i'm making progress on this update post, it's just a total update, so i keep redoing everything.

it will be done when it is, though.

i think everybody is realizing that the republicans are full of shit, but maybe the moment of clarity ought to be in realizing that the democrats always were full of shit, too. remember when clinton ran against nafta?

do you mean like the fema camps, glenn?

maybe what happened was that the fake left looked at how effective the collusion between right-wing media & the republican party was and looked to emulate it - so, you had left-wing news sources basically aping alex jones, and just reflecting it. what's required, here, is a little bit of perspective, and the recognition that both sides really are the same, nowadays.

again - carlson is a scary person, because he's not stupid. 

he knows better - he's evil.

and, this interview was a trap.

he's rightfully pissed off, in his usual indignant liberal kind of way.

but, he was being naive to think he was anything but a lure for dissenters, essentially a useful idiot, like assange was. it's anything but surprising that the intelligence agencies got a hold of the intercept, and that was no doubt the point of the thing, from the start.

worse, he doesn't seem to realize that he's playing into a parallel narrative.

my analysis is mostly posted here if you go back a few years, but maybe i should summarize.

- trump was not working against the deep state, but was a puppet of it. he was essentially sent to defeat clinton, who was seen as the real threat to state power.

- it may never be entirely clear why the deep state felt such a need to stop clinton like this. i've wondered, in the past, if it may have even triggered a contingency plan, due to fears of her being for sale. like, trump may have been the front for a temporary military takeover; it's never been clear if he's a hapless dunce being used or a talented actor playing a role. and, i've wondered if bernie might be in on it, too.

- bernie's line about the goldman sachs speech is essentially what i'm getting at, but the details are blurry and hard to put together. was the deep state concerned that clinton represented the interests of a specific foreign actor, or were they concerned that she was for sale to any actor? i don't know. what seems to be apparent - and this is a deduction drawn from watching media and reading between the lines, i have no secret stash of documents or anything - is that they felt she was a serious national security threat and stepped in to stop her.

- so, yes - the 2016 election was rigged in favour of trump.....by the cia.

- then, in order to distract from it, they blamed it on the russians. classic projection. and, if you want to understand how they did it, just take everything rachel maddow said and replace "russia" with "cia".

- and, then, the final step of the operation was that they tore trump down - whether he was in on it or not. but, this was a clean-up operation: the real contingency was about removing clinton's political ambitions and ending her career. to do that, they built trump up and then tore him down.

- it seemed like they intended to replace trump with pence all along, but then they didn't in the end. is it because biden stepped in, instead?

- the media in 2016 was actually extremely pro-trump. kellyanne conway was constantly on tv. while the anchors may have made certain arguments, everything was framed in a way that put trump in a positive light, albeit in a sneaky one. take the "grab them by the pussy" line, for example - this seemed designed to maximize trump's appeal to men by advertising a kind of machismo, and it probably worked. but, that flipped in 2020. it was really the media analysis that had me predict a trump win in 2016 and a biden win in 2020.

so, we're back where we started in 2012 - biden is back in the white house with deep state support, even if it's fleeting. we'll have to see if the contingency plan has run through, and things are back to normal again - or if this is a new normal, and we essentially watched a coup take place in slow motion. that part of this seems to be accurate.

but, trump was either a pawn or an active participant in it, and that's where i break with the right-wing narrative, and where glenn should really be more clear.

but, what glenn got sucked into was probably not that different than the kind of psy-ops underlying these franchised activist movements. we know that the black panthers were deeply infiltrated by the cia because enough time has elapsed to uncover it; we will no doubt learn that the same thing is true of all of these other movements, like occupy or black lives matter. my own experience in occupy had me walking away from it convinced that more than half of the participants were cops, and it was essentially a sting operation to build datasets on dissidents - like right out of 1984. 

if glenn has been chewed up and spat out, it's because he's served his purpose and is no longer useful.

but, as stated, i wish him luck and hope he finds some model to take the fuckers on with.

i'd say it's a rather curious decision by the intercept to refuse to publish this, but this kind of party-line journalism has become the norm on the fake left.

greenwald often pisses me off, but i wish him the best of luck in the future. the corporate censorship model needs an axe smashed through it. hopefully, he figures something out and leads the way.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

this is an interesting site, and i'll say clearly that i like the idea of organizing content around writers better than i like the idea of organizing content around newspapers. but, i fear that, in the end, it gets taken over by twitter-style right-wing censorship, and i'd consequently seek to avoid it. besides - i actually like this blogging interface.

if you want to send me cash, send it. i could use it; i'm disabled, and my other income is almost nil.

but, i'd rather fight for a gai than start charging people for access to read my thoughts; i think this should be free to read, not put behind a paywall.

https://substack.com/

our greatest leader, wilfrid laurier, is spinning in his grave.

again: i expect this kind of stupid, right-wing rhetoric from the conservatives. it's enraging to hear it, but it's expected - they're conservatives, they're about war and veterans and guns and bibles and etc.

but, to hear it from the liberals, let alone the ndp, is truly heartbreaking and saddening. 

this country has lost it's way, and there's not much left here that's worth saving.

whole foods was right and they should stand their ground in the face of a government interfering where they have no place interfering.

it's really the perfect example of the kind of stupid capitalist practice that needs to be outright abolished.

we needlessly create tonnes of plastic waste to fund social systems for seniors that should just be directed from the public purse because we think it's important to rouse nationalist fervour and militarism on a year by year basis.

20 million of these things a year end up in landfills.

and, that's just in canada.

and, this government just announced a ban on single-use plastics, too.

i guess that grocery bags aren't sufficiently nationalist enough. maybe if they said bombardier on them, eh?

so, if you have to wear the white ones, try to find ones that aren't plastic, too.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/plastic-poppy-alternatives-1.5349304

maybe they can do the charleston for ya?

maybe that'll get 'em a nice shiny dollar?

huh?

i support taxpayer-funded healthcare, not throwing quarters at seniors on the street.

no, stop.

why are veterans - who are just a subgroup of seniors, really. i don't care that they're veterans, specifically - having to resort to raising money by selling plastic flowers?

why don't we have taxpayer-funded social systems that are sufficient to cover their needs?

then, the government attacks people for refusing to throw change at them, as they wrap themselves in the flag and yell nationalist slogans.

it's a sad parade, indeed.