On Basic Blog Participation Ethics [Updated]

I just had to spam 14 comments, come of them quite extensive, a couple gratuitously insulting, by a former privileged participant here who has been banned from commenting following the procedures described quite clearly under the Comments policies above. That all of these illegal comments arrived exactly during the time when I was unable to visit or moderate Ethics Alarms because of a speaking engagement was either a remarkable coincidence or bad luck. The Mexican army attacked while the Alamo [no, not “Amazon,” as I wrote the first time.] defenders were asleep, too. It’s a crummy thing to do, and, of course, unethical.

It is also unfair to the still licensed commenters here who now have orphan comments responding to a missing argument, and to the blog itself. If the banned commenter was so determined to have his say here and participate in our exploration of ethics, his avenue was remarkably apparent: he could have followed the rules. When he was first suspended for direct insult to the host–I reserve the right to decide when I will forgive or forget such outburst—he was told that his commenting privileges would be restored upon a sincere apology and an agreement not to repeat the offensive conduct that prompted the sanctions. The commenter chose not only not to avail himself of that opportunity, but to continue to enter comments in defiance of the edict. This is trespassing, blog-style. It is disrespectful, arrogant and intentionally disruptive. Of all those who have been banned or suspended here, many of whom were pathological assholes, only this individual has continued to post comments so often and so many times.

Make of that what you will: I take it to mean that I was correct in the initial discipline (I have regrets and second thoughts now and then with some exiles, because I hate to exclude anyone, and I’m a nice guy.) and more tolerant than I should have been when the commenter was leading up to his eventual, and, I see now,  inevitable meltdown. Is he one more pitiable victim of the ravages of Trump-Derangement, as some of the spammed comments suggest? Or is he just an ideologically rigid progressive, laboring to overcome a permanently closed mind and diminished critical thought skills arising from immersion in too many echo chambers? I don’t know, and at this point, I don’t care.

He has no business commenting here, and I would appreciate it if  nobody encourages his breach of blog commenter etiquette by responding to his illicit comments if there are any. He has proved that he is not qualified or fit to comment on Ethics Alarms.

79 thoughts on “On Basic Blog Participation Ethics [Updated]

  1. Jack,
    “I reserve the right to decide when I will forgive or forget such outburst [sic]”

    For example, if such a person drove all the way to Virginia to reconcile, paid homage to your father’s grave in Arlington, laid there own father’s remains to rest at the same time, called to apologize, left a message, and never heard back.

    • Why even allow my comments? You’ll answer emails but never about this issue. It obviously bothers you, why still hold onto it?

      • Neil, Jack reserves the right to run HIS blog HIS way. He has this right, and is as gracious a host as I have ever seen in today’s excuse for blog civility.

        I respect that. Why can’t you?

        • It was said that every participant has a niche, and Neil’s is head critic. He doesn’t like the fact that I preface Comments of the Day. He doesn’t like my choice of topics. Etc. But he’s usually polite about it..

          • Here in Texas, if the guest keeps pooping in the parlor they don’t get invited back, at least by most folks.

            Your parlor, your rules, is also the ultimate standard in all such circles, though, so more-power-to-ya!

      • Neil, I’m not even sure what you are talking about. I have met with commenters before, and will again. If you were in the neighborhood and we didn’t connect, it was only because my schedule didn’t allow it. You have always taken the exchanges here personally. It’s not a good or healthy idea.

        • Jack,
          I called and left a message and sent a series of emails before, all asking what gives. Even comments here. You accused me of something that still bothers me and you seem to have no interest in even addressing it.

          • I got the message too late to meet with you, Neil. And you’re right: if I have to personally engage with every commenter who gets their nose out of joint in an exchange, the blog will be unsustainable. Whatever I wrote, I did not intend for it to upset you to this extent.

  2. My suggestion, as I have stated before, is to not read or respond to his comments. He thrives on…argument, disruption, etc. I suspect that Jack will tell us if he is ever allowed to come back. Otherwise, I, personally, will ignore him as though he did not exist. As, indeed, he does not as far as I am concerned. I can put up with his insults and snark towards me…I will not tolerate or acknowledge his insults toward Jack or others I consider friends on this blog.

    • Gotta tell you d_d, I ABHOR rubberneckers, wherever-n-whenever.

      That said, IMHO, a certain guilty pleasure has/does/will derive from…um…engaging Chris.

      If for no other reason than to be given the opportunity to tweak his knobs, which, truth be told, are eminently tweakable.

      Another ethical conundrum: should one refrain from tweaking an entity’s knobs if that entity verily ASKS for their knobs to be tweaked?

      Little doubt he’s reading all this right now; gnashing his teeth, I suspect.

      Let’s hope CA teachers have good dental.

      Something tells me they should; the Golden State has ALWAYS been fiscally responsible, am I right…?

