Social Politics / The American Scene

[Alexis Jacobi]

It would be interesting I think to initiate a conversation on the topic What is going on in America today? I wonder how much preamble the question I am proposing requires? Yes, it is a topical and a political issue, but are not *philosophical perspectives* the best perspectives for analysis?

Perhaps it is possible to begin by referring to the recent, and interesting, firing of Tucker Carlson from his Fox News show. I would be curious to know if those who post here (am I right to believe that about 50% who write here are English and the other 50% American?) watch either Fox News or the Tucker Carlson show?

I am curious, obviously, how people here frame the civil and political conflict in the US. But doesn't the issues that are sources of conflict in America also have their correspondence in all of the European countries?

I try to read as widely as possible, from Antifa-like sites (Its Going Down for example) to those on the other fringe -- for example Unz Review, and of course the NYTs I read daily.

Here is an article now on the Unz Review website. Ron Unz is definitely an oddball but he has created what might be described as a weird hodge-podge of dissident (and sometimes even loopy) voices who are entirely excluded from the so-called mainstream. These include people and voices formally and entirely considered crimethink. So be warned.

Here is one that makes an effort to frame the Carlson firing as part of general *deplatforming*.

I would appreciate knowing what your sources of information are. Please post links as I'd like to examine them.

Although it is easy, naturally, to make blanket comments about American stupidity and all the rest, or how disgusting certain figures are, it might be best to avoid easy statements and try to keep things toned-down.

Frankly, there are some shows I've watched of TC on YouTube (I do not watch TV) that have impressed me to a significant degree. For example his *expose* on the 'vulture capitalism' of Paul Singer's investment group:

(What is Destroying Rural America).

And his speech at the Heritage Foundation I thought was quite good.

My own view is that it is better for all concerned to understand what is going on rather than simply to criticize or support one faction or another. Seeing clearly is often quite different from having a specific position or taking a side.

[Impenitent]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan ... 22cfba5cb1

https://mises.org/wire/why-fox-fired-tu ... ry-and-adl

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... on-lawsuit

cable news is dying- the younger viewers get their news from the net

American stupidity... the public education system has done it's job in the last 30 years...

what is going on in America today? some are getting ready for WW3... the front in Europe is about to spill over the Ukrainian borders and a new front in Taiwan will open when comrade Biden is re-appointed as commander in chief... sycophants are entertaining...

cries for social justice and manufactured rage against global warming to cover the oncoming hyperinflation will not satiate the populace...

gun sales are up, ammo is getting hard to find...

another civil war is around the corner

history never repeats, blood will flow... the only question that matters is who will launch the first nuke? Iran or Israel?

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

It would be interesting I think to initiate a conversation on the topic What is going on in America today? I wonder how much preamble the question I am proposing requires? Yes, it is a topical and a political issue, but are not *philosophical perspectives* the best perspectives for analysis?

Perhaps it is possible to begin by referring to the recent, and interesting, firing of Tucker Carlson from his Fox News show. I would be curious to know if those who post here (am I right to believe that about 50% who write here are English and the other 50% American?) watch either Fox News or the Tucker Carlson show?

I've never heard anyone reference TC over here (London) at all, and we know Fox primarily as the Murdoch thing that's 10 times worse than any Murdoch thing we have here.

I am curious, obviously, how people here frame the civil and political conflict in the US. But doesn't the issues that are sources of conflict in America also have their correspondence in all of the European countries?

To an extent, yes. But there's some very significant differences too.

• Our right wing parties borrow only a little of the social conservative stuff from America, but a whole bunch of low tax rhetoric. However even our most right wing parties wouldn't get rid of our "socialised" health care (never referred to as that by anyone here). That applies to all of Europe.

• Our UK right wing is fairly heavy on complaining about immigration, they seem to want to borrow some of the American panic about trannies but that doesn't look like a strong move for them. The "don't say gay" laws in Florida remind us of something silly Thatcher tried called clause 28 which is never happening again and the yanks should stop and learn from that example.

• In other parts of Europe, the far right are borderline neo-nazis with serious power bases now. They've been doing very well electorally and their obsession with Islam in particular is leading to some proposals that would make Trump blush. I doubt they can enact the badest bits, but I've been wrong about what they can achieve before.

• Aside from basic agreement over minum wages, unions, and inheritance taxes, our proper lefties don't have much time for their American counterparts as far as I can see. Proper lefties over here deeply mistrust America in general, we've called them tankies since the 60s when they all made excuses that Soviet tanks blatting Czech students were justified as an act of self defence against America. You'll notice I am sure that your "dissident right" are kinda tankies these days too.

