floating past as if there's nothing the least bit unusual about some progressive hack, bolstered by Soros money in his nation-wide campaign to financially swamp all opponents in attorney general elections across America, running on a campaign to get one man, getting elected and then creating this blatantly illegal basis to charge Trump with some kind of federal election offence? Do you know anything about it? Or how about Trump being stuck in court every day for possible months by a judge whose daughter literally makes millions making more millions for the Biden campaign, and thereby keeping him on something akin to courtroom house arrest to impede his campaigning? Or how about the other Soros-funded far-left attack dog, James, who also ran on a single campaign promise -- to get Trump - trying to bankrupt him on yet another thin-beyond-imagination corrupt legal theory?
I have no idea what kind of violence might follow if Trump supporters believe the election was stolen (again!) in 2024. We do know that the Dems, media and outrageously dishonest J6 committee tried to conjur a phony "insurrection" story after the riot on J6, one that was spiced up, seeded and invited by the FBI, Pelosi and various others. Do you know about that at all?
Do you know about the pipe bombs? What pipe bombs? Anything?
I think that whoever wins the election, the fallout will be cataclysmic. Trump won in 2016 and immediately the Dems, with Obama's consent, tried to frame him as a Russian stooge even as leftists rioted violently. Do you know about that at all? Did any of the media you follow cover it?
To speculate as best I can, no I don't think that Trump supporters will react anymore violently than they did the first time the election was stolen.
As for articles, sorry, I can't see why one, you or me, or anyone, would limit themselves that way. It's a mix. Yes, I can speak for myself but sometimes others have much more to offer, either in terms of their knowledge, analysis or simply eloquence and expression. Bruce Bawer made some what I found incredible insightful points about Trump's unique position historically but it seems like you didn't get them.
So now you have my points. I say you don't know anywhere near enough about any of this because, again, your understanding derives from a very untrustworthy media which one must look past to get the real story.
And I'm sure that's true in Australia as well.
So I'll ask you the converse question of your own, do you think there will be "fighting" if Trump is elected?
Modified by Jim at Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 13:19:27
|
|
|
|
I already gave my answer to the question when posing it, saying I don't think so. Glad to hear you think the same. Yes how awful - I think you are right, whatever happens there's going to be some violence.
Agreed, what I know about American politics could fit on a postage stamp.
But weren't Stalin etc all liberators before they became dictators?
Calling Trump the 'embodiment' of the Constitution is down to my sense of humour.
He's hitting all the high notes - God, Jesus, the Constitution and he doesn't have to say a thing any more, just pose for the crowd like in that photo at the beginning of Bawers' article - there is an army saying it for him.
Would appreciate it if you could stick to no articles in posts to me, it's much better. thanks.
What makes you think my viewpoint arrives from an untrustworthy media? I don't watch the mainstream media I barely ever look at the news. I like talking with people and go to google when I want to find something out.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, you not only know so little about this topic but seem almost smug in your ignorance. No articles? You just talk to people and “go to Google”? What does Google provide but further articles?
I can see that I’m wasting my time with you.
Oh well ….
Modified by Jim at Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 17:51:00
|
|
|
|
That's rude Jim. In answer to your question, what google offers is a level of impartiality. There will be articles from more than one viewpoint.
Not going to join you in becoming a Trump fan, trying to get me to would most definitely be a waste of your time.
Modified by lesley at Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 12:44:57
|
|
|
|
Lesley, what's rude about pointing out how little you know, how uncurious you are, how nonetheless pat you are in your opinions regardless and how closed you are to considering their genesis or validity? You're right that it's a waste of time trying to reason with you though. You're not serious. You don't take serious responsibility for your words but just kind of float through a conversation without any commitment to searching for any better understanding of anything.
Grazing with the herd .....
But as for Google, of course it's hardly impartial and skews its results ideologically towards advancing a progressive, woke view on everything. Look at the debacle of its AI release where it turned all these historical figures black. Sometimes the left reveals itself a bit too blatantly. Never mind, they never apologize and never self-reflect.
But even if you did go to Google, what's it going to do but show you more articles to read?
Modified by Jim at Sat, Apr 20, 2024, 13:09:14
|
|
|
|
Jim, I don't hold any flags out for google, perhaps I should have explained more clearly why I see it as more impartial than your favourite site - there are articles written from more than one viewpoint.
Your characterisation of me is way off base, as usual (I am being reminded of when you were here last time, aren't you going to try being nicer?)
I could say more, but re google that's the crucial point - more than one viewpoint.
My conspiracy theory friend came around yesterday. She came bursting in with all the shock and horror of it, have you seen what happened in Dubai! Oh no, I reply, was there an earthquake I ask, not having watched the news.
I looked it up on Google. Bad storm, heavy rain, flooding meets up with construction not able to deal with it all. We had the same amount of storm and rain in Sydney recently and I don't recall her being at all concerned though it is clear Dubai has suffered a disaster it's not immediately clear to me why she's so upset.
Then she pulls it up on her feed - not only is there apocalyptic text about cloud seeding in thick coloured letters over the images, there is one photo with this huge black twister looming over the cityscape. It is rather scary.
I go back to google, no mention of tornados or hurricanes anywhere. Just strong winds.
From my perspective, that's a crack in the facade, now she knows what a beat up that article on her feed is and indeed she does calm down.
But where's the quiet reflection. Do I think she will go on to see how her feed is managing her emotions just like any religious preacher does. No. I think she went back home and dived back into it.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, let me see if I understand you correctly. It's not that you don't read articles and various news reports, you just won't read ones I show you because you didn't "find it yourself" (ie on Google?)
Am I right about that? If Google finds it for you, despite its viewpoint, it's reliable somehow but if I've read it and think it's worthwhile, it's not because, after all, I'm not an algorithm?
Do I have that right?
Obviously, there are a lot of ideas about all sorts of things and there are lots of conspiracy theories in the world, some are valid, some are not. I know nothing about this Dubai thing and would have to look into it to muster an opinion. But I don't see how letting Google -- which, in fact, is notoriously biased in favour of anything woke, progressive, anti-conservative etc. -- curate your information is anywhere as safe as you think it is.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Apr 21, 2024, 14:17:27
|
|
|
|
okay that was quite funny Jim and fair enough to consider that possibility from your perspective but I am not that silly.  I have a genuine and serious preference for talking with someone rather than reading an endless stream of the articles they like. say it in your own words.
I'm still smiling at the thought of you as an algorithm (I know you said you weren't one) but soberingly it strikes me that in a way that is what I am trying to avoid. Being buried in a mound of articles from your point of view. The way you present is as a soldier in the army of Trump who is undertaking the holy work of defending him. any means will do and I know you have a habit of attacking the person when you can't attack the point they have made.
I have a bridge friend who has the same opinions as you and Bawer, he is well liked but not many people will talk to him about his opinions. I do. He is an old man, kind hearted and gritty.
Like I said after reading Bawer's article, there were things I agreed with and things I didn't. I don't like left wing or right wing politics.
I remember 13 saying the same thing to you and you didn't grok it then and I don't suppose you will now but it is not a character flaw, I assure you.
I do have more to say but will post this for now and back shortly.
|
|
|
|
My ideology - when I exited I was struck by the recognition that the mind that was trying to map reality was inside my skull. 100% dedicated to me, it will live and die with me.
I was back on earth. feel the ground beneath my feet. Microscopes, telescopes, megaphones mega-anything is not my forte. I am human, it's a question of scale.
my virtual reality map works best with information on the same scale as the rest of me.
