Archives for category: Psy-op

In my arguments, chiefly against the left, these days, I often do not get argument in return, I get counter-assertion, restatement, and laughing emoji reacts.

Arguing against these approaches pointlessness, and usually I just roll my eyes. But one must occasionally make a stand for reason.

A neighbor of mine is an old progressive. I would say he is an “un-reconstructed progressive,” but that would be wrong. All the old progressives I know do the pomo thing: racism, sexism, classicism, partisanship, relentless promotion of big government. Here is a typical Facebook interchange:

Now, my neighbor’s name I have obscured in black, his friend in red. The linked article was inapposite, so I responded:

Notice the only responses? Laughing emoji. I did not say anything funny, and my criticasters merely pretended not to be agelasts.

Then, not long after, my neighbor offered up another lame “meme”:

And here we get some argument, at last:

I leave laughter for other occasions: on the issue of group violence I am a stickler.

And even Paul Jacob strikes me as bending way too far backwards for the forces of chaos:

I give him some pushback, for I do not really agree with his general perspective: mass violence cannot easily be met with normal police action. It is warfare — Portland’s mayor calls it “urban warfare,” but more than implies that the federal government started it . . . which it did not.

Actually, Paul himself champed at the bit of this nonsense on Wednesday:

Cops vs. Mobs, Tyranny vs. Law?

“He was stuffed into what may have been a rental van operated by unmarked federal agents,” explained Cato Institute’s Patrick Eddington, “and taken to the federal courthouse, where he was interrogated without counsel. He wisely refused to answer questions and was then subsequently released without any kind of charges being filed.”

Eddington concluded: “I think most people would call that kidnapping.” 

The “he” — detained and questioned by federal agents* in Portland, Oregon — is Mark Pettibone. Whether the van was rented is irrelevant, nor do these agents or their vehicles require any marking.

And criminal suspects can lawfully be held for questioning. 

“So that we understand how police may remove someone from the streets,” Cato Daily Podcast host Caleb Brown adroitly offered, “we understand that they need to identify themselves. . . . that people who are placed under arrest retain certain rights to communicate with the outside world, to assert their ability to have a lawyer present for questioning.

“It seems that perhaps,” added Brown, “asking for a lawyer was the trigger here” resulting in Mr. Pettibone’s release.

Eddington agreed, but then announced that it “really does have the feel of Argentina or Chile in the 1970s, with the disappearances that took place. The only thing lacking was Mr. Pettibone being murdered by those agents.”

That is one big “only”!

“This is being done essentially to try to suppress protests in this country,” argued Eddington. “It has nothing to actually do with protecting monuments.” 

“We’re talking only about violent rioters,” Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli told NPR. “We’re not talking about actual protesters. We’re not seeking to interfere at all with anyone peacefully expressing themselves — period, full stop.”

Following the rule of law means protecting peaceful protests. And welcoming an investigation into the federal role in Portland. More concerning than Mr. Pettibone’s detention is the continued use of so-called non-lethal weapons, which seriously injured a protester weeks ago.

But the rule of law also means protecting Portlanders and their property against violence and destruction. And welcoming an investigation into the state and local dereliction of duty in Portland. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that agents with the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) were “cross designated to support FPS” (the Federal Protection Service) in Portland “because of the demand for more manpower in light of the violence.”

So here Paul is resolute in opposing what I object to, the way our dominant culture bends over backward to cover for leftist mass violence strikes me as part of the post-modernist mind-rape that constitutes the psy-op of the Deep State and the old, old memeplex that is totalitarianism.

If it were not so dangerous I would laugh.

Maybe I will laugh at it tomorrow. Right now, eyerolls only:

Charlie Day Eye Roll GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

The most idiotic story of the week: first, Bernie Sanders is told by U.S. intelligence that Russia is planning to aid him in the upcoming election; next, the story leaks to the Washington Post, which runs with it; and finally, Bernie confirms the “disclosure” and bothers to repudiate the alleged support.

“Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend,” the statement [from candidate Bernie Sanders] said. “He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia. Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.”
Sanders on Friday called the interference an “ugly thing” that is attempting to “divide us up.”
“That’s what they did in 2016. That is the ugliest thing they’re doing, is they are trying to cause chaos, trying to cause hatred in America,” Sanders told reporters. “It is an ugly business, and all of us have got to say, ‘Sorry, you are not going to do this in this election.’”

Myah Ward, “Sanders condemns Russian interference in 2020 elections,” Politico, February 21, 2020.

As if advocating for socialism wouldn’t be divisive in America!

Also, the disclosure seems more like a psy-op than anything else. What is the evidence that Russians were trying to tilt the scales to Bernie? The agents who told Bernie this — couldn’t they be playing him? Isn’t this likely? Leaking the story to the American public a week later strikes me as a way to throw a monkey wrench into Bernie’s campaign — we’ve been so programmed to freak out about Russian election interference that this whole scenario looks like campaign dirty tricks from a Deep State cabal.

The real electoral threat lies in the easily compromised electronic/digital voting systems, systems designed and implemented by Deep State contractors. The fact that almost no one mentions these in-jeopardy systems strikes me as a tell — that people do not care for the integrity of their electoral systems, and merely aim to use the issue as a partisan bludgeon.

That Bernie reacted as he did could be a sign that he is either not very bright or not very serious, or perhaps is, as evidenced so often, a coward in the face of power.

His response should have been eyerolls, and to call attention to multiple levels of psy-ops. That he chose merely to flail at Trump in a pathetic fashion shows just how little imagination and perspective he has. Maybe he cannot conceive of how deep the fakes run.

He is a naïf — like most socialists are. No surprise, there. After all, if adopting socialism, you must be either naive or evil.

Or both.

twv