Rachel Maddow As the Symbol Of American Journalism’s Corruption

Over at the American Conservative, a veteran State Department employee and author Peter Van Buren makes his case that Rachel Maddow is the symbol of the catastrophic deterioration of America journalism over the past three years, as it openly joined the “resistance.” I disagree with his central thesis: nobody who works for MSNBC can symbolize journalism’s rot, since MSNBC has never been objective, competent, or trustworthy, not three years ago, not ever. I would choose the New York Times  for that honor.  Nevertheless, Van Buren’s description of what journalism has become in the rush to “Get Trump!” is well-argued, and should be persuasive to anyone not incapable of accepting the truth, that being  that honest, independent journalism has all but vanished, and the viability of our system of government is imperiled as a result.

Do our progressive friends and relatives deny this because they are corrupt, because the news media’s slant bolsters their desires so they accept it, because they are dim, or because, as Van Buren writes of Maddow, they are “people who refuse to accept facts and insist they alone understand a world you can’t even see. Delusion. Denial. Psychosis. Obsession. Paranoia”?

I’m not sure.  It has been obvious here that journalism now tries to manipulate our politics rather than report it since well before the 2016 campaign, and I’ve been listening to and reading denials all along.

Van Buren writes in part,

…They treated gossip as fact because it came from a “source” and told us to just trust them. They blurred the lines between first-hand knowledge, second- and third-hand hearsay, and “people familiar with the matter” to build breaking news out of manure. They marginalized skeptics as “useful idiots.” (Glenn Greenwald, who called bull on Russiagate from the beginning, says MSNBC banned him after he criticized Maddow. He’d been a regular during the Bush and Obama years.)

They accepted negative information at face value and discarded information that did not fit their pre-written narrative of collusion. The Washington Post never even ran a story about how its reporters came up empty after working for months to prove that Michael Cohen met with Russian agents in Prague.

They went all in with salacious headlines, every story a sugar high. They purposefully muddled the impact of an indictment versus an actual conviction. They conflated anyone from Russia with the Russian government. They never paused to ask why there weren’t “Sources: Trump is Innocent” stories that later needed to be walked back; the errors were somehow all on one side. They became a machine as trustworthy as the politicians they relied on.

… With Maddow in the lead, journalists went a step further than just shoddy reporting, proudly declaring their partisanship (once the cardinal sin of journalism) and placing themselves at the center of the story. In one critic’s words, “In purely journalistic terms, this is an epic disaster.”

..[T]here was Maddow, night after night in front of her serial killer burlap board, Trump and Putin surrounded by blurry images of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, she running twine between pins so her viewers could keep up with her racing intellect. Anyone with a Russian-y surname “had ties to Putin,” “connections to Russian intelligence,” or was at least an oligarch. She nurtured an unashamed crush on deep state clowns that the Rachel Maddow of a few years back would have smirked at—Brennan, Clapper, Comey.

She ignored or downplayed other news, devoting over 50 percent of her airtime to Russiagate alone…She worked to convince Americans that the cornerstone of justice was not “innocent until proven guilty” but “if there’s smoke there’s fire.” She joined journalists in knowingly publishing material whose veracity they doubted, centering on the Steele dossier.

…She moved beyond the simpleton advocacy journalism of Bush lie peddling journo tools. She was going to save the country. So she created a story out of whole cloth that reinforced her political beliefs and convinced people it was true. And it was all justified because the fate of the republic itself hung in the balance. Any day now, Trump would peel off a rubber mask Scooby Doo-style to reveal that he was Putin all along.

And then, after years of being held together by the incantation “just wait for Mueller Time,” one day it all fell apart…The great progressive hope—America was run by a Russian stooge—was over and done. Maddow’s response? … Okay, sure, Bill Barr says Mueller didn’t find collusion if you wanna believe that, but what matters now is that, even after Robert Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction he could charge, and the FBI before him did not find any, and Bill Barr confirmed he did not find it, Maddow still knows obstruction took place…

…At some point with Russiagate, many people will come to understand that there aren’t more questions than answers. They’ll abandon the straw man of waiting for prosecutors to issue a magic Certificate of Exoneration because they’ll understand that prosecutors end things by deciding not to prosecute.

…Maddow is a sad story. Others playing the cable news game never had her intellect (looking at you, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo). They were weekend Vichy, showbiz grifters. But Maddow believed. Her goal was to end the Trump presidency on her own. And to do so, she devolved from what Glenn Greenwald called “this really smart, independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack.”

