The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

   Trump's daily litany of lies have been exhaustively documented on a weekly-to-monthly basis during the past five years-- most notably by Glenn Kessler.   The details are damning.

Trump Lied More Than 30,000 Times During His Presidency. No Wonder We’re Exhausted.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/donald-trump-thirty-thousand-lies/

   Something is terribly wrong with our society if we can no longer even agree that an obvious lie is a lie-- or claim that "both sides" engage in the same behavior, to the same extent.  They don't.

   Of course, in the absence of intellectual honesty, people can endlessly claim that honest "fact checkers," themselves, aren't telling the truth-- regardless of the clear documentation of mendacity.  What bunk!

    Tucker Carlson's new, "Patriot Purge" documentary is a case in point.  It's falsified history--disinformation-- served up to a delusional cult to deny the fact that Trump and his associates conspired to obstruct the certification of an election.

    And, sadly, a substantial percentage of the U.S. population actually believe this stuff.  Many of them in a recent poll even believe that violence is necessary to overthrow our Constitutional democracy in the U.S.

Carlson's Gaslighting Is About More Than The Insurrection

When the November 2021 election results end up with eight people who participated in the insurrection elevated to public office as Republicans, the cold reality hits: Disinformation works.

https://crooksandliars.com/2021/11/tucker-carlson-patriot-purge

  

Hi William, 

I believe you are a smart guy, at times on here you have certainly demonstrated that. I am going to analyse your reply above and tell you what I think.

- At times, we can all be guilty on here of avoiding questions, I think I asked some pertinent ones and made some points. It looks like you've just avoided all of that and come back with FOX FOX FOX, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP, which really just doubles down and washes over the intellectual discussions that are there to be had. 
- In my opinion assessing the text and tone (which is open to interpretation), you are just come back with passion, as it it reinforces the initial argument. It doesn't at all. Someone said one that "nothing is black and white, everything is grey". I believe you want absolutes. Clean cut divides in these discussions and they don't exist. I just see two teams ignoring any failures of their party and slinging mud at the opposition, my team is better than your team. That is not an adult conversation, it's a juvenile one, it's very basic. 
- The whole system is rotten to the core and for many Dems it all boils down to it being Fox & Trumps fault. To me, it's completely insignificant. Your system offers up the worst two candidates every time. They all lie. Can the most important thing to you really be who told the most lies? Can we really sit there and not think about how many lies LBJ, Nixon, the Bushes or Clinton told in eras where there was less recorded data, and it wasn't at the touch of a button. As previously stated, they are open to interpretation. You believe 9/11 and JFKA were conspiracies. Your fact checkers disagree. You can't see a bigger picture. 

My question is; do you want to see it? I have a psychologist friend here who I speak with regularly about current affairs in a social environment. He's a smart guy, went to a top university, also has a law degree. He thought I was saying something way out of left field in regard to certain conspiracies. He didn't disregard my opinions, as everything else I'd said to him in discussion on multiple topics had been consistent and intelligent conversation. So, he went away and studied what I had said, and came to the same conclusions I did. He confessed, and said now that he sees the corruption, he can't un-see it. 

Here are some things I wrote previously in a thread. How many of the following impair your judgment? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

1). CONFIRMATION BIAS 
The tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one's existing beliefs. We all do this and it's the hardest one to resist. How many of us have read JFK books one after another, without purchasing any that make the contrary case to our beliefs? 

2). GROUPTHINK
Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people. It's significantly easier to fall in line with the herd and not risk being ostracised for expressing different ideas and theories. There is less risk and it allows us to be intellectually lazy and feel safe in our group views. For anyone doubting this, see the Soloman Asche experiments proving the case. 

3). COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Cognitive dissonance is a theory in social psychology. It refers to the mental conflict that occurs when a person's behaviours and beliefs do not align. It may also happen when a person holds two beliefs that contradict one another. The state is fundamentally good, you vote for their representatives, but, the state seems to have been involved in the JFK assassination. One of them can't be true, which is it? If it can happen with JFKA, why can't it happen again, and again in different ways? We face the same mental conflict each time where we default back to the state as the good guys that we voted for. What if they are not? 

4). DOUBLETHINK
The acceptance of contradictory ideas at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination. The word comes from George Orwell in 1949 in his book titled "1984". This can only happen if people have abandoned critical thinking and their trust in those who supply them with information is completely blind. 
ie We're going to bomb democracy into Iraq because they might be linked to 9/11, destroy the country, kill a million Iraqi's, steal their oil, and it's going to make American's safer. 

5). PATRIOTISM AND THE FLAG
With societies heavily conditioned by the flag and the nation, if the perpetrators of a conspiracy are seen as patriots, it is very hard for the average person to see any wrong in them. This is the exact reason Presidents and candidates are photographed with the flag. It cements that they are the same as us in the public psyche. We are much more likely to vote for a candidate who talks of his sacrifices in the military and how much he loves this nation. Just about everyone watching Fox has a firearm and flag, ready to defend the nation. Perceived patriots are the last people suspected of a conspiracy, they are seen as loyal. 

