IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Record check | Main | Milestone reached! »

Comments

As I've said before, we are now a technocratic oligarchy, a technofascist state. We're seeing evidence of that on this very day, as Big Tech companies gang up against alternative social media sites like Parler, which has just been bounced from both the Google and Apple app stores and which apparently has had its already-downloaded app disabled on Apple products, at least if I can judge from my own experience.

Meanwhile, conservative voices are being canceled en masse on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, et al. Evidently, it's understood that the incoming administration will take no legal steps to stop such actions, so it's open season on anyone the tech oligarchs disapprove of.

I have no doubt that workarounds will be developed so that those of us who are not on board with the oligarchy's "new normal" will have some means of communicating, but it's going to be more along the lines of samizdat in the old Soviet Union than the open communication we might have hoped for in a democracy.

None of which excuses Trump's egregious miscalculation in holding that stupid rally and ginning up so much hysterical anger, some of which inevitably overflowed. In doing so, he just made it that much easier for the enemies of the people to gain total control.

"In doing so, he just made it that much easier for the enemies of the people to gain total control."

They were going to do it anyhow. That has been clear to some of us for long time. Any pretense would have served. They would have concocted anything, like Trump is a Russian mole. Anything.

This is what progress looks like. It's a good thing because we (conservatives) are evil and progressives/liberals are absolutely correct about everything and righteous to boot! Our elimination is a an act of goodness!. The world will be better without us and our dangerous ideas. I wish I could have grown to be as virtuous and perfect as some of the people that comment here who will inherit the country, perhaps even the world. Alas, I have failed and don't deserve to live. Way too recalcitrant for improvement in a re-education camp.

The progressives have entirely virtuous intentions. They are principled. Who needs the first amendment - or any of the Bill of Rights? We have loving caring progressives in charge. Just let them do their thing and what could go wrong? They don't have an evil bone in their bodies and they would never succumb to the corrupting influence of power, like us, because they are enlightened.

Dinosaur that I am, I'm glad I never achieved such certainty of my goodness and ability to perfect the world. Oh well. I'll probably commit my final act of evil by resisting all of this incoming virtue.

David Chilstrom wrote: "Concerning Roger's praise of the recent breach of the capitol by protestors ...."

It wasn't praise; it implicitly condemned the breach as bad, and only took issue with the claim that it was as bad as the antifa riots this summer. Let's look at the record. I quoted Robby Soave (the author of an article on the Reason magazine site) and responded, as follows.

---------------
Robby Soave: "Indeed, what happened at the Capitol was no less a riot than any of the window-smashing and church-burning that occurred in the summer ...."

ME: "On the contrary, it WAS “less a riot,”
Fewer windows were smashed
No fire-setting was attempted,
Fewer objects were hurled at the cops
Cops were less spat upon and kicked.
Bystanders and passing cars were not attacked.
Shots weren’t fired (by protesters)."
-----------------

Care to recant? No, of course not.

If John Bolton had had the patriotism to reveal to the House Impeachment committee what he revealed in his book, Trump would have been gone long before the election and Tucker Carlson (or even Pence) could have run in his place and won big. Trump was so toxic to so many Americans and had so much “baggage” that it was obvious he would likely lose. It was only the Dems’ refusal to deter and prosecute the rioters in the cities, plus the offensiveness of Biden and Harris, that brought out a big vote for Trump later. But Bolton put himself first. (As Trump has done subsequently.)

PS: Trump should have pledged to resign if it turned out that the Electoral Commission found he had won. In fact, he should have resigned a month or two ago. He should have made it plain that he was fighting for the integrity of the system, not for himself. (Completely out of line with his narcissism, of course.) That would have made many more people and insiders willing to appoint the Commission, and abide by it.

Come back, Dan Quayle, all is forgiven!

\\"We have become an oligarchy of rule-by-billionaires." - MP//
-------------------

As long as they keep directly depositing money in my checking account I can live with that. You won't find me running around protesting or even caring too much what they do? I am now in the "old man" phase of my life and at this point I'm happy if I can buy a hunk of meat now and then and stay warm and keep a roof over my head.

We don't have children so we don't really have heirs to leave it to so I just want to enjoy life and avoid drama and try and avoid as much pain as possible until it comes my turn to cross over into that Light?

Time is ticking by very quickly for me these days. And one other thing... why are all these old men who are in politics so gung ho about staying in power instead of just sitting back and enjoying the end of their lives? Let someone else worry about running things? Most of them could be having a really good time, fishing, playing with their grandchildren, golfing, eating good food, boating, etc.? It is insane to me? I really don't get it?

I try and avoid responsibility and try to be like water going downhill avoiding obstacles and going around difficulties instead of intentionally crashing into them? "Taoism often compares the Tao to water. In fact, water is a common symbol in much of Asian philosophy. While different translations of the Tao offer minor differences in the text, the truth of this remains: in order to be one with the Tao you must be like water. Water accepts all, it never resists."

https://www.watercheck.biz/blogs/water-facts-trivia/15130085-go-with-the-flow-the-tao-of-water

Art, I think I would rather kill myself than be that apathetic. To me, it sounds like the philosophy of a livestock animal, not a human being. But I guess if it works for you, you should stick with it. Who am I to judge?

We all have to make choices in these challenging times. Some will choose collaboration with the powers that be, some will choose apathy and resignation, some will brood in quiet bitterness, some will rail against the situation, some will try to escape to another country or a remote outpost, some will engage in guerrilla tactics, and so on. I’m not sure there’s any right or wrong answer.

I do know that we’ve reached a tipping point, and our old way of life is gone, even if we can still withdraw money from our checking accounts (for now).

And so perishes the myth of Trump being the savior. If anything, as I and many others have said before, he was a disaster four years in the making and a useful idiot for his opponents.

If there was a Deep State, then they love Trump for what he has done for them. Turning a "protest" march into a capitol riot that alarmed businesses and citizens across the nation and the globe. For many, it's the final straw. And because of Trump's immaturity and stupidity, very few will care about Twitter banning Trump's account forever. On the contrary, the majority have cheered for it. Same thing with anyone else who even support these riots. Trump brought violent chaos and order must be restored.

In these last moments on Twitter, Trump has revealed himself to even his most faithful that he cares nothing about election integrity. He just wants to win no matter the law or the political cost. He cost the GOP Georgia and the Senate. And he has tarred them with an infamy that will last for generations.

To repeat what I said that Trump never understood: Better to lose gracefully and focus on winning tomorrow than try to win a short-term victory through ugly means and lose the future.

Now he and his associates shall reap what they sowed. How sad.

Michael, I am pleased to see you have dumped Trump for his actions on 6 Jan. But on the matter of the big platforms taking action, but particularly the case of Parler having hosting issues:can I encourage another reconsideration?

I don't use it, but there are accounts devoted to reposting on Twitter many of the extreme comments that go on there (Parler) unmoderated. I understand from Fortune that:

"It allows indecent content as long as it conveys news, personal experiences, or to make political statements.

