[American Thinker] It is a psychological truth that people often "project" on to others what they are actually feeling or doing. This emotionally immature pattern is only healed by first recognizing that it exists. But while this has traditionally been true for only emotionally young people, it seems that it is now the common pattern that we find throughout our culture...especially in the world of political activism.
Look at the many obvious examples of this dysfunction. The groomers who preach gender mutilation to children and claim that everyone should have a free choice as to their sexuality (and gender) are all too often physically violent in attacking those who wish to be left alone and live in their own world of heterosexuality and birth gender. While they are tolerant of other choices, most people just want to live and let live. But the transsexual groomers no longer seek tolerance or even acceptance of their chosen way of life; they demand that everyone, even children, become like them.
Is this tolerance, or is it a projection of hate towards others?
While Black Lives Matter was supposedly an organization formed to combat racism and promote tolerance, it quickly morphed into an organization of hate and violence. Rather than promoting equality, it demanded that every white person bow down to them. Who can ever forget the image of Nancy Pelosi and company kneeling to black racism? BLM’s manifesto includes hatred spewed at Jews, Israel, the United States, and all things non-Black.
Although the Anti-Defamation League was founded to protect Jews from anti-Semitism, in recent years the ADL has itself become anti-Semitic, supporting hate mongers like Al Sharpton and CAIR, supporting BLM, condemning President Trump even though he facilitated the miraculous Abraham accords, and now attacking Elon Musk as an anti-Semite and calling for a boycott of his advertisers. The last two are especially ironic given that Trump’s daughter and grandchildren are Jewish, and Shivon Zillis, the mother of Musk’s twins, is allegedly Jewish (making the children Jewish as well if it is true). But the mission of the ADL is no longer what it once was, and instead of supporting American Jews and fighting anti-Semitism, it now supports anti-Semites and has changed its motto from protecting Jews to "fighting hate for good".
And we need only to look at the actions of Joe Biden, who attacks Trump as an authoritarian at the same time that he makes progressively more executive mandates and dictates, and even vilifies half of Americans.
Projection is a dangerous psychological dysfunction, but it can and must be fought through exposing its hypocrisy at every opportunity. Most people are not actually evil or bad, but this dysfunction deludes good people into projecting their own darkness on to others. We must all show people like the activists above that they are actually manifesting what they seek to destroy. Without anger, hate, or violence, we must all have the courage to speak calmly to people locked in their own projections and help them realize what they are really doing. They may feel that they have good intentions, but their actions are creating evil.
This is not an easy task, but it is necessary if we want this nation to once again be a bastion of freedom and liberty for everyone. By shining a light on these projections, we have the opportunity to start to have dialogues without prejudice and hate. We may still disagree, but we all need to help others recognize that they are acting in ways that are inconsistent with their deeper values of respect and tolerance. In so doing, we may be able to create a country that is less divided and more committed to internal peace.
If God created and accepts us all, perhaps we need to start taking care of each other without projecting our own failings on to anyone else.
May we all shine a light on each other that exposes hypocrisy, stops the projection of hate on to others, and leads our country and the world to true tolerance, acceptance, and respect for each individual.
#2
The last two are especially ironic given that Trump’s daughter and grandchildren are Jewish, and Shivon Zillis, the mother of Musk’s twins, is allegedly Jewish (making the children Jewish as well if it is true)
Interesting logic: one Jew = all Jews.
Zelensky (a sock puppet for USDOS) is a Jew ==> Ukrainian nationalists who worship Bohdan Chmelnitski & Stepan Bandera are not antisemitic ==> Ukrainian nationalists are not Nazis.
Elon Musk - who claims Jews destroyed his bussines - was married to a Jew.* QED
Trump’s daughter and grandchildren are Jewish. QED
#3
A statesman was saving the Jews--
"From those too-jaundiced yellow-and-blues?"
"As a matter of fact,
From his fellows in black
Who lack slack Wallenbergian views."
So many parallels.
Coincidence? I think not.
[Wikipedia] In archaeology, the classic Maya collapse is the decline of the Classic Maya civilization and the abandonment of Maya cities in the southern Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica between the 7th and 9th centuries. At Ceibal, the Preclassic Maya experienced a similar collapse in the 2nd century.[1
#2
Hypothesized. No one was keeping good records of what was going down. Keep in mind, its modern interpretations of what happened, salted by the bias of those doing the analysis.
