"Democrats will bomb you, starve you with sanctions, evict you, let you freeze to death, let you die because you can't afford medicine, let you work your fingers to the bone for pennies, but they will never, ever misgender you."
It's called Progressive Neoliberalism, a term coined by Professor Nancy Fraser.
Perhaps its why the younger generation seems obsessed with the Idea of the Polite Marvel type villain? The one who would kill people, but respects your pronouns.
The root problem causing most of our other problems is that our main operating system (government/schools/media) have been corrupted.
If you tell us the kind of systems that govern over you, we can accurately predict your quality of life. If those systems are corrupted then so are you (and your families).
It is time to organize with other like minded individuals and fix them.
We know the solutions. Decentralize everything. Demand transparency in systems. And most efficiently, weaponize the tyranny of the masses back onto the people corrupting our systems to end this Global Agenda.
Where did NATO get some of its first generals and leaders? From the US? No. Britain? No. France. God no. They came from Nazi Germany. Let that sink in.
But oh, they were "good Nazis" ... like those who built Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Oh, and somebody mentioned Hans Speidel. Again, Really???
He was certainly no Nazi. Speidel, in fact, was involved in Plot to assassinate Hitler, and he was arrested by the Gestapo for it. At the end of the war, he escaped from Nazi prison and went into hiding for 2-3 weeks. He was the only major player in the 20 July Plot to survive the war.
Oh, that's great! All real laughters! Hey, you guys, tell us some more jokes...
Your OP claimed NATO got its first generals from Nazi Germany. You managed to pull exactly one out of your ass, while avoiding any mention of all the other NATO generals - in particular all of the many who actually fought AGAINST the Nazis. Please...
How about, oh, let's see, Britain's Hastings Ismay, or maybe Dwight D Eisenhower. Were they Nazis too? I could go on, and on, but I think we all get the drift.
And Gehlen wasn't even involved in the military leadership; he was head of NATO intelligence. And in fact, Gehlen wasn't even a Nazi.Y es he was a German General, but he was never a member of the party. He committed no war crimes. Not all Germans were Nazis. You guys seem to have a problem with that - you make the same mistake all the time, calling all the Ukranians Nazis.
Your weasley, answers pretty much shines the light, not just on your overwhelming bias, all of you, but your willingness to sacrifice your credibility, as well as your dignity, by trying to pass off this laughable failure of a response as any kind of real answer to the question.
Google Hans Speidel for starters ... then there's Hitler's Chief of Staff [Gehlen]. Who else to take on the Russians. The other guys were chicken feed compared to these guys.
"They let you do more or less what you want, while using mass-scale psychological manipulation to control what it is that you will want to do" Very well put.
There is almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans about the policies required to maintain power. The difference is in the deceptions they use to polarize the credulous and sow confusion, fear and anxiety.
The world's population has a systemic credulity problem driven by a combination of stupidly, ignorance and the thought of losing what they have to lose. The information outlining their plan for not only controlling us but to prepare for our elimination has been available to anyone who hasn't chosen to ignore it. Those pesky serfs, peasants, trailer trash, "deplorables", gypsies, etc. are so stupid we can even tell them ahead of time how we plan to destroy their freedom. The powerful can dangle Event 201, publish "The Great Reset" and the morons will completely ignore the threat and many even fight to the death to support their own destruction.
The problem as I see it is a revolt looks more and more impossible with the total collection of communications, and AI to speed the identification of any dissent. Then they can target a handful of organizers to scare the shit out of anyone thinking they have a chance to dislodge what has become a well oiled machine of deception and oppression.
I think Glenn Greenwald was correct when he classified the struggle as not between Democrats and Republicans or the Right and Left but between Anti establishment and Establishment. Where both sides use the disputes to divert attention away from the establishment and towards fighting each other.
Although I often disagree with some of your observations and viewpoints I appreciate your insight and willingness to scream what others are unwilling to even consider.
If people actually prefer prison to life outside the prison, the fact points to some glaring problems with society of which the huge prison population in a wealthy Western country is itself a problem.
Thank you, I was lambbasted a few weeks ago for speaking out against Zelensky. I was at breakfast at a restaurant and I told someone in my family I did not want to hear them reiterate NPR's pro Zelensky jibberish. I was trying to eat, after all. It made me angry at the TNI/NPR all over again.
Zelensky doesn't care about the Ukraine no more then Biden. He is no more then a useful tool, and a willing one, as both are trying to implement change in Russia, which means Putin is a goner. Gee, didn't you have any GZ's to come to your defense?
Each generation is more accepting of others then the generation that came before, but to claim they will be our saviors is absurd. So if you do stick around don't feel badly if the GZ generation doesn't create Eden for us all.
So it goes. Old die with kids taking up where parents left off. Dynamic minority of controllers pass their values down to their issues and recruit smart ambitious camp followers as part of win team for their version of a new world order for their own benefit, with humanity vastly reduced, if not on way to extinction. So many paths to dead end for human beings. Tough go for those that resist war on humanity for benefit of the few. Nevertheless, engagement must continue for a livable world for all life.
I have always, always said you don't need to build a wall on the southern boarder when there's already a fence around the entire Country with the citizens penned in and just to stupid to know it!
It is becoming increasingly evident to me that the big question has to be: How is it possible for all the evil work carried out by DaDeepState all over the world, even considering the financial incentives involved to the co-conspirators and their natural propensities for evil - all coordinated with seemingly amazing effectiveness for centuries?