And then there's the structural stuff that doesn't translate at all. Nowhere in Europe, even Britain, is a two party state to the extent of America, neither the Republican nor Democrat parties would remain intact over here. That's because nowhere in Europe allows gerrymandering like that, it's disgusting. And also because nowhere in Europe uses a Federal Supreme Court to make laws like that, we expect our parliaments to do the job properly. And ultimately that's why abortion stopped being an issue here decades ago.

I try to read as widely as possible, from Antifa-like sites (Its Going Down for example) to those on the other fringe -- for example Unz Review, and of course the NYTs I read daily.

Here is an article now on the Unz Review website. Ron Unz is definitely an oddball but he has created what might be described as a weird hodge-podge of dissident (and sometimes even loopy) voices who are entirely excluded from the so-called mainstream. These include people and voices formally and entirely considered crimethink. So be warned.

Here is one that makes an effort to frame the Carlson firing as part of general *deplatforming*.

Unz is ignoring that Carlson was exposed in court documents as both absolutely hating trump and lying about that, but also cynically lying on behalf of people such as Sidney Powell, who he despises, in pursuit of an election fraud story he openly admitted (off screen) was a maniac conspiracy theory. Had fox not settled for over $750m he would have been the third witness on day one of the Dominion case. This was their only chance to get some distance from him before the Smartmatic case lands.

It's quite insane to suppose that Murdoch took orders from AOC to get rid of Carlson. You can honestly shove your nonsense about "conspiracy theorist" being 'hot words', that site is conspiracist silliness.

Here's a decent site handling the same discussion without going mad.

I would appreciate knowing what your sources of information are. Please post links as I'd like to examine them.

Here's The Economist on a related topic.
And Politico taking a small detour into the DoD reaction.

Although it is easy, naturally, to make blanket comments about American stupidity and all the rest, or how disgusting certain figures are, it might be best to avoid easy statements and try to keep things toned-down.

Frankly, there are some shows I've watched of TC on YouTube (I do not watch TV) that have impressed me to a significant degree. For example his *expose* on the 'vulture capitalism' of Paul Singer's investment group:

(What is Destroying Rural America).

And his speech at the Heritage Foundation I thought was quite good.

My own view is that it is better for all concerned to understand what is going on rather than simply to criticize or support one faction or another. Seeing clearly is often quite different from having a specific position or taking a side.

Tucker Carlson should never have been so important as he became.

It's intriguing that he did a whole hit piece on Elliott Mgmt. Singer is for all the vulture stuff a serious titan of the free markets. He's certainly not done worse things than News Corp, but then, the "dissident right" has sure borrowed a lot of economic protectionism from the lefties in recent years without anyone apparently noticing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've never heard anyone reference TC over here (London) at all, and we know Fox primarily as the Murdoch thing that's 10 times worse than any Murdoch thing we have here.

That figures. Tucker Carlson, here, has been and is a big deal. Perhaps because he is perceived as one who 'tells the truth' when others don't or won't. Though I agree that he has produced some extremely bold shows (I referenced the Singer expose which was radical for numerous reasons) he is still an 'entertainer' and also a demagogue. Even he does not have illusions as to what he is and what he does.

However, he is not insincere about how he conceives the present struggles. For that reason the Heritage Foundation talk is relevant.

I don't have much to comment on in respect to your bulleted points. Except that I am reminded that in Eastern Europe they take their 'conservatism' very seriously. Someone wrote, "Gone Communism now Eastern Europe can get back to its real inclination: fascism". I tend to be suspicious of the label 'fascist' (as you know) because a label does not really explain anything. But they do seem counter-Liberal and anti-Liberal by inclination.

Proper lefties over here deeply mistrust America in general, we've called them tankies since the 60s when they all made excuses that Soviet tanks blatting Czech students were justified as an act of self defence against America. You'll notice I am sure that your "dissident right" are kinda tankies these days too.

Do you have any experience with the writing of Alain de Benoist? He is not really of the Right but not really of the Left either. He has unusual perspectives. And his ideas have been influential among the American 'dissident right'. They are extremely on the fringes in the sense that they are .0000001 of the population, and they work with highly intellectual ideas which are (in my opinion) interesting but impracticable. Take for example Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents.

Unz is ignoring that Carlson was exposed in court documents as both absolutely hating trump and lying about that, but also cynically lying on behalf of people such as Sidney Powell, who he despises, in pursuit of an election fraud story he openly admitted (off screen) was a maniac conspiracy theory. Had fox not settled for over $750m he would have been the third witness on day one of the Dominion case. This was their only chance to get some distance from him before the Smartmatic case lands.

