Projection 101
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The Machine Media are rigging the election and they feel ashamed about it, so they are lashing out in fury at their victim.
The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Commenters to ignore (one per line)
Commenters to follow (one per line)
Trim Comments?
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSSPastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Almost. I think at least subliminally (maybe even consciously) they’re guilty as hell about forcing Hillary on us. Hillary might not be the worst criminal ever in the history of the world, but with each passing day the nature of her crimes and the clarity of the evidence becomes more and more undeniable, and they bloody well know it.
“But Trump doesn’t respect the foundation of the democratic process!!!”
No, no, no. They don’t feel ashamed. Really, they don’t.
If this WikiLeaks cycle should teach us anything, it's that our enemies are not nearly as innocent as many on the Alt Right think: 'they're just acting out their genetic program' or 'they're just stupid and they really think Somalis are the new Irish and Gautemalans the new Italians' or 'they are projecting out of shame.'
No, Podesta and crew know exactly what they are doing.Replies: @Opinionator, @Jack Hanson
Trump is not only bigoted against Latinos, his new position against election fraud makes him bigoted against Latino political tradition. Disgusting.
Ironically, it's Trump's caudillo like histrionics about election fraud that is part of the Latin American political tradition.
I think there will (continue to) be huge election fraud this time. The Ds are scared.
Even the BB effing C, here in England are unabashedly anti Trump and pro Clinton. Absolutely no sense of balance and impartiality is present. It’s full on anti Trump.
An inordinate amount of time on BBC TV news bulletins is being given to cover the US election, which is strange as no Briton can vote in it.
Contrast to the absolute paucity of coverage given to this autumn’s British political party conferences.
Yeah, Mickey Kaus has been doing pretty good media analysis on his twitter. I was glad to see on a bloggingheads episode Robert Wright also agreed with him, and so did Michael Kinsley. I like his hashtag to describe what’s going on: #allhandsondeck.
They are pretty confident, I don’t think the fraud will be any more than usual and will probably be more focused on the Senate.
Of course they feel no shame. We are the Deplorables. If not for us, all their Leftist schemes would have produced paradise long ago.
Liberal journalists can forgive Trump for the stupid things he said.
They cannot forgive him for the stupid things they’ve had to say.
As I said previously, the MSM is trying very very hard – and succeeding for that matter, into trying to paint Donald Trump as a nasty unpleasant misogynistic bully in order to subliminally repulse white female voters.
In my opinion the particular monster that they are shaping Trump into is Albert Spica. In case you don’t know, Albert Spica is the villain so ably played by Michael Gambon in Peter Greenaway’s very excellent 1989 drama ‘The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover’.
Why this classic film, and Peter Greenaway, have never received the respect that they deserve by the increasingly childish Hollywood, I do not know.
The only hope he has is to flip the script and be Vinny from my cousin Vinny. Sadly Melania isn't a Marisa Tomei.Replies: @guest
This is an interesting test of the Megaphone’s ability to successfully conduct a gaslight operation. The 2000 election was not that long ago. Can they induce a mass hallucination to suggest that it never happened? So far, it seems to be working.
What is it with the internet and willy-nilly use of "gaslighting" these days?Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Harry Baldwin, @Antonymous
If they had a bit more historical sense they’d realise that Trump is merely riding objective material and social forces; he did not create the hundred millions of dispossessed Americans. And I have to say that a lot of these New York media types may come to regret sabotaging the relatively harmless Trump, when some real “Reaction” comes bubbling up from the heartland.
People who were raised in good, respectable families are at a disadvantage when it comes to wallowing in the sty that is politics. Bush the second, for all his faults, never descended to the level of his lampooners despite the despicable things they said about him.
Donald too is hamstrung against the Clintons by his upper class sense of propriety. Hillary’s meanness in the first debate stung him and he responded by taking off the gloves, but his heart isn’t in it. To be sure, developing real estate in NYC takes sharp elbows, but to have to get down and mud wrestle with the hillbilly Clintons is beneath any normal person’s dignity.
Trump actually thought Clinton would play fair.
It goes to his fundamental goodness as a man.
I am sure real estate is tough.
However, he has never literally killed anyone as HRC has in her capacity as SOS.
He seemed angry or more determined than ever last night , possibly because he finally realizes how serious these people are.
White voters with college education 48/37 for Clinton
Romney won this group by 14 points against a more popular incumbent
Maybe Trump is just repugnant to too many
Why would Dems need to steal an election against someone so far behind in the polls?
It’d be interesting if you could post more on rigging from a statistical perspective. What margin do you think would be necessary to obviate rigging claims?
On the other hand, if he LOSES a few states by a handful of votes in each, with uncommon distributions (which will not be evident until the counting is done) we will know he was snookered.
Last comment is that it does not matter much. Trump will be a lot more fun to watch, but the old American Republic is doomed regardless of who wins. Bring on the entertainment, I say!
They cry out in pain as they strike him…
Zerohedge parades this morning’s headlines. They are all remarkably similar for some reason.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/morning-after-what-all-newspapers-are-leading-after-last-nights-debate
Election fraud is part of the American political tradition going back 2 centuries to Tammany Hall.
Ironically, it’s Trump’s caudillo like histrionics about election fraud that is part of the Latin American political tradition.
Discredit, Disqualify, De-platform.
SJW 101.
Someone once mentioned to fight as Sean Connery said in the Untouchables. The Chicago way.
“Wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone.
Just insert Democrats for Capone. Playing by Cuck rules won’t get.
And the establishment R’s are scared, and the globalist cabal is scared, et al.
Yeah. It’s fear, not shame.
Exactly so. They don’t feel guilty, they are sanctimonious. In their minds, their support of Hillary makes them good people and they are chastising the bad people who support Trump. Simple as that.
The (((media))) cries out in pain as it strikes Trump.
Interesting polls today.
USC – Trump + 0.6
IBD – Trump + 1
Rasmussen – Trump + 3
YouGov post debate poll – HRC + 4
Suffolk (Ohio) – tied
Since I'm not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump's campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don't think it's very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I'll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I'll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.Replies: @415 reasons, @dsgntd_plyr, @Alfa158, @FKA Max, @JimboHarambe
Times/Picayune - HRC +12Replies: @Johnnywalker123
Trump has cooties. The anti White demographic tidal wave was supposed to destroy the west without anyone who matters noticing or complaining. This is the “I can’t even go there” point and sputter election.
No, Steve, you’re projecting. Leftists have no sense of shame.
The left sees itself rigging the election, yes. But then they think, “If we have to take such extreme measures to defeat Trump, then he really IS evil!” And their righteous indignation increases and they lash out even more.
You’re just too darned nice.
The media have shame in the sense that they wield it. They themselves are immune to it. They are the last Western cultural institution with the will to power.
The left sees itself rigging the election, yes. But then they think, "If we have to take such extreme measures to defeat Trump, then he really IS evil!" And their righteous indignation increases and they lash out even more.
You're just too darned nice.Replies: @Opinionator
Would any means not be justified in order to prevent jews and people of color from being beaten and murdered by mobs during a Trump presidency?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zAhttp://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/jews--the-slave-trade.htmlhttp://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/118790/default/v0/15245789-522x293.jpg
Pregnant women and children being targeted by Jewsand:
Two teenage Israeli Jew girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: "Hating Arabs is not racism, it's values."
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02962/jewish-girls_2962213c.jpgJews in US admit "Israel First"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/bluntly-firsters-politics/
Any means? No.
But in any case, it's rage not fear that's motivating the left. The left doesn't fear the possibility of right-wing violence resulting from a Trump presidency. But it is enraged by the possibility of a Trump victory denying it the presidency it believes it is entitled to. "It's our turn" isn't just a political slogan, it's a bedrock belief.Replies: @Opinionator
USC - Trump + 0.6
IBD - Trump + 1
Rasmussen - Trump + 3
YouGov post debate poll - HRC + 4
Suffolk (Ohio) - tiedReplies: @reiner Tor, @celt darnell, @Johnnywalker123
I think Trump will lose, since everything is stacked against him, but there could still be a Brexit-sized surprise.
