Biden Crime Family

[Lacewing]

We're trying to figure out our own problems in our own way.

More accurately the larger body of people are struggling in darkness to understand the on-going power-struggles. So much information, true, false, half-true half-false, circulates that it is really hard to have clarity.

Also, if you are an example of a citizen “figuring out” things I think you illustrate my point. You seen benighted. You struggle to even begin to see clearly. Certain ideas seem to scare you from examining them. You are a jumble of confused impulses.

It’s huge really. And interconnected. And difficult as hell to decipher. And then interpretation is a zone of conflict and intense disagreement.

So, it's 'really hard to have clarity and difficult as hell to decipher'... but you chastise Gary for struggling to see clearly.

However, the proposition that the Nation is at a juncture of real and dangerous conflict — that is a good place to start our examination of “why” this has come about.

And this is what you claim you can do because you're so brilliant and uniquely insightful.

Why does Walker rely almost exclusively on far-right news sources and opinions... and why do you say that's worth considering seriously? Neither one of you is balanced in your views... I wonder how that is serving you... since the truth is somewhere in the middle. You identify enemies and then ignore seeing from any other angle. Most people are basically good. Seeing them as enemies is extraordinarily foolish and perpetuates mindless conflict based on skewed thinking that serves certain egos and certain players.

The best way to stop the circus is to rise up TOGETHER against the ring-leaders. They've managed to split us into camps so that we think the enemies are amongst ourselves, then we destroy each other instead of them... while they stay rich, powerful, and immovable.

And all sorts of trouble lies immediately ahead. The game being played (enacted) is extremely serious for those with invested interest in it.

I agree... and I think it's serious for everyone. I think most people (regardless of affiliations) recognize the unsustainable systems that much of our lives are built on, and they want change... and are willing to face the rough ride because they know we can't continue on using the same patterns. They are courageous... unlike those who still seek to promote divisiveness for their own egos and the inflexible thinking they are reliant on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How do your readings of Chomsky help you attain clarity about contemporary events? Such for example as recent election fraud (manipulations) or for another example “replacement” of the sort discussed by Renaud Camus?

Can a “Chomskian analysis” shed light on the issue of demographic influx (replacement) and do you think Chomsky himself could examine the question of replacement? (Or would he dismiss it as a non-concern?)

Chomsky literally believes that man-created carbon emissions will bring civilization to an end. He says this repeatedly. Is that also your view?

[Lacewing]

Here's what the NY Times says about Walker's source...

However, it is hard these days to trust the ultra-partisan NYTs.

Would you like for me to list more reviews of that source?

Is the skewed opinion not evident on its own in the article?

So we turn from close examination of the arguments, to paranoia about the sources.

And here we turn to extremism... your favorite toy.

There is no paranoia in examining and considering sources.

Note that this issue arises here in these discussions: we label someone whose ideas in one area we disagree with as unreliable in all areas. That’s a bad way to go about parsing arguments.

A bad way to go about arguments is to always refer to skewed sources. Why is that necessary? Why is that the only way the argument can be made? Because that's the only 'truth' YOU see? I rest my case.

[Walker]

Here's what the NY Times says about Walker's source...

Here is what history says about the NY Times ...

In the past the New York Times has supported Stalin, covered up the Holocaust, and helped install Castro in Cuba.
- Source: The Democrat Party Hates America, page 16.

This strongly suggests that the Leftist NY Times is skewed towards Evil.

[Gary Childress]

How do your readings of Chomsky help you attain clarity about contemporary events? Such for example as recent election fraud (manipulations) or for another example “replacement” of the sort discussed by Renaud Camus?

Can a “Chomskian analysis” shed light on the issue of demographic influx (replacement) and do you think Chomsky himself could examine the question of replacement? (Or would he dismiss it as a non-concern?)

Chomsky literally believes that man-created carbon emissions will bring civilization to an end. He says this repeatedly. Is that also your view?

I know he does (though I'm not sure if "bring civilization to an end" is the way to say it). I've read some of his writings and listened to what he's said in regard to climate issues. As far as my own opinion on man-created carbon emissions, I'm not 100% sure what to think. I'm not a scientist. My understanding is that right now there is good reason to believe that Earth's climate is A.) changing more rapidly than normal and B.) there is evidence to suggest that human practices may be driving that change. That's where my beliefs stand at this moment. Are those two beliefs (A and B) wrong?

[Lacewing]

Here's what the NY Times says about Walker's source...

Here is what history says about the NY Times ...

Okay, would you like for me to list more reviews of RealClearPolitics or can you simply acknowledge that you rely on right-leaning (often far-right) sources?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, it's 'really hard to have clarity and difficult as hell to decipher'... but you chastise Gary for struggling to see clearly.

No, that is not right. I say to Gary, or comment in relation to what Gary writes (sometimes), that his information-pool appears too limited. I also say that I notice he is *analysis-adverse* and relies on emotionally-reactive sentiments.

Quite different what I say to Gary than your paraphrase!

GJ wrote: However, the proposition that the Nation is at a juncture of real and dangerous conflict — that is a good place to start our examination of “why” this has come about.

Lacewing wrote: And this is what you claim you can do because you're so brilliant and uniquely insightful.

Again you make a mistake in how you see and frame things. I believe I have certain advantages because, to all appearances, I read a great deal on contemporary affairs. It has nothing to do with intelligence or *unique insightfulness*.

When I say "the proposition that the Nation is at a juncture of real and dangerous conflict — that is a good place to start our examination of “why” this has come about" I am making what I think is a very good suggestion. If it is true the next series of questions have to do with gaining the background (about causation, about history) that enables one to make fair, accurate and rounded statements.

Do you agree? To me it seems bullet-proof.

Why does Walker rely almost exclusively on far-right news sources and opinions... and why do you say that's worth considering seriously?

Why would you have me answer a question best posed to him?

If what you are saying is that one should not read at conservatively grounded sites, but should read somewhere else, or read the precise opposite, I think you are making a mistake of relativism. All things are not equal. And some orientations are better -- superior -- to others. I tend now to a conservative-leaning analysis (indeed even to some Dissident Right ideas) but it is after reading Left-Progressive material for most of my life. I certainly know the latter very well indeed.

What I say is that the article that Walker presented is full of assertions about the last election that appear to me, after some time and some research, to be highly credible. I make no other statement about Right-leaning sites in general.

I asked Gary to go through the article point by point and to offer comments, directly, on what was asserted there.

If those are *true things* it does not matter if it is Hitler's own personal blog.

Ideas can be received independently of their locale.

The best way to stop the circus is to rise up TOGETHER against the ring-leaders. They've managed to split us into camps so that we think the enemies are amongst ourselves, then we destroy each other instead of them... while they stay rich, powerful, and immovable.

There is some truth in this. But as you know I generally support the analysis of the Democratic-Left régime that has power in our country now that IC puts forward. It is largely sound and for that reason it should be paid attention to.

And I can support my assertion.

unlike those who still seek to promote divisiveness for their own egos and the inflexible thinking they are reliant on.

I am more inclined to examine ideological positions and decide among them rather than reduce it all to *egos*. I do think power-systems need to be analyzed and considered with more thoroughness.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is the skewed opinion not evident on its own in the article?

When I read it I thought the assertions were quite sound. Again based on my reading and watching over the years.

But would you list and explain what exactly seemed so skewed to you? If you did I'd have something to work with.

[Gary Childress]

So, it's 'really hard to have clarity and difficult as hell to decipher'... but you chastise Gary for struggling to see clearly.

No, that is not right. I say to Gary, or comment in relation to what Gary writes (sometimes), that his information-pool appears too limited. I also say that I notice he is *analysis-adverse* and relies on emotionally-reactive sentiments.

I'm not "analysis-adverse", I just challenge adverse analysis.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, it's 'really hard to have clarity and difficult as hell to decipher'... but you chastise Gary for struggling to see clearly.

No, that is not right. I say to Gary, or comment in relation to what Gary writes (sometimes), that his information-pool appears too limited. I also say that I notice he is *analysis-adverse* and relies on emotionally-reactive sentiments.

I'm not "analysis-adverse", I just challenge adverse analysis.

No, you do not really challenge anything. You send up opinions, often grounded in mushy sentiments, and not clarified reason.

Again, I have suggested you go through Walker's article point by point and refute them.

Or again I suggest that you more carefully understand Renaud Camus' presentation (dealing with remplacement) and explain, in clear rational terms what he gets wrong.

You see? These are two examples where initial prejudice inhibits careful analysis.

[Walker]

Here's what the NY Times says about Walker's source...

