Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

I think this does a good job of summing up Trumpism. Republican lawmakers refusing to wear masks in close quarters with others hiding from an insurrection they incited with lies and a Democratic lawmaker who wore a mask ending up testing positive for Covid.


https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1348871117407203328

[filghy2]

What happened in DC last week is not comparable, even if Schwarzenegger had cause to reference his father and his father's generation's acquiesence in the Third Reich.

The more relevant comparison is with the failed Munich putsch 0f 1923. That event was also notable for the lenient treatment of the participants. Hitler was sentenced to 5 years prison but was released after only 9 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

[broncofan]

The more relevant comparison is with the failed Munich putsch 0f 1923. That event was also notable for the lenient treatment of the participants. Hitler was sentenced to 5 years prison but was released after only 9 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

It is peculiar that people would conjure up Kristallnacht instead of the Beer Hall Putsch. It must be because Kristallnacht is the more well known and memorable event. It was roughly a decade between the Putsch and Hitler becoming Chancellor and another five years before the German state was prepared to invade Poland. It takes a lot of propaganda to radicalize a population but people become desensitized to right-wing lies.

What's terrifying to me is the extent of the delusion that has gripped so many segments of society. Trump telegraphed in advance that he was going to lie about the election. Now on right-wing forums they plan another round of violence while they blame antifa for the last wave of violence. How to hold so many contradictory beliefs? "We were justified in storming the capitol but it was really antifa. We'll do it again."

It was like the people whose family members swore covid was the flu, died of covid, and the family blames the liberal media because they couldn't be convinced by the truth. I read an article where the family blamed the media for being so polarizing. That's what I think of when I hear this polarization talk on the other thread. They are listening to conspiracy theories and the truth sounds truculent to them.

The Republican Party has got to find a way to rein this in. That means that they disavow this movement and go back to principles, whichever they want to support. If they don't do it now the inertia will be too hard to overcome because those who have taken a bipartisan approach are already subject to threats and intimidation. It really is an inflection point because this wall of stupidity will be too tough to break through if they don't make some difficult choices.

[broncofan]

And of course I could point to things the Democratic Party should do, but I am not entirely sure what the right approach is but I'm pretty sure it's not just moving on without accountability. Winning the Presidency, holding the House, and getting to fifty seats in the Senate was an extraordinary effort under the circumstances. If the worst outcome is avoided this election victory will have played an enormous role. Another four years of Trump would have been devastating in ways that are impossible to predict but given who he is we avoided a lot more pain.

[filghy2]

What's terrifying to me is the extent of the delusion that has gripped so many segments of society. Trump telegraphed in advance that he was going to lie about the election. Now on right-wing forums they plan another round of violence while they blame antifa for the last wave of violence. How to hold so many contradictory beliefs? "We were justified in storming the capitol but it was really antifa. We'll do it again."

I guess if your overarching organising principle is that the left is evil and responsible for all problems, then you end up with all kinds of cognitive dissonances. If there is further violence you can bet that the usual suspects will be blaming the second impeachment for the failure to heal wounds - as if this was the responsibility of the victim rather than the perpetrator. Yet those same people claim to be law and order supporters who normally tend to blame crime on liberals being too lenient on criminals.

[Stavros]

One of the oddities of the alliance that Trump has forged with the 'alt-right' is that while he has on occasion played to their deep anti-Semitism, mostly in relation to George Soros, his hostility to Soros is not really a 'Jewish' thing. He displays a deep insecurity owing to the fact that Soros has made more money than him, and invested some of it in the Central European University, as well as the Open Society Network. The risible alternative, Trump University, was a scam from the start and in the end it cost Trump over $25 million to shut it down in disgrace, whereas the CEU has been recognized as a real educational institution. It is an example of Trump convincing himself he can do something better than a rival, and proving that he can't.

That said, the evidence of the deep anti-Semitism of his supporters sits oddly with his family's connections to Israel, and in particular to Benjamin Netanyahu, who as a young diplomat in New York became friends with Fred Trump. Here, for example, are how Trump's supporters planned to recruit new members, it comes from a 'playbook' that had 6,000 subscribers on the Telegram site-

"The four-page document encourages recruiters to avoid being overtly racist or antisemitic initially when approaching Trump supporters, stating: “Trying to show them racial IQ stats and facts on Jewish power will generally leave them unreceptive... that material will be instrumental later on in their ideological journey.
The document adds: “Not every normie can be redpilled, but if they’re receptive and open-minded to hearing what you have to say, you should gradually be sending them edgier pro-white/anti-Zionist content as they move along in their journey.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-the-far-right

At what point do these people pause to consider Trump's Jewish family -his daugher and son-in-law, his friendship with Netanyahu, the financial investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories? And at what point does he reject their support because of their anti-Semitism? I am not sure, but I don't think at this stage he cares, because his only interest is in the personality cult that he has created, and he can always issue a statement rejecting his supporters anti-Semitism, presumably because he knows they will support him on other issues -he managed to survive the Charlottesville riots even though he lost some 'very fine people' in his own camp.

Maybe he is their vehicle, and when their great day comes, he will be as dispensable as everyone else not committed to their cause? Many did denounce him as a traitor when he appeared to reject them on the video message after the siege.

