http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QUYQUd0Qh8
Donald Trump has said and done so many outrageous things since his November, 2015 mockery of a disabled journalist that many have probably forgotten how ugly, cruel and undignified it was. Trump also, you may recall, denied that he even knew the journalist was disabled—one of his many Jumbos (“Elephant? What elephant?”) since that accursed day that he entered the presidential race. Now a super-PAC supporting Hillary Clinton has taken that moment and employed it to make a vivid point, easily summarized as, “This guy wants to be President?”
The ad will run through the summer in the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire. I’m in Florida, and just saw it. Perfect. It is not unfair or misleading; it does not make an accusations that aren’t based on self-evident facts. If there was ever a res ipsa loquitur moment for Trump, this was it. If there ever was signature significance, this was it. Would any contender for the Presidency from Washington to Clinton behave like this in public? Would even those of them with the faintest, rustiest ethics alarms not hear the bell loudly enough not to do such a thing?
Seeing this horrible clip again, my revulsion at Trump, and the thought of a creature like this representing the United States of America to the world, and our children, makes me ask, not for the first time,
How can anyone support a candidate like this, no matter who or what is the alternative?
If you do, what’s the matter with you?
Ethics Alarms 
Windows 10: The Donald Trump of operating systems!
Or is that too harsh?
Very much so. Windows 10 is actually pretty decent. Now, if you referred to Windows 8 that way, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
As I have previously said, I do not support Trump. He is a narcissistic clown, a total jerk, and totally unqualified to be president. That being said, I think Hillary is the greater danger. A compulsive liar, someone who may have done grave damage to our national security, and has gotten a high percentage of Clinton cash from countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. I feel sorry for the guy who was mocked by Trump for his disability but that is no reason to vote for Hillary.
After San Jose, Trump is the least bad option of the two major parties.
I think Juan Hernandez put it well in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/10/im-voting-for-donald-trump-so-i-went-to-see-him-speak-protesters-broke-my-nose/
Here in Northern California, I feel like I’m a unicorn: I’m a gay Hispanic who’s a Republican. It was much harder to come out as a Trump supporter than it was to come out as gay — the minute you say you’re for Trump, everyone comes at you — but this has pushed me out of the closet about it completely.
I should be able to vote for whom I want, and I shouldn’t have to deal with violence to go hear my candidate speak. If people really want to protest at rallies, they should do it peacefully. I have a young niece and nephew, and I don’t want them to think this is how politics work in the United States. We can’t let our freedom of speech and our freedom of assembly be tarnished by politicians like those in San Jose who do not have our safety at heart.
Take a good look at those who assaulted Mr. Hernandez, among others in San Jose. Three guesses who most of them will be voting for in November. Look at the mayor of San Jose. Look at the other riots that have not only targeted trump, but conservatives like Ben Shapiro or even an alt-right figure like Milo Yianopoulous. Again, ask yourselves who those rioters will vote for.
Do you really want the validation and empowerment of this left-wing Sturmabteilung that the election of Hillary Clinton will bring about on your conscience?
Does a Trump supporter need to be put in the hospital to make you reconsider? Or will it take the morgue? Or will it take something else that it not as unthinkable as it should be?
So you’re against political violence…which leads you to vote for the only candidate who has openly endorsed political violence?
There is no logic to this comment whatsoever. What does the conduct of some of Trump’s detractors have to do with his qualifications to be President? I could use the unicorn letter as a case study in how cognitive dissonance creates irrational conduct. He’s driven to support Trump because some of those who oppose Trump are despicable. How is this sensible? (And has he looked at the horrible people who have announced their support for Trump?)
And of COURSE he was more reluctant to come out as pro-Trump than to come out as gay. Many, even most, decent, intelligent people will still respect him if he’s gay. Most decent, intelligent people won’t respect someone who endorses Trump (watch the video, please.)
It’s NO REASON TO VOTE FOR HILLARY? It’s a reason to conclude that the man is a mega-asshole with no judgment at all, and thus a non-negotiable reason to vote for virtually anyone, including Clinton.
This is simple: it is easy to imagine Trump doing everything and anything Clinton would do. Clinton would NEVER do what Trump does in that video. Simple, and an easy decision.
Have you considered upgrading your laptop to windows 7?
I’m stealing this line! Just as soon as I finish chuckling.
(Unfortunately, as Thomas Wolfe put it: You Can’t Go (to that Home page) Again)
Either they’ll come up with a new version of windows I can stand by the time they stop supporting 7 or I’ll be thanking my lucky stars that there’s linux versions of Hatoful boyfriend and The Royal Trap for me to play.
I’ve been very happy with Win 8.1.
Always check your updates for KB3035583. It is a nag to “upgrade” to Win 10. MS will try to get it into your system repeatedly. You can uninstall it though if you accidentally install it. Google the update for more information. One thing to disable if you do go to 10 is the feature that allows MS to use your bandwidth to push updates to others.
The laptop is a new one I bought two days ago. Windows 10 was already installed. Believe me, I’m keeping my old PC until it dies. The other part of the problem is WordPress and its improvements that make it harder to do what used to be easy.
If you haven’t already done it, google “windows 10 settings to change”. Besides the aforementioned bandwidth theft, there are privacy settings that need to be changed. There is a free program called “classic shell” that will give you back the classic appearance rather then the childish cell-phone interface with which Win 10 and win 8.1 come. (Smart phones=dumb people.)
Windows is starting to automatically install it, now that people are ignoring the prompts to update…DH woke up to it being installed on his laptop the other day. They’re really forcing this update, to the point of installing it without permission. Several friends have said the same thing this week.
There’s a lot of tracking going on behind the scenes with this one, band width control, sending frequent reports of use patterns to Microsoft. I’m uninstalling it on DH’s machines (I’m the computer person at home) this weekend. You can disable some of the tracking/info gathering but not all of it.
If you decide to keep it, disable what you can.
Thanks to your comment, I was able to add the video, and removed the complaint. It’s too complicated to explain why it worked that way…
Glad to be of help!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrqbdCXflB8
That is the coolest ad. If he’d have recited some Yeats of Wallace Stevens I’d have fallen off my chair. The Wiki page on Goldwater mentions this ad. They guy was a for-real republican apparently).
Why the cigarette though? Who and why was that scripted I wonder?
I think sometimes the cigarette is just a cigar, Smoking did not have the huge negative loading it has today, so people have to consciously remember to not read as much into it. This is a good ad, and still so true about conventions and perty unity. The more things change…
I’d make a few modifications though, starting with:
“I certainly don’t feel guilty for being a Republican, I’ve always been a Republican, my father is, his father is, the whole family is a Republican family including our pets, indeed the Ur-Father who authored Reality is surely Republican, in an essentially Republican Universe, back to the Prime Republican Mover Of time and being …And here I am reminded of a Sanskrit verse from a little-read Upanishad ….”
Etc. etc.
Oh for shit’s sake! The D and R assholes’ parties’ candidates are interchangeable and indistinguishable: Trlimp and Cunton.
Onward to doom for the US – consolation is that it’ll be the doom of those two assholes, too.
In order to make sense of what is happening politically and socially (and on many different levels) in the US is a fantastically difficult task. But one thing is clear: At each step clarity and decisiveness – and even a sense of understanding – will be clouded. I see this as an intentional effort by various power centers and interests.
In my own case, and because of spending time on this blog, I came to realize that I did not and do not understand enough what is happening in the country in order to be able to make assessments and judgment. In order to understand the ‘conservative right’, therefor, I accessed a book which critiques this conservative right from a more right-wing position (‘Right-wing Critics of American Conservatism’). Now, I have a better understanding of three basic poles: the traditional conservative party with its Libertarian faction and its ideological underpinnings; the various more right-wing factions that are there, more or less on the fringes; and finally the progressive and liberal faction which, overall, runs the show right now.
I have reduced the ‘essential concerns’ of the more right-leaning factions to the essential concern over who own the country. Up until 1965 (the immigration reform) it was understood that America was a white Protestant country overall. Up until that time the immigration pattersn favored N Europeans and essentially excluded most others. When this changed in the 1960s, along with an astoundingly compex social, political and ideological shift of unreal proportion, the ‘guiding principles’ of this white Protestant country went through a vast shift. At this time, and through many different channels, a destructive process began. Ideological subversion and demoralization. A whole generation internalized a very complex set of sentiments and ideas which translated into an active, even virulent, ‘grammar of self-intolerance’. A whole generation, and with it a whole nation, turned against itself. Began to eat at itself, to etch away at itself, to undermine itself.
