Sadly, the lesson that CBS will learn from this event is to not release previews of interviews. Without the original preview, we would have never known that they hot swapped the answers.
indeed. and therefor the lesson that we must learn from it is "never trust CBS" and the more widely we may spread that lesson, the better off we all shall be.
I'm trying to sort out the editing. It is so creative I'm wondering if it's not actually Kamala Harris but a deep fake...can I use "deep" in the same context as Harris? I guess it's more of a shallow fake?
Anyone who thinks 60 minutes or the network worthy of respect are madly disconnected from reality. 60 minutes in particular has decades (at least 4) of repeated fraud. Editing interviews to misrepresent what was said, such as editing a "no" when the interviewee said "yes", is standard procedure. Public admissions and court records are full of examples. I laugh out loud when someone says something like "I trust CBS and 60 minutes" and starts me thinking about selling them a bridge or beach front property in Nevada.
After their "creative editing" with DeSantis and Publix, Stahl's apologia for the Biden laptop, and the Dan Rather follies, why would anyone trust CBS and 60 Minutes?
The first fraud of which I was aware was the editing of Gen. Secor (sp?) in the 80s to make his answers the opposite of what he really said, intended to torpedo his run for public office (it did); he sued but because he was seeking public office, the courts ruled against him - free press protected the network - but that judge wrote pages and pages of searing condemnation of what CBS had done, declaring it unethical and immoral while upholding the 1st amendment protection. Then CBS lied about what the judge wrote.
More recently there was the Chevy trunks a few years ago, where it failed to explode in a crash so the had Hollywood special effects guys rig it with explosives, Mythbustesr style, and showed that claiming it just happened. GM actually prevailed in court on that one.
To call that show and the network pond scum or swamp slime is an insult to scum and slime.
The list of fraudulent stories and doctored interviews is extensive!
Pair that fraudulent edited version of the answer to the lambasting that CBS News management gave to one of their (respected) journalists to expose the bias of Ta-Nihisi Coates.
Pretty clearly, CBS News lacks credibility. Utterly.
I think a slogan from one of the two main characters of an old 2000AD comic has never been more apropos for the USA and the EU and the British rump-empire too:
"Be Pure! Be Vigilant! Behave!"
Of course, that character was the tyrant of the Human Galactic Empire and not above going around ordering people boiled alive for looking at him funny. . .
We also need to keep circulating "Kamala Unedited" versions of herself. It's another irony that throughout the last four years they claimed that the "Biden moments of incoherence" were the ones that were edited out of context.
The only truth you can ever be assured off is that which you directly experience. Everything else you encounter is problematical in the degree of truth it might contain.
"War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength."
War is peace is intended to show the unity in hatred of an enemy. Freedom is slavery encourages members to find freedom in serving the party, because they will not find it on their own. Ignorance is strength encourages members to rely on the strength of the party because they cannot possibly know as much.
That's why I enjoy wearing this "Ministry of Truth" t-shirt everywhere I go! 👇
My wife watched the 60 Minutes-clip over my shoulder. Her comment on Harris way of expressing herself:
"She talks the same way an aged alcoholic does, same incoherent fumbling for words"
When she said it, I couldn't unsee/unhear it. Spot on, I think - I know the ravages of alcohol and drug use very well, having lost (as I'm aware of) six friends to that, all dead before age 30.
Could it simply be that Harris is showing the effects of alcohol-induced dementia?
I think it's just garden-variety nincompoopism though of course she may well have overdosed on precious bodily fluids during her rise in Democratic politics.
Given her nick-name "Kneepads" and her known affiliations with Willie Brown, the "overdosed on precious bodily fluids"-phrase gives rise to very unwelcome images.
She doctored in a traditional route of the untalented in any other art.
I will say though that there may also have been the unfortunately not-rare seeking of a parental figure too. In photos from those days she is really glowing when seen on Willie's arm. There was a very ugly custody battle during Kamala's parents' divorce.
I've said before that Kamala has no interior sense of identity. She did indeed decide to turn herself into an American black woman with an accent nobody in her birth family ever had and which was not of any common speech in Montreal where she spent her middle school years. She made a political and not a cultural choice and serving others has served her well so far.
It is something how far the party loyalty can be pushed. It used to be that to be a successful figure head required some charisma. You may not agree with them, but JFK had charm, LBJ had a sharp wit, Jimmy Carter was...well an honest man, and despite all indications he's a terrible human, Bill Clinton had charm, charisma, wit and gave a great speech. Even Barack, in person, was charismatic and a good speaker. They all could sound intelligent, coherent and even rational.
Biden was never all that good in public appearances, and Kami has been kept out of sight for most of this administration's term. It's like the real rulers of The Party aren't even trying to pretend that the figure head has any power or expectations of being capable.
I sure disagree with you here. Even as an adolescent I thought JFK was not as sold. I think Bill Clinton has always been skeevy. I voted for Obama twice and by the second term the luster was seriously fading.
And Carter? He turned out to be a schmuck in the end too.
We were told there was charisma. All any of these guys attracted was campaign money and the lusts of the want-to-be-powerful who found a vehicle to jump on.
The real truth? All of these people are garbage. The biggest snow job in American history was that of the Kennedy mystique. Jackie was nothing but a hooker with a finishing school accent and you'd think two dead babies because of her husband's STDs would've been a financial arrangement too far.
I'm thinking maybe you can put the period before "on" ;-).
I've spent some time around politicians in DC, and worked with some beltway insiders. In general I'm told, consistent with my own limited experience, none of these political folks are idiots, they just play idiots on TV. My insider contacts add "except for Maxime Waters, AoC and Kamala Harris - they're as vacant as they appear". I've not met any of those, but trust some folks who have. I had doubts about including Harris in that list, based on rumors of how she somewhat cleverly obtained "leverage" to progress her career, but the last month or so have removed my doubts.
It was also my impression the very first time I heard her talk 5 years ago, the exceptions being her acceptance speech and the debate (I don't want to imagine how much training/couching it took to achieve that). I totally agree with your wife.
Just to put in a word for aging boomers (of which I am one): I submit that a lot of us recall a different time. We read 1984 long before 1984, when many (if not all) journalists strove for a semblance of objectivity.
I refer to decades ago. We have had biased reporting forever; but during the Civil War for instance, there were opposing views, depending on the newspaper. I do trust my doctors, actually, recognizing that they too are human beings.
Do you think any of these three statements repeated by a retired doctor are something you would hear from your doctors?
1. Total risk of at least one chronic condition after the age of 18 in the vaccinated is now over 60%. TRUE total baseline risk for those who have never once been exposed to any vaccines and those who've also avoided the "vitamin" K shot, is 2.64%. Take your pick. - Joy Garner
2. The biggest problem that all of this comes down to is the refusal of most people to believe that people in power wish them harm, actively want to do harm to them. This is the hardest thing for most people to accept. - Bob Moran
3. Autism: The rate of autism in entirely unvaccinated individuals with no exposure to the Vitamin K shot or maternal vaccines was 0%, compared to the national rate of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.49% in 2020. – The Control Group Survey
That's really interesting... What it might mean for kids to read 1984 today. If you're married to the title it might be difficult to suspend your disbelief if the settings don't seem familiar.
I read it in the mid 60s. It was required reading in high school. I thought of it as sci-fi and 1984 seemed so far off. I didn't realize that some readers thought it was a user manual.
I think you must have meant "illusion" in place of "semblance". Perhaps the bias has shifted from our youth. I remember when defending free speech, denouncing censorship and protesting war were things endorsed by "the left."