There’s a difference between being wrong once in a while (and issuing corrections) and being wrong for two years on both the core point as well as the evidence. There is even more wrong with purposefully manipulating information to drive a specific narrative, believing that the ends justify the means.

In journalism school, the first is called making a mistake. The second, Maddow’s offense, is called propaganda.

Read the whole thing.

19 thoughts on “Rachel Maddow As the Symbol Of American Journalism’s Corruption

  1. Earlier a discussion on AOC’s speech to NAN. I took a contrarian position on AOC’s comments because I don’t want to become the equivalent of those that see Maddow as the font of all truth.

    Yesterday, a FB poster told me that it was a well established fact that the Russians changed vote totals. I asked him which states and he replied all of them. I asked him his source and he replied it is on Michael Moores website.

    In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, “Scary – isn’t it, what a morooon”.

  2. I don’t think progressives do this because they are corrupt or because they are stupid. I think they do it because they know nothing else. Progressivism is their religion, it gives them meaning. Their entire lives, they have been told that the US is bad, white people are bad, Democrats are good, multiculturalism is good, communism is good by every authority figures in their lives (the press, schools, their parents, etc). Progressivism also sets up an evil adversary to be mocked and despised. They have been told that most ‘conservative’ Americans are racist stooges, too stupid to know better. Americans are led by overt racists and demagogues. You can hear this when Obama speaks about Americans and says they cling to their ‘guns and religion’ or when Clinton talks about the ‘basket of deplorables’.

    It is an illogical, hypocritical religion. To be white and wealthy is the worst thing in the world, but most progressives are white and wealthy. That is because they have been given the special knowledge of ‘privilege’ and progressive values from the atheistic God of Progressivism. This makes them part of the ‘elect’ the special ones destined to rule and show the way. They have been anointed to lead an unstoppable wave of progress that cannot be stopped, the ‘right side of history’. If you are a minority, you need to look to the ‘white angels’ of Progressivism to save you because you can’t win against the evil forces of ‘institutional racism’ implemented by evil whites in places like Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York City.

    Donald Trump cannot be President because it defies the God of Progressivism’s will. Only if he had help from the evil one (Hitler or Putin or whoever) could he do this. Therefore, he is a Nazi and he must be stopped at all costs and all means are acceptable. If this sounds crazy, it is. If it sounds hypocritical, it is. But if Donald Trump won fair and square, if the march of Progressivism can be stopped or reversed, then they have lived a lie their entire lives. They aren’t the smart, cool ‘elect’ of the Progressive God. They aren’t even special. They can’t admit to this.

    Progressivism is a religion, an illogical mystery religion that gives their lives meaning. Like Scientology, Progressivism tells its followers that they are special, endowed with powers most people don’t have. That makes these ideologies hard to leave. To admit that their religion is wrong for most also requires that they admit that they are average, at best. Worse still, they have to admit that the people they despised and mocked their entire lives may be better than they are. This is like a Southern plantation owner being forced to admit that their former slaves are their equal, or even, their betters. This ideology is the logical outgrowth of the aristocratic racism of the Democratic Party from the mid-1800’s to the 1960’s. The followers of both ideologies get meaning in their lives by viewing others as their inferiors. Without someone to put beneath themselves, their lives have no meaning. For their inferiors to be found superior to themselves is simply unbearable.

    • Well stated. The construct of seeing adversaries as inferior and an an extension of aristocratic racism is an idea that is quite intuitive.

      • Michael wrote: “Their entire lives, they have been told that the US is bad, white people are bad, Democrats are good, multiculturalism is good, communism is good by every authority figures in their lives (the press, schools, their parents, etc). Progressivism also sets up an evil adversary to be mocked and despised. They have been told that most ‘conservative’ Americans are racist stooges, too stupid to know better. Americans are led by overt racists and demagogues. You can hear this when Obama speaks about Americans and says they cling to their ‘guns and religion’ or when Clinton talks about the ‘basket of deplorables’.”