I cannot prove this, and I do not know how it could be proven, but I see this as a result of destructive and undermining Marxian ideology, or it is there in the background, a basic, directing force. Ideological subversion, demoralization, then provoked crisis, then a more concerted left/progressive putsch into those positions in the academy and elsewhere where Ideology is mediated – naturally media and ‘Hollywood’ are the siginifcant movers. Normalization. Standardization. Slowly but resolutely the culture’s ideological position shifts. That occurred in a generation. (Though it is it is an unpopular and nearly unmentionable topic the ‘homosexualization’ of culture is a significant part of this. Sexual mores have a profound significance).
Ideological and other forms of subversion have eaten away at a foundation in the Self that was felt and understood at a somatic level as being necessary and ‘right’. Now, what is ‘right’ is whatever anyone wishes to be right. What is wrong can be right. Now, defending what is *wrong* is seen, and felt (and the feeling-aspect is critical) to be right. Things are so twisted, to inverted, so backwards and upside-down that no one can really get their bearings. You cannot be decisive though toward any specific thing, unless it is more assent and more agreement and more surrender to the inevitabliity of a culture which rushes headlong into self-corruption. And that is how ‘progressivism’ as a mental disease functions. It does not in fact define a platform, it rather defines that platforms should not exist. And it demonstrates how they can be undermined. And it undermines them.
Surreally, mercantile interests, entertainment, social mores generally, ‘social attitude’, all drift together toward an undefined *goal* which is absence of goal. Yet a country, much lessa culture and civilization, cannot hold itself together without a foundation (which is a goal in itself). Egalitarianism perhaps could operate for a time as a goal, so can the relaxation of the decisiveness it requires to preserve cultural and racial delineations and to get behind a spirit of ‘all blend together’.
In the face of the decisiveness to hold to hard and sharp ideological definitions, which may also be racial/cultural and numerous others, an automatic and interior censor rises up before or as the thought crystallizes and neutralizes it. You cannot think that way. Naturally, since I am a ‘race realist’ (which you-all must translate as overt and retrograde racist and enemy of the Republic) I would mention this specifically, but the ideological subversion functions in many different areas. Yet, these ideas all connect to one another.
Now, what I noticed in the political ad of which this blog post is the topic, is that it is a pure appeal to an emotional core. I surely cannot say it is wrong to condemn a man who ridicules a body defect or a disability. Who could? No one. But I can focus-in on ’emotional manipulation’ and look behind the scenes to discover who is speaking to whom and what, essentially, is being communicated. And then also the medium of conversation. The medium of conversation is the emotional stuff, and the subject being conversed with is the feminine aspect of the political body. The entire situation of the present, the deep ideological crisis, the incapacity to think things through, the platform of seeing and analyzing ‘reality’ through a limited emotional lens. From a self-immediacy which is, in my view, narcissistic. The failure to be capable of identifyting ‘essential things’ and to ideologically and philosophically defend them, is undermined by this ‘cultural woman’ who is the target of this ad. She does not really think and she is not asked to. She feels and she expresses. Even her man extends, more or less, from HER female polical body. She is the center and he is an adjunct. She (and *this*) is what is appealed to, and She (and *this*) is what the subject is essentially about. I think this points to an interesting polarity. There are many dimensions to this. (And decisiveness to look at it, and into it, will certainly arouse the ire of ‘The Sisterhood’.)
Yet that ‘female body’ and that ‘feminized mind’ cannot now and will not at any point (I assert) be able to restructure itself to demanding and idea-based ideological positions. See, those have been undermined. The cultural body has been corrupted and subversion is the rule not the exception. Yet, yet, this occurs in what seems like a very benign way: the tricks of propaganda, the deeply cynical rationalism and studied thought which locates a weak-point in the emotional body and applies an Archimedian level to it. These people know who they appeal to, and they know how to reach them.
The consequences are giving life and energy to an essentially female political body and excluding the male-element.
I suggest that the entire Situation that presents itself to us through these utterly bizarre events of our present, these ‘faces’ that appear on our screens and peer back at us imploringly, almost demonically I sometimes think, is what needs to be focussed on. It is almost too weird for speech.
It just occurred to me that Trump, in that admittedly rather disgusting clip of his twitching imitation of a disabled man (I have no idea what he had against him but will look it up) is at least in some sense, or in one sense, telling the truth. Bear with me a second. He is describing reality in real terms but reality itself is discomfiting. Reality itself makes us uncomfortable. What is the upside of telling a truth in an ugly and even viscious way? If one can do it at all, one might be of use in defining ‘what is really happening’ in the real world. OK, this is a long-shot. But the point I am making is considerable. Trump, weird and half-nuts as he sometimes seems, and likely is, does something that other refrain from doing: He tells the truth (about certain things). He’s The Joker. The unreastrained Hermes. The Political Cipher.
