Auto Added by WPeMatico

Trump is making things worse – Andrew Sullivan with Sam Harris

This is a full and complete explication of Trump Derangement Syndrome by two highly articulate men who are suffering from it.

According to Harris and Sullivan, Trump is guilty of the following:

 

  • He is worsening the leftism of BLM and the extreme Left, by everything he does and is
  • He worsens the faults of all his opponents
  • He is greedy and malevolent and unaware of this deficits
  • He has denounced white supremacy in insufficiently strong terms
  • He is charcterized by extraordinary and extreme pathological narcissism,
  • Which prevented him from making objective and useful judgments about COVID
  • It is almost supernatural how he manages to skate through situations that would have torpedoed the Presidencies of anyone else
  • It is as if he were an extra-terrestrial put down among us to upset all our ideas and values
  • He is the object of a cult
  • His self confidence and psychological tenacity force those around him to accept his reality
  • It is a warlord mentality, and the capacity to pull this off is a disability on his part
  • He has the virtue of energy, and only mental illness can explain it
  • He has never spent a moment in silence or self-reflection
  • There is no governing process in his mind
  • He would need more virtues to be a more dangerous man
  • He has not sought to persuade; that would have given the persuaded some deference to their independence of mind
  • He wants to be a talk show host sitting in the Oval Office
  • He considers the entire political constitutional system to be a reality entertainment show.
  • Our judgments are objective.

The two of them are frankly in awe of a person whom they hate, or cannot figure out. “I think he has gotten into my head”, said Sullivan. Sullivan likens him to a totalitarian despot whose poster is on the walls everywhere.

Sam Harris:

“There are people who just don’t see this about him… I don’t have a theory of mind for those who don’t feel this way.”

Go to minute 43:00 of the podcast for Sullivan’s understanding why people who don’t like what the Left are doing to the United States would vote for Trump. It is as close as they get to understanding the other side, which is not close at all.

Sullivan and Harris also decry the New York Times, the Steele dossier, CNN, and the obsession with Russia-Trump collusion. It is as if their Trump derangement syndrome is rational, but the lower orders of the media are not entitled to their biases. They are alike with Scott Adams in their denunciation  of the “fine people” hoax that Trump had not sufficiently denounced white supremacy after the Charlottesville riots. They denounce the racialization being practised by the left wing media. They denounce the suppression of news regarding Hunter Biden by major news outlets.

These are two rational people who are caught on the narrow ledge afforded by reasonable views about the Left, and what I consider irrational fear of Trump. I think a lot of people are on that ledge.

And “of course” says Sulivan we should not be examining too closely the revelations from Hunter Biden’s computer about influence peddling with China and Ukraine. They go back and forth between understanding the causes why Trump was voted into power, and not understanding what he is doing to answer the constituencies that elected him.

 

 

 

 

 

Television versus Joe Rogan, and other topics

Spotify's dilemma: Censor Joe Rogan or call his podcast free speech? | National Post

 

This past week I spent a few days with friends at their cottage. They have a complete spectrum of broadcast television available, whereas I have not subscribed to cable for at least five years. During that time, I have cultivated my news and opinion sources by selecting twitter feeds, facebook friends, and youtube videos. I am not living in an outrage bubble. I see more of Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray, for instance, than talking heads. Even my favourite broadcaster, Tucker Carlson, is watched solely through the Intertubes. I have become accustomed to conversations on Triggernometry and other interview shows where questions are asked sincerely and answered comprehensively, where issues are engaged, and answers are open to debate rather than assumed to be false or true according to the Narrative – the tale the media are making up today for our consumption.

It was thus something of a shock to the system to watch reaction to the Speech From the Throne on CTV this week. I simply could not believe the rudeness of the chief Talking Head, Lisa Laflamme. Every question was a gotcha or a “when did you stop beating your wife?”. She made the current Finance Minister look good in that Chrystia Freeland answered hysterical questions with factual responses, and kept her cool throughout.

So naturally as Joe Rogan enters the world of broadcasting, he becomes the target of the hysterics and witch hunters of the MSM. The case in point this morning was a hit piece by Sadaf Ahsan, “Spotify’s dilemma: Censor Joe Rogan or call his podcast free speech?”

