George "Dubya Shrub" Bush.
Bill and Hillary Clinton.
That's why Trump's opponents see him as a bad man: a fascist, a Nazi, a racist and a sexist (the Mainstream Media is going to do this non-stop for the next four years). And God knows what else he's going to be portrayed as for his next eight years in office (of course, as Hitler!).
It's also why Clinton's opponents see her as the Hildabeast. A criminal, utterly corrupt, and a pathological liar (which she is, but I don't see her as evil, just a child who throws temper tantrums).
I can't quite remember who said it: "The evil man is the child grown strong." It was someone from hundreds of years ago. It might have been Thomas Hobbes, who also said, "Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money.”
I guess all of the above is because of our inborn narcissism, which is the tendency of all of us to split things into all-good and all-bad (it's why the incompetent Dubya Shrub talked about "the evil ones" attacking us "for our goodness," showing his complete cluelessness about it instead being a revenge attack based on perceived humiliation – and those who feel they have been humiliated almost always seek revenge, which is an attempt to replace shame with pride).
And then this clown started two unnecessary wars (a complete waste of lives and money) because Saddam Hussein (whom the United States put in power and supported in his war with Iran) was suddenly going to nuke the U.S. because he had suddenly turned into a homicidal maniac! who was obsessed with attacking the U.S. You know – because he was Hitler!, but then, everyone is Hitler!
Shrub was a thousand times worse than Barak Obama, who did nothing but go on vacation and improve his golf game his entire time in office.
Wars can be started by portraying your "enemies" as monsters. In fact, they are always portrayed as monsters slobbering to Kill&Main&Destroy. As George Orwell wrote, “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”
Then of course opponents of the wars have to also be portrayed as monsters who want to destroy the country.
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda said that.
Individuals can be rational and intelligent but when you get people in crowds - or maybe mobs - the have no brains at all. It's just all feels - vacillating all the time - for them. Childish feels.
Even Hitler! (that half-insane, half-genius master of propaganda) noticed that.
Now to what extent he wants to do this I do not know. He looks to be a good start, but I sure would like to see the Department of Education abolished. It doesn't look like he's going to do that, although his pick for that post appears to want to return control to local bodies.
That reminds me. I had a troll who was claiming the Nazis (which means “National Socialist”) were "conservative." No, they weren't. They were leftist, which means revolutionaries. Destroy the existing order and replace it with something else. My God, Hitler wanted to wipe out Christianity as a "Jewish religion."
In that sense Obama is a revolutionary because he apparently wanted to destroy the existing order in the United States and replace it with his idiocies (that makes him closer to a Nazi - "National Socialist" - than anything else). That's why he has no legacy and what he did do is being spurned by Americans.
Also in that sense that buffoon Dubya Shrub was a leftist and revolutionary with his attempts to destroy the existing order in other countries and replace it with the leftist delusion of democracy (this makes him close to a Communist - "International Socialist"). That's why it didn't work, as I predicted right from the beginning, and has in fact made things a lot worse over there.
It was Confucius who once said, "When words lose their meaning people lose their liberty." And how true that is.
"Conservative" no longer means "conserving the best." Now it means "conserving the existing order," which means conserving the power and money of the "elites."
"Liberal" doesn't even mean "liberal" anymore. It means "on my way to being a leftist."
How the hell did all of this happen? How did it evolve - or devolve - into these things? I don’t exactly understand how this happened. I’m not sure anyone knows.
I am not a "conservative," although the ignorant have accused me or being one. I am one in the sense of "conserving the best." I am a liberal in the sense of wanting to change things for the better. I am also a radical in the sense of "returning to the root" if it means returning to a good root.
Unfortunately there is no such ideology as a conservative liberal radical. But that's just about what I am.
The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn once described himself as an “anarchist of the far right.” That doesn’t even make any sense unless you read his Leftism Revisited.
Simple descriptions of things never work. Unfortunately that’s what a lot of people try to do.
The whole universe appears to be both static and dynamic. It also manifests itself in politics and society and culture and people - to both conserve and change (everything changes). Unfortunately we really don’t have the words to describe these things – except static and dynamic. It might be better than a better description than using conservative liberal radical to describe yourself.
"Let everyone who advocates war be enrolled in a special regiment of advance-guards, for the front of every storm, of every attack, to lead them all!” – Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy
The first time I realized there was something wrong with the "Intelligence Community" was when they were claiming the Soviet Union was doing gangbusters economically and then the whole place just completely collapses and disappears. They missed it completely. That’s utter incompetence.
I thought, “Where are these morons from? Harvard? Yale? Princeton?” Schools that should be closed down (I call their graduates, such as C-student born-rich-never-worked-a-day-in-his-life-ran-from-volunteering-for-Vietnam Dubya and Donald Rumsfeld, “high-IQ idiots”).
The second time was when they claimed Saddam Hussein had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and was going to nuke us in our beds (the only thing he had was some poison gas, and if poison gas in a Weapon of Mass Destruction then so is a machine gun or a 9mm or a car or a truck, as sand kaffirs have demonstrated more than once in Europe).
Saddam Hussein used poison gas on his own people (which is not my problem) and if anyone thinks it is why did they not volunteer to be in the first wave to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Why? Because they’re chickenhawk cowards who think others should fight and die while they give advice from the sidelines. And such people will never, ever get in the game. That’s what having a big mouth and no balls does to people.
They only two things I need to know about a country are the GNP (for the former Iraq about one billion dollars a year, all from oil) and the mean IQ (for Iraq, about 89, which is four points above “moron”). And people that stupid and poor are going to create nuclear weapons? Give me a break (we have smaller states like South Carolina which have bigger economies than Iraq).
I remember reading an article by Gregory Cochran (who is a well-known nuclear physicist) pointing out in detail that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. I thought, Why was the incompetent Dubya Shrub (contemptuously referred to as “Junior” by the men in his father’s administration) not listening to a man who knew what he was talking about (Shrub was a buffoon who had Jew cowards and traitors and warmongers like Douglas Feith - whom U.S. General Tommy Franks called "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth," - Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz in his administration). He wasn't listening because he had already made up his dim-bulb mind and was looking to rationalize it (he also said he didn't "do nuance" and should be dictator).
Almost all Presidents have been politicians - and we've had some terrible ones. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Dubya Shrub, Barak Obama. Catastrophes all. None of them, of course, ever knew it (Dubya should be serving life in prison as a war criminal, in the cell next to rapist Bill Clinton).
I've pointed out before it's easier - a lot easier - to lie to yourself than to other people. It's one of the easiest things in the world to lie to yourself (such people are also very susceptible to believing lies others tell them).
Now they’re babbling about the Russians trying (and failing) to hack U.S. elections. So what’s new? I’m sure everyone to trying to hack everything in the U.S. – North Koreans, Chinese, Albanians, some fat neckbeard slob in the “command center” in his parent’s basement.
Thank God Trump is not a politician. That's a huge plus for him. And he does appear to be draining the swamp, including the swamp of the "Intelligence Community."
"Intelligence Community"? Ha! That's an oxymoron if there ever was one.
All crises, wars, and propaganda have one thing in common: they are based on the archetype of the horror story.
As Stephen King noticed in his study of the horror story, Danse Macabre, all horror stories are based on the concept of Good attacked by Evil, of Order attacked by Chaos.
Lewis Bornheim, as quoted by Michael Crichton, has noted that “a crisis is a situation in which a previously tolerable set of circumstances is, suddenly, by the addition of another factor, rendered wholly intolerable.” The operative word here is “intolerable.” That’s what makes a crisis a horror story.
Two of the oldest horror stories in Western culture are God attacked by Satan, and Grendel attacking everyone until Beowulf put an end to him. Both are Good attacked by Evil; both were crises that were resolved.
All propaganda used by “the State” (which is nothing but several groups of people who have attained political power) is based on telling people that whatever crisis that exists can only be solved by giving them more money and power. It sometimes involves starting a war (and war is a horror story) through the use of propaganda.
One of the main characteristics of propaganda is demonizing or dehumanizing the enemy, i.e., claiming they are insane homicidal maniacs (and the power of these maniacs is always exaggerated until they become evil gods). In a word, monsters - horrors. Ones who wish to destroy and conquer, like Satan or Grendel.
Unfortunately, the “State” itself is a horror story, since, as many people have noticed, when the State expands, it absorbs or destroys everything in its path. It destroys Society. If you define the State as Evil, and Society as Good, then the State can be nothing but a horror story.
So what we have then, is the curious and very dangerous situation of the State (a horror story) using propaganda (based on the horror story) during a crisis (based on the horror story) to expand its power (making it even worse of a horror).
The problem is that many people do not see the State as a horror. They see it as the exact opposite – a good Daddy/Mommy to take care of them. In the past Americans had a clearer understanding of the State. These days many of them do not.
