Trump Consciousness

If a group of fifty criminals descend on your house and attack, intent on dragging you out, torturing you, then kill you, they are in the wrong.
You are of course talking about Israel here? How about if a group of disparate, religious obsessives, with a grievance and access to the arsenal of the world's most violent, well-funded dominators moved in to your neighbourhood (where your people had lived for generations) and decided they wanted it, and wanted you out, by systematic, brutal elimination, you wouldn't resist?
 
You are of course talking about Israel here? How about if a group of disparate, religious obsessives, with a grievance and access to the arsenal of the world's most violent, well-funded dominators moved in to your neighbourhood (where your people had lived for generations) and decided they wanted it, and wanted you out, by systematic, brutal elimination, you wouldn't resist?
The way you wrote this, sounds like you are supporting Israel. At the time the Muslims conquered Israel by military force, this is how they would have looked to the Judeans.
 
Speaking of unreasoning Trump hatred finding its way into everything, I just found it in a place I really didn't expect it. A couple days ago, I purchased some videos on landscape photography by an excellent landscape photographer. I'm several hours into these, when he gets to work on a Las Vegas cityscape. It is the only one so far, so the only image where he has to deal with buildings, artificial lights, and signs. The photographer cleans up most of the photo, then explains what a "distracting object" is. A distracting object is anything that interferes with the readability of the central focus point of the photo. He starts in the lower right hand corner of the image. "Here is a truck advertising girls," he says, "but it is blurred, so I'm going to leave it." He then gets to a fairly bright sign but thinks it is integrated well enough with its surroundings to leave it. He continues in this way until he reaches the top of a big, beautiful building in the distance. At the top, the name "Trump" in large self-illuminated letters.

The sign at the top of the Trump hotel is the same color as the signs nearby, is no bigger, and uses a typeface that is no more or less distracting than other signs at the top of neighboring hotels. The photographer then says, aiming to be coy, "somehow, this is a little distracting to me, so I think we'll need to edit this." He proceeds to erase the "T", leaving "RUMP". Based on his demeanor, the photographer seemed to think this was highly amusing. He then talks in a meandering way for a little while, a first in this video series, to drag out the "joke", all the while leaving "RUMP" on the screen, zoomed in to nearly fill it. Finally, he says, "I don't know why but I think this will look much better if we just take this out completely," and he erases the sign.

First, there was no legitimate reason to erase the Trump hotel sign. It was not distracting but taking it out is distracting because it makes that one large building into the only one without a glowing sign at the top. It also makes it darker than its surroundings, creating a hole in the light levels. Second, this joke is only funny to people with a sense of humor that stopped developing around the time they were still beating up kids in their junior high school locker room. Last, the joke shows a profound lack of respect for the presidency, and even the knowledge required to appreciate what Trump has done as president and is trying to do despite tremendous opposition from Democrats.

And here we come to the comment I've been wanting to make since I first saw this thread, namely, why this matters to us, the members of Skeptiko. The ostensible subject of this forum is skepticism in the context of psi. However, as Alex has made clear with his many podcasts on other subjects, like climate change, conspiracy theories, and a few that touched on politics, Skeptico is also about skepticism in general. Not only that, but Skeptico has taken as its duty to differentiate general skepticism, which can be construed in many cases as unjustified doubt, and scientific skepticism, which seeks simply to suspend both doubt and belief to test the reliability of a theory. In parapsychology, we only see scientific skepticism from the community of parapsychologists. General skepticism, along the level of the howling of hyenas, is found among the detractors of parapsychology, who do not believe that any form of psi is genuine.

The Trump phenomenon gives us another example of general skepticism, where there is no suspension of doubt and belief for the purpose of ascertaining the merits of the evidence available. Reading anti-Trump editorials is little different from reading any one of James Randi's anti-psi diatribes. On that basis, I think that this discussion of Trump brings into sharp relief the difference between scientific skepticism, which is used to gain knowledge and understanding, and general skepticism, which only calcifies a position while eroding knowledge.
 