#5
Generally speaking, when a near stone age society collapses, nobody bothers to take notes, cause that would mean engraving it in stone.
The only people who could leave a record aren't going to say something like "the king screwed up" because they work for the king, and they know he does things like rip somebody's heart out when he gets upset.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/08/2023 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
they know he does things like rip somebody's heart out when he gets upset
Well...yeah. There is that.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2023 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Is that like drowning after falling off your paddleboard at night?
Posted by: Javiter Dark Lord of the Faith7963 ||
09/08/2023 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Foreign Invasion - see Migrants
Collapse of Trade Routes - see Long Haul Truckers
Epidemic Diseases - See COVID, et. al.
Drought - see Weather
"Psychologist Julian Jaynes suggested that the collapse was due to a failure in the social control systems of religion and political authority, due to increasing socioeconomic complexity that overwhelmed the power of traditional rituals and the king's authority to compel obedience."
[JustTheNews] Equal Justice for All? A woman who threw a burning Molotov cocktail into an NYPD vehicle with four officers inside during BLM riots received a six-year sentence. A man who was not even in D.C. during the January 6 riot was sentenced to 22 years in prison for "seditious conspiracy."
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced this week to 22 years in prison for leading the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, despite not even being in Washington, D.C., at the time. The long sentences that he and other Jan. 6 defendants have received raises questions when compared to the relatively light sentences given to Black Lives Matter rioters.
Tarrio was sentenced on Tuesday after being convicted of seditious conspiracy in May. The Department of Justice had sought a 33-year prison sentence.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Skidmark ||
09/08/2023 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
If they want to undermine,if not destroy, our confidence in the justice system, this is exactly the way to go about it.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/08/2023 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
[8am] In recent times, a member of the Afghanistan National Resistance® Front (NRF), based in Mashhad and under the leadership of Ahmad Massoud, issued a statement aiming to elucidate the "core tenets" of the said front. However, Switzerland makes more than cheese... this attempt resulted in a perplexing and puzzling declaration, subsequently sparking debates within the digital realm. On his Facebook page, he expressed that only individuals who identify as "Moslems" can be affiliated with the NRF, thereby excluding "non-Moslems." He further clarified that non-Moslems could only be "sympathizers" or "supporters" of the front. These statements have emerged at a juncture where the Taliban ...Arabic for students... ’s ascendancy prevails in Afghanistan, having eradicated any military opposition. It is worth noting that the NRF does not extend recognition to any other political or ethnic factions, thereby obstructing all internal activities within the country.
Continued on Page 49
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Sergey Khudiev
[REGNUM] Senator and LDPR member Elena Afanasyeva proposed developing a program to protect men from domestic violence and to rehabilitate victims of it. Domestic violence fighters may have noble motives, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But first things first.
As the senator noted, “female violence, let's be honest, is still perceived in society as acceptable. <...> It is believed that men are physically stronger, which means that it is easier for them to avoid domestic violence. But violence is not only physical. Often men are put in a hopeless situation, manipulating money, children, the very possibility of saving a marriage. Isn't that why men after 40 years of age die of a heart attack much more often than women?
What is the problem with "violence" in general and with the desire to protect men from it in particular?
The concept of "violence" takes on such a broad meaning that it becomes useless for the pursuit of violence itself - but very useful for the pursuit of anything else.
This is largely due to the deterioration of the language. Consider, for example, the anglicism abuse, which in Russian is most often conveyed by the word "violence". However, sometimes they write “abuse” in Cyrillic. In English, this is the word with the broadest meaning, which means "abuse" in almost any sense. Drunkenness is substance abuse. Swearing is verbal abuse. Pedophilia is child abuse. Torture is also abuse. Abuse is also committed, for example, by an unscrupulous employee who abuses the trust of the employer. That is, this word means anything, from minor offenses to the gravest atrocities.
"Name is an abuser" can mean anything from "he swears" to "he is a sadist, rapist and murderer."