But violent content is supposed to be placed behind a filter that obscures “sensitive” content. Only violent posts that appear “gratuitous and presented to threaten only” are prohibited."

It also relies on volunteer moderators - but no one knows how many.

The result of this wishy washy policy is clear: the users call for violence and death to political enemies frequently.

How can you or anyone expect such a platform not to be commercially ostracised for that? It happened, rightly, to 4 Chan and 8 Chan.

Weak or no moderation for calls for death to journalists or politicians is an invitation for any reasonable company to not want anything to do with it.

I don't see how this is not obvious.

\\"Art, I think I would rather kill myself than be that apathetic. To me, it sounds like the philosophy of a livestock animal, not a human being." - MP//
-------------------

??? Why? This side, this place where we are right now, is just "Maya", an illusion. It is only a holographic projection from someplace else. What good does it do to rebel and act like fools running around pitching a fit and getting in trouble and risking ending up in prison? As far as I'm concerned nothing is worth ending up in prison?

Excerpt from Roger Ebert's final moments with his wife, "But the day before he passed away, he wrote me a note: "This is all an elaborate hoax." I asked him, "What's a hoax?" And he was talking about this world, this place. He said it was all an illusion." https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/news/a26606/roger-ebert-final-moments/

Excerpt from The Universe as a Hologram, "For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion." http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

And from Michelle M's NDE description, "I felt an understanding about life, what it was, is. As if, it was a dream in itself. It's so very hard to explain this part. I'll try, but my words limit the fullness of it. I don't have the words here, but I understood that it really didn't matter what happened in the life experience. I knew/understood that it was intense, brief, but when we were in it, it seemed like forever. I understood that whatever happened in life, I was okay, and so were the others here." https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1michelle_m_nde.html

Steve, you have a valid point about Parler. After posting my comment, I came across the letter Amazon released, which includes screenshots of some Parler posts (parleys?). These were patently offensive. They include calls for the assassination of public officials and media figures, as well as claims that a list of targets has been compiled. Probably this is mostly BS. I doubt actual insurrectionists would provide advance warning of their actions. But no, it can’t be permitted. It violates Parler's own terms of service, which aren’t being enforced, either for lack of personnel or from indifference.

That said, there is an infuriating double standard. Twitter is full of threats and innuendo that are mostly tolerated. The ayatollahs of Iran are allowed to tweet predictions of terrorist attacks on Israel and the US. Just recently they claimed a jetliner would crash into the Capitol on January 6 in retaliation for the death of a terrorist leader last year. American leftists fantasize about Trump being executed. One recent tweet by a CNN contributor said the country needs to be "cleansed" of Trump supporters. I’ve seen tweets calling for concentration camps and treason trials for anyone on the right. Yet Twitter seldom deplatforms these people, many of whom are "blue checkmarks" (officially recognized Twitter contributors).

This troubling double standard will only get worse. We see it in coverage of the violence in the Capitol. It was bad and should never have happened. But the hundreds of BLM-Antifa riots were at least equally bad, and have largely been overlooked, or even praised, by the left and the media. Kamala Harris endorsed the BLM riots, saying they were necessary to get people to pay attention. Maybe so. But then was the invasion of the Capitol also necessary to get people's attention? Once we decide (wrongly) that riots are a legitimate form of public protest, both sides are going to use them.

As for Trump, he is a spent force. It’s clear that his greatest fear is being perceived as a “loser" (his favorite epithet), and yet he is now seen that way by most of the world. It has left him in a precarious mental state. I think that as long as he felt reasonably in charge of events, he was stable enough, though erratic at times. I still agree with most of his pre-COVID policies: cutting taxes and regulations, securing the border, withdrawing US troops from combat zones, rebuilding the manufacturing sector, appointing conservative judges, renegotiating trade agreements. These policies were a needed corrective to the Obama years. And I think advocacy of these policies will survive Trump and define the Republican Party for some time.

But Trump himself is finished. And at this point, he has only himself to blame.

Art wrote. //What good does it do to rebel and act like fools running around pitching a fit and getting in trouble and risking ending up in prison? As far as I'm concerned nothing is worth ending up in prison?//

So you’re not exactly a "give me liberty or give me death" kind of guy?

I’m not suggesting that anyone go to prison. But it might be nice to show some concern about your country, your world, and the future.

And I’m not so sure this world is an illusion, per se. I suspect there are different levels of reality. The virtual-reality environment of a computer game is real, in a sense — it’s not a hallucination or fantasy. It just isn’t the whole reality. A hologram is also real — it’s a real image, projected in space, capable of being photographed. It’s just not the be-all and end-all.

I don’t think the term "Maya" is understood to mean illusion in the way you use it. It means something more like a play or a show. The show is real, just not the final reality.

What would be the point of a computer game that you don’t bother to play? Or a hologram that you don’t look at? Or a play that you don’t watch or participate in?

If you choose not to engage in life, you miss out on a good deal of trauma and controversy, it’s true. But you also miss out on anything worthwhile. That seems like a bad bargain to me.

“ As I've said before, we are now a technocratic oligarchy, a technofascist state. We're seeing evidence of that on this very day, as Big Tech companies gang up against alternative social media sites like Parler, which has just been bounced from both the Google and Apple app stores and which apparently has had its already-downloaded app disabled on Apple products, at least if I can judge from my own experience.”

Nonsense! Conservatives are completely free to setup their own network, HW and SW infrastructure for communication. Things you couldn’t do if you lived in China, Iran or other non-democratic nations. Remember - it’s socialism you guys are supposed to be worried about, not private companies acting completely within their own terms & conditions accepted by anyone using their services.

Monopolies are supposed to be regulated under capitalism. Big Tech firms like Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are de facto monopolies. As for building your own alternatives, Parler was to be an example of that. Now Big Tech is shutting it down.

However, I do think that Big Tech's monopolistic actions will have the salutary effect of further dividing the country, which will hasten the Great Divorce.

A little more about Maya: As I understand it, Maya applies to all realms of experience, including afterlife realms. The Tibetan Book of the Dead warns against being taken in by thought-forms in the postmortem state. Once immersed in thought-forms, you will not escape the wheel of rebirth. Only by achieving Nirvana (oneness with the godhead) can you be finally free of all realms of experience.

So it's not as if death offers an escape from Maya. The postmortem world (Summerland or what-have-you) is every bit as much Maya as the earthly world.

This, again, suggests that Maya is not illusion in the simple sense of "something that's not real." Maya is personal experience in any form. Personal experience is subjective and transient; it is real enough, but not the ultimate reality. That's my understanding, anyway.

Oh, and with regard to Parler, we have three monopolies (Google, Apple, Amazon) acting in combination to extinguish a smaller rival. Such a combination, known as a cartel, is illegal under US antitrust laws and the RICO Act. In some theoretical libertarian utopia it might be possible to overcome the monopolistic actions of cartels by good old-fashioned elbow grease, but in the real world, it took the trust-busting efforts of Teddy Roosevelt to tame the cartels. Big Tech poses the same threat today that the octopus-like cartels of railroads, steel, and oil did in 1900.

