The ‘Intellectual’ Dark Web

By following these links to YouTube videos you can observe the public implosion of conservative talking heads who have been lurking in the dark web of wannabe-eggheads.  Enjoy!

The first one is Ben Shapiro’s interview with Andrew Neil.

https://youtu.be/72kAibX4dJU

The next one demolishes the lies and errors told about socialism by these dark boy-wonders.

https://youtu.be/hUFvG4RpwJI

Here’s one that showcases Jordan Peterson hoping no one notices his idiocy.

https://youtu.be/b8AcmzqFdPM

And here’s Stefan Molyneux happily baiting everyone he can think of.

https://youtu.be/BHW3Y_p2llo

In my opinion, even though these videos are critical of Molyneux, Peterson, Shapiro, and Crowder, they show respect by providing detailed refutations of their conservative talking points.  Considering the fact that these so-called intellectuals would not be saying anything at all if they weren’t being paid to do so, we have to assume that their ‘ideas’ are probably not coming from their own experience or from a desire to solve problems.  Therefore, when their critics take time to listen to them and carefully answer them, it is an act of great generosity.

Fox News is Not Funny

I think it’s safe to say that Fox New’s latest attempt to smear Bernie in a so-called comedy routine was a failure.   The main problem with this attempt is that lies are not funny.  The same goes for frantic meanness in the defense of ideology.   In short, Fox News can never be funny.

Richard Dawkins and the De-evolution of Dialogue

About the Dawkins-Pell debate: Pell did not deny that evolution happens. As I understand it he objected to the mechanism of change proposed by Charles Darwin. So it was rather confusing when Richard Dawkins argued for non-random selection. To Pell that meant design (or purpose). This assumption wasn’t based on a religious belief. Evolution has been accepted since ancient times, but the theory of natural selection is unique in its complete denial of teleological explanations and its insistence on a purely mechanistic process.

Evolution by natural selection is a purely mechanistic theory of change that does not appeal to any sense of purpose or a designer. There is no foresight or purpose in nature, and there is no implication that one species is more perfect than another.

Roast AIPAC

Rep. Illhan Omar (D-Minn) has been under pressure since she suggested that US support for Israel has something to do with money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/430054-furor-over-omar-puts-spotlight-on-aipac Although AIPAC’s influence in the United States is no secret, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded that Omar apologize. Omar did apologize, but she remained firm on her criticism of the lobby. She has subsequently been harrassed by journalists and politicians alike. However, I’m not writing to join the ranks of her defenders. It is increasingly clear that she can handle the pressure. I’m writing because I was personally offended that so many people felt free to dole out this treatment on an elected member of the Congress of the United States.

Some assumed that Democrats were pressured by Republicans to discipline Omar, but it’s more likely they were pressured by AIPAC directly. Maybe the rumors of Israel’s influence in our elections are true. Is it possible that both Domocrats and Republicans know that if they offend AIPAC they could lose their next election?

I propose that we exact a cost for AIPAC’s arrogance. Progressives who object to the undue influence that AIPAC demonstrated this week should spend next week criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. This would inform AIPAC that there are costs for bad behavior.


Covington High School in an Unforgiving World

When conservative writers defamed Nathan Phillips in order to shore up their own virtuous image I thought it best to ignore them–never mind the fact that Nathan Phillips and his people pose no threat to them, or that they wouldn’t have sufficient resources to retaliate, even if they wanted to. The Covington High School saga has morphed into a tribal face saving effort involving parents, corporate media, and lawsuits.

It should also be mentioned that at least one person tried to make peace with Phillips at the time. In other words, he tried to make amends at the scene. I’m sure this makes the viral nature of the story all the more disheartening from a conservative point of view.

I defended the Covington boys because they are young men just starting out in life who were caught up in a situation they don’t fully understand. I thought the story would go away once the additional facts came out but conservative parents and pundits won’t let it die. I think this behavior may be based in a reality that progressives don’t fully understand.

