Well, this sure doesn’t fit the narrative… The sad thing is that LBJ’s plan apparently worked.
Something just for fun…
r/The_Donald is usually the second or third thing I look at in the morning. Today I was greeted by this:
Reddit has been imposing “special” rules on The_Donald because The_Donald is full of awful mean people who are mean to the rest of Reddit and need to be taught to be nice.
Reddit admins don’t understand that a centipede is a nimble navigator and has two hollow fangs. CENTIPEDES ARE PREDATORS. This isn’t going to blow up in their faces I don’t know what will.
Oh! The Daily Mail says it was nothing! We should just go back to claiming Trump’s DC is a “scandal fest” and not worry about any unsolved murders which are totally NOT tied to Wikileaks.
According to the Daily Mail:
- The family is threatening to sue the PI for blabbing
- The PI recanted his story about Wikileaks
- Julian Assange said Rich wasn’t the leak
- The timeline of the murder “cut against” any conspiracy theories
- Russia did it
However GOP lobbyist and DC lawyer Jack Burkman formally appealed to Congress to investigate the death after claiming he had evidence that Russia may be behind Rich’s murder.
‘Nothing was taken from Seth – not his wallet, gold chain, credit cards or a sizeable amount of cash,’ He told DailyMail.com in February. ‘So you know there’s no robbery gone awry.’
He said he was contacted by a man in his 60s, claiming to be a former US intelligence officer, who claimed ‘it [the murder] was arranged by the Russian government at a very high level’.
Burkman went on to say: ‘He just said he had knowledge it was arranged by the Russian government and stressed that it was at a high level.
‘I’ve met this person and he seems very credible. We’re now investigating the allegations he has made.’
You have got to be f’ing kidding me. Why would high level Russian government officials want to kill a nobody staffer for the DNC? As for the other points:
- The family “spokesman” is a PR guy who works for the DNC. Why is he acting in such a capacity?
- Strange that I didn’t see any headlines on DM when the recanting happened. You’d think they’d like to rub that in.
- Can’t find where Julian supposedly “clarified” that Rich wasn’t the source
- The timeline is: he got drunk, left the bar, was shot, oh and we can’t actually account for all the time after he left the bar. That sure is airtight, clears everything up.
Now, let’s say that PI was wrong, let’s say that Assange did come out and say “it’s not Seth Rich.” Why is it that when ever his name gets brought up, the paid trolls and shills come out of the woodwork and start spewing everywhere? Any pro-Rich conspiracy posts instantly get brigaded. What is about Seth Rich that makes someone out there want no one to talk about him?
His name was Seth Rich and there will be justice.
Answer: We’ll just do it ourselves.
The internet, even with all its downsides, has certainly done some interesting things for the way “normal” folks can do awesome things. Are the authorities not doing their duty in investigating a (potential) murder case? Covering things up are they? Media not doing their jobs to honestly report facts and relevant current events? No worries. The centipedes and /pol/ are on top of things.
Just a couple examples from today.
On the Donald this morning, they were talking about Wikileaks’ twitter announcement: BREAKING: Sweden has dropped its case against Julian Assange and will revoke its arrest warrant
So now does Mr. Assange just need a pardon from Trump and he’ll actually get to leave the Embassy? Some pedes seem to think leaving may be too dangerous for Assange even if that were possible, and that maybe it’s just a trap. I almost wouldn’t put it past the pedes and/or /pol/ to somehow break Assange out of the Embassy and have him whisked away to some safe and undisclosed location.
Google, of course, failed me for any further information. If you want truly breaking news, skip the news outlets, just go to the citizen investigators of the internet.
In other news, the centipedes and /pol/ are busy working to collect, archive and sift through every trace of Seth Rich on the internet (just one of many threads with them hard at work). They’re analyzing his entire life and personality and picking out anything that would lead to confirmation that he was the source of the DNC leaks and was murdered for it. As the circumstantial evidence amasses, it becomes increasingly easy to believe this “internet conspiracy theory.”
If it’s the so-called “unbiased media” and government officials — who we should supposedly be trusting over “weirdos” on the internet — who keep dishing out falsehoods and fake news, what are we supposed to think when the so-called “internet conspiracy theories” keep turning out to be true these days. I’m not sure there is anything too weird and convoluted to believe, especially when it comes to politics.
Coming from a family with a long history of loving books and valuing true education (not necessarily having anything to do with “school”), I found this essay by William Edmund Fahey interesting. He writes about great and good books and the effect and importance they have on culture and education:
Our own disorders spring from so much neglect of the real soil of culture: the widely shared canon of good literature and the widely affirmed understanding that there must be goodness in literature, and that such literature should be read aloud within families and by each and every person who dares call himself civilized—before, during, and after their formal education. Goodness is the soil of greatness.
I do not mean by goodness in literature and good literature that all characters should be plaster statues without depth or real complexity. No, I mean literature which elicits a clear understanding of what is true, good, and beautiful, because what is light is seen nearby to what is dark. Enchantment will not work in an imbalanced world of goody-goody mannequins. The enchantment offered by good literature works because those reading or listening to a tale already know first-hand that life is complex. We need go no further than Squirrel Nutkin to understand how this very real balance is achieved even in a children’s literature. Nutkin is, at once, morally flawed and attractive. No one who encounters Squirrel Nutkin—even one of five years—can fail to miss his conceit, fail to anticipate his demise, or fail to recognize his own fallenness in the impertinent will-to-power of Nutkin.
I will go so far as to say that a reader who has not had his experience nurtured and refined by the likes of Squirrel Nutkin is unlikely to comprehend Thucydides, St. Augustine, or Nietzsche.
Do the Great Books Sustain Wonder and Lead to Morality?
Over the last century, “great books” programs and colleges have fought a valiant battle to keep up the high standard of what it means to be human and civilized. Sadly, most of the progenitors of these programs neglected or gave little time to thinking about the supporting culture—especially as it touched upon family life and social customs. Worse still, some of the “great books” proponents thought that by rubbing up against Milton’s Areopagita, or joining in a seminar discussion of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, leaders would be born who would create, leaven, and sustain a good society. Somehow the idea has held steady for decades that an almost sacred encounter with great literature between the ages of 17 and 22 could transcend a hollow and malnourished family life, where little song was heard and none sung.
Yet the great books demand a supporting culture—both before and after and throughout.
Would we place our trust in a man who was well-versed in Nichomachus’s Introduction to Arithmetic or Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past, but who could not complete a line of nursery rhyme, who had never slept under the stars with Jim Hawkins, never wanted to rescue the likes of Princess Flavia, never shrunk in horror at the witches of Macbeth, never wept at the death of a bull dog named Jack or sorrowed over the sins of Kristen Lavransdatter? The one thing a liberal arts or great books education will not do is create a moral imagination where there is none. Yet somehow many educators believe that reading advanced works and chatting about them will lead to a good society. It may lead to a well-read society, but that need not be a good one or a happy one.
Fahey goes on to quote John Senior’s article, “The Thousand Good Books:”
The “Great Books” movement of the last generation has not failed so much as fizzled, not because of any defect in the books—“the best that has been thought and said,” in Matthew Arnold’s phrase—but like good champagne in plastic bottles they went flat. To change the figure, the seeds are good but the cultural soil has been depleted; the seminal ideas of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, only properly grow in an imaginative ground saturated with fables, fairy tales, stories, rhymes, adventures, which have developed into the thousand books of Grimm, Andersen, Stevenson, Dickens, Scott, Dumas and the rest. Western tradition, taking all that was best of the Greco-Roman world into herself has given us the thousand good books as a preparation for the great ones and for all the studies in the arts and sciences, without which such studies are inhumane.
(The list looks interesting and makes me feel not nearly well-read enough!)
After reading Vox’s Why Mother’s Matter and the ensuing comments, I’m left feeling not particularly hopeful about the state of affairs between the sexes. It was the comments not Vox’s post that I found troubling. A few women dared to post and were pretty much told to shut up, accused of “bitching” and trying to “shame” men (though there were some positive responses). I thought the women’s responses, mostly agreeing with Vox but just adding their perspective, were reasonable. In a nutshell: if you expect women to change, to return to more traditional ways and submit to men, you men had better change too.
Vox affirms the importance of mothers, especially full-time mothers, in raising the next generation and being instrumental in fighting the culture war, but many of the responses were apparently from angry, bitter men who hate women. Men claim to be the rational, unemotional ones, but often come across as big crybabies and respond quite irrationally (and even emotionally, though it looks different from women’s emotion — newsflash: anger is an emotion too). They claim women are the needy ones, but whine about their needs and how they can’t get what they want out of life. They feel justified in outlining what women are doing wrong and should change, but get all bent of of shape if a (gasp!) woman notes some ways men should change. If you want to offer constructive criticism to the opposite sex, fine, but you better be able to take it too.
Our current cultural state, feminism, etc. has ruined things for BOTH sexes. If you want to restore Western Civilization, stop making the opposite sex your enemy — that’s just playing into the feminist tactic to divide and conquer. Stop crying victim and refusing to recognize that women too are victims in this. And if you’re a man who says this isn’t true and that men have been the worse victims and that a woman can’t possibly understand what’s it like to be a man in this world today, well, maybe, but what makes you think you have a clue about what it’s like to be a woman now? There’s a reason men are sterotypically seen as clueless about women.
I’ve recently been thinking about humility and how lack of it contributes to many of the problems in our society and specifically, how it affects women. Lack of humility leads to women resisting being put in a “lower” position to men and the idea of submitting to or serving a man in any way. Hierarchy is seen as evil. Part of this is feminist indoctrination of course, that even the most conservatively raised woman has picked up from the surrounding culture to some extent. But it also stems from the desire to be special or important (and who doesn’t want to feel this way at least sometimes?). Everyone seems to want to be a leader, an achiever, to accomplish great things. No one wants to serve or admit that they’re not as good as someone else. No one just wants to wash the dishes and change diapers — things that on the surface accomplish nothing of lasting value and have to be done over and over again — and never hear a word of affirmation.
Being told that one is only fit for lowly things isn’t exactly a charming proposition. Men who reject feminist women and want a meek, little wife, but complain about women as stupid bitches who must be put in their place are idiots. Who would want to sign up for a life full of drudgery, be considered unimportant, and get to be, not a life-partner or equal companion, but little more than a dumb slave? You want women to return to traditional ways? You better make it sound more attractive than the fantasy of power and success held out by feminists.
There has to be a benefit for women to giving up their freedom and independence, and let’s be honest, a woman today is taking as big risk on today’s men as a man is taking on today’s women (statistics aside about women initiating more divorces – they might be the instigator but they’ve just ruined their own lives too). Pretty much everyone is damaged goods in some way and no one wants to get hurt. If today’s women have been trained to be over-critical of men and have too-high, unrealistic expectations of men and marriage, today’s men aren’t exactly the most attractive, paragons of virtue either, not exactly the kind of strong men who would inspire life-long devotion and submission.
If you men want to be served and submitted to, you have to offer something in return, and yes that includes fidelity, security, and at least a little affection. Sensible women will settle for less than perfection (a lot less); they’ll give up ideas of romance or having a soul mate or even a good friend in their spouse — and considering the lies woman have been led to believe, think what a hard pill that is to swallow. Even for women who aren’t so sensible, is it really all their fault that they’ve been fed a pack of lies all their lives? There are plenty of women who “wake up” and realize this. I’d say a little humility on all sides could help, starting with not demonizing the other.
Having the sexes at each other’s throats isn’t the way to ensure the survival of Western Civilization. Vox is on the right track to recognize the importance of mothers and give them a little credit for the hard work they do. Some of his commenters however have got it all wrong. The relationship between the sexes is so messed up I don’t know how to fix it — but I’m only woman after all, what would I know?