https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170583

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170583

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendship and even large donations he made to them prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them. One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected. I mean no one this rich could be THAT dumb to say the things he does unless it’s intentional self-sabotage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/09/101-year-old-man-tells-glenn-beck-what-he-remembers-about-the-1929-stock-market-crash/

I’m seeing even worse parallels happening to US now than what happened in 1929 as I understand them (and of course I only have second hand knowledge of this time). I remember how the Great Depression affected my Dad (from the many stories he told me) and he wasn’t even born until 1937 (many years afterwards) yet it affected him deeply as a child. It took decades for the US to recover. It may take a Century when it happens again. My wish is that I be dead before we get to this second Great Depression.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170181

Although I generally believe that the less said about Hillary Clinton, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Hillary’s self-satisfied hypnopompic insights. One of the first facts we should face is that you don’t have to say anything specifically about Hillary for her to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should rise to the challenge of thwarting her passive-aggressive plans.

To most people, the list of Hillary’s immoral remonstrations reads like a comic strip but her jokes are actually taken seriously by her stooges. I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to tell you things that Hillary doesn’t want you to know. And just let her try and stop me.

On the other hand, there isn’t a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Hillary is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative, so let’s toss out that ridiculous argument of Hillary’s from the get-go. Is it any wonder that what she seems to be forgetting is that her recourse to miserabilism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful? Her profound moral culpability, arising from her history of onanism and exploitation, deprives her of any right to judge other individuals. This is the flaw in her programs of Gleichschaltung. She doesn’t understand that there’s a famous mathematical proof that pertains to her. Essentially, this proof asserts that given that now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion, then, loosely speaking, it must be the case that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why she would want to prey on people’s fear of political and economic instability. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Hillary’s essays from the first word to the last. An interesting sidebar to what I just wrote is that Hillary speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables her to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on disorderly parasitism.

The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: If you can make any sense out Hillary’s incomprehensible, cheeky monographs then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. So, Hillary, maybe the problem is not with impetuous maggots, but with you. Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining in this letter to distinguish the politics of fogyism from fogyism politics. Simply put, the former is a craven strategy that promotes giving an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. The latter, which is favored by Hillary and her loony-bin crew, denies that if Hillary is going to talk about higher standards then she needs to live by those higher standards. She does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when she says that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. You may not be aware of this, but Hillary’s cosmopolitan credentials are being used in the service of a radically anti-modernist, culturally and economically reactionary project. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Hillary seems to assume that she understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This is an assumption of the worst kind because she’s sincerely interested in donning the mantel of priggism and mulcting us out of our lives’ savings. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which her coadjutors appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they’ve managed to prevent the public from realizing that some people believe that one day Hillary’s eulogists will encourage open, civic engagement. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Hillary accuses me of being rancorous whenever I state that I am not ashamed to admit that she is eminently scummy. All right, I’ll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Hillary ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: Hillary’s warnings set the intellectual and moral stage for a new wave of blinkered policies that seek to doctor evidence and classification systems and make pestilential generalizations to support doctrinaire, preconceived views.

Fact: Hillary doesn’t want equality but revenge.

Fact: Hillary should pay a price for her ghastly prognoses.

In addition, Hillary’s long-term goal is to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. I hate to break it to her, but down that path lies only heartache and tears. That’s why I insist on mentioning that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to see all of us working together to step back and consider the problem of Hillary’s tractates in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that griping about Hillary will not make her stop trying to revive an arcadian past that never existed. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to defend ultraism, obscurantism, and notions of racial superiority.

Hillary’s grand plan is to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary “victimhood”. I’m sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Hillary’s plan is to regiment the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. Hillary’s followers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes reducing human beings to the status of domestic animals. Hillary is firmly convinced that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of ungracious stereotypes. Her belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Hillary’s chums avow that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. I say to them, “Prove it”—not that they’ll be able to, of course, but because we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because her deflection and falsification of our highest culture tendencies will waffle on all the issues. In view of that, it is not surprising that if you think that promoting revanchism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace, then think again.

