There’s a story in the Idaho daily mistaken, our leftist McClatchy rag, about how libraries around the state are in a tizzy to comply with the new state law that says people can challenge the placement of materials for children and young people. Oh the horror of it all. What to do what to do.
And the overlying theme is the far right is just awful, I mean seriously, how can books showing pictures of how a boy can suck off another boys penis not be appropriate for children? Why oh why do they have to be shielded from such important information?
When their reaction could be should be - you know, these books should not be out in the open. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the library using tax money at all but if parents want their kids to see them, they can buy them.
The whole hysteria about "book-banning" is kind of a tell. Sort of like when Leftists complain that harsher laws against pedophilia will "endanger gays." The baseline assumption for the latter complaint is that gay people are pedophiles...which they spent years assuring us *isn't* true. The reality is that the only people "endangered" are pedophiles (of whatever sexual preference).
The baseline assumption for calling challenges to sexually explicit books in school libraries "book-banning" is that children *ought* to exposed to sexually explicit books. That is *literally* what these people are saying when they call this "book-banning."
Books about sexuality have a legitimate place, but it isn't in children's libraries. When I, as a young teen, wanted to read more about sex, I was able to go to the non-fiction section in the main collection of our city library. But I had to be 12-ish to go upstairs to the main collection. The children's collection was downstairs and had its own separate entrance. Children's library cards were red. You didn't get the coveted pink library card until you completed the 6th grade.
For anyone on X I urge you to follow a gay conservative Chad Felix Greene@chadfelixg
About 4-5 days ago he posted a fascinating and honest thread about the LGBTQ culture he grew up in and how adults having sex with young teen boys is an accepted and expected part of that culture.
It was an eye opening read for many reasons.
Pedophilia as a legal definition is sex with a legally defined minor.
Most people see a distinction between adults who engage in sex and sexual behaviors with very young pre pubescent children differently than adults having sex with post pubertal teenagers.
Both are illegal
Please find the thread and read it. It is long. It is important .
Ours is the Austin Un-American Statesman as we call it. I think you are right though. Add to that the shift left in the American television experience and voila. The self-proclaimed elites look down their noses at television then hoover up streaming services. Television went left more than a decade ago. But the streaming services are nothing but. I recently streamed all three seasons of Designated Survivor. It started on network television and for those two seasons was decent enough. But it was cancelled and Netflix picked it up for the 3rd at which point it became all POC (including the poor, poor Muslims), trans and demonization of conservatives all the time. I can't unsee it but it illustrated to me in a fictional setting exactly the mindset so pervasive in our society at this place and point in time.
I only stream British and Australian tv basically. Yes it’s got some leftist things but it isn’t flat out stupid like American tv. Sure are a lot of murders there though.
Yeah, the British seem obsessed with serial killers - and most of their shows are extremely voyeuristic about it, as well. But don't forget that there is no non-government owned television in the UK. Or Canada. I don't know about Australia, but I suspect they follow the same template. So I guess it's a trade-off between "flat out stupid" and "what the Govt wants to let you watch". Some choice.
Some of the Israeli shows are pretty violent too. Fauda is a very good window into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Blackspace is about a school shooting.
My pet peeve is the "health care" industry. Doctors more trained in DEI than medicine. Big pharma peddling dangerous products and products designed to combat the "diseases" caused by our horrible diets. And big insurance, with overpaid CEOs, selling bogus, expensive plans that cover almost nothing. This all has to be re-thought. Nothing but a giant kleptocracy that harms working Americans.
The Free Press did not even bother to mention the SCOTUS ruling yesterday.
Readers defending censorship very stridently on TFree Press comments this morning truly baffles me. Adults who want censorship on a “ news site” baffles me . It is difficult to understand where they are coming from.
Not one of us denies Bari Weiss’ right to start censoring on her platform . However it doesn’t explain why the silent sneaky implementation of the policy or the rules or who is doing the censoring.Most importantly it doesn’t explain why she is doing it at all? Why the reversal on her free speech stance .She made herself a public person with loud views on free speech , courage to stand strong for one’s beliefs, her position on the importance of diversity of ideas.
You might post a similar reply to that dingbat who keeps stamping his feet that Bari's has the right to censor according to Substack rules. Of course she has the right. There are many things we have the right to do. But the right to do something hardly make it "right."
I have come to the conclusion in recent years that it's useless to argue with people who are fixated on false and/or stupid ideas. You cannot change their minds with rational discussion. The only reasonable approach is to not engage further. Let them have their last word. Those who are capable of recognizing the stupidity can do so for themselves. Those who can't are not worth the energy.
What's wrong with people like that is that the lefties are convinced only they are right and people like YOU are idiots who need to shut up and sit down. Cuz you're dangerous and a threat to democracy. They don't understand why YOU can't see this.
