"The question turns on whether or not Trump was and is the genuine populist his supporters reckon him to be." That's not really important. What matters is if the spark of populism he ignited in the Republican party is snuffed out or allowed to smoke until the midterms. I think most Republican operatives want to walk the line between appe…
"The question turns on whether or not Trump was and is the genuine populist his supporters reckon him to be." That's not really important. What matters is if the spark of populism he ignited in the Republican party is snuffed out or allowed to smoke until the midterms. I think most Republican operatives want to walk the line between appealing to the people who bought Trump's populist rhetoric while disavowing him as a vulgarity who steered them off the moral high ground, even where the landscape is flat swampland as far as the eye can see. In truth, the typical Republican voter is a populist now.
We probably are talking a difference without a distinction, as my engineer Father would say.
Divisions will harden in the days ahead. Sides will be chosen and allies sought. Once the average Trump supporter ditches Fox news for good, as they already should have, clarity can occur.
Fox News is quickly becoming an irrelevancy on its own. But out of curiosity, what should be the replacement news source for the average Trump supporter?
For starters, I'm not just talking about Trump types here- this goes for everybody.
Fox was the original propaganda outlet and led the charge to war. post 9/11. I would never trust them and I avoid them as diligently as I do CNN or MSNBC. 24/7 mind fucking from all of them.
Stop thinking in terms of news sources. Get your info from a variety of areas, use your eyes and ears and come up with your own conclusions. People are lazy, they want to be spoon fed and the big boys are more than willing to do so. They consolidate it into just a few outlets because they can only control things that way.
The PTB really only use a few tried and true techniques, spiced up with fun and useful electronic inventions. It's all pretty simple and obvious once you know what to look for.
Search around and locate the outlets that educate instead of program. Then use your own mind instead of letting others dictate reality to you. Use your experience and understanding of human nature. Look for inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisies.
Know who your enemies are.
Get your bearings, direct yourself. Use cynicism intelligently, but use it. Realize that the further you wander from traditional values the further you move from reality and into the realm of insanity and those who would control you.
You'll naturally end up in the right place. Might have to search around first.
Of course, but what are *your* sources of choice? Or do you just take the mainstream with a dash of Taibbi and other enterprising self-sustaining journalists and parse the likely truth from there?
I appreciate persistence- especially done with civility. I'm not a fussy person- at 66, I still fight forest fires for a living and live a challenging physical life. But I'm old school in how I expect people to treat one another. Anyhow, thanks for your question.
I felt I had to lead with that prior post so that you would understand a little about how I might decide what sources to use. We all use something- we don't live in a vacuum and information about our world- the environment around us- has to be found somewhere.
I absolutely avoid mainstream media. It's all distortion. The effort to glean anything of value is, I long ago realized, just not worth it. People are surprised and a little taken back at my attitude since they are offended when I point out they are being out- right manipulated. They of course think they are too smart to allow that to happen. But they're wrong. Any exposure to the media leaves one vulnerable. The techniques used, though easy to recognize once you have schooled yourself, are very difficult to see if you are still in the matrix. Television is the worst- totally corrupted, but newspapers, magazines etc still are terrible. So much PC, woke bullshit in the printed media and Hollywood- who I absolutely loathe.
Matt is ok. I think he will have to choose at some point or he will be consumed by the beast he sometimes taunts. He is too PC for my tastes but I have a extremely low tolerance for that foolishness and stupidity. Matt wanders the wilderness IMO. But he's a good writer and a real person- he's not a phony. I listen to him.
Now before getting into what I use I'll say that everything is taken with a grain of salt. Here's an analogy: I have fought fire since 20 years old. In that time I have met some outstanding people- ones I would fight fire with any day. All the same, I would never go down a fireline and start work solely on their word. I make my own assessment- every time. And I would expect others to do the exact same thing. That's how I live my life.
There I go, making a short story long.
The quick answer would have been:
Zerohedge and Dollarcollapse. They are aggregators I guess, with articles from all over. Little of it is mainstream. But you can get articles from people like Matt, Glenn Greenwald, Charles Hugh Smith, Caitlin Johnstone- the list goes on. It's a huge range of thoughts, ideas, forecasts, historical context and so on. Much of it is economic/financial. But the overall idea is to educate, not indoctrinate; to get one to think instead of just providing answers. Totally different from mainstream legacy media. I hit links as it suits me to get further and further away from the starting pages for more enlightenment. Just remembered- Dimitry Orlov- he's another one I always read when an article is posted. I don't spend any time with the Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham types. Anybody who in the past supported the wars are always going to be suspect. The only politician I would ever listen to might be a Ron Paul type
I don't take a passive approach at all. I read a lot, think a lot and really work at putting it all together. I'm not lazy about it. I'll tell you right now, straight up, that the mainstream media is utterly worthless for achieving any understanding of the world. In fact it's just the opposite. I reject it completely. And the rest is still taken with a grain of salt. Some writers I find to be so accurate that I can almost take them at their word (still never would). Oh and a pleasant surprise: several commentators on this site- other posters- I find to be very eloquent and insightful. I learn from them, for sure.