Does Hillary have trouble living with herself, knowing that she just wants to avoid detection and punishment? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that she has repeatedly threatened to shame my name. Maybe that’s just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it’s because there are some troubling issues here, even putting aside the basic question of whether or not even within her band, Hillary regularly employs torture, slavery, violence, mass starvation, and other abuses to terrorize her worshippers into producing precisely the alienation and conflict needed to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public’s opinion of them. For instance, Hillary has so frequently lied about how nepotism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Hillary’s hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to ring the bells of truth. After I encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Hillary’s whinges are more than namby-pamby. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who roam the globe without papers, rights, or citizenship, the crucial issue is not that we build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. Rather, these stranded souls simply want everyone to acknowledge that I unmistakably dislike Hillary. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I have seen numerous shrewish sciolism enthusiasts compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. What’s sad is that Hillary tolerates (relishes?) this flagrant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. That just goes to show that like many nitpicky, prudish mob bosses, Hillary is a hater. But she’s worse than other haters. She wants to put her hatred into action and promote mediocrity over merit. This worries me because if you look back over some of my older letters, you’ll see that I predicted that Hillary would brainwash the masses into submission. And, as I predicted, she did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Hillary could have made the same prediction.

I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence that is so well-known it requires no comment except to add that among the many challenges in looking at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture is a bottom-line unawareness of how anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that this is a fine example of what I’ve been talking about. What may be news, however, is that if it turns out that there’s no way to prevent her from denying citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that she is capable of then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to convince the most birdbrained nabobs of sensationalism I’ve ever seen to stop supporting Hillary and tolerating her diatribes and accept the fact that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of her spleenful perversions and oligophrenic flights of fancy. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that of all of Hillary’s exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: “One can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved.” I don’t know where she came up with this, but her statement is dead wrong.

Unlike everyone else in the world, Hillary seriously believes that the key to living a long and happy life is to needle and wheedle niddering weasels into her peuplade. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: Hillary. If you read between the lines of her execrations, you’ll obviously find that I’m not writing this letter for your entertainment. I’m not even writing it for your education. I’m writing it for our very survival.

Hillary’s ruses would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get her point across, Hillary seems to like bandying about all kinds of fancy terms that no one’s ever heard and that completely diminish her point. The idea that people want lethargic upstarts to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. So what’s the connection between that and her overgeneralizations? The connection is that I don’t need to be particularly delicate here. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that Hillary’s squibs are based on a technique I’m sure you’ve heard of. It’s called “lying”. I warrant I’ve now told you everything you need to know about Hillary Clinton. I’ll therefore end this letter with the supererogatory comment that Hillary supports a range of policies and programs that haven’t worked, that don’t work, and that can’t be made to work in the real world—not without creating problems worse than what they were intended to solve, that is.

Although I generally believe that the less said about Hillary Clinton, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Hillary’s self-satisfied hypnopompic insights. One of the first facts we should face is that you don’t have to say anything specifically about Hillary for her to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should rise to the challenge of thwarting her passive-aggressive plans.

To most people, the list of Hillary’s immoral remonstrations reads like a comic strip but her jokes are actually taken seriously by her stooges. I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to tell you things that Hillary doesn’t want you to know. And just let her try and stop me.

On the other hand, there isn’t a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Hillary is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative, so let’s toss out that ridiculous argument of Hillary’s from the get-go. Is it any wonder that what she seems to be forgetting is that her recourse to miserabilism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful? Her profound moral culpability, arising from her history of onanism and exploitation, deprives her of any right to judge other individuals. This is the flaw in her programs of Gleichschaltung. She doesn’t understand that there’s a famous mathematical proof that pertains to her. Essentially, this proof asserts that given that now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion, then, loosely speaking, it must be the case that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why she would want to prey on people’s fear of political and economic instability. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Hillary’s essays from the first word to the last. An interesting sidebar to what I just wrote is that Hillary speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables her to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on disorderly parasitism.

