Deep State Unraveling

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

EEEEWWW

This. Is.Too . Much.

I don't know if,as a power grabber,I am a slave or a master in the elitist oligarchy any more, it doesn't matter.  Because I renounce wholly a system which would put me anywhere with laTourette, even though on opposite sides.

You win, I will stop being an oligarch or wanting to be, even unconsciously. I could never be a business oligarch anyway and the political ones who have their own countries are all foreign.

It's not any system, Carol, it's Michael. When he gets to the bone he thinks it's still meat and keeps on eating.

The United States is breaking up into red and blue leaving none or little room for even the appearance of civil discourse. Canada is blue and so are you. My family is mostly blue. Dig this: chacopressus.com

The intellectual life is becoming physical strife. It's an old sordid story.

--Brant

[ThatGuy]

Compare and contrast: Trump was removed from Twitter, falsely accused of inciting violence.
Meanwhile, Maxine Waters makes an actual call for violence, and is rewarded by Twitter with the trending hashtag #IStandWithAuntieMaxine.

In other news, up is down, left is right, there are 5 lights instead of 4, and we've always been at war with EastAsia...

https://twitter.com/hashtag/IStandWithAuntieMaxine?src=hashtag_click&f=live

[caroljane]

Brant

The purple of your tribute is.for noble mourning. Noble Pyrrhus believed the cause was just I think, but without checking I could be wrong about who was right and wrong. There are as you note, few new words to say.Here are some old ones that speak to me.

"The garland withers  on your brow, and boasts no more your mighty deeds ; Upon death's purple altar now, see how the victor/victim bleeds .

Your head must come to the cold tomb.

Only the actions of the just 

smell sweet and blossom in their dust.  

 

- James Shirley, 1596-1666

James Shirley thrived as a playwright under the monarchy, survived under the Commonwealth., lived through the great Plague of 1665 and died with his wife in the great Fire of London the next year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caroljane]

I did dig it, very much . So wowed. IsMarc your nephew? What talent. I was attracted to the title Bordertown, since I am a native of one, and having read the description I am going to order it. As I am incredibly cheap now that is a real tribute.

[Peter]

54 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I was attracted to the title Bordertown,

What? You are a Mexican?

[Peter]

The Washington Post: Congress faces renewed pressure on gun control after Indiana’s red-flag law fails to thwart FedEx shooter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, caroljane said:

I don't know if,as a power grabber,I am a slave or a master in the elitist oligarchy any more, it doesn't matter.  

Carol,

It never did matter.

The oligarchy doesn't give a crap about its handmaidens.

They say they do, but they don't.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

When he gets to the bone he thinks it's still meat and keeps on eating.

Brant,

Cute.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That form of angry accusation is the way people of like Jon, who no longer posts here because I banned him at his own request (but is now sending me emails). 

Jon keeps sending me emails (through the contact form) to tell me how stupid, etc. etc. etc. I am.

So weird.

He tells people to leave him alone, but when they do, he comes back like a junk-yard dog howling for attention.

He wants attention. I'm giving him attention.

I feel sorry for him.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

12 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Compare and contrast: Trump was removed from Twitter, falsely accused of inciting violence.
Meanwhile, Maxine Waters makes an actual call for violence, and is rewarded by Twitter with the trending hashtag #IStandWithAuntieMaxine.

In other news, up is down, left is right, there are 5 lights instead of 4, and we've always been at war with EastAsia...

https://twitter.com/hashtag/IStandWithAuntieMaxine?src=hashtag_click&f=live

I read through about a dozen of so of the tweets that come up on the search.  I think that most of them are bots.

Maxine Waters looks better wearing a mask.

Ellen

[ThatGuy]

13 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I read through about a dozen of so of the tweets that come up on the search.  I think that most of them are bots.

Maxine Waters looks better wearing a mask.

Ellen

If they are bots, that just makes it worse, because they're knowingly supporting her calls for violence, then. And if Twitter is allowing it that, again, worse. Because they KNOW what they did to Trump...

But this is all academic at this point, of course. It's all a sham. We can point it out til' the cows come home...just waiting for something to actually be DONE about it...
 

 

[ThatGuy]

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Maxine Waters looks better wearing a mask.

You think?  Have you seen this picture in the tweet? Not even close to "lipstick on a pig"...lol

https://twitter.com/GPrime85/status/1384182635904200711?s=20

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Michael, you have the patience of a saint. I admire that.

But as for persuasion or convincing: I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt, and consider their context. I have not seen that goodwill reciprocated. I have seen no evidence that certain people want to be convinced.  Or listen to, or address counter arguments. They'd rather preach. And insult while they preach (and I've never seen any apologies on that person's part, btw). And use strawman arguments to misrepresent other's arguments while they preach. Or resort to emotional blackmail, and undermine morale, while they insult and preach. All the while, playing the victim when they get called out on it. So be it. I've seen this kind of thing before. I know how it ends. (And, like you, I don't like bullies, whether they be of the physical kind or psychological kind.) So I don't try to persuade or convince those people. But I will not give them sanction, either. (It's been said that "Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." One has no moral requirement to convince a criminal or murderer. I'd extend the same logic to those who would advocate our disarmament in the service of criminals and murderers.)


"This is a discussion forum. If we don't discuss what we really think, we will never arrive at mutual agreement on anything."

I said what I said because that is what I really think. But I am under no illusion that it was bring myself to a mutual agreement with certain others. To quote Aristotle: "For though we love both the truth and our friends, piety requires us to honor the truth first."

Dealing with outright enemies is hard enough. But, to quote once more from JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR: "The end is just a little harder when brought about by friends."

I'm sorry it's come to this. And I am not Jon, and his speculations are his own. But at this stage, I, personally, am not willing to pretend I am having a discussion with certain people who refuse to have discussions.

That said, you've been a patient, gracious host, and I have no wish to stomp on your forum. So, then, that's the last thing I will say on the matter, here.

TG,

I was not making a rebuke. I want that to be clear since facial expressions, body language, etc., are not part of the normal message. We only have written words and, at times, images and videos.

I want to elaborate on a few points since my purpose is to establish bridges of communication.

 

1. I start from the position that most people are good and want to be good, to do good. I think if they can see a problem without pegging it to a strongly slanted/bigoted core story, they will opt for the most reasonable conclusion and that will tend to be good. So when I try to convince someone, I am not trying to make him or her think as I do. I am not trying to get immediate agreement with me. I am trying to get them to see what I see as I see it, irrespective if they agree or not. Once they do that, I trust them to make use of that information as best they can.

This is more complicated than just trying to get them to agree with me. It means trying to get them to step out of their core story, even if only for a few minutes, so their critical brain can gather raw information. That's probably the hardest persuasion thing of all to do--to get people to identify something for a few minutes without judging it, especially a hot button issue.

This is too long to go into here, but it is critical to making lasting change for the better to the world.

 

2. Like I said, forum communication is limited, being mostly words without body language. I have little doubt that often I do not get a correctly inflected message from those I disagree with because of this missing information. Ditto for them re me. That is and always will be an important part of context for reason to prevail. As I keep saying, how can one evaluate correctly what one does not identify correctly?

 

3. Canada is huge and this is critical when talking to Canadians about socialism. For example, they grok piles of dead bodies abstractly, but their day-to-day living does not allow them many conceptual referents for what that would look like as it develops. Oh, they sometimes see the photos, but that--even the possibility of that--has nothing in common with what they have lived all their lives. Those photos belong on a different planet to them. They belong to some noumenal realm or other, not to reality as they know it

There's just way too much land with few humans on it. So, even in reality, when their government gets too tyrannical, they mostly shrug because they can ignore the nasty part of the ramifications of oligarchical dictatorship with a technocratic flavor. As a short way of saying it, law enforcement is few and the territory is enormous. That makes for low tension.

 

4. Like it or not, the way people communicate--the stuff you complained about--is the main form of the only world we've got. We either learn to convince people in that world, or we turn them into enemies at the drop of a hat. (I'm not saying evil deadly people don't exist. They do. The scary thing is that, nowadays, they run social media companies, work leading health care organizations,  etc.) So if we want to change the minds of people, we have to convince them in the manner they speak. Otherwise, we are not on the field.

And there's this. When I look at O-Land people, I see good people in general, not bad. Even with the more boneheaded ones. The following applies to the wrongheaded, but often applies to those more clear-thinking. I don't see their public expression setting a path that leads to evil people. Theoretically it could, I suppose, but I don't see any real-world impact from them. Hell, a lousy quarterback kneeling during the National Anthem has been more relevant to the world than all of them put together.

So, instead of a s path to evil, I see them setting a path to their own irrelevance re important issues in the world. That's why I made my comment about calling them traitors and so on. I don't see them as the kind of people who overturn governments and I don't even see them influencing enough people to make any kind of change in the world. They simply don't convince anyone and don't want to.

To be fair, in O-Land, people exist on a continuum, going from mostly harmless snarky control freaks to really good intelligent people. I dearly want to see a correlation between the ideas they profess and their character, but I don't see it when I go into identify-only mode. I mean, there really are bad ides. If implemented on a large-scale they really do give rise to evil deadly people in power. So it would be great if good ideas meant good character. But that's not the way humans work. I will cut a good person with bad ideas a hell of a lot more slack than I will for a bad person with good ideas.

 

Anyway, I believe it is important to include all this (and other things I did not write about here) as potential context to look at when condemning someone. I consider those who defrauded the election last year as traitors. Human traffickers are real enemies, and so on. Not a person within O-Land regardless how outrageous something is he or she may say. (At least most of the time.  )

That's what I see.

(btw - You are one of the good guys with great potential for making good-guy changes in the real world. Not just here in O-Land. That's why I'm talking about all this.)

Michael

[ThatGuy]

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

I was not making a rebuke. I want that to be clear since facial expressions, body language, etc., are not part of the normal message. We only have written words and, at times, images and videos.

I want to elaborate on a few points since my purpose is to establish bridges of communication.

 

1. I start from the position that most people are good and want to be good, to do good. I think if they can see a problem without pegging it to a strongly slanted/bigoted core story, they will opt for the most reasonable conclusion and that will tend to be good. So when I try to convince someone, I am not trying to make him or her think as I do. I am not trying to get immediate agreement with me. I am trying to get them to see what I see as I see it, irrespective if they agree or not. Once they do that, I trust them to make use of that information as best they can.

This is more complicated than just trying to get them to agree with me. It means trying to get them to step out of their core story, even if only for a few minutes, so their critical brain can gather raw information. That's probably the hardest persuasion thing of all to do--to get people to identify something for a few minutes without judging it, especially a hot button issue.

This is too long to go into here, but it is critical to making lasting change for the better to the world.

 

2. Like I said, forum communication is limited, being mostly words without body language. I have little doubt that often I do not get a correctly inflected message from those I disagree with because of this missing information. Ditto for them re me. That is and always will be an important part of context for reason to prevail. As I keep saying, how can one evaluate correctly what one does not identify correctly?

 

3. Canada is huge and this is critical when talking to Canadians about socialism. For example, they grok piles of dead bodies abstractly, but their day-to-day living does not allow them many conceptual referents for what that would look like as it develops. Oh, they sometimes see the photos, but that--even the possibility of that--has nothing in common with what they have lived all their lives. Those photos belong on a different planet to them. They belong to some noumenal realm or other, not to reality as they know it

There's just way too much land with few humans on it. So, even in reality, when their government gets too tyrannical, they mostly shrug because they can ignore the nasty part of the ramifications of oligarchical dictatorship with a technocratic flavor. As a short way of saying it, law enforcement is few and the territory is enormous. That makes for low tension.

 

4. Like it or not, the way people communicate--the stuff you complained about--is the main form of the only world we've got. We either learn to convince people in that world, or we turn them into enemies at the drop of a hat. (I'm not saying evil deadly people don't exist. They do. The scary thing is that, nowadays, they run social media companies, work leading health care organizations,  etc.) So if we want to change the minds of people, we have to convince them in the manner they speak. Otherwise, we are not on the field.

And there's this. When I look at O-Land people, I see good people in general, not bad. Even with the more boneheaded ones. The following applies to the wrongheaded, but often applies to those more clear-thinking. I don't see their public expression setting a path that leads to evil people. Theoretically it could, I suppose, but I don't see any real-world impact from them. Hell, a lousy quarterback kneeling during the National Anthem has been more relevant to the world than all of them put together.

So, instead of a s path to evil, I see them setting a path to their own irrelevance re important issues in the world. That's why I made my comment about calling them traitors and so on. I don't see them as the kind of people who overturn governments and I don't even see them influencing enough people to make any kind of change in the world. They simply don't convince anyone and don't want to.

To be fair, in O-Land, people exist on a continuum, going from mostly harmless snarky control freaks to really good intelligent people. I dearly want to see a correlation between the ideas they profess and their character, but I don't see it when I go into identify-only mode. I mean, there really are bad ides. If implemented on a large-scale they really do give rise to evil deadly people in power. So it would be great if good ideas meant good character. But that's not the way humans work. I will cut a good person with bad ideas a hell of a lot more slack than I will for a bad person with good ideas.

 

Anyway, I believe it is important to include all this (and other things I did not write about here) as potential context to look at when condemning someone. I consider those who defrauded the election last year as traitors. Human traffickers are real enemies, and so on. Not a person within O-Land regardless how outrageous something is he or she may say. (At least most of the time.  )

That's what I see.

(btw - You are one of the good guys with great potential for making good-guy changes in the real world. Not just here in O-Land. That's why I'm talking about all this.)

Michael

See what I mean? The patience of a saint. Reminds me of something I read, once...

"Take Les Misérables. The hero steals a loaf of bread and is sent to prison. He cannot stand it, so he tries to escape; he draws a longer sentence. When he is finally released, he is an outcast. He comes to a town where nobody will lodge him or serve him dinner. Then he sees a house with an open door—the house of the local bishop. This very well-drawn, altruistic bishop invites him to stay, serves him a meal, and treats him with all the deference due an honored guest. The ex-convict notices the bishop’s only valuable possessions: real silverware and two silver candelabra on the mantelpiece. In the middle of the night, the trusted ex-convict steals the silverware and escapes.

"Given the man’s enormously embittered state, the reader can understand why he makes this choice. It is an evil choice, but it proceeds from the previous events of the story.

"Then he is caught and brought back to the bishop by local policemen who recognize the silverware. They tell the bishop: 'We’ve caught this ex-convict and he says that you gave him the silverware.' And the bishop says: 'Yes, of course I gave it to him. But, my friend, why did you forget to take the candelabra, which I also gave you?' The police depart, and the bishop tells the ex-convict: 'Take this silver. With it I am buying your soul from the devil and giving it to God.'

"That is a scene. It is a beautifully dramatic example of turning the other cheek."

Ayn Rand; Tore Boeckmann. The art of fiction: a guide for writers and readers (Kindle Location 524). Plume.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

45 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

See what I mean? The patience of a saint.

TG,

Balance is hard.

I find inspiration for balance in George Washington.

During the Revolutionary War, when he won a battle, he would interrogate captives and, when one showed that he truly wanted to live under English rule, Washington offered to take him to enemy lines and let him go if he promised to stop fighting. He would too. He did that with many enemy soldiers.

He also hung a lot of enemies.

 

Michael

[caroljane]

I nearly gave  you the gold ,except  I think you are mistaken about Canada here. That is just a quibble however. If I started flattering you too much you would probably get suspicious, anyway.

 You are right about large space, few local cops however. My once and future hometown  lost its local force of  two police, one a volunteer,  decades ago and now we just have Mounties. My mother claimed they did nothing but harass senior drivers ("they just see the grey heads and write out their tickets". They don't seem to solve much crime. Two local low level dealers vanished , one reputed to have been shot and his body ground up in a wood chipper by a Moncton gang , according to a supposed eyewitness, but nothing was ever discovered and their poor families will likely never even have a body to bury.

I don't think we really need to see heaps of dead bodies with our own eyes to know what evil is and how close it is to everyone, everywhere.

 

 

[ThatGuy]

BREAKING: Judge in Chauvin trial says Maxine Waters' comments 'may result in this whole trial being

"Judge Cahill said 'I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.'"

 

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-judge-in-chauvin-trial-addresses-maxine-waters-comments-says-it-may-result-in-this-whole-trial-being-overturned

[caroljane]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon keeps sending me emails (through the contact form) to tell me how stupid, etc. etc. etc. I am.

So weird.

He tells people to leave him alone, but when they do, he comes back like a junk-yard dog howling for attention.

He wants attention. I'm giving him attention.

I feel sorry for him.

Michael

I do too, now that I can think about him as a person and not just as a sort of auto bot allpurpose hater that could Only be avoided by leaving lt He  OL altogether. 

The sparse and defensive personal information he offered here leads me to think that his most emotionally important life was lived online and not in real world terms. Connecting what dots there are, one deduction could be that he has held down few jobs, dropped out of college ( not that there is anything wrong with that) and lives on profits from inherited property. Again nothing wrong with that,many presidents started their careers that way. He seems to have been a stay at home dad which is admirable.

but l'Edifice  leTendre needs serious rewriting. Why does he keep hounding you now?  Surely there are many ultraright sites where he would be welcome. Wouldn't the attention of like minded others be more socially rewarding than that of someone he has driven to excluding him? It seems almost masochistic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 hours ago, caroljane said:

I don't think we really need to see heaps of dead bodies with our own eyes to know what evil is and how close it is to everyone, everywhere.

Carol,

I think you do. Otherwise, you would not preach policies that always result in piles of dead bodies after the process unfolds.

And even though I know you think "piles of dead bodies" is evil, I don't think you believe it would ever happen in Canada because, well, Canada. And because Canada is Canada and a metaphor for more awesome than others, this time socialism (the evil policies) will turn out differently. 

(That's always the argument against the massive failures of communism/socialism. The ones who did it didn't do it right. We need to do it XXX way instead.)

All regions in the world I have ever heard of do not have some evil that other regions have. (Genital mutilation, censorship, nasty secret police, bigotry of different sorts, etc. etc. etc.)

The people in those good regions generally act like this means their own culture is superior to other cultures, not because of adherence to a universal moral principle about the issue, but because their culture is good and superior whereas the other cultures are inferior and often evil.

I don't see why Canadians should get a pass on this unless they are a superior form of the human race. And the Canadians I know and read about seem to be normal human beings.

Canada just has more land that does not allow Canadian people to see certain evils up close and personal. This leads to blindness about the full nature of certain evils.

(For example, the gazillion different genders issue is something I believe most Canadians laugh off since it does not touch their lives except for accommodating a fruitcake here and there when one appears. It's amusing rather than serious. The idea of a secret police coming in the middle of the night and taking normal people away who used the wrong pronoun during the day--people who got tattled on by their neighbors--is unthinkable to them even though that is where this kind of policy always ends up if allowed to grow.)

Blindness about this kind of thing will make Canadians ignore certain threats like China, which is quite hungry for land. The US in the heartland has this problem, too, although the sheer number of heartland neighborhoods devastated by idiotic trade policies that shipped manufacturing jobs overseas has made the issue a bit more contentious than in Canada.