But when we use a foreign word, it's not so bad. It is worse when the Russian word familiar to us - "violence" - begins to acquire an unjustifiably expanded meaning. A wife who scolds her husband because he earns little is acting very stupidly. No one has yet become a millionaire from being sawed. But she doesn't do anything resembling violence. There are many unkind, unjust, harmful and counterproductive acts that are not violence.
Why is it important to emphasize this difference? Because violence is what is right and appropriate to stop from the outside. Beatings, threats to life, violence in the traditional sense should be stopped by the police. She, in this case, can and should break down the door and take away the outrageous man in handcuffs.
To call “violence” something quite different—for example, distressingly strained family relationships—is to introduce state coercion where it can only cause harm.
Spouses themselves can fix the shaken relationship, with the help, if they wish, of family psychologists. It is possible (and necessary) to stop physical violence. You can't force people to love each other. If a man no longer loves his wife, it is very sad, but the state will not help here.
Worse, the more we create opportunities for intervention in the family, the more we create grounds for abuse. Any government intervention has inevitable side effects.
We are creating opportunities to persecute people on highly vague grounds. If “violence” begins to mean anything, a “rapist” (or since such equality and feminists have gone) a “rapist” can be declared whoever we want - a person who occupies a living space, a competitor, a political opponent, just someone who does not liked it.
There is no guarantee that at the next turn of history, the same accusations of "domestic violence" will be leveled against those who helped promote this concept.
We create a situation where marital status itself becomes a source of vulnerability - so that people will simply avoid marriage.
Yes, you can point to serious crimes that can be committed in the family. Such cases happen. Although, according to statistics, a family is a much safer place than, say, an enterprise.
But the persecution, in fact, of crimes, the blurring of the concept of "violence" only interferes. If a “rapist” is anyone ranging from a real rapist to someone who swears or upsets in some other way, then the word simply ceases to be a stigma and denote a serious crime.
This is similar to how political activists in the West, throwing the word “racist” right and left, eventually create a situation where the word itself ceases to mean something terrible and shameful, since everyone around is racist.
“Equality” — the idea that a law that protects women should equally protect men—can also backfire. A few years ago in the United States there were a number of well-known cases when adult women (often teachers) seduced teenagers 16-17 years old (without any kind of violence) and got long sentences for this - Jennifer Fichter, for example, received 22 years.
We may be shocked by such severity - but this is precisely a manifestation of equality. If it is fair to jail a man for seducing a teenage girl, then equality requires the same treatment for a woman.
Such equality is absurd - as absurd as it is in a situation of "family violence". A woman is much more vulnerable - physically weaker, bound by pregnancy or children, so it is much more difficult for her to remarry, and therefore she is more in need of protection.
But it should be precisely protection from violence in the understandable and traditional sense. The blurring of this concept does nothing to curb criminals and only creates additional opportunities for abuse.
[Economic Collapse] How far would you go to feed your family? Hopefully that is a question that you will not have to answer any time soon, but right now we are seeing millions upon millions of people become more desperate as economic conditions rapidly deteriorate and food costs soar. At this point, most Americans are just barely scraping by from month to month, and in poorer countries on the other side of the world there are people that are literally starving to death. As I have detailed previously, the UN has reported that 2.4 billion people did not have enough food to eat last year, and 900 million of them were facing severe food insecurity. Sadly, those numbers will inevitably be even higher for 2023. A global rice crisis has erupted, and the collapse of the Black Sea grain deal has greatly restricted the flow of agricultural goods from that part of the globe. Food costs are spiking all over the planet, and that is really bad news for all of us.
For those of us that live in the United States, the good news is that nobody is starving at this stage.
But food prices have become extremely oppressive, and economic conditions are quickly moving in the wrong direction.
670,000 full-time jobs have been lost in just the past two months, and on Friday we witnessed the worst unadjusted payrolls report for the month of August since the Great Recession.
Yes, things really are that bad.
One recent survey discovered that 61 percent of Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck, but I expect this number to go even higher in the months ahead...
#4
As a retired SF officer friend of mine noted, he doesn't need to buy a lot of long shelf-life food supplies, he just needs NVG's and to know where his friends that do live!
