Conspiracy Theories and Narcissism.

[Atla]

Would be nice if I had more time to look at conspiracy theories, but there are many more interesting things to do. Sometimes I tried harassing some of the paid US shills who comment under some 9/11 and Moon landing videos, to maybe narrow down possibilites faster by bouncing ideas off them. Seemed like some of them had that job for over 10 years I don't envy them.

Do you mean you were harrassing debunkers? or proponants?

I mean those whose job is "debunking" conspiracy theories, probably after receiving some training and debunking material. There were usually 2-3 of them under a video. I tried to ask how much money they make with this but they just ignored it.

[Iwannaplato]

Would be nice if I had more time to look at conspiracy theories, but there are many more interesting things to do. Sometimes I tried harassing some of the paid US shills who comment under some 9/11 and Moon landing videos, to maybe narrow down possibilites faster by bouncing ideas off them. Seemed like some of them had that job for over 10 years I don't envy them.

Do you mean you were harrassing debunkers? or proponants?

I mean those whose job is "debunking" conspiracy theories, probably after receiving some training and debunking material. There were usually 2-3 of them under a video. I tried to ask how much money they make with this but they just ignored it.

That's funny. I'm sure AI's are being geared up for all sorts of similar assignments: company pr, government pr, candidate pr, debunking, product promotion, competitor slander, generalized distraction, and so on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Little article from Psychology Today discussing the links (which I was unaware of tbh) between tendencies to conspiratorial theorisings and tendencies to grandiose delusions of self-importance. Seems to me like this might be beneficial information for quite a few persons in this vicinity.

Do you know anybody who believes that a shadowy cabal of Jews runs all the media, and wants to use it to make you all homosexual? Or are you aware of any person who just assumes that a bunch of billionaires are trying to make it illegal for you to own your own shoes instead of renting them from a globalist mega-government? Does that person often treat you like you ought to know how much better they are than you? If you do, please try to help that person, because they need lots of help to overcome their immense burden of madness and stupidity.

Among the key points:

[1]Conspiracy theories are explanations that attribute the true cause of a major event to secret and malevolent plots by powerful agents or groups.
[2]Research shows that compared to the average person, narcissists are more likely to find conspiracy theories appealing.
[3]Paranoia, gullibility, need for dominance and uniqueness, and collective narcissism may explain why narcissists are drawn to conspiracy theories.

First, some clarity. There are certainly *conspiracies* that do occur, have occurred, and continue to occur. Take for one example the behind the scenes machinations that led the US into WWll. A great deal about this has been uncovered in the last 5 decades. It involved, literally, what the word *conspiracy* connotes. Secret agreements and then machinations to bring it about without the wider public being aware. This is not controversial. Everyone understands this.

So one can only make sense of the psychological analysis if the specific sorts of *conspiracies* are mentioned. For example, do aliens live in underground caverns with entrance points at the N Pole? would be considered a deluded theory based (one supposes) in an overactive imagination. I think we would be safe to label it deluded and to dismiss it. There are definitely many many strange theories of this nature.

Then the question arises: in what type of person, in what type of psychology of a person do these sorts of imaginings occur? It would be impossible to discern, and it would be a problematic assessment, if it were linked to "grandiose delusions of self-importance". Who judges? And what is the function of the judgment?

How would the researcher arrive at this conclusion? And because it is unlikely that there is a sound method to do so, I submit that he could only offer an opinion, and one likely slanted by a tendency to *locate pathologies* for political purposes. Remeber we are in times of tremendous discord and ideological battles.

If one pathologizes even the belief, or the supposition, that Jews have inordinate power within a given sphere, then one is engaging in a politicized pathological diagnosis. It should be obvious that such diagnoses are common, and that many people resort to them at the drop of a hat.

I can cite one example in reference to that notable forum inhabitant who seems to honestly believe that all who do not toe a specific, accepted ideological line of belief and understanding are therefore Nazis. This is emoted politicized pathological diagnosis in the context of political disagreements. But it does not require a psychological analysis to label it. At least I don't imagine so. It is a question of training, received ideas, social conventions and a skewed analytical processes.

Having studied, unofficially of course, a great deal of the ideas and view of those on the Left, the Far Left, the Right and the Far Right, I am well aware of the range of opinions about the role of Jews. But the question is actually: Can this topic be discussed? By anyone? At any time? Or, is the topic made to seem so reprobate, so wrong-headed, and a priori bad/evil that it cannot be considered? Is there a fair, decent and honest way to go about it? If so, how?

This is really what the issue hinges on. Is it pathological to think about the question? I do not think so. But I would certainly recommend great restraint and careful self-analysis of one's own motives. Yet that would be true in all controversial areas.

Seems to me like this might be beneficial information for quite a few persons in this vicinity.

Similarly, one could make recommendations to the one who wrote this sentence about different forms of *beneficial information* they could put to use in self-examination of their own stances.

True, it is easier to see the faults in the other. But we all recognize that when we do this we often make substantial errors.

In all questions that pertain to controversial topics -- such as who or what, if anything is discoverable -- stands behind or has influenced the *homosexualization* of our cultures, then the question has to be posed honestly. Not a trick question or a trap question. And not with the a priori assumption that the question is a bad one to ask and one morally reprehensible.

Can the question be asked? Does the question have legitimacy? Or again is the question one that only a pathological person could ask?

[FlashDangerpants]

Little article from Psychology Today discussing the links (which I was unaware of tbh) between tendencies to conspiratorial theorisings and tendencies to grandiose delusions of self-importance. Seems to me like this might be beneficial information for quite a few persons in this vicinity.

Do you know anybody who believes that a shadowy cabal of Jews runs all the media, and wants to use it to make you all homosexual? Or are you aware of any person who just assumes that a bunch of billionaires are trying to make it illegal for you to own your own shoes instead of renting them from a globalist mega-government? Does that person often treat you like you ought to know how much better they are than you? If you do, please try to help that person, because they need lots of help to overcome their immense burden of madness and stupidity.

Among the key points:

[1]Conspiracy theories are explanations that attribute the true cause of a major event to secret and malevolent plots by powerful agents or groups.
[2]Research shows that compared to the average person, narcissists are more likely to find conspiracy theories appealing.
[3]Paranoia, gullibility, need for dominance and uniqueness, and collective narcissism may explain why narcissists are drawn to conspiracy theories.

First, some clarity. There are certainly *conspiracies* that do occur, have occurred, and continue to occur. Take for one example the behind the scenes machinations that led the US into WWll. A great deal about this has been uncovered in the last 5 decades. It involved, literally, what the word *conspiracy* connotes. Secret agreements and then machinations to bring it about without the wider public being aware. This is not controversial. Everyone understands this.

Maybe. I don't know which specific theories you are referring to though and it's fairly clear already that you grant a lot of credence to several theories I consider utterly maniacal.

I have been informal in my description of what a conspiracy theory is, the article specifies "Conspiracy theories are explanations that attribute the true cause of a major event to secret and malevolent plots by powerful agents or groups" and for my own purposes, if it is necessary to allow conversation to proceed, I am content to restrict further, perhaps to what we might consider paradigmatic examples, which I sort of think are the ones that require absurd bloated conspiracies (the ones that involve 7 goverments, 90 agencies, and over half a million persons for instance) where the motives of the participants are frankly mad (like most of the ones about taking over the world).

So one can only make sense of the psychological analysis if the specific sorts of *conspiracies* are mentioned. For example, do aliens live in underground caverns with entrance points at the N Pole? would be considered a deluded theory based (one supposes) in an overactive imagination. I think we would be safe to label it deluded and to dismiss it. There are definitely many many strange theories of this nature.

Oh yes, like the insane theory that aliens built the pyramids, or the Flat Earthers who think NASA is engaged in a conspiracy to pretend the world is round. Another such theory has it that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad and none of it really happened. That's equally mad, right?

Then the question arises: in what type of person, in what type of psychology of a person do these sorts of imaginings occur? It would be impossible to discern, and it would be a problematic assessment, if it were linked to "grandiose delusions of self-importance". Who judges? And what is the function of the judgment?

Allof the words in phrase "grandiose delusions of self-importance" seem to be fairly meaningful, but I am not a psychologist and those were some words I threw together as a vague colloquial description of narcissism. So replace them something more medically accurate if you are in a position to do so. The article I linked says that "Narcissism refers to grandiose self-regard", so you can use that I guess.

How would the researcher arrive at this conclusion? And because it is unlikely that there is a sound method to do so, I submit that he could only offer an opinion, and one likely slanted by a tendency to *locate pathologies* for political purposes. Remeber we are in times of tremendous discord and ideological battles.

We are in times of the usual amount of discord and ideological battles, this isn't the French Revolution. Ever since mankind developed language and logic many thousands of years ago, we have been formulating new approaches to epistemological satisfaction without ever getting it exactly right, if there even is an exactly right to aim for.

That doesn't mean we can't arrive at reasonable conclusions about how to form reliable beliefs, and how to justify our beliefs. To ref Hilary Putnam, we apply what he calls the epistemic values, which includes (not limited to) coherence, reasonableness, plausibility, simplicity, elegance. In fact even when we're convinced that we are doing something much more rigorous than that such as science or really really good logic, we're working in a framework that still depends on those informal epistemic values for its own plausibility, so we aren't likely to really get a perfect truth of anything important. Now I am not in the same camp as Putnam, in fact if you watch that video and can understand his words, you could easily actually become the most talented moral realist on this site and therefore an enemy I would take seriously at last.

But Putnam is broadly right in this observation I think, even though each of those words does open up obvious new problems. There's nothing logically important about simplicity at all for instance, but still we value it as a reason to consider a notion plausible. And we have standards for adjudging certain persons to be of reduced capability, even to the point of taking away their liberty, if their belief formation processes don't show evidence of meeting at least some of those epistemic requirements on a regular basis.

This need not be political at all, this is normal and always has been. The biggest change over the last 10 thousand years in this matter is nothing to do with politics, it is that we seldom blame witchcraft or demonic posession any more when somebody is unable to form beliefs in the way we find epistemically pleasing.

If one pathologizes even the belief, or the supposition, that Jews have inordinate power within a given sphere, then one is engaging in a politicized pathological diagnosis. It should be obvious that such diagnoses are common, and that many people resort to them at the drop of a hat.

I guess the Antwerp diamond cutting industry is very jewish, and I hear that the London equivalent at Hatton Garden used to be similar, although I expect those descriptions are probably overblown. But the notion that jews run the PR industry, and the media is epistemically unsound, and that's before you go into weirdness about them using these powers for mind-control to spread homosexuality. Once you get into that latter theory, you've gone howling mad and that's not a politics thing.

I can cite one example in reference to that notable forum inhabitant who seems to honestly believe that all who do not toe a specific, accepted ideological line of belief and understanding are therefore Nazis. This is emoted politicized pathological diagnosis in the context of political disagreements. But it does not require a psychological analysis to label it. At least I don't imagine so. It is a question of training, received ideas, social conventions and a skewed analytical processes.

Yawn. You and GrandWizard22 like to imagine that very fine distinctions are required specifically when people are referring to you, not so much when you refer to others. I don't consent to be bound by shenanigans, a neo-nazi is just a nazi as far as I am concerned. I may be applying the term with a slightly broad brush to include persons who might more correctly according to some taxonomy you prefer be nazi-adjacent, or just white nationalists instead of national socialists etc.... but I am really just including all the people who hold weird conspiracy theories about jews, and that seems ok to me. Tough shit if you don't like it.

Having studied, unofficially of course, a great deal of the ideas and view of those on the Left, the Far Left, the Right and the Far Right, I am well aware of the range of opinions about the role of Jews. But the question is actually: Can this topic be discussed? By anyone? At any time? Or, is the topic made to seem so reprobate, so wrong-headed, and a priori bad/evil that it cannot be considered? Is there a fair, decent and honest way to go about it? If so, how?

This is really what the issue hinges on. Is it pathological to think about the question? I do not think so. But I would certainly recommend great restraint and careful self-analysis of one's own motives. Yet that would be true in all controversial areas.

If you are hoping to represent yourself as a disinterested academic far removed from the subject at hand, some sort of purely rational observer, then you have a problem with the formation of plausible beliefs. Everyone knows you've taken a side and you aren't just "asking the question".

Seems to me like this might be beneficial information for quite a few persons in this vicinity.

Similarly, one could make recommendations to the one who wrote this sentence about different forms of *beneficial information* they could put to use in self-examination of their own stances.

True, it is easier to see the faults in the other. But we all recognize that when we do this we often make substantial errors.

Sure, so what? I'm not a narcissist so I take it for granted that I am mistaken in many matters. I don't know shit about psychology for a start. I'm not much of a one for conspiracy theories though and you aren't going to sell me one about jews today.

In all questions that pertain to controversial topics -- such as who or what, if anything is discoverable -- stands behind or has influenced the *homosexualization* of our cultures, then the question has to be posed honestly. Not a trick question or a trap question. And not with the a priori assumption that the question is a bad one to ask and one morally reprehensible.

Can the question be asked? Does the question have legitimacy? Or again is the question one that only a pathological person could ask?

Show me where you've asked the question of if?

But a-priori, a theory about global media elites who -- for some absurdly insane reason -- choose to homosexualise society and by some implausible mechanism have that much mind control is pre-ordained to be madness. If your ingredients list to make a cake is:
1 cup white sugar
½ cup unsalted lunacy
2 large eggs
2 teaspoons madness extract
1 ½ cups all-purpose flour
1 ¾ teaspoons insanity powder
½ cup milk
Your cake is going to be mad.

[Wizard22]

-

[FlashDangerpants]

Your cake had one too many cups of unsalted lunacy I fear.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Flash writes: I don't know which specific theories you are referring to though and it's fairly clear already that you grant a lot of credence to several theories I consider utterly maniacal.

You can do little else but misunderstand and misrepresent. That is one of your main problems. All of this I clearly explain and I carefully reveal exactly what my position is. But you set your will to pay no attention to this. Because you are driven by one core idea: anyone who says anything that appears to be to you outside of the pale of acceptable thought -- is a Nazi. From what I can see your entire problem, your intellectual problem, is located here.

Simply put, many on the Right and on the Dissident Right are concerned about many issues that have been painted as *morally evil* by people who use broad terms just like you do. It is a way to control the discourse by assuming a higher moral ground and declaring that its views, and its parameters of concern, are the only valid ones. There are many intellectuals on the Dissident Right who are thoroughly opposed to any sort of *Nazism*. Alain de Benoist for example and Renaud Camus (the theorist behind the Great Replacement).

So, you would have to put aside your extreme prejudices and you'd have to do real research into the opinions of these intellectuals, theorists and commentators in order to understand their ideas, views and concerns.

"Conspiracy theories are explanations that attribute the true cause of a major event to secret and malevolent plots by powerful agents or groups" and for my own purposes, if it is necessary to allow conversation to proceed, I am content to restrict further, perhaps to what we might consider paradigmatic examples

Conspiracy theory is a contaminated phrase. This should be obvious. The fact of the matter that conspiracies are completely common and completely normal. Elite factions *conspire together* to achieve their aims while the population is regarded as a mass to be deceived and manipulated.

The term has to be clarified and rendered sound before it can be used.

But there are elaborate interpretations and misinterpretations invented, or perceived through distorted mental processes, which are similar to the descriptions that you offer.

To say that the ideas, views and concerns of the Right or the Dissident Right is of this order is a calumnious, inaccurate, and a deceptive description. Very similar to your continual use of the word *Nazi*. It comes down to this: you refuse to give validity to a range of issues and concerns which you conveniently associate with Nazism. This gambit or strategy is absurd.

What is needed is to extract out of Right Dissident discourse the ideas and issues that are of concern to them, and place them on the table for examination and discussion. In our present there is such a thing as *censorship* and *cancelling* -- the means by which honest conversation is stifled. That is your domain Mr Flash.

Another such theory has it that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad and none of it really happened. That's equally mad, right?

The ideas about how and why WWll was co-created, and the machinations involved, is a story that requires a depth-analysis. It is not, in any sense, a simple, binary picture. The issue of the German attempt at expulsion of its Jewish minority is completely real. They attempted this. The world-Jewish opposition to this, and the resistance to it, and the use of political and economic tools to inhibit or stop the Germans in this, is also totally real. So one has to establish genuine and accurate bases for any sort of conversation on the issues.

That doesn't mean we can't arrive at reasonable conclusions about how to form reliable beliefs, and how to justify our beliefs.

What is *reasonable* for Mr Flash has to be investigated by inquiry into and examination of his predicates. I believe you are essentially an immoralist, or are extremely confused about moral issues. So I do not believe you to be a judge. Rather, you need to be dismantled to see why and how your various errors came to be installed in you.

But I say this in regard to all of us.

But the notion that jews run the PR industry, and the media is epistemically unsound, and that's before you go into weirdness about them using these powers for mind-control to spread homosexuality. Once you get into that latter theory, you've gone howling mad and that's not a politics thing.

Here, you are engaging in a type of mental activity that is similar to the skewed thought of those you label as paranoid conspiracy theorists. Your sentences are infused with rhetoric. You twist the concerns of those who do recognize homosexualization (radical shift in sexual norms) into a pathology. You cannot describe their concerns fairly. Because you apply pre-fabricated notions just like you use the term Nazi as a gloss.

I don't consent to be bound by shenanigans, a neo-nazi is just a nazi as far as I am concerned. I may be applying the term with a slightly broad brush to include persons who might more correctly according to some taxonomy you prefer be nazi-adjacent, or just white nationalists instead of national socialists etc.... but I am really just including all the people who hold weird conspiracy theories about jews, and that seems ok to me. Tough shit if you don't like it.

Your concerns are irrelevant and largely meaningless. You are not the measure here. Your measuring is skewed. Your thoughts unclear and deeply prejudiced from the start. You are no example about how to proceed. In fact you are an obstacle.

If you are hoping to represent yourself as a disinterested academic far removed from the subject at hand, some sort of purely rational observer, then you have a problem with the formation of plausible beliefs. Everyone knows you've taken a side and you aren't just "asking the question".

You have paranoid ideas, similar to those of the conspiracy theorists, that dominate your perception. You set your will to refuse to see through them. And all you can do as a result is *see me* as that *Nazi*.

I take many of the concerns of the Right and Dissident Right seriously -- seriously enough to examine their merit or the lack of merit. You cannot achieve the same. Your *argument* is contaminated.

Getting clearer?

[FlashDangerpants]

Another such theory has it that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad and none of it really happened. That's equally mad, right?

The ideas about how and why WWll was co-created, and the machinations involved, is a story that requires a depth-analysis. It is not, in any sense, a simple, binary picture. The issue of the German attempt at expulsion of its Jewish minority is completely real. They attempted this. The world-Jewish opposition to this, and the resistance to it, and the use of political and economic tools to inhibit or stop the Germans in this, is also totally real. So one has to establish genuine and accurate bases for any sort of conversation on the issues.

You fumbled a real softball there.

But the notion that jews run the PR industry, and the media is epistemically unsound, and that's before you go into weirdness about them using these powers for mind-control to spread homosexuality. Once you get into that latter theory, you've gone howling mad and that's not a politics thing.

Here, you are engaging in a type of mental activity that is similar to the skewed thought of those you label as paranoid conspiracy theorists. Your sentences are infused with rhetoric. You twist the concerns of those who do recognize homosexualization (radical shift in sexual norms) into a pathology. You cannot describe their concerns fairly. Because you apply pre-fabricated notions just like you use the term Nazi as a gloss.

And another there.

Your concerns are irrelevant and largely meaningless. You are not the measure here. Your measuring is skewed. Your thoughts unclear and deeply prejudiced from the start. You are no example about how to proceed. In fact you are an obstacle.

Right back at ya.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My points have been made. They are 100% sound. You have no leg to stand on. You have been exposed in fair terms as exactly what you are (in the sense of how you conduct your pseudo-argumentation). In this sense, or in this arena, the argument has been concluded.

That you cannot see it is really your own problem. It is doubtful you will move beyond this failing.

It remains for us to investigate and to theorize as to how you came to be (people like you, with definite intellectual and perceptual problems) and why you-plural have the power that you do in our present.

My tentative view is that you are a product of *hyper-liberal moral rot*. That is, of moral deficiencies which may have some connection to your sexual perversions. We are, naturally, dealing on the topic of distortions & perversions. These may be connected.

When a person succumbs to *moral rot* in the present dispensation of corruption and willed deviance, I assume that the corruption spreads widely -- in the physical, mental, moral and intellectual bodies.

Is this getting clearer for you?

[FlashDangerpants]

Is this getting clearer for you?

I guess so. You seem to be willing to blame the Holocaust on the Jews on the grounds that they used their international influence to prevent some righteous expulsion by the nazis, and you clearly sympathise with the nazis. So that's a lot clearer than the last time we addressed that question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is this getting clearer for you?

I guess so. You seem to be willing to blame the Holocaust on the Jews on the grounds that they used their international influence to prevent some righteous expulsion by the nazis, and you clearly sympathise with the nazis. So that's a lot clearer than the last time we addressed that question.

Here again you can only *hear* in accord with your a priori conclusions. This shows how the contamination I refer to distorts your thinking processes.

I have no interest in delving into any of the controversy about the Holocaust here on this forum. I have sound reasons. One is that it is a British forum and subject to both established laws and, even more relevant, extreme forms of censorship. The owners and managers of this forum have to keep up on what is said, if it is dangerous and contentious and violates established laws of enforceable conventions, and they have to keep the forum clear of such topics.

In Europe all discussion on the topic is intensely controversial. And in some places a person can be jailed for voicing even mildly oppositional or contrary ideas. You once made reference to this when you mentioned that moderation could object to some things said. So you know. My suggestion to you: be responsible and respectful.

I told you months back that I accept the general view of the Shoah as revealed in our standard narratives and histories (I do not use the term Holocaust because it refers to a ritual sacrifice and is therefore sickly ironic) with the understanding that some details are unclear and in doubt.

And I recently told you that I have *no means at my disposal* to make any assessments about the ideas and theorizations of people like Ron Unz who, as you know, says he has reasons to doubt the general story.

That means exactly what it states. There is no secret message there. Take the sentence at its face value. Because that is what I mean.

Where I can go is, for example, into the honest scholarship of Norman Finklestein and his claims that there is a Holocaust Industry. Meaning that the Holocaust is used for a range of other purposes. To understand this *use* you'd have to be familiar with Finklestein's work. And I can certainly think about and talk about the use of the Holocaust in a wide array of different areas. Such, for example, as a sort of construct that delves into a culturally specific declaration about *ontological malevolence* and the Jewish suffering as something unique and special.

Who manages this ideological (and ontological) perception-game? The Holocaust itself, according to some Jewish theorists, has become the Jewish religion for the larger mass of Jews. This can be examined.

In fact there are a wide range of ideas that are part-and-parcel not of *Nazi* thought (to use your ridiculous term always applied incorrectly) but of Jewish thought on this issue of using the Holocaust as a manipulation tool.

And though their views are certainly controversial there are Jewish theorists who have contrary views of the elements of the Shoah narrative itself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are a few on-going conversations here where this interview, and the extremely important issues discussed in it, could be posted for general review. It will suffice to post it here.

Lydia Brimelow talks about the extreme consequences of the attacks -- open and concerted -- designed to destroy people who do not toe the party line.

[Sculptor]

There are a few on-going conversations here where this interview, and the extremely important issues discussed in it, could be posted for general review. It will suffice to post it here.

Lydia Brimelow talks about the extreme consequences of the attacks -- open and concerted -- designed to destroy people who do not toe the party line.

Thank heavens for mass immigration.
The US would be a thrid world state were it not for the continued supply of labour to keep the wheels of the economy going.

[promethean75]

Yup, and what do we always hear from people opposed to immigration? We hear them talking about how a muslim guy raped a swedish chick or a mexican sold some drugs to an American highschool kid.

But wait, far more of those rapes are committed by swedish guys and far more of those drugs are sold by american guys, so what's up with that?

Likewise, we hear how communism is infiltrating european countries that were once prosperous free markets. But wait. Had the word 'communism' never even have been heard by these people, there'd still be protests and strikes every other day by that country's own people.

So it's not a foreign idea. The shit is REAL. N*ggas are sick and tired of being broke... white, black, red, beige, yellow and green. Duddint matter wtf country u live in, what immigrants are comin over or what leftist academics are preachin in the university. This isn't a philosophical 'idea' or form of propoganda. This is real life happening. I'ont give a damn watchu 'readin'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is a wretched argument. It is not the business class that runs the nation like a factory. The US is a republic. And the issue of democratic consensus in immigration decisions — and how to deal with millions of illegal immigrants — is an issue of concern for the nation’s constituents.

The question of demographic composition is also a valid concern for citizens and constituents.

There are 3-4 other areas of valid concern.