Can you be too cynical?
I’ve long been pretty cynical about politics and politicians, and I’ve gotten much more so over the years. Unfortunately, I think that increasing cynicism is justified.
But despite that, I’m not the most cynical person in the world about politics. I’m not even the most cynical person about politics among the commenters on this blog. I try to be cynical in a way that’s justified by events as I see them, but not automatically cynical about everything and everyone in politics, a field about which a great deal of cynicism is, regrettably, justified.
For an example of cynicism, see this comment:
[quoting a question from baltimoron]:how did Sinema end up being THE senator holding up the federal elections bill?
[answer] Same way McCain did for repealing Obamacare, fix was in and someone needs to take the heat for the others, someone who can survive it with their own voters.
To me, “fix was in” usually means something illegal or shady or corrupt. With Sinema, “fix was in” doesn’t necessarily mean that – and I wouldn’t use that phrase. I believe that it may be the case that there are other Democrats in more vulnerable positions in the Senate who agree with Sinema that it’s not a good idea to eliminate the filibuster in an evenly-divided Senate (VP as tiebreaker) in order to pass a bill as divisive and extreme and partisan as HR1, and that they prefer to keep their mouths shut and let Sinema be their mouthpiece. To me, that’s not a “fix,” that’s just normal politics.
However, I think the situation with McCain and the Obamacare “skinny repeal” actually did blindside the Republican leadership (see this on the subject). I followed the proceedings pretty closely at the time, and my evaluation was that McCain’s vote seemed to come as a surprise. Plus McCain was already suffering from the brain cancer which killed him a year later, and I wonder how that affected the whole thing. He was not the only Republican who voted against the bill, either, but he was the surprise because the others were known to be against it (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski), and he was the deciding vote.
One important distinction between Obamacare and HR1 was that, prior to that vote of McCain’s in the case of the Obamacare “repeal and replace,” the GOP was very much divided on what the solution might be. Over the years, I had read many articles and wrote many posts analyzing the various proposals for health care insurance, and what their pros and cons were. The problem was an inherently difficult one as well as being quite technical, and there were arguments within the party that were real and fact-based.
That is not the case with HR1 for the Republicans. They seem quite united against it, and they know it’s of the utmost importance (even for their own re-election chances).
But a point of view I’ve seen time and again over the years is the idea that it’s all political theater and that no one in politics is sincere when stating his or her supposed principles. No one even has any principles except self-interest, and self-interest often involves money. I agree that there are very prominent aspects of that sort of thing in politics (and always will be, by the way). But I don’t think it’s as completely universal as that, and I have to trust my gut when I evaluate politicians’ sincerity. “Politicians’ sincerity” sounds like an oxymoron, and it very often is. But not all the time.
On the question “how did Sinema end up being THE senator holding up the federal elections bill?” I will add that, if you read her recent speech explaining her refusal to eliminate the filibuster, you’ll see that the principles she’s stating there are the very same principles about which she wrote a book.
A book? Sinema wrote (or perhaps had a ghostwriter write, with her approval) a book?
Sinema is young; she’s 45. She’s only been a senator since January of 2019, but prior to that she was a member of the US House of Representatives (January 2013 – January 2019), the Arizona Senate (January 2011 to January 2012) and a member of the Arizona House of Representatives (January 2005- January 2011). In other words, she’s been a politician almost continually since she was 28 years old.
Sinema’s book was written in June of 2009, so that’s when was still in the Arizona House, which was her first elected position. It’s called Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win#and Last. Reading the description, there is no doubt that Sinema was on the left, and I believe she remains firmly in that camp. However, here’s something to ponder in the book’s description:
Old-school divide-and-conquer tactics—demonizing opponents, frightening voters, refusing to compromise—may make us feel good about the purity of our ideals, but it’s no way to get anything done. Worse, this approach betrays some of the most cherished ideals of the progressive movement: inclusion, reason, justice, and hope. Illuminated by examples from her own work and a host of campaigns across the country, Kyrsten Sinema shows how to forge connections—both personal and political—with seemingly unlikely allies and define our values, interests, and objectives in ways that broaden our range of potential partners and expand our tactical options. With irreverent humor, enthralling campaign stories, and solid, practical advice, Sinema enables us to move past “politics as war” and build support for progressive causes on the foundation of our common humanity.
