#2 2022-10-13 22:26:19
As I understand it, even though Jones has been busily moving money to family and friends, not only is the amount owed protected from bankruptcy, but they can also go after his assets like, say, Infowars?
Offline
#3 2022-10-14 06:37:55
I think I'd just prefer it if he didn't wake up tomorrow. He's beyond redemption.
Offline
#4 2022-10-15 01:21:56
Offline
#5 2022-10-15 12:39:50
Did the Banker sic crazies on the surviving family members of dead children? Did the Banker profit off of the deaths of children murdered? Enquiring minds want to know.
Offline
#6 2022-10-15 21:00:58
DmtDusty wrote:
Did the Banker sic crazies on the surviving family members of dead children? Did the Banker profit off of the deaths of children murdered? Enquiring minds want to know.
Deflect, deflect, deflect. (Because you have to say three words or the alt-right won't understand you.)
Offline
#7 2022-10-15 22:08:40
Seriously, how does Jet conflate this? Is he brain damaged? Is he stupid? Is he that clueless, or depraved?
Offline
#8 2022-10-16 06:45:54
It's a little bit of all three, methinks.
Offline
#9 2022-10-16 07:58:10
DmtDusty wrote:
Seriously, how does Jet conflate this? Is he brain damaged? Is he stupid? Is he that clueless, or depraved?
Yes.
And I was hoping he was gone for good. Silly me for having hope.
Offline
#10 2022-10-16 18:50:14
You might think the cognitive dissonance would eventually catch up with them and keep them up at least one long dark night of the year? But no.
From talking to many wingnut friends, and looking for astute commentary, I have come to understand more of what I was taught about how the fascists of the 1930s got the populace to go along whole heartedly. And then have so many unable to reconcile what they did for the rest of their lives. Isn't the human brain marvelous in how it builds a monkey tribe world of our own to dwell in!??
This is a fun little concise explainer from the dying herd of last gasping Rhinos. He covers a slew of the operable mindstates.
For My Friends, Everything. For My Enemies, the Law.
Why MAGA influencers defend Alex Jones.
By Nick Catoggio
Wanting looser libel laws so that Trump can sue his enemies and tighter libel laws so that Alex Jones can’t be sued is logically incoherent, as Frum notes, but it makes sense when you read between the lines. Populists simply want the legal system to operate as a sword for their own grievances and as a shield against their opponents’.
Trump wins and Alex Jones wins because they have the right politics. If they had the wrong politics, they’d lose. Pretty straightforward.
... As a former president of Peru allegedly once said, “For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.” That was the unspoken ethic of DeSantis’ bout with Disney and it’s the sort of logic that Alex Jones’ defenders would like to inform American law more broadly. Political viewpoints should matter in how the law is applied, they believe. Charlie Kirk and Benny Johnson grousing about “the regime” targeting Alex Jones for his opinions and celebrating the DeSantis “regime” for doing the same to Disney sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t really. They’re fine with viewpoint discrimination. The salient questions are “Who? Whom?”
Post-liberalism is about power, not consistency. Insofar as consistency is a barrier to power, that’ll need to go too. For our friends, everything. For our enemies, the law.
... Whether you’re a populist politician or a populist huckster, ingratiating yourself to Jones’ audience means dollars, influence, and credibility to a degree few other right-wing broadcasters can provide.
In that sense, going to bat for him after Wednesday’s verdict came down was a simple case of trying to keep the gravy train running.
It was also an opportunity for influential enforcers to remind populist fans of the political code they’re supposed to live by.
Namely, don’t ever take sides against the family. And don’t give an inch when your enemies articulate a moral standard and demand that you salute it.
Alex Jones responds to owing around $1B in damages to Sandy Hook families by shamelessly asking for donations to fund InfoWars:
"They want to … scare us away from questioning Uvalde … or Parkland … We're not scared, and we're not going away, and we're not going to stop." pic.twitter.com/KT1YR7p9tI
— The Recount (@therecount) October 12, 2022
In these divided times, one would think legal justice for a lying crank who put grieving families through hell and is still trying to make a buck off of it might unite us in contempt. One would be wrong. ...
