Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

On 11/26/2021 at 6:00 AM, Jake Hammond said:

As long as people are happy to admit to being raging leftists or Evangelical puritans I can't see an issue. I am pretty ' right wing' by English standards but the is more to do with objectivity and truth rather than and political standing , also I feel the shift to the left in general over the last 20 years makes people who still hold fast to the truth more ' right wing by default. The same would be true of course in a shift to the right only in reverse. 

Jake: I am pretty ' right wing' by English standards but the is more to do with objectivity and truth rather than and political standing ,

What an arrogant, pretentious statement coming from someone first introducing himself.. Jake establishes himself as the sole pursuer of "objectivity and truth" that transcends all "political standing".

Jake: also I feel the shift to the left in general over the last 20 years makes people who still hold fast to the truth more ' right wing by default.

Then W. just takes this "shift to the left  argument" apart piece by piece, on a 40 year scale talking about the gradual eroding of the middle class which initially started under Reagan. Jake at least then admits he knows next to nothing about policy shifts in the U.S. (though most posters  from other countries here  often think they do know , largely from projecting issues they feel strongly about from their home country) and is really just another "cultural warrior" with  some feelings of being culturally dispossessed. 

If I can find any truth in what Jake seems to be alluding to. It's that the Democrat messaging is often too policy oriented. Of course, Democrats would say what could be more important?

At one point in our lives in America, the Republicans were also issue oriented, and represented sensible government and fiscal restraint. Unfortunately now, largely because of social media, it's become a party where a group of corporate, and just as globalist as the corporate Democrats, political hacks are harnessing the anger of the disenfranchised from policies that they themselves undertook  to disenfranchise them of 40 years ago! They represent a constituency  that they will talk forever out of both sides of their mouths to hold on to, to stem the defection from their crumbling party. They're an ideal constituency because they are a lot people, apparently  like Jake, who will require them to make no substantial policy changes, but just be there, like Trump to air their cultural grievances.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jake: I am pretty ' right wing' by English standards but the is more to do with objectivity and truth rather than and political standing ,

What an arrogant, pretentious statement coming from someone first introducing himself.. Jake establishes himself as the sole pursuer of "objectivity and truth" that transcends all "political standing".

Jake: also I feel the shift to the left in general over the last 20 years makes people who still hold fast to the truth more ' right wing by default.

Then W. just takes this "shift to the left  argument" apart piece by piece, on a 40 year scale talking about the gradual eroding of the middle class which initially started under Reagan. Jake at least then admits he knows next to nothing about policy shifts in the U.S. (though most posters  from other countries here  often think they do know , largely from projecting issues they feel strongly about from their home country) and is really just another "cultural warrior" with  some feelings of being culturally dispossessed. 

If I can find any truth in what Jake seems to be alluding to. It's that the Democrat messaging is often too policy oriented. Of course, Democrats would say what could be more important?

At one point in our lives in America, the Republicans were also issue oriented, and represented sensible government and fiscal restraint. Unfortunately now, largely because of social media, it's become a party where a group of corporate, and just as globalist as the corporate Democrats, political hacks are harnessing the anger of the disenfranchised from policies that they themselves undertook  to disenfranchise them of 40 years ago! They represent a constituency  that they will talk forever out of both sides of their mouths to hold on to, to stem the defection from their crumbling party. They're an ideal constituency because they are a lot people, apparently  like Jake, who will require them to make no substantial policy changes, but just be there, like Trump to air their cultural grievances.

Spot on, Kirk.

I would add that Jake's description of our recent forum discussion of the Rittenhouse case is also inaccurate.

My recollection is that Bob Ness gave a very clear summary of why Rittenhouse was acquitted.   I agreed with Bob's legal analysis, but simply mentioned the larger social problem of right wing vigilantes with guns on America's streets (and even in our Capitol buildings!)

Perhaps some people, including Jake, believe this kind of vigilantism is acceptable, but I wonder how Jake would feel if there were teen vigilantes with AR-15s murdering Labor Party supporters on the streets of merry old England... 🤥

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/18/fbi-and-other-agencies-paid-informants-548-million-in-recent-years-with-many-committing-authorized-crimes/?sh=41eaffcff4dd

 

Whatever you ideologies, biases, or tribes...just take M$M narratives with grain of salt. 