Well, the Bible actually has the answer and I have posted this thread before - There are several factors.... beginning with this question: Are We Governed by Humans? - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/11/are-we-governed-by-humans.html?m=0 - and that reference is just the starting point for our research.
This is a hard thing for both secularists and churchians, but that is the gap which needs to be filled. There is a dimension to life which most folks never see, and I don't mean just non-believers, because Christianity of the Apostles has been changed to Churchianity - you can check that out at my library as well.
When Paul said 'we're not just dealing with flesh and blood, we're dealing with wicked spirits in high places' he wasn't talking about Halloween tricks.
Just to give you hint where this is going, in order for DaMasterDeceiver (Satan) to rule over humanity, his first order of business is to infiltrate and corrupt the church......the rest is easy peasy.
Worldwide that is basically mission accomplished, except for a few outposts here and there - notably Catholic Abp Vigano, the Russian Orthodox church and a collection of small independent congregations around the world, including the US.
There is another interesting 'coincidence' - both Satan himself and his synagogue have convinced the world that they don't exist. How about that, eh?
God ALWAYS has a remnant which carries on the work and gives them eyes to see.....and the picture is becoming clearer every day!
Agree. The West liked the atheist state of Soviets and that is what the West has become. Russia returned to the Church, so the West must destroy Russia. Basically, if the generations whether boomer to zoomer don't have a moral base of Christianity morality becomes contingent on whatever the latest ideology is. It's a post-God world with Russia standing in the way.
True, well they did destroy it, she was not supposed to resurrect. They won't stop. But it's the Church that really gets them now, the idea of a morality that is based upon something not contingent on political changes. Vide Zelensky destroying It in the Ukraine.
I am familiar with the saker articles, read just now the vox populi dec 7; what even Orthodox Christians don't get is what is stated (I believe they were your comments on the article); by Zelensky attacking the Russian patriarchate church in Ukraine, he is essentially going after the entire Orthodox churches, in the Balkans, Baltic states also. Bartholomew in Istanbul, patriarch of Constaninople has been at war with the Russian church and through the CIA set it up a separate church in Ukraine which the Russian patriarchate declared is schismatic. This set up an ugly division among the Orthodox in the States. But eventually Zelensky will go after that church also, by making it a state church with absolutely no autonomy or independence, it will be a dead church.
Thanks. I mean it will be a dead church in Ukraine, if the church goes entirely into the hands of the ecumenist church P Bartholomew at the Phanar. The true Orthodox of Ukraine will have to go into the catacombs, or underground. and my hunch is, many already have.
Like the whole piece, but have mixed feelings on the end. The only young folks I would like to see in charge are the 25 and under crowd (so-called gen-Z). The millennials are an awful bunch and I would rather see G-X/boomers in charge than G-X.
As she did me! I have degrees in the biological sciences, as well as psychology and to be blunt she makes no sense from a scientific, or psychological perspective. I think she should at least acknowledge that these statements are grounded in her own belief system, and not based on any credible scientific evidence.
No, not old school degrees, but degrees I didn't pay for, scholarships. Because I am offended at her commentary on old people doesn't mean I'm taking it that personally. An assumption on your part, but I did have an aunt who treated her mother like shit. Put her out with the morning wash and there she sat on a small wooden stool until lunch, then she took her in. She was given and outside view of the world that only passed between two houses. My grandmother had more heart, more brains, more tolerance, more capacity for insight then that bitch of a daughter, and could offer me more love and insight into the world I was born into. Not to mention auntie spit into my brother's six year old face because he was gay, but grandma gave him total acceptance. That's where my anger comes from Anonymous.
Caitlan seemed quite dismissive of the old, since their generation has created a world of horrors, yet they frown, and worry in the dark, about the young, not knowing that one day they will be our saviors, and come to be known as Gen Z.
When the Squad first got into Congress, people thought that it would make a difference not just because "They don't take corporate money" but also because "They're young! They're not like those fossils Pelosi and Schumer! THEY'LL do the right things!"
We all know how that worked out. And of course Pete Buttigieg's relative youth wouldn't have made him a good president or even an adequate one.
Give Gen Z time and they'll continue the process of wrecking the world instead of stopping and reversing the process. You've probably seen the "woke bombs" meme. It's a dig at Democrats, and a good one, but it applies just as well to Gen Z. Because, as Caitlin said in this post before she started saying dumb things, they'll never misgender you while they're bombing you.
I never trusted the Squad. In politics too many promises, with no results, and invariably they fall in line and become entrenched with the oldies and accrue the benefits that brings. I haven't seen the woke bombs meme.
I find this type of commentary "...old assholes to age out and leave the world in better hands than our own." as extremely offensive, and somehow Gen Z is going to be our saviors, those woke guys you spoke of, and those woke gals that threw ketchup at a Van Goth painting then glued themselves to museum walls in the hopes of bringing people over to their side on the issue of climate change. You would have to be an ass to believe that.
Glad you said that last part before I did, because believe it or not I've been holding back and was tempted myself.
Lest anybody think that you or I are generalizing too, I'm going to link to Glenn's article here about the changes to the ACLU and quote the important part:
"...But for numerous reasons, the ACLU — still with some noble and steadfast dissenters — is fast transforming into a standard liberal activist group at the expense of the free speech and due process principles it once existed to defend. Those reasons include changing cultural mores, an abandonment by millennials and Gen Z activists of the long-standing leftist belief in free speech and replaced by demands that views they dislike be silenced (which in turn causes Gen X and Boomer managers and editors fearful of losing their jobs or being vilified to succumb to this authoritarianism)..."
