Trump

[Dan Rowden]

According to the most recent figures I could find, Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims[/url] since his inauguration.

That comes from the media, which makes billions of false and misleading claims every day.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea that we ought be skeptical of the content presented to us by the 'media', primarily due to sins of omission of context, I think it's objectively true to say that the number of Trump's lies as asserted, is broadly accurate. And even if we expand the definition of 'lie' to include distortions and spin, we can at least, if we are remotely sane persons, observe that he is the greatest bullshit artist we've ever seen in American politics at this level. If you deny that fact, you're a person whose judgement of the world is not to be trusted in any aspect or regard.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Just a few viewpoints in the category "possibly unexpected" in the news recently.

2020 US presidential election is Trump’s to lose, says BET founder Bob Johnson

He explained that Trump “brings his style” to the way he handles issues such as in foreign policy or immigration. That’s something that the president’s supporters like and the reason why they voted for him and will do so again next year, added Johnson.

Michael Moore admits Donald Trump was right about ‘rigged’ political system

Surprisingly, Moore agreed with Trump’s stake, saying, “It was rigged and he was right when he said that.”

Fox News' Tucker Carlson Admits Trump Is A 'Full-Blown BS Artist' and 'Compulsive Self-Promoter'

That's who he is," said Carlson. "Donald Trump is a salesman. He's a talker, a boaster, a booster, a compulsive self-promoter. At times, he's a full-blown BS artist. If Trump hadn't gotten rich in real estate, he could have made a fortune selling cars.

The question remains of course if this means any opponents are still connected to reality, or perhaps more importantly, if voters will believe Democrat candidates are. And there's a lot of indication that many people in the US are convinced, centric or libertarian types, as thought but way more as a feeling, as intuition, that "Washington" has lost its bearings and they are ready to vote for anything potentially upsetting the cart. The deeper psychological issues have little to do with politics but more with alienation and fractioning within the nation states of old.

[jupiviv]

According to the most recent figures I could find, Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims[/url] since his inauguration.

That comes from the media, which makes billions of false and misleading claims every day.

All mainstream media outlets including Fox news provide fairly accurate coverage of world events in general. If they were just making shit up they'd be sued or kicked out of the business. Your claim is factually wrong.

Any valid critique of media would first deal with commentary, not reportage. It would identify who and what large media corps rely on for money, exposure, reputation and access to info and locations. It would establish links between spins and narratives and the interests of sponsors, parent companies, political parties etc., as well as the broad class character of target audiences. When dealing with coverage or information the focus would be on what is ignored and why, what can fit into acceptable rhetoric and why, instead of outright falsehoods because those are pretty rare and mostly honest errors that are usually corrected.

Blanket statements about the "lying media" indicate extreme gullibility and pigheaded ignorance, not skepticism.

Even direct eye-witness evidence has been found to be extremely unreliable

It has also been found to be extremely reliable. You're stating a truism that no one disagrees with, then acting like it proves a specific claim. Now who does that remind me of... ah yes:

To me, it is an obvious truism that when a culture becomes more rational, it increases the chances of rational philosophers emerging.

Truisms have no place in serious thought (whether academic or independent), for obvious reasons. Kevin's entire case against the "authoritarian left" is constructed out of truisms, as is your support for "liberalism". Both of you seem incapable of distinguishing between the abstract truisms you regularly employ in your philosophical rhetoric and valid opinions about real world events.

So to revisit my earlier response to you:

There is a legitimate argument to be made that selective rationality is just a sophisticated version of irrationality.

You are asserting that opposing politics, policies and political views are equally deluded because virtually everyone is equally deluded.

Your position on politics can be either A: Almost everyone is deeply deluded but they can still care about truth and reason within limited contexts, like science and politicians' lies; also reason can determine whether instances of reasoning are correct or not.

Or B: Almost everyone is deeply deluded so nothing they say is correct or trustworthy, and reason cannot determine whether they are correct or not.

Clearly you want to believe *both* things simultaneously, so you can always use the one that suits your selfish, irrational needs.

