Christo fascist; Why is that term used?

Christo fascist; Why is that term used?

The link refers to the term, in which the article linked to doesn't directly discuss the term, and its meaning.

From where is the origin of the term? It may be related to Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal, in which he refers continually to Francisco Franco's regime in Spain. Since Franco supported the Catholic Church, it must mean that all Christians must be fascist. Or that it is what these people would have others believe.

It should be pointed out that Franco's regime was neutral during World War II. Evidently, the mention of the term fascist is often referring to Hitler. Of course, Hitler is the commie's favorite bogey man. It's true that Hitler was a bad man, but it doesn't equate to Franco. Franco has to be judged on his own.

It should be noted that the Center Party in Germany did not support Hitler. Or at least, that is my recollection from reading Shirer's book. Hitler banned all other political parties anyway. The Center Party was most associated with the Catholics in Germany, if memory serves. If the effort is to connect Hitler to the Christians, it must fail on its merits. If Hitler was anything, he was a pagan. He may have been born in a Catholic family, but he certainly wasn't one when he became Der Fuhrer.

Were other denominations unduly supportive of Hitler? Nothing that I saw said anything pro or con on that question. Perhaps there were a FEW, but that doesn't make it the rule. The rule is that it isn't a Christian thing, but a pagan thing, since that is what the left is, and what the fascists are too. If Franco supported the Catholic Church, it wasn't because of fascism. Communists have used Christianity too in order to prop up their regimes.

Christians opposed same sex marriage and homosexual behavior. Anyone who opposes this must be fascist, according to this kind of thinking. Actually, the German military was more into tradition, the religious aspect was secondary. Hitler was more interested in using the German military to his advantage, than in any religious opposition to homosexuality. In fact, Hitler's closest friend was a notorious homosexual, and was the leader of the infamous Brown Shirts. When Hitler was promoting traditional values that the military valued, which included prohibitions against homosexuality, it was only for political advantage. Hitler wasn't being a good Christian, for crying out loud. He was no Christian at all, but a pagan.

Therefore, the use of the term is yet another dishonest political attack. The political left is notorious for this.

The article could have mentioned this, but didn't. It DID mention why it was wrong on other grounds, but not on this one. Of course it is wrong. The political left is almost always wrong. Even if they have a point, it is used the way Hitler used it. It is only for political effect.

Woody Harrelson SNL monologue triggers leftist media

 

Woody Harrelson triggers paranoid media

There was a part in that monologue where Harrelson says something that seemed quite familiar with what happened during the COVID madness of recent years. He said ( as a joke, and that must be emphasized) that he had a script in hand that had all the drug cartels forcing people to stay inside, and required that they used their drugs over and over again. Then he said, "who'd believe that".

Too close for comfort for some of the paranoid leftists in the media.

So some in the media cannot take a joke. It was described as spreading misinformation. So now you can't joke about anything they actually did.

Maybe this will wake some people up to what's going on here, but who knows?

We are long past the point in which people should believe the media.

Somebody called it "anti-science". No. It was a joke. Too bad these people would rob us of all that makes life livable.

You have to ask, what are these people so afraid of? Well, I should qualify it a bit. There were three quotes pulled ( in the video) to show that at least of few of these people in the media totally lack any perspective and have no sense of humor at all.

Slapping scene from Jaws

Mother slaps Chief Brody



This scene illustrates a problem that stays undefined in the movie. The problem is who's to blame for the loss of life that this scene refers to? Chief Brody gets the slap, but it is clear from the movie who is really to blame, and that is the mayor. But Brody takes the blame too, and some of it may well belong to him. The problem is that at the time, nobody knew for sure who was right and who was wrong, only that it wasn't any boating accident, as was believed prior to the killing of the woman's boy.

Obviously the woman blames Brody, but she doesn't know what was going on behind the scenes. Behind the scenes, the mayor overrules Brody. Brody wanted to close the beach, but the mayor wanted to keep it open. The mayor prevailed, and the beach stayed open. It was because of this that they boy was attacked and killed by the rogue shark. Clearly, she has the right to be upset, but was slapping Brody the best medicine? SOMEBODY was to blame. The Chief was the most visible, and he took the slap.

On the other hand, it was effective in getting Brody to do something, which he did.

I started to use this clip during the COVID madness, but didn't. Or I think I didn't use it. There is a parallel here, I believe. People may misunderstand it though. They may think that all the masks and shutdowns were right after all, but I don't think so. In arging against masks and shutdowns, you may come across as someone like the mayor in this clip. But not every situation is the same. You cannot apply cookie cutter solutions to problems.

But like the movie, the wrong guy takes the slap. The guy who deserves the slap the most is the one who gets off scott free. So I'm using it this time!

COVID was used for political gain, not for public health. Those responsible for this grievous abuse of power are getting off scott free. Somebody deserves the slap, and maybe the wrong guy gets the slap, but maybe that will motivate somebody to go get the damned shark that caused all the problems in the first place. The "shark" isn't the problem, actually. You can get the shark as long as you correctly identify the problem. Like Brody, we've got plenty of people out there who know damned well that COVID was mishandled, and not by Trump! It was Biden and the Democrats who used it for political gain.

