Used to claim that they were the party of the working class. That is not true anymore based on the following graph.
But to be fair, I'm not sure that either party is the party of the working class. I would think that virtually all of the issues that the working class would vote for overwhelmingly are being resoundingly rejected by both parties, Democrats and Republicans. As George Carlin noted, they don't care about us at all.
Many people I know who got the COVID shots absolutely refuse to come to groups with the fact that US public health authorities and "experts" got almost everything wrong about Covid. Almost everything.
How could it be that someone who is highly educated to get something so completely wrong?
Here's another example from the early 1990s: "Facilitated Communication" for people who are autistic. I saw a documentary on this technique about 20 years ago and I couldn't believe what I was saying. Stuart Vyse describes it in detail in this article:
"When Silence Speaks: The Harmful Pseudoscience of Facilitated Communication: The Stubblefield case in ‘Tell Them You Love Me’ highlights the wide array of potential victims who can be harmed by promoting pseudoscientific methods of communication." Here's an excerpt:
The early results [of facilitated communication] were astonishing. People who had never spoken a complete sentence were suddenly writing poetry and novels with the assistance of their facilitators, and FC began to spread like wildfire. However, the involvement of another person in the process—the facilitator—raised obvious questions about who was really typing. Peer-reviewed studies using simple blinding techniques began to emerge, and the results were devastating.In a typical experiment, researchers placed the non-speaking individual and the facilitator at a table with a barrier between them so that each could be shown pictures of familiar objects, but they could not see each other’s pictures. When both saw the same picture, such as a shoe, all was fine, and “s-h-o-e” was typed. However, when shown different images, the typed word invariably matched what the facilitator, not the nonspeaking person, had seen. Across hundreds of trials, there were virtually no correct responses independently made by the nonspeaking individuals. People who had supposedly been writing sophisticated essays through FC could not identify everyday objects in controlled tests, revealing that the facilitators were the actual authors of the typed messages.
Were the therapists lying when they claim that the patient was actually in charge? Not quite:
Ideomotor effects have been implicated in hypnosis, dowsing, automatic writing, and several other phenomena. Finally, these unconscious actions are reinforced by the philosophy advocated by the FC/RPM/S2C community. Decades ago, Douglas Biklen coined the slogan “presume competence.” In an effort to show respect for people with disabilities, Biklen suggested that all people should be approached with the assumption that they are intelligent and literate. While this may sound like an admirable philosophy, this assumption introduces an explicit bias.
"Democracy" for Democrats, confirmed by court filings by attorneys for the DNC. Kamala Harris was appointed to be the Dems' candidate. There was no vote to install her as the nominee. BTW, this is not a clever way for me to suggest that Republicans are any better. They are corrupt too. Many of the Founders correctly warned of the grave dangers of political parties. Almost all national politicians are thoroughly corrupted by a thoroughly corrupt system that specializes in theater, part of a vast system of kayfabe. As George Carlin claimed, politicians don't care about you. At all. It's not a flaw in the system. It's the design of the system itself, to further countless ways to extract wealth from ordinary people so that elites of both parties can live in physical comfort. I wish I didn't see things this way, but I have repeatedly failed to convince myself to believe otherwise.
They hide the dead to help the "fight for freedom." Most corporate news organizations have been cheerleaders for the wars waged by the party in power. They curate the experience for you to spare you the trouble of thinking. Think of Afghanistan. And see here. Raw photography would end almost every war, so that's why you are not permitted to see the photos, especially photos of up-close suffering, maiming of civilians and