Position B: When CNN says things you hate like praising Hillary, it's just evidence of the "leftist media" being completely deluded and "leftist" opinions being untrustworthy. Never mind the fact there are more than enough criticisms of Hillary, MSM etc. from the left.

Position A: Alt-right cretins saying things you love like "feminism bad" or "identity politics bad" are courageously bringing truth to light despite the "authoritarian left" trying to silence them. Even though delusion exists on "both sides", right wingers are accurately reasoning about the delusions of leftists because... you agree with them.

It's the same shit every time. Then there's your salty notion of "leftism", according to which anyone who supports feminism, supports Hillary, hates Trump and believes in hate speech is a leftist. Hillary the neocon warmonger is in the same category as people who condemn the Iraq war as a criminal act of US imperialism. I guess nothing leftists say can be trusted because everyone is deluded.

Perhaps you were always as childishly irrational as this underneath the fancy talk of loving reason and hating irrational religion and emotions. Or maybe you decided to just give up on actual reasoning at some point, in favour of squeezing what little joy you can out of popular reactionary anti-feminism because it resembles your views. Taking you apart like this gives me no pleasure, yet it must be done. Reason in the service of delusions is infinitely worse than total insanity or ignorance. I will annihilate it without mercy wherever I see it.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: The deeper psychological issues have little to do with politics but more with alienation and fractioning within the nation states of old.

And even deeper than the alienation and fractioning within the states of old is the psychological-existential alienation and fracturing of the notion of self as an independent reality.

Modern political discourse is simultaneously apex-ing and dying as part and parcel of the prophesized death (by Nietzsche and others) of the dualism of the self-historical and absolute self-transcendent God (with the subsequent birth of the absolute immanent, eternally forming God). In other words, the political battle of left versus right (along with the gender battle of masculine versus feminine and the moral battle of good versus evil) is one of the (unconscious) existential manifestations of the apocalypse-now.

[David Quinn]

Perhaps you were always as childishly irrational as this underneath the fancy talk of loving reason and hating irrational religion and emotions. Or maybe you decided to just give up on actual reasoning at some point, in favour of squeezing what little joy you can out of popular reactionary anti-feminism because it resembles your views.

Definitely the latter. He used to be as sharp as a tack on these matters. But the gamergate affair clearly had a huge impact and seems to have completely eviscerated him.

It wasn't just the gamergate affair, though. I believe the preceding few years leading up to it also played a large role. That was the time when he was producing those atheism videos on his youtube channel and was copping a lot of ridicule from all those uppity young atheists (i.e. modern liberal types) who openly laughed at him. So one can imagine that he was already seething at modern liberalism by the time the social justice warriors waded into the video game industry and the feminist journalists in the MSM wrote scathing (and, apparently, lie-filled) articles about the gamergate affair. Something happened in that period which tipped him over the edge and turned him.

Hence his blinkered obsession with the evil triumvirate (liberals, SJWs, and the media) ever since. Hence the dark, hostile nature of his speech which is solely focused upon exacting vengeance. Hence the significant decline in the scope of his consciousness and the quality of his thoughts.

This is by no means the whole story. I believe the preceding couple of decades also come into play, in particular his inexorable slide from the heights of the bodhisattva path to the mediocrity and compromise of ordinary worldly life that began in earnest in the late 90s. Much of what he is doing now is designed simply to keep distracting himself from having to face this reality.

I fully expect Kevin to dismiss all of this as "speculation", which is yet another trick he employs to avoid facing reality.

Taking you apart like this gives me no pleasure, yet it must be done.

My sentiments exactly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: The deeper psychological issues have little to do with politics but more with alienation and fractioning within the nation states of old.

And even deeper than the alienation and fractioning within the states of old is the psychological-existential alienation and fracturing of the notion of self as an independent reality.

Modern political discourse is simultaneously apex-ing and dying as part and parcel of the prophesized death (by Nietzsche and others) of the dualism of the self-historical and absolute self-transcendent God (with the subsequent birth of the absolute immanent, eternally forming God). In other words, the political battle of left versus right (along with the gender battle of masculine versus feminine and the moral battle of good versus evil) is one of the (unconscious) existential manifestations of the apocalypse-now.

