The “elites” (depraved satanic world-controllers) never invented a better means of total control of the masses than… ‘official political statements’.
Bro, it’s simpler than that. There is no ‘satan’, so there can’t be any satanists. But there can be lucky people with great wealth who get into little clubs and talk about ways to keep everyone else working so they don’t have to.
That is how awesome the secret elite are. Guys that don’t wanna work. What?! You mean nothing more profound or sinister than that is happening? Just a bunch of slobs trying to avoid getting a job?
Yeah, 'fraid so, man. I wish it were more exciting than that, but it ain’t.
“There is no ‘satan’, so there can’t be any satanists”
that makes no sense. A Satanist merely believes in Satan, he isnt an analytic proof of his existence.
You underestimate the effects of boredom that great wealth tends to cause. People develop all kinds of fetishes and sadisms.
Analysis is a Western procedure to get to the bottom of things, true. But such proof of it’s inadequacy is evident in Russia, where such proofs are built on action, since the communist Marx-Lenin days, prior to that the serfdom it consisted of, reminiscent of Marx beginning misguidance, because he aimed social understanding and change that geared to the sorry effects of British industrialization.
As far as Putin’s mindset on the conflict , it is neither territorial expansion, nor any other pretext including NATO expansion, although they operate within Putin’s primary motive. That his political ambitions owing to his singular interpretation as expressive to his conscious realization , that only the right moves toward some semblance of what remains of the Soviet politburo, that constrain a characteristic similar to Trump.
And here is a latest credible opinion of how the telephone interview between the two men went down:
)(())(
OLITICS
TRUMP GETS A TASTE OF PUTIN’S TACTICS
The Russian leader is offering few concessions in negotiations over Ukraine. How hard is Trump willing to push for the peace he promises?
MARCH 18, 2025
Vladimir Putin isn’t going to make this easy for Donald Trump.
For weeks, Trump has bragged about his close relationship with his Russian counterpart and declared that Putin wanted to bring a quick end to the war that he, of course, started more than three years ago. Trump’s national-security team worked with Ukraine to come up with a 30-day cease-fire proposal in hopes of persuading Moscow to accept it. And his press secretary declared yesterday that Ukraine and Russia were on the “10th yard line of peace.”
Follow The Atlantic
on Apple News
But when the two men spoke today, Putin had his own ideas.
Putin did agree during the more-than-two-hour call to halt strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and he pledged to continue negotiations. But that limited deal fell far short of what the White House had forecast in recent days, and it now confronts Trump with a dilemma. In order to secure the peace he has promised, he might have to engage in something he has yet to do: get tough with Putin.
Trump, predictably, dressed up his call with Putin as a win, posting on social media that the conversation was “a very good and productive one.”
The peace process “is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of Humanity, get the job done!” he wrote.
In truth, Putin offered next to no concessions, and his goal, according to a Kremlin readout of the call, remains maximalist: preventing Ukraine’s rearmament and sovereignty. In order for him to accept Trump’s full cease-fire proposal, Putin said, Ukraine would have to stop rearming its military and sending new soldiers to the front lines, and all foreign governments—including the United States and Kyiv’s European allies—would have to stop sending military assistance or intelligence to Ukraine.
Read: Trump is Nero while Washington burns
Taken together, those demands would severely weaken Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and Trump did not agree to them in the call. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking with reporters in Ukraine after the Trump-Putin call, expressed “skepticism” about Putin’s motivations and made clear that no lasting deal could be made without his nation’s involvement. Still, he added, “if there is a partial cease-fire, this is a positive result,” and he signaled that Ukraine would accept the limited agreement, even though it would allow Russia to continue to pummel his nation’s cities and towns.
If the strikes on energy infrastructure indeed stop, it would be the most significant mutually agreed suspension of attacks in the war. A senior White House aide framed that to me as a major achievement, the first step toward a broader peace (Trump long ago abandoned his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours). But Trump’s national-security team will now need to debate a course of action, and the aide, who requested anonymity to discuss internal conversations, conceded that difficult decisions lie ahead. Will Trump allow the U.S. to pressure Moscow—by toughening sanctions on Russia or increasing aid to Ukraine—to push Putin to soften his demands? Or will Trump once more defer to Putin and isolate Kyiv?
