dennislmay

APS and the Global Warming Scam

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A big, big deal is coming.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

From the article:

This is where arrogance, deceit and contempt of "little people" lands you. For some reason, Mann thinks after trying to game the courts, that he will have privilege enough to make things stop and go away.

Why does he believe that? Well, it's obvious. To him, he's more awesome than the mere rabble that runs the courts. It's settled science.

:) 

Michael

The defects of Mann's climate studies, in particularly his (in)famous  Hockey Stick  have been knows for several years.  Mann has violated some very basic protocols of scientific investigation,  in particular,  his refusal to share all his data with other who might use Mann's very own data to refute Mann's  studies.

The refusal to share data is a primary mark  of a scientific charlatan.  

See https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499278013&sr=1-1&keywords=a+disgrace+to+the+profession

This book by Mark Steyn is a collection of  articles and testimonials from climate scientists and physicists that Michael Mann's  Hockeystick work is bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2017 at 7:13 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Seconds ago I found only two more websites that have reported this. #1. #2

The author of #1 is the same as MSK's link.

The main-stream media's response has been the sounds of silence. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is great news. Let justice be done. Humans live by their wits and rarely, is lying advantageous. Yet, to sustain a stupid bias or fantasy human's will risk their honor and trustworthiness. How foolish. "Book'um Danny." Don't you hate it when a liar knows they were caught but will still go to their grave claiming their veracity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, merjet said:

Seconds ago I found only two more websites that have reported this. #1. #2

The author of #1 is the same as MSK's link.

The main-stream media's response has been the sounds of silence. 

 

 

Once Mann's bogus data is pried out of him,  the true extent of his mendacity  will become public knowledge.  I truly hope the Mann's  reputation is thoroughly trashed and his career of climate alarmism  is terminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 11:08 AM, merjet said:

Seconds ago I found only two more websites that have reported this. #1. #2

The author of #1 is the same as MSK's link.

The main-stream media's response has been the sounds of silence.

Merlin,

It looks like this triggered our dear William Scherk to post on his OL blog (see here).

The gist of his objection to this article (other than he and the people he likes believe that John O'Sullivan and Tim Ball are Looney-Tunes level for serious argumentation :) ) is that a person made a comment to the article on the Principia Scientific site asking why nothing was cited in the article from the British Columbia Supreme Court. 

It's actually a good question. Why didn't O'Sullivan quote court documents?

So I looked a little deeper within the constraints of my time that is severely limited for pissing it away on gotchas. What I found was that O'Sullivan's rhetoric makes it sound like the court has already issued a ruling, but if you read the qualifiers, it doesn't fully make that claim. From what I'm able to gather, the judge hasn't thrown the case out, but he will. It appears that Mann missed a procedural deadline for presenting documents and this, if the judge rules according to the law (as stated in the article), will trigger the case being dismissed. So it is essentially O'Sullivan crowing victory before the fact and probably exaggerating.

In a rebuttal to this article from Mann's lawyer, Roger D. McConchie, the link to which William posted (and repeated here), he denied that Mann was in contempt of court. And other than grandstand-like denials, the lawyer presented information alleging that John O'Sullivan is Looney-Tunes level for serious argumentation (so to speak :) ).

Oddly enough, the lawyer, also, did not present any quotes from the British Columbia Supreme Court. But the climate change trolls are crowing victory in advance because of this rebuttal and our dear William appears to agree with them. (burp...)

My prediction: we still have to wait and see. The tense and hedged tone of the lawyer's statement leads me to believe the case actually does run a serious risk of being thrown out. For example, outside of focusing on Ball's libel defense of "jest," he said:

Quote

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

But O'Sullivan never made that claim. He said in the article:

Quote

Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination.

In other words, he claimed that the judge ordered the data submitted to the court, not to Tim Ball. 

Slight difference and perfect lawyerly bullshit, so nice try but no cigar.

I still go with the original question about quoting the court. Why doesn't anyone cite actual court documents? But I guess neither side believes the public should get this information and see for itself. 

Still, outside of the hermetically sealed Church of Manmade Climate Change, I sense the public (what little left that has not been bored silly by the bickering) is getting fed up with Mann's imitation of The Church of Scientology's abuse of the legal system and suing detractors in an attempt to bankrupt them or intimidate them into silence.

I know I'm plugging for Ball. It was silly and bullying for Mann to sue him for libel and Mann deserves a harsh rebuke for wasting the court's time and resources. There are much better ways to make his case, that is, unless his case is so flimsy that to make it according to normal means is to debunk it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

I know I'm plugging for Ball. It was silly and bullying for Mann to sue him for libel and Mann deserves a harsh rebuke for wasting the court's time and resources. There are much better ways to make his case, that is, unless his case is so flimsy that to make it according to normal means is to debunk it.

Michael

That is know as a SLAPP  shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 2, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In other words, propaganda doesn't have to make much sense to be good propaganda.

This is true, but good propaganda has to make enough sense so that the person propounding it doesn't look like a preposterous idiot, which is just what alarmists adopting Limbaugh's suggestion would have looked like to anyone who understood what alarmists had been prognosticating - climate catastrophe if humans didn't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  Human CO2 emissions not only haven't been stopped, they've been increased at an accelerating rate.  So Limbaugh's suggested storyline would make as much sense as it would make to tell a motorist who's driving at accelerating speed on a collision course toward a  bridge abutment that simply easing pressure on the gas pedal a tad could prevent the impending collision.

The scientific community would have noticed, even if your "average voter" didn't.  And it's assessors in the scientific community who decide who gets grant money.

I think that you'd like to believe, with your detestation for elitism, that the alarmists have been dumb propagandists.  I think they've been excellent, so skilled they've duped people who disavow alarmism.

Look at Bob on this list for an example.  He disavows alarmism but goes right on (see) talking of "the current warming trend" and saying that "The world has been warming up since the coldest years of the Little Ice Age" and citing "regression of major glaciers" as evidence.

Hiatus?  He still appears not to have heard of it and to be beguiled by the multiple clever means alarmists have used trying to make the hiatus go away.  As to glaciers receding, as I've already said, I think that's the dumbest physics-type argument.  Temperatures do not need to be continuing to rise for glaciers to recede.  They only need to have risen enough.

Ellen

PS:  Apologies for the long stretches between my replies.  I am being kept busy with climate issues, but elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

This is true, but good propaganda has to make enough sense so that the person propounding it doesn't look like a preposterous idiot, which is just what alarmists adopting Limbaugh's suggestion would have looked like to anyone who understood what alarmists had been prognosticating - climate catastrophe if humans didn't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  Human CO2 emissions not only haven't been stopped, they've been increased at an accelerating rate.  So Limbaugh's suggested storyline would make as much sense as it would make to tell a motorist who's driving at accelerating speed on a collision course toward a  bridge abutment that simply easing pressure on the gas pedal a tad could prevent the impending collision.

The scientific community would have noticed, even if your "average voter" didn't.  And it's assessors in the scientific community who decide who gets grant money.

I think that you'd like to believe, with your detestation for elitism, that the alarmists have been dumb propagandists.  I think they've been excellent, so skilled they've duped people who disavow alarmism.

Look at Bob on this list for an example.  He disavows alarmism but goes right on (see) talking of "the current warming trend" and saying that "The world has been warming up since the coldest years of the Little Ice Age" and citing "regression of major glaciers" as evidence.

Hiatus?  He still appears not to have heard of it and to be beguiled by the multiple clever means alarmists have used trying to make the hiatus go away.  As to glaciers receding, as I've already said, I think that's the dumbest physics-type argument.  Temperatures do not need to be continuing to rise for glaciers to recede.  They only need to have risen enough.

Ellen

PS:  Apologies for the long stretches between my replies.  I am being kept busy with climate issues, but elsewhere.

You overlooked the feedbacks built into the system.  Increased cloud formation could cause a trend of decreasing temperatures even though the CO2 concentration is increasing.   A while back  during the ice ages the CO2 level was as high as 6000 ppm  or about 15 times as high as it is now. 

The earth land-sea-sky system is extremely complicated and the climate models are pitifully crude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

This is true, but good propaganda has to make enough sense so that the person propounding it doesn't look like a preposterous idiot, which is just what alarmists adopting Limbaugh's suggestion would have looked like to anyone who understood what alarmists had been prognosticating - climate catastrophe if humans didn't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Ellen,

You mean like this and the polar bears?

An Inconvenient Truth

You mean Al Gore propounding this "doesn't look like a preposterous idiot" so it didn't work as propaganda?

:) 

It'll only win you an Oscar...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think that you'd like to believe, with your detestation for elitism, that the alarmists have been dumb propagandists.

Ellen,

That's not what I believe at all. First off, I don't detest all elites, but it is true that I detest elitism if by that term a certain kind of person is meant. And of these certain kind of people, I believe they are wicked smart. Cunning. Not dumb at all. And I believe they are as dishonest as intercontinental train tracks are long.

Oddly enough, I first became aware of them a few decades ago in a book dealing with an issue that was not calling attention to this form of elitism per se. Instead, it was probing the nature of Europe's upper class around WWI: The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 by Barbara Tuchman.

(Here's some useless personal information for you. I got this book soon after I arrived in Brazil in the early 1970's. I had read somewhere that President Kennedy was a fan of The Guns of August by Tuchman, and that made me curious for some damn reason, and that was even odder because I didn't have any interest at all in President Kennedy other than his assassination when I was little, so I went to the English language bookstore to get it. They didn't have that book, but they did have The Proud Tower. So I got that one instead. And I read it. Aren't you glad I told you that? :) )

I would have to dig for the passage now, but one fact jumped out at me. I think it was around the part when she was talking about the English and their concept of being innately fit for ruling by breeding, but they wedded that to a culture of strenuous effort to live up to it. She mentioned that many people in the upper class in Europe were decadent as all get out, but the only upper class sin was being outed in public. Everything else was tolerated. As long as the public did not hear of a member's affairs, perversions, embezzlements, disgusting habits, even murder (and, oddly enough, mental illness), it was expected for the other upper class members to cover for him or her. The moment news of misbehavior got into the press and the lower class learned of it, the outed upper class member was ostracized.

I have found this attitude to be true in general ever since then and I have seen one example after another. (Think Anthony Weiner for a really obvious modern example where, in our more flexible age, he pushed the envelope about as far as it can go. :) ) I got to personally know many people of this nature both in Brazil and the US. (O-Land, in fact, is full of them, but they are not the majority from what I can tell.)

My contempt for conceited corrupt elitists started way back then. My disgust is moral, not intellectual, except for one part. You already know about my method of cognitive before normative, which generally needs to be used consciously only when passions are high, that is making a strong effort to hold back emotions and identify something correctly before evaluating it. In this case, I believe these crappy kind of elitists misidentify their nature. They are not inherently superior to anyone no matter how much they believe they are. That's not an evaluation nor an opinion. That's a fact.

In general, I believe this form of elitism is part of the reason many scientists who have flushed their integrity down the toilet still cover for manmade climate change alarmism even if they harbor misgivings in private. They believe they belong to an elite form of humanity by birth and they are doing as they are expected to protect others of their kind. 

That's not the whole story, but I am 100% sure that's part of it. I've just known too many people like that to believe otherwise.

Also, I don't agree with placing "dumb" right next to "propagandists." Behavioral science is quite sophisticated and getting more so every day. But even in older times, to go Godwin for a moment, does anyone think Goebbels was dumb? Or that the entire country of Germany was dumb, including the people who developed and built the Nazi war technology. That's an awful lot of people to be dumb.

Many modern scientists honestly fell for Al Gore's propaganda. Some still do. Is he dumb and are they dumb? There are lots of PhD's on walls out there...

I know this area grates against your nature as a brainiac (and I'm not being sarcastic, I mean that in admiration), but high-level sophistication in manipulating humans is real. And it does not depend on being right. It depends on appealing to the underbelly of the mind (emotions, drives, habits, mental heuristics, etc.). This exists and it is effective--even on the brainiac class. Especially on them, the ones who make the bombs and other weapons for evil leaders or stir up alarm about facts that are not facts to help evil leaders get even more power. The fact that evil leaders pay them handsomely (through grants, etc.) helps in many cases, too. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen wrote: This is true, but good propaganda has to make enough sense so that the person propounding it doesn't look like a preposterous idiot, which is just what alarmists adopting Limbaugh's suggestion would have looked like to anyone who understood what alarmists had been prognosticating - climate catastrophe if humans didn't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere . . . .

. . . . I think that you'd like to believe, with your detestation for elitism, that the alarmists have been dumb propagandists.  I think they've been excellent, so skilled they've duped people who disavow alarmism.

Look at Bob on this list for an example.  He disavows alarmism but goes right on (see) talking of "the current warming trend" and saying that "The world has been warming up since the coldest years of the Little Ice Age" and citing "regression of major glaciers" as evidence.  end quote

 

That reminds me of the old Rex Harrison, humorous but demeaning song, “Why Can’t a Women Be More Like a Man?” In a similar vein, why can’t humans speak rationally and scientifically?

Peter  

 

From: "Philip Coates" To: "owl" <objectivism Subject: OWL: Subject:   Defending the Language Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:48:14 -0700 Subject: Defending the Language

One of the biggest mistakes young academics (this would be true of older established and influential full professors as well) often make in philosophy, psychology, and elsewhere in the humanities is they fail to defend in their own minds the context, the richness, the multiple meanings, the derivation, and the conceptual effectiveness of the English language as it has developed into a more and more powerful and supple tool across the centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

preversions look interesting--for starters (I need some details)

Brant,

You like sex with babies and infants?

:evil:  :) 

The elitists with this hankering are a bit deeper underground since President Trump took over, but if you look, I'm sure you will be able to find...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

You like sex with babies and infants?

:evil:  :) 

The elitists with this hankering are a bit deeper underground since President Trump took over, but if you look, I'm sure you will be able to find...

Michael

Ugh.

My imagination failed me. (No references please, but you're sure it wasn't smearing?)

They covered that up?

--Brant

some things I can deal with; some things I can't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 30, 2017 at 7:12 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

You overlooked the feedbacks built into the system.  Increased cloud formation could cause a trend of decreasing temperatures even though the CO2 concentration is increasing.   A while back  during the ice ages the CO2 level was as high as 6000 ppm  or about 15 times as high as it is now. 

The earth land-sea-sky system is extremely complicated and the climate models are pitifully crude. 

You're very good at not paying attention - also at contradicting yourself and showing no signs of awareness that you've done so.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 30, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

You mean like this and the polar bears?

An Inconvenient Truth

You mean Al Gore propounding this "doesn't look like a preposterous idiot" so it didn't work as propaganda?

:) 

It'll only win you an Oscar...

Michael

It didn't look like a preposterous idiot to a whole lot of people.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

That's not what I believe at all.

Well, now you have me confused about what you were saying re Limbaugh's suggestion as to what the alarmist scientists, confronted by the hiatus, should have done.  Limbaugh said they were dumb not to say,  basically, see, the measures being taken are working.  I thought you were agreeing with Limbaugh.

My point is that for any alarmist scientists to have done what Limbaugh says they were dumb not to do would have been career-suicidally nuts.  They'd have promptly become targets of uproarious ridicule from the whole scientific climate community, alarmist as well as non-alarmist, and they'd have lost their funding.  And what advantage would these results have given them, even if they put one over on the general public?

Sorry, I haven't time to provide links.  I have lots else going on, but I snatched some hours to read what was being said on OL about the Charlottesville thing.  (I'm in basic agreement with your take on that, maybe some details I'd question if I were examining the subject in depth, but not any major ones I've noticed.)

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

My point is that for any alarmist scientists to have done what Limbaugh says they were dumb not to do would have been career-suicidally nuts.

Ellen,

Finally I see our disagreement.

Rush wasn't asking for the scientists to do this. Scientists are horrible propagandists in general.

Propagandists lie to the public on purpose and they do it with a straight face (or in a tone of self-righteous outrage). The more outrageous the lie for them, the better, because it generates controversy. They do this all the time.

Rush was saying the man-made climate change propagandists (like TV pundits, opinion journalists, etc.) and any left-wing elitist politician or celebrity who wished to join in were missing an opportunity with a sciency-sounding sound-bite (that "proves their case" wink wink) and he was mocking them for it both ways. I agree with his mockery.

These are the same folks who scream man-made climate change to the four winds when a major shift in the weather happens (especially hurricanes and things like that), then snark out condescendingly that climate and weather are not the same when the predictions they propagandized fail miserably. Is any of that fact-based? No. But they do it--and stuff like that--constantly.

Oh, some scientists are propagandists (and some science clowns are propagandists like Bill Nye), but I believe the majority of real scientists would just like to keep their heads down in mainstream controversies. And of the scientists who are propagandists for real, I agree with your take that if they stretch their facts too far, the scientific community will correct them and they will lose their credibility.

Rush wasn't talking about these folks. That's not his domain. His domain is mainstream public influence, which means dealing with professional propagandists and power mongers. His public knows that.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

You're very good at not paying attention - also at contradicting yourself and showing no signs of awareness that you've done so.

Ellen

Not paying attention to what?  And how contradicting?  The IPCC sponsored models are crude.  In fact we do not have good enough computers to faithfully model the earth heat transfer and radiation system.  And there are no high quality cloud formation models anywhere at this time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not paying attention to what?  And how contradicting?  The IPCC sponsored models are crude.  In fact we do not have good enough computers to faithfully model the earth heat transfer and radiation system.  And there are no high quality cloud formation models anywhere at this time. 

 

In this case, not paying attention to what the subject was which Michael and I were discussing.  We were talking about what Rush Limbaugh said the alarmists should have said, NOT about plausible scientific theories.  

In the early years of the hiatus, the alarmists (note:  I'm specifically talking about alarmist scientists) did try various explanations - some of them far-fetched - for why the prognosticated warming wasn't happening.  

But here's the rub:  For alarmist blame-humans scenarios to look viable, it has to be the case that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global temperatures, and the longer the hiatus continued, the less viable this requirement became.  So what the alarmists started doing as their main tactic was to try to get rid of the hiatus with data maneuvering and verbal tricks.

As to the various ways in which you manage to produce self-contradictory statements, multiple - and no point in keeping after you about them, since you don't track at all well and largely just charge off on some info-bite or other instead of addressing what the person you're answering has said.  It gets too tiresome quickly.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

Finally I see our disagreement.

Rush wasn't asking for the scientists to do this.

[....]

Rush wasn't talking about these folks [scientist propagandists]. That's not his domain. His domain is mainstream public influence, which means dealing with professional propagandists and power mongers. His public knows that.

Michael

Oh.  That would make sense.  I've never listened to him, just read such transcripts as you've provided, so I could easily have been missing a context which his public knows.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

In this case, not paying attention to what the subject was which Michael and I were discussing.  We were talking about what Rush Limbaugh said the alarmists should have said, NOT about plausible scientific theories.  

In the early years of the hiatus, the alarmists (note:  I'm specifically talking about alarmist scientists) did try various explanations - some of them far-fetched - for why the prognosticated warming wasn't happening.  

But here's the rub:  For alarmist blame-humans scenarios to look viable, it has to be the case that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global temperatures, and the longer the hiatus continued, the less viable this requirement became.  So what the alarmists started doing as their main tactic was to try to get rid of the hiatus with data maneuvering and verbal tricks.

