Saturday, February 6, 2016

Conflicts - Internal/External

“To live is to war with trolls in heart and soul.
To write is to sit in judgement on oneself.”
― Henrik Ibsen, Peer Gynt


FreeThinke said...


Unfortunately, the tone of the Republican debates in general has been warped by the undue influence of the ENEMEDIA in the persons of agenda-driven "moderators."

The moderators' focus has been more on sparking loud, sensationalistic "food fights" among the candidates than permitting them to speak freely –– and uninterruptedly –– on matters of substance –– i.e.:

1. A limp, severely lagging economy -

2. Misleading statistics on unemployment and jobs growth -

3. What to do about the threat posed by ISIS and the extreme volatility of the Middle East -

4. How we ought to deal with the belligerent posturing of North Korea -

5. What might be the BEST way to make sure that ALL American citizens have access to high-quality Medical Care without rationing, and without surrendering their freedom to choose their own doctors and medical facilities -

6. How best to minimize the deleterious effects of unchecked ILLEGAL Immigration -

7. How to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States by fostering an economic climate attractive to the Captains of Industry that is also fair to American workers -

8. How to deal the dehumanizing threat of ever-increaing Automation and Robotization

9. How to deal with Right to Life issues v. Personal Autonomy -

10. How to preserve Freedom of Religion while curbing Islamic Aggression

11. How to shore up and rebuild our crumbling, foundering Infrastructure -

12. How to restore CONTROL of EDUCATIONAL POLICIES to individual communities -

Instead of focusing on things that MATTER, the moderators tend to do whatever they can to pick at scabs, pour salt into wounds, bring up petty nonsense designed to titillate the public, while embarrassing candidates, knocking them off balance, and sparking fruitless, childish quarreling. This turns what-should-be serious ADULT debate into a CIRCUS –– a BURLESQUE –– a TRAVESTY.

Undue MANIPULATION and USURPATION of CONTROL by the ENEMEDIA was well exemplified by three things:


2. The way moderators are obviously instructed to EXCLUDE a good man like Dr. Carson from full participation by steadfastly IGNORING him and REFUSING to ASK HIM QUESTIONS. [I loved it when he wryly observed after FINALLY being given a chance to participate, that he wasn't there just to help decorate to the stage. ;-]

3. The INSTANT post-debate ANALYSIS by ENEMEDIA "Pundits" that focused almost SOLELY –– all across the media board today including the supposedly "objective" C-Span –– on how Governor Christie humiliated and pilloried Marco Rubio by mocking him on making "memorized set speeches" instead of answering questions honestly, etc.

The collective purpose of the enemedia seems always to do its best to "DESTROY" any Republican who appears to be gaining favor with the public. WHY they would want to do that is a question that should concern every American with a functioning brain.

In short while the Democrats promise ever greater amounts of FREE "BREAD," the enemedia further corrupts to political process by producing an endless round of "CIRCUSES" craftily designed to take focus away from the critical problems that threaten our very existence.

STOP, LOOK, LISTEN then DO YOUR OWN THINKING, and PRAY for SANITY is the only advice I have to offer.

Thersites said...

The "establishment" owns the media and therefore have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and NOT discussing alternatives. My war on "bigness" is, IMO, the solution to 95% of the problems you listed.

-FJ said...

Real Progressivism.

FreeThinke said...

I think for once we are in complete agreement, Thersites-FJ.

It's ironic how the Left preaches "diversity" when they are really seeking is RIGID, UNSWERVING, UNTHINKING, UNQUESTIONING U-N-F-O-R-M-I-T-Y.

In Unity there may be "strength," but there is also the grave danger of STULTIFICATION.

-FJ said...

IMO, the establishment interest is behind that stultifying position.

-FJ said...

...for an anti-trust electorate would dismantle corporate prerogatives and eliminate "too big to fail" cronyism.

beamish said...

I think "too big to fail cronyism" is a perfect, and ripe target for conservatives who believe they are maintaining the American Revolution.

