Those whose worldview is bereft of universally applied principles, and based solely on tribal allegiances, assume everyone else is plagued by this very deficiency.
I have not read a more on-point description of the root of our problem than you've laid out here. Not just in journalism, as you said, but in everything, we have lazily discarded principles as just too damned hard and not nearly enough fun. The pretense that we just can't have principles right now, because "the stakes have never been higher", is especially vapid. Everything I don't like today is positively the worst ever.
We twist ourselves into deadly contortions trying to avoid Covid or defeat Trump or whatever's just simply the worst ever today. We used to know such thinking is crazy, and such thinkers are morons or liars.
Trite though it is, the saying about millenials being taught what to think, but not how to think, rings truer every day. My kids read plenty of things in college, but didn't have to, in fact were discouraged from, thinking for themselves. Critical analysis skills and intellectual honesty would be required to step outside their bubble and actually view principles as abstract apolitical concepts. Good luck with that.
I miss the days when the ACLU would go to court to protect the right of actual swastika-wearings nazis right to hold public rallies.
In that vein, I miss the ability to use subtle irony or sardonic humor; people today (and unfortunately it's catching) have to have everything spelled out and explicit and easy to catch or it passes completely over them. Part of that too is not being allowed to tease or tweak someone's pride in a playful way, might be "inappropriate" doncha know. People need ribbing to keep it real and toughen up their skin somewhat. I miss the freedom to call people vulgar names as terms of endearment.
"[...]subtle irony or sardonic humor; [...] passes completely over them. "
Nope; it's that there are far too many people out there who actually believe and assert "with a straight face" the things you take as obvious sardonic humor or irony. ...IOW, "I can't tell if you're serious or not" is a real problem, especially in the online world where cadence, voice inflection and body language aren't available.
Some of us just don’t get satire in print. I am very guilty of this. I once read the novel THE EIGER SANCTION and completely missed out that it was a satire of the spy genre. It does not help that the Clint Eastwood movie based on the novel is played straight. I mean, come on, the spy chief who sends the agent out on his mission is named Yurassis Dragon…Your Ass Is Dragging. Completely over my head. Then I read a review of the novel which identified it as a satire and DUH the light bulb went off in my mind.
I am very gullible. I admit it. I have learned to be very careful if something seems over the top or too perfect.
THE EIGER SANCTION is written by Trevanian, the pen name of Rodney William Whitaker. Trevanian has a fascination with the Orient (Asian mind set) and game theory. He uses the Asian game of GO as a template for the Eger Sanction, and the assassin hero, Dr. Jonathan Hemlock.
Hemlock (a poison that killed Socrates) is extreme in every sense of the word. For this character, sex is sadomasochistic, again an extreme game.
The book is so much larger than the movie by Eastwood.
I think that calling the book, "a satire of the spy genre." is to give it a short shrift. The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hess is a comparable piece in literature. It is deep and indescribable in any summary. Both books have to be experienced to grasp.
One might suggest that both novels are about the quest for enlightenment, based in what is now termed 'game theory', which leads into the meme of chaos theory, and deep metaphysics.
If you can actually understand the basics of the game GO, you may begin to understand the depth of the EGER SANCTION.
You are far better read wiser than I am. I read the book quickly without any deep thought. It’s one of my weaknesses. I am a lawyer and reading/writing involve transmission of the maximum amount of information as clearly and concisely as possible. I do not have the great love of the beauty of language that scholars have.
No such implication was meant. Whoever you heard it from - they either step up or shut up.
What I meant was - if one uses /s or smilies or whatever else to provide a pointer - that would be the same as telling a joke and burst out laughing ahead of everybody else. Likely being the only one doing so.
Which is funny by itself. Just find cases of frustrated humorist David Brent.
I agree in the context you posit but I am really beginning to see this in acquaintances or with someone with which you strike up a conversation and they struggle to process fairly obvious ironic or oxymoronic jibes. Older people are much more adept at stepping into a jesting or jocular mode while younger ones are too cautious or fearful (is that too strong) to engage in what I would call repartee. IMHO a world without levity is too dark to abide, even when the jokes are on me.
I think what you're describing is people having bought into this whole PC concept. Which is strictly enforced nowadays in the corporate world. And so they carry what they learned in various corporate "trainings" over into their personal environments.
I have lost lots of relationships lately because it got absolutely unbearable. But I haven't dropped my deadpan self. Fuck them and fuck PC.
I am so turned off by the look of disquiet that it drives me toward self-censoring; I tend to be either glib or silent because tip-toeing around is just not in my nature. I was introverted when young and revert to that type when being glib gets uncomfortable. The pundit VDH refers to it as retreating into "a monastery of the mind" and that seems to fit.
I am an older Millennial (sometimes grouped as a "Xennial" or the "Oregon Trial Generation" -- a sub-generation distinction for being stuck "between" larger more identified generations "Millennial" and "GenX") and I bore witness to the decay as it was starting. I read a lot of excellent primary literature in college, but I noticed there were a few professors who were mostly interested in us memorizing their interpretations on it more then doing discussion and thinking. Thankfully at the time there were still some excellent professors who mainly ran classes by just asking us questions about what we read and getting students to debate each other on our conflicting opinions of these questions -- with the professor often only interjecting to add more fuel to the fire as necessary to keep things going full-tilt.
When my younger brother became a junior in college, he complained to me -- unprompted -- that most professors he had were surprisingly displeased with independent thoughts. College labeled him a "B" student and he told me (highly paraphrased/reconstructed now so many years later) "I know how and can get 'A's, I have done so as proof on occasion. It involves lazy copy and paste from the professors' own screeds with some minimal rewriting in my own words; I simply am not interested in this. Most of the strait 'A' students in my classes I find to be surprisingly shallow and vacuous people."
I am not sure how this fundamental corruption of education in the US happened, but it is now near universal and its increasing damage on society is undeniable.
As a working academic myself, and can attest to your observation. I'm my experience, intellectuals are, far more often or not, peddlers of second hand ideas (as Sowell puts it). Intellectual laziness is a chronic condition in the academy.
We have a running joke in the academy. There are two kinds of Marxists. Those who have actually read Marx, and those who have merely claimed to. And the latter exponentially dwarfs the former.
I've been saying for a long time - "Marx" and "marxist" are expletives for the folks when they think the plain ones like "fucking bullshit" are insufficient.
These folks are usually "autodidacts" of almae matres such as Rush Limbaugh School of Trite Shit, Michael Savage Stream of Puke, Mark Levin High Pitched Nonsense, and the like.
Thanks especially for your second paragraph. ...I've been trying to tell the fools here who keep claiming Marxism everywhere they turn that they don't know a THING about Marx, and very few will admit it.
That is bullshit. Anyone who has studied history knows all that is needed to know about Marx, and that is when his proposals are put into practice what happens is totalitarian tyranny, and mass death of those under the system.
I know what Marxism is, I know what Neo-Marxism which originated in The Frankfurt School, making excuses for why the original Marxist process of revolution in the industrial states never took place as predicted. Only backward preindustrial nations fell to the Marxist revolutionary zeal.
So now rather than economics being at the center of the process, Neo-Marxist are concerned with cultural issues, thus CRT, Gender issues--especially Transgenderism, and Woke bullshit arises from the Neo-Marxist ideology.
The disingenuous claims against 'Capitalism' are in fact critiques against 'Corporatism', THAT is the system in the US now, it is NOT capitalism.
Marx had two key presuppositions. First, that the only basis for knowledge is the material world, which is why we label him as a “philosophical materialist” (side note: philosophical materialism is his basis for a theory of history, not economics, called historical materialism). Consequently, knowledge cannot be attained in any other intellectual endeavor. Least of all, idealism and its universals, and divine revelation and its universals. Therefore, there are no such thing as first principles. Second, in rejecting first principles, there are no natural constructs and, moreover, no such thing as a basic human nature. Therefore, all constructs are merely convention.
Following these two presuppositions, an understanding of the nature of all human relationships can be reduced material, specifically the ownership of material; and those relationships are merely conventions rooted in a misguided, or outdated, reliance on "so-called" first principles in previous epochs which have simply continued as a matter of nefarious habit. That is, those who have historically controlled the ownership of material continue to do so to preserve their material interests at the expense of those who haven’t resulting in successive forms of slavery from epoch to epoch.
As such, Marx claims the nature of human relationships should be reconstructed in the interest of material equity – the elimination of slavery by turning over ownership of material to the masses, i.e. the proletariat. And he accounts for human tendencies, such as being competitive or possessing the desire to excel, by saying they’re just a matter of habit of which, he claims, we should be disabused, leading to what he calls the tyranny of the proletariat (or what contemporary leftists euphemistically call “democracy“).
The problem with Marx is that history does not bear witness to this possibility. So the only way to achieve equity – a tyranny of the proletariat – and to elevate the historically marginalized, is to suppress those who excel down to the level of those who don’t or can’t, rendering everyone equally impoverished rather then more equitably prosperous.
Every political context in which Marxism as been applied has not resulted in a true “classless” society, but rather a two-class system: the impoverish proletariat and their elitist overseers who assume control over material for the sake of societal cohesion, which is just another form of slavery (under a different organizing principle), the very thing Marx claims philosophical materialism can eradicate.
"Every political context in which Marxism as been applied has not resulted in a true “classless” society, but rather a two-class system: the impoverish proletariat and their elitist overseers who assume control over material for the sake of societal cohesion, which is just another form of slavery (under a different organizing principle), the very thing Marx claims philosophical materialism can eradicate."
" Therefore, Second, in rejecting first principles, there are no natural constructs and, moreover, no such thing as a basic human nature. Therefore, all constructs are merely convention.--Aмериканский самиздат
These propositions are preposterous. To deny human nature in toto is ignorance multiplied. Add to that "all constructs are merely convention."
Convention is meant to apply to consensus. But anyone who pays attention recognizes that consensus is ALWAYS temporary. and this is due to human nature, which is always transient, minds changing from day to day as more information is available on every subject that can be had.
Modern psychology and sociology obliterates such notions as those I quoted above.
The fact that human nature is so complex is no excuse for denial of it's existence.
Human nature stands outside of nature in the fact of art and artifact. No other species creates art and artifact. That is what technology is; the complex of artifact combined throughout history.
For a thorough treatise on the subject see: THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY by the sociologist Jacques Ellul.
David Goldberger, the ACLU attorney who represented the neo-NAZIs at Skokie, was my law school professor for Political and Civil Rights. I recently read an article where he and former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser were worried about the direction that the current ACLU is going.
I recently listened to an interview of him and / or possibly Ira Glasser on KPFA radio and they spoke about this and are clearly distressed by it. However, I gathered from them that they think there's hope to save the organization and put it back on its foundations... What's your perception of that?
It seems to be on the same path as the SPLC -- excellent history, but in the last two decades the SPLC seems to be more interested in adding an ever growing number of groups to their watch list to just scare donors into giving more money. Sure the groups they point to first in their watch lists are a bit scary, and there are indeed many groups on their list that do give one some concern, but every year their lists are padded out a little more with more groups who really are pretty benign and just of a different political strain then their preferred donor groups. Their donors love seeing their political enemies listed as "Hate Groups" or "Extremist" just for their "wrong think."
Unlike the ACLU, for the SPLC though I guess in some sense it doesn't matter as much because other than making lists, raising money, and giving talks (mostly to scare people into donating money) they aren't particularly active these days. That at least leaves some of the increasing numbers of groups who really shouldn't be listed as "Hate Groups" or "Extremist Groups" on their lists relatively unmolested in light of the SPLC's contemptable mission creep; though other people do use those lists as a "solid foundation" to slander groups who don't deserve it so that is still an issue.
As an aging Boomer, I can still remember my days in public school. While we were not indoctrinated into hating ourselves, our classmates, our parents, and our nation, we WERE taught to sit quietly and conform. The few, the gifted, the hard-working, were directed to advanced classes and presumed to be "college material". The rest were essentially programmed to believe they could operate the machines that made society work.
I understand that Montessori schools actually do encourage the development of critical analysis skills and it is possible that some Charter schools encourage intellectual honesty. Who knows?
I am convinced that effectively ending childhood with mandatory pre-school and extending adolescence and uselessness with free Associates' Degrees at community college will do nothing but increase our society's direction nowhere.
Nietsche's BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL should be mandatory reading for anyone attempting to make sense of our nihilistic and suicidal American society.
Sadly the ACLU has been a political animal for decades. They were willing to protect swastika-wearing nazis but by the early 80's wouldn't defend pro-lifers standing on the sidewalks that were unlawfully being arrested. They are just more blatant about it now.
When intellectuals say they aim to teach students "how to think, not what to think," they really mean "how" to think in order to arrive at their desired moral conclusion. As a working academic, I see this every day, and students report this regularly, at least the one's critically sharp enough to have caught on to the semantic game.