When you start with the way things are in political science, it then becomes a science, capable of predicting the future. Since the nature of the State is a horror, it can easily be predicted that when it expands its power and privilege though crisises and propaganda, Society will always suffer – which means the mass of people.
It didn't surprise me at all that Trump's enemies refer to him as a fascist and Nazi and racist and sexist - and an evil monster who is going to start a nuclear war! If you have enemies you have to create an exaggerated evil profile of them (look how those evil powerful Russians interfered with our elections and threw the election to Trump!). Just exaggerate how evil and monstrous they are even if they're not evil and monstrous at all and watch how many people fall for it.
No one makes enemies of the Amish or the Salvation Army.
You can't make an enemy of someone who is weak or harmless. You have to turn them into an evil, powerful monster hellbent on destroying you! It's the archetype of the horror story - good attacked by evil!
I've met a couple of black men who think the Klan still exists and one blamed his failures in life on them. I also knew a religious fanatic, rabidly anti-Catholic, who thought the Pope had sent assassins to kill him because he was writing a book exposing the evil of the Church. He, not surprisingly, was a loser. A demented one.
Look at the way some deluded people refer to Black-Run America (what are they going to do when Obama leaves office?) or how some refer to ZOG (Zionist-Occupied Government) or even believe Jews rule the world.
I suppose some people have to find someone to blame their problems on. It is, after all, the first defense of children - projection, scapegoating, call it what you will. "All these problems are your fault!"
I read an article recently how one woman didn't want to raise boys in "Trump's America." I thought, good thing because you'd make a lousy mother anyway. Honestly, "Trump's America"? What astonishing power Trump has to change the entire county so fast! And he's not even President yet! And of course this crazy woman was blaming everything on him. "It's not my fault! I'm innocent! It's someone else's fault!"
Remember the way that the dimbulb Duyba Shrub claimed Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was going to nuke the U.S.? The fact that none of it was true is irrelevant. Gotta exaggerate the evil qualities of some third-rate tinhorn dictator (whose country had a GNP of one billion)! Claim he's going to denonate an atomic bomb in the U.S. and you can start a war to rub out your enemies before they rub you out!
Paranoia must be inborn in a lot of people. Just claim some monsters are after them and just them throw hissy fits.
Good thing I have a conscience because if I didn't I could probably cause all kinds of trouble.
"Death is when the monsters get you." - Stephen King, Salem's Lot
I have pointed out before theologians of the past, who were for the most part smarter and more experienced than people today, realized the theological values of faith, hope and charity were the highest ones, followed by the intellectual virtues, with the moral ones at the bottom. Including, as I have mentioned, chastity.
Not surprisingly, my experience has confirmed this ancient wisdom.
The worst people I have known have no faith or hope or charity (I've met people who've told me they believe "only in me"). And some of them are very bright. Some of them pretty much lack all the virtues. They lack the theological virtues, the intellectual ones, and the moral ones. These people have made catastrophes of their lives and sometimes of other people's lives.
I realized quite a while ago that a lot of propaganda is based on the three theological virtues. Give people hope, have faith in them, be charitable to them - and they'll follow you everywhere (even those virtues - and "virtue" means "powers of man" - can be used for bad things, although charity - doing things for people while expecting nothing in return - turns them into something good).
Eric Hoffer once wrote a famous book called The True Believer and he often used the words "faith" and "hope" in it. This is how powerful those words are, along with another word he used a lot - "change." And he wrote his book in 1951.
People who lack faith and hope and charity believe only in themselves. In fact they'll sacrifice other people to themselves, to their advantage, even though it's no advantage at all - it's just a fantasy in their minds.
I'll use a modern example. I knew that Trump was going to win because he gave people hope, had faith in them, and exhibited charity toward them ("Make America great again"). Hillary Clinton exhibited none of those traits - she called people "basket of deplorables" (and she's a smart woman, which is why the theological virtues are above the intellectual ones).
I know it's counter-intuitive that the theological virtues are above the intellectual and moral ones, but that's what the ancient wisdom tells us. And again my experience has confirmed it (imagine a world of brilliant people with no faith or hope or charity - it'd be a hell. And if they lacked the moral virtues it'd be the worst of hells).
People who exhibit all three levels of the virtues are the best people. People who lack those virtues are selfish, lack sensitivity and have no sense of humor - and those are some of the scariest people around. They can bring to the world the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.