As an aside, Mountain House makes these, and they are amazing:
[American Thinker] During COVID, there were allegedly no treatments available, according to the FDA and CDC. Even through a number of front-line doctors were having success with ivermectin and HCQ, the CDC and FDA put real barriers in place for working doctors to utilize those treatments. Many doctors were threatened with losing their license if they continued to treat patients, and some doctors were fired.
As the dust has begun to settle, there is a legal issue that might explain the lack of curiosity about a potential cheap treatment for COVID. If there had been a treatment for COVID, then the Emergency Use Authorization could not be used for the vaccine. Explained here very well, "Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism used by the FDA to facilitate making products available quickly during a public health emergency, when there is no other adequate and approved medical product available."
Well, an interesting development occurred when doctors sued the FDA for interfering in their off-label use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. The FDA has now tried to argue that it never told anyone not to use it. It just made fun of people for considering using it.
I believe that the people running the FDA have misrepresented the pressures applied to doctors and pharmacists not to prescribe this and help people.
And we are also learning that FDA and CDC had plenty of warning that the so-called vaccines were dangerous, information they completely hid and ignored.
This is all a setup for a few thoughts.
1) An international study has concluded that ivermectin prevented more serious illness in approximately 62% of cases. See the Gateway Pundit article referenced above, and find this fabulous line: "There have now been 99 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% improvement in COVID patients." Think of the number of ventilator hours saved, and the number of hospital beds that could have been freed up with even a 50% effective rate.
2) Ivermectin was been approved for human use since 1996. At the start of the pandemic, we had 24 years of data on ivermectin. In addition, if you review the emails being sent to Dr. Fauci, as early as January 2020, international doctors were describing treatment success with ivermectin and HCQ. Instead, we had to have an expensive drug for treatment with little to no data. How many human data are in the public sphere about Remdesivir and the so-called vaccines? (Hint: It is nearly zero).
3) Can informed consent for a treatment actually be given if there is no public information available to make the informed consent? We are still waiting on detailed knowledge of Remdesivir and the so-called vaccines. This was a major failing of the courts in my humble opinion.
4) Would we have needed to lock down anything (except to protect the most vulnerable) with the knowledge that a treatment existed and was able to make the risk more manageable for nearly everyone?
5) Remdesivir was quite literally killing people as they were used as test subjects with no friend or family allowed to speak for them. This seemed like a risky treatment that did more harm than good.
6) If there was a conspiracy to defraud the American people about ivermectin, and if it is a treatment with substantial benefits, is the Emergency Use Authorization actually valid? And can people sue the drug-makers over the harm they have endured?
7) Who was working to hide the truth and why? Was it just about money for a new vaccine that could generate no-risk returns for Big Pharma?
Congress and the Judicial Branch failed the American people at every turn. Instead of some skepticism of the claims being made, many judges accepted assertions from Dr. Fauci and others as actual facts. In several Supreme Court hearings, justices quoted the talking points in the briefs rather than the actual facts. Congressional oversight has been nonexistent, and they are already preparing to do this to us again.
Why should you care, and why should we answer question #6? The vaccine was improperly approved. It is not a vaccine, and it is hurting people even now. Also, the vaccines do not work. Because the FDA and CDC claimed that no treatment was available, they were able to approve the vaccine under emergency use authorization — removing all risk from Big Pharma. And no one can sue anyone over it because it was approved for an Emergency Use Authorization. Is it possible for the best lawyers in American to crack open the improperly issued EUA and allow lawsuits for harm? Is it possible for Congress to start investigating and preparing for a Republican administration to take names and hold people accountable?
The politics and the so-called science moved so much faster than the law and oversight. Rumbles of more lockdowns, new vaccines, and mask mandates are already in the air. Our president started wearing a mask this week and has begun talking about a new vaccine "that works." This seems like a tacit acknowledgement that the so-called vaccines did not work. And who gets to define and monitor the success of these drugs? The same people who pushed the ineffective vaccine? I think I'll pass, again.
[CNN] "This is arguably the biggest political corruption scandal of our lifetimes," House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) said of the poll. "It reaches the highest levels of our government & the mainstream media has turned a blind eye."
The poll, which sampled 1,503 adults from August 25 to 31 with a ± 3.5 percent margin of error, found that a majority of Americans believe Joe Biden had "at least some involvement" in family business deals with China and Ukraine, with 42 percent saying Joe Biden acted illegally and 18 percent saying that his actions were unethical but not illegal.