So according to Glenn Greenwald, millennials and Gen Z are less willing to defend freedom of speech than Gen X'ers or Boomers were. The "kids these days" are one of the big reasons why the ACLU is no longer principled.
When Glenn and Caitlin are saying the same thing, as I found they usually did before recently, everything's cool. I don't need to decide which of them is right. Both of them are right.
When Glenn and Caitlin are taking opposite positions, then...I'm going to believe Glenn over her, every single time. I'll admit that it's partly because I do stan Glenn because of his journalistic accomplishments, and it would take him saying or doing something REALLY awful for me to say he was wrong or talk shit about him. But it is also because *he makes good points*. If he never made good points, I wouldn't want to stan him in the first place.
What percentage of Gen Z vs. what percentage of Gen X would disapprove of the ACLU as it is today, or approve of Ira Glasser's old school ACLU?
I've been on Glenn's site since the beginning and knew of his work long before that. I remember reading this article, or something quite similar. I know there has always been an issue in regard to free speech, but during the last six years diversity of opinion on certain issues have become taboo. You would think the issue of transgenderism is one where a diversity of opinion would want to be heard. Needs to be heard! You can't even be of the opinion that men who say they are female, but have not transgendered should not participate in women's sports, since they have a decided advantage. If you do you're seen as being prejudicial. I'm with you since I have a very high regard for Greenwald, and the reason I do is because he has a lot of integrity, and truth comes before everything else, and he doesn't go off on issues he is not well informed about. I remember feeling that about Robert Parry who unfortunately died in 2017. His approach to those who expressed their opinion on any given article posted on his site was very accepting, but after he died the site really implemented a crack down. Many sites on the left took that stance during the Trump years and now I think they are paying the price, and it explains why Substack is doing so well. I have always thought of myself as liberal, but it is very hard to identify with those who claim to be liberal today, since there are no shades of gray in their world. What's going on at the ACLU doesn't surprise me, nor does the recognition of political ideologues, the deep state and politicians manipulating what can and cannot be published on Twitter.
I didn't find out about Consortium News (where I presume Parry did most of his work, being the founder) until some time after Parry's passing, and I feel like I kind of missed out. And I wrote that before I got to the part about how the site went downhill during the Trump years. It would suck to see CN turn into another Guardian, as in "Still right reasonably often, but absolute dogshit takes and/or straight up falsehoods at other times."
I didn't know that you could compete in sports as somebody born male without transitioning at least part way first. That is definitely unfair, or at minimum guaranteed to make the athlete in question perform better than they would if they *had* transitioned.
(If I were talking to someone with a real stick up their ass, this is where they would tell me "No, that's wrong of you to say that, you should say 'assigned male at birth' instead of 'born male'", which honestly makes me think "Oh for fuck's sake...MUST you be so goddamn picky? Is there not such a thing as a 'male body'? I'm not misgendering you and I'm not calling you a freak or anything, that should be enough without making me jump through even more hoops!")
I don't always watch the entire System Update show that Glenn does since it's so long, but I did catch the recent one where he talked about how what used to be considered left-wing positions were now considered right-wing ones and vice versa, and how it really isn't left vs. right any more but establishment vs. anti-establishment. E.g. people who consider themselves on the left or on the right who oppose mass surveillance are all on the same side, at least when it comes to that particular issue. Both the left and the right are split on that issue, with the so-called left actually being worse I think if we're including the Vote Blue No Matter Who crowd, so there is no "left" or "right" position on mass surveillance any more.
I should probably wrap this up, but speaking of Twitter I just want to add one more thing:
Caitlin saying "Oh, Musk is in bed with the CIA and shit, so he'll still censor all the same people, and the only difference is that he might let it go if you say transphobic or homophobic slurs" is way too close to the MSM talking point of "Musk really wants people to be able to say the n-word without getting banned" for my liking. Of course I'm a microscopic fraction of her readership, so what's to my liking and what isn't doesn't matter to her. But still, if you've accurately written about the ways MSM sucks for years, and then you're saying the kinds of things that they say on MSNBC or in the NYT, you should maybe reconsider your position. They're not wrong all the time, but they're wrong most of the time.
I agree that it's debatable and I'm trying to keep myself from getting started on another long rant.
Because for all of her talk about how bad censorship is, Caitlin stopped just a millimeter short of demanding Dave Chappelle be censored when she tweeted this thread:
The trans people she's defending there didn't even stop a millimeter short. To be fair, the sane ones may not have minded Dave's jokes or they may have minded a lot...but either way, being sane, they realized that it would be wrong to demand that he be canceled or deplatformed because every sane person understands that censorship is always wrong.
The crazy ones, on the other hand, were very vocal about wanting him off of NetFlix and off of any other platform. Because they can't stand being offended even a little bit, and they want everybody who offends them either intentionally or not to be silenced.
As Noam Chomsky said, either you're for free speech or you aren't, and if you don't defend even speech and speakers you absolutely despise, then you're not for free speech at all.
Everybody who made a fuss about Dave Chappelle and wanted him censored isn't for free speech at all. And Caitlin's going to have to decide whether she wants to stand with censorship proponents or censorship opponents, because you can't have it both ways.