When was in my early 20s I realized that every time I read a news story about something of which I had actual knowledge, they got most of it wrong. I attributed this to laziness. Only latter (early-mid 80s) did I see the political patterns. But then looking back, I could see it (clearly) in the older media reports.
Around 1983 or so a local paper ran the headline "Biker murders disabled man in [name of city]". The actual story was: A mentally ill person, who was known to frequent the neighborhood, broke down the 60 year old man's door, beat him, and brandishing a weapon threatened him and his wife, demanding money and valuables. The man complied, the AH left. Later that night, remembering that the man had a collection of valuable shot guns, he again broke into the house and demanded that the man go to his safe, and retrieve his most valuable shot gun. The man complied, thus ending the confrontation.
The "biker" came from the fact the 60 year old man owned and rode a Honda Goldwing. For those not familiar with 80s motorcycles, this is the luxury land yacht of the 2 wheeled world. Not exactly what most think of when hearing "biker". And of course self defense is not murder.
Later the pattern as clear: this paper had joined the civilian disarmament agenda, was intentionally portraying anyone who used a firearm as the criminal fringe. The truth did not play well into their agenda so they altered it.
In 1715, The Royal Society (like a retreat for the best minds in Western Europe to find wealthy patrons to fund their research) were convened to decide whether Light is composed of Particles, the view championed by Isaac Newton, or Light is a Wave Phenomena as promoted by Dutch Astronomer Christian Huygens.
TL;DR - Big Hitter, the Newton. So he and his posse basically second-classed all the Wave People. And the patrons stopped funding Wave Theory Research. For 100 years, until _Sir_ (as he came to be known later) Thomas Young demonstrated that the Wave Nature of Light via his famous Double Slit Demo.
It wasn't until Einstein explained the Photoelectric Effect as a evidence of the Corpuscular/Particulate Theory of Light in 1905 (Al had a real good year in '05) that Light was _finally_ accepted being a bunch of teeny tiny little pieces parts.
The Dissenting view, a crucial step to understanding Quantum Mechanics, was smothered for a century because Newton was basically a Big Weanie. For real.
Back when I was a gradual student, I was working with an optics guy, combining holographic optical elements with solid state image sensors, both of which were very new technologies. We were explaining our work to a bunch of other gradual students. One asked if we were using wave or particle models for light and the optics guy (who was really smart) said "that depends upon who you ask!". To him, the optical guy, it was about bending and manipulating waves. To me, my sensors basically captured and counted photons. He bet them and directed them into buckets, I counted what was in the buckets. Both models worked well enough to be useful, though we knew then neither was the actual truth.
That's the point - it is both, or neither, use whichever model works for what you are trying to do at the moment. Filtering and refracting are wavy things. Counting is easier with particle like things. We needed both models to make something useful.
In my youth studying particle physics, some folks were pretty divided on some things, almost like B & Cs. But in a more "I'll erase your equations if you don't accept my derivation" kind of way ;-).
Absolutely true. Or relatively true? Or probabilistically true?
[sorry, physics humor]
In the field of physics, breakthroughs happen as observation gets better, and what we observe isn't what we predicted, but only when this leads to questioning and revising the models we hold. Without challenging what we "know" there is no progress; inquiry is essential to useful science.
In the area of solid state physics, where we've seen rate of change much greater than in other fields of physics, we routinely break the "impossible". Each theoretical limit on how small we can make a transistor has been blown through. If the boundaries were not challenged, they could not be revised, and we'd not be posting our views on pages like this using personal computers, and the plethora of solid state physics that goes into communicating over great distances.
Your ability to view cat videos on your favorite cat video site happened only because physicists were allowed to challenge what was known, and technologists realize there are few absolute rules. The two absolutes live by:
1. Everything you knew yesterday is valid yesterday.
2. It's only impossible until you've done it.
Question everything, reevaluate assumptions frequently, and cling only to those two fundamental principles above.
Advancements are kind of a Branches of Government thing but with the three being Science, Math, and, as a super over-general term, I'll say engineering but technology might be right too.
So the Science Guy goes out and sees some stuff. Then he sees more stuff. A handful more stuff-seeing events and the Science Guy says, "Hmmmm... I think I see a pattern." Then he shares his findings.
Math Guy says, "You know, when I started with Basic First Principles, rearranged the terms, cancelled out all the non-magnetic electrically neutral terms... and what is _this_ term for."
Science Guy's all "Mean culpa - I didn't see that!" Then they both look over at Engineer Guy and he's all, "*thumbs under suspenders* I can make one of those." So he measures once and cusses twice but eventually ends up with a pretty banging _this_ Detector. "But it's a little wide-spectrum. Keep an eye out on the edges."
So Science Guy goes back into the lab, now able to Really See Some Stuff. And he says, "I see _this_ all righty! But... what those two _thats_ over there. And is that a Big Whoa Nelly?"
And Math Guy ... Well, it kinds just repeats over and over like that until they run out of funding.
LoL! So here is how I learned that I was not a physicist.
Working on particle physics in a famous university. Tasked with designing and building a new detector, and integrating it into a data acquisition system (to the physicists this was one step above floor sweeping). So the experiment starts running, and after a day or two one of the physicists runs into the room excited with a stack of print-out (how we viewed data in those days). He'd circled several things on the paper; all the physicists gathered around and started to ooh and ah getting more and more excited. I leaned over to my advisor/boss and asked "what are we excited about?" He said "that young man is something no human has observed before. We have advanced human knowledge by this much" (holding his fingers very close together to indicate a small but significant thing). Wow, I thought, that means the stuff I built actually worked. Relaying the story later to my dad (an engineer), he smiled and said "there you go, you are an engineer, not a scientist".
Which was quite a major realization. Also a significant change in my life's trajectory, but that's another story.
"social media is the defense against this dark art."
I can find no way to object to this statement. It is a way, perhaps THE way, for those whom are not pushing The Narrative or other officially approved thoughts to be heard, to give lie to the false statements of the promulgators of The Narrative, and to get the truth out there when those charged with that responsibility "politely" decline to do so.
I have always shunned social media. I hate what it has done to society, to young people who would rather sit side by side in silence furiously thumb-typing messages to one another over some data-slurping service than actually be with one another. It has shortened attention spans, caused endless scores of people to become addicted to the instant dopamine hit of some random person hitting "like" on their latest vapid, pointless prattle about what they had for dinner, only to leave them depressed and jonesin' for another hit in seconds.
I used to blame smartphones for this, but I have come to realize that smartphones minus social media would be far more benign than they actually are. Social media by itself, sans smartphone, which means it would have to be done via computer, would also be relatively harmless. It's the combination of social media and a computer that is always on, and always with you, that is the threat.
Social media, in many ways, resembles the legacy media. If you read the New York Times, watch CNN or MSNBC, or tune in to your local network news, you're getting a curated, slanted sample of "news" that is designed to elicit leftist behaviors from you. If you get your news from Facebook, you get the same exact thing. If you Google Kamala Harris, you get fluff pieces on how great she is, with the negative stuff well hidden way down the list. If you Google Donald Trump, you get that he's "literally Hitler," with the actual story way down the list, or omitted completely.
If you ask Alexa for reasons to vote for Harris, it gives you a bunch. If you ask Alexa for reasons to vote for Trump, it says it does not want to delve into politics. But if you ask for reasons NOT to vote for Trump, why, you get a ton of 'em!
Alexa and Google search are not social media, per se, but they are information media, and you get the same as with news media... leftist propaganda.