Well done. Now, one could surmise that holding on to such dramatic battle might become the only way forward to many, simply because it would be increasingly the main signifier to hold on to in the post-god, post-shadow era. Like a bulldog hanging over the abyss with his teeth sinking deeper and deeper into the one branch still sticking out. On the attack, as means to deny there is little else left. Well, apart from making it all into a product or brand, of course, the great re-cycling. The ruthless salesman knows when it's the moment to sell hard: when the buyer has no other avenues left.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... how can the right to free speech exist in a meaningful sense if it does not also grace its bearer with the duty of speaking honestly without any regard for life and happiness? It can't, because nothing would prevent the abuse of this right towards dishonest and self-serving ends at the expense of its use in promoting honest and virtuous ones like upholding a universally enforceable right to free speech.

It would seem to me that "nothing would prevent the abuse" is exactly the type of risk that free-speech advocates are, well, advocating.

[jupiviv]

Perhaps you were always as childishly irrational as this underneath the fancy talk of loving reason and hating irrational religion and emotions. Or maybe you decided to just give up on actual reasoning at some point, in favour of squeezing what little joy you can out of popular reactionary anti-feminism because it resembles your views.

Definitely the latter. He used to be as sharp as a tack on these matters. But the gamergate affair clearly had a huge impact and seems to have completely eviscerated him.

It's a bit of both imo. There isn't much propositional distance between the standard QRS approach of systematising as complex and nebulous a thing as human irrationality into neat logical constructs, and Kevin's current attitude. The philosophical momentum implicit in the idea that human concerns and activities are deluded on a fundamental level is squandered on localised aggrievement necessarily tainted by preference.

Even the stuff about femininity, while insightful on a number of levels has to ultimately retreat into abstractions. It isn't even aware of any feminist thought outside of white boomer gender theory and zany op-eds derived therefrom. The fact that incel, volcel and squadw memes are ubiquitous now should tell you something.

That was the time when he was producing those atheism videos on his youtube channel and was copping a lot of ridicule from all those uppity young atheists (i.e. modern liberal types) who openly laughed at him.

I remember the atheists in question. They were Islamophobic Sam Harris nerds who were harassing Kevin precisely because he was criticising them for being that, among other things. Which makes his switch to gamergate look even more abrupt and uncalled for.

So one can imagine that he was already seething at modern liberalism by the time the social justice warriors waded into the video game industry and the feminist journalists in the MSM wrote scathing (and, apparently, lie-filled) articles about the gamergate affair. Something happened in that period which tipped him over the edge and turned him.

Gamergate was a microcosm of the alt-right and Trumptopianism. It was harnessing the same white labour aristocratic populism that since 2016 has burgeoned enough to support a vibrant cottage industry of text-chat crusaders. Blaming this specifically on right wing politics or even ascending one level into criticism of "globalism" is deeply misguided imo. People who are liberals, democrats etc. on many issues can hate "SJWs" and immigrants, promote free speech (when it suits them) and equate gendered pronouns with mayocide.

With Kevin it was essentially due to his philosophy never having directly addressed the role of delusion in "worldly affairs", especially pertaining to its own environment. Therefor, he cannot envision any meaningful realisation of his wisdom-idyll. Add in the nested schisms and contradictions let loose upon Caesar Obama's abdication, and Kevin's flight into zealous adoration for the antifeminism, Muslim/brown-baiting and productive homegrown capitalism of our Amphibious Overlords is easily explained.

Of course, as you well know, I apply this analysis to you as well. I'll admit I misjudged the extent of Kevin's derangement, but your hackneyed Trumphobic approach to dealing with it played a role that; not to mention accusing me of alt-right brainwashing. But all things considered, and in hindsight, you're doing OK compared to Kevin. Or maybe not, who fucking knows anymore...

[jupiviv]

... how can the right to free speech exist in a meaningful sense if it does not also grace its bearer with the duty of speaking honestly without any regard for life and happiness? It can't, because nothing would prevent the abuse of this right towards dishonest and self-serving ends at the expense of its use in promoting honest and virtuous ones like upholding a universally enforceable right to free speech.