  3. I admire that you take the time to post as often as you do, without any help moderating either.

    I thought that when you said “The Mexican army attacked while the Amazon defenders were asleep, too.” you probably meant Alamo, not Amazon. Unless there is a breaking story I missed? 🙂

  4. I thought Amazon was attacked by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and some of her peers in New York’s Democratic party? This must be some other Amazon.

    • Z, this ‘troll’ chased down and sort of stalked another commenter on this blog after he was banned. I suspect that he is getting onto the blog by hopping IPS addresses. I have no idea whether this kid is dangerous or not, but, given the effort involved in hopping IPS addresses, it is not outside the realm of possibility that he would travel to anyone he felt insulted him with physical damage in mind. Hence, my suggestion that he be ignored. With luck, eventually he will lose interest and go away.

      • DD,
        Changing your IP address really isn’t a hard thing to do in fact it’s quite easy.

        As far as this particular trolling guy taking the time to travel across the country and actually stalk down someone who insulted him with the intent of inflicting physical harm, naaaaaa not him, he’s a wimp, all mouth no bite. Let me put it to you this way; the cats in his family have more clout than he does; and furthermore, since his wedding in September 2018 he’s had to officially transfer the family pants to the “wench at Casterly Rock”.

        P.S. I agree that that particular troll should be ignored, just point out that he’s a troll and move on.

  5. Jack said, “ I’m a nice guy.”

    Okay….

    I’m not sure what you intended to say, but I can’t help but believe this is one of your infamous typos.

    -Jut

    • I played hookey yesterday and missed the excitement. There’s a lot to that saying: “You miss a day, you miss a lot”.

      I once had a copy of the “Atilla the Hun Management Guide” and one item I enjoyed was “Every Hun has a purpose, even if it is just to serve as a bad example.” Some commenters might fit in there.

  6. This is a real catch-22.

    How are we going to know what the crazy progressives think if we keep banning them for being crazy progressives?

    It would be nice if they could tell us what they think without dropping a proverbial crap on the floor, but they are crazy, maybe crapping on the floor is just part of their particular brand of crazy.

    • He Who Will Not Be Named was NOT banned for being a crazy progressive, and before he snapped like a dry twig in the wind, he wasn’t always crazy. He was banned for violating commenting rules, which are not content-based EXCEPT that I only allow one comment that is pure, unadulterated racism from a previously cleared commenter, and usually refuse to admit an attempted first time commenters whose introductory attempt is racist. And he did not have to change his partisan stripes to return, he only had to write, “Sorry, I got carried away. I won’t do it again.”

  7. Is this about Chris? I assume so.

    I’ve always thought he was so ferociously vicious because he was being paid by the DNC. I’ve always thought he was a pro.

    • If he were paid, that would mean that he doesn’t necessarily believe the worst of his knee-jerk pronouncements, and that would be encouraging. Unfortunately, I think he is just a classic, close-minded extreme progressive with occasional redeeming moments of rationality.

      • …who cannot stand the fact that others do not think like he does (if that is what one would call the excuse for thought processes in his head thinking) and therefore must convert us or destroy us, whichever is most convenient. Judging by his posts, Chris is not happy, deep down, and cannot stand others having a shred of joy. He has an impulse to lurk and correct the ideological errors he encounters here, despite being able to have his bubble affirmed almost anywhere else on the Internet. Dissent will not be allowed!

        This is said with the utmost of love for Chris, who was created in God’s very image, however he chose to live later. God bless you, you little lurking ankle biter, you. 🙂

    • DNC operatives can construct better arguments than he could. However, who knows? On another site devoted to an artist whose fortunes started to go south, those of us who pointed out that fact and said why were often viciously attacked by posters who would come out of nowhere, and were quite possibly record company or PR agency hacks, hired to drive people with different opinions off the site.

      • I hear you, Steve. His comments just struck me as organized and directed attacks based on recently issued talking points. I don’t really know how “social media” work (works? is it singular or plural- I can’t even figure that out), but I do know managing it to one’s commercial advantage is evidently big business. My son and daughter in law are both in marketing and PR and work with and employ people who monitor and participate and presumably influence to their advantage all sorts of things that go on on the interweb. I just don’t find it hard to imagine an outfit like the DNC tasking a contractor to toss squibs into Ethics Alarms on a daily basis.

    • OB,
      That particular troll has always engaged in Magical Thinking

      Magical Thinking is a kind of irrational thinking that causes a person to completely reject critical thinking and replace it with absurd reasoning because their bias tells them it’s true. People that use magical thinking try to prove things they want to believe with absurd arguments even when what they are trying to prove is unprovable or actually false.

      Magical thinking is evidence of a fully indoctrinated mind that can no longer think critically, as a buddy of mine calls it, they are equivalent to sheeple.

        • Other Bill wrote, “Yes, but man, he was vicious.”

          Yes but every time he went on one of his vicious streak tirades he completely flushed his brain and increased his Cranial Power Generation Potential; heck he could have powered the entire Fresno County California area with the howling winds blowing over his head. The man stuck his foot in his mouth so often when he got angry that you’d think that he had Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome because his Foot-In-Mouth Daily Legal Limit seemed to be rapidly approaching infinity.

        • You two are doing exactly what you always did, and I think the only thing you can do: your resistance is not in the realm of ideas, but rather int he way that you team-up to ridicule, insult and attack your opponent. And that is how you have *won* and the Lefties no longer post here.

          You never really got a run-for-your-money though. And each of you, in your own way, mirror the ‘progressive’ you oppose. It’s like you see in him or her your own *shadow*.

          • Alizia Tyler wrote, “And each of you, in your own way, mirror the ‘progressive’ you oppose. It’s like you see in him or her your own *shadow*.”

            Sort of like psychologically projecting?

            As a reply to what I wrote, I’m forced to read your comment as you saying that I engage in Magical Thinking. So you think that I completely reject critical thinking and replace it with absurd reasoning because my bias tells me it’s true? So you think I try to prove things I want to believe with absurd arguments even when what I’m trying to prove is unprovable or actually false?

            Interesting point of view.

            I truly don’t want to come across as engaging in magical thinking so I’d really like you to post or link to a few of my arguments that support this magical thinking mirroring you seem to be claiming so I can self evaluate my rhetorical habits and endeavor to change the things that I disapprove of. I do not want to come off as a rhetorical hypocrite. None of that is sarcasm, I’m being completely serious.

            • Good, seriousness is good. You would have to read, process, and indicate that you have understood what I am getting at in other posts in this particular thread. If you made that attempt you would — at the least — be able to grasp ‘where I am coming from’ and why, just as it is possible to grap what informs the man Chris himself and why he thinks as he does (which I can do with ease having read all the people that would have informed him).

              The core of the idea I work with is that *you* (as Conservative? as Republican? — how do you define yourself?) are ‘right-leaning progressives’. That is, you have no principled position from which to construct any sort of argument against any of the principle tenets of American Progressivism.

              Magical Thinking — that is your term. What I notice is that you turn against this ‘magical thinking’ as you define it without seeming to see that your own thought mirrors the thought you critique. I have written — rather boldly I admit — of how I view your mode of thinking in another post here.

              That is my impression and my ideas are offered only in the spirit of examination, inquiry, and to better understand *what is going on*.

              • Alizia,
                I ask for information, using my own comments, to support your previous magical thinking mirroring argument and this is your reply?

                No Alizia, I did not ask you to extend your argument with more of your own opinion. I think this reply falls into the category of being a bit intellectually dishonest and shows a lack of integrity.

                I have absolutely no problem reevaluating any of my previous comments, I made that perfectly clear; so, either do what I asked and support your argument using my own comments or retract your mirroring argument because it’s likely not unsupportable. Seriously Alizia, it really would only take one of my comments (of course not something that’s obviously meant as sarcasm) to support your argument. I’m completely open to it. You can simplify my request and just look at comments between January 1, 2018 and May 20, 2018 while that unnamed troll was still active here.

            • So you think that I completely reject critical thinking and replace it with absurd reasoning because my bias tells me it’s true? So you think I try to prove things I want to believe with absurd arguments even when what I’m trying to prove is unprovable or actually false?

              My view is more complex, much more nuanced. I see *all of us* as being susceptible to contaminations of critical thinking by emotional intrusions. But I don’t see things in absolute terms and I would not say that your style of thinking fits into some absolute category. Your thinking occurs within a specific context: a Postwar situation. Post-Sixties. I think that all sorts of what you might call ‘bias’ operates in our present, and as I have said many times it is on this that Postward American Tenets of America’s Civil Religion have been constructed.

              My impression of your stance is as one who is firmly grounded in this. Therefore, I believe that I notice that you don’t have much ciritical posture in respect to your own stance. Yes, there are numerous levels of ‘absurd thinking’ that function within classical American Patriotic thought. Of this there is no doubt. I write about this a lot. For example, I would suggest that the entire Postwar American egalitarian construct is a ‘progressive’ attainment which can easily be critiqued, and should be critiqued. But in the present dispensation to do so is to commit thoughtcrime. It is dangerous and rather illegal.

              To the degree that you (as Conservative, if indeed your define yourself as such) are wedded to these unexamined and *determined* views (achieved through coercion and PR processes), yes, I would say that you do not show capacity to free thinking. With that in mind this can be examined:

              “So you think I try to prove things I want to believe with absurd arguments even when what I’m trying to prove is unprovable or actually false?”