I'm not convinced this is remotely as true as right wing media would claim. Have you experienced a liberal education to confirm? In my experience, a liberal education only requires a few classes outside of the students' main course of study. The main ones are usually an immense smorgasboard of social science or ethics based courses of varied topics. At least at the several schools I attended (yay for life derailing my education part way through), there was no set indoctrination. They were varied topics that merely exposed one to different things than one would have experienced otherwise. I really enjoyed one I took called Wealth and Poverty at the community college level. That class revealed a host of data sources to me that I might not have learned about otherwise. I also learned a lot about various cultures. It was an anthropology-based elective.
"I'm not convinced this is remotely as true as right wing media would claim."--Cynthia
The opening sentence here is telling. What is meant by "right wing media"?
"It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident."--H. L. Mencken
The Left | Right Dichotomy is an invention of Georg W. F. Hegel. The Hegelian Dialectic is a formula meant to lead human society to the "perfect state", a totalitarian state wherein the state in its perfection is a reflection of God.
Hegel was more theologian then simple philosopher. He saw politics as a religious undertaking.
This dogma of Left & Right is simply the application of the technique of 'Divide & Conquer'. The concept of Left and Right is simplistic categorical shorthand that is meant to sublimate the complexity of human conceptualization with dogmatic formulas that are embedded in the thinking of populations by rote and repetition to the point that the subject believes this thinking is their own original thought.
Of course, as Mencken remarked it is caused by "early indoctrination in the imperial system." That system is the Prussian system as has been explained by many scholars, such as John Taylor Gatto, Antony Sutton and Carroll Quigley. These are names few people will recognize, as the mainstream education has left them out of modern curricula and attempted to suppress their lessons of deep history.
Cynthia naively asks if we have experienced this indoctrination first hand. Well it is very difficult to avoid, as modern' schooling' is mandated for the grades 1 through 12.
She likely meant having further education in college or university, but that is simply further indoctrination on the same terms of the extension of the model set during the earlier years of such 'education'. That is being locked into a room and forced to be quite unless given permission to speak, and to take the lessons forced by the dogmatic curriculum of the grade.
While Cynthia seems to have experienced a revelatory moment when her life derailed her 'education' part of the way through it, she had already been indoctrinated into the program by her earlier years 1 through 12 at least.
I encourage Cynthia and all the readers to go to the following link, and read the history of how the "education system" was brought to the US in the late 1800s:
the caveat, "for now" is all the difference, and it's quickly fading, thanks to the social sciences, and uneasy marriage between the humanities and sciences.
It seems clear that Trump Derangement Syndrome has had a profound effect on the brains of Democrats. (I'm so far left that I can't stomach Democrats.) I think it irreversibly activated the reptilian parts of their brains. That results in an inability to think clearly on subjects that activate, such as the one's Glenn discussed here. The condition makes cognitive dissonance intolerable. Hence, the aggression towards the unvaxxed. Sadly, I don't see that anything can be done about it.
Most think of political ideology as following a linear path. Far left to far right.
They fail to realize that in nature the two ends arc back around towards each other.
Thus, someone who is a Populist AntiEstablishment type on the left has a lot in common with the Populist AntiEstablishment types on the right; even though there are some fundamental differences that remain.
If you look carefully at "The Squad + Bernie" you see what are allegedly Populists but what you really have are Socialists and Marxists.
The difference between a Socialist and Marxist is pretty extreme and Bernie (who used to support strong border security and gun rights) has been coopted by the Marxists to advance their agenda over his (more Western Europe social democratic).
This explains why 10% + of the Bernie Bros voted for Trump in 2016.
They know that to get the change needed that slows down the corrupt relationship between Wall Street and Washington, they first need to right size the Establishment and they realized that it takes someone with brass balls and an ego the size of Manhattan to take them on and make a dent. Trump was their warrior just as he was for many on the right; even those who have a lot of dislike for Trump personally.
As they say...you fight the war with the army you have; not the army you want.
...Says someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about Marx - and therefore Marxism - and instead adheres to a particular definition crafted by a particular sub-group of the ultra-rich and their mass media.
Here's a strong hint: Marx was extremely pro democracy. But then, I bet you didn't know that! One of his biggest, most important points _ever_ is that you can't have democracy and capitalism because of what capitalism is and does. This is why his biggest focus was on substantive criticisms of capitalism.
And, by the way, most people in the USA conflate capitalism with plain ole commerce. If you can't adequately - and accurately - differentiate the two, then you're somewhat lost.
"Capitalism" is Marx's fabricated pejorative for the free market, and it isn't remotely incompatible with democracy. To the contrary, it IS democratic.
No one with your view of Marx comes close to defining any of these terms correctly, though.
For a while at least. But left on its own, “capitalism” turns into oligarchy. But that is not what we have now. Instead, we have a system that is more like what James Burnham wrote about: a managed economy. Everything is controlled by managers (business or government executives) who have minimal (or no) ownership interest in an entity but have total control over it.
This is leading to what David Samuels described in his interview with the late, great Angelo Codevilla:
“ Freed from the laws of gravity, the elite turns from the hard work of correct strategizing and wise policymaking to the much less time-consuming and much more pleasant work of perpetuating its own privileges forever, in the course of which endeavor the ruling elite is revealed to be a bunch of idiots and perverts who spend their time prancing around half naked while setting the territories they rule on fire. The few remaining decent and competent people flee this revolting spectacle, while the elite compounds its mistakes in an orgy of failure. The empire then collapses.”
To me it's readily apparent we're now solidly in a state of fascism, which is also called by some "corporatism" - that's reportedly what Mussolini called it, though I've never been able to find a truly good citation for the remark. And, some of our corporate leaders, but certainly not all, qualify as oligarchs in this system - it's not an either/or situation but "both/and."
And absolutely, it's been capitalism that has gotten us here. And, as we can all see, it's no place to be!
Thanks for proving my point; you cannot discern the difference between capitalism and commerce - here you call it "free market." ...You've got some homework to do, but I'd lay a bet you won't bother, sure you've got it right. ...Oh well, you can bring facts to a right-winger but you can't make them think. -shrug-
You have a lot of balls telling someone else that they have "got some homework to do."
You are hung up on the Marxist dialectic of Right/Left, which is utter bullshit manufactured by Hegel.
There is no Right and Left, there is only right and wrong. And YOU have it all wrong by following that idiot Marx who only leads to totalitarianism and death and destruction every time it is put into practice in the real world.
"Free Trade" is what the British Empire submitted the world to. It is the principles which leads to globalism. It is in effect Marxism prior to Marx, and the reason that Marx was supported by the City of London and Wall Street, to create the Soviet Empire as a "Controlled Enemy" bred and fed by the "capitalist" technologies of the west.
Obviously Deep History is not for you Art. You seem to play the academic game of pseudo-intellectualism, worshiping the mindless idiocy of Karl Marx and his ideologs.
Fuck Marx and his bullshit brand of socialist utopianism.
Marxism isn't remotely incompatible with democracy? To the contrary, it IS democratic?
Excerpted from a previous post of mine"
"The problem with Marx is that history does not bear witness to this possibility [an equitable tyranny of the proletariat]. So the only way to achieve equity – a tyranny of the proletariat – and to elevate the historically marginalized, is to suppress those who excel down to the level of those who don’t or can’t, rendering everyone equally impoverished rather then more equitably prosperous.
"Every political context in which Marxism as been applied has not resulted in a true “classless” society, but rather a two-class system: the impoverish proletariat and their elitist overseers who assume control over material for the sake of societal cohesion, which is just another form of slavery (under a different organizing principle), the very thing Marx claims philosophical materialism can eradicate."
Everyone here seems to conflate 'capitalism" with CORPORATISM. That is what the US suffers from today, a Corporatist Oligarchy.
"Free Trade" is a British concept that eschews tariffs and national protectionism. Free Trade naturally leads to a globalist mindset, like the agenda of the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab's 'Great Reset'.
What is happening to America today via the Biden regime is the purposeful destruction of the United States, to end national sovereignty and meld with the globalists new world order.
See;
John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement
In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.
The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.
The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).
According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
[......]
This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”
The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.
We need to establish working definitions of words before we can actually debate their merits and flaws. The problem today is that there are no commonly agreed upon meanings of socialist, communist, capitalist, progressive, conservative so we are all talking at one another instead of to one another. When I hear a Trump supporter mention "communism" I know what they mean, although they don't really mean socialism or communist economics - they are referring to the overbearing police state that has gone with the USSR and CPC.
In A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell has astutely done this under the dichotomy of "Constrained/Unconstrained."
As far as an "overbearing police state" is concerned, that is the logical conclusion of socialism (or any form or variant of philosophical materialism).
"The problem today is that there are no commonly agreed upon meanings of socialist, communist, capitalist, progressive, conservative so we are all talking at one another instead of to one another. "
you're speaking to the successful effects of some 70-ish years of intentional propaganda to do exactly this, however, we DO still have the original definitions and we need to return to them... This is recommended reading:
Compelling interpretation, thanks for posting. The entire D vs. R charade is tiresome. Once you know how the sausage is made you can deprogram yourself back to a time when you think sausage is just this pristine piece of protein served at an upscale brunch, preferably served by a masked "hero" (now being tossed to the wolves for not wanting a booster shot). A true education is a rare thing. Between healthy servings of corporate/university propaganda (you MUST get a college degree to sell State Farm Insurance; never mind the $250k in loans) and Saturday afternoon Football game comas...we know how consent can be manufactured. If you're not sure, go read the NYT comments section. I couldn't bear it anymore and canceled.
Thank you for this. This is what I am talking about...returning to original definitions, which we have lost. And I agree, that 70s years of intentional propaganda have been responsible for said confusion.
What you're describing as spectrum effect is why I get my news from Breaking Points and Rising. What distinguishes the clustering of individuals that are their audience? I think it is the demand for far more honesty than the MSM is willing to give, because of their advertisers--and their connections to the Empire. Oh, and they don't have their heads up their asses...
I do have one complaint about my brothers and sisters on the Right: They insist on calling all kinds of people Marxists. That's just plain silly. There are very few actual Marxists in public life. Socialists, yes, but Marxists, no. I agree with Art and Outis that the meaning of these words has been destroyed by propaganda.
I intuit that it is more left brain vs right brain instead of reptilian. The left brain is for grasping and fixating on the one option that it sees as right and downplaying any dissonance. The right brain is averse to rigidity and instead seeks to play devil's advocate and compare and weigh options. There is a book called The Master and His Emissary that gives insight on this. I really like your exegesis though, it is elegant.
The left brain handles reading, writing, and calculations. Some call it the logical side of the brain. The right brain is more visual and deals in images more than words.
Iain McGilchrist, is simply theory and has no basis if physical brain science.
Julian Jaynes has a sound theory on the nature of consciousness that I find more compelling; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
You have that exactly backwards. TDS is properly defined as the mass brainwashing of Republicans who bought the lies of the Con Man. The consumers of "The Big Lie" are the GOP, not the DEMs.
That is the only, to date, pearl in that bag you grasp for that has not been proven false. Russia, Covington, Lafayette, Hunter,...pretty much everything you were told to believe of substance was a lie. How do you stand it?
Trump isn't a "savior" he was a great president however.
And now the corporatist oligarchy rigged the 2020 elections and installed that imbecile meat-puppet Biden as titular head of a regime ruled by a corporatist politburo intent on crushing the constitutional republic once and for all to meld the nation with a globalist totalitarian regime under the venue of 'the Great Reset'
Anyone who cannot see this happening is a naïve toadstool.
Part of the problem with our media today is the enormous control exerted by a very few media conglomerates. This make it very easy to control the narrative. Here’s a piece from Matt Taibbi, IIRC.
“…in the fifteen years between 2004 and 2019, 1,800 newspapers closed, and the news media, most of it local, lost $35 billion in revenue, and roughly 47% of its staff. Roughly 1,300 communities in this country have no newspapers now, a dynamic that more and more forces people to look to regional or national news sources for information.”
For years the American people have been taught that "feeling" is more important than "thinking". Turn on any of the morning TV shows and you'll see it in action.
We may even be in the majority, but you would never know it because the MSM completely ignores us and pushes their partisan garbage. How can people vote for something they don't know exists? Until we make serious changes in the MSM, there is no getting back to fair and free elections that reflect the will of the citizenry rather than the corporations.
It almost seems like the only majors graduating from colleges are in hypocrisy. Liars, cheaters and thieves are the product of Ivy league schools, just ask Mike Pendayo, I mean, Pompeo.
The FBI is the real domestic terror organization in the USA.
Almost every time the FBI is involved, the real story isn't whatever we're being told it is, it is the FBI's role as an arm of the Anglo-American empire, whether it's grooming potential terrorists and using "informants" to organize terrorist incidents or to cracking down on groups and individuals who dare to oppose the powers that be.
To quote directly from the article mentioned above:
"In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation reported on this scandal stating:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
Please, stalwart defenders of the FBI, tell me why the FBI still does "more good than harm."
We can thank the Patriot Act for much of which is being reaped today. The act should be repealed, and the NSA and secret courts abolished. The freedoms we give up in the name of "safety" are not worth it to me.
I'm with you on that, but why "even though"? We American conservatives want to conserve the American Founding, including the Fourth Amendment. In Australia, the center-right party is called the Liberal Party, because it espouses the same ideals as American conservatives do, and the Left never stole the word in Australian English like they did here.