EDIT: Well, so much for avoiding a long rant. I forgot to explain how any of that is connected to her comments on Gen Z being better.
She is saying that they're better because they're nice to people who are different, e.g. trans people.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with being nice to people who are different, including trans people.
There is, however, a LOT wrong if your idea of "being nice" to them means joining them when they demand censorship, adding your voices to theirs. And lots of Gen Z does that. They have before, and they will again. Because lots of them agree with AOC's preposterous statement that words are violence.
Yes, and while I still don't think she actually wanted him to be censored, I stand by what I said about her stopping JUST short of saying he should be.
Like "I really hate this motherfucker, and I'd like it if he didn't get to talk any more...but I've got to be consistent so, ugh, I suppose I shouldn't actually say he should be censored. I'll complain about him, though. And I'll also point out that he's a millionaire as if that alone makes him part of the establishment and the enemy. I'm just going to conveniently forget all about how Roger Waters, Susan Sarandon, and Russell Brand to name a few are also worth millions."
Dave also made a joke about Israel/Palestine in that show which took the Palestinian side, so if Caitlin actually watched it then it's pretty fucking odd for her to accuse him of only punching down.
You're right, and I added more to explain the connection.
Still really cringe tweets, though.
YET ANOTHER EDIT: Ah fuck, maybe I'd better proofread these posts before making them, because looking back I'm not doing a good job of making my point the first time around.
All right, when Chappelle's special aired, you had lots of people demanding that he be censored. Because "he's a bigot" and "he's punching down" and so on.
Caitlin echoed those sentiments. So she was siding with people who believe in censorship. Sure, that's not the same as actually being pro-censorship herself, but when you say (paraphrased) "I agree with what those pro-censorship people are saying!" and you don't qualify the statement by saying "As bad as he is, he shouldn't be deplatformed or anything, though,"....well, that's not a great look.
LOL - I hear your sentiment about editing etc. For longer posts I usually type them first in an editor and let them simmer for a bit.
Again - I don't agree with your assessment of Caitlin based on those tweets. She was criticizing Chapelle for his way of getting attention by piling on something obviously guaranteed to raise a stink - like trans folks etc. I.e., somewhat of a cheap shot, lowbrow, as opposed to being critical of something really worthy. And dangerous.
See, when Caitlin does the critiquing - as talented and public as she is - that does not come close to the resonance the same kind of criticism would create if it came from someone of Chapelle's caliber.
"I'm always yammering on here about what it's going to take to turn this human catastrophe around, but sometimes I think it might turn out that all that needs to happen is for all us old assholes to age out and leave the world in better hands than our own."
I hope the above is true. But those criticisms of Gen Z-
1. 'too considerate of different people'
2: 'refuse to work shit jobs for shit pay'
Neither seem to describe the *real* concerns.
1. Gen Z's embrace of difference is an insincere hypocritical facade internalizing a self-serving code game that's no better at listening to marginalized voices than the hateful racists or the avaricious capitalists.
2. Shit jobs, shit pay, understandably rejected. But dancing half-naked for readymoney in modern peepshows like Tik Tok "battles" isn't better. Shit jobs are at least loathed. Tik Tok "battles" (and similar Gen Z gigs) are a groteque but voluntary solo training program for an OnlyFans future, far worse for the soul than jockeying a cash register in a fast food drive-thru.
I could add another overarching concern about the evils of a population content to live in the perpetual present, disconnected from history, disinterested in thoughts about the future. But that didn't start with Gen Z, so I'll end here.
Every generation says that, and passes the buck to the young, who are full of freedom and fervor because they’re young, but then get co-opted back into the self-perpetuating systems once they have kids and jobs and material needs and desires and not enough time or energy.
"but sometimes I think it might turn out that all that needs to happen is for all us old assholes to age out and leave the world in better hands than our own."
That's what we thought in 1969. How did it turn out?
One difference, I think. The late 60’s and the 70’s saw the idealists, having traveled and tasted and lived, begin taking jobs, clinging to the music and believing that they would always know right from wrong. By the 80’s they knew everything, and were their parents. Today the material reality doesn’t accommodate any optimism or expectation that there is a pie, and everyone gets to eat.
Word:
"Democrats will bomb you, starve you with sanctions, evict you, let you freeze to death, let you die because you can't afford medicine, let you work your fingers to the bone for pennies, but they will never, ever misgender you."
It's called Progressive Neoliberalism, a term coined by Professor Nancy Fraser.
Perhaps its why the younger generation seems obsessed with the Idea of the Polite Marvel type villain? The one who would kill people, but respects your pronouns.
The root problem causing most of our other problems is that our main operating system (government/schools/media) have been corrupted.
If you tell us the kind of systems that govern over you, we can accurately predict your quality of life. If those systems are corrupted then so are you (and your families).
It is time to organize with other like minded individuals and fix them.
We know the solutions. Decentralize everything. Demand transparency in systems. And most efficiently, weaponize the tyranny of the masses back onto the people corrupting our systems to end this Global Agenda.
Please, give this some thought: https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/weaponized-direct-democracy-the-kryptonite?r=7oa9d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Speaking of NATO ...
Where did NATO get some of its first generals and leaders? From the US? No. Britain? No. France. God no. They came from Nazi Germany. Let that sink in.
But oh, they were "good Nazis" ... like those who built Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Oh, and somebody mentioned Hans Speidel. Again, Really???
