It's all fake

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Barnard
Presumably you're not suggesting that those who align with party are incapable of critical thinking.

It could be argued that those who have yet to stand firmly in favor of democracy for all and firmly against anything or anyone that might erode it are in a growth phase.  The worrisome nature of that phase is that it "could go either way,' which prompts many of us to remain vigilant. 

Why not quote JFK in this moment: 

“If a democracy is to survive, people need to be vigilant, educated, and ready to rise up should their freedoms be threatened with being taken away.” 
 

That may not be verbatim, but that’s the gist of it. Does either major US party follow those words?

It may be worth pointing out that we really don’t have democracy, per se, it’s representative democracy. As opposed to what the Athenian lawmakers, Solon and Cleisthenes intended. Rule for the people, by the people. 
 

The question you ask is not a straight yes or no. It is possible for someone to align with the ideals of a party whilst maintaining critical thinking faculties. As soon as you become emotionally involved, then critical thinking is impaired. Its analogous to sports fans who really want to see their team win. They’ll cheat, only see things their way, everything is looked at in a lens that suits their colours. The social scientists know this very well. They tap into the primeval tribal mechanisms, the herd instincts. We’re back to the neo-cortex vs the amygdala. Rationality and logic vs the emotional animal brain. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

Why not quote JFK in this moment: 

“If a democracy is to survive, people need to be vigilant, educated, and ready to rise up should their freedoms be threatened with being taken away.” 
 

Chris,

     You may be overlooking Leslie Sharp's keen observations here.

     The truth is that the Republican Party has been waging war on U.S. democracy in recent years, and Tucker Carlson has been a participant in that war.

     The obvious examples are Trump's Stop-the-Steal hoax, and his J6 mob attack on the U.S. Congress.

     Tucker promoted the former, and denied the latter.

      But the Republican war on U.S. democracy has been much broader, as Leslie pointed out.

      It has included systematic efforts to roll back voting rights, targeting minority groups and the poor.

      It has also involved a long-term GOP strategem of stacking the courts with right wing judges, for the purpose of promoting plutocratic corporate power, (e.g., Citizens United) rolling back voting rights, (Shelby v. Holder) and rolling back rights for women and LGBT citizens (e.g., Dobbs.)

      All of these anti-democratic Republican initiatives have been predicated on appeals to white supremacy, Great Replacement Theory, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

      Historically, Tucker Carlson has been a cheer leader for all of the above.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Aaron Sharpe: There's something monstrously ironic—downright paradoxical, in fact—about criticizing Carlson and labeling him "far right," clearly aligning one's self with the current globalist Regime and shameless sycophancy of the legacy media, while also purporting to champion ... getting to the truth of the JFK assassination??

 

 

To not just continue the same old left vs. right discussion.

There's a lot of confusion of terms here, and melding terms with large international policy positions. For example liberals will not be very tolerant of anyone, (like Carlson) who was in favor of the Bush Cheney PNAC War in Iraq because they may have fought to stop it before it happened, and even to this day are saddled with it on forums like these.

To divvy through the left/far left, right/far right you have to have a wonky discussion that most people quickly tire of.

 

Thanks for the comment Aaron.  But I believe labeling Carlson far right is not at all "aligning one's self with the current globalist Regime and shameless sycophancy of the legacy media," and that's very dualistic and is a trap in thinking.

 

I may be wrong, I believed I noticed some of this in Michael Griffith's comments for example, that he associates Carlson's taking up the JFKA issue as being leftist so any criticism of Tucker as being far right is a radical left notion, and is wrong.

 

Carlson is definitely playing to a crossover crowd, of a mostly conservative audience. But the question is: what does he believe and where does he end up?.

 

The arguments about left and right and liberal/ conservative have to do with one's philosophy about the use of government, and what role government has in the life of everyday citizens.. The most liberal sees an active role in government, which plays out in the U.S. currently as in the issues of providing it's citizens health care and and largely paying for education and training. The pure conservative model is that the government should primarily be used for the defense of the country and little else. The vast majority of people fall between these parameters.

 

I've seen Carlson and he is  quite aware of these philosophical differences, but is careful to not wed them to his  political philosophy on air, as he's playing to a largely older audience, and wants to extend his crossover appeal. Carlson's craftiness can be seen in how far he goes in any direction and what he's careful to avoid talking about. Whatever it may appear, these are the overriding issues that Carlson cares about.

