Sanitizarea creierelor în SUA

23 Responses to Sanitizarea creierelor în SUA

  1. Ianis says:

    Tonul agresiv al petitiei nu face decat sa sape si mai adanc groapa barbosului.

    Oricum, autorii petitiei uita ca biserica este o corporatie care functioneaza dupa legile capitalismului.
    Daca vor sa schimbe ceva, trebuie sa se atinga de sursa banilor.
    Dar, vorba lui Edi, astia sunt spalati la creier si programati psihic sa dea zecime altfel ii mananca vinovatia.

  2. dysangeliumm says:

    Un articol excelent din WSJ semnat de Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Pentru cei care nu au acces:

    Outrage is the natural response to the brutal killing of George Floyd. Yet outrage and clear, critical thinking seldom go hand in hand. An act of police brutality became the catalyst for a revolutionary mood. Protests spilled over into violence and looting. Stores were destroyed; policemen and civilians injured and killed. The truism “black lives matter” was joined by a senseless slogan: “Defund the police.”
    … Yet when I hear it said that the U.S. is defined above all by racism, when I see books such as Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” top the bestseller list, when I read of educators and journalists being fired for daring to question the orthodoxies of Black Lives Matter—then I feel obliged to speak up. “What the media also do not tell you,” I tweeted on June 9, “is that America is the best place on the planet to be black, female, gay, trans or what have you. We have our problems and we need to address those. But our society and our systems are far from racist.”
    America looks different if you grew up, as I did, in Africa and the Middle East. There I had firsthand experience of three things. First, bloody internecine wars between Africans—with all the combatants dark-skinned, and no white people present. Second, the anarchy that comes when there is no police, no law and order. Third, the severe racism (as well as sexism) of a society such as Saudi Arabia, where de facto slavery still exists.
    We immigrants see the downsides of American society: the expensive yet inefficient health-care system, the shambolic public schools in poor communities, the poverty that no welfare program can alleviate. But we also see, as Charles Murray and J.D. Vance have shown, that these problems aren’t unique to black America. White America is also, in Mr. Murray’s phrase, “coming apart” socially. Broken marriages and alienated young men are problems in Appalachia as much as in the inner cities.

    If America is a chronically racist society, then why are the “deaths of despair” studied by Anne Case and Angus Deaton so heavily concentrated among middle-aged white Americans? Did the Covid-19 pandemic make us forget the opioid epidemic, which has disproportionately afflicted the white population?

    This country is only 244 years old, but it may be showing signs of age. Time was, Americans were renowned for their can-do, problem-solving attitude. Europeans, as Alexis de Tocqueville complained, were inclined to leave problems to central authorities in Paris or Berlin. Americans traditionally solved problems locally, sitting together in town halls and voluntary associations. Some of that spirit still exists, even if we now have to meet on Zoom. But the old question—“How can we figure this out?”—is threatened with replacement by “Why can’t the government figure this out for us?”

    The problem is that there are people among us who don’t want to figure it out and who have an interest in avoiding workable solutions. They have an obvious political incentive not to solve social problems, because social problems are the basis of their power. That is why, whenever a scholar like Roland Fryer brings new data to the table—showing it’s simply not true that the police disproportionately shoot black people dead—the response is not to read the paper but to try to discredit its author.

    I have no objection to the statement “black lives matter.” But the movement that uses that name has a sinister hostility to serious, fact-driven discussion of the problem it purports to care about. Even more sinister is the haste with which academic, media and business leaders abase themselves before it. There will be no resolution of America’s many social problems if free thought and free speech are no longer upheld in our public sphere. Without them, honest deliberation, mutual learning and the American problem-solving ethic are dead.

    America’s elites have blundered into this mess. There were eight years of hedonistic hubris under Bill Clinton. Then came 9/11 and for eight years the U.S. suffered nemesis in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the financial crash. After that we had eight years of a liberal president, and the hubris returned. Sanctimonious politics coincided with deeply unequal economics.

