Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Immanuel Can]

I do not see what is crazy about anything said in either of those two works. What, in your opinion, am I missing?

Keep reading.

There's an old saying in poker: "If you look around the table, and don't see the sucker...it's you."

Meanwhile, I am going to return to our main subject, TDS. We are wandering too far afield, at the moment.

[FlashDangerpants]

How on Earth do you turn that into a plot to strip us of our worldly possessions?

The WEF tends to arouse many levels of opposition. There are many good reasons for that. But opposition also evokes paranoia and projection.

This piece seems to sum up the issue you are discussing (quote/unquote).

Most of us aren't into conspiracy theories the way you and IC are. There's no point trying to sell the contents of these silly theories - especially the ones you like about Jews - we are unimpressed by the foolishness of the whole genre.

The only reason I ever got involved with IC and his absurd great reset thing was because he likes to fool himself that conspriatorial theorising is the behaviour of the EVIL LEFT and not the idiots like himself and you who spend every day on the internet theorising about leftist conspiracies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The WEF tends to arouse many levels of opposition. There are many good reasons for that. But opposition also evokes paranoia and projection.

This piece seems to sum up the issue you are discussing (quote/unquote).

I can't think of a single economic idea that doesn't arouse many levels of opposition. As the piece details, the phrase 'You will own nothing. And you'll be happy' indeed "came directly from a video on the WEF’s own website and social media channels". The title of that video is "8 Predictions for the World in 2030". Predictions do not always come true, and I can't find any indication that this is on the WEF agenda. So yeah, people can rail against them, but while the "unelected globalists at the WEF" might influence policy, they have no power to set it.

It seems a bit more than just an 'economic idea'. It appears to be, or presents itself as, para-governmental interests who sit down together to speculate & plan about how the Earth, and the Earth's populations, might be managed. The issue there is that none of these people have been elected to this rôle and what elects them is the vast resources they control. For that reason all sorts of speculations, both paranoid and realistic, get circulated. Especially when people do not feel they really have control over their world the paranoia increases.

[tillingborn]

I do not see what is crazy about anything said in either of those two works. What, in your opinion, am I missing?

Keep reading.

There's an old saying in poker: "If you look around the table, and don't see the sucker...it's you."

Meanwhile, I am going to return to our main subject, TDS. We are wandering too far afield, at the moment.

Before you do, I think if you are going to insult me, you might at least justify the insult. If I keep reading, what will I find?

[tillingborn]

It (WEF) appears to be, or presents itself as, para-governmental interests who sit down together to speculate & plan about how the Earth, and the Earth's populations, might be managed. The issue there is that none of these people have been elected to this rôle and what elects them is the vast resources they control.

You don't need vast resources to "to speculate & plan about how the Earth, and the Earth's populations, might be managed", anyone is free to do it.

For that reason all sorts of speculations, both paranoid and realistic, get circulated. Especially when people do not feel they really have control over their world the paranoia increases.

Are you talking about a particular people? Pick a population: where do you think they get the idea they are not in control from?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It (WEF) appears to be, or presents itself as, para-governmental interests who sit down together to speculate & plan about how the Earth, and the Earth's populations, might be managed. The issue there is that none of these people have been elected to this rôle and what elects them is the vast resources they control.

You don't need vast resources to "to speculate & plan about how the Earth, and the Earth's populations, might be managed", anyone is free to do it.

True enough, but in this case it is a group of wealthy, forward looking and thinking individuals. Perhaps you can argue that their policy recommendations are of no influence or effect. It has seemed to me that they do have influence.

For that reason all sorts of speculations, both paranoid and realistic, get circulated. Especially when people do not feel they really have control over their world the paranoia increases.

Tillingborn: Are you talking about a particular people? Pick a population: where do you think they get the idea they are not in control from?

I am thinking about the groups of people who get involved with what I have called paranoid theories in the US. The people who have things to say about *global elites* and about *globalism*, etc.

Where do they get the idea they are not in control? Or are being controlled (unfairly and against their interests)? Here for example. Is their perception accurate? I think it is.