This monopoly has been broken with Twitter X now, though. Previously, in the bad old days, Twitter was just one more social media source of the leftist talking points and nothing else. Conservatives, and conservative messages, would be filtered out, shadow-banned, and actually banned.
What a difference an eccentric billionaire makes.
Musk is not perfect by any means, but he has certainly opened up a channel for previously "too inconvenient to allow" voices to be heard. And with that being the case, I have to agree with the wise gato once again.
Time will tell whether other social media will serve a similar purpose. As long as they remain curated by leftists, for leftists, nothing will change. Facebook in particular is a source of "news" for many people, and if Zuck is serious about wanting to get out of the leftist propaganda game, Meta could become a second channel for free expression to reappear. No counting the chickens (or eating them, as cats would do) before they are hatched, though.
Don't hate. Don't blame things for how people act.
What a difference an eccentric billionaire makes. Ironic. I remember when tech billionaires were the upstarts, the nemesis of traditional billionaires who owned newspapers and television networks, banks and so on. Now the tech billionaires have "matured" into the folks they used to challenge. Circle of life?
I remember many years ago in a discussion forum (yes, face to face), with a speaker who summed up the emerging public internet and world wide web as a fundamentally new mass communication model. Mass communication media was a few to many: a few people controlled what was communicated to the many. He who controlled the printing press controlled the content printed. Radio and TV followed this model. The alternative was public assembly - where one or a few could address a few and two way communication was possible. All you needed was a space and a voice. But scope of impact was limited.
The WWW introduced a many to many model: now anyone, and everyone, could communicate with millions. Millions to millions communication. The barrier for mass communication was lowered to ground level - you needed knowledge and awareness (more than today).
One speaker noted that this new model would, ultimately, overwhelm all others. It would become the greatest human achievement towards securing and preserving freedom, an uncontrolled medium with equal access to all. That voice was one of the founders of google...so thar you go ;-).
I remember one of my sons coming home from high school after having listened to a few weeks of history lectures on pre WW2 era, saying, "God, I HATE the progressives!" That history teacher is one of a kind.
It made the agony of starting two schools in which we were able to hire our own teachers worth the effort.
I had the same reaction when I was taught about the "progressive" era. That was before the leftists (at least as far as my kiddo brain knew) had begun referring to themselves in that way. They were still calling themselves liberals then, as far as I can remember, even though they were (then as now) anything but.
The Regime's demand for censorship amounts to an attempt at monopoly control of people's minds and thought itself. While all monopolies are bad for consumers, this is the absolute worst kind and must be resisted fiercely.
Orwellian doublespeak is the dominant way issues are framed today. Empirical data is treated as misinformation while blatant lies are presented as unquestionable truth. The easily manipulated are goose stepping to authoritarian tyranny.
"Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”
Well, TwitterX (think of it like gender-neutral Freedom Media) might be Freedom Media but over at GoogleBook, Big Sundar is watching and The Zuck has The Bucks to influence voter... behavior.
But Hilary says, "...we lose total control if we don't fully fund the Ministry of Truth and start busting Elon Musk's head!!!!! *spittle*" That's not verbatim. Don't quote me on that.
An interesting thing about this rant, er I mean, reasoned analysis, is that she's quoting (and seeking to remove) what is the foundation of net neutrality.
Dag. I didn't read all the way before commenting - these people paying me keep expecting stuff - and didn't realize Gato had posted this same clip in the article.
Orwell wrote 1984 from his experiences fighting for "THE LEFT" in Spain in 1937 in their civil war; "Farewell to Catalonia" describes it all; Stalin's enforcers came in to eliminate the "internationalists" that Orwell fought with; they represented Trotsky
as for all? authors; .. 1984 came from personal experience; personal experience; Orwell never lived under Mussolini or Hitler; he did however live and fight as a communist; 1984 came from that ...... and he wrote it on Jura, a Scottish island in 1947, whilst taking streptomycin for TB.
I was surprised to read our bad cat describing FDR as a fascist. I think a more accurate reading of history would to put him in the same camp with his "Uncle Joe" - i.e., the communists.
There is not a lot of actual difference. Communists seize the means of production and appoint a party member (who has a seat at the table, so to speak) to run the "concern" (former business).
Fascists leave the owner's name on the paperwork, but regulate and tax the business to the point that it may as well be nationalized, and in exchange, they grant the business owner party membership so that he can have a seat at the table... if he is acceptable to the party. If not, they "encourage" him to step down so that someone the party likes better can step in. It's one of those deals you can't refuse.
Fascists demand endless loyalty to the state, up to and including the willingness to sacrifice their children or themselves on demand. Communists demand endless loyalty to the principles of socialism and the ongoing revolution, which in practice is exactly identical to the state. This, too, included the willingness to self-sacrifice on demand, as the "human robots" who cleared the Chernobyl debris knew all too well. They were being sent to their death to cover for the incompetence of the party, and they knew it.
The specific flavor of fascism in 30s Germany gave you a pre-selected enemy for your hating displeasure. Of course, it was the Jews at the front of the list, but there were many more. The Communists, by contrast, had the bourgeoisie. Switch out "Jews" and "bourgeoisie" or "capitalist" and you can swap any given bit of propaganda from one to the other.
As you can see, there is no inherent immiscibility between communism and fascism. They are completely compatible with one another, and can be mixed quite easily. Consider that Hitler, prior to WWII, decided that cars were too expensive for the German people, so he tapped Ferdinand Porsche to design an affordable, dependable "people's car" that would put German citizens on the road.
Porsche, politically naive to a fault, loved the idea, and agreed to do it. Thus was born Volkswagen, which is German for "people's car." Porsche designed what came to be nicknamed "the Beetle," and Volkswagen began manufacturing it right before the war. Volkswagen was not privately owned... it was a part of the German government. Having major industry as a part of government is usually a more communist sort of thing, but it mixed in with the existing private car companies in Germany (like Porsche, the company, itself) quite well.
Communists may find it useful to invoke fascism instead of communism, as fascism is easier to disguise as capitalism. They may just nationalize everything when they have the power, or they may realize there is no actual benefit in doing so when they already have all of the power that would bring them.
China right now is run by the Chinese Communist Party, the party Mao founded, but China is much more of a fascist country now than communist.
Or in a lot fewer words: They are both flavors of socialism. Fascists are Nationalistic Socialists and Communists are Global Socialists who view nationalism an obstacle and distraction to the rise of the proletariat.
It would be helpful if more people understood that 1) Antifa is just another branding word for Communist; 2) Fascists and Communists hated each other from the beginning and fought street battles through the early part of the 20th century; 3) Jews led the global Communist movement and that is in part why the Fascist Nazis hated them so much.
In theory, communists are global socialists, but since the workers of the world never united and created that dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviet Union, had "socialism in one country" as its official philosophy, from Stalin all the way to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
A country is also called a nation.
"Socialism in one nation" sounds a lot like "national socialism."
This is one reason Trotsky accused Stalin of creating a fascist communist state in the Soviet Union, which he said was indistinguishable from that of Germany in the 1930s.
The worldwide communist revolution never happened, so the promoters of communism could have either keep trying to instigate that uprising and wait (forever), or they could turn to "socialism in one country" and impose the alleged "uprising of the proletariat" on the actual proletariat at gunpoint, one country at a time. They all chose the latter.
Au contraire mon frère. Communists now control virtually every institution of the West, regardless of the fact that the proletariat did not rise up in violent revolution. Instead we got slow rot Communism and only now are enough people beginning to wake up that they feel threatened and cornered.