Unfortunately there is no Teddy Roosevelt on the horizon. Trump may have auditioned for the part, but he turned out to be more bull than moose.

"Weak or no moderation for calls for death to journalists or politicians is an invitation for any reasonable company to not want anything to do with it.

I don't see how this is not obvious."

It is not obvious because people on the Left calling for violence are permitted to remain on Twitter.The policy is in no way consistent and appears, at least at first glance, to only apply to conservatives.

Last summer our local BLM leader literally called for the city nearest me to be burned down and, if fact, there were riots, arson and innocent people attacked and seriously injured. This person was on the local news and on Twitter demanding violence to resolve issues, including arson. She is still on Twitter.

Susan Rosenburg, a BLM leader, literally was involved I a bombing of the Senate Chambers. The bomb did explode. She was convicted. Jerry Naddler, a Democrat from NY helped get her sentence reduced and Rosenburg is now a BLM leadera and she able to tweet. BLM still has a Facebook page.

There have been many tweets from Lefties in recent days calling for "purges" of conservatives. If that isn't Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, I don't what is. None those people have been banned from the platform.

ANTIFA uses Twitter and Facebook to organize riots.

I could go on with many more examples, but I hope the above is sufficient to make the point.

A couple more points....

I don't see where Trump called for violence. If you want to extrapolate that a reasonable should have known what the results of his actions (organizing a rally and then calling for the rally to proceed to the Capitol), then such extrapolations should be applied universally.

Nacy Pelosi's daughter, on Twitter, stated that Rand Paul's neighbor did the right thing ( referring to the vicious assault that resulted in Paul being hospitalized). Nancy Pelosi, around the same time frame, tore up Trump's State of the Union address in front of the entire world. Neither Nancy nor her daughter are suspended from social media.

As far as social media being private companies that can do as they choose, well a private company that was bakery chose to not bake a cake for a gay wedding. The courts forced the bakers to bake the cake. So which is it?

Remember, we're not just talking about Trump. The #walk-away account has been removed by social media. They are just a group for people switching from Democrat to Republican.

This is all standard fair for socialists. Purges and great leaps forward. Many of us see it for exactly what it is. Sad that some people are all for it while believing they righteous. The killers always believe in the cause in these movements. They become filled with a sense of dark power and giddy about being able to exercise it.

First of all I have to give credit where credit is due. Neither MP or Eric have attempted to claim that it was ANTIFA that stormed that Capital building, or that Trump has been captured by the deep state, or that Trump bears no responsibility for what happened Wednesday. This is admirable and they should be commended (sorry did that sound a bit condescending).

Invoking the First Amendment argument in response to Trump being banned from Twitter is a complete non-argument. Twitter is a private company, and every one who signs up to it tacitly agrees to its terms of service (I say tacitly as I doubt many people have actually read the terms). Claiming this is an infringement of First Amendment rights is like an employee of a company sharing trade secrets to competitors, and upon getting fired claims that his First Amendment rights have been violated, as his freedom of speech has been impinged upon. After all, doesn’t he have a constitutional right to say whatever he wants to whoever he wants, never mind that he has violated the ‘terms of service’ of his employment.

I am sure Twitter hasn’t 100% purged extreme speech on either side of the spectrum, but to argue or imply that Trump should continue to have a platform because there are still instances of dangerous hate speech on Twitter is not a reasonable argument. Let’s use the same underlying logic in a different context. Suppose the judicial system divided certain crimes up in two different categories, say, homicides involving female fatalities and homicides involving male fatalities. Suppose further that there was a perception, imagined or not, that one or other of these categories of crime had been drastically reduced by a clamp down in the corresponding area of crime, whilst the other category of crime had been neglected. Surely the argument would be, and should be: ‘this is a step in the right direction but more needs to be done’, rather than: ‘we should roll back the progress that has already been made and go back to square one’. The continuing existence of any dangerous hate speech on Twitter, from whatever demographic, needs to be vigorously eradicated. But we shouldn’t be aspiring to reversing the progress that has already been made.

And as far as I know there is no reason to believe that Twitter has only taken down dangerous hate speech from the far right whilst neglecting to do so from the far left. Twitter is a corporation, and in being so is transactional, not ideological. The only reason Trump lasted as long as he did on Twitter was because he was president and was profitable for Twitter. Now he represents a commercial liability (which is why some major corporate donars are starting to withhold funds from the Republicans). However disingenuous the underlying reasons may be, Trump being removed from Twitter is surely a good thing. The mob who stormed the Capital building were repeating verbatim Trump’s tweets. It would require a very convoluted argument indeed to claim that’s Trump’s tweets over the last four years were not a contributing factor in what happened Wednesday.

Also Trump has no far left wing counterpart (you can correct me on this if I am wrong). Who else has the far reaching influence Trump has and fuels the flames to the degree that Trump does. If there were such a person on Twitter on the far left then your argument might have a modicum of merit, but as it stands, suggesting it is wrong to ban Trump from Twitter is a completely baseless argument. It really has no merit at all. And even if there were such a counterpart, the argument should be that they should be banned as well, not that Trump should be reinstated.


Michael, since you are so concerned with both sides being treated equably, how do you feel about the comparatively passive police response compared to the police response to peaceful BLM protests (which most of them are) or Trump authorizing the use of pepper spray for a photo op, and minority groups being shot in the back. Does this invoke a similar sense of unfairness (that’s a rhetorical question).

I hail from Portland, Oregon, AKA the global headquarters of Antifa. My parents were both Democrats, and though I didn't cast a vote prior to age 50, I've inherited their Democratic leanings along with two of my three siblings. Except for my zip code, I might be squarely in the crosshairs of Republican recruiters. White, male, no college, 67 years old, pot bellied and balding. My angst riddled coming of age transpired during the chaos of civil rights and Vietnam protests, and my sensitive, artistic soul fled the world of political turmoil and into the sweet embrace of spiritual community. I dwelt aloof from the tawdry affairs of the wicked world, in a state of peace and contentment for 20 years, until fragmentation in the community and an inner compulsion to find my own way prodded me out of the nest.

My decent from the Rocky Mountain high of spiritual community led to an Icarus like fall to earth, as slowly I floated downwards until I landed literally next door to the hospital where I was born. I found again my first love, lost to a curly haired Adonis in high school, reconnected with the family that I had largely renounced, and grounded my youthful flights of idealism into the world of work, family, and love.

I share this snatch of autobiography, because I've commented here now and then over the years, and I think it's high time you got to know me a little better. I'm grateful for this bipartisan cafe, where we can aspire to transcend the unkind habit of hurling hand grenades at each other from entrenched ideological positions. The mostly civil tone of the comments here is a credit to our genial host who, even when he is behaving like a self-proclaimed asshole, is also conscious of the transcendent realm of divine light that feebly shines through the cracks in our brittle egos.

