Many here noted what I was interested in. Peter is a fine thinker, but I agree that he was showing his weaker side today.
His premise that people would go against their sworn oath is a bridge too far and must be charged with extreme evidence is pointedly counter to the part of the conversation where they both admitted agencies have been pursuing a “higher cause” and how abstractions create cover for many sins.
I do agree with the idea that the failing trust in the institutions is creating a crisis of confidence such that “burning it all down” does seem to be a valid solution. It may partly explain why my tolerance for nonsense has gotten so extremely small in recent days.
This guest also puts forth a lot of great strawman arguments! Watching a video of barnyard animals fuck on Chris’s homestead would have probably been more academically enlightening.
I struggled to watch this video more than any other made by Peakprosperity. People like this guest don’t like facts and fail to follow logic. This guy has no business being in academia with anything other than a liberal arts.
Stephen Baskerville has an interesting theory, that our current woes are primarily the result of the demasculinization of society, which in turn is primarily the result of no-fault divorce. I’d never thought about it before but it is interesting to consider that if the family is supposed to be the bedrock of society, and the marriage contract holding the family together is supposed to be the most sacred contract that there is, how did it come to pass that anyone can pull the plug on it at any time for no reason?
His further thesis, and it’s not new to him, is that fatherlessness (or having weak fathers) is most of what’s wrong. Without strong fathers children are not taught to channel their rebellious energy in productive ways with the result that they spend the rest of their lives lashing out at authority and rules of any kind, including those that hold society together or even those that govern nature, for example that sex is just a construct.
Responding in the middle of the video here not to loose my train of thought. Peter is making the assumption who the protectee from the Secret Service (which btw makes me think a lot of the SS from the Nazi regime, different words, same two letters) is, and that the sworn in agents would not go against their oath in protecting that let’s call it asset. What if the person the sworn in to protect is not the individual they are ‘actively’ protecting, in this case Trump. What if the person they swore to protect is THEY? That would actually make Trump a threat to the person (or thing) They swore to protect, making it justifiable to them to let things happen, aka do a lousy job surrounding Trump and allow for everything that happened to happen.
This is similar to the king/queen of England swearing to the Crown. Are they swearing to the royal crown in the name of the people or are they swearing to the Crown of London, a.k.a. the bankers families. The people of the UK think they are being sworn in to protect them, do things to the best of their interest etc. Then they go do or say these think that make people go huh? because it goes against the people and pro business elites etc. They do indeed uphold their oath. Only it was not in favor of who we thought they advocated for. The secret service is protecting the powers that should not be and any threat needs to be nullified, even if that threat is a former president. And it is easier to pull off when your agents are incompetent as f*ck and DEI (DIE) hires.
I would say also, a version of the following. Person A hiring a hitman X to kill person Y (and does so) because he’s a threat to person Z (who is supposedly the good guy to be protected), then X finds out that person Y is actually the good guy and person Z the bad one, leaving the path clear for Z to continue his bidding.
Edit:
Not everyone in the secret service needs to be in on the plan. The majority act as they have been told, not asking questions even if and when they are competent enough to notice things are off, believing they are doing a good job. They are being “good” agents - as in good boys and girls - following orders. The small group in the inner circle botch things enough to facilitate things happening.
That’s the truth! Just go ahead and make the leap. The Biden administration, the media and the democrats made it a while ago. They’ve been salivating for Trump’s blood for years and have made it clear with images and words what they want to do to Trump for upsetting their apple cart.
Now they took action because all the other illegal acts (Lawfare) haven’t stopped Trump. It’s a continuum of violence ramping up not a sudden change. Peter B. is in La La land to think otherwise. Is that vaxx brain?
The idea of waiting for an investigation would be valid if the investigators themselves weren’t responsible for the crime. How wonderful it must be to live in such an idyllic world with such trust in completely untrustworthy institutions and people. The “investigation “ by the FBI consisted of immediately proposing a preposterous theory and then hiding all the evidence that countered it.
Peter B. could use help with his thinking. Faith in our institutions is not the problem. The corruption and politicization of our institutions is the problem. Lack of faith in them is not only well deserved, it is inevitable. This is the problem with liberals. They dare not take the logical examination of reality back to the cause if it might undermine their position.
The problem with most Malthusians is that they look at the problem as a “there is only so much” problem. Due to the fact that they don’t create anything, it’s easy to see how that could be true.
But if you get rid of all the people, you will have less, too!
