The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Steve Thomas]

How January 6 security lapses enabled 2021's Capitol attack

The 2022 mid-term elections may show us if our law enforcement agencies have learned from Jan. 6.

By Frank Figliuzzi, Jan. 6, 2022,

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/jan-6-security-lapses-enabled-2021-s-capitol-attack-they-n1287030?icid=msd_topgrid

Risk: Violence at statehouses or election offices

Fueled by coordinated accusations of impropriety involving extremely close midterm U.S. Senate races in battleground states — like Georgia, Arizona and Florida — large crowds may assemble, first at county election offices, as votes are tallied — then at statehouses as results are certified. These crowds may include individuals and groups intent on interfering violently with lawful election certifications.

Risk: Social media disinformation

Social media platforms may be used to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories about uncorroborated midterm election cheating, which could fuel violence.

Risk: Governor interference

GOP governors in the most contentious midterm election states might attempt to use either their state guard or the National Guard to seize and/or recount ballots, leading to violent protests.

Risk: Organized violence

If the Supreme Court upholds midterm election results in highly contentious U.S. Senate races and the DOJ announces arrests of those plotting to interfere with those races, the threat of organized violence against those two institutions rises.

Risk: Attacks in Washington

Sufficient deterrence against the physical attack of Washington, D.C., targets is still not in place.

 

I've only included the risks he laid out. You can read his recommended responses in his article.

Steve Thomas

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

How January 6 security lapses enabled 2021's Capitol attack

The 2022 mid-term elections may show us if our law enforcement agencies have learned from Jan. 6.

By Frank Figliuzzi, Jan. 6, 2022,

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/jan-6-security-lapses-enabled-2021-s-capitol-attack-they-n1287030?icid=msd_topgrid

Risk: Violence at statehouses or election offices

Fueled by coordinated accusations of impropriety involving extremely close midterm U.S. Senate races in battleground states — like Georgia, Arizona and Florida — large crowds may assemble, first at county election offices, as votes are tallied — then at statehouses as results are certified. These crowds may include individuals and groups intent on interfering violently with lawful election certifications.

Risk: Social media disinformation

Social media platforms may be used to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories about uncorroborated midterm election cheating, which could fuel violence.

Risk: Governor interference

GOP governors in the most contentious midterm election states might attempt to use either their state guard or the National Guard to seize and/or recount ballots, leading to violent protests.

Risk: Organized violence

If the Supreme Court upholds midterm election results in highly contentious U.S. Senate races and the DOJ announces arrests of those plotting to interfere with those races, the threat of organized violence against those two institutions rises.

Risk: Attacks in Washington

Sufficient deterrence against the physical attack of Washington, D.C., targets is still not in place.

 

I've only included the risks he laid out. You can read his recommended responses in his article.

Steve Thomas

 

 

Steve T.--

Do you sense a portion of partisan fear-mongering in this article? 

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

As I said, you have never studied, or understood, the 9/11 evidence.

In other words, your opinions about 9/11 are not based on the facts.

Thanks for clarifying.

As for January 6th, your repeated attempts to blame the attack on "non-Trumpian" Federal agent provocateurs is based on a denial of the overwhelming evidence that the attack on the Capitol was planned and promoted by Trump and his January 6th co-conspirators-- i.e., Bannon, Stone, Alex Jones, Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar, et.al.-- to disrupt the certification of Biden's election.

W.-

 

Thanks for your comments.

Where is the evidence the 1/6 scrum was directed not by non-Trumpian federal instigators, but rather by "Trump and his January 6th co-conspirators-- i.e., Bannon, Stone, Alex Jones, Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar...."

Are there text messages or phone-call intercepts that have been presented either to the Justice Department or 1/6 committee? 

Have any written communications been intercepted? I ask this question earnestly. 

What I have seen, which may not be everything, is that various half-baked but non-violent legal and Constitutional theories were being tossed around by Trumpers, so intellectually weak that even the servile party-hack VP Pence was not persuaded. BTW, I think former NYC Mayor Giuliani was a part of this harebrained scheming, something about being holed up in the Willard Hotel.

But so far, the suspicious aspects of the 1/6 scrum appear to be--- 

1. Extraordinarily light Capitol Police presence, and then orders to stand down. The Capitol Police have 3,5000 officers...where were they? 

2. Federal assets in the scrum

3. Suspicious but video'd provocateurs who have not been arrested

4. The lone armed individual in the scrum, Christopher Alberts, was released on 1/7 and has not even been brought to trial

5. Mr Buffalo Horns, a penniless Phoenix gadfly, was given $500 by someone and arrived in DC, walked into the Capitol after the police stood-down, turned himself in to the FBI office in Phoenix in January and has been clapped behind bars ever since.  

This 1/6 event get fishier and fishier, and I smell a rat! 

I will earnestly re-appraise your explanation of the 9/11 event if you can explain how the towers were rigged to implode, without anyone noticing. It strikes me as a mammoth job. 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.-

 

Thanks for your comments.

Where is the evidence the 1/6 scrum was directed not by non-Trumpian federal instigators, but rather by "Trump and his January 6th co-conspirators-- i.e., Bannon, Stone, Alex Jones, Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar...."

Are there text messages or phone-call intercepts that have been presented either to the Justice Department or 1/6 committee? 

Have any written communications been intercepted? I ask this question earnestly. 

What I have seen, which may not be everything, is that various half-baked but non-violent legal and Constitutional theories were being tossed around by Trumpers, so intellectually weak that even the servile party-hack VP Pence was not persuaded. BTW, I think former NYC Mayor Giuliani was a part of this harebrained scheming, something about being holed up in the Willard Hotel.

But so far, the suspicious aspects of the 1/6 scrum appear to be--- 

1. Extraordinarily light Capitol Police presence, and then orders to stand down. The Capitol Police have 3,5000 officers...where were they? 

2. Federal assets in the scrum

3. Suspicious but video'd provocateurs who have not been arrested

4. The lone armed individual in the scrum, Christopher Alberts, was released on 1/7 and has not even been brought to trial

5. Mr Buffalo Horns, a penniless Phoenix gadfly, was given $500 by someone and arrived in DC, walked into the Capitol after the police stood-down, turned himself in to the FBI office in Phoenix in January and has been clapped behind bars ever since.  

This 1/6 event get fishier and fishier, and I smell a rat! 

I will earnestly re-appraise your explanation of the 9/11 event if you can explain how the towers were rigged to implode, without anyone noticing. It strikes me as a mammoth job. 

 

 

 

 

Bye bye.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

46 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bye bye.

 

Go James Dean!

The Magnificent Seven is now on Youtube for free, btw.

What a cast! Schmaltzy as can possibly be but...but so much fun to watch.  

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 1/7/2022 at 5:26 PM, Chris Barnard said:

It’s impossible to say. In every election votes are stolen, whether 2020 or 1960. I don’t think that’s in question at all. The question is; to what extent? (. . .)

As an outsider, looking in, does it even matter? (. . .)

Chris, do I understand you correctly, that your message is as follows:

(a) It is not possible to ever say who wins an election.

(b) And it never makes any difference who wins or loses elections anyway.

Now that elections and voting are dispensed with as the least consequential thing any American citizen could possibly do, what is it you DO recommend people do?

(c) be afraid. be very afraid.

(d) however, the "be very afraid" should NOT, repeat NOT, apply to what the world's climate scientists, by unanimous verdict of formal statement of every national and international scientific organization on earth, says is the most serious threat to the future of the world: climate change. On this point, you and the fossil fuel economic interests of the world are in agreement: give a little lip service to it but for the most part blow it off. Not the right thing to be very afraid of. Nothing to see there. Look over here (vast conspiracy de jour). 

My comment: of the above, I think "a" is nuts, "b" is nuts, "c" is inchoate in the form you present it and contradicted by "d".

It is a message of learned helplessness serving the interests of those with power who do not want to be interfered with in what they do--the large-scale rapacious economic interests of this world which have little social conscience--to have a message of "don't vote" combined with "be frightened" of a vast conspiracy de jour (but do not focus on what rapacious economic interests are doing and respond to that in the form of regulation, voting, laws, and political action). 

It is not a helpful message to three hundred million Americans many of whom are in dire straits. People need to hear messages of empowerment, which means becoming informed and making serious and thought-out choices on specific policy issues and engaging in politics on local and national levels, finding others who share values and caucusing within one of the major political parties--and voting.

And note how selective and weaponized vast-conspiracy theorizing can be: Bill Gates, a billionaire who is serious about using his billions to eradicate hunger and infectious diseases in all the poor nations on earth--a billionaire with a social conscience!--becomes a lightning rod. Take out that kind of billionaire--a Democrat, a progressive! Take him out! Tell all sorts of lies and untruths in utube videos from right-wing swampy sources funded from who knows where that no one will fact-check but which uncritical viewers believe. Smear. Get him to stop that. 