The cynical among you may say that’s a bunch of horse manure, and her goals are evil leftist goals (the term “progressive” is a smokescreen). But when I read that book description, I see parallels to the gist of her speech on the filibuster. She supports the abominable “progressive” HR1, but does not support ending the filibuster to pass it narrowly. Here are some quotes from the speech, and you’ll see that it matches the book description pretty well:
Consider this: in recent years, nearly every party-line response to the problems we face in this body, every partisan action taken to protect a cherished value, has led us to more division, not less.
The impact is clear for all to see – the steady escalation of tit-for-tat, in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the Senate and excludes input from the other party, furthering resentment and anger amongst this body and our constituents at home…
…[E]liminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come.
It is clear that the two parties’ strategies are not working – not for either side, and especially not for the country…
The past years have shown: when a party in control pushes party-line changes exceeding their electoral mandate, the bitterness within our politics is exacerbated, tensions are raised within the country, and traditionally non-partisan issues are transformed into partisan wedges.
We must address the disease itself – the disease of division – to protect our democracy.
It cannot be achieved by one party alone. It cannot be achieved solely by the federal government…
We must commit to a long-term approach as serious as the problems we seek to solve – one that prioritizes listening and understanding. One that embraces making progress on shared priorities, and finding common ground on issues where we hold differing and diverse views…
This work is our shared responsibility as Americans…
Congress was designed to bring together Americans of diverse views, representing different interests and – as a collective – to find compromise and common ground to serve our country as a whole.
We face serious challenges, and meeting them must start with a willingness to be honest, to listen to one another, to lower the political temperature, and to seek lasting solutions.
That’s a long quote, but I offer it as an indication – along with the book description – that Sinema has been consistent over the years and that she currently means what she says. Sinema herself is dedicated to leftist policies. But despite her leftism, she appears to me at least to be one of the few who sincerely believe that unless the majority agrees, it’s just not worth passing some transformative legislation that will only cause the country to tear itself apart – although the cynic in me thinks she believes that because, without stronger and broader support, the leftist policies that are muscled through won’t have staying power.
“I try to become more cynical every single day but lately I just can’t keep up.”
‘Can you be too cynical?’
About politics, no you cannot.
About personal relationships and real life in general yes you can and it can lead to much unhappiness and general miserableness.
Griffin:
It can lead to bad results in politics as well – the turning away from a candidate who would be much better than the opponent who is elected because of that turning away.
“On the turning away
From the pale and downtrodden
And the words they say
Which we won’t understand
Don’t accept that what’s happening
Is just a case of others’ suffering
Or you’ll find that you’re joining in
The turning away”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMy34qhQe4
neo,
Yeah I guess but I very rarely do that I just trust them less. I’ve always subscribed to Reagan’s quote that ‘someone that agrees with me 80 percent of the time is a friend and not a 20% traitor’ but that doesn’t mean I’m shocked when they let me down because they all do (politicians that is).
Sinema certainly has larger cojones than Empty Space Suit Mark Kelly.
I had not seen McCain’s name for a while and was surprised at the sense of revulsion it triggered.
I see Sinema as a Bari Weiss type. I think this type will emerge and coalesce as the reaction to Woke continues to develop.
So far they are totally anti, as in opposition to gender transition in children by Weiss. It will be interesting to see if any large issues develop that they are for.
Speaking of Bari Weiss her COVID rant on Bill Maher last night caused quite a stir on social media. Of course she was pushing a lot of the restrictions for a long time so welcome aboard Team Reality but don’t ever fully trust these people who are suddenly coming around.
I contributed to Sinema’s opponent, Martha McSally, the maximum amount. Martha is a very intelligent woman and was good (like Hubert Humphrey was) in small groups but she was a terrible candidate. I am becoming reconciled to Sinema. I agree with the comparison to Bari Weiss. Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are coming around too. I think even leftists are alarmed at the direction the Democrats are taking.
Actions still speak louder than words and upon their actions rest the appropriate level of cynicism.
“Sinema herself is dedicated to leftist policies.” neo
I’ll take our hosts word for it but apparently she’s not leftist enough for Arizona’s leftist leadership. Sinema has just been censured by the Arizona democRat party.
I’ve been enjoying a lot of articles on Bari Weiss’ substack lately. What she and Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald have in common is that they’re journalists who genuinely care about the mission of journalism; they want to know the truth, and they want everyone else to know the truth, too. When things don’t add up, they notice, and they search for answers. I have to admire it, even if they still consider themselves part of the left.
Nope.
Geoffrey Britain:
Sinema is dedicated to leftist policies. The left finds her to be insufficiently dedicated to leftist methods.
Zaphod:
I cynically knew that your answer was a foregone conclusion.
Another Democrat who is bucking the Leftist trend is Tulsi Gabbard.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2022/01/13/tulsi-gabbard-slams-biden-he-is-doing-all-he-can-to-divide-americans-n2601792
She was too sane to win the Democrat primary, even if the fix had not already been in for Biden — yes, sometimes there really is a fix.
As for cynicism in general, here are a couple of stories that, even just five years ago, I would never have expected to see. These are all from today’s crop in one media “field”; we could all come up with a dozen a day.
https://notthebee.com/article/sign-up-today-oregon-school-launches-lgbt-club-for-4th-and-5th-graders-no-parental-consent-required
https://notthebee.com/article/well-they-really-did-it-new-york-citys-museum-of-natural-history-has-removed-famous-statue-of-teddy-roosevelt-from-its-entrance
https://notthebee.com/article/cdc-director-walensky-says-that-the-cdc-is-changing-from-fully-vaxxed-to-up-to-date-meaning-youll-have-to-get-boosted-to-remain-fully-vaxxed
https://notthebee.com/article/this-letter-from-an-eight-year-old-child-to-new-virginia-governor-glenn-youngkin-is-heartbreaking-and-heartwarming-at-the-same-time
And yet, sometimes the Progressives have good ideas.
https://notthebee.com/article/a-pro-choice-democrat-has-introduced-a-bill-to-force-men-to-financially-support-their-babies-and-the-women-carrying-them-and-it-sounds-like-a-fantastic-idea-to-us
And if you want to get really cynical, try and spot the differences between the “real” news and the satire site.
https://babylonbee.com/news/dr-fauci-reveals-he-has-forged-in-secret-a-master-vaccine-to-rule-all-the-others
https://notthebee.com/article/bloomberg-magazine-just-equated-the-covid-vaccine-to-the-evil-one-ring-from-lord-of-the-rings-and-i-dont-think-they-thought-this-one-through-very-thoroughly
The NTB has some great memes, but the Bee story is eminently believable as well.
Actually, it’s been quite interesting to play the Match Game with the Bee and its media sources. Sometimes, there is very little difference indeed.
@AesopFan:
At least the Bloomberg article didn’t wander off into Harry Potter territory? (It didn’t, did it? I’m damned if I’m going to actually *read* it!:)
One slightly scary feature of our time is the frequency with which the young 20-somethings try to relate real world events and individuals to the Harry Potter Canon. It’s the only coherent, canonical point of reference they have to grasp a hold of. History was not taught, falsely taught, and then anyway smashed into a million shards in their classrooms and finally they were invited to ooga booga in a deconstructive frenzy on top of those to grind them further into dust if they wanted an A.
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/why-nationalism-is-sometimes-evil-and-sometimes-holy/
“…When Slavs to the east resisted German expansion on the grounds that they were Slavs, the Germans said nationality was a dangerous delusion that must be destroyed; when Germans to the north, in in what was then the Danish duchy of Schleswig, invited German expansion on the grounds that they were Germans, the Germans of Germany said nationality was a sacred compact that must be preserved.
There was, Allen observed, an unmistakable opportunism in these nineteenth-century German attitudes towards nationality, but one can at least see what the old Germans were about. They wished to expand their empire and fitted their opinion to the circumstances and that end.
The empire builders of our own time likewise fit their opinion of nationality to circumstances and the end of power, and therefore likewise speak out of both sides of their mouths; but they differ from the nineteenth-century Germans insofar as they turn their bayonets against the nationality of what they claim is their own nation, and for the nationality of strange nations far away.
We have in recent days seen impressive displays of this updated, opportunistic, pro-and-anti-nationalism, as the nominally American empire builders in Washington shed simultaneous tears over January 6th and poor, bleeding Ukraine. This is by no means a solitary case, since one leitmotif of contemporary moralizing is that nationality is a sacred compact that must be preserved, except in those cases, always closer to home, when it is a dangerous delusion that must be destroyed.
***As Allen saw one hundred and seventy years ago, the *will* to power is the key that unlocks this apparent riddle.*** The nationality on display on January 6, 2021, vexes the nominally American empire builders in Washington, and so they have turned their bayonets against it. The nationality on display in Ukraine oils the wheels of their power, and so they have turned their bayonets for it…”
Where Power and Money are concerned, you simply cannot be too cynical about people’s motivations. And to make things even worse, the very rare cases who care about neither *in the presence of these temptations* (i.e. not just some airily moralising Average Joe who is never going to be a contender) are the most dangerous types of all. Because more unpredictable. Doesn’t even mean they can’t be bought off… just means that their different type of price inserts a non-linearity into the Power Game and increases likelihood of chaos.
So… no… You can’t be too Cynical. But that’s no defence either in the long run. Sooner or later some crazy saint or Holy Fool will slip past your guard and then you find yourself looking up at the sky in a pit you’ve just dug for yourself.
Sure, one can be too cynical.
Consider Democrats’ off-the-chart and off-the-wall cynicism about all Republican politicians.
Just because politicians, as a rule, must be regarded with cynicism doesn’t mean all cynicism of any type or degree is justified.
Unless cynicism is simply a justification for laziness or fatalism.
She is among the few that are honest, principled, and committed to the notion of coalition governance.
neo,
“Sinema is dedicated to leftist policies. The left finds her to be insufficiently dedicated to leftist methods.”
Ah. Which calls the validity of their policies into question, as the validity of the end sought determines the legitimacy of the means.
AesopFan,
A bill forcing men to support their babies runs counter to the premises of the prochoice movement. As only the woman has any say in whether the ‘fetus’ is brought to term, she alone has responsibility for its needs. To argue otherwise from their premises is to force financial enslavement upon the man. Once again, the left insists upon having it both ways.
Zaphod,
Those who speak out of both sides of their mouth illegitimize their position. In doing so they lose all moral standing. Eventually, when humanity emerges out of its juvenile stage, they will be completely ostracized. Which is exactly the consequence that should long ago have been imposed upon Joe Biden.
If you’re awake in these times—not woke—you’re more cynical than you used to be. I’m grateful for my recently acquired cynicism, because if you’re blind to the evil the Democrats are trying to pull off, notably with HR1, you can’t fight it. I’m also more cynical about Republicans, many of whom are too timid to fight or unaware of the stakes involved.
But I’m also grateful for those on the left with whom we must make common cause on constitutional principles, such as those already mentioned who publish on Substack and many others. We can argue about policies, trade-offs and so on, but our prime concern has to be saving the institutions of the country, already so corrupted with Marxist ideology. Many on the left are partners in this effort.
I respect Greenwald and anyone on the left who insists upon objective reportage. They too are seekers after truth.
I forget which Trump state of the union address it was. During it, Senator Sinema joined the Republicans in giving President Trump a standing ovation during several portions of his speech. No other Democrat did so.
“Can [one] be too cynical?”
Nope.
Not these days, when the Democratic party (and friends) believes that destroying the country—as well as destroying those who oppose the policies of the Democratic party, even if these be Democrats—is the cutting edge of morality…”these days” being the past 15 years or so…and constantly engages in all sorts of “ethical” gobsmacking subterfuge to achieve its dream of “The Great[er] Society…
Um, hold on just a sec:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-pod-of-orcas-freed-a-humpback-whale-from-a-coil-of-rope-possibly-saving-its-life
H/T Instapundit.
Astonishingly…there might be some hope still (that there are some sane—and honest—Democrats out there)….
“Democrat credits Trump for signing stimulus bills helping ‘low and moderate income’ Americans”—
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/democrat-senator-credits-trump-signing-stimulus-bills-helping-low-moderate
…maybe some hope, but not a whole lot, given that the level of partisan corruption in the media…and the relentless “passionate intensity” of the Democratic party, generally.
Compare and contrast:
“The left-wing dark money behind the push to kill the filibuster”—
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-left-wing-dark-money-behind-the-push-to-kill-the-filibuster
H/T Powerline blog.