Unfortunately conservatives got hijacked by the neocons of the Bush era, with the help of FOX News. I would vote for a Paleoconservative any day over the crap we are currently offered and I lean left! Liberal in most of the world is center-right. Here, the liberals use identity politics to sound "left," but their policies are pretty hard right. Screw the Neos, both left and right - they have destroyed the USA.
You are right, and I thought about that right after I posted but editing a comment is not available. It was a weak choice of words playing into a stereotype. It actually should read "BECAUSE", and not "Even though". I was attempting to overcome an anticipated objection but afterword realized it only provided fodder. I won't make that mistake again.
Yes, SIGINT is important. It is a war measure to be directed against enemies or potential enemies. The whole problem with the NSA revealed by Edward Snowden is that they direct it against the citizenry of the United States, not only in violation of the plain meaning of the Constitution, but also meaning they regard us as enemies against whom war might be needed. A government that regards its citizens as enemies is the very definition of a tyranny.
I believe it is also likely that the FBI, at least in part, instigated the storming of the Capitol on 1/6 and that is not just speculation. There is some footage that has been mostly ignored that very strongly suggest the Feds were pushing the protesters to storm the building.
As the article I cited above mentions, there wasn’t one terrorist incident in the 138 from 2001-2012 (the timespan covered by the study) that didn’t have FBI informants playing active roles.
If America wants to survive, and I believe it can and is being shaken out of its slumber, it needs to shut down this secret police. That should be the main campaign.
If ending America’s secret police becomes the central issue, then we can easily have conversations about how US infrastructure can be rebuilt, how the banks can be cleaned up and re-organized (ie Glass-Steagall), and so on and so on. If these secret police style agencies are not shut down, they will be the ones trying to subvert all those who want to put America back on a road to actual progress.
I love your optimism David but I cannot share it. At least half the country supports the IC and would call you and the article you cited conspiracy theory bullshit (of course they say that without being informed and anyway they don't want to be informed due to an inability to think in terms of principles or some are just out and out useful idiots ). And then there's that six ways to Sunday thingy.
I have no doubt at all that the FBI instigated 1/6 as well as they planned the “kidnapping” of Gov. Wilson. They (the FBI) have been corrupt long before the Patriot Act ( although that undoubtedly mad it worse). An FBI sniper murdered an American woman holding her newborn baby and was defended by a future Attorney General in 1992…
Makes sense; it generates money and power for the FBI's agent provocateur people. People ask what was accomplished in Afghanistan; the answer is so easy. A transfer of trillions to the military industrial complex. If you just open your eyes from the indoctrination it's easy to see. Education equals indoctrination and more education equals more indoctrination; it couldn't be otherwise.
Of course, which is why the Democrats' star witnesses earlier this year were all very well coached to say that we shouldn't look into any possible causes except for the possible involvement of Trump and other Republican bad actors.
A secret to always stay in business and get more funding. Fun fact: US 3-letter agencies get more funding (just in "over the table" sum) than the whole military budget of Russia.
Iconoclast doesn't need to read anything here, he knows fucking everything there is to know. He should be writing these articles instead of Greenwald, because Iconoclast is the DUDE.
We all know the Earth is a globe Iconoclast There is testimony that Thales knew the earth to be spherical, but no evidence to suggest that he proposed any other shape.
Thales of Miletus (c. 620 B.C.E.—c. 546 B.C.E.)
Cicero attributed to Thales the earliest construction of a solid celestial globe (Rep. I.XIII.22).
Nice find David, I am a follower of Matthew Ehret, a most insightful researcher and journalist.
"The “war on terror” is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats, Matthew Ehret writes.
Since it has become increasingly evident that a vast extension of the Patriot Act will soon be unveiled that threatens to re-define “the war on terror” to include essentially anyone who disagrees with the governing neoliberal agenda, it is probably a good time to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.
If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good."--Matthew Ehret
Some of us were warning of the danger you point out since 911 and the announcing of the Patriot Act. Both major parties are complicit. This isn't a left/right but freedom/slavery issue.
Oh my surely Outis, you cannot think you are the only one who has been on the trail of the traitors since 9/11...And no, it is not a matter of Left or Right, but of Right and Wrong. The data and facts tell the story, not political ideology.
We are a mess of a quickly disintegrating society for one key reason... the lack of consistent strongly applied principles of journalistic ethics. Everything else is just the results of standard human nature... people pursuing their own interests while constantly looking for the guideposts.
The media was meant to report on those guideposts and the people would largely stay within the lines of the national consensus derived from the media reporting.
At the very time our national morality was challenged by a POTUS that told his bald-faced lie "I did not have sexual relations with that woman (young intern name)"... and our population became plugged into a 24x7 media news cycle... our media sunk to the lowest levels of tabloid-ism. Then it sunk even deeper to the bowels of political progaganda.
We have met the enemy, and it is our mainstream corporate media. The only remaining question is how we defeat it and reform it back to the respectable profession it should be.
I must disagree on the underlying cause. The disintegration of public education in the US and the consequent disability of the majority of the population to pursue anything remotely resembling critical thinking is the foundation that allows the MSM to use the internet/social media to suck the gullible brainwashed masses down whatever sewer best suits them on any given day.
I don't know. I have good friends who are normal hard-working Americans that have abundance of common sense but don't have the time to dig deep to find the truth. They get their regular media feed and just adopt the narrative. I am constantly having to deprogram them... explaining what the REAL truth is.
While I agree that we have fewer owning critical thinking skills, the power of propaganda cannot be denied. And with a 24x7 365 injection... it is much more powerful that it has ever been.
Keep up the good work while it still works. The up and coming generations will be a lost cause after the level of propaganda used to indoctrinate them. Then it will all end badly. Hope I’m gone by then.
Have you considered the possibility that when you have "degrogrammed" one of your friends, all that has happened is that he or she is agreeing to the most recent propaganda to which he or she has been exposed? And that they will most likely revert in short order? To be clear, in my example "propaganda" refers to the method of delivery, not the truth or falsity of the content.
I recently read a similar take from a European. Americans have screwed up the public education system so badly that we're all morons. My adopted sister is Korean and has learned the language and lived there. The way she describes education in that country is inconceivable here; children as young as six study until ten at night. Europeans know exactly what societies in decline look like. I'd like to think it's not too late for us, but I can't see the path through the generational bias that now exists thanks to our education system.
The msm is certainly deserving of ridicule. Don Lemon is a journalist? HAHAHA! Nicolle “Rabbit Teeth” Wallace is a journalist? Double HAHA! Those people — yeah, THOSE people — are so unctuous and smarmy, I could grease an axle with ‘em. Want proof that they are completely fallacious? How about the fact that Brian “war veteran” Williams is still on TV. Christ! By the way, it is rumored that on her wedding night, when her dolt husband attempted to consummate their holy union, he died of frostbite. But don’t quote me on that. I’m not a real journalist.
That's a good start. Keep going, you have a knack for it. Tell your friends. The problem is most of us are too polite to attack our friends' mistakes. We need to practice gradual escalation of the ridicule. You start with mild critiques like "Are you still watching that? They're wrong an awful lot."
The problem with both your suggestion and that of abbywood is that those who are capable and inclined to think about such matters are such a tiny, maginalized, minority that TPTB needn't worry about us. In fact, we might be useful so that they can claim they haven't brainwashed and intimidated the populace: see, here are some who feel free to disagree. "Useful thinkers" as a corollary to "useful idiots".
There's more of us than you think. But we tend to be less outspoken. That's the nature of conservatism. We need to learn to be more aggressive. Every conservative should study jiu jitsu, at least. I prefer Krav Maga.
I just don't get why it's so controversial to even do that. Like when the Trump Russia stuff came out I was like ok, maybe it's true but show me the proof first. But then people would act like you were Trump's biggest fan if you took that attitude. And there are so many other examples. It's like we're living in bizarro world, or maybe there are a set of actors who know that they would be threatened by a neutral application of principles.
My mother-in-law, a lifelong Democrat, said on the day of the Mueller report, "Well, they had to look into it." I said, "Look into what? It was all made up!" Most people would rather believe a lie they know to be a lie than to believe truth that makes them uncomfortable.
It's like a desperate attempt to avoid talking about the real issues we face. They didn't want to talk about what Trump represented. They'd rather pretend it's racism or some foreign conspiracy, as opposed to legitimate anger at their failed policies expressed by an imperfect messenger.
Actually, I think you're (and maybe Benjamin??) are missing Benjamin's point...
"[M]aybe it's true but show me the proof first" = "Well, they had to look into it."
With the exception of his word here "first", I agree with Benjamin's initial point. When an accusation is made, it is *not* necessarily "known" what the truth is -- *and* it is not necessarily known if the accusation is made in good faith. Only time, and work, will tell. So, exactly the same principle applies to Trump's assertion of a stolen election. *And* to "systemic racism". *And* to literally everything else.
To BOTH sides we need to say, *show* us your proof. Very few "journalists' now do that. Otherwise, censorship, and every other punishment .. slides down that slippery slope.
Sure, *now* "We the People" know this -- but that doesn't happen until after (at least one) true journalist has properly hashed it out. Neither of us work at FBI HQ, right?
No, this is the same as the old question, "Do you still beat your wife?" That's not how our system is supposed to work, although people in general (and the media specifically) seem to not care how the system is supposed to work. Guilty until proven innocent, and by then the narrative has already moved on.
I think I'm being misunderstood ... which I'll take as my fault here. I'm not intending that any accuser needs to always be given the benefit of the doubt, but rather, that the truth of any accusation (in most circumstances) is not instantly, and generally, known. There has to be a "trial" by the press as to what the truth is. So the press, obviously, cannot be *asserting* truth before *discovering* it. The "Do you still beat your wife?" case is an assertion wrapped under the flimsy cover of "discovering" truth (via a question).
We don't have to know everything. When faced with allegations, we can believe it or reserve judgement. Some want to believe anything that supports their politics. Most people learn to sort out the obvious bs at a pretty young age. Most who supported the fbi bs knew better.
There is very little that has come out about Russiagate that the right wing media wasn’t reporting on from the moment the allegations surfaced. The only thing that has changed since are some criminal’s names were confirmed.
Since it's impossible to prove a negative, the course adopted by the current authoritarian super-structure (IC, media, Dem pols) seems to be akin to LBJ's infamous quote "Accuse a man of being a pedophile, and even if it's proved untrue, all people remember is the accusation".
It's absolutely vile to accuse anyone of anything you don't have solid evidence of.
Your mother in law has a very common point of view; i.e., that if something alleged to be true, there may be (if not probably is) true. The Dems and their friends in the MSM know this, and exploit it at every turn. They have fully coopted Joseph McCarthy.
Cognitive dissonance. Most human mind's work that way. It's the evolutionary default thinking and it's so easy to go with your herd rather than think and even more so, risk exclusion from the herd.
I dunno, I thought the russiagate conspiracy theory was ludicrous on its face, and I am as far as one can get from a fan of Trump. For the record, I also detest Team D.
Glenn: More than any other piece you've written since starting on substack this one epitomizes why I subscribe. I've often complained that for too many people every damned thing has to be about politics and/or race. In a way the lack of principled thought and discussion is the other side of that coin. Especially when it comes to the law, most particularly constitutional law, the lack of principled consideration is a grave threat to our constitutional democratic republic. The end result is pure tyranny.
What has happened in the Project Veritas case is a almost as bad as it gets (but I know it can get worse). I have no doubt the DOJ/FBI action is primarily a political hit job. It appears to be a vehicle to dish on PV and O'Keefe by leaks to the NYT. Significantly, those leaks are unrelated to the purported purpose of the search warrants. i fail to see any lawful reason for federal action in the case, even if the diary was stolen. The federal Trafficking is Stolen Good law only applies to property worth $5,000 or more. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue this element has been met. Rather, the DOJ/FBI have once again shown their willingness to corruptly do the bidding for prominent Democrats, including the president of the United States.
I made that argument in both this article and (even more at length) in the video we published last night:
"But there is a much more significant problem with this framework: namely, the question of who is and is not a real journalist is completely irrelevant to the First Amendment. None of the rights in the Constitution, including press freedom, was intended to apply only to a small, cloistered, credentialed, privileged group of citizens. The exact opposite was true: the only reason they are valuable as rights is because they enjoy universal application, protecting all citizens.
Indeed, one of the most passionate grievances of the American colonists was that nobody was permitted to use the press unless first licensed by the British Crown. Conversely, the most celebrated journalism of the time was undertaken by people like Thomas Paine — who never worked for an established journalistic outlet in his life — as he circulated the pamphlet Common Sense that railed against the abuses of the King. What was protected by the First Amendment was not a small, privileged caste bearing the special label "journalists,” but rather the activity of a free press. The proof of this is clear and ample, and is set forth in the video we produced on Monday night."
You'd be amazed how many people insist that freedom of the press applies only to card-carrying, dues-paying, credentialed degree-holding PMC-certified Real Journalists.
