Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Trump Under Fire From Within G.O.P. After Midterms *Trump Threatens to Reveal Unflattering Information About DeSantis if He Runs*The Trump-DeSantis Feud Just Got Worse
From whence this sudden love and hype from the Marxist Media for the very conservative and just re-elected Governor of Florida, Ronald DeSantis? Also joining the “DeSantis is the Future” parade are certain luminaries of the Conservative Inc. talkacracy and some “conservative” Republicans. The spin of these shysters — be they from the Left or the controlled Right — goes something like this: “Election 2022 was a disaster for Trump but a great triumph for DeSantis. It’s time to move on past Election Denial and look to the future.”
Of course, the real agenda here is to get rid of Trump. Even if DeSantis is “legit,” he is simply not the force of nature that Trump is, and therefore, would be easier to defeat (especially after alienating Trump loyalists) or at least easier to control. DeSantis’s role in this manufactured “feud” is not clear. He may be an innocent party — or he may be secretly working with Trump (the man who made him) — or he may have developed higher ambitions of his own now. But as for Trump, it seems obvious to us that he is once again baiting his internal enemies (who never seem to learn any lessons) into yet another mole hunt — not unlike the great smoke-em-out of post-January 6th.
On consecutive days, the “conservative” New York Post exalted DeSantis (DeFuture) and then proclaimed the end of “Trumpty Dumpty.”
1. “Conservative” Ben Shapiro (cough cough) wasted no time in blaming Trump for the “disaster” which actually flipped the House for MAGA and probably the Senate too. // 2. Make-believe Trumper Mike Cernovich flipped quickly as well, telling 1 Million Twitter followers: “The country doesn’t care about the 2020 election. Trump can’t move on, oh well. Bye. We don’t have to suck up to him anymore.” // 3. Kayleigh McEnany (Trump’s former press secretary & current FOX News star) said that DeSantis should be invited to campaign for Herschel Walker for the Georgia runoff in December, but would not say if Trump should be. (here)
It was Trump who initiated the “feud” by referring to DeSantis as “DeSanctimonious” at one of his rallies. The comment surprised and confused the audience because DeSantis is highly regarded in MAGAland, and he has never given any indication that he opposes Trump. Like a cat foolishly chasing a laser pointer, the Deep State took Trump’s bait and created the “Trump-DeSantis” split which, like every other “get Trump” initiative, will also fail because Trump was behind it all along.
In the meantime, never forget what The Donald said to Charlie Rose on his PBS show way back in 1992:
“I used to say that someday I’d like to maybe lose everything for a period of time, just to see who is loyal and who is not loyal... You can’t guess it. You really can’t predict it. You think certain people would be loyal no matter what, and it turns out that they are not.”
“I’m so loyal to people, that when somebody is slightly disloyal to me, I look upon it as a great act of horror…… I love getting even with people. Given the opportunity, I will get even with people who are disloyal to me.” Let us see what other ambitious scoundrels, cowardly weaklings and hidden traitors will imprudently hop aboard the DeSantis 2024 bandwagon in the coming weeks and months.
1. Trump’s laser pointer makes the media cats do whatever he wants them to do. // 2. Trump, 1992: “You really can’t predict it. You think certain people would be loyal no matter what, and it turns out that they are not.” (video here)
In the movie ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’ the well regarded district attorney Harvey Dent makes a statement that has since woven itself into our popular culture to the point that we often hear it quoted as if it was said by some ancient philosopher. He noted:
“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
The most predictable interpretation of this is that there is a fine line between doing good and doing evil with the best of intentions. People can start out as heroes and quickly fall to darkness in the name of serving the “greater good.” I think there is more meaning behind the quote, however.
There is also the issue of historical revision and the fact that the heroes of yesterday might be considered the terrorists of tomorrow given who is in charge of writing the history books or reporting the news. Sometimes heroes become villains through their own mistakes, other times they are just rewritten that way.
For example, today we hear constant gnashing and wailing from the political left about the “evils” of the Founding Fathers and why they should be erased or canceled from our cultural zeitgeist.
They have even attempted to revise the very foundations of American history through their “1619 Project” as they assert that no American accomplishment is valid because EVERYTHING was built around the institution of slavery.
They make no mention that slavery has been an institution in every single culture on the planet since civilization began, but that doesn’t matter to them.
