patrick.net

I've talked about Jungian Shadow Projection in previous blogs, but let's go deeper into
defining and analyzing what is Jung's concept of shadow and projection? Jung's concept
of the "Shadow" is a central idea representing the unconscious part of the personality that
contains repressed weaknesses, desires, and instincts. The Shadow includes everything
outside the light of consciousness and often holds aspects of ourselves that we don't
want to acknowledge or accept, such as selfishness, aggression, or envy. Projection, in
tandem with the shadow, is a psychological mechanism where an individual attributes
their own unconscious thoughts, feelings, or traits to another person. Jung believed that
when people are unaware of their Shadow, they project these hidden aspects onto
others. For example, someone who is unwilling to recognize their
own anger may perceive others as being unusually angry or hostile.

this is a really big idea: you have unconscious thoughts and desires that you fail to acknowledge. instead, you project them onto others as a defense mechanism for yourself. ...

it’s why liars think everyone else lies and racists like to accuse others of racism.

But now would be a good time to bring up Democrats propensity for lying on campaign peomises.

"All Animals Are Equal but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others"

Facebook to Continue Using ‘Fact-Checkers’ to Censor Content, despite Zuckerberg’s Vow to End Censorship...

In recent years, these “fact-checkers” have unfairly targeted conservative viewpoints, leading to many fleeing Facebook for more free speech-focused alternatives such as Gab, Truth Social, or Elon Musk’s X.

In a sane 3-0 decision Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal law prohibiting illegal immigrants in the U.S. from owning guns, finding it was legal and was Constitutional. "We should not extend rights to illegal aliens any further than what the law requires," U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, wrote in his concurring opinion.

In the latest weird Democrat inversion, liberals are actually arguing for more guns — just for illegal aliens rather than for citizens. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with giving criminal invaders legal weapons?

Never say the Democrats don’t stand up for gun rights. Just, not your gun rights.

Yesterday’s zaniest story ran in the Washington Post headlined, “Republican Liz Cheney says she will vote for Kamala Harris this election.” Well, of course. Who else? That’s her “jam.” How is this even ‘news?’

When I read it, that headline produced a strange echo. The other day, I described a slightly surreal conversation with a liberal relative. When I read the Journal’s caption, I recalled how my relative mentioned disgraced former Congresswoman Cheney in the exact same context. He’d urged me to consider how “lots of big Republicans” supported Harris. Skeptical, I asked, like who? Earnestly, without any sense of irony or self-awareness, he tossed out Liz Cheney, adding for emphasis how she spoke at the DNC last month.

Putting two and two together, I realized my relative was regurgitating MSNBC talking points. Aha! A new narrative! It was like spotting a blue-beaked crested wren or something. (Apologies to bird watchers.)

Corporate media is busily slinging its new narrative to Democrats, not to we Republicans, who reflexively emit horse laughs just hearing the name Cheney. Let’s not dwell on Dick, either.

It’s a rollicking narrative, too. Explaining the breaking news that Cheney “broke with the Republican Party on Wednesday” —but not before!— the Wall Street Journal scribbled her roundly despised name onto its “growing list of Republicans against Trump.” The Journal’s expanding list has two names on it so far, and I’ll give you one guess who is the second...

The article failed to mention that Cheney and Kinzinger were the only Republicans who “served on the House select committee,” or that they already broke with the party back in 2021 to do so. While it did note that Cheney lost her seat in the primary, the article didn’t mention the same thing happened to Kinzinger, nor did it bring up the fact both politicians are now homeless pariahs relegated to making the rounds on late-night MSNBC news panels.

So I went looking for the narrative, and immediately found it everywhere...

If endorsements are newsworthy, then conspicuously absent from this week’s corporate media reporting was the much more interesting story about Tim Walz’s extended family, which came out for Trump:



https://www.newsweek.com/tim-walz-family-support-donald-trump-2024-election-1948797

They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.

Saul Alinsky (2010). “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals”, p.37, Vintage

Those rascally Russians are at it again! Buckle up. Russiagate 2.0 has officially begun, just in time for the election. The New York Times ran a story this morning headlined, “Russia Secretly Worms Its Way Into America’s Conservative Media.” Never mind they just caught another deeply embedded Chinese spy in New York. Putin is always the problem. And, even after reading the article, it’s not at all clear that ‘America’s conservative media’ was involved.

Remember that, during covid, the U.S. government paid influencers to push jabs and lockdown narratives. Biden and Cackling Harris are paying influencers to promote their campaign. And NATO paid influencers to come to their big confab recently to promote warmongering.

But when Russia does it, it’s pure evil.

The gist was that a couple Russians hired a Canadian PR firm called Tenet Media. Tenet then paid social media influencers, to buy original content that was publicly posted on Tenet Media’s website. Tenet then “promoted” its original media channels on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, etc.

This week, with great fanfare, including an appearance by Grandma Garland herself, the DOJ indicted two Russian employees of Russia’s TV network “Russia Today,” in absentia, for money laundering and for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which is only enforced against conservatives. Hunter Biden could not be reached for comment. The DOJ’s indictment named but did not charge a variety of U.S. influencers like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, describing them as unwitting victims of the foreign influence scheme.

The Times asked Russia Today to comment on the indictment, and the network promptly replied, “We eat U.S. D.O.J. indictments for breakfast. With lots of sour cream, usually.”

I would have guessed they’d eat it with ketchup, but maybe that’s just my American bias.

The DOJ’s indictment was unsurprisingly short on details of exactly what ‘influence’ the Russians were allegedly pushing. The only concrete example the indictment cited was general criticism of the Ukraine war, which seems like low-hanging fruit. I mean, I’ve personally dished out that kind of criticism in double handfuls. (Full Disclosure: I am not being paid by the Russians or anybody else for criticizing the Proxy War.)

It’s still gross, but this kind of pre-election DOJ censorship is vastly better than what we were dealing with the last time around. At least we can see them doing it this time.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/384121/jewish-groups-call-for-tougher-gun-control-laws-after-las-vegas-attack/