Since I’m not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump’s campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don’t think it’s very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I’ll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I’ll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.
1. state governments, not the feds run our elections. just go to a state that doesn't require voter id. in some places a poll official that "knows you" can attest that you're legally allowed to vote.
in maryland, where i live, you can register without photo id, but with a "government document that shows the voter’s name and address." so just show them which welfare program you're enrolled in, and that's equal to a passport that says you're a citizen.
2. "[William Hill] has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician."
more bets are placed on trump, but clinton gets bigger bets. that's the brexit pattern http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/punters-rush-to-back-trump-despite-disastrous-week-of-campaigning-a7368196.html
If you would like to actually vote, Hillary would also be more than happy to have her people fill out an absentee ballot for you and mail in to the polling station of your choice.
This astrologer, like you, is betting her money on Trump, and she was one of the few astrologers, who predicted BREXIT, because according to her most astrologers are politically liberal, and therefore their political predictions are often biased in favor of more liberal/socialist candidates and policies, and thus often inaccurate:
I think only 2 of us astrologers predicted Brexit, with the others all saying Remain would win. My guess is that astrologers lean left and probably naturally are democrats and want to see DT lose. I am in the UK and so I started out with an open mind, I even presumed HC would win, but after long looks at the charts I decided that DT has a 90% chance. Did you hear what Soros was saying - he said DT would win the popular vote and that Hilary would still become president. I will keep that statement in mind when I hear the results. Also the way the polls were going and popular perception and also the odds; Hilary looked a dead cert (until now), so to predict her to win was hardly sticking their necks out was it. My honest thought is that the stars are with DT.
US 2016 Election Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFBQORiMb_Q
Published on Aug 7, 2016
US Presidential Election - What chance does Donald Trump have of winning? Lisa Lazuli looks at the astrology for The Donald.To me, what The Machine Media is doing is even more sinister than just Projection. To me it is more akin to Gaslighting than Projection:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
These types of tactics by the media don't surprise me in the least, taking into consideration the following:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Careers_with_highest_proportion_of_psychopaths
Speaking as a non-American, I believe that the fact that literally millions of people have been red-pilled by the Trump vs. the Media election is more valuable than what Trump could have achieved in 4/8 years had the media given him a “fair” (i.e. only normally biased) crack and he won.
But I can see that were I an American anyway near the Mexican border I would feel differently.
Either way, though, he probably won’t win so you might as well make the best of it. People need to understand: this isn’t a bug in the system, this is the system: and if it looks like it’s in a state of chronic dysfunction that’s because it is. Read Gentle Introduction and encourage anyone you know with a +115 IQ to do so as well, right after a James O Keefe video. There’s never been a better time.
These people just live in a world separated from the rest of us. Most of them lack self-awareness. Immerse them in a hive culture like the mass media and they begin to look like ants in an ant farm.
The weird thing about the post-debate coverage is that is feels subdued. I was sure they would find something to be hysterical about, but its like they have run out of steam all of a sudden. I suspect they were sure that round three of Cankles versus Trump would result in the knockout. When that did not happen, they are deflated.
Polls are interesting today. Trump is ahead or tied in the big national polls. Dig into the internals of some of them and there are a shift into undecided away from Clinton and the third party options. The better markets are even more strange. Majority of the bets are on Trump, but the majority of money is bet on Clinton.
I can’t help but wonder if the media has not so overplayed their hand that a general sense of disgust is starting to show up in the polling.
The (((media))) has been attacking Trump in vicious and instinctual ways. The logic seems to be since David Duke likes Trump, if Trump is right then David Duke is right. If David Duke is right, then Hitler is right. It makes no sense, but you can see it from political twitter and the constant MSM freak outs over the latest Trump nothing-burger controversy that the (((media))) has dangerous prejudices.
Nazi Germany had a freer press (not Soviet Russia though).
The MSM believes this latest “outrage” is another nail Trump’s coffin, much like the judge Curiel event.
But after reading a rare interview with Breibart’s Stephen Bannon, now of the Trump campaign, who said that Trump was the “master of the head fake,” I believe this whole brouhaha was teed up by Trump to talk about ALL the rigging: WikiLeaks, deleted emails, media bias, illegal aliens voting, and Democratic thugs.
And these fit into his larger narrative that it’s a rigged system of the elites against the American people.
absolutely brilliant closing argument
How is the onus on the wronged party, Trump,to not speak up rather than on the criminal Hillary Clinton to not commit voter fraud and dirty tricks in the first place? You lock up the robber, not the victim.
As to the nonsense that nobody ever contests the outcomes of elections, almost every election in the early 1800s was contested, to say nothing of 1860, as well as the popular/electoral splits of 1876 and 2000.
alt righters are searching the tweet history of democrats and media members, and turning up examples of them talking about rigged elections, and a rigged political/economic system from earlier this year.
what a time to be alive
I think the same thing applies to WikiLeaks. The media is desperately trying to discredit Wikileaks and Julian Assagne because it’s the only source that actually tells the truth about Hillary’s corruption. That has to be embarrassing for supposed “journalists.”
USC - Trump + 0.6
IBD - Trump + 1
Rasmussen - Trump + 3
YouGov post debate poll - HRC + 4
Suffolk (Ohio) - tiedReplies: @reiner Tor, @celt darnell, @Johnnywalker123
On the subject of polls, I came across some interesting information:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/19/the-perils-of-polling-in-a-brexit-and-donald-trump-world/
One quote struck out: “survey results show that candidate Donald Trump performs nearly six percentage points better in online polls than in telephone ones.”
This is important, because as the writer observes about Brexit, “While polls conducted online suggested the race was very close, telephone poll results projected a comfortable 18-point victory for those voting to “Stay”.
During the referendum campaign, we Brexiteers were constantly trolled by Remainders who pointed to the difference in the telephone polls and who repeatedly and confidently asserted that telephone polls were always more accurate than online polls.
We now know that the telephone polls were wildly off and that the online polls, while more accurate, nonetheless underestimated the Brexit vote.
Also, Hillary’s numbers are starting to trend downwards and we’ve still over two weeks to go.
This race is far from finished.
Since I'm not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump's campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don't think it's very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I'll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I'll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.Replies: @415 reasons, @dsgntd_plyr, @Alfa158, @FKA Max, @JimboHarambe
I wish it were more like 50/50 odds I’d bet the farm on Clinton. Then if she lost I wouldn’t even care about the money I’d be so happy. Psychic insurance.
Since I'm not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump's campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don't think it's very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I'll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I'll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.Replies: @415 reasons, @dsgntd_plyr, @Alfa158, @FKA Max, @JimboHarambe
two things
1. state governments, not the feds run our elections. just go to a state that doesn’t require voter id. in some places a poll official that “knows you” can attest that you’re legally allowed to vote.
in maryland, where i live, you can register without photo id, but with a “government document that shows the voter’s name and address.” so just show them which welfare program you’re enrolled in, and that’s equal to a passport that says you’re a citizen.
2. “[William Hill] has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician.”
more bets are placed on trump, but clinton gets bigger bets. that’s the brexit pattern http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/punters-rush-to-back-trump-despite-disastrous-week-of-campaigning-a7368196.html
We don’ nee’ no steenkin bodges!
Off-topic,
A very fine quote from Frauke Petry on the current situation in Germany
from The Perpetual Curate, oddly enough.- Romans 3Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
Since I'm not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump's campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don't think it's very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I'll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I'll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.Replies: @415 reasons, @dsgntd_plyr, @Alfa158, @FKA Max, @JimboHarambe
If you want to contribute to American campaigns then you need to support the Democrats. The Bill Clinton and Obama campaigns both set up their electronic contribution systems to disable the ability to identify non-US credit card donations. In Bill’s campaign the Chinese government also sent cash to a Buddhist convent in the US and had the impoverished nuns each contribute the maximum permitted amount. I would be surprised if Hillary hasn’t done the same thing.
If you would like to actually vote, Hillary would also be more than happy to have her people fill out an absentee ballot for you and mail in to the polling station of your choice.
OT: Right now, I’m sitting in a public place, listening to some loud-mouthed asshole with a New York accent talking about how inarticulate Trump is.
