Wednesday, October 30, 2024

JUDGE JOE BROWN: Jussie Smollett is Kamala Harris's nephew by marriage.

Jussie Smollett is Kamala Harris's nephew by marriage. 

Posted by at No comments:

MARTIN ARMSTRONG: one of the most impressive traits Trump displayed to me was empathy. When I went to visit Mar-a-Lago in 2020, Trump said he was tired of calling mothers to tell them that their sons died fighting in the Middle East. It was the first time I heard a politician actually discuss the citizens on the battlefield who are sent off to die in these neocon war games.

WHY would Putin ever agree to any agreement with Ukraine when they NEVER comply with what they agree to. 
Another stipulation is that Ukraine may never join NATO. Russia has repeatedly stated that it is not battling Ukraine but the NATO alliance that has them cornered. NATO has become the aggressor in this conflict that has grown to such proportions that admitting Ukraine would instantly lead to World War III under Article V that demands all NATO members attack in unison.
--Martin Armstrong


Donald Trump has long stated that he would end the war in Ukraine if elected president. Confident in his ability to do so, the former president has stated he could end the conflict in 24 hours and has guaranteed to do so before he actually enters the White House. He finally revealed how he intends to accomplish such a feat.

It begins by revisiting the failed Minsk Agreement – the entire premise of the current war.  François Hollande and Angela Merkel representing France and Germany at the time brokered the agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitored negotiations and both sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire. Russia withdrew troops from Ukraine for one primary reason — the Donetsk and Luhansk regions were to be occupied territories that would have the autonomy to vote in their own elections.

These regions were never Ukrainian territory. It was occupied by Russians for centuries. The people there had a right to their own lives. The Ukrainians demanded they no longer speak Russian and they sought to deny them even their own religion and they were to report to Kyiv instead of Moscow. This was like Mexico reclaiming Texas and demanding English was to be outlawed only Spanish was to be spoken and all religions were to be outlawed except allegiance to the Archbishop of Mexico.

The ethnic Russians in the Donbas did not want to submit to a central government from Kyiv itself. The Obama Administration really opposed this sort of settlement on the grounds of old-world empire theory predicated on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Such policies have led to the death of hundreds of millions of people over the centuries.


Europe brokered the Minsk Agreement as a ploy to buy time. Angela Merkel admitted a few years ago that they negotiated in bad faith with Putin simply to allow Ukraine time to fortify itself, thereby buying time to build its army. She also said that at the time, NATO was weak and could not provide support to Kyiv to the extent they do currently. The Minsk Agreements were signed to pretend to resolve the Donbas conflict.

WHY would Putin ever agree to any agreement with Ukraine when they NEVER comply with what they agree to. It is now abundantly clear that the Minsk agreements were NEVER intended to be carried out by the current Kyiv government. They were simply used to buy time to build up their forces for war against Russia.


Another stipulation is that Ukraine may never join NATO. Russia has repeatedly stated that it is not battling Ukraine but the NATO alliance that has them cornered. NATO has become the aggressor in this conflict that has grown to such proportions that admitting Ukraine would instantly lead to World War III under Article V that demands all NATO members attack in unison.

Trump’s former advisors have stated that America would have no role in enforcing any peace treaty agreements. This is not our war. “There are two things America will insist on. We will not have any men or women in the enforcement mechanism. We’re not paying for it. Europe is paying for it,” his former advisor added.

A strong leader like Donald Trump who does not align himself with the neocons could possibly persuade Putin, but who will persuade Zelensky? Zelensky’s Victory Plan includes the annihilation of Russia which is precisely what the neocons have been after. Who will convince the allies who have provided trillions in funding to Ukraine? Let’s also remember that the neocons are on both sides of the political spectrum and Trump would have trouble convincing his fellow Republicans to walk away from this war.

I’ve said it numerous times, but one of the most impressive traits Trump displayed to me was empathy. When I went to visit Mar-a-Lago in 2020, Trump said he was tired of calling mothers to tell them that their sons died fighting in the Middle East. It was the first time I heard a politician actually discuss the citizens on the battlefield who are sent off to die in these neocon war games. Trump said that there had been war in the Middle East for most of known modern history and America simply had no place there. Likewise, America has no place in Russia or Ukraine.

Socrates states that Trump could slow down the war cycle, but he cannot prevent the inevitable. It is true that Donald Trump could delay the onset of the growing global conflict BUT he cannot alter the cycle. Our computer shows that war could break out by 2027, and the financial implications will be fully felt by 2028.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Solomon Asch's famous experiment, showing that people bow to majority pressure, denying their own perceptions, successfully replicates in foreign country. And everybody is a conformist

I was vaguely familiar with the Asch Experiment, how one participant's knowledge, opinion, or understanding of shared reality can be manipulated by the group.  When I worked in a large school district, I saw his all the time.  To shore up consensus on some new program, or new trend, the district would stack a conference or a training program with personnel loyal to the district heads and program lieutenants.  To outsiders, this sounds like a conspiracy theory.  But one brave teacher raised his hand in a conference of about 40 "teachers" and asked bluntly, "How many of you in this room are district plants?"  And either stupidly or naively, a dozen hands went up.

I just had no idea that the Asch Experiment could corral 60% of an audience.  This means, contrary to the video above, that you don't need a majority of the audience to be privy to or participants in the experiment.  It's that powerful.  The cognitive dissonance of your own judgment is enough to change our minds.  And that change doesn't even have to be done with convictions, simply by peer pressure to conform.  I had no idea how powerful that was.  Well, I kind of did.  Look at any organization.  If a rumor is begun about you, and those spreading the rumor placed within it the instruction to commit violence, then that conformity contains a whole new level of concern.

This explains why critical thinking skills are essential for survival.  Too many of us take our life, our health, our wealth, and our survival for granted. 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

CARNIVORE AURELIUS: If you consume what you produce, it's not counted in the total GDP of the economy... Meaning if you're growing your own fruits and veggies, eating your own chickens and milking your own cows, you count as ZERO for the economy and thus don't help increase government tax revenue

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

How to deal with anyone trying to assert their dominance or bully you in conversation.

Not a fan of either in this conversation but the analyzer points out some valuable insights to help you deal with anyone trying to assert their dominance with you or bully you in conversation.

The other person twists your words and tries to make you look dumb so you'll learn how to defend yourself in any argument.

SPOT WHEN THEY ENTER FIGHT MODE
First step to defend yourself against a conversational bully is to identify when the conversation goes into fight mode.  Like if they're shouting or cutting you off.  But there's a subtler tell as well, like when Pierce is there to argue with Tate and not to understand him.  Two tells here:  if someone labels you or an idea you stand by as an issue or problematic that's a good indicator that they've switched into fight mode or if they want to argue with you before asking you to explain your point of view.  If that happens, you should start being wary of conversational traps.  

MISQUOTING
One of the most common traps is misquoting you.  Misquoting you makes it easier for the other person to feel like they're dominating you because they're attacking a straw man instead of your actual views.  Sounds like it would be easy to catch but sometimes it only takes a small tweak to your words to have a big impact on their meaning.  If you weren't paying attention, you may not notice the small tweak.  For example, listen to Andrew respond when Piers asks him what his opinion of Alex Jones is after meeting him. 
He was professional and courteous to me when.  I meet somebody and they show me respect, I show them back respect.  That's what I do as I did with you.
PIERS:  You respect him?

If somebody shows me respect, I show them respect back.

PIERS:  So if Adolf Hitler . . . if Adolf Hitler showed you respect, you would respect him back?

That's a huge difference between showing someone respect by being polite versus having respect for them and their ideas.   Andrew even catches this at first, but Piers is persistent in establishing that straw man.

PIERS:  Well I'm not.  I'm taking your position that if somebody shows you respect, you respect them.  I'm saying there are lots of people in the world I do not respect.  If Vladimir Putin showed me respect, I would not respect him.

That's your opinion.  But you . . . 

I know it's my view.  What's your view?  Your view is you would.  

You can see Piers trying to force a view upon Andrew that he doesn't actually believe.  So you have to be careful not to let someone misquote you or you may find yourself defending a belief that upon reflection you don't even have.  Luckily there is a simple solution for this.  If you're aware of it, re-establish your own point of view before you defend it.  

You say that people don't want to see men dressed up like transgender people.

That's not exactly what I said.

What did you say?

I said the reason I am so popular and I'm so famous is that there is a large contingent of men who don't want to wear makeup, who still want to make money, go to the gym, be strong, drive a fast car, be traditionally masculine, and don't want to be shamed for that.  They don't want to be called toxic for that.  

Now if you do start to make good points in an argument you'll have to watch out for this next trick.  

DERAILING INTERRUPTIONS
This is when someone tries to interrupt you before you can establish your strongest point you're taking the sentences and your weaponizing them against me I'm not weaponizing anything.

You can see in that clip that the interruptions are starting to bother Andrew.  Luckily there are three ways you can handle being interrupted.  

TRICK #1
First trick is to pause, acknowledge the person then return to the point that you were making.

PIERS:  All I've done is literally read out all the things we identified from all the research that I thought were blatantly misogynist and give you the chance to respond.  The only time I've interrupted you is when you've tried to answer a completely different question.

TATE:  Understood Pierce.

You can even see a little smile in Piers' eyes after.  That's because most people in an argument crave to feel heard and understood.  

TRICK #2
Here's another example.  You can steal this line word for word if you want to acknowledge someone without agreeing with them.  This time, Piers even makes a little positive noise after Andrew acknowledges him.

TATE:  I don't think so.  

PIERS:  And I think your view of that is . . . that view is dangerous.

TATE:   I respect that you think my view is dangerous, and I respect you have the right to view that.  

That line is a nice way to remain connected with someone without giving ground you don't agree with.  It makes the other person feel heard and that disarms their need to attack.  Now, once someone has established a pattern of interrupting you, the next thing you can do is preempt their interruption.  Here's an example. 
And this is actually what is interesting.  And please don't interrupt me on this point.  Social media has changed in modern times.  
4:20. You can even see Pierce's body language change as he disengages to respect Andrew's request.  

TRICK #3: ONE-FINGER STOP GESTURE
If the person continues to interrupt you you can call it out with a one-finger stopped gesture.

PIERS:  No, no, let's stop for a second.

TATE:  Please don't interrupt me.  Here's why I know, why your job first you interrupt people a lot, which is a good skill.  I believe in marriage more than anybody, in fact, I believe in marriage.  No, please, I believe in marriage in the traditional sense.

DON'T STEAMROLL CONCESSIONS
Now on the flip side, you also want to avoid the trap of being the interrupter, especially if someone is responding to a point you've made.  Don't steamroll concessions.  There were a few times there when Piers actually made a good point but he interrupts so much that Andrew can't even agree with him.

PIERS:  Well, you did say at the start of this little exchange, you said, "Well, I wouldn't maybe say things the same way now that I did before I was famous," and yet, actually, you've doubled down and said exactly the same thing. 

On certain points . . . 

So that is what you believe.  That's my point, yes, I'm trying to work out . . . .  Look, I don't know you.  We just met, right?  Steamrolling concession prevents you from reaching common ground with the person you're talking to.  If there's anyone else listening, it also makes it harder for them to register that you've made a good point.  There's one more example so you can see what not to do.  

Well I think my sister is my, her husband's property.

Yes, so fundamentally I don't believe a man owns a woman.  You do.  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)