The Mainstream is Crazy and Extreme
6 2017-12-23 by JimAtEOI
The Mainstream Is Crazy And Extreme
At some level, everyone realizes that mainstream life is crazy and extreme because it is so artificial and hectic, and because it is so physically and psychologically unhealthy. Everyone also realizes, at some level, that mainstream life is crazy and extreme because everyone is being played. They know (at some level) that both parties and most so-called alternatives are all on the same side. They even know that the mainstream believes absurdities and commits atrocities, and yet, the mainstream is even crazier and more extreme than that, because at some level, everyone realizes that they are addicted to it, and that they are doing nothing to fix it and nothing to learn the scope of the problem—except to occasionally listen to the mainstream media and vote for mainstream politicians ...
Everyone knows, at some level, that the mainstream is crazy and extreme and that any salvation will have to come from outside the mainstream (and the fake alternatives), and thus the craziest and most extreme aspect of the mainstream is that whenever anyone outside the mainstream tries to tell them anything that contradicts the mainstream narrative, they call that person crazy and extreme!
Instead of embracing reality, individuals in the mainstream prefer to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past ... rather than risk looking extreme.
The mainstream will support Hillary or Trump ... rather than risk looking extreme.
The mainstream will support taxes and war ... rather than risk looking extreme.
The mainstream will support corruption, injustice, and tyranny ... rather than risk looking extreme.
The mainstream will sacrifice their integrity ... rather than risk looking extreme.
The mainstream will sacrifice their money, time, and health ... rather than risk looking extreme.
The mainstream will sacrifice their friends and family ... rather than risk looking extreme.
In the ancient war of Makers vs. Takers, the mainstream will side with the Takers ... rather than risk looking extreme.
As the Soul of Animals tries to exterminate the Soul of Humanity, the mainstream will side with evil ... rather than risk looking extreme.
To know that the mainstream is crazy and extreme and that any salvation will have to come from outside the mainstream, and to then sacrifice everything to ensure that only the mainstream media, the mainstream experts, and the mainstream authorities are allowed to change the mainstream narrative ... well ... that's just batshit crazy.
25 comments
7 IanPhlegming 2017-12-23
I'm visiting family in a different time zone and they all watched "The Voice" the past couple nights, which I'd never seen. It's apparently one of TV's highest rated series. I was bemused and amazed by what incredible bullshit it was. Phony, full of celebrity worship, societal management and mostly shitty songs. It's hard for me to grasp that people watch this shit week after week.
3 Doll18parts 2017-12-23
Good Morning America is on every day at a family members house I visit. I'm genuinely creeped out and a little fearful for our collective well being when so many people take in and even emulate this shallow garbage. There's no room for independent thought.
It sure answered a lot of my questions about the way those family members go about life and relate to others. I couldn't understand how people could be so blank and absent. It's because that's how people are "supposed" to be.
3 Vigte 2017-12-23
It's because the job itself and the hiring process and the daily grind work to weed out anyone but who they are looking for: submissive repeaters.
Same with cops: if you hate seeing shitty people and having to hurt them and stuff, you're not going to last as a police officer unless you have a really stalwart soul...
2 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
Would anyone like to share any of their favorite examples of how the mainstream is crazy and extreme?
1 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
When will this "both sides are the same" bullshit meme end? To believe that Democrats and Republicans are on the same side is to ignore everything we know about roll call voting. It's an especially dubious claim given that the two parties have been moving away from each other ideologically since the 80s.
2 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
It's called "good-cop-bad-cop". Sure, they compete with each other to be America's Next Top Frontman, but notice how they always pull their punches because they will NEVER do or say anything that would threaten the illusion of legitimacy.
0 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
In what conceivable way does either side "pull punches"? The discourse in DC has only gotten worse in recent years.
1 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
Does anyone really think that the only bad behavior perpetrated by these so called elites is whatever we see in the MSM? I first realized how they won't go deeper when I saw how much the Republicans invested in attacking Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, while practically ignoring everything else. Look at how Obama is still untouchable. Even the attacks on George Bush were just name calling and empty threats.
-1 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
He's untouchable because he's clean as far as sexual misconduct goes. Same with George Bush. What are you talking about? You're assuming that these two are doing nefarious things in their personal lives with no evidence to support it.