True, but it's not a right if you can't access it; we need enforcement of the Constitution and its protections - and from the very asshats who are now the ones charged with doing just that. ... How do we fix this?!
The real sad part here is no one on any side appears able to hold the elite accountable.
January 6th therefore causes them incredible fear and is why the first thing they did is create a $2b police force specifically to protect them "from the people".
"Dick The Butcher" may have been more prescient than he knew.
The problem is the laws. The laws are so fucked ass backwards from corruption/lack of diversity they need a complete rewrite and they need to be done by people not connected to the two crime families
Establish a new court that's tasked with protecting Constitutional rights in cases where Supreme Court precedents seem unhelpful, and dare the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Could be established by Congress, or could be an unofficial court with no legal status.
Half-baked idea, but perhaps might work with some tweaking.
As I love to say, journalism is an action, not a profession. When you're recording the police stop on the corner, you're a journalist. When you write a screed about the current crop of leaders, you're a journalist. All these things are protected because as soon as you allow the government to decide who is and who isn't a journalist, (predictably) the dissenters are cast out.
It's the same with 'hate speech' or 'misinformation'.
That's why the old word "reporter" is better. Anyone reporting facts is engaged in 1A protected conduct. Being a "Journalist" smacks of self-importance -- as if you must be a member of the guild, or licensed like a doctor or lawyer, to "practice journalism."
I should add that some people wonder why folks like Kathleen Parker or this David Gregory jackhole call for the persecution of Julian Assange, yet they do not fear persecution themselves.
Such bootlickers sleep safely in their beds, because they will never write or utter or even think so much as a syllable that their corporate and governmental masters would not approve of.
The NYT traffics in purloined material on a daily basis -- but you think they worry about being investigated and prosecuted for, say, stealing and publishing Trump's tax returns or financial records. Ha ha ha, my sides hurt from laughing at the very idea.
For the life of me I cannot understand why they are still considered a viable source for anything.
They legitimately have 100+ years of irrefutable proof lying that they cannot hide from, from Walter Duranty to Jayson Blair to Russiagate. Yet somehow the liberal bimbos and mimbos still gobble up their lies.
"David Gregory"? Seems to me I've heard that name somewhere before.
...
...
Oh, right--he's the favored-by-the-regime talking-head fool who violated DC's ban on normal-capacity rifle magazines, whom the authorities declined to prosecute for his crime.
Glen, I wholeheartedly agree and the reason I’ve followed you from Salon all the way to Substack is due to your unflagging adherence to first principles.
I feel like there may still be a segment of your readership who relish the abuse you have lately been heaping in the Dems and MSM. Rightly so. But I wonder if there’s an exercise we could do where we define a counterfactual example that requires a principled stance in order to keep in the back of peoples’ minds what it will look like when you go after someone in their team.
Maintenance of principled thinking needs to be exercised and everyone benefits from being shown from time to time where they might be cutting corners or simply enjoying the wind being taken from their enemies’ sails.
Please continue the hard work of permanent vigilance and honesty that many of us have come to rely on.
Yeah when I first read Glenn I kind of assumed he was a typical left wing journalist, attacking Bush and Cheney but who would naturally go quiet when the Democrats took power. When he went after Obama just as much I was pretty shocked because you just don't see that very often. It's worthy of praise and an ideal we should all aim for.
Exactly my experience. I first encountered references to Glenn's writing at wendymcelroy.com, a libertarian/minarchist blog, and my initial reaction was to wonder just why the Hell she was publishing links to a lefty writing for Salon. I soon had a most satisfactory answer. My ultimate take-away is that if a reporter objectively and honestly reports all of the facts, it matters not in the slightest what that reporter's personal politics might be.
One of the problems with defining the sides in the ongoing culture war is that "the left" or "liberals" isn't an accurate description of the side the NYT is on -- a better description would be something like the "Inner Party." This faction of interested players works together to define what is legitimate, respectable, and permissible in Society. And these definitions are always for purposes of continuing their own wealth and power.
Their overt hypocrisy is due to their own sense of privilege -- they know they never have to follow the rules they set for others.
The NYT doesn't have to worry about having its files raided by the FBI. Rather, the NYT uses the FBI to raid other people's files and give the contents to the NYT.
Very well written and insightful - as per usual. Anyone who has seen the Rittenhouse trial and acoompanying videos - with any integrity or intelligence whatsoever - would not that he's a very good kid - and in fact, heroic. He DID go there to help and protect - and did more than many cops did that night. He showed tremendous restraint - and the only firing of his gun was in self-defense - as all video plainly shows - and the trial itself - blatantly reveals.
Without principle, we are doomed to the irrationality of tribalism fueled passions, and that has to stop - because the ruling elites will use secrtarian infighting as a ruse thru which to enact more totalitarian fascism.
Glenn, you didn't mention anything about how the NY Times had a heads up about the FBI raid on O'Keefe. And then a few days later, the NY Times as a series of stories where they opine about legal memos from Project Veritas lawyers that they somehow acquired.
Could it be that someone at the FBI leaked those files to the NY Times? Correct me if I am wrong, if that leak came from the FBI, I see two crimes there. One, the FBI employees recovering data from the Project Veritas computer drives are not supposed to be looking at materials not relevant to the crime at issue. They certainly should not be reading memos from legal counsel to a client. But they did read those memos...and then send it to the NY Times.
And Project Veritas is engaged in litigation with the NY Times. Do you suppose that advice from legal counsel concerning that litigation was leaked to the Times? I'd say that the NY Times should be in serious peril in that litigation. If I were legal counsel, I would want to depose anyone who worked on the stories published in the Times and any employee who handled those files to find out if attorney/client materials regarding the litigation were leaked.
The sad reality is that most media platforms have made the business decision to target (and pander to) an audience with a particular political viewpoint and agenda. Perhaps because of media fragmentation, they have mostly given up on the idea being a reliable news source to a broad audience. While this strategy obviously limits their addressable audience, it is cost effective, as the targeted audience often cares very little about the accuracy of their reporting, and instead just wants their ideological viewpoint reinforced. Genuine journalism is mostly disappearing.
Individuals make decisions and reach conclusions based on their "ethics": a framework of right and wrong, to put it very simply. I believe there are, essentially, two ethical frameworks: relationship based ethics and principle based ethics. I have been observing behavior using this dichotomy for nearly 25 years and conclude that, for the most part, people on the left side of the US political spectrum have relationship based ethics and people on the right have principle based ethics. The following examples illustrate what this "looks like".
When Obama won in 2008, I noticed about 20 reactions from my left wing friends. On Facebook, 19 of the 20 said, in some form or another, "We won, you lost". Only one of them mentioned that they were looking forward to "the good" they though Obama would do. Their evaluation of the results was described in terms of relationship. I contrast that to the 2010 mid terms when Republicans "shellacked" the Democrats. The overwhelming (35 out of 40) response from my conservative friends on FB was, in some form or another, "let's get things fixed". Their evaluation of the results was described in terms of principles. (I dropped FB after the 2012 elections.)
I see this same dynamic play out at least 70% of the time. So before Democrats/left wingers decide on a course of action the question they ask is "Will this course of action improve my relationship with others? (improve is used broadly and includes power in the relationship) Conversely, Republicans/right wingers ask themselves "Does this course of action align with my core values?"
So the left wingers leading the DoJ decide who to investigate by determining if such work will help their relationship with people they like or hurt people they don't like. In the case of Project Veritas, it's a "win win": it ingratiates them to POTUS and media, and hurts a political opponent.
This also explains why Dems have a nearly impossible time voting for a Repub, no matter how bad their candidate is. They simply cannot cast a vote for someone they don't "like"; an evaluation of their policies never enters the consideration.
While I wish I was independently wealthy and could go back to school and spend 5 years or so earning my PhD on proving this hypothesis, my analysis is based on many years of observation and not hard science. Yes, there are exceptions to my "rule" for individuals and for some specific behaviors, but, by and large, it seems to hold true.
The disgusting triumphalism I saw on display on social media when Obama won in 2008 and especially 2012 was a harbinger of our current bitter division. People could really benefit from following the old sports cliche of “when you win something, act like you’ve been there before”.
I have long opined that perhaps the best definition of political Right vs political Left is Principles vs Tribes.
Many Lefties here won't like it (and are likely to misdefine the Right to weasel out of it), but it's true. Identity has always been at the center of left-wing thought, and the Left is also the camp that birthed moral relativism, subjective truth, and critical theory. It's tribalism all the way down, and it's always been tribalism.
To actually have principles, one has to believe in natural (or negative) rights and not so-called "positive rights", which cannot conceivably be universally applied.
Glenn asks the question why are the establishment "journalists" willing to rally against the other journalists, well the Democrat tribe is stronger than the journalist tribe. Of course this is simple, they aren't journalists, they are propagandists, bought and paid for POS.
I have not read a more on-point description of the root of our problem than you've laid out here. Not just in journalism, as you said, but in everything, we have lazily discarded principles as just too damned hard and not nearly enough fun. The pretense that we just can't have principles right now, because "the stakes have never been higher", is especially vapid. Everything I don't like today is positively the worst ever.
We twist ourselves into deadly contortions trying to avoid Covid or defeat Trump or whatever's just simply the worst ever today. We used to know such thinking is crazy, and such thinkers are morons or liars.
Trite though it is, the saying about millenials being taught what to think, but not how to think, rings truer every day. My kids read plenty of things in college, but didn't have to, in fact were discouraged from, thinking for themselves. Critical analysis skills and intellectual honesty would be required to step outside their bubble and actually view principles as abstract apolitical concepts. Good luck with that.
I miss the days when the ACLU would go to court to protect the right of actual swastika-wearings nazis right to hold public rallies.
In that vein, I miss the ability to use subtle irony or sardonic humor; people today (and unfortunately it's catching) have to have everything spelled out and explicit and easy to catch or it passes completely over them. Part of that too is not being allowed to tease or tweak someone's pride in a playful way, might be "inappropriate" doncha know. People need ribbing to keep it real and toughen up their skin somewhat. I miss the freedom to call people vulgar names as terms of endearment.
I've noticed that sarcasm and sardonic humor don't always play so well in print.
"[...]subtle irony or sardonic humor; [...] passes completely over them. "
Nope; it's that there are far too many people out there who actually believe and assert "with a straight face" the things you take as obvious sardonic humor or irony. ...IOW, "I can't tell if you're serious or not" is a real problem, especially in the online world where cadence, voice inflection and body language aren't available.
Some of us just don’t get satire in print. I am very guilty of this. I once read the novel THE EIGER SANCTION and completely missed out that it was a satire of the spy genre. It does not help that the Clint Eastwood movie based on the novel is played straight. I mean, come on, the spy chief who sends the agent out on his mission is named Yurassis Dragon…Your Ass Is Dragging. Completely over my head. Then I read a review of the novel which identified it as a satire and DUH the light bulb went off in my mind.
I am very gullible. I admit it. I have learned to be very careful if something seems over the top or too perfect.
THE EIGER SANCTION is written by Trevanian, the pen name of Rodney William Whitaker. Trevanian has a fascination with the Orient (Asian mind set) and game theory. He uses the Asian game of GO as a template for the Eger Sanction, and the assassin hero, Dr. Jonathan Hemlock.
Hemlock (a poison that killed Socrates) is extreme in every sense of the word. For this character, sex is sadomasochistic, again an extreme game.
The book is so much larger than the movie by Eastwood.
I think that calling the book, "a satire of the spy genre." is to give it a short shrift. The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hess is a comparable piece in literature. It is deep and indescribable in any summary. Both books have to be experienced to grasp.
One might suggest that both novels are about the quest for enlightenment, based in what is now termed 'game theory', which leads into the meme of chaos theory, and deep metaphysics.
If you can actually understand the basics of the game GO, you may begin to understand the depth of the EGER SANCTION.
\\][//
You are far better read wiser than I am. I read the book quickly without any deep thought. It’s one of my weaknesses. I am a lawyer and reading/writing involve transmission of the maximum amount of information as clearly and concisely as possible. I do not have the great love of the beauty of language that scholars have.
I stink at GO. I have a set. I’ve played it with my wife and she kicks my a** every time.
"where cadence, voice inflection and body language aren't available" - but if you used that then it wouldn't be what's called deadpanning.
I hear you're a master where as I am but an unmasterful apprentice.
russian-bot is a master of extreme bullshit. he/she/it would fail miserably at stand up, and fails sitting down at a qwerty equally.
\\][//
No such implication was meant. Whoever you heard it from - they either step up or shut up.
What I meant was - if one uses /s or smilies or whatever else to provide a pointer - that would be the same as telling a joke and burst out laughing ahead of everybody else. Likely being the only one doing so.
Which is funny by itself. Just find cases of frustrated humorist David Brent.
I agree in the context you posit but I am really beginning to see this in acquaintances or with someone with which you strike up a conversation and they struggle to process fairly obvious ironic or oxymoronic jibes. Older people are much more adept at stepping into a jesting or jocular mode while younger ones are too cautious or fearful (is that too strong) to engage in what I would call repartee. IMHO a world without levity is too dark to abide, even when the jokes are on me.