              I place this in a larger context: a culture-wide perceptual stance. I would not myself use the term *absurd arguments* but rather arguments that are influenced by emotions and sentiments, not necessarily by critical thinking. My understanding is that we live in a *regime of thought* and struggle to get to genuine critical thought, and free-thought.

      • That particular troll has always engaged in Magical Thinking

        Magical Thinking is a kind of irrational thinking that causes a person to completely reject critical thinking and replace it with absurd reasoning because their bias tells them it’s true. People that use magical thinking try to prove things they want to believe with absurd arguments even when what they are trying to prove is unprovable or actually false.

        Magical thinking is evidence of a fully indoctrinated mind that can no longer think critically, as a buddy of mine calls it, they are equivalent to sheeple.

        Chris was never a ‘troll’. That is your preferred word for someone who says something that triggers you. People who have ideas that are contrary to your way of thinking — you are a thinker who shows conformist tendencies — you define as trolls.

        You go on to define ‘magical thinking’ and you do not see that you have a relationship to the same sort of thought. This is part-and-parcel of American Thinking, and you and Chris (and other progressives) are part of a system-of-thinking that are two closely interconnected poles.

        You do not have, and you have rarely shown, ‘critical thinking’ of your own. You are very cautious in what you reveal of your thought, never take risks, and often float your ideas for group review prior to establishing them as convictions. Your thought is completely defined by the parameters established by the Progressive Left. There is not one tenet that you express opposition to. Not one! Your presentation is a kind of *game* that you play, and you are one of hundreds of thousands and millions whose thinking is defined with very limited parameters.

        Thus, your ‘magical thinking’ is a projection of your own limits of thinking which you cannot analyze critically. The ‘dumbing down of America’ is something we all suffer under, but I suggest that we cannot confront it until we actually show genuine capacities of critical thinking. You can critique the bad critical thinking of children and idiots, that is true, but you cannot see your own self.

        (That is my honest view and it is offered because breaking through such limitation is crucial).

        • Alizia wrote, “Chris was never a ‘troll’. That is your preferred word for someone who says something that triggers you.”

          Prove your false accusation.

          Alizia wrote, “People who have ideas that are contrary to your way of thinking — you are a thinker who shows conformist tendencies — you define as trolls.”

          Prove your false accusation.

        • Troll: Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

          • You could of course make an effort to prove your own case by selecting something Chris wrote that fits your definition of a troll, as you have defined it.

            I never had the impression that he was anything but sincere about his views and his ideas, even when he made efforts to critique me, or denigrate me, or slander my character (at a moral level).

            • Alizia Tyler wrote, “You could of course make an effort to prove your own case by selecting something Chris wrote that fits your definition of a troll, as you have defined it.”

              You made a claim, you were asked to support your claim, it appears that you can’t do so so you ask me to prove something? That young lady is intellectual dishonesty delivered straight up without a twist.

              Alizia Tyler wrote, “I never had the impression that he was anything but sincere about his views and his ideas”

              Sincerity has got nothing to do with it.

              Reread the definition of magical thinking a dozen times or so, there is absolutely nothing in that definition to remotely imply that that the person engaging in it isn’t sincere about their beliefs, it’s completely irrelevant. For that matter, reread the definition of troll, it really doesn’t imply a lack of sincerity it talks about intentional deflection with unethical intent.

            • HERE is an example of trolling from the blogger/commenter in question from that same thread…

              That person made more trolling statements in that thread, some were specifically pointed out in the thread.

              • You made a claim, you were asked to support your claim, it appears that you can’t do so so you ask me to prove something? That, young lady, is intellectual dishonesty delivered straight up without a twist.

                (I added two commas).

                It is typical of you to establish ultimatums. To say *do this!* or *do that!* as if you think your are justified giving commands. Are you descended from Royalty? 😉

                You are welcome to characterize it like that if you wish. My comments were impressions I have gained over time. And I was not referring to anything specific, so there is no specific example to pull up. But I promise, going forward, to make more efforts when I notice things, to speak up and make my case.

                In respect to what you call Chris’s ‘magical thinking’ — which in this specific case means locating and inventing an enemy, a dangerous player, and assigning to that player a dark role in influencing an American election — I think I can understand what you mean. And I also believe that I understand how and why such hallucinatory modes of representing things are used.

                And my critique has less to do with you, Zoltar, as a person and as an intellect, and more to do with how the same mode of thinking is used by government regularly and appears regularly. My larger point is more important than the smaller point of locating some specific hypocrisy of yours. I make the suggestion that here, among so-called Conservatives, that the same thing goes on. If I have not successfully made my case, then I will redouble my efforts going forward. I see my position as arising in intellectual honesty — the desire to be honest — and if I do not succeed in making my case I can only promise to do better.

