"Newspeak" is used in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. Written in 1948, this book, with its authoritarian predictions or warnings, is especially relevant today. I highly recommend reading it even if "Big Brother is Watching" as he no doubt is here.
That was a book we read in senior year of high school and in 2020 right after the “election”.. got myself another copy and read it again..I knew what they would try..demratz never have an original thought.
People who don’t like to(or can’t)read are the same people who believe what they see and hear on tv…Reading can inform a person or make them ignorant… but not reading will only make you ignorant.
Gaslight was a thriller set in Victorian times in England where a man tries to make his wife believe she is going insane by dimming the gas lights (before electric light became common) by shutting down the flow of gas from time to time. When she said the lights had dimmed he told her that was not the case. Happily she is saved at the end,
When I was looking at all the difference scenarios of gaslighting I came across this information. Perfect example. How god awful to be married to a manipulative person.
It seems that many of our 'world leaders' are gaslighters. In some ways the education system itself does a lot of it early in life. How will we find a sensible balance between not rocking the boat too much and avoiding sailing into the iceberg? We have to minimize the centralization of power.
I started to analyze how often gaslighting is used. When I was young I was gullible and now that I am not young I am a cynic. I hope it's much harder to gaslight me.
“World Leaders” got where they are at because gaslighting is a tool. As far as I can see, Maybe only 1 in a hundred are actually honest and without sociopathic tendencies.
Gaslight were used on streets and in homes before electric lighting became available. Gasligting means; manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
Gaslighting is an excellent term, and it can be used by anybody.
It simply means resetting some everyday event in a way that tends to imply its opposite; ie everything you thought you knew and understood suddenly becomes much more vague and uncertain and capable of being seen in a different light altogether.
Hence the "gaslight."
It is always used pejoratively, but it can also be used to throw something which is received wisdom into a completely different light - I enjoy doing it with regard to things which are almost universally believed in, like "gravity," which as I can show in a moment of inspired gaslighting, is a completely ridiculous idea, and one which should have been abandoned as soon as Newton thought of it.
"gravity," which as I can show in a moment of inspired gaslighting, is a completely ridiculous idea"~Tim Webb
Webb is galighting the forum with this pseudoscience bullshit about gravity. Gravity has to do with the mass of two bodies in space; the gravitational pull between two objects is directly proportional to their masses.
Here's a breakdown of how gravity works, from the classical Newtonian view to the modern understanding from Einstein. Newtonian gravity (Gravity as a force) Sir Isaac Newton described gravity as a force of attraction between any two objects with mass. The strength of this force is determined by two factors: The masses of the objects: Objects with more mass have a stronger gravitational pull. The Earth has a stronger gravitational field than the Moon because it is far more massive.The distance between the objects: The gravitational force weakens with distance following an inverse-square law, meaning that if you double the distance, the force becomes one-quarter as strong. Newton's formula for the gravitational force (\(F\)) between two objects is:\(F=G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}\)Where: \(G\) is the gravitational constant.\(m_{1}\) and \(m_{2}\) are the masses of the two objects.\(r\) is the distance between the centers of the two masses. Einstein's general relativity (Gravity as curved spacetime) Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity reframed our understanding of gravity, moving beyond Newton's description of it as a mysterious "action at a distance". Gravity is the curvature of spacetime: According to this theory, mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. We experience the effects of this curvature as gravity.A "bowling ball on a trampoline" analogy: A common analogy is a bowling ball sitting on a stretched-out trampoline.The flat, unstretched trampoline represents empty, "flat" spacetime.The bowling ball, a massive object, creates a curved dimple in the trampoline sheet.If you roll a marble nearby, it will follow the curvature created by the bowling ball and roll toward it, not because it is being "pulled," but because it is following the most direct path along the curved surface. "Mass differentials" and gravitational anomalies While gravity doesn't arise from a difference in mass, you might be thinking of local gravitational variations, sometimes called "gravity anomalies". The Earth's gravitational pull is not perfectly uniform across its surface.Slight variations in the density of material beneath the surface—for example, a dense mountain range versus a deep ocean trench—can be measured with sensitive instruments.In this context, the difference in the amount of mass in a given volume (its density) does cause a slight difference in the gravitational pull at that location.
However, this is not the fundamental cause of gravity itself. The baseline force of gravity comes from the total mass of the object, like Earth, and the idea of "mass differential gravity" is more relevant to measuring small, localized variations in a larger gravitational field.
This reminds me of the guy a couple of years back, trying to see if the Earth is really round instead of a flat planet. He was smart enough to make a rocket device that launched him very high, except the parachute landing system was not as advanced and failed. I wonder what his last thoughts were?
Hah! Phil I have debated many 'Flat Earthers" it is astonishing how many beliive this bullshit! Communication satellites are what makes it possible to link to the Internet. Just that fact alone destroys all their goofy arguments.
The moon's spherical shape was proven by several methods, including: observations of its round phases and the crescent shapes of craters, the effects of gravity which naturally pull large masses into spheres, its unchanging "face" and slight wobbles (libration) that wouldn't occur with a flat disk, and, most conclusively, by direct observation from unmanned and manned spacecraft like Apollo missions.
"Internet connection is via undersea cables."~Tim Web
That is only true in some cases.
"While communication satellites are essential for providing internet access in many rural and remote areas, they are not what makes it possible to link to the Internet everywhere. The internet is a vast network that relies on multiple types of infrastructure, including undersea fiber-optic cables and ground-based cellular networks, to connect the globe."~Google A.I.
I use Verison wireless for my Internet connection. So I know for a fact that I am connected via satellite. The Earth is a globe just like every planet in the Solar System.
But all he really needed to do was to look at those very first high-altitude photographs taken from the V2 rockets, which without putting lives at risk, sent back images of a completely flat horizon, which prima facie seems to favour a view of earth which attests to its flatness rather than its rotundity.
Many others subsequently, again took the sensible course, and sent GoPros up aloft, rather than going up themselves, and once again, all images show zero curvature.
Incidentally, re. that man who made his own rocket ship - do you actually believe the story, or is it self-evidently as fake as the so-called "moon landings."?
With citizens as gullible as you seem to be, is it any wonder that gaslighting you is such an easy thing for them to do?
Mr Whitten, ( note that I give him his courtesy title, whereas he just calls me "Webb", because he operates on the basis of patronization ) perfectly expresses the idea of how people have been gaslit into believing many impossible things, but acting as if they are true.
He faithfully regurgitates what he has been told by A Big Boy, but never thought these things through himself, as that is NOT the way to get "a good degree" and thus "a good job."
Regurgitate, do NOT innovate, or the peer review system will crush you like an ant.
Let's look at Newton's ideas first - a man who never went into "space" and so had little to contribute to what is an empirical science, rather than a theoretical one.
Now if most orbits are elliptical, and "gravity" is the fake idea that the mass of an object enables it to attract another one, then we need to look at these elliptical orbits.
Mr Whitten informs us that the attraction between two masses, according to this theory - which had to be radically re structured hundreds of years after it was first formulated because it self-evidently couldn't explain the coherence of galaxies etc - depends on the inverse square of distance, and thus weakens significantly as distance increases.
SO, if an orbit starts to move from circular to elliptical, and thus gravity is exponentially weakening, what additional force then brings the orbiting body back to its more circular shape?
There may be crickets in outer space that can provide the answer, if we were only able to hear them.
The second idea comes from a patent office clerk who never worked in the science of gravity, or whatever else we might call it. - that something he called "spacetime" which I guarantee, not a single person either alive today or then has any idea about, sufficient to describe it in scientific terms, ie those using at a minimum, the x / y and z axes - he couldn't even do his own math, and had to get his first wife to do it for him, but he reliably informed us - to the obvious consternation of many of his fellow real scientists, who thought him a fraud and a plagiarist, that this mythical item can be "bent," and thus the analogy offered by Mr Whitten, who pretends that he knows what he is talking about, and only uses simplistic ideas for the benefit of the rest of us who aren't as clever as he imagines himself to be.
Unfortunately, though, the same problem rears its ugly head again; ie having started to "roll towards" the more massive object, or its "centre of gravity," then what suddenly causes it to start to climb back up the "dimple" thus rendering its orbit more elliptical?
The sound of the crickets is becoming deafening, but nobody on earth can hear them, it seems.
Webb is into pseudoscience nonsense. His contentions against Newton and Einstein are proposterous. Both Newton and Einstein were obvious genius's.
Both of these men's controbutions to science are well known.
Newton's three laws of motion are proven over and again in real life actions.
AI Overview
Newton's 3 Laws of Motion: Force, Mass and Acceleration ...
Newton's three laws of motion explain how forces affect the motion of objects: the First Law (Law of Inertia) states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion at constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net external force. The Second Law states that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass, often expressed as F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration). The Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; when one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force back on the first.
1. Newton's First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia)
Statement:
An object will remain at rest, or in uniform motion (constant speed and direction), unless it is acted upon by an external, unbalanced force.
Concept:
This tendency for an object to resist changes in its state of motion is known as inertia.
Example:
A book sitting on a table will stay there until you push it (apply a force), and a hockey puck on a frictionless surface will keep sliding in a straight line forever unless something stops it.
2. Newton's Second Law of Motion (Law of Acceleration)
Statement: The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass.
Equation: F = ma (Force = mass × acceleration).
Concept: A larger force is needed to accelerate a heavier object (larger mass). A greater force applied to the same mass will result in greater acceleration.
Example: It takes more force to accelerate a heavy car than a light bicycle.
3. Newton's Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction)
Statement: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Concept: When two objects interact, they exert forces on each other that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Example: When a rocket expels gas downwards (action), the gas pushes the rocket upwards (reaction).
All the spelling mistakes as evidences of subnormal intelligence aside, note how Mr Whitten again immediately resorts to trying to get confirmation of his delusions from an "authority figure," in this case, an AI bot, because he never has any answers of his own.
It's pointless getting involved in long disputes with people of this kind, but suffice it to say that as Newton never went into "space," he had no understanding of the fact that we always need something to push against if "action and reaction are to be equal and opposite," and Mr W will agree that in "space" there is nothing to push against, and so no exhaust from a rocket motor will achieve anything, and by no means will it be able to use its much-vaunted "jet thrusters" to manouevre therefore.
Experiments here on earth show that any rocket fuel ignited in vacuo simply fizzles, even if it contains some oxidant.
Effectively, the whole thing is a complete hoax visited on the naive and gullible.
As to the "photos of the moon" he mentions, one of the first such photos was called "Earthrise," and it is distinguished by the square edges around this object, as a result of it having been cut and pasted into the picture.
Pictures coming from "Mars" are similarly discredited by the fact that the topography can be shown to be identical to that found on Devon Island in Canada's far north, tinted a little, as we are supposedly on a "Red Planet".
Rockets work in the vacuum of space because they carry their own oxygen and fuel for combustion. Unlike airplanes, which rely on air for lift and thrust, rockets generate thrust by expelling hot gases. This expulsion creates an equal and opposite force on the rocket, pushing it forward, regardless of whether there's air or not.
Authoritive answers are valuable when dealing with a moron pushing pseudoscience tripe like the Earth is flat. Anyone who actually believes this in the age of spaceflight is an congenital idiot.
Webb has been given the scientific answers to prove the Earth, like all planets and stars are globes. This spherical shape is a fundamental result of gravity, which pulls matter inward equally from all directions, overcoming the material's strength to form the most compact shape possible.
You don't like insults? Then don't propose preposterous assertions
The premise that Isaac Newton had little to contribute to the empirical science of space is incorrect. While he never traveled to space himself, his theoretical work—combining empirical observations of others with his own mathematical insights—laid the foundational principles for modern spaceflight, orbital mechanics, and our understanding of the cosmos.
Newton's theory as the basis of space travel
Universal Law of Gravitation: By recognizing that the same force causing an apple to fall to Earth also holds the moon in its orbit, Newton unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics. This law, which describes how mass attracts mass across vast distances, is the core principle used to calculate trajectories and understand orbital motion.
The Three Laws of Motion: These laws, published in his 1687 work Principia Mathematica, are fundamental to rocket science.
First Law (Inertia): An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In space, where there is no air friction, a spacecraft will continue on its path indefinitely unless its course is altered by a rocket engine or the gravitational pull of another body.
Second Law (Force and Acceleration): The relationship F=ma explains how a rocket engine must generate enough force to accelerate a massive rocket into space. As a rocket's mass decreases by burning fuel, its acceleration increases.
Third Law (Action-Reaction): For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket pushes hot gas downward (action), and the gas provides an upward thrust that launches the rocket (reaction). This is the principle that allows all rockets to work.
The "Thought Experiment" of Orbit: Newton conceived of an imaginary cannon on a mountaintop to illustrate the principle of orbit. If a cannonball is fired horizontally with enough velocity, it will fall toward Earth at the same rate that Earth's surface curves away, causing it to fall forever around the planet. The International Space Station operates under this principle, constantly falling toward Earth but never hitting it.
The interplay of theory and empiricism in science
The claim creates a false dichotomy between theoretical and empirical science. In practice, they are deeply intertwined.
Theory explains empirical data: Newton's theories were not developed in a vacuum. He relied on the extensive observational data of astronomers like Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, and his work provided the physical explanation for Kepler's empirical laws of planetary motion.
Theory enables new empirical discovery: By demonstrating that the same physical laws apply both on Earth and in the heavens, Newton's theories allowed future scientists to accurately calculate and predict the motions of celestial bodies. This enabled the exploration of space long before humans could physically leave Earth.
Note how this lunatic completely ignores my central point, ie the way in which elliptical orbits falsify the gravity hypothesis, whether it be based on the Newtonian or Einsteinian models.
"If you cannot refute an argument, pretend it doesn't exist" seems to be the way in which he operates.
Because Mr. Tim Webb is scientifically illiterate I feel compelled to correct his faulty claims:
The claim that elliptical orbits falsify the gravity hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, the existence of elliptical orbits for planets is a major prediction of Newtonian gravitational theory. The inverse-square law of gravity mathematically proves that a body orbiting a massive object will follow a conic section, with an ellipse being one of the possible paths.
How Newton's theory of gravity predicts elliptical orbits
In the 17th century, Isaac Newton used Johannes Kepler's empirical laws of planetary motion, which described orbits as ellipses, to formulate his own law of universal gravitation.
Gravity and inertia: The elliptical path of a planet is a dynamic balance between two factors: the planet's forward momentum (inertia), which causes it to move in a straight line, and the sun's gravitational pull, which continuously bends its path inward.
Kepler's first law: From his laws of motion and the inverse-square law of gravitation, Newton was able to mathematically derive Kepler's first law, which states that planets orbit the sun in an ellipse with the sun at one focus.