Here is what history says about the NY Times ...

Okay, would you like for me to list more reviews of RealClearPolitics or can you simply acknowledge that you rely on right-leaning (often far-right) sources?

I would like for you to simply acknowledge that your favourite source, the NY Times, is skewed towards evil because it is a Leftist rag.

In the past the New York Times has supported Stalin, covered up the Holocaust, and helped install Castro in Cuba.
- Source: The Democrat Party Hates America, page 16.

[Gary Childress]

Again, I have suggested you go through Walker's article point by point and refute them.

Or again I suggest that you more carefully understand Renaud Camus' presentation (dealing with remplacement) and explain, in clear rational terms what he gets wrong.

But if I do that, I'm afraid I'll end up like you and fear unrestrained people instead of restrained ones. I mean, should anyone be restrained? And if so, then who?

[Gary Childress]

Here is what history says about the NY Times ...

Okay, would you like for me to list more reviews of RealClearPolitics or can you simply acknowledge that you rely on right-leaning (often far-right) sources?

I would like for you to simply acknowledge that your favourite source, the NY Times, is skewed towards evil because it is a Leftist rag.

In the past the New York Times has supported Stalin, covered up the Holocaust, and helped install Castro in Cuba.
- Source: The Democrat Party Hates America, page 16.

Who did those things? Did the New York Times do that or did the people who owned and worked for the NYT at that time do that?

[Lacewing]

I would like for you to simply acknowledge that your favourite source, the NY Times, is skewed towards evil because it is a Leftist rag.

It is not my favorite source. I see that it leans left, but how does that make it evil? You're being ridiculous. It offered a counter-balance to your source. The Times has won 132 Pulitzer Prizes, the most of any newspaper, and has long been regarded as a national "newspaper of record". How credible is RealClearPolitics?

Maybe America leans left for good reasons. You may disagree, but that doesn't make left-leaning wrong or evil. You produce more wrong and evil shit simply with your extremist accusations.

I agree with some conservative viewpoints... but I think your whacked-out, over-the-edge approach is ridiculous, and discourages serious contemplation. If you were more capable of presenting ideas in a way that showed real consideration for balanced truth, I'd be interested.

[Immanuel Can]

If that's the way you (a Canadian) feel, then I'm sorry that we (Americans) have let you down.

I like Americans. I don't like this aspect of their political culture.

Partisanship is not necessary, not wise, and not democratic, ultimately. But for some reason, Americans always think you have to be one or the other. The position that sees the faults of both almost completely eludes them. If you see more Dem faults than Repub faults, they call you a "Trumpist." If you seem more Repub faults, they think you're a Dem. It's as if they just have no ability to conceptualize a middle position. Everybody is "for their side" or "against their side."

But why? Are we still fighting the American Civil War? Sorry...I missed that one. Don't ask me to join the North or the South now.

I'd go back earlier for a more balanced position. I would call it the Tocqueville position. Alexis DeTocqueville found the Americans fascinating (at that time, Americans and Canadians were essentially in the same place, too.) But he did not blindly admire; he was a keen observer, a political scientist and a diplomat, so he analyzed what he saw, and catalogued strengths and weakness of the American character, but without unkindness or partisanship.

So I would choose what I'll call, "the T position," instead of the "D" position or the "R" position.

And as I look at what's going on in the States right now, I'd say that the D's are the biggest danger to everybody. The R's are a mess, too...but they're neither in power, nor are they entrenched in all the public institutions and controlling them, the way the socialist Left are.

But right now, the socialist Left, since it is utopian, sees every dirty and undemocratic trick it pulls as "moral," for no better reason than that it serves the dogma of the Left and the aspired cause of utopia. So manipulating elections? No problem. Lying outright? Perfectly necessary. Unequal and absurd prosecutions of opponents? Good strategy. Collapsing the nation by unmanaged migrations? Hey, whatever works. Using the press to propagandize the voters? You bet. Loosing COVID and the Ukraine war on the entire world? Sure. Nothing dirty is not cleansed by association, they think. That's dangerous. To everybody. So that's why, right now, I'm more concerned about the Dems than the Repubs, corrupt as both are. At least the Repubs are not alligned with the Socialists. Socialism kills.

And that's the "T" position; which I think any reasonably informed outsider who is not already poisoned in the head by socialism should take.