<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Did they manage to &#8220;burn it down&#8221;?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/</link>
	<description>A blog about political change, among other things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 13:42:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup &#187; Pirate&#039;s Cove		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1140899</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup &#187; Pirate&#039;s Cove]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 13:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1140899</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Neo-neocon discusses &#8220;burning it down&#8221; [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Neo-neocon discusses &#8220;burning it down&#8221; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ymarsakar		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1139411</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ymarsakar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 03:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1139411</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;b&gt;Why would the 3-part coalition win wars?&lt;/b&gt;

War fatigue tends to hit in conflicts like Iraq, where the military and the civilian leadership can&#039;t bolster domestic support via enough propaganda.

Domestic support is key to winning wars overseas, staying the course, or just killing off the traitors domestically before they get into power and disrupt things.

Democrats, the war party, are very good at hanging dissidents inside the US, they did it before and after 1860 civil war. Republicans, not so good at dealing with internal traitors here.

In some ways, the Alternative Right is studying more about 4th generational warfare and insurgencies than the US military and AQ put together.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Why would the 3-part coalition win wars?</b></p>
<p>War fatigue tends to hit in conflicts like Iraq, where the military and the civilian leadership can&#8217;t bolster domestic support via enough propaganda.</p>
<p>Domestic support is key to winning wars overseas, staying the course, or just killing off the traitors domestically before they get into power and disrupt things.</p>
<p>Democrats, the war party, are very good at hanging dissidents inside the US, they did it before and after 1860 civil war. Republicans, not so good at dealing with internal traitors here.</p>
<p>In some ways, the Alternative Right is studying more about 4th generational warfare and insurgencies than the US military and AQ put together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ben Jacobs		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1139375</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Jacobs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 02:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1139375</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Continuing my comment, I am confident that 99 percent of the attendees of the Met Gala have private jets and homes outside the US and are prepared to leave. The great mystery is why they support policies and candidates who will make that more likely. The great injustice is that they will be able to escape despite their participation, whereas so many others will not. Thanks.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Continuing my comment, I am confident that 99 percent of the attendees of the Met Gala have private jets and homes outside the US and are prepared to leave. The great mystery is why they support policies and candidates who will make that more likely. The great injustice is that they will be able to escape despite their participation, whereas so many others will not. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ben Jacobs		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1139324</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Jacobs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2016 02:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1139324</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Belatedly (in blog time), your second theory of 2012 is similar to that of (radio show host) Mark Levin.  I recall him saying repeatedly as the 2012 election approached that it was the most consequential of our time and that losing meant &quot;it&#039;s over&quot; for America as we knew it. He and you #2 were right. 

Levin talks about having an Article 5 convention of states and about not going down without a fight, but really, the only thing left to do is to plan a way out and be ready to go. 

(I think you agree and that this accounts for your interest - which I share - in finding the point of no return in Nazi Germany. It&#039;s probably earlier than we think.  As Barack Obama told us, elections have consequences.  Ideas too.)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Belatedly (in blog time), your second theory of 2012 is similar to that of (radio show host) Mark Levin.  I recall him saying repeatedly as the 2012 election approached that it was the most consequential of our time and that losing meant &#8220;it&#8217;s over&#8221; for America as we knew it. He and you #2 were right. </p>
<p>Levin talks about having an Article 5 convention of states and about not going down without a fight, but really, the only thing left to do is to plan a way out and be ready to go. </p>
<p>(I think you agree and that this accounts for your interest &#8211; which I share &#8211; in finding the point of no return in Nazi Germany. It&#8217;s probably earlier than we think.  As Barack Obama told us, elections have consequences.  Ideas too.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: J.J.		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1131304</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J.J.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 17:35:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1131304</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[DNW, you may be right. The goal of promoting their narrative may be more important to them than profits and success.  We will see.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DNW, you may be right. The goal of promoting their narrative may be more important to them than profits and success.  We will see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: DNW		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1130989</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DNW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 15:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1130989</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the comment above, I failed to nest the block quotes in the first quoting instance which ended with &quot; &#039;... ratings&#039; &quot;

Thus, the paragraph that begins with &quot;Wrong ... &quot; is not mine but is being quoted, and should have been indented at least somewhat ... but was not. The quotation marks could be missed by someone just glancing at it.

My apologies.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the comment above, I failed to nest the block quotes in the first quoting instance which ended with &#8221; &#8216;&#8230; ratings&#8217; &#8221;</p>
<p>Thus, the paragraph that begins with &#8220;Wrong &#8230; &#8221; is not mine but is being quoted, and should have been indented at least somewhat &#8230; but was not. The quotation marks could be missed by someone just glancing at it.</p>
<p>My apologies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: DNW		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1130979</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DNW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 15:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1130979</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;J.J. Says:
May 4th, 2016 at 11:45 pm

Steve D: “I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Wrong. The media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings. And he will bring them better ratings than Hillary in the next seven months. (Oh no, seven more months of this? :-( ) In my mind and yours that may not compute, but it’s all about ratings. &quot;


JJ, Steve was agreeing with me where I wrote (original and my response)

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot; &#039;Trump has- the ability to literally tell the media to fu** off, and to get away with it.&#039;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

As long as it serves their own interests to encourage the illusion. The moment it does not, he disappears.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

This merely means that they will not do something that is ultimately against their perceived best interests. 

They have loyalties and ego commitments beyond the latest profit and loss statements as the eternal slew of Hollywood bombs &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;overtly&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; promoting progressive agendas has shown. The left media companies will still invest in these films in order to to try and shape opinion. Even if it costs them. 

Thus, as long as assisting in the creation of a circus atmosphere in the Republican candidate selection process gains them ad revenues and is thought not to &lt;b&gt;ultimately&lt;/b&gt; harm their political and life way allegiances, they will gladly provide the glowering, incoherent, self-promoting self-funded ignoramus all the free airtime it is in their own interest to provide.

It was a win-win for them.

Once Trump&#039;s disruptive utility is gone, and no more tickets to the circus are to be sold, they will go from neutrally marveling at the phenomenon of Trump, to shrieking &quot;Hitler&quot;, and doing their damnedest to make sure he is buried under a blanket of disdainful moral abuse.

One should remember that for journalists next in importance to their own self-aggrandizement, is the &quot;social engineering&quot; charter they have granted themselves.

My guess is that they will not unload on and try to bury him before he officially becomes the nominee; lest they tip their hand and trip up the ambush.