A recent opinion in the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/most-likely-to-panic-about-old-yearbook-pics-business-leaders-11549376319 argued that a person’s youth is no excuse for bad behavior. Business leaders can’t afford to hire people with incriminating yearbook entries or other youthful indiscretions, the authors insist, therefore background checks must include 25 years or more of an applicant’s history. For me, this raises the suspicion that a new American caste system is being created right before our eyes. Of course, America has a long history of similar processes affecting poor people of color, but now it appears they extend to the privileged among us. Could that be why the conservatives won’t let this story die?

Bret Cavanaugh’s yearbook was used against him by Democrats. However, I saw it as a last line of defense against Republican maneuvering for control of the Supreme Court. This began in ernest shortly after the death of Antonin Scalia and was largely responsible for the election of Donald Trump. But it does seem to set a precedent.

Cananaugh’s past became fair game in his confirmation hearing because of Republican duplicity. However, the young boys at Covington had no part in that. What appeared to be taking place in that video was an offense against a representative of the Indian Nation who had come to represent progressive hopes during the 2016 election–hopes that were put on hold by the election of the MAGA man himself, Donald Trump. It turned out the offense was largely blown out of proportion, but the fact that the video went viral in its original form is a separate issue–conspiracy theories are not necessary to explain the initial outrage.

What this will eventually come down to, if the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is correct, is some anonymous human resources maven pushing a few buttons and calmly eliminating job applicants with very little cause, and without batting an eye. Alternatively, those involved in the dissemination of the video, and maybe those who published condemnations based on the video, will pay dearly. It goes without saying that the opinion writers are a product of this unforgiving world and are not responsible for this state of affairs, but considering the impersonal and insulated context of a corporate human resources department, or alternatively, the context of a crack legal team, Jesus’s admonition hardly seems to apply.

“…He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…” (John 8:7)

Is this what we want for our future?


So…You Wore a MAGA Hat at an Indigenous People’s Rally?

And then you were surprised that you got into trouble? I honestly believe you have an excuse–you are students after all. Ask your teachers and chaperones why they were surprised. Ask them why they didn’t warn you. Ask them why you didn’t recognize Nathan Phillips as a friend. This should have been a teaching moment, but instead of correcting you they defended your actions. Do they perhaps have a guilty conscience?

The Dishonesty of Liz Cheney

The establishment fears another Sanders presidential campaign.  They obviously expect him to run again, no matter what, because we can already see their strategy in that regard—they plan to label him a sexist socialist.  

Recently, when Liz Cheney called socialism a fraud, Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist, countered by saying that Cheney’s father defrauded the entire country by lying us into the Iraq War.  Sanders was then called a sexist for criticizing Liz Cheney’s father rather than Liz.  But under the circumstances, it was the kindest thing Sanders could have said.  There is no difference between Liz Cheney and her father.

From her Middle East Partnership Initiative that funneled money to unidentified groups working to undermine foreign governments, to collaboration with the International Republican Institute to promote war with Iran and Syria, to serving on her father’s re-election campaign, Liz Cheney has willingly associated herself with Dick Cheney’s policies.  

American voters know that Bernie Sanders represents the correction the country needs at this time. The chief selling point of a Sanders presidency is not Socialism. It is criminal overreach by conservatives—both Republican and Democrat.  

Silence on the Progressive Front

In the past it would have been risky for an American politician to propose an international progressive front, but today it seems like a logical response to big money aggression.  It is a measure of the seriousness of our present circumstances that someone like Bernie would propose it, yet an eerie silence reigns on both the Left and the Right. September 15, 2018:  I missed this article published on September 13 by Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister and cofounder of DiEM25, whose New Deal for Europe will be put to European voters in the May 2019 European Parliament elections.  

Selling Anti-Semitism

Some people can’t resist a challenge, for example those who are determined to revive anti-semitism. The ugliness and shame of World War II and the memory of its anti-semitic beginnings is permanently stamped into the world’s consciousness, but they never stop trying to paint the Jewish people as the problem.