If he ‘told the truth’ about, let’s say, mass illegal immigration into the country and the destructive effect, but others will not (the democratic political faction might even invite them in to get more voters and thus ensure power now and in the future), and if he actually did something about it, I would forgive him his low-life and mean-spirited imitation of a crippled person.
Unless something really weird happens, Trump will be ripped to shreds in the next 4 months. The effort will be extraordinary because the stakes are so high. Both he Conservative Right and the reigning Progressive-Left will team up. The old-school conservative right has 1000 reasons to be terrified of Trump: their faction is in very serious danger. An earthquake happened and a Jack in the Box sprung up through the crack of the floor. To become relevant they must move to the Center and themselves become ‘progressives’. Trump WILL be taken down. I just happen to think it will be through the wrong means and not for all the ‘right’ reasons.
‘TLTR’ I know. But wait till I post ‘Part 2’. 😉
Donald Trump does not represent the conservative right in any way and as I see it, the major catastrophe that this country that has befallen this once great country, is that the center right and even comsevative right has moved too far to the left. They has done that as the left now owns the universities, the media, and popular culture:: The Constitution is a obsolete document written by old dead white men. If you support the 2nd. Amendment, you are a gun nut. Freedom of speech does not exist on university campuses and has been replaced by speech codes, and the accusation of microaggressions which will get you kicked out of a university or fired as a professor. Liberty as a virtue has been replaced by social justice and pandering to so called disadvantaged groups. The America I once knew is dead and most likely not be able of being resurrected. This is really what Trump voters are furious about!
As I see things, the only thing to be done is to attempt description. What I mean is that one has to be able to 1) accurately see the present and 2) accurately describe it. What stands against this? The projection of unreal content into one’s vision, that is, seeing what is not really there but what one wishes to be there.
To ‘accurately see the present’ is to retrace the steps through which the present has been formed. This is forensic historicism. However there is a grave danger there as well: the projection into the past, that is, through ‘exegisis’ (interpretation) of the past, of a non-accurate vision of ‘what was’.
Hereis an example: The ‘conservative right’ of America does not really have a platform and it never really had a platform. It was and it still is a coalition of very specific interests which cobbled toegether an agreement. It has been a part of ‘monied interests’ necessarily interested in defending its interests and yet, too, slipping into an over-the-top aquisitiveness (plutocracy, corporate domination, etc). It has been a party of general ‘communist opposition’ and hyper-militarism the forward motion of which, when the Cold War ended, became very problematic, and new wars and conflicts had to be discovered and invented. And it has been a party of ‘traditional morality’ and has also made a sort of pact with the religious-Christian right. But it must be noted that this Christian right is not and never has been at all comparable to the European democratic Christian center and has never been ‘socially progressive’. The American Christian right simply has no opinion at all on social justice issues. This Christian right is almost absurdly locked into itself and locked into a form of traditionalism that has become ideologically intolerable and indefensable.
Thus: I suggest that American conservatism is becoming and possibly has become a strangely empty vessel, a husk. It is crumbling while we look at it. It has become hysterical in its own unique way. It has not and cannot find a solid ideological ground. It purges out of itself its more ‘radical’ elements (say for example Goldwater, of Pat Buchanan, and numerous other figures) who tend toward defined ideological positions which, as everyone knows, are only positions that a white and racially conscious citizen would have. Thus – to put it comically – the Conservative right is terrified of its own shadow! And thus it can only move, step by step, toward the political center and toward a progressive stance.
The only way from the Right to empower itself is through what I think may be an insurmountable activity and effort: To reclaim itself consciously as a specifically white-identity movement, with a specific and also a defined and articulate ideological position which can stand up to the Left’s egalitarian ideology which is or has become predominant and pervasive. In this sense it has become ‘metaphysical’: it is assumed, at a somatic (body) level to be ‘true’ and ‘right’. It has become in this sense the religiously defined (*felt*) position of a non-religious present. To confront this Edifice at the level of idea means 1) coming out of an ideological closet as it were and claiming a ground that will make each and everyone uncomfortable (for example if it is separatist, or segregationist, or exclusive), and 2) to become ideologically versed and schooled in ideology and philosophy. There is no other way.