The way you wrote this, sounds like you are supporting Israel. At the time the Muslims conquered Israel by military force, this is how they would have looked to the Judeans.
Give me some dates. At the turn of the century Palestine was a thriving multi-cultural mix of all beliefs and races, Jewish were only 3% of the population of Jerusalem. Since the 2ndWW when the White Race stepped in and gave the Palestinian People's land to a disparate group of religious obsessives with a grievance that they are now perpetrating on the original inhabitants of Palestine there has been trouble there. How would you feel if a group of people calling themselves the chosen ones decided to move into your house and kill you if you don't leave?

No offense to the Jewish People intended, I know that the Israeli Political State is run by a cold-hearted confederate, who use the jewish belief system to justify what is blatant systematic murder, and they know it. Fortunately for them they have the support and funding of the wealthiest bunch of time and life-wasters this world has seen enough of.
 
Last edited:


By Rui Amorim Ribeiro with the words:

Beautiful like Beirut
Exhausted as Damascus
Shy like Yemen.
Isolated like Gaza
Wounded like Baghdad
Forgotten like Palestine.

I swear I will never forget what Israel and its American accomplice have done and are doing to this little girl's life.
She deserves better than this.
 
1) Equating Christianity with Islam dangerously obscures the danger posed by Islamists. There is no Christian equivalent to Islamic terrorism, though the press might wish otherwise.
I think, Andy, we need to be careful here. There is, I agree, no equivalent to 'Islamic terrorism'. This is a modern phenomenon employing technology not available to times when 'Christians' perpetrated their own form of terror. However I am not so sure your term "Islamists" is fair -m unless you employment to distinguish between Moslems - adherents to the Islamic faith who do not support or condone acts of terror. It is interesting to me that we do not talk about Islamic sects in the same way we are prepared to talk about Christian sects - so as to distinguish between 'proper' Christians and illegitimate ones.

To be clear, I see the terrorism perpetrated by Islamic sects as the acts of deranged extremists. I do not detect in "the press" any sympathy for the perpetrators of terrorist outrages or the causes they espouse. I think, rather, there is a proper restraint against damning Islam as a whole because of the acts of a minority of people who claim to be adherents to the faith.

There is a view perpetuated that Islam is inherently more brutal than Christianity. At a certain level this is probably true, given its origins. But not so true and to render any judgement between the two meaningful. Islam, because of history, geography and its ongoing internal divisions, has tended to find expression in highly stratified, male dominated cultures with a higher reliance on agrarian activity and less reliant on sophisticated industry. There is, therefore, a visible divide between 'Christian' and 'Islamic' cultures - and a consequent existential pressure on the latter in terms of survival and validation. If we are going to see 'radicalisation' as a result of some construction of existential threat it will most likely come from cultures which are dominated by Islam.

In Western cultures Christian extremists respond to their sense of existential threat by forming sects or becoming tele-evangelists. Christians tend to not want to lose what they have - which is a lot. Crazy people who identify as Islamic have nothing to lose - its an outsider faith even if expressed within a Western culture.

I am of then view that none of the faiths of the Abrahamic tradition have any real value in a modern world. That are all out of date and in sore need of reformation, and preferably dissolution into something better and more genuinely universal. But it does seem that Islam has adapted least well to modernity - its then youngest of the 3 and least mature. That said, I do not think it is inherently more dangerous than the other two traditions - only that some claimed adherents are circumstantially more dangerous.

I make a particular distinction between a general claim to be of a faith and how that claim manifests in individual or communal conduct. I grew up in a Christian family in a Christian community and I rejected the faith primarily because I could not reconcile the conduct of the adherents with the tenets of the faith itself. It seemed to me that the most ardent followers were the least compliant with the faith's central message.

So for me "Islamic terrorist" is as oxymoronic a "Christian Terrorist". I would prefer, in a wordy way, to say 'Terrorist who identifies as Islamic'. And yes, these are damned dangerous and deranged people against whom we must take effective action. But, let us remember, in the USA the dominant form of terrorism comes from people who identify as Christian.
 
Our progressives live in a cocoon and make the mistake of thinking that everyone they argue with and hate, also lives in a cocoon.
TES, while I will dispute your imputation that you mean all progressives, I will heartily concur with your general sentiment. I remain defiantly left of centre, but I have long ago abandoned my once deep affection for leftist politics. This may be a fiction of growing older [and wiser?], but I think it is also waking up to the reality that if you want enduring positive change you have to be way way smarter than the standard issue progressive.