It would seem to me that "nothing would prevent the abuse" is exactly the type of risk that free-speech advocates are, well, advocating.

Free speech advocates not acting in bad faith allow restrictions on speech in instances they consider to be unequivocal abuse of it e.g. sedition, incitement to violence, libel. They're just unwilling to extend the exact same reasoning to instances of bigotry and misinformation damaging the lives of vulnerable and marginalised people.

Besides, you haven't answered the question. How is a true knight of free speech upholding his sacred duty if he can't even defend honest speech from getting silenced by dishonest speech just by virtue of its dishonesty?

[David Quinn]

Another interesting discussion by Chris Hedges, recorded three days ago, where he gives his latest thoughts on the Trump administration and the state of the world more generally. Still as perceptive and direct as ever. Highly recommended.

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Free speech advocates not acting in bad faith allow restrictions on speech in instances they consider to be unequivocal abuse of it e.g. sedition, incitement to violence, libel. They're just unwilling to extend the exact same reasoning to instances of bigotry and misinformation damaging the lives of vulnerable and marginalised people.

Not sure who you are addressing here exactly. If there's a clear causal path to assert that some published word or information of any kind leads to actual damages (the "harm principle"), the large majority of free speech advocates would allow for restrictions and rules. The main problem is that often this is claimed like with libel cases or perceived psychological vulnerabilities but is very hard to substantiate and easily abused by unnecessary legislation and not as such by simply counter-opinion.

Even hate speech, yes, that could incite and fuel riots, which is why in places like Iran (for example) social media goes on dark at times. And you sound like to be the first in line to do that in the West as well, since you seem to fully sympathize with the plight of authoritarian regimes and systems trying to keep afloat against the uncontrolled bloodthirsty hordes?

. How is a true knight of free speech upholding his sacred duty if he can't even defend honest speech from getting silenced by dishonest speech just by virtue of its dishonesty?

How does honest speech get silenced by dishonest speech exactly? Free speech principles share some of the fundamentals with democratic principles: how to prevent the majority to vote in crazy people, anti-democratic demagogue or corporate shills? The answer is, ultimately, you don't -- the principle includes a deep underlying trust, excluding any systematic "protection" from anything but the main principle: no counsel, no guardians, no complex web of law to be interpreted and changed by shifting views or opportunists.

Disclaimer: I'm not a free speech evangelist myself but I do support the ongoing experiment of freedom, including the rise of idiocy and contradiction. There's no need to put the genii back in the bottle. Actually I do not see how that would work. It needs simply to play out?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Another interesting discussion by Chris Hedges, recorded three days ago, where he gives his latest thoughts on the Trump administration and the state of the world more generally. Still as perceptive and direct as ever. Highly recommended.

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections

Very interesting to see this conversation as it encapsulates the larger contradictions in the current discussions at this forum so well. A true exposition of a mindset! Which might be interesting to explore as it would explain why it hits all the cords with David Quinn's personal outlook!

That we're witnessing a particular thought universe unfold becomes clear the moment Chris starts asserting (3:29) that not just Republicans have created the problems way before Trump arrived but also the Democrat "elites" in combinations with "banking" still keeps intact some structure which keeps the poor and vulnerable, feminine population down and 'neo-slavery". He holds Biden responsible for the large prison population (mostly debunked in the world of facts). Abby happily agrees with all of it as if she ever had an opinion herself.

We see here Presbyterian minister Chris, promoting what only can be called the new modern world religion with the usual props: victims, sins, saviors and prosecution. And all on a global scale (the new cosmos being the global reach).

Certainly anti-war Chris would have supported Trump: the only political voice of note in US in 2016 apart from the Paul family, who was openly addressing the Iraq war as the horrible failure as it was. Trump shocked Democats and Reptilians alike by going after G.W Bush and the neoconservative mission for the Middle East ("endless war"). He questioned even the new cold war started by Clinton.