She writes:

“But here’s the thing: Rogan has long had a habit of spreading misinformation, sharing his own personal feelings and thoughts as facts, and he’s also a very big fan of conspiracy theories. It’s partly why he’s so popular for a very specific brand of fanboy, which Slate once generously described as “freethinkers who hate the left.”

Oh my goodness, how shocking! An opinion journalist who is sometimes wrong! And add to this the phony dilemma of whether Spotify’s staff has some role in censoring Joe Rogan, or Douglas Murray, or amy of the other thinkers who appear in Youtube. Apart from factual errors he is also accused of “transphobia” – the thought crime of insufficiently accepting that biological males are fmals when they declare themselves to be so.

Joe Rogan now draws viewership that competes seriously with entire cable TV networks.

This is from the article hyperlinked above.

  • “Joe probably gets 5-7 million views of full podcasts a day, which makes him far larger than any TV host.

  • Joe gets 200 million podcast views a month. CNN gets 330 million views a month, NBC and Fox are way bigger.

  • Factoring in Rogan clips, and media website views. Joe gets 400 million views a month. CNN 800 million, Fox 1.2 billion, 700 million for NBC. So Rogan is gigantic, but not bigger than the big media corporations. 1/2 of CNN though, and 2/3 of NBC. That’s insane.”

Other sources show cable networks drawing about 2-3 million viewers a month.( https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/)

Our busy little thought controller Sadaf Ahsan writes:

“Relatively politically liberal, Rogan has supported Bernie Sanders (though recently shifted his support to President Donald Trump), is pro-choice and believes in more social spending for the working class, but he also regularly gives right-wing commentators the space to share their ideas and often questions issues of LGBT equality. So it’s not all that surprising Rogan is loved by so many and that, as a figure who perpetuates a kind of toxic masculinity – what with his penchant for hunting, MMA fighting, and heteronormative views – he has become a beloved figure particularly in conservative circles that largely thrive online.”

 

Joe Rogan is a centrist Democrat, a male, a focused martial arts combattant, and a political liberal who likes Trump (sort of). He sounds like a quite typical American male of his generation, and he and millions more like him will secure Trump’s next term as President.

Rebel Yell rightly chides me for my naivety, in that I still think there might be some truth occasionally permitted in the MSM. Maybe there is, but the economics of slime hurling obviously provide more eyeballs than sobriety. The economic incentives of the MSM are skewed towards lies and outrage. Stay away from them.

 

 

Our Orwell, who art in Heaven

The events of the past months – murders, riots, firings for writing that all lives matter, statue shattering – reveal that the Leftist war on the past is total. The Left seeks power for ever, by erasing the past. The coverage of Trump’s speech before the Mount Rushmore monument showed that patriotism is now considered by the New York Times, the Washington Post and their ilk to be white supremacy. White supremacy is touted when there has never been less chance of encountering even so much as white self-respect. White idiots are kneeling before black people seeking forgiveness. Useful idiots every one.

Faced with my incapacity to say anything sufficient to the occasion, I refer to George Orwell for relevant insights and quotations, This one is from “the Prevention of Literature”

 

