epbart

That gif is a bit odd for a reply and doesn't dismiss the general premise of my reply to you:

quote:

---

Technically, Trump is in the Deep State since he formally sits at the head of it as the lead executive. Being part of it in this way does not mean he is part of it in the context of having the same agenda they do... Clearly, for anyone with an IQ above room temperature, Trump is at odds with much of the entrenched bureaucracy.

---

Toomer's contention that Trump's 2nd admin has been hijacked by parts of the Deep State that he makes further down on page 1 (there is a case for that) is a more plausible way of trying to tie Trump himself to the Deep State. Otherwise, your post was simplistic.

quote:

---

It's pretty hilarious that a lot of yall believe that:

1. The Deep State exists
2. But guys like Trump & Musk aren't apart of it

Musk is the richest man in the world and Trump is the single most powerful man in the world but they constantly get out-maneuvered by more powerful billionaires? Maybe yall should listen to those guys then.

---

1. There is a deep state to the extent certain elements / powerful groups have influenced what voices get promoted within both the R and D parties. Over time, they've filled in positions in government, and at certain elitist universities from which they recruit new talent, etc.

The system of elections has suited them well enough so long as their people get in. Notice how waves of messaging that the system itself is broken became amplified when a total outsider (Trump) pulled off the upset over Hillary. Notice how much of the Republican party (Ryan, McConnell, others) sabotaged Trump at nearly every turn.

The Deep State simply underestimated Trump's ability to be elected and to manage narratives. It doesn't help them that they overplayed their hand with terrible candidates (Kamala in particular).

2. Trump and Musk have operated alongside the Deep State for different reasons. Trump was useful so long as he was writing checks. I seem to recall at least one anecdote where Senator Gillibrand (D) in NY was more than happy to kiss Trump's arse when she wanted him to write her a check... well before he ran for President. Now, he's anathema to her. Musk was successful with PayPal and Tesla, but his SpaceX efforts in particular made him useful to the IC. So what.

Technically, Trump is in the Deep State since he formally sits at the head of it as the lead executive. Being part of it in this way does not mean he is part of it in the context of having the same agenda they do... Clearly, for anyone with an IQ above room temperature, Trump is at odds with much of the entrenched bureaucracy.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Interesting read.

There are definitely some complexities beyond the scope of this thread that implicate the West in allowing the USSR to become the monster that it became. But the USSR v US/West Cold War really did set up the stage for what the article describes.

Reading this, I'm also reminded me of something in William Cooper's Behold A Pale Horse.

Disclaimer: Of course, everything Bill Cooper said must be taken with a grain of salt... He was Alex Jones before Alex Jones.

I recall a part towards the beginning of the book (before he goes all in on aliens) where Cooper has a chapter devoted to the Executive Branch continuity plans for Cold War threat contingencies as part of the creation of the Deep State. Eisenhower, who Cooper alleges was either socially close or somehow connected to the Rockefeller's, turned towards them (to Nelson, I think... I'm just posting this off the top of my head without research and welcome any corrections) for assistance in developing those continuity plans. I think this wikipedia entry describe this committee / effort, and it looks innocent enough in this context:
wiki
Cooper, of course, contends that it led to the entrenched, parasitic bureaucracy, which became a feature of the Deep State.

The Rockefeller family is only briefly alluded to in your article here:

quote:

---

The populist grassroots masses of the Old Right were opposed in several GOP presidential elections (1936-1952) by the anglophile northeastern seaboard establishment forces within the nexus of the Morgan and Rockefeller Wall Street financial blocs.