“COVID: WORST ENABLER OF FRAUD IN HISTORY?”—
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/covid-worst-enabler-of-fraud-in-history.php
I’m actually in Phoenix ATM (not my home base), and I noted this
Arizona Democratic Party board votes to censure Sinema after pro-filibuster vote
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/arizona-democratic-party-board-votes-censure-sinema-after-pro-filibuster-n1287890
The NBC news piece, of course, does nothing but quote the Dem talking points about stuff, and only gives a Sinema spokesperson a single paragraph… it never provides any kind of actual opposition view about what she did.
Also:
“Sinema’s opposition to weakening the filibuster rule has also cost her the support of Emily’s List and NARAL Pro-Choice America, two prominent women’s rights groups that support Democratic candidates and boosted Sinema’s 2018 bid.”
Are we surprised? Nawwww….
^^^^^^^ Cynicism at work.
Cynical?
Moi?
In the wake of the UK’s decision to torch the mandates, here’s (just) another opportunity for the FBI to “protect” the Republic from its citizens!
“Feds Hunt for Extremists at Sunday’s ‘Defeat the Mandates’ DC Rally”:
https://www.newsmax.com/us/vaccine-mandates-washington-dc-protest/2022/01/22/id/1053537/
File under: Federal Bureau of Intimidation!?
But yet another breath of fresh—freshesque?—air….
“MSNBC Anchor Explains He’s Leaving Fake News Channel Because of “Hyper-Partisan” Coverage”—
https://nworeport.me/2022/01/22/msnbc-anchor-explains-hes-leaving-fake-news-channel-because-of-hyper-partisan-coverage/
H/T Blazingcatfur blog.
Yet another “Biden” distraction made possible by the Ukraine “crisis”:
“Seoul Says it Paid Iran’s Delinquent UN Dues to Restore Vote”—
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran-south-korea/2022/01/23/id/1053570/
Indeed, “Biden” really has to “work fast” to ensure that Iran can effectively resume its Obama-fostered (and encouraged) capabilities!
In this case, of course, “work fast” means that “Biden” has CONTINUE TO DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but let the “clock run out” and “bemoan” the fact “This administration has done EVERYTHING it possibly could have done”…
Meanwhile, back in Israel, the current administration, such as it is, will no doubt blame Bibi for having “alienated” the “Biden” administration…. (Israelis can play by Palestinian Rules, too, it would seem….)
@Geoffrey Britain
“… seekers after truth.”
Yes. This is what to look for. I started calling them that in my head a while back. There are a bunch of people that the left suddenly hates that fall into this category. Many are former lefty’s or more accurately still left but not willing to deny reality. I don’t agree with all of the conclusions they arrive at and I watch them struggle with the realization that the bulk of the left doesn’t live in any part of the real world. They are people who you can test your own thoughts against so that you can find the weaknesses.
The Ds seem to be in an unusually crazy cycle, something I take to be a true phenomenon and not just my partisanship speaking, though I know many progressives who presumably think the same of me and my fellow Trumpistas and MAGA enthusiasts.
My usual rule, though, is to treat people with extreme cynicism only when they’ve proved themselves villainous. There’s no point assuming everyone on Earth is equally villainous. At the same time, I don’t expect sainthood in anyone, least of all a career politician. No attitude will suffice to absolve us of the hard work of sorting through which individuals are more or less trustworthy. I’m still capable of being shocked by the occasional conservative who reveals himself to be a vicious misogynist or anti-Semite, or tries to persuade me that women have a magic protection against pregnancy resulting from rape. I’m just honestly not seeing as much of that craziness in the Rs as in the Ds in last decade or so, and the trend is accelerating to an alarming degree.
Related—the crux of the Democrats’ “Voting Rights” issue:
“Democrats’ Fight For Voting Rights Is A Fake Issue”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/democrats-fight-voting-rights-fake-issue
Key grafs:
‘…Pelosi was spouting the Democratic party line. “Our democracy is at stake if we don’t pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.”
‘…President Joe Biden was asked if he thought the forthcoming election would be illegitimate. He replied: “Oh, yeah, I think it could easily be illegitimate…. The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in proportion to not being able to get these reforms passed.” …
‘…Democratic leaders have gone all in on trying to gaslight the American people into believing that, unless these toxic measures are passed by the Senate, the 2022 midterm elections will be stolen by the Republicans.