The cocoon of good intent [and let's agree that progressives tend to be well intentioned] is only a shell without the nutriment of good sense, informed rational thought, and open hearted pragmatism. But the same can be said for conservatives.

I don't know the US scene. In Australia we just call progressives the Left -and even so that's confusing and unhelpful. I found sentimental atheism [social justice as an inherently political idea] and sentimental spirituality [abandon critical analysis and prefer idealism] to be collectively stupid. But on the other hand I found the conservative thought to be idiotically self-righteous and blindingly ignorant [more about fight and pride in ignorance]. So the stupid or the idiotic? Tough choice. I chose stupid. Now I unchoose it - but not for the alternative.
 
Our progressives live in a cocoon and make the mistake of thinking that everyone they argue with and hate, also lives in a cocoon.
That is truth.

But they sure can Google up stuff on the internet that tells them exactly what they want to hear and believe. If it's on the internet, it's gotta be true; unless it supports a conservative position - then it's lies and propaganda.
 
To be clear, I see the terrorism perpetrated by Islamic sects as the acts of deranged extremists. I do not detect in "the press" any sympathy for the perpetrators of terrorist outrages or the causes they espouse. I think, rather, there is a proper restraint against damning Islam as a whole because of the acts of a minority of people who claim to be adherents to the faith.

So for me "Islamic terrorist" is as oxymoronic a "Christian Terrorist". I would prefer, in a wordy way, to say 'Terrorist who identifies as Islamic'. .
LOL. You're going through cognitive contortions, man.

That is all more evidence of your cocoon existence and the extent to which you have been neutered by leftist moral equivalence and general "politically correct" think.

The terrorists are not pariahs in Islamic communities. They are more widely accepted than you think; with the acceptance ranging from a sense of sympathy or understanding to hero worship.

Here. Read this for Muslim attitudes.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#911

And this:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Keep in mind, when you read the latter link that 10% of 1.8 billion is 180,000,000. That's what? Like 8X the population of Australia.

Also, the Palestinian majority dislike of ISIS is complicated internal politics. The Palestinians would not like to be controlled by ISIS because they prefer Hamas more so than a disapproval of ISIS tactics and ideology. This supported by the results in the first link.
 
Last edited:
The terrorists are not pariahs in Islamic communities. They are more widely accepted than you think; with the acceptance ranging from a sense of sympathy or understanding to hero worship.
You can always find these claims. If you examined your US community you would find a similar tolerance of some of the more dangerous extremists views. That proves nothing. You seem to be on a fear and hate bender against Islam. That is mercifully a minority POV. Do bear in mind that the vast majority of terrorist acts in the US are from white people calling themselves Christian.

Let's get down to some value questions here. The issue for me is not whether people disagree with widespread western values, but what their solution to their discontent is. But before I go on let me distinguish between proper 'terrorism' and the deliberate politically motivate misnaming of 'asymmetric warfare' as terrorism. I am referring here only to what we might call 'domestic' terrorism - like blowing up buses and trains and detonating bombs in public places.

Objection to perceived Western morally degenerate conduct is not to be expressed in acts of violence. And yet perceptions of moral degeneration is what can lead young men into an Islamic sect [via conversion often] and to prime them to be the delivery mechanisms of violence. This is, in essence, no different to the motive forces that generate white domestic terrorism in the US.

This is dangerous and pernicious and I am grateful that we have active security services determined to identify and block such activity.

Last year I watched an interview with an young English bloke who had no contact with Islam at all until he was recruited and converted. He was induced to join up because he was given a critical moral analysis of his culture that even I agreed was very bad. His response was to join an 'Islamic' group and train to blow things up and kill people. That is not an appropriate response in a democracy. Its what crazy manipulative and manipulated people do.

This guy was not raised in an Islamic family. He was targeted deliberately by people who identify as Islamic to engage in acts of terror which resolve nothing. Please remember this with deep gratitude. The mad bastards have no plan, no strategy. God help us if they ever do - because we are wide open to terror the likes of which we haven't imagined - and it would not take much.