He was certainly no Nazi. Speidel, in fact, was involved in Plot to assassinate Hitler, and he was arrested by the Gestapo for it. At the end of the war, he escaped from Nazi prison and went into hiding for 2-3 weeks. He was the only major player in the 20 July Plot to survive the war.
"involved in Plot to assassinate Hitler" - are you saying there were no Nazis willing to get rid of Hitler?
Oh, that's great! All real laughters! Hey, you guys, tell us some more jokes...
Your OP claimed NATO got its first generals from Nazi Germany. You managed to pull exactly one out of your ass, while avoiding any mention of all the other NATO generals - in particular all of the many who actually fought AGAINST the Nazis. Please...
How about, oh, let's see, Britain's Hastings Ismay, or maybe Dwight D Eisenhower. Were they Nazis too? I could go on, and on, but I think we all get the drift.
And Gehlen wasn't even involved in the military leadership; he was head of NATO intelligence. And in fact, Gehlen wasn't even a Nazi.Y es he was a German General, but he was never a member of the party. He committed no war crimes. Not all Germans were Nazis. You guys seem to have a problem with that - you make the same mistake all the time, calling all the Ukranians Nazis.
Your weasley, answers pretty much shines the light, not just on your overwhelming bias, all of you, but your willingness to sacrifice your credibility, as well as your dignity, by trying to pass off this laughable failure of a response as any kind of real answer to the question.
You sound rather incensed. Next thing you're going to say the USA is against Nazism.
Jesus, where do you get this nonsense? Ok, let's see the bios of the top NATO generals for the first ten years. Be certain to point out the Nazis....
Read Shirer's "End of the Berlin Diary" to find out about the attitude and practices of the US military at the time.
Or read about the OSS and its "ratlines".
Google Hans Speidel for starters ... then there's Hitler's Chief of Staff [Gehlen]. Who else to take on the Russians. The other guys were chicken feed compared to these guys.
Reinhard Gehlen comes immediately to mind.
"They let you do more or less what you want, while using mass-scale psychological manipulation to control what it is that you will want to do" Very well put.
https://youtu.be/j8v_XqFO8Bc
There is almost no difference between Democrats and Republicans about the policies required to maintain power. The difference is in the deceptions they use to polarize the credulous and sow confusion, fear and anxiety.
The world's population has a systemic credulity problem driven by a combination of stupidly, ignorance and the thought of losing what they have to lose. The information outlining their plan for not only controlling us but to prepare for our elimination has been available to anyone who hasn't chosen to ignore it. Those pesky serfs, peasants, trailer trash, "deplorables", gypsies, etc. are so stupid we can even tell them ahead of time how we plan to destroy their freedom. The powerful can dangle Event 201, publish "The Great Reset" and the morons will completely ignore the threat and many even fight to the death to support their own destruction.
The problem as I see it is a revolt looks more and more impossible with the total collection of communications, and AI to speed the identification of any dissent. Then they can target a handful of organizers to scare the shit out of anyone thinking they have a chance to dislodge what has become a well oiled machine of deception and oppression.
I think Glenn Greenwald was correct when he classified the struggle as not between Democrats and Republicans or the Right and Left but between Anti establishment and Establishment. Where both sides use the disputes to divert attention away from the establishment and towards fighting each other.
Although I often disagree with some of your observations and viewpoints I appreciate your insight and willingness to scream what others are unwilling to even consider.
I understand, but lets face it, most people would prefer to live in a prison as long as its got Uber Eats and Netflix. Heck, they already do.
If people actually prefer prison to life outside the prison, the fact points to some glaring problems with society of which the huge prison population in a wealthy Western country is itself a problem.
As some petty criminal committing something small so he could go back to jail to have food and shelter.
Yep , sadly that’s what some do😞
Thank you, I was lambbasted a few weeks ago for speaking out against Zelensky. I was at breakfast at a restaurant and I told someone in my family I did not want to hear them reiterate NPR's pro Zelensky jibberish. I was trying to eat, after all. It made me angry at the TNI/NPR all over again.
Zelensky doesn't care about the Ukraine no more then Biden. He is no more then a useful tool, and a willing one, as both are trying to implement change in Russia, which means Putin is a goner. Gee, didn't you have any GZ's to come to your defense?
Excellent!! Excellent!!
But this old Asshole would like to stick around and see how it all plays Out!
Each generation is more accepting of others then the generation that came before, but to claim they will be our saviors is absurd. So if you do stick around don't feel badly if the GZ generation doesn't create Eden for us all.
So it goes. Old die with kids taking up where parents left off. Dynamic minority of controllers pass their values down to their issues and recruit smart ambitious camp followers as part of win team for their version of a new world order for their own benefit, with humanity vastly reduced, if not on way to extinction. So many paths to dead end for human beings. Tough go for those that resist war on humanity for benefit of the few. Nevertheless, engagement must continue for a livable world for all life.
I have always, always said you don't need to build a wall on the southern boarder when there's already a fence around the entire Country with the citizens penned in and just to stupid to know it!
It is becoming increasingly evident to me that the big question has to be: How is it possible for all the evil work carried out by DaDeepState all over the world, even considering the financial incentives involved to the co-conspirators and their natural propensities for evil - all coordinated with seemingly amazing effectiveness for centuries?
Well, the Bible actually has the answer and I have posted this thread before - There are several factors.... beginning with this question: Are We Governed by Humans? - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/11/are-we-governed-by-humans.html?m=0 - and that reference is just the starting point for our research.