As a description of the illusory nature of human existence, I prefer the allegory of Plato's Cave to the updated VR variants. VR is a wholly fabricated and artificial construct. It can correspond to material facts (i.e. a VR representation of the Grand Canyon), but it can also be a realm of pure fantasy and imagination, having no analog in the world of fact. The shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave are every bit as real as the objects outside the cave that cast them. Heaven and Earth are one.

As prisoner's together in the cave, we view the shadows from slightly different perspectives, and thus our opinions about what they represent differ. Viewed this way, as prisoners chained to rocks in a cave, ever facing the shadows of reality playing on the wall before us, life is absurd. We might reasonably be inclined to give up on this cruel charade. Why not just wait out our sentence, until the blessed day when the kindly old jailer unlocks our bonds and leads us into the light beyond? The reason is that, developing skill in reading the shadows here may serve us later when we behold the originals. We need not just pass away the time here, playing poker with our fellow inmates.

Like all analogies, Plato's Cave has it's limitations; in particular, the punitive view of incarnation as some form of punishment, as though we were a pack of rowdy delinquents thrown into jail until we sober up and are fit for decent society. The tomb of Plato's imprisonment may be viewed more charitably as the womb of Spiritualist learning and development, where our fetal selves grow prior to birth into the world of spirit.

It is not in the least important for any of you to agree with my interpretations of the shadow play that we are witnessing. What matters is that we stick with it, and do not bail, as others have here, because of opinions that we hold to be hateful and ignorant. We are fellow cave dwellers. Bound together in, to borrow a word from the Trumpeting One, this "shithole" of human existence. A little brotherly and sisterly love will uplift our spirits us as we pass the time before our sentence is up.

And now back to our previously scheduled program, which I genuinely do find captivating and instructive..

Eric said:

"The courts forced the bakers to bake the cake."

While a lower court ruled against the bakery, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling. Speaking of the Supreme's, we should not assume that they ducked responsibility by refusing to hear the complaint filed by the state of Texas. There is a little thing called The Constitution of the United States, which is an impediment to the members of the court going completely rogue. Also, none of us should want the precedent set whereby other states can dictate how we should run our state courts, elections, etc. Therein lies the path to a worse hell than the one we presently inhabit.

President Trump has been the goose that laid golden eggs on Twitter. One brag that he can rightly make is that he made Twitter what it is today. Banning President Trump from Twitter is equivalent to the Bulls firing Michael Jordan. As I said in an earlier comment; President, and soon to be citizen, Trump's words carry a weight of influence that far transcends the other bilge and bile that flows through Twitter. It isn't that what Trump says is so vile, he's a veritable choirboy in comparison to many others, it's the size of his megaphone that matters. He must be held to a higher standard than applies to the average man. Is that fair? No but, like being a target for every angry nutball with a rifle, it comes with the job.

\\"And I’m not so sure this world is an illusion, per se. I suspect there are different levels of reality. The virtual-reality environment of a computer game is real, in a sense — it’s not a hallucination or fantasy. It just isn’t the whole reality. A hologram is also real — it’s a real image, projected in space, capable of being photographed. It’s just not the be-all and end-all." - MP//
--------------------------------------------------

First off I'm deeply suspicious of free will and lean heavily towards fate and predestination. It isn't necessary to have free will to learn. I taught 9th grade Physical Science for a year and half and I was really bad at it. Why? Because I wasn't in control of the classroom. The kids in my class had too much "free will" and so it was pandemonium most of the time.

If our lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and we are learning all the time, regardless of whether we believe it or not, and everything we experience, good or bad, is a lesson and is teaching us stuff like duality and separation, what time and space look and feel like, what it is like to be in a body and how to control that body, and what "out there" looks and feels like, and making memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

Why? Because the alternative would be to be pure consciousness, with no idea of what it is like to be in a body and be limited by that body, no idea of anything like a newborn baby before it is born without even a sense of independence from its mother. Being part of the whole with no sense of separateness or independence, no idea what time or space look or feel like, conscious and sentient but just floating in some void without any feelings or thoughts whatsoever.

I have had a couple of mystical experiences and they sort of downloaded into my brain that this Earth life is some kind of school and we are simply learning here the things that can't be learned in heaven. And it all has to do with the difference between the physics of where we are now versus the physics of heaven as described by numerous near death experiencers.

David,
According to the Constitution disputes between states are to be addressed in the Supreme Court. Whether or not the people of state can claim to be damaged by the actions of another state with regards to a federal election is a legal argument that is not without merit. There are legal precedents for states successfully suing by claiming they have been harmed by another state's activities. So I don't think that it's such a ridiculous or dangerous action taken by Texas.

"So I don't think that it's such a ridiculous or dangerous action taken by Texas."

Neither did two of the SC justices.

Sometime Perry Mason impersonator Eric, renders the following make-believe legal opinion:

"Whether or not the people of state can claim to be damaged by the actions of another state with regards to a federal election is a legal argument that is not without merit.""

To my esteemed colleague of the Bogus Bar Association, I kinda don't think so. I'll leave it to the Supremes to enlighten us and show a little Respect for the 154 page brief filed by Texas State attorneys and a gaggle of fellow GOP members who didn't want to find their names on the President's naughty list. The money quote in the brief ruling is:

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

What the heck does "judicially cognizable" mean, you may ask? I had to look that gem up. "Within the power or jurisdiction of a particular court to adjudicate" is one answer that I found. To illustrate, let us imagine that some whack job waltzes into Judge Judy's court and demands that his neighbor's dog be exorcised and then put down. He claims the dog is possessed by a demon and that it visits him in his dreams and tells him to do bad things. At this point Judge Judy whispers to the bailiff and instructs the plaintiff that "This nice man will lead you to the studio next door where Dr. Phil will see that you get some help."

The Texas case is kinda like that.

David Chilstrom said: "Sometime Perry Mason impersonator Eric, renders the following make-believe legal opinion:"

"Whether or not the people of state can claim to be damaged by the actions of another state with regards to a federal election is a legal argument that is not without merit.""

"I'll leave it to the Supremes to enlighten us":

""Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.""
----

1. That doesn't refute Eric's more general claim about the actions of one state that impact another ARE judicially cognizable. Reread what he said just above.

2. That was a 7-2 ruling, so two of the Supremes agreed with Texas's claim. Ergo, your possessed-dog analogy ("The Texas case is kinda like that"—i.e., whack job) can be thrown out of court.

Here's an extract from an interesting comment on JoNova's site:

a happy little debunker
January 12, 2021 at 10:11 am · Reply

"Donald Trump arrived at his rally late and his speech ran overtime, so much so, that he was still speaking at his rally (@1.15pm) when USA today tells us that the capitol hill insurrection began (@1.10pm).
The physical distance between Trump’s rally and Capitol Building is 1.6 miles, a brisk protester’s walk of around 30 minutes.
People attending Trump rallies do not leave before Trump finishes speaking.
No Trump rally attendees would have arrived at the Capital Building much before 1.45pm.
...............
... what I am saying is that nothing Trump said at his Rally could have incited any ‘insurrection’ that had begun before Trump finished speaking."
------------

But it's not true that "People attending Trump rallies do not leave before Trump finishes speaking." Once some of them realized that voting in congress had begun, perhaps from their mobile devices, the most aggressive ones would have started walking sooner. There may be video showing this

Also, the situation at the capitol didn't become "dire" until 3 PM or so. That's when the building was breached. (The WSJ has a 6-minute video of the timeline of the protestors gradually, as the hours passed, pushing the police back and up the steps.) So late arrivals, perhaps inflamed by Trump, could have provided the heft needed to overwhelm the cops.