Thersites said...

I agree 100%.

FreeThinke said...


Timber Queen said

The whole press corps still treats politics as theater or sport. No one ever explains policy on a post-debate show. Must all talk be of the horse race? It’s a democracy, not an off-track betting parlor. We must all think less like political consultants and more like citizens, and journalists should lead the way.”

Even the socialists at Salon are sick of the Old Media and their shallow, biased reporting on behalf of the establishment. Average Americans in both parties know that those they elect are not serving their interests, nor are the media who have abandoned their “watchdog” role. This dissatisfaction is shared within an electorate split along the ideological fault line between capitalism and socialism, not between the now meaningless labels of “Republican” and “Democrat”.

The Wilsonian era introduced socialist policies and goals into the American body politic that ran counter to the representative Republic policies and goals set out in the U.S. Constitution. For the last one hundred years these two competing ideologies have been waging an undercover war for the American psyche. The socialists masked their true identity with the euphemisms “progressive,” then “liberal,” and then back to “progressive” as each moniker fell from favor. Under this camouflage they took control the cultural drivers of education and entertainment to indoctrinate generation after generation away from traditional American values of independence and personal responsibility.

I am grateful that Sanders openly carries the Socialist label. It will help clarify the true intentions of the Left to finally eliminate the last remaining vestiges of the Great American Experiment in self-governance. This election is about smashing the Uniparty establishment, and then deciding between capitalism and socialism (communism). These two ideologies can no longer exist side-by-side in this nation. It has to be one or the other.

It's good to find proof every once in a while that I am not alone.

FreeThinke said...

Canardo (Ducky) would be quick to accuse "Timber Queen" of being one of my "sock puppets," but he'd be wrong. "Timber Queen" is, however, my ideological fraternal twin.

We must have been separated at birth. ;-)

Ducky is ALWAYS wrong when he accuses some poor soul of being one of FT's sock puppets, because I never USE false ID's at places where anonymous posting is permitted.

Creepy, crappy people always tend to judge others by their own abysmal standards, I guess.

beamish said...

The Wilsonian era FT mentions... I also believe is where America went AWRY amending the Constitution to make Senators popularly elected insto of appointed by their state's legislators. We lost both good Senators and representation of state governments at the federal level, but gained national political parties.

Imagine if Senators represented their state's government, rather than a political party.

-FJ said...

...Sounds about right, time-wise... and also where the smaller is better train vis business AND government, went off the tracks.

Yes, once States lost their militias after the Civil War, the rest of their rights disappeared as well. It's "why" I'm such a 2nd Amendment advocate.

beamish said...

It was "progressive" to centralize power to turn are to is.

beamish said...

The United States are vs. The United States is.

Thersites said...

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for it," kinda sums up the reversal.

I think it was the "neo-progressive" that moved the are to is... or maybe it was the hubris that believed that there was a way to promote "good" trusts and punish "bad" trusts that flipped things. You've got to kill em ALL.

FreeThinke said...

It was the CIVIL WAR that destroyed Federalism.

States Rights became a thing of the past. Dictatorial Centralized Power arrived with Lincoln, and never really left. It's just gotten "progressively" worse (pun fully intended ;-).

"The UNION must be preserved," Lincoln said. As for the STATES, "Well FUCK 'em!" was his implied sentiment.

Thersites said...

The question is, will the Civil War have destroyed Individualism (Civil Rights) as well...?

FreeThinke said...

Individualism gets suffocated at the point where it may be said a nation becomes OVER-civilized. Once that stage arrives a people becomes effete.

The wild beasts and barbarians, forever snuffling, howling, growling and slobbering outside the city gates, can actually SMELL the weakness, and soon move in for the kill.

It has been ever thus.

Those who want "IN" invariably begin to soften up, become indolent and self-indulgent, themselves, once they've taken over. As these former conquerors become the the New Establishment, they begin to degenerate,and so become ripe the NEXT wave of barbarians to take over.

An endless vicious cycle, I fear!