6). PHILANTHROPY 
It's in the PR handbook if you are a wealthy elite or political candidate. You must be seen as charitable and doing good in society. JD Rockefeller famously got reporters to film him giving dimes to children for the news. The public perception was that he was a kind old man, and not a guy using his foundation to fund eugenics movements and further spread his influence in business, science and academia. The playbook is the same whether it's the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Clinton or the Gates Foundations. Donors are private, you get tax breaks and it goes under the guise of doing something good. If the accused in a conspiracy is appearing to give lots of wealth away, regardless of our financial naivety as to how much they are making, we find it abhorrent that a perceived kind person is being accused of conspiracy or impropriety. Again, we need to cast emotions aside and examine the facts. 

7). RELIGION
This is waning for children now but, many of us grew up entirely indoctrinated by religion, sitting through a school assembly of conditioning and brainwashing. We came out of it with morality and conscience. Every election we hear how devout a candidates faith is and how important it is to him/her as a guiding force. We can't help but think that's wonderful, something they have in common with us. When such a person is accused of a conspiracy or corruption, we can't even comprehend it as they have the same religious values as us. Our mind seldom lets us accept the notion of their guilt. 

8). INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT 
If your IQ is less than 90, you can't even polish someone's boots in the US Army. The average IQ is 100. If your IQ is low, you're going to have to see a conspiracy step by step with your own eyes to believe and accept it. If your IQ is 95, you're not going to have the same faculties as someone who has an IQ of 167 to see and understand a conspiracy taking place. Some things will occur to one person, that another can never be able to comprehend. That's life. 

9). REPETITION OF LIES
A wise man once said, that if a lie is told enough times, it becomes the truth. This is a fundamental rule of propaganda and psychological warfare. Unfortunately, some of us are more susceptible to this than others. If the perpetrators of a conspiracy have the media on their side, most of the population will nod like psychiatric patients who are high as a kite. After some time, the proportion of the population who believe otherwise will be very small. Maybe the same proportion that was put in gulags or executed in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia and North Korea. When intellectuals are speaking out against the state, worry. 

10). RELEVANT LIFE EXPERIENCE
Most of us don't have the first clue how ruthless it is in business, or an inkling of the tricks and deceptions used to achieve in that world. There are many tricks and cons that people in that world use to achieve their goals, that they see every day. When they catch a rival using them, they laugh, an acknowledgement they are in the game. The masses are completely asleep to such deceptions, they play out time and time again. They'll leave the average person thinking they just got a deal, the reality is they had their pants pulled down. Even Machiavelli's "The Prince" doesn't cover a fraction of these tricks but, it's certainly worth a read. I live in a tax haven, I listened to a ruthless proprietor of an offshore trust company negotiating with a local painter (decorator). The finance guy was conning the decorator something chronic, I called across the bar to the decorator "Dave, you could get £500 more for that", the other guy called me the FC-word combo. Don't assume because you are smart in your field that you understand the array of skills educated elites use. If you think you're immune to being conned by a conspiracy, you'll need to be seriously switched on and familiar with the techniques, most of us aren't. 

11). PSYCHOLOGY DEFICIENCY
If you don't understand why you do the things you do or, why human beings do the things they do, what hope do you have or identifying a conspiracy? You need a basic understanding of human psychology to evaluate the behaviour and actions of a possible conspirator. You can't see behavioural patterns if you don't know what to look for. This is absolutely vital education.

12). IGNORANCE OF HISTORY
History is cyclical, it repeats itself. "Those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it". In my opinion, if you're very well-read in historical terms, it equips you almost as well as the psychology. You'll see patterns, the same moves, repetition and be conscious of when a conspiracy is happening in real-time. If you're unaware of history, your chances of identifying a conspiracy are close to zero. Human history may be short in the scheme of the age of the planet but, there is plenty to educate yourself and observe the same surreptitious behaviour over and over again. 

13). LACKING THE BIGGER PICTURE
It's no secret as with IQ, there is a disparity in human beings when it comes to the attributes to do certain things. Some of us will be strong at one thing and incompetent at another. Most of us will look at world events in isolation, with a myopic view and no context. A small proportion of people will be very good at seeing the bigger picture, those with incredibly analytical minds. They'll see patterns, commonalities and connect things. Their very logical minds are alerted by their subconscious, that something doesn't look right or fit logic. Those people go to the end of the earth with analysis looking for answers and, they draw a conclusion that is probable and logical. Not many of us have the cognitive function to do that. Those guys will identify a conspiracy. 

14). PRODUCTION QUALITY
We are so used to CNN, SKY, FOX, BBC etc producing our news with very high production quality and a huge budget, that when we're communicated to by other sources with a modest budget who may be saying very valuable things, we instinctively doubt it because it doesn't look like what we're used to. People buy into a news brand like they would their favourite car or golf clubs, after a while, we develop blindness to everything else. Take everything on its merit and critically think, weighing up all sides. Don't be dazed and confused by special effects and fancy delivery. It's the truth that counts. 