No, I'm not defending all of Bill Gates' business practices that made him those billions. Also, there are legitimate watchdog journalism roles on any nonprofit work of the scale of the Gates Foundation. That goes without saying. But the world needs more Gorbachevs--who rise to the top of systems and then move to accomplish good and visionary things on major scales. That is what JFK was, and that is my take on Bill Gates looked at in the eyes of history.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Chris, do I understand you correctly, that your message is as follows:

(a) It is not possible to ever say who wins an election.

(b) And it never makes any difference who wins or loses elections anyway.

Now that elections and voting are dispensed with as the least consequential thing any American citizen could possibly do, what is it you DO recommend people do?

(c) be afraid. be very afraid.

(d) however, the "be very afraid" should NOT, repeat NOT, apply to what the world's climate scientists, by unanimous verdict of formal statement of every national and international scientific organization on earth, says is the most serious threat to the future of the world: climate change. On this point, you and the fossil fuel economic interests of the world are in agreement: give a little lip service to it but for the most part blow it off. Not the right thing to be very afraid of. Nothing to see there. Look over here (vast conspiracy de jour). 

My comment: of the above, I think "a" is nuts, "b" is nuts, "c" is inchoate in the form you present it and contradicted by "d".

It is a message of learned helplessness serving the interests of those with power who do not want to be interfered with in what they do--the large-scale rapacious economic interests of this world which have little social conscience--to have a message of "don't vote" combined with "be frightened" of a vast conspiracy de jour (but do not focus on what rapacious economic interests are doing and respond to that in the form of regulation, voting, laws, and political action). 

It is not a helpful message to three hundred million Americans many of whom are in dire straits. People need to hear messages of empowerment, which means becoming informed and making serious and thought-out choices on specific policy issues and engaging in politics on local and national levels, finding others who share values and caucusing within one of the major political parties--and voting.

And note how selective and weaponized vast-conspiracy theorizing can be: Bill Gates, a billionaire who is serious about using his billions to eradicate hunger and infectious diseases in all the poor nations on earth--a billionaire with a social conscience!--becomes a lightning rod. Take out that kind of billionaire--a Democrat, a progressive! Take him out! Tell all sorts of lies and untruths in utube videos from right-wing swampy sources funded from who knows where that no one will fact-check but which uncritical viewers believe. Smear. Get him to stop that. 

No, I'm not defending all of Bill Gates' business practices that made him those billions. Also, there are legitimate watchdog journalism roles on any nonprofit work of the scale of the Gates Foundation. That goes without saying. But the world needs more Gorbachevs--who rise to the top of systems and then move to accomplish good and visionary things on major scales. That is what JFK was, and that is my take on Bill Gates looked at in the eyes of history.  

Thank's for you opinion, Greg. However, I think you've misunderstood me and that may be because you haven't read all that I have been saying, and you've taken something in isolation and chosen to allocate a meaning to it. My prerogative is to wake you guys up to what is right in front of your eyes, like a Dr telling you that you need to quit drinking booze, fatty foods or cigarettes. I thought perhaps you watching your lives disappearing down the plughole being a trigger for change. The implications of you guys not seeing truth, is that affects me. All of the same things going on in your country, are going on in my country, the whole of Europe and the wider world. 

You're seeing hyper inflation beginning (6-7% already), the devaluing of currency, the collapse of supply chains beginning, the prospect of food shortages, energy crisis, financial collapse, the ends of the USD as the worlds base currency, and you have a political class asset stripping the dying business (America).  Your political class and media keep you all on a knife edge of emotions and hate, using divide and rule strategy. It's the polar opposite of what you need in a crisis, you need unity. 

My message to you and everyone else isn't futility, timidity or apathy, it's withdrawing your consent. Étienne de La Boétie wrote a book almost 500 years ago that gives you the solution to walk your way out of tyranny. La Boétie pointed out that power sits with the masses, as soon as you withdraw your consent, it's over. As soon as you take away your permission for these corrupt politicians to rule you or make bad decisions, it's over, they are powerless. But, for that to work it needs to be done en mass, that's why you need unity, not to be carving each other up. Your lives are going down the pan and your political class and above is getting wealthier, nobody thinks thats odd, you think it's an accident. We are watching the largest upward passing of wealth in history and you think it has to be done, because a crisis is on. 