Trump’s supporters may be angry but they are also terribly inarticulate. This is somatic social anger which is buried and non-conscious, non-articulate. It has little or no intellectual and ideological platform. In order to become a force it has to gain intellectual and ideological force. It has to DEFINE ITSELF in relation to a present which it resists.
If it cannot define itself, if it cannot artilate itself, it will not get anywhere. This ‘anger’ though will fester but it cannot and will not be able to become articulate politically. Because it has no policy it has no politics to put forward.
Essentially then, the work of the Right is to define an ideology. To look at the present, to examine it in detail, and to internalize the construction of an ideological base. There is little else it can do.
How about you define yourself, Alizia.
Would you consider yourself a part of this separatist, anti-egalitarian white identity movement which you wish the conservative movement will become?
There are two ways, basically, to go about constructing a belief.
One is to simply *feel* that something is true; perhaps to absorb it from one’s milieu and upbringing, or to receive it through culture or school. That is really ‘opinion’ isn’t it, in Platonic terms?
Belief is also formed when one has sat down and done one’s homework. Done the research. Put one’s nose to the grindstone. If after doing years of research one then spouts an ‘opinion’ one is somewhat entitled to say it is a considered opinion.
But still – at least this seems to to me – one cannot be sure if it is ‘true’. I mean, true in an Absolute sense. How does one gain absolute certainty?
I am very sincere when I say that if a person is capable of it, and if they can pull it off, it is vital and imperative to identify the most important things in life and about culture and civilization, and dedicate oneself to them. In the Hegelian understanding it is the State to which we owe a tremendous debt. The State gives us life in a very real sense. I take that to mean the very highest sense of culture and what it means to be human. I equate ‘the State’ with culture and civilization.
I define myself as ‘eurocentric’. I am attempting to become a dedicated eurocentrist. And to construct it on a sound platform. I have substantially invested in this ‘project’ and toward this end I have consciously and decisively surrendered and abandoned my Jewish past. The implications of this, for me, have been real and huge. You might say I am swtiching projects.
I find that when one traces knowledge back to its sources one encounters an intensity of focus, and in the case of European culture – the whole phenomenon of it – I am gaining the understanding that there is a treasure of infinite value there. I am at a somewhat delicate point in all this because I have also come to understand that when we define ourselves as cultural beings we also have to claim ourselves a specific genetic beings. If this is so, Europe is not one ‘idea’ (in the Greek sense) but idea that takes shape through and with the body. The danger in saying this, which means understanding this, is obvious, and of course this is what you are noticing, and this is what disconcerts you (and in my view with good reasons).
To define what I am is also to define what I am not, and as well what I do not wish to be. I use the word ‘define’ and ‘definition’ frequently because the act of definition is an act of power. To define something is, if chaos is a backdrop, a radical action. When tracing the origin of Western thought back to the sources what I notice as the basis of power is *the definition*. Whether it is Heraclitus or Euclid of Plato or Pascal, it is the clear and precise definiton that is sought. I am not American Indian, Black African, Japanese, or anything else. While I am not somatically a pure European I have enough of it to claim it as my heritage, or as my destiny. (I assume these statements sound romantic and also possibly childishly idealistic? Yet they are real for me and I mean them).
You might not think so but I am actually making an effort to answer your question though I don’t have much faith that you will understand. We live in a moment in time of fogginess of idea; where Idea loses its precise contours; where strong idea and clear definitions are struggled against and defeated. To turn against that Present is a radical act of the will.
You ask a question that requires a serious answer, yet it is not a simple question! It is an intensely difficult and indeed a momentous question. Everything hinges on it. I am as close to absolutely committed to hierarchy-as-doctrine and as part-and-parcel of the cosmos and the universe (as ‘metaphysical principle’) as I am simultaneously terribly confused and uncertain what, precisely, this means for culture.
I think (I hope) I have alluded to an answer. It is quite possible, and likely, that the ideas I entertain will only grow more solid and more certain. In my case I can honestly say that it all has to do with idea and I am not an activist and I don’t see action as good or necessary. All one can do is to work out one’s ideas, to try to get clear in a world that is insanely, perhaps even psychotically, confused.
I think that yes, but with nuance and supreme caution, I am separatist and exclusively oriented and have every right to be so and to be ‘in integrity’ with myself and also with divinity in holding to this idea. I am definitely anti-egalitarian if egalitarianism is defined as a metaphysical imperative. But this does not mean, I don’t think, what you will likely take it to mean. I am not in any sense a Marxian egalitarian (and I don’t recommend that you be one either! Quit while the quitting is good). I am a White Identarian just as a Black African or an Aztec or a Persian has the right to claim their biological and cultural self and to hold to it if they so choose.