I can't remember who maybe Einstein or Newton said that he stood on the shoulders of giants - I can appreciate that, I respect that slow accretion of knowledge so that for me, I have been given many tips on plants in the garden which have been really seriously helpful, learnt a real lot from gardening with my mum but you know what I have a green thumb anyway, I just look at a plant and ask them what they want. And that is always trustworthy information, whereas occasionally you get passed a tip that isn't.
To me being told to pick a side in politics, left or right wing is like being told I have to pick my left hand or my right hand - seems daft to me and I am left to wonder how it ever got to this.
From my perspective, sorry but it looks like a fight over the pig trough making everything more muddy than it needs to be. So if I were voting in the US election I would vote Democrat, not because I think they are the good guys or anything like that but because I think it's less mud kicked up, not good but a slower rate of greed and corruption. My observation is that with any new group getting into power, they always point a finger at the previous group and promise to bring a new broom or drain the swamp but what happens is that the rate at which common ground and the public purse is plundered increases.
But I'll go further this time. With Trump and his 'new' regime it's likely to rev up the rate dramatically but also there's an edge to it that I find extra-disturbing.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, the madness is pervasive throughout the West, partly expressed through this insane identity politics craze that railroads over reason and, as here, even math:
Cult or no cult? I say cult because not only is it insane and anti-rational, it’s also not up for discussion. You even try to criticize this nonsense within the academy and you’re on your way out. Cult.
So where does it come from, when and why? That’s the question. There are specific answers too but you won’t get them from this woman or her college. They obscure their ideological roots more often than not or, when they don’t, they distort the origins. They never clearly, honestly tell the story because, in the clear light of day, it’s indefensible.
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 14:20:51
|
|
|
|
Jim, did you mean to post this in reply to my post or in the thread up above? It doesn't seem to relate to my post or the topic of Trump?
As I understand it academic papers are all about peer reviews. ie you need to have other academics who will list it on their work. An indefatigable effort at social networking is what you need to succeed.
Goodness, I thought the professor looked catty.
I'm with you on this one Jim - the word mathematics has been trashed in her article. I really didn't need to read that article though, I know that stuff goes on.
|
|
|
|
Why does this stuff go on? What is this stuff anyway?
Read the article and you'll find a whole lot of "anti-colonialism" dogma. Where's that come from and how pernicious is it? That's the conspiracy you think is ridiculous. Connect the dots.
|
|
|
|
Jim that's a loaded question isn't it, you have your own ideas about why such stuff goes on. My ideas are just basic - let's hear it for a D, an I, an SHONESTY.
I did read the article, I will admit I don't often come across anything from academia that gains my respect and this is no exception.
I finally made it over to New Zealand some years ago. Every bit as beautiful as I imagined and then some, but what I did not expect was the strength of the influence of the Maori. I know I was just getting the tourist welcome but it was more than that, it was everywhere. They are so present and I really enjoyed meeting them.
Come to Australia. I arrived in Sydney, 1975, lived in Mosman and it was years before I even saw an aborigine.
Terra Nullius, to claim the land as uninhabited, was a shattering psychological blow, I don't know if it's been repeated, oh well I think the blacks in Africa were determined as animals by the British govt too but I think they acknowledged first there was a fight - conquered lands.
It's so different here, it's an old fragile continent crumbling into the sea.
Gondwanaland was largely destroyed by the invasion of eucalypts, that's like swapping your nice thick green suit for a pair of underpants that keeps catching fire.
all of which goes to say despite the size of continent, there weren't millions of people here. Having just googled it the estimates of the population pre British colonisation range from 300-750,000. It is an unbroken heritage though.
Probably, even if they had been prescient enough to simply return those British sailors to the ocean they sailed in on it wouldn't have made much difference in the not too far distant long run, but the story is particularly poignant in their friendly aid to the sailors who first arrived.
The estimates of their current percentage of the population ranges between 2.1 and 3.5% from a quick google search.
When I arrived in Sydney it was bustling with history on all sides just like I was used to from growing up in England but oh, only way is to say how I saw it in my mind - it didn't run deep. When I got out into the countryside and looked back towards the city, I got this disturbing image of a massive black wall running under the city and out into the country - what I was sensing was a disconnect in history.
It is only now that that is changing, the story of Pemulwuy, the warrior who led in their fight for the Sydney basin, being one of the first stories that came to light. some time in, well I can say exactly having just looked it up, published in 1987.
So you know turning up here in 1975 was to arrive at a time when there had been a long fight just to stop the lies of colonialism.
I'm assuming when you talk about anti colonialism dogma you are referring to that academia-spawned icky stuff which was in her article rather than being pro colonisation.
And if I get it right you believe this icky stuff is part of a Marxist inspired, Woke engineered conspiracy to capture the minds of our youth and rot the teeth of Western institutions. Where is Islam in all this???
That's what I want to know, Jim.
I agree it's all going on, I just think there is no need for there to be a conspiracy to make it happen.
but you know, you might be right, Jim, and there really is a group of individuals orchestrating it all. 
|
|
|
|
Lesley,
The reason I call it all a conspiracy is because various people concocted strategies to undermine western society, both violently and otherwise, and then talked with each other, sometimes in person at conferences, to further the plot. Please read the article I just linked to below to Gregg. Here it is again but without the hyperlink:
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/how-cultural-marxism-threatens-the-united-states-and-how-americans-can-fight
This is a real history with tons and tons of documentary evidence for those who care to look. These people haven't been shy about their agenda but the rest of us were always blase and indifferent for lots of reasons, many of which the article explains. And then, worse, our media, constituted more than ever by a generation of doctrinaire reporters indoctrinated in the increasingly woke J-schools, have done all they could to provide the movement cover.
If you want to know more, I can show you more but you have to dive in, read, listen or watch. It's way too much and unnecessary for me to reinvent the wheel.
But you've asked a critical question I won't leave unanswered because it's so timely, important and kind of confusing:
Where is Islam in all this???