"Never let a crisis go to waste."
Winston Churchill 
 

"In (totalitarianism) shortages of material goods, even of necessities, were not a drawback but a great advantage for the rulers. These shortages were not accidental to the terror, but one of its most powerful instruments. Not only did shortages keep peoples minds strictly on bread and sausage, and divert their energies toward procuring them so that there was no time or energy left over for subversion, but the shortages meant that people could be brought to inform, spy and betray eachother very cheaply." 
Theodore Dalrymple 

What is my motivation here? Do you think I enjoy being the minority opinion? Why do I give up my time to try communicate messages that are contrary to public opinion? Do I like arguing? What's the point? There is only one point, if the masses become educated on such matters, we can move forward and improve, it makes the world a better place. If you're supporting authoritarians, people with totalitarian intentions like technocracy, the inherently corrupt, then you are part of the problem, you are a ball and chain around the ankles of a drowning humanity. 

I get it, we've had 77 years of prosperity, safety and relative peace in the west, that's all we know, and it's been a miracle in the context of human history, which was almost exclusively spent at the hands of tyrants, when things were unbelievably bad. You never think that can and will happen again, yet we're seeing the conditions developing that are ripe for tyranny. Collectivism was the guiding ideology of nationalism, socialism, communism, and fascism. That is the ideology we have on western societies now, sometimes called the "greater good." Compassion draws you into that ideology, it recruits you, makes you diminish the rights of the individual, making a greater cause the only important thing. Are you familiar with what that ideology did to the world in the twentieth century? 50-100m dead. You don't see it, because it's incremental. 

I have read Christopher R. Browning's "Ordinary Men" 

I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. Let me give you my message clearly, wake up, read the views of your opponents, understand their views, and then make a decisions as to whether they have merit. The answers here are all in understanding history, psychology, political science and the way media functions. 

I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe. The smallest action can have the most profound effect. Something you or I say can go around the world a thousand times over. I believe in Robert F. Kennedy's "Ripples of hope" that he describes in his famous speech in South Africa, that small ripples of hope from many directions can form a current that can sweep away even the mightiest walls of oppression. Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I can move the world, said Archimedes. We too can move the world. We have to withdraw our consent. 

PS Gates - It's the easiest one for me to see as I work in the industry that has built his reputation, through philanthropy. For anyone that has any doubts, it might be an idea to understand how Carnegie and Rockefeller expanded their wealth, power and influence. 

"Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing."

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Chris Barnard

[Paul Bacon]

On 1/7/2022 at 11:41 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

As to the 9/11 event itself, I do not see how federal provocateurs could have wired up three different large skyscrapers with explosives, without anyone catching on. 

Do some reading Ben.  You can start with this:  https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf.

The stuff can be sprayed or painted on.  If I had more time, I'd find a link to information about all the contracting work being done in the Towers in the many weeks prior to the incineration.

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Chris, do I understand you correctly, that your message is as follows:

(a) It is not possible to ever say who wins an election.

(b) And it never makes any difference who wins or loses elections anyway.

Now that elections and voting are dispensed with as the least consequential thing any American citizen could possibly do, what is it you DO recommend people do?

(c) be afraid. be very afraid.

(d) however, the "be very afraid" should NOT, repeat NOT, apply to what the world's climate scientists, by unanimous verdict of formal statement of every national and international scientific organization on earth, says is the most serious threat to the future of the world: climate change. On this point, you and the fossil fuel economic interests of the world are in agreement: give a little lip service to it but for the most part blow it off. Not the right thing to be very afraid of. Nothing to see there. Look over here (vast conspiracy de jour). 

My comment: of the above, I think "a" is nuts, "b" is nuts, "c" is inchoate in the form you present it and contradicted by "d".

It is a message of learned helplessness serving the interests of those with power who do not want to be interfered with in what they do--the large-scale rapacious economic interests of this world which have little social conscience--to have a message of "don't vote" combined with "be frightened" of a vast conspiracy de jour (but do not focus on what rapacious economic interests are doing and respond to that in the form of regulation, voting, laws, and political action). 

It is not a helpful message to three hundred million Americans many of whom are in dire straits. People need to hear messages of empowerment, which means becoming informed and making serious and thought-out choices on specific policy issues and engaging in politics on local and national levels, finding others who share values and caucusing within one of the major political parties--and voting.