This isn't Islam doing this. If it were we'd be screwed. The awful reality of the modern world is that regardless of all the conventional military power a nation can amass it can be taken apart by a dedicated and determined enemy employing asymmetrical and unconventional methods of warfare.

By persistently accusing Islamic people, communities and nations of being uniformly aligned to terrorism you may end up getting what you fear. On the other hand I support intelligent and targeted anti-terrorist strategies and campaigns.

I don't know why you are promoting Islamophobic passions. We agree there are terorrists who have to be stopped. But imaging they are preventatives of Islam is like imagining a child raping Catholic priest is representative of Christianity as a whole - rather than a morally degenerate, and behaviourally repugnant, aspect of it.
 
Did you read the links I posted?
Quickly. All data and no analysis - no context. It would take me weeks to go through that mess and a figure out whether it finally agrees/disagrees with my position - and whether I need to change my POV. I am pretty comfortable with my own extensive and somewhat more organised inquiry.

You can make data and apparent facts deliver the evidence for the conclusion you want. That's not research, though it iso often called that to add dignity to what is mostly intellectually sloppy trolling for supporting biases to shore up poor arguments. It is what passes for a university education these days, so I am not surprised you find it acceptable.

I don't. I think we are applying different standards. Try convincing me with well reasoned arguments rather than polemics.
 
You can always find these claims. If you examined your US community you would find a similar tolerance of some of the more dangerous extremists views. That proves nothing. You seem to be on a fear and hate bender against Islam. That is mercifully a minority POV. Do bear in mind that the vast majority of terrorist acts in the US are from white people calling themselves Christian.

Let's get down to some value questions here. The issue for me is not whether people disagree with widespread western values, but what their solution to their discontent is. But before I go on let me distinguish between proper 'terrorism' and the deliberate politically motivate misnaming of 'asymmetric warfare' as terrorism. I am referring here only to what we might call 'domestic' terrorism - like blowing up buses and trains and detonating bombs in public places.

Objection to perceived Western morally degenerate conduct is not to be expressed in acts of violence. And yet perceptions of moral degeneration is what can lead young men into an Islamic sect [via conversion often] and to prime them to be the delivery mechanisms of violence. This is, in essence, no different to the motive forces that generate white domestic terrorism in the US.

This is dangerous and pernicious and I am grateful that we have active security services determined to identify and block such activity.

Last year I watched an interview with an young English bloke who had no contact with Islam at all until he was recruited and converted. He was induced to join up because he was given a critical moral analysis of his culture that even I agreed was very bad. His response was to join an 'Islamic' group and train to blow things up and kill people. That is not an appropriate response in a democracy. Its what crazy manipulative and manipulated people do.

This guy was not raised in an Islamic family. He was targeted deliberately by people who identify as Islamic to engage in acts of terror which resolve nothing. Please remember this with deep gratitude. The mad bastards have no plan, no strategy. God help us if they ever do - because we are wide open to terror the likes of which we haven't imagined - and it would not take much.

This isn't Islam doing this. If it were we'd be screwed. The awful reality of the modern world is that regardless of all the conventional military power a nation can amass it can be taken apart by a dedicated and determined enemy employing asymmetrical and unconventional methods of warfare.

By persistently accusing Islamic people, communities and nations of being uniformly aligned to terrorism you may end up getting what you fear. On the other hand I support intelligent and targeted anti-terrorist strategies and campaigns.

I don't know why you are promoting Islamophobic passions. We agree there are terorrists who have to be stopped. But imaging they are preventatives of Islam is like imagining a child raping Catholic priest is representative of Christianity as a whole - rather than a morally degenerate, and behaviourally repugnant, aspect of it.
More contortionisms (as I expected) from the cocoon.

Did you just slide past the parts where the majority want Sharia law and support aspects of it like stoning women to death for adultery? How about where a majority favor death for those who convert out of Islam? These are not new ideas in Islam that have arisen due to some imagined Western malignancy. Rather they are very old ideas that have been there from the beginning.

I am not spreading antipathy toward Islam. I am stating facts - facts that should concern people. There are no equivalent attitudes and practices in the West. You can pretend that Christians or "white nationalists" or whatever are just as bad and just as numerous all you want to, but you're only taking hits off your magic pipe and then blowing the smoke up your own backside.

You probably haven't read the links. Wouldn't want to put a hole in that cocoon, even in a small internet kind of way.

EDIT: So you glanced at the links and decided that you didn't like what they say. So you put up a smoke screen about facts and data not meaning anything and how your "feelings" about something are more important and more real. Ok. Got it.
 
TES, while I will dispute your imputation that you mean all progressives,

The cocoon of good intent [and let's agree that progressives tend to be well intentioned]
I agree with your admonition that not all on the left can be painted with such a brush. But I disagree that the progressive left sentiment proceeds from a stance of being well intentioned. I too have changed over the decades. I used to be more right of center in years past, but now have moved to the left on key issues: anti-crony, anti-oligarch, ignostic atheist, pro-choice, pro-legalization of marijuana, climate change active, anti-oligarch-wars, anti-pharma lobby, pro-developing nations, pro-oppressed, anti-oppressive-religious, pro-universal healthcare, pro-disabled, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, feminist, pro-LGBQT rights... etc.

Life experience helped change much of that. But not everything and everyone on the left is sincere in this above set. While I arrived at many of these positions through testing the waters and a long period of circumspection, I cannot wear them as a cloak of virtue (The moniker ethical skeptic is a non-personal reference to praxis, not a virtue, btw). They are reasoned commitments to serve, and have nothing to do with my identity. (Love by the way, is 'a reasoned commitment to serve')

In contrast, I sense that many of my compatriots arrived at these beliefs because they are angry over something or someone or learned to hate someone in their past. Most often it is religious white conservative military-structured capitalist western corporate males. I did not adopt my position by learning to hate someone who resembles people in or from my past. I also hold many positions which are right of center: fiscal conservancy, money supply, ant-Fed, transfer payments reform, limits on abuse of welfare, pro-military strength, pro-capitalism, anti-socialist, pro-company strength, pro-second amendment, anti-cartel, anti-monopoly/monopsony, pro-farmer, pro-free trade - and having come from the southern US Christian tradition, I do not hate them for who they are and what they believe.

I have had to learn to not wear the costume. There are key telltales which differentiate a person who holds their positions because of hate - and those 'who have overcome' as the Bible puts it. I can spot the difference very quickly, most of the time. But not always.

Yes, you do not appear to wear this costume.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your admonition that not all on the left can be painted with such a brush. But I disagree that the progressive left sentiment proceeds from a stance of being well intentioned. I too have changed over the decades. I used to be more right of center in years past, but now have moved to the left on key issues: anti-crony, anti-oligarch, ignostic atheist, pro-choice, pro-legalization of marijuana, climate change active, anti-oligarch-wars, anti-pharma lobby, pro-developing nations, pro-oppressed, anti-oppressive-religious, pro-universal healthcare, pro-disabled, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, feminist, pro-LGBQT rights... etc.

Life experience helped change much of that. But not everything and everyone on the left is sincere in this above set. While I arrived at many of these positions through testing the waters and a long period of circumspection, I cannot wear them as a cloak of virtue. They are reasoned commitments to serve, and have nothing to do with my identity. (Love by the way, is 'a reasoned commitment to serve')

In contrast, I sense that many of my compatriots arrived at these beliefs because they are angry at someone or learned to hate someone in their past. Most often it is religious white conservative military-structured capitalist western corporate males. I did not adopt my position by learning to hate someone who resembles people in or from my past. I also hold many positions which are right of center: fiscal conservancy, money supply, ant-Fed, transfer payments reform, limits on abuse of welfare, pro-military strength, pro-capitalism, anti-socialist, pro-company strength, pro-second amendment, anti-cartel, anti-monopoly/monopsony, pro-farmer, pro-free trade - and having come from the southern US Christian tradition, I do not hate them for who they are and what they believe.

I have had to learn to not wear the costume. There are key telltales which differentiate a person who holds their positions because of hate - and those 'who have overcome' as the Bible puts it. I can spot the difference very quickly, most of the time. But not always.

Yes, you do not appear to wear this costume.
TES,
I went in the opposite direction that you did, but there is some overlap in thinking.

I was a moderate Democrat. I honestly don't recall who I voted for in the Reagan years. I did vote for Bush senior. Then I voted for Bill Clinton x2 and then Al Gore. I despised Bush Jr (and still do). I voted for Obama his first term and held my nose and, regretfully, voted for him in his second term run (by then it was clear to me that he was a crypto revolutionary with anti-white racist notions and was pro-socialism - I really hated his deepening dive into identity politics, but his opponent was a war mongering globalist). I will never vote Democrat again. They are, literally, insane now. Example, if you don't accept that a man in a dress really is a woman (and can even have menstruation and babies), then you're a hater bigot and you need to lose your job and face hate speech charges. The party of "science" indeed! Their elitist leaders live by the motto, "Some animals are more equal than others" as they jet set about to conferences and dine on the best beef to discuss how the rest of us need to stop flying on airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using fossil fuels and pay them massive taxes and, basically, to shut up and follow their enlightened direction - or be unpersonned as a racist, anti-science hater.

Screw those leftists. The second amendment is about hunting people like them, not deer. So they want to disarm us too in order to more easily realize their glorious revolution.

I'm for legalization of cannabis. I'm ok with gay people doing what they need to do (but stop the proselytizing!). I'm ok with atheists being what they are as well as Christian conservatives being they are. I believe in welfare where truly needed, but think it has gone way too far. I do believe in family values. I don't care what color or creed you are as long as you are dedicated to being a productive member of our society. I could go on........but what is most important to me is that we preserve our pride and cohesion in identifying as Americans first and foremost. It really floors me how the Left hates America so much. I also am convinced that we must maintain a capitalist system. History has proven that the alternatives are far worse than whatever flaws capitalism has. I further do not want more and bigger govt in our lives. History has shown what that leads to as well. I am against globalism because it is all about undoing all of those points that important to me. I think countries need to have borders and they need to be enforced - or you don't have a country.

So far, Trump has aligned nicely with all that is important to me. That someone thinks that those values are horrible tells me that the person is either demented and or a revolutionary that seeks to end my way of life - to be replaced by a system that doesn't work (per history). That I am correct is evident in the constant harping on the evils of capitalism and America and the denial of the evils of any other people or system in the world; the insistence that America is uniquely sinful. We have see that slant on this very thread, over and over.

What find amazing about Liberals is that seem incapable of conceiving that there are any threats in the world other than the people they personally hate (as you allude to); to be exact, white males, Christians, military service and capitalist leanings - which extends to the United States as a whole as such men (and their dedicated women) used to be the majority. It is not a major leap to extrapolate that Liberals hate America and seek to change it into something else. In fact, no need to extrapolate at all. They have come right out and said that the green New Deal, etc has always been about radically changing American society and its economy. Climate change is just a scary excuse for doing it. Hispanic groups like La Raza, etc have been clear that they intend to take over the US by invading and replacing Anglos. That is a racist agenda. Racism has no place in America. I won't stand for it.

This idea that white Christian/capitalist males in America - and America itself - are more dangerous to life and liberty than Muslims is 100% idiocy of the first order, but is the sine qua non of liberalism these days.

So liberals have declared war on me. Again, I cannot vote for anyone that hates me and wants to either brainwash me until I am "thinking correctly" or kill me off - and wants to bring my great country down. But I can't vote for globalist crony capitalist war mongers (like McCain, Romney, another Bush) either. Thus Trump. Millions feel exactly how I do. Thus Trump. Hate has nothing to do with it on my end. It's keeping those that hate away from too much power. That is my focus.
 
Last edited:
Screw those leftists. The second amendment is about hunting people like them, not deer.
(Goodonya for changing from fuck to screw) but still, this is hate-speech, not political discussion. Your comments are full of aggressive condemnations, threats and abuse -this is spiritual fraudulence..with your fairy-painting rainbow palette avatar. You reveal your true self in these comments Eric. Try to not say them, it will be better for your spiritual progress :)
 
Last edited:
So liberals have declared war on me. Again, I cannot vote for anyone that hates me and wants to either brainwash me until I am "thinking correctly" or kill me off - and wants to bring my great country down.
No one is declaring war on you, or hates you or wants to 'kill you off'. But Capitalism and its life, money and time-wasting war-mongering is reliant on brainwashing. You say these things because it is really what you think should happen to others, because you have already been successfully brainwashed and are full of (their) fears.
 
Top