15). VIDEO, TELEVISION, BOOKS & COMICS SHAPING THOUGHTS
From tiny children, we read comics, watch cartoons, watch TV, read books, watch films and they all have this good vs evil narrative. There is a virtuous good guy who wins, or a CIA, 007 or military guy who saves the world. Whether you realise it or not, we're conditioned to that as a reality and because it fits our moral value set, we feel good when the inevitable happy ending comes. In the exceptions where it doesn't, we feel sad, unhappy, like an injustice has taken place, it leaves us upset. All a government needs to do to perpetuate a conspiracy is propagate the message that they are on the side of the good guys, the righteous. If any conspiracy appears as well-intentioned, the public will support it, as their value set from media is geared up to do that. If you can make the victim the archetypal villain, you've done 90% of the job. We hear words like "undemocratic", "anti-freedom" and "against liberty" when it concerns countries, not pro-UK/US/Israel trade deals that exploit them and when someone is a friend of the UK, Israel or US, they're a democracy and they believe in freedom and liberty. We sit there and say; "my life is good, those guys don't believe in that, we need to change that or they'll take our freedoms away". Our media prevents us from seeing whether we are the hero or the villain in any situation. It manufactures consent for us to use taxpayers money to line the pockets of a handful of companies who do best when there is a war on the go. Our psyche is super susceptible to this manipulation and it plays out in perpetuity. 

16). ASSUMING WEALTHY PEOPLE THINK AS YOU DO
Given the American wealthy elite might be 1% of the population or less, how many of you encounter these people regularly and understand the way they think and how ruthless they are in business? You're trained to be an obedient worker, a cog in a machine that has an output for other people. Why would you assume they think the same? Because of well-polished PR and less than forthright public demeanour? Simple PR makes you think they're the good guys. 

17). FEAR
Those who get a conspiracy theory wrong, never regain their reputation amongst family, friends, work colleagues etc. You can side with the state and the state can be wrong over and over again, yet you don't lose face. For the conspiracy theorists its social suicide being on the wrong side. This prevents people from raising concerns and thinking outside of the box. 

18). THE POWER OF CELEBRITY
Whether we know it or not, we gravitate to people we like, admire and look up to. We create a bias and these celebrities are often used to deliver messages to the public. Because we have these celebs on a pedestal, corporations and governments often hire or co-opt them to enhance their message, as it's so effective. If your favourite athlete or actor says LHO killed JFK and anyone else is a tinfoil hat wearer, you're likely to go along with it. It's incredibly effective marketing. What we often don't understand is the upside for the very financially driven celebrities to jump on the bandwagon. They want to further their network and increase their earning potential and aspire to being part of the elite. Their PR agent will actively encourage them to take this line. With Insta, FB, Twitter and TikTok, and them having millions of followers, their endorsement is worth its weight in gold. 

19). THE CABAL 
We, hook, line and sinker, buy into the idea that red or blue is everything (in the UK too), we invest our emotions, hope and aspirations in these people who don't care about you or me. They're the guys that cut our healthcare, send us to some hellish foreign land to die in a ditch with a rifle, or sell us products that give us cancer. They're the guys that tell us we're destroying the environment while they profit from oil shares. They tell us we're destroying the oceans while they profit from the last saleable fish being mopped up. They tell us population is the worlds biggest problem while they have 6 kids and fly about in private jets. They tell us GM foods are healthy while they eat only organic. They drink deuterium free water while telling us ours dosed up with fluoride, is fine. Despite all this, we trust that the president or prime minister is the highest authority in the land and cannot be corrupted. This is one of the main reasons people don't see conspiracies. They believe in these demi-gods offering salvation through well-scripted dialogues organised by PR experts. Yet, we live with the very real reality of Napoleon Bonaparte's definition of madness; "people doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results". Every election we get a choice of Pepsi & Coke, hope & change, make America great again. 4 years later we sit there bought into the same pantomime. It never dawns on us that its theatre. That the status quo for the elites is the same, regardless of red or blue. It doesn't matter how many times they fail us, we're ready to believe in the next one who offers hope. How stupid are we really? We're like kids at a magic show seeing rabbits being pulled from hats, starry eyed and delusional. If you're not going to acknowledge the reason we only have two prominent parties, the reason we have such little choice in policy is a fix, then what hope do we have in seeing any conspiracy? 

20). WE CAN"T ACCEPT THE WORLD AS IT IS
Many of us don't like to believe the world is a bad place, that it's unfair or unjust, or that those we trust in politics could betray us. It's the red pill, the blue pill choice. Escapism is easier in the short term, but, leads to long term misery. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

Chris 

PS. I am open minded enough to discuss which have impaired by thinking, past and potentially present. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Liz Cheney Compares Jan. 6 Conspiracies To Notion That ‘9/11 Was An Inside Job’

Marisa Dellatto

Forbes Staff

Business

[W. Niederhut]

Chris,

1 minute ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Liz Cheney Compares Jan. 6 Conspiracies To Notion That ‘9/11 Was An Inside Job’

Marisa Dellatto

Forbes Staff

Business

Well, Ben, since Liz Cheney's father was an integral part of the Project for a New American Century, I can, certainly, understand why she would want to disparage the 9/11 Truth data as a kooky "conspiracy theory."

More false equivalence-- the bane of this thread.

But that, in itself, doesn't validate the "Patriot Purge" nonsense claiming that Trump's January 6th coup attempt was a Deep State false flag. 

It reminds me of the numerous propaganda articles in the M$M lately that lump all "conspiracy theories" -- including the JFKA and 9/11--into a single kooky basket, with QAnon, et.al.

Logically speaking, Ben, your fallacy here is;

P implies Q.

-P, therefore -Q.

CHRIS, I'm familiar with all of your above talking points and psychology terms, but your error is false equivalence.

Do politicians throughout the spectrum sometimes lie?  Yes.

But that doesn't mean that their mendacity is comparable to what we have seen in Trump's case, or in the case of Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire (Fox, NYPost, WSJ) and the right wing media during the past 30 years-- following the abolition of the Fairness Act in the U.S.

There was a time when our major television news anchors in the U.S. -- Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, McNeil/Lehrer-- accurately informed the public.  I think you would have to have lived here in the U.S. during the past 50 years or more to understand how drastically things have changed.

The driving force behind our political degeneration has been the corporate plutocracy, and the consolidation of the mass media.  In the end, the modern era Robber Barons are mainly interested in further enriching themselves-- through low tax rates, de-regulation, (including opposition to environmental protection) and reduced spending on utilitarian programs that benefit the public.

The Koch/GOP plutocrats bought the U.S. (Tea Party) House in 2010, and they bought the Senate in 2014.  In a sense, they still control the Senate (50 GOP Senators + Manchin + Sinema.)

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

CHRIS, I'm familiar with all of your above talking points and psychology terms, but your error is false equivalence.

Do politicians throughout the spectrum sometimes lie?  Yes.

But that doesn't mean that their mendacity is comparable to what we have seen in Trump's case, or in the case of Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire (Fox, NYPost, WSJ) and the right wing media during the past 30 years-- following the abolition of the Fairness Act in the U.S.

There was a time when our major television news anchors in the U.S. -- Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, McNeil/Lehrer-- accurately informed the public.  I think you would have to have lived here in the U.S. during the past 50 years or more to understand how drastically things have changed.

The driving force behind our political degeneration has been the corporate plutocracy, and the consolidation of the mass media.  In the end, the modern era Robber Barons are mainly interested in further enriching themselves-- through low tax rates, de-regulation, (including opposition to environmental protection) and reduced spending on utilitarian programs that benefit the public.

The Koch/GOP plutocrats bought the U.S. (Tea Party) House in 2010, and they bought the Senate in 2014.  In a sense, they still control the Senate (50 GOP Senators + Manchin + Sinema.)

Hi William, 

Well, again you are avoiding questions. Which of those in the list are impairing your judgement? I would expect some are present in all of us. Have you considered for a moment that what you perceive as false equivalence may be reality? It may just have taken someone so outspoken and crass like Trump for you to see the lies. What if your worship of the state or its institutions is so powerful that you can't see its shortcomings? It's entirely possible if subscribe to the ideas of Nietzsche and the death of god. 

What if your concept of right and left, blue and red is all theatre? That it has no intrinsic meaning in this age. You surely see the continuity for big business, banking, pharma, the military etc? What are you voting for, hope, of because it makes you feel like you are doing something? 

This 50 years where I haven't lived in the US, you are watching the fall of an empire, from its height to its end. We saw the same thing with the Greeks, the Romans and the British, they have a period of tremendous progress, they peak and fall into decay and then collapse. What you are seeing right now is the decay, where it becomes a cesspool of corruption. The timing actually probably coincides with the end days of capitalism. and what Marx predicted, government institutions being harvested by plutocrats and oligarchs. I do have a newsflash for you, in many ways this decay isn't just in the US, it's in Europe too. I socialise with German's, Austrians, French and Swiss, who have all come to escape the EU. They all tell the same tale, their countries and cultures are becoming unrecognisable, they all blame globalism and corruption. I think in most of this we find common ground. 

Given that which we agree on. Why is your focus on debating Trump stuff, his lies, misdeeds etc. Why isn't your focus on the present and future? There is so much happening right now and how many lies Trump told seems so irrelevant. It matters little whether you get him back in or Joe again or, the VP who escapes my mind right now. The certainty is that things will keep getting worse, and these oligarchs will keep stealing and milking this system until it falls. The whole crux of my argument and my surprise is that buying into the red blue thing is irrelevant and a waste of time. As the people ruling don't have colours, they don't love America, or the flag, they just care about wealth and control. The aim and ire should be at them, not the caretaker every 4 years, who just nods and peddles the latest lies. 

The more people who wake up, and stop buying into this state and media created division of society, the better. That's the only chance of a better country or world. I don't want to sound like a broken record but, a lot of this was in RFK's South Africa speech. We're all being baited to take aim at eachother, not at the people really causing the problems we want to solve. 

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Benjamin Cole]

W.--

My guess is that your version of 9/11 is a false narrative, but that the JFKA and 1.6 events had hidden hands operating.  

But hey, each to his own, and even though I have made an educated guess in these matters, I am not omniscient. 

I do note that Liz Cheney and George Bush jr. are the new heroes of the corporate "liberal" M$M.  

To which I say, "Oh, P.U." 

[W. Niederhut]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.--

My guess is that your version of 9/11 is a false narrative, but that the JFKA and 1.6 events had hidden hands operating.  

 

You speak in ignorance, sir, as a man who has, obviously, not studied, or understood, the scholarly 9/11 research.

And "liberals" are hardly embracing the political legacy of Bush, Cheney, and the disastrous Project for a New American Century.

The fact that we approve of Liz Cheney's honest, appropriate stand about investigating Trump's appalling January 6th coup attempt doesn't mean that "liberals" approve of Dick Cheney's legacy-- fracking, Reaganomic tax cuts for billionaires, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

As for the tendency to falsely equate the values, policy agendas, and media of progressive Democrats and the Trump/Koch GOP, it's absurd.

The examples are legion-- in policy issues ranging from healthcare to education, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation.

Take healthcare, for example.  Obama and the Democrats established the first universal healthcare framework in American history in 2009 by passing the ACA.  It was the first attempt at U.S. healthcare reform since Clinton's failed attempt in 1993-- 16 years earlier!  (Unfortunately, Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, and all GOP Senators sabotaged the "public option" provision of the ACA in the Senate Finance Committee.)

In response to the passage of the ACA, the Koch brothers spent millions on television ads urging Americans not to enroll in the ACA plans.  Fox News repeatedly lied about the ACA in their "coverage" of the issue.  Then the Koch-funded Tea Party GOP House repeatedly passed bills to abolish Obamacare after the 2010 election.  Ultimately, the GOP-controlled Congress attached a provision in their December 2017 Tax Cuts for Billionaires bill to abolish the individual mandate of the ACA-- to sabotage the public health.

There is no meaningful equivalence between progressive Democrats in America today and the Koch-funded GOP. None.

The main political legacy of the GOP since 1980 has been; 1) multi-trillion dollar imperialist wars, 2) pollution, and 3) a gargantuan national debt created by recurrent tax cuts for billionaires.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

You speak in ignorance, sir, as a man who has, obviously, not studied, or understood, the scholarly 9/11 research.

And "liberals" are hardly embracing the political legacy of Bush, Cheney, and the disastrous Project for a New American Century.

The fact that we approve of Liz Cheney's honest, appropriate stand about investigating Trump's appalling January 6th coup attempt doesn't mean that "liberals" approve of Dick Cheney's legacy-- fracking, Reaganomic tax cuts for billionaires, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

As for the tendency to falsely equate the values, policy agendas, and media of progressive Democrats and the Trump/Koch GOP, it's absurd.

The examples are legion-- in policy issues ranging from healthcare to education, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation.

Take healthcare, for example.  Obama and the Democrats established the first universal healthcare framework in American history in 2009 by passing the ACA.  It was the first attempt at U.S. healthcare reform since Clinton's failed attempt in 1993-- 16 years earlier!  (Unfortunately, Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, and all GOP Senators sabotaged the "public option" provision of the ACA in the Senate Finance Committee.)

In response to the passage of the ACA, the Koch brothers spent millions on television ads urging Americans not to enroll in the ACA plans.  Fox News repeatedly lied about the ACA in their "coverage" of the issue.  Then the Koch-funded Tea Party GOP House repeatedly passed bills to abolish Obamacare after the 2010 election.  Ultimately, the GOP-controlled Congress attached a provision in their December 2017 Tax Cuts for Billionaires bill to abolish the individual mandate of the ACA-- to sabotage the public health.

There is no meaningful equivalence between progressive Democrats in America today and the Koch-funded GOP. None.

The main political legacy of the GOP since 1980 has been; 1) multi-trillion dollar imperialist wars, 2) pollution, and 3) a gargantuan national debt created by recurrent tax cuts for billionaires.

W, W, W,--

There are different perspectives on events with unseen hands such as the JFKA, 9/11, and 1.6.

And different people have different takes on the modern-day Democratic Party.

Yes, I think the Donks have become fully corporatized, and embedded into the global security state, along with allied media. To me, this seems obvious. 

The 'Phants are little better, although interestingly Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan often raise challenge to Deep State global ambitions. 

As I said, I am not omniscient. I disagree with some of your thoughts on the matters. 

I welcome your views.

 

[Steve Thomas]

Ted Cruz Talks About Joe Rogan Being 'President' Of Texas If State Secedes From U.S.

"If there comes a point where it’s hopeless, then I think we take NASA, we take the military, we take the oil,” Cruz told an audience at Texas A&M University.

By  Mary Papenfuss 11/07/2021

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-joe-rogan-texas-secession_n_6188864ce4b055e47d7c1480

 

“When Cruz was asked by a member of the audience about the possibility of seceding, he said he “understood the sentiment.” But he added that he wasn’t ready for it — yet.

“I’m not ready to give up on America. I love this country,” he said, again to applause.

For one thing, Cruz insisted, Texas has a “responsibility” to the nation because “right now it’s an amazing force keeping America from going off the cliff, keeping America grounded in the values that built this country.”

But he’s prepared to change his mind.

“Look, if the Democrats end the filibuster ... if they pack the Supreme Court, if they make D.C. a state, if they federalize elections and massively expand voter fraud,” which doesn’t exist, “it may become hopeless,” Cruz said. “We’re not there yet.”

But if it does become “hopeless,” that’s when the state should grab NASA, the military and the oil, he added.

When asked this week what he thinks about the Texas secessionist / independence movement called “Texit,” Ted Cruz says it might be appropriate if certain things happen, and that Joe Rogan should be President of an independent Texas. pic.twitter.com/3crlZlh8VL

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 7, 2021 “

This is from a United States Senator who has declared war on a cartoon character bird and has defended the German WWII salute.

Steve Thomas

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Economist Michael Hudson really let it rip this past week with a detailed breakdown of the compromises associated with the Biden infrastructure bill, where the progressive impulse cultivated by the Democratic Party collapsed into a series of tax giveaways directed to the Dem’s donor constituency. Hudson writes caustically that the institutional “Democratic role is to protect the Republican party from challenges from the left.”

“The current Democratic impasse shows that no progress can be made without changing the institutional structure of American politics. It seems that the only way to do this is to make sure that the Democratic Party loses so irrevocably in 2022 and 2024 that it is dissolved enough to enable the Progressives to revive the near corpse.”

Michael Hudson - Is This the End of the Unreformable Democratic Party?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/05/is-this-the-end-of-the-unreformable-democratic-party/

Kudos Jeff!😀  That's probably the most cogent link I've seen from a foreigner on this thread in at least recent history. Of course it would be a Canadian. There are a few coals on the fire in the U.S. other than Ben's' "Save my Lulu's" campaign.

 

Jeff, I see now that your leanings, as I suspected are more typically Canadian, which I like. 

But it's as I said in my post last week. The Democrats don't have any real majority

 

 Hudson's obviously a progressive  but technically wrong in that the voters didn't vote for Biden to advance the progressive agenda, but did overwhelmingly want all the things in his progressive agenda, and I explain the contradiction there. Most of it is because there are huge groups of people in red states that vote against their stated interests, to put it as kind as I can. They'd accept it if it was from the Republicans  but the Republicans only want increased Defense spending and to give tax cuts to the rich.

 

What Hudson seems to imply is that this whole buildup was a fake out to convince the progressive wing that they at least had good intentions, but never really intended to go through. But he seems to trust Bernie Sanders. Bernie has spent hundreds of hours on this and if he says this whole thing was a fake out, I'd believe him,  but he hasn't, at least yet. But when they couldn't get the holdouts, Maserati,Big Yacht Joe Manchin and Senema, and couldn't assemble a real consensus, the more moderates just caved.

 

P.S.I was disappointed to see Hudson bring up Mac Aulife. Mac Aulife lost becomes he's kind of a windbag. But give him credit in that he at least conceded. The mafioso Republican guy who lost by more in the New Jersey Governor's race, still hasn't conceded. This is what W. is schooling Chris about "lies". There is an objective reality. Sometimes you just have to do some homework.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Ted Cruz Talks About Joe Rogan Being 'President' Of Texas If State Secedes From U.S.

"If there comes a point where it’s hopeless, then I think we take NASA, we take the military, we take the oil,” Cruz told an audience at Texas A&M University.

By  Mary Papenfuss 11/07/2021

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-joe-rogan-texas-secession_n_6188864ce4b055e47d7c1480

 

“When Cruz was asked by a member of the audience about the possibility of seceding, he said he “understood the sentiment.” But he added that he wasn’t ready for it — yet.

“I’m not ready to give up on America. I love this country,” he said, again to applause.

For one thing, Cruz insisted, Texas has a “responsibility” to the nation because “right now it’s an amazing force keeping America from going off the cliff, keeping America grounded in the values that built this country.”

But he’s prepared to change his mind.

“Look, if the Democrats end the filibuster ... if they pack the Supreme Court, if they make D.C. a state, if they federalize elections and massively expand voter fraud,” which doesn’t exist, “it may become hopeless,” Cruz said. “We’re not there yet.”

But if it does become “hopeless,” that’s when the state should grab NASA, the military and the oil, he added.

When asked this week what he thinks about the Texas secessionist / independence movement called “Texit,” Ted Cruz says it might be appropriate if certain things happen, and that Joe Rogan should be President of an independent Texas. pic.twitter.com/3crlZlh8VL

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 7, 2021 “

This is from a United States Senator who has declared war on a cartoon character bird and has defended the German WWII salute.