“Obama sounds so educated and classy,” he’s saying. “Trump sounds like a buffoon.”
Now he’s talking about how incompetent and fear-mongering Trump is.
Anyone who holds up Obama as the paragon of intelligence, competence, and integrity is not worth arguing with.
What they fail to grasp is once real serious vibrant diversity kicks in they and their ilk will be kicked to the curb. They don't get it; the cult of diversity will have no use for any white people. We are all the same to them, the color of your collar and your politics will mean nothing. Pay up and shut up.You are whitey, and that's all that matters. Locally, think Newark Congressman Peter Rodino or Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes; once we have enough votes to get our guy in there, get lost no matter how much you bent over backward to pay fealty. Think Doctor Zhivago coming back to his old home to see it overrun by the rabble.
Since I'm not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump's campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don't think it's very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I'll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I'll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.Replies: @415 reasons, @dsgntd_plyr, @Alfa158, @FKA Max, @JimboHarambe
This is a bit esoteric… but since Benjamin Franklin was apparently an avid astrologer, I might as well share it here:
– http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html
– http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/17/ben-franklin-and-astrology/
This astrologer, like you, is betting her money on Trump, and she was one of the few astrologers, who predicted BREXIT, because according to her most astrologers are politically liberal, and therefore their political predictions are often biased in favor of more liberal/socialist candidates and policies, and thus often inaccurate:
I think only 2 of us astrologers predicted Brexit, with the others all saying Remain would win. My guess is that astrologers lean left and probably naturally are democrats and want to see DT lose. I am in the UK and so I started out with an open mind, I even presumed HC would win, but after long looks at the charts I decided that DT has a 90% chance. Did you hear what Soros was saying – he said DT would win the popular vote and that Hilary would still become president. I will keep that statement in mind when I hear the results. Also the way the polls were going and popular perception and also the odds; Hilary looked a dead cert (until now), so to predict her to win was hardly sticking their necks out was it. My honest thought is that the stars are with DT.
US 2016 Election Donald Trump
Published on Aug 7, 2016
US Presidential Election – What chance does Donald Trump have of winning? Lisa Lazuli looks at the astrology for The Donald.
To me, what The Machine Media is doing is even more sinister than just Projection. To me it is more akin to Gaslighting than Projection:
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
These types of tactics by the media don’t surprise me in the least, taking into consideration the following:
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Careers_with_highest_proportion_of_psychopaths
Was Hillary dressed like an ice cream vendor from the future?
Not ashamed; just angered and saddened by the knowledge that throwing the election her way will hasten their ultimate demise.
D-Mock-Rats and their Enemedia-Pravda Ministry of Propaganda make a big hypocritical show of clutching their pearls at Mr. Trump’s well-founded declaration of a rigged election.
These are the same Dems and their same Enemedia-Pravda Propagandists and their same legion of useful idiots who have never stopped harping that the 2000 election was rigged against and stolen from Al Gore.
Pot calls kettle black – just more Ruling Class $ellout Hypocrisy.
Since I'm not an American citizen, I cannot legally send money to Trump's campaign, nor vote for him, so I just placed a bet for his win. I don't think it's very likely, but the odds are really bad for him, so I can more than quintuple my money. I'll have reasons to celebrate. Should he lose, I'll have other worries, like nuclear war or the implosion of our civilization.Replies: @415 reasons, @dsgntd_plyr, @Alfa158, @FKA Max, @JimboHarambe
Don’t let little things like the law stop you from voting for Trump, it doesn’t stop the Democrats.
A very fine quote from Frauke Petry on the current situation in GermanyReplies: @Desiderius, @415 reasons, @Trumpenproleteriat, @Chrisnonymous
https://books.google.com/books?id=gpqy_DqmyioC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=we+are+none+of+us+good&source=bl&ots=pZsGn1Y6vZ&sig=g0bPepTtHveB5NCt_wLiLNOrYfk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTvt72h-rPAhUGaz4KHbdaCVgQ6AEITDAI#v=onepage&q=we%20are%20none%20of%20us%20good&f=false
from The Perpetual Curate, oddly enough.
– Romans 3
I disagree that they feel shame. I agree that they understand that they are transgressing against a social norm and have to justify their action, but instead of shame they are proud.
The left feels it has the moral high ground because they stand for the “Oppressed of the World.” Since those who suffer are suffering from the fault of “society” and not from blind chance or their own lack of skills/character/whatever, then they are not only morally justified in any actions they take on the behalf of the “Oppressed”, they feel, in fact, proud.
As Jacques Roux says (in Marat/De Sade) “What are a few looted mansions in comparison to their looted lives?”
One might question yet whether or not they are merely justifying the desire to tear things down, but that is another argument.
another thought of Nietzsche (who had a species in mind, clearly)
A very fine quote from Frauke Petry on the current situation in GermanyReplies: @Desiderius, @415 reasons, @Trumpenproleteriat, @Chrisnonymous
From that New Yorker article you quoted
So it’s an extremist position that there should not be minarets in Germany? What about muezzin issuing a call to prayer? Is it an extremist position that Germany should not be converted to an Islamic society?
If Trump has a path to victory, it’s still probably a narrow one, and it’s a path which would probably require even little Utah’s 6 electoral votes. Well those votes are now in doubt as a third party Chamber of Commerce buttboy is outpolling both Hillary and Trump. That could mean an election where neither major party candidate gets an electoral college majority and the vote is thrown into the House.
It would be interesting to see what sort of shenanigans occur in the electoral college (including potentially outright bribery and/or blackmail) and what the (presumably Republican-controlled) House will do if it winds up being up to them. I fear that there are enough disloyal electors and Republican House members that the race could still go to Hillary even if she emerges from the election without an electoral majority.
My favorite is that the dissing of Trumps accusations of rigging and media conspiracies is always immediately followed by factual assertions that the “Russians” are “interfering” in our election.
Maybe it's Russia that's the indispensable nation?
Maybe most of you have seen this on Twitter, but here’s another facet of the media’s hyperventillation over the word ‘rigged’: duplicity and double standards.
OT, but here’s a report with a little bit of detail on the hack of Podesta’s email.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts
Taking it at face value (it never makes clear, at least that I saw, the source of their info), it says that the hack was enabled by link in a phishing email which Podesta clicked on, which seems to have its origins in Russian hackers.
But of course it never addresses the question of why these hackers would have to have been connected to the government, rather than just a rogue group, like so many other Russian hackers (more often interested in money, I think).
It doesn’t even seem that the attack was particularly sophisticated:
Is this what hackers trained by a major government would do?
Isn’t this sort of rather primitive phishing attack more like what you’d expect from a bunch of Russians living in their mothers’ basements — phishing then drinking, drinking then phishing?
And it isn’t obvious from the article when the capture of Podesta’s email ended. For all I can make out, it might have continued until Oct 9, when the first batch of Podesta’s emails were released by WikiLeaks.
But of course there are many Russian hackers who have no connection whatsoever to the Kremlin.I think hackers trained by a major government could also make major screw-ups. Just as I wouldn't have expected a professional like Podesta to have such an unsecured email, or Hillary to have basically zero security on her private server, etc. (If I were Hillary, I'd have had a private server in order to escape scrutiny - which includes scrutiny by hackers, i.e. I'd have hired a team of experts to secure my private server.)Replies: @sayless
It would be interesting to see what sort of shenanigans occur in the electoral college (including potentially outright bribery and/or blackmail) and what the (presumably Republican-controlled) House will do if it winds up being up to them. I fear that there are enough disloyal electors and Republican House members that the race could still go to Hillary even if she emerges from the election without an electoral majority.Replies: @Connecticut Famer, @pyrrhus, @Clyde, @Paul Mendez
Your fears are legitimate. The Clinton Agitprop Machine –the Clintons one indisputable (if dubious) contribution to political discourse in this once- great republic–probably has a dossier on every one of the electors as well as the Republicans in the House.
Why would the media feel the slightest bit of shame? #allhandsondeck
Chutzpah loosely translates as shamelessness.
You know when you got your opponent by the cajones when they scream like a stuck pig. The establishment is terrified of the public becoming fully aware that the parties rig elections, because if they did, the political class would lose their legitimacy and wealth in a heart beat.
One other thing: During the debate Hillary released some more SAP level classified information. If you paid attention you know what it is. You can bet those men who handle the nukes must have dumped a grumpy when they heard her say it. She is a complete idiot.
“Rigging” the election means interfering with the vote counts, throwing out ballots, making the machines record the votes wrong, etc. The Media is not doing that, nor is anyone else.
Why does your political philosophy's implementation require perpetual aggression and relentless deceit?
You think your besties won't string you up and leave you twisting in the wind. You don't know history.
You’re right – Steve is misunderstanding the aggressive purpose of projection. They are projecting but not from shame, unless one wants to hypothesize some ineffable ‘secret shame’ as the cause of all projection. In reality, it’s more a kindergarten stunt: ‘I know you are, but what am I?’
If this WikiLeaks cycle should teach us anything, it’s that our enemies are not nearly as innocent as many on the Alt Right think: ‘they’re just acting out their genetic program’ or ‘they’re just stupid and they really think Somalis are the new Irish and Gautemalans the new Italians’ or ‘they are projecting out of shame.’
No, Podesta and crew know exactly what they are doing.
Which is what?Replies: @guest
Many of the AR are quite aware that our opponents aren't engaging in 3D chess (as Steve insists when he talks about the Left and gun control), but are legitimately evil and want to see everyone who disagrees with them stuffed into gulags.
Steve, Derbyshire, and a few others insist that if they just repeat the same points over and over the Left will "understand" how silly they are and everything will be okay. I'm pretty sure its impossible for them to imagine being hucked into prison for bad think. Ridiculous Boomer "everyone thinks like me" mindsets aren't limited to the Left.
OT
This didn’t occur to me before, as I listened to the gung-ho BBC coverage of the Mosul attack (Aleppo coverage is very muted now, someone obviously realised the contrast was just too obvious) – but Mosul is pretty close to the Syrian border.
I wonder if the plan is for ISIS to leave Mosul relatively unscathed, and to allow them to cross into Syria intact, rather than subjecting them to the sort of treatment Saddam’s armour got in 1990 as it left Kuwait?
(Meanwhile in northern Syria the Kurdish YPG (officially allies of the US) are being absolutely hammered by the Turks (fellow NATO members with the US). This is a very dirty war, in every sense.)
How very, very different it is from the truly barbaric siege of Aleppo, where only the heroic White Helmets bring some relief to the horrendous suffering of the civilian population imposed by the evil Assad regime and their murderous Russian allies.
And we're welcoming these families, clans, and tribes ... and their shaky alliances and alien cultures into our country where they will immediately undergo a transformation into model citizens on the model of the rule-following British and Germany immigrants of times past.
Either that or they will retain their shaky alliances of families, clans, and tribes and their alien cultures and the body-politic and rule of law will suffer as a result.
Which is more likely?
USC - Trump + 0.6
IBD - Trump + 1
Rasmussen - Trump + 3
YouGov post debate poll - HRC + 4
Suffolk (Ohio) - tiedReplies: @reiner Tor, @celt darnell, @Johnnywalker123
PPD Poll – Trump +1.6
Times/Picayune – HRC +12
These are the same Dems and their same Enemedia-Pravda Propagandists and their same legion of useful idiots who have never stopped harping that the 2000 election was rigged against and stolen from Al Gore.
Pot calls kettle black - just more Ruling Class $ellout Hypocrisy.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
But, if he wins, will he withhold his assent to the result as well?
This didn't occur to me before, as I listened to the gung-ho BBC coverage of the Mosul attack (Aleppo coverage is very muted now, someone obviously realised the contrast was just too obvious) - but Mosul is pretty close to the Syrian border.
I wonder if the plan is for ISIS to leave Mosul relatively unscathed, and to allow them to cross into Syria intact, rather than subjecting them to the sort of treatment Saddam's armour got in 1990 as it left Kuwait?
(Meanwhile in northern Syria the Kurdish YPG (officially allies of the US) are being absolutely hammered by the Turks (fellow NATO members with the US). This is a very dirty war, in every sense.)Replies: @reiner Tor, @TheJester
I think we should all be thankful that in Mosul there are absolutely no civilians, especially no children, or even if there are, none of them get injured or killed in the siege. There is also no organization that rescues people from under the ruins (there’s nobody to be rescued to begin with), so fortunately we can conscientiously support the attack on Mosul.
How very, very different it is from the truly barbaric siege of Aleppo, where only the heroic White Helmets bring some relief to the horrendous suffering of the civilian population imposed by the evil Assad regime and their murderous Russian allies.
It would be interesting to see what sort of shenanigans occur in the electoral college (including potentially outright bribery and/or blackmail) and what the (presumably Republican-controlled) House will do if it winds up being up to them. I fear that there are enough disloyal electors and Republican House members that the race could still go to Hillary even if she emerges from the election without an electoral majority.Replies: @Connecticut Famer, @pyrrhus, @Clyde, @Paul Mendez
There is even speculation that the Mormon buttboy could become President as a “compromise” candidate…
I thought even amateur hackers could easily make it appear that they work from Russia, even if they are in reality working from New Zealand or Iceland. Is there any evidence this was not the case here?
But of course there are many Russian hackers who have no connection whatsoever to the Kremlin.
I think hackers trained by a major government could also make major screw-ups. Just as I wouldn’t have expected a professional like Podesta to have such an unsecured email, or Hillary to have basically zero security on her private server, etc. (If I were Hillary, I’d have had a private server in order to escape scrutiny – which includes scrutiny by hackers, i.e. I’d have hired a team of experts to secure my private server.)
Agree. But would a Russian government hacker use the word Bear in his handle?
It would be interesting to see what sort of shenanigans occur in the electoral college (including potentially outright bribery and/or blackmail) and what the (presumably Republican-controlled) House will do if it winds up being up to them. I fear that there are enough disloyal electors and Republican House members that the race could still go to Hillary even if she emerges from the election without an electoral majority.Replies: @Connecticut Famer, @pyrrhus, @Clyde, @Paul Mendez
Now this is some advanced gaming. In this era of “Money Changes Everything” and plata o plomo—silver or lead threats to you and family, anything can happen. The Latinization of the Anglo founded United States of America.
Billions upon billions are at stake so……….anything can happen in the next three weeks and in the weeks after the election if this is close. Think Democrap *lawyers*….like I said tens of billions are at stake.
What’s a little vote rigging in service of Holocaust prevention?
The (trans)national police state cuckservatives are getting all hot and bothered that Trump might fight electoral fraud:
I don't know who this guy is, but I can imagine he's not the only one thinking like this. I'm also sure most leftists, even if they disagree with him, aren't incensed by this tweet. So if they finally do that, there won't be many leftists protesting against it. Or will there be?Replies: @sayless
Mostly, though, I'm yawning. None of them believe any of this. They're just emoting.Replies: @Unladen Swallow
I’m beginning to think a Hillary win isn’t the end, but the beginning. She’ll be the most compromised president going in ever. The Press will have openly shed its constitutional role in electioneering and covering-up for her, having calumniated half the nation to do it. Things have been said which can’t be taken back. The Democrats have been exposed in all their corruption. The election results will be suspect, to say the least. If this doesn’t red pill America…
Or secession is around the corner.
Is this the election where White men realize they will never have any real political power again?
Great gift to leave your sons, guys.
If this WikiLeaks cycle should teach us anything, it's that our enemies are not nearly as innocent as many on the Alt Right think: 'they're just acting out their genetic program' or 'they're just stupid and they really think Somalis are the new Irish and Gautemalans the new Italians' or 'they are projecting out of shame.'
No, Podesta and crew know exactly what they are doing.Replies: @Opinionator, @Jack Hanson
No, Podesta and crew know exactly what they are doing.
Which is what?
I have had a thought for a while. Is it not possible that our multiculturalist utopias’ slide towards totalitarianism will happen the same way financial crises happen: slowly, and then all at once? I mean, we know well the slow phase, it’s been going on for decades now. But maybe it will now happen all of a sudden? As the frogs try to jump out of the hot water everywhere (in the US, in several European countries, etc.), maybe the cooks will finally use force on them?