---

But I think when you look at their contributions that influenced the government across the board, a pattern emerges:
- What was their role in helping set up the administrative state during the Eisenhower admin?
- What was their role in the formation of groups like the UN and WHO?
- the CFR and Trilateral Commission?
- What was the influence that Rockefeller had over Nixon? Per Cooper's book, Nixon was more of a true conservative from California, who was taken under the Rockefeller wing. He later accepted David Rockefeller's protege, Kissinger, who played a pretty huge role in opening the door to China (which has benefited Rockefeller, Wall Street, and international interests (UN/WHO... unironically founded by the Rockefellers as well) at the expense of Main Street and a financially healthy US). Nixon also implemented some rather leftist social policies, which I suspect was a result of Kissinger/Rockefeller associations.
- David Rockefeller was close to Allen Dulles and was allegedly briefed on CIA matters routinely:

quote:

---

In Cary Reich's biography of his brother Nelson, a former CIA agent states that David was extensively briefed on covert intelligence operations by himself and other Agency division chiefs, under the direction of David's "friend and confidant", CIA director Allen Dulles

---

wiki
(Note: In the interest of time, I'm using Wikipedia, which is a general & neutral, if not left-leaning, source, which is sufficient... and it has footnotes/citations for anyone interested in digging further.)

My overall point is that it is interesting to consider some of the above as supplementary information to your article. I think the "synthetic" conservatism described here is essentially the same as neocon "Rockefeller" Republicanism.

quote:

---

Because he’s cosplaying as Patrick Mahomes

---

quote:

---

by JakeFromStateFarm

---

How fitting

quote:

---

White people have a propensity towards falling for gaslighting and psyops. But that is equally distributed among pretty much all definable demographics. Women are biologically programmed to be ruled by emotion and compassion. That's the estrogen effect. Men are programmed to be ruled by decisive action and logic. That's the testosterone effect.

---

I just cited the following X account in another thread, but he had a post that covers this idea in a pithy way:

"Leftists use pathos to overide logos in order to push their activism. The "pity play" is a common form of this."

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

The logos is more traditionally associated with the masculine while pathos tends to have a more feminine connotation.

In an ideal world, there is a balance between mind and heart / between logos and pathos. Justice (logos) should have an appropriate level of compassion (pathos) for those it governs... but to abandon logos as the Left wants to do is the error. What they really want to do is tear down Truth and Justice (destroy Logos) in order to construct a false tower of sorts (cue Tower of Babble analogy) in which they rule.

In another context, last year I listened to Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World, and I recall (somewhat fuzzily at this point) him going on about male / Uranian / solar societies of the North which seem to align to an emphasis on logos, and how he contrasted them with what he considered corrosive feminine / chthonic (earthy, mob-driven, subconsciously oriented) / lunar societies of the South which seem driven by pathos much like today's Left. It seems applicable, but beyond pointing at the idea, I don't recall the relevant details well enough to express them here.

quote:

---

They've thought this for some time but it very rarely works if ever. The point I was making is that what they're doing now is just futile.
...
Like I say, I'm always open to hearing any side. The way things work in this country (not "should", not "supposed to") is that we're a republic. Once someone gets in and wins, they get to introduce (and probably pass) their agenda.

If you want your group to have some control over agenda and policy in this country, you ultimately have to win elections and get into office as a starting point.

So, if you want to change things and get in, you'll have to win the vote. Start by convincing me of your points. These people have no logical points to make really. As such, they won't be winning much in the near future.

---

I partially agree. I very much agree "these people" have no logical points by which they might legitimately win elections. That being said, the 2020 election suggests it may not be that simple.

If you believe the 2020 election was fairly run in GA, PA, AZ, etc. then you are correct that we live in a republic and things run well.

If, however, you are suspicious of the results of the 2020 election results and think there was a steal (I do), then the combination of the covid narrative plus the George Floyd protests created an environment where the Dems, media, IC, etc. were able to seize the narrative and push enough voters to reject Trump in favor of Biden, as well as to create enough cover to fabricate the votes they needed in order to circumvent the fair running of the republic.

Even if you don't think votes were fabricated, this still speaks to the effectiveness of the narrative and the George Floyd protests-- much of which was organized by the aforementioned NGO's, but which also drew support from mindless NPC sorts.

It would therefore seem that the Dems/Marxists absolutely benefited from the protests, and succeeded in making people discount any progress Trump was otherwise making.

I didn't have the time earlier to post an add-on thought that I had... It isn't really addressed to you and isn't contesting what you say (I'd like to generally agree with you in principle); it's just more of a continuing thought as to why some protesters bother to do what they do (the ones that don't get paid). Since I had it half-typed, I'll finish and paste below:

........

My previous post summed up the issue of the false narrative and how it's used by the left to gain power. This post pertains largely to "organic"/ genuine protestors.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that many people are experiencing a crisis of meaning these days. Life has always been hard in one way or another. Under hard circumstances, people traditionally have leaned on their identity for strength:
... I'm a man
... I'm a mother (or an independent woman)
... I'm a country boy / baw / from the streets
... I'm a Christian
... I'm an American
Etc...

Now, many of these identities are under attack. To be an American in a traditional sense is looked down upon by the left, the media, universities, and in many high paying workplaces. To take pride in being a capable man (especially a white one) is contemptible in these same circles. What even is a man or woman?! This confusion creates circumstances where young people searching for their identity and their place in the world are more easily swept up in the zeitgeist of any movement. Becoming a protestor and part of a movement-- however stupid-- gives them meaning and a place to belong... even if they're just sky screaming irrationally.

The insidious part of this is that the same people running the NGOs who fund and organize these protests are part of the same groups who have demonized the legitimate identities many of these young people might have leaned into for strength... going back to the Frankfurt school and cultural marxists like Gramsci, who observed that they needed to destroy the identity and will of any country before its people would accept Marxism.

In short, the Marxists corrupt the system to destroy healthy meaning and identity. Then they encourage participation by the youth and give them a false identity of sorts as part of their mob. Part of the effectiveness of this strategy is that it is very easy to show up with a sign and scream. It takes no intelligence or ability. But it is very apparent in watching some protestors that they feel a high level of satisfaction in abandoning any sense of true identity and just becoming part of the mindless mob. They need no discipline to do so (as they might if crafting a true identity) and are rewarded with the smug satisfaction of being able to call themselves something (a progressive, an advocate for this and that) when they may not even understand what they're standing for.

To the question of why people bother, the above idea is the issue. The fact that any given protestor accomplishes little means doesn't matter to them. They "feel" like they've acquired meaning and done something even if they haven't. It gives them a false sense that they have power, when really they're just pawns for the people who control the mob and to whom they actually give their power.

The antidote is of course supporting strong institutions (church, family, workplaces, schools, etc) where ethics and virtue are valued. If kids are supported in being disciplined and working towards creating authentic identities that cultivate their strengths and that give them a genuine identity to lean on during hard times, they will be less likely to become a marxist NPC, who will merely show up to be outraged at the next thing they're told to by their NGO / Marxist puppet masters... This would be the... I think Mamdami called it "cold" individualism (I think in an effort to avoid calling it "rugged" or some other descriptor of strength) that he wants to destroy in favor of his "warm" (read: stupid, weak) embrace of collectivism.

You're experiencing righteous anger... fueled by frustration.

It's a good sign. It means you have principles and at least a somewhat healthy soul. If things don't improve and you lose that anger, then you need to worry. As Alexander Pope put it:

quote:

---

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

---

As for the state of things, regrettably a lot of institutional rot is firmly entrenched. Trump is no savior, but his brash arrogance / confidence, and the fact that he isn't a beltway insider, is a blessing of sorts... I think he believed and still believes he can change things. I never expected to agree with all of his decisions, but he is without a doubt the best hope in the near future to right the course of the country. And I firmly believe things would be a lot worse if Hillary won in 2016, and if Kamala had just won. So, if nothing else, he's succeeded in slowing the rot-- even if it's not stopped. Also, he has ripped off some of the veneer that covers it which keeps normies soundly asleep.

Progress feels slow, but some are waking up, which is important. The more that happens... the more kids like Nick Sortor feel empowered to stand up and try to change things; and that we have his back and amplify his voice and show that we care; and that we hopefully find our own niche in which we can make a difference, the better it will be for all of us.

I hope you remain angry in the short term, fren. I, and many on here, are as well.

quote:

---

I think it’s exactly what Mulkey said, it’s about toughness. Deciding you won’t be pushed around. Putting yourself in position so you don’t get knocked off your spot. Playing with more aggression and assertiveness.

---

Yeah, that's a part of what's missing. The past 2-3 years, LSU had the benefit of a couple of really tough post players in Reese and Morrow. They were a little undersized but were very effective under the goal and excelled at getting position and securing boards.

Sa'Myah Smith and Jersey Wolfenbarger weren't bangers like Reese and Morrow, but I think they both had the potential to be solid contributors this year and either one might've been the difference in changing the outcome of the last two games had they not transferred. Smith was an experienced, steady presence. Wolfenbarger was still learning to play down low (apparently she used to be a guard then had a growth spurt up to 6'5"), but when Morrow missed time last season, I think Jersey came in and was able to put up a double double once or twice herself. Her size would've directly helped against KY, and she would've provided more rim protection against Vandy, which might've impacted a few shots (though turnovers and free throws were a bigger issue in that game).

Koval and Joyner are good enough, and Knox is developing nicely, but if/when Koval gets into foul trouble, we become a little undersized... with Joyner and Knox being just 6'2" and being forwards more than centers, imho. I really wish Jersey, in particular, stayed. She wasn't a banger but she moved well, had good size, and seemed to be improving (not that I'm an expert)... and apparently she may be having some fit / consistency issues at U Tenn, so is still only getting limited minutes.

Edit to add: the lack of size makes it all the more important to play smart and tough under the basket.

I doubt Ellison would step down until convicted.

Some fast indictments would be nice though ahead of 2026 elections in the interest of somewhat neutering his ability to continue allowing the fraud to help Dems and to hurt his re-election chances... I just hope there's a decent alternative voters might consider.

quote:

---

You specifically used "histrionics" which was only to describe the argument made by a poster on here, not the post in OP.

---

Ok, let's revisit page 1 and see...

BigPerm30's one and only reply in the thread at the point in the thread where you replied to him:

quote:

---

It was a hyperbole. Clearly they didn’t spend 1000 times more because you wouldn’t be so ignorant if they did.

---

Your reply:

quote:

---

"It was hyperbole " - bigperm30

Is this the pivot when people say histrionic falsehoods?

Effectively, this renders everything else he said worthless for the same reasons, as I imagine it's all "hyperbole"

---

Breaking it down...

- bigperm30 says the X post numbers were hyperbole (incorrectly, as I've shown already since Google suggests 1000x looks conservative) and turns it into a joke by calling you ignorant.

... I don't see anything in bigperm's post that comes close to the level of histrionics. He is no more engaged in histrionics than your first reply in the thread where you say:

quote:

---

I'd like to see this data b/c G/T is under SPED. This guy clearly wasn't in Gifted.

---

Your quip that the X poster is not gifted looks very equivalent to perm's quip that you're ignorant, with both being basic shite talk-- not histrionics. If, however, perm is guilty of histrionics, then your post precededing his brought histrionics into the thread before he did, making your accusation of him engaging in it ironic.

Moving on to your reply (part 1):

quote:

---

Is this the pivot when people say histrionic falsehoods?

---

The pivot is clearly perm claiming the #s are hyperbole, but the histrionic falsehood must be the claims of the X poster since perm only makes a joke and doesn't perpetuate any potential falsehood.

If there's any doubt, you reply continues (part 2):

quote:

---

Effectively, this renders everything else he said worthless for the same reasons, as I imagine it's all "hyperbole"

---

Since Perm says absolutely nothing else in the thread to this point, your comment, "this renders everything else he said worthless for the same reasons", unavoidably points to the rest of what the X poster said... hence you did accuse the X poster of histrionics.

I did not misunderstand anything as written, though I don't rule out you may have been sloppier than you intended. Either way, the error is yours.