The goal of the 1619 Project was to diminish or dismiss everything distinctly American, right down to the revolution that founded our nation. What they care about is the deconstruction of heroes, in part because if you can destroy the character of a hero then you might be able to also destroy what they stood for in the process. And, if you can destroy the ideals of a society, it becomes a lot easier to then control that society.
When the political left seeks to undermine the legacy of the founders they aren’t just engaging in character attacks against men who can no longer defend themselves, they are also attempting to sabotage the vision those men created – The vision of a free republic outside of the dictates of collectivism and monarchy (rule by the elites).
Obviously the Founding Fathers are no longer alive, but there are millions of people that have carried on their legacy for generations that are in fact still living to see their heroes be made into monsters through revisionism.
But the destruction of heroes goes even deeper than historical rewrites.
Leftists are also targeting the very foundations of heroic archetypes and mythologies by attacking heroic representations in our society.
They are seeking to change the nature of heroism by hijacking cultural pillars and erasing beloved stories and characters in order to “reboot” them in the image of the leftist cult.
This is usually done under the cover of “diversity and equity” as a means to obscure the true agenda. Let’s break down the tactics and motives behind this trend…
Rewriting Heroes To “Reflect Our Modern Era”
Woke ideology does not reflect our modern era in any way; it is actually a masked version of the old social models of collectivism and communism, specifically the social Marxism displayed by Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
The only difference is today we have online struggle sessions and corporations are fully onboard with the movement. When leftists claim they are fighting the system, they have no idea what this really means.
Leftists use the reflection argument all the time to justify the gutting of hero mythologies and replacing them with vapid clones. A recent example would be the latest Amazon release of their Lord Of The Rings prequel series.
I wrote about this extensively months ago in my article ‘Amazon’s Woke Lord Of The Rings Is The Death Rattle Of Social Justice Content.’
To summarize, the new Lord of The Rings is designed to spread a political message and undermine the values of the past rather than tell a meaningful organic story that pays homage to Tolkien. Amazon even released their woke Lord of The Rings on the anniversary of Tolkien’s death.
Sometimes the propaganda is subtle, and sometimes it’s a train wreck in your face.
Specifically, I examined the political left’s obsession with injecting their own Cultural Marxism into every new entertainment product as a means to saturate the media space with their ideology.
When they say they want to rehash old stories and old heroes but write them to “reflect the world of today,” what they are really doing is erasing past ideals and principles and eliminating choice.
They don’t want you to see the world from different points of view; you are only allowed to see it from THEIR point of view. This is the exact opposite of good story telling.
Diversity As A Crutch And A Cudgel
Diversity is meaningless. It serves no purpose in terms of heroic representations. People identify with actions and deeds and principles, not skin color.
Leftists in Hollywood do not actually care about diversity of skin color, they only care about two things – Using minorities as a crutch to justify poor storytelling and lazy productions, and using minorities as a cudgel or weapon when they face criticism.
That is to say, when they make garbage media with no imagination or effort, they announce “we got diversity, though,” and this is supposed to make you want to watch their products anyway, otherwise you might be “racist.”
By extension, when you dare to criticize the political pontificating and terrible writing in their media, they can then say “our stories are fantastic, you just don’t like us because we hire brown people.” See how that works?
They use minorities as a shield, either for their ineptitude or their malicious intent, but they DO NOT care about such people if they can’t exploit them.
“Diversity and inclusion” is the new slave plantation that leftist elites in Hollywood use to farm virtue points and ESG loans.
That’s all there is to it. If they actually respected the idea of presenting diverse heroes, they would create original minority heroes and write them well.
Or, they would pick minority heroes from real history and avoid implanting current day woke politics into that era.
Narcissists Can’t Write Heroes
It has long been my contention that the leftist ideology is rooted in appeals to narcissism. Everything about it is based in entitlement rather than sacrifice. It is based in demands for special treatment rather than respect for accomplishment and merit. It is based in equity of outcome while eliminating equality of opportunity.
A person that has embraced the victim mentality can never be a hero or imagine how a hero would act. They have no relationship to the concept, because narcissists are usually villains in the real world and villains tend to see themselves as victims while they spend their time victimizing others. How else can they justify the evils they do?