As to the various ways in which you manage to produce self-contradictory statements, multiple - and no point in keeping after you about them, since you don't track at all well and largely just charge off on some info-bite or other instead of addressing what the person you're answering has said.  It gets too tiresome quickly.

Ellen

My bad.  I totally ignore Rush Limbaugh and what he says.  I have no particular interest in radio entertainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

My bad.  I totally ignore Rush Limbaugh and what he says.  I have no particular interest in radio entertainers.

It's not what he said, it's what posters on OL said he said--"posters" apparently being MSK. I don't listen to RL either. He does come up with some good stuff now and then. I'm glad to hear about it. Michael comes up with a lot of great analyses too I don't have time to even if I could. There is a vast cultural war going on. It's not an intellectual exercise. The freedom fighters are not trying to argue with the crypto communists. They're trying to understand what is really going on. What that is is the left is communist; always has been. Now they are overflowing the dam of American culture which has always held them somewhat in check in the past. They are attacking America as such using the mess they made in Virginia as a springboard composed of what they claim are Nazis and white American nationalists (racists). The truth of that proposition is irrelevant though there is some truth in it. This is also what Jack Wheeler (ToThePointNews) calls "anti-white racism" through the bogus claim that if you're white you're a racist. Most of that violence in Virginia was bused in armed thugs who without a permit attacked the permitted who were not there to do violence. This was sanctioned by the mayor and the police and the governor. The governor, btw, is a die-hard Clintonista. What the left is trying to do is break the back of the duly elected Trump Administration. They couldn't do it with the Russian interference nonsense--which applied to Hilary, not Donald--so they switched over to this phony fight against Nazis and racists. The mainstream media is completely in on this vast assault which is basically rooted in academia and significantly helped by the deep state.

Look at what Obama always got away with--a towering mountain of crap. Trump can't even tie his shoelaces without a storm of ridicule and criticism.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's not what he said, it's what posters on OL said he said--"posters" apparently being MSK. I don't listen to RL either. He does come up with some good stuff now and then. I'm glad to hear about it. Michael comes up with a lot of great analyses too I don't have time to even if I could. There is a vast cultural war going on. It's not an intellectual exercise. The freedom fighters are not trying to argue with the crypto communists. They're trying to understand what is really going on. What that is is the left is communist; always has been. Now they are overflowing the dam of American culture which has always held them somewhat in check in the past. They are attacking America as such using the mess they made in Virginia as a springboard composed of what they claim are Nazis and white American nationalists (racists). The truth of that proposition is irrelevant though there is some truth in it. This is also what Jack Wheeler (ToThePointNews) calls "anti-white racism" through the bogus claim that if you're white you're a racist. Most of that violence in Virginia was bused in armed thugs who without a permit attacked the permitted who were not there to do violence. This was sanctioned by the mayor and the police and the governor. The governor, btw, is a die-hard Clintonista. What the left is trying to do is break the back of the duly elected Trump Administration. They couldn't do it with the Russian interference nonsense--which applied to Hilary, not Donald--so they switched over to this phony fight against Nazis and racists. The mainstream media is completely in on this vast assault which is basically rooted in academia and significantly helped by the deep state.

Look at what Obama always got away with--a towering mountain of crap. Trump can't even tie his shoelaces without a storm of ridicule and criticism.

--Brant

This is hardly news.  The Left-Progressive bearers of culture have been at war with core American values  since the time of Woodrow Wilson.  Read  "Liberal Fascism"  by Jonah Goldberg.

During this time,  Trotskyites  have morphed into the Neo-Cons.  Look at the earlier issue  of  "Commentary".   The neo-cons have been pushing the "Forever War"  ever since when. With regard to foreign policy the Dreadful Woman  Hillary has been aligned with the neo-cons. 

Please  see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism   and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read Goldberg's book--and recommended it to Nathaniel Branden. I know he read it for he spoke favorably of it.

--Brant

the professors are pimps--I didn't know until recently it was communism all along

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now