2 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
You just answered your own question. Sexual misconduct is usually fair game, as I had already explained with the example of Bill Clinton, because it rarely threatens the illusion of legitimacy. Now a pedo ring that has been covered up by the FBI and goes all the way to the top would threaten the illusion of legitimacy, so don't expect to see that in the MSM. Also, Obama has plenty of sexual misconduct, but he is more untouchable than perhaps any other politician--partly because the useful idiots in the MSM worship him.
0 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
Maybe because the MSM is concerned with factual analysis rather than baseless theorizing? And what is your source for Obama having a history of sexual misconduct?
1 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
right ... I see where you're coming from now.
1 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
Where is your factual analysis demonstrating that Obama has a history of sexual misconduct? At least the MSM is honest enough to not run a story like that with no proof.
1 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
"At least the MSM is honest enough ..."
No, you're right. The MSM is the place to go for dirt on Obama or any other so called elites.
1 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
You're really dodging the question.
Where is the evidence supporting your assertion that Obama has a history of sexual misconduct?
1 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
No, I accept your point: There is no evidence of sexual misconduct by Obama in the MSM; therefore, there is no evidence of sexual misconduct by Obama.
1 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
If you think Obama has a history of sexual misconduct, then provide evidence. You're just dodging the fact that you believe something completely unsubstantiated.
2 buttermouth 2017-12-23
Hey shillbo, this fallacy might work in worldnews or politics but not here. The US is a corporatacracy ruled by the uniparty and has been since JFK. To say otherwise, you have to ignore reality. We literally just had an election with two of the most hated people in our country vying for the top office in the USA. If that doesn't show how utterly broken our system is, nothing will.
1 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
I'm not trying to argue that the system isn't broken. I think it is. But the fact that Clinton and Trump are so hated says more about the people of our nation than it does about the system itself. It's not like everyone hated Clinton and Trump. People who loved Clinton hated Trump, and visa versa. We are a deeply divided country.
And you're ignoring the main point of what I was saying: the two parties are not the same. They don't vote the same way. They don't craft the same policy. They don't argue based on the same assumptions. They don't have the same code of ethics. They're different in so many ways.
It's intellectually lazy to say "Nah, they're all the same" without actually looking into the data.
1 JimAtEOI 2017-12-23
The combined agenda moves forward no matter which party is in charge. Naturally each party has to move only certain parts of the agenda forward or else they would blow their cover. Have you noticed how the Republicans fight wars because they want to spread democracy and fight terrorism, and the Democrats support the same wars and say that war is good for the economy?
1 buttermouth 2017-12-23
No one is saying they are exactly the same. If they were it would be very easy to see past the facade. TPTB are not dumb enough to have two parties exactly the same, because everyone would realize they are being duped. So they have two that are just different enough to maintain the illusion of choice, but never too far from the SAME corporate/military industrial complex goals.
This was all common knowledge even in politics the last decade on Reddit, sad that I have to explain it on conspiracy these days...
1 datsallvolks 2017-12-23
I disagree with your assertion that the parties are moving away from each other and have been since the 80's. Bill Clinton's presidency was basically the start of neo-liberalism in which the idea of socially liberal views towards rights were continued but on the economic side they would side with the Republicans and support big business despite the cost to their social ideals.
I'd also point out that most of the major donors on the federal level donate to candidates in both parties. This could be seen as hedging the bets but in my opinion its a case of influencing both sides.
Lastly, what the parties' individual platforms are have very little to do with how they actually vote.
2 ShillboBaggins1 2017-12-23
The gap has been widening, as evidenced by DW-NOMINATE scores.
Source that major donors donate to candidates in both parties? I can't remember which paper I read, but there was good evidence that big donors donate almost exclusively to candidates for one party or the other (with some exceptions, most notably pre-president Donald Trump).
And yes, the platform is nonbinding, but looking at how they actual vote (e.g. DW-NOMINATE) gives the same basic results.
1 fullspeedornothing- 2017-12-23
They're both statist. The third option is no government. But few talk about this.
Governments want to do one thing and one thing only: get bigger.
1 magnora7 2017-12-23
https://antiextremes.com