I don’t know who this guy is, but I can imagine he’s not the only one thinking like this. I’m also sure most leftists, even if they disagree with him, aren’t incensed by this tweet. So if they finally do that, there won’t be many leftists protesting against it. Or will there be?
A very fine quote from Frauke Petry on the current situation in GermanyReplies: @Desiderius, @415 reasons, @Trumpenproleteriat, @Chrisnonymous
This would have been an excellent response to hillary’s “america is great because it is good shtick”
And umpin’ and bumpin’ and thumpin’ and bumpin’
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163
"Wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone.
Just insert Democrats for Capone. Playing by Cuck rules won't get.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Someone once mentioned
That was Obama.
@reiner
I think a sudden snap is highly probable. The system is rotten, and a lot of Americans would just as well see it collapse, even if Wikileaks and the Russians are working hand in glove. It’s hilarious watching those still invested in the system throw out charges of sedition, treason and being unpatriotic. Once people quit caring about being called racist they were out of ammo.
I follow quite a few natsec people, and they live in their own little bubble. There’s a whole bunch of government pork they’ve been living fat on for 15 years.
Schindler’s an odd duck who made redpill real talk noises when Trump was ascendant, but in the end he’s a cuck.
Leftists will cheer any prosecution on, should Trump lose.
In my opinion the particular monster that they are shaping Trump into is Albert Spica. In case you don't know, Albert Spica is the villain so ably played by Michael Gambon in Peter Greenaway's very excellent 1989 drama 'The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover'.
Why this classic film, and Peter Greenaway, have never received the respect that they deserve by the increasingly childish Hollywood, I do not know.Replies: @guest, @okie
That is one of the most unwatchable movies I’ve ever tried to watch.
I think the term you’re looking for is memory hole, not gaslighting. Of course, it’s possible they’re trying to make those of us who remember 2000 doubt our sanity for doing so. But the other term is more to the point.
What is it with the internet and willy-nilly use of “gaslighting” these days?
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
To make assurance doubly sure, like old Macbeth.
No, it was her usual Chairwoman Mao ensemble.
Which is what?Replies: @guest
Staying the “who” in “who/whom.”
They cannot forgive him for the stupid things they've had to say.Replies: @Opinionator
Such as…?
“This is sedition.” I’m laughing.
Mostly, though, I’m yawning. None of them believe any of this. They’re just emoting.
“Donald Trump is a domestic insurrectionist.”
In my opinion the particular monster that they are shaping Trump into is Albert Spica. In case you don't know, Albert Spica is the villain so ably played by Michael Gambon in Peter Greenaway's very excellent 1989 drama 'The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover'.
Why this classic film, and Peter Greenaway, have never received the respect that they deserve by the increasingly childish Hollywood, I do not know.Replies: @guest, @okie
You don’t have to get so artsy fartsy, i said yesterday that he is being put in the Tommy from Goodfellas role of the impulsive hothead who shot the drinks boy. The never Trumpers play into this as he wasn’t killed as a crook but put down by his own side.
The only hope he has is to flip the script and be Vinny from my cousin Vinny. Sadly Melania isn’t a Marisa Tomei.
I think that a 3 % margin will suffice. There are not that many places that stealing votes can work, maybe 100 precincts nationwide. If (unlikely) Trump can win by 3 or more in enough states, he will win in spite of fraud.
On the other hand, if he LOSES a few states by a handful of votes in each, with uncommon distributions (which will not be evident until the counting is done) we will know he was snookered.
Last comment is that it does not matter much. Trump will be a lot more fun to watch, but the old American Republic is doomed regardless of who wins. Bring on the entertainment, I say!
It would be interesting to see what sort of shenanigans occur in the electoral college (including potentially outright bribery and/or blackmail) and what the (presumably Republican-controlled) House will do if it winds up being up to them. I fear that there are enough disloyal electors and Republican House members that the race could still go to Hillary even if she emerges from the election without an electoral majority.Replies: @Connecticut Famer, @pyrrhus, @Clyde, @Paul Mendez
Such an event would be unequivocal proof we are living in the End Times.
Stop me if I’ve already said this.
Leftists tend to feel that their leftist opinions guarantee their virtue as persons, at least in my experience. SJWs are a contemporary example of this intrapsychic dynamic. And conservatives tend to feel that their right-wing opinions are a sign of greater intelligence, while not necessarily guaranteeing that they have greater virtue. I think this is why leftists can be so nasty, even to one another, over little differences in opinion on political matters. Look at how many death threats Trump has received, while as far as I know none have been reported against Hillary.
The only hope he has is to flip the script and be Vinny from my cousin Vinny. Sadly Melania isn't a Marisa Tomei.Replies: @guest
I like the part where Vinny keeps stalling on fighting a giant guy who promised to put up two hundred dollars against Vinny’s ability to kick his ass. When the guy finally flashes enough cash, Vinny waves him off, looks like he’s going to pass by, then launches himself through the air and levels the guy with one hit. Hopefully something like that happens on election day.
Mostly, though, I'm yawning. None of them believe any of this. They're just emoting.Replies: @Unladen Swallow
They ( The US govt ) have through diplomatic pressure already cut the Internet access to Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK in order to stem the leaks, because you know the Russians are behind it all.
A very fine quote from Frauke Petry on the current situation in GermanyReplies: @Desiderius, @415 reasons, @Trumpenproleteriat, @Chrisnonymous
Nice dovetail with Gabriel M’s suggestion to read the Gentle Introduction. (That would be UR’s… but not Unz Review’s…)
Trumps accusations of rigging and media conspiracies is always immediately followed by factual assertions that the “Russians” are “interfering” in our election.
Maybe it’s Russia that’s the indispensable nation?
The hasbarists are here.
Nonetheless, the facts are:
Dr. Tony Martin – The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade
http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/jews–the-slave-trade.html
Pregnant women and children being targeted by Jews
and:
Two teenage Israeli Jew girls carrying a placard in Hebrew reading: “Hating Arabs is not racism, it’s values.”
Jews in US admit “Israel First”
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/bluntly-firsters-politics/
If this WikiLeaks cycle should teach us anything, it's that our enemies are not nearly as innocent as many on the Alt Right think: 'they're just acting out their genetic program' or 'they're just stupid and they really think Somalis are the new Irish and Gautemalans the new Italians' or 'they are projecting out of shame.'
No, Podesta and crew know exactly what they are doing.Replies: @Opinionator, @Jack Hanson
Who’s this “we’, kemosabe?
Many of the AR are quite aware that our opponents aren’t engaging in 3D chess (as Steve insists when he talks about the Left and gun control), but are legitimately evil and want to see everyone who disagrees with them stuffed into gulags.
Steve, Derbyshire, and a few others insist that if they just repeat the same points over and over the Left will “understand” how silly they are and everything will be okay. I’m pretty sure its impossible for them to imagine being hucked into prison for bad think. Ridiculous Boomer “everyone thinks like me” mindsets aren’t limited to the Left.
Naif.
But of course there are many Russian hackers who have no connection whatsoever to the Kremlin.I think hackers trained by a major government could also make major screw-ups. Just as I wouldn't have expected a professional like Podesta to have such an unsecured email, or Hillary to have basically zero security on her private server, etc. (If I were Hillary, I'd have had a private server in order to escape scrutiny - which includes scrutiny by hackers, i.e. I'd have hired a team of experts to secure my private server.)Replies: @sayless
hackers trained by a major government could also make major screw-ups.
Agree. But would a Russian government hacker use the word Bear in his handle?
In general, fraud that isn’t blatant and obvious to everyone can only change the outcome of very close elections.
Tampering with the election to change a Trump landslide into a Clinton landslide would require massive operations in many different states (to get enough electoral votes), each with different voting systems, election officials, procedures, etc.