The proletariat rising up in global revolution was the part I said didn't happen, though.
I am well aware that subversive elements have made good on many of the Soviet Union's plans for infiltrating and undermining the west, from taking over at least one of the political parties to attacking the nuclear family to infiltrating Hollywood to infiltrating the schools to turn them into indoctrination camps. One would have to be blind to have not noticed all of this... but it did not happen according to the Marxist formula. It used to be a bad thing to be a "revisionist" in Communist circles, but if not for revisionism, they would have accomplished nothing, since it was all supposed to happen through global revolution.
The Soviet Union was revisionist from the start. The Manifesto says that before a country can begin on the journey from capitalism to socialism to communism ("true" communism), it must be industrialized, and the Soviet Union in the early days was agrarian. Lenin ignored this inconvenient bit and decided that they could industrialize concurrently with the revolution, rather than one following the other.
None of the various Communist countries of the world have ever gotten that way by means of global revolution of the proletariat. Those countries that were or are officially communist had it imposed at gunpoint. We're not there yet, but they would need to impose it at gunpoint for the final step here too.
No way they are letting her roam free. That would ensure defeat. They are making sure she's scripted and rehearsed. Only allowing friendly interviews, pre-recorded and professionally edited. How that first clip got out is something I'm sure they're working to "fix".
OH Pi Guy! I use to live in Sparks! miss the crabcakes, utz, berger cookies, Rhebs candy and my neighbor. I now live in Texas, when I told them about the rain tax, they thought I was telling them a tall tale. When husbeast verified I was telling the truth, they just shook their heads and said Welcome to Texas/
Mrs. Pi's office is in Sparks! They don't call it Smalltimore for nothing!
Love crab cakes, ashamed of the rain tax. Current legal dimwitted Lawfare on the Locals is that Baltimore City just last night passed a bill to make Gas-powered Leaf Blowers illegal subject to a to-be determined fine. Because they're loud and they hasten the boiling of the atmosphere.
But the dirt bikes in the streets at all hours? They just let those go. *shrug* Unforeseen response expected to be that all landscape contractors use Gas-powered generators to charge the batteries for their electric leaf blowers.
So, besides the crab cakes, sounds like you've made a wise choice.
Yeah, Free Minds and Free Markets isn't exactly how MD Politics has ever rolled.
We're in a pretty rural part of North Baltimore County. Still close enough to cry at the actual stadium when the O's were eliminated from the playoffs last week, but no one stops you at the cornfield and the horse own corner with squeegee in hand.
But the costs have gone up under Gov Wes Moore. He's progressive even by MD standards.
Um....this Boomer knows tv news can't be trusted, no matter the source. I also have critical thinking skills. Perhaps the younger generations should utilize THEIR critical thinking skills. Oh. Wait.
I was an adult student (read: already a grandmother) in college. I was older than some of my teachers/professors. I saw the indoctrination first hand. Most were gracious when I countered their positions but one hated me. That didn't bother me because he was my son's age- wanna play me, kid?- but he WAS the department chair so I danced the dance and got through his course(s).
I wasn't aware as much of the indoctrination as an undergrad (late 1970s). I like to think it wasn't as overt or over the top as now, but in honest retrospective it was more about y lack of awareness of my youth. Also, the left to which the universities leaned was different than the left of today, which has adopted much of the platform that was back then "those darn republicans" like censorship. There was still some resistance to being told by the government what to teach and how. Oh how things have changed.
Kids today are trained from pre-school onward that obedience is more valuable than independent thought. History is recast of simply ignored. They are taught the agenda of civilian disarmament, dependence on governments, and the virtues of centralized government. The principles of our representative republic are not taught, the constitution not in the text books anymore. By the time they get to the university, or become university professors, the "correct think" is engrained. Basic values you and I grew up with, like self responsibility and the value of work, denigrated. Even basic concepts of community are corrupted. It's gone from "go along to get along (just for now)" to "stray too far and be eliminated".
Sadly, the lesson that CBS will learn from this event is to not release previews of interviews. Without the original preview, we would have never known that they hot swapped the answers.
indeed. and therefor the lesson that we must learn from it is "never trust CBS" and the more widely we may spread that lesson, the better off we all shall be.
Do you have a link for that video? Is it on YouTube.
It's just too good not send around
link is in the stack
My bad.
If you're talking about the 60 minutes video that Maze made, it's here:
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1843664856446316758
I'm trying to sort out the editing. It is so creative I'm wondering if it's not actually Kamala Harris but a deep fake...can I use "deep" in the same context as Harris? I guess it's more of a shallow fake?
It's an answer to an entirely different question.
Oh thx man.
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1843664856446316758
Here's the original. You can hear where they got the clips to parse together the fake.
Anyone who thinks 60 minutes or the network worthy of respect are madly disconnected from reality. 60 minutes in particular has decades (at least 4) of repeated fraud. Editing interviews to misrepresent what was said, such as editing a "no" when the interviewee said "yes", is standard procedure. Public admissions and court records are full of examples. I laugh out loud when someone says something like "I trust CBS and 60 minutes" and starts me thinking about selling them a bridge or beach front property in Nevada.
After their "creative editing" with DeSantis and Publix, Stahl's apologia for the Biden laptop, and the Dan Rather follies, why would anyone trust CBS and 60 Minutes?
The first fraud of which I was aware was the editing of Gen. Secor (sp?) in the 80s to make his answers the opposite of what he really said, intended to torpedo his run for public office (it did); he sued but because he was seeking public office, the courts ruled against him - free press protected the network - but that judge wrote pages and pages of searing condemnation of what CBS had done, declaring it unethical and immoral while upholding the 1st amendment protection. Then CBS lied about what the judge wrote.
More recently there was the Chevy trunks a few years ago, where it failed to explode in a crash so the had Hollywood special effects guys rig it with explosives, Mythbustesr style, and showed that claiming it just happened. GM actually prevailed in court on that one.
To call that show and the network pond scum or swamp slime is an insult to scum and slime.
The list of fraudulent stories and doctored interviews is extensive!
Not to defend 60 Minutes, but the fraud involving the trucks was Dateline, not 60 Minutes. At least they are innocent of that one.
It's like we need an "Angie's List" of trusted information sources.
But then would we call it the Ministry of Truth?
Hey - If you'd like, I can make a list.
You can trust me. I like numbers and stuff.
I refer to them as “See? BS”
Pair that fraudulent edited version of the answer to the lambasting that CBS News management gave to one of their (respected) journalists to expose the bias of Ta-Nihisi Coates.
Pretty clearly, CBS News lacks credibility. Utterly.
It's going to get worse...and so will the tantrums.
"The tantrums will continue until morale improves"?
It's truly remarkable.
Literally Orwellian.
Fact checking now equals censorship.
They are, quite literally, keeping facts in check.
Quote from Dr. Jack Kruse I heard this morning: " "Facts" don't have to make sense, fiction does."
That's brilliant, actually.
Sounds like something a political Commissar would say.
ah...but...oh never mind.
LoL
Asking questions is heresy.
Suggesting alternatives is apostasy.
Saying "No thanks" is treason.
I think a slogan from one of the two main characters of an old 2000AD comic has never been more apropos for the USA and the EU and the British rump-empire too:
"Be Pure! Be Vigilant! Behave!"
Of course, that character was the tyrant of the Human Galactic Empire and not above going around ordering people boiled alive for looking at him funny. . .
Doctor Evil?
Hehe, no I'm afraid not - the comic premiered in 1980. "Nemesis the Warlock" by Pat Mills and Kevin O'Neill.