I think what you're describing is people having bought into this whole PC concept. Which is strictly enforced nowadays in the corporate world. And so they carry what they learned in various corporate "trainings" over into their personal environments.
I have lost lots of relationships lately because it got absolutely unbearable. But I haven't dropped my deadpan self. Fuck them and fuck PC.
...I haven't seen that - or noticed it at least - but now that you mention it, I'll be on the lookout for it.
Exactly. If your writing fails to express your point, git gud and try again.
I love multiculturalism, but it become more difficult in such an environment. More insular communities tend to have more inside jokes.
"I miss the ability to use subtle irony or sardonic humor" - how so? You choose not to do it? Forced not to?
I am so turned off by the look of disquiet that it drives me toward self-censoring; I tend to be either glib or silent because tip-toeing around is just not in my nature. I was introverted when young and revert to that type when being glib gets uncomfortable. The pundit VDH refers to it as retreating into "a monastery of the mind" and that seems to fit.
I am an older Millennial (sometimes grouped as a "Xennial" or the "Oregon Trial Generation" -- a sub-generation distinction for being stuck "between" larger more identified generations "Millennial" and "GenX") and I bore witness to the decay as it was starting. I read a lot of excellent primary literature in college, but I noticed there were a few professors who were mostly interested in us memorizing their interpretations on it more then doing discussion and thinking. Thankfully at the time there were still some excellent professors who mainly ran classes by just asking us questions about what we read and getting students to debate each other on our conflicting opinions of these questions -- with the professor often only interjecting to add more fuel to the fire as necessary to keep things going full-tilt.
When my younger brother became a junior in college, he complained to me -- unprompted -- that most professors he had were surprisingly displeased with independent thoughts. College labeled him a "B" student and he told me (highly paraphrased/reconstructed now so many years later) "I know how and can get 'A's, I have done so as proof on occasion. It involves lazy copy and paste from the professors' own screeds with some minimal rewriting in my own words; I simply am not interested in this. Most of the strait 'A' students in my classes I find to be surprisingly shallow and vacuous people."
I am not sure how this fundamental corruption of education in the US happened, but it is now near universal and its increasing damage on society is undeniable.
As a working academic myself, and can attest to your observation. I'm my experience, intellectuals are, far more often or not, peddlers of second hand ideas (as Sowell puts it). Intellectual laziness is a chronic condition in the academy.
We have a running joke in the academy. There are two kinds of Marxists. Those who have actually read Marx, and those who have merely claimed to. And the latter exponentially dwarfs the former.
I've been saying for a long time - "Marx" and "marxist" are expletives for the folks when they think the plain ones like "fucking bullshit" are insufficient.
These folks are usually "autodidacts" of almae matres such as Rush Limbaugh School of Trite Shit, Michael Savage Stream of Puke, Mark Levin High Pitched Nonsense, and the like.
Thanks especially for your second paragraph. ...I've been trying to tell the fools here who keep claiming Marxism everywhere they turn that they don't know a THING about Marx, and very few will admit it.
"they don't know a THING about Marx,"--Art
That is bullshit. Anyone who has studied history knows all that is needed to know about Marx, and that is when his proposals are put into practice what happens is totalitarian tyranny, and mass death of those under the system.
I know what Marxism is, I know what Neo-Marxism which originated in The Frankfurt School, making excuses for why the original Marxist process of revolution in the industrial states never took place as predicted. Only backward preindustrial nations fell to the Marxist revolutionary zeal.
So now rather than economics being at the center of the process, Neo-Marxist are concerned with cultural issues, thus CRT, Gender issues--especially Transgenderism, and Woke bullshit arises from the Neo-Marxist ideology.
The disingenuous claims against 'Capitalism' are in fact critiques against 'Corporatism', THAT is the system in the US now, it is NOT capitalism.
\\][//
The essence of Marx/Marxism is simply this.
Marx had two key presuppositions. First, that the only basis for knowledge is the material world, which is why we label him as a “philosophical materialist” (side note: philosophical materialism is his basis for a theory of history, not economics, called historical materialism). Consequently, knowledge cannot be attained in any other intellectual endeavor. Least of all, idealism and its universals, and divine revelation and its universals. Therefore, there are no such thing as first principles. Second, in rejecting first principles, there are no natural constructs and, moreover, no such thing as a basic human nature. Therefore, all constructs are merely convention.
Following these two presuppositions, an understanding of the nature of all human relationships can be reduced material, specifically the ownership of material; and those relationships are merely conventions rooted in a misguided, or outdated, reliance on "so-called" first principles in previous epochs which have simply continued as a matter of nefarious habit. That is, those who have historically controlled the ownership of material continue to do so to preserve their material interests at the expense of those who haven’t resulting in successive forms of slavery from epoch to epoch.
As such, Marx claims the nature of human relationships should be reconstructed in the interest of material equity – the elimination of slavery by turning over ownership of material to the masses, i.e. the proletariat. And he accounts for human tendencies, such as being competitive or possessing the desire to excel, by saying they’re just a matter of habit of which, he claims, we should be disabused, leading to what he calls the tyranny of the proletariat (or what contemporary leftists euphemistically call “democracy“).
The problem with Marx is that history does not bear witness to this possibility. So the only way to achieve equity – a tyranny of the proletariat – and to elevate the historically marginalized, is to suppress those who excel down to the level of those who don’t or can’t, rendering everyone equally impoverished rather then more equitably prosperous.
Every political context in which Marxism as been applied has not resulted in a true “classless” society, but rather a two-class system: the impoverish proletariat and their elitist overseers who assume control over material for the sake of societal cohesion, which is just another form of slavery (under a different organizing principle), the very thing Marx claims philosophical materialism can eradicate.
Do you think it possible that there could be ways to reward those who "excel" with something other than material possessions?
I can agree with this proposition entirely:
"Every political context in which Marxism as been applied has not resulted in a true “classless” society, but rather a two-class system: the impoverish proletariat and their elitist overseers who assume control over material for the sake of societal cohesion, which is just another form of slavery (under a different organizing principle), the very thing Marx claims philosophical materialism can eradicate."
\\][//
" Therefore, Second, in rejecting first principles, there are no natural constructs and, moreover, no such thing as a basic human nature. Therefore, all constructs are merely convention.--Aмериканский самиздат
These propositions are preposterous. To deny human nature in toto is ignorance multiplied. Add to that "all constructs are merely convention."
Convention is meant to apply to consensus. But anyone who pays attention recognizes that consensus is ALWAYS temporary. and this is due to human nature, which is always transient, minds changing from day to day as more information is available on every subject that can be had.
Modern psychology and sociology obliterates such notions as those I quoted above.
The fact that human nature is so complex is no excuse for denial of it's existence.
Human nature stands outside of nature in the fact of art and artifact. No other species creates art and artifact. That is what technology is; the complex of artifact combined throughout history.
For a thorough treatise on the subject see: THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY by the sociologist Jacques Ellul.
\\][//
I don't agree with your take, but at least it was well written and clear and I'll "factor it in" to my thinking.
In my view, Marx's thinking evolved over time and you're speaking about a part of it and, for me, not the most important part.
Aмериканский самиздат,
So it all comes down to Karl Marx? Whether one grasps his work or not?
I prefer Thomas Jefferson myself.
Of course I am an autodidact and didn't take schooling after graduating from high school. I let my natural curiosity lead the way.
I have to admit, I don't like Marxism, nor Neo-Marxism. I know enough history to see what the dialectic has wrought in human suffering.
Don't blink in a staring contest & don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
\\][//
Please read my reply to Art.
David Goldberger, the ACLU attorney who represented the neo-NAZIs at Skokie, was my law school professor for Political and Civil Rights. I recently read an article where he and former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser were worried about the direction that the current ACLU is going.
I recently listened to an interview of him and / or possibly Ira Glasser on KPFA radio and they spoke about this and are clearly distressed by it. However, I gathered from them that they think there's hope to save the organization and put it back on its foundations... What's your perception of that?
It seems to be on the same path as the SPLC -- excellent history, but in the last two decades the SPLC seems to be more interested in adding an ever growing number of groups to their watch list to just scare donors into giving more money. Sure the groups they point to first in their watch lists are a bit scary, and there are indeed many groups on their list that do give one some concern, but every year their lists are padded out a little more with more groups who really are pretty benign and just of a different political strain then their preferred donor groups. Their donors love seeing their political enemies listed as "Hate Groups" or "Extremist" just for their "wrong think."
Unlike the ACLU, for the SPLC though I guess in some sense it doesn't matter as much because other than making lists, raising money, and giving talks (mostly to scare people into donating money) they aren't particularly active these days. That at least leaves some of the increasing numbers of groups who really shouldn't be listed as "Hate Groups" or "Extremist Groups" on their lists relatively unmolested in light of the SPLC's contemptable mission creep; though other people do use those lists as a "solid foundation" to slander groups who don't deserve it so that is still an issue.
As an aging Boomer, I can still remember my days in public school. While we were not indoctrinated into hating ourselves, our classmates, our parents, and our nation, we WERE taught to sit quietly and conform. The few, the gifted, the hard-working, were directed to advanced classes and presumed to be "college material". The rest were essentially programmed to believe they could operate the machines that made society work.
I understand that Montessori schools actually do encourage the development of critical analysis skills and it is possible that some Charter schools encourage intellectual honesty. Who knows?
I am convinced that effectively ending childhood with mandatory pre-school and extending adolescence and uselessness with free Associates' Degrees at community college will do nothing but increase our society's direction nowhere.
Nietsche's BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL should be mandatory reading for anyone attempting to make sense of our nihilistic and suicidal American society.
Sadly the ACLU has been a political animal for decades. They were willing to protect swastika-wearing nazis but by the early 80's wouldn't defend pro-lifers standing on the sidewalks that were unlawfully being arrested. They are just more blatant about it now.
When intellectuals say they aim to teach students "how to think, not what to think," they really mean "how" to think in order to arrive at their desired moral conclusion. As a working academic, I see this every day, and students report this regularly, at least the one's critically sharp enough to have caught on to the semantic game.
"That's what's called a liberal education."--8G
The following link is a history of where that "education" comes from:
COMPULSORY SCHOOLING – INDOCTRINATION
Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww
"It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident."--H. L. Mencken
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
\\][//
I'm not convinced this is remotely as true as right wing media would claim. Have you experienced a liberal education to confirm? In my experience, a liberal education only requires a few classes outside of the students' main course of study. The main ones are usually an immense smorgasboard of social science or ethics based courses of varied topics. At least at the several schools I attended (yay for life derailing my education part way through), there was no set indoctrination. They were varied topics that merely exposed one to different things than one would have experienced otherwise. I really enjoyed one I took called Wealth and Poverty at the community college level. That class revealed a host of data sources to me that I might not have learned about otherwise. I also learned a lot about various cultures. It was an anthropology-based elective.
"I'm not convinced this is remotely as true as right wing media would claim."--Cynthia
The opening sentence here is telling. What is meant by "right wing media"?
"It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident."--H. L. Mencken
The Left | Right Dichotomy is an invention of Georg W. F. Hegel. The Hegelian Dialectic is a formula meant to lead human society to the "perfect state", a totalitarian state wherein the state in its perfection is a reflection of God.
Hegel was more theologian then simple philosopher. He saw politics as a religious undertaking.
This dogma of Left & Right is simply the application of the technique of 'Divide & Conquer'. The concept of Left and Right is simplistic categorical shorthand that is meant to sublimate the complexity of human conceptualization with dogmatic formulas that are embedded in the thinking of populations by rote and repetition to the point that the subject believes this thinking is their own original thought.
Of course, as Mencken remarked it is caused by "early indoctrination in the imperial system." That system is the Prussian system as has been explained by many scholars, such as John Taylor Gatto, Antony Sutton and Carroll Quigley. These are names few people will recognize, as the mainstream education has left them out of modern curricula and attempted to suppress their lessons of deep history.
Cynthia naively asks if we have experienced this indoctrination first hand. Well it is very difficult to avoid, as modern' schooling' is mandated for the grades 1 through 12.
She likely meant having further education in college or university, but that is simply further indoctrination on the same terms of the extension of the model set during the earlier years of such 'education'. That is being locked into a room and forced to be quite unless given permission to speak, and to take the lessons forced by the dogmatic curriculum of the grade.
While Cynthia seems to have experienced a revelatory moment when her life derailed her 'education' part of the way through it, she had already been indoctrinated into the program by her earlier years 1 through 12 at least.
I encourage Cynthia and all the readers to go to the following link, and read the history of how the "education system" was brought to the US in the late 1800s:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
\\][//
I mean to say one only had to pick a few out of a long list of incredibly varied choices.
That's the upside about STEM curriculum - there are right answers
For now
the caveat, "for now" is all the difference, and it's quickly fading, thanks to the social sciences, and uneasy marriage between the humanities and sciences.
It seems clear that Trump Derangement Syndrome has had a profound effect on the brains of Democrats. (I'm so far left that I can't stomach Democrats.) I think it irreversibly activated the reptilian parts of their brains. That results in an inability to think clearly on subjects that activate, such as the one's Glenn discussed here. The condition makes cognitive dissonance intolerable. Hence, the aggression towards the unvaxxed. Sadly, I don't see that anything can be done about it.