        Some bold comments, offered nevertheless respectfully

        I see Michael as coming right up to the edge of a ‘necessary revelation’. He sees that these ‘progressives’ have their specific links to very destructive potential (the term progressive-totalitarian has been gaining ground), but in my view he is not stating in clear terms what is going to be required to confront and to defeat *them*. As a starting point: It must be positively asserted that multiculturalism as a social and economic project in America, and by extension when America exports this pernicious and wicked project to the lands it bombs to bits and where it seeks to install its ‘democratic system’, must be seen as a cultural and economic movement that must be reversed. Not complained about (endlessly): positively countered.

        Second, that the national school system and what stands behind it, that is: the progressive ‘agenda’ and its known links to the so-called ‘Progressive Establishment’, and this means the NY Intellectual Establishment and everyone knows what else that means, must be confronted and countered with something positive, not abstract and weak. This will mean, and can only mean, a sort of cultural revolution in what is taught. When this goes forward it will amount to a social revolution. It will be adamantly opposed by the Progressive-Communistic set, and that set, today, is systemically entrenched and will not surrender their achieved power easily. They will go to the mat, as the saying goes.

        This ‘mocking and despising’ is allowed because white people — the white people of America — have allowed it to happen. Because they have internalized this view. This is how they see themselves. They need to regain a power that would allow them when someone ‘mocks and despises’ to turn around and crack their skulls onto the pavement. Behind the assault on ‘whiteness’ (the assault on ‘America’ is related to this) is a terrifying violence that has been taking its tole. The damage is not ‘to be done’ in some abstract future, it is being done now. And the White American Coward can do nothing (except complain). This entire issue, this problem, stands upon and turns around the use of power and also of violence. When the ‘enemy’ knows that ‘mocking and despising’ will result in a cracked head, the hospital, and death, he and she will change their tune toot sweet. This is really what Jordan Peterson talks about when he warns that if the Progressive Left keeps pushing they are going to force the larger demographic to awake in consciousness and to become capable of taking action.

        White America, as an extension of its ‘awakening’ and the reclaiming of its power, needs to go over in careful detail what ‘racism’ actually means. It needs to revisit the topic and to understand what these ideas were based on. It needs to understand — and believe in, profoundly so — why it was that original America was conceived as a place for ‘ourselves and our posterity’. It needs to confront the difficult — the possibly insurmountable — problem of who ‘we’ are (what does ‘we’ mean) and then who our ‘posterity’ really is (and should be). I suggest that it is not, and will not be, African Muslims living in Minneapolis. The entire issue of National Identity causes the so-called ‘conservatives’ to defecate themselves. The entire idea is a counter-current to the indoctrination that has been forced into their heads in the perverse education-system and which is almost impossible for them to confront! They are stuck therefore in the Multicultural Moral Construct and basically work for what is slowly boiling them out of existence, like the frog in the slowly heated pot.

        It is not that the American Conservatives are stupid but that they are not conservatives. They sold out ages ago. Many know this. They are more akin to traitors than to stupid people; a particularly pernicious treachery because they are positioned deeply in the System. They are complicit in the structures that have been established, and they have no developed ideological position that enables themselves to stand upright, like men. They have given up having a backbone and, taken on the whole, they serve the *agenda* outlined by progressive theory. Again just try to imagine a genuine Conservative! With a genuine position that has any teeth to it at all that would be capable of confronting the Present and what is being done.

        Let someone come forward and say:

        “I want to live in a more-or-less racially homogenous America and send my children to a school where 25 different ethnic groups are not represented. I refuse to be ‘mocked and despised’ and if you keep doing this I will attack you and destroy you. I want to continue to develop European-centered civilization and to honor and value OUR TRADITIONS and what made us what we are. I will not stand by as some perverse resentful elite socially engineers me and mine out of existence. If acting to preserve my own people, my own stock, my own culture, my communities, my state, my form of government is ‘racist’ — so be it! I will now go on to define myself through that term and I will do this through applied ethics.”

        You see, you can send a million pounds of bombs and drop them anonymously on some impoverished, terrified people somewhere, kill and maim them, but you cannot stand up like men in your own country. This is how cowardice is defined.

        In any case, after 5 years of research . . . you can get here an idea of where my thoughts tend! 🙂

        • John Bruce Leonard: Fatherlands and Peoples: Nietzsche and the European Problem.