Biden and the Democrats are more like that mayor, who misuse their power to make a problem far worse than it had to be. They deserve the accountability, but being the way they are, are masters at avoiding accountability. Somebody has to step up, but who?

Trump could have handled it better, but the problem wasn't the virus. It was the response to the virus by certain people like Biden, who misused the situation for personal gain. Trump has got to do better, or the same things are going to happen all over again.

The term, usually referred to as the political spectrum, does not exist

Might as well be provocative. This is likely to provoke an argument somewhere, somehow. Perhaps not here, because it just doesn't happen here--for whatever reason.

The definition of spectrum means some sort of range. With respect to politics, it is the same old hackneyed left-right- middle construct that the commies love to use. Consider the term "far right". This implies a range of views on the so-called right. But there isn't any range of views as such, because there is no opposite to "far right". If you mean "far left" as an opposite, that would be incorrect. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between the "far right" and the "far left".

Both are coercive and collective philosophies. The "far right" pretends to be free economically, but isn't free at all. Under the Nazi regime under Hitler, there may have been some private ownership, but that was heavily regulated so there might as well have been no private ownership at all. The only real difference between the Soviet Union and the Nazi regimes, was that the Soviet Union didn't pretend to have private ownership. Outside of that, what difference was there between these so-called "extremes"?

Nazism was fanatical about race, so that MAY be a slight difference. Actually, Nazism was more about German identity than about race. The "races" considered inferior was for all intents and purposes, no different than the race to which Germans belonged to. Once understood for what it is, then there is no real difference even here. There was plenty of nationalism in the Soviet Union. There certainly wasn't any respect to religion, as the Soviets persecuted anyone who practiced religious faith. Germany basically called Judaism a race, but it is actually a religion. So, where's the difference? The main difference is that Germany lost the war. History is written by the winners. If Germany had won, the general understanding would be much different today. The Russians would have been the bad guys, and therefore their evil justified the war.

Since there isn't any real difference between them, why employ such terminology? In my opinion, it is meant to deceive. The use of the word "far right" is intended to deceive, and is a dead giveaway that the person using the label is sympathetic to communism.

What about using the term "far left"? Far left is a totalitarian ideology, and therefore, it is a valid extreme. The real range is between a free society and one that is not. Far left regimes are not free. A free country as the USA was once, is the ideal.

How can it be extreme in a bad way to argue for freedom? Unless it is in comparison with the absence of it, then it makes sense. But the way the word "extremism" is used, it is meant to throw disrepute upon the advocacy of freedom. But they won't say it that way because it won't work. Instead, they'll use the term "extremism" to hide the fact that they oppose freedom. They'll make false comparisons with fascism, even though fascism is not very far from communism.

The real political spectrum is between freedom and slavery. The way that the term is used in reference to right versus left is intended to confuse and deceive the public. Nobody should trust the way it is used in reference to the Marxist paradigm of the right versus the left. Even Hitler used the term "dialectics", which is one of the commies favorite words.

The political left has an allergy to the truth and should not be trusted. They know it too, because it is in the Communist Manifesto. Nobody would willingly accept it unless it is forced upon them. Too bad too many people in the once free country of the USA have forgotten that.

Bongino show 2-23-23

Basic topics discussed:

1) Something's going on with respect to China and Russia. Are we close to World War III?

2) Don't believe the media... he discusses why...

3) Social Security is going to be insolvent within a decade if nothing is done.

Additional Comment:

Rasmussen poll has Biden at 47 percent. This is troublesome, in my opinion. There's is not one single thing he's done well, yet he is at 47 percent. Why? I think this episode shows some important clues why. If nobody on the GOP has an answer for this, there's going to be six more years of this guy, if he lives that long. Also, more importantly, if the USA lasts that long with this guy.

Furthermore, 33% of the country says we're headed in the right direction. How do these numbers square with each other?

Here's the video...

The limitations are not in resources, but in energy

Consequently, if the access to energy is limited, then resources will be limited.

What this mean is that limitations are built into environmentalism. The main premise of environmentalism is that the amount of resources is limited. But resources aren't limited. Here's why. All matter is reusable, provided that sufficient amount of energy is available to break down the chemical bonds that make up most matter. Chemical bonds are far weaker than nuclear bonds within the nucleus of an atom. It is on the order of a million times stronger than chemical bonds. In forcing energy limitations you also impose resource limitations because nuclear energy can be used to recycle materials as long as sufficient energy exists.

Nuclear energy exists naturally from the sun. But it is possible to harness nuclear energy from fission of the atom. The environmentalists are managing to block access to that energy source, which in turn, makes resources limited. If allowed to proceed over the course of time, the sun may break down bonds that are formed which may be harmful to life forms. But not at the rate in which is useful for the type of energy required for modern industrialized societies. Hence, the limitations against energy, in particular nuclear energy ( and fossil fuels as well) will always limit access to all resources. Modern societies require access to resources.