Serious question regarding your last sentence. Who in right wing media, tv, radio, internet, social media, is a populist? That is where they get all of their information and unless there is a personality that would reinforce something populist, there is no populist right. It is culture and libertarian economics. Trump won on a populist agenda, but as soon as he got in office and ditched Bannon he was a typical Republican. 73 million people didn't vote for populism. They voted for a personality and against a perceived evil. Having been a former right winger that gobbled all that news and also important, American Christianity, I just don't see the majority of Republicans looking for populist economic items.
Trump appealed to a sentiment that already existed among Republican voters. Whether or not he ultimately emerged as a populist in power is debatable. There was always the popular perception among conservatives that it was Trump vs the Media Industrial Complex, which has been a cesspool of bias forever. Post-Trump, we rightly see the super-elite as the puppet masters they have exposed themselves to be. Soros really does have his tentacles in everything - that's not a conspiracy theory. Google is right there with him, supporting dubious organizations like the Atlantic Council and other thought-influencing orgs across the globe. Trump has credibility as a populist because he's not clever or rich enough to affect the global politik covertly. He was the Great Disrupter, fighting a rhetorical battle in a very real war over the control and use of information. Republicans appreciate that.
Well written. Trump may well be nothing more than a step along the way. We as citizens and human beings will always have to shoulder the real burden, But if Trump shone the light on the dark corners, then he will have done a great service.
Trump exposed the entire game of corruption which is one of the reasons the ruling class hate him. He was to dumb to lie, cheat and steal in a sophisticated way. He does it like everything he does in a ham fisted way. I got no issue with calling out Soros. Just be sure to call out the Koch brothers also. Appreciate your thoughts.
This is exactly why working-class people get Trump - he's uncomplicated and doesn't parse words. He speaks plainly and isn't afraid to wear a hard-hat on that ridiculous head of his. Trump is perceived to be a regular dude who happens to be wealthy, but he fought like hell for his empire and had no shame in how he did it. Trump is accessible in a way that Obama and the Clintons can never be. The remaining Koch brother no longer represents the mainstream of the Republican party.
"The question turns on whether or not Trump was and is the genuine populist his supporters reckon him to be." That's not really important. What matters is if the spark of populism he ignited in the Republican party is snuffed out or allowed to smoke until the midterms. I think most Republican operatives want to walk the line between appealing to the people who bought Trump's populist rhetoric while disavowing him as a vulgarity who steered them off the moral high ground, even where the landscape is flat swampland as far as the eye can see. In truth, the typical Republican voter is a populist now.
We probably are talking a difference without a distinction, as my engineer Father would say.
Divisions will harden in the days ahead. Sides will be chosen and allies sought. Once the average Trump supporter ditches Fox news for good, as they already should have, clarity can occur.
Fox News is quickly becoming an irrelevancy on its own. But out of curiosity, what should be the replacement news source for the average Trump supporter?
For starters, I'm not just talking about Trump types here- this goes for everybody.
Fox was the original propaganda outlet and led the charge to war. post 9/11. I would never trust them and I avoid them as diligently as I do CNN or MSNBC. 24/7 mind fucking from all of them.
Stop thinking in terms of news sources. Get your info from a variety of areas, use your eyes and ears and come up with your own conclusions. People are lazy, they want to be spoon fed and the big boys are more than willing to do so. They consolidate it into just a few outlets because they can only control things that way.
The PTB really only use a few tried and true techniques, spiced up with fun and useful electronic inventions. It's all pretty simple and obvious once you know what to look for.
Alright, fair enough. What are your sources for information?
How to answer that.
Search around and locate the outlets that educate instead of program. Then use your own mind instead of letting others dictate reality to you. Use your experience and understanding of human nature. Look for inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisies.
Know who your enemies are.
Get your bearings, direct yourself. Use cynicism intelligently, but use it. Realize that the further you wander from traditional values the further you move from reality and into the realm of insanity and those who would control you.
You'll naturally end up in the right place. Might have to search around first.
Of course, but what are *your* sources of choice? Or do you just take the mainstream with a dash of Taibbi and other enterprising self-sustaining journalists and parse the likely truth from there?
I appreciate persistence- especially done with civility. I'm not a fussy person- at 66, I still fight forest fires for a living and live a challenging physical life. But I'm old school in how I expect people to treat one another. Anyhow, thanks for your question.
