Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Republicans Will Elect Biden 2.0 in 2024
“Biden 2.0” is a stand-in for some Democrat figurehead of the Party of Death and Destruction (D). It could be Biden (D). It could be Harris (D). Maybe gruesome Newsome (D). Doesn’t matter, I predict we’ll have one of them, and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”
This is a similar dynamic to the Republican’s Taft-Roosevelt split that produced probably the most destructive presidency of the 20th century — Woodrow Wilson (D) — followed closely by FDR (D) and LBJ (D) (notice a pattern?).
Dan Gelernter spelled it out masterfully earlier in the month in Trump Was a Mistake, and now speaks for me in The Coming Split.
But, despite the obvious differences, we’re heading for a 1912-repeat, in which the Republican Party ignores its own voters. The Republican machine has no intention of letting us choose Trump again: He is not a uniparty team player. They’d rather lose an election to the Democrats, their brothers in crime, than win with Trump.
I especially appreciate his points here [emphasis mine]:
I’m sure I’ll be accused of being a shill for the Democrats here, and as far as I’m concerned that’s as credible as being accused of shilling for Russia these days. I’m not suggesting you have to do what I do, either. But I have no intention of supporting a Republican Party that manifestly contravenes the desires of its voters. The RNC can pretend Trump isn’t loved by the base anymore, that he doesn’t have packed rallies everywhere he goes. But I’m not buying it: Talk to Republican voters anywhere outside the Beltway, and it is obvious that he is admired and even loved by those who consider themselves “ordinary” Americans.
Mitch McConnell put cement boots on the Republican party and pushed it into the Potomac with this line: “providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the number one priority for the United States right now, according to most Republicans.”
In response, I’ll quote a different Mc: “Nuts!” — General McAuliffe
Trump may be our General Patton and the Third Army of his voters the only force that can save America from Biden 2.0.
MAGA!
Published in General
How? With chemicals? Surgically? Poison gas?
Good points.
Maybe so, but what does it have to do with brainwashing?
You start with the children. You push against government when it normalizes evil. Be willing to split the country up to save the republic. All you are doing is stopping the progress of evil and laying the groundwork to undo 100 years of progressive efforts.it won’t succeed in our lifetimes
In this conversation, brainwashing has taken on whatever meaning the writer wants, from wiping out previous thoughts and personalities, to creating new thinking and personalities, to creating psychological drives that were not there, to indoctrinating, to covertly influencing.
Except it’s angled towards the young, because older people already know what kind of toothpaste they like, etc, and are unlikely to switch no matter how many ads they see.
Sure there are plenty of things I and most of us compromise on. But the fluidity of gender is a plain lie. There is no room to compromise with a categorical lie. How do I compromise with that? I can’t assent to an idea that any person can be any gender they want. That is just not reasonable.
True, there is no reason to put it in a platform, but eventually it will come down to a vote. I expect my party to vote against it. If we lose, we lose. I don’t expect it to cost us seats. I don’t think even gay marriage cost us seats, though there were plenty Republicans that supported it. I expect this transgender issue to run along the same lines. It just shows we have lost the culture and it won’t come back easily. When and in what states they are in the majority, they will force the issue. Once it’s passed, it’s very hard to turn it back.
There are Liberal Protestants too. Most Protestant denominations (to my perception, I haven’t counted) seem to have accepted gay marriage. In my experience, all the left/right divisions in Protestantism, are also in Catholicism. The thing is, Catholics cannot split, or they are no longer Catholics. Protestants split and form new churches all the time.
Students seem to get “indoctrinated” into Liberalism while in college. I don’t know what a clinical definition of indoctrination would be. Obviously they don’t have the full facts of life and once most get out into the world they drift away. I was pretty Liberal in college. It didn’t take me very long after college to shift to a conservative philosophy, and this was well before my religious conversion. So based on my life, it’s hard for me to understand brainwashing, and what appears to be indoctrination appears to be fluid based on life experiences. So is it really indoctrination?
I think what they do is give you their facts, and if you don’t explore the full facts your free decision is based on limited data. I haven’t bought a new car in twelve years. I’m in need of one now, so auto advertising is registering on my radar. But in the twelve years I didn’t need one, all the auto advertising in the world did not make me buy a new car.
Off the top of my head I’d say indoctrination is catechizing. Something like teaching math, beginning with axioms and going through their application. And the expectation that these axioms will be understood as foundational truths.
Both Protestants and Catholics have catechisms. For Roman Catholics, it is described this way: “A sure and certain standard for the teaching of the faith.” — Pope John Paul II.
For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition is introduced this way:
I’m sure indoctrination can be done subtely with adults and even covertly. In my view this is still not brainwashing but indoctrination. Corporations and professional organizations can do his with vision statements, and continuing training and testing. Universities can do this through inculcation and through the choice of classes that are available, and statements that students must make or follow. Grammar schools can easily teach the basic tenets of the popular culture to children. Anyway, indoctrination has to do with teaching doctrine, dogma, and tenets. And it in itself is not a bad thing.
How is a millisecond of exposure to a coke can a fact? Unless one consciously notices and decides to resist, your mind makes the the connection between that coke can and the protagonist you identify with and root for, making you more likely to purchase coke in the event that your preference for non-cola products, or a specific type of cola, is not already firmly established. Do you really think that preferences for different foods and flavors is decided at birth, free of subtle influences as one grows and socializes within their family and society? The human mind is far more malleable, irrational, and delicate than you suppose. And if not, why do you suppose that preferences in terms of ideas are different from that same dynamic? Logical reasoning and the ‘examined life’ are things that must be taught, not instincts that most humans will adopt on their own.
What is your definition? I regard understanding how the human mind works, and deliberately influencing the minds and perceptions of others based on that knowledge by controlling their freedom and stimuli, to constitute ‘brainwashing’-all else is a matter of degrees of subtly and control.
Yes. This is what I learned a few years later. When I graduated from college, I started attending a Methodist church and was surprised that the ministers at that church were Leftists. A year later I started attending a Baptist church and realized that the pastor there was either not political at all or maybe leaned a bit to the right. I started realizing that the impact of religious belief on politics was a bit more complex than I had previously thought.
Indoctrination is now in k-12.
Dept of Health and Human Services in Texas. I might misremeber thr name but they run Child Protective Services.
I use the term morals when talking about religious beliefs that are founded, usually, on laws that are given by the deity (think 10 Commandments) and their derivatives. I use ethics to describe beliefs that are developed through logic based on postulates that the individual defines.
What morals through religion provide is a baseline of core beliefs that everyone agrees on, even if they don’t like them personally. They are almost always rules that allow society to develop and grow. It’s not that ethics cannot do the same thing, but if each person has to develop them individually then how are children taught to not hurt each other. Children are mean and casually hurt each other until they learn not to. Giving them a baseline of behavior and expectations is a requirement for being able to teach them in school. Why is cheating wrong? Well, can you explain to a kindergarten child the logic behind cheating oneself, or is it easier to say, do and you get it trouble. Society requires rules and religion is, currently, the best way to teach them to mass numbers of people quickly and easily. We are CO ducting a mass experiment in the world now by removing religion as a moral base for society and the result is societal degradation.
This is true, but has its roots in the culture that spawned the rule in the first place. Exodus and Deuteronomy set forth many rules that we ignore today (earing pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes made of mixed materials), but they made sense in a time when the Jews were living in the desert and doing some of those things protected their health overall, though I have no idea what the practical use of the mixed fabric was. For the Bedouin culture the adultery issue was one that sparked constant strife and killing. The solution was brutal and shouldn’t apply today, but it was created to solve a real problem.
The point that religious based rules are more difficult to change is valid, but doesn’t invalidate the reality that the easiest way to gain a common set of beliefs and rules is via religion.
Many years ago I had a conversation with my Mother In Law and she made a comment to the effect of how can any Christian vote for a Democrat. Later that week I was in Rochester, NY for a wedding and I was at the rehearsal dinner and seated next to another wedding party member. We were talking politics and she described herself as a typical NY liberal and eventually made a comment to the effect of how can any Christian vote for a Republican. After a quick laugh, I told her of my MiL’s statement and she reflected on both and agreed that good people could end up disagreeing on such topics. Christianity and politics don’t align and likely never will in a pluralistic society.
That is the end stage. It started before they are even in school. Watch some of the programming that babies and toddlers are watching. Some of them are teaching teamwork and sharing, but others are worse. I remember thus one show on Disney where the main character is a pirate and his motto was that a good pirate never hurts anyone else and never takes their things.
On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.
What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.
One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.
Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.
Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.
My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.
Even so, our culture in the US still is founded on a Judeo Christian heritage that has established beliefs and rules.
Yes. But it would seem that even if a large number of Americans no longer believe that Jesus rose from the dead or some other theological belief, Americans might still think that theft and assault should be illegal.
So, I am not entirely convinced that the morals/ethics/laws are closely related to any specific theology.
The Czech Republic consists of mostly non-religious people. Yet it’s still, by global standards, a pretty nice place to live.
El Salvador consists of mostly Chrisitans. Yet El Salvador has one of the highest murders rates on Earth.
Religion matters. But there are other factors involved too, I think.
” The Ad Council” ran a Marxist critical race theory ad thing football games these last few days. Did the government fund them?
When left to create their own morals, some choose wisely and some don’t.
The western Judeo-Christian traditions passed first through the Greeks and Romans. The education system it provided created great scholars and thinkers. Our secular education system, created by progressive democrats has all but replaced it. Reasoning gave way to rote memorizing facts. Classics revered throughout centuries and read by our founders are rarely read now. The God piece has been removed. Behold the consequences all around us. Yes, we were warned. Slouching Towards Gomorrah.
We are not those countries. You can find both great places to live and dangerous places to live in the US. You reduce the debate to whether or not we believe in Jesus. You don’t understand the cultural ethos that makes us different.
No question. Of course they did.
What I am pointing out is the religion isn’t the only variable.
There are nations that are good places to live even though very few people are Christian. And then there are hell-holes where an overwhelming majority of people are Christian.
Culture is actually more important than religious belief.
You are finally catching up with me. What are the foundations of our culture? From where does it get its roots? The Marxist want to tear down our system and replace it with one that fulfills their vision. They are doing so with a cultural revolution that targets our Western, Judeo-Christian western culture. They know.