My objection is that this person never addressed the substance of why readers are disappointed and upset with the censorship, but kept repeating “ you agreed to it “ and she is legally allowed to do it” 2 statement Td that no one disputes.
Similarly with other far left positions, they never engage on substance, they lie and bully, and name call. There is no discussion with many of them. They really have to be defeated and ousted from power
It is not the censoring I object too. It is suckering me in with assertions to the contrary. Methinks she did protest too much. Until she was hunky-dory with it.
The dissenting opinion was strongly worded and made it clear the evidence was vast that our government did coerce the platforms. This was one of those “thrown out on a technicality” kind of thing at first glance. It was a missed opportunity but I think at least two of the holdouts were sending a message to plaintiffs for a stronger more airtight case to come before the court. The violation is unarguable. They just need to tighten things up.
When I listened to the oral arguments I was disappointed in the plaintiff lawyers’ performance.Thecsystem is so broken. These plaintiffs had to fundraise a fortune to bring this important case against the government who has endless tax payer dollars to fight against we the people. It is perverse. The First Amendment is there to protect us from government overreach , not to protect the government.
I saw a very thoughtful comment on Matt Tabibi's Substack yesterday explaining that this ruling, though not great, didn't end the actual case which is making its way through the courts and has a much stronger chance of being addressed in a way that strengthens free speech. I am going to hold out hope for that.
Insurance needs to be disentangled from employment and people put on a level playing field. Why the hell government can mandate employers to provide health insurance is beyond me. SCOTUS needs to fix the hideous commerce clause rulings of the past to reign in federal power.
I have been thinking along these lines for quite some time now. I do not know what you call the modern American system. It is not quite a plutarchy or an oligarchy, although there are elements of both. It really is just a massive, bloated self-perpetuating bureaucracy. Sort of Les Miserables ish. And the media situation reminds me of French tradition too. Remember the 4th Estate resulted not only in the French Revolution but also the mob rule/anarchy which replaced the monarchy and ultimately Napolean. While the little guy was not all bad I find no merit in dictatorship, beneficial or otherwise. But really modern America is more akin to fuedalism - thousands and thousands of little autocratic ruling their fiefdoms and paying liege to their overlords in the form of political "donations". All while perceiving themselves as "elite". We need a new circle of hell for anyone who perceives themselves as elite based on their sheepskin, their address, their party affiliation, ... . And unlike you I see little hope this morning for free speech, on Substack or anywhere else. The substack I left recently and where many of us "met" was basically a bait and switch. And the Supreme Court decision on the Biden administration's suppression of speech yesterday was a serious blow to freedom from censorship. Everybody - you, me, and every other citizen - had standing to complain. Denial of that renders the Twitter files virtually meaningless as it cloaks the very offensive actions in approval.
“Everyone can see the disaster coming, yet no one seems to have the power to stop it.”
That’s right. No “one” can stop it. But enough voters coalescing behind enough of the right candidates can stop it. Can reverse the trend. This is why the 2024 election is so important. We who see the disaster coming have to be motivated to take action, starting with our votes. And not only that, keep showing up at school board and city council meetings to be heard on the issues. Post yard signs that might annoy some neighbors, but so what? Donate to candidates and causes. Find the courage to speak up where you can. That this advice is obvious doesn’t mean it doesn’t bear repeating.
Electing people who say the “ right things” rarely translates into being able and disciplined enough to make the requisite enormous changes to reverse course.
Saying “ I’ll drain the swamp” is a slogan not a plan.
The only one on the Rep side who laid out detailed plans ( both legal and practical) to accomplish the goals was Ramaswamy. Trump would do well to make him Chief of Staff and give him the room to act, and give him a guarantee that he won’t be fired on a Trump whim or temper tantrum.
RFK jr is too left for many , but he too is smart, methodical and disciplined.He could reform The FDA, NIH, CDC etc
At this point, I'm still planning on voting for RFK Jr. That could conceivably change under the right conditions, but I have voted third party many times before, and I have to answer to my own conscience, not to anyone else's.
The country is such a bad way( the debt is the biggest threat) that it would be so good if the best talent- thinkers could coalesce , agree on the top 5-10 priorities and map out concrete plans to accomplish the goals. ( Ramaswamy, Chris Rufo, Leor Dapir, Jay Bhattarcharyea, Jed Rubenfeld and others who genuinely care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Anyone voting for RFK jr shocks me after his sellout choice of a Vice President. To vote for a ticket that supports the social justice DA system that is strongly favored by the likes of Soros and Shanahan is closing their eyes to the damage that can happen in areas far beyond LA.
For all the times that It has been written that California deserves the chaos that it voted into office, it is interesting that the CA crazy chaos is being embraced by others. If the DOJ is a horrible mess now be ready to embrace an idiot like Gascon or Price. The results will be so horrific that one cannot shrug and say that a country that voted for this deserves the calamity.
I'd argue that she is no worse than Kamala Harris or JD Vance. I'd still prefer a better choice but it's not like any of the VP candidates are strong. None of them is someone I'd like to see become President. But then, Kennedy is the least likely of the three to die in office so the Shanahan pick matters less.
Ask yourself if her policies were put in place in your community would you accept her smirking and self serving enlightenment and vote for her. She supported Gascon and opposed the recall of Gascon after witnessing how destructive the policies were and the harm they caused. Shanahan is a prized cow safe in a gated community placidly watching the wolves devour the herd.
The SCOTUS ruling yesterday in a critical case on government pressuring , threatening tech platforms to censor us, is so distressing I can’t think about much else. It will facilitate the USA slide into tyranny.
In yesterday’s case both lower courts had no issue with the plaintiffs’ standing whatsoever. The same thing can and may happen in Berenson’s case. If he prevails in the lower court m the Government will definitely appeal to SCOTUS who has emboldened them to resume their coercive malign censorship just months before the national election!
The issue of standing is nebulous. One has to show damages. Since when are damages strictly financial? Some ( like Kheriarty) did lose jobs. It the damages are the acts government censorship themselves. It damaged each plaintiffs right to be heard as well as the citizens’ right to hear them.
Is Alex Berenson at the SCOTUS yet or stlill at a lower court?
There are people who have the power to stop it. Unfortunately, they are, for the most part, psychopaths who have become extremely wealthy under the existing system and will become wealthier the longer it continues.
The husband of the most powerful and influential Democrat in the country started a hedge fund to manage his wife's insider trading. A Republican who may be on the short list for VP, who couldn't land a job at any law firm in Florida, took a $27,000 a year position in the state legislature and wound up with over $60 million in real estate. Getting elected to the Big Chair pretty much guarantees hundreds of millions in post-Presidency income.
Why would the people we put in charge want to change anything? Why would they allow anyone who would change things to have a chance to do so?
I can actually get why there are people who think the only answer is to tear everything down. I might even be on their side if they proposed a single thing that would be better than what it replaced. But since they propose nothing beyond throwing the baby out with the bath water they're even worse than what we've got.
Here's how we fix it - stop doing what they tell us to do. Stop voting for who they tell us to vote for. Stop accepting the things they tell us out of hand, that things have to be the way they are. Stop trusting the powers that be simply because not trusting them is too scary to think about.
If we keep entrusting our interests to people who don't have our best interests at heart we're going to keep getting screwed.
A great topic (as always), but the problem is so monumental that I can only hazard that the solution is a spiritual one, grounded in humility and integrity. The trouble is that such solutions (I suspect) can only come about in the wake of catastrophe.
That is what I fear as well. And that is certainly what the dedicated Leftists want to cause--a catastrophe that will collapse Western Civilization, so they can build their "utopia" on its ashes. But their belief that they will be the only ones left standing to (re)build a civilization is naïve at best. Particularly since they have become buddies with the Islamists, who have a very, very different idea that the Leftists do about what such a civilization should look like.
i think those on the Left has a delusion that somehow, because they're the "good guys" "on the right side of history", that they can give those in their own camp leeways to commit any violation--be in censorship, racism (anti-Zonism, racism against conservative blacks), or even rape (Bill Clinton, Roman Polanski)--because somehow, people on their side would never really, really let things go out of hand. This delusion is how they end up embracing males in female locker rooms, prisons, and shelters. Because somehow, it would ever really really come to violent men using the loophole to enter female spaces to harm women. Or that they'll really really let very violent criminals get away with crimes. Or that they'll really really let the cartels flood our border with violent drug dealers and human traffickers. Surely someone in charge will do something if things get out of hand.
They're so sure of their own righteousness that they can't even see it when they've completely lost the plot and things in facts have gotten crazy out of hand. So they absolutely don't see themselves as destroying their own civilization (except for the leftist anarchists who are openly saying that's what they want. But your standard-issue liberal still somehow think those anarchists don't really really mean it. And if they do, someone in charge will put a stop to it, even when there's no one in charge anymore and the insane are running the asylum. I'm not sure who they think that mythical someone in their camp might be.)
I don't recall such rank stupidity that we see in our current government as being part of the Soviet experience. Also, our current government officials and unelected bureaucrats are so far removed from the values held by the average American. That is the scary part and I don't see it reversing anytime soon.
One similarity is that the ruling class in both instances set themselves apart from the average citizen - they know better; they deserve more.
I think that is very, very Soviet like though. The Soviet experiment did not fail because it was Soviet. It failed because it was very, very bad policy. Brought to fruition by people who viewed themselves as elite.
The most important point Celia has made is the utter propaganda and corruption or the MSM. Purely propaganda machines for the democrat party. That is the tragedy we face today.
Agree. Reading an article about the attack on Jews going to their synagogue by pro Hamas crowd which concluded with quoting Hamas reported number of fatalities and displacements. As if there was to be an “Ah-ha moment” where the reader could understand why the rioters were justified for attacking civilians. It is the quiet and deliberate use of lies to shape a view point.
People from the Soviet Union and Russia comment that it was regarded as naive to believe the articles in the regime’s news and are surprised that Americans are not equally skeptical of news articles.
I'm sure there were always "true believers" in the Soviet ideology. But it required being a lot more delusional--after having suffered so much under that system--than mainstream Americans are quite yet. There are still too many people who think the MSM is telling the truth instead of acting as Leftist activists. Not that there aren't plenty of *truly* delusional people out there on the Left.
It may take another generation or two to reverse the sovietization. I saw it happen first with underground economy, samizdat (underground press), students, unions, leaders (including religious). “History rhymes” Mark Twain.
Not in this much control. It began in earnest in the 60s., and those in college at that time became the teachers of those in college and the parents of the studnets in this century and the whole mess kept perpetrating itself until we are where we are now. The French settled it with pitch forks and today it would be citizens with weapons against the govt. with planes, tanks, and a large military force. No contest. The only real hope of change is through the ballot box and would take a candidate with a far reaching vision who knew how to implement it without alienating half of the population. Unfortuneatly, this year, neither candidate is that person. If you live or travel outside you US, you will see that people are asking, what happened to the US. We were held in high esteem and look up to as the way a country should be run. Today, many people are looking to China for stability, both economically and politically. They see the organization in China and the chaos in the US and think that organization is better than chaos. Most people want a stable life and aren't that concerned about what the govt. is doing. As long as they can eat, have place to live, a decent job, their children have access to education and decent health care for all without going into debt, they are relatively content.
It seems that Russia and China morphed into some hybrid totalitarian forms. Some economic indicators show potential disasters in China, i.e., real estate, banking. Historically, wars are temporary solutions. That’s the scary part - are we getting closer to one where martyr country (Iran) can start a nuclear exchange.
Yes, Iran, who just signed a treaty with Russia, could be Russia's proxy for starting a war, then Russia could say, "It ain't me babe, it ain't me you're lookin' for babe." At this point, China seems to be the only major player who hasn't used proxys to start wars. I think that China would go to war if they were sure of winning, so that would have to be against a smaller country like Taiwan. The Chinese are very calculating, Russia and Iran and NK. are more impulsive.
And although Putin's Russia is a big improvement over the Soviet Union, it still suffers from a variety of problems (including Putin himself).
Of course, we are starting with a different baseline and historical national character. But it's also possible that we are still back in 1915 (relatively speaking).
There are reasons for hope and causes for despair. Our current negative trajectory is our destiny only if we let it be. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing." Bewailing our fate only reinforces moral inertia; changing the trend requires that each of us take purposeful action to correct our course.
As a PS, our Sestercentennial "celebration" will be a telling indicator of what will happen for the next decade or so.
Common sense has left the country.
There’s a story in the Idaho daily mistaken, our leftist McClatchy rag, about how libraries around the state are in a tizzy to comply with the new state law that says people can challenge the placement of materials for children and young people. Oh the horror of it all. What to do what to do.
And the overlying theme is the far right is just awful, I mean seriously, how can books showing pictures of how a boy can suck off another boys penis not be appropriate for children? Why oh why do they have to be shielded from such important information?
When their reaction could be should be - you know, these books should not be out in the open. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the library using tax money at all but if parents want their kids to see them, they can buy them.
No common sense at all.
The whole hysteria about "book-banning" is kind of a tell. Sort of like when Leftists complain that harsher laws against pedophilia will "endanger gays." The baseline assumption for the latter complaint is that gay people are pedophiles...which they spent years assuring us *isn't* true. The reality is that the only people "endangered" are pedophiles (of whatever sexual preference).
The baseline assumption for calling challenges to sexually explicit books in school libraries "book-banning" is that children *ought* to exposed to sexually explicit books. That is *literally* what these people are saying when they call this "book-banning."
Books about sexuality have a legitimate place, but it isn't in children's libraries. When I, as a young teen, wanted to read more about sex, I was able to go to the non-fiction section in the main collection of our city library. But I had to be 12-ish to go upstairs to the main collection. The children's collection was downstairs and had its own separate entrance. Children's library cards were red. You didn't get the coveted pink library card until you completed the 6th grade.
For anyone on X I urge you to follow a gay conservative Chad Felix Greene@chadfelixg
About 4-5 days ago he posted a fascinating and honest thread about the LGBTQ culture he grew up in and how adults having sex with young teen boys is an accepted and expected part of that culture.
It was an eye opening read for many reasons.
Pedophilia as a legal definition is sex with a legally defined minor.
Most people see a distinction between adults who engage in sex and sexual behaviors with very young pre pubescent children differently than adults having sex with post pubertal teenagers.
Both are illegal
Please find the thread and read it. It is long. It is important .
If I knew how to link to it I would
Remember NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association). Now they're under the umbrella of LGTBTQ+++++
Here's a link to Chad Felix Greene's thread on X https://twitter.com/chadfelixg/status/1804690794659361156
Then there is this. Be warned however.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/06/26/zulock-tentative-trial-n2638642
The antics these two bastards are engaging in to try to get off for their crimes are sickening.
Ours is the Austin Un-American Statesman as we call it. I think you are right though. Add to that the shift left in the American television experience and voila. The self-proclaimed elites look down their noses at television then hoover up streaming services. Television went left more than a decade ago. But the streaming services are nothing but. I recently streamed all three seasons of Designated Survivor. It started on network television and for those two seasons was decent enough. But it was cancelled and Netflix picked it up for the 3rd at which point it became all POC (including the poor, poor Muslims), trans and demonization of conservatives all the time. I can't unsee it but it illustrated to me in a fictional setting exactly the mindset so pervasive in our society at this place and point in time.
I only stream British and Australian tv basically. Yes it’s got some leftist things but it isn’t flat out stupid like American tv. Sure are a lot of murders there though.
Yeah, the British seem obsessed with serial killers - and most of their shows are extremely voyeuristic about it, as well. But don't forget that there is no non-government owned television in the UK. Or Canada. I don't know about Australia, but I suspect they follow the same template. So I guess it's a trade-off between "flat out stupid" and "what the Govt wants to let you watch". Some choice.
(I choose neither).
If you haven't yet, you should really watch Doc Martin. Hilarious family friendly fun and no woke preachiness.
Seen it
I am new to streaming. The most violent content I see is Spanish.
Some of the Israeli shows are pretty violent too. Fauda is a very good window into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Blackspace is about a school shooting.
Thanks for the rec.
Fauda was good but you need Netflix.
They decided to do another Fauda series after 10-7 massacre.
Yeah, I know... I still use Amazon too.
This was a very trenchant post - kudos Celia!
My pet peeve is the "health care" industry. Doctors more trained in DEI than medicine. Big pharma peddling dangerous products and products designed to combat the "diseases" caused by our horrible diets. And big insurance, with overpaid CEOs, selling bogus, expensive plans that cover almost nothing. This all has to be re-thought. Nothing but a giant kleptocracy that harms working Americans.
The Free Press did not even bother to mention the SCOTUS ruling yesterday.
Readers defending censorship very stridently on TFree Press comments this morning truly baffles me. Adults who want censorship on a “ news site” baffles me . It is difficult to understand where they are coming from.
Not one of us denies Bari Weiss’ right to start censoring on her platform . However it doesn’t explain why the silent sneaky implementation of the policy or the rules or who is doing the censoring.Most importantly it doesn’t explain why she is doing it at all? Why the reversal on her free speech stance .She made herself a public person with loud views on free speech , courage to stand strong for one’s beliefs, her position on the importance of diversity of ideas.
Dark times for the First Amendment
You might post a similar reply to that dingbat who keeps stamping his feet that Bari's has the right to censor according to Substack rules. Of course she has the right. There are many things we have the right to do. But the right to do something hardly make it "right."
Slavery used to be legal.
I thought about responding to that idiot, but I saw that he would never stop repeating the same stupidity I decided against it.
I have no patience for blithering stupidity. What is wrong with people like him?
I have come to the conclusion in recent years that it's useless to argue with people who are fixated on false and/or stupid ideas. You cannot change their minds with rational discussion. The only reasonable approach is to not engage further. Let them have their last word. Those who are capable of recognizing the stupidity can do so for themselves. Those who can't are not worth the energy.
What's wrong with people like that is that the lefties are convinced only they are right and people like YOU are idiots who need to shut up and sit down. Cuz you're dangerous and a threat to democracy. They don't understand why YOU can't see this.
My objection is that this person never addressed the substance of why readers are disappointed and upset with the censorship, but kept repeating “ you agreed to it “ and she is legally allowed to do it” 2 statement Td that no one disputes.
