2019 so far

[hotman637]

Aug 11, 2019 19:10:35 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Aug 11, 2019 11:58:13 GMT -5 hotman637 said:

The thing about Chump and his talking about sex with Ivanka is that if you notice the Chump with the pink tie is a DIFFERENT Chump then the guy now so he was

REPLACED! So the replacement Chump seems to be the one talking about sex with Ivanka and he may NOT BE her "father"! I am not saying that does not make him an idiot

(NOTHING can stop him being an idiot!) but that could explain why he talks about sex with her! The guy with the pink tie actually looks a lot like the replacement Bush!

Or, it's the same guy, he's an incestuous rapist and he and the sex trafficked wife he grabbed as swag bag party favor got a coupon for His and Hers eye jobs.

Look at videos of the "old" Trump and the "new" Chump and the new Chump has different hair and a different voice and he sounds a lot dumber then the "old" trump! Oprah looks a lot different too!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nkNzrUVeg

[ekauqodielak]

Events reported on Earth today:

Norway Mosque Gunman Expressed Far-Right Views, Admiration for El Paso Shooter

A 4chan post believed to be by the alleged gunman expressed admiration for previous shootings targeting Muslims and immigrants.

…

A Fist Raised and a Knee Taken: US Gold Medalists Gwen Berry and Race Imboden Protest Trump Racism and Gun Violence Epidemic at Pan Am Games

"Somebody has to talk about the things that are too uncomfortable to talk about. Somebody has to stand for all of the injustices that are going on in America and a president who's making it worse," said hammer thrower Gwen Berry

…

Border Patrol Arrest Reports Are Full of Lies That Can Sabotage Asylum Claims

Some of the errors that appear on immigration intake forms would be laughable, if the consequences weren’t so dire. The New Jersey attorney had an ICE agent declare that one of his clients had a sawed-off shotgun in his car, when there was no evidence of any such thing. In a 2015 brief, the American Immigration Lawyers Association highlighted an I-867 where a defendant, identified as Y.F., said that they came to the U.S. “to look for work.” At the time of the interview, Y.F. was only three years old. More than one attorney told The Intercept they’ve seen I-213s for infants as young as a few months old who, according to Border Patrol, claim that they came to the United States to work.

…

Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict

"In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet."

…

Exclusive: Critical U.S. Election Systems Have Been Left Exposed Online Despite Official Denials

The top voting machine company in the country insists that its election systems are never connected to the internet. But researchers found 35 of the systems have been connected to the internet for months and possibly years, including in some swing states.

…

Why Conspiracy Theorists Will Never Believe the ‘Official’ Epstein Story

Trust in gatekeepers—from media to government—has eroded to the point of making an “official account” almost obsolete.

…

Officer-Involved Killings Now a Leading Cause of Death for Young Men in America

It’s a data point as American as it is macabre, but a new study has identified police killings as a leading cause of death among young American men.

…

Why is this Texas secession group’s flag hanging in Moscow?

With years of links in Russia, the Texas Nationalist Movement pushes on.

…

GOD HAS HEARD YOUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AND HE THINKS THEY ARE FUCKING BULLSHIT

God said, “You shall be provided with the legislative tools to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other wartime instruments of death.” And lo, the nation said, “I’d rather not.” And so nothing came to pass.

…

Guess who said it: Tucker Carlson or a far-right shooter

The Fox New host’s nightly diatribes are making the US an ever more terrifying place for immigrants and people of color

…

Gender Belongs at Center of the Gun Debate

The 21-year-old Texan charged with the El Paso murders is an avowed white supremacist man. The slain Dayton killer had previously compiled a “rape list” of females he wanted to sexually assault. Both are poster boys of toxic masculinity.

…

[B]

[8.11] Epstein Autopsy Results "Pending" - Trump Retweets Conspiracy Theories - Attacks on 8chan
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsuA0HSRXzo



Destroying the Illusion
Streamed live 88 minutes ago

[ekauqodielak]

What Ails the Right Isn’t (Just) Racism

An authoritarian fear of difference best explains the intolerance sweeping the Republican Party.

Conor Friedersdorf • Aug 9, 2019
Staff writer at The Atlantic

Brian Snyder / Reuters

What if the left was right on race?

That’s the question Jane Coaston posed to movement conservatives in Vox. She was mulling claims from the right that the GOP would never have united around a man like President Donald Trump if not for what many Republicans see as decades of unfair accusations of racism against figures such as George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

Yet long before any such ostensibly unfair or overzealous accusations, the conservative movement was catastrophically wrong on matters as consequential as Jim Crow and apartheid. And many of today’s conservatives would have objected, as to an outrageous, bad-faith slander, had a leftist claimed just a few years ago that Rush Limbaugh and most of the rank and file would eagerly support a big-spending birther who denigrated Mexicans, sought to ban Muslims, and told American-born congresswomen of color that they should “go back” to where they came from.

“What if, in truth, the conservative movement’s inability to self-police itself against racism and establish firm guardrails against racists in the movement has resulted in an American right increasingly beholden to racism and racist arguments?” Coaston asked. “And what if, in truth, it’s the left that has seen this most clearly and that has been pointing it out again and again?”

She argued in part that “the kind of racism that’s most common in movement conservatism is ‘instrumentalized’ racism, the deliberate use of racism and racist tropes for the sole purpose of winning votes and elections.” Those who exploit it do so “not necessarily because they themselves are ‘racist’ on an individual level,” Coaston wrote, “but because they believe that voters will respond—and perhaps only respond—to racism.”

I concur that Trump, as surely as Lee Atwater, marshals racist tropes. But I doubt the last claim: “Instrumental racists” believe that voters will perhaps respond only to racism. And I doubt that voters, in fact, respond only to racism. Something distinct and deeper is at work. This deeper force explains nearly all of Trump’s most odious and irresponsible comments, not just the racist ones. It helps explain why so many conservatives and Republicans were caught off guard by Trump’s rise and the resonance of his bigotry. And it helps clarify what the left sees and doesn’t see about racism. Once leftists understand it, they will find it easier to defeat the identitarian right.

No one better anticipated today’s societal divisions than the political psychologist Karen Stenner, author of the 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic. The book built on research literature that distinguishes between “authoritarians,” who prize what Stenner calls “oneness and sameness” so much so that they are prone to support coercion to effect it, and “libertarians,” who not only defend but affirmatively prize diversity and difference. (Those labels are not to be conflated with the popular definitions of the terms.)

Stenner began her research with a questionnaire that probed the attitudes of her subjects toward child-rearing. Their answers indicated the extent to which they think that it’s more important for kids to obey their parents, have good manners, be neat and clean, and follow the rules—or alternatively, that it’s more important that they are responsible for their own actions, and creative, curious, independent thinkers who follow their own conscience and show good judgment. Designed to provide an unobtrusive, bare-bones measure of each subject’s fundamental stances toward conformity and difference, the child-rearing questionnaires were scored and the subjects arrayed from most libertarian to most authoritarian. Stenner was most interested in the people who scored at the extreme poles.

She thought that both the most extreme authoritarians and the most extreme libertarians have powerful, largely innate and highly durable psychological predispositions that affect how they react to all that is unfamiliar and different. Trying a new cuisine, attending a different faith’s religious service, or carpooling for a week with someone of a different race is energizing, exciting, and engaging for one type of person but leaves the opposite type frightened, even “unhinged.” And she wondered how those predispositions would influence how intolerant (if at all) a person was likely to be when circumstances confronted them with racial or political or moral differences.

To test her hypothesis, she designed a double-blind study.