As for his supporters in Congress, will they ever openly denounce their own supporters for their views about Jews, Black people and the Media? And if not, why not?

[Stavros]

I have been looking at the candidates for the USA's National Garden of Heroes, a Trump project which Wikipedia says might not now be built.

It has an eclectic list of candidates, some obvious, many not known to me. I am puzzled why Europeans who became Americans are included -eg, Einstein, Hitchcock, Hannah Arendt (a hero/heroine?) -whereas John Singer Sargent was born in Florence to an American family and as far as I know rarely or never lived in the US -after years on the continent he settled in a house on Tite Street in London's Chelsea.

The obvious poets are on the list, but three of the best -Langston Hughes, Robert Lowell and Allan Ginsberg- are not. Some figures from entertainment are there, but some of the best known from US film (Samuel Goldwyn) and TV are not -I am thinking of US TV programmes of the 1950s and 1960s that had millions of viewers though I can't remember their names, particularly the ones who hosted music shows. Some artists are listed, some of the best -George Caleb Bingham, Winslow Homer, and (not a favourite of mine) Edward Hopper, are not.

The Presidential list is also one for specalists to argue about- Eisenhower, JFK and Reagan make the cut, LBJ who arguably was one of the most influential Presidents since FDR (on the list) is ignored. As for 'Other Historical Figures', it includes Andrew Carnegie, but not his robber baron mates, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon, JP Morgan, but Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett make it.

Who should be in, and who should not? And, is there any real purpose to a 'National Garden of Heroes'? I am just glad we don't have one in the UK, as I can't think of more than five or six worthy of the elevation.

The list is here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...merican_Heroes

[sukumvit boy]

Interesting article about the enduring allure of conspiracy theories here:
https://knowablemagazine.org/article...c790-46056558&

[Stavros]

There is conspiracy as theory, but what about Conspiracy as fact? In the Cold War in Europe, for example, Operation Gladio, or the alegations of Clockwork Orange in the UK, in which a secretive cabal of intelligence officers planned a coup against the Labour Government of Harold Wilson, with an extension of intelligence 'mind games' in Northern Ireland and the controversial figure of Colin Wallace?

If a secret project is organized by Government, is it a conspiracy or a domestic/foreign intelligence/military operation that is secret for strategic reasons, ie can they be classfied as Conspiracies?

I used to buy Lobster, a parapolitics journal which has investigated the 'unofficial' worlds of what Governments and their agencies do, with or without support 'from the top' -many of the articles contained inaccuracies (eg, the available article on the Coup in Iran in 1953), some are far-fetched, but some do relate to past experiments, such as MKULTRA, the article -available on subscription suggesting Sirhan Sirhan cannot remember why he murdered Robert Kennedy because he has been involved in a chemical experiment organized by the CIA (an extension of TOPHAT).

Lobster is here-
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/

Colin Wallace (and Clockwork Orange) here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wallace

Operation Gladio (numerous sources on the web)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...4_October_1990

[blackchubby38]

So much outrage from the usual suspects now that Trump's Twitter feed has been halted. But is this an attack on free speech?

1) Presidents of the US managed to communicate with the public without Twitter for over 200 years, and are under no obigation to use it. It is a case of 'nice to have, not need to have'.

2) Twitter is a private company, not a media outlet of the US Government, it can permit and ban any user it wants to.

3) As President and Citizen, Trump can use multiple other outlets to express himself without being censored, and can, as a multi-billionaire, invest in his own social media platform and/or website/blog, create his own Newspaper, TV and Radio Stations, build his own Library, Museum- there are multiple options. So will he dip into those $3 billion and fund his own campaigns?

I was interested to see how many people who have been banned, whether temporarily or permanently by Twitter to see if Trump or his supporters have a leg to stand on when it comes to the cries of it being an attack on his free speech.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions


As you can see from first glance, some of the people who had their accounts suspended by Twitter were for the same reason why Trump had his. So for the most part, no one can cry that its attack on free speech.

Having said that, I have mixed feelings about whether or not people should have their accounts suspended. Yes, Twitter is a private company and it can be viewed as a luxury and not a necessity. Although depending on what industry you work in, that's not always the case.


I have always viewed Twitter as the digital version of the town square or a street corner. In essence, you're going to hear and see some crazy shit. In those instances, we usually ignored the batshit ramblings of the individual and went about our day. But what do you about people who chose to stand there (or in this case follow the individual(s)) and continue to listen and start to believe the ramblings. Who should be digital version of the officer on beat who goes, "Okay, break it up nothing to see here."

Should it continue to be the private company that runs site. I'm good with that. But I think instead of suspending the account or permanently banning the person, I say just remove the questionable post and/or tweet. Especially when it comes to ones that are considered to be spreading misinformation.


"But, as discussed on the BBC news this lunchtime, does this mean the regulation, by law, of social media? And if platforms become engines of hate, misinformation, lies and incitement, shut them down? At what point does free speech become a threat to freedom itself?"

To answer your other question, I would only be in favor of temporarily shutting down a platform if law enforcement becomes aware of its incitement leading to criminal activity. Other than, I'm not in favor of deplatforming an individual or a site. I rather these people be out in open where their nonsense can be seen and challenged when need be. Its been a couple of weeks since Parlor has been shut down and I'm not sure if the world is a better and/or safer place for it.