It doesn't matter. The book's title is the point. Yokels are angry. They are angry because they are not us, they are poor and outside the city. Losers who are racist.
It doesn't matter. The book's title is the point. Yokels are angry. They are angry because they are not us, they are poor and outside the city. Losers who are racist.
Not going to argue against that - but I am going to claim this:
The EU-provinces and the USA and the rump remnants of the British Empire are all too far gone along the path to total corporatism, for reconciliation to take place.
Hence, the book and rebuttals to it are more useful as a tool for further marginalising attacks on such people as its authors, as the majority of the population be it rural or urban are not aligned with their views or experiences.
By higlighting all such examples of globalist fascism-in-woke clothing and exposing them and their real beliefs, the wedge can be driven deeper and as that happens and also as the 2/3s who are not engaged in any kind of politics perceive the shift and find deeper emotional truth with one side than the other, a great many on the woke side will start to change.
First as fence-sitters, then as fence-jumpers. It's happening to gaming journalism and video games development as we speak - the "sensitivity readers" and "diversity consultants" are being "right-sized" and the venture capital used to fund their propaganda-platforms for the last ten years have run out.
I think this, not just to try and be uncharacteristically optimistic but from a cynical perspective: woke as a brand is played out. It needs to be replaced with "the new cool" and the capitalist overlords are already preparing to clean house and to declare "we have always been at war with East-Asia", i.e. that they have always been about family values, traditions, blah blah blah.
To capitalists and communists alike, nothing has any value but its instrumental value to the user, after all.
Globalism is fascist, but global rather than national; woke is the latest iteration of the class of useful idiots acting as the proverbial drip hollowing the stone.
What makes you think I claimed that the state police practices of National Socialist Germany were - or even could be - any different from those of any other modern, complex state?
Also, the dispute was about implying 'globalism' was 'fascism', not German National Socialism.
While it's true that German National Socialism under the NSDAP was inspired by Italian Fascism, they are not the same thing. Both considered themselves to be 'democracies' and, in fact, both were 'democracies' even more so than any current 'democracy' in the Anglo-sphere. The exigencies of war (obviously) altered their behaviors, but the same occurred in the 'democracies' of North America and the British Commonwealth.
As for 'propaganda', you're going to need to explain what it has to do with the issue of 'globalism' or 'fascism' and *exactly* what you mean by 'propaganda'.
Skilful usage of philosophy is even more powerful - with adequate volume and skill, this behavior that our entire system is infested by (not a single human is innocent) could plausibly be wiped from the face of the planet permanently.
Philosophy (or semantics, smeiotics, rethorics, all the terminology) when we debate like now - but that won't help much when some group of peaceful protesters are descending on your neighourhood.
I see the reasoning - the philophy as you put it - as part of a well-rounded exercise routine, to be paired with the equivalent material counterparts, both on individual and collective levels.
Kind of how the classics did it. Mr Broad Shoulders was a wrestler at first after all.
Good point. I am a big supporter of having the prospect of extreme violence on the table as an option. In fact, I believe a very small amount of targeted violence could reduce net violence dramatically. All power is wielded by people with squishy bodies.
But then it does no harm. If Mein Kampf is only read by Nazi believers, no one is recruited. Does it inspire a few lazy тАЬNazisтАЭ to get off their asses and vote? Maybe.
There is the possibility that WRR was published just to make a few bucks тАУ a way to exploit the LeftтАЩs mania over Trump to extract a few dollars from weak thinkers eager for reinforcement. Of course, that suggests self-awareness тАУ the knowledge by the publisher that the book is BS.
I agree with ChrisтАЩ overarching thesis тАУ that the media is 100% manipulative and 0% informative. I mean, what else do you call commentators who describe BrandonтАЩs SOTU speech as great oratory?
Publishers are just as prone to jump on bandwagons as any other business. After the success of *White Fragility* we saw lots of material on the topic. Also keep in mind that publishing has a 12+ month lead time between acceptance and publication.
This was almost certainly conceived by the authors and publishers alike as a money-making scheme. But while it's succeeded in getting some negative coverage, I don't think it's going to reach *White Fragility* levels of popularity or influence simply because that whole anti-Whiteness craze is already past its sell-by date.
