The first casualty of war

There's something that just came to my attention that reinforces the notion that we're in a war. It might even be said to be a world war. This war is like all wars in one regard--that the first casualty in a war is the truth. It is different in that there hasn't been massive destruction over large areas. That could be next.

As Sun Tzu said in his "Art of War", warfare is all about deception. There certainly appears to be no shortage of deception these days. Therefore, we are in a war of sorts already. It is only a matter of how and when it ends.

When the dust settles, people may be shocked at the extent of the deception. Nearly everyone will be deceived about something. That's really the whole point. The deception provides the cover for the real action. You won't discover the new reality until after things are sorted out.

There's little commentary here on the action because it is all unreliable. In a situation such as this, you need reliable sources. But where is the average man to go for reliable information? Unfortunately, there isn't any. At least not for the average schmuck. The generals get the best information, but that may not be reliable either.

Is there a real threat of Armageddon? Or is that part of the smoke screen? Brandon talked of it recently. He also said that there wouldn't be a war. This was early on. Evidently, since his words have changed, the situation has changed. Or he is wrong. Or lying. Or both. If there's one thing that is definitely something to take to the bank, is that Brandon is a liar. But what is he lying about? That's where the real deception is coming from. Since he contradicted what he said earlier about a war, there's no way of knowing what the truth is from listening to him.

Who blew up the pipeline? The official news is that the Russians did it. The official news isn't reliable. So there you are. One thing that you DO know is that Germany was harmed by it. Lots of things are being said, but what is the truth? The truth is what is being hidden. That's how you know it is a war.

In the land of the free and home of the brave, the truth is being hidden. How is that even possible unless there is something very, very wrong with our government. A free flow of information would reveal the truth. Look around and see who is behind the attempt to suppress the free flow of information and ask yourselves why is this being done?

Strange times we're living in

Let's see here... There's the worst inflation in 40 years. The GDP has contracted two quarters in a row, indicating a recession... It's getting worse, according to some key stats. Prices at the pump are likely to go higher again. Russia may use nukes, so we could be on the edge of catastrophe. Brandon engineers a disaster in Afghanistan. On nearly every issue, Brandon is under water.

But Brandon has nearly 100% support from his Party. For what???? For all of THIS?

At least he isn't Trump, huh? That's about all they can say for the guy. They'd rather die in nuclear holocaust than have to admit error. Or starve in the dark and cold. They'd rather bitch about things being on the wrong track than to do anything constructive about it.

Can't see anything about their reaction that makes a bit of sense. But they do seem united in opposing any alternatives. Wow.

The twists and turns of

it all

If memory serves, something Alexander Pope said about human nature...

...bears on the problem of getting through to people. There is a natural tendency to want to resist changing fixed opinions. What did Pope say? A short little thing comes to mind: "Men must be taught as if you taught them not, unknown things proposed as things forgot." Or as the Austin Powers character said in one of those flicks: "Everybody likes their own brand." Whether it is flatulence or opinions, people do seem to be that way. Try to change minds is a thankless task, and often an exercise in futility.

The media is going at it full bore trying to get people to give up on Trump. But the harder they try, the more fixed the opinions become. It would seem that the media and the Democrats have lost all their credibility trying to turn people against Trump. If they haven't done it by now, they might want to reconsider. The possibility of error might be their own.

So the links above point in the direction of why the latest attempts are unlikely to succeed. The first goes along the lines that have been repeated often here, and the second shows some examples of the futility of the other side.

Eveybody seems to be beating a dead horse, but a big decision is coming up, and those with a stake in the outcome are going all out. In the end, it may not make much difference. The difference may lie in the place you're not looking.

The Weekly Whodunnit

The Weekly Whodunnit: There’s always some mystery in the news that provides a blank page for fantasy thinking. This week’s mystery has initiated a storm of speculation: What happened to cause leaks in Russia’s Nord Stream 1 and 2, designed to send gas to...

Trotsky

 

Trotsky

Sarah Hoyt got a quote that came from Trotsky

Who's Trotsky? If memory serves, he was number two to Lenin for awhile. If you have to ask who Lenin was, go sit at the kiddies table.

By the way, all this discussion about socialism, fascism, and communism might not be interesting to folks. It should be, but it might well not be the case. In other words, it's a waste of time. There's a saying: "It's the economy, stupid." Perhaps Brandon said all this because he has nothing to run on. The economy is in a shambles, we could be in a world war that he blundered into, people have been injured from his covid shot mandates, but other that that, things are fine. /snark

It should be an eliminator, but instead of that, it may help him. That's because nobody really gives a flip about anything outside their own skin. Okay, all social criticism aside, what about this Trotsky fellow?

Memory serves that Trotsky was murdered rather viciously in Mexico. Stalin was behind it. Supposedly, Trotsky wasn't as big a baddie as Stalin. The quote mentioned shows that he was a baddie just the same.

Why mention Trotsky? There was something about the all-powerful state. In Shirer's book, Hegel glorified the state. Just mentioning it because the Democrats glorify the state. Yet they have the audacity to claim to be the true servants and champions of the US Constitution. What a crock! Yet, there are some people who believe that crap. Do you know who Brandon was aiming the speech? Not to his usual constituents. Nope. It was aimed at GOP types who like to think that they are serving the country by giving Brandon an opportunity to use them for his propaganda. If they had any sense, they would run from the guy the way Trotsky tried to run from Stalin. Just sayin'.

The darkness of the Fascism Smear

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds asks : Why does the left uses fascism smear against rivals?