I'm not trying to prove Trump was blameless, just that the common narrative that the whole crowd arrived after hearing his final words is incorrect. Things were more nuanced.

I don't know what the law says, but from common sense, I would assume that the Supreme Court has (or could have) jurisdiction in cases where a state claims harm from another state — say, in an interstate commerce dispute. I don't see who else could adjudicate the dispute, except perhaps a regulatory agency. And the rulings of regulatory agencies are subject to judicial review ...

Whether or not Texas and the other 17 states had standing in this particular case, I can't say. But the theory behind the lawsuit doesn't seem outlandish on its face.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between states. One doesn't have to be Perry Mason to know that. One merely needs reading comprehension and a desire to read the Constitution, as opposed to tearing it up.

Here are some examples -https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S2_C1_2_4/

The water rights cases, like Missouri v. Illinois & Chicago District, wherein Illinois was dumping sewage into the Mississippi River and thus harming Missouri seems relevant. Georgia and the other swing states are deliberately dumping sewage into our federal government, an already polluted and endangered ecosystem.

Michael wrote:

"But the theory behind the lawsuit doesn't seem outlandish on its face."

Speaking as one whose intellectual grasp of the law is just a degree or two above moron, here is why I believe that any state claiming harm because of the incompetent or fraudulent handling of another state's election is stupid, if not outlandish. Donald Trump claims he won the state of Georgia by over 500,000 votes. For the sake of argument, lets say that he is right, and that Gov. Kemp, Secretary of State Raffensberger, and Georgia Elections Manager Gabriel Sterling know that he is right. In this imaginary, hypothetical scenario, these state officials have been bribed to look the other way.

Now comes the quiz. Which state can claim justifiable legal harm by this nefarious, imaginary criminal act?

a) Texas
b) Mar-a-Lago
c) Transylvania
d) Georgia

If you chose "d" Georgia, than treat yourself to a virtual kewpie doll. It is the people of Georgia who suffer harm in this scenario. Their votes would have been stolen. Texas cannot send it's Rangers to arrest the felons and hang them from the tallest tree in Texas. As this would be a federal crime, it would come under the jurisdiction of the US Attorney General.

In such a scenario, I expect that the new Governor and Secretary of State could have their previous electoral votes nullified and replaced with new electors.

"I'm not trying to prove Trump was blameless, just that the common narrative that the whole crowd arrived after hearing his final words is incorrect. Things were more nuanced."

We need more Roger Knights!

IMO, Trump's responsibility is being overplayed by a lot. Having mostly right of center friends these days, with some far right of center, I happen to know that rhetoric about taking the Capitol, a second civil war, a second revolution, secession, etc. is common and doesn't require Trump to say anything at this point.

The Left has consistently mischaracterized the right as being hypnotized by Trump and in a cult like frame of mind. IMO the left is deliberately misunderstanding. What they want to avoid thinking about is that Trump was elected by people who already hate the establishment because of what the establishment has done to them and the country. They didn't attack the capitol (or anything else they will do) because Trump told them to. They did it because they are frustrated that their representative, Trump, got attacked by the media and the left 24/7/365 for four years and then the election was, as far as they can see, stolen.

Even if Biden won fair and square - which I doubt - they would still want to attack the government because the government has, essentially, declared war on them and no longer represents them; though it still taxes them. I say again, what happened only tangentially had to do with Trump. The left is being very stupid about this (and many things).

That said, I think some of the people that breached the Capitol were just professional agitators looking to have some fun. Really the whole thing, despite all of the pearl clutching and crocodile tears, was idiotic and more of a frat prank than a serious assault. The ninnies in the media, on the left and congress are just making the most of an opportunity. IMO, the BLM/ANTIFA riots were far more serious and dangerous, though lefty politicians encouraged those.

1. Here are a couple of comments (one of them mine) from JoNova's blog, plus a link to an interesting interview:

Orson
January 10, 2021 at 12:15 am · Reply
A non insurrectionist explains wandering into the Capitol, among hundreds who are awed by the Senate Chamber and prays, while hating the demise of our Constitution by our failed leaders.

7 minutes of honest exasperation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOjzEj_r0E4

He wraps it up with “None of these people in Congress will listen!…What are we supposed to do?”

Roger Knights
January 10, 2021 at 6:30 am · Reply
His actual last words were much better: “None of these people in congress—they just don’t listen. Well, hello, can you hear me now?”
---------------

2. Here's a National Review article that does a very good job of justifying the results in the swing states as valid:

NEVER PLUS MAGAZINE DECEMBER 31, 2020, ISSUE
‘It Must Have Been Stolen’: Debunking a myth
By DAN MCLAUGHLIN
December 17, 2020 9:31 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/12/31/it-must-have-been-stolen/
---------------

3. There should have been, or should be in the future, an inquiry to make those points and persuade the disaffected, or most of them, that the election wasn't stolen. Crying "baseless claims" won't do it—it'll just enrage them more.

A cynical look at what's ahead:

"Joe Biden's Two Left Wings: Everything about the Democrats’ politics is pushing our president-elect the wrong way"

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/01/25/joe-bidens-two-left-wings/

There is some very faulty reasoning taking place in this blog at the moment. Bringing up the gay wedding cake incident in relation to Trump being banned from Twitter is simply bonkers. It is like someone being refused entry into a store for not wearing a mask (which is happening) and insisting he has the right to take the store owner to court for breaching discrimination laws. Or a person being banned from a store for aggressive, abusive or threatening behavour and similarly claiming that this is discriminatory behavour. We are talking about fundamentally different things, and I am incredulous that the people using this argument can't already see this.


"I don't know what the law says ....... whether or not Texas and the other 17 states had standing in this particular case, I can't say. "

I don't know the law either, but if a lawyer attempted to get the Supreme Court to rule on a case where someone is offended because another person wore odd colour socks I am justified in assuming the case is completely void. Similarly here. The idea that one state can dictate to another state how they run their elections because they don't approve of their particular methodology is simply potty. You don't need a law degree for this one.

Mandy Stapleton wrote: "The idea that one state can dictate to another state how they run their elections because they don't approve of their particular methodology is simply potty."

The would be correct if Texas were objecting to Georgia's handling of its own gubernatorial race. The effects of that are intrastate.

But the effects of the Georgia election (and other swing-state elections) are interstate: they determine the outcome of the presidential election, which outcome in turn impacts Texans.

And of course the Georgia runoff election tipped the senate to the Dems, again affecting Texans (and everyone else).