Conservation of angular momentum: The geometry of elliptical orbits also explains Kepler's second law, which says that a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. This is a direct consequence of the conservation of angular momentum caused by the nature of the gravitational force.
When gravity predictions seemed wrong
While the standard two-body model of Newtonian gravity correctly predicts a stable ellipse, minor deviations in planetary orbits provided a path for a more accurate theory.
Perturbations: The orbits of planets are not perfect ellipses because of the gravitational influence of other planets and the non-uniformity of the sun's mass. These additional forces cause the orbital ellipse to rotate gradually over time, a phenomenon known as apsidal precession.
Anomaly of Mercury: In the 19th century, the precession of Mercury's orbit was observed to be slightly different from the amount predicted by Newtonian gravity, even after accounting for the influence of all other planets. This discrepancy, known as the "anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury," was an unresolved puzzle for Newtonian physics.
How elliptical orbits support general relativity
The minor inaccuracies of Newtonian gravity with respect to elliptical orbits were explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity, not falsified.
Curvature of spacetime: General relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as the warping of spacetime by mass and energy. In this view, objects in orbit simply follow the curvature of spacetime around a massive body.
Correcting the anomaly: Einstein's theory precisely predicted the small, extra rotation in Mercury's elliptical orbit, which was a major confirmation of general relativity. For most orbital calculations, however, the Newtonian prediction of an unchanging elliptical orbit is accurate enough.
In short, elliptical orbits are a feature of gravitational theory, not a refutation. While the most basic model predicts a perfect ellipse, more advanced theories account for minor perturbations and provide a more accurate description of orbital motion.
That's always the way with gaslighting - you don't know it's being done if it's done subtly!
Wm. Casey was an ex-director of the CIA, and he is known for having said, "When everything the American people believe is false, then our job will be done."
So there's a lot of gaslighting that's been sent your way during your lifetime.
In itself a ridiculous idea which has no credible evidence to support it, unless you cite the Cavendish Experiment from hundreds of years ago, which relied on a system of rods and wires and lead weights to somewhat unconvincingly demonstrate it.
The reason why "gravity" was cooked up and force-fed to the masses is actually easy to understand.
Mr Newton believed in a spinning globe earth - another idea for which there is zero evidence - and so needed to confront the obvious problem that if that were the case, then some mechanism had to be found whereby everything wouldn't be thrown off the surface and into space by centrifugal force.
So, voila - "gravity."
A more compelling explanation as to why things fall is provided by the far more fundamental concept of the Law of the Conservation of Energy; simply put, if you inject a system with energy, it has to be recoverable.
Lift something up - energy is added to it, which is retained as potential energy, and re emerges as kinetic energy if you then allow it to fall.
No "force" required.
A similar situation arises in electrical circuits - pump them with electrons, and the voltage rises; short circuit the system, and what you put in flows backwards until V=0 again.
No term for a force in the formula V=IR, and no more should there be one in any hypothesis attempting to explain why objects fall.
If you really want it to be made simple, use the analogy of a bicycle tyre being pumped up - energy is injected, stored as potential energy, and then recovered as kinetic energy if you deflate it.
Alas, it's not democrat vs republican, we are all one people, and those are two wings of the same captured government vulture terrorizing us and picking us clean. There are only liberal vs independent vs conservative values. Here is those liberal values in action (they are victims who've been lead down into a very black dungeon - they've been brainwashed by advanced political psychological warfare and manipulation - and we've got to find a way to get them back to reality or we will all be divided and conquered without them firing a shot - we will end up shooting one another for them):
Here is an impassioned blistering plea about democrat compassion from a legal immigrant:
Not long after I came to America, I was exposed to the narrative that the Democrat Party was the party of the little guy and the only party with genuine care and compassion for the average American. Fortunately, because I grew up under a dictatorship, I could not be easily fooled by socioeconomic shackles masquerading as compassionate public policy. The truth is there is no compassion like Democrat compassion. It is the kind of compassion that lets people shoot illicit drugs into their body with the government's assistance. It is the kind of compassion that sees assisted suicide as a moral virtue. Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that lets you rob the innocent in hardworking businesses in your neighborhood and walk out with impunity with no fear of prosecution.
Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that tells vulnerable women it is their right to abort and sacrifice their unborn children on the perverted altar of female empowerment and convenience. Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that tells children they were born in the wrong body and encourages and subsidizes their mutilation. Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that lets boys unfairly compete against girls and take their records, their opportunities, and their scholarships, and invade their private spaces turning back decades of hard-fought gains. https://old.bitchute.com/video/km6W0evMlQQ5 [4:37mins]
Sabina Speilrein "I must admit that I greatly fear that my friend [Jung], who planned to mention my idea (of archetypes in our collective unconscious, about death-rebirth) in his article in July, saying that I have rights of priority, may simply borrow the whole development of the idea, because he now wants to refer to it as early as January. … How could I esteem a person who stole my ideas, who was not my friend but a petty, scheming rival?" Jung was a serial cheater who forced his family to include his mistress into their home. Emma, Jung's wife was wealthy and refined, Jung was uncouth, if she divorced him, he could choose to leave her without any of her assets that she brought to the marriage. We need to have a balanced view on patriarchy; its aspects of bravery, innovation, cruelty and how it can manifest in destructive subjugation of others. Fortunately, times have changed and will continue to do so.
This observation is explained by the saying, "The exception proves the rule," as Jung and his kind are by no means to be conflated with the majority of men, who, morality aside, have done, and continue to do, all the things the OP mentioned.
One wonders why his wife, if "wealthy and refined," chose to cohabit with a man so obviously her moral inferior, although wealth and refinement are not generally thought to exclude the possibility of infidelity, and/or uncouthness in private.
Perhaps she was driven by her emotions, not by her logic, which is the besetting sin of most women.
But I have major reservations about your statement, "The times have changed."
They are very much what they have always been, and will continue to be.
People married young back then, it was the culture, it takes a long time to get to know someone. Unfortunately, pornography is so rampant today that I am compelled to disagree with your opinion on the sexual morality of the majority. I wish the ideal was true, but it is not.
But sexual morality is as under strain amongst women as it is amongst men, so it would be wrong to blame "the patriarchy" for this situation - females have embraced the new normal enthusiastically, as with the OnlyFans phenomenon.
I was putting sexual morality under the umbrella for both genders if you refer back to my comment, majority points to the word 'people' not simply men. You missed my point in my first comment on patriarchy. The 'patriarchal system' at that time, held that if Emma for sound reasons divorced her husband, she would lose control of her own money. That is in the past though, society has moved on, and it will change again as industry and economy drive cultural norms, and we are now entering the age of robotics and AI.
You started off by decrying Jung's sexual immorality, and contrasted it with his wife's "wealth and refinement," so no obvious acknowledgement of the sexual immorality of both sexes, which you are now attesting to.
The first usage of the word "majority" was from me, and referred to men exclusively, so when you use the word later, the average reader would assume that you too are referring to men only, especially as you never used the word "people", as you are now stating, but rather, "someone, " by which again the average reader would assume you are using the pronoun to refer to Jung.
Now the patriarchal system at the time definitely favoured men, as women were thought to be too "hysterical" to order their own affairs ( the word refers to the female womb, which was thought, rightly or wrongly, to be the seat of their emotions ) but it would be reasonable to ask if that possibly unfair system has now inadvertently brought about the "No Fault Divorce" situation, whereby a woman, for no obvious reason whatsoever, maybe just "incompatibility," can divorce her husband, take at least half of his property, together with a substantial yearly sum in maintenance whether for her alone, or for her and any children which it might be hoped survive this destruction of the family - so has a more matriarchal system delivered the utopian world that women had agitated for ever since they were first exposed to the destabilizing and destructive influence of those first feminists, all of whom seem to have similar-sounding and ethnically-related surnames?
So society may have "moved on," but what has it left behind in the dust - things which in retrospect, we probably would not have wished it to?
And given that divorces today ( but obviously, for the reasons you gave, not in the past ) are generally initiated by the female partner, with all the implications for the children, is it not at least strongly arguable that we ought never to have abandoned those principles which we had in the past?
In other words, maybe the tried-and-tested patriarchal model is the one we should have stuck to.
I have, in the past, always been in agreement with your commentary. I do take some offense in your ending statement about thanking the “patriarchy” the next time I need a plumber, etc. Having spent 25 years as a professional “handyma’am”, building bookcases, changing/repairing plumbing and electrical fixtures, hanging wallpaper, and repairing drywall, etc. I have rarely called on “the patriarchy” to fix anything and that includes my husband, who has other talents that do not include typical “manly” pursuits. Please do better. I know several other women who are way more handy than their male partners.
was TriTorch talking about 0% vs 100% . . . or was he talking about relative percentages (somewhere between 0%-100%) where the actual numbers depend on the specifics being discussed?
Their husbands just allow them to think it, so they can watch the game instead of putting up shelves, or whatever the latest thing is that she wants done.
I am by no means denigrating men or their incontrovertible contribution to family and the development of this country. Everyone has a responsibility to use their talents in ways that benefit themselves, their families and this nation. You, on the other hand, are denigrating women as being incapable of handling pursuits usually taken on by men and accusing them of being mere harpies who constantly harass men to do things for them.
But I don't think I ever said that women were incapable of doing these things; rather, that the majority have no talent for them.
As for them constantly harassing men to do things for them, the thing seems to be that they always want what they can't have, so they see this as a challenge, ie to harass the man until they get as many things as they can have, before moving on to the next thing they can't have.
It's a kind of madness that women, whether singly or en masse, are all too prone to.
Anyone who thinks its the Democrats, or the Republicans, needs to hurry up and take the red pill. There is NO 2-party political system running America, there is only one party controlling America, and every other country on the planet. The llluminati, the 13 bloodlines that secretly run the World.
I actually just shared it with full credit on Unreported Truths (Alex Berenson's substack) because that community would really love it (hope Alex isn't offended but my guess is he will enjoy it)
This is fabulous! But I am devil-sceptic. I don't think they will be able to cease this kind of verbal littering. They have little if any self-control. Gavin may be able to do it, in his desperation to appear to be a normal person, but his hands will continue to gesticulate madly. However, academia, the media and the freaks on the street will continue with the nonsense. It is as if they all have Tourette syndrome.
WW, No need to use the F-word here, you are demonstrating who you are - unhinged.
Never voted or was a Democrat. I want what is best for America and the American people, not the 1% Psychopaths. Dictator Trump and his Fascist Cabal is Far Right.
"Dictator Trump and his Fascist Cabal is Far Right."~Alberto Venezio, who hasn't the personal honor to capitalize his own name.
The term "fuck" is in common use in the English speaking world today ever since the George Carlin's skit; "Seven Dirty Words". "Fuck" is commonly used in modern movies. So using the term "fuck" harldly means that someone is unhinged.
So as I postulated you were indeed specking about Trump and his supporters . Now calling him a "dictator" and his supporters a "Fascist Cabal of the Far Right.
Now that sir is truly unhinged.
Trump and his supporters are U.S Nationalists. He and we support the US Constitution and admire the beautiful eloquence of the Declaration of Independence.
We grasp that our inalienable rights to Liberty are not granted by government but by the Creator. We have been opposed to all the bullshit this article speaks to; the Neo-Marxist LGBTQ nonsense, Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI), the absurdity that men can become pregnant, that there is no distinction between the 2 genders. That so-called "trans athletes" should be allowed to patricipate in women's sports.
You disingenuously claim that you are not a Democrat...you obviously did not vote for Trump, so you either voted for that cackling bitch Kamala, or you didn't vote. Your intencity in this forum suggests that you are lying that you did in fact vote for the Democrat nominee.
There is much in you that demonstrates your disingenuous rhetorical sophistry and lack of candor.
It would be wise of you to not challenge me again with your obvious bullshit. It is not going well for you whether you realize it or not.
You need help. I never voted Republican or Democrat in over 4 decades, I only ever voted for Perot to avoid the Clinton/Bush I gutting of the US manufacturing industry and involvement in Foreign Wars. You are fooled by the Uniparty and you spout BS!
I have no fear of you, Trump or anyone else and you are a Coward to Threaten online. You dish it out by the truck load but can't take any kind of a pushback - because your entire ideology is a house of cards as is your boy Trump the Traitor.
Far Left is Communism and Far Right is Fascism and they do the same awful things to the people. Did you not see a Clown Like Biden drive voters to a Clown like Trump. Go back in your basement.
Your boy Traitor Trump pushed the Bioweapon Jabs on us too!
Here were your words Coward:
"It would be wise of you to not challenge me again with your obvious bullshit. It is not going well for you whether you realize it or not."
"Newspeak" is used in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984. Written in 1948, this book, with its authoritarian predictions or warnings, is especially relevant today. I highly recommend reading it even if "Big Brother is Watching" as he no doubt is here.
That was a book we read in senior year of high school and in 2020 right after the “election”.. got myself another copy and read it again..I knew what they would try..demratz never have an original thought.
Add Aldus Huxleys Brave New World to your library as well!!
both books appear to be right. A combination of soma and totalitarianism.
I got my family and friends to read it during last couple of years.
Sandy is reluctant at the moment to admit it, but will eventually, that 2 + 2 = 5.
made me laugh. Sandy will eventually learn to love Big Brother.
Nobody can resist Big Brother's love for ever.
:))
for those who don't want to read, there are at least two good movies, one or maybe both used to be available on youtube.
No. Read the book. “For those who don’t want to read”? Come on, now.
People who don’t like to(or can’t)read are the same people who believe what they see and hear on tv…Reading can inform a person or make them ignorant… but not reading will only make you ignorant.
Why would they be on Substack if they don’t like to read?…
there are people, who for whatever reason can't read. But they can watch and hear.
Not being able to read is…completely unacceptable.
Splended summary of the lunatic Leftist Democrats.
\\][//
Agree 💯 It's hysterical that they can't see the irony of self censorship. 😂 They can go F themselves.
You forgot gaslighting. I can't seem to remember what that means. Great list!
Gaslight was a thriller set in Victorian times in England where a man tries to make his wife believe she is going insane by dimming the gas lights (before electric light became common) by shutting down the flow of gas from time to time. When she said the lights had dimmed he told her that was not the case. Happily she is saved at the end,
My first ex husband gaslit me often. I didn’t know the term at the time, but I told people he would make me question the color of the sky!
Good to know you escaped that.
It's always possible that it was he who was right, and you who were wrong.
We always try to protect our egos by blaming somebody else.
Well, I actually teach that. But in the particular situation I and my children were in, it wasn’t a case of my ego. Thanks!
So you say.
You aren't necessarily wrong; there are plenty of crazy people out there, of both sexes, but women are probably the crazier of the two.
When I was looking at all the difference scenarios of gaslighting I came across this information. Perfect example. How god awful to be married to a manipulative person.
It seems that many of our 'world leaders' are gaslighters. In some ways the education system itself does a lot of it early in life. How will we find a sensible balance between not rocking the boat too much and avoiding sailing into the iceberg? We have to minimize the centralization of power.
I started to analyze how often gaslighting is used. When I was young I was gullible and now that I am not young I am a cynic. I hope it's much harder to gaslight me.
Gaslighting, by definition, is to set things in a different light, and so we need to be open to change, even if we then decide we don't want it.
Scripture says "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves," it does not say we should be too set in our ways, as older people tend to be.
“World Leaders” got where they are at because gaslighting is a tool. As far as I can see, Maybe only 1 in a hundred are actually honest and without sociopathic tendencies.
They seek control & power over OUR self determination…not representation or implementation of our our wishes & needs.
Well said.
Manipulation is what people do to each other, whether for good, or for ill.
Nadine,
Gaslight were used on streets and in homes before electric lighting became available. Gasligting means; manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
\\][//
Gaslighting is an excellent term, and it can be used by anybody.
It simply means resetting some everyday event in a way that tends to imply its opposite; ie everything you thought you knew and understood suddenly becomes much more vague and uncertain and capable of being seen in a different light altogether.
Hence the "gaslight."
It is always used pejoratively, but it can also be used to throw something which is received wisdom into a completely different light - I enjoy doing it with regard to things which are almost universally believed in, like "gravity," which as I can show in a moment of inspired gaslighting, is a completely ridiculous idea, and one which should have been abandoned as soon as Newton thought of it.
"gravity," which as I can show in a moment of inspired gaslighting, is a completely ridiculous idea"~Tim Webb
Webb is galighting the forum with this pseudoscience bullshit about gravity. Gravity has to do with the mass of two bodies in space; the gravitational pull between two objects is directly proportional to their masses.
Here's a breakdown of how gravity works, from the classical Newtonian view to the modern understanding from Einstein. Newtonian gravity (Gravity as a force) Sir Isaac Newton described gravity as a force of attraction between any two objects with mass. The strength of this force is determined by two factors: The masses of the objects: Objects with more mass have a stronger gravitational pull. The Earth has a stronger gravitational field than the Moon because it is far more massive.The distance between the objects: The gravitational force weakens with distance following an inverse-square law, meaning that if you double the distance, the force becomes one-quarter as strong. Newton's formula for the gravitational force (\(F\)) between two objects is:\(F=G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}\)Where: \(G\) is the gravitational constant.\(m_{1}\) and \(m_{2}\) are the masses of the two objects.\(r\) is the distance between the centers of the two masses. Einstein's general relativity (Gravity as curved spacetime) Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity reframed our understanding of gravity, moving beyond Newton's description of it as a mysterious "action at a distance". Gravity is the curvature of spacetime: According to this theory, mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. We experience the effects of this curvature as gravity.A "bowling ball on a trampoline" analogy: A common analogy is a bowling ball sitting on a stretched-out trampoline.The flat, unstretched trampoline represents empty, "flat" spacetime.The bowling ball, a massive object, creates a curved dimple in the trampoline sheet.If you roll a marble nearby, it will follow the curvature created by the bowling ball and roll toward it, not because it is being "pulled," but because it is following the most direct path along the curved surface. "Mass differentials" and gravitational anomalies While gravity doesn't arise from a difference in mass, you might be thinking of local gravitational variations, sometimes called "gravity anomalies". The Earth's gravitational pull is not perfectly uniform across its surface.Slight variations in the density of material beneath the surface—for example, a dense mountain range versus a deep ocean trench—can be measured with sensitive instruments.In this context, the difference in the amount of mass in a given volume (its density) does cause a slight difference in the gravitational pull at that location.
However, this is not the fundamental cause of gravity itself. The baseline force of gravity comes from the total mass of the object, like Earth, and the idea of "mass differential gravity" is more relevant to measuring small, localized variations in a larger gravitational field.
\\][//
This reminds me of the guy a couple of years back, trying to see if the Earth is really round instead of a flat planet. He was smart enough to make a rocket device that launched him very high, except the parachute landing system was not as advanced and failed. I wonder what his last thoughts were?
Hah! Phil I have debated many 'Flat Earthers" it is astonishing how many beliive this bullshit! Communication satellites are what makes it possible to link to the Internet. Just that fact alone destroys all their goofy arguments.
\\][//
They call "Satellites" , " Satt-a-loons"( high altitude balloons; space is fake too),.so don't expect them to admit it..🙄
" ... Communication satellites are what makes it possible to link to the Internet ... "
Er, no.
Internet connection is via undersea cables.
So you appear not to have "destroyed our goofy arguments," rather, you have exposed the weakness of your own.
Even Luna, Earth's moon is a globe:
The moon's spherical shape was proven by several methods, including: observations of its round phases and the crescent shapes of craters, the effects of gravity which naturally pull large masses into spheres, its unchanging "face" and slight wobbles (libration) that wouldn't occur with a flat disk, and, most conclusively, by direct observation from unmanned and manned spacecraft like Apollo missions.
\\][//
"Internet connection is via undersea cables."~Tim Web
That is only true in some cases.
"While communication satellites are essential for providing internet access in many rural and remote areas, they are not what makes it possible to link to the Internet everywhere. The internet is a vast network that relies on multiple types of infrastructure, including undersea fiber-optic cables and ground-based cellular networks, to connect the globe."~Google A.I.
I use Verison wireless for my Internet connection. So I know for a fact that I am connected via satellite. The Earth is a globe just like every planet in the Solar System.
\\][//
I think I can guess.
But all he really needed to do was to look at those very first high-altitude photographs taken from the V2 rockets, which without putting lives at risk, sent back images of a completely flat horizon, which prima facie seems to favour a view of earth which attests to its flatness rather than its rotundity.
Many others subsequently, again took the sensible course, and sent GoPros up aloft, rather than going up themselves, and once again, all images show zero curvature.
Incidentally, re. that man who made his own rocket ship - do you actually believe the story, or is it self-evidently as fake as the so-called "moon landings."?
With citizens as gullible as you seem to be, is it any wonder that gaslighting you is such an easy thing for them to do?
Flat Earthers are involved in pseudoscience, not real astro physics or rocket science.
\\][//
Mr Whitten, ( note that I give him his courtesy title, whereas he just calls me "Webb", because he operates on the basis of patronization ) perfectly expresses the idea of how people have been gaslit into believing many impossible things, but acting as if they are true.
He faithfully regurgitates what he has been told by A Big Boy, but never thought these things through himself, as that is NOT the way to get "a good degree" and thus "a good job."
Regurgitate, do NOT innovate, or the peer review system will crush you like an ant.
Let's look at Newton's ideas first - a man who never went into "space" and so had little to contribute to what is an empirical science, rather than a theoretical one.
Now if most orbits are elliptical, and "gravity" is the fake idea that the mass of an object enables it to attract another one, then we need to look at these elliptical orbits.
Mr Whitten informs us that the attraction between two masses, according to this theory - which had to be radically re structured hundreds of years after it was first formulated because it self-evidently couldn't explain the coherence of galaxies etc - depends on the inverse square of distance, and thus weakens significantly as distance increases.
SO, if an orbit starts to move from circular to elliptical, and thus gravity is exponentially weakening, what additional force then brings the orbiting body back to its more circular shape?
There may be crickets in outer space that can provide the answer, if we were only able to hear them.