You're experiencing "the spectrum" effect.
Most think of political ideology as following a linear path. Far left to far right.
They fail to realize that in nature the two ends arc back around towards each other.
Thus, someone who is a Populist AntiEstablishment type on the left has a lot in common with the Populist AntiEstablishment types on the right; even though there are some fundamental differences that remain.
If you look carefully at "The Squad + Bernie" you see what are allegedly Populists but what you really have are Socialists and Marxists.
The difference between a Socialist and Marxist is pretty extreme and Bernie (who used to support strong border security and gun rights) has been coopted by the Marxists to advance their agenda over his (more Western Europe social democratic).
This explains why 10% + of the Bernie Bros voted for Trump in 2016.
They know that to get the change needed that slows down the corrupt relationship between Wall Street and Washington, they first need to right size the Establishment and they realized that it takes someone with brass balls and an ego the size of Manhattan to take them on and make a dent. Trump was their warrior just as he was for many on the right; even those who have a lot of dislike for Trump personally.
As they say...you fight the war with the army you have; not the army you want.
...Says someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about Marx - and therefore Marxism - and instead adheres to a particular definition crafted by a particular sub-group of the ultra-rich and their mass media.
Here's a strong hint: Marx was extremely pro democracy. But then, I bet you didn't know that! One of his biggest, most important points _ever_ is that you can't have democracy and capitalism because of what capitalism is and does. This is why his biggest focus was on substantive criticisms of capitalism.
And, by the way, most people in the USA conflate capitalism with plain ole commerce. If you can't adequately - and accurately - differentiate the two, then you're somewhat lost.
"Capitalism" is Marx's fabricated pejorative for the free market, and it isn't remotely incompatible with democracy. To the contrary, it IS democratic.
No one with your view of Marx comes close to defining any of these terms correctly, though.
For a while at least. But left on its own, “capitalism” turns into oligarchy. But that is not what we have now. Instead, we have a system that is more like what James Burnham wrote about: a managed economy. Everything is controlled by managers (business or government executives) who have minimal (or no) ownership interest in an entity but have total control over it.
This is leading to what David Samuels described in his interview with the late, great Angelo Codevilla:
“ Freed from the laws of gravity, the elite turns from the hard work of correct strategizing and wise policymaking to the much less time-consuming and much more pleasant work of perpetuating its own privileges forever, in the course of which endeavor the ruling elite is revealed to be a bunch of idiots and perverts who spend their time prancing around half naked while setting the territories they rule on fire. The few remaining decent and competent people flee this revolting spectacle, while the elite compounds its mistakes in an orgy of failure. The empire then collapses.”
To me it's readily apparent we're now solidly in a state of fascism, which is also called by some "corporatism" - that's reportedly what Mussolini called it, though I've never been able to find a truly good citation for the remark. And, some of our corporate leaders, but certainly not all, qualify as oligarchs in this system - it's not an either/or situation but "both/and."
And absolutely, it's been capitalism that has gotten us here. And, as we can all see, it's no place to be!
Thanks for proving my point; you cannot discern the difference between capitalism and commerce - here you call it "free market." ...You've got some homework to do, but I'd lay a bet you won't bother, sure you've got it right. ...Oh well, you can bring facts to a right-winger but you can't make them think. -shrug-
Art,
You have a lot of balls telling someone else that they have "got some homework to do."
You are hung up on the Marxist dialectic of Right/Left, which is utter bullshit manufactured by Hegel.
There is no Right and Left, there is only right and wrong. And YOU have it all wrong by following that idiot Marx who only leads to totalitarianism and death and destruction every time it is put into practice in the real world.
"Free Trade" is what the British Empire submitted the world to. It is the principles which leads to globalism. It is in effect Marxism prior to Marx, and the reason that Marx was supported by the City of London and Wall Street, to create the Soviet Empire as a "Controlled Enemy" bred and fed by the "capitalist" technologies of the west.
Obviously Deep History is not for you Art. You seem to play the academic game of pseudo-intellectualism, worshiping the mindless idiocy of Karl Marx and his ideologs.
Fuck Marx and his bullshit brand of socialist utopianism.
God save America from such idiots.
\\][//
Marxism isn't remotely incompatible with democracy? To the contrary, it IS democratic?
Excerpted from a previous post of mine"
"The problem with Marx is that history does not bear witness to this possibility [an equitable tyranny of the proletariat]. So the only way to achieve equity – a tyranny of the proletariat – and to elevate the historically marginalized, is to suppress those who excel down to the level of those who don’t or can’t, rendering everyone equally impoverished rather then more equitably prosperous.
"Every political context in which Marxism as been applied has not resulted in a true “classless” society, but rather a two-class system: the impoverish proletariat and their elitist overseers who assume control over material for the sake of societal cohesion, which is just another form of slavery (under a different organizing principle), the very thing Marx claims philosophical materialism can eradicate."
Everyone here seems to conflate 'capitalism" with CORPORATISM. That is what the US suffers from today, a Corporatist Oligarchy.
"Free Trade" is a British concept that eschews tariffs and national protectionism. Free Trade naturally leads to a globalist mindset, like the agenda of the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab's 'Great Reset'.
What is happening to America today via the Biden regime is the purposeful destruction of the United States, to end national sovereignty and meld with the globalists new world order.
See;
John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement
In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.
The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.
The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).
According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
[......]
This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”
The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement
\\][//
Marx was extremely pro democracy?
Read my reply to your previous post.
We need to establish working definitions of words before we can actually debate their merits and flaws. The problem today is that there are no commonly agreed upon meanings of socialist, communist, capitalist, progressive, conservative so we are all talking at one another instead of to one another. When I hear a Trump supporter mention "communism" I know what they mean, although they don't really mean socialism or communist economics - they are referring to the overbearing police state that has gone with the USSR and CPC.
In A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell has astutely done this under the dichotomy of "Constrained/Unconstrained."
As far as an "overbearing police state" is concerned, that is the logical conclusion of socialism (or any form or variant of philosophical materialism).
When you write:
"The problem today is that there are no commonly agreed upon meanings of socialist, communist, capitalist, progressive, conservative so we are all talking at one another instead of to one another. "
you're speaking to the successful effects of some 70-ish years of intentional propaganda to do exactly this, however, we DO still have the original definitions and we need to return to them... This is recommended reading:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Compelling interpretation, thanks for posting. The entire D vs. R charade is tiresome. Once you know how the sausage is made you can deprogram yourself back to a time when you think sausage is just this pristine piece of protein served at an upscale brunch, preferably served by a masked "hero" (now being tossed to the wolves for not wanting a booster shot). A true education is a rare thing. Between healthy servings of corporate/university propaganda (you MUST get a college degree to sell State Farm Insurance; never mind the $250k in loans) and Saturday afternoon Football game comas...we know how consent can be manufactured. If you're not sure, go read the NYT comments section. I couldn't bear it anymore and canceled.
Thank you for this. This is what I am talking about...returning to original definitions, which we have lost. And I agree, that 70s years of intentional propaganda have been responsible for said confusion.
What you're describing as spectrum effect is why I get my news from Breaking Points and Rising. What distinguishes the clustering of individuals that are their audience? I think it is the demand for far more honesty than the MSM is willing to give, because of their advertisers--and their connections to the Empire. Oh, and they don't have their heads up their asses...
I do have one complaint about my brothers and sisters on the Right: They insist on calling all kinds of people Marxists. That's just plain silly. There are very few actual Marxists in public life. Socialists, yes, but Marxists, no. I agree with Art and Outis that the meaning of these words has been destroyed by propaganda.
"They fail to realize that in nature the two ends arc back around towards each other." - Ricky Gervais argued same in one of his interviews.
Me too!
(I'm so far left that I can't stomach Democrats.)
I intuit that it is more left brain vs right brain instead of reptilian. The left brain is for grasping and fixating on the one option that it sees as right and downplaying any dissonance. The right brain is averse to rigidity and instead seeks to play devil's advocate and compare and weigh options. There is a book called The Master and His Emissary that gives insight on this. I really like your exegesis though, it is elegant.
Standard theory states:
The left brain handles reading, writing, and calculations. Some call it the logical side of the brain. The right brain is more visual and deals in images more than words.
Iain McGilchrist, is simply theory and has no basis if physical brain science.
Julian Jaynes has a sound theory on the nature of consciousness that I find more compelling; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
\\][//
You have that exactly backwards. TDS is properly defined as the mass brainwashing of Republicans who bought the lies of the Con Man. The consumers of "The Big Lie" are the GOP, not the DEMs.
Sorry, man. That's pure projection.
Once again, you got it exactly backwards.
A "con man" is someone who's made his riches in public service, not one who's lost millions.
Says the man who voted for the guy that claims his house almost burned down with his wife inside. - among other whoppers, too many to name.
That is the only, to date, pearl in that bag you grasp for that has not been proven false. Russia, Covington, Lafayette, Hunter,...pretty much everything you were told to believe of substance was a lie. How do you stand it?
The consumers of the big lie are both, moron.
Wrong again, numbskull.
On the right, the error is believing he’s a savior. On the left, it’s claiming he’s a devil.
Both conclusions are foolish.
Trump isn't a "savior" he was a great president however.
And now the corporatist oligarchy rigged the 2020 elections and installed that imbecile meat-puppet Biden as titular head of a regime ruled by a corporatist politburo intent on crushing the constitutional republic once and for all to meld the nation with a globalist totalitarian regime under the venue of 'the Great Reset'
Anyone who cannot see this happening is a naïve toadstool.
\\][//
Fuck Joe Biden and all the morons who voted for him.
\\][//
Except there is actual evidence for #2, and absolutely none for #1.
Part of the problem with our media today is the enormous control exerted by a very few media conglomerates. This make it very easy to control the narrative. Here’s a piece from Matt Taibbi, IIRC.
“…in the fifteen years between 2004 and 2019, 1,800 newspapers closed, and the news media, most of it local, lost $35 billion in revenue, and roughly 47% of its staff. Roughly 1,300 communities in this country have no newspapers now, a dynamic that more and more forces people to look to regional or national news sources for information.”
As I have repeatedly said on this forum this is a direct result of the Clinton/Bush collusion to create the TCA of 1996.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf full document showing the 1934 law with the 1996 changes
^^THIS^^ was the end of any truth in MSM, not that it was that great before, but the '96 bill was the end of freedom of the press in any real sense.
Indeed, and the facts speak for themselves. Where we once had thousands of news outlets now we have roughly 6.
For years the American people have been taught that "feeling" is more important than "thinking". Turn on any of the morning TV shows and you'll see it in action.
It’s not “we”. Tens of millions of us don’t think this way. Point taken though for the ones that do.
We may even be in the majority, but you would never know it because the MSM completely ignores us and pushes their partisan garbage. How can people vote for something they don't know exists? Until we make serious changes in the MSM, there is no getting back to fair and free elections that reflect the will of the citizenry rather than the corporations.
It almost seems like the only majors graduating from colleges are in hypocrisy. Liars, cheaters and thieves are the product of Ivy league schools, just ask Mike Pendayo, I mean, Pompeo.
Please stop insulting morons. We are easily offended.
Sincerest Apologies
Perhaps both.
The FBI is the real domestic terror organization in the USA.
Almost every time the FBI is involved, the real story isn't whatever we're being told it is, it is the FBI's role as an arm of the Anglo-American empire, whether it's grooming potential terrorists and using "informants" to organize terrorist incidents or to cracking down on groups and individuals who dare to oppose the powers that be.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/01/25/how-the-fbi-created-domestic-terrorism-80-years-of-psychological-warfare-revealed/
Can anyone read the above and not think the FBI needs to be shut down?
To quote directly from the article mentioned above:
"In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation reported on this scandal stating:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
Please, stalwart defenders of the FBI, tell me why the FBI still does "more good than harm."
We can thank the Patriot Act for much of which is being reaped today. The act should be repealed, and the NSA and secret courts abolished. The freedoms we give up in the name of "safety" are not worth it to me.
Even though I am a conservative, I strongly opposed the Patriot Act. Not that I can do anything about it... I knew where it would lead...
I think I did too. Once they open that door, the abusers will walk through it and liberty & freedom be damned.
I'm with you on that, but why "even though"? We American conservatives want to conserve the American Founding, including the Fourth Amendment. In Australia, the center-right party is called the Liberal Party, because it espouses the same ideals as American conservatives do, and the Left never stole the word in Australian English like they did here.
Unfortunately conservatives got hijacked by the neocons of the Bush era, with the help of FOX News. I would vote for a Paleoconservative any day over the crap we are currently offered and I lean left! Liberal in most of the world is center-right. Here, the liberals use identity politics to sound "left," but their policies are pretty hard right. Screw the Neos, both left and right - they have destroyed the USA.
You are right, and I thought about that right after I posted but editing a comment is not available. It was a weak choice of words playing into a stereotype. It actually should read "BECAUSE", and not "Even though". I was attempting to overcome an anticipated objection but afterword realized it only provided fodder. I won't make that mistake again.