You have to understand that being part of the movement isn't binary, but a spectrum, and it is for those that are in the serious believer range that the book is for, to be used as a tool of argumentation to pull those in the "sorta sympathizers but not 100% on board" range closer. That is why the academic (citations at least) book format is important, it provides the sheen of legitimacy via appeal to an agreed upon authority on truth. So when the Party people are telling their less committed targets "Look how bad all those rural people are!" and their targets respond "Well, I don't know... my aunt lives out in the sticks and she's alright," the Party can respond "Well, maybe she is, but have you read this book? It very clearly shows what the problem is, which is exactly these people who are horrible on average. It's science!"
You see the same thing with academic studies that find, purely coincidently no doubt, exactly the findings that the author's political overlords wanted, and thus the study gets famous and pushed on tv and the authors are doing interviews all over etc. Never mind that every other study shows the opposite, and no serious academic takes the new one as gospel that overturns all the others. The point is to have the legitimacy to claim the claims you want so there is always one thing people can wave to say "Look how right we are about this!"
No matter that in 5 years they will be arguing the opposite and there will be another book or study showing that, about as often as not by the same authors...
I take your point. (I have to keep in mind that IтАЩm not normal. At age 19 in 1974, I read a TIME magazine article about Nixon & Watergate that said тАЬNixon claimed (blah-blah-blah).тАЭ I thought тАЬWhy тАШclaimed?тАЩ Why not тАШsaid,тАЩ or тАШstated?тАЩтАЭ Ever since, I have viewed media language with skepticism, and validate stories (of interest) with other sources. (True for sources on both sides.)
Yea, people like us that really pick things apart are rare, and worse most people who DO pick things apart generally only do so in situations where it validates their priors. Hence "microaggression" nonsense from people who are sloppy as hell with their own language use. Most of the propaganda value of this sort of thing is feeding into that confirmation bias of people who are on the fence, and telling them "Oh, no those people who disagree are wrong, here's some very basic evidence to convince yourself of that. Just go with your feelings and follow us, it is completely right."
I dunno, I think the first time after someone catches "The Authorities (tm)" in obvious bullshit it makes them more likely to look for more bullshit. That starts a cycle of spotting more bullshit, and since there's so much of it, eventually you develop a rule that "I'm going to assume this is bullshit until proven otherwise", which turns out to be a great rule.
That said, not everyone does this at the same pace, some are much faster than others.
The problem is many still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true. I always take the time to talk to strangers, and statements like "Well, I think there's baby-rapin', baby-eatin Satanists at the top of the pyramid" are much more well received nowadays than say, just a few years ago...
Sometimes, but I notice that Gell-Mann Amnesia is extremely strong for many, possibly most, people. And frankly, most people don't pay enough attention or know enough to recognize BS. So they miss almost all of it, then when they spot it they just figure "Eh, he was wrong about that" and then go on believing everything else they want to.
As to majorities, it really depends a lot on where you live. I swing between very rural and relatively urban areas, and the differences in assumed beliefs is very large. Notably, both areas have their BS blind spots as well.
тАЬтАжmany still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true.тАЭ
The proof will be in NovemberтАЩs election. If people who believe things are bullshit still vote for the incumbent, then those peopleтАЩs beliefs are irrelevant. ItтАЩs only people who react tangibly to new-to-them information who matter in this context.
A Democrat would argue that the fraud was an тАЬinsurance policyтАЭ that turned out to have been unnecessary.
To my mind, there are a series of incontrovertible pieces of evidence: the vertical blips in the blue lines on the vote total graphs in the swing states occurring between 1am and 6:30am on Nov 4, 2020. Sudden huge blocks of Biden-only votes flowed in, contravening patterns in all tracked elections.
The only known comparable pattern emerged in the 1948 Democratic primary election for Senate in Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, Texas, when 202 county residents voted unknowingly in alphabetical order, 2 for Stevenson and 200 for Lyndon Johnson, giving Johnson the win by 87 votes out of 988K statewide.
Lara Trump was on FNC yesterday in her new role making noise about how the RNC will be unrecognizable this year in its prodigious vote harvesting efforts in all swing states. WeтАЩll seeтАж
Fortunately, trying to manufacture reality with propaganda, astroturfing, and pay-to-play papers isn't holding up to well against reality. Hell, it doesn't even hold up well against half-assed MS Paint memes.
I don't know about that. Higher education is dead, having been replaced by an indoctrination and propaganda machine, and I don't see a lot of motion towards it returning to an institution that seeks truth in a rough and ready fashion any time soon. The US government has gotten both bigger and less efficient every year for the past 70+, and finding people who want to cut it or shrink it in particulars is difficult.
I think that outside of a few obvious piles like COVID (which many still adhere to the official narratives on) there are many issues for which the propaganda works just fine.
Like the Jan 6 entrapment plot and lawfare persecution of Trump, this book is a direct attack to demonize and stop any sort of MAGA or similar dissent from the desired arc of history as prescribed by leftists.
IтАЩm SO sick of that phrase (тАЬarc of historyтАЭ). When I was a child, it was uttered rarely, and actually meant the тАЬarc of history.тАЭ Now it means тАЬmy line of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that purports to support the latest scheme to fuck you over.тАЭ
Disdain is an ancient emotion. There will always be those who elevate themselves in their own minds by looking down on others. The absence of such books wonтАЩt change that tendency. The only thing that can change it is a respected leader advocating against it, e.g., MLK (in conjunction with Federal law) posthumously leading the bulk of the South away from racism.
Or do we think that publishing more overt racist screeds will expand the population of racists?
As the "stakeholders" (you know, the people who fly into the WEF's Davos meeting every year on their private jets) cut off the energy, food, and other resources (these are the people who say "you'll own nothing, and be happy"), they know we'll actually be angry. They look forward to our destitution and anger as useful tools in their drive to control us:
It doesn't matter. The book's title is the point. Yokels are angry. They are angry because they are not us, they are poor and outside the city. Losers who are racist.
It works for its intended audience.
Not going to argue against that - but I am going to claim this:
The EU-provinces and the USA and the rump remnants of the British Empire are all too far gone along the path to total corporatism, for reconciliation to take place.
Hence, the book and rebuttals to it are more useful as a tool for further marginalising attacks on such people as its authors, as the majority of the population be it rural or urban are not aligned with their views or experiences.
By higlighting all such examples of globalist fascism-in-woke clothing and exposing them and their real beliefs, the wedge can be driven deeper and as that happens and also as the 2/3s who are not engaged in any kind of politics perceive the shift and find deeper emotional truth with one side than the other, a great many on the woke side will start to change.
First as fence-sitters, then as fence-jumpers. It's happening to gaming journalism and video games development as we speak - the "sensitivity readers" and "diversity consultants" are being "right-sized" and the venture capital used to fund their propaganda-platforms for the last ten years have run out.
I think this, not just to try and be uncharacteristically optimistic but from a cynical perspective: woke as a brand is played out. It needs to be replaced with "the new cool" and the capitalist overlords are already preparing to clean house and to declare "we have always been at war with East-Asia", i.e. that they have always been about family values, traditions, blah blah blah.
To capitalists and communists alike, nothing has any value but its instrumental value to the user, after all.
Attacking ordinary working people has nothing to do with 'fascism' in either theory or practice. WWII would like their propaganda back.
Query: clarification of statement required.
I was responding to 'globalist fascism-in-woke clothing'.
Globalism is fascist, but global rather than national; woke is the latest iteration of the class of useful idiots acting as the proverbial drip hollowing the stone.
Hence my expression.
тАЬordinary working peopleтАЭ
You think тАЬordinary workersтАЭ were exempt from one-way Gestapo trips? There was nothing unique about the practice of Nazi
propaganda that distinguishes it from other countriesтАЩ. Translate WRR into German and the motif would parallel.
What makes you think I claimed that the state police practices of National Socialist Germany were - or even could be - any different from those of any other modern, complex state?
Also, the dispute was about implying 'globalism' was 'fascism', not German National Socialism.
While it's true that German National Socialism under the NSDAP was inspired by Italian Fascism, they are not the same thing. Both considered themselves to be 'democracies' and, in fact, both were 'democracies' even more so than any current 'democracy' in the Anglo-sphere. The exigencies of war (obviously) altered their behaviors, but the same occurred in the 'democracies' of North America and the British Commonwealth.
As for 'propaganda', you're going to need to explain what it has to do with the issue of 'globalism' or 'fascism' and *exactly* what you mean by 'propaganda'.
1) тАЬyou're going to need to explainтАЭ
Not one of us here тАЬneedsтАЭ to explain anything to another. You can argue and ask pointed questions, but you damn sure donтАЩt set diktats.
2) As to introducing тАЬpropaganda,тАЭ you wrote тАЬWWII would like their propaganda back.тАЭ
The only way to fight back is to apply raw power and might.
Skilful usage of philosophy is even more powerful - with adequate volume and skill, this behavior that our entire system is infested by (not a single human is innocent) could plausibly be wiped from the face of the planet permanently.