                To support my claim I can only make a general reference to it and hope that people will be interested to examine the claim, to look into it. In our present, now, I would submit the entire Venezuela affair as it is now being played out as an example of ‘magical thinking’ and lying or the exact sort that you notice. Same tactic, different application: the use of a false assertion to cover over devious power-plays. This corresponds to the use of the ‘Russia hacked our democracy’ ploy. It is a lie, an invention, used for other purposes: to disrupt and to undermine legitimacy.

                I can offer you a video presentationthat attempts to show and uncover the hypocrisy of power as it is used in the present. This is not precisely my own view but is, indeed, a part of how I view things as I attempt to *unravel the lies in our present*. Just as the political Left is using a fabrication as a means to gain an end, so here is a fabrication used to gain an end. It is the same ‘trick’. And I would argue, and I do and will continue to argue, that American Conservatives so-called regularly avail themselves of the same tricks.

                What I try to point out — and I will make efforts to do so with more dedication and regularly — is that such self-deception and lying is a normal feature in which many people participate. And it is part-and-parcel of the American Conservative-Republican establishment.

                And now, in our present, the American Conservative notices and calls out the political Left on its use of the tactics, while it is deeply involved in the same. And I have noticed similar complicity on your part (and others here) over time. That is my argument. And I will continue to develop it. I will make every effort to explain myself and develop my case.

              • My previous thoughts were these:

                Alizia wrote: “You do not have, and you have rarely shown, ‘critical thinking’ of your own. You are very cautious in what you reveal of your thought, never take risks, and often float your ideas for group review prior to establishing them as convictions. Your thought is completely defined by the parameters established by the Progressive Left. There is not one tenet that you express opposition to. Not one! Your presentation is a kind of *game* that you play, and you are one of hundreds of thousands and millions whose thinking is defined with very limited parameters.

                “Thus, your ‘magical thinking’ is a projection of your own limits of thinking which you cannot analyze critically. The ‘dumbing down of America’ is something we all suffer under, but I suggest that we cannot confront it until we actually show genuine capacities of critical thinking. You can critique the bad critical thinking of children and idiots, that is true, but you cannot see your own self.”

                My continuing thoughts:

                Once again, I apologize to everyone who participates here for my zealousness. A sort of aggressive contrariness (of a charming variety!) It is not hard for me to understand that this could be annoying, even offensive. But the way I see things is that this is what is needed. I hope that the revelation of my thoughts and views is not ever taken as personal aggressiveness. It is not meant as such. I only wish — ultimately — to confront ideas.

                The areas that most interest me are two:

                One is to confront what I see as American Conservative hypocrisy. It is easy to demonstrate, and the example I just brought out — Venezuela — is a perfect (nearly picture-perfect) example of it. Many people now, perhaps most people, come under the sway of the narratives woven by the power-elites and the MSM, and most people accept the Lies that are offered. To deconstruct them is too difficult I suppose. Maybe they just don’t have the tools? The entire structure of America, the corporate structure, the structure of government, and the para-government, seems corrupt and even dangerous. But I do not ever hear of Conservatives nor Republican-Conservatives offering coherent critique. That is unethical and immoral, in my view. I do hear them *complaining* endlessly about Leftists and the dread SJW (and I share these complaints and critiques for many reasons). What most dismays me — and what I get the most (here, and this should not be the case!) — is stoney silence. Or ‘dynamic silence’ as it is called. What a weak response.

                The second area is just as I say: there is not one person on this blog who could really label themself as ‘conservative’. Republican, perhaps. Socially conservative is=n certain senses, perhaps. But American Conservatism is generally a sad — even a sick — joke. They conserve nothing and they hardly seem to have ideals and principles. They have no ammunition with which to confront Leftist Radicals except complaints about their tactics. Philosophically, they accept all their tenets. So, I ask: What are they complaining about? The Progressive Left advances its agenda. It is achieving its goals. And the so-called Conservative shares and advocates the same values down to the *tee*. It is bizarre!

                Saying that, it seems like I am deliberately insulting, but this is not the case (this is not my intention). I assert that everyone who writes on this Blog has basically accepted the Progressive outline of social values. Excuse me if I am making too general a statement, perhaps there is some exception?

                There must be an alternative to this! Either that or one must accept the progressive plans. Ah, but to take an opposing stance means, in fact, to turn against certain ‘tenets of liberalism’, and to establish sound counter-propositions. And no one in the American Conservative Establishment is doing this nor do they seem capable of it. Why? Is it because they are ‘wedded to power’? Complicit within structures of American power? Fearful cowardly persons?