In a given state or county, tampering with paper ballots (opscan or VVPAT) is possible, but is also a manpower-intensive operation that’s hard to keep secret. Tampering with electronic counts is possible (the machines are not very secure and the election officials don’t really understand computer security), but if you change the vote totals by very much, it will be obvious wrt both polls and the expected distribution of votes. It’s not clear that those would automatically lead anywhere in all-electronic voting machines (aka DREs), since there’s not a meaningful way to audit the results. But DREs with paper trails can have their paper totals checked against electronic totals.
There’s a long history of low level fraud involving trucking in homeless people and giving them an ID to vote under. Again, this can affect close races, but it is blatant and very visible. There’s also fraud in mail-in ballots, voter intimidation at the polls, disinformation campaigns (like robocalls to likely voters on the other side telling them the wrong day to vote), “cleaning” the registration database of the other side’s voters, etc. All that happens in every election, but it’s probably not moving the results all that much. Similarly, maybe a few people who aren’t supposed to vote will cast votes, but it won’t change anything unless the state is balanced on a knife edge.
The model for practical vote fraud is probably the 2000 election–most fraud is like screwing up the ballot design in some county so older voters get the wrong guy, or nitpicking the counting rules for dimpled chads–stuff that can move a few thousand votes around, but not more than that.
Mail-in ballots, motor-voter, electronic voting - you cannot seriously believe that the scope of corruption is just a few thousand votes nationwide. And if it is a few thousand in every state, given the electoral college, the election can be stolen.
The notion that to be worthy of contesting the result you have to win by a landslide is absurd. We have a corrupt system, with undocumented voters, undocumented votes and undocumented victors decided by documented enemies of the United States.
I don't know who this guy is, but I can imagine he's not the only one thinking like this. I'm also sure most leftists, even if they disagree with him, aren't incensed by this tweet. So if they finally do that, there won't be many leftists protesting against it. Or will there be?Replies: @sayless
Is it not possible that our multiculturalist utopias’ slide towards totalitarianism will happen the same way financial crises happen: slowly, and then all at once? I mean, we know well the slow phase, it’s been going on for decades now. But maybe it will now happen all of a sudden? As the frogs try to jump out of the hot water everywhere (in the US, in several European countries, etc.), maybe the cooks will finally use force on them?
I’ve thought that for a long time too. Since 2012 I’ve had a foreboding that the 2016 presidential elections would be canceled, or their results canceled. Even have a bet on it.
But I can see that were I an American anyway near the Mexican border I would feel differently.
Either way, though, he probably won't win so you might as well make the best of it. People need to understand: this isn't a bug in the system, this is the system: and if it looks like it's in a state of chronic dysfunction that's because it is. Read Gentle Introduction and encourage anyone you know with a +115 IQ to do so as well, right after a James O Keefe video. There's never been a better time.Replies: @NOTA, @dfordoom
Goldwater:Reagan::Trump:??
It will be interesting to see if someone comes along in another few years who is more palatable than Trump but is still part of the same intellectual movement.
Cybercriminals in Russia are given freedom to rip off and hack Americans, e.g. ransomware, as long as they pay off the right people and do as ordered.
There’s also an establishment / fringes split wrt both Trump and Wikileaks–establishment types on both sides dislike both.
Donald too is hamstrung against the Clintons by his upper class sense of propriety. Hillary's meanness in the first debate stung him and he responded by taking off the gloves, but his heart isn't in it. To be sure, developing real estate in NYC takes sharp elbows, but to have to get down and mud wrestle with the hillbilly Clintons is beneath any normal person's dignity.Replies: @pepperinmono
Agree totally.
Trump actually thought Clinton would play fair.
It goes to his fundamental goodness as a man.
I am sure real estate is tough.
However, he has never literally killed anyone as HRC has in her capacity as SOS.
He seemed angry or more determined than ever last night , possibly because he finally realizes how serious these people are.
If simple attacks get the job done, why wouldn’t a pro use them?
"Obama sounds so educated and classy," he's saying. "Trump sounds like a buffoon."
Now he's talking about how incompetent and fear-mongering Trump is.
Anyone who holds up Obama as the paragon of intelligence, competence, and integrity is not worth arguing with.Replies: @Bugg
Had similar experience in a Park Slope restaurant earlier this week. Adjoining table was a liberal couple, husband letting it slip he works for the US attorney (not sure if it’s Eastern or Southern District,no matter, he is undoubtedly a Dem appointment). The 2 were utterly ga ga over Obama brilliantly chastising Trump about electoral fraud. Yet criminal Mr. Creamer has visited the White House hundreds of times. Why exactly? Here is a lawyer who all day deals with people lying, cheating and stealing, yet this kind of thievery because it inures to his side is okay?
What they fail to grasp is once real serious vibrant diversity kicks in they and their ilk will be kicked to the curb. They don’t get it; the cult of diversity will have no use for any white people. We are all the same to them, the color of your collar and your politics will mean nothing. Pay up and shut up.You are whitey, and that’s all that matters. Locally, think Newark Congressman Peter Rodino or Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes; once we have enough votes to get our guy in there, get lost no matter how much you bent over backward to pay fealty. Think Doctor Zhivago coming back to his old home to see it overrun by the rabble.
I would be shocked if elections were cancelled in my lifetime. I would be much less surprised if they stopped mattering, but we will continue having elections even when it’s little more than ceremony, the way European countries with monarchies still make a big deal of coronations and royal weddings and such.
Liberals usually think that democracy should be about tax rates and nothing else (coincidentally cuckservatives have the exact same concept), but they are not very tolerant about that either. So we might end up with regimes where there's a nominal opposition demanding lower corporate tax rates, but they will totally agree with persecution of enemies of the people of color, so despite the nominal presence of a legal and tolerated opposition the regime could be very violent.Replies: @NOTA
After at least 12 and may be 16 years of Obama and Hillary, it will be over.
Or secession is around the corner.
What is it with the internet and willy-nilly use of "gaslighting" these days?Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Harry Baldwin, @Antonymous
Whenever people become newly acquainted with a thinky new concept, the use of which they believe will show off their intellectual chops, they tend to over-apply it prodigiously. It’s been an unhappily acquired hobby of mine to track these ripples in thought-space, as a once obscure term starts showing up in one columnist’s repertoire after another with increasing frequency before fading off again.
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term “kowtow” in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase “grovelling and kowtowing,” or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn “kowtow” into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of “drilling down,” which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying “let’s talk about this some more.” (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss’ signature “Heavens to Murgatroyd” that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
“Gaslighting” is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It’s like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.
I'm not sure "gaslighting" is such a useful term, for one thing it calls to mind "fartlighting" which as far I know has yet to be linked to any sophisticated thought patterns. Derived from the story and/or the movie(s), "gaslighting" describes a man trying to drive a woman crazy by altering her environment so that she doubts her sanity (along the lines of, "Did you hear that?!" "Why, no, dear, drink your milk."). I don't think many people actually do that. On the other hand, people on the verge of a persecution mania think exactly like that; everyone is plotting against them, and all of reality is part of the plot. If that means discussions of "patriarchy" and "implicit racism" are signs of mental illness, that is not my fault.
Aside from any nuances of that original meaning, which are small, gaslighting has come to be synonymous with anyone attempting to deceive anyone else, about anything. At this point then "gaslighting" is simply a cliche, and therefore to be avoided.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @guest
Back in the 1980s, I recall Sam Donaldson always talking about things being "outside the curve." I never understood what he meant by that and I suspect he didn't either. It just sounded impressive.
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
Enjoyed this comment, it reminds me of how relativity and quantum physics were both fashionable buzzwords for describing any form of relativism or subjectivity decades ago.
I’m not sure “gaslighting” is such a useful term, for one thing it calls to mind “fartlighting” which as far I know has yet to be linked to any sophisticated thought patterns. Derived from the story and/or the movie(s), “gaslighting” describes a man trying to drive a woman crazy by altering her environment so that she doubts her sanity (along the lines of, “Did you hear that?!” “Why, no, dear, drink your milk.”). I don’t think many people actually do that. On the other hand, people on the verge of a persecution mania think exactly like that; everyone is plotting against them, and all of reality is part of the plot. If that means discussions of “patriarchy” and “implicit racism” are signs of mental illness, that is not my fault.