In the end Chris has increasingly become, through his hard-core socialism (which Nietzsche already warned to be the logical successor to Christianity) a clear evangelist for anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, anti-fascism, pro-Marxist, pro-Climatism, pro-Alarmist.

Abby Martin is yet another story, after having to defend herself against people like David Quinn and Dan Rowden for being a Putin-stooge at Russian Television: “Likening [my reporting] to treason, to being a traitor, to being un-American and unpatriotic, and when you have these words thrown around in a climate of such hysteria … I think that this is extremely, extremely dangerous rhetoric,” she quickly backed away from RT even while "I still had the prime time opinion show on the network for another year" even after speaking in complete freedom "about the actions of Putin, Russia and RT’s coverage of it on air". She still resigned over the annexation of Crimea most likely because of the storm of personal critique she must have received by then. But by all means, the annexation seems like the smallest of issues around Russian aggression and the least harm done to any actual people on the ground, while likely a lot of harm was prevented considering the young divided state of Ukraine was actually, factually breaking up violently, no matter who will be ultimately blamed for all that when historians puzzle over the settling dust in the decades to come.

However, Abby is also known for being a 9/11 "truther", giving voice to the radical inside jobs theories and consistently promoting quite crazy conspiracy theories like water fluoridation as some government plot to poison Americans. No matter her rather stunning appearance and elegant dress sense, her journalistic life describes someone lifting on the wave of spectacle and "hot" topics. It's not a compliment to sit across of her!

So there you have it, a religious, ceremonial exchange, mostly fact-free. This is what David is suggesting to be interesting for the wise, the atheists, the dispassionate thinkers in the world? Where is the thought? The larger view? The consistency? Kevin is wise to have raised his voice against the extremes of this new religious mindset rising in the West. It's a nihilistic, invasive religion. And it should be challenged more, not simply promoted.

[Pam Seeback]

Another interesting discussion by Chris Hedges, recorded three days ago, where he gives his latest thoughts on the Trump administration and the state of the world more generally. Still as perceptive and direct as ever. Highly recommended.

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections

Are you passionate about left politics because of your experience with the Australian welfare program in relation to your passionate journey to find wisdom? If I recall a comment made by you many years ago, it was to the effect that you felt that you couldn't work and pursue wisdom at the same time and that by receiving the dole, you were able to give your all to your passion. I am not applying judgment here, just trying to understand.

[jupiviv]

Free speech advocates not acting in bad faith allow restrictions on speech in instances they consider to be unequivocal abuse of it e.g. sedition, incitement to violence, libel. They're just unwilling to extend the exact same reasoning to instances of bigotry and misinformation damaging the lives of vulnerable and marginalised people.

If there's a clear causal path to assert that some published word or information of any kind leads to actual damages (the "harm principle"), the large majority of free speech advocates would allow for restrictions and rules.

Firstly, if by "clear" you mean "direct", then no. The physical expression of libel or fraud does not cause any damage by itself and nobody expects otherwise.

Secondly, acceptance of any prohibitions on speech at all = recognition of need to mitigate risk of abuse. So you have already abandoned your own claim: "nothing would prevent the abuse" is exactly the type of risk that free-speech advocates are, well, advocating. The actual argument we're having is about how far ***tolerance*** of speech can extend and why, who determines that extent and why.

The main problem is that often this is claimed like with libel cases or perceived psychological vulnerabilities but is very hard to substantiate and easily abused by unnecessary legislation and not as such by simply counter-opinion.

It isn't "hard to substantiate" the harm caused by mass media broadcasting bigotry and misinformation about marginalised groups unable to respond on equivalent platforms.

Even hate speech, yes, that could incite and fuel riots, which is why in places like Iran (for example) social media goes on dark at times. And you sound like to be the first in line to do that in the West as well, since you seem to fully sympathize with the plight of authoritarian regimes and systems trying to keep afloat against the uncontrolled bloodthirsty hordes?

Irrelevant because you have already conceded the need for reasonable limitations on speech. No point in lying about my desire to *also* extend that to states and their private allies repressing dissent e.g. in the USA for the entirety of its existence.