                Yes, they push out to the fringes and they marginalize as *extremist* those who work with the difficult ideas. And they cooperate (at least in some senses) with the Progressives in their condemnation of those with the courage to think the difficult thoughts. The American Conservative is a slightly-to-the-right Progressive — at best. And if one is a Republican Conservative, that one seems blindly to serve American business, not the ‘ideals of the Constitution’ nor anything particularly elevated, noble and philosophically genuine.

                Are my ideas and concerns those of one ‘intellectually dishonest’? Is my approach underhanded? I do not think so. I think these are the things most needing to be talked about.

                  • I assume you mean the latter definition? Ouch!

                    A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.

                    I would ask you to comment on the ideas I talk about but . . . I know you won’t. I accept this. My purpose is only to get more clear about ideas, to *see clearly* as I have many times said.

                    If I am annoying it is a side-deficit!

                  • Found a great quote in a book I am reading, thought you would appreciate it:

                    “If four or five guys tell you that you’re drunk, even though you know you haven’t had a thing to drink, the least you can do is lie down awhile.”

                    — Neil Gabler, ‘An Empire of their Own’.

  8. Is he one more pitiable victim of the ravages of Trump-Derangement, as some of the spammed comments suggest? Or is he just an ideologically rigid progressive, laboring to overcome a permanently closed mind and diminished critical thought skills arising from immersion in too many echo chambers? I don’t know, and at this point, I don’t care.

    If one could answer this question (this group of questions really) one would be in a better position to have *understanding*. That is how I am looking at these issues, though I have both a handicap and an advantage of being stationed, as it were, outside of the US.

    After reading a very recent book, by a journalist intimately connected with the NYTs intellectual establishment, who explains in detail how he sees the present rise of an unruly American (and international) right-wing and reveals in clear terms what this means to him and for him — and in fact for the American that was invented, designed and constructed in the Postwar Era — I now understand what the seed of Trump Derangement Syndrome is. [The book is (((Semitism))) : Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump].

    The motor behind, as it were, Trump Derangement Syndrome is Jewish fear of gentile culture if it is ‘left to itself’ without careful and specific management. One of the reasons that the entire *racism* trope has appeared again is because there had been a Black-Jewish alliance in the Postwar, out of which was constructed the present cultural modality that defines America in the present.

    The *racism* accusation — real, exaggerated, invented? or all of these? — is so powerful today and shows no sign of relenting. But I would draw your-plural attention to the fact that a culture-wide organization against it, that is by white people generally, as a group, has been recognized as a dangerous possibility. There are Jordan Peterson videos where he talks of the Left-Wing activism awakening a reactionary White Beast. In fact, to be truthful and accurate, the activists on the extreme right and those who are studying the philosophies of *anti-liberalism* and who are critiquing the hyper-liberal constructs of the Postwar, are seeking to unite *white people* as white people: as defenders of the European traditions against those who are not connected with it (Blacks, Mesoamericans, Asians, Africans, etc.)

    Again, to arrive at *understanding* is different than arriving at an actionable political position.

    Not only is there a Trump Derangement Syndrome, one must also note that there are various manifestations of *derangement* in most people, everywhere. I would define *derangement* as being under the sway of and in the current of *psychological forces* that are not rational. That is, in the current of irrational processes that operate sub-rationally.

    Now, and after reading Jonathan Weisman’s book which I highly recommend in order to gain understanding, my own attention is drawn to understanding both the construction of America as undertaken by Hollywood in the 1900s to the present but especially 1900-1950, and as well the more proper *construction of the Postwar America* which is the larger system of reality (perception, definition of value, understructure) that we now live in and which has tremendous force and which moves inexorably like an irresistible current.
    Again, this is part of a process of *understanding* and as such is distinct from actionable politics.

    *America* is — I say this sincerely and for purposes of understanding — a series of interconnected echo-chambers. There is no one who does not exist in and perceive through an *echo-chamber* of one sort or another. Because an echo-chamber really means a perceptual system.

    I would suggest — in a spirit of desiring to help mind you — that the Present is strange, dangerous and difficult in one sense because the Constructed Vision of America is now threatened. This is, in fact, an identity crisis but at a National level. Before, there were *solid narratives* that were capable of carrying American perception of itself in the sense of a patriotic ideal. Now, and obviously, these Narratives are under sustained attack and they are weakening. They are actually in a process of collapse and thus there comes on the scene psychological ailment and confusion, and out of that (this is my view) derangement.

    One of the things that is beginning to occur and, at least for those who manage the structure of America in the largest sense (cultural managers), is that they have begun processes of censorship. Shutting down people who contribute to derangement (Alex Jones for example). But also YouTube channels by people who are communicating ideas that are manifestations of resistance to present deranged-liberal ideas, Twitter accounts, book publishers (Amazon is now actively banning books by the more right-leaning critics of American liberalism).