The second idea comes from a patent office clerk who never worked in the science of gravity, or whatever else we might call it. - that something he called "spacetime" which I guarantee, not a single person either alive today or then has any idea about, sufficient to describe it in scientific terms, ie those using at a minimum, the x / y and z axes - he couldn't even do his own math, and had to get his first wife to do it for him, but he reliably informed us - to the obvious consternation of many of his fellow real scientists, who thought him a fraud and a plagiarist, that this mythical item can be "bent," and thus the analogy offered by Mr Whitten, who pretends that he knows what he is talking about, and only uses simplistic ideas for the benefit of the rest of us who aren't as clever as he imagines himself to be.
Unfortunately, though, the same problem rears its ugly head again; ie having started to "roll towards" the more massive object, or its "centre of gravity," then what suddenly causes it to start to climb back up the "dimple" thus rendering its orbit more elliptical?
The sound of the crickets is becoming deafening, but nobody on earth can hear them, it seems.
There are photographs from lunar obiters that clearly show all the landing sites on the moon:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/74F6NLqYUMLsgwyCwx5mJd.jpg
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.space.com%2F12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html&psig=AOvVaw3ex6BYF8BcPJbHmWIJQ42Q&ust=1756325476766000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBYQjRxqFwoTCIDUxbOkqY8DFQAAAAAdAAAAABAL
Webb is into pseudoscience nonsense. His contentions against Newton and Einstein are proposterous. Both Newton and Einstein were obvious genius's.
Both of these men's controbutions to science are well known.
Newton's three laws of motion are proven over and again in real life actions.
AI Overview
Newton's 3 Laws of Motion: Force, Mass and Acceleration ...
Newton's three laws of motion explain how forces affect the motion of objects: the First Law (Law of Inertia) states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion at constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net external force. The Second Law states that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass, often expressed as F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration). The Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; when one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force back on the first.
1. Newton's First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia)
Statement:
An object will remain at rest, or in uniform motion (constant speed and direction), unless it is acted upon by an external, unbalanced force.
Concept:
This tendency for an object to resist changes in its state of motion is known as inertia.
Example:
A book sitting on a table will stay there until you push it (apply a force), and a hockey puck on a frictionless surface will keep sliding in a straight line forever unless something stops it.
2. Newton's Second Law of Motion (Law of Acceleration)
Statement: The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass.
Equation: F = ma (Force = mass × acceleration).
Concept: A larger force is needed to accelerate a heavier object (larger mass). A greater force applied to the same mass will result in greater acceleration.
Example: It takes more force to accelerate a heavy car than a light bicycle.
3. Newton's Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction)
Statement: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Concept: When two objects interact, they exert forces on each other that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
Example: When a rocket expels gas downwards (action), the gas pushes the rocket upwards (reaction).
\\][//
All the spelling mistakes as evidences of subnormal intelligence aside, note how Mr Whitten again immediately resorts to trying to get confirmation of his delusions from an "authority figure," in this case, an AI bot, because he never has any answers of his own.
It's pointless getting involved in long disputes with people of this kind, but suffice it to say that as Newton never went into "space," he had no understanding of the fact that we always need something to push against if "action and reaction are to be equal and opposite," and Mr W will agree that in "space" there is nothing to push against, and so no exhaust from a rocket motor will achieve anything, and by no means will it be able to use its much-vaunted "jet thrusters" to manouevre therefore.
Experiments here on earth show that any rocket fuel ignited in vacuo simply fizzles, even if it contains some oxidant.
Effectively, the whole thing is a complete hoax visited on the naive and gullible.
As to the "photos of the moon" he mentions, one of the first such photos was called "Earthrise," and it is distinguished by the square edges around this object, as a result of it having been cut and pasted into the picture.
Pictures coming from "Mars" are similarly discredited by the fact that the topography can be shown to be identical to that found on Devon Island in Canada's far north, tinted a little, as we are supposedly on a "Red Planet".
Rockets work in the vacuum of space because they carry their own oxygen and fuel for combustion. Unlike airplanes, which rely on air for lift and thrust, rockets generate thrust by expelling hot gases. This expulsion creates an equal and opposite force on the rocket, pushing it forward, regardless of whether there's air or not.
\\][//
Authoritive answers are valuable when dealing with a moron pushing pseudoscience tripe like the Earth is flat. Anyone who actually believes this in the age of spaceflight is an congenital idiot.
Webb has been given the scientific answers to prove the Earth, like all planets and stars are globes. This spherical shape is a fundamental result of gravity, which pulls matter inward equally from all directions, overcoming the material's strength to form the most compact shape possible.
You don't like insults? Then don't propose preposterous assertions
\\][//
The premise that Isaac Newton had little to contribute to the empirical science of space is incorrect. While he never traveled to space himself, his theoretical work—combining empirical observations of others with his own mathematical insights—laid the foundational principles for modern spaceflight, orbital mechanics, and our understanding of the cosmos.
Newton's theory as the basis of space travel
Universal Law of Gravitation: By recognizing that the same force causing an apple to fall to Earth also holds the moon in its orbit, Newton unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics. This law, which describes how mass attracts mass across vast distances, is the core principle used to calculate trajectories and understand orbital motion.
The Three Laws of Motion: These laws, published in his 1687 work Principia Mathematica, are fundamental to rocket science.
First Law (Inertia): An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In space, where there is no air friction, a spacecraft will continue on its path indefinitely unless its course is altered by a rocket engine or the gravitational pull of another body.
Second Law (Force and Acceleration): The relationship F=ma explains how a rocket engine must generate enough force to accelerate a massive rocket into space. As a rocket's mass decreases by burning fuel, its acceleration increases.
Third Law (Action-Reaction): For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rocket pushes hot gas downward (action), and the gas provides an upward thrust that launches the rocket (reaction). This is the principle that allows all rockets to work.
The "Thought Experiment" of Orbit: Newton conceived of an imaginary cannon on a mountaintop to illustrate the principle of orbit. If a cannonball is fired horizontally with enough velocity, it will fall toward Earth at the same rate that Earth's surface curves away, causing it to fall forever around the planet. The International Space Station operates under this principle, constantly falling toward Earth but never hitting it.
The interplay of theory and empiricism in science
The claim creates a false dichotomy between theoretical and empirical science. In practice, they are deeply intertwined.
Theory explains empirical data: Newton's theories were not developed in a vacuum. He relied on the extensive observational data of astronomers like Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, and his work provided the physical explanation for Kepler's empirical laws of planetary motion.
Theory enables new empirical discovery: By demonstrating that the same physical laws apply both on Earth and in the heavens, Newton's theories allowed future scientists to accurately calculate and predict the motions of celestial bodies. This enabled the exploration of space long before humans could physically leave Earth.
\\][//
Note how this lunatic completely ignores my central point, ie the way in which elliptical orbits falsify the gravity hypothesis, whether it be based on the Newtonian or Einsteinian models.
"If you cannot refute an argument, pretend it doesn't exist" seems to be the way in which he operates.
Because Mr. Tim Webb is scientifically illiterate I feel compelled to correct his faulty claims:
The claim that elliptical orbits falsify the gravity hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, the existence of elliptical orbits for planets is a major prediction of Newtonian gravitational theory. The inverse-square law of gravity mathematically proves that a body orbiting a massive object will follow a conic section, with an ellipse being one of the possible paths.
How Newton's theory of gravity predicts elliptical orbits
In the 17th century, Isaac Newton used Johannes Kepler's empirical laws of planetary motion, which described orbits as ellipses, to formulate his own law of universal gravitation.
Gravity and inertia: The elliptical path of a planet is a dynamic balance between two factors: the planet's forward momentum (inertia), which causes it to move in a straight line, and the sun's gravitational pull, which continuously bends its path inward.
Kepler's first law: From his laws of motion and the inverse-square law of gravitation, Newton was able to mathematically derive Kepler's first law, which states that planets orbit the sun in an ellipse with the sun at one focus.
Conservation of angular momentum: The geometry of elliptical orbits also explains Kepler's second law, which says that a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. This is a direct consequence of the conservation of angular momentum caused by the nature of the gravitational force.
When gravity predictions seemed wrong
While the standard two-body model of Newtonian gravity correctly predicts a stable ellipse, minor deviations in planetary orbits provided a path for a more accurate theory.
Perturbations: The orbits of planets are not perfect ellipses because of the gravitational influence of other planets and the non-uniformity of the sun's mass. These additional forces cause the orbital ellipse to rotate gradually over time, a phenomenon known as apsidal precession.
Anomaly of Mercury: In the 19th century, the precession of Mercury's orbit was observed to be slightly different from the amount predicted by Newtonian gravity, even after accounting for the influence of all other planets. This discrepancy, known as the "anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury," was an unresolved puzzle for Newtonian physics.
How elliptical orbits support general relativity
The minor inaccuracies of Newtonian gravity with respect to elliptical orbits were explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity, not falsified.
Curvature of spacetime: General relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as the warping of spacetime by mass and energy. In this view, objects in orbit simply follow the curvature of spacetime around a massive body.
Correcting the anomaly: Einstein's theory precisely predicted the small, extra rotation in Mercury's elliptical orbit, which was a major confirmation of general relativity. For most orbital calculations, however, the Newtonian prediction of an unchanging elliptical orbit is accurate enough.
In short, elliptical orbits are a feature of gravitational theory, not a refutation. While the most basic model predicts a perfect ellipse, more advanced theories account for minor perturbations and provide a more accurate description of orbital motion.
\\][//
Thank you. I just looked it up on line. Your definition is much better.
I don't come in contact to anyone that gaslights me except the media.
That's always the way with gaslighting - you don't know it's being done if it's done subtly!
Wm. Casey was an ex-director of the CIA, and he is known for having said, "When everything the American people believe is false, then our job will be done."
So there's a lot of gaslighting that's been sent your way during your lifetime.
But gravity is not one of them.
Gravity is indeed one of them.
In itself a ridiculous idea which has no credible evidence to support it, unless you cite the Cavendish Experiment from hundreds of years ago, which relied on a system of rods and wires and lead weights to somewhat unconvincingly demonstrate it.
The reason why "gravity" was cooked up and force-fed to the masses is actually easy to understand.
Mr Newton believed in a spinning globe earth - another idea for which there is zero evidence - and so needed to confront the obvious problem that if that were the case, then some mechanism had to be found whereby everything wouldn't be thrown off the surface and into space by centrifugal force.
So, voila - "gravity."
A more compelling explanation as to why things fall is provided by the far more fundamental concept of the Law of the Conservation of Energy; simply put, if you inject a system with energy, it has to be recoverable.
Lift something up - energy is added to it, which is retained as potential energy, and re emerges as kinetic energy if you then allow it to fall.
No "force" required.
A similar situation arises in electrical circuits - pump them with electrons, and the voltage rises; short circuit the system, and what you put in flows backwards until V=0 again.
No term for a force in the formula V=IR, and no more should there be one in any hypothesis attempting to explain why objects fall.
If you really want it to be made simple, use the analogy of a bicycle tyre being pumped up - energy is injected, stored as potential energy, and then recovered as kinetic energy if you deflate it.
Alas, it's not democrat vs republican, we are all one people, and those are two wings of the same captured government vulture terrorizing us and picking us clean. There are only liberal vs independent vs conservative values. Here is those liberal values in action (they are victims who've been lead down into a very black dungeon - they've been brainwashed by advanced political psychological warfare and manipulation - and we've got to find a way to get them back to reality or we will all be divided and conquered without them firing a shot - we will end up shooting one another for them):
Here is an impassioned blistering plea about democrat compassion from a legal immigrant:
Not long after I came to America, I was exposed to the narrative that the Democrat Party was the party of the little guy and the only party with genuine care and compassion for the average American. Fortunately, because I grew up under a dictatorship, I could not be easily fooled by socioeconomic shackles masquerading as compassionate public policy. The truth is there is no compassion like Democrat compassion. It is the kind of compassion that lets people shoot illicit drugs into their body with the government's assistance. It is the kind of compassion that sees assisted suicide as a moral virtue. Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that lets you rob the innocent in hardworking businesses in your neighborhood and walk out with impunity with no fear of prosecution.
Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that tells vulnerable women it is their right to abort and sacrifice their unborn children on the perverted altar of female empowerment and convenience. Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that tells children they were born in the wrong body and encourages and subsidizes their mutilation. Democrat compassion is the kind of compassion that lets boys unfairly compete against girls and take their records, their opportunities, and their scholarships, and invade their private spaces turning back decades of hard-fought gains. https://old.bitchute.com/video/km6W0evMlQQ5 [4:37mins]
Here are solution to bring us back together because if we don't do this we will all perish like fools: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/united-we-stand-divided-we-fall
A friend calls the uniparty DeRP.
Sabina Speilrein "I must admit that I greatly fear that my friend [Jung], who planned to mention my idea (of archetypes in our collective unconscious, about death-rebirth) in his article in July, saying that I have rights of priority, may simply borrow the whole development of the idea, because he now wants to refer to it as early as January. … How could I esteem a person who stole my ideas, who was not my friend but a petty, scheming rival?" Jung was a serial cheater who forced his family to include his mistress into their home. Emma, Jung's wife was wealthy and refined, Jung was uncouth, if she divorced him, he could choose to leave her without any of her assets that she brought to the marriage. We need to have a balanced view on patriarchy; its aspects of bravery, innovation, cruelty and how it can manifest in destructive subjugation of others. Fortunately, times have changed and will continue to do so.
This observation is explained by the saying, "The exception proves the rule," as Jung and his kind are by no means to be conflated with the majority of men, who, morality aside, have done, and continue to do, all the things the OP mentioned.
One wonders why his wife, if "wealthy and refined," chose to cohabit with a man so obviously her moral inferior, although wealth and refinement are not generally thought to exclude the possibility of infidelity, and/or uncouthness in private.
Perhaps she was driven by her emotions, not by her logic, which is the besetting sin of most women.
But I have major reservations about your statement, "The times have changed."
They are very much what they have always been, and will continue to be.
People married young back then, it was the culture, it takes a long time to get to know someone. Unfortunately, pornography is so rampant today that I am compelled to disagree with your opinion on the sexual morality of the majority. I wish the ideal was true, but it is not.
Your first point is a good one.
But sexual morality is as under strain amongst women as it is amongst men, so it would be wrong to blame "the patriarchy" for this situation - females have embraced the new normal enthusiastically, as with the OnlyFans phenomenon.
I was putting sexual morality under the umbrella for both genders if you refer back to my comment, majority points to the word 'people' not simply men. You missed my point in my first comment on patriarchy. The 'patriarchal system' at that time, held that if Emma for sound reasons divorced her husband, she would lose control of her own money. That is in the past though, society has moved on, and it will change again as industry and economy drive cultural norms, and we are now entering the age of robotics and AI.
You started off by decrying Jung's sexual immorality, and contrasted it with his wife's "wealth and refinement," so no obvious acknowledgement of the sexual immorality of both sexes, which you are now attesting to.
The first usage of the word "majority" was from me, and referred to men exclusively, so when you use the word later, the average reader would assume that you too are referring to men only, especially as you never used the word "people", as you are now stating, but rather, "someone, " by which again the average reader would assume you are using the pronoun to refer to Jung.
Now the patriarchal system at the time definitely favoured men, as women were thought to be too "hysterical" to order their own affairs ( the word refers to the female womb, which was thought, rightly or wrongly, to be the seat of their emotions ) but it would be reasonable to ask if that possibly unfair system has now inadvertently brought about the "No Fault Divorce" situation, whereby a woman, for no obvious reason whatsoever, maybe just "incompatibility," can divorce her husband, take at least half of his property, together with a substantial yearly sum in maintenance whether for her alone, or for her and any children which it might be hoped survive this destruction of the family - so has a more matriarchal system delivered the utopian world that women had agitated for ever since they were first exposed to the destabilizing and destructive influence of those first feminists, all of whom seem to have similar-sounding and ethnically-related surnames?
So society may have "moved on," but what has it left behind in the dust - things which in retrospect, we probably would not have wished it to?
And given that divorces today ( but obviously, for the reasons you gave, not in the past ) are generally initiated by the female partner, with all the implications for the children, is it not at least strongly arguable that we ought never to have abandoned those principles which we had in the past?
In other words, maybe the tried-and-tested patriarchal model is the one we should have stuck to.
The only constant is change.
❤️❤️❤️this!
I have, in the past, always been in agreement with your commentary. I do take some offense in your ending statement about thanking the “patriarchy” the next time I need a plumber, etc. Having spent 25 years as a professional “handyma’am”, building bookcases, changing/repairing plumbing and electrical fixtures, hanging wallpaper, and repairing drywall, etc. I have rarely called on “the patriarchy” to fix anything and that includes my husband, who has other talents that do not include typical “manly” pursuits. Please do better. I know several other women who are way more handy than their male partners.
was TriTorch talking about 0% vs 100% . . . or was he talking about relative percentages (somewhere between 0%-100%) where the actual numbers depend on the specifics being discussed?
In their eyes, no doubt.
Their husbands just allow them to think it, so they can watch the game instead of putting up shelves, or whatever the latest thing is that she wants done.
I am by no means denigrating men or their incontrovertible contribution to family and the development of this country. Everyone has a responsibility to use their talents in ways that benefit themselves, their families and this nation. You, on the other hand, are denigrating women as being incapable of handling pursuits usually taken on by men and accusing them of being mere harpies who constantly harass men to do things for them.
Sometimes, the truth has to be told.
But I don't think I ever said that women were incapable of doing these things; rather, that the majority have no talent for them.
As for them constantly harassing men to do things for them, the thing seems to be that they always want what they can't have, so they see this as a challenge, ie to harass the man until they get as many things as they can have, before moving on to the next thing they can't have.
It's a kind of madness that women, whether singly or en masse, are all too prone to.
Generalizations will always get you into trouble. All I can say is that I have never been, nor will I ever be one of those women.
my Wife is pretty good at putting stuff together, better than I am. You have said your piece well and with grace. I salute you.
Generalizations enable us to see the forest; but assuredly, it is made up from trees.
Excellent Work..!
Anyone who thinks its the Democrats, or the Republicans, needs to hurry up and take the red pill. There is NO 2-party political system running America, there is only one party controlling America, and every other country on the planet. The llluminati, the 13 bloodlines that secretly run the World.
Take the red pill.
Love love love this and planning to share share share it
I actually just shared it with full credit on Unreported Truths (Alex Berenson's substack) because that community would really love it (hope Alex isn't offended but my guess is he will enjoy it)
Wheres Mitch McConnell
Arrest Bill Barr for treason
This is fabulous! But I am devil-sceptic. I don't think they will be able to cease this kind of verbal littering. They have little if any self-control. Gavin may be able to do it, in his desperation to appear to be a normal person, but his hands will continue to gesticulate madly. However, academia, the media and the freaks on the street will continue with the nonsense. It is as if they all have Tourette syndrome.
Excellent! Thank you!
What a minute...did A/i okay all this?
True. The Far Right needs one too!
So Venozio, Just what the fuck do you mean by the "Far Right"?
They are the very ones that oppose these neo-Marxist maniacs that this article is berating.
Are YOU one of them? Are you a demented Democrat?!?!?
\\][//
WW, No need to use the F-word here, you are demonstrating who you are - unhinged.
Never voted or was a Democrat. I want what is best for America and the American people, not the 1% Psychopaths. Dictator Trump and his Fascist Cabal is Far Right.
"Dictator Trump and his Fascist Cabal is Far Right."~Alberto Venezio, who hasn't the personal honor to capitalize his own name.
The term "fuck" is in common use in the English speaking world today ever since the George Carlin's skit; "Seven Dirty Words". "Fuck" is commonly used in modern movies. So using the term "fuck" harldly means that someone is unhinged.
So as I postulated you were indeed specking about Trump and his supporters . Now calling him a "dictator" and his supporters a "Fascist Cabal of the Far Right.
Now that sir is truly unhinged.
Trump and his supporters are U.S Nationalists. He and we support the US Constitution and admire the beautiful eloquence of the Declaration of Independence.
We grasp that our inalienable rights to Liberty are not granted by government but by the Creator. We have been opposed to all the bullshit this article speaks to; the Neo-Marxist LGBTQ nonsense, Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI), the absurdity that men can become pregnant, that there is no distinction between the 2 genders. That so-called "trans athletes" should be allowed to patricipate in women's sports.
You disingenuously claim that you are not a Democrat...you obviously did not vote for Trump, so you either voted for that cackling bitch Kamala, or you didn't vote. Your intencity in this forum suggests that you are lying that you did in fact vote for the Democrat nominee.
There is much in you that demonstrates your disingenuous rhetorical sophistry and lack of candor.
It would be wise of you to not challenge me again with your obvious bullshit. It is not going well for you whether you realize it or not.
\\][//
You need help. I never voted Republican or Democrat in over 4 decades, I only ever voted for Perot to avoid the Clinton/Bush I gutting of the US manufacturing industry and involvement in Foreign Wars. You are fooled by the Uniparty and you spout BS!
I have no fear of you, Trump or anyone else and you are a Coward to Threaten online. You dish it out by the truck load but can't take any kind of a pushback - because your entire ideology is a house of cards as is your boy Trump the Traitor.
Hey Venesio,
I have not threatened you in anyway whatsoever you fucking fool!
There is no "Uniparty" The Trump conservative are as different from the Marxist Democrats as day and night, as up and down, as right and wrong.
The "Uniparty" is a meme invented by the leftist Democrats to hide behind, which is exactly what you are doing on this thread here and now.
If you are afraid of my language don't provoke me with any more of your delusional bullshit.
\\][//
Far Left is Communism and Far Right is Fascism and they do the same awful things to the people. Did you not see a Clown Like Biden drive voters to a Clown like Trump. Go back in your basement.
Your boy Traitor Trump pushed the Bioweapon Jabs on us too!
Here were your words Coward:
"It would be wise of you to not challenge me again with your obvious bullshit. It is not going well for you whether you realize it or not."