Guess what? This is also a topic that's been considered before. Here's a good article that hits the highlights:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-left-fell-love-militant-islam-vice-versa-opinion-1885741
Quoting in part:
But following their failure to conquer Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, secular Arab revolutionary movements needed to reinvent themselves. They then turned to Islam. The idea was to use religion as a motivator to stir up the population, while ridding it of its moral restraints. In essence, they used Islam as a tool to spread their ideology. One of the pioneers of this process was Egyptian author and scholar Sayed Qutb, who is known as the godfather of modern jihadist thinking and was a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was executed in 1969 for plotting to assassinate President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Before his death, he was instrumental in transforming Islam from its traditional roots and moral principles to Marxist/Hegelian theory—Hegelianism was a precursor to Marxism. Although Qutb was against Marxism, he was heavily influenced by it. His understanding of the world was one of a life-and-death struggle between Islam and ignorant societies, which he referred to as Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic societies) that must be eradicated to achieve an authentic Muslim society. In Qutb's 1964 short book "Milestones," he outlined the ideology, strategy, and tactics of jihadism. It's an Islamic version of Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin's 1902 political pamphlet "What Is to Be Done?" which was a blueprint for the ideological formation of the Soviet Union. It's no wonder that books authored by Chomsky and Qutb were found by U.S. forces in Osama bin Laden's library at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. And university students are reading Chomsky and Butler as well as other authors who embrace this world view, including Michele Foucault, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, and Rashid Khalidi. This environment caused videos supporting Bin Laden's "Letter to America," published after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to surge in popularity on TikTok last November. It's also not surprising that many radical leftists and jihadists see Israel as the cause of all the Middle East's problems. Israel and Israelis are not seen as an independent nation and a people striving to live and prosper but as an extension of European imperialism meant to repress the Arab population. For example, in that same course on Islam and gender, the professor mentioned positive treatment of LGBTQ people and women in almost every Middle East country except for Israel, the first nation in Asia to recognize same-sex unions. She then accused Israel pinkwashing, cynically giving its LGBTQ residents rights only to legitimize its oppression of Palestinians. Nothing good can be said about Israel because it is the root of all evil. In the eyes of my professor and others on the far left, Israel is the epitome of an oppressor, the unjust and the evil, and any good it does is a cynical attempt to distract from its repression of Palestinians. In this view, Israel and the Jews become hostis humani generis, the enemies of mankind. This is why academics such as history professor Russel Rickford of Cornell University felt "exhilarated" by the massacre of innocent Israelis on Oct. 7, and why tenured professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University called the same attack "awesome." Any act to advance their cause is allowed, no matter how violent. This is why Hamas could carry out a sadistic massacre against women, children, and the elderly and three out of four Palestinians support it despite such actions being expressly prohibited by the Prophet Muhammad. Modern antisemitism, which often manifests as the idea that Jewish power and wealth is the cause of injustice, shares a similar structure to Marxism. "Antisemitism is the socialism of fools" became a common axiom in the late 19th century. Some historians argue that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin understood this and used antisemitism to boost his popularity. Most Americans wrongly assume that Marxism collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union. But Marxist-based thought has been preserved in the Western world in universities and many leftist-progressive movements. It's all about oppression, real, fake, exaggerated, whatever.
|
|
|
|
Jim,
Speaking of smug, you speak as though you have some inside channel
to political accuracy, a unique insider to the truth.. (sound familiar?)
Where do YOU get your news, as you seem only to parrot banal right wing Q talking points.
Yes of course all media has a bias as they sell us their product - advertising.
I’m not interested in debating your boy Trump, as by now it’s obvious he is a grand
grifter and a con man. He liberated us from what ? Decency? Honesty?
Moral Integrity? Diplomacy?
The man is morally bankrupt, likely financially bankrupt (again) and bereft of any notion
other than tearing things down that have been crafted by decades of bipartisanship,
and compromise.
This also applies to his clown car sycophants that know nothing of legislating,
or serving their constituents in any meaningful way beyond obstruction, and slander.
He is a convicted sex offender (rapist) convicted of fraud, stealing classified documents,
voter fraud, and insurrection - much remaining on the docket - and all by his own actions.. No left wing conspiracy required! All this congruent with his early adult career going way back.
His outstanding security bills owed to small towns mirrors his history of stiffing contractors out of wages, and constant non stop lying. His modus is to sue, or counter sue, and delay.
His teacher was closeted attorney Roy Cohen, assistant to Joe McCarthy.
Yes, a troubling thing is his popular following - his base. Based on what?
Hate speech and disinformation. What did he ever accomplish beside breeding more hate,
destroying a woman’s right to decide medical decisions, wanting to pull
out of NAFTA, giving Putin full access to plunder. His best buddies are all despots.
The Iranians free to pursue nuclear weapons as he sabotaged a long sought agreement.
Slashed taxes for the wealthy and corporations (ballooning the deficit ) slashed critical environmental regulations, endangered species list along with popular social benefits.
He created NOTHING.
Most of his previous cabinet do not endorse him - including his vice president.
He made millions under his presidency as he steered foreign diplomats and secret service
agents to his properties to pay exorbitant fees. He appoints cronies to head and destroy agencies, placed his children in positions of power with no experience, his son in law
somehow getting billions of dollars from the Saudis to play with, his daughter in law now in charge of skimming all republican proceeds for his legal bills…
Though many Republicans (to keep friendly with his base) “support” him, talk ill of him
behind his back. BTW. Myorkas impeachment was acquitted in the (bipartisan) senate because the actions by the House was a frivolous joke. A republican bipartisan immigration bill that was created and endorsed by many - (border patrol, among others) giving big resources to the border To help solve a complex many decades old immigration problem. This was shelved, not allowed to come to a popular vote by the republican speaker of house. Why?
Because trump said to kill it so he could campaign and say Biden is negligent at the border.
Shall we talk about the republicans refusal to allow Obama to fill a supreme court vacancy
well within his rights as a president? Trump appoints two justices who lied that
they would not alter Roe v Wade to maintain sane reproductive and abortion laws….
He lost the last election by 7 million votes. He has maintained a rigged election tho over 60 cases have been dismissed by lack of any evidence of this. His mode is to lie enough times that someone may believe him eventually. Shall we talk about his covid response?
It didn’t exist. He is a guilty loser and a fraud. A 1st class asshole.
I could easily go on - but yes, of course Trump is a real phenomenon… a liberator as you say.
I’ll be voting in November, not sure about you. Rod.
|
|
|
|
Hi Rod,
Well, how nice! A pleasant, thoughtful response from some ex-premie who wants to have a reasonable exchange of information and ideas. I'd blow you a kiss but I don't want to get carried away. Not really my thing anyway, to be honest.
So just tell me this -- you say you're not interested in debating my boy, Trump but then throw out a whole bunch of stuff almost as if you did want to talk about him so, what should I do? I'm prepared to cut and paste and respond to everything you've said but first will you then follow through and talk with me? You're wrong about almost everything, not quite all, but most of it and I'm happy to set you straight. It's just that hot-and-cold will-talk, won't-talk thing you get so much from all you guys so often that confuses me.
Here's a teaser though:
I get my information from lots of places, all of the regular leftist and msm sources but then so much more too. I'm a news junkie I guess you could say. How about you?
Wherever I get my news must be a better collection of feeds, though, as unlike you I don't mistakenly think Trump was convicted of rape or fraud or stealing classified documents, voter fraud or insurrection. Do you really think all that or is that just how you roll when you get excited?
And do you really think that Trump opened the door for Iran to go nuclear -- oh my god, that's breathtaking.
And millions he made as president? What the hell are you talking about? You must mean something but that one just leaves me scratching my head.
And the election fraud question from 2020, do you seriously think that that issue was substantively vetted in any case? Which one? Where? They were all dismissed procedurally as far as I know but perhaps you have one or two in mind I haven't heard of.
But hey, let's just look at the New York trial, shall we? The current one, not the Lateita James travesty which we can also consider, sure, but, no, how about the current one.
Here's the question -- do you think it's fair and reasonable? Is Trump afforded due process? What do you know about it anyway? Anything?
Tell me this -- is the legal basis for the felony charges well-founded? Is the judge unencumbered by at minimum an apprehension of bias? What does it mean that some state judge is restricting the Republican presidential candidate to his New York courtroom almost as if on house arrest for the next couple of months? Is that all fair to you? Tell me as well, do you think that the Biden admin is coordinating any of these prosecutions? What would that mean if so? Or maybe you couldn't care less?
Let's go, Roddy! 
|
|
|
|
Jim,I don't consider myself a news junkie but read daily a variety of sources - all biased of course - as are yours. everything I stated was posted in a variety of papers online... if you care to rebut fine. I'm not really interested in pursuing a tit for tat with you. I think perhaps you are deluded, and you think the same of me. I'm fine with that. If you really believe: Wherever I get my news must be a better collection of feeds, though, as unlike you I don't mistakenly think Trump was convicted of rape or fraud or stealing classified documents, voter fraud or insurrection. Do you really think all that or is that just how you roll when you get excited?