. How is a true knight of free speech upholding his sacred duty if he can't even defend honest speech from getting silenced by dishonest speech just by virtue of its dishonesty?

How does honest speech get silenced by dishonest speech exactly?

By being less popular, less powerful, less capable of manipulation or deflection etc. And the same may happen to dishonest speech at the hands of more powerful honest speech. The mere license to engage in both does not by itself prevent the silencing of either. A value judgment has to be made, and is made in practice by everyone whether they acknowledge it or not. The question as always is who, why, in what circumstances, etc.

[jupiviv]

He holds Biden responsible for the large prison population (mostly debunked in the world of facts). Abby happily agrees with all of it as if she ever had an opinion herself.

That link says:

We found many factors drove mass incarceration, including trends in the states that predated the 1994 law. But the law was in sync with those trends and may have encouraged them.

So there you have it, a religious, ceremonial exchange, mostly fact-free.

Your first and only fact-check of the video was an own goal.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He holds Biden responsible for the large prison population (mostly debunked in the world of facts).

That link says:

We found many factors drove mass incarceration, including trends in the states that predated the 1994 law. But the law was in sync with those trends and may have encouraged them.

Your first and only fact-check of the video was an own goal.

The link perfectly explains why the law didn't cause mass incarceration. Even your tiny fragment mentions "many factors" which means certainly not "instrumental in doubling the prison population". The trend was already there meaning it's highly speculative at best and the article keeps the option open that the law might have "encouraged". The claim of it being instrumental is simply not true: not proven and certainly no fact.

Just that you know: "debunking" doesn't mean supplying the whole truth but simply highlighting that a claim being made is false. And I even mentioned "mostly" to indicate this slight influence being possible. The article concludes "In the strictest sense, the law did not launch the massive rise in the prison population". That's not an own goal. It's you having some comprehension problem or some other reason to gloss over facts.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

acceptance of any prohibitions on speech at all = recognition of need to mitigate risk of abuse. So you have already abandoned your own claim: "nothing would prevent the abuse" is exactly the type of risk that free-speech advocates are, well, advocating.

You wrote actually "nothing would prevent the abuse of this right towards dishonest and self-serving ends at the expense of its use in promoting honest and virtuous ones like upholding a universally enforceable right to free speech."

Nothing in there links that abuse to harming people in any direct manner. It just leaves open some potential risk. And yes, that includes the known risk that certain free speech advocates against free speech in general. That is exactly what is being accepted! Like in democracy a large majority might vote for making the system less democratic. Call it an axiom of the system: that it required affirming its own basic freedom, it simply assumes it but certainly will never suggest preventing this with force, laws or bans. Doing that would certainly end the very system it claims to promote!

It isn't "hard to substantiate" the harm caused by mass media broadcasting bigotry and misinformation about marginalised groups unable to respond on equivalent platforms.

Please provide one or two examples? Any marginalized group is by definition not in the center of the media platforms. The question is why they are marginalized in the first place. According to free speech principles anyone is free to make the effort but there's no "right" to be given an audience.

How does honest speech get silenced by dishonest speech exactly?

By being less popular, less powerful, less capable of manipulation or deflection etc. And the same may happen to dishonest speech at the hands of more powerful honest speech. The mere license to engage in both does not by itself prevent the silencing of either. A value judgment has to be made, and is made in practice by everyone whether they acknowledge it or not. The question as always is who, why, in what circumstances, etc.

So one should protect weak good speech against the evils of bad speech which might crush because it's more powerful & manipulative? All speech has elements of power and persuasion. The reason faith in free speech and free markets are often combined with people is the idea is that over time, on average, the benefits of freedom outweigh the dangers which come with control, beyond a minimal, debatable degree. Or in other words: controlling structures always would need to be pushed back or challenged because they'd always try to expand, like all power desires.

[David Quinn]

Another interesting discussion by Chris Hedges, recorded three days ago, where he gives his latest thoughts on the Trump administration and the state of the world more generally. Still as perceptive and direct as ever. Highly recommended.

