[CBN via WND] Nothing predicts happiness in life better than a good marriage — not even a hefty bank account or a great career. So says University of Virginia sociologist and author Dr. Brad Wilcox. And with American happiness at an all-time low, Wilcox is making the case that marriage can even help save civilization.
As director of the National Marriage Project, Wilcox wants you to be happy, prosperous, and oh, by the way, save the planet! Wilcox believes the best way to do this is through marriage.
In his new book, Get Married, Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization, Wilcox explains that many problems have their roots in the anti-family message and policies coming out of Washington, Hollywood, and the media, which is basically: stay single without kids and make lots of money.
A scholar who specializes in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion who made the comment that “whites are psychopaths” during a recent guest lecture at the University of California San Francisco has drawn outrage and scrutiny.
#4
Not sure if its true or not, but seems to be an org who is taking photos of women who went corporate and got all tatt'd up and angry, and using a graphics program to show what they would look like if they had decided on being a family person with kids, happy.
"The Vorlons say, understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth"
— John Sheridan, Babylon 5
The biggest media story of 2024 so far has come and gone. Tucker Carlson interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin last week.
Everyone, even the Davos/UK dominated media, has put forth their opinion on it. I gave out a quick take for my Patrons the morning after just like everyone else. And like everyone else I missed the biggest takeaway from this interview.
Now, if you go through the commentary what you will mostly see is people, as always, doing what traders call "talking their book." In other words, as opposed to dealing with the information presented and the motivations of the people involved, most media outlets and commentators put forth their opinion on whether this interview satisfied their needs from it.
So, for the hardcore geopolitical types and armchair psychoanalysts, we heard a lot of opinions second-guessing Putin’s strategy to open the interview with a nearly thirty minute recitation of Russian/Ukrainian history. Why would he do this, was the common refrain.
I’ll use my former-bellwether-for-normies, Scott Adams, as an example of this.
This was the kindest of the ’bad takes’ I found on this. But I’m having one of Scott’s "One movie, two screens," moments here. Because Putin looked anything other than "unhinged." In fact, he looked as calm as I’ve ever seen him, taking a relaxed posture to put Carlson, who was clearly unsure of where he stood at the beginning of the interview, at ease.
But this is the message that Adams wanted to see, framing Putin in relation to Biden, because he needed something unique to say to justify his even being in the conversation.
By contrast, Martin Armstrong had a great post curating all of the crazy Neocon takes from the "media" on his blog over the weekend.
What’s obvious from those is that they understood that Putin’s 30 minute opening monologue would put off a lot of casual watchers who would tune him out at that point. So, their "analysis" focused on steering the conversation to Putin’s ’false history’ of Russia and Ukraine.
This way that ’false history’ would dominate everyone’s opinions the next day, managing the Overton Window of the entire interview, making it all about that. This would be the basis of how they discredit Putin.
Then to discredit Carlson, people like Hillary Clinton was trotted out to lie about Tucker Carlson, calling him a "useful idiot," and "puppy dog" and a joke in Russian media, which is an outright lie. Hillary’s harpy laugh made an appearance alongside a sycophant interviewer as they joked about Carlson’s having been fired from every legitimate news agency.
We were treated to a common sight: Two Beltway insiders laughing inside their echo chamber and only our sick fascination with roadkill makes it even remotely interesting.
So, the whole exercise is reframed as Puppy Dog Tucker throwing softballs to Liar Putin to distract us away from the sum and substance of their talk.
I know... in other news water is wet and women want more sex when they’re fertile.
And I also know that it is fatuous to bring up these panicked attempts to marginalize this event. They started days before Carlson was even rumored to be in Moscow.
On the one hand we have people intentionally missing the point because they need to have their opinions validated. And on the other we have people intentionally leading those truly curious away from the purpose of the interview: to get an unfiltered look at Putin’s motivations for how he governs Russia.
Why? Because, as we already also know, the warmongers are in charge in the West and they will not be deterred by some prep school gadfly and a dirty Slavic ruler with pretensions of adequacy.
So the war show must go on.
But buried beneath these layers of surreality are these men’s motivations for having this talk. Carlson’s motivation is illuminated quite effectively in his first appearance after his talk with Putin (watch the first 90 seconds).
His outrage at being denied this interview for three years by NSA/CIA spying on him is what drove him. The worst thing the gatekeepers ever did was fire Tucker Carlson from Fox News; making him independent freed him from the restraints of the corporate media.
Knowing that Tucker tried for three years to get this interview with Putin, we should assume that Putin would come into the room prepared. So, it makes sense that Putin wanted to give us a history lesson because he assumes, rightly, that most Americans do not have any clue about Russia’s history.
He didn’t do this to bore us, he did this to inform us and set us at ease. To tell us that he is a man with a perspective that he believes he can justify. He’s not a frothing-at-the-mouth cannibal who desires world domination.
No, Putin’s aim was to elucidate, calmly, the nature of the conflict, laying out the missteps made along the way. And I believe he was effective to those that stayed with him. Because, never once did Putin talk down to his audience.
How many Americans learned that Putin asked Bill Clinton for Russia to become part of NATO, thus ending NATO’s raison d’etre?
Or that Bush the Lesser unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty?
Or that the Minsk Agreements were our last hope for a settlement of the differences between the Donbass and Kiev, and that Putin was the one pushing to make them work?
There are at least a half-dozen other things people learned in this interview, if they had ears to listen, I’m looking at you Scott Adams.
And given that this conflict is hurtling towards a war that only very select gatekeepers and power-brokers want, that should have been enough to sharpen everyone’s focus to give Putin an honest hearing.
#1
The Victoria Nulands and the Ursula Von Der Leyens of this world represent people who refuse to accept that Russia and/or China are not systems, but rather civilizations. They aren’t the current bogeyman ‘ism du jour, like Communism or authoritarianism, they are a people, a culture, an ethnos. The ‘ism is just the thing they’ve adopted now to help them preserve those things inherently Russian or Chinese.
Our leaders are this way because they don’t believe in those things for us no less anyone else. And they spend all their time trying to convince us that that is what divides us. But it isn’t. It’s simply their greed, their emptiness.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Petr Akopov
[REGNUM] How did Ukraine respond to Putin’s historical lesson in an interview with Carlson? Especially the part where it was said that attempts to break the connection of a single people are doomed because it will not be possible to break a single soul. The best answer must be recognized as an interview with the director of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra Museum-Reserve, Maxim Ostapenko (although it came out last month, it “shot” only now).
[American Thinker] Is there no bottom to what Deep State was capable of against Donald Trump?
That's the only thing one can conclude upon reading a report like this, from investigative aces Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag, who got hold of more evidence of deep-state conniving:
Last year, John Durham, a special prosecutor for the Department of Justice (DOJ), concluded that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should never have opened its investigation of alleged collusion by then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and Russia in late July of 2016.
Now, multiple credible sources tell Public and Racket [Shellenberger's and Taibbi's web sites] that the United States Intelligence Community (IC), including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), illegally mobilized foreign intelligence agencies to target Trump advisors long before the summer of 2016.
The new information fills many gaps in our understanding of the Russia collusion hoax and is supported by testimony already in the public record.
Until now, the official story has been that the FBI’s investigation began after Australian intelligence officials told US officials that a Trump aide had boasted to an Australian diplomat that Russia had damning material about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
In truth, the US IC asked the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance to surveil Trump’s associates and share the intelligence they acquired with US agencies, say sources close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI) investigation. The Five Eyes nations are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
The reporters noted that the whole thing was the brainchild of then-CIA director John Brennan, who picked out 26 associates of Trump's to target and make contact with. Quite likely, the subjects had absolutely no idea they were targets of a hostile operation and probably handed over scads of information in the interest of global security -- anything to help the men and women on the frontlines out.
They would have been assuming that the whole thing was lawful as they would have known that there was a law saying that intelligence agencies are not to spy on domestic targets, particularly democratically elected officials, so they would have assumed that that was not happening.
Trump was not elected when this spying went on, but he was close enough, and there really was no pretext for this kind of activity to go on. It's well-known that despite Trump's call for rapprochment with the Russians, the Russians at the time were betting on Hillary Clinton winning that race along with most of the swampers in D.C. so even they weren't interested in him.
Brennan got around this legal prohibition against spying on democratically elected leaders by getting other nations, with which we share intelligence, to do the dirty work at at the same time make himself technically in the clear.
After that, when intelligence officials claimed with seeming innocence that they were just following up on a tip-off about Trump and the Russians from, say, the Australians, the fix was in. They got exactly what they wanted, a tipoff, which created the "right" to spy on 26 Trump campaign officials with a little fudging of the FISA warrants (slap on the wrist there), all because they thought up the idea of getting the allies to do the spying for them.
Funny how this stuff works. So very convenient. So very orchestrated. So very staged.
And so very KGB-ish, illegal, and anti-democratic.
What it tells us is that maybe the "five eyes" alliance is really just a global superspy agency that probably needs to be scrapped, given how it's being used against Trump and the people who supported and voted for him. Unless allies can agree not to spy on elected officials and candidates for high office from other five-eyes countries and for that matter, other close non-five-eyes allies, the deal should to be off, no free intel for you.
Someone needs to be punished for this, they weren't doing their job properly, they were taking the power to spy entrusted to them and turning it for domestic purposes, and if that is not nipped in the bud, what we have now is a multi-national KGB.
It's absolutely outrageous how underhanded they are and how sleazy their tactics. Obviously, they will stop at nothing, which is why they ought to broken up and stopped the hard way.
#6
Kudos to Shellenberger and Taibbi for doggedly digging out the truth. Could it be that deep inside the Deep State IC, they have read the polls, seen the catastrophic consequences of the Puppet Show, and have become convinced Trump may win? Hedging your bets by feeding Shellenberger and Taibbi like Deep Throat might buy some absolution and immunity from a coming firestorm? Or have the actual American Patriots that still inhabit most of the massive cube-hives behind the SCIF doors finally said enough!
#7
^ I think you nailed it NoMo. Biden and Harris appear to be riding the ship to the bottom. Nobody wants to be thrown into the brier patch and labeled a 2024 loser. The Biden presidential pardons list will likely require a skidloader.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