Comment:

Reynolds is way too easy on them. They use it because they think it works for them. It has worked for them in the past, but it may be losing its punch. Why? For the first time, those who use this tactic aren't relegated to the fringes of the party. The leaders of the party did not use this tactic, until the Dark Brandon speech. It only works for them if at least they have a credible appearance of moderation. This party is not "moderate" in the least. Neither in word nor in deed. It's not only Brandon, but Hillary as well who has used this tactic lately. It's no longer a lunatic fringe tactic.

There has been discussion recently of a liberal named Paul Krugman, who writes for the "New York Times". His book, The Conscience of a Liberal" has been mentioned here. That book was published in 2007. His thesis in the book is that the "polarization" has been due to the "hard right's" influence on the GOP. So, let's take a deeper dive into that book. The reason is that this tactic has a long history. It has been used long before 2007.

He claims (in his book) that Democrats haven't moved left : He fails to mention old Solid South, and the loss of a conservative element in the Democrat party, 2) since his book came out, Nancy Pelosi went from being against impeachment ( supposedly) to being for impeachment of Trump. The radical wing of the party was calling for the ouster of Trump all along, thus 3) The party has been taken over by the radicals. 4) Obama was America's first leftist president. Obama was mentored by a communist. Those are indisputable facts. Here's another one: Since 1968, the Democrat Party has been moving leftward. Yet, Krugman claims that they are the same as always.

Something must have changed because the polls say so. The direction of the country poll has not been above water for nearly all of the new century. That's quite a long time. The election of Obama did not change it for long. It may have been above water for a short time. When it went under, did not go back up for the rest of his two terms.

Krugman's argument is about who owns the middle. But the "middle" is just the old dialectic mentioned over and over again here. Marxists love to use this, as it comes from Hegel. Hitler didn't mind using it either. The point is to disarm the opposition and render them helpless. It is easy to win when you demand that the other side not defend itself, and the response is obliging. As it can be seen, Liz Cheney is certainly obliging.

What does "hard right" mean for Krugman, if it isn't a subliminal comparison to Hitler? Krugman didn't make that connection in his 2007 book, but it is understood. If it wasn't, did Brandon just now discover it? Did Hillary just now discover it? What better way to disarm your opponent than to call them an infamous name? If you dare to defend yourself, then you are just being "mean". Easy to win that way. Hard to understand the obliging response of some in the GOP, like Romney.

What do these "hard right" types talk about once they get amongst themselves? There was a CPAC convention, with the 2012 candidates ( in 2012) mentioned here It is pretty much plain vanilla stuff. According to the "hard left", old fashioned American patriotism is no longer respectable. In fact, it is fascist. Usually, the conservatives talk about limited government and freedom. This isn't fascism. Freedom and fascism doesn't go together.

Compare that with what Hitler said himself in his book "Mein Kampf".

Shirer: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

At the very least, the comparisons of the "hard right" are not apt. But they might be apt for what the Democrats have become. Is it really necessary to list the reasons why it has become an apt comparison for Democrats these days? Or are memories that short? Or has the opposition become too intimidated to say anything in response? This goes for everyone, not just Republicans, but those in the Democrat party who may have given in to the "spiritual terror" thrown their way.

So, why do they do it? It has worked for them in the past. If it works for them again, it will become a feature of politics for the foreseeable future. The only way to stop it is to defeat it resoundingly. Perhaps a Pavlovian response will persuade them not to do it again. Well, at least one would hope so.

Instapundit link---Brandon's Philosophical Moment

Brandon's Philosophical Moment

Here's a quote captured from the link:

Comments:

It is worthwhile to discuss philosophy, but when it comes to the philosophy that Brandon is referring to, he cannot cite a single instance to support his assertion. If he did, no source of information with regards to the speeches in question actually cited anything at all about the "underpinning philosophy" to which Brandon references. Such an assertion is merely a claim that Brandon makes. Unless he supplies the facts, he cannot honestly make the claim.

The actual philosophy of the founders is what the GOP CLAIMS to be their own. The trouble is that they often don't live up to it. The philosophy of the founders is what Brandon and his ilk OPPOSES while they work tirelessly to undermine it. Many of Brandon's followers denounce the founders as racists. Some statues of historical figures have been toppled. Yet Brandon claims that he is upholding the Republic. If so, whose philosophy is Brandon actually following?

If he is referring to violence, perhaps he is referring to Nietsche. Perhaps. If he was, to my knowledge, the no GOP figure has EVER referred to Nietsche at all. If he is referring to Hegel, the same goes. Both Hegel and Nietsche formed a lot of the basis of Hitler's philosophy, according to Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Is Brandon accusing MAGA Republicans of being followers of these two philosophers? Or does Brandon actually know what he is talking about? It would seem that Brandon greatly exagerrated his scholatic achievements. He claimed to finish near the top of this class, but he actually did the opposite.

A deeper dive into the philosophy of Hitler may prove embarrassing to the Democrats. It would seem that there's a political opportunity here for the GOP. But the GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. According to Brandon's former presidential boss, Brandon never seems to miss an opportunity to screw up.

That deeper dive is indicated. For Hitler did like political violence. Who likes violence these days, but the Democrats? The GOP has an allergy to any type of confrontation at all. The Democrats don't want any confrontation at all, not even verbal---which they mislabel as "violence". If there's a problem with the GOP, as far as Hitler would be concerned, it would be their utter passivity in the face of an enemy. They are as far way from Hitler as you can get. But Brandon and Co? They may as well be bosom buddies with old Adolf and his Brownshirts.

Aesop's Fable about the wolf and the lamb is often mentioned here. Yet the lamb was at least willing to defend itself verbally. The lamb may not have had the means ( like F-15's and the like) to defend itself physically, but the lamb AT LEAST had something to say in defense of itself. What exactly is the GOP doing to defend itself? Whatever it is, Hitler would not have approved.