The partial cease-fire holds benefits for both sides. Ukraine has struggled for years with Russia’s attacks on its energy grid, which at times have plunged cities into darkness and cold. But agreeing to the deal also was in Putin’s interest—Ukraine has recently ratcheted up its attacks on gas and oil facilities deep in Russian territory, weakening Moscow’s most crucial stream of revenue at a time when the nation’s war-weary economy is struggling.
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former U.S. intelligence official who is a Trump critic, told me that Putin’s demand for an end to those strikes—and his willingness to relinquish his own military’s ability to do the same—is proof that the strikes “are having a much more severe effect than even we imagined. Putin wants them to stop. That’s a pretty good measure of effectiveness.”
Today’s essential stories. In audio. Listen in The Atlantic app.
That’s all that Putin was willing to give up, though, and he telegraphed his intent to keep the war going or, at least, to end it only on terms that he could dictate. According to the Kremlin readout of the call, Putin insisted on the “absolute need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis,” which include, in Moscow’s view, Ukraine seeking security guarantees from the West, such as admission to NATO or the European Union. Putin also suggested cutting Kyiv out of future negotiations, leaving the talks solely between Washington and Moscow. And his demand for a complete end to all foreign military support to Ukraine is simply a nonstarter: Even though Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance have previously threatened to discontinue American support for Kyiv, Ukraine’s European partners have in recent weeks only increased their pledges.
“It’s clear that Russia remains the obstacle to peace in Europe,” Democratic Senator Chris Coons told me in a statement. “I’m glad to see a halt on infrastructure strikes but many of Putin’s ‘requests’—like a ban on arms or intel sharing—make clear what he is after: a neutered Ukraine that can’t defend itself.”
Of note: Neither the White House’s nor the Kremlin’s readout of the call described any discussions between the two leaders over the fate of the territory Russia has seized from Ukraine. Russia has claimed about 20 percent of Ukraine’s land, beginning with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Air-raid sirens continued to go off around Ukraine today. Still, the call yielded some positives for Ukraine, which will at least for now continue to receive U.S. assistance as it tries to work out backup plans with Europe in case Trump eventually cuts off Kyiv.
“Frankly, this is the Russian playbook of using negotiations as an instrument of armed conflict,” Polymeropolous, the former intelligence officer, told me. “But in the grand scheme of things, it’s probably less bad than everyone imagined. At least the U.S. didn’t sell Ukraine down the river.”
Read: Trump is offering Putin another Munich
Few in the national-security community are counting on Trump to suddenly align himself more solidly with Kyiv. For weeks, he and his administration have embraced Moscow’s view of the war in Ukraine. Trump has decreed that Zelensky is “a dictator,” repeated Putin’s lie that Ukraine started the conflict, declared that Ukraine didn’t have any “cards” in the negotiations, and already denied Kyiv’s top wish—that it be allowed to enter NATO, the alliance designed as a bulwark against Russian aggression. The pause in U.S. intelligence-sharing and shipments of military supplies to Ukraine earlier this month allowed Moscow to make gains on the battlefield, most notably in the Russian territory of Kursk, land that had been Ukraine’s strongest bargaining chip in possible upcoming negotiations. And, of course, in Trump’s first term, the United States at times levied tough sanctions against Moscow, only to be undermined by the president’s warm words for Putin, including during their infamous 2018 Helsinki summit.
So far, Trump hasn’t done anything to suggest that he’s cooling on Putin. When Zelensky didn’t give Trump everything he wanted in their Oval Office meeting last month, the U.S. president berated his Ukrainian counterpart, and Trump’s allies called for new elections in Kyiv. When Putin didn’t give Trump everything he wanted today, the Russian leader still got a friendly Truth Social post from Trump, pledges of further talks, and possibly some hockey games featuring the best players from each country.
But there were signs that Trump wasn’t happy with how Putin played his hand. Trump has rarely missed opportunities to chat with reporters during the first eight weeks of his presidency; just yesterday, he fielded questions multiple times, including when predicting that Putin wanted peace, and he often boastfully engages with the press while signing executive orders.
Another such signing was scheduled for the Oval Office this afternoon. But reporters were not invited to watch, depriving them of the chance to ask questions about the Putin call. Trump remained behind closed doors.
Jonathan Lemire is a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He also serves as a co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
()
Further, later this argument was proposed, from highliting acute but critical critics of the honesty and reality that surrounded the conversation.