    Through all this, many Americans felt completely left out—of the technology boom, of the enterprise of globalization. I never thought I would agree with Michael Moore. But at an October 2016 event, he predicted that Donald Trump would win: “Trump’s election is going to be the biggest [middle finger] ever recorded in human history.” I still think that analysis was right. Mr. Trump wasn’t elected because of his eloquence. He was elected to convey that middle finger to those who had been smugly in charge for decades.
    But you can’t give the middle finger to a pandemic, and 2020 has exposed the limitations of Mr. Trump as a president. Yet when you look at the alternative, you have to wonder where it would lead us. Back to the elite hubris of the 1990s and 2010s?
    I can’t help thinking that another shattering defeat might force sane center-left liberals into saying: That wasn’t a one-off; we’ve got a real problem. They’ll be in the same position as the British Labour Party after four years of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and two election defeats, when eventually the moderates had to throw the leftists out. One way or another, the Democratic Party has to find a way of throwing out the socialists who are destroying it.

    The Republicans, too, have to change their ways. They have to reconnect with young people. They have to address the concerns of Hispanics. And they have to listen to African-Americans, who most certainly do not want to see the police in their neighborhoods replaced by woke community organizers.

    We have barely four months to figure this out in the old American way. To figure out how to contain Covid-19, which we haven’t yet done, because—I dare to say it—old lives matter, too, and it is old people as well as minorities whom this disease disproportionately kills. To figure out how to reduce violence, because the police wouldn’t use guns so often if criminals didn’t carry them so often. Perhaps most pressing of all, to figure out how to hold an election in November that isn’t marred by procedural problems, allegations of abuse and postelection tumult.

    Who knows? Maybe there’s even time for the candidates to debate the challenges we confront—not with outrage, but with the kind of critical thinking we Americans were once famous for, which takes self-criticism as the first step toward finding solutions.

    By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

  3. dysangeliumm says:

    Au aparut ca ciupercile dupa ploaie 😉

  4. polihronu says:

    „critical thinking… which takes self-criticism”

    Cine? Trump? Nu spusese chiar ea ca „outrage and clear, critical thinking seldom go hand in hand”? Si, citindu-l pe MM, ca Trump e „the biggest FU in history” – adica fix caderea in outrage? Si nu sint treziristii plini de auto-critica? Nu ne ramine decit sa-i aratam degetul de la mijloc si lui AHA. Si sa-l recitim pe Sloterdijk – cel din (Out)Rage and Time.

  5. dysangeliumm says:

    poli, AHA cred ca se referea la republicani.

  6. polihronu says:

    „One way or another, the Democratic Party has to find a way of throwing out the socialists who are destroying it.”

    Asta m-a enervat si acum patru ani – ideea unora ca Trump (care e fix confiscarea dreptei de catre extrema) ar fi cumva o terapie impotriva extremismului de stinga. Dimpotriva. M-am asteptat ca rigorismul corectitudinii politice sa se amplifice in era Trump.

  7. polihronu says:

    Nu mai vorbesc ca amesteca „ultragiatii” de pe stinga cu socialistii.

  8. dysangeliumm says:

    I dont think anyone expects self-criticism from Trump:) I think she depicts Trump as a mere symptom of the disappointment from the left and is calling for reflection on their site, to change the strategies. After all half of the country voted Trump, you need to be pissed off at something to do that

  9. Doctor Frankenstein vrea sa omoare mosntrul pe care l-a creat.

    Uniunea secera ce a semanat. Coman afirma explicit rolul de mijlocitor al preotului si teologia sacramanetala in comuniune, alaturi de inerantismul biblic. Acestea au fost predicate doar implicit si fac parte din inconstientul membrilor. Orice abordare rationala a fost condamnata si biserica a virat in mod natural spre dreapata. Un semn al vremii neinteles de Uniune dar inteles bine de Coman este si social media, mult mai puternica decat comunicateele oficile si Curierul sau Semnele.

    Coman si-a calculat bine miscarea, are de partea lui paranoia conspiratiei Covid 19 si superstitia populara a ritualului incurajata la nivel moderat de conducere. Acum zece ani Coman era vazut ca un asset de cei care acum il gasesc un liability.

  10. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, de doua ori sub fatwa, mai intai de la islamisti a doua oara de la SJW.

    In primarele din 2016 Sanders are un meeting la Chicago. Este inttrerupt de o gloata galagioasa BLM care acuza pe toti cei care voteaza cu Sanders ca sunt rasisti.

  11. Aici m-a nemultumit si pe mine articolul lui Ali, insa in rest are dreptate. De fapt, ea insasi recunoaste ca:

    We immigrants see the downsides of American society: the expensive yet inefficient health-care system, the shambolic public schools in poor communities, the poverty that no welfare program can alleviate. But we also see, as Charles Murray and J.D. Vance have shown, that these problems aren’t unique to black America. White America is also, in Mr. Murray’s phrase, “coming apart” socially. Broken marriages and alienated young men are problems in Appalachia as much as in the inner cities.

    Intrebarea pe care asi adresa-o doamnei Ali este daca cunoaste alta platforma decat cea a democratilor socialisti, pe care ea ar vrea ca democratii sa o exorcizeze, pentru a ramane mai departe in „hedonistic hubris” al lui Clinton & Clinton, care sa aiba un program realist pentru adresarea acestor probleme. Eu nu stiu de nici o platforma in mainstream democratic party care vine cu altceva decat sloganele treziriste criticate de ea si apoi merge mai departe cu „amnezia” neoconservatoare post 9/11. Alta contradictie este teza marxista ca elitele paraziteaza problemele sociale si de aceea nu au interes sa le rezolve urmata de idea ca America nu are nevoie de o revolutie. Adica, spune ea, sistemul da semne de imbatranire (nu doar la figurat, N.N.) dar trebuie revizuit doar in stil Farfuridi.

    Acestea fiind spuse, nu i-asi arata degetul, mai intai pentru ca este eroina din Infidel pe care o admir mai mult decat pe orice feminista trezirista, apoi pentru ca are dreptate in rest. Ce lipseste la argumentul ei este explicatia marxista despre conflictele etnice dirijate pentru a impiedica unirea „proletariatului”, whatever that means in our time. Vezi de exemplu sumele obscene pe care BLM le primeste de la diferite corporatii care sustin status-quo.

  12. She is definitively right about Trump as a symptom and she implies correctly that BLM is another symptom of the same disease. What confuses me is that, after talking about Holland as her paradise lost in „Infidel”, she wants the democratic party to come one step further to the right. Is not Trump’s populism a symptom of the failure of the liberals to address the working class issues? How about her enthusiasm for Kant and Hegel in the good old days in Amsterdam? IMO, her masters at AEI have „corrected” her draft to align with their reactionary views.

  13. polihronu says:

    E un editorial in WSJ, iar principalii finantatori ai AEI sint fratii Koch. Normal ca e plin de contradictii si, spre deosebire de tine, n-am probleme in a injura oameni pe care, in alte contexte, ii admir 🙂

  14. capitaniser says:

    Viva La Revolution Cubana (Comana) ! 🙂 Daca peotul/artistul/preotul cameleonic e Fidel Castro, sistemul e republica bananiera condusa de Fulgencio Batista ?? 🙂 Intr-adevar, culeg ce au semanat. Unchiul Lucian umbla cu aceleasi manipulari psihologice acum 2-3 decenii si toti erau ok cu asta. Si celelate vrajeli comaniene erau agreate de sistem. Deci culegeti roadele, baieti !

  15. Salut Capitane. It’s been a long time.

  16. Poli, aspectul politic este ca trebuie sa scapam te toti trumpii si xii si sa colaboram ca omenire impotriva dusmanului comun. Razboiul rece. in versiune noua, poate fi letal pentru toti fara incalzire nucleara. Ma gandesc la secolul XVII cand Galileo si Kepler cooperau dincolo de ideologie si religie.

  17. Rasismul este acum un red herring perfect pentru a distrage publicul de la drepturile constitutionale, cum au fost terorismul sau drogurile mai inainte. Daca scolile nu sunt segregate rasial inseamna ca sunt bune.

Lasă un răspuns:

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: