Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Steve Thomas

    1188

  • Douglas Caddy

    1105

  • W. Niederhut

    1014

  • Benjamin Cole

    917

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 by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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.
 
 

Kirk, this is actually one of your better posts. You're not dehumanising an opponent for once, and for the most part it appears that you are on the same page as Dennis & I in multiple areas here. You agree the corruption is there, subverting democracies, you just don't agree on who and why, or the extent of it. It seems like the arguing with Dennis & I over the past year or so has influenced your world outlook. Which was really my purpose in discussing such things, to influence people. What amazes me is; if this is indeed your true outlook, why are you still a cheerleader for the blue party, why are you buying into this charade if you do indeed believe that corruption is running the show (blue & red). How do you rationalise that contradiction in your mind? Is it that you don't want to let go of a belief system that's been the foundation of your views since you were young? 

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

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.

"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. " --Jeff Carter

If only that was the whole story. 

It gets worse.

The Donks, and affiliated media, have become lapdog-megaphones for the national security and surveillance state. 

This new Donk-frankenstein-party is being passed off as "progressive" or "liberal."  You know, the CIA hires Hispanic women so they must be cool. 

Also, Liz Cheney and George Bush jr. are the new Donk-media heroes. 

No, the 'Phants are no better. But let's call a spade a spade. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Richard Price said:

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." 

Richard, I think your posts have always been thoughtful and you should contribute.

I agree, of course, as you know, that's the same problem of humans and any governing body. since the beginning of time.But we see where this is headed, and eliminating this  influence can only help, and only lead to further transparency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Kirk, this is actually one of your better posts. You're not dehumanising an opponent for once, and for the most part it appears that you are on the same page as Dennis & I in multiple areas here. You agree the corruption is there, subverting democracies, you just don't agree on who and why, or the extent of it. It seems like the arguing with Dennis & I over the past year or so has influenced your world outlook. Which was really my purpose in discussing such things, to influence people. What amazes me is; if this is indeed your true outlook, why are you still a cheerleader for the blue party, why are you buying into this charade if you do indeed believe that corruption is running the show (blue & red). How do you rationalise that contradiction in your mind? Is it that you don't want to let go of a belief system that's been the foundation of your views since you were young? 

Cheers

Chris

Chris:It seems like the arguing with Dennis & I over the past year or so has influenced your world outlook.

Oh really? i think you're overestimating your influence Chris. I haven't interacted much with you and hardly at all with Dennis.

Since you're giving me your impression of who you think I am. I'll give mine and I'll say i don't put you and Dennis at all in the same bag, or are really motivated  at all by the same things.

Please tell me in your words about the present day pervasiveness of the corporate state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Chris:It seems like the arguing with Dennis & I over the past year or so has influenced your world outlook.

Oh really? i think you're overestimating your influence Chris. I haven't interacted much with you and hardly at all with Dennis.

Since you're giving me your impression of who you think I am. I'll give mine and I'll say i don't put you and Dennis at all in the same bag, or are really motivated  at all by the same things.

Please tell me in your words about the present day pervasiveness of the corporate state.

Kirk, I don’t know why you’d have a problem answering a straight question. Unless of course you can’t answer it in a way that looks rational. Which is fine. 🙂 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a cheer leader for the blue party, but given the current situation. I don't want my country taken over by fascists. and I feel no contradiction to my belief system, just as I've always been against bullies since I was young, and now I'm against Fascists. Understood?

You've made a lot of very  parochial assumptions in that question Chris. Whereas my question to you is unassuming..

Please tell me in your words about the present day pervasiveness of the corporate state?

Or do you find it pervasive? If not why?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I'm not a cheer leader for the blue party, but given the current situation. I don't want my country taken over by fascists. and I feel no contradiction to my belief system, just as I've always been against bullies since I was young, and now I'm against Fascists. Understood?

You've made a lot of very  parochial assumptions in that question Chris. Whereas my question to you is unassuming..

Please tell me in your words about the present day pervasiveness of the corporate state?

Or do you find it pervasive? If not why?

 

I think it's been that way a long time, fascist. This is a common argument that Dennis and share and that is touched upon in my conspiracy theories thread, it goes back a lot further than most people think. If you have the will, have a read of Carroll Quigley's - Tragedy & Hope or, the Anglo-American Establishment. 

I think it's a good position to be against fascists and bullies. Just be careful that you don't go from gamekeeper to poacher at times. If you're taking little nips at people, making snidey remarks, partaking in reputation destruction, it is all tantamount to bullying. I recognise we are all human and imperfect, our emotions get the better of us at times. 

Regarding my assumptions; I tend to be very analytical and pick up on very subtle things. My instincts serve me very well in work, particularly EQ. Be sure you understand yourself, most people don't, and thinking through complex problems rationally isn't exactly commonplace. Our words radiate our thinking, even when we think we are masking our true feelings. The reason for the question is that in my opinion it's patently absurd that a person would defend an institution or party, when it is co-opted by the things they are against, just because there is another organisation that seems more villainous. The time expended on this alone is staggering and what purpose does it serve? Just to break that down for anyone reading; if you only have a two party system and you want to do something fascist or corrupt, all you need to do is present the voter with a worse option than your organisation and people take the lesser of two evils. The parties are counterpoints to eachother. The same way the news networks are and so on. The left and right is completely irrelevant today. It's the same in Britain, it works exceptionally well for one class of people. 

Unfortunately, I am in a position where I am pretty stretched with work and my social life, hence my lack of contribution since summer, I don't have the time to be drafting the 5000-10000 word posts that would did this topic justice, plus, there are people much more scholarly than I who are beating this drum in the public domain. Have you listened to the Neil Oliver links that I have shared?  What I will say is, this neo-fascist corporatocracy, or technocracy that's being ushered in, is exactly what Dennis & I were trying to warn you guys about in that other thread. Just to respond to your observations about seeing Dennis and I as different, we are, one of us is an American for starters but, we do share a lot of common ground on certain topics which are very pertinent in 2021. 

Cheers

Chris







 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...