“It is not yet clear how far Trump pressed the full 30-day ceasefire proposal, negotiated a week earlier with Ukraine by his secretary of state, Marco Rubio. Lord Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser, said: “We need to know how Trump reacted to it. But I can only assume it was designed to ensure a Zelenskyy rejection, taking the pressure off Putin.”
Again from the Atlantic
Satanism has long been ientified as a protest against the church, and apart from some extremists, Satanists are largely atheist who take on an extreme opposition to the church, using scripture against those defending Christian positions. They are using the belief of the Christians in satan against them.
Sorry guys , there was no impropriety intended in an interference with questions about Satanic prevalence, but here is a take: if it is not correct to play games of geopolitical urgency at this point , then if a decision needs to be made that such dark games are reflective of and to the good will of the planet, it would seem that such view must have come from Satanic and not Godly mouths.
La Vey, the worlds foremost Satanist, writes:
- Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
- Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
- Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
- Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
- Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
- Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
- Satan represents man as just another animal who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development”, has become the most vicious animal of all.
- Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
- Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.
By the way this is not the Satanism Humanize was talking about.
I was, in my own way, agreeing with him.
Again compelled: to agree with The Church’s early incursion into Gnosticism, for which t Holy See was censured, Pope Francis briefly brought it out early in His Papal service.
In fact did not Christ counsel to love your enemies, and that includes the greatest supposed enemy of them all.
In fact satan is categorical, not absolutely in the likeness of Lucifer, the devil, the fallen archangel, or etc.
The way evil and the good work in this time is tantamount of a surge for integration, as Nitzche described in beyond good and evil, prio to that an undifferentiated unity, and as above down below- dictates the artificiality of cyborg entities to evoke the same above, a tableau of unrealized morality, excused by the lack of knowledge of such differences.
Why? Because befor and after, above and below, Man knew not of such differences,
Knowledge of meant not participating or acting immorally, but in pure innocence, as children act.
This would not be tantamount of being evil in anyway, it meant either before paradise was lost and after it was regained.
We are entering that age of the cyborg. Just a pro-position.
In the Bible, the concept of “As Above So Below” is a powerful reminder of the interconnectedness between the spiritual and physical realms. This principle can be seen in various verses that highlight the unity and harmony between heaven and earth. As stated in Matthew 6:10, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” This verse emphasizes the alignment of God’s will in both realms, showcasing the mirroring effect of the divine above and the earthly below.
)(. (). )(
As above down below, this needs no comment other than it presents God as revealing Himself through His own agency, being called or invited in.
()()()
Pretty much the same is said in the ‘Emerald Tabley:
Emerald Tablet
Not to be confused with the Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean (1930), the work of 20th-century occultist Maurice Doreal.
The Emerald Tablet, the Smaragdine Table, or the Tabula Smaragdina [a] is a compact and cryptic Hermetic text.[1] It was a highly regarded foundational text for many Islamic and European alchemists.[2] Though attributed to the legendary Hellenistic figure Hermes Trismegistus, the text of the Emerald Tabletfirst appears in a number of early medieval Arabic sources, the oldest of which dates to the late eighth or early ninth century. It was translated into Latin several times in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Numerous interpretations and commentaries followed.
Medieval and early modern alchemists associated the Emerald Tablet with the creation of the philosophers’ stone and the artificial production of gold.[3]
It has also been popular with nineteenth- and twentieth-century occultists and esotericists, among whom the expression “as above, so below” (a modern paraphrase of the second verse of the Tablet) has become an often cited motto.
Tis true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracle of one only thing. And as all things have been and arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth. Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the earth to the heaven and again it descends to the earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations where of the means is here in this. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.
— English translation of the Emerald Tablet by Isaac Newton[4]
‘
And finally from Krokoptin’s ‘Fuck you god” (wherever he is, both God and Kroootkin)critiqued coincidentally to the above and below)
If get the big picture
A Jerky Boys overdub.
Ew, no dark mode? Gross.
1 Like
Of course there is, and it’s the light after the before darkness.
All things considered.
Though about Darko, can’t see it.
Now resilience or what? The pivoting is so very small as to stupifie the most critical of masses, Orr, ennoble the very self serving few. (2 % or a lot less, say .001 of 1%?!