 

In a time when the left and indeed many everyday people, including some conservatives  are being economically squeezed and think income equality has reached a crisis and breaking point in the Capitalist structure. Tucker Carlson gives only diversionary lip service to corporate malfeasance with selected corporate entities that are said to have Democrat party funding,such as tech and pharmaceutical, (curiously while him and his party have never proposed any any curb on prescription drug prices) which does not tackle the overall problem of an overwhelming increasingly oppressive Corporate State.

 

As a conservative, you can also notice Carlson is not at all, an activist, or has any concrete proposals to help people, and his show is mostly just complaining about his areas of discontent. He occasionally gives lip service to the "problems of the middle class" but he's measured and proposes nothing. Carlson is far rightist in that his overall aim is to villainize the government in the eyes of his viewers, asking a question, "What does government do any way, but take your taxes?", (which he's legally shielded by law to pay very little) and take away your rights as they did withe CIA killing JFK 60 years ago?", Trying to push people to his viewpoint which is to eventually defund the government and bring government to maybe a level we had in the 50's.(At least IMO) That is a much smaller government with much lower taxes. In this current predicament,of teetering Capitalist resentment, and a newfound resentment of younger people not being able to fulfill their economic dreams of income stability and an ability to have a family.That would  precipitate a brutal repression.

 

I'm not sure how Carlson thinks this could be pulled off. But i personally think he's content in that it's been gradually pretty successfully pulled off for 40 years, and he's trying to cloud the issues for his class of people as a counterbalance to a growing awareness of the fundamental problem.

 

If you don't believe there are any fundamental issues involving wealth inequality or issues of "late stage Capitalism". Carlson is  digestible except for a certain walking on a little on the wild side introducing topics that have had left appeal.

 

I think the reputed "left" here on this forum, is just looking at this in broader terms regarding current specific goals. But regarding the JFKA, both parties are about the same. The truth is even a smoking gun revelation from the JFK files will not curb defense spending or alter foreign policy, particularly now. It's a huge issue here, but it's not in the top 40 of any politician holding federal office.That's the political reality.  But the truth must be pursued for truth's sake.

 

I hope I've shed some light regarding some of the mistrust involving Carlson.

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Why not quote JFK in this moment: 

“If a democracy is to survive, people need to be vigilant, educated, and ready to rise up should their freedoms be threatened with being taken away.” 
 

That may not be verbatim, but that’s the gist of it. Does either major US party follow those words?

It may be worth pointing out that we really don’t have democracy, per se, it’s representative democracy. As opposed to what the Athenian lawmakers, Solon and Cleisthenes intended. Rule for the people, by the people. 
 

The question you ask is not a straight yes or no. It is possible for someone to align with the ideals of a party whilst maintaining critical thinking faculties. As soon as you become emotionally involved, then critical thinking is impaired. Its analogous to sports fans who really want to see their team win. They’ll cheat, only see things their way, everything is looked at in a lens that suits their colours. The social scientists know this very well. They tap into the primeval tribal mechanisms, the herd instincts. We’re back to the neo-cortex vs the amygdala. Rationality and logic vs the emotional animal brain. 

Adopting a cool, calm, steady cadence — which most psychologists recognize as a form of emotional manipulation — to impart lofty insight into human behavior as if a referee and not a participant, doesn't exempt one from the responsibility of taking sides when democracy is under threat.

The fundamental ideology — not a political party or a subjective perspective, but the bedrock of what makes Carlson and his ilk tick — is a threat to democracy, harkening back to November 1963.

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

there are many ways to "take sides".  Some people have to act calm and steady. The reason the Founders created a Senate was so that there was a deliberate body that would not give into the impulses and passions of the populace.

And there is a tendency to over-react about the urgency of the moment. The country has faced a Civil War, the Cold War and other moments when democracy seemed at stake. This time is not close to the perils the nation faced in the 1850s or 1860s. It just seems worse because we were not alive then and there is social media/broadcast networks instead of leaflets spreading the news.      

[Ron Bulman]

But in our time there is a threat to Democracy, an attempted coup.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

To me, a true threat to democracy is what happened on 11/221963 when the head of the government was removed or if the CIA or military were trying to overthrow the government.  Tis is just an episode of particularly partisan politics.       

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The fundamental ideology — not a political party or a subjective perspective, but the bedrock of what makes Carlson and his ilk tick — is a threat to democracy, harkening back to November 1963

The whole system is a threat, because truth isn’t held as a high value amongst politicians, the media and now the public. If you have read Ryan Holliday’s “Trust me, I am lying.” It depicts the system of journalism as it is. Where the aforementioned critical thinking comes in, is that you must be able to see it at CNN if you can see the deception at Fox. That’s not to say that there is absolute equivalence on all matters, including methods used to disinform, deceive, manipulate, or agitate the public. 
 

