Woke therapists and the unwoke

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a long article on how therapists have become social justice warriors. I haven’t yet read the whole thing, although I intend to do so. But I’ll just point out that: (a) there have always been many bad therapists out there, although there are probably many more these days; and (b) the vast majority of therapists have been on the left for a long long time.

On a personal note connected with point (b), twenty or so years ago when I was newly divorced and newly conservative and wanted to discuss both issues with a therapist, I had an amazingly difficult time trying to find a therapist willing to deal with a client on the right. So this sort of ostracism is not a new phenomenon at all, although I’m virtually certain it is now far more common than it was back then, and it was already common back then. If anyone is interested, here’s a website which purports to list therapists willing to work with conservatives. I have no idea whether it’s reliable or not, however.

If anyone is looking for a therapist, I suggest being basically up-front about your politics when you first speak to each therapist on the phone. Explain that you are politically conservative and ask whether they’re comfortable working with a conservative, whether they come from an identity politics ideology, and that sort of thing. The therapist may be truthful in telling you yes or no. You can often get a good sense of this in even a brief conversation, and it doesn’t cost a cent.

But what a terrible mess.

A mind is a difficult thing to change: here’s the typical spin on the Durham Report from the left

The New Neo Posted on by

What was Russiagate? Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton, the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and a bunch of other federal government players, as well as the MSM, conspired to lie about Donald Trump in a manner designed to harm him in the election of 2016, as well as to hamper and cripple his presidency and his 2020 candidacy. This is election interference on steroids, and imperils their supposedly favorite cause, “our democracy.”

The vast vast majority of people should now be able to see this and acknowledge it. There should be consequences for the perpetrators, but since many of them are powerful and allied with leftist power, this will not happen. There should be apologies, too. But that won’t be happening, either, although there may be one or two people here and there who offer one.

But what actually is happening is spin. The goal is to get readers and/or listeners to dismiss the Durham Report and everything I wrote in the first paragraph of this post. If you wonder how that can be done, just imagine that this sort of thing is what you’re hearing on the subject, and what just about all your friends are hearing. It would make it very easy to shrug, carry on, and continue to believe what you’ve been believing since 2016.

It starts with the headline. In fact, the headline is the most important thing of all, because it is all a lot of people will read before they move on:

“A big fat nothing”: Legal experts say “bogus” John Durham report proves “he’s failed miserably”
“Combined with his lack of success in the courtroom, this investigation was a flop,” ex-prosecutor says

An excerpt from the text:

Despite the lack of new information or any criminal convictions, Republicans touted the report on Monday…[various criticisms from the right follow]…

But legal experts largely trashed the document.

“This is it? This is the grand summary? It’s Horowitz with some extra commentary,” tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss. “They’ve got nothing. No grand conspiracy. No effort to take down Trump. It’s ‘you messed up surveilling Page’ and ‘be more careful next time with political-affiliated sources.’ What a flop.”

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said that Durham’s report is “full of ‘observations’ but does not present evidence of uncharged crimes, as Mueller did.”

“It reads more like Durham’s spin on the OIG report than a prosecutorial document,” he wrote. “Combined with his lack of success in the courtroom, this investigation was a flop.”

That’s followed by additional cherry-picked comments from legal minds on the left, such as Andrew Weissman (if you’re unfamiliar with Weissman’s history, take a look).

None of this is surprising. I offer it, however, to illustrate the ways in which a person who’s been believing Russiagate is true all these years can keep his or her belief system intact. It’s not difficult; all the person needs to do is continue to read sources on the left or the MSM in general, and there won’t be any serious challenge. A mind really is a difficult thing to change, and people tend to read and believe things that confirm their already-existing biases. A belief system is an edifice that usually is quite strong, made of hundreds or thousands of elements – and although for some people, removing one element can make the whole thing topple down, that’s not the case for most people. And of course most people resist having even a single brick of the structure removed.

[ADDENDUM: Matt Taibbi writes:

Nearly seven years ago this idiotic tale dropped in my relatively uncomplicated life like a grenade, upending professional relationships, friendships, even family life. Those of us in media who were skeptics or even just uninterested were cast out as from a religious sect — colleagues unironically called us “denialists” — denounced in the best case as pathological wreckers and refuseniks, in the worst as literal agents of the FSB.

The sort of intensity Taibbi describes on the part of his friends and colleagues is recalcitrant to change. Nor is there any desire to change, which makes it even less likely.]

More on Durham, the FBI, and Clinton vs. Trump; from Andrew C. McCarthy and Jonathan Turley

The New Neo Posted on by

Turley is correct:

“Raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated.” Those words from the Durham Report summed up one of the most damning investigations in the Justice Department’s history.