And note how selective and weaponized vast-conspiracy theorizing can be: Bill Gates, a billionaire who is serious about using his billions to eradicate hunger and infectious diseases in all the poor nations on earth--a billionaire with a social conscience!--becomes a lightning rod. Take out that kind of billionaire--a Democrat, a progressive! Take him out! Tell all sorts of lies and untruths in utube videos from right-wing swampy sources funded from who knows where that no one will fact-check but which uncritical viewers believe. Smear. Get him to stop that. 

No, I'm not defending all of Bill Gates' business practices that made him those billions. Also, there are legitimate watchdog journalism roles on any nonprofit work of the scale of the Gates Foundation. That goes without saying. But the world needs more Gorbachevs--who rise to the top of systems and then move to accomplish good and visionary things on major scales. That is what JFK was, and that is my take on Bill Gates looked at in the eyes of history.  

Well said, Greg.

Chris and Ben's posts remind me of that old line from Shakespeare's MacBeth.

They are like, "tale(s) told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well said, Greg.

Chris and Ben's posts remind me of that old line from Shakespeare's MacBeth.

They are like, "tale(s) told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Another classic piece of hypocrisy from you, William. You love to point out “Ad hominem” attacks, and in the next breath you are guilty of it yourself. 🙈

It’s like your Mockingbird thread; you believe it exists in JFK’s time, you believe it exists today to block Oliver Stone’s “Through the looking glass” documentary but, it can’t possibly be utilised in the media you love, and adore, that’s sacred and exempt from manipulation by the CIA and other entities. 

In your world 9/11 was an inside job but, the rules of your parallel universe are that such things can only happen on Republican watch. 

With that much “cognitive dissonance” weighing you down, how do you even get through the day? 🙂 

What you are making abundantly clear here is; you don’t think about what you are saying. Which is an unfortunate disposition. 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

Oh, no....

 

Cyprus reportedly discovers a Covid variant that combines omicron and delta (cnbc.com)

[W. Niederhut]

41 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Another classic piece of hypocrisy from you, William. You love to point out “Ad hominem” attacks, and in the next breath you are guilty of it yourself. 🙈

It’s like your Mockingbird thread; you believe it exists in JFK’s time, you believe it exists today to block Oliver Stone’s “Through the looking glass” documentary but, it can’t possibly be utilised in the media you love, and adore, that’s sacred and exempt from manipulation by the CIA and other entities. 

In your world 9/11 was an inside job but, the rules of your parallel universe are that such things can only happen on Republican watch. 

With that much “cognitive dissonance” weighing you down, how do you even get through the day? 🙂 

What you are making abundantly clear here is; you don’t think about what you are saying. Which is an unfortunate disposition. 

 

Chris,

      I don't live in the parallel MAGA-verse, nor do I believe that Mockingbird propaganda is partisan in modern America.

      Your diagnostic skills are terrible.  I was probably studying Festinger's definitive work on cognitive dissonance when you were still wearing diapers.

      Verbosity is not perspicacity, and most of your posts are sophomoric, reminiscent of things that I used to write in my college days, when I admired Nietzsche, and tutored undergrads in math and physics.

      And, speaking of physics, here's a quote to ponder.

 

     

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks W. Yes.

Chris, on issues of collapsing middle class, etc. that you cite--all true incidentally, and news flash, a lot of Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders, and quite a few of your reading audience here, are a bit more informed on this than you realize--have you read and what do you think of the work of economist Thomas Piketty who gives concrete proposals to remedy the economic things you name?

Roughly half of America's wealth today was not earned but inherited, and though I do not know specifics I imagine the situation may be somewhat similar in your UK. Piketty proposes "Inheritance for All" in which a stiff (but not totally confiscatory) inheritance tax on estates of over $100 million would go pass-through to a lump-sum grubstake to every citizen on their 21st birthday, with the amount adjusted annually based on how much is in the trust fund. A lot of economists have focused on wealth--assets--not income levels, as the most fundamental key to change of poverty mentality and bringing about a reality of economic security for all people going forward. There is no need to mystify with psychological self-help bromides as proposed solutions to poverty--simple policies that result in every person having their own grubstake, assets, will do that for real, say a lot of serious economists--the universalization of inherited wealth. What say you?