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Adopting a cool, calm, steady cadence — which most psychologists recognize as a form of emotional manipulation — to impart lofty insight into human behavior as if a referee and not a participant, doesn't exempt one from the responsibility of taking sides when democracy is under threat.

One thing you may consider is that we need calm, or each thread or conversation becomes a melee. I would be interested in you supplying some links where psychologists are asserting that being cool, calm, steady etc equates to manipulation. I don’t think there is equivalence. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     You may be overlooking Leslie Sharp's keen observations here.

     The truth is that the Republican Party has been waging war on U.S. democracy in recent years, and Tucker Carlson has been a participant in that war.

     The obvious examples are Trump's Stop-the-Steal hoax, and his J6 mob attack on the U.S. Congress.

     Tucker promoted the former, and denied the latter.

      But the Republican war on U.S. democracy has been much broader, as Leslie pointed out.

      It has included systematic efforts to roll back voting rights, targeting minority groups and the poor.

      It has also involved a long-term GOP strategem of stacking the courts with right wing judges, for the purpose of promoting plutocratic corporate power, (e.g., Citizens United) rolling back voting rights, (Shelby v. Holder) and rolling back rights for women and LGBT citizens (e.g., Dobbs.)

      All of these anti-democratic Republican initiatives have been predicated on appeals to white supremacy, Great Replacement Theory, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

      Historically, Tucker Carlson has been a cheer leader for all of the above.

TBH, William, I have no appetite to occupy an opposing position, it just takes us in circles. I am not saying that your assertions don’t have any merit. Carlson himself is admitting shortcomings. Nobody needs to forgive him or any other news anchors who have sinned. I just see both sides distorting the system in different ways. 
 

Have you considered that the Republican side served their purpose for the ‘power elite’ when the objective was to rule the world through neo-colonialism, war in perpetuity, regime changes, occupations, controlling the worlds resources. They promoted a homogenous, survival of the fittest, protect the culture mentality until objectives were complete. In more recent times the Democratic party is serving the ‘power elite’ in a different way, which involves deconstructing the most dominant culture on earth, and achieving a compliant, submissive population, who is ashamed of the past and has no attachment to any culture, faith, religion, heritage etc. If you were striving for a neutral society, you’d do exactly what you are now. Promote collectivism or the greater good as the highest ideal, and censor, cancel, punish anyone who is not with the program. 
 

The big picture is; if we are to believe that the objective was to control the world for the US, after the British, then initially the USA and now a bunch of globalists (elites) have achieved their goals. What’s next? I think understanding where the people with the most power want to take us is imperative. We have to look beyond social conditioning. You may be looking at the USA but, it’s almost identical what is happening in Britain, Europe etc in many respects. 
 

Anyone can feel free to ignore the above but, if I have one question that I’d like to ask, its this; On the present trajectory, what do you or anyone else see America looking like in 2030 & 2050? 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

The whole system is a threat, because truth isn’t held as a high value amongst politicians, the media and now the public. If you have read Ryan Holliday’s “Trust me, I am lying.” It depicts the system of journalism as it is. Where the aforementioned critical thinking comes in, is that you must be able to see it at CNN if you can see the deception at Fox. That’s not to say that there is absolute equivalence on all matters, including methods used to disinform, deceive, manipulate, or agitate the public. 
 

One thing you may consider is that we need calm, or each thread or conversation becomes a melee. I would be interested in you supplying some links where psychologists are asserting that being cool, calm, steady etc equates to manipulation. I don’t think there is equivalence. 

the simplest google turns up, How to Recognize the Signs of Emotional Manipulation and What to Do

Some manipulators presume to be the expert, and they impose their “knowledge” on you. 

For example:

• “You’re new to this, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.”
• “I know these are a lot of numbers for you, so I’ll go through this again slowly.”
   

This is a particular possibility if you express scrutiny or ask questions that draw their flaws or weaknesses into question.

For example:

• “This will be way too difficult for you. I’d just stop now and save yourself the effort.”
• “You don’t have any idea the headache you’re creating for yourself.”
   

  This is especially true in emotionally charged situations. That’s so they can use your reaction as a way to make you feel too sensitive. 

  You then gauge your reaction based on theirs, and decide you were out of line.

   

For example:

• “You saw that everyone else was calm. You just got too upset.”
• “I didn’t want to say anything, but you seemed a little out of control.”