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections

Very interesting to see this conversation as it encapsulates the larger contradictions in the current discussions at this forum so well. A true exposition of a mindset! Which might be interesting to explore as it would explain why it hits all the cords with David Quinn's personal outlook!

That we're witnessing a particular thought universe unfold becomes clear the moment Chris starts asserting (3:29) that not just Republicans have created the problems way before Trump arrived but also the Democrat "elites" in combinations with "banking" still keeps intact some structure which keeps the poor and vulnerable, feminine population down and 'neo-slavery". He holds Biden responsible for the large prison population (mostly debunked in the world of facts). Abby happily agrees with all of it as if she ever had an opinion herself.

We see here Presbyterian minister Chris, promoting what only can be called the new modern world religion with the usual props: victims, sins, saviors and prosecution. And all on a global scale (the new cosmos being the global reach).

Certainly anti-war Chris would have supported Trump: the only political voice of note in US in 2016 apart from the Paul family, who was openly addressing the Iraq war as the horrible failure as it was. Trump shocked Democats and Reptilians alike by going after G.W Bush and the neoconservative mission for the Middle East ("endless war"). He questioned even the new cold war started by Clinton.

In the end Chris has increasingly become, through his hard-core socialism (which Nietzsche already warned to be the logical successor to Christianity) a clear evangelist for anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, anti-fascism, pro-Marxist, pro-Climatism, pro-Alarmist.

Abby Martin is yet another story, after having to defend herself against people like David Quinn and Dan Rowden for being a Putin-stooge at Russian Television: “Likening [my reporting] to treason, to being a traitor, to being un-American and unpatriotic, and when you have these words thrown around in a climate of such hysteria … I think that this is extremely, extremely dangerous rhetoric,” she quickly backed away from RT even while "I still had the prime time opinion show on the network for another year" even after speaking in complete freedom "about the actions of Putin, Russia and RT’s coverage of it on air". She still resigned over the annexation of Crimea most likely because of the storm of personal critique she must have received by then. But by all means, the annexation seems like the smallest of issues around Russian aggression and the least harm done to any actual people on the ground, while likely a lot of harm was prevented considering the young divided state of Ukraine was actually, factually breaking up violently, no matter who will be ultimately blamed for all that when historians puzzle over the settling dust in the decades to come.

However, Abby is also known for being a 9/11 "truther", giving voice to the radical inside jobs theories and consistently promoting quite crazy conspiracy theories like water fluoridation as some government plot to poison Americans. No matter her rather stunning appearance and elegant dress sense, her journalistic life describes someone lifting on the wave of spectacle and "hot" topics. It's not a compliment to sit across of her!

So there you have it, a religious, ceremonial exchange, mostly fact-free. This is what David is suggesting to be interesting for the wise, the atheists, the dispassionate thinkers in the world? Where is the thought? The larger view? The consistency? Kevin is wise to have raised his voice against the extremes of this new religious mindset rising in the West. It's a nihilistic, invasive religion. And it should be challenged more, not simply promoted.

Several points:

- I don’t know anything about Abby Martin and have no interest in her. Her role in this video was simply to facilitate the airing of Hedges’ views. Aside from this, she is irrelevant. So that’s half your post dealt with right there. Admittedly, she does have nice legs.

- I’m not sure that Chris Hedges is actually a hard-core socialist. He might be, but I don’t really know. He agrees with Marx that capitalism is an unsustainable system that invariably cannibalizes itself - an obvious truth that is currently being played out in America - but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is an advocate of communism. I have the impression that he is far too intelligent and non-conformist to fall for that sort of thing.

Essentially, Hedges is a revolutionary who feels compelled to fight against tyranny in all of its forms. It just so happens that its predominant form at the moment is right-wing, Christian, and corporate. I dare say that had he lived in Russia during the Soviet era, he would have opposed the communist regime.

- Your bit about, “Presbyterian minister Chris, promoting what only can be called the new modern world religion with the usual props: victims, sins, saviors and prosecution”, is just the sort of meaningless guff that Alex regularly came up with. Standard postmodernist rubbish.

- I don’t know what you mean when you say that Hedges' views lack “thought”, “consistency” or “the larger view”. From what I can see, Hedges is addressing directly a very dangerous movement that is occurring right before our very eyes and does so in an intelligent manner that synthesizes current political events, historical trends and psychology. If you can find fault with what he is saying, please do so. But you are going to have to do a lot better than this.

[David Quinn]

Another interesting discussion by Chris Hedges, recorded three days ago, where he gives his latest thoughts on the Trump administration and the state of the world more generally. Still as perceptive and direct as ever. Highly recommended.

Chris Hedges & Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections

Are you passionate about left politics because of your experience with the Australian welfare program in relation to your passionate journey to find wisdom? If I recall a comment made by you many years ago, it was to the effect that you felt that you couldn't work and pursue wisdom at the same time and that by receiving the dole, you were able to give your all to your passion. I am not applying judgment here, just trying to understand.

I’m not passionate about left politics. Normally, I have zero interest in politics. But the danger posed by the right at the moment is impossible to ignore. What the right are doing should terrify anyone who values sanity and the future well-being of our species. This goes far beyond the issue of welfare programs.

[Kevin Solway]

He is the greatest bullshit artist we've ever seen in American politics at this level.

I don't think he lies as much as the media does. So relative to them, he looks pretty good.

[Kevin Solway]

"The Hundreds Of Ways Trump Has Trampled Science"

Both sides trample science, about equally. You are not looking at both sides of the picture.

What about economically? . . . For example, what is your view of the Democrat's aim to provide free health care for all American citizens?

I am in favor of a certain degree of social security, and I think government should provide a basic level of healthcare for all. But I think there should also be a private system, for those who want it, and can afford it.

[Kevin Solway]

If they were just making shit up they'd be sued or kicked out of the business.

The media makes stuff up all the time, and they're not sued or kicked out of business. Recently there was a rare case where a reporter lost their job for making up a story about what Trump did on Thanksgiving day, but it was only the reporter who was fired, not the editor, nor the media organization who published the story.

Whenever the media deliberately publishes a false interpretation of events, or deliberately puts a false spin in things, or deliberately omits important information or context, they are lying. They are deliberately misrepresenting reality. And that's what I mean by "lying".

right wingers are accurately reasoning about the delusions of leftists because... you agree with them.

That's only speculation on your part. I don't agree with your speculation.

Taking you apart like this gives me no pleasure

You haven't done anything. All you've done is speculate. And your speculations are way off.

[Kevin Solway]

But the gamergate affair clearly had a huge impact and seems to have completely eviscerated him.

You're not making a rational argument. All you're doing is making personal smears and personal attacks. When you make a rational argument then I might have something to respond to.

[jupiviv]

The media makes stuff up all the time, and they're not sued or kicked out of business.

This is just a meaningless claim like everything else you've written on this thread. What data have you consulted regarding the percentage of inaccurate or fabricated info reported by MSM sources? Let me answer that: none.

Whenever the media deliberately publishes a false interpretation of events, or deliberately puts a false spin in things, or deliberately omits important information or context, they are lying. They are deliberately misrepresenting reality. And that's what I mean by "lying".

This is an extremely vague definition of "lying" that can be used to assert that all people are constantly lying, i.e., misrepresenting reality. It's completely meaningless in the present context. You're at Position B now: Almost everyone is deeply deluded so nothing they say is correct or trustworthy, and reason cannot determine whether they are correct or not.

right wingers are accurately reasoning about the delusions of leftists because... you agree with them.

That's only speculation on your part. I don't agree with your speculation.

Not at all. You evidently agree with every claim your preferred media make about "leftists", where "leftist" means anyone with whom both you and those media disagree. Note that you do this despite also believing that the media makes stuff up all the time. It's a classic case of circular reasoning.

[jupiviv]

But the gamergate affair clearly had a huge impact and seems to have completely eviscerated him.

You're not making a rational argument. All you're doing is making personal smears and personal attacks. When you make a rational argument then I might have something to respond to.

All you've offered so far are unsubstantiated claims that the people who disagree with you are wrong, and unsubstantiated claims that the things you say are correct. You've turned into a complete joke.