Steve Thomas

 

It's really simple. They don't have to secede. Al they have to do is let everyone else vote on it. Sea ya later!! Don't let the door hit ya etc.

[David Andrews]

You know, we used to have a nice, sedate bunch of crazies in federal and state government - circumspect types like Wilbur Mills, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, and Earl Long.  Whatever happened to our Glory Days?

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

What Hudson seems to imply is that this whole buildup was a fake out to convince the progressive wing that they at least had good intentions, but never really intended to go through. But he seems to trust Bernie Sanders. Bernie has spent hundreds of hours on this and if he says this whole thing was a fake out, I'd believe him,  but he hasn't, at least yet. But when they couldn't get the holdouts, Maserati,Big Yacht Joe Manchin and Senema, and couldn't assemble a real consensus, the more moderates just caved.

Veteran observer Jack Rasmus saw the same things as Hudson did - with the ultimate de-coupling of the Infrastructure and Reconciliation bills the “coup d’grace”:

“How Democrat Progressives Got Out-Maneuvered by Their Corporate Wing”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/08/how-democrat-progressives-got-out-maneuvered-by-their-corporate-wing/

The theory that the Dem leadership really wanted to go along with their progressive friends but just couldn’t “assemble a real consensus” is belied by the list of machinations and legislative compromises, which undermines the notion that two rather mediocre legislators were simply successful in overwhelming the party’s true intent:

“Why not simply remove Manchin from his committee memberships, and stop federal subsidy of his West Virginia constituency? Instead, they have put him in charge of the environment bill, which he has disfigured on behalf of the lobbying money he receives from the oil and coal sectors.”

Hudson’s observation that the Dem’s leadership is beholden to the Party’s “donor class” is far more useful to developing an objective perspective than a crude reduction of events to unfortunate unforeseen circumstances. What can be recognized here is, at least in a duopoly system (no viable third parties), the Dem’s must rely on their progressive wing to win, but won’t let them influence policy. The withdrawal or withholding of the “progressive vote” in response will largely determine whether big blow-outs in 2022 and 2024 are ahead. (The same happened in 1946, after the progressive wing was screwed at Convention in 1944).

Remember, the true purpose of Russiagate was to prevent or forestall a forensic analysis of why Clinton lost in 2016. The consequences of that have now been made manifest. I suspect this is informing the constant "1/6 attack on our democracy" meme.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

Remember, the true purpose of Russiagate was to prevent or forestall a forensic analysis of why Clinton lost in 2016. The consequences of that have now been made manifest. I suspect this is informing the constant "1/6 attack on our democracy" meme.

What utter nonsense.

A "forensic analysis of why Clinton lost in 2016?"  Really, Jeff? What "forensics" are you referring to?

You've posted a lot of flamers on the subject of Russia-gate in recent years, but this one really takes the proverbial pirogi.

There are comprehensive analyses from Harvard's Berkman Klein Center and the Columbia Journalism Review about the mainstream media sabotage of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016.* 

And, certainly, the Kremlin actively participated in the 2016 Clinton sabotage.**

As for your comment about "the 1/6 attack on democracy meme," are you now also suggesting with a straight face that our American democracy was not attacked on January 6th?

* https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.php

** https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-report-russian-interference-2016-us-election/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-planned-wikileaks-dump-tried-acquire-clinton-emails-mueller-n996081

Edited November 8, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

Page #500!!!!

 

Jeff, Substantively the articles are pretty much the same. I don't how you brought Russiagate in here. But regarding the article. I, cover all this here. I was inspired through Dennis's . "Biden beyond the veil" about the release of the JFK files. So I start by weighing in on that.

But I think the topic  was just sort of a prop for Dennis expansively telling us about his view of the insidiousness of the present day deep state. And that's cool with me, and I continue with that. I'm conversationally often talking to Dennis, here but it could be to everyone..

 

I'm going to share with you what some might find JFK- to- present-day- deep- state nihilism. I try to expose what I think is a lot of myth making by a lot of people here, so I don't expect it to be popular or fall along some ideological lines. But I think there are some twists and turns to common perceptions.I don;t think anybody that I've heard post here has posted anything that I think is near what would be called the "Deep state." I'm not sure any of the allegations thrown out have ever been solution oriented but often just general rants of personal frustration (which I understand). which can be true, but I feel there's a great confusion about who the true enemy is and how it manifests. I welcome everyone's response.

 

*****

First re the Government response to the JFKA research communities requests.

I don't think anybody in government is conscious of any real "bombs" in the remaining JFK files, and is holding on for dear life to withhold valuable information from the public. I agree that maybe the research done by the outside is impressive to the government, but it's probably not even enough to make them further undertake any great research into it.   The effort that you seem to imply that the "powers that be" are taking to conceal is  probably averted with a stroke of a pen. I'm not sure, but I'm afraid it might be a case where you're  setting yourself up for profound disappointment as to the resistance offered and the nature of the existing content.