Trained student-interviewers in pairs were randomly assigned to visit the homes of the white people assessed as the most extreme “libertarians” and “authoritarians” (based on their original responses to those child-rearing questions). Some interviewers were African American, others white. They asked the same broad, open-ended questions provided by Stenner, recorded audio of their conversations for later “coding” and analysis, and kept interview logs to document their observations of the encounters, too.

Neither interviewers nor subjects knew the true nature and specific purpose of the research nor the psychological profiles of the subjects. The same was true of the people transcribing and coding the interviews for Stenner’s subsequent quantitative analysis.

If Stenner was correct, the way her subjects answered the original questions about child-rearing would predict how well they tolerated different people and beliefs months later in their homes. And insights would be gained into their likely comfort with, and ability to “put up with” the diverse peoples, attitudes, and behaviors that confront everyone in a modern liberal democracy.

The results were staggering. The group whose child-rearing preferences skewed most toward traits of obedience and conformity were less pleasant, less intelligent, angrier, and less open to experience, among other attributes. But I want to focus on the results related to race. If contacted by white interviewers, the “authoritarians” were almost indistinguishable from the “libertarians” in their willingness to schedule a conversation. They proved dramatically more reluctant to participate when contacted by black interviewers.

The authoritarians were more hostile, suspicious, and anxious with black interviewers, whereas “especially given a black interviewer, libertarians were vastly more likely than authoritarians to display great warmth toward their visitors.”

With white interviewers, authoritarians were less likely than libertarians to introduce talk about “social exclusion, isolation, and disconnection,” but with a black interviewer they were far more likely, even as libertarians were indifferent to the interviewer’s race. “The language of authoritarians was especially inclusive when it was just ‘us’ talking among ourselves,” Stenner explained, “but they were clearly thinking exclusion when confronting one of ‘them.’”

Authoritarians displayed more anxiety, “but their fearfulness and nervousness was far more (and perhaps only) apparent when trying to get through the whole ordeal with a black interview partner listening.” They were far more inclined than libertarians to talk in terms of “us” and “them” when discussing race. They tended to echo negative racial stereotypes. And they were more likely to confess that they disapproved of mixed-race socializing.

Regardless of the interviewers, authoritarians tended to say fewer overall words and fewer different words than libertarians. And the evident differences were greatly magnified in the presence of black interviewers. The sophistication of discussions “tended to diverge by just over one grade level when both interviewers were white,” with authoritarians “talking at almost a fifth-grade level” and libertarians talking “around the sixth-grade level,” Stenner found. “But when forced to engage in conversations with a black primary interviewer, the two characters were as distinct as third and ninth graders in the complexity of their discussions.” Why? The crucial distinction between libertarians and authoritarians, Stemmer argued, is that “the former are excited and engaged and the latter frightened and unhinged by difference.”

Authoritarians also proved far less comfortable than libertarians with “the idea that one could be critical of America and Americans while still being a loyal citizen.” They were more inclined to voice the sentiment that Americans ought to “love it or leave it.” They were more likely to become emotional when talking about the American flag. They tended to support right-wing groups that believe there is a “true America” being undermined from within by minorities, political dissidents, and moral decay. And they were more inclined to believe that morality is on the decline.

Indeed, Stenner observed that “fears regarding immorality and crime, claims about the critical need to reestablish some normative order, and elaboration of plans for accomplishing this” occupied the bulk of “their psychic space,” consuming a hugely disproportionate share of their time and energy.

Using “racist” as a shorthand to describe Stenner’s intolerant subjects is inadequate. Remember, they were distinguished eight months prior to being interviewed only by how they answered seemingly innocuous questions about child-rearing. The scores on those questionnaires turned out to predict huge differences in their behavior and interactions with interviewers of different races, who recorded their impressions without knowing the predispositions of their interview subjects or Stenner’s hypothesis.

That’s because their intolerance of difference was much broader than racism, encompassing racial and ethnic out-groups, political dissidents, and people they consider moral deviants. Authoritarians display distinct traits across very different domains of tolerance. Stenner added that this intolerance manifests most commonly in demands for broad conformity, typically including “legal discrimination against minorities and restrictions on immigration; limits on free speech, assembly, and association; and the regulation of moral behavior, for example, via policies regarding school prayer, abortion, censorship, and homosexuality, and their punitive enforcement.”

And she cautioned that “a good deal of what we call racial intolerance is not even primarily about race, let alone blacks, let alone African Americans and their purported shortcomings,” though antiblack, ideological racists do of course exist, and African Americans are harmed regardless of what drives intolerance. “Ultimately,” Stenner contended, “much of what we think of as racism, likewise political and moral intolerance, is more helpfully understood as ‘difference-ism,’” defined as “a fundamental and overwhelming desire to establish and defend some collective order of oneness and sameness.”

The distinction isn’t merely about word choice. It has critical implications for fighting and easing both racism and other forms of intolerance. For example, in an entirely separate experiment meant to manipulate the way authoritarians viewed “us” and “them,” subjects were told that NASA had verified the existence of alien life––beings “very different from us in ways we are not yet even able to imagine.” After being told that, the measured racial intolerance of authoritarian subjects decreased by half, a result that suggests a general intolerance of difference that varies with perceptions of otherness, not fixed antagonism against a racial group. Their boundaries (and thus their behavior!) can be swiftly altered, Stenner emphasized, just by this simple cognitive device of creating a “superordinate group”: making “black people look more like ‘us’ than ‘them’ when there are green people afoot.”

Under these conditions, the authoritarians didn’t only become kinder to black people, Stenner noted; they also became more merciful to criminals—that is, less inclined to want a crackdown on perceived moral deviance.

My thinking about Western politics has been influenced by Stenner’s insight that what she calls “the authoritarian dynamic” provides a better account than mere racism of political conflict “across the seemingly diverse domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be the most heated.” And that brings us back to 2019.

To its credit, the left long discerned that there was more racism on the right than many elites in the GOP or the conservative movement understood or wanted to see or admit. But many on the left and the right misunderstand racism in politics because neither quite understands the role of authoritarians.

Movement conservatives need to face up to the fact that authoritarians have existed across time and societies, and that the left is not responsible for the racism or bigotry of authoritarians in their electoral coalition, nor for GOP politicians and operatives who cynically pander to them. Authoritarian intolerance is not a response to unfair accusations of racism. It likely stems from a perhaps innate predisposition to prize oneness and sameness that manifests most powerfully under conditions of perceived threat. And Trump has repeatedly stoked the anxieties of authoritarians in just the ways an amoral politician would do after consulting research on how to exploit that predisposition.

The left is morally blameless for Trump’s actions.

Still, the left makes several significant errors with regard to racism on the right. Perhaps most important, leftists too often conceive of Trumpist politics as rooted primarily in racism, or even an ideological belief in white supremacy, rather than an authoritarian “different-ism” that manifests as racism at times but as distinct (if psychologically similar) intolerances at other times. The distinction matters regardless of whether one wants to fight the racist manifestations of authoritarianism or the full range of intolerances.

Stenner’s book reaches a conclusion that cuts against one of the main progressive strategies for fighting racism in American society: the belief that if we have the will, everyone can be socialized to respect and value difference.

“All the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference … are the surest way to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors,” she wrote. The appearance of sameness matters, and “apparent variance in beliefs, values, and culture seem to be more provocative of intolerant dispositions than racial and ethnic diversity,” so “parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness” seems wise when possible.

If you want an authoritarian neighbor to be maximally tolerant of the refugee family that moved in down the street, don’t relate how cool it was to go to their house and discover food and music unlike anything you’d ever encountered. Relate that despite growing up half a world away, their dedication to their children shows how much we humans all have in common.

There is no better example of both paying homage to America’s diversity and reassuringly emphasizing a deeper unity than Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, and yet still come together as one American family.

“E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

Obama then preempted those “preparing to divide us” by insisting on the reality of a more fundamental underlying sameness. “I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America,” he insisted. “There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there is the United States of America … We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes.”

That’s how an African American Democrat with a foreign-sounding name overcame rumors that he was a secret Kenyan and won two presidential terms while getting votes from millions who later supported Trump. Of course, every candidate and campaign is different. But the left needs to know that it will better grasp reality and increase its odds of defeating Trumpism if it understands that antiauthoritarianism, rather than anti-racism, is the most apt, effective framework for opposing what ails the right.

Trump sometimes seems like the paradigmatic example of the authoritarian personality type. But he may simply be a charismatic leader who understands—whether by some adviser’s dark calculation, or his own instincts—the vulnerability and malleability of his audience, and the themes, language, and symbolism that he needs to effectively manipulate them.

The left must grasp, as Stenner put it, that “showy celebration of an absolute insistence upon individual autonomy and unconstrained diversity pushes those by nature least equipped to live comfortably in a liberal democracy not to the limits of their tolerance, but to their intolerant extremes.”

I’d also advise the left to bear in mind that the right is a diverse coalition composed of authoritarians as well as many libertarians and people in between. Talking about it as a monolith is a mistake, especially given Stenner’s finding of sharp distinctions between authoritarians and ideological conservatives that suggest a way to weaken Trump with a key constituency in 2020.

Promiscuous labeling may erode the stigma associated with the word racist. False or frivolous accusations of racism aren’t at the root of authoritarian intolerance or racism. But when directed at nonauthoritarian nonracists, false accusations could conceivably make them less inclined to probe, ponder, or perceive actual racism in others.

Representative Steve King is going to be intolerant whether or not anyone calls him a racist, and he’s going to ally with authoritarians rather than try to undermine their power in the Republican Party. In contrast, if former Speaker Paul Ryan is accused of engaging in racist dog whistles when he plausibly insists that he is doing nothing of the sort, he may find it less personally advantageous to validate Democratic claims of racism, or he may form a cognitive bias that makes him more likely to simply dismiss leftist claims on race, or feel less able to convince nonauthoritarian colleagues, donors, or supporters that there’s cause to worry.

Put another way, the right is correct that crying wolf matters. And the left is correct that the boy who cried wolf ends with a wolf feasting on folks who concluded that they shouldn’t worry about wolves, because one kid fibbed. The left should refine its best critiques on race and abandon its worst as lacking fairness and rigor. And the nonauthoritarian right needs to wake up to the authoritarians in their midst, taking responsibility for trying to deprive them of power rather than scapegoating or fixating on the least persuasive of the left’s critiques.

[ekauqodielak]

Our forever war: how the white male hegemony uses violence to cling to power

Rebecca Solnit • Thu 8 Aug 2019 02.00 EDT

Mass shootings enforce the oppression built into America’s economic and legal systems and our history


‘After the El Paso massacre, people are saying out loud that the president is culpable. But he is gasoline on a fire laid long before.’
Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

We were never not at war. By we I mean the colonizers of this continent, who waged war first against Native North America’s original occupants and then entered into a state of war to keep kidnapped Africans subjugated in slavery. After the official Indian wars ended, we found other means to keep Native people confined and disempowered. After slavery officially ended, we found other means to keep black people impoverished and disempowered. Those means were forms of war.

We launched a war to steal Mexico’s northern half, a project completed in 1848 with the acquisition of what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona (minus the Gadsden purchase), part of Colorado, and New Mexico. Texas had already been seized by dubious means, in part because its Yankee settlers refused to accept Mexican law banning slavery. Then we treated Latinx people, even those who had been here before “here” was the USA, as invaders.

There’s a long history of massacres in response to slave uprisings and Native resistance, and the police killings of black people and white male killing of Native women might as well be called war by other means. The US began with a declaration that “all men are created equal” that left out all women, and since then its history has too often been devoted to perpetrating inequality. Recent mass shootings driven by racism and misogyny are a more extreme means of enforcing an oppression built into our economic and legal systems, and may be the result of a panic that those systems are not containing others well enough.

“War” might as well describe the domestic violence so epidemic that “on average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States”, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, with an average of four domestic violence deaths a day. Of course the majority of perpetrators are men; the majority of victims are women.

We are a country at war, but who that “we” is – in a nation where so many have been so disenfranchised – should be central to the conversation. There are more guns in the US than people, and the rhetoric of gun rights has been used to defend the rights of these killing machines to spread everywhere – classrooms, Walmarts, public places, homes where children have access to them.

And the people most likely to own guns are those who have been the aggressors in these wars: men, particularly white men, who commit almost all the mass shootings in this country. As social media commentators have noted, if it were Islamic or other “other” groups committing multiple massacres there would be no doubt that this was terrorism. And as Jason Stanley notes early in his book How Fascism Works, “The most telling symptom of fascist politics is division. It aims to separate a population into an ‘us’ and a ‘them.’” But these divisions by race, religion, and gender have always structured the United States.

A man prays at a memorial three days after a mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas.
Photograph: Callaghan O’Hare/Reuters

“I think in many ways the FBI is hamstrung in trying to investigate the white supremacist movement like the old FBI would,” Dave Gomez, a former FBI agent, told the Washington Post. “There’s some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base. It’s a no-win situation for the FBI agent or supervisor.”

Except that the old FBI was reluctant to take on rightwing violence too. When an Obama official warned in 2009 of a coming “resurgence of rightwing extremist activity and associated violence in the United States”, he recalled in 2017, a “political backlash ensued because of an objection to the label ‘rightwing extremism’.” Ultimately “Republican lawmakers demanded then homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano rescind my report”.

In other words, the problem is the people who have always been in power and control. The government that is supposed to be in charge of protecting all of us is a partisan in this war and to some extent always has been. Now the Republican party is openly partisan, openly the enemy of a majority of people in this country that is less than a third white males.

We were never not at war, but in recent years the cold civil war has heated up. The white men who expected unquestioned supremacy, by race and by gender, have launched a civil war against the rest of us, not least by allowing a huge number of high-capacity weapons of war to circulate throughout the country and supporting the NRA’s propaganda project to further fortify a set of fears and identifications between freedom, guns, masculinity and white supremacy. The Republican party has in essence declared war against the United States – against the people, the environment, the constitution, the rule of law, against voting rights and free and fair elections. The threats are coming from inside the Capitol.

After the El Paso massacre by a racist with an anti-immigrant manifesto, people are saying out loud that the president is culpable. But he is gasoline on a fire laid long before, an extreme version of old hates and problems. And of the entitlement that always seems like the most noteworthy and least noted aspect of violence: the idea that anyone has the right to punish, deprive of rights and safety and even kill others. In May, he said, “How do you stop these people?” and complained that the border patrol can’t use weapons, and then chuckled when an audience member called out “shoot them”. This weekend someone shot his version of “them” in El Paso.

We think of armies as organized bodies with clear structures and centers. But the internet has created a guerrilla army of rightwing young white men infected by contagious and toxic ideas. The internet, as it was created by the hubristic white men of Silicon Valley, is an indoctrination, organizing tool, manifesto distribution means and shopping system (the Dayton killer bought his AR-15 style rifle online from Texas). It’s also an amplifier of alienation and extremism. That many of these young men are lonely and miserable and isolated, and that there is no clear border between white supremacists and incel misogynists, two groups linked to mass shootings, speaks to how the internet works.

That Cloudflare has stopped hosting the hate-spreading 8Chan is, like the meaningless gestures Google, Twitter and Facebook regularly engage in after being implicated in the spread of hate at home and abroad, too little too late. The tech giants, arms dealers in the civil war, are concerned only with whitewashing their own culpability.

Signs and crosses at the makeshift memorial for victims El Paso shooting in El Paso, Texas.
Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

I wonder about how wars end, especially civil wars. How do people attached to their partisanship leave it behind? How do people find a sense of belonging to the whole rather than their divisive part? If slavery was the original sin of the US (along with genocide against Native North Americans), then the failure to finish the American civil war with a decisive victory against the Confederacy that ensured rights for black citizens and abandonment of the rhetoric and symbols of Dixie is how that sin never died.

Six of the nine people massacred in Dayton were black. Black people were the targets in the Charleston church massacre in 2015. We’ve had mass shootings in synagogues and a Sikh temple and many attacks on Muslims. How does the definition of “we” become broader and more inclusive, rather than shrinking down to Christianity and whiteness and maleness? How do you launch a peace? How does love become more powerful than hate? How do we unravel the forces shaping these miserable young white men and reincorporate them into the broader society? How do we de-legitimize the entitlement to violence? What might inoculate lonely young men against the viral contagion of mass shootings that have spread since Columbine like a slow pandemic?

We must remember that this war has stepped up because white men feel threatened in what they consider a zero-sum game: if they don’t have everything they imagine they won’t have enough, a threat whipped up by rightwing media and the Republican party. The Republican party’s decision to become the party of white grievance will be in the long run a losing strategy in an increasingly nonwhite nation. But conservative white Americans are determined to hold on to power, and will use gerrymandering, voting suppression and other tactics to openly defy the ideals of democracy and equality.

Women of color are advancing in power; the president’s recent attacks on representatives Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib are red meat for his base, but also a reminder that among the four are the first black woman elected to national office from Massachusetts, the first Muslim women elected to Congress, and the young Latina who beat an old white man.

The threat they pose to the old white Christian male hegemony is real. I think that in the long run the larger, more generous American “we” will win, but that does not make the carnage acceptable or map out how to dilute the divides, or whether the work to do so is going to be carried out entirely by the victims and not the perpetrators. The war is because the future USA will not look like the past USA, in who is here and who has rights and powers. The question is how we survive the transition – or rather how we shape it so that the vulnerable survive and thrive.

[ekauqodielak]

Beto O'Rourke: Trump's "bizarre behavior" a distraction from real problems

Marisa Fernandez

2020 candidate Beto O'Rourke told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that President Trump's "bizarre behavior," including his retweet of an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about Jeffrey Epstein's death, is a distraction for the American people who want to see real solutions on gun violence and white nationalism.

TAPPER: "I do want to get your reaction to the president retweeting this unhinged conspiracy theory, without any evidence, linking [Jeffrey] Epstein's death by apparent suicide to a murder by the Clintons. What was your reaction when you saw the tweets?"

O'ROURKE: "This is another example of our president using this position of public trust to attack his political enemies with unfounded conspiracy theories. And also to try to force you and me and all of us to focus on his bizarre behavior instead of the fact that we just lost 22 people in this community, 9 people in Dayton, Ohio. We're seeing an epidemic of gun violence every single day in this country. ... He's changing the conversation, and if we allow him to do that, then we will never be able to focus on the true problems, of which he is a part."

The big picture: This week, while visiting the victims of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Trump unleashed Twitter attacks and tirades against a wide array of people and topics. Targets included...

• Google
• California
• Beto O'Rourke
• The New York Times
  
• Joe Biden
• CNN
• Fox News
• Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley
• Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro
• Hollywood
• Bill Maher
• Anthony Scaramucci

Dozens of Democrats have called on the administration to take real action against gun violence by reconvening the Senate to vote on 2 House-passed background check bills. O'Rourke, who suspended his campaign after the shooting in his hometown, has said he would consider mandatory gun buyback programs or gun licenses if elected president.

• O'Rourke also called attention to a CNN report this week that claimed the White house has rebuffed efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to make "combating domestic terror threats, such as those from white supremacists, a greater priority."

• "[Trump] has ignored them, or willfully suppressed action on those ideas and those programs and those policies that could have saved lives in El Paso and across the country," O'Rourke said.

[B]

[ekauqodielak]

With Trump’s New ‘Public Charge’ Rules, the War on Immigrants Just Got a Whole Lot Worse

The new rules will allow immediate deportation of millions of immigrants who receive government benefits—and throw millions of legal immigrants off the social safety net.

By Sasha Abramsky Today 2:44 pm

Children of mainly Latino immigrants hold signs in support of their parents and other workers who were picked up during an immigration raid in Canton, Mississippi, on August 11.
(AP Photo / Rogelio V. Solis)

For the past year, immigrant rights advocates and anti-poverty activists have watched with horror as the Trump administration prepared to roll out expansive new “public charge” regulations as a central part of its war on immigrants.

Public charge regulations have been on the books since the late 19th century; they allow the government to deny visas to would-be immigrants if it seems likely they will end up reliant on government cash aid. More broadly, in theory, they allow for a noncitizen immigrant’s use of public cash-assistance programs to be grounds for the government to begin deportation proceedings.

In practice, however, the definition of “public charge” has always been limited, and crafted to exclude emergency housing, health, and nutritional assistance. As I have written in previous articles, there’s good reason for that: Aside from the strong moral arguments against letting poor people go hungry and sick, no rational government would want immigrant communities to, for example, forgo vaccinating their children in order to avoid a punitive reaction from immigration authorities—that has all the makings of a public health catastrophe. No rational government of a country with millions of immigrants would want millions of immigrant children to show up at school hungry each morning because their parents are afraid to apply for food stamps. No rational government would want hundreds of thousands of immigrant families to risk homelessness because of a temporary dip in their financial situation.

Simply out of self-interest, a country such as the United States cannot afford to drive millions of legal immigrants entirely outside the social safety net. Yet that is what the odious Trump team is now doing. From day one, they have wanted to expand public charge definitions into a catch-all that would allow them to lock the country down against poor, nonwhite immigrants. With this measure, they aim to turn legal immigrants into illegal immigrants by a bureaucratic sleight of hand designed to penalize them for even the whisper of economic insecurity.

Over the past couple years, immigration officers in embassies overseas have been given extraordinary discretion in how they interpret the category of public charge. In 2016, according to an analysis of State Department data by Politico, only seven people were denied visas to enter the United States on public charge grounds. By 2019, that number had soared to 5,343.

The changes have now hit home on US soil. For months, as rumors of the impending regulatory shift swept immigrant communities, advocates and service-delivery organizations have reported a mass exodus of immigrants from public assistance. I have spoken with community-clinic doctors in immigrant neighborhoods who have told me about clients refusing life-saving visits to the hospital; one doctor reported that an elderly man who was having a stroke in her clinic office wouldn’t let her call an ambulance because he feared it would affect his family’s immigration status. I have spoken with immigrant mothers so fearful of deportation that they declined housing assistance for their US-citizen children. I have interviewed anti-poverty advocates who tell me about clients disenrolling en masse from the food stamp program.

Now it’s about to get a whole lot worse.

Monday morning, those destructive changes became reality—despite the fact that during the two-month period for public comment the overwhelming majority of the quarter-million-plus comments filed were opposed to the changes, according not just to groups such as the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) but the government itself. The new public charge regulations were released, as an 837-page document, in the Federal Register; as a result, 60 days from now they will become the law of the land.

In theory, when a rule change of this magnitude is proposed, the Administrative Procedures Act mandates that the relevant government agencies take the public comments seriously. In practice, that clearly hasn’t happened. A record number of comments were filed against this change—by doctors, nurses, teachers, housing advocates, local officials, faith leaders, immigrants, community activists, and others—and yet the government has decided to ignore them. It is instead moving ahead with a sweeping change that will damage the lives of millions of people, including huge numbers of US-citizen children.

The regulations, crafted by anti-immigration hard-liners in Washington, dramatically expand the definition of public charge. They render any noncitizen immigrant who uses Medicaid (or who enrolls their US-citizen children in the program), anyone who accesses public housing, and anyone who enrolls their family members in the food stamp program as potentially deportable. As a corollary, the Justice Department is moving forward with changes that will make it easier to initiate deportation proceedings against those found to be in violation of the new regulations. Millions of legal immigrants could, in consequence, see the terrifying might of ICE and the CBP unleashed against them over the coming years.

This power grab by the Trump administration bypasses Congress and fundamentally rewrites more than half a century of American immigration policy via an obscure bureaucratic change. It is yet another horrendous example of the sadism, the cruelty for the sake of cruelty, at the heart of Trump’s presidency.

Immigrant-rights groups such as the NILC have already announced that they will sue to block implementation of the new public charge rules. Over the past year, as the change has moved through the system, Baltimore, California, New York, and other cities and states have also indicated their willingness to challenge the changes in court. This is encouraging, but it’s not enough. This moment requires an all-hands-on-deck response: massive public protests; non-cooperation with immigration authorities using the databases of public-assistance programs to expand the deportation machine; and, most important, creation of parallel city and state social safety nets that can act as protectors of America’s immigrant poor in the face of this malignant new federal policy.

If millions of immigrants in California and New York and elsewhere are at risk of deportation if they use any federal assistance program, then these and other states with large immigrant populations have a moral duty to create their own housing, health care, and food assistance programs—ones that are specifically tailored for immigrants and specifically barred by law from sharing information with federal authorities. They might also want to consider working out ways to withhold tax dollars from the federal government so long as this noxious and legally dubious public charge rule remains on the books.

That sounds extraordinary on the face of it, but these are truly extraordinary times. America’s federal government has essentially declared open war on millions of Americans and on our diverse, pluralistic communities. This is Trump’s boldest attempt yet at implementing his white ethno-state agenda. It must not be allowed to stand.

[ekauqodielak]

Barr Blasted by Rights Advocates for 'Absolutley Despicable' Speech Slamming 'Anti-Law Enforcement DAs'

The U.S. attorney general also vowed to deliver a bill, requested by the president, to expedite certain death sentences

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

U.S. Attorney General William Barr was swiftly criticized by rights advocates on Monday for a speech in which he promised to deliver a bill—requested by President Donald Trump—to expedite certain death sentences and took aim at "district attorneys that style themselves as 'social justice' reformers."

Speaking at the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police's 64th National Biennial Conference in New Orleans, Barr called such reformers "demoralizing to law enforcement and dangerous to public safety," accusing them of "undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook, and refusing to enforce the law."

Without naming names, the attorney general continued:

These anti-law enforcement DAs have tended to emerge in jurisdictions where the election is largely determined by the primary. Frequently, these candidates ambush an incumbent DA in the primary with misleading campaigns and large infusions of money from outside groups.

Once in office, they have been announcing their refusal to enforce broad swathes of the criminal law. Most disturbing is that some are refusing to prosecute cases of resisting police. Some are refusing to prosecute various theft cases or drug cases, even where the suspect is involved in distribution. And when they do deign to charge a criminal suspect, they are frequently seeking sentences that are pathetically lenient. So these cities are headed back to the days of revolving door justice. The results will be predictable. More crime; more victims.

Barr's remarks were met with sharp criticism by Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

"This is absolutely despicable," tweeted Ifill. "Barr [is] bringing the weight of his law enforcement bully pulpit against progressive prosecutors."

"If by 'anti-law enforcement,' Barr means that a wave of new prosecutors are against the racist, classist, mass incarceration machine that has made America the world's biggest jailer—we hope he's right," the ACLU wrote in a tweet. "The data is clear: Voters want a new kind of prosecutor."

In a piece last month about criminal justice professor-turned-St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell, The Guardian reported that "Bell is part of a movement."

Across the country, progressives have won office in district attorney and prosecutor races. They have claimed victories in major cities like Philadelphia and Chicago but also in places like Portsmouth, Virginia, where in February 2015, Stephanie Morales, 31, became the city's first ever woman elected to the office of commonwealth's attorney...

These candidates have bucked a decades-long "tough-on-crime" trend adopted by both major parties, in favor of fundamental reforms to criminal justice. They have been aided by armies of volunteers through traditional door-to-door campaigning, digital organizing, and—in some cases—funding from the billionaire George Soros and national progressive groups.

Although some self-styled progressive prosecutors have struggled to oust establishment candidates or failed to deliver on campaign promises after electoral victories, as activist Frank Leon Roberts wrote for the ACLU's blog following Bell's primary victory last year, "progressive prosecutors can set positive, proactive agendas that prioritize the people in their communities rather than prisons."

In addition to targeting prosecutors who want to address systemic injustices within the nation's so-called justice system, Barr also vowed Monday that after Labor Day, the U.S. Justice Department "will be proposing legislation providing that in cases of mass murder, or in cases of murder of a law enforcement officer, there will be a timetable for judicial proceedings that will allow imposition of any death sentence without undue delay."

Barr's announcement came a week after Trump—speaking in the wake of mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas—directed the department "to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively."

Ernest Coverson, Amnesty International USA's End Gun Violence campaign manager, said last week in response to Trump's comments that "the death penalty is not a solution to the gun violence human rights crisis in this country."

"The death penalty is the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment and should never be used to address public health," added Coverson. "The first step in meaningful reform to address this crisis would be to pass legislation requiring background checks for the sale of every gun. There are too many guns, and insufficient laws today to keep track of them all."

[ekauqodielak]

The Trump Administration Just Gutted One of the Most Powerful Environmental Laws on the Books

The Endangered Species Act has saved thousands of animals, plants, and insects from extinction.

Bruce Bennett/Getty

The Trump administration unveiled final regulations that weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on Monday, just three months after the United Nations warned of the “unprecedented” decline in biodiversity around the world.

“We are in the midst of an unprecedented extinction crisis, yet the Trump Administration is steamrolling our most effective wildlife protection law,” said Rebecca Riley, legal director of the nature program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This Administration seems set on damaging fragile ecosystems by prioritizing industry interests over science.”

The ESA is the major tool for saving wildlife from extinction in the United States. According to the Sierra Club, more than 99 percent of animals, plants, and insects protected by the law have been saved from extinction. But the new regulations will make it more challenging to consider climate change when deciding if a species should be protected under the ESA, even though the UN’s analysis found global warming to be a leading driver of wildlife populations’ rapid decline. As the Guardian reported, “Under the changes finalized on Monday, species categorized as ‘threatened’ will not automatically receive the same protections as those listed as ‘endangered’. The new rules will allow officials to draw more attention to the economic impact of protecting a species.”

The ESA has had a long history of largely bipartisan support since it was established in 1973. In 2018, my colleague Jackie Flynn Mogensen wrote about the ESA’s history:

The act now protects more than 1,500 species and remains one of the most powerful environmental laws on the books. Since its passage, several species, including the brown pelican, Louisiana black bear, and, of course, the bald eagle have recovered.

But somewhere along the way, what was hailed as a historic bipartisan achievement became deeply political. In the 45 years since its signing, conservatives have gone to extraordinary lengths to weaken the Endangered Species Act for the sake of economic growth—and the Trump administration has carried on the task of environmental deregulation with renewed vigor.

Congressional Republicans moved dozens of measures forward to attack the ESA in 2018, as Mogensen reported at the time. “According to the Center for Biological Diversity,” she wrote, “there have been at least 419 ‘legislative attacks’—that is, actions intended to weaken federal protection of endangered species—against the Endangered Species Act since 1996, 116 of which occurred during the current 115th Congress.” Nonetheless, a survey from the same year found that about four out of five Americans supported the Endangered Species Act, and only one in 10 opposed it. “Despite its popularity, the law created tension with farmers and developers who saw it as a barrier to economic growth,” she explained. “Over time, the way the act was regarded by politicians changed, especially as the species it protected vastly expanded to include those that may have been biologically important, but lacked charisma.”

When announcing the new regulations, Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt said, “The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal—recovery of our rarest species. The Act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice anticipate legal challenges to the Trump administration’s overhaul. Drew Caputo, Earthjustice’s vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans, noted, “We’ll see the Trump administration in court.”

[ekauqodielak]

The Ohio Shooter Was Just Another Misogynist With a Gun

Ashley Reese • Today 3:20pm

Image: AP

After it was reported that the El Paso mass shooter allegedly held white supremacist and xenophobic beliefs, both bad-faith actors on the right and supposedly impartial news outlets sought whether similar motivations could be attributed to Dayton, Ohio, shooter Connor Betts. A cursory look at his Twitter account showed that he did not follow a slew of right-wing personalities or retweet white nationalist memes. Instead, early reporting from CNN highlighted that Betts “retweeted extreme left-wing and anti-police posts, as well as tweets supporting Antifa.”

The CNN piece has been edited several times over the course of the last week, but for a few days prominently highlighted Betts’s apparent leftism, at one point even spouting the headline “Dayton shooter appeared to have leftist Twitter feed.” The outlet noted that Betts retweeted Elizabeth Warren and liked tweets calling the El Paso shooter a white supremacist.

Now, CNN’s piece about Betts prioritizes another fact of more importance than his apparent leftist leanings: that Betts was a raging misogynist, just like so many other mass shooters.

On August 10, ABC News reported that Betts “demonstrated a misogyny that was far more extreme than any of his political leanings.”

Amidst the overblown hysteria over Betts supposedly supporting antifa and retweeting Bernie Sanders came a steady drip of reports that Betts was a violent man who had a hit list, rape list, and allegedly choked a girl he once dated.

From the Associated Press:

The former classmates told The Associated Press that Betts was suspended during their junior year at suburban Bellbrook High School after a hit list was found scrawled in a school bathroom. That followed an earlier suspension after Betts came to school with a list of female students he wanted to sexually assault, according to two of the classmates, a man and a woman who are both now 24 and spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern they might face harassment.

“There was a kill list and a rape list, and my name was on the rape list,” said the female classmate.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

A former acquaintance said he was shocked by the emotionless way Betts once choked a girl he had dated.

Another former classmate told The Cincinnati Enquirer in an interview that Betts had threatened to kill her multiple times when they were in a school musical as seniors. But the classmate, Eva Lewis, didn’t speak up because she didn’t want to encourage his behavior even though she was on Betts’ “kill list.”

From the New York Times:

[Betts’s] threats were frightening enough that some girls altered their behavior: Try not to attract his attention, but don’t antagonize him, either.

“I remember we were all distant, like maybe we should just shy away from him,” said Shelby Emmert, 24, a former classmate. “My mom wanted me to just not associate. She said to stay away from Connor Betts.”

These findings should not be news to anyone paying attention. It is known that the biggest common denominator among mass shooters is an immense disdain toward women. Of the 20 mass shootings that occurred in 2018, 10 were prompted by domestic violence, ABC News reports. And Everytown Research notes that in more than half of all mass shootings from 2009 to 2017, the perpetrator’s victims included a domestic partner or family member.

Betts’s leftism making headlines was a cynical attempt to present the Dayton shooting as a political maneuver—an example of “look, the left does violence, too.” But of course the idea was a red herring. Betts’s gravitation toward socialism and antifa is less important than the fact that he had a long history of treating women poorly and access to guns, things research demonstrates are actually correlated with acts of mass violence. Investigators are still trying to determine Betts’s motive, but nine people, including Betts’s transgender sibling, are now dead regardless.

Domestic violence cannot only be viewed as an intimate act, an interpersonal misfortune occurring behind closed doors. Legislation may one day be passed to make it significantly more difficult to purchase weapons like the AR-15-style pistol Betts used during the attack, but until misogyny is seen as less of a personality flaw and more of a public safety issue, we shouldn’t expect such violence won’t stop.

[timmyb52]

Aug 8, 2019 19:59:15 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Aug 8, 2019 16:23:19 GMT -5 Jai Guru Deva said:

El Paso shooting false flag called before it happened on Fox 14

GraySurvivorX
Published on Aug 6, 2019

* * * * *

The Gilroy and El Paso shooters sure do look similar don't they?

pbs.twimg.com/media/EBIp_kdXoAkYeL_.jpg

The take-away from that video should be: Don't Trust Fox News

Correction...don't trust any mainstream news source! 

[B]

Like A Rolling Stone by The Rolling Stones Denver 2019
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcoLN7VfJv4



J Schaffer
Premiered 6 hours ago

[timmyb52]

Aug 10, 2019 23:04:48 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Aug 10, 2019 15:46:50 GMT -5 B said:

former top-level CIA officer Robert Steele on Epstein's claimed suicide ...

"I consider the reports of Epstein being dead to be false. I believe he is on his way to Israel in an accommodation reached between President Trump and his enemies at CIA, FBI, and within the Government of Israel whose Mossad operation this was. People on suicide watch with a prior suicide attempt simply do not die unless a very high price has been paid for their death OR — more likely — this is the agreed upon exit strategy."
--------------
Report: ‘Camera Malfunction’ in Epstein’s Prison Cell Prevented Recording of His Alleged Suicide
Does it get any fishier than this?
bigleaguepolitics.com/report-camera-malfunction-in-epsteins-prison-cell-prevented-recording-of-his-alleged-suicide/
----------------
Dead Men Tell No Tales - Paul Joseph Watson - Published on Aug 10, 2019

Trump’s Leaked Comments Aren’t Just “Lewd.” They Describe Sexual Assault.

www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/7/13206174/trump-leaked-lewd-pussy-comments-women-rape-sexual-assault

All The Assault Allegations Against Donald Trump, Recapped

www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped



When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump’s Alleged Rapes?
www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein



All [-?] Documents Jane Doe v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein Lawsuits
thememoryhole2.org/blog/doe-v-trump

Epstein Arrest Is a Worry for Donald Trump
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-08/jeffrey-epstein-arrest-is-a-worry-for-donald-trump

Sordid Trump/Epstein Allegations are Not New
www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/13/1871425/-Sordid-Trump-Epstein-Allegations-are-Not-New

Unsealed Documents Detail Alleged Epstein Victim’s Recruitment At Mar-A-Lago

www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/epstein-mar-a-lago-trump-1456221

"We All Knew About the Trafficking" - The Untold Story of Trump Model Management
www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/06/1578544/-The-Untold-Story-of-Trump-Model-Management-A-Daily-Kos-Exclusive-Part-1

Inside Donald Trump’s One-Stop Parties: Attendees Recall Cocaine and Very Young Models
www.thedailybeast.com/inside-donald-trumps-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models

Trump’s Curious Obsession With Human Trafficking
www.damemagazine.com/2019/02/12/trumps-curious-obsession-with-human-trafficking/

Trump Administration Lost Track Of Nearly 6,000 Unaccompanied Child Immigrants Last Year, Figures Suggest

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-border-children-immigrants-number-families-separate-us-mexico-a8407111.html

If I may add to this K with some of my own personal thoughts and questions.

The whole Q/Trump/White Hats "saviours of humanity" belief system raises many disturbing questions and complications in my mind.

If these people "save us" from the dark hats then the white hats become our new overlords.

In essence mankind as a whole becomes subservient and in debt to them for doing the job of removing the psychopaths.

The people of the world as a whole should be doing this work itself...not some mysterious white hat group!

This white hat group also appears to be using alot of the same evil techniques upon the people as the dark hats utilize...such as secrecy,deception,and tools of propaganda in unision with the cult of personality worship.

It MAYBE this is all a psy-op within a psy-op worked out by the elites to fool us all...but leaving the top controllers in control of a new illusionary status quo.

We are tricked into thinking the evil is being exposed and brought to justice...but in reality it is a carefully constructed plan to fool all of the AWAKE and sheep people into believing it is all real.

In short...it is in reality a bunch of new masters who are the same as the old masters.

The new masters "saved us" from the old masters and ourselves...but now we are indebted to the new masters for achieving it on our behalf!

THEY still get to dictate everything!

A new money system,social system,justice system,etc.

I personally fear that this MAYBE what we are seeing.

Not a full removing of the old guard itself...but a new restructering of the status quo old illusion with a new illusion that fools everyone!

[ekauqodielak]

Aug 12, 2019 16:02:19 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

Aug 8, 2019 19:59:15 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

The take-away from that video should be: Don't Trust Fox News

Correction...don't trust any mainstream news source! 

Show me an example of a NON-Clearchannel US tv news station that has "predicted the future" in a similar way as this FauxNoise example.

[Jai Guru Deva]

Perseid Meteor Shower



Little Star - Linda Scott

[ekauqodielak]

Aug 12, 2019 17:06:40 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

If I may add to this K with some of my own personal thoughts and questions.

The whole Q/Trump/White Hats "saviours of humanity" belief system raises many disturbing questions and complications in my mind.

Q doesn't exist. Q is AI-sourced intelligence vomiting up brainwashing garbage. Q derives from the same source as the propaganda talking points of Alex Jones and Jordan Sather and the dozens of neckbearded keyboard warriors in Odessa who have infiltrated English-language discussion forums across the web. It's impressive, really, that they've radicalized a pocket of the American populace into believing *they are their own enemy*, with the same screeds they've used to brainwash their own people. They didn't even swap the nouns out.

There are no "White Hats". This isn't a Western. It's real life. There are people with similar interests who can agree to collaborate and there are people who cannot work together because of their ethics and lack-thereof. "A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds." Everything hasn't fallen down the memoryhole yet.

It's difficult for me to imagine the level of cognitive dissonance the American Red Right must be experiencing as their planted belief in "The Evil Elites" collides with their adoration for silver-spooned sociopaths like Herr Dump and Yrtle McConnell and Rand Paul.

The US is at war. Russia has invaded and staged a full coup with the greedy, shiftless enabling of the GOP, their business interests and infiltrated organizations like the NRA.

A few years after 9/11, I noticed the tone sharply change at places like AboveTopSecret. Where once there'd been a daggy commune of speculative thinkers and methodical investigators, there was now a virulent insurgence of hard right extremist rhetoric and actual refusal to acknowledge any facts that contradicted the narrative of the propaganda. I didn't know what I was witnessing then, but I do now.

We are in a war of the mind, a war of perception -- and the Russians have, also, hacked into our electrical grids and military satellite operations. What's obvious now is how very fragile civilization is. This Jenga tower topples when the bottom rung, "the weakest among us" are systemically denied their humanity -- think: infants in cages at the Southern border. Who benefits from the total destabilization of the US? Military contractors, the owners of for-profit-prisons and all the associated industries that feed off of that, Russia & China, anybody being blackmailed by foreign interests…

Aug 12, 2019 17:06:40 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

If these people "save us" from the dark hats then the white hats become our new overlords.

…

THEY still get to dictate everything!

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to "be saved" or you believe in human autonomy.

In Russia, the people are not the government in the same way the US was designed to work --- after decades of systemic gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, hacked voting machines, illegal tally tampering, etc. by "conservatives" and with increasing levels of assistance from the Kremlin, The People have much less power than we once did.

The only thing of any real importance at the moment is making as much fucking noise as possible about McConnell blocking all efforts to secure our elections. Everything else is noise.

[timmyb52]

Aug 12, 2019 17:47:24 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Aug 12, 2019 16:02:19 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

Correction...don't trust any mainstream news source! 

Show me an example of a NON-Clearchannel US tv news station that has "predicted the future" in a similar way as this FauxNoise example.

Since ALLmedia outlets ingage in lies and propaganda...I take almost everything I see and hear from them with HUGE grains of salt.

Left and Right paradigms are ALL about control over the masses IMHO.

ALL news sources push elite agendas...they are ALL guilty of deceiving us all 24/7!

[ekauqodielak]

Aug 12, 2019 18:46:25 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

Aug 12, 2019 17:47:24 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Show me an example of a NON-Clearchannel US tv news station that has "predicted the future" in a similar way as this FauxNoise example.

Since ALLmedia outlets ingage in lies and propaganda...I take almost everything I see and hear from them with HUGE grains of salt.

Left and Right paradigms are ALL about control over the masses IMHO.

ALL news sources push elite agendas...they are ALL guilty of deceiving us all 24/7!

So, you don't believe that anyone actually publishes news? There's no news? No one is reporting events that occurred recently? I think you're being hyperbolic. You've never read a news story that described an event for which you were a witness? 

[timmyb52]

Aug 12, 2019 18:25:34 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Aug 12, 2019 17:06:40 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

If I may add to this K with some of my own personal thoughts and questions.

The whole Q/Trump/White Hats "saviours of humanity" belief system raises many disturbing questions and complications in my mind.

Q doesn't exist. Q is AI-sourced intelligence vomiting up brainwashing garbage. Q derives from the same source as the propaganda talking points of Alex Jones and Jordan Sather and the dozens of neckbearded keyboard warriors in Odessa who have infiltrated English-language discussion forums across the web. It's impressive, really, that they've radicalized a pocket of the American populace into believing *they are their own enemy*, with the same screeds they've used to brainwash their own people. They didn't even swap the nouns out.

There are no "White Hats". This isn't a Western. It's real life. There are people with similar interests who can agree to collaborate and there are people who cannot work together because of their ethics and lack-thereof. "A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds." Everything hasn't fallen down the memoryhole yet.

It's difficult for me to imagine the level of cognitive dissonance the American Red Right must be experiencing as their planted belief in "The Evil Elites" collides with their adoration for silver-spooned sociopaths like Herr Dump and Yrtle McConnell and Rand Paul.

The US is at war. Russia has invaded and staged a full coup with the greedy, shiftless enabling of the GOP, their business interests and infiltrated organizations like the NRA.

A few years after 9/11, I noticed the tone sharply change at places like AboveTopSecret. Where once there'd been a daggy commune of speculative thinkers and methodical investigators, there was now a virulent insurgence of hard right extremist rhetoric and actual refusal to acknowledge any facts that contradicted the narrative of the propaganda. I didn't know what I was witnessing then, but I do now.

We are in a war of the mind, a war of perception -- and the Russians have, also, hacked into our electrical grids and military satellite operations. What's obvious now is how very fragile civilization is. This Jenga tower topples when the bottom rung, "the weakest among us" are systemically denied their humanity -- think: infants in cages at the Southern border. Who benefits from the total destabilization of the US? Military contractors, the owners of for-profit-prisons and all the associated industries that feed off of that, Russia & China, anybody being blackmailed by foreign interests…

Aug 12, 2019 17:06:40 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

If these people "save us" from the dark hats then the white hats become our new overlords.

…

THEY still get to dictate everything!

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to "be saved" or you believe in human autonomy.

In Russia, the people are not the government in the same way the US was designed to work --- after decades of systemic gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, hacked voting machines, illegal tally tampering, etc. by "conservatives" and with increasing levels of assistance from the Kremlin, The People have much less power than we once did.

The only thing of any real importance at the moment is making as much fucking noise as possible about McConnell blocking all efforts to secure our elections. Everything else is noise.

K...really?

Everything is a Russian/Right conspiracy? Really?

IMHO...I think things are a lot more complex then that Russia is in some kind of league with Trump and that the Left is above the fray.

Elites appear to be at odds in order to become the new overlords of a new system based on merit.

But it is the new overlords who will get to decide who gets to climb the ladder of this new fake merit based system which they get to control and form.

I see this as a battle between several elite classes of thought and ideology.

And the winner gets to control the masses with a new elitist status quo.

At least...that is how I am currently viewing world events.

[timmyb52]

Aug 12, 2019 18:49:21 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

Aug 12, 2019 18:46:25 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

Since ALLmedia outlets ingage in lies and propaganda...I take almost everything I see and hear from them with HUGE grains of salt.

Left and Right paradigms are ALL about control over the masses IMHO.

ALL news sources push elite agendas...they are ALL guilty of deceiving us all 24/7!

So, you don't believe that anyone actually publishes news? There's no news? No one is reporting events that occurred recently? I think you're being hyperbolic. You've never read a news story that described an event for which you were a witness? 

No...I'm saying that the large majority of news is twisted and manipulated to deceive or just give us what elites want us to know.

Only a small amount has truth.

[ekauqodielak]

Aug 12, 2019 19:09:33 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

Aug 12, 2019 18:49:21 GMT -5 ekauqodielak said:

So, you don't believe that anyone actually publishes news? There's no news? No one is reporting events that occurred recently? I think you're being hyperbolic. You've never read a news story that described an event for which you were a witness? 

No...I'm saying that the large majority of news is twisted and manipulated to deceive or just give us what elites want us to know.

Only a small amount has truth.

You wanna back that up with some research…or is it just a gut feeling you have?

[ekauqodielak]

Aug 12, 2019 19:05:58 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

K...really?

Everything is a Russian/Right conspiracy? Really?

Didn't say *everything* and didn't say *conspiracy*, either.

I noted specific things: the known, documented, multi-pronged election fraud; the known, documented Russian/Right disinformation war; the known, documented kompromat blackmail of amoral politicians (all of whom happen to be Republicans); the known, documented ties between the GOP, the Kremlin and the NRA; the known, documented hack of Democratic servers by the Russians for the benefit of Dump & Co.; and, ok, I'll give you this one, my very strong suspicion that it will eventually be known that these grid outages are the result of Moscow hacks.

Aug 12, 2019 19:05:58 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

IMHO...I think things are a lot more complex then that Russia is in some kind of league with Trump and that the Left is above the fray.

Above the fray of colluding with Russians to undermine democracy? Do you have any evidence of Democrats taking private meetings with Putin or borrowing vast sums of money from Russian oligarchs or publicly referencing hacks made by Russians before they were known to the public or violent, destabilizing (or for that matter even benevolent) left-wing organizations that are being funded by Russian rubles, etc. etc. etc. ---? Because the aforementioned are all factual things that Cheetolini and his goons have engaged in.

Aug 12, 2019 19:05:58 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

Elites appear to be at odds in order to become the new overlords of a new system based on merit.

You say this based upon what? Something the AI-bot known as "Q" told you? Who are these "elites", if not the megamillionaires at the core of the Republican party?

Aug 12, 2019 19:05:58 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

But it is the new overlords who will get to decide who gets to climb the ladder of this new fake merit based system which they get to control and form.

Again, this isn't Star Wars. We're talking about men.

And I'm not clear what "fake merit based system" you're referring to. This country has never rewarded anyone for merit. Men have been rewarded for being born with dicks. White people the luck of skin. Those with family wealth are taken care of as being part of the ruling class. And almost everyone else has been written out history just as they've been stomped out of opportunity. It'd be great if Nelson Algren was more famous and beloved than Ronald Reagan, but that's not a world we've ever lived in.

Aug 12, 2019 19:05:58 GMT -5 timmyb52 said:

I see this as a battle between several elite classes of thought and ideology.

And the winner gets to control the masses with a new elitist status quo.

What I notice is that you've removed yourself from having any say in the future. You've decided to agree to an ideology that posits the world is controlled, not by men, but by Super Villains. There are plenty of sociopaths and scumbags, but they're humans, just like you and me. There are those who see life as a game to be won, an ideology which reinforces and even requires a belief in some people being *more equal than others*, and there are those view existence as a collective endeavor, in which one group 'losing' means we all lose. There are no Supers and no Subs.

[ekauqodielak]

The strongmen vs. the streets: Russia and China struggle to quell pro-democracy protests

Dave Lawler

A protester is arrested on Saturday in Moscow. Photo: Anadolu Agency via Getty

The world’s two most powerful authoritarian states have been unable to quell pro-democracy demonstrations that have now spanned several weeks and drawn global attention.

The latest: Flights out of Hong Kong were canceled today after protesters flooded into the airport, while Moscow witnessed its largest protests in seven years over the weekend. Video of police battering demonstrators has emerged from both cities. Broader crackdowns now seem likely, particularly in Hong Kong.

---

The Chinese government today claimed Hong Kong's uprising contains “sprouts of terrorism."

• Some fear such language will be used to justify a heavy-handed response from Beijing, or harsh charges for those detained.

• Under pressure from Beijing, Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific today threatened to fire staff who participate in "illegal" demonstrations.

• As flights were halted at Hong Kong’s airport, one of the world’s busiest, Chinese police were ominously assembling in nearby Shenzhen.


What to watch: “If the unthinkable happens and there is a violent crackdown in Hong Kong, then China’s relationships with the U.S. and its allies will likely get much worse,” writes Bill Bishop in his Sinocism newsletter. “I hate to be so negative but it does feel like we are approaching the precipice of something very worrisome.”


While the protests in Moscow haven’t matched the scale of Hong Kong's, the more than 50,000 who took to the streets on Saturday comprised the largest demonstration against the government since Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012.

• Some 2,400 people, including top opposition leaders, were arrested at previous demonstrations, which began after the barring of opposition candidates from municipal elections.

• Alina Polyakova of the Brookings Institution says tensions were already running high in Moscow, so it took just "one little spark to incite something.”

• She says falling standards of living across Russia over the last several years — reflected in smaller-scale protests over pensions and the environment — translated into greater shows of public support for the opposition than the Kremlin likely anticipated.


What to watch: Polyakova expects “an escalation of repression."

• She says Putin can't afford to be perceived as weak, particularly since he already “looks like a lame duck to many people" in the face of constitutional term limits.


The big picture: Both China and Russia have accused the West of fomenting the unrest.

• Russia targeted YouTube, which the opposition uses to great effect. Meanwhile, Chinese authorities suggested Hong Kong's "color revolution" has foreign backing.

• There's even talk of coordination between Moscow and Beijing to combat U.S. "intervention."


The bottom line: That's all part of the playbook, as is further repression. Unfortunately for the protesters, democratic reforms are not.

[B]

Historian PREDICTED Last 9 Elections- PREDICTS TRUMP WIN 2020 - Playing Card Divination
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aul0-JzQ9_I



Joseph Magi
Published on Aug 12, 2019

"AIR USE ACT
ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

This is a PSYCHIC and INTUITIVE READING that may involve SPECULATION, the examination of RUMORS or GOSSIP."