    Turning back to Weisman’s book, this is what he and thus the Establishment of which he is a part are recommending. For them this is necessary but also good. This must be understood: they see themselves as doing good, protecting the good from the bad. They are not *irrational* in this sense and, truth be told, they are very interested in preserving the Postwar America (and International) Liberal Construct. To that end if they have to crush or sideline (or temporarily shut down) so-called Free Speech, well, this is a necessary action in order to protect the Postwar Construct. And they are now carrying this out (and getting help from the government and its intelligence apparatus).

  9. I missed this since I’ve been slowing down a bit here, partly because I am trying to focus more on work, partly because it looks like the Conservative-Progressive Wars here are over and the Progressives have been pretty decisively routed. However, apparently like in many wars, a few folks won’t accept the outcome, nor the terms agreed to. The franc tireurs succeeded in giving the Prussians a very hard time, the Boers forced the British to put a quarter million men in the field against a population whose adult males didn’t equal half that, and Michael Collins’ army finally got the army that had beaten the Kaiser to throw in the towel by making their own rules rather than playing by the ones that had gotten them not just beaten, but crushed in 1916.

    There’s a certain sympathy among us Americans with the scrappy little guy who refuses to let the establishment beat him and impose its rules on him, and to some degree that’s good, it’s what distinguishes us from the German or Japanese or EU cultures where the individual is less important than the group. To another degree it isn’t, though, it’s what got us the chaos of the 1960s, the mess that was Occupy Wall Street, the extremity looking for violence that is Antifa and the Proud Boys.

    The idea of refusal is particularly strong on the left, who believe they are the sole heirs to the civil rights movement, the peace movement that ended a US involvement in Vietnam that never should have been and would have ended the Cold War a decade sooner and a lot of other wars before they could start but for those fogeys named Reagan and Bush, the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement, and every other worthwhile movement. A key part of every worthwhile movement was to defy the establishment and say no, we won’t follow your rules, because a rule that’s wrong shouldn’t be obeyed, and we won’t respect your lines, because if enough of us cross your line you will have to remove the line.

    It should come as no surprise that someone who grew up steeped in that idea would now refuse to follow the lines and rules that you, as lord of this particular domain, laid down. I for one think you cut him a lot more slack than you should have, but that is your decision to make, not mine. However, a year ago, during an exchange in which we weren’t throwing insults and trying to one-up each other, I told him sternly but truthfully that he needed to reform his approach, because all he was offering was the same material any of us could read on any of the major liberal sites if we wanted to, and being rude about it to boot. This was not a winning combination. Bad ideas don’t become good ones, and unconvincing arguments don’t become more persuasive just because they are coupled with insults and statements that the other person is stupid or racist or whatever other label you choose to try to affix.

    The rest is history, and it took him only five more months to melt down and cross the line no one is allowed to cross. I admit I was pretty bad myself, saying that I’d like to see him shot dead with an assault rifle and saying that it was good that his woman couldn’t have kids, together with a lot of other outrageous insults that no one should ever utter or write. I could say he brought it on himself, just like you might ask a bullied kid what he did to make the bully so mad, but then that would be using his rotten behavior to justify behaving in a rotten way myself. That said, if you look at his posts in the two months leading up to his final removal, you will see that he was becoming increasingly more and more unhinged, as those in the final stages of a losing fight become when they realize this isn’t going to end well.

    The fact is, Jack, that you were correct. He had become a net negative by becoming as unhinged as he did, and his unhinged nature was resulting in others becoming angry and unhinged as well. I am glad I missed this, but should I see it, I will not engage. At this point we’re done with this person and there’s nothing to be gained by fighting a powerless ghost.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ,
      Lots of good stuff in that comment Steve, good job!

      One thing you wrote that I’d like to briefly touch on; “He had become a net negative by becoming as unhinged as he did…”

      It’s my opinion that he knew he was going to leave Ethics Alarms (he was getting married in a few months and had to officially transfer the family pants) and his innate trolling was intentionally taken to a new level so he’d get stripped of his commenting privileges and go out with a bang. Why you ask, so he could use it to boost his personal victim-hood within his ideological echo chamber by claiming I’m the victim of being silenced.

      • Steve, recently I was thinking about why I don’t have much of a problem with Trump’s “unpresidential” side. Your speaking of provoking bullies is in line with my remembering the inevitable retort whenever a teacher had to sort out of fight between kids: “Well HE started IT!” Trump didn’t start it, the resistance (“Resist!” The dumbest bumper sticker ever.) did and continues IT.

        Which is not to say we couldn’t have a very long discussion of when IT started. Commies in the U.S. in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s? McCarthy? Nixon? Watergate? The Clintons? Ken Starr? Trump? The Resistance?]]

        So it goes.(Not that I ever liked Vonnegut.)

        • Hey Lucky! My email and user name pop in automatically again. Lord knows why. I think I may have stumbled into effecting your recommended cure. Hah!