          For surely, these are not simple days, nor easy times. No meagre challenges face us. In our day, European democracy – better say, with greater precision, Enlightenment ‘liberalism’ – is drawing its ultimate conclusions. There are many ways of characterizing this fateful occurrence, but in the context of the European problem we might phrase it thus: the ‘Enlightenment’ has made Western man smallest and most fragmented at precisely that historical moment he has most need of being mightiest and most unified. He has been strapped to a secret wheel of Ixion, subjected to the influence of elements foreign to his soul, which moreover have no love for him and which would gladly dilute him out of existence. He is cowed by shame, belittled by unworthy appetites, demeaned by the ready ease of feeding them. He is surrounded each day the more by newcomers arrived from distant lands, who are physiologically haler (because simpler, crasser) and ideologically cleaner and more resolved than he. He has been uprooted at every turn, distanced from all those fertile values of fixed community by which he might have been nourished to strength. His high culture has been sterilized, his soul vulgarized, his heart slaked and his spirit slackened. The conditions are ripe for his utter and final extermination from this globe which he once ruled in the perfect naïveté of his right, and which he has in countless respects rendered more beautiful and nobler. But in these very conditions are precisely the conditions also for his renewal: namely, the danger and the pain to awaken his slumbering mind, the trial to test and harden these atrophied muscles, the enemies to unite him to his kith and kin in common cause – the very calamity in which his spirit may learn again to soar, lest it drown. A new birth is possible today, a birth by fire – if no longer for Irishman and Italians, Austrians and Gauls, then for something higher, something stronger yet.

        • Countering bad progressive left ideologies and ideas with rantional discussion and well reasoned ideas and solutions is all well and good-but how would one go about this task, and accomplish it with any sort of meaningful impact, given that the progressive left controls not only much of the public discourse, but the very infrastructure that facilitates public discourse-i.e. Silicon Valley, most of the MSM, academia, and the entertainment industry.

          This monopoly on public platforms has enabled this tyranny of the minority to take root, and it is rooted deep in all of these institutions.

          How does one reason with an opposition that is so convinced that they are ‘on the right side of history’, and that anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, or Karl Marx in extreme cases, is tantamount to being literally Hitler? Once labeled as such, these same progressives consider it reasonable to destroy any means of income they receive and run them out of society. The progressive left has at its disposal the means to enact this ‘justice’, and is not afraid to wield it.

          To try and debate them will get you censored.

          To try and ‘just ignore’ them will get you censored.

          To ridicule them and their bad ideas is considered ‘hate speech’, and will get you censored.

          “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

          -George Orwell, 1984

        • It is not that the American Conservatives are stupid but that they are not conservatives. They sold out ages ago… they have no developed ideological position that enables themselves to stand upright, like men.

          There are two misunderstandings, theirs that you have so ably outlined, and another, a beam in your own eye.

          The thing is, “conservatism” is not an “-ism” at all, not an ideology, but rather is formed by what is not such. It is rather like the way that it appears that oil and water don’t mix because each cleaves unto its own, but actually it’s water that’s doing it by pulling towards things with polar molecules and so shoulders oil aside (that’s what happens with Ouzo when water is added – all the alcohol joins the water, leaving the oils separated as droplets that had been dissolved in the alcohol).

          Conservatism was perhaps best defined avant la lettre, by Viscount Falkland around the time of the Civil Wars when it was up against other, now defunct, active belief systems, from Levellers and Fifth Monarchy Men to mere English republicans: “whenever it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”. But that makes it protean, and makes active believers criticise it as incoherent and lacking in its own similar system. Yet if it had that it would not be conservative and would not regrow as it would not be protean. That makes a contradiction in terms out of your “Again just try to imagine a genuine Conservative! With a genuine position that has any teeth to it at all that would be capable of confronting the Present and what is being done”. Such a position would defeat the object, too. (Oh, and no U.S. system ever could be deeply conservative, even inchoately, given the basis and foundation of the U.S.A. in active belief systems.)

          • Conservatism was perhaps best defined avant la lettre, by Viscount Falkland around the time of the Civil Wars when it was up against other, now defunct, active belief systems, from Levellers and Fifth Monarchy Men to mere English republicans: “whenever it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”. But that makes it protean, and makes active believers criticise it as incoherent and lacking in its own similar system. Yet if it had that it would not be conservative and would not regrow as it would not be protean.

            Good point. When you say ‘makes it protean’ I understand this to mean that since it is ‘reactive’ it is dependent on what is trying to move it. And since what is trying to move it is really protean, and since it exists only in relation to what is trying to move it, it is itself moved along with the movement!