Similarly with other far left positions, they never engage on substance, they lie and bully, and name call. There is no discussion with many of them. They really have to be defeated and ousted from power
They are stupid. You can't fix stupid.
It is not the censoring I object too. It is suckering me in with assertions to the contrary. Methinks she did protest too much. Until she was hunky-dory with it.
The dissenting opinion was strongly worded and made it clear the evidence was vast that our government did coerce the platforms. This was one of those “thrown out on a technicality” kind of thing at first glance. It was a missed opportunity but I think at least two of the holdouts were sending a message to plaintiffs for a stronger more airtight case to come before the court. The violation is unarguable. They just need to tighten things up.
When I listened to the oral arguments I was disappointed in the plaintiff lawyers’ performance.Thecsystem is so broken. These plaintiffs had to fundraise a fortune to bring this important case against the government who has endless tax payer dollars to fight against we the people. It is perverse. The First Amendment is there to protect us from government overreach , not to protect the government.
I saw a very thoughtful comment on Matt Tabibi's Substack yesterday explaining that this ruling, though not great, didn't end the actual case which is making its way through the courts and has a much stronger chance of being addressed in a way that strengthens free speech. I am going to hold out hope for that.
Insurance needs to be disentangled from employment and people put on a level playing field. Why the hell government can mandate employers to provide health insurance is beyond me. SCOTUS needs to fix the hideous commerce clause rulings of the past to reign in federal power.
The one group you left out of the health care arena are the PBMs, artificially jacking up prices.
I have been thinking along these lines for quite some time now. I do not know what you call the modern American system. It is not quite a plutarchy or an oligarchy, although there are elements of both. It really is just a massive, bloated self-perpetuating bureaucracy. Sort of Les Miserables ish. And the media situation reminds me of French tradition too. Remember the 4th Estate resulted not only in the French Revolution but also the mob rule/anarchy which replaced the monarchy and ultimately Napolean. While the little guy was not all bad I find no merit in dictatorship, beneficial or otherwise. But really modern America is more akin to fuedalism - thousands and thousands of little autocratic ruling their fiefdoms and paying liege to their overlords in the form of political "donations". All while perceiving themselves as "elite". We need a new circle of hell for anyone who perceives themselves as elite based on their sheepskin, their address, their party affiliation, ... . And unlike you I see little hope this morning for free speech, on Substack or anywhere else. The substack I left recently and where many of us "met" was basically a bait and switch. And the Supreme Court decision on the Biden administration's suppression of speech yesterday was a serious blow to freedom from censorship. Everybody - you, me, and every other citizen - had standing to complain. Denial of that renders the Twitter files virtually meaningless as it cloaks the very offensive actions in approval.
I've heard our current system described as 'technofeudalism.'
“Everyone can see the disaster coming, yet no one seems to have the power to stop it.”
That’s right. No “one” can stop it. But enough voters coalescing behind enough of the right candidates can stop it. Can reverse the trend. This is why the 2024 election is so important. We who see the disaster coming have to be motivated to take action, starting with our votes. And not only that, keep showing up at school board and city council meetings to be heard on the issues. Post yard signs that might annoy some neighbors, but so what? Donate to candidates and causes. Find the courage to speak up where you can. That this advice is obvious doesn’t mean it doesn’t bear repeating.
Electing people who say the “ right things” rarely translates into being able and disciplined enough to make the requisite enormous changes to reverse course.
Saying “ I’ll drain the swamp” is a slogan not a plan.
The only one on the Rep side who laid out detailed plans ( both legal and practical) to accomplish the goals was Ramaswamy. Trump would do well to make him Chief of Staff and give him the room to act, and give him a guarantee that he won’t be fired on a Trump whim or temper tantrum.
RFK jr is too left for many , but he too is smart, methodical and disciplined.He could reform The FDA, NIH, CDC etc
Ramaswamy was my preferred candidate.
At this point, I'm still planning on voting for RFK Jr. That could conceivably change under the right conditions, but I have voted third party many times before, and I have to answer to my own conscience, not to anyone else's.
The country is such a bad way( the debt is the biggest threat) that it would be so good if the best talent- thinkers could coalesce , agree on the top 5-10 priorities and map out concrete plans to accomplish the goals. ( Ramaswamy, Chris Rufo, Leor Dapir, Jay Bhattarcharyea, Jed Rubenfeld and others who genuinely care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Wishful thinking I’m sure
Anyone voting for RFK jr shocks me after his sellout choice of a Vice President. To vote for a ticket that supports the social justice DA system that is strongly favored by the likes of Soros and Shanahan is closing their eyes to the damage that can happen in areas far beyond LA.
For all the times that It has been written that California deserves the chaos that it voted into office, it is interesting that the CA crazy chaos is being embraced by others. If the DOJ is a horrible mess now be ready to embrace an idiot like Gascon or Price. The results will be so horrific that one cannot shrug and say that a country that voted for this deserves the calamity.