Who knows why he got canned. It is more likely that he offended Big Pharma and, in any case, skirts too close to those dreaded 'fringes' in some of his insinuations. My understanding is that Fox will settle with Smartmatic but for a tiny sum (comparatively).

The general consensus os that MSM is reigning in any outlying, dissident, troublesome, 'dangerous' voices -- and also any that skirt views interpreted as anti-Semitic -- as the next election gets nearer.

It's quite insane to suppose that Murdoch took orders from AOC to get rid of Carlson. You can honestly shove your nonsense about "conspiracy theorist" being 'hot words', that site is conspiracist silliness.

Unz Review is a bizarre site admittedly. My own view is that it is wise -- necessary in fact -- to be versed in what is being communicated in these places. But I veer away from the term 'conspiracy theories' because the term doesn't explain anything.

Each one writing there, from E Michael Jones to Jared Taylor to Unz himself -- have to be examined independently. What does unite them ()often) is having been 'cancelled' and lost their places on YouTube and other social media sites. It is not such a good idea to eliminate voices one does not like or those one fears. It drives people underground and gives them a cause to fight against and rally their efforts.

The Hill is pretty good. I cannot bear The Economist myself. But I do read it from time to time. I like the photo though.

Interesting the Politico article and its premise. That whole 'complex' is the source of immense problems. But then America has, and administers, an Empire (of interests). Very few actually understand this and what it implies.

Tucker Carlson should never have been so important as he became.

That is perhaps true. But the same could be said for Donald Trump. I have my own theory about the rise of Donald Trump but it is a bit Jungian and may not be helpful.

It's intriguing that he did a whole hit piece on Elliott Mgmt. Singer is for all the vulture stuff a serious titan of the free markets. He's certainly not done worse things than News Corp, but then, the "dissident right" has sure borrowed a lot of economic protectionism from the lefties in recent years without anyone apparently noticing.

No, they've noticed. Positions have flipped. And the 'average man' is a battlefield.

[promethean75]

Brits are smarter per capita than american conservatives, that's why a knucklehead like TC wouldn't ever fly over there.

we can attribute his popularity in the states to that very stupidity of the conservative listener base.

not that TC is so smart but that fox viewers are so dumb. that explains the american audience's fascination with him.

[Agent Smith]

The event described in the OP, having to do with a certain Mr. Tucker Carlson, showcases

1. America's military prowess
2. Socratic philosophy
3. The effect blue whales have on marine ecology
4. None of the above

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, he speaks for himself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

we can attribute his popularity in the states to that very stupidity of the conservative listener base.

To be stupid — your term — is to be or to have been deprived, starved, malnourished. There is a long trajectory in the dumbing-down process.

The NY Intellectual Establishment set the tone of contempt & ridicule for an entire class that has suffered deprivation. Their contempt is boundless. Did you ever watch Michael Moore’s presentation where he revealed the condition of the class I refer to?

There is more to be got through understanding the contemptuous battles going on that to only view them superficially.

To imply that it is stupid to be conservative or have conservative values implies that whoever you are referring to — their polar analogue — is ‘smarter’?

That’s an example of how contemptuous attitudes distort perception. It’s its own poison.
_________________

More interpretation of Carlson’s dismissal.

[ThinkOfOne]

My own view is that it is better for all concerned to understand what is going on rather than simply to criticize or support one faction or another. Seeing clearly is often quite different from having a specific position or taking a side.

What do you think are the major impediments to "seeing clearly"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

My own view is that it is better for all concerned to understand what is going on rather than simply to criticize or support one faction or another. Seeing clearly is often quite different from having a specific position or taking a side.

What do you think are the major impediments to "seeing clearly"?

Pre-formed prejudice. A will set against seeing ‘the other side of the coin’. A set choice to see the other (one’s enemy, one’s adversary) as wrong because of a character defect or a philosophical orientation (or existential) that is defined as bad or ‘evil’.

Other impediments: not reading the books and articles of one’s opponents. Not being enough familiar with their predicates, cherished views, their interests.

A media-system that is inherently skewed. Influenced by capital/economic interests. The influence of massive capital interests. Big Pharma, military industries, etc.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Carlson’s short video (made after he was canned), posted above, has been seen 57 million times in just over 24 hours.

By any measure that is extraordinary.

[Alexis Jacobi]

An Epoch Times article (today). Very interesting implications given the increase in limitations placed on freedom of speech over the last years. The noose tightens apparently.