If their behavioral patterns repeat, once Trump becomes the official nominee, the gloves come off and all of those grandmas who once felt emotionally compelled to support Trump in the primaries will be bombarded by the same media which charted his rise, with new stories about what a monster he is.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>J.J. Says:<br />
May 4th, 2016 at 11:45 pm</p>
<p>Steve D: “I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Wrong. The media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings. And he will bring them better ratings than Hillary in the next seven months. (Oh no, seven more months of this? 🙁 ) In my mind and yours that may not compute, but it’s all about ratings. &#8221;</p>
<p>JJ, Steve was agreeing with me where I wrote (original and my response)</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>&#8221; &#8216;Trump has- the ability to literally tell the media to fu** off, and to get away with it.&#8217;</p></blockquote>
<p>As long as it serves their own interests to encourage the illusion. The moment it does not, he disappears.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>This merely means that they will not do something that is ultimately against their perceived best interests. </p>
<p>They have loyalties and ego commitments beyond the latest profit and loss statements as the eternal slew of Hollywood bombs <b><i>overtly</i></b> promoting progressive agendas has shown. The left media companies will still invest in these films in order to to try and shape opinion. Even if it costs them. </p>
<p>Thus, as long as assisting in the creation of a circus atmosphere in the Republican candidate selection process gains them ad revenues and is thought not to <b>ultimately</b> harm their political and life way allegiances, they will gladly provide the glowering, incoherent, self-promoting self-funded ignoramus all the free airtime it is in their own interest to provide.</p>
<p>It was a win-win for them.</p>
<p>Once Trump&#8217;s disruptive utility is gone, and no more tickets to the circus are to be sold, they will go from neutrally marveling at the phenomenon of Trump, to shrieking &#8220;Hitler&#8221;, and doing their damnedest to make sure he is buried under a blanket of disdainful moral abuse.</p>
<p>One should remember that for journalists next in importance to their own self-aggrandizement, is the &#8220;social engineering&#8221; charter they have granted themselves.</p>
<p>My guess is that they will not unload on and try to bury him before he officially becomes the nominee; lest they tip their hand and trip up the ambush.</p>
<p>If their behavioral patterns repeat, once Trump becomes the official nominee, the gloves come off and all of those grandmas who once felt emotionally compelled to support Trump in the primaries will be bombarded by the same media which charted his rise, with new stories about what a monster he is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steve D		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1130860</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve D]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 14:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1130860</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#039;media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings.&#039;
That is mostly irrelevant to the final result. People act according to their beliefs and world view (explicitly or not) before their pocket book. Otherwise we wouldn&#039;t be in this mess. 
During the primaries, the media could get both but if it comes down to it in the general election, they will sacrifice ratings to hurt Trump. MSM has been doing this for years. Besides they still get Trump coverage - just negative not positive so the people might be entertained by Trump (and wonder how horrible the Republicans must be to nominate such a horrible person, but that doesn&#039;t mean they will vote for him. (and by the way that sentence above implies the real reason nominating Trump is such a bad idea). 
Look for the worst possible result - Hillary wins by something more than a squeaker but less than a blow out. So we get 4-8 years of Hillary but they don&#039;t lose by enough to make the Republican Party reexamine its premises.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings.&#8217;<br />
That is mostly irrelevant to the final result. People act according to their beliefs and world view (explicitly or not) before their pocket book. Otherwise we wouldn&#8217;t be in this mess.<br />
During the primaries, the media could get both but if it comes down to it in the general election, they will sacrifice ratings to hurt Trump. MSM has been doing this for years. Besides they still get Trump coverage &#8211; just negative not positive so the people might be entertained by Trump (and wonder how horrible the Republicans must be to nominate such a horrible person, but that doesn&#8217;t mean they will vote for him. (and by the way that sentence above implies the real reason nominating Trump is such a bad idea).<br />
Look for the worst possible result &#8211; Hillary wins by something more than a squeaker but less than a blow out. So we get 4-8 years of Hillary but they don&#8217;t lose by enough to make the Republican Party reexamine its premises.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barry Meislin		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1130226</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Meislin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 09:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1130226</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Burn it down&quot;.

&quot;Let it burn&quot;.

Sounds a lot like &quot;fundamentally transform&quot; to me...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Burn it down&#8221;.</p>
<p>&#8220;Let it burn&#8221;.</p>
<p>Sounds a lot like &#8220;fundamentally transform&#8221; to me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: J.J.		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2016/05/04/did-they-manage-to-burn-it-down/#comment-1129459</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J.J.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 03:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neoneocon.com/?p=59439#comment-1129459</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Steve D: &quot;I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.&quot;

Wrong. The media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings. And he will bring them better ratings than Hillary in the next seven months. (Oh no, seven more months of this? :-( ) In my mind and yours that may not compute, but it&#039;s all about ratings. 

When Foxnews anchors, who lead cable TV in the ratings, are literally doing cartwheels to get Trump on their shows, it&#039;s a tell. MSNBC and CNN have had their best ratings in years since Trump came on the scene.  To much of our culture Trump&#039;s shtick is irresistible. It&#039;s like roller derby, wrestle mania, NASCAR, and Jerry Springer all rolled up into one.

IMO, the media will not reject him as long as he attracts eyeballs. I&#039;ve become aware that Trump knows this and it is a big part of his strategy. Disgusting, but it seems to work.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve D: &#8220;I agree. Trump only manipulated the media because they let him.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wrong. The media are looking for ratings. Trump brings them ratings. And he will bring them better ratings than Hillary in the next seven months. (Oh no, seven more months of this? 🙁 ) In my mind and yours that may not compute, but it&#8217;s all about ratings. </p>
<p>When Foxnews anchors, who lead cable TV in the ratings, are literally doing cartwheels to get Trump on their shows, it&#8217;s a tell. MSNBC and CNN have had their best ratings in years since Trump came on the scene.  To much of our culture Trump&#8217;s shtick is irresistible. It&#8217;s like roller derby, wrestle mania, NASCAR, and Jerry Springer all rolled up into one.</p>
<p>IMO, the media will not reject him as long as he attracts eyeballs. I&#8217;ve become aware that Trump knows this and it is a big part of his strategy. Disgusting, but it seems to work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