In the 305-page report released Monday, special counsel John Durham concluded that the Trump-Russia investigation was launched without a required minimal level of evidence and shattered a host of departmental standards. Let that sink in: The Justice Department — as well as the media that covered it — effectively shut down a duly elected presidency, based on what turned out to be a politically engineered hoax.

That would make anyone angry. Really angry. Trump-level angry.

The fact is, in this instance, Donald Trump was correct when he said he was the target of a political hitjob funded by the Clinton campaign and maintained by virtually every media outlet. There is a word for that: disinformation…

In the end, it is not a crime to be unethical or incompetent, so no charges will be filed as a result of the report. Durham clearly hopes that the belated transparency provided by his report will produce greater future accountability. That may be the only naive aspect of his findings.

Of course, the FBI promptly issued a statement that it has — once more — reformed itself in light of its failures. But who really believes this is unlikely to occur again?

Turley points out that the Hunter laptop story has been lied about by the same people, and there’s really no end in sight:

Thus, Durham was left throwing haymakers in an empty political boxing ring — and those who perpetrated this scandal on the nation are left to carry on making money on books, speeches, TV commentary and lectures about political or electoral ethics. The media, meanwhile, is offering little more than a shoulder-shrug and more spin.

If anyone needs any reminder, Turley is not on the right and does not like Trump. But he’s usually fair in what he writes.

Andrew C. McCarthy is on the right but can’t stand Trump. When Russiagate began, he thought that people in the FBI and DOJ were going to be straight-shooters. But several years ago the scales dropped from his eyes, at least regarding Russiagate. Now he writes:

Among the most troubling conclusions in special counsel John Durham’s Russiagate report is that the FBI — even as it relied on Clinton-campaign-funded opposition research against Donald Trump that it failed to verify — ignored strongly supported intelligence that Hillary Clinton was intentionally smearing Trump as a Putin puppet.

To my mind, Durham is being too kind.

Perusing the report, I find it impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the FBI, and the Obama administration more broadly, did not ignore the intelligence about Clinton’s strategy but rather that the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the United States government knowingly abetted Clinton’s implementation of the strategy….

Clearly, there was a Clinton campaign strategy to frame Trump. Yet the most sensible interpretation of the evidence Durham has amassed is not that the FBI, in evaluating its collusion evidence, failed to weigh intercepted Russian intelligence about that strategy. It is that the FBI was well aware of Clinton’s strategy, fully expected Clinton to be the next president, and helped implement the strategy, regardless of what Russian spies may or may not have thought about it…

The FBI knowingly treated Clinton with kid gloves. FBI lawyer Lisa Page warned the bureau’s senior intelligence investigator, Peter Strzok, to tread lightly in interviewing Clinton about the email scandal — fearful that, upon winning the election, Clinton would otherwise be vengeful against the FBI…

Durham documents that President Obama, Vice President Biden, top intelligence officials, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director Comey were fully briefed by CIA director John Brennan on Russia’s assessment of Clinton’s plan to frame Trump.

McCarthy’s take on the FBI’s motive is interesting. Perhaps it’s even true. The idea is that the FBI wanted to curry favor with the next president, who would of course be Hillary Clinton.

But I don’t think that’s it, or at best it’s only a small part of it. For example, if they had thought Trump was going to be elected, would they have supported him and gone against her? I very strongly doubt it. I think their hatred of Trump and support of Clinton was motivated by two things. The first was their ideological kinship with Clinton. The second was Trump’s “drain the swamp” threat. They are part of the swamp, and he represented a direct threat to their power. And power is the name of the game.

Rudy Giuliani sued for sexual harassment and nonpayment of wages

The New Neo Posted on by

I get tired of writing “no surprise here” – but no surprise here, especially after the Jean Carroll win against Trump:

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and attorney for former President Donald Trump, is being sued in a lawsuit seeking $10 million in damages by a former employee accusing him of “sexual assault and harassment, wage theft, and other misconduct.”

The 70-page complaint was filed in a New York Court on Monday by Noelle Dunphy, who was hired by Giuliani in January 2019 to work on the business development side for his firm. The complaint features sensitive allegations of sexual assault.

“He made clear that satisfying his sexual demands —which came virtually anytime, anywhere— was an absolute requirement of her employment and of his legal representation,” the complaint reads. It also says the he demanded “that she work naked, in a bikini, or in short shorts with an American flag on them that he bought for her.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for Giuliani said he “unequivocally denies the allegations raised by Ms. Dunphy.”

There are many more salacious details in that link, including alcoholism and the fact that she recorded him making racist and other damaging comments, and that he said he could sell Trump pardons. If all this is true – which is certainly possible – Giuliani was, among other things, stupid to allow himself to be so vulnerable to this sort of lawsuit. He apparently was going through a divorce at the time; not that that’s an excuse.

But is it true? And what sort of evidence will she offer? Not that a New York jury will care, but I certainly care about the quality of the evidence.