No Conservative Heroes Allowed
As our media world was overrun with woke ideologues over the years the depictions of heroes and villains have become utterly twisted. Heroes act selfishly with ego and hubris, and villains are usually depicted as either misunderstood people that are only reacting to the trespasses of society, or they are ridiculous exaggerations of conservatives and liberty activists.
This trend has become an epidemic in films, television, video games, comic books, etc. Only in the past couple of years has there been mass push-back against the agenda, but there is a long way to go before things can change for the better.
Many of these woke productions fail miserably, but they aren’t necessarily interested in box office success or making money.
Again, what they care about is saturation, as well as murdering the hero archetype openly where everyone can see.
They want to destroy your heroes in front of you and replace them with woke pod people. This is what drives them.
The biggest problem is that most conservatives ignored the culture war while only focusing on fleeting political battles. They acted as if the culture war didn’t matter, and in the process we have almost lost our country completely.
Future generations need heroic ideals and examples to live by, among real live people as well as in popular media. By ignoring the culture war, conservatives ignored the future.
There are some people out there that are working to change our country’s course by producing original media with a heroic message based in American foundations of freedom, individualism, self reliance and meritocracy.
I’m working to join them by producing my own graphic novel project based on a survivalist hero. The best we have is Burt Gummer from Tremors – He’s great but we need more. Readers who are interested in original non-woke entertainment can learn more about that project HERE.
It’s important not to underestimate the power of media in culture. There is a reason why leftists are so obsessive with it; by changing all our heroes to villains they hope to change our values and our behaviors.
They aren’t just rewriting movies, or characters, or comic books, they are trying to rewrite us.
The only way to stop this is to identify the threat, neutralize the propaganda, and then bring back legitimate hero culture by writing it once again with our own hands and our own deeds.
Have you ever talked with a liberal and made a comment that shuts him down completely? “Trump sure is getting a raw deal with that FBI raid, isn’t he?” His eyes go glassy, and he starts to look for the exit. Or he repeats something automatically, like “Trump deserves anything he gets.”
This “orange man bad” mantra is often called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It effectively shuts down all communication between disagreeing sides and prevents any kind of meaningful dialogue, even between good friends or family members. Even intelligent people who are suffering greatly from Biden/liberal policies, through loss of jobs, high gas and oil prices, rapid inflation, high taxes, or curbs on religious freedoms, won’t be able to change their minds and consider voting for a conservative or moderate candidate once he is somehow linked to Donald Trump.
They say, “If Trump is for it, then I am against it” even if that means they pay $5 a gallon for gas, can’t get formula for their babies, or can’t afford to heat their homes this winter.
Why does this happen? How do people make up their minds, and why do they stubbornly refuse to change them?
You would think that people would evaluate important issues logically, like a math equation where 2+2=4, but this is not true with beliefs, especially when politics is involved.
Keith M. Bellizzi, professor of human development and family sciences, from the University of Connecticut, is among many who study cognitive psychology and neuroscience, and his article on the subject is a good start. He explains that there are survival systems that are hard-wired into our brains that actually cause stubborn adherence to wrong beliefs.
“Belief perseverance” is one such system. “Being presented with facts — whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations — that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened.” They will reject the evidence, and often their original beliefs will become stronger.
“Confirmation bias” is “the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs. Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias.” This is why liberals watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox.
The brain itself is hardwired to reinforce existing opinions and beliefs, even if this might cause harm. When you win an argument, your body releases a rush of pleasurable hormones like dopamine and adrenaline. In a high-stress or threatening situation, cortisol is released, which depresses your logical mind and triggers the more basic part of your brain, which controls fight or flight. You “see red,” voices are raised, fists get clenched, and it’s much more difficult to understand what the other side is saying.
Other sociologists have identified other biases that effect logical vs. emotional thinking.
“Believing people from your tribe”
Humans developed in tribal cultures, which continue to this day. You are much less likely to believe an outsider. Nowadays, a tribe is not just a reference to ethnicity or religion, but also belief systems in global warming or abortion, where members are easily identified by how they look or what they say.
“The big lie”
People, by nature, are well intentioned, and they assume that others are as well. So when they hear a lie, they tend to believe it. Interestingly, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed because they assume that no one would lie about something of such importance.
All of these factors are related to survival going back to the earliest days of mankind. If you constantly have to be re-evaluating your beliefs, such as “growling tigers are a reason to run,” then you might consider having a chat with such a tiger — and end up being his lunch.
So how can you reach people with closed minds?
1. Be from within their tribe. Start by reinforcing what the two of you have in common — you may have lived in the same city, had similar jobs or similar backgrounds.
2. Get permission to discuss — “Would you like to tell me about your views on global warming?” This makes the idea of a discussion non-threatening.
3. Resolve never to argue or raise your voice. Don’t threaten or invoke fear. If things start to become even a little heated, then withdraw — “we can always discuss this later” or “now may not be the time to discuss this.” Getting into a heated argument is going to activate the liberal’s lizard brain and end logical reasoning.
4. Start small. Don’t try to convince the liberal that Donald Trump is the next George Washington. Go for a smaller issue that doesn’t challenge one of his core beliefs. “Should Iran have a nuclear weapon?” or “Would it be good for China to control our farmland?”
5. Pick topics where you are well-versed. Most of the people you will be talking with know very little factual information — they are used to hearing talking points and then parroting them back to you.
6. Ask questions. There is nothing threatening about asking an honest question, especially about something that is important to the liberal. Make it clear that you are open and willing to listen to his side and willing to change your mind. There is a brain/hormone thrill associated with converting someone to his side that will entice him to interact. Your openness models good behavior — if you’re willing to change your mind, then he should be open-minded as well.
7. Ask “why?” Few can survive three “whys” in a row. The brainwashed rarely know the logic behind what they parrot.
8. Focus on common sense and fairness. “Does it make sense to spend $2 trillion to lower global temperature by 0.0006 degrees?” “Does it seem fair to make a middle-class worker who never went to college pay for the student loan of a Harvard graduate with a women’s studies degree?”
9. If you start to see the liberal’s resistance crumbling, share how you used to feel how he did, but you changed your mind when you learned new information.
10. If you get him to change his mind on one topic, don’t gloat or insist that he admit he was wrong. Just say, “I’m glad we had a chance to discuss this. I learned a lot from you. I hope we can talk again in the future.” Then come back another time with a different topic that is more important.
Changing minds is not a quick process. Patience and self-control are essential. Unless we can learn how to speak to our fellow Americans in a kind and understanding manner, we will never heal the divide in our nation.
The same points keep getting made in the debate on abortion. Here are the many reasons the usual points in favor of abortion are wrong.
by ELEANOR BARTOW,
The Supreme Court has overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and now the issue of abortion will be part of our national debate as much as ever. Here are some of the many reasons the usual arguments in favor of abortion are wrong.
Pro-Abortion Claim:The government should stay out of people’s private lives. This is a woman’s choice, not anyone else’s, and a women’s rights issue.
Why It’s Wrong: Laws often restrict an individual’s rights, including the right to hurt another person or infringe upon another’s rights. In taking the life of an unborn child, a woman is taking away the most basic of all rights.
An unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, but a separate, individual human being with his or her own rights. A child is not the mother’s property, just as parents are legal guardians of children but not the children’s owners and are not allowed to abuse their children.
Pro-Abortion Claim:When most abortions take place, in early pregnancy, a fertilized egg is just a mass of cells, not a human being. It doesn’t feel pain.
Why It’s Wrong: A new life begins at conception and should not be destroyed by human interference.
The beginning of life could be defined by many different points of development — fertilization (the fusion of the nuclei of the sperm and egg cell), implantation, the first movement, heartbeat, or brain waves, consciousness, or birth. Any point you choose could be just a day’s difference between life and death for an unborn child.
Drawing the line at the point of viability is also problematic — that point will continue to get earlier in the pregnancy as medical advances create better means of keeping the unborn alive outside the womb; indeed, viability is now weeks earlier than it was when Roe was decided.
Yet the unborn child did not become a person because he could survive due to modern science. Newborns are not technically viable either, as they cannot survive on their own. By this logic, we should consider it acceptable to kill newborns.
Pro-Abortion Claim:Abortion can’t be a crime against nature if fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried in nature.
Why It’s Wrong: The occurrence of an event in nature does not justify deliberately mimicking that event. The elderly die of natural causes, but that doesn’t make it right to kill them. And many miscarriages are associated with extra or missing chromosomes.
Pro-Abortion Claim: Birth control isn’t 100 percent effective.When it fails, women have been responsible and need abortion as another method to avoid having a child.
The pregnancy prevention rate of birth-control pills used consistently and correctly is 99 percent. For that small portion who correctly used birth control but it did not prevent conception, they have to accept the risks of sexual activity, which include a child. Contraception is free with most health insurance plans and easily available.
Pro-Abortion Claim:In the case of rape or incest, when a woman was an innocent victim of an involuntary act, she should not be forced to carry a child. She would be forced to suffer even more.
Why It’s Wrong:One percent of women say they want an abortion because they were raped, and less than 0.5 percent say they are pregnant as a result of incest. Even in such very rare cases, an unborn child should not be killed because of another person’s evil deed. The pregnant woman needs love and support, not more trauma.
An estimated 800,000 abortions take place in the United States each year. Common reasons given for seeking an abortion are that a child would disrupt the mother’s education (38 percent), interfere with job or career (38 percent), or be unaffordable (73 percent). About half of respondents said they didn’t want to be a single mom or were having relationship problems.
About a third said they didn’t want any more kids; 25 percent said they didn’t want people to know they had sex or got pregnant; 32 percent said they weren’t ready for a child; and 22 percent didn’t feel mature enough to raise children. More than half of those seeking abortion have had at least one previous birth.
Pro-Abortion Claim:Minors are too young for the responsibilities of parenthood.
Why It’s Wrong: About 3 percent of females who get abortions are younger than 18, and 8 percent are 18 to 19 years old. Parents of minors should teach their children about the consequences of sex, the benefits of abstinence, and the limitations of contraception, among other things: Sex can lead to pregnancy and if it does the unborn child should not be killed.
Accepting truths that you don’t like is part of maturity, and sex should be reserved for mature people ready to care for a child.
Pro-Abortion Claim:If abortion were made legal only in cases of rape or incest, women would lie.
Why It’s Wrong: The court system could settle the truth of their claims and more reporting of rape and incest would help bring perpetrators to justice.
Pro-Abortion Claim: Abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term.
Why It’s Wrong: Even if abortion is safer than pregnancy, that doesn’t make it right. But with modern medicine, the death risks for both abortion and pregnancy are very low.
Pro-Abortion Claim: It would be better for abnormal fetuses to be aborted than to live with poor health or a disability.
Why It’s Wrong: In the case of the small minority of fetuses with a potentially life-threatening abnormality, a natural death may result, but, if not, the child should be given the benefit of the doubt, not be killed. It’s wrong to kill disabled people for their disabilities.
Pro-Abortion Claim: If abortion were outlawed, women would just get riskier, dangerous abortions.
Why It’s Wrong: People break other laws with repercussions too, but we don’t avoid that outcome by not making those laws. Outlawing abortion would save millions of unborn babies’ lives.
It is difficult to know the number of abortions resulting in death before abortion was legalized, because many illegal abortions went unreported. Education is the best alternative, so women know the risks of trying to get an abortion illegally, how to effectively use birth control, and how they can receive assistance as mothers.
Pro-Abortion Claim:The right to an abortion has led to a more prosperous societyas women have continued in their careers and low-income couples have not been burdened with an additional expense. Abortion has reduced the child abuse and crime that arise from unwanted children.
Why It’s Wrong: Abortion has been bad for our society, as it devalues human life and the fulfillment that only family and children, not a job, can provide. If women want to put careers first or can’t afford children, they should practice abstinence or correctly use birth control and make plans for accepting the consequences if that fails.
If women are poor and do have children, the government provides assistance. Adoption is also a better option than killing an unborn child. Many loving, screened, financially stable parents are waiting to adopt babies.
As for whether studies prove that abortion has reduced crime or abuse, this is a dangerous line of argument. Should we abort babies of certain groups more likely to be criminals?
Pro-Abortion Claim:A woman has a right to privacy, as recognized by the Supreme Court, and to make her own decisions about her life and happiness.
Why It’s Wrong:Roe v. Wade was so strongly resisted because it was a deeply flawed decision.
The legal arguments are lengthy, but the short answer is that the constitutional right to liberty simply does not grant the right to kill another person, and an unborn child is a person.
Abortion is a deeply divisive issue, and about half of Americans consider themselves pro-life and half call themselves pro-choice. Overturning Roe will not end abortion rights but return the issue to the states, allowing for a more democratic process — the debate will continue, but the truth remains the same.
The World We Live In 