Several tactics are used in this doomed effort. For example, they might try to re-arrange history. It is obvious to everyone, except the fascists, that it makes no sense to excuse anti-semitism by appealing to anti-semitism, but they seem oblivious to the weakness of their position. They either deny the Holocaust outright, or they present Adolf Hitler as a regular guy who reached the end of his rope. Alternatively, they claim that the number of Jews murdered in the war was a mere fraction of the official number. They were not six million Jews! No, not at all! They were not even a million. In fact, there were so few of them you can’t even call it a holocaust!

These claims are so outrageous, they need all the backing they can get, and it seems to me they have a lot of backing. Benjamin Netanyahu himself goes to great pains to act out every negative stereotype, while the media dutifully broadcasts his efforts. But outrageous claims also need a gullible audience. Is no one curious about the fact that Netanyahu is in league with the United States of Paperclip and the Evangelical Armageddon Party?

Anti-semitism is the mother of all divide-and-conquer tactics, but it is old news. Shame on us if we let it win with such a weak hand. The facts will never change: evil walked the earth during World War II and it hated the Jews most of all. But that’s what evil does—it hates. Everyone. If you don’t believe me, would you believe Hitler’s Youth?

The Alchemy of Alex Jones

Alex Jones seems to think that because someone on the ‘left’ calls for an end to globalization he’s won the lottery. I’m not suddenly one of his followers if I think globalization is a bad idea. I said something similar before the 2016 election and I still think Bernie Sanders would make a better president than Donal Trump. It kills me how hard these pundits work to keep their followers in this left-right game. Do they really believe there are two distinct sides with good guys and bad guys or is it just part of their act?

It’s not just the political posturing. Anyone who would go on the air the way Alex Jones did and make political points at the expense of a guy like Bernie Sanders is not a nice person. Jones acted like a guy who is not capable of expressing himself like a grownup and who’s not sure he knows what he’s talking about so he blurts out thoughtless schoolyard insults instead.

Globalization, or as Jones so charmingly pronounces it—globu-lazation—is not the only issue in town. In fact, there is a whole world of being that he seems to know nothing about. For starters, there’s kindness and decency and unselfishness and just plain old good manners. And there’s playing fair—now there’s one for the Republicans. Of course that would require them to acknowledge the existence of other people.

Anyway, I suspect Trump is just following orders, not unlike Jones and his buddy—call him RC for short. And whatever the order-givers have in mind, it’s safe to say that the banksters and the oligarchs are going to make out like bandits. That is not the way Bernie would have played it. Not even close. Yes, I called for an end to globalization but Alex Jones and I are not even on the same planet.

The Russia Investigation and the DNC: Death by a Thousand Cuts

I’ve been trying to get away from talking about the election but it looks like I’m going to have to talk about it one more time. I hadn’t formed an opinion on whether the Russians helped Donald Trump’s campaign until Mueller (Hillary) dragged Bernie into it. The accusation that the Russians helped Bernie is so stupid it makes me seriously doubt the Russians helped Trump. Russian meddling doesn’t explain anything we saw in the election.

Did Russia control the Electoral College?
Did Russia control Crosscheck?
Why did alt-media channels on YouTube claim to support Bernie and then
promote Jill Stein in the primary?
Why did Joe Arpaio’s county openly commit election fraud in the Democratic
primary? Arpaio was a Trump supporter.
Why did the Democrats in Nevada go to so much trouble to demonstrate their bias
in the primary?
Why did WikiLeaks wait until Bernie endorsed Hillary to leak Hillary’s emails?
Was James Comey getting Masonic signals from members of Congress during his
testimony about Hillary’s emails?
Why did Comey give damning testimony about Hillary and then not recommend
charges?
Why did Trump meet with the CFR before the election?
Why did the Bank of England make favorable comments about Trump before the
election?
Why did the IMF make favorable comments about Trump before the election?
If Trump had support from the CFR, the Bank of England and the IMF wouldn’t the
Clintons have known about it?