            I describe American Conservatism as an ‘anchor’ or mooring which is attached to American Progressivism. As American Progressivism moves ever-more toward progressive totalitarianism, the so-called American Conservative is pulled along with it.

            As an example I would suggest that Steve of NJ defines a ‘Conservative’ position (there are others here who are similarly oriented). But his position — in its entirety — is attached not to some defined ideology or philosophical base, but ‘to the tenets of ‘the American civil religion’ if that is understood in a general, not well thought-out. largely ‘patriotic’ stance. They do not really have to think deeply about anything, and when they express a value, it is simply the presentation of an exiting cultural trope. Because they do not think profoundly they actually seem to believe, for one example, that they live in a ‘democracy’. But this is demonstrably false! Their ‘patriotic viewpoint’ keeps them from seeing ‘what really is’. It is a very strange, and a very dangerous, ‘lens’ through which they view the Nation, but it is a lens that also focuses in how they see themselves.

            That makes a contradiction in terms out of your “Again just try to imagine a genuine Conservative! With a genuine position that has any teeth to it at all that would be capable of confronting the Present and what is being done”.

            True, but as a polemical writer and an ‘apologist’ for views that are more critical, biting, ideological, disturbing and ‘red-pilling’, I point out that American Conservatism is ‘part of the problem’. I have carved out a place for myself (here) and (I hope) am not an offensive presence. But I am aware that I can only go so far in what I say. As I have said, my object is only to widen the conversation so that the full dimension of what needs to be brought out in the open (for discussion) is actually brought out.

            Such a position would defeat the object, too. (Oh, and no U.S. system ever could be deeply conservative, even inchoately, given the basis and foundation of the U.S.A. in active belief systems.)

            Here I must say that I also agree. How hard it is for ‘most Americans’ (well, of those who even care to think about America and Americanism) to understand the radical-progressive elements in the general cultural belief system. The first order of this expression was, naturally, the radical assault on the South. This enabled any sort of destructive rhetoric and destructive physical power to be used by Progressive Puritans in their projects. They are ‘above the law’ because they are ‘right’. They do not merely assume this with a shadow of doubt, they know this as a metaphysical truth.

            While I do grasp that the American System was set up to be stable and slow-to-change, and that it was designed to protect those with landed wealth, I suppose that this naturally evolves into what we now see in our present: that the System begins to court ‘socialism’ as a way that its own entrenched wealth remains uncontested while the Little People are powerfully controlled through intensive ideological management. Just around the time of the American Civil War they also engineered business law so that business exists on an extra-democratic plane and can do whatever it wants, without restraint. They turned business interests into ‘persons’ with more rights than living citizens and they gave them incontestable immortality!

            However, ask a ‘Conservative’ to examine these things and they cower away. They just don’t care. They are (IMHO) profoundly unethical in many senses. What is really bizarre is when the American Conservative has a religious (Christian) bent and imagines him or herself as ‘upholding Christian values’. They do not seem even to have begun to consider the ramifications of such an application of Christian Values to life-lived.

            … more when I know more …

  3. Jack wrote: I disagree with his central thesis: nobody who works for MSNBC can symbolize journalism’s rot, since MSNBC has never been objective, competent, or trustworthy, not three years ago, not ever.

    Well, yes and no. The history of MSNBC is interesting (I study this stuff because I advise people how to deal with media when they’re in a jam).

    MSNBC started as a collaborative effort between NBC News and Microsoft – hence the MS in the brand. It was once one of the top news websites (now, it’s well down the list).

    Fox News came out of the box as a conservative-oriented website; Rupert Murdoch had market survey data that showed that roughly 30 percent of Americans thought the alphabet networks and CNN were too liberal. Thirty percent of the US population is a tasty potential market niche; Fox News was created to capture it.

    You’d think that with all the brains and money involved with the National Broadcasting Corporation that they would have made a similar calculus to become Fox’s progressive doppelganger. They didn’t. MSNBC was a perpetual also-ran in the cable news ratings, lagging well behind Fox and CNN’s various brands.

    Then they hired a firebrand asshole named Keith Olbermann – and started drawing an audience. To NBC’s own astonishment, Olbermann took off – and all of a sudden it dawned on the geniuses at NBC that maybe the progressive schtick was a horse they could ride for a while. They started adding progressive hosts.