From the JFKA, the Gulf of Tonkin, to 9/11, to Russiagate, to I/6. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Whatever you ideologies, biases, or tribes...just take M$M narratives with grain of salt. 

From the JFKA, the Gulf of Tonkin, to 9/11, to Russiagate, to I/6. 

 

Ben,

    IMO, you're overgeneralizing here by positing some equivalence between genuine Deep State black ops and Trump's Russiagate and 1/6 scandals.  To date, all of the evidence in Russiagate and 1/6 points to Donald Trump, notwithstanding the M$M propaganda minimizing Trump's documented ties to Russia and the 1/6 attack on Congress.

    Also, you never answered my old question about how the 1/6 attack on Congress could have conceivably benefited anyone but Trump, himself.  Cui bono?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks- despite Ben's attempts to tell you otherwise, people don't get jobs at the paragons of American journalism (NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC) by being hacks and fake journalists.

If they did, they would have hired Glenn Greenwald a long time ago.

Whatever your opinion of them, I can assure you that you can trust them, along with the BBC and FT, much more than Russia Today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/18/fbi-and-other-agencies-paid-informants-548-million-in-recent-years-with-many-committing-authorized-crimes/?sh=41eaffcff4dd

 

Whatever you ideologies, biases, or tribes...just take M$M narratives with grain of salt. 

From the JFKA, the Gulf of Tonkin, to 9/11, to Russiagate, to I/6. 

 

I think this is worth a deeper discussion. Clearly informers are not provocateurs. But the line gets crossed, as this article suggests, and we should all be concerned with provocateurs. DEA informants who commit crimes - old news, not usually good news. Informers embedded into political groups who then become active promoters of illegal acts by those groups - a large and important subject. The most extreme examples I can think of lie at the heart of the Strategy of Tension. Maybe the fascist infiltrators into the Red Brigades were working for private not government groups, but that’s a thin line. In a few of the most dramatic cases such as Fontana or Bologna the crimes themselves were committed by infiltrators who, with the preplanned complicity of major media and elected government, blamed the bombings on the Red Brigades, whose dedicated left wing membership had nothing to do with those acts or the planning thereof. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot FBI informants infiltrated a Moslem group tied to the Blind Sheik and then led them down a terrorist path which they participated in. Or go way back, closely examine the life of Paul, a Roman agent who infiltrated the activists around Rabbi Jesus and then after Jesus’s Roman death proceeded to ‘convert’ on the road to Damascus and proceed to divide the Jewish followers of Jesus. That’s a long tale. 
Back to recent events - the woman who grabbed the microphone out of Bernie Sanders hand at a Black Lives Matter event in Seattle during the 2016 election campaign for president, an act that confused and outraged me enough to cause me to look more closely, turned out to be the daughter of Tea Party activists. Was she an informant inside Black Lives Matter? I can tell you that this moment in time made me doubt that organization, even though I am firmly on their side. A few years later black clad Antifa rioters created mayhem and destroyed property in Berkeley while people were protesting UCB’s decision to allow a racist far right speaker a podium on campus. Result - people think anti racist protestors are violent anarchists. Over the past several years many such incidents occurred. Long before right wingers started calling Antifa a government infiltration, I came to the conclusion that they were in part a creation of those seeking to discredit progressives.  I have yet to see a trial exposing the work of infiltrators into any left wing protest groups. Funny thing - well meaning organizers on the left seem unprepared and/or unwilling to look more closely at those people who commit violence in their names, and cops and courts fail to hold them accountable. 
Flash forward to recent events that Ben posts about, articles showing that courts are now looking at infiltrations of right wing groups by government agencies. It looks likely to me that some of this is true, a twist on the age old infiltrations of the left wing. Hoover himself forbade his agents to join the John Birch Society, but not so the CPA Communists. I have family knowledge of this, so I have no doubts about Hoover’s agenda. 
So the question I will pose here is where the heck is the so-called Liberal media when acts are committed by infiltrators into progressive or left wing movements? Why is it that the Right wing media can take up the cause when their protest movements are infiltrated?
How much proof do we need that mainstream media lies as a matter of course? Aren’t we all here on this forum partly because we know in our bones this is true? Look at the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (Ben - share how you felt about that. Did you see this as a looming disaster, something which the intervening years has shown us to be true, regardless of our positions at the time)? Did our media lie? Surely, and massive global protests did not stop Bush and his cronies. In fact the MSM made fun of the protests by focusing their cameras on the Bay Area kooks protesting literally everything in costume. Protest movements on the left are an endangered species thanks to their ineffectiveness. Recent protesters  in London by climate activists are labeled tools of Big Oil, who are seeking to control the environmental movement by funding these radicals. Greta Thunberg is a tool of her parents. 
Ben - if you want or need respect for your anti-government POV, address the history of infiltration and other forms of marginalization of progressive movements. 
 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Folks- despite Ben's attempts to tell you otherwise, people don't get jobs at the paragons of American journalism (NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC) by being hacks and fake journalists.

If they did, they would have hired Glenn Greenwald a long time ago.

Whatever your opinion of them, I can assure you that you can trust them, along with the BBC and FT, much more than Russia Today.

Well put, Matt, and Paul. I think it was one of the better articles Ben has submitted. But I've always thought Ben's takes are monotonously slanted.

As I've said, and supported my argument in another thread. And no one has since made a case against it, that anyone of "the powers that be" or as Jeff put it, "The American Establishment" would have any real cause to fear anything from the JFKAC community, when under no circumstances would anything really change or anyone will be brought to justice.

Ben:For my part, I welcome all points of view. I do not think anyone has a monopoly on truth or insights. 

Well sounds good Ben, but you're always the first to roll out of bed screaming MSM conspiracy, as if in a bad dream.. But of course Ben isn't the only one, it's been going on a long time, but it is ironic  that Ben's  supposedly a  First Amendment advocate but is one of the first people to impugn the motives of anyone who writes an article about a film or others who do the same with a bad review of a song as the work of some greater conspiracy with no real factual basis. Some of it is passed off as sort of collegial fun , as we use to do with Dave Van Pein, which to me was fun, because he was somebody we all had personal experiences with. i don't expect it will stop. But ascribing motives to a huge group of people simply because they disagree with you can degenerate into Fascism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Folks- despite Ben's attempts to tell you otherwise, people don't get jobs at the paragons of American journalism (NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC) by being hacks and fake journalists.

If they did, they would have hired Glenn Greenwald a long time ago.

Whatever your opinion of them, I can assure you that you can trust them, along with the BBC and FT, much more than Russia Today.

Satire, right? Sending up the combination of naïveté and credulity necessary to make blanket assertions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, right?

Just this past week the NY Times has headlined obviously false stories about Uganda’s national airport and local crime rates in NYC. Two weekends ago, basically all of the legacy media in U.S. published mea culpas conceding that all of their breathless reporting re: the Steele dossier was in fact textbook “hack” journalism. In fact, the reporting on Russiagate in general has been one of the worst journalistic performances in recent history, although not as devastatingly consequential as the torrent of fake news which accompanied the WMD lies and attendant invasion of Iraq - which is by far the biggest international crime perpetrated this young century.

Here’s a fun challenge: Within a couple of minutes, without having to think hard, I can easily come up with a dozen false stories published by legacy media  (many of which resulting from planted information pushed by unnamed national security figures to pliant reporters). Can you identify a single fake news story published by RT?

As to Paul’s point, infiltration of leftist/antiwar organizations by government agents is usually downplayed when they are revealed, which is usually in court. During the 2010 G20 meet in Toronto, for example, members of black bloc were allowed to run wild one afternoon resulting in the city virtually coming under martial law. It later turned out the organization was thoroughly infiltrated by police, who were actually forefront in planning the rampage. This of course also happened back in Chicago ’68, when just about all of the most strident and confrontation-minded Yippies showed up as prosecution witnesses during the later trial. While the smarter organizers know that the loudest advocates of violent protest are probably cops, the ensuing paranoia over infiltrators itself is harmful - as histories of New Left, Black Panthers, etc show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Russiagate was not a "hoax"; all anyone has to do to understand that is to read the Mueller Report.

Russiagate was worse than a hoax.  

We have to ask how and why government police and judicial authorities became an arm of the Democratic Party (and vice-versa) and why M$M amplified and cheer-led the whole charade. 

Yes, they all loathed Trump.  I get that. In my personal opinion, Trump is not qualified to be President---too mercurial, too self-indulgent, too bombastic. 

But that is not why the Deep State went after him---which they clearly did, even before he became President.

If the Deep State torpedoes Trump, they will also sink any outsider who tries to become President.

In other words, you are stuck with Hillary Clinton-Liz Cheney apparatchiks  forever.  And they do not work for you, or the employee class in America. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I think this is worth a deeper discussion. Clearly informers are not provocateurs. But the line gets crossed, as this article suggests, and we should all be concerned with provocateurs. DEA informants who commit crimes - old news, not usually good news. Informers embedded into political groups who then become active promoters of illegal acts by those groups - a large and important subject. The most extreme examples I can think of lie at the heart of the Strategy of Tension. Maybe the fascist infiltrators into the Red Brigades were working for private not government groups, but that’s a thin line. In a few of the most dramatic cases such as Fontana or Bologna the crimes themselves were committed by infiltrators who, with the preplanned complicity of major media and elected government, blamed the bombings on the Red Brigades, whose dedicated left wing membership had nothing to do with those acts or the planning thereof. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot FBI informants infiltrated a Moslem group tied to the Blind Sheik and then led them down a terrorist path which they participated in. Or go way back, closely examine the life of Paul, a Roman agent who infiltrated the activists around Rabbi Jesus and then after Jesus’s Roman death proceeded to ‘convert’ on the road to Damascus and proceed to divide the Jewish followers of Jesus. That’s a long tale. 
Back to recent events - the woman who grabbed the microphone out of Bernie Sanders hand at a Black Lives Matter event in Seattle during the 2016 election campaign for president, an act that confused and outraged me enough to cause me to look more closely, turned out to be the daughter of Tea Party activists. Was she an informant inside Black Lives Matter? I can tell you that this moment in time made me doubt that organization, even though I am firmly on their side. A few years later black clad Antifa rioters created mayhem and destroyed property in Berkeley while people were protesting UCB’s decision to allow a racist far right speaker a podium on campus. Result - people think anti racist protestors are violent anarchists. Over the past several years many such incidents occurred. Long before right wingers started calling Antifa a government infiltration, I came to the conclusion that they were in part a creation of those seeking to discredit progressives.  I have yet to see a trial exposing the work of infiltrators into any left wing protest groups. Funny thing - well meaning organizers on the left seem unprepared and/or unwilling to look more closely at those people who commit violence in their names, and cops and courts fail to hold them accountable. 
Flash forward to recent events that Ben posts about, articles showing that courts are now looking at infiltrations of right wing groups by government agencies. It looks likely to me that some of this is true, a twist on the age old infiltrations of the left wing. Hoover himself forbade his agents to join the John Birch Society, but not so the CPA Communists. I have family knowledge of this, so I have no doubts about Hoover’s agenda. 
So the question I will pose here is where the heck is the so-called Liberal media when acts are committed by infiltrators into progressive or left wing movements? Why is it that the Right wing media can take up the cause when their protest movements are infiltrated?
How much proof do we need that mainstream media lies as a matter of course? Aren’t we all here on this forum partly because we know in our bones this is true? Look at the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (Ben - share how you felt about that. Did you see this as a looming disaster, something which the intervening years has shown us to be true, regardless of our positions at the time)? Did our media lie? Surely, and massive global protests did not stop Bush and his cronies. In fact the MSM made fun of the protests by focusing their cameras on the Bay Area kooks protesting literally everything in costume. Protest movements on the left are an endangered species thanks to their ineffectiveness. Recent protesters  in London by climate activists are labeled tools of Big Oil, who are seeking to control the environmental movement by funding these radicals. Greta Thunberg is a tool of her parents. 
Ben - if you want or need respect for your anti-government POV, address the history of infiltration and other forms of marginalization of progressive movements. 
 

Paul--

Thank you for your open-minded assessments. 

Yes, the government has long infiltrated and undermined political groups across the spectrum. Government agents repeatedly have acted as provocateurs. 

If the establishment senses even a hint of a threat to their grip on power....expect preemptive strikes.

It is not about ideology. It is about control. Ideologues are useful idiots.

Today's US globalists are deep into bed with CCP. 

What ideology is that? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    IMO, you're overgeneralizing here by positing some equivalence between genuine Deep State black ops and Trump's Russiagate and 1/6 scandals.  To date, all of the evidence in Russiagate and 1/6 points to Donald Trump, notwithstanding the M$M propaganda minimizing Trump's documented ties to Russia and the 1/6 attack on Congress.

    Also, you never answered my old question about how the 1/6 attack on Congress could have conceivably benefited anyone but Trump, himself.  Cui bono?

 

W.-

I have answered the "cui bono?" question a few times, though perhaps not to your satisfaction. 

1. The 1/6 occupation of the Capitol was likely just a scrum. 

2. If the 1/6 was instigated, who benefitted? The 1/6 event was a huge black eye for the entire populist-alt-right movement, who were uniformly portrayed as anti-democratic racist savages in the M$M (no doubt, some are).

3. What elements in our nation have the repeatedly proven skill set and resources to act as infiltrators, instigators and provocateurs? 

4. Who could have arranged for entirely thin police protection of the Capitol (6,000 police in the Capitol and Metro squads, but where were they?), and who ordered the police to stand down? Why were 500 police from neighboring jurisdictions able to move the crowd onto the Capitol lawn and arrest them? (The WaPo account).

4. Cui bono? If cui bono is the standard, who benefitted from the Russiagate-hoax witch-hunt? 

To quote myself, shed the red-blue kool-aids, the pretend Donk-'Phant schisms, the left-right blinders, the culture war divisions. 

I do not adhere to either of the major parties, or the M$M, and I am not a believer in Trump. 

When Hillary Clinton and Liz Cheney embrace...find another narrative to believe. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It Wasn’t a Hoax

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/

November 25, 2021

Excerpt

The factual record on Trump-Russia has been set forth most authoritatively by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina. I’ll reduce the complex details to a very few agreed upon by virtually everybody outside the core Trump-propaganda group.

  1. Dating back to at least 2006, Trump and his companies did tens of millions of dollars of business with Russian individuals and other buyers whose profiles raised the possibility of money laundering. More than one-fifth of all the condominiums sold by Trump over his career were purchased in all-cash transactions by shell companies, a 2018 BuzzFeed News investigation found.
  2. In 2013, Trump’s pursuit of Russian business intensified. That year, he staged the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Around that time, Trump opened discussions on the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow, from which he hoped to earn “hundreds of millions of dollars, if the project advanced to completion,” in the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  3. Trump continued to pursue the Tower deal for a year after he declared himself a candidate for president. “By early November 2015, Trump and a Russia-based developer signed a Letter of Intent laying out the main terms of a licensing deal,” the Senate Intelligence Committee found. Trump’s representatives directly lobbied aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016. Yet repeatedly during the 2016 campaign, Trump falsely stated that he had no business with Russia—perhaps most notably in his second presidential debate against Hillary Clinton, in October 2016.
  4. Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
  5. The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.
  6. In June 2016, the Trump campaign received a request for a meeting from a Russian lawyer offering harmful information on Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump Jr. and other senior Trump advisers accepted the meeting. The Trump team did not obtain the dirt they’d hoped for. But the very fact of the meeting confirmed to the Russian side the Trump campaign’s eagerness to accept Russian assistance. Shortly after, Trump delivered his “Russia, if you’re listening” invitation at his last press conference of the campaign.
  7. WikiLeaks released two big caches of hacked Democratic emails in July and October 2016. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee: “WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian intelligence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.”
  8. Through its ally Roger Stone, the Trump campaign team assiduously tried to communicate with WikiLeaks. Before the second WikiLeaks release, “Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more releases would be forthcoming,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In late summer and early fall 2016, Stone repeatedly predicted that WikiLeaks would publish an “October surprise” that would harm the Clinton campaign.
  9. At the same time as it welcomed Russian help, the Trump campaign denied and covered up Russian involvement: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort,” the Intelligence Committee found.
  10. In March 2016, the Trump campaign accepted the unpaid services of Paul Manafort, deeply beholden to deeply shady Russian business and political figures. “On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information” with a man the Intelligence Committee identified as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services … represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the committee found. Through 2016, the Russian state launched a massive Facebook disinformation program that aligned with the Trump campaign strategy.
  11. At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union.
  12. Throughout the 2016 election and after, people close to Trump got themselves into serious legal and political trouble by lying to the public, to Congress, and even to the FBI about their Russian connections.

 

All of these are facts that would be agreed upon even by the latter-day “Russia hoax” revisionists and, for that matter, anybody this side of Breitbart or One America News Network.
Edited by W. Niederhut
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...