Nope, it's the other Mike Meyers character.
No - the _other_ other Mike Meyers character.
https://youtu.be/qybaIYP6eHc?si=asICA8eYkLN7dhDK&t=18
I don't remember much about that one...was the tyrant named "Hillary" by any chance? Oh wait, no, that was back in reality....
I keep telling y'all, Orwell was a time traveler. He was here. That's how he nailed 2020-2024 so exactly - he took good notes!
Or what is past is future.
The "Now" has been now for years...now.
I agree. No need to bring up whining Yankee fans in this thread, though.
LOL
*remembers he's donning an Orioles cap, shrinks back into hedges all Homer-like*
Lolol. You beat me to it.
Costas is awful as well.
I can't figure out why we're supposed to think Bob Costas is a good play-by-play guy?
He's used to be decent. I think he's going senile
Such a great thread!
Whining Yankee fans wish they had the KC pitching staff.
TV is for entertainment and selling prescription drugs. The "news" programs maintain the same purpose and follow the same scripts.
i am not entertained.
(flexes like maximus)
Nor am I. (relaxes minimus, but strains piriformis)
Funny. But not if you have a permanently strained piriformis.
🤣
Lmao
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDpTc32sV1Y
Yes, but if the original is then leaked, they'll be done, stick a fork in them.
We also need to keep circulating "Kamala Unedited" versions of herself. It's another irony that throughout the last four years they claimed that the "Biden moments of incoherence" were the ones that were edited out of context.
https://makeagif.com/i/MqduUc
The only truth you can ever be assured off is that which you directly experience. Everything else you encounter is problematical in the degree of truth it might contain.
Remember this:
From Orwell's 1984:
"War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength."
War is peace is intended to show the unity in hatred of an enemy. Freedom is slavery encourages members to find freedom in serving the party, because they will not find it on their own. Ignorance is strength encourages members to rely on the strength of the party because they cannot possibly know as much.
That's why I enjoy wearing this "Ministry of Truth" t-shirt everywhere I go! 👇
we-the-people-are-pissed-off-2.creator-spring.com/listing/mof2
also remember:
the war is not meant to be won. the war is meant to be continuous.
Remember that $60 Billion in aid to Ukraine means $60 Billion in stuff sold to the American government… minus expenses 🙄
Professor Moriarty knew where it was at.
Time is money, money is opium...
My wife watched the 60 Minutes-clip over my shoulder. Her comment on Harris way of expressing herself:
"She talks the same way an aged alcoholic does, same incoherent fumbling for words"
When she said it, I couldn't unsee/unhear it. Spot on, I think - I know the ravages of alcohol and drug use very well, having lost (as I'm aware of) six friends to that, all dead before age 30.
Could it simply be that Harris is showing the effects of alcohol-induced dementia?
I think it's just garden-variety nincompoopism though of course she may well have overdosed on precious bodily fluids during her rise in Democratic politics.
"garden-variety nincompoopism"
😂🤣
is that a clinical term?
if not...should be.
Given her nick-name "Kneepads" and her known affiliations with Willie Brown, the "overdosed on precious bodily fluids"-phrase gives rise to very unwelcome images.
It's like she doctored in strange love, no?
She doctored in a traditional route of the untalented in any other art.
I will say though that there may also have been the unfortunately not-rare seeking of a parental figure too. In photos from those days she is really glowing when seen on Willie's arm. There was a very ugly custody battle during Kamala's parents' divorce.
I've said before that Kamala has no interior sense of identity. She did indeed decide to turn herself into an American black woman with an accent nobody in her birth family ever had and which was not of any common speech in Montreal where she spent her middle school years. She made a political and not a cultural choice and serving others has served her well so far.
That was a very insightful and thought provoking analysis. But what my brain retained is that you called politics an art. lol.
It was sexual servicing I was calling the art, though.
🤣
It is something how far the party loyalty can be pushed. It used to be that to be a successful figure head required some charisma. You may not agree with them, but JFK had charm, LBJ had a sharp wit, Jimmy Carter was...well an honest man, and despite all indications he's a terrible human, Bill Clinton had charm, charisma, wit and gave a great speech. Even Barack, in person, was charismatic and a good speaker. They all could sound intelligent, coherent and even rational.
Biden was never all that good in public appearances, and Kami has been kept out of sight for most of this administration's term. It's like the real rulers of The Party aren't even trying to pretend that the figure head has any power or expectations of being capable.
I sure disagree with you here. Even as an adolescent I thought JFK was not as sold. I think Bill Clinton has always been skeevy. I voted for Obama twice and by the second term the luster was seriously fading.
And Carter? He turned out to be a schmuck in the end too.
We were told there was charisma. All any of these guys attracted was campaign money and the lusts of the want-to-be-powerful who found a vehicle to jump on.
The real truth? All of these people are garbage. The biggest snow job in American history was that of the Kennedy mystique. Jackie was nothing but a hooker with a finishing school accent and you'd think two dead babies because of her husband's STDs would've been a financial arrangement too far.
"When she said it, I couldn't unsee/unhear it."
Neither can I now. It's totally on target.
It's just that she cannot think on her feet.
🤔😂
I'm thinking maybe you can put the period before "on" ;-).
I've spent some time around politicians in DC, and worked with some beltway insiders. In general I'm told, consistent with my own limited experience, none of these political folks are idiots, they just play idiots on TV. My insider contacts add "except for Maxime Waters, AoC and Kamala Harris - they're as vacant as they appear". I've not met any of those, but trust some folks who have. I had doubts about including Harris in that list, based on rumors of how she somewhat cleverly obtained "leverage" to progress her career, but the last month or so have removed my doubts.
Cunning is not a synonym for intelligent. There's no depth to them. They just hate losing and will do anything to avoid the horror.
They've been saying the last few days that the bag of coke in the WH was hers. How about that.
It was also my impression the very first time I heard her talk 5 years ago, the exceptions being her acceptance speech and the debate (I don't want to imagine how much training/couching it took to achieve that). I totally agree with your wife.
Was couching a Freudian slip or purposeful? Funny.
Just to put in a word for aging boomers (of which I am one): I submit that a lot of us recall a different time. We read 1984 long before 1984, when many (if not all) journalists strove for a semblance of objectivity.
"Journalists strove for a semblance of objectivity" is what people tell themselves to make themselves seem coherent.
Do you trust any doctors now? After what we've witnessed this decade, do you think there was ever any reason to trust them?
I refer to decades ago. We have had biased reporting forever; but during the Civil War for instance, there were opposing views, depending on the newspaper. I do trust my doctors, actually, recognizing that they too are human beings.
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/327-keeping-up-with-the-unbekomings
Do you think any of these three statements repeated by a retired doctor are something you would hear from your doctors?
1. Total risk of at least one chronic condition after the age of 18 in the vaccinated is now over 60%. TRUE total baseline risk for those who have never once been exposed to any vaccines and those who've also avoided the "vitamin" K shot, is 2.64%. Take your pick. - Joy Garner
2. The biggest problem that all of this comes down to is the refusal of most people to believe that people in power wish them harm, actively want to do harm to them. This is the hardest thing for most people to accept. - Bob Moran
3. Autism: The rate of autism in entirely unvaccinated individuals with no exposure to the Vitamin K shot or maternal vaccines was 0%, compared to the national rate of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.49% in 2020. – The Control Group Survey
I think a copy of 1984 should be placed in every hotel room bedside table.
That's really interesting... What it might mean for kids to read 1984 today. If you're married to the title it might be difficult to suspend your disbelief if the settings don't seem familiar.
Full Disclosure: I first read it sometime in the late '70s.
I read it in the mid 60s. It was required reading in high school. I thought of it as sci-fi and 1984 seemed so far off. I didn't realize that some readers thought it was a user manual.
I think you must have meant "illusion" in place of "semblance". Perhaps the bias has shifted from our youth. I remember when defending free speech, denouncing censorship and protesting war were things endorsed by "the left."
When was in my early 20s I realized that every time I read a news story about something of which I had actual knowledge, they got most of it wrong. I attributed this to laziness. Only latter (early-mid 80s) did I see the political patterns. But then looking back, I could see it (clearly) in the older media reports.
Around 1983 or so a local paper ran the headline "Biker murders disabled man in [name of city]". The actual story was: A mentally ill person, who was known to frequent the neighborhood, broke down the 60 year old man's door, beat him, and brandishing a weapon threatened him and his wife, demanding money and valuables. The man complied, the AH left. Later that night, remembering that the man had a collection of valuable shot guns, he again broke into the house and demanded that the man go to his safe, and retrieve his most valuable shot gun. The man complied, thus ending the confrontation.
The "biker" came from the fact the 60 year old man owned and rode a Honda Goldwing. For those not familiar with 80s motorcycles, this is the luxury land yacht of the 2 wheeled world. Not exactly what most think of when hearing "biker". And of course self defense is not murder.
Later the pattern as clear: this paper had joined the civilian disarmament agenda, was intentionally portraying anyone who used a firearm as the criminal fringe. The truth did not play well into their agenda so they altered it.
Not to mention, lovely gato, that most scientific discoveries of significance came out of dissenting views!
Often after a century of ignoring the little guy.
In 1715, The Royal Society (like a retreat for the best minds in Western Europe to find wealthy patrons to fund their research) were convened to decide whether Light is composed of Particles, the view championed by Isaac Newton, or Light is a Wave Phenomena as promoted by Dutch Astronomer Christian Huygens.
TL;DR - Big Hitter, the Newton. So he and his posse basically second-classed all the Wave People. And the patrons stopped funding Wave Theory Research. For 100 years, until _Sir_ (as he came to be known later) Thomas Young demonstrated that the Wave Nature of Light via his famous Double Slit Demo.
It wasn't until Einstein explained the Photoelectric Effect as a evidence of the Corpuscular/Particulate Theory of Light in 1905 (Al had a real good year in '05) that Light was _finally_ accepted being a bunch of teeny tiny little pieces parts.
The Dissenting view, a crucial step to understanding Quantum Mechanics, was smothered for a century because Newton was basically a Big Weanie. For real.
"That would make him very popular" - Young Frankenstein. the movie
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/fd8601fb-88c5-4685-b3c5-41a8108f71dd
Back when I was a gradual student, I was working with an optics guy, combining holographic optical elements with solid state image sensors, both of which were very new technologies. We were explaining our work to a bunch of other gradual students. One asked if we were using wave or particle models for light and the optics guy (who was really smart) said "that depends upon who you ask!". To him, the optical guy, it was about bending and manipulating waves. To me, my sensors basically captured and counted photons. He bet them and directed them into buckets, I counted what was in the buckets. Both models worked well enough to be useful, though we knew then neither was the actual truth.
Or both? I've heard the phrase Wavicle before.
But it sure would make Physics seem a lot cooler if the Team Particle and The Wave Boys were more like Bloods and Crips.
Hell, even "Tastes great!" "less filling!"
But, no. They're all, "Hi, I'm Igon. What's your favorite Jovian Moon?!"
That's the point - it is both, or neither, use whichever model works for what you are trying to do at the moment. Filtering and refracting are wavy things. Counting is easier with particle like things. We needed both models to make something useful.
In my youth studying particle physics, some folks were pretty divided on some things, almost like B & Cs. But in a more "I'll erase your equations if you don't accept my derivation" kind of way ;-).
"I'll wipe your chalkboard!"
Long. Gunga Galunga!
Absolutely true. Or relatively true? Or probabilistically true?
[sorry, physics humor]
In the field of physics, breakthroughs happen as observation gets better, and what we observe isn't what we predicted, but only when this leads to questioning and revising the models we hold. Without challenging what we "know" there is no progress; inquiry is essential to useful science.
In the area of solid state physics, where we've seen rate of change much greater than in other fields of physics, we routinely break the "impossible". Each theoretical limit on how small we can make a transistor has been blown through. If the boundaries were not challenged, they could not be revised, and we'd not be posting our views on pages like this using personal computers, and the plethora of solid state physics that goes into communicating over great distances.
Your ability to view cat videos on your favorite cat video site happened only because physicists were allowed to challenge what was known, and technologists realize there are few absolute rules. The two absolutes live by:
1. Everything you knew yesterday is valid yesterday.
2. It's only impossible until you've done it.
Question everything, reevaluate assumptions frequently, and cling only to those two fundamental principles above.
Advancements are kind of a Branches of Government thing but with the three being Science, Math, and, as a super over-general term, I'll say engineering but technology might be right too.
So the Science Guy goes out and sees some stuff. Then he sees more stuff. A handful more stuff-seeing events and the Science Guy says, "Hmmmm... I think I see a pattern." Then he shares his findings.
Math Guy says, "You know, when I started with Basic First Principles, rearranged the terms, cancelled out all the non-magnetic electrically neutral terms... and what is _this_ term for."
Science Guy's all "Mean culpa - I didn't see that!" Then they both look over at Engineer Guy and he's all, "*thumbs under suspenders* I can make one of those." So he measures once and cusses twice but eventually ends up with a pretty banging _this_ Detector. "But it's a little wide-spectrum. Keep an eye out on the edges."
So Science Guy goes back into the lab, now able to Really See Some Stuff. And he says, "I see _this_ all righty! But... what those two _thats_ over there. And is that a Big Whoa Nelly?"
And Math Guy ... Well, it kinds just repeats over and over like that until they run out of funding.
LoL! So here is how I learned that I was not a physicist.
Working on particle physics in a famous university. Tasked with designing and building a new detector, and integrating it into a data acquisition system (to the physicists this was one step above floor sweeping). So the experiment starts running, and after a day or two one of the physicists runs into the room excited with a stack of print-out (how we viewed data in those days). He'd circled several things on the paper; all the physicists gathered around and started to ooh and ah getting more and more excited. I leaned over to my advisor/boss and asked "what are we excited about?" He said "that young man is something no human has observed before. We have advanced human knowledge by this much" (holding his fingers very close together to indicate a small but significant thing). Wow, I thought, that means the stuff I built actually worked. Relaying the story later to my dad (an engineer), he smiled and said "there you go, you are an engineer, not a scientist".
Which was quite a major realization. Also a significant change in my life's trajectory, but that's another story.
That's a good story.
I thought I was going to do Condensed Matter Research. Now I'm some sort of Utility Player at an e-commerce outfit that's keeping me off the streets.
The only science modeling I do these days is Acoustics. That is, I do a couple or three Open Mics a month.
"social media is the defense against this dark art."
I can find no way to object to this statement. It is a way, perhaps THE way, for those whom are not pushing The Narrative or other officially approved thoughts to be heard, to give lie to the false statements of the promulgators of The Narrative, and to get the truth out there when those charged with that responsibility "politely" decline to do so.
I have always shunned social media. I hate what it has done to society, to young people who would rather sit side by side in silence furiously thumb-typing messages to one another over some data-slurping service than actually be with one another. It has shortened attention spans, caused endless scores of people to become addicted to the instant dopamine hit of some random person hitting "like" on their latest vapid, pointless prattle about what they had for dinner, only to leave them depressed and jonesin' for another hit in seconds.
I used to blame smartphones for this, but I have come to realize that smartphones minus social media would be far more benign than they actually are. Social media by itself, sans smartphone, which means it would have to be done via computer, would also be relatively harmless. It's the combination of social media and a computer that is always on, and always with you, that is the threat.
Social media, in many ways, resembles the legacy media. If you read the New York Times, watch CNN or MSNBC, or tune in to your local network news, you're getting a curated, slanted sample of "news" that is designed to elicit leftist behaviors from you. If you get your news from Facebook, you get the same exact thing. If you Google Kamala Harris, you get fluff pieces on how great she is, with the negative stuff well hidden way down the list. If you Google Donald Trump, you get that he's "literally Hitler," with the actual story way down the list, or omitted completely.
If you ask Alexa for reasons to vote for Harris, it gives you a bunch. If you ask Alexa for reasons to vote for Trump, it says it does not want to delve into politics. But if you ask for reasons NOT to vote for Trump, why, you get a ton of 'em!
Alexa and Google search are not social media, per se, but they are information media, and you get the same as with news media... leftist propaganda.
This monopoly has been broken with Twitter X now, though. Previously, in the bad old days, Twitter was just one more social media source of the leftist talking points and nothing else. Conservatives, and conservative messages, would be filtered out, shadow-banned, and actually banned.
What a difference an eccentric billionaire makes.
Musk is not perfect by any means, but he has certainly opened up a channel for previously "too inconvenient to allow" voices to be heard. And with that being the case, I have to agree with the wise gato once again.
Time will tell whether other social media will serve a similar purpose. As long as they remain curated by leftists, for leftists, nothing will change. Facebook in particular is a source of "news" for many people, and if Zuck is serious about wanting to get out of the leftist propaganda game, Meta could become a second channel for free expression to reappear. No counting the chickens (or eating them, as cats would do) before they are hatched, though.
Don't hate. Don't blame things for how people act.
What a difference an eccentric billionaire makes. Ironic. I remember when tech billionaires were the upstarts, the nemesis of traditional billionaires who owned newspapers and television networks, banks and so on. Now the tech billionaires have "matured" into the folks they used to challenge. Circle of life?
I remember many years ago in a discussion forum (yes, face to face), with a speaker who summed up the emerging public internet and world wide web as a fundamentally new mass communication model. Mass communication media was a few to many: a few people controlled what was communicated to the many. He who controlled the printing press controlled the content printed. Radio and TV followed this model. The alternative was public assembly - where one or a few could address a few and two way communication was possible. All you needed was a space and a voice. But scope of impact was limited.
The WWW introduced a many to many model: now anyone, and everyone, could communicate with millions. Millions to millions communication. The barrier for mass communication was lowered to ground level - you needed knowledge and awareness (more than today).
One speaker noted that this new model would, ultimately, overwhelm all others. It would become the greatest human achievement towards securing and preserving freedom, an uncontrolled medium with equal access to all. That voice was one of the founders of google...so thar you go ;-).
I remember one of my sons coming home from high school after having listened to a few weeks of history lectures on pre WW2 era, saying, "God, I HATE the progressives!" That history teacher is one of a kind.
It made the agony of starting two schools in which we were able to hire our own teachers worth the effort.
I had the same reaction when I was taught about the "progressive" era. That was before the leftists (at least as far as my kiddo brain knew) had begun referring to themselves in that way. They were still calling themselves liberals then, as far as I can remember, even though they were (then as now) anything but.
The Regime's demand for censorship amounts to an attempt at monopoly control of people's minds and thought itself. While all monopolies are bad for consumers, this is the absolute worst kind and must be resisted fiercely.
I postulate two mitigations to thwart the mind control attempts:
1. Think for yourself
2. Challenge everything (especially, question authority)
3. don't shut up
That's right...3...no one expects the Spanish inquisition (gratuitous python reference)
Not to mention a gratuitous Timothy Leary reference.
Orwellian doublespeak is the dominant way issues are framed today. Empirical data is treated as misinformation while blatant lies are presented as unquestionable truth. The easily manipulated are goose stepping to authoritarian tyranny.
That sure sounds Double Plus Ungood if you ask me.
> the woman is as vapid as she is incoherent.
That is as concise a description as I've heard
"Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”
~ http://reason.com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt
I hereby refer to social media as "freedom media". The rest? "Legacy lies".
Well, TwitterX (think of it like gender-neutral Freedom Media) might be Freedom Media but over at GoogleBook, Big Sundar is watching and The Zuck has The Bucks to influence voter... behavior.
But Hilary says, "...we lose total control if we don't fully fund the Ministry of Truth and start busting Elon Musk's head!!!!! *spittle*" That's not verbatim. Don't quote me on that.
https://youtu.be/csSph593QcE?si=qmjSsv3TUg2BmV0T
If Trump wins I would honestly pay to see her head explode on live TV, Scanners-style.
"Scanners-style"
Meh - that's just one exploding head. Think BIG!
https://youtu.be/qsc-mA7J2DU?si=AhpOdS_XD5CPD4HL
An interesting thing about this rant, er I mean, reasoned analysis, is that she's quoting (and seeking to remove) what is the foundation of net neutrality.
Dag. I didn't read all the way before commenting - these people paying me keep expecting stuff - and didn't realize Gato had posted this same clip in the article.
A thousand pardons, Señor.
it's ok it was so good it is worth repeating ;-)
Orwell wrote 1984 from his experiences fighting for "THE LEFT" in Spain in 1937 in their civil war; "Farewell to Catalonia" describes it all; Stalin's enforcers came in to eliminate the "internationalists" that Orwell fought with; they represented Trotsky
as for all? authors; .. 1984 came from personal experience; personal experience; Orwell never lived under Mussolini or Hitler; he did however live and fight as a communist; 1984 came from that ...... and he wrote it on Jura, a Scottish island in 1947, whilst taking streptomycin for TB.
I was surprised to read our bad cat describing FDR as a fascist. I think a more accurate reading of history would to put him in the same camp with his "Uncle Joe" - i.e., the communists.
he described himself as one and was an open admirer of mussolini.
And Mussolini was a lifetime leftist and student of socialism, if I remember.
Goes together like peanut butter and jelly. Usually ends up fumbling and lies face down on the floor.
"Usually ends up fumbling and lies face down on the floor."
I mean, who amongst us - amirite?
well now you've gone and ruined one of my favorite treats :-(
Just kidding...nothing can ruin peanut butter :-)
There is not a lot of actual difference. Communists seize the means of production and appoint a party member (who has a seat at the table, so to speak) to run the "concern" (former business).
Fascists leave the owner's name on the paperwork, but regulate and tax the business to the point that it may as well be nationalized, and in exchange, they grant the business owner party membership so that he can have a seat at the table... if he is acceptable to the party. If not, they "encourage" him to step down so that someone the party likes better can step in. It's one of those deals you can't refuse.
Fascists demand endless loyalty to the state, up to and including the willingness to sacrifice their children or themselves on demand. Communists demand endless loyalty to the principles of socialism and the ongoing revolution, which in practice is exactly identical to the state. This, too, included the willingness to self-sacrifice on demand, as the "human robots" who cleared the Chernobyl debris knew all too well. They were being sent to their death to cover for the incompetence of the party, and they knew it.
The specific flavor of fascism in 30s Germany gave you a pre-selected enemy for your hating displeasure. Of course, it was the Jews at the front of the list, but there were many more. The Communists, by contrast, had the bourgeoisie. Switch out "Jews" and "bourgeoisie" or "capitalist" and you can swap any given bit of propaganda from one to the other.
As you can see, there is no inherent immiscibility between communism and fascism. They are completely compatible with one another, and can be mixed quite easily. Consider that Hitler, prior to WWII, decided that cars were too expensive for the German people, so he tapped Ferdinand Porsche to design an affordable, dependable "people's car" that would put German citizens on the road.
Porsche, politically naive to a fault, loved the idea, and agreed to do it. Thus was born Volkswagen, which is German for "people's car." Porsche designed what came to be nicknamed "the Beetle," and Volkswagen began manufacturing it right before the war. Volkswagen was not privately owned... it was a part of the German government. Having major industry as a part of government is usually a more communist sort of thing, but it mixed in with the existing private car companies in Germany (like Porsche, the company, itself) quite well.
Communists may find it useful to invoke fascism instead of communism, as fascism is easier to disguise as capitalism. They may just nationalize everything when they have the power, or they may realize there is no actual benefit in doing so when they already have all of the power that would bring them.
China right now is run by the Chinese Communist Party, the party Mao founded, but China is much more of a fascist country now than communist.
Or in a lot fewer words: They are both flavors of socialism. Fascists are Nationalistic Socialists and Communists are Global Socialists who view nationalism an obstacle and distraction to the rise of the proletariat.
It would be helpful if more people understood that 1) Antifa is just another branding word for Communist; 2) Fascists and Communists hated each other from the beginning and fought street battles through the early part of the 20th century; 3) Jews led the global Communist movement and that is in part why the Fascist Nazis hated them so much.
In theory, communists are global socialists, but since the workers of the world never united and created that dictatorship of the proletariat, the Soviet Union, had "socialism in one country" as its official philosophy, from Stalin all the way to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
A country is also called a nation.
"Socialism in one nation" sounds a lot like "national socialism."
This is one reason Trotsky accused Stalin of creating a fascist communist state in the Soviet Union, which he said was indistinguishable from that of Germany in the 1930s.
The worldwide communist revolution never happened, so the promoters of communism could have either keep trying to instigate that uprising and wait (forever), or they could turn to "socialism in one country" and impose the alleged "uprising of the proletariat" on the actual proletariat at gunpoint, one country at a time. They all chose the latter.
Au contraire mon frère. Communists now control virtually every institution of the West, regardless of the fact that the proletariat did not rise up in violent revolution. Instead we got slow rot Communism and only now are enough people beginning to wake up that they feel threatened and cornered.
The proletariat rising up in global revolution was the part I said didn't happen, though.
I am well aware that subversive elements have made good on many of the Soviet Union's plans for infiltrating and undermining the west, from taking over at least one of the political parties to attacking the nuclear family to infiltrating Hollywood to infiltrating the schools to turn them into indoctrination camps. One would have to be blind to have not noticed all of this... but it did not happen according to the Marxist formula. It used to be a bad thing to be a "revisionist" in Communist circles, but if not for revisionism, they would have accomplished nothing, since it was all supposed to happen through global revolution.
The Soviet Union was revisionist from the start. The Manifesto says that before a country can begin on the journey from capitalism to socialism to communism ("true" communism), it must be industrialized, and the Soviet Union in the early days was agrarian. Lenin ignored this inconvenient bit and decided that they could industrialize concurrently with the revolution, rather than one following the other.
None of the various Communist countries of the world have ever gotten that way by means of global revolution of the proletariat. Those countries that were or are officially communist had it imposed at gunpoint. We're not there yet, but they would need to impose it at gunpoint for the final step here too.
Do you think the Harris campaign is in trouble? Why else would they let her roam free?… And, is MSM as stupid as all that?
Oh , wait….. of course they are !
No way they are letting her roam free. That would ensure defeat. They are making sure she's scripted and rehearsed. Only allowing friendly interviews, pre-recorded and professionally edited. How that first clip got out is something I'm sure they're working to "fix".
They stole an election from out of the WH, imagine now that they are in the WH. No trouble for Kamala.
Once more, you get to the heart of the matter. I have been lurking here for years, and only recently became a subscriber. Thanks for what you do.
Welcome. Ride deep and dig in your spurs. It gets spicy around here.
"It gets spicy around here."
That's what the Lime Crema is for.
Welcome.
Clear your calendar for this weekend and I'll have you a t-shirt whipped up in a jiffy.
Meet me behind the Arby's Drive-thru on York Rd in Hunt Valley Sunday at 3:07am and you can grab you schwag and I'll show you the Secret Handshake.
I'll be the guy in the "My other ride is The Tardis" car.
OH Pi Guy! I use to live in Sparks! miss the crabcakes, utz, berger cookies, Rhebs candy and my neighbor. I now live in Texas, when I told them about the rain tax, they thought I was telling them a tall tale. When husbeast verified I was telling the truth, they just shook their heads and said Welcome to Texas/
Mrs. Pi's office is in Sparks! They don't call it Smalltimore for nothing!
Love crab cakes, ashamed of the rain tax. Current legal dimwitted Lawfare on the Locals is that Baltimore City just last night passed a bill to make Gas-powered Leaf Blowers illegal subject to a to-be determined fine. Because they're loud and they hasten the boiling of the atmosphere.
But the dirt bikes in the streets at all hours? They just let those go. *shrug* Unforeseen response expected to be that all landscape contractors use Gas-powered generators to charge the batteries for their electric leaf blowers.
So, besides the crab cakes, sounds like you've made a wise choice.
I am part of the middle-class that is leaving because Maryland is no longer affordable and basic rights were being eliminated.
Yeah, Free Minds and Free Markets isn't exactly how MD Politics has ever rolled.
We're in a pretty rural part of North Baltimore County. Still close enough to cry at the actual stadium when the O's were eliminated from the playoffs last week, but no one stops you at the cornfield and the horse own corner with squeegee in hand.
But the costs have gone up under Gov Wes Moore. He's progressive even by MD standards.
But I think we're staying.
Um....this Boomer knows tv news can't be trusted, no matter the source. I also have critical thinking skills. Perhaps the younger generations should utilize THEIR critical thinking skills. Oh. Wait.
You seem to fully grasp the purpose of governments controlling education.
I was an adult student (read: already a grandmother) in college. I was older than some of my teachers/professors. I saw the indoctrination first hand. Most were gracious when I countered their positions but one hated me. That didn't bother me because he was my son's age- wanna play me, kid?- but he WAS the department chair so I danced the dance and got through his course(s).
I wasn't aware as much of the indoctrination as an undergrad (late 1970s). I like to think it wasn't as overt or over the top as now, but in honest retrospective it was more about y lack of awareness of my youth. Also, the left to which the universities leaned was different than the left of today, which has adopted much of the platform that was back then "those darn republicans" like censorship. There was still some resistance to being told by the government what to teach and how. Oh how things have changed.
Kids today are trained from pre-school onward that obedience is more valuable than independent thought. History is recast of simply ignored. They are taught the agenda of civilian disarmament, dependence on governments, and the virtues of centralized government. The principles of our representative republic are not taught, the constitution not in the text books anymore. By the time they get to the university, or become university professors, the "correct think" is engrained. Basic values you and I grew up with, like self responsibility and the value of work, denigrated. Even basic concepts of community are corrupted. It's gone from "go along to get along (just for now)" to "stray too far and be eliminated".