When you rail against "collectivism" as if universal health care coverage in Canada out of the tax base is on a continuum with the holocaust of N-azi Germany because both Canada and Hitler collected taxes = collectivism = slippery slope to totalitarianism = right-wing libertarian logic . . . and then cite shysters like Jordan Peterson instead of Naomi Klein or Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders . . . you see, W. is right. I don't think you know what you are talking about. (For another view on Jordan Peterson see https://jacobinmag.com/2020/04/jordan-peterson-capitalism-postmodernism-ideology/.)

Here is a specific question. Earlier this year Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders introduced a proposal for a 2-3% wealth tax: 2% on wealth over $50 million and 3% on wealth over $1 billion. The money would go to childhood education, health care, and infrastructure (= jobs). It would directly and materially go to solutions to the economic issues affecting three hundred million Americans that you name. The specific question for you is: do you support or oppose this kind of proposal, and why? Please be specific.

"Mar. 1, 2021. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats on Monday proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 3% for wealth over $1 billion. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would aim to close the U.S. wealth gap, which has grown wider during the Covid pandemic. 

"A slew of Democrats on Capitol Hill--including progressives Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.--on Monday propose a 3% total tax on wealth exceeding $1 billion. They also called for a lesser, 2% annual wealth tax on the net worth of households and trusts ranging from $50 million to $1 billion. 

"The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act aims at reigning in a widening U.S. wealth gap, which has been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic.

"'The ultra-rich and powerful have rigged the rules in their favor so much that the top 0.1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%, and billionaire wealth is 40% higher than before the Covid crisis began,' Warren said Monday in a satement.

"About 100,000 Americans--or, fewer than 1 in 1,000 families--would be subject to a wealth tax in 2023, according to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economists at the University of Callfornia, Berkeley. The policy would raise at least $3 trillion over a decade, they found. Warren called for the tax revenues to be invested in child care and early education, K-12 education and infrastructure. (. . .)

"The bill likely faces significant obstacles in the Senate, where Democrats hold the slimmest of majorities."

(https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-propose-3percent-wealth-tax-on-billionaires.html) 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

      I don't live in the parallel MAGA-verse, nor do I believe that Mockingbird propaganda is partisan in modern America.

      Your diagnostic skills are terrible.  I was probably studying Festinger's definitive work on cognitive dissonance when you were still wearing diapers.

      Verbosity is not perspicacity, and most of your posts are sophomoric, reminiscent of things that I used to write in my college days, when I admired Nietzsche, and tutored undergrads in math and physics.

      And, speaking of physics, here's a quote to ponder.

 

     

Look at the bitterness here, you're trying to use your senior years as if they give your hypocritical opinions more validity. 
The trouble is, not only do you not think about what you are writing, you lay your emotions bare for all to see. That's how I know you are bothered. Because you are not in control of your emotions, I'll always be able to get under your skin, it's a weakness in your character. 

One amusing thing to me is, when you get asked simple questions which require a simple answer, you go quiet and avoid them. Perhaps you don't understand things well enough?!

If you're concerned about me using a lot of characters to explain relatively complex things, perhaps you'd be better suited to Twitter? There is a nice little character limit for those who are simple of mind, or have short attention spans. You might consider that Twitter is everything that is wrong with public discourse.

I do have a serious question for you; how on earth do you charge people for Psychoanalysis, when you are bereft of the use of psychology yourself? 

Another question might be; if you were to show your patients or contemporaries your exchanges here on the forum, would you be proud of them, or recognise your errors? It seems introspection is something else you are deficient in.  

It's so interesting to me that you discovered the JFKA was a conspiracy from a patient, that you thought was delusional. 🙂 
They came to you for help, you couldn't see that your whole life. Let that sink in. 

PS
Sorry, was that too many characters? 





 

[W. Niederhut]

31 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Look at the bitterness here, you're trying to use your senior years as if they give your hypocritical opinions more validity. 
The trouble is, not only do you not think about what you are writing, you lay your emotions bare for all to see. That's how I know you are bothered. Because you are not in control of your emotions, I'll always be able to get under your skin, it's a weakness in your character. 
 

I nominate this post for the Education Forum's Projection-of-the-Year Award... 🤥

To clarify, Chris, you are misinterpreting my annoyance as "bitterness."

My general interest is in the truth-- facts, logic, and explanatory theories that are based on logical assessments of all of the facts.

People who eschew facts and logic usually annoy me, especially when they presume to lecture about subjects that they don't really understand.