Surely both?
Philosophy (or semantics, smeiotics, rethorics, all the terminology) when we debate like now - but that won't help much when some group of peaceful protesters are descending on your neighourhood.
I see the reasoning - the philophy as you put it - as part of a well-rounded exercise routine, to be paired with the equivalent material counterparts, both on individual and collective levels.
Kind of how the classics did it. Mr Broad Shoulders was a wrestler at first after all.
Good point. I am a big supporter of having the prospect of extreme violence on the table as an option. In fact, I believe a very small amount of targeted violence could reduce net violence dramatically. All power is wielded by people with squishy bodies.
But then it does no harm. If Mein Kampf is only read by Nazi believers, no one is recruited. Does it inspire a few lazy тАЬNazisтАЭ to get off their asses and vote? Maybe.
There is the possibility that WRR was published just to make a few bucks тАУ a way to exploit the LeftтАЩs mania over Trump to extract a few dollars from weak thinkers eager for reinforcement. Of course, that suggests self-awareness тАУ the knowledge by the publisher that the book is BS.
I agree with ChrisтАЩ overarching thesis тАУ that the media is 100% manipulative and 0% informative. I mean, what else do you call commentators who describe BrandonтАЩs SOTU speech as great oratory?
Publishers are just as prone to jump on bandwagons as any other business. After the success of *White Fragility* we saw lots of material on the topic. Also keep in mind that publishing has a 12+ month lead time between acceptance and publication.
This was almost certainly conceived by the authors and publishers alike as a money-making scheme. But while it's succeeded in getting some negative coverage, I don't think it's going to reach *White Fragility* levels of popularity or influence simply because that whole anti-Whiteness craze is already past its sell-by date.
ЁЯОп
the tv networks weren't the only corporate media who made a killing taking truth ministry money
"What else do you call commentators who call Brandon's SOTU speech great oratory?"
Apparatchiks
ЁЯОп (In their native Chinese: хЕЪхСШ)
You have to understand that being part of the movement isn't binary, but a spectrum, and it is for those that are in the serious believer range that the book is for, to be used as a tool of argumentation to pull those in the "sorta sympathizers but not 100% on board" range closer. That is why the academic (citations at least) book format is important, it provides the sheen of legitimacy via appeal to an agreed upon authority on truth. So when the Party people are telling their less committed targets "Look how bad all those rural people are!" and their targets respond "Well, I don't know... my aunt lives out in the sticks and she's alright," the Party can respond "Well, maybe she is, but have you read this book? It very clearly shows what the problem is, which is exactly these people who are horrible on average. It's science!"
You see the same thing with academic studies that find, purely coincidently no doubt, exactly the findings that the author's political overlords wanted, and thus the study gets famous and pushed on tv and the authors are doing interviews all over etc. Never mind that every other study shows the opposite, and no serious academic takes the new one as gospel that overturns all the others. The point is to have the legitimacy to claim the claims you want so there is always one thing people can wave to say "Look how right we are about this!"
No matter that in 5 years they will be arguing the opposite and there will be another book or study showing that, about as often as not by the same authors...
I take your point. (I have to keep in mind that IтАЩm not normal. At age 19 in 1974, I read a TIME magazine article about Nixon & Watergate that said тАЬNixon claimed (blah-blah-blah).тАЭ I thought тАЬWhy тАШclaimed?тАЩ Why not тАШsaid,тАЩ or тАШstated?тАЩтАЭ Ever since, I have viewed media language with skepticism, and validate stories (of interest) with other sources. (True for sources on both sides.)
Yea, people like us that really pick things apart are rare, and worse most people who DO pick things apart generally only do so in situations where it validates their priors. Hence "microaggression" nonsense from people who are sloppy as hell with their own language use. Most of the propaganda value of this sort of thing is feeding into that confirmation bias of people who are on the fence, and telling them "Oh, no those people who disagree are wrong, here's some very basic evidence to convince yourself of that. Just go with your feelings and follow us, it is completely right."
I dunno, I think the first time after someone catches "The Authorities (tm)" in obvious bullshit it makes them more likely to look for more bullshit. That starts a cycle of spotting more bullshit, and since there's so much of it, eventually you develop a rule that "I'm going to assume this is bullshit until proven otherwise", which turns out to be a great rule.
That said, not everyone does this at the same pace, some are much faster than others.