This is a hard thing for both secularists and churchians, but that is the gap which needs to be filled. There is a dimension to life which most folks never see, and I don't mean just non-believers, because Christianity of the Apostles has been changed to Churchianity - you can check that out at my library as well.
When Paul said 'we're not just dealing with flesh and blood, we're dealing with wicked spirits in high places' he wasn't talking about Halloween tricks.
Just to give you hint where this is going, in order for DaMasterDeceiver (Satan) to rule over humanity, his first order of business is to infiltrate and corrupt the church......the rest is easy peasy.
Worldwide that is basically mission accomplished, except for a few outposts here and there - notably Catholic Abp Vigano, the Russian Orthodox church and a collection of small independent congregations around the world, including the US.
There is another interesting 'coincidence' - both Satan himself and his synagogue have convinced the world that they don't exist. How about that, eh?
God ALWAYS has a remnant which carries on the work and gives them eyes to see.....and the picture is becoming clearer every day!
Russian Orthodox church is one of the main reasons Russia has been under assault. Had been before all that communism stuff and is back now.
Agree. The West liked the atheist state of Soviets and that is what the West has become. Russia returned to the Church, so the West must destroy Russia. Basically, if the generations whether boomer to zoomer don't have a moral base of Christianity morality becomes contingent on whatever the latest ideology is. It's a post-God world with Russia standing in the way.
They also wanted to destroy USSR for sure, and the convenient label was at hand - communism.
True, well they did destroy it, she was not supposed to resurrect. They won't stop. But it's the Church that really gets them now, the idea of a morality that is based upon something not contingent on political changes. Vide Zelensky destroying It in the Ukraine.
This link is from DaLimbrawLibrary - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Russian+Orthodox+Church&updated-max=2021-09-30T11:19:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=true&m=1 - a list of headnotes on a word search - Russian Orthodox Church - arranged by date which you can flip to by relevance - it's an education if you read them all.
I am familiar with the saker articles, read just now the vox populi dec 7; what even Orthodox Christians don't get is what is stated (I believe they were your comments on the article); by Zelensky attacking the Russian patriarchate church in Ukraine, he is essentially going after the entire Orthodox churches, in the Balkans, Baltic states also. Bartholomew in Istanbul, patriarch of Constaninople has been at war with the Russian church and through the CIA set it up a separate church in Ukraine which the Russian patriarchate declared is schismatic. This set up an ugly division among the Orthodox in the States. But eventually Zelensky will go after that church also, by making it a state church with absolutely no autonomy or independence, it will be a dead church.
Russia won't let that happen . That will bring complete Ukr. defeat .
Thanks. I mean it will be a dead church in Ukraine, if the church goes entirely into the hands of the ecumenist church P Bartholomew at the Phanar. The true Orthodox of Ukraine will have to go into the catacombs, or underground. and my hunch is, many already have.
Like the whole piece, but have mixed feelings on the end. The only young folks I would like to see in charge are the 25 and under crowd (so-called gen-Z). The millennials are an awful bunch and I would rather see G-X/boomers in charge than G-X.
This article started out great and you made some excellent statements. You lost me in the last four paragraphs.
As she did me! I have degrees in the biological sciences, as well as psychology and to be blunt she makes no sense from a scientific, or psychological perspective. I think she should at least acknowledge that these statements are grounded in her own belief system, and not based on any credible scientific evidence.
Would those be 'Old School' degrees?
No, not old school degrees, but degrees I didn't pay for, scholarships. Because I am offended at her commentary on old people doesn't mean I'm taking it that personally. An assumption on your part, but I did have an aunt who treated her mother like shit. Put her out with the morning wash and there she sat on a small wooden stool until lunch, then she took her in. She was given and outside view of the world that only passed between two houses. My grandmother had more heart, more brains, more tolerance, more capacity for insight then that bitch of a daughter, and could offer me more love and insight into the world I was born into. Not to mention auntie spit into my brother's six year old face because he was gay, but grandma gave him total acceptance. That's where my anger comes from Anonymous.
Caitlan seemed quite dismissive of the old, since their generation has created a world of horrors, yet they frown, and worry in the dark, about the young, not knowing that one day they will be our saviors, and come to be known as Gen Z.
When the Squad first got into Congress, people thought that it would make a difference not just because "They don't take corporate money" but also because "They're young! They're not like those fossils Pelosi and Schumer! THEY'LL do the right things!"
We all know how that worked out. And of course Pete Buttigieg's relative youth wouldn't have made him a good president or even an adequate one.
Give Gen Z time and they'll continue the process of wrecking the world instead of stopping and reversing the process. You've probably seen the "woke bombs" meme. It's a dig at Democrats, and a good one, but it applies just as well to Gen Z. Because, as Caitlin said in this post before she started saying dumb things, they'll never misgender you while they're bombing you.
I never trusted the Squad. In politics too many promises, with no results, and invariably they fall in line and become entrenched with the oldies and accrue the benefits that brings. I haven't seen the woke bombs meme.
Oh, it's good. Here ya go:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em6BszxW8AAsLyZ.jpg
Ah, almost forgot, the latest on the Squad being worthless after Ilhan gave us a little false hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO0bBQDAZqg
Imagine thinking that the woke (read: pro-censorship) generation is going to save us and that they will actually be BETTER on civil liberties.
I find this type of commentary "...old assholes to age out and leave the world in better hands than our own." as extremely offensive, and somehow Gen Z is going to be our saviors, those woke guys you spoke of, and those woke gals that threw ketchup at a Van Goth painting then glued themselves to museum walls in the hopes of bringing people over to their side on the issue of climate change. You would have to be an ass to believe that.
Glad you said that last part before I did, because believe it or not I've been holding back and was tempted myself.
Lest anybody think that you or I are generalizing too, I'm going to link to Glenn's article here about the changes to the ACLU and quote the important part:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech
"...But for numerous reasons, the ACLU — still with some noble and steadfast dissenters — is fast transforming into a standard liberal activist group at the expense of the free speech and due process principles it once existed to defend. Those reasons include changing cultural mores, an abandonment by millennials and Gen Z activists of the long-standing leftist belief in free speech and replaced by demands that views they dislike be silenced (which in turn causes Gen X and Boomer managers and editors fearful of losing their jobs or being vilified to succumb to this authoritarianism)..."
So according to Glenn Greenwald, millennials and Gen Z are less willing to defend freedom of speech than Gen X'ers or Boomers were. The "kids these days" are one of the big reasons why the ACLU is no longer principled.
When Glenn and Caitlin are saying the same thing, as I found they usually did before recently, everything's cool. I don't need to decide which of them is right. Both of them are right.
When Glenn and Caitlin are taking opposite positions, then...I'm going to believe Glenn over her, every single time. I'll admit that it's partly because I do stan Glenn because of his journalistic accomplishments, and it would take him saying or doing something REALLY awful for me to say he was wrong or talk shit about him. But it is also because *he makes good points*. If he never made good points, I wouldn't want to stan him in the first place.
What percentage of Gen Z vs. what percentage of Gen X would disapprove of the ACLU as it is today, or approve of Ira Glasser's old school ACLU?
I've been on Glenn's site since the beginning and knew of his work long before that. I remember reading this article, or something quite similar. I know there has always been an issue in regard to free speech, but during the last six years diversity of opinion on certain issues have become taboo. You would think the issue of transgenderism is one where a diversity of opinion would want to be heard. Needs to be heard! You can't even be of the opinion that men who say they are female, but have not transgendered should not participate in women's sports, since they have a decided advantage. If you do you're seen as being prejudicial. I'm with you since I have a very high regard for Greenwald, and the reason I do is because he has a lot of integrity, and truth comes before everything else, and he doesn't go off on issues he is not well informed about. I remember feeling that about Robert Parry who unfortunately died in 2017. His approach to those who expressed their opinion on any given article posted on his site was very accepting, but after he died the site really implemented a crack down. Many sites on the left took that stance during the Trump years and now I think they are paying the price, and it explains why Substack is doing so well. I have always thought of myself as liberal, but it is very hard to identify with those who claim to be liberal today, since there are no shades of gray in their world. What's going on at the ACLU doesn't surprise me, nor does the recognition of political ideologues, the deep state and politicians manipulating what can and cannot be published on Twitter.
I didn't find out about Consortium News (where I presume Parry did most of his work, being the founder) until some time after Parry's passing, and I feel like I kind of missed out. And I wrote that before I got to the part about how the site went downhill during the Trump years. It would suck to see CN turn into another Guardian, as in "Still right reasonably often, but absolute dogshit takes and/or straight up falsehoods at other times."
I didn't know that you could compete in sports as somebody born male without transitioning at least part way first. That is definitely unfair, or at minimum guaranteed to make the athlete in question perform better than they would if they *had* transitioned.
(If I were talking to someone with a real stick up their ass, this is where they would tell me "No, that's wrong of you to say that, you should say 'assigned male at birth' instead of 'born male'", which honestly makes me think "Oh for fuck's sake...MUST you be so goddamn picky? Is there not such a thing as a 'male body'? I'm not misgendering you and I'm not calling you a freak or anything, that should be enough without making me jump through even more hoops!")
I don't always watch the entire System Update show that Glenn does since it's so long, but I did catch the recent one where he talked about how what used to be considered left-wing positions were now considered right-wing ones and vice versa, and how it really isn't left vs. right any more but establishment vs. anti-establishment. E.g. people who consider themselves on the left or on the right who oppose mass surveillance are all on the same side, at least when it comes to that particular issue. Both the left and the right are split on that issue, with the so-called left actually being worse I think if we're including the Vote Blue No Matter Who crowd, so there is no "left" or "right" position on mass surveillance any more.
I should probably wrap this up, but speaking of Twitter I just want to add one more thing:
Caitlin saying "Oh, Musk is in bed with the CIA and shit, so he'll still censor all the same people, and the only difference is that he might let it go if you say transphobic or homophobic slurs" is way too close to the MSM talking point of "Musk really wants people to be able to say the n-word without getting banned" for my liking. Of course I'm a microscopic fraction of her readership, so what's to my liking and what isn't doesn't matter to her. But still, if you've accurately written about the ways MSM sucks for years, and then you're saying the kinds of things that they say on MSNBC or in the NYT, you should maybe reconsider your position. They're not wrong all the time, but they're wrong most of the time.
Me too.
I read it as Caitlin's view of the "way out". Of course, it is debatable.
I agree that it's debatable and I'm trying to keep myself from getting started on another long rant.
Because for all of her talk about how bad censorship is, Caitlin stopped just a millimeter short of demanding Dave Chappelle be censored when she tweeted this thread:
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1540841861329195008
The trans people she's defending there didn't even stop a millimeter short. To be fair, the sane ones may not have minded Dave's jokes or they may have minded a lot...but either way, being sane, they realized that it would be wrong to demand that he be canceled or deplatformed because every sane person understands that censorship is always wrong.
The crazy ones, on the other hand, were very vocal about wanting him off of NetFlix and off of any other platform. Because they can't stand being offended even a little bit, and they want everybody who offends them either intentionally or not to be silenced.
As Noam Chomsky said, either you're for free speech or you aren't, and if you don't defend even speech and speakers you absolutely despise, then you're not for free speech at all.
Everybody who made a fuss about Dave Chappelle and wanted him censored isn't for free speech at all. And Caitlin's going to have to decide whether she wants to stand with censorship proponents or censorship opponents, because you can't have it both ways.
EDIT: Well, so much for avoiding a long rant. I forgot to explain how any of that is connected to her comments on Gen Z being better.
She is saying that they're better because they're nice to people who are different, e.g. trans people.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with being nice to people who are different, including trans people.
There is, however, a LOT wrong if your idea of "being nice" to them means joining them when they demand censorship, adding your voices to theirs. And lots of Gen Z does that. They have before, and they will again. Because lots of them agree with AOC's preposterous statement that words are violence.
Just read that post and it's a mystery to me where you saw her even hinting at censoring.
Well, I read it and her message does seem to say, "How dare he..." You can call for censorship without saying the word.
Yes, and while I still don't think she actually wanted him to be censored, I stand by what I said about her stopping JUST short of saying he should be.
Like "I really hate this motherfucker, and I'd like it if he didn't get to talk any more...but I've got to be consistent so, ugh, I suppose I shouldn't actually say he should be censored. I'll complain about him, though. And I'll also point out that he's a millionaire as if that alone makes him part of the establishment and the enemy. I'm just going to conveniently forget all about how Roger Waters, Susan Sarandon, and Russell Brand to name a few are also worth millions."
Dave also made a joke about Israel/Palestine in that show which took the Palestinian side, so if Caitlin actually watched it then it's pretty fucking odd for her to accuse him of only punching down.
You're right, and I added more to explain the connection.
Still really cringe tweets, though.
YET ANOTHER EDIT: Ah fuck, maybe I'd better proofread these posts before making them, because looking back I'm not doing a good job of making my point the first time around.
All right, when Chappelle's special aired, you had lots of people demanding that he be censored. Because "he's a bigot" and "he's punching down" and so on.
Caitlin echoed those sentiments. So she was siding with people who believe in censorship. Sure, that's not the same as actually being pro-censorship herself, but when you say (paraphrased) "I agree with what those pro-censorship people are saying!" and you don't qualify the statement by saying "As bad as he is, he shouldn't be deplatformed or anything, though,"....well, that's not a great look.
LOL - I hear your sentiment about editing etc. For longer posts I usually type them first in an editor and let them simmer for a bit.
Again - I don't agree with your assessment of Caitlin based on those tweets. She was criticizing Chapelle for his way of getting attention by piling on something obviously guaranteed to raise a stink - like trans folks etc. I.e., somewhat of a cheap shot, lowbrow, as opposed to being critical of something really worthy. And dangerous.
See, when Caitlin does the critiquing - as talented and public as she is - that does not come close to the resonance the same kind of criticism would create if it came from someone of Chapelle's caliber.
I saw it as a prejudicial commentary.
Vaxtards in for a rude awakening...if they awake at all.
"I'm always yammering on here about what it's going to take to turn this human catastrophe around, but sometimes I think it might turn out that all that needs to happen is for all us old assholes to age out and leave the world in better hands than our own."
I hope the above is true. But those criticisms of Gen Z-
1. 'too considerate of different people'
2: 'refuse to work shit jobs for shit pay'
Neither seem to describe the *real* concerns.
1. Gen Z's embrace of difference is an insincere hypocritical facade internalizing a self-serving code game that's no better at listening to marginalized voices than the hateful racists or the avaricious capitalists.
2. Shit jobs, shit pay, understandably rejected. But dancing half-naked for readymoney in modern peepshows like Tik Tok "battles" isn't better. Shit jobs are at least loathed. Tik Tok "battles" (and similar Gen Z gigs) are a groteque but voluntary solo training program for an OnlyFans future, far worse for the soul than jockeying a cash register in a fast food drive-thru.
I could add another overarching concern about the evils of a population content to live in the perpetual present, disconnected from history, disinterested in thoughts about the future. But that didn't start with Gen Z, so I'll end here.
There is also a dark side to it.
Every generation says that, and passes the buck to the young, who are full of freedom and fervor because they’re young, but then get co-opted back into the self-perpetuating systems once they have kids and jobs and material needs and desires and not enough time or energy.
Once again Caitlin....spot on!
"but sometimes I think it might turn out that all that needs to happen is for all us old assholes to age out and leave the world in better hands than our own."
That's what we thought in 1969. How did it turn out?
One difference, I think. The late 60’s and the 70’s saw the idealists, having traveled and tasted and lived, begin taking jobs, clinging to the music and believing that they would always know right from wrong. By the 80’s they knew everything, and were their parents. Today the material reality doesn’t accommodate any optimism or expectation that there is a pie, and everyone gets to eat.