Well, there you have it. (And thanks for asking).
Jesus Christ–it was a yes or no question. For all your talk about how others are incapable of articulating their positions, you are absolutely incapable of articulating a position clearly and concisely.
You are also a white supremacist, a misogynist, and quite possibly an anti-Semite based on part of your last comment (there is no way I am reading that whole thing). And no, I don’t just “feel” that those things are bad; I’ve thought about it, logically and rationally, and come to the conclusion that they are bad. You claim to be the only one with values, but your values are terrible, and inferior to the values of the rest of us.
You *pretend* to engage in conversation but you have no intention at all to have a conversation. This is true for you pretty much across the board (having read many of your posts and observed how you interact). So, all the topics which are really interesting and quite important cannot and will not be either examined or conversed. I have all sorts of ideas about Judaism and Eurocentrism and also gender issues. I become aware that simply the depth of my investigation into these things would be suspect to you!
When I come in contact with people like you I try to take as full advantage of it as I can. I can only *notice* things and describe them:
That the questions you ask are rhetorical. They are not really questions. They are set-ups. Now why is this, I ask? It is because you have it all figured out. Or the answers to all the important questions have already been answered. You just have to avail yourself of those answers, like a list of ‘talking points’. There is no research required, no soul-searching, no analysis, no struggle. Actually, what you need to *do* insofar as it can be termed a *doing* is not to think at all. If you really look into it what you ask for, and I assume what you have done inside yourself, is to have surrendered your own will and power.
What I notice about this is that it expresses a ‘metaphysical certainty’. The *truth* is part-and-parcel of the creation and you assume (you really believe) that you are the vehicle for the correct perspective. This is what I meant by a *felt* position. Even if you cannot understand one word of what I am saying I am convinced that others might be able to. All that I talk about has a philosophical backdrop.
You and I both – everyone – is involved in a vast interpretive project. I know this must sound like outerspace arcana. I’d suggest – though I do not know you and you do not reveal any part of the structure of ideas that inform your view – that if you did undertake a self-analysis, an idea analysis, that you’d discover that a large portion of your interpretation and your conclusions have been informed by or influenced strongly by Marxian ideas. Why is this important to point out? Because these ideas lead to binary and simplified and rhetorical *interpretations* of Reality. The other factor is that they always seem to function in ways similar to religious tenets. For one, they are absolute. Two they do not require in-depth analysis nor testing. Three, they are shared by groups. Four, they seem to be a set of *righteous beliefs* that are linked by sentiment to determinations of truth plucked out of the air as it were.
Why is it important to notice and to express it? Because this style of thinking, which is to say a style of non-thinking, is part of an intellectual infection that spreads/is spreading through our culture. If someone wished to understand what that is about, and how this has come to be, it would involve one in a large research project. There is little simple about it.
I have always said to myself: Maybe a time will come that I will alter, modify, redescribe, and restructure my thoughts. Maybe I will refute what is today a tenet of understanding, a theory or an idea. But if I do that it will be because I have sincerely thought things through.
You say that you have done this work but you give forth none of it. I don’t think Ethics should be just a declaration about a mood or a half-baked idea that possesses one.
Finally, what one receives from people who think like you (who don’t think) is essentially shaming. At the mere mention of an idea that violates your sense of what is right, proper and true, the Guilt Machine revs up. This in and of itself is a complex but an interesting topic. Progressives and Lefties, as subjects of ideological structuring not dissimilar to Chinese thought control, operate a belief and interpretation-system that is emotionally-based. It is a very powerful tool since we are really sentimental and emotional creatures. To resist this is philosophical and also spiritual work in and of itself. It is demanding. To move from an emotionally-defined ideological pole to one (more) determined by reason is the object.
I know that no part of this gets through or can get through to you and yet, again, I am thankful for the opportunity to clarify my ideas.
Wayne, I think you are probably right, we are done. May take a few more years, and will hopefully wait until I shuffle off this mortal coil, but putting Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump up for election as our President just shows how far we have sunk. Keep in mind whoever wins will get to appoint SCOTUS Justices, with a far greater impact than the Presidents.
I think you are absolutely right. If Hillary gets to appoint SCOTUS Justices, we are done, finished, kaput!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/daniel-zimmerman/blue-force-gear-quote-day-choice-simple-really/#comment-2653701
– Christopher C. Morton