Glad you understood early on because i did not and, i regret deeply.
I nearly sat out the 2004 POTUS election on that single issue. But I just couldn't stomach possibly contributing to a "President Kerry".
The FBI was a malignant tumor in the gut of Liberty LONG before the Patriot Act.
Patriot Act Patriot Act!!!!! (That's Alec Baldwin from The Departed)
I thought it was Will Smith in Enemy of the State.
They will never change.
We won world war 2 specifically due to our SIGINT.
The military complex will never abandon their surveillance state because it is too fucking valuable. They are expanding it, not reducing it.
Yes, SIGINT is important. It is a war measure to be directed against enemies or potential enemies. The whole problem with the NSA revealed by Edward Snowden is that they direct it against the citizenry of the United States, not only in violation of the plain meaning of the Constitution, but also meaning they regard us as enemies against whom war might be needed. A government that regards its citizens as enemies is the very definition of a tyranny.
I don't disagree but the SIGINT we did that won wars was identical to what we run now, grab everything, sift through it for what is valuable.
which war was won, exactly?
I believe it is also likely that the FBI, at least in part, instigated the storming of the Capitol on 1/6 and that is not just speculation. There is some footage that has been mostly ignored that very strongly suggest the Feds were pushing the protesters to storm the building.
As the article I cited above mentions, there wasn’t one terrorist incident in the 138 from 2001-2012 (the timespan covered by the study) that didn’t have FBI informants playing active roles.
If America wants to survive, and I believe it can and is being shaken out of its slumber, it needs to shut down this secret police. That should be the main campaign.
If ending America’s secret police becomes the central issue, then we can easily have conversations about how US infrastructure can be rebuilt, how the banks can be cleaned up and re-organized (ie Glass-Steagall), and so on and so on. If these secret police style agencies are not shut down, they will be the ones trying to subvert all those who want to put America back on a road to actual progress.
"ending America’s secret police " - that's a theme that would inspire both Left and Right.
I love your optimism David but I cannot share it. At least half the country supports the IC and would call you and the article you cited conspiracy theory bullshit (of course they say that without being informed and anyway they don't want to be informed due to an inability to think in terms of principles or some are just out and out useful idiots ). And then there's that six ways to Sunday thingy.
Just to clarify before I respond, what are you referring to as the "IC"?
Intelligence Community
And that Nancy Pelosi did not want to prevent the psyop from working… she needed a “fire” in the same sense the Nazis needed the Reichstag fire.
I have no doubt at all that the FBI instigated 1/6 as well as they planned the “kidnapping” of Gov. Wilson. They (the FBI) have been corrupt long before the Patriot Act ( although that undoubtedly mad it worse). An FBI sniper murdered an American woman holding her newborn baby and was defended by a future Attorney General in 1992…
The FBI can only consider this as part of their strategy if they have a compliant media carrying their water, which is the point of GG's column.
The New Media Mantra??
Compliance is Silence.
Silence is Violence.
And my favorite...An Adversarial Press is so 1970's.
Absolutely
Agent provocateur, false flags..... I'd be very surprised if it weren't.
Makes sense; it generates money and power for the FBI's agent provocateur people. People ask what was accomplished in Afghanistan; the answer is so easy. A transfer of trillions to the military industrial complex. If you just open your eyes from the indoctrination it's easy to see. Education equals indoctrination and more education equals more indoctrination; it couldn't be otherwise.
I love this article about the FBI's involvement with the Jan. 6 "insurrection":
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Of course, which is why the Democrats' star witnesses earlier this year were all very well coached to say that we shouldn't look into any possible causes except for the possible involvement of Trump and other Republican bad actors.
The FBI seems to create more crimes than it solves
A secret to always stay in business and get more funding. Fun fact: US 3-letter agencies get more funding (just in "over the table" sum) than the whole military budget of Russia.
I don't need to read that article, I read the letter Hoover and Tolson sent King.
I don't need to read that article, I read the Media, PA break-in documents.
I don't need to read that article, I read about James Ragen and how the FBI and mafia whacked him
Anyone who has any knowledge of J. Edgar Hoover knows the FBI is and always has been a bunch of pig-fucking liars.
Iconoclast doesn't need to read anything here, he knows fucking everything there is to know. He should be writing these articles instead of Greenwald, because Iconoclast is the DUDE.
\\][//
This is because some of us go out and learn from the original documents ourselves, instead of asking the media to do the work and summarize it for us.
I learn shit all the time here. Just not from you.
Yea exactly Iconoclast, you learn 'shit" ... exactly.
\\][//
I'd rather learn it than be full of it like you are.
Still yelling the earth is flat Bill?
We all know the Earth is a globe Iconoclast There is testimony that Thales knew the earth to be spherical, but no evidence to suggest that he proposed any other shape.
Thales of Miletus (c. 620 B.C.E.—c. 546 B.C.E.)
Cicero attributed to Thales the earliest construction of a solid celestial globe (Rep. I.XIII.22).
https://iep.utm.edu/thales/#SH6b
\\][//
Nice find David, I am a follower of Matthew Ehret, a most insightful researcher and journalist.
"The “war on terror” is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats, Matthew Ehret writes.
Since it has become increasingly evident that a vast extension of the Patriot Act will soon be unveiled that threatens to re-define “the war on terror” to include essentially anyone who disagrees with the governing neoliberal agenda, it is probably a good time to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.
If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good."--Matthew Ehret
\\][//
Some of us were warning of the danger you point out since 911 and the announcing of the Patriot Act. Both major parties are complicit. This isn't a left/right but freedom/slavery issue.
Oh my surely Outis, you cannot think you are the only one who has been on the trail of the traitors since 9/11...And no, it is not a matter of Left or Right, but of Right and Wrong. The data and facts tell the story, not political ideology.
I submit to the forum a portion of my research:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/pentagon-session-at-dc-911-conference-marred-by-organizational-issues-buys-into-false-premise-of-disunity/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/139/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/psyop-theater-v2/
https://thedissedent.page/2021/09/04/9-11-20-years-of-lies-and-cover-up/
https://thedissedent.page/2021/08/24/a-structural-reevaluation-of-the-collapse-of-world-trade-center-7/
https://thedissedent.page/2021/08/24/a-structural-reevaluation-of-the-collapse-of-world-trade-center-7/
https://thedissedent.page/2021/08/23/fema-403-appendix-c/
https://thedissedent.page/2021/08/23/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-9-11/
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf – Dust sample from Janette MacKinlay
\\][//
Thx for it
Thanks William.
But of course Kathlean, you are most welcome.
\\][//
FBI MUST BE DISBANDED. CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION.
thx for sharing
We are a mess of a quickly disintegrating society for one key reason... the lack of consistent strongly applied principles of journalistic ethics. Everything else is just the results of standard human nature... people pursuing their own interests while constantly looking for the guideposts.
The media was meant to report on those guideposts and the people would largely stay within the lines of the national consensus derived from the media reporting.
At the very time our national morality was challenged by a POTUS that told his bald-faced lie "I did not have sexual relations with that woman (young intern name)"... and our population became plugged into a 24x7 media news cycle... our media sunk to the lowest levels of tabloid-ism. Then it sunk even deeper to the bowels of political progaganda.
We have met the enemy, and it is our mainstream corporate media. The only remaining question is how we defeat it and reform it back to the respectable profession it should be.
I must disagree on the underlying cause. The disintegration of public education in the US and the consequent disability of the majority of the population to pursue anything remotely resembling critical thinking is the foundation that allows the MSM to use the internet/social media to suck the gullible brainwashed masses down whatever sewer best suits them on any given day.
I don't know. I have good friends who are normal hard-working Americans that have abundance of common sense but don't have the time to dig deep to find the truth. They get their regular media feed and just adopt the narrative. I am constantly having to deprogram them... explaining what the REAL truth is.
While I agree that we have fewer owning critical thinking skills, the power of propaganda cannot be denied. And with a 24x7 365 injection... it is much more powerful that it has ever been.
Keep up the good work while it still works. The up and coming generations will be a lost cause after the level of propaganda used to indoctrinate them. Then it will all end badly. Hope I’m gone by then.
Have you considered the possibility that when you have "degrogrammed" one of your friends, all that has happened is that he or she is agreeing to the most recent propaganda to which he or she has been exposed? And that they will most likely revert in short order? To be clear, in my example "propaganda" refers to the method of delivery, not the truth or falsity of the content.
I recently read a similar take from a European. Americans have screwed up the public education system so badly that we're all morons. My adopted sister is Korean and has learned the language and lived there. The way she describes education in that country is inconceivable here; children as young as six study until ten at night. Europeans know exactly what societies in decline look like. I'd like to think it's not too late for us, but I can't see the path through the generational bias that now exists thanks to our education system.
Starve it by ignoring it. Boycott.
Defeat it by ridiculing it and those who use it. Attack.
The msm is certainly deserving of ridicule. Don Lemon is a journalist? HAHAHA! Nicolle “Rabbit Teeth” Wallace is a journalist? Double HAHA! Those people — yeah, THOSE people — are so unctuous and smarmy, I could grease an axle with ‘em. Want proof that they are completely fallacious? How about the fact that Brian “war veteran” Williams is still on TV. Christ! By the way, it is rumored that on her wedding night, when her dolt husband attempted to consummate their holy union, he died of frostbite. But don’t quote me on that. I’m not a real journalist.
That's a good start. Keep going, you have a knack for it. Tell your friends. The problem is most of us are too polite to attack our friends' mistakes. We need to practice gradual escalation of the ridicule. You start with mild critiques like "Are you still watching that? They're wrong an awful lot."
Sounds legit
Oh yeah, I was speaking of Rabbit Teeth. I need an editor.
Meme about them until they cry and then meme about them crying.
The problem with both your suggestion and that of abbywood is that those who are capable and inclined to think about such matters are such a tiny, maginalized, minority that TPTB needn't worry about us. In fact, we might be useful so that they can claim they haven't brainwashed and intimidated the populace: see, here are some who feel free to disagree. "Useful thinkers" as a corollary to "useful idiots".
There's more of us than you think. But we tend to be less outspoken. That's the nature of conservatism. We need to learn to be more aggressive. Every conservative should study jiu jitsu, at least. I prefer Krav Maga.
Glenn, your clarity around "principles rather than personalities" is spot on and so sad.
I just don't get why it's so controversial to even do that. Like when the Trump Russia stuff came out I was like ok, maybe it's true but show me the proof first. But then people would act like you were Trump's biggest fan if you took that attitude. And there are so many other examples. It's like we're living in bizarro world, or maybe there are a set of actors who know that they would be threatened by a neutral application of principles.
My mother-in-law, a lifelong Democrat, said on the day of the Mueller report, "Well, they had to look into it." I said, "Look into what? It was all made up!" Most people would rather believe a lie they know to be a lie than to believe truth that makes them uncomfortable.
It's like a desperate attempt to avoid talking about the real issues we face. They didn't want to talk about what Trump represented. They'd rather pretend it's racism or some foreign conspiracy, as opposed to legitimate anger at their failed policies expressed by an imperfect messenger.
Actually, I think you're (and maybe Benjamin??) are missing Benjamin's point...
"[M]aybe it's true but show me the proof first" = "Well, they had to look into it."
With the exception of his word here "first", I agree with Benjamin's initial point. When an accusation is made, it is *not* necessarily "known" what the truth is -- *and* it is not necessarily known if the accusation is made in good faith. Only time, and work, will tell. So, exactly the same principle applies to Trump's assertion of a stolen election. *And* to "systemic racism". *And* to literally everything else.
To BOTH sides we need to say, *show* us your proof. Very few "journalists' now do that. Otherwise, censorship, and every other punishment .. slides down that slippery slope.
There's a lot of evidence fbi knew it was fake from the beginning. They had to look into it to maintain appearances.
Sure, *now* "We the People" know this -- but that doesn't happen until after (at least one) true journalist has properly hashed it out. Neither of us work at FBI HQ, right?
No, this is the same as the old question, "Do you still beat your wife?" That's not how our system is supposed to work, although people in general (and the media specifically) seem to not care how the system is supposed to work. Guilty until proven innocent, and by then the narrative has already moved on.
I think I'm being misunderstood ... which I'll take as my fault here. I'm not intending that any accuser needs to always be given the benefit of the doubt, but rather, that the truth of any accusation (in most circumstances) is not instantly, and generally, known. There has to be a "trial" by the press as to what the truth is. So the press, obviously, cannot be *asserting* truth before *discovering* it. The "Do you still beat your wife?" case is an assertion wrapped under the flimsy cover of "discovering" truth (via a question).
We don't have to know everything. When faced with allegations, we can believe it or reserve judgement. Some want to believe anything that supports their politics. Most people learn to sort out the obvious bs at a pretty young age. Most who supported the fbi bs knew better.
There is very little that has come out about Russiagate that the right wing media wasn’t reporting on from the moment the allegations surfaced. The only thing that has changed since are some criminal’s names were confirmed.