Roger knight- yes it does affect other states, but it is still not a legal matter. You are forgetting that each state is legally entitled to go against the popular vote anyway. That did not happen in this election but there have been defectors in previous elections, with no legal consequences.

Mandy Stapleton wrote: "yes it does affect other states, but it is still not a legal matter. You are forgetting that each state is legally entitled to go against the popular vote anyway."

Huh?

"That did not happen in this election but there have been defectors in previous elections, with no legal consequences."

You mean "faithless electors"? Those have been rare and have never affected the outcome of an election. If they did the Supreme court would rule on their legality.

Settings aside current events, I'd like to go back to the top and look at the core claim that we have been disputing throughout these comments over the past month and a half. Michael put forth a view at the end of November that was uncontroversial for many Trump voters and completely rejected by Biden voters:

"Do I think the election was stolen? Yes, I do."

I think we can all agree that this has been a remarkable and historic election. We've never seen anything like it before, and I hope not to see another in my lifetime. If Michael's previously stated belief is true, then America is in an even darker place than the messed up, dysfunctional democracy that all of us, red and blue, can easily agree on.

In the Untouchables movie, Sean Connery says to his assassin "Never bring a knife to a gun fight". Likewise we should never bring facts to a faith fight. Left and Right are effectively secular religious sects. We are like Sunni and Shia. Our Mohammed is Democracy and the Constitution our Koran. We have much more in common than the little that divides us: love of country, of freedom, and of the right for every citizen to choose their leaders.

Each of our sectarian belief systems wrestles with its own devils, whether it be the perennial evil of poverty, the outsized influence of the wealthy and corporations, or a thousand other demons that plague the human condition.

Though the 2000 election was also very contentious, unlike today there was a shared agreement about the core facts. Bush didn't dispute Gore's win of the popular vote and Gore likewise agreed that Florida was way too close to call in round one. Everyone also agreed that the Florida vote was pretty messed up. Gore must have recurring nightmares of hanging chads to this day. In the end, the counting stopped and Bush became the president elect. Gore conceded, and many Democrats were mad has hell. Win/lose, that's how elections go in America.

While some may dispute the existence or all pervading influence of "the cult of Donald", there's no question that Trump commands a passionate following who largely believe what he believes. Trumpism is a kind of sect within the established religion of the right. Whether it breaks off from Republican fundamentalists or reforms the GOP from within remains to be seen.

That so many Americans believe the election was stolen, and that it is Donald Trump and not Joe Biden who should be sworn into office on January 20, is a distressing and divisive fact. The thought of a stolen election is something that every fiber in my being resists, for it makes America a much darker, more damaged and deranged nation than I believe it to be.

I detest flag waving and conspicuous displays of patriotism but, I've never had more faith or gratitude in our system of governance. For all the rigging and attempts by each party to game the system to their advantage, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it works and is fundamentally sound. What unites us is so great, what divides us is so small. God bless America and God bless President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.


Roger Knight, you clearly don't understand how American elections work. Perhaps this will help a bit:
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20Constitutional%20provision,according%20to%20the%20popular%20vote.

While I still think the majority of protesters/rioters in the Capitol were right-wingers, it’s worth pointing out that there actually were some left-wing people mixed in. We know this because one of them, John Sullivan, has been charged in the event.

Sullivan claimed he was just there as a citizen journalist, but his own videos capture him encouraging the crowd to break into the building and burn it down. He is also charged with inciting an earlier riot in Utah that left a motorist with a gunshot wound.

This doesn’t excuse or justify the actions of the other rioters, but it does provide some nuance.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/01/14/utah-activists-who-was-us/

David wrote, "The thought of a stolen election is something that every fiber in my being resists, for it makes America a much darker, more damaged and deranged nation than I believe it to be."

Eloquently stated, but I fear that even the optimists among us will soon see how damaged and deranged America is. We have one-party rule, one-party media, totalitarian Big Tech oligopolists, and a rising tide of far-left extremism at both the local (district attorneys), state, and federal level.

As Geena Davis said in "The Fly": Be afraid. Be very afraid.

"While some may dispute the existence or all pervading influence of "the cult of Donald", there's no question that Trump commands a passionate following who largely believe what he believes. Trumpism is a kind of sect within the established religion of the right. "- David.

Once again, NO!

This isn't about Trump. Is it too frightening to you to recognize that 75 million Americans are pissed-off at their corrupt government, Left Wing extremism and the bleak future they face as a result of the trend? Trump was merely a symptom.

When BLM riots, it's all about "systemic racism", "police brutality" and that sort of thing. Liberals deem it legitimate. When Trump votes act up it's because they are hypnotized by the Orange Svengali. Do you not see how you readily reject the legitimacy of 75 million Americans' issues?

Their jobs were off-shored or taken by illegal aliens Their sense of patriotism is assaulted regularly as their children are taught that their parents are evil and that the US itself was founded on evil. America is not even supposed to have borders like every other country in the world. It's "racist". And they are told it is necessary to take funds that their communities need and give them to illegal aliens. When they seek to start a small business (or any business) the government blocks them with mountains of regulations. They and their children are sent to participate in endless meaningless wars as a reward for their bravery and patriotism. Their children are encouraged by government run schools to seek gender re-assignment. If they want to enroll their children in non-government schools, they face significant hurdles. Yes, as Obama said, they are "bitter clingers...hanging on to their Bibles and guns". Their religion is one of the few things they have left to hold onto and they are mocked even for that. Their guns represent their last vestige of the ability to protect themselves and maintain the tradition of self-reliance via hunting. That will soon be over according to Leftist threats to enact anti-gun policies. They will be taxed while politicians not only don't represent them, but demean them. If they speak up they can lose their jobs and be un-personned on social media and even in their communities. The government and the woke Marxist movement will not leave them alone.

Meanwhile politicians siding with thier leftist enemies are raking in $millions and becoming very wealthy from "public service" jobs. It's clear the rules do not apply to "the elite" who find this 75 million to be "deplorable", "bitter", "smelly" (FBI wankers reference, look it up) and, now, "seditious".

Screw them and screw anyone onboard with the Democrats, is the attitude. Again, it exists for a reason. Trump did not "make" people view things that way. They elected Trump because they view it that way. If you think these people are just going to shut up and go away, you are as silly as the power crazed fools in DC.

"Eloquently stated, but I fear that even the optimists among us will soon see how damaged and deranged America is. " - MP

Yes. Absolutely. These are the people that Matt, Mandy, David and all of those who dropped your blog associate with, vote for and approve of.

This is just one of many links (grabbed the first one) about the move at Harvard.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/15/harvard-students-petition-revoke-degrees-trump-staff-supporters/

The Harvard student body is seeking to have the degrees of Trump supporters (really conservatives in general) revoked. Even Dan Crenshaw, the former Navy SEAL (medically retired due to wounds received in combat) and other members of congress are on the list.

I know, I know..."I don't approve. Don't put words in my mouth!"....but you vote for them all the same and I see no indication of petitioning the Wokesters to stop this kind of thing. Nor do I see any Democrats speaking against it. This is Biden's "healing" the country. Purge all those you don't like. Problem solved!