    Ultimately, Microsoft backed out of the arrangement, and Olbermann proved too much of an asshole for anyone at NBC to deal with, Maddow came on basically to replace him.

    The bottom line is that Fox News was a calculated business decision, and MSNBC essentially got lucky. So I’ll go along with the idea that MSNBC was never “objective, competent or trustworthy” only insofar as NBC News hasn’t been that since before MSNBC was created as a network that hoped to integrate that newfangled Interwebs thing.

    But it wasn’t a shill organization specializing in the Big Lie until much later.

    • Yeah, I was omitting the first decade, when it was a collection of extreme hosts, right and left. Olbermann arrived in 2005. Thanks for getting the perspective straight. I cannot recall a time when it was mostly a news rather than a punditry network, however.

      • “I cannot recall a time when it was mostly a news rather than a punditry network, however.”

        Well, of course you can’t. Nobody watched it back then. That’s why they made the switch to punditry. 😉

        This might make you feel a LITTLE better. MSNBC was, as mentioned, a brand created by tag-teaming Microsoft and NBC. It was once THE dominant online news source for the simple reason that it was the default news source in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser. It ain’t no more. And on its best nights, only about one percent of (legal) American citizens watch it. Perhaps we give it, like Fox, far more credit for its influence than it actually deserves.

    • Then they hired a firebrand asshole named Keith Olbermann – and started drawing an audience. To NBC’s own astonishment, Olbermann took off – and all of a sudden it dawned on the geniuses at NBC that maybe the progressive schtick was a horse they could ride for a while. They started adding progressive hosts.

      And what is one to take away from this? Here, I’ll take a shot at it: That the whole thing, all sides of it, from top to bottom, is a façade, a false-front, a deception: a horrifying national machine with world-extension that purveys to the citizen-units connected to it by an electronic umbilical lies & deceptions.

      As a machine, and one connected to ratings and economy, it will shape-shift as it needs to. But what cannot happen is that it lose its audience!

  4. They conflated anyone from Russia with the Russian government.

    They conflated some Ukrainians with the Russian government.

    • Actually, that was the exact line that made me decide to feature the essay. We joke around the Marshall home that our son is “linked” to the Kremlin because he was born in Russia.

  5. DISCLOSURE: I watch neither.

    From the bedrock Conservative HuffPo: MSNBC Almost Entirely Dominated By Opinion: Pew Study

    News Content: FoxNews 45 % MSNBC 15 %
    Opinion Content: FoxNews 55 % MSNBC 85 %.

    Et tu, HuffPo?

    The math: MSNBC has 55 % more opinion content and a mere 1/3 the news content of FoxNews.

    But that was ~ 6 years ago, in the interim, MSNBC’s probably veered more toward the center, especially since mid 2016…right?

    • The basic idea is not Russian collusion in the election, it is that Donald Trump is a puppet controlled by Putin. This is such a ridiculous proposition on the face of it that immense evidence would be required to prove it. Anyone who is aware of Donald Trump knows he is a braggart and and egotist. He is probably a narcissist. People like that aren’t followers, they are leaders (even if only in their minds). Donald Trump is President of the United States, leader of the free world. Why would he take orders from a small-fry like Putin? Putin is basically a mob boss in charge of the dying husk of the former Soviet Union. That would be like Trump taking orders from the mayor of Los Angeles. His ego just wouldn’t allow that. He may talk nice to him and compliment him (how else do you get what you want from a mob boss?), but he does not believe they are equal, much less that Putin is superior to him. There is no doubt in my mind that Donald Trump feels that Vladimir Putin is as far beneath him as Elizabeth Warren.

      It was when I saw otherwise intelligent Democrats fall for this ridiculous Putin narrative that I realized that, without a doubt, the Democratic Party was a cult. People with advanced degrees not only fell for it, but rabidly believed it to the point that it made them physically ill. That is not rational, logical, or even sane. To make it more illogical, they promoted someone who took bribes from Putin to betray her countries interest as the logical person to choose over ‘Putin Stooge’ Trump. You can’t make people believe stuff like this with fact, or even disinformation. Such reality-denying certainty only comes from dogmatic faith.

  6. Oops. Missed this one. Hitler (on Nazism): “I will make it a religion.” He was very smart: religion requires no thoughtful analysis, only faith. And since ipso facto faith in untested by logic, it prevails. The world lost 60 million people because of Hitler. Clearly no lessons from history present here.

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.