Since it's impossible to prove a negative, the course adopted by the current authoritarian super-structure (IC, media, Dem pols) seems to be akin to LBJ's infamous quote "Accuse a man of being a pedophile, and even if it's proved untrue, all people remember is the accusation".
It's absolutely vile to accuse anyone of anything you don't have solid evidence of.
That's why we have libel laws.
Your mother in law has a very common point of view; i.e., that if something alleged to be true, there may be (if not probably is) true. The Dems and their friends in the MSM know this, and exploit it at every turn. They have fully coopted Joseph McCarthy.
McCarthy's allegations were proven to be true by declassified Soviet records. Mother in law, probably not.
Cognitive dissonance. Most human mind's work that way. It's the evolutionary default thinking and it's so easy to go with your herd rather than think and even more so, risk exclusion from the herd.
Hopefully at least she's a good cook.
Wonderful.
I have a hard time believing he didn't organize the scam. That's what community organizers do.
The problem is that they knew but still acted that way.
I dunno, I thought the russiagate conspiracy theory was ludicrous on its face, and I am as far as one can get from a fan of Trump. For the record, I also detest Team D.
Who cares if people “acted like” you were Trump’s biggest fan!? So what?!
Like with people who “act like” they are superior humans if they got jabbed and you didn’t?!
Glenn: More than any other piece you've written since starting on substack this one epitomizes why I subscribe. I've often complained that for too many people every damned thing has to be about politics and/or race. In a way the lack of principled thought and discussion is the other side of that coin. Especially when it comes to the law, most particularly constitutional law, the lack of principled consideration is a grave threat to our constitutional democratic republic. The end result is pure tyranny.
What has happened in the Project Veritas case is a almost as bad as it gets (but I know it can get worse). I have no doubt the DOJ/FBI action is primarily a political hit job. It appears to be a vehicle to dish on PV and O'Keefe by leaks to the NYT. Significantly, those leaks are unrelated to the purported purpose of the search warrants. i fail to see any lawful reason for federal action in the case, even if the diary was stolen. The federal Trafficking is Stolen Good law only applies to property worth $5,000 or more. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue this element has been met. Rather, the DOJ/FBI have once again shown their willingness to corruptly do the bidding for prominent Democrats, including the president of the United States.
It has become painfully obvious that FedGov under Brandon is on a commando mission to permanently gut the concept of States' Rights and local rule.
I had forgotten how it felt when Obama was pres. We are right back to that same place. Oppressive.
"This not-a-real-journalist tactic was and remains the primary theory used by those who justify the ongoing attempt to imprison Julian Assange."
As you are well aware, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press.
It says not a word about "journalists".
I made that argument in both this article and (even more at length) in the video we published last night:
"But there is a much more significant problem with this framework: namely, the question of who is and is not a real journalist is completely irrelevant to the First Amendment. None of the rights in the Constitution, including press freedom, was intended to apply only to a small, cloistered, credentialed, privileged group of citizens. The exact opposite was true: the only reason they are valuable as rights is because they enjoy universal application, protecting all citizens.
Indeed, one of the most passionate grievances of the American colonists was that nobody was permitted to use the press unless first licensed by the British Crown. Conversely, the most celebrated journalism of the time was undertaken by people like Thomas Paine — who never worked for an established journalistic outlet in his life — as he circulated the pamphlet Common Sense that railed against the abuses of the King. What was protected by the First Amendment was not a small, privileged caste bearing the special label "journalists,” but rather the activity of a free press. The proof of this is clear and ample, and is set forth in the video we produced on Monday night."
You'd be amazed how many people insist that freedom of the press applies only to card-carrying, dues-paying, credentialed degree-holding PMC-certified Real Journalists.
and don't forget "Of the organizations we think are legit"
True, but it's not a right if you can't access it; we need enforcement of the Constitution and its protections - and from the very asshats who are now the ones charged with doing just that. ... How do we fix this?!
Because the Constitution has long been a dead letter.
To give the most egregious example - just say the magic words "Muh National Security!" and presto! The Bill of Rights disappears.
The real sad part here is no one on any side appears able to hold the elite accountable.
January 6th therefore causes them incredible fear and is why the first thing they did is create a $2b police force specifically to protect them "from the people".
"Dick The Butcher" may have been more prescient than he knew.
The problem is the laws. The laws are so fucked ass backwards from corruption/lack of diversity they need a complete rewrite and they need to be done by people not connected to the two crime families
Establish a new court that's tasked with protecting Constitutional rights in cases where Supreme Court precedents seem unhelpful, and dare the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. Could be established by Congress, or could be an unofficial court with no legal status.
Half-baked idea, but perhaps might work with some tweaking.
I was thinking of Peter Zenger, who never once set foot in j-school.
Tom Paine was a rabble rousing pamphleteer, as Glenn mentioned.
And probably not a real journalist
As I love to say, journalism is an action, not a profession. When you're recording the police stop on the corner, you're a journalist. When you write a screed about the current crop of leaders, you're a journalist. All these things are protected because as soon as you allow the government to decide who is and who isn't a journalist, (predictably) the dissenters are cast out.
It's the same with 'hate speech' or 'misinformation'.
That's why the old word "reporter" is better. Anyone reporting facts is engaged in 1A protected conduct. Being a "Journalist" smacks of self-importance -- as if you must be a member of the guild, or licensed like a doctor or lawyer, to "practice journalism."
It don't matter if you are a "journalist" or not - the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, among other things
Exactly. It's the action that's protected, not the person.
I should add that some people wonder why folks like Kathleen Parker or this David Gregory jackhole call for the persecution of Julian Assange, yet they do not fear persecution themselves.
Such bootlickers sleep safely in their beds, because they will never write or utter or even think so much as a syllable that their corporate and governmental masters would not approve of.
The NYT traffics in purloined material on a daily basis -- but you think they worry about being investigated and prosecuted for, say, stealing and publishing Trump's tax returns or financial records. Ha ha ha, my sides hurt from laughing at the very idea.
For the life of me I cannot understand why they are still considered a viable source for anything.
They legitimately have 100+ years of irrefutable proof lying that they cannot hide from, from Walter Duranty to Jayson Blair to Russiagate. Yet somehow the liberal bimbos and mimbos still gobble up their lies.
Don't you know, silly, that Trump is a unique threat to Muh Democracy and therefore we can't be worried about legal niceties when it comes to Trump?
Pretty sure this was a bullet point on the plan from 2016 on
I kind of like the British name for talking heads like Gregory: news readers (or presenter). Nothing more than someone reading a script. A cypher.
Or just "talking head".
"David Gregory"? Seems to me I've heard that name somewhere before.
...
...
Oh, right--he's the favored-by-the-regime talking-head fool who violated DC's ban on normal-capacity rifle magazines, whom the authorities declined to prosecute for his crime.
Glen, I wholeheartedly agree and the reason I’ve followed you from Salon all the way to Substack is due to your unflagging adherence to first principles.
I feel like there may still be a segment of your readership who relish the abuse you have lately been heaping in the Dems and MSM. Rightly so. But I wonder if there’s an exercise we could do where we define a counterfactual example that requires a principled stance in order to keep in the back of peoples’ minds what it will look like when you go after someone in their team.
Maintenance of principled thinking needs to be exercised and everyone benefits from being shown from time to time where they might be cutting corners or simply enjoying the wind being taken from their enemies’ sails.
Please continue the hard work of permanent vigilance and honesty that many of us have come to rely on.
Yeah when I first read Glenn I kind of assumed he was a typical left wing journalist, attacking Bush and Cheney but who would naturally go quiet when the Democrats took power. When he went after Obama just as much I was pretty shocked because you just don't see that very often. It's worthy of praise and an ideal we should all aim for.
Exactly my experience. I first encountered references to Glenn's writing at wendymcelroy.com, a libertarian/minarchist blog, and my initial reaction was to wonder just why the Hell she was publishing links to a lefty writing for Salon. I soon had a most satisfactory answer. My ultimate take-away is that if a reporter objectively and honestly reports all of the facts, it matters not in the slightest what that reporter's personal politics might be.
One of the problems with defining the sides in the ongoing culture war is that "the left" or "liberals" isn't an accurate description of the side the NYT is on -- a better description would be something like the "Inner Party." This faction of interested players works together to define what is legitimate, respectable, and permissible in Society. And these definitions are always for purposes of continuing their own wealth and power.
Their overt hypocrisy is due to their own sense of privilege -- they know they never have to follow the rules they set for others.
The NYT doesn't have to worry about having its files raided by the FBI. Rather, the NYT uses the FBI to raid other people's files and give the contents to the NYT.
Very well written and insightful - as per usual. Anyone who has seen the Rittenhouse trial and acoompanying videos - with any integrity or intelligence whatsoever - would not that he's a very good kid - and in fact, heroic. He DID go there to help and protect - and did more than many cops did that night. He showed tremendous restraint - and the only firing of his gun was in self-defense - as all video plainly shows - and the trial itself - blatantly reveals.
Without principle, we are doomed to the irrationality of tribalism fueled passions, and that has to stop - because the ruling elites will use secrtarian infighting as a ruse thru which to enact more totalitarian fascism.
Glenn, you didn't mention anything about how the NY Times had a heads up about the FBI raid on O'Keefe. And then a few days later, the NY Times as a series of stories where they opine about legal memos from Project Veritas lawyers that they somehow acquired.
Could it be that someone at the FBI leaked those files to the NY Times? Correct me if I am wrong, if that leak came from the FBI, I see two crimes there. One, the FBI employees recovering data from the Project Veritas computer drives are not supposed to be looking at materials not relevant to the crime at issue. They certainly should not be reading memos from legal counsel to a client. But they did read those memos...and then send it to the NY Times.
And Project Veritas is engaged in litigation with the NY Times. Do you suppose that advice from legal counsel concerning that litigation was leaked to the Times? I'd say that the NY Times should be in serious peril in that litigation. If I were legal counsel, I would want to depose anyone who worked on the stories published in the Times and any employee who handled those files to find out if attorney/client materials regarding the litigation were leaked.
The sad reality is that most media platforms have made the business decision to target (and pander to) an audience with a particular political viewpoint and agenda. Perhaps because of media fragmentation, they have mostly given up on the idea being a reliable news source to a broad audience. While this strategy obviously limits their addressable audience, it is cost effective, as the targeted audience often cares very little about the accuracy of their reporting, and instead just wants their ideological viewpoint reinforced. Genuine journalism is mostly disappearing.
Individuals make decisions and reach conclusions based on their "ethics": a framework of right and wrong, to put it very simply. I believe there are, essentially, two ethical frameworks: relationship based ethics and principle based ethics. I have been observing behavior using this dichotomy for nearly 25 years and conclude that, for the most part, people on the left side of the US political spectrum have relationship based ethics and people on the right have principle based ethics. The following examples illustrate what this "looks like".
When Obama won in 2008, I noticed about 20 reactions from my left wing friends. On Facebook, 19 of the 20 said, in some form or another, "We won, you lost". Only one of them mentioned that they were looking forward to "the good" they though Obama would do. Their evaluation of the results was described in terms of relationship. I contrast that to the 2010 mid terms when Republicans "shellacked" the Democrats. The overwhelming (35 out of 40) response from my conservative friends on FB was, in some form or another, "let's get things fixed". Their evaluation of the results was described in terms of principles. (I dropped FB after the 2012 elections.)
I see this same dynamic play out at least 70% of the time. So before Democrats/left wingers decide on a course of action the question they ask is "Will this course of action improve my relationship with others? (improve is used broadly and includes power in the relationship) Conversely, Republicans/right wingers ask themselves "Does this course of action align with my core values?"
So the left wingers leading the DoJ decide who to investigate by determining if such work will help their relationship with people they like or hurt people they don't like. In the case of Project Veritas, it's a "win win": it ingratiates them to POTUS and media, and hurts a political opponent.
This also explains why Dems have a nearly impossible time voting for a Repub, no matter how bad their candidate is. They simply cannot cast a vote for someone they don't "like"; an evaluation of their policies never enters the consideration.
While I wish I was independently wealthy and could go back to school and spend 5 years or so earning my PhD on proving this hypothesis, my analysis is based on many years of observation and not hard science. Yes, there are exceptions to my "rule" for individuals and for some specific behaviors, but, by and large, it seems to hold true.
The disgusting triumphalism I saw on display on social media when Obama won in 2008 and especially 2012 was a harbinger of our current bitter division. People could really benefit from following the old sports cliche of “when you win something, act like you’ve been there before”.
I have long opined that perhaps the best definition of political Right vs political Left is Principles vs Tribes.
Many Lefties here won't like it (and are likely to misdefine the Right to weasel out of it), but it's true. Identity has always been at the center of left-wing thought, and the Left is also the camp that birthed moral relativism, subjective truth, and critical theory. It's tribalism all the way down, and it's always been tribalism.
To actually have principles, one has to believe in natural (or negative) rights and not so-called "positive rights", which cannot conceivably be universally applied.
Glenn asks the question why are the establishment "journalists" willing to rally against the other journalists, well the Democrat tribe is stronger than the journalist tribe. Of course this is simple, they aren't journalists, they are propagandists, bought and paid for POS.