 

Try this. IMO Nobody in government knows who killed JFK, and that in itself is probably worthy of a thread. And just as with the  government, now in 2021 I'm not sure the subset of people who may be aware through family connection or corporate connection, of their ancestral or company complicity in the JFKA are included among any of the worlds "powers that be", in any loose sense, much less directly pulling the levers of the NSS or are themselves current kingpins of industry. I'm not saying it couldn't possibly be. The notion that there are 5th generation career government bureaucrats that are being groomed  for high government positions to guard the JFKA secrets is rather absurd to me. But I suppose there could be some  wealthy heirs that know their dark family secrets, but are they really as heavy players on the world scene today as new generations of wealth that have been amassed at a pace unheard of with the old money? (We have RFK JR complaining about the massive profits being made by Pinterest!!)  And do the successive generations really have that much on the ball? But I suppose it's the RFK Jr. generation that would be keeping the secrets, like maybe that Du Pont heir who was obsessed with wrestling and ended being  a murderer who Steve Carel played in that movie. heh heh  Ok, I digress, I don't mean to be a party pooper,  But these are the conclusions to me, that make the most sense.

 

Dennis: Some researchers have done great work on the political reasons for the murder, but very few branch out to put the JFK case in proper historical context. Admittedly, this is much harder to do.

Ok it certainly is. I think this is your central theme, isn't it? I've already tried to discuss with you some of your covid theories. I'll leave your covid tie in to the JFKA alone,  and try to focus on what I think are your most lucid points. You always seem very comprehensive in your scope, which I can relate to.

Dennis:We say it was a coup but then don’t follow that logic through to today. If the security services were involved, the important question is who do they serve?

That's a good question. But drawing the direct line to today is, as you said harder to do. The reason is that the initial culprits IMO, were comprised of a relatively very small group of National Security  and the MIC defending corporate interests, but that group was so narrow. The interests back then  were largely industrial, securing raw materials through out the world. Those industries are larger now, but actually a smaller percentage of the pie now than it was and really  now only  a drop in the bucket of the total world GDP..

Honestly Dennis, again, the modern day culprit isn't even a "who". And there's really no "there" there. heh heh. If you're really serious about focusing and not just making scattershot allegations. If you really want change, you have to know the nature of your enemy, the Corporate State, which infiltrates and controls governments in various degrees throughout the world.

 

What is of prime importance to realize is that the Corporate State, being multi national, has only one real potential foe, and that is the federal governments of  the world stopping them in their tracks by extracting taxes from them for their enormous gains, as over our lifetime they have had large success in in infiltrating these governments and obstructing policy to do so. It's in the corporate interest to  a degree to foment the current climate of government distrust, to the masses of people, by propagating that  the government is an intrusive evil, that takes away your rights, intrudes on your privacy, and extracts taxes from your hard earned pay, so as to create a climate of resentment to taxation and a resultant defunding of government. But all these evils of government are in large part, because they control it!

 

You have to cut the serpent off at it's head, that is, get rid of corporate influence. Your misdirection in confusing the culprit as the temporal nation state government is just music to the ears of the Corporate State, who while they are quite content with the status quo, as they've been winning the game  marginalizing the middle class for the last 40 years. ( In fact they're even willing to give some back in taxes) None the less they would love to control the narrative to capitalize on  misdirected anger to enrage people against the government  in order to find reasons to defund the Government "administrative state" (as Steve Banon puts it.), which of course would be a great windfall for them. The fact that they have such an existing role in government already means they can regulate the specific ways the government is defunded.

The world Corporate State philosophy is essentially a Libertarian philosophy that states that  people are primarily responsible for their own survival, (which in their dishonest jargon, "survival" is exalted as "freedom" and" liberty") and there should be as  little of a Government security net as possible. So in their ideal state, (which outside of a  few groups, they know isn't completely achievable, unless there's an economic catastrophic event). They would probably scale back the government to the pre New Deal, if they could get away with it. This isn't in any way to say that all people in corporations are alike or evil. Many  of them individually have different ideas about the role of a government safety net. But that's the  elegance and seamlessness of it. No one person can be held to blame!

Similarly,  It is this philosophy that is the reason, that there are no conspiracies per se, (oh, boo hoo!)  in that none of them have to sit around and plot and conspire against you and me. They just naturally think alike.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Richard Price]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

They just naturally think alike.

Kirk, I think you quite eloquently made the case on the historical context.  I know you don't need me to agree, but I think much the same (if we both agree perfectly, one of us is not needed).  In order for our democracy to work like it should, what we would need is for the vast amounts of money to be erased from the equation.  Even if this were possible, the imperfect humans running the government still would not do what was in the best interest of the population as a whole.  Individuals, even when in groups still tend to start from a standpoint of "what's in it for me/my company/my pocket book/etc."  While my thoughts are not particularly germane to the JFK assassination, it does relate to your point about people in similar situations tending to think similarly.  It is their natural starting point.  Thinking outside your personal "box" or starting by thinking about how you can improve someone else's circumstances rarely occurs unless there is money to be made by the instigator.