Do you mean to say he has not posted bond with the carroll case? or his fraud trial? - or you don't think he is guilty? Given 99 indictments or near this - is it all just a democratic smear job? If it's all conspiracy in your opinion - that's fine.
Your entitled to your opinion - but not your facts. cheers, Rod.
|
|
|
|
Rod, it's hard to know where to start with you because, sorry my friend, you really know so little about any of these cases. Yes, they're all, each and every one of them, unprecedented corruptions of the legal process, orchestrated by the monster in the white house now and coordinated with a rabid, far-left Democratic party, a fallen justice system that's abandoning even the semblence of due process with each further ugly step against Trump, a broken media that has long given up even the pretence of objective news reporting leaving people like you hoodwinked like Winston Smith's fellow citizens watching their giant screen "news" broadcasts, culminating in two-minute hate sessions.
No, Trump was never "convicted of rape". In fact, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet and certainly not rape so your earlier claim that "[h]e is a convicted sex offender (rapist) convicted of fraud, stealing classified documents" is ridiculous. If you got that from a variety of papers online, you might want to consider their reliability. None of that is true. He was found civilly liable for sexually abusing Carroll but let's just look at this one case for a moment. What, if anything, do you know about it? Do you know, for instance, that the NY state legislature responded to a classic bit of Democrat lawfare to scuttle the statute of limitations to let Carroll sue in the first place? Do you understand why those statutes of limitations exist? Largely, to allow defendants to protect themselves from false accusations.
Carroll was admittedly a big Law and Order fan who obviously glommed the story from this episode:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=law+and+order+bergdorf+goodman+episode&atb=v314-1&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dc0q-Vz_Ie68
When asked about the coincidence, she called it "stunning" .Yeah, you bet.
I am a criminal lawyer who deals with witnesses all the time. That's my job and on a good day I'm not bad at it. This woman is so obviously lying it's not funny. Never mind that she couldn't even say what year it was, the fact that the dress didn't even exist back then, she neither screamed despite the fact that she claimed it hurt as he forcefully ripped off her tights and raped her or that there wasn't even a lingerie department at all as she described:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/notes_from_a_1990s_bergdorf_shopaholic_the_e_jean_carroll_story_about_trump_doesnt_add_up.html
Let alone the outrageous nature of the allegation to begin with.
But do you think that any of that matters to New York jurors who have been steeped in Trump hatred for how many years now?
And what, this idiotic woman gets to go on national media and brag about how she's going to take 83 plus millions of dollars from Trump and go shopping with all her friends but he can't defend himself in the court of public opinion lest he be sued for libel again in another New York kangaroo court?
I don't know what your idea of fairness is but if you think this qualifies, please tell me how. It seems like exactly the opposite to me.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Apr 21, 2024, 12:25:05
|
|
|
|
Jim,I bow to your greater knowledge of the justice system. You seem to cherry pick where injustice occurs, when it is quite prevalent and often a throw of the dice for a "fair" trial - and then again fair to whom? There are good and bad days for a myriad of reasons eh? The statute of limitations being extended became the law for whatever reason - it became the law. One must deal with this.
Yes he is appealing a sexual abuse charge - not officially rape. A parsing of technicalities. Libel laws exist, and who is constantly in the media whining and bulling people? I'm delighted she won the case. The jury chose, and this is our system. You and Trump are both unhappy with this. Rod. boo hoo.
|
|
|
|
Jim,just a follow up question: Have you ever had a client you knew was guilty and was then acquitted? ( I hope the answer is yes for your own professional standing) Was this justice? I'll bet you had a martini after and felt pretty good about things. Rod.
|
|
|
|
Rod,
When you say that you're delighted Carroll won, I get that. You hate Trump. But do you actually think it's fair that she won? Why?
|
|
|
|
Great question Jim...I'm not king Solomon... Did Trump treat her fairly ?
|
|
|
|
He never met her. She's obviously lying about the whole thing, picked up the ridiculous story from a Law and Order episode.
|
|
|
|
I read your article, agreed with most of it.Just wondering if you're following RFK Jr. and: 1-what you think of him as a person 2-what you think of his positions, policies etc. 3-what you think of the way the media has attempted to crucify him.... 4-what you think his chances of winning are?
|
|
|
|
1 - I like him. He’s smart, serious, bold, brave, admirable in lots of ways.
2 - I like some of his policies, many definitely not. He’s still too much of a big government Kennedy for me. Still too progressive. Look at whom he’s picked for his running mate although I guess she probably bought her seat on the ride. But I read his book which was really intelligent and particularly eye-opening on Fauci’s sordid history with AIDS. I also don’t know what to make of his belief that the CIA et al. assassinated his uncle. I did get the book he thinks is the best. It was very interesting but I’m still not persuaded. I see that Bruce is apparently. I’ll ask him why. The General Walker issue has always been a stickler for me. Unless that didn’t happen, Oswald was definitely the shooter.
3 - well I agree. The media are rabid pack animals and they’ve been told he’s prey. Just another of endless examples of how shitty they are throughout. The conservative media is much fairer to him, obviously. And not just because he may help Trump win again but because they listen and take him seriously.
4 - nil. Thankfully. I think the best thing imaginable is Trump winning again. It’s impossible to think through how much of a meltdown that will trigger in the media, the establishment, the Dems of course but Biden is unquestionably driving not just America but the world with it off a cliff. This election is it.
|
|
|
|
Is this what it has come to now in what the pundits all call Our Polarized Society? Each side calling the other side a cult?
After looking at your YouTube link and your debate with Steve Hassan, I have a few thoughts.
First, calling the MAGA movement a cult is silly. As you point out, Jim, you are free to think for yourself, consider other viewpoints, etc. Anybody can leave a Trump rally without being ostracized. The only box on the cult checklist that would have to be checked is the one labeled Charismatic Leader. OK, maybe also the box labeled Loaded Language. I mean, "cultural Marxist woke...revolution" is straight out of the playbook for your side of the culture war handbook. This kind of rhetoric is name-calling, hyperbolic rote labeling. Really, how many Democrats are Marxists? All of them, according to Trump.
So am I putting myself on the "other side?" Only inasmuch as I have to in order to critique The Boys that Cried Woke.
I mean, I'm a member of more or less mainstream society, what you call a "cult-like society." (If an entire society can be anything like a cult, you're stretching the term more than a little.)
I have not read "The Queering of the American Child," but I'm familiar with the arguments in the book. I've spent most of my life in the public school system, and I have to say, it doesn't look anything like what the anti-woke crowd describes. Yes, teachers are, on average, left of center. (So are artists, social workers, doctors, nurses, and those who work in non-profits.) Administrators, not so much.
To accuse the educational establishment of acting at the behest of some conspiracy to turn kids trans? I don't think so.
As far as Trump goes, I'm with the majority--and the legacy media--insofar as character assessment goes. Greedy, misogynistic, selfish, etc. Not exactly a guy I would tag as a public servant. You call him a "reluctant hero." Hmmm. Well, he may be a hero to you, Jim, but I have a hard time seeing him as reluctant.
DLM and MAGA have nothing in common. GMJ is not DJT. I'll give you that. But I do wish that people who take sides in the culture war would put down their flamethrowers and have a conversation. I gather that's what you had in mind for this thread. Good!
|
|
|
|
Hi Gregg,
Thanks for your reply and also for watching the two videos. What did you think of Hassan's and mine? He was still arguing Russian collusion although we since learned that not only was that fake but was in fact nothing but a concoction of the Clinton campaign paid for and orchestrated through her lobbyist lawyers, in cahoots with the FBI and signed off by Obama. Hassan gullibly accepted everything the MSM told him. Big mistake. He also either lied or got terribly confused at one point, claiming that Mueller had indeed found that Trump had colluded with Russia but simply didn't have the legal grounds to prosecute when in his book he admits otherwise.
Anyway, that was that. I've challenged him to do a second one four years later but he hasn't gotten back to me. Too bad.
I don't think the Charismatic Leader box ticks at all for Trump. Not when you really think of it. After all, every successful political leader in very high offices have some level of charisma, even if it's that of the "regular guy" was Jimmy Carter or even now, "lunch-bucket Joe". John Kennedy's White House was Camelot, Reagan was supposedly a preternaturally gifted communicator and Obama, who promised to bring the world's water level down, enjoyed little kids singing Maoist-style reverant paeans to him.
I don't think Trump's anything but a business guy who threw his hat in the ring because he loved America, not surprisingly considering how much it had done for him, and thought he could do a better job than the alternatives. He had all sorts of personal backage, as does everyone really (except Carter, I guess, who only had adultery in his mind) but has been galvanized and risen to what I think is some kind of heroism by just staying in the fight and weathering the endless, totally unscrupulous attack from the left. Sure, lots of people really like him now more than before for that kind of reason but that's just politics. We see what's happening, how the Dems most certainly did indeed steal the last election and how they, through, Biden are destroying America and we fully appreciate how Trump's the answer. No one I know thinks he's right about everything or enjoys some kind of special knowledge or skill set other than just having the balls to do all this. Maybe you dismiss all that as mere vain glory but I don't see it that way at all. He could have ridden off into a very, very comfortable post-presidency but it wasn't just pride that made him stay in the fight. He sees who they are and what they've done and he knows that he has the faith and hope of tens of millions to repel the left and try to save America. Like an admired, charismatic general. Charisma, yes, but not at all on the weird cult-leader level.
As for language, well, you know, to be clear, it's not Trump who's talking about cultural Marxism and woke ideology and all that stuff. He's aware of it, I'm sure, and is seriously opposed but I don't know what he's read or studied about it. However, there are a whole lot of people, writers, leaders in certain fields, interested regular guys like me, some more interested than others, who have and are learning about this stuff. I'd bet that De Santis would probably be able to sustain a more informed conversation on the subject than Trump, given his close association with Chris Rufo trying to stem the tide in the Florida school system and then fighting Disney. Ted Cruz just wrote a book on the subject. I haven't read it but might. There are a number of great thinkers in the field, brave -- they're often brave, it comes with the territory -- rogue academics, scientists, doctors, politicians or writers who have been smart enough to see through the revolution, understand its genesis and ideological underpinnings, and then offer insights and advice on where it's going, the threat entailed and how we can resist.
With all due respect, Gregg, I doubt you know much about this at all. How would you? What have you read or studied on the subject? Obviously, if as I allege, the cult has absorbed the mainstream engines of society so much, you're not going to get that education from them, right?
So here's where it gets interesting. Because I'm me, partly the nice guy that I am and also just a bit of a weird person that likes to persuade people about stuff from time to time, if I think it's stuff that matters at least, I'm happy to show you things, discuss them with you, turn you onto myriad sources and explain what I think I know and why I think I'm right.
The thing is, Gregg. I am. Sorry but I am. It's a nightmare for sure but it's real alright.
So let's talk about your own area of expertise, teaching. Are you still at it or are you retired and, if so, when? Things are changing rapidly. What school district were you in? Can you share that with me? I'm sorry but I think I could show you some things under the lid of your own car, as it were, that would surprise you. Yes, sure, all the teachers are just kind of regular folk, of course left-leaning, that almost goes without saying, but so many are kind of oblivious to the full navigation plans of the ship they're employed upon. Perhaps, with all due respect, even you.
Thanks so much for your final comment though.
DLM and MAGA have nothing in common. GMJ is not DJT. I'll give you that. But I do wish that people who take sides in the culture war would put down their flamethrowers and have a conversation. I gather that's what you had in mind for this thread. Good! It's what I had in mind exactly.
I was going to sign off, but I'll first leave you with just a new example of what I say is this woke ideology that's captured academia amongst other parts of our world.
Anti-western, particularly here anti-colonial hysteria, is one of the fingers in the glove. Here you can see how even STEM isn't safe from its tightening stranglehold:
https://science.anu.edu.au/news-events/news/maths-has-no-borders-professor-rowena-ball-brings-indigenous-mathematics-anu
|
|
|
|
But you are wrong that Trump is any sort of answer to it!
It's beginning to look to me like you believe he will make life better for Americans and indeed the whole world.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, I thought we already established that you don't know, don't care, just get some ideas from talking with people and a little Google-searching from time to time.
I say America was better off in every way under Trump than Biden -- economically, border integrity, crime rates, civil liberties, international stability and security, personal freedom and resistance to woke oppression. As with Gregg, I'm happy to discuss this with you but it takes work -- you've got to read. And you've made a point of saying it doesn't mean much to you so ...... ?
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 18:48:23
|
|
|
|
Yeah Lesley, I mean heck yeah, Jims right on this one. you really need to study up for this, as most of us just don't have the bandwidth for this kind of complex discussion, I mean not just normal folks without a LOT of inside knowledge.Trump may seem a greedy fool, but really IS NOT.
|
|
|
|
Is that it leaves you clueless about things like this:
What is Biden doing here and why? Where’d it come from? And where’s it going? Who cooked up this poisonous agenda? In fact, what agenda? What’s it all about and how should we respond? What, if any are the intellectual underpinnings of this attack on reality? And how do we fight back?
These are serious questions that your flippant sarcasm leaves you unable to answer. In fact, I’m sure all you can do is reply with further sarcasm, mocking what you don’t understand.
The woke agenda depends on that level of disinterest and ignorance. Low-information Dems oblivious to what’s happening.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 10:08:24
|
|
|
|
Jim,as our sapien understandings evolve with culture and science there are adjustments to be made.. sure. The sky is not falling because of gender fluidity. I know it's a big problem for the orthodox big three ( christian, muslim, judaism ) we must maintain a patriarchy right? Girls in pink, boys in blue. - these issues that are naturally arising are being sorted out, for better or worse. In some countries it's the death penalty or jail for being trans. It's not a perfect world is it. In truth I'm not well read on the topic but I wouldn't just get my info from the NY Post or Fox News per say. Not all complex issues have easy definitive answers, nor are they necessarily a conspiracy from the left.. Admittedly a lot to unpack here.
|
|
|
|
Rod,
It's not just religions that care to maintain a grip on reality and not be forced to pretend that men and women aren't two-different things, not by choice, by nature. Most atheists also still believe that men can't become women or vice versa. How about you?
And yes, it's a big thing. I'd say the sky is falling in many respects and gender hysteria is certainly part of it. But that's only one finger in the identity politics glove that's strangling us (metaphor repeat but I like it). I don't know what if anything you know about ESG, DEI, CRT, ESL but they're most certainly part of a Marxist ideological agenda that's changing our world radically and, if you care about things like personal freedom and autonomy, science, reason and all the meaningful values that we take for granted as the strengths of western civilization, you should be concerned. This agenda is designed to destroy it.
So is this a conspiracy from the left? Yep, but it's not quite that simple. There's a very large corporate buy-in to the program too that kind of defies the simple left-right taxonomy. And how do I know that it's a conspiracy? Well it's not a big secret. The various leaders of this movement have been open about what they're promoting and how they hoped to achieve it for decades.
This has nothing to do with the NY Post or Fox News other than the fact that conservative media is generally far more willing to face the truth about some of these issues. I mean drop the ad hominiem attack and deal with the Post article substantively. What there do you take issue with? It alleges that Biden is advancing this bizarre anti-woman ideology at the behest of the progressives. Is it wrong? Is this not a bizarre anti-women ideology?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 12:08:28
|
|
|
|
Jim,I don't feel hysterical, nor do I sense hysteria in my community over this. it's none of my business what someone wants to identify with. Gender identity isn't as simple as 100% binary either way. Do you happen to know any trans people personally? As far as rights being at risk I'm more concerned that a parent at my kids school can dictate what he or she can read, by way of book bans. Monitor your child and I shall monitor mine. And what can or can't be taught... half our problems today are the result of ignorant people who have no concept of history, civics, and critical thinking. I don't want DeSantis driving this. I see greater dangers ahead than a young person who chooses to have a neutral pronoun this year. Things change and evolve.. it is what it is. I'm not really pro or con. Live and let live. Perhaps title 9 is not perfect... not all laws or legislation is ever accepted by all. Laws protecting people from discrimination are generally good. As I said, I don't know enough about it all... It's not a big worry to me. Jim, BTW - I'm an American, are you? just wondering. cheers.
|
|
|
|
Rod,
I don't feel hysterical, nor do I sense hysteria in my community over this. it's none of my business what someone wants to identify with.
If it's not a hysteria, why do you think the number of self-described trans or queers has skyrocketed in the past few years, particularly now in adolescent girls? Of course you don't feel hysterical about it because you're ensconced in a society where the media, academia, government and entertainment world are all telling you there's nothing to be alarmed about. Never mind that they're forced to promote that narrative by SEG and DEI protocols which every day becomes closer to the repressive dictates of the Chinese social credit system. Do you know anything about these things? Maybe yes, maybe no? From where? What have you read and where about it?
Gender identity isn't as simple as 100% binary either way.
Really? And you get that from where? May I ask, do you know anything at all about this concept of gender, where it started, by who and why? And how does it relate to sex? Do you know? Is a trans woman a woman?
Do you happen to know any trans people personally?
I've met one or two although I'm not sure I'd even call them "trans people" - more like people describing themselves thusly.
As far as rights being at risk I'm more concerned that a parent at my kids school can dictate what he or she can read, by way of book bans. Monitor your child and I shall monitor mine.
But that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The schools want to strip parents of the right to do just that. Why? Do you know who Paolo Freire was? Something happened to education since we were kids. It didn't happen by accident, a lot of thought, strategizing and effort went into the change. This is a big deal, Rod. There's a giant iceberg of a cultural Marxist agenda beneath the surface. Why do you think schools have suddenly become so fixated on kids' sexuality? The answer is all there for those who want to look.
And what can or can't be taught... half our problems today are the result of ignorant people who have no concept of history, civics, and critical thinking.
And you do? What history are you talking about? What impact did Marcuse have on our world today? How about this Freire character? Besides, where have you been? Critical thinking is no longer hot on the list of personal qualities being taught or encouraged in school anymore.
I don't want DeSantis driving this.
Did you see that Bill Maher, a liberal if there ever was one and not someone I'd normally endorse, now admits that De Santis was right?
I see greater dangers ahead than a young person who chooses to have a neutral pronoun this year.
In different ways, yes, in other ways, no.
Things change and evolve.. it is what it is. I'm not really pro or con. Live and let live.
It's not what it is at all. It's not some organic, natural development. It's all part of a very large complex plot. Laugh all you want but it's true. Endless and I mean endless evidence supports that for anyone interested.
Perhaps title 9 is not perfect... not all laws or legislation is ever accepted by all. Laws protecting people from discrimination are generally good. As I said, I don't know enough about it all... It's not a big worry to me.
It's easy to be blase about this. Do you think I actually give a fuck about womens' sports? Of course not. Not really. Anymore than I care about some poor male student getting railroaded on trumped up sexual harrassment charges and ruined by the new Kangaroo courts under the act. But I do care, care about them both when I think about the broader social implications. Actually, yeah, I do care. It's all terrible. Certainly as bad as any of Rawat's exploitation of people.
Jim, BTW - I'm an American, are you? just wondering. cheers.
I'm a concerned Canadian. It's just as bad here, in fact worse.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 16:44:53
|
|
|
|
Jim,Thanks for your usual pedantic reply. I'm always glad to give you a platform to spew. Sexuality is a spectrum - irrespective of hardware. All your views are regimented as though we are playing billiards. The world is not black and white or simply a grid - it wiggles. For me our exchanges have been a bit like sitting down to a cold meal with some eager flat earth folks. Perhaps you should run for office, and do write Trump a large check. Take care.
|
|
|
|
That’s what you get from everything I’ve said? That I’m like a flat-earther?
Right. Nice talking with you.
|
|
|
|
Jim,Though we have our disagreements, I appreciate your intellect and good heart. Hoping we remain cordial. best regards - yank to canuk.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that, Rod.
I want nothing but civil, friendly conversations although it’s hard when the issues are so charged. But we’re trying, eh? (I know 😏
|
|
|
|
I don't know where to start. Maybe with this:
With all due respect, Gregg, I doubt you know much about this at all.
How would you? What have you read or studied on the subject? Obviously,
if as I allege, the cult has absorbed the mainstream engines of society
so much, you're not going to get that education from them, right?
How would I? The internet! I read Newsmax, Truth Social, The Gateway Pundit, etc. I also read the more mainstream conservative websites, both pro-Trump and never-Trump. And for all my confirmation bias needs, I shop at legacy media sites and leftist news/opinion sites. I contributed five dollars to DJT five years ago to get his daily invitations to give him more money. I also look at Rumble.com...which brings me to this: I said I LOOKED at your two videos, not that I WATCHED them. I'm a reader; watching videos involves spending a lot of time digesting information at a glacial pace. OK, I did watch most of the first one. The debate between you and Steve was a little too annoying, though, the two of you were jumping in with interruptions too often to allow either of you enough room to complete thoughts. I get it, each of you had a lot to say, and that's the way it gets when two smart, opinionated, and informed guys duke it out.
(Much of my info-gathering quality time on the internet involves matters academic, cultural, scientific, and especially aesthetic. Not primarily political, in other words.)
Oh, and this: Obviously,
if as I allege, the cult has absorbed the mainstream engines of society
so much...
Could you explain this for me? By "mainstream engines of society" are you referring to the media? Also--and this gets to the heart of what I take to be your message--what is "the cult?"
You and I will have to disagree about Trump. I think he's a prevaricator; you think he is the voice of truth. (BTW, you haven't been to a Trump rally, have you? I think the way he's been ending his performances with a super-religious interlude is seriously creepy.) Also, I am familiar with the arguments your camp makes about the 2020 election but find the rebuttals to those claims more convincing. Something else we will never agree upon!
Which brings me to another tactic I see "both sides" doing: cherry-picking quotes from experts to inflame their base. For example, something I'm guessing your child-queering book does: quoting queer theorists. It's pretty easy to find deranged material from theorists of all kinds in academia. Theory Wars! Jeez. But here's the thing: nobody in real life is much influenced by this kind of bloviating. I'm talking about educators, especially. We don't read queer theory!
About your query: I have been teaching on and off since I was twenty. I was busy pursuing a career in music during my younger years. Not much of a career, as it turns out. (I still play piano several times a month in a local club. Jazz, mostly.) Finally growing up, I settled into a career teaching English to high school kids. Denver Public Schools. Ten years in a ghetto school, twenty years in an arts school. Retired five years ago. I work as a substitute teacher two or three days a week. Good money for easy work.
Here's something on which we may possible agree: both the anti-Biden and the anti-Trump camps have really gone overboard with their hate campaigns. One can hardly avoid being reminded of the famous two minutes of hate Orwell introduced us to in 1984. I mean...really? We have been gifted with this fabulous human life and we're going to fritter it away hating some public figure?
Back to the internet: I spent some time looking up that phrase you use in your discourse a lot, "cultural Marxism," a coinage which I thought to be just a culture wars throwaway label meaning nothing, really. (Karl Marx? Culture? WTF?) Turns out it has a genuine history, although nobody seems to agree on what that history is.
OK, hope this response means something to you. I didn't mean to be sarcastic and inflammatory, but sometime ya just can't help it, y'know?
Again, I would like to know how an entire society can be called a cult. Given our personal histories, we know what a cult is, but maybe you've grown into a different understanding of what the word means. When I read your response, I'm afraid I'm going to be tempted to label you a conspiracy theorist, but I know that never turns out to be a particularly useful move.
Gregg
|
|
|
|
Hi Gregg,
I’m running off to court in a bit but I wonder, would you read a long article I read the other day that does a really good job of explaining what I understand has been the Marxist “Long march through the institutions” as called for decades ago by Marcuse?
And also watch an episode of Joe Rogan where he interviews one of my favourites, James Lindsey?
But I’ll respond to your post point-for-point as well.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
I'd read the Marcuse article. It sounds illuminating.
I probably wouldn't watch the Joe Rogan interview, though. I read a little Lindsay online. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Gregg,
Here’s the article:
It’s about much more than Marcuse although he necessarily plays a seminal role.
Lindsay’s one of favourites because, for one, he finds, studies and distills so much I’d never heard of before but which nonetheless is foundational to the moment we’re living in. Plus he’s funny. And so well-spoken. When I did that video I posted here I was sad to hear how faltering I sound at times, so many filler words and phrases. It gave me even more respect for people like Lindsay who speak more clearly, unhesitatingly. Well maybe I’m a bit different in court when I know exactly where I’m going and am more familiar with the messaging.
Anyway, like I say, he covers this cultural Woke Marxism society-wide revolution in ways no one else does. Do you listen to his podcast at all? The latest two episodes about Soros’ philosophy and today the ideological roots of the UN, both of which I’ve only heard partially so far, are astounding.
But the Rogan video was really good because Rogan plays a really good “Everyman” - smart but not too smart, not particularly intellectual or stuffy but interested and able to find the point of interest. And really just an excellent foil here for Lindsay to expound on things, much of which left Rogan amazed:
I’m pissed off at Rogan in fact right now for buying into and thus helping to perpetrate the horrible “genocide” accusation against Israel. I notice as well that, for all the myriad guests he gets on just about anything, he’s yet to get a truly solid Israel defender or, likewise, critic of Islam. Still, this is a great interview.
|
|
|
|
Gregg, my debate with Hassan is just plain fine at 1.5 speed. Anything slower is excruciating. He lied though, I have to say. In his book on page 146 he admitted:
"Though Mueller could not find conclusive evidence of "criminal conspiracy" between Trump's campaign and Russia, he found "numerous links" between Trump campaign officials and the Russians"
Links means absolutely nothing and I have a million criticisms of everything Mueller but that's not the point. In our debate, Hassan pretended that the only reason they didn't indict Trump was because of an assumption of presidential immunity.
More generally, though, where is Hassan years later, or the media he relied upon so trustingly, admitting what we now know which is that Hillary Clinton paid for the Steele Dossier and the entire kabuki theatre cock-up was a desperate attempt to frame Trump? It isn't said so it must not be true. Res Ipse Loquitor.
Which brings me to another tactic I see "both sides" doing: cherry-picking quotes from experts to inflame their base. For example, something I'm guessing your child-queering book does: quoting queer theorists. It's pretty easy to find deranged material from theorists of all kinds in academia. Theory Wars! Jeez. But here's the thing: nobody in real life is much influenced by this kind of bloviating. I'm talking about educators, especially. We don't read queer theory!
Of course they don't read queer theory anymore than they read critical race theory. I mean some do, some don't but that's not the point. Those who do read it and have fallen under its ideological juggernaut set the programs and policies.
So I take a look and, unsurprisingly, it seems like many people in real life are indeed much influenced by this kind of bloviating:
https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/02/trans-nonbinary-kids-school-policies/
And that's just the gender stuff. The anti-racism finger is sticking in your other eye just as much:
https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2021/12/02/board-president-denver-schools-racist-system
Is the school system really racist, Gregg? Are you? Is that what you get for all your years of service?
Here's something on which we may possible agree: both the anti-Biden and the anti-Trump camps have really gone overboard with their hate campaigns. One can hardly avoid being reminded of the famous two minutes of hate Orwell introduced us to in 1984. I mean...really? We have been gifted with this fabulous human life and we're going to fritter it away hating some public figure?
I'm sorry, I can't agree. I think that all of my criticism of Biden, whom I certainly hate, is justified and, while in the abstract I get the idea of who's he to me? Either one of them really? And why even bother when it's kind of nice out, I like to play music, have fun, that kind of thing, the reality is that Biden's destroying the world I'm fond of. Crime, the economy, international stability and, yeah, Israel's security, not to mention the horrible weaponizing of the justice system, have heavy reverberations throughout the world, within and without the states.
Again, I would like to know how an entire society can be called a cult. Given our personal histories, we know what a cult is, but maybe you've grown into a different understanding of what the word means. When I read your response, I'm afraid I'm going to be tempted to label you a conspiracy theorist, but I know that never turns out to be a particularly useful move.
That's a damn good question but, to me, the measure of a cult is only the extent to which it controls information and thinking, has processes to keep its members from learning, thinking and speaking for themselves. Thus everyone in the broader society in 1984 was in a cult. Everyone in Mao's China was too.
It's a matter of degree, I know. But then not so much for all the many people wrongly rotting away in DC jails on the most trumped-up charges imaginable on the fake insurrection myth.
Modified by Jim at Thu, Apr 25, 2024, 18:32:56
|
|
|
|
Well, we're not going to find much common ground in discussing politics, Jim. That's pretty clear. I would add that we wouldn't agree on any of the issues around which the Culture War revolve, either, but then that would be kind of redundant, as politics is--unfortunately--mostly about culture war issues.
I think the Right and the Left are too focused on transgenderism. After all, only 1% of Americans consider themselves transgender.
And speaking of the 1%, I think income inequality is a more salient issue in America these days. I'm not suggesting overthrowing capitalism, but I would like to see this addressed. This is not an abstract issue to me. There are millions of people in this country who can't afford childcare...and the people who work in the childcare industry are among those inconvenienced/suffering.