“Literature has sometimes flourished under despotic regimes, but, as has
often been pointed out, the despotisms of the past were not totalitarian.
Their repressive apparatus was always inefficient, their ruling classes
were usually either corrupt or apathetic or half-liberal in outlook, and
the prevailing religious doctrines usually worked against perfectionism
and the notion of human infallibility. Even so it is broadly true that
prose literature has reached its highest levels in periods of democracy
and free speculation. What is new in totalitarianism is that its
doctrines are not only unchallengeable but also unstable. They have to be
accepted on pain of damnation, but on the other hand, they are always
liable to be altered on a moment’s notice. Consider, for example, the
various attitudes, completely incompatible with one another, which an
English Communist or “fellow-traveler” has had to adopt toward the war
between Britain and Germany. For years before September, 1939, he was
expected to be in a continuous stew about “the horrors of Nazism” and to
twist everything he wrote into a denunciation of Hitler: after September,
1939, for twenty months, he had to believe that Germany was more sinned
against than sinning, and the word “Nazi”, at least as far as print went,
had to drop right out of his vocabulary. Immediately after hearing the 8
o’clock news bulletin on the morning of June 22, 1941, he had to start
believing once again that Nazism was the most hideous evil the world had
ever seen. Now, it is easy for the politician to make such changes: for a
writer the case is somewhat different. If he is to switch his allegiance
at exactly the right moment, he must either tell lies about his
subjective feelings, or else suppress them altogether. In either case he
has destroyed his dynamo. Not only will ideas refuse to come to him, but
the very words he uses will seem to stiffen under his touch. Political
writing in our time consists almost entirely of prefabricated phrases
bolted together like the pieces of a child’s Meccano set. It is the
unavoidable result of self-censorship. To write in plain, vigorous
language one has to think fearlessly, and if one thinks fearlessly one
cannot be politically orthodox. It might be otherwise in an “age of
faith”, when the prevailing orthodoxy has long been established and is
not taken too seriously. In that case it would be possible, or might be
possible, for large areas of one’s mind to remain unaffected by what one
officially believed. Even so, it is worth noticing that prose literature
almost disappeared during the only age of faith that Europe has ever
enjoyed. Throughout the whole of the Middle Ages there was almost no
imaginative prose literature and very little in the way of historical
writing; and the intellectual leaders of society expressed their most
serious thoughts in a dead language which barley altered during a
thousand years.

Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an
age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure
becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost
its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a
society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become
either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the
truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary
creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not
have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain
ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another
impossible for literary purposes. Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy
–or even two orthodoxies, as often happens–good writing stops. This
was well illustrated by the Spanish civil war. To many English
intellectuals the war was a deeply moving experience, but not an
experience about which they could write sincerely. There were only two
things that you were allowed to say, and both of them were palpable lies:
as a result, the war produced acres of print but almost nothing worth
reading.”

The Prosecution of Naomi Seibt

Greta Thunberg.jpg

Greta Thunberg

 

The prosecution of Naomi Seibt by the Ministry of Truth in North-Rhine Westphalia indicates just how rough the Left will play in suppressing climate skepticism of the most reasonable kind.

Repeat daily: science is not a doctrine but a process of inquiry into one’s own premisses.

Christopher Monckton reviews the case here in WattsUpWithThat.

Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian, compares and contrasts the treatment of Greta Thunberg and Naomi Seibt here.

The Narrative

I shall never forget the anecdote by Malcolm Muggeridge who was speaking of an early version of the Narrative back in the 1930s, when he worked for the Guardian. Unsure of a position that the paper was supposed to take, he shouted down the hall at his editor and asked: “What’s our position on corporal punishment?”. His editor rolled his chair to the doorway and said: “Same as capital punishment, only more so”.

Out of the myriad of daily events, the Narrative is the simple story plucked out for attention. For example, blacks kill whites every day in the United States, and it isn’t part of the Narrative. Blacks kill even more blacks every day than they do whites, by far, and that isn’t part of the Narrative, either. But if the police kill a black man, that is part of the Narrative, and it will never be let go, because the Narrative says that most black males are being killed by white police, even though the Narrative never says so in plain terms. The reader is left to infer it – because it is not true and can be shown not to be true.

Dean Baquet

Slate magazine reports that Dean Baquet, senior editor of the New York Times, assembled the entire news staff and announced that he has shifted the line on Trump for the next few years from Trump, agent of Putin to Trump, racist.

Baquet is speaking: “Race in the next year—and I think this is, to be frank, what I would hope you come away from this discussion with—race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration. And I think that one of the things I would love to come out of this with is for people to feel very comfortable coming to me and saying, here’s how I would like you to consider telling that story. “

And later in the talk to staff:

” I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years. “

I do not think that enough attention has been paid to this event. The announcement by Baquet tells us that the Narrative is supreme guide to what will be covered and how, what will be called “news”, what the focus will be. There is no better indication of the truth of Thomas Jefferson’s statement that ‘man who read nothing at all would be better informed than a man who read newspapers’. But more than this, it shows that, in the environment in which we live, our media have been caught overtly deciding the interpretation to be given to news, if news is the right term for what is published by the New York Times.

As usual, Steve Sailer has an excellent piece on the Narrative in TakiMag.

Enjoy your news, people, it is as contrived as you have suspected.