And if her allegations are true, was she hired knowing that sex was part of the deal? Would that matter? She says he owes her two million dollars pay for two years of this – is that an enforceable contract, if she’s telling the truth? Of course, she’s also asking for more money in damages.

And if he badmouths her, I predict she will add on defamation charges a la Carroll.

Here we also learn the following:

“Mayor Rudy Giuliani unequivocally denies the allegations raised by Ms. Dunphy and every news outlet covering this story must include the fact that an ex-partner accused her of being, ‘an escort that fleeces wealthy men,’” Giuliani spokesman Ted Goodman said in a statement to Rolling Stone.

Giuliani’s spokesman is referencing a previous domestic abuse case involving Dunphy. In a 2015 lawsuit, she accused a partner of raping her and violently abusing her. That lawsuit ended with a judge ordering Dunphy’s partner to pay her $10,000.

I expect more lawsuits of this type (against people on the right, that is) in New York and other blue venues.

The Durham Report: in the eye of the beholder

The New Neo Posted on by

People on the right who have been following Russiagate since the start have long been aware of most of the allegations in the Durham Report. People on the left either don’t care about them, don’t believe them, or applaud them because they think it’s just fine to cut down every law in the land to get after the devil Republicans and especially the devil Trump.

And that’s the biggest problem of all. If most of the people in this country were united in support of the basic principle that the actions of government agencies such as the FBI and DOJ, as described in the Report, were and are unconscionable, then something could be done about it. Or, they might not have occurred in the first place, because the perpetrators would know there would be consequences if their activities were discovered.

But for quite some time they’e known that, as long as they’re trying to destroy Republicans, they’ll be safe from punishment and probably will even be rewarded. And the MSM that cloaked itself in righteous nobility for its role in bringing down the Republican Richard Nixon because of Watergate will cooperate in the protection and exoneration of the guilty ones now, because they are on the same side as the MSM.

Plus, when government lawyers and operatives do this sort of thing, they are careful to make it very hard to prove an actual crime with intent. That was part of what Durham was up against. What about impeachment? But many are not in office anymore, and at any rate there would never be the votes for Senate conviction. Obstructing an election? Perhaps. But who would prosecute them – Merrick Garland?

The coverage of the Durham Report is quite comprehensive on the right. On the left, it’s minimized, ignored, or subject to goalpost-moving, as I wrote yesterday. Here are some of the articles on the right; there are plenty more: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Justice cannot be served unless there are enough people who demand it. There can’t be enough people demanding it if the press continually lies or hides the truth, the education system doesn’t teach people the importance of following the law no matter what your political persuasion, and the left engages in an ends-justifies-means quest for permanent power.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s an example of leftist denial in response to the story.]

The Durham report is out

The New Neo Posted on by

And here it is.

Now, you may be forgiven for ironically asking, “Durham who?” Not that you’ve forgotten him, but that you’ve lost any sense that anything in this report will matter in any real sense in terms of consequences. And if you feel that way, I have to say I share that very same judgment about the effect this will have.

However, here’s Steven Hayward writing about it:

…[E]ven the mainstream media can’t conceal or disguise the blows Durham delivers at the FBI…

It will take a while to get through the 306-page report, but in the meantime, here are a few of the early headlines:

CNN:

Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe…

The Washington Post:

Durham report sharply criticizes FBI’s 2016 probe of Trump campaign…

The New York Times:

In Final Report, Trump-Era Special Counsel Denounces Russia Investigation.

Hayward provides quotes from each article. Here’s one from the Times which illustrates the way the MSM has decided to handle the report so that no Democrat pays a particle of attention to it:

Mr. Durham’s 306-page report appeared to show little substantial new information about the F.B.I.’s handling of the Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, and it failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations impugning the bureau that former President Donald J. Trump and his allies had once suggested that Mr. Durham would find.

Why would we need something new? There’s enough old stuff to fully implicate the FBI in nefarious activity. Plus, what’s the definition of “blockbuster” according to the Times? Are there any allegations about wrongdoing by the FBI against Trump that they’d consider worthy of censure or outrage or prosecution? Absolutely not.

Jonathan Turley on the MSM, American’s state media

The New Neo Posted on by

Turley observes:

This week, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) tried to do the impossible. After he and his colleagues presented a labyrinth of LLC shell companies and accounts used to funnel as much as $10 million to Biden family members, Donalds tried to induce the press to show some interest in the massive corruption scandal. “For those in the press, this easy pickings & Pulitzer-level stuff right here,” he pleaded.

The response was virtually immediate. Despite showing nine Biden family members allegedly receiving funds from corrupt figures in Romania, China and other countries, The New Republic quickly ran a story headlined “Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.”

The NY Times did the same thing, as Turley points out.

There is no end to the creativity of the MSM. They can do this in their sleep at this point, they are so practiced at it.