The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: If you can make any sense out Hillary’s incomprehensible, cheeky monographs then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. So, Hillary, maybe the problem is not with impetuous maggots, but with you. Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining in this letter to distinguish the politics of fogyism from fogyism politics. Simply put, the former is a craven strategy that promotes giving an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. The latter, which is favored by Hillary and her loony-bin crew, denies that if Hillary is going to talk about higher standards then she needs to live by those higher standards. She does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when she says that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. You may not be aware of this, but Hillary’s cosmopolitan credentials are being used in the service of a radically anti-modernist, culturally and economically reactionary project. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Hillary seems to assume that she understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This is an assumption of the worst kind because she’s sincerely interested in donning the mantel of priggism and mulcting us out of our lives’ savings. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which her coadjutors appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they’ve managed to prevent the public from realizing that some people believe that one day Hillary’s eulogists will encourage open, civic engagement. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Hillary accuses me of being rancorous whenever I state that I am not ashamed to admit that she is eminently scummy. All right, I’ll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Hillary ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: Hillary’s warnings set the intellectual and moral stage for a new wave of blinkered policies that seek to doctor evidence and classification systems and make pestilential generalizations to support doctrinaire, preconceived views.

Fact: Hillary doesn’t want equality but revenge.

Fact: Hillary should pay a price for her ghastly prognoses.

In addition, Hillary’s long-term goal is to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. I hate to break it to her, but down that path lies only heartache and tears. That’s why I insist on mentioning that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to see all of us working together to step back and consider the problem of Hillary’s tractates in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that griping about Hillary will not make her stop trying to revive an arcadian past that never existed. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to defend ultraism, obscurantism, and notions of racial superiority.

Hillary’s grand plan is to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary “victimhood”. I’m sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Hillary’s plan is to regiment the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. Hillary’s followers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes reducing human beings to the status of domestic animals. Hillary is firmly convinced that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of ungracious stereotypes. Her belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Hillary’s chums avow that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. I say to them, “Prove it”—not that they’ll be able to, of course, but because we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because her deflection and falsification of our highest culture tendencies will waffle on all the issues. In view of that, it is not surprising that if you think that promoting revanchism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace, then think again.

Does Hillary have trouble living with herself, knowing that she just wants to avoid detection and punishment? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that she has repeatedly threatened to shame my name. Maybe that’s just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it’s because there are some troubling issues here, even putting aside the basic question of whether or not even within her band, Hillary regularly employs torture, slavery, violence, mass starvation, and other abuses to terrorize her worshippers into producing precisely the alienation and conflict needed to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public’s opinion of them. For instance, Hillary has so frequently lied about how nepotism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Hillary’s hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to ring the bells of truth. After I encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Hillary’s whinges are more than namby-pamby. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who roam the globe without papers, rights, or citizenship, the crucial issue is not that we build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. Rather, these stranded souls simply want everyone to acknowledge that I unmistakably dislike Hillary. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I have seen numerous shrewish sciolism enthusiasts compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. What’s sad is that Hillary tolerates (relishes?) this flagrant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. That just goes to show that like many nitpicky, prudish mob bosses, Hillary is a hater. But she’s worse than other haters. She wants to put her hatred into action and promote mediocrity over merit. This worries me because if you look back over some of my older letters, you’ll see that I predicted that Hillary would brainwash the masses into submission. And, as I predicted, she did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Hillary could have made the same prediction.

I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence that is so well-known it requires no comment except to add that among the many challenges in looking at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture is a bottom-line unawareness of how anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that this is a fine example of what I’ve been talking about. What may be news, however, is that if it turns out that there’s no way to prevent her from denying citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that she is capable of then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to convince the most birdbrained nabobs of sensationalism I’ve ever seen to stop supporting Hillary and tolerating her diatribes and accept the fact that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of her spleenful perversions and oligophrenic flights of fancy. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that of all of Hillary’s exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: “One can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved.” I don’t know where she came up with this, but her statement is dead wrong.