What was he supposed to do? He needs money. Biden has 3 billion dollars behind him.
No doubt he got a cash cow. Justify a poor choice because the candidate needs money but that is a slippery slope.
I'd argue that she is no worse than Kamala Harris or JD Vance. I'd still prefer a better choice but it's not like any of the VP candidates are strong. None of them is someone I'd like to see become President. But then, Kennedy is the least likely of the three to die in office so the Shanahan pick matters less.
I was alarmed at first, but I finally read that she has, in fact, come to her senses, after years of being a Wokie.
Ask yourself if her policies were put in place in your community would you accept her smirking and self serving enlightenment and vote for her. She supported Gascon and opposed the recall of Gascon after witnessing how destructive the policies were and the harm they caused. Shanahan is a prized cow safe in a gated community placidly watching the wolves devour the herd.
The SCOTUS ruling yesterday in a critical case on government pressuring , threatening tech platforms to censor us, is so distressing I can’t think about much else. It will facilitate the USA slide into tyranny.
Only due to standing. Alex Berenson has standing and he’s suing Biden too so don’t give up all hope.
Battacharrya and Kennedy were censored by name and found to have no standing. I am not optimistic.
Alex Berensons case is still in the lower court.
In yesterday’s case both lower courts had no issue with the plaintiffs’ standing whatsoever. The same thing can and may happen in Berenson’s case. If he prevails in the lower court m the Government will definitely appeal to SCOTUS who has emboldened them to resume their coercive malign censorship just months before the national election!
The issue of standing is nebulous. One has to show damages. Since when are damages strictly financial? Some ( like Kheriarty) did lose jobs. It the damages are the acts government censorship themselves. It damaged each plaintiffs right to be heard as well as the citizens’ right to hear them.
Is Alex Berenson at the SCOTUS yet or stlill at a lower court?
Obviously the government has been taking many lessons from China. :(
There are people who have the power to stop it. Unfortunately, they are, for the most part, psychopaths who have become extremely wealthy under the existing system and will become wealthier the longer it continues.
The husband of the most powerful and influential Democrat in the country started a hedge fund to manage his wife's insider trading. A Republican who may be on the short list for VP, who couldn't land a job at any law firm in Florida, took a $27,000 a year position in the state legislature and wound up with over $60 million in real estate. Getting elected to the Big Chair pretty much guarantees hundreds of millions in post-Presidency income.
Why would the people we put in charge want to change anything? Why would they allow anyone who would change things to have a chance to do so?
I can actually get why there are people who think the only answer is to tear everything down. I might even be on their side if they proposed a single thing that would be better than what it replaced. But since they propose nothing beyond throwing the baby out with the bath water they're even worse than what we've got.
Here's how we fix it - stop doing what they tell us to do. Stop voting for who they tell us to vote for. Stop accepting the things they tell us out of hand, that things have to be the way they are. Stop trusting the powers that be simply because not trusting them is too scary to think about.
If we keep entrusting our interests to people who don't have our best interests at heart we're going to keep getting screwed.
I figured out who the husband hedge fund manager is..... but, please tell me who the republican $60 million real estate mogul is.
Marco Rubio.
A great topic (as always), but the problem is so monumental that I can only hazard that the solution is a spiritual one, grounded in humility and integrity. The trouble is that such solutions (I suspect) can only come about in the wake of catastrophe.
That is what I fear as well. And that is certainly what the dedicated Leftists want to cause--a catastrophe that will collapse Western Civilization, so they can build their "utopia" on its ashes. But their belief that they will be the only ones left standing to (re)build a civilization is naïve at best. Particularly since they have become buddies with the Islamists, who have a very, very different idea that the Leftists do about what such a civilization should look like.
i think those on the Left has a delusion that somehow, because they're the "good guys" "on the right side of history", that they can give those in their own camp leeways to commit any violation--be in censorship, racism (anti-Zonism, racism against conservative blacks), or even rape (Bill Clinton, Roman Polanski)--because somehow, people on their side would never really, really let things go out of hand. This delusion is how they end up embracing males in female locker rooms, prisons, and shelters. Because somehow, it would ever really really come to violent men using the loophole to enter female spaces to harm women. Or that they'll really really let very violent criminals get away with crimes. Or that they'll really really let the cartels flood our border with violent drug dealers and human traffickers. Surely someone in charge will do something if things get out of hand.