‘They know, of course, that the opposite is true.
‘Democrats understand that without universal mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, federal control of elections, the elimination of voter ID requirements at the polls, and all the other mechanisms of fraud they’re trying to ram through, their party will lose….
‘…The party doesn’t stand a chance in November unless the Senate passes these two corrupt, unconstitutional bills. And the only obstacle in their path is the filibuster.
‘The filibuster, which Biden, Obama and Schumer once argued so eloquently to preserve when their party was in the minority, and that Democrats used literally hundreds of times throughout the Trump years, has now become “a relic of the Jim Crow era.” It’s racist….
‘…Realizing their days in power are numbered, [the Democrats] are getting desperate. The only way for them to win is to cheat.
‘[The] Democrats’ fight for so called “voting rights” is a fake issue. It’s another hoax that’s right up there with “Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election” and “Jan. 6 was an insurrection.” ‘
IOW “[The Democrats] doth protest too much…” Far too much.
I certainly hope that the author of this is correct.
OTOH, if she IS correct, and the Democrats believe they don’t have a snowball’s chance in the Underworld, then what’s to prevent them from declaring the GOP an illegal party and locking them out of the election?—you know, because the GOP candidates ALL (or practically all) support “TRUMP’s INSURRECTION”(TM)?
The Law would prevent them? The Constitution? They wouldn’t dare do something like that?
Well maybe they wouldn’t (though I’m pretty certain they would).
Of course, there’s always that terrible, awful, dangerous, COVID crisis to try to milk—but if they don’t get much mileage out of that then there’s that terrible, awful, dangerous Global Warming (or whatever) crisis.
And if that doesn’t quite do the trick, there’s always that TRUMP-caused, terrible, awful, dangerous Ukrainian crisis.
And since ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can trust the Republican party—the RACIST REPUBLICAN PARTY—to govern “properly (or at all) with any or all of these crises swirling about and threatening “OUR GREAT COUNTRY”, then we’ll just have to do away with elections entirely—just a temporary measure, though, a “one-timer”…FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY!!
Of course….
I feel the need to point out that Frederick’s response wasn’t an answer to my question. I asked, given that there are several Democrats in the senate who don’t want to vote on the elections bill, why has the media focused specifically on Sinema.
Also, I don’t think the McCain/Obamacare comparison is apt. In that case, you had a lot of people in the Republican establishment who were either against repeal or apathetic. Here, I think think the left wing establishment really wants the federal elections bill to pass.
OTOH, the most masterful of created crises could well be crashing the entire economy.
(Why unintentionally, of course…):
“This Sucker’s Going Down…”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/suckers-going-down
(I wonder if that would be a good enough excuse to cancel elections…and/or take out the long knives against the “Enemies of the People”…)
If you mean cynical about the prospects of what are emerging as two radically opposed moral species, agreeing on how to live peaceably in the same geopolitical space, then ” No”, you cannot be too cynical.
Zaphod has mentioned Bio-Leninism as a relevant phenomenon. And, I think that it might be that it in part, and with less pejorative sounding if equally irreconcilable expansions and adjustments, does explain the explosive emergence of collectivism, nihilistic libertinism ,and unapologetic will to power politics out of seemingly nowhere in the U.S. once, all of the sudden, some technology or other opportunity makes it possible for a subpopulation of ostensibly convential “go-alongs” to live out their bio programming.
What else accounts for it? Were then, one is tempted, or even compelled to ask, these lineages always among us, like some network of intermarrying child molesters with a set of secret passwords known only to themselves?
The more one discovers about the personal lives of politicians and “influencers” and their families, the stranger our political history becomes; and the more it looks like the progs were speaking from personal knowledge when they proclaimed the personal was the political.
How are you going to share a political space with transhumanists, for example? What happens as they seek to remake reality in their image and likeness?
We have seen what Faucian arrogance has done to civilization. Are you ready for the next step of humanity reconfigured as polymorphous perverse animal/human chimera cyborgs? They are.
Blogs are now a repository of cynicism. It can’t be avoided. Honest debate is stifled on popular social media, so here we are.