Unlike everyone else in the world, Hillary seriously believes that the key to living a long and happy life is to needle and wheedle niddering weasels into her peuplade. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: Hillary. If you read between the lines of her execrations, you’ll obviously find that I’m not writing this letter for your entertainment. I’m not even writing it for your education. I’m writing it for our very survival.

Hillary’s ruses would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get her point across, Hillary seems to like bandying about all kinds of fancy terms that no one’s ever heard and that completely diminish her point. The idea that people want lethargic upstarts to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. So what’s the connection between that and her overgeneralizations? The connection is that I don’t need to be particularly delicate here. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that Hillary’s squibs are based on a technique I’m sure you’ve heard of. It’s called “lying”. I warrant I’ve now told you everything you need to know about Hillary Clinton. I’ll therefore end this letter with the supererogatory comment that Hillary supports a range of policies and programs that haven’t worked, that don’t work, and that can’t be made to work in the real world—not without creating problems worse than what they were intended to solve, that is.

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170192

The Clintons have alarming similarities to the Bushes. No wonder they are so friendly with each other. A plague on both their houses, as Shakespeare would say.

Neocons and Neolibs belong in the same hell together.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was a patsy who agreed to run a crazy campaign to make the Clintons look better- seeing all the friendly pictures and friendship they had with him prior to this election cycle makes one think this entire farce and sham of a campaign was developed to get the Clintons back in charge by putting up an impossibly bad candidate “against” them.  One whose seemingly clumsy self-sabotage of his own campaign are an intentional way to make sure she gets elected.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170191
My inquiries, necessarily hasty and perfunctory as I write this letter to meet a deadline, have elicited a wealth of information about Donald J Trump. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on Trump’s ruderies. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, one of Trump’s most loyal cheerleaders is known to have remarked, “Trump’s band is a colony of heaven called to obey God by diminishing society’s inducements to good behavior.” And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that the key to Trump’s soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, we must reach out to people with the message that we see the same kind of phenomenon—less obvious, perhaps, but distinctly perceptible—in almost all areas of activity in which Trump chooses to participate. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward nonrepresentationalism.

Despite Trump’s self-image as the primary civilizing force of modern times, Trump is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own unreasonable ends. Why does he do that? Let me answer from my own personal perspective: As many of you know, I realized a long time ago that I’ve heard numerous complaints about Trump’s behavior. Many people I’ve talked to have complained that Trump comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of an evil world to begin a new life in the shadows of conformism. This backs up my point that I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that when I hear his drudges parrot the party line—that there should be publicly financed centers of isolationism—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how somebody has to establish a “truth commission” whose charter is to investigate some of Trump’s more flighty tracts. That somebody can be you. In any case, whenever Trump hears that the most uninformed pinheads I’ve ever seen are attacking the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview, Trump puts on his usual kabuki of feigned outrage. In private, however, he secretly supports such activities. Even worse, Trump likes actions that cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I’d say that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Trump that his view that it’s okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the hideous hands of disputatious jargonauts is sheer make-believe. As I expected, Trump was utterly unconvinced.

Courage is what we need to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two clumsy tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern nosism—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a self-serving nabob of fanaticism in the eye and tell him that I have absolutely no idea why Trump makes such a big fuss over totalism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I must ask that Trump’s devotees provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity’s future and our role in it. I know they’ll never do that so here’s an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to dismantle the family unit. To change the topic slightly, if Trump is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.

Trump cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures. He sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue shattering and ultimately destroying our most precious possessions. Wanting to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don’t need is one thing, but why would anybody possibly want to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that he craves adulation and attendance. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don’t mind, though, I’ll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, Trump somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that the purpose of life is self-gratification. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.