They're so sure of their own righteousness that they can't even see it when they've completely lost the plot and things in facts have gotten crazy out of hand. So they absolutely don't see themselves as destroying their own civilization (except for the leftist anarchists who are openly saying that's what they want. But your standard-issue liberal still somehow think those anarchists don't really really mean it. And if they do, someone in charge will put a stop to it, even when there's no one in charge anymore and the insane are running the asylum. I'm not sure who they think that mythical someone in their camp might be.)
I don't recall such rank stupidity that we see in our current government as being part of the Soviet experience. Also, our current government officials and unelected bureaucrats are so far removed from the values held by the average American. That is the scary part and I don't see it reversing anytime soon.
One similarity is that the ruling class in both instances set themselves apart from the average citizen - they know better; they deserve more.
They aren't stupid. They are getting rich.
I think that is very, very Soviet like though. The Soviet experiment did not fail because it was Soviet. It failed because it was very, very bad policy. Brought to fruition by people who viewed themselves as elite.
The most important point Celia has made is the utter propaganda and corruption or the MSM. Purely propaganda machines for the democrat party. That is the tragedy we face today.
Agree. Reading an article about the attack on Jews going to their synagogue by pro Hamas crowd which concluded with quoting Hamas reported number of fatalities and displacements. As if there was to be an “Ah-ha moment” where the reader could understand why the rioters were justified for attacking civilians. It is the quiet and deliberate use of lies to shape a view point.
People from the Soviet Union and Russia comment that it was regarded as naive to believe the articles in the regime’s news and are surprised that Americans are not equally skeptical of news articles.
I'm sure there were always "true believers" in the Soviet ideology. But it required being a lot more delusional--after having suffered so much under that system--than mainstream Americans are quite yet. There are still too many people who think the MSM is telling the truth instead of acting as Leftist activists. Not that there aren't plenty of *truly* delusional people out there on the Left.
It may take another generation or two to reverse the sovietization. I saw it happen first with underground economy, samizdat (underground press), students, unions, leaders (including religious). “History rhymes” Mark Twain.
Why are you so sure it will reverse?
We may not see it but in the past, it did in some ways. Maybe it will happen on “Mars”.
In the US past? Was the far left ever this in control of all the institutions in the government and schools, universities etc?
Not in this much control. It began in earnest in the 60s., and those in college at that time became the teachers of those in college and the parents of the studnets in this century and the whole mess kept perpetrating itself until we are where we are now. The French settled it with pitch forks and today it would be citizens with weapons against the govt. with planes, tanks, and a large military force. No contest. The only real hope of change is through the ballot box and would take a candidate with a far reaching vision who knew how to implement it without alienating half of the population. Unfortuneatly, this year, neither candidate is that person. If you live or travel outside you US, you will see that people are asking, what happened to the US. We were held in high esteem and look up to as the way a country should be run. Today, many people are looking to China for stability, both economically and politically. They see the organization in China and the chaos in the US and think that organization is better than chaos. Most people want a stable life and aren't that concerned about what the govt. is doing. As long as they can eat, have place to live, a decent job, their children have access to education and decent health care for all without going into debt, they are relatively content.
It seems that Russia and China morphed into some hybrid totalitarian forms. Some economic indicators show potential disasters in China, i.e., real estate, banking. Historically, wars are temporary solutions. That’s the scary part - are we getting closer to one where martyr country (Iran) can start a nuclear exchange.
Yes, Iran, who just signed a treaty with Russia, could be Russia's proxy for starting a war, then Russia could say, "It ain't me babe, it ain't me you're lookin' for babe." At this point, China seems to be the only major player who hasn't used proxys to start wars. I think that China would go to war if they were sure of winning, so that would have to be against a smaller country like Taiwan. The Chinese are very calculating, Russia and Iran and NK. are more impulsive.
Not in US. You are right. It took years, some of us saw it happening…
And although Putin's Russia is a big improvement over the Soviet Union, it still suffers from a variety of problems (including Putin himself).
Of course, we are starting with a different baseline and historical national character. But it's also possible that we are still back in 1915 (relatively speaking).
Recently I completed a series of posts looking at possible futures in a world of crisis.
http://resilientcommunities.home.blog/2023/10/01/the-coming-crisis/
http://resilientcommunities.home.blog/2024/01/07/the-coming-crisis-a-new-age-now-begins/
http://resilientcommunities.home.blog/2024/05/24/muddling-through/
http://resilientcommunities.home.blog/2024/04/22/the-empire-strikes-back-or-revenge-of-the-woke/
http://resilientcommunities.home.blog/2024/03/01/triumph-of-the-trads/
There are reasons for hope and causes for despair. Our current negative trajectory is our destiny only if we let it be. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing." Bewailing our fate only reinforces moral inertia; changing the trend requires that each of us take purposeful action to correct our course.
As a PS, our Sestercentennial "celebration" will be a telling indicator of what will happen for the next decade or so.