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

the simplest google turns up, How to Recognize the Signs of Emotional Manipulation and What to Do

Some manipulators presume to be the expert, and they impose their “knowledge” on you. 

For example:

• “You’re new to this, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.”
• “I know these are a lot of numbers for you, so I’ll go through this again slowly.”
   

This is a particular possibility if you express scrutiny or ask questions that draw their flaws or weaknesses into question.

For example:

• “This will be way too difficult for you. I’d just stop now and save yourself the effort.”
• “You don’t have any idea the headache you’re creating for yourself.”
   

  This is especially true in emotionally charged situations. That’s so they can use your reaction as a way to make you feel too sensitive. 

  You then gauge your reaction based on theirs, and decide you were out of line.

   

For example:

• “You saw that everyone else was calm. You just got too upset.”
• “I didn’t want to say anything, but you seemed a little out of control.”

I am still not sure where you are going with this, Leslie. Are you suggesting we should be in any other state that calm in debate, in politics etc? 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am still not sure where you are going with this, Leslie. Are you suggesting we should be in any other state that calm in debate, in politics etc? 

I'm noting that insistence on "calm" can sometimes be manipulative, an attempt to silence, as identified in the examples I offered for your consideration.

Apparently "democracy," without reservation, is a word you simply won't utter?   I can't tell you how many closet Conservatives and Libertarians who claim to be Independent have lectured me similarly:  It may be worth pointing out that we really don’t have democracy, per se, it’s representative democracy. As opposed to what the Athenian lawmakers, Solon and Cleisthenes intended. Rule for the people, by the people. 

Perhaps a bit more transparency on your end would engender trust, an essential component of productive political debate?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

17 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

I'm noting that insistence on "calm" can sometimes be manipulative, an attempt to silence, as identified in the examples I offered for your consideration.

Do you do the same when visiting the Dr’s, or when a police officer appeals for that? Or anyone who is seeking calm? 
 

2 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Apparently "democracy," without reservation, is a word you simply won't utter?   I can't tell you how many closet Conservatives and Libertarians who claim to be Independent have lectured me similarly:  It may be worth pointing out that we really don’t have democracy, per se, it’s representative democracy. As opposed to what the Athenian lawmakers, Solon and Cleisthenes intended. Rule for the people, by the people. 

You could keep assuming everyone else is wrong, or look inwardly. Upto you. 🤷‍♂️
 

3 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Perhaps a bit more transparency on your end would engender trust, an essential component of productive political debate?

Do I need your trust, Leslie? 

[Leslie Sharp]

Jack Teixeira and Me

JEFF STEIN,

SpyTalk

APR 27, 2023

“If anybody thinks this is just a kid playing around on Discord, please go look at the charging documents, which feature the ideological writings, and the weapons, of Teixeira,” she wrote Thursday on Twitter. 

“Also, in case you haven't yet heard me say this, when it comes to the white power movement, THERE ARE NO LONE WOLVES,” she added (her caps). “Actors work WITHIN A MOVEMENT and we have to study both. DO NOT allow this to remain a narrative about one disaffected young man.”

It’s not. The movement is here, and metastasizing, it seems. How the military, especially, deals with it, is one hell of a problem—for us all. ### — Emma L. Briant, propaganda expert

https://www.spytalk.co/p/jack-teixeira-and-me?r=3zjty&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR12fCAugOd5zV8M-1v9ZG8yhIuxChfezYAkYRJ_2iM9C1eQNEQvpScdF64

 

 

Jack Posobiec on Jack Teixeira two weeks ago: https://humanevents.com/.../posobiec-congress-must...

 

HUMANEVENTS.COM

POSOBIEC: Congress must evaluate whistleblower protections for the Ukraine papers leaker.

On the question of metastization: Posibiec on "America First with Sebastian Gorka" back in October 2021:

https://www.sebgorka.com/video/is-america-first-winning-jack-posobiec-with-sebastian-gorka-on-america-first/

 

[Leslie Sharp]

17 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Do you do the same when visiting the Dr’s, or when a police officer appeals for that? Or anyone who is seeking calm? 
 

You could keep assuming everyone else is wrong, or look inwardly. Upto you. 🤷‍♂️
 

Do I need your trust, Leslie? 

You're not seriously equating yourself with my doctor or my policeman?

Until you convince me otherwise, I presume you're not as "independent" as you would like us to believe.

Transparency builds trust, and I think it's a waste of time to engage with you if I can't trust you are indeed here in good faith. When was the last time you registered to vote in US elections?