Aside from any nuances of that original meaning, which are small, gaslighting has come to be synonymous with anyone attempting to deceive anyone else, about anything. At this point then “gaslighting” is simply a cliche, and therefore to be avoided.
Yes, I've come to mentally replace the word with "trick" anytime I see it, which usually doesn't alter the meaning at all.
This?
I’m setting my alarm to 3.04 AM from now on.
Times/Picayune - HRC +12Replies: @Johnnywalker123
UPI Poll – HRC +5
from The Perpetual Curate, oddly enough.- Romans 3Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
The Last Real Calvinist is not going to argue with Romans 3!
What is it with the internet and willy-nilly use of "gaslighting" these days?Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Harry Baldwin, @Antonymous
Also, why does everyone say “optics” now when they mean “appearances,” as in, “It’s not illegal, but the optics aren’t good.”
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
Excellent comment; really enjoyed reading it.
I'm not sure "gaslighting" is such a useful term, for one thing it calls to mind "fartlighting" which as far I know has yet to be linked to any sophisticated thought patterns. Derived from the story and/or the movie(s), "gaslighting" describes a man trying to drive a woman crazy by altering her environment so that she doubts her sanity (along the lines of, "Did you hear that?!" "Why, no, dear, drink your milk."). I don't think many people actually do that. On the other hand, people on the verge of a persecution mania think exactly like that; everyone is plotting against them, and all of reality is part of the plot. If that means discussions of "patriarchy" and "implicit racism" are signs of mental illness, that is not my fault.
Aside from any nuances of that original meaning, which are small, gaslighting has come to be synonymous with anyone attempting to deceive anyone else, about anything. At this point then "gaslighting" is simply a cliche, and therefore to be avoided.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @guest
Gaslighting is an Internet meme, and it will be picked up as a shorthand by lazy journos any day now. Remember in Dubya’s time when they all started talking about gravitas wrt Dick Cheney? Or how they twisted Swift boating into a synonym for lying?
Right, because in close, contested elections we never see a Democrat show up with a trunk loaded with ‘ballots’ that are included without scrutiny, and ensuring that once again (with the help of a ‘non-partisan’ judge) that the Democrat candidate wins.
Why does your political philosophy’s implementation require perpetual aggression and relentless deceit?
You think your besties won’t string you up and leave you twisting in the wind. You don’t know history.
But I can see that were I an American anyway near the Mexican border I would feel differently.
Either way, though, he probably won't win so you might as well make the best of it. People need to understand: this isn't a bug in the system, this is the system: and if it looks like it's in a state of chronic dysfunction that's because it is. Read Gentle Introduction and encourage anyone you know with a +115 IQ to do so as well, right after a James O Keefe video. There's never been a better time.Replies: @NOTA, @dfordoom
From the point of view of the globalist Democrats and the globalist Republicans (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum) the system is functioning beautifully. Anyone who isn’t a globalist Democrat or a globalist Republican has no chance of winning. That’s the whole purpose of the system. It’s designed to protect the elites from the mortal threat of democracy, democracy being what they fear more than anything else. Fortunately (from their point of view) the US has no tradition of democracy so they’re pretty safe.
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
Good compendium. Another stock phrase I hear constantly is “Not to get too far into the weeds on this…”
Back in the 1980s, I recall Sam Donaldson always talking about things being “outside the curve.” I never understood what he meant by that and I suspect he didn’t either. It just sounded impressive.
It won’t. The vast majority of the population won’t even know the results are suspect. And establishment Republicans won’t make a song and dance about it because they’ll be delighted by a HIllary win.
Ever heard of the 1960 election? And how are you defining ‘few’ and ‘close’ for evaluation purposes?
Mail-in ballots, motor-voter, electronic voting – you cannot seriously believe that the scope of corruption is just a few thousand votes nationwide. And if it is a few thousand in every state, given the electoral college, the election can be stolen.
The notion that to be worthy of contesting the result you have to win by a landslide is absurd. We have a corrupt system, with undocumented voters, undocumented votes and undocumented victors decided by documented enemies of the United States.
“Would any means not be justified in order to prevent jews and people of color from being beaten and murdered by mobs during a Trump presidency?”
Any means? No.
But in any case, it’s rage not fear that’s motivating the left. The left doesn’t fear the possibility of right-wing violence resulting from a Trump presidency. But it is enraged by the possibility of a Trump victory denying it the presidency it believes it is entitled to. “It’s our turn” isn’t just a political slogan, it’s a bedrock belief.
The rigging from media manipulation and the importation of ringers is so great that no margin could obviate rigging claims.
Any means? No.
But in any case, it's rage not fear that's motivating the left. The left doesn't fear the possibility of right-wing violence resulting from a Trump presidency. But it is enraged by the possibility of a Trump victory denying it the presidency it believes it is entitled to. "It's our turn" isn't just a political slogan, it's a bedrock belief.Replies: @Opinionator
Not quite. It is greed and fear. Nonwhites covet the physical territory and economy of the United States. And in stealing them from Whites, they fear White resistance. They have guilty consciences.
As far as NAMs go, I think they'd be content to have whites run things and just hand over all the goodies they demand. I'm not sure they fear white resistance.
And I definitely don't think they have guilty consciences. They don't have much at all in the way of conscience. Guilt is an abstract concept requiring more intelligence to understand than most of them have.Replies: @Opinionator
Going by the actor motif, how about Shia Lebeouf?
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
I didn’t expect a response as informative as this, thanks. One internet catch phrase which doesn’t annoy me is “virtue-signalling.” Because mankind’s capacity for signalling virtue is bottomless, he can endlessly be found doing so. Therefore, it’s hard to go wrong employing the phrase. Use of “gaslighting” may be termed intelligence-signalling, or perhaps with-it signalling.
Word fashion is fickle.
Yeah, that is a weird one. Probably people think it sounds science-y.
I often wonder why people say “narrative” when “story” would do just as well, although I like Steve’s use of the capitalized Narrative. Or how people use “paradigm” instead of “model.” So much confuses me.
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
Oh, I noticed Wallace said something like “drill down” last night, more than once. That prompted a crack from me about Deepwater Horizon, to the amusement of no one in the room.
I'm not sure "gaslighting" is such a useful term, for one thing it calls to mind "fartlighting" which as far I know has yet to be linked to any sophisticated thought patterns. Derived from the story and/or the movie(s), "gaslighting" describes a man trying to drive a woman crazy by altering her environment so that she doubts her sanity (along the lines of, "Did you hear that?!" "Why, no, dear, drink your milk."). I don't think many people actually do that. On the other hand, people on the verge of a persecution mania think exactly like that; everyone is plotting against them, and all of reality is part of the plot. If that means discussions of "patriarchy" and "implicit racism" are signs of mental illness, that is not my fault.
Aside from any nuances of that original meaning, which are small, gaslighting has come to be synonymous with anyone attempting to deceive anyone else, about anything. At this point then "gaslighting" is simply a cliche, and therefore to be avoided.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @guest
“synonymous with anyone attempting to deceive anyone else, about anything”
Yes, I’ve come to mentally replace the word with “trick” anytime I see it, which usually doesn’t alter the meaning at all.
I remember the invasion of Iraq being prompted by “hubris.” With which I happen to agree, but I wonder why the entire media started using an ancient Greek term all of a sudden.
Word fashions exist and the connotations remain, sometimes I will use words like robust and impactful and empowering as a whimsical memory of buzz words of yore.Replies: @reiner Tor
Story and narrative mean different things, as we use them here.
Way back in 1999, the overuse of the term "kowtow" in nationally syndicated op-eds became so obvious as to be annoying. The very height of absurdity was reached when I saw the prominently mustachioed Thomas L. Friedman employ it in conjunction with a near-synonym, dashing out the awkward phrase "grovelling and kowtowing," or something like that. The point of this un-poetic pleonasm was obviously just to shoehorn "kowtow" into the column somewhere, since that seemed to be the thing to do back then. And these people are supposed to be our skilled wordsmiths and intellectual leading lights?
Sometime circa 2006 we were treated to a proliferation of "drilling down," which started in the financial media (i.e. CNBC) and eventually spread to the nightly talking head shows. In the course of this run the term rapidly prescinded from its technical definition and became just a hip way of saying "let's talk about this some more." (It is the fate of every technical term, once it enters the vernacular, to be dumbed down to the level of the speakers. Thus, any word that once designated a particular or nuanced idea eventually becomes a fashionable idiomatic for a plain-vanilla concept for which a whole host of perfectly adequate synonyms already exists.)
You may recall that just a few months ago there was a brief efflorescence of Snagglepuss' signature "Heavens to Murgatroyd" that even made its way into the iSteve comments. I believe that one was sparked by a single caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who employed the phrase, causing Rush to take notice of it and repeat it.
"Gaslighting" is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.
The literary use of the quotation contains an ironic subtextual element. By the mere fact that it is a quotation, its employ is supposed to suggest both that the original material issues from some unquestionably authoritative Realm of the Archons, as well as lend some cachet to the present author, who must affect that he first stumbled across it in the midst of some deeply personal and wrenching quest for truth.Without this implied drama, quotation-dropping would have no literary value. But fickle man, ever attentive to the pathways of power and personal vainglory, is quick to grasp at the means, the ostentatious display of the symbols of power, without understanding the ends, or the essence that the symbols symbolize. By a sort of hypostatic synecdoche, the symbols are held to be the thing itself. It's like a young man who blows all of his disposable income on sports car leases and bling, trying to look like a high roller while actually having nothing.
Suffice it to say that a real writer must make every reasonable effort to avoid these temptations. The written word is accorded a high degree of respect precisely because it is supposed to represent condensed, crystalized, thoroughly vetted thought. But as with anything else of value, there will be many who try to counterfeit this particular coin. Try to avoid them and try not to be one yourself.Replies: @SPMoore8, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Harry Baldwin, @guest, @guest, @PiltdownMan
Good comment. Granular— a word with a precise meaning in computer science—was popular for a while. Speaking of which, I’m glad crunchy is on its way out.
I remember that when pundit began to be commonly used Wolf Blitzer would annoyingly mispronounce it as “pundint.”
“Nonwhites covet the physical territory and economy of the United States. And in stealing them from Whites, they fear White resistance. They have guilty consciences.”
As far as NAMs go, I think they’d be content to have whites run things and just hand over all the goodies they demand. I’m not sure they fear white resistance.
And I definitely don’t think they have guilty consciences. They don’t have much at all in the way of conscience. Guilt is an abstract concept requiring more intelligence to understand than most of them have.
At some level, they understand what they are doing is wrong or at least violative, and could have repercussions in the form of blowback.
I guess. For one thing, stories are supposed to make sense.
So many of these, and yet there can be nuance. Thus, hubris is arrogance but implies Greek tragedy, optics is appearances but connotes visual media like paparazzi, paradigm is model but implies a different set of underlying assumptions, narrative is story but implies a metastory (or metaphysics) that determines the shape and content of individual stories, and so on.
Word fashions exist and the connotations remain, sometimes I will use words like robust and impactful and empowering as a whimsical memory of buzz words of yore.
Elections are/were regularly held in all totalitarian regimes (maybe Pol Pot was an exception, I can’t think of any other), so obviously they won’t be cancelled. Some totalitarian regimes even allowed nominal opposition parties.
Liberals usually think that democracy should be about tax rates and nothing else (coincidentally cuckservatives have the exact same concept), but they are not very tolerant about that either. So we might end up with regimes where there’s a nominal opposition demanding lower corporate tax rates, but they will totally agree with persecution of enemies of the people of color, so despite the nominal presence of a legal and tolerated opposition the regime could be very violent.
Word fashions exist and the connotations remain, sometimes I will use words like robust and impactful and empowering as a whimsical memory of buzz words of yore.Replies: @reiner Tor
Yes, near-synonymes enrich the language and make it possible to express more sophisticated thoughts more easily. The idea of purging them from the dictionary often comes up (to my knowledge in all languages), but is both impossible and undesirable.
‘The Narrative’ is quite distinct from any discrete story. It’s the attempt by members of the media, academia, etc. to produce, through continuous, half-conscious/half-unconscious manipulation of words and images, an account of reality that suits their ideological, emotional, and especially religious goals.
Steve, why do you think they are ashamed of rigging the election? They are virtue signaling about it. Doing anything in their power to stop Trump is something they are bragging about. They are just using Trump’s comments on the system being rigged to divert the plebs from the real issues because Trump is on the popular side of all the real issues.
As far as NAMs go, I think they'd be content to have whites run things and just hand over all the goodies they demand. I'm not sure they fear white resistance.
And I definitely don't think they have guilty consciences. They don't have much at all in the way of conscience. Guilt is an abstract concept requiring more intelligence to understand than most of them have.Replies: @Opinionator
And I definitely don’t think they have guilty consciences. They don’t have much at all in the way of conscience. Guilt is an abstract concept requiring more intelligence to understand than most of them have.
At some level, they understand what they are doing is wrong or at least violative, and could have repercussions in the form of blowback.
Dimpled or hanging chads are the result of sticking more than one ballot at a time in the voting machine, that is, vote fraud. Just try sticking a few too many pieces of paper in a paper punch to see how it works.
In four years, another ten million freebee-loving foreigners will have been added to the voting rolls. The only elections that will matter will be the Democrat primaries.
This didn't occur to me before, as I listened to the gung-ho BBC coverage of the Mosul attack (Aleppo coverage is very muted now, someone obviously realised the contrast was just too obvious) - but Mosul is pretty close to the Syrian border.
I wonder if the plan is for ISIS to leave Mosul relatively unscathed, and to allow them to cross into Syria intact, rather than subjecting them to the sort of treatment Saddam's armour got in 1990 as it left Kuwait?
(Meanwhile in northern Syria the Kurdish YPG (officially allies of the US) are being absolutely hammered by the Turks (fellow NATO members with the US). This is a very dirty war, in every sense.)Replies: @reiner Tor, @TheJester
Yes, it’s hard to sort things out when families, clans, and tribes … and the shaky alliances among families, clans, and tribes in the Middle East try to sort things out. Things gets messy and dirty.
And we’re welcoming these families, clans, and tribes … and their shaky alliances and alien cultures into our country where they will immediately undergo a transformation into model citizens on the model of the rule-following British and Germany immigrants of times past.
Either that or they will retain their shaky alliances of families, clans, and tribes and their alien cultures and the body-politic and rule of law will suffer as a result.
Which is more likely?
The funny thing about that is I consider incorrect use of faddish terms like that a useful non-intelligence signal.
What is it with the internet and willy-nilly use of "gaslighting" these days?Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Harry Baldwin, @Antonymous
True, it’s become a social justice buzzword for deceit. But I do think the media gaslights with respect to Islam (and to a lesser extent, black crime). A muslim can allahu-akbar while shooting 50 gays, proclaim loyalty to ISIS in a 9-11 call, and the media talks about gun control, mental illness, and islamophobia. Ditto most other muslim mass shootings/bombings — as Trump points out, the president can’t bring himself to say radical Islam. This does strike me as psychological in its intent.
At least now we have liberals’ answer to the “if you had a time machine, would you kill Hitler?” dilemma. Because liberals are telling us that 1) Trump is the next Hitler, and 2) the idea that we’d even so much as stuff a ballot box to stop him is ABSURD!
Liberals usually think that democracy should be about tax rates and nothing else (coincidentally cuckservatives have the exact same concept), but they are not very tolerant about that either. So we might end up with regimes where there's a nominal opposition demanding lower corporate tax rates, but they will totally agree with persecution of enemies of the people of color, so despite the nominal presence of a legal and tolerated opposition the regime could be very violent.Replies: @NOTA
In fact, a major point raised by supporters of Trump and Sanders, and earlier by supporters of Kucinich and Ron Paul, is that we have elections and they decide some matters, but there are a lot of policies that are off the table, because both parties’ leadership agrees on them. Invade the world, invite the world, bail out the banks, trust the Fed to keep the economy smooth via monetary policy, free trade via massive treaties stuffed full of goodies to important donors, spy on everyone all the time, impunity for the powerful–in normal years, we simply don’t get a vote on any of that.