        • Trump didn’t start it any more than the targeted groups started the Holocaust or the Armenians started their own genocide or the Christians started the wars between Christianity and Islam. However, given the prevalent presence of Holocaust deniers, the official denial of any genocide by the Turks, and the complete failure of most mainstream history books to put two and two together between the Arab conquest of Spain and southern Italy and the Crusades and the Reconquista, it shows how easy it is to hide the truth.

      • Maybe, however, the fact that he’s come back here looking to stir up trouble SINCE the royal wedding makes me not so sure about that.

      • I have to somewhat laugh at the phrase “transfer the family pants” although it’s probably true in that household as a “woke” husband seems to think it’s all about following the wife’s lead. I won’t pretend to be some kind of Marlon Brando type in a sleeveless t-shirt and boast of knocking my wife around because “she just wouldn’t listen.” However, in the event the lady I have my eye on and I were to tie the knot (unlikely, she’s 44 end of this month and has been married twice, I’m 49 as of Monday and have never married), I would just laugh at the idea of all decision-making authority resting with either one of us. It’s supposed to be a partnership, and an equal one, and, just for the record, I don’t think endless sitcoms portraying the husband as a clueless oaf who can’t do anything right, but means well, are funny.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “I don’t think endless sitcoms portraying the husband as a clueless oaf who can’t do anything right, but means well, are funny.”

          Can you imagine the hoards of social justice warriors that would come out if a man wrote a sitcom and made the wife as a a clueless oaf who can’t do anything right. There would be overflowing claims of misogyny and probably smearing with anti-Trump connections to that kind of sitcom. It seems to be fine to beat up, degrade and negatively stereotype men like that but not women, even blonde jokes seem to have completely vanished in recent years.

    • ….partly because it looks like the Conservative-Progressive Wars here are over and the Progressives have been pretty decisively routed.

      They may be over here, on this blog (simply because they left and they were always bad representatives of those ideas), but in no sense is the larger battle over. In fact it has only begun.

      The so-called ‘conservatives’ here are right-leaning Progressives who hallucinate that they have some sort of power to resist the current that pulls everyone along. There is no ‘Conservative’ writing on this blog who has a defined position with clear principles that could be said to be ‘conservative’ in any true sense of the word. Again, the Conservatives here are essential Progressives who support every tenet of progressivism without reserve.

      The idea of refusal is particularly strong on the left, who believe they are the sole heirs to the civil rights movement, the peace movement that ended a US involvement in Vietnam that never should have been and would have ended the Cold War a decade sooner and a lot of other wars before they could start but for those fogeys named Reagan and Bush, the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement, and every other worthwhile movement. A key part of every worthwhile movement was to defy the establishment and say no, we won’t follow your rules, because a rule that’s wrong shouldn’t be obeyed, and we won’t respect your lines, because if enough of us cross your line you will have to remove the line.

      This shows exactly what I mean. The Left has defined every single issue and has been and still is the force behind the present American Identity. And this Identity is what everyone on this blog serves, without question. The Right and the American Business Class (the Republican Party is America’s business party and nothing more than that) could never develop principled positions, except as ‘brakes’ against the progressive will and its advance.

      And in the present it is the Progressives that dominate. What complicates this is that the Progressive doctrine has now penetrated government and business, and these interests see advantage in incorporating it. In this, there is a marriage between Progressive Politics and America’s business class. And that defines ‘government’ taken on the whole. This is where America is going now, and everyone here serves that direction (because they have no philosophical position that could oppose it).

      The Left is the sole heir to the Civil Rights Movement, the woman’s movement, the ecological movement, and the labor movement, and the homosexual liberation movement.

      Now, the Progressive policies and these ideas are universal to America; they are irresistible and they dominate. The so-called Conservative class does not have any principled stance to oppose any part of this as far as I can tell.

    • The progressive vs geek war is still raging. And you can’t really tell most geeks they are alt-right in their handmade props and rebellion as we aren’t. The next battle will be the success of Captain SJN Marvel.

      • …a movie I will attempt to not view in the theater, if I can swing it. With the pending death of my dad (I am executor, so will be busy AND unlikely to be in the mood to view a movie that, once again, tells me how bad I am just for being born white and male) and my wife out of work, I might be able to miss it.

        I suspect that Disney has another ‘Solo’ on their hands, which, while making a slim profit, did not even make 40% of what was expected.

        Look, having to remake every blockbuster from the 1980s is fine (original ideas are few these days) but preaching at your target demographic about how bad they are for things they cannot change does not lead to repeat views, or any views at all in this Internet driven culture.

  10. Well – when I saw him commenting here I thought I must have missed the post where he had apologized to you for the direct, personal insults.

    His whole approach seems so counter-productive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.