Those who repeat history and all of that. Never was there a Marxist revolution that didn't go this way. The sun is setting on the republic and a dark night is descending upon us. "But ...but, I'm not a Marxist!". Sure you are. That's what talk of "equity" and equality of outcome (as opposed to equal treatment under the law) is all about. That's what identity politics with its fundamental references to oppressors and oppressed is all about. That is what the Democrats have been peddling since Obama.

Mandy Stapleton wrote: “You are forgetting that each state is legally entitled to go against the popular vote anyway.”

You are forgetting that 29 states (but not Georgia) have laws binding their electors to vote according to the popular vote. So they are NOT “legally entitled to go against the popular vote.” See the list of the 29 at http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

Also, your link says, “There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote…. The Supreme Court decided (in 2020) that States can enact requirements on how electors vote.”

Eric wrote. //This is Biden's "healing" the country. Purge all those you don't like. Problem solved!//

This is infuriating ... unless you think of it as just one more milestone on the path to the Great Divorce.

When the side that’s in power decides to erase everybody who is not in power, it just paves the way for a final dissolution.

All of the leftists and "centrists,“ who are talking about getting back to normal by purging the populist Trump movement, are simply moving us closer to a final breakup. They may not realize it, but that’s OK. They are.

And yes, for the benefit of people who have emailed me about this, I am aware of that I am probably marginalizing my blog by expressing these opinions, but I just don’t care. I’m going to say what I think, whether it plays well or not. That’s just the way I roll. Probably I have rather little to be proud of, on a personal basis, but one thing I can be proud of is that I always say what I think, regardless of consequences.

"When the side that’s in power decides to erase everybody who is not in power, it just paves the way for a final dissolution." - MP

Unfortunately, the Left won't allow a dissolution. They call that sedition. In fact, anyone that disagrees with them is seditious, evil and so on. Most conservatives just want to be left alone. However, the Left demands conformity. That for me is the ultimate weight on the scale that tells me which side is worst.

"That’s just the way I roll. Probably I have rather little to be proud of, on a personal basis, but one thing I can be proud of is that I always say what I think, regardless of consequences."

I noticed that about you a long time ago. I very much respect that. Since you are clearly an intelligent and articulate man on top of rolling that way, you are a force for good, whether or not that goal factors into your reasons for writing, or not.

The people that are "warning" you and the people that have dropped you are willing to scuttle their own fine representative in the realm of paranormal interests because of their woke ideology. That is an indication of how far it's gone. All of this talk about reaching out, having conversations and healing is just more BS from power mad zombies.

I'm wondering how many liberals would be comfortable with my strategy (below) being implemented. My guess is, that if they were honest, close to none because they know.......

Since 75 million Americans apparently aren't going to pick up their weapons and deal with the destruction of the republic head on, yet anyhow - and it's a very ugly option. Since many of our nominally conservative elected reps are going to cave in and they're a minority anyhow - and we do need to fight back to save the country - the question is, how do we fight? How do we wrest back control from the rampaging Left?

IMO, we should delve into and embrace "Wokeness" at a level that exceeds the Left's own participation with it. We know that, with regards to Leftist leadership, they are cynical, hypocritical and using it as a weapon to gain power over others. Thus, they are exposed. We should deploy, in the spirit of Jiu Jitsu a defense that absorbs the opponent's energy, turns it against them and becomes an attack in doing so. This would be a 100% pure version of Wokeness that applies to everyone equally and in all circumstances. Something the current version of Wokeness doesn't do. Limousine liberals and upper middle class liberals living in nice all white neighborhoods, I'm looking at you extra-hard.

We know that Wokeness, applied totally, will paralyze the system and destroy targeted individuals, political parties and corporations alike. That's why the Left is playing that card. Rather than attempting to fight by countering with our own reason and values; i.e a "culture clash", we would turn the Left's own primary rhetorical weapon against them. We would especially attack the fence sitters, the finger in the wind types. The types that voted for Biden because he's more "presidential", "centrist", "reasonable" - such people have a breaking point; more importantly they have something to lose and they are a large segment of the population. Then when Max Universal Wokeness has been achieved, we run anti-Woke candidates that actually have a deeper patriotic agenda. IMO, at some point, the average citizen will be so fed up with the ravages of the storm of Max Universal Wokeness that they will vote for our candidates. Also, many of the original political Wokies will have been destroyed by their own methods turned against them and the survivors will be eager to put an end to the whole thing. Yes, there would be destruction and collateral damage, but we'd have destruction in a real shooting civil war - and we'll certainly have greater ruin if the current trend continues. At least most of the physical infrastructure would still be in tact when the war of words, accusations and "cancellations" ends.

Here are some examples of how this would work - Look at MSM. Predominantly white, wealthy headliners and corporations run by Jews and Anglos. Where is the diversity? Why are there no transgender reporters? No Eskimos? No Islamic fundamentalists? Even Blacks and Hispanics are under-represented. Jews! Look how they oppress the Palestinians! The multi-$million salaries!

Organized protests, marches and Twitter storms would form demanding that these outlets become more "diverse". The CNN Board of Directors and that of the parent companies must consist of 50% minorities. These wealthy people, so steeped in privilege, must have 50% of their wealth confiscated to pay for reparations and other social justice measures, [formerly, because the concept would no longer exist] illegal aliens, etc.

This approach would be aimed at all major US corporations and members of congress itself.

The beauty is that Twitter can't ban those participating in the Hyper-Woke defense/attack lest it too be accused of exercising privilege and racism and, generally, being against the social justice movement.

Psy-ops and various mass marketing techniques (a la Edward Bernays) would be used on the populace to keep this mania in full swing and then, after the mission is accomplished, to bring the people back to reality. Again, this is not original. It is what the Left is doing to us right now.

Bills would be created in congress (by conservative operatives) requiring all schools to provide all students with vouchers for free gender change counseling, hormones and procedures. Also, classes encouraging "experimentation". Also vouchers for free abortions at beginning at age 12and encouraging sexual experimentation, pregnancy and abortion as an "experience". Additional Bills would require all schools to adopt a curriculum that teaches that Christianity is evil and racist, that America is evil and racist and that white people are evil and racist - I know, already happening. I mean turn the dial to 11 on this stuff. Students would be urged to tell their parents every night at the dinner table that they are evil and must have half of their income confiscated by government and given to those they oppress.

Bills should be aimed at all relatively wealthy people (like congress people and social media owners and exec.s). Anyone with over $1 million would have all wealth above that amount confiscated and redistributed to the oppressed. Anyone with a household income of greater than $60K/year must have 50% of anything above the cap confiscated.

Bills praising the Chinese social model and openly encouraging its development in the US would be offered (perhaps even funded by the Chinese, who would be unaware that they are being played).

Bills demanding the elimination of all borders and immigration control would be presented in Congress. These Bills include all kinds of funds for those taking advantage of the removal of borders.