Leibnitz right on along with those critical of the early agonists,
Will the world ( as we know it perhaps) be saved or not, either by its ownn self saving grace, or , by that inner sanctum none would claim as conspiracy.
Never the less, and most certainly mover much more, here is a Tid bit worth noticing. ( kind of reticent, though)
)()(
“# Musk says Trump is ‘in the Epstein files’ which is why they haven’t been made public in newest slam
By Rhian Lubin, 47 mins ago
The Independent
Follow
Elon Musk has claimed that Donald Trump “is in the Epstein files” and that’s “the real reason” they have not been released as the tech mogul launched several public attacks against the president.
“Time to drop the really big bomb,” Musk posted on X. “@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!”
He followed up shortly after: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.”
The president and the billionaire traded blowson social media in a very public breakdown of their relationship. The barbs came after Musk’s departure as a special advisor to the government, and his brief time running the Department of Government Efficiency.
The Independent has contacted the White House for comment.
“Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!“ the president wrote before Musk dropped the claim about the Epstein files.
The president and the billionaire traded blows on social media in a very public breakdown of their relationship. Musk stated that Trump’s name appears in the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. (AFP/Getty)
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
Days after leaving his role as Special Advisor to the Trump administration, as figurehead of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Musk lashed out at the president’s “big beautiful bill,” calling it an “pork-filled” and “an abomination.” Trump had previously taken the high road on the issue.
Earlier on Thursday, during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the president told reporters he was “very disappointed,” with his former “first buddy.”Trump was asked about his former advisor’srecent comments against the spending billworking its way through Congress.
Trump also claimed that during the presidential election he could have one the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania without Musk’s help.
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk shot back on X. “Such ingratitude,” he added in a separate post.
Musk made the bombshell claim in a post on X. (X/@elonmusk)
The delay in releasing the Epstein files has infuriated MAGA.
Attorney General Pam Bondi released the “first phase” of declassified files on February 27 related to the late sex offender. She invited MAGA online personalities to the White Houseto see the files for themselves, but the binders contained information that had already been released to the public.
At a briefing last month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked when the bulk of the files would be released. She said she didn’t have a “specific timeline.”
In January 2024, Trump posted on Truth Social that he “was never on Epstein’s Plane, or at his ‘stupid island.’”
Trump previously said he had known Epstein for 15 years and called him in “terrific guy” in 2002, before allegations about the financier surfaced.
The president was previously named in court filings in a lawsuit brought by the late Virginia Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, against Ghislane Maxwell. There were no accusations of wrongdoing against Trump.
Other mentions of Trump in the documents did not accuse him of any illegality, but claimed he and Epstein were on good terms.
Epstein, who had a number of high-profile friends and acquaintances – including Trump, former president Bill Clinton, and celebrities like Prince Andrew – died in a New York jail in 2019 where he was being held on sex trafficking charges. He had previously been jailed after pleading guilty in Florida to procuring a girl below the age of 18 for prostitution.”
)(
error
2-3% is the correct answer I think
Here will live up to a hardly established reputation of a kind of ‘gnostic’ position, and argue for not the supposed rights to bear arms and the other freedoms morally obligated citizens are said and supposed to enjoy, , however, there is always a counter punch, like the defense against an offensive remote can elevate sky high, as if seemingly clinging to skyhooks.
()
So the counteroffensive 
Steve Bannon on Elon Musk’s Big Breakup: ‘Told You’
Musk might have the money, the MAGA godfather says. But Trump has the movement.
Rachael Bade is POLITICO’s Capitol bureau chief and senior Washington columnist. She is a former co-author of POLITICO Playbook and co-author of “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.” Her reported column, Corridors, illuminates how power pulses through Washington, from Capitol Hill to the White House and beyond.
Steve Bannon saw it coming. So forgive him for saying I told you so.
In a call with me Thursday afternoon — as President Donald Trump and erstwhile ally Elon Musk were trading escalating attacks online — the godfather of the MAGA movement slammed the billionaire for betraying the president and being “destructive” to the Trump agenda in trying to tank the president’s “big, beautiful bill.”
“MAGA’s done with him,” Bannon declared, months after he first predicted that Trump and Musk would eventually fall out of favor — and warned Trump to be wary of the tech baron and his motives.
He’s also suggesting, as The New York Timesfirst reported, that Trump suspend Musk’s security clearance, cancel his contracts, investigate his alleged drug use, and even consider deporting the naturalized U.S. citizen as an “illegal alien.”
Bannon has long considered Musk a suspect character, someone who in his view is a particularly untrustworthy representative of a self-interested class of tech billionaires who had sidled up to Trump for all the wrong reasons and never truly was part of his America First movement. “I took a lot of criticism,” he noted, for calling Musk out at a time when the party was high on his promises to slice $2 trillion in government spending through his Department of Government Efficiency.
“I think MAGA is now seeing exactly what he was” all along, he added. “I’m just saying, ‘Hey, told you — knew this was gonna happen, folks. Not a hard one.”
Bannon pointed to two proximate reasons for the sudden unraveling of the relationship this week. To start, there was Musk’s decision to target what is shaping up to be Trump’s greatest, and maybe only, second-term legislative accomplishment.
It’s one thing, he said, to want changes to the “big, beautiful bill” — like how Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has pushed for more spending cuts or Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has worked to protect Medicaid. It’s quite another to tell 220 million followers to call up their representatives and “KILL the BILL.”
“He’s not being constructive — he’s being destructive,” Bannon said. “He’s made this a personal vendetta against the president of the United States because the president dismissed him.” (Though, I’ll note, they seemed to be on fine terms when Musk left the White House last month.)
The other reason for the breakup, he said, was broader: Musk’s essential miscalculation that his $250 million investment in the 2024 elections could have bought him enduring influence with Trump.
“Trump is the least donor-responsive political figure in history — he doesn’t give two fucks,” Bannon said. “Elon was under some impression that you write Trump a big check and eventually there’s going to be some sort of payoff. Trump doesn’t work like that.”
Musk leaned into the notion that he feels wronged by Trump Thursday, writing on X of Trump’s “ingratitude” and claiming that Trump would have lost the election without his intervention.
Trump — ever sensitive to those questioning his political acumen — hit back hard. After staying silent for days as Musk fanned the flames against the megabill, he weighed in after Musk’s attacks turned personal.
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget…. is to terminate Elon’s Government Subsidies and Contracts,” he said, adding in a Bannon-esque flourish that Musk had been out only for himself: “I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!”
The MAGA mega divorce has not only sucked up all the attention and headlines in Washington, it’s put so many Republicans in a suddenly awkward position — essentially forced to pick sides. “Will be interesting to see what Republican lawmakers do now,” MAGA influence Laura Loomer wrote on X. “I’ve been on the hill all day and it’s all anyone is talking about.”
One especially fawning Musk fan, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, posted, “But … I really like both of them.”
But don’t expect a whole lot of hand-wringing otherwise: Musk might be the richest man in the world, but Trump commands loyalty in a way the Tesla founder never has. Musk has the money, but Trump has the movement.
“MAGA is going to back the president 100 percent,” Bannon agreed, dismissing Musk’s following as a smattering of “crypto bros … who have the mentality of 11-year-olds” and worship his every move.
He’s not wrong. Inside GOP political circles, Musk was seen as something of a joke until Trump adopted him into his inner circle. Republicans loved his deep pockets, but many privately mocked his efforts to elect Trump, noting that many of his own volunteers left because his get-out-the-vote effort was such a mess.
Indeed, the Trump divorce is risky for Musk — not only because he’s alienating the most powerful man in the world, but because he’s exposing how little political capital he has to go with his overwhelming financial capital.
Conservatives on Capitol Hill didn’t jump at his command to sink the bill; instead they mostly expressed frustration that he didn’t help them fight for more cuts last month when it might have made a difference. Other Republicans predicted his decision to launch a personal campaign against Trump — to the point of associating him with the late sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein — will only alienate his allies in the GOP.
“If his goal here is to move legislation, this shows he really doesn’t have the juice,” said one Trump associate granted anonymity to speak frankly about Musk. “At the end of the day, is Marjorie [Taylor Greene] going to go with Elon or Trump? She’s going with Trump.”
Bannon suggested that Musk would continue his broadsides against the president to try and worm his way back into the good graces of Democrats as he tries to bolster faltering Tesla sales. All of a sudden, prominent members of the opposition party, including top Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, are taking his own words and quoting them back to voters. Rep. Ro Khanna of California is openly arguing Democrats should welcome him back in the fold.
“First thing, he’s a business guy,” Bannon said. “He’s got to sell some cars — and he’s not going to sell any cars to MAGA.”
Politico
‘
Tesla’s stock price plummeted yesterday , falling 14% after President Trump threatened to revoke government contracts from Elon Musk’s companies. This significant drop resulted in a $152 billion loss in market capitalization, making it the largest single-day hit to Tesla’s valuation. The decline also pushed Tesla’s market cap below the $1 trillion mark, settling at $916 billion. [source:Google]
No the Democrats should not welcome the Neo-Nazi, Ketamine-addled chainsaw back in their party just because he had a falling out with Trump. Mark Ro Khanna for poor judgment. I suppose he would like Musk to funnel money to the Dems. We should not forget what Musk did to USAID that provides food and care to the world’s poorest, to the Social Security offices to make it more difficult for disabled people to apply or to gut the Consumer Protection Office that make the country safe for corporate predators.
Trump will need Congressional approval to cancel Musk’s contracts. If the feud continues, we will see how much influence Musk has over Senators. He can support or oppose their 2026 campaigns if he chooses. Another question is how many Musk supporters will follow him out of MAGA?
Yes I agree with that, But two ways to look at this situation. The larger picture, and the smaller contrast badly, with the Dems propagating the idea or the image of it, that inclines populism to view the image of what freedoms and equal justice and fair representation should means to everyone before ,and in the Great Society. I think Lyndon Johnson coined the word.
That contrasts with the extension of that image, which has stalled along the way, that propels to the imaginative capacity of men,that is within the grass roots power of the populace.
That’s supposed to be the big picture, according to which Capital, or the financial undertow of it does not correspond to economic reality. The changes accruing with economic stability could not have anticipated this, that instability will be a major factor in future US policy, their constitutional sensibility was more continental, and the economic stability could not have been apprehended vis, the social and explosive nature of atomic physics.
But the bigger picture has become invested with apprehension when this correspondence of the modern world has actually aligned Capital and it’s invested vagrancies with sociable unhappiness on the whole, and the failure of Capital becoming again the modicum by which major catastrophes may about to happen, .
WWII should have been a lesson , lesson by which social nationalism should now warrant the rejection of the social part, retaining an overvaluation nationalism.
The world wide acceptance of Capital , points to repeated failure of control over the basic instinctive de-control of social moralism, and the invested powers and forces which have accumulated world wide, which can not be disassembled, due to an inverse restructuring and restructuring of moral apprehensions of value.
The Dems are equally aware of this formula, and they are merely hiding in sheep’s clothing and getting away with it.
‘unity’ is the key word here, and it unity that people everywhere need to feel more than as an image, but at least in a subconscious theater that propagates that idea , to evolve singularly to these passed up golden moments of life, is necessary
Musk is a realist, but he knows that this theatre belongs into the matrix of a comic absurd genre, however his hope vested in cybernetic tool, is the only answer.
The Dems use this deep stated knowledge patently, Trump has been more successful in his media messages of looking back for answers to attain the good life.
I believe that this show of personal vendettas against each other are that, strictly a required public show, that minimizes this huge image, so people will see the hyperbolic fear , that maybe, just maybe, this is merely another show, where actors and other ‘great’ communicators can so skillfully change public opinion.
The need to wake up from their slumbers and begin to feel that their dreams are more then delusive apprehensions, and they need to think that maybe all this talk not be merely theatre,where an angered, fearful society may be willing to risk everything , including their life, because they wish not to go on with the pain they’re feeling even I. Exchange for their life.
The pleasure principle still is a great generator of the power to will a newer re-integration, and the pain and the variable pain experienced have become increasingly critical at this moment in time.
It’s also true, that the unequal allocation of resources does cause social discord, and at times of increasing sociable pressure and discourse more hegemony is arrived at , strangely inversely, and by golly how life was beautiful that few days after the las world war.
Lest we forget what and why artificial intelligence came forward, consciously, in the minds of whom, whereas others were preoccupied with it’s possible evil effects,
Where are the iwell meaning independents of yesteryear who can keep this ship of fools running the right course?
I misplaced my glasses, and the above probably chalk full of mistakes, , so ashamed admit, will forthwith be edited, or completely eliminated