[Immanuel Can]

I do not see what is crazy about anything said in either of those two works. What, in your opinion, am I missing?

Keep reading.

There's an old saying in poker: "If you look around the table, and don't see the sucker...it's you."

Meanwhile, I am going to return to our main subject, TDS. We are wandering too far afield, at the moment.

Before you do, I think if you are going to insult me, you might at least justify the insult. If I keep reading, what will I find?

You will find it as I have said. And you will find worse. Or, alternately, you will find yourself a Socialist of the Globalist set, with no understanding at all of governance, economics or history, who will think it all quite in order, and be utterly baffled as to why anybody should object.

You may proceed, and see which it turns out to be. If it's the latter, there's nothing useful anyone can say to you; if it's the former, then nobody will need to.

[Age]

Keep reading.

There's an old saying in poker: "If you look around the table, and don't see the sucker...it's you."

Meanwhile, I am going to return to our main subject, TDS. We are wandering too far afield, at the moment.

Before you do, I think if you are going to insult me, you might at least justify the insult. If I keep reading, what will I find?

You will find it as I have said. And you will find worse. Or, alternately, you will find yourself a Socialist of the Globalist set, with no understanding at all of governance, economics or history, who will think it all quite in order, and be utterly baffled as to why anybody should object.

You may proceed, and see which it turns out to be. If it's the latter, there's nothing useful anyone can say to you; if it's the former, then nobody will need to.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of what a LOT of adult human beings constantly did, back in those days when this was being written, and ESPECIALLY WHAT THIS ONE DOES ALL TO FREQUENTLY. That is; 'it' will CLAIM some 'thing', but when QUESTIONED to back up and support THE CLAIM 'it' RUNS AWAY, and just before doing so ATTEMPTS to INSULT and RIDICULE the "other".

This one, known as "immanuel can" here, was one of the MOST PRETENTIOUS and CONDESCENDING individuals, which was quite AMAZING considering the fact that it CLAIMS to be a "christian". But what was NOT so surprising back in the days when this was being written was that the ones who CLAIMED to be "christian" were the MOST UN christ-like individuals there were, and this was because during their so-called "christian" teachings they were TAUGHT to be the MOST JUDGMENTAL of and about "others" who were NOT being "christians", themselves. Which the HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION OF was TOTALLY TWISTED and TURNED AROUND. That is; the very 'thing' that would ACCUSE "others" of doing and NOT being were the very 'things', themselves, which the self-labelled and so-called "christians" were doing and NOT being, them very selves.

[tillingborn]

I am thinking about the groups of people who get involved with what I have called paranoid theories in the US. The people who have things to say about *global elites* and about *globalism*, etc.

Where do they get the idea they are not in control? Or are being controlled (unfairly and against their interests)? Here for example. Is their perception accurate? I think it is.

I think I might have read that differently to you. Michael Moore sets out a good case for why workers justifiably feel powerless and angry. The specific example he gives is the globalist car manufacturers of Detroit who would take their car factories to Mexico. Donald Trump's threat to impose 35% import tariffs was a vote winner with the people who had, or were about to lose their jobs. Roughly 14,000 people in the car industry did lose their jobs when General Motors closed several factories, in part because of the tariffs Trump placed on imported steel.
So yes, the workers perception that they are likely to be let down by powerful industries is accurate. What they failed to perceive, as Moore points out, is that a man with golf courses on 3 continents will also let them down.

[tillingborn]

I think if you are going to insult me, you might at least justify the insult. If I keep reading, what will I find?

You will find it as I have said. And you will find worse. Or, alternately, you will find yourself a Socialist of the Globalist set, with no understanding at all of governance, economics or history, who will think it all quite in order, and be utterly baffled as to why anybody should object.

You may proceed, and see which it turns out to be. If it's the latter, there's nothing useful anyone can say to you; if it's the former, then nobody will need to.