Bills demanding the elimination of all law enforcement and all incarcerations for any reason would be introduced (in the spirit of correcting the inequities face by minorities).

Basically, anything that the Left wants, we want to the Nth power, openly and no mincing of words - and we demand that it be applied to everyone. No exceptions. Anyone trying to sneak through the net is called out, pilloried and cancelled.

Gated communities are a sign of privilege and Bills would call for them to be made illegal. They are racist and privileged.

Yet more Bills call for the elimination of private property on equity, social justice and racist grounds.

That's what's in just some of the Bills. I'm sure you can think of much more. Let the Democrats shoot down such Bills. Let them argue against the sentiment behind the Bills and then face the massive organized social media criticism and organized protests of their exercise of privilege, bigotry and racism. Again, turn the dial up to 11. These actions would take place every day.

I know that everything I mentioned is more or less where this country is headed anyhow in a ten year time frame ( or less). I'm talking about accelerating the process and compressing it into a two year window. Two year's worth of resulting damage can be absorbed and reversed. An unmanaged (by patriots) ten year slide to that point cannot be. No more slow boiled frog! The water becomes too hot to handle right now. Let's see if Americans really want this crap in it's full foulness.

The only hurdle is convincing conservatives to get on board with this plan- they would have to say and do things that they abhor. They would need to swallow their pride and understand that it is all for victory in the long run. This is a covert op in its truest sense. They would have to be reminded that killing people and physical war, the only alternative at this point, is more abhorrent to most people (it ain't like the movies). Perhaps they could even find this approach to be fun to carry out. If done right, it could save the Republic *by working within the established Constitutional system*.

Conservatives could use congress people who are not running for another term. Also, Q-Anon type personalities could be developed to inform the faithful that this time a true 4D chess game is being played. I think the strategy would be become self-evident to most conservatives. They would soon see the effect and understand what was being done (with a nod and a wink).

I repeat that there is not a damn thing the democrats/leftists could do in defense. They would be forced to renounce their own methods and expressed ideologies and swing back to a centrist position, lest they be destroyed by the very rhetorical bombs they started hurling.

//Unfortunately, the Left won't allow a dissolution.//

They may not be able to prevent it!

Besides, there's a case to be made that the Great Divorce would benefit the left at least as much as the right. Blue States like California would be free to pursue their socialist agenda without being hampered by the "knuckle-draggers" in Texas and Utah. Isn't that what they say they want?

I acknowledge that the Great Divorce will be extremely complicated to work out in its details, especially national defense and the national debt, but if the two sides are genuinely committed to parting company, they should be able to negotiate terms.

//The people that are "warning" you and the people that have dropped you are willing to scuttle their own fine representative in the realm of paranormal interests because of their woke ideology. That is an indication of how far it's gone.//

I think politics trumps "spiritual" commitments in many cases. That's fine. As I've said before, this reality is a "fully immersive" one, in which we are expected to play the game to the utmost of our ability, and that includes the game of politics. It doesn't bother me particularly that some people bid adios to this blog because of political disagreements. Again, I see it as part of the sorting-out that is a necessary prelude to the Great Divorce.

Of course, I would prefer not to lose any readers, because I value the input of everybody who participates here. But I'm not going to compromise my own principles just to satisfy my audience. I fully understand that many people, probably the majority, who are interested in "New Age" subjects are on the left, and that by expressing political opinions on the right, I am alienating them and restricting my influence. But that's just the way it goes. I don't see why people should assume that a blogger who rejects the conventional wisdom when it comes to the paranormal would embrace the conventional wisdom when it comes to the subject of politics or Shakespeare authorship or anything else. Generally speaking, freethinkers tend to be – guess what? – free in their thinking.

A year ago, I would have said that the Great Divorce was merely hypothetical and unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Now I think it is exceedingly obvious and imminent. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I see major corporations canceling the accounts of conservatives and refusing to do business with Trump supporters "on principle," it's an obvious harbinger of the breakup to come.

I'm not saying the breakup will occur without pain – there's no such thing as breaking up a marriage without pain – but I think it will happen. The exact details I don't know. The most logical thing I've seen is a map showing the Blue States combined with Canada, which allows Blue America to be a single contiguous nation (plus Hawaii), with Red America as a contiguous nation (plus Alaska) of its own. I think this makes good sense, assuming Canada wants to take on a share of our national debt.

Barring a merger with Canada, Blue America will probably be split into three discontiguous territories: the West Coast, the Chicago area, and the Northeast. This is a little more unwieldy, but it can still work; there is nothing that says a nation must consist of contiguous territory. Red America will require some ports, but I would think that the East Coast southern coastline, along with the San Diego area, would suffice.

Another option is some form of "home rule," in which there is a national government that deals with issues like defense and national debt, while allowing different parts of the country almost unlimited latitude in other respects. This is close to the original concept of the Constitution, and even closer to the Articles of Confederation, which perhaps should not have been jettisoned as quickly as they were, because they had a lot of good points.

Probably a Constitutional Convention will be required to begin the process, followed by a series of referenda. That's assuming it all happens peaceably, through negotiations, which is the most likely path, as I see it. I really don't think people are all that eager to take up arms either to defend the union or to dismantle it. This is not the 19th Century. These days, we are much more likely to talk out our differences with the help of lawyers. See the book "American Secession" (Buckley) for some interesting ruminations on these possibilities.

Anyway, as crazy as the idea may seem, I think our country is on a path to bisection within the next few years.

Incidentally, I’m toying with side of starting a new blog that would focus exclusively on the Great Divorce. (Not to replace the existing blog, but only to supplement it.) I realize this will be of limited interest to most readers here, but I thought I would mention it anyway. I find it fascinating to live through such tumultuous times with such huge historical implications.

For this reason, the Great Divorce interests me more than some of the subjects we’ve focused on in this blog. I’m not saying it’s more important, only that it’s grabbed my attention and I find it hard to look away. "Fully immersive reality," and all that.

Those who think the Great Divorce is a phantasm are entitled to their opinion, and they may prove to be correct. But I believe history is moving in a different direction.

Roger Knight - I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance on your part but the Supreme Court can only judicate in matters of state law where the state law in question is unconstitutional. Clearly it is not unconstitutional for state electors to vote contrary to the popular vote, therefore it is not a matter for the Supreme Court. And I get the feeling you were not aware of any of this prior to now since your initial comment 'huh?' suggests you had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. So well done for that frantic bit of googling. Its never too late to learn things and discover new facts.

I know nothing of the ins and outs of faithless electors, but this article provides a good summary. From what I can tell, there are many gray areas where the Supreme Court could get involved.

The Founders clearly intended the voters in the EC to be free agents, but many states have enacted laws to restrict what their EC voters can do. SCOTUS upheld those restrictions in a 1952 case.

In 2016, efforts were made to deny Trump an EC majority by persuading electors to go rogue. Obviously the attempt failed, but had it succeeded, the matter surely would have gone to SCOTUS.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/21/can-the-electoral-college-be-subverted-by-faithless-electors/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)