Clay Martin does an interview of John Cullen that shows there could be as many as five shooters. It’s long but worth the time. The analysis is excellent and accounts for the angles of fire, counter snipers being shot at and the people injured in the bleachers.
From that conclusion you can’t imagine incompetence had any part in the orchestration of the assassination attempt. Then the stonewalling of Congress, failure to investigate, washing down the crime scene immediately and lack of effective communications make a lot more sense.
You can find it on rumble.
“Garden Variety” tyrant (most common in ancient history). Men who claim ownership of an entire country to use for “their own pleasure and profit and to advance their own clan and cronies.”
“Reforming tyrant.” These individuals are “unconstrained by law or democracy.” Honor, wealth, and power are their obsession. They act to improve their society by the unobstructed exercise of their unlimited authority. Think Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar, Louis XIV, Napoleon etc… In a position of absolute power, they used violence for specific aims.
“Millenarian tyrant” is Newell’s third class of tyrants, pens Leithart. Here lies modern-day globalists that are fueled to impose an oppressive “millennial blueprint” on the masses in which the individual “will be submerged in the collective and all privilege and alienation will be forever eradicated.” Think Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Gaddafi, and modern-day jihadist terrorists.
These types of tyrants are masters of the veil of illusion. They are experts in the craft of propaganda. They appear “to raise up the downtrodden, to end exploitation, to create a society in which men would no longer use their fellow men as tools for their own enrichment or domination,” says Warren H. Carroll in his book, “70 years of the Communist Revolution.”
I will always have respect for Peter Boghossian for his part in the grievance studies affair. Those crap-tastic journals needed to be taken down a notch, many notches, ridiculed, and destroyed. In doing this, he, Pluckrose, and Lindsay successfully employed Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals - Wikipedia 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and to some degree 13. Especially #5, ridicule! Watching the ensuing meltdown was gratifying – and hilarious.
Here, while I can’t agree with Boghossian’s claim that July 13th is adequately explained by incompetence, I can at least appreciate the airing of his concerns that it might be. Many of his points were little half-answered thoughts in the back of my brain as well. Hearing Chris and Peter hash through the whole thing was a wonderfully clarifying review.
The entire conversation was making sense to me including the comment about the doctor being intimidated by the Biden Administration for whistleblowing that doctors are performing child mutilations. Comments pursued how wrong it was for the Administration to do so on the basis of going against their narrative. It was agreed the whistleblower did the right thing and more people should expose what is wrong with our society and call for a change.
Shortly after there was a comment made by the guest regarding how he did not like Trump and thought he was basically a bad person. This threw me for a loop. To my knowledge, Trump was the first high ranking individual that exposed the Main Street media as being, “Fake News”. Hey, you are not watching the nightly news any longer, it is opinion narratives! Then Trump exposed James Comey of the FBI, while running against Hillary, as being compromised and protective of the left narrative. I would have liked hearing if the guest’s mind could change just a little about Trump.
Did not read or listen to this debate/interview but just wanted to comment that no rational sane person could observe the western leadership and chalk it up to “well meaning but incompetent people.”
No.
I’m a nobody with a IQ in the 130s, so above average. I have no social or economic power and no connections. I have no teams of brilliant REALLY EXPRERIENCED, TRUSTED, scientists, military leaders, social scientists, historians, mathematicians, economists, climatologists, environmentalists, virologists, chemists, physicists, policy makers, lawyers/judges, healthcare/medical, etc. at my disposal. Yet with my own two eyes that nearly every move these western leaders have been making for many years, Clintons, Bushes, Obama, Biden and even Trump included but to a lesser extent, have been utterly disastrously planned and excecated, rife with corruption and dishonesty.
Nobody can be so bad at their jobs for decades that they destroy the nation, economy, freedoms, pushing the world toward a war we cannot survive, crime/justice, security details, and so forth.
Well that’s modest. I don’t know what mine is but I think this community’s average is above average. I can tell that because name calling sticks out like a sore thumb here.
That is why this place is my internet home. People are about ideas not about leaders.
Only got around 30 minutes in and had to stop. Peter seems like a very intelligent guy, but he reminds me of my husband, who will continue driving straight into somebody who crosses the double yellow line and is in the wrong lane because, when I shout “Watch out!!!”, he’s too busy arguing that “crossing the double yellow line is against the law” instead of reacting to the Mack truck which is about to turn our entire family into road kill.