Those of us who think this situation is unfair are met by conservatives with the classic rejoinder: "Life isn't fair." Well, OK, but I believe that it is worthwhile to pursue creating a world that is a little less unfair than the one we have so far settled for.
Global warming. A problem. But not for you, it looks like.
Other global issues? Not a high priority for Americans, when it comes to presidential elections anyway.
I would still like to know something about this giant cult you claim that this country (or perhaps Western society in general?) has become: Who is running the cult? Not the single charismatic leader who usually runs cults. (Or in the case of Rawat, a non-charismatic leader.)
|
|
|
|
To Foucault, sex was not binary, and the “naturalness” of gender and sex was dubious. Foucault’s thought represents a cultural Marxism that also transcends class struggle—as seen with race—and bases the “oppressed vs. oppressor” dynamic on sex. It asserts that individuals need to be liberated from societal norms and commonly understood notions of gender and sex in order to achieve liberation.From Foucault and the French second-wave feminist Simone de Beauvoir, one can track the development of gendered pronouns and the transgender phenomenon that is being imposed on students in schools and universities across the country today. Kate Millett, whose Sexual Politics is an example of the distinction between sex and gender, was a Marxist feminist who argued for a reconstruction of academic disciplines in order to reflect the “structures of gender oppression that have subjugated women.”50 Sexual Politics is replete with citations of Engels, Marx, and Stalin. Millett, dubbed the “Karl Marx of the women’s liberation movement,” or “The Mao Tse-Dong of women’s liberation” (the latter by The New York Times), personified this new form of Marxism that is triumphant in America today.51Finally, there are academics, such as Dean Spade, a law professor at Seattle University who helped to found the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a nonprofit organization inspired by the 1969 Stonewall Riots and the activism of Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, two transvestites who founded Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) in 1970. Spade is an academic and activist who supports a “Critical Trans Politics” that embraces many tenets of Marxist thought.52 Spade has contributed to an anthology titled Towards an Ethics of Activism, in which BLM co-founder Alicia Garza is also featured.https://francesslee.medium.com/toward-an-ethics-of-activism-a-community-investigation-of-humility-grace-and-compassion-in-377948c84e7e (accessed October 13, 2022)." style="box-sizing: inherit; position: relative;" gotham="" a",="" "gotham="" b";="" font-size:="" 0.6875rem;="" line-height:="" color:="" rgb(0,="" 147,="" 208);="" vertical-align:="" super;"="">53 This current generation of gender theorists, like Spade, Wendy Brown, and Judith Butler, urge the dismantling of the American status quo and criticize the emphasis that others place on equality. “Gender equality” as civil rights and law issues is not enough. Instead, they believe the entire system is corrupt and in need of liberation.In practice, this academic jargon has tragic consequences, such as minors undergoing the routine amputation of perfectly healthy body parts, and hormonal interventions that fill their young bodies with toxins. “These are deeply invasive and often irreversible procedures that destroy functioning and alter visible physical structures,” explained former Heritage Foundation analyst Ryan Anderson.https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/protect-good-medicine-stop-the-censorship-good-counseling.; " style="box-sizing: inherit; position: relative; font-size: 0.6875rem; line-height: 0.6875rem; color: rgb(0, 147, 208); vertical-align: super;">54 And here, again, the institutions in charge of the culture exercised their ruthless censorship over those who would dare question the new cultural Marxist regime. In February 2021, Amazon banned sales of Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/01/09/based-on-false-assumption-amazon-still-censoring-book-on-transgenderism/.;" style="box-sizing: inherit; position: relative;" gotham="" a",="" "gotham="" b";="" font-size:="" 0.6875rem;="" line-height:="" color:="" rgb(0,="" 147,="" 208);="" vertical-align:="" super;"="">55It is not by any means the first time that Marxists used sex and children to undermine the authority of parents, the church, and the state. One particularly disturbing example occurred in the early 20th century during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet state of 1919. Its education and culture commissar Georg Lukacs ordered schools to instruct young children on sexual perversions like those of today. According to his biographer, Special lectures were organized in schools and literature printed and distributed to “instruct” children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of bourgeois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children [were] urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church, and to ignore precepts of morality.56
Modified by Jim at Sun, Apr 28, 2024, 20:31:18
|
|
|
|
I first tried to post this with an excerpt from the Heritage Foundation article and it was a complete mess but at last I deleted it all and start again ....
Hi Gregg,
Whenever people tell me that it's apparent we're not going to agree on something, I ask myself why. Is it because there isn't enough evidence to resolve issues and answer questions or that perhaps no one's committed to the effort to find and consider that evidence and work through its implications? Or, instead, is it that people just like their opinions, their biases and prejudices and aren't about to give them up just because of some petty superior argument? If it's the latter, as I suspect here, you're right. It ain't ever going to happen. No way.
I just showed you a bunch of things, made some points about them but you haven't responded to any of it at all. In fact, I doubt you even looked.
Did you read the Heritage Foundation article, brimming as it is with a good detailed survey of the cultural Marxism landscape in America as of one-and-a-half years ago?
What about it? You say that the right and left are too focussed on transgenderism but what the hell is it anyway? Where's it come from and why? I'd have thought you'd at least consider some of the history. Instead, nothing but a pat statement that the right and left both focus too much on transgenderism.
Okay ......
Did you read it? Can we discuss it?
As for leadership, well, I don't know. I don't think that one unique charismatic leader is necessary for a cult. What matters is the control and distortion of information and thinking.
I don’t mean to seem impatient but I feel like I’m expecting too much perhaps. Ex-premies were all happy to revel in the Trump’s a cult leader idea but no one wants to hash it out. How disappointing. When it comes to Rawat, exes are happy to doggedly parse out each fact and quote with Talmudic-scholar level focus. I guess that level of close scrutiny doesn’t extend much.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Apr 28, 2024, 22:46:54
|
|
|
|
Whenever
people tell me that it's apparent we're not going to agree on
something, I ask myself why. Is it because there isn't enough evidence
to resolve issues and answer questions or that perhaps no one's
committed to the effort to find and consider that evidence and work
through its implications? Or, instead, is it that people just like their
opinions, their biases and prejudices and aren't about to give them up
just because of some petty superior argument?
So 1) I think there is not enough evidence out there 2) I am not committed to considering the evidence and 3) working through its implications. Instead, I am comfortably resting in my biases, prejudices, and opinions, not yielding to your superior argument.
Sorry, not sorry. I don't think your argument is somehow superior. I don't think mine is either. No one can claim special access to the truth, a type of claim with which we are both familiar.
I have not been able to view all of the information you have recently posted. The videos I don't have time to watch, but I'd like to read more of your links. However, I have been working. I just got back from a great jazz gig, and am surfing the net to wind down before waking up in time to substitute teach early tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
To be fair, I never said that my argument was superior or that I had any kind of "special access to truth". To the contrary, it's the exact opposite. I'm saying to look at this, look at that, read, listen, watch, think. Consider things. You won't know which argument's are best until you've worked through the evidence.
However, as you're not committed to doing so, there's no point continuing, is there?
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 10:23:49
|
|
|
|
However, as you're not committed to doing so, there's no point continuing, is there?
I've spent quite a bit of time reading your links, time not wasted. I always like to understand what "the other side" is thinking. But you're right, my commitment to text-arguing is somewhat limited. Thanks for the education.
|
|
|
|
The delete button doesn't work
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 12:18:18
|
|
|