I felt I had to lead with that prior post so that you would understand a little about how I might decide what sources to use. We all use something- we don't live in a vacuum and information about our world- the environment around us- has to be found somewhere.
I absolutely avoid mainstream media. It's all distortion. The effort to glean anything of value is, I long ago realized, just not worth it. People are surprised and a little taken back at my attitude since they are offended when I point out they are being out- right manipulated. They of course think they are too smart to allow that to happen. But they're wrong. Any exposure to the media leaves one vulnerable. The techniques used, though easy to recognize once you have schooled yourself, are very difficult to see if you are still in the matrix. Television is the worst- totally corrupted, but newspapers, magazines etc still are terrible. So much PC, woke bullshit in the printed media and Hollywood- who I absolutely loathe.
Matt is ok. I think he will have to choose at some point or he will be consumed by the beast he sometimes taunts. He is too PC for my tastes but I have a extremely low tolerance for that foolishness and stupidity. Matt wanders the wilderness IMO. But he's a good writer and a real person- he's not a phony. I listen to him.
Now before getting into what I use I'll say that everything is taken with a grain of salt. Here's an analogy: I have fought fire since 20 years old. In that time I have met some outstanding people- ones I would fight fire with any day. All the same, I would never go down a fireline and start work solely on their word. I make my own assessment- every time. And I would expect others to do the exact same thing. That's how I live my life.
There I go, making a short story long.
The quick answer would have been:
Zerohedge and Dollarcollapse. They are aggregators I guess, with articles from all over. Little of it is mainstream. But you can get articles from people like Matt, Glenn Greenwald, Charles Hugh Smith, Caitlin Johnstone- the list goes on. It's a huge range of thoughts, ideas, forecasts, historical context and so on. Much of it is economic/financial. But the overall idea is to educate, not indoctrinate; to get one to think instead of just providing answers. Totally different from mainstream legacy media. I hit links as it suits me to get further and further away from the starting pages for more enlightenment. Just remembered- Dimitry Orlov- he's another one I always read when an article is posted. I don't spend any time with the Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham types. Anybody who in the past supported the wars are always going to be suspect. The only politician I would ever listen to might be a Ron Paul type
I don't take a passive approach at all. I read a lot, think a lot and really work at putting it all together. I'm not lazy about it. I'll tell you right now, straight up, that the mainstream media is utterly worthless for achieving any understanding of the world. In fact it's just the opposite. I reject it completely. And the rest is still taken with a grain of salt. Some writers I find to be so accurate that I can almost take them at their word (still never would). Oh and a pleasant surprise: several commentators on this site- other posters- I find to be very eloquent and insightful. I learn from them, for sure.
Time to get breakfast for the kids. Cheers
Serious question regarding your last sentence. Who in right wing media, tv, radio, internet, social media, is a populist? That is where they get all of their information and unless there is a personality that would reinforce something populist, there is no populist right. It is culture and libertarian economics. Trump won on a populist agenda, but as soon as he got in office and ditched Bannon he was a typical Republican. 73 million people didn't vote for populism. They voted for a personality and against a perceived evil. Having been a former right winger that gobbled all that news and also important, American Christianity, I just don't see the majority of Republicans looking for populist economic items.
Trump appealed to a sentiment that already existed among Republican voters. Whether or not he ultimately emerged as a populist in power is debatable. There was always the popular perception among conservatives that it was Trump vs the Media Industrial Complex, which has been a cesspool of bias forever. Post-Trump, we rightly see the super-elite as the puppet masters they have exposed themselves to be. Soros really does have his tentacles in everything - that's not a conspiracy theory. Google is right there with him, supporting dubious organizations like the Atlantic Council and other thought-influencing orgs across the globe. Trump has credibility as a populist because he's not clever or rich enough to affect the global politik covertly. He was the Great Disrupter, fighting a rhetorical battle in a very real war over the control and use of information. Republicans appreciate that.
Well written. Trump may well be nothing more than a step along the way. We as citizens and human beings will always have to shoulder the real burden, But if Trump shone the light on the dark corners, then he will have done a great service.
And Trump is the human hand grenade since 2016.
Trump exposed the entire game of corruption which is one of the reasons the ruling class hate him. He was to dumb to lie, cheat and steal in a sophisticated way. He does it like everything he does in a ham fisted way. I got no issue with calling out Soros. Just be sure to call out the Koch brothers also. Appreciate your thoughts.
This is exactly why working-class people get Trump - he's uncomplicated and doesn't parse words. He speaks plainly and isn't afraid to wear a hard-hat on that ridiculous head of his. Trump is perceived to be a regular dude who happens to be wealthy, but he fought like hell for his empire and had no shame in how he did it. Trump is accessible in a way that Obama and the Clintons can never be. The remaining Koch brother no longer represents the mainstream of the Republican party.