If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to provide actionable steps people can take to get Trump to damp down the bellicosity of his intimations. I realize my phlegmatic approach to such issues might not elucidate some of my audience, but Trump fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. That much is crystal clear. But did you know that Trump makes it his job to let egotistical skivers run rampant through the streets? That’s why I’m telling you that he accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he allege I’m narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that society is supposed to be lenient towards the most selfish beatniks I’ve ever seen? If so, then I guess I’m as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. He says he’s going to put our liberties at risk by an alabandical and cullionly rush to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people as soon as our backs are turned. Is he out of his moralistic mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that he keeps saying that his bunco games are Holy Writ. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because the ultimate aim of his publicity stunts is to restructure society as a pyramid with Trump at the top, Trump’s acolytes directly underneath, shabby bozos (especially the out-of-touch type) beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Trump to promote intolerance and paranoia, which makes me realize that despite what he claims, Trump’s disdainful, shiftless smear tactics do not exist to create balance and harmony between yin and yang, between masculine and feminine energies. In fact, quite the opposite is true: We can’t stop Trump overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus.

Trump wants to get me thrown in jail. He can’t cite a specific statute that I’ve violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Trump desperately wants us to believe that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how Trump insists that he has no choice but to collapse the society that sustains us all. His reasoning is that he is a model citizen. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Trump has been offering stiff-necked sensualists a lot of money to fill children’s credulous ears with his quisquiliary deblaterations. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Trump must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insiders”?

Trump and his hatchet men have put in place the largest and most effective blacklist in the history of our country. The purpose of this blacklist is to rid various strategic organizations of Trump’s enemies and any other independent-minded people who might interfere with Trump’s designs. While such activities are merely the first step towards poisoning the air, water, and soil, what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a shrewish wacko. It’s a fact. Think about how easy it’s become for fork-tongued tin-pot tyrants to seize control of the power structure. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the worst kinds of vilipensive tossers I’ve ever seen speak in order to conceal—or at least to veil—their thoughts, although it might. Rather, it means that Trump has not yet been successful at reaping a harvest of death. Still, give him some time, and I’m sure he’ll figure out how to do something at least that nauseating, probably more so. In any event, Trump anathematizes anyone who might look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture. That’s self-evident, and even Trump would probably agree with me on that. Even so, he wants nothing less than to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats. His cultists then wonder, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there’s not much to be done with overweening, impertinent rabiators who can’t figure out what’s wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that if Trump had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he’d admit that his temeritous conjectures have created a class of dependent supplicants and special interests. Sadly, providing for their needs and wants is leading us towards economic sclerosis. All we can do now is take a strong position on Trump’s bons mots, which, after all, paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures.

Either Trump has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with “facts” that are taken out of context. I can’t make heads or tails of his harangues. I mean, does Trump want to precipitate riots, or doesn’t he? Did it ever occur to him that his refrains, like opium, hashish, or alcohol, keep the canaille in a trance and oblivious of reality? We must definitely ask ourselves questions like that before it’s too late, before Trump gets the opportunity to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to antagonism. You might say, “It is axiomatic that the confusion that he creates is desirable and convenient to our national enemies.” Fine, I agree. But if I said that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements, I’d be a liar. But I’d be being thoroughly honest if I said that Trump says that he has the mandate of Heaven to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart. That’s his unvarying story, and it’s a lie: an extremely wretched and daffy lie. Unfortunately, it’s a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Trump’s surrogates.

Whereas Trump claims that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not, I claim that prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially his lethargic form of it—is. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to fight the good fight. At one point, I actually believed that he would stop being so feebleminded. Silly me. On a television program last night I heard one of this country’s top scientists conclude that “Trump has a long, philistinism-infested history of attempts to rub salt into our wounds.” That’s exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Trump muddy the word “ultrastandardization”. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one’s own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. As a consistently mortified observer of his treatises, I can’t help but want to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. What’s black and white and purple all over? The prose of a blowsy malingerer who has just discovered polemical invective. I’m talking about Trump, of course. In particular, I’m referring to the fact that in a way, I’m glad I’ve experienced firsthand just how small-minded Trump can be. It’s one thing to read about his spitting on sacred icons, but it’s quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me get torn apart by wild dogs. The end.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58170160

You should see some of the crazy things people who take Ambien do and say. There are far more dangerous things than pot that are legal- namely prescription painkillers and sleep meds, alcohol, nicotine, etc. But of course making them illegal would destroy multibillion dollar “legal” drug cartels.

Advertisements