I guess I'm writing this post more for the reader. I don't expect you to see it. I don't think you can or want to.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, caroljane said:

I do too, now that I can think about him as a person and not just as a sort of auto bot allpurpose hater that could Only be avoided by leaving lt He  OL altogether. 

The sparse and defensive personal information he offered here leads me to think that his most emotionally important life was lived online and not in real world terms. Connecting what dots there are, one deduction could be that he has held down few jobs, dropped out of college ( not that there is anything wrong with that) and lives on profits from inherited property. Again nothing wrong with that,many presidents started their careers that way. He seems to have been a stay at home dad which is admirable.

but l'Edifice  leTendre needs serious rewriting. Why does he keep hounding you now?  Surely there are many ultraright sites where he would be welcome. Wouldn't the attention of like minded others be more socially rewarding than that of someone he has driven to excluding him? It seems almost masochistic.

Carol,

You are entitled to your speculations.

He's a great case study for speculation, that's for sure.

 

For me, I lost interest in the "why" of him. I was interested at one time, but no longer. The "what" of him is destructive to good people around him and not to the real enemies.

I certainly don't expect to see him building and running his own forum. But if he ever does, more power to him. Here, he's dead to me. 

Also, if you are interested in rewriting him, or making him over in your own image, as you seem to be, I can get you his email. With my sincere wishes of good luck on your venture.

 

Michael

[caroljane]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

You are entitled to your speculations.

He's a great case study for speculation, that's for sure.

 

For me, I lost interest in the "why" of him. I was interested at one time, but no longer. The "what" of him is destructive to good people around him and not to the real enemies.

I certainly don't expect to see him building and running his own forum. But if he ever does, more power to him. Here, he's dead to me. 

Also, if you are interested in rewriting him, or making him over in your own image, as you seem to be, I can get you his email. With my sincere wishes of good luck on your venture.

 

Michael

I thought I was seeing him more as a person than a cliche because he is now in the past. If. My speculation actually  is my own image, according to you .Since you understand my own thought processes better than I do, so be it. I graduated college, got no profit from any inheritance, stayed at home with my kids only when gainfully unemployed otherwise, and worked for forty years give or take, but those details aside, you are right as always, or I should say righter than ever.

I'll pass on the email with a shudder, and can only pray you do not dislike me so much that you would give him mine.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

41 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I'll pass on the email with a shudder, and can only pray you do not dislike me so much that you would give him mine.

Karol,

A shudder of delight? Prolonging the pleasure?

Naaaaiiled it!!!

I thought you would get joy from the idea...

And don't worry. I don't dislike you, so I won't spoil your surprise when you yourself give him your personal email.

Er... am I missing something?...

 

Michael

[caroljane]

42 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Karol,

A shudder of delight? Prolonging the pleasure?

Naaaaiiled it!!!

I thought you would get joy from the idea...

And don't worry. I don't dislike you, so I won't spoil your surprise when you yourself give him your personal email.

Er... am I missing something?...

 

Michael

Yes , you are missing a few marbles as is our personal playlist conductor Peter, but it is part of your ..... breathless charm. Never, ever change it.....

 

[Peter]

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

Yes , you are missing a few marbles as is our personal playlist conductor Peter,

Don't blame me for your loss of mental acuity and gain of paranoia over the years. And if I were conducting I would conduct the Boston Pops. Have a Duance day and do the Samba! 

[ThatGuy]

Trump was impeached for less (well, for nothing, actually), but Waters does not have to apologize for inciting violence.
They spit in our faces every chance they get. They hate us. They are just asking for a civil war.
Not that they would want such a level playing field; they'd rather just eradicate us in a one-sided purge.
But they deserve nothing less than full resistance.

Pelosi Says Maxine Waters Does Not Need to Apologize For Threatening Comments

https://conservativebrief.com/pelosi-saysdoes-not-38796/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=RP78