The hate mongering is there to blind the left to their own dirt. — wellwisher

This might be one way to make sense of Scott Adams cognitive dissonance theory as applied to TDS. All the dirty deeds that all the Lefties have done doesn't align with their self-image and this causes an internal conflict. Good people (Lefties) don't do dirty deeds, so the only other way to explain it is that Trump did the dirty deeds.

Sound right, wellwisher?

You put a lounge topic about Trump derangement syndrome on the Facebook page? :chin:

It's up to Tiff what she puts on the page and she has a good record, so let's not go off-topic on this and move on, please.

Thank you kindly.

Having just skimmed through the other choices, it doesn't seem out of place.

Yeah I watched several of Trump's rallies on YT. The first one I watched in dread, out of a sense of duty, just to see what he was about (I had the same received opinion about him as most others here). Eventually I came increasingly to admire him and after watching him for the third time, I realized that he ought to win, he had to win, and would win.

I came increasingly to admire him and after watching him for the third time, I realized that he ought to win... — gurugeorge

You realized it was morally right for him to win. Perhaps you should watch more of his rallies.

You realized it was morally right for him to win. — praxis

Yes, of course. But obviously we have different conceptions of who he is, what he stands for and what he's doing.

I'm curious if we had the same experience. I was also affected by his rallying, but in the afterglow I realized that the tuning fork he was tinging was nostalgia for a bygone world. No one in particular screwed up and de-industrialized the US. To some extent that happened because of the success of labor unions.

Is any of that relevant to your experience?

I can’t tell if you’re being serious. To be clear, if someone says that a candidate for presidential office ought to win it appears to mean that they believe it’s morally right for them to win, or that the candidate will perform virtuously in that position.

To be clear, if someone says that a candidate for presidential office ought to win it appears to mean that they believe it’s morally right for them to win, or that the candidate will perform virtuously in that position. — praxis

Yes, that is correct. And I am entirely serious. I believe the received wisdom about Trump among the "intelligentsia" is completely wrong, as wrong as wrong can be. The hysterical opposition to him is literally insane, a mind-virus.

No one in particular screwed up and de-industrialized the US. To some extent that happened because of the success of labor unions. — frank

I don't think that's true. I think there was a deliberate, concerted attempt to weaken the US, as it's the biggest potential adversary of globalist ambitions.

(To clarify, in this context, by "globalism" I mean the unholy alliance between transnationalist socialism and crony capitalism. The central premise of globalism is that the nation state has had its day and has got to go; its its destruction - the dissolution of borders, national sovereignty, democracy, etc., and their replacement by a global system of social engineering and corporate management - would be convenient for both Leftist utopian ideologues and for big banking and corporations.)

... a global system of social engineering and corporate management — gurugeorge

And this is a coordinated, conscious undertaking? Or an uncoordinated trend?

And this is a coordinated, conscious undertaking? Or an uncoordinated trend? — frank

A bit of both, as most of these large, historical movements have been. There are lots of people who simply "breathe together" because they believe the same things. I remember myself when I was a socialist, it just seemed obvious that entryism in politics, and homing in on capturing the education system as the number one overall priority, was the obvious min-max strategy. (And I hadn't even read Gramsci at that point - it's just obvious. Wasn't there a famous Jesuit saying about education? "Give me someone when they're five" or something :) )

On the other hand, it would be foolish to discount the likelihood of actual conspiracies strictly so-called. The problem with actual conspiracy theories is threefold: 1) you're unlikely to get everyone on the same page, so they will often work at cross-purposes, 2) you don't always get what you want anyway (law of unintended consequences), and 3) as you get older you realize how hard it is to organize something even above board in the light of day - how much harder then, to organize something sub rosa. But conspiracies are occasionally found out from time to time, and, again, it would be stupid to think that the ones that have been found out are the only ones that have ever existed.

I think there's definitely been some actual conspiratorial stuff going on at a high level between what one might call "transnationalist socialists" and crony capitalists. And it's not even all that secret (Bilderberg group, etc.). There has been a drive to erase the nation state as a thing - partly in the no doubt sincere (but I think mistaken) belief that nations as such are the cause of war (this would be largely the motivation for Left/liberal utopians and transnationalist socialists); partly because it's better for big business if Rome has a single neck, as it were - if everything is centralized and run bureaucratically, with consent manufactured (this would be the main motivation for big business). There's also a strong animus against European/American males - mainly I think because they're the biggest potential spanner in the works of globalist ambitions. (This is actually the tail that's wagging the dog re. all the anti-White, anti-male propaganda that saturates the mainstream - the ideological twaddle behind it is just squid-ink for the useful idiots.)

Unfortunately for the globalists (though fortunately for the world) they rather overplayed their hand, and we're now starting to see the frog noticing that it's been being boiled, and jumping out of the pot.

Hmm. A little too spicy for my taste. :smile:

Yes, that is correct. And I am entirely serious. I believe the received wisdom about Trump among the "intelligentsia" is completely wrong, as wrong as wrong can be. The hysterical opposition to him is literally insane, a mind-virus. — gurugeorge

TDS. Scott Adams had predicted that by now it would have been abated.... pretty much the only issue about which he has been wrong. If anything, it has gotten stronger. We are talking about a full-blown mass hysteria now. Orangeman baaaaad!