More:

The brilliance of the Biden team was that it invested the media in this scandal at the outset by burying the laptop story as “Russian disinformation” before the election. That was, of course, false, but it took two years for most major media outlets to admit that the laptop was authentic.

But the media then ignored what was on that “authentic laptop.” Hundreds of emails detailed potentially criminal conduct and raw influence peddling in foreign countries.

When media outlets such as the New York Post confirmed the emails, the media then insisted that there was no corroboration of the influence peddling payments and no clear proof of criminal conduct. It entirely ignored the obvious corruption itself.

Now that the House has released corroboration in actual money transfers linking many in the Biden family, the media is insisting that this is no scandal because there is no direct proof of payments to Joe Biden.

Let’s continue to move those goalposts!

The MSM is counting on the ignorance and stupidity of the American public. As Turley points out:

The whole purpose of influence peddling is to use family members as shields for corrupt officials. Instead of making a direct payment to a politician, which could be seen as a bribe, you can give millions to his or her spouse or children.

Moreover, these emails include references to Joe Biden getting a 10 percent cut of one Chinese deal. It also shows Biden associates warning not to use Joe Biden’s name but to employ code names like “the Big Guy.” At the same time, the president and the first lady are referenced as benefiting from offices and receiving payments from Hunter.

Turley gets to the heart of his message here:

The coverage this week has all the markings of a state media. The consistent spin. The almost universal lack of details. The absurd distinctions.

It is the blindside of our First Amendment, which addresses the classic use of state authority to coerce and control media. It does not address a circumstance in which most of the media will maintain an official line by consent rather than coercion.

I have one disagreement with Turley, which is that the MSM is not a state media, it’s a party media. When a Democrat is in office, the MSM blocks anything bad about that person and the Democratic Party, and tries to turn it around to make Republicans look bad. But when a Republican is in office, it is the opposite. So the MSM swings back and forth between supporting the administration and working to undermine it, depending on which party is in power.

In the USSR, the newspapers were state media because only one party, the Communist Party, was allowed to be in power. In the US, there is still ostensibly the possibility of the right gaining power, so we have this back-and-forth by the media depending on who is in power. Make no mistake about it, though; the goal is to cement the power of the left so that the right can never win again. At that point, the MSM will become the voluntary state media.

Biden stirs up racial fears – again

The New Neo Posted on by

I continue to be astounded at the fact that Joe Biden is considered by much of America to be a kindly old guy, despite his history of bile (and stupidity, but that’s another issue). One of his many specialties is trying to stir up racial fear in black people, a tactic that was honed under his mentor Barack Obama.

Biden’s commencement speech this past weekend at Howard University was a prime example, and I predict he will continue to hammer home on this same theme during his entire 2024 campaign.

Recall that he kicked off his 2020 campaign by repeating the lie about what Trump said at Charlottesville about “good people on both sides,” with Biden stating that Trump was talking about white supremacists as one of those sides (rather than the group Trump was actually referring to, people who didn’t want Confederate statues torn down or removed). Biden repeated that lie yesterday in his speech at Howard, followed by his usual remarks about representing and defending the “soul of the nation.”

But on the best days, enough of us have the guts and the hearts to st- — to stand up for the best in us. To choose love over hate, unity over disunion, progress over retreat. To stand up against the poison of white supremacy, as I did in my Inaugural Address — to single it out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy…

We can finally resolve those ongoing questions about who we are as a nation. That puts strength of our diversity at the center of American life. A future that celebrates and learns from history. A future for all Americans. A future I see you leading. And I’m not, again, exaggerating. You are going to be leading it.

Again, let’s be clear: There are those who don’t see you and don’t want this future. There are those who demonize and pit people against one another. And there are those who do anything and everything, no matter how desperate or immoral, to hold onto power. And that’s never going to be an easy battle.

But I know this: The oldest, most sinister forces may believe they’ll determine America’s future, but they are wrong. (Applause.) We will determine America’s future. You will determine America’s future. And that’s not hyperbole.

Biden links Trump to white supremacy and casts it as a force that is incredibly strong, implying that the right represents that force. Biden did something similar back in 2012 with his “chains” speech, long before Trump’s campaign and presidency. To refresh your memory:

Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday told a diverse crowd here, including many African-Americans, that presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney would “put you all back in chains” by unshackling Wall Street.

“He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules – unchain Wall Street!” Biden said. Then he added, “They’re going to put you all back in chains” with their economic and regulatory policies.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Biden’s comments “are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama campaign will say and do anything to win this election. President Obama should tell the American people whether he agrees with Joe Biden’s comments.”

Needless to say, that didn’t happen.

The Democratic Party needs the votes of black people as a united and nearly unanimous bloc. In recent years, they have received those votes, and Biden is determined that that will continue. Representing the right as full of white supremacists who want black people out of power or even dead is central to the Democrats’ message, and Biden will continue to deliver it.