The problem is many still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true. I always take the time to talk to strangers, and statements like "Well, I think there's baby-rapin', baby-eatin Satanists at the top of the pyramid" are much more well received nowadays than say, just a few years ago...
Sometimes, but I notice that Gell-Mann Amnesia is extremely strong for many, possibly most, people. And frankly, most people don't pay enough attention or know enough to recognize BS. So they miss almost all of it, then when they spot it they just figure "Eh, he was wrong about that" and then go on believing everything else they want to.
As to majorities, it really depends a lot on where you live. I swing between very rural and relatively urban areas, and the differences in assumed beliefs is very large. Notably, both areas have their BS blind spots as well.
тАЬтАжmany still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true.тАЭ
The proof will be in NovemberтАЩs election. If people who believe things are bullshit still vote for the incumbent, then those peopleтАЩs beliefs are irrelevant. ItтАЩs only people who react tangibly to new-to-them information who matter in this context.
Assuming there's a fair accounting.
If they had the majority they wouldn't have had to engage in absentee voter fraud last time.
That alone should prove they're not in the majority, but there's other signs (e.g. all the polls are push polls, except perhaps Rasmussen).
A Democrat would argue that the fraud was an тАЬinsurance policyтАЭ that turned out to have been unnecessary.
To my mind, there are a series of incontrovertible pieces of evidence: the vertical blips in the blue lines on the vote total graphs in the swing states occurring between 1am and 6:30am on Nov 4, 2020. Sudden huge blocks of Biden-only votes flowed in, contravening patterns in all tracked elections.
The only known comparable pattern emerged in the 1948 Democratic primary election for Senate in Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, Texas, when 202 county residents voted unknowingly in alphabetical order, 2 for Stevenson and 200 for Lyndon Johnson, giving Johnson the win by 87 votes out of 988K statewide.
Lara Trump was on FNC yesterday in her new role making noise about how the RNC will be unrecognizable this year in its prodigious vote harvesting efforts in all swing states. WeтАЩll seeтАж
Fortunately, trying to manufacture reality with propaganda, astroturfing, and pay-to-play papers isn't holding up to well against reality. Hell, it doesn't even hold up well against half-assed MS Paint memes.
I don't know about that. Higher education is dead, having been replaced by an indoctrination and propaganda machine, and I don't see a lot of motion towards it returning to an institution that seeks truth in a rough and ready fashion any time soon. The US government has gotten both bigger and less efficient every year for the past 70+, and finding people who want to cut it or shrink it in particulars is difficult.
I think that outside of a few obvious piles like COVID (which many still adhere to the official narratives on) there are many issues for which the propaganda works just fine.
"there are many issues for which the propaganda works just fine"
For now.
High quality critique!
Like the Jan 6 entrapment plot and lawfare persecution of Trump, this book is a direct attack to demonize and stop any sort of MAGA or similar dissent from the desired arc of history as prescribed by leftists.
IтАЩm SO sick of that phrase (тАЬarc of historyтАЭ). When I was a child, it was uttered rarely, and actually meant the тАЬarc of history.тАЭ Now it means тАЬmy line of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that purports to support the latest scheme to fuck you over.тАЭ
They are SatanтАЩs disciples. They worship the devil. The evil cult is much bigger than we can possibly imagine.
All true, but the issue is whether pushing trash like this actually changes minds, vs. just reinforces beliefs held in closed minds.
I disagree. It would do plenty of harm. It reinforces already present disdain for ordinary folks. It may not create it, but it keeps it alive.
Disdain is an ancient emotion. There will always be those who elevate themselves in their own minds by looking down on others. The absence of such books wonтАЩt change that tendency. The only thing that can change it is a respected leader advocating against it, e.g., MLK (in conjunction with Federal law) posthumously leading the bulk of the South away from racism.
Or do we think that publishing more overt racist screeds will expand the population of racists?
As the "stakeholders" (you know, the people who fly into the WEF's Davos meeting every year on their private jets) cut off the energy, food, and other resources (these are the people who say "you'll own nothing, and be happy"), they know we'll actually be angry. They look forward to our destitution and anger as useful tools in their drive to control us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJTnkzl3K64
[WEF founder: Must prepare for an angrier world]
How to account for we, the angry, white (and non-white) "blue city" dwellers? We also "rage" -- where's our book?! ЁЯдк
It may be enough to win 48.2% of the vote, AKA a тАЬHillary majorityтАЭ