Again, the key to understanding this dynamic is the access to energy. With sufficient energy, all resources can be reused over and over again. That makes resources virtually unlimited, because you cannot wear out an atom. It exists whether in one compound, or in another. Or perhaps in its pure elemental form. The point is that it isn't destroyed. It will always be there, and therefore, be available to use. There is no limitation there. The limitation is in making it useful again. That won't be possible with any other form other than nuclear. The pace of civilization will require a virtually unlimited source of energy, and atomic power can supply than need.

Modern environmentalism must block energy access to achieve their goals. This will have the effect of grinding modern society down to nothing. Without the access to energy, resources will indeed become too scarce to support large populations. All environmentalism is based upon these premises, and therefore, it requires blockage to access to energy for its goals to be reached.

Unless it is not understood that modern enviromentalism is incompatible with advanced civilization, these people will continue to block the advance of society to a higher level.

We are basically stuck at a lower level of development due to this very fact. The GDP of the USA in terms of ounces of gold per person has never advanced beyond the level it was in the late sixties.

There is no limit on resources. Indeed, the limitations are imposed, and completely unnecessary. More to the point, these limitations are quite harmful to human advancement. Without access to abundant energy, the future will be bleak. It makes little sense to block access to energy unless the goal is to cause harm to human advancement.

ChatGPT seems to be a sensation, so what is it, and what does it do?

 

Funny thing is that this question is the kind of thing that ChatGPT was created to accomplish. It answers questions, and can simulate human conversation.

What sparked my interest in it was a YouTube video ( link here).

The video's author says that this is a big deal, and it may be time to get up to speed on it. It will change things, he says.

Frankly, I worry very much about Artificial Intelligence. Generally speaking, I tended to avoid the topic. But you cannot ignore what's coming, if that is truly the case. Unfortunately, I think something like this is more likely to do more harm than good. But people seem to be drawn to it like a moth to a flame, and I suspect the end result of this is likely to be similar.

If you are not familiar, then the links provided here will give you some background on what this is. It is embarrassing to admit my ignorance on the subject, but the topic kept popping up, and it is time to address it. That's true whether I like it or not.

As someone who has been familiar with computers, and has worked with them for many years, even before computers were mainstream, I think a great deal of restraint should be applied to things like AI. Unfortunately, there are people who are pushing this, and it will likely assume far greater importance than I would be comfortable with. So I have something of a bias against it.

Here are some links for further information:

A 2 hour chat with Sydney, the chatbot with Bing ( very strange)

Fun with ChatCPT (comment: The bot is politically biased)

My own conversation with a chatbot as an experiment:

Q: Where did ChatGPT come from?

ChatGPT is a natural language processing (NLP) system developed by Microsoft Research Asia. It was first presented at the 2019 EMNLP conference in Hong Kong and is based on the OpenAI GPT-2 model.

Q: What good is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT can be used to generate natural-sounding dialogue. It is useful for developing virtual assistants, chatbots, and other applications that require a dialogue system.

Q: What purpose does a chatbot serve?

Chatbots are computer programs that simulate conversations with people. They can be used to provide customer service, answer common questions, provide information, and much more.

Q: How much does a plane fare cost that travels from Austin Texas to Honolulu Hawaii?

A roundtrip plane ticket from Austin to Honolulu typically costs between $400 and $900 depending on the airline, the time of year, and other factors.

Q: How much does it cost to ride a bus from Austin Texas to Los Angeles California?

A one-way bus ticket from Austin to Los Angeles typically costs between $150 and $250 depending on the bus line and the time of year.

Q: What is a passenger fare for a ship from Los Angeles to Hawaii?

The cost of a one-way passenger ticket on a cruise ship from Los Angeles to Hawaii typically ranges from $799 to $1,999, depending on the cruise line, the type of cabin, and the time of year.

Q: What cruise ship lines operate out of Los Angeles?

The cruise lines that operate out of Los Angeles include Carnival Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean International, Disney Cruise Line, Celebrity Cruises, Holland America Line, and Norwegian Cruise Line.

Q: What cruise lines operate out of Galveston, Texas?

The cruise lines that operate out of Galveston, Texas include Carnival Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean International, Disney Cruise Line, Celebrity Cruises, Holland America Line, and Norwegian Cruise Line.

Q: What would it cost to go from Galveston Texas to Los Angeles on Carnival Cruise Line?

A one-way ticket from Galveston, Texas to Los Angeles on Carnival Cruise Line typically costs between $499 and $999, depending on the type of cabin and the time of year.

Q: What are the hotel rates for Honolulu Hawaii?

Hotel rates in Honolulu typically range from $100 to $400 per night depending on the hotel, season, and other factors.

Q: What is the cost of a roundtrip air fare from Austin Texas to El Paso Texas?

A roundtrip airfare from Austin to El Paso typically costs between $150 and $250 depending on the airline, the time of year, and other factors.

Conclusion: It might be useful in some limited context, such as the one shown above. For deeper questions, it may not be very useful at all. However, it doesn't mean that it won't be misused. My guess is that is what is the most likely thing to happen.