ABC Refuses to Air RFK Jr. Comments About COVID-19 Vaccines

ABC News cut off a presidential candidate when he started talking about COVID-19 vaccines, raising concerns about censorship.

Robert Kennedy Jr., who recently announced his presidential run as a Democrat, sat down with ABC News for a lengthy interview released on April 27.

After airing clips of the interview, reporter Linsey Davis spoke to viewers.

“We should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines,” she said. “We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview,” Davis said.

The claims in question were not listed, and ABC did not return a request for comment.

Davis indicated that at least one dealt with the effectiveness of the vaccines.

“Data shows that the COVID-19 vaccine has prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease,” Davis said. She did not provide any citations for the claim.

“He also made misleading claims about the relationship between vaccination and autism. Research shows that vaccines and the ingredients used in the vaccines do not cause autism, including multiple studies involving more than a million children and major medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the advocacy group Autism Speaks,” she added.

Kennedy said that what happened violated the U.S. law that bars some media outlets from censoring candidates for public office.

“ABC showed its contempt for the law, democracy, and its audience by cutting most of the content of my interview with host Linsey Davis leaving only cherry-picked snippets and a defamatory disclaimer,” Kennedy said.

“Offering no evidence, ABC justified this act of censorship by falsely asserting that I made ‘false claims.’ In truth, Davis engaged me in a lively, informative, and mutually respectful debate on the government’s Covid countermeasures. I’m happy to supply citations to support every statement I made during that exchange. I’m certain that ABC’s decision to censor came as a shock to Linsey as well. Instead of journalism, the public saw a hatchet job,” he added.

[ThinkOfOne]

My own view is that it is better for all concerned to understand what is going on rather than simply to criticize or support one faction or another. Seeing clearly is often quite different from having a specific position or taking a side.

What do you think are the major impediments to "seeing clearly"?

Pre-formed prejudice. A will set against seeing ‘the other side of the coin’. A set choice to see the other (one’s enemy, one’s adversary) as wrong because of a character defect or a philosophical orientation (or existential) that is defined as bad or ‘evil’.

Other impediments: not reading the books and articles of one’s opponents. Not being enough familiar with their predicates, cherished views, their interests.

A media-system that is inherently skewed. Influenced by capital/economic interests. The influence of massive capital interests. Big Pharma, military industries, etc.

When it comes to gaining a deep understanding of complex problem domains, high-level critical thinking and inquiry abilities are required. Unfortunately, many lack one or the other if not both. Without both, whatever understanding an individual may have of a given problem domain will be superficial if not completely and utterly wrong. Even worse, many seem to be convinced that they have a deep understanding nevertheless.

For example:
Without those abilities an individual can read everything under the sun about a given problem domain and remain completely in the dark.
With those abilities an individual will be able to suss out whether or not a given source is credible on a case-by-case basis without resorting to blanket judgements such as the "media-system [being] inherently skewed".

Ironically you seem to have only a superficial understanding what it takes to "see clearly". At least when it comes to complex problem domains such as politics.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ironically you seem to have only a superficial understanding what it takes to "see clearly". At least when it comes to complex problem domains such as politics.

Non-ironically, but typically if also depressingly, you are (to coin a popular phrase) “talking out of your asshole” as many are inclined to do. I had a paranoid thought that you Chat GPTd your response!

The world is getting frightening!

Something ‘occurred’ to you, it seems possible, and you assumed it probable yet based on very little that is substantial.

However, you did set yourself up to put forward what you really had on your mind. So not all was lost!

Please though do go on. Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

[ThinkOfOne]

Ironically you seem to have only a superficial understanding what it takes to "see clearly". At least when it comes to complex problem domains such as politics.

Non-ironically, but typically if also depressingly, you are (to coin a popular phrase) “talking out of your asshole” as many are inclined to do. I had a paranoid thought that you Chat GPTd your response!

The world is getting frightening!

Something ‘occurred’ to you, it seems possible, and you assumed it probable yet based on very little that is substantial.

However, you did set yourself up to put forward what you really had on your mind. So not all was lost!

Please though do go on. Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

Following is the subtext to the above response:

High-level critical analysis? High-level critical thinking?

No idea of what they could possibly have to do with understanding stuff. Obviously must be talking out of their arsehole as so many are inclined to do. Not even sure what those things are. Sounds like something that'd be spewed out by Chat GTP. What else could it be? It's depressing. The world is getting frightening. Especially for those like me who see clearly and understand stuff.