Online
#11 2022-10-16 18:59:50
...The fallacy that the populist hero’s suffering is always a form of sacrifice on behalf of his people helps explain the unnerving cultishness of Trump’s following and makes any attempt to hold him accountable, literally for anything, necessarily seem illegitimate and politically motivated to them. When they attack him, they’re attacking us. Or, as some might prefer: Where we go one, we go all.
If every prominent populist who talks himself into legal or political trouble is martyring himself for his fans then it’s never acceptable to take sides against him, no matter what he might be accused of. To do so would be to betray the family. Kirk, Greene, and the rest were honoring that principle by signaling to their audience after Wednesday’s verdict that the principle applies even to behavior as loathsome as Jones’. I think the same logic compelled Candace Owens and, more ambivalently, Ben Shapiro to defend Kanye West after his antisemitic tweets last weekend. Frankly, the more obnoxious someone’s behavior is, the more urgent it is for populist influencers to enforce group discipline by “vice signaling” on their behalf. Never take sides against the family—even if someone in “the family” has been Jew-baiting or egging on the harassment of Sandy Hook parents. “Never” means never.
And never let your political enemies make the rules about which norms you’re supposed to follow. Those norms may be good in the abstract, like “don’t tell grieving parents you’re going to piss on their dead child’s grave” or “don’t tell tens of millions of your admirers that ‘Jewish people’ are persecuting you.” But whether a norm is virtuous doesn’t matter; what matters is who gets to set it. Those outside the family have no right to make demands on populists to observe a norm they favor. Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding that you admit that coup plots are bad even if they’d keep Donald Trump in power forever.
Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Extremism in defense of populism is no vice. Don’t help the suckers convince fighters like Kanye or Alex Jones that it is by holding them accountable for anything.
Online
#12 2022-10-26 01:05:21
Offline
#13 2022-10-26 16:03:12
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
...The fallacy that the populist hero’s suffering is always a form of sacrifice on behalf of his people helps explain the unnerving cultishness of Trump’s following and makes any attempt to hold him accountable, literally for anything, necessarily seem illegitimate and politically motivated to them. When they attack him, they’re attacking us. Or, as some might prefer: Where we go one, we go all.
If every prominent populist who talks himself into legal or political trouble is martyring himself for his fans then it’s never acceptable to take sides against him, no matter what he might be accused of. To do so would be to betray the family. Kirk, Greene, and the rest were honoring that principle by signaling to their audience after Wednesday’s verdict that the principle applies even to behavior as loathsome as Jones’. I think the same logic compelled Candace Owens and, more ambivalently, Ben Shapiro to defend Kanye West after his antisemitic tweets last weekend. Frankly, the more obnoxious someone’s behavior is, the more urgent it is for populist influencers to enforce group discipline by “vice signaling” on their behalf. Never take sides against the family—even if someone in “the family” has been Jew-baiting or egging on the harassment of Sandy Hook parents. “Never” means never.
And never let your political enemies make the rules about which norms you’re supposed to follow. Those norms may be good in the abstract, like “don’t tell grieving parents you’re going to piss on their dead child’s grave” or “don’t tell tens of millions of your admirers that ‘Jewish people’ are persecuting you.” But whether a norm is virtuous doesn’t matter; what matters is who gets to set it. Those outside the family have no right to make demands on populists to observe a norm they favor. Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding that you admit that coup plots are bad even if they’d keep Donald Trump in power forever.
Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Extremism in defense of populism is no vice. Don’t help the suckers convince fighters like Kanye or Alex Jones that it is by holding them accountable for anything.
Omerta lasted in the Five Families for about two generations, then it was every scumbag for themselves. The original Trump movement is all but gone. He's about the only one who thinks he could win again, and you notice when you see news of his rallies on television there is usually not a wide shot, because you'd be able to see either empty seating or people leaving because he's just bitching about the same things over and over; he pays the people behind him to cheer/boo/fawn/etc. I am paying attention to races like MTG's because I want to see:
1) If she gets reelected
2) If not, is the new person Democrat or Other (Independent, Libertarian, Progressive, GOP in disguise)
3) If the new person is Other, are they better or worse than MTG? Which used to be an unimaginable question until about six years ago.
Last edited by Baywolfe (2022-10-26 16:04:21)
Offline