So I either agree with you, or I am a sucker. Those are two rather stark extremes; do you not think there might be some middle ground? I agree that the prediction that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy is hyperbolic, you call it crazy, but the idea it is premised on, that there will be a growth in projects like the Toronto Tool Library or London's Library of Things, doesn't strike me as crazy. Are libraries of books a crazy idea of a "Socialist of the Globalist set"? You can already rent many things; I could have a cement mixer delivered to my door and taken away when I have finished with it, if I so wish. Does that make me or the company that owns the cement mixer crazy socialists?

[FlashDangerpants]

Keep reading.

There's an old saying in poker: "If you look around the table, and don't see the sucker...it's you."

Meanwhile, I am going to return to our main subject, TDS. We are wandering too far afield, at the moment.

Before you do, I think if you are going to insult me, you might at least justify the insult. If I keep reading, what will I find?

You will find it as I have said. And you will find worse. Or, alternately, you will find yourself a Socialist of the Globalist set, with no understanding at all of governance, economics or history, who will think it all quite in order, and be utterly baffled as to why anybody should object.

You may proceed, and see which it turns out to be. If it's the latter, there's nothing useful anyone can say to you; if it's the former, then nobody will need to.

The missing ingredient that determines whether he sees the same thing you see in that stuff is of course the paranoid conspiratorial maths where 2 + 2 = Globalist Conspiracy to Do Evil with option side order of Jews (Jacobi takes his conspiracy theory with a double helping of jews)

Rational people can't read the same thing you are reading and reach the same conclusions because they aren't conspiracy theorists.

[Immanuel Can]

So I either agree with you, or I am a sucker.

You might have your own critiques. That's possible. I haven't thought of everything wrong with that agenda, I'm sure. But if you have none, then...

[tillingborn]

So I either agree with you, or I am a sucker.

You might have your own critiques. That's possible. I haven't thought of everything wrong with that agenda, I'm sure.

You haven't shown that what is clearly described as a prediction, which I have already critiqued as not a very good one, is actually part of an agenda. Where does it say so?
Another thing: by saying you haven't thought of everything that is wrong with what you claim is an agenda, you imply that everything stated is wrong, because the WEF say it. That is textbook ad hominem. So, with all the expectation I have that you will answer this:

What did the Biden administration do to make it (the US economy) so disastrous?

I will ask again:

Are libraries of books a crazy idea of a "Socialist of the Globalist set"? You can already rent many things; I could have a cement mixer delivered to my door and taken away when I have finished with it, if I so wish. Does that make me or the company that owns the cement mixer crazy socialists?

Why do you find any of those questions difficult to answer?

But if you have none, then...

Again the implied insult. If you just want to be rude, you could save yourself the bother of pretending you are capable of answering simple questions.

[Immanuel Can]

So I either agree with you, or I am a sucker.

You might have your own critiques. That's possible. I haven't thought of everything wrong with that agenda, I'm sure.

You haven't shown...

You have the evidence. It's not my job to "see" it for you. You will see it, or you will choose not to.

[Walker]

TDS could well be more insidious than just abusing one of the greatest presidents in US history. To get to the principles that underlie TDS ...

TDS ignores facts that don't fit a preconceived narrative.
TDS ignores evidence that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative.

For example:

Attacking the messenger is a type of communication often used by the TDS afflicted. The message gets ignored and the messenger gets attacked. The truth suffers. Happens all the time these days.

Here is a stark example of a “news man” complaining about the news, the news being the message he ignores and fogs, because it doesn’t match the narrative.

Newsman: "Cannot overstate the degree to which gruesome surveillance footage of black people committing violent crimes has become the quasi-permanent wallpaper on Fox these days. Just over and over and over …"
Response from a conservative: "You’re on MSNBC, a highly-rated news organization. Fight back, Chris. Show all those white looters and carjackers. Shine a light on those white smash-and-grab organized mobs. Illuminate those white subway felons and strong-armed street gunman. Use the news! Good luck sir."

https://iotwreport.com/this-is-why-the- ... mes-woods/