Only 38 percent say Joe Biden did not have any involvement in his family’s business. Just one percent say Joe Biden was involved and did nothing wrong.
The Biden family business received over $20 million from Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan while Joe Biden was vice president, Comer revealed in August.
Additional bank records show the Biden business received at least $10 million from business schemes in Romania and China. In total, nine Biden family members received payments from the family foreign business ventures, including two of Joe Biden’s grandchildren.
In addition, 55 percent believe Joe Biden acted inappropriately regarding his Justice Department’s (DOJ) probe into Hunter Biden over potential tax and gun violations. Forty-four percent say he acted appropriately.
IRS whistleblowers alleged in April that two Biden administration political appointees within the DOJ worked to block charges against Hunter Biden for tax violations against recommendations.
Among the allegations, they said President Joe Biden’s DOJ politically interfered in the criminal probe into his son. They also argued Hunter Biden was forewarned of any future searches for materials that could be used as evidence.
[AmericanThinker] Last night, Tucker Carlson released his interview with Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that, in 1999, while in Chicago, he did cocaine with Obama (who preferred to smoke his) and then performed oral sex on Obama. This is a tale that Sinclair has told before. It’s worth noting because it reminds us of the partnership between the media and the Democrat party. There were also some interesting details about big tech and a strange death (or maybe a few strange deaths).
As I said, nothing new. However, I found it very amusing when, after hearing Sinclair detail how he shared drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on him, Tucker asked Sinclair if that left a bad taste in his mouth, and Sinclair said that it did. Tucker and Sinclair were obviously speaking about the entire two-day interlude, from first meeting Obama to never seeing the man again, but I can be remarkably literal and, well, you get the joke. "It left a bad taste in my mouth"
There were two interesting parts of the interview with which I was not familiar. The first was Sinclair’s discussion about how the media and big tech went after him. Some media outlets lied about Sinclair’s criminal history (which he’d been quite open about in the YouTube video he originally made), grossly exaggerating it, and then dismissed him as a criminal and a crackpot.
Read the rest at the link
Posted by: The Walking Unvaxed ||
09/08/2023 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr Sinclair has a long history of tangles with the law. He also has no physical evidence to back up any of his claims.
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/08/2023 0:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They didn’t call him Bath House Barry for nothing…
#4
And the folks frequenting the bars in Chicago's Pride district just smile, never telling tales about 'one of their own'.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/08/2023 7:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think the important aspect isn't the veracity of the accuser, it's that the citizens get to decide whether we believe him or not and what that ultimately means in terms of our decisions going forward.
Is Portnoy right? No idea, but he makes good points as does Lord Garth. In the end none of us were 'there', thank God, and we have to make our own judgements. You know, like they did in the old, pre-woke days. Try and cobble some combination of such facts as can be gleaned, add in human experience and legitimate operating assumptions.
Censorship is the problem, not Sinclair, Tucker, or even the pestilential light bringer.
#7
^ And I don't need to hear about it around the clock, have it up in my face all the time and I certainly don't need gummint clubbing me over the head to validate it. If those "life choices" are so superior, that should speak for itself, eh?
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/08/2023 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I had enough problems with Baraq before I ever heard Sinclair's story. He has no witnesses or evidence but he does have a history of lies and legal problems which makes me wonder why Tucker would bother with him.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/08/2023 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As a story, it sounded plausible if you remove Barrack Obama’s name. At this point the story is uncorroborated. The Clinton rape stories all were plausible as well. By plausible, I mean that the narrative doesn’t go Jussie Smollett or Kavanaugh accuser. Regardless, I think we are going to get to the bottom of some stuff over the next couple of months and then more in the next six years.
Posted by: Bill Clunk5073 ||
09/08/2023 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[American Thinker] It is a psychological truth that people often "project" on to others what they are actually feeling or doing. This emotionally immature pattern is only healed by first recognizing that it exists. But while this has traditionally been true for only emotionally young people, it seems that it is now the common pattern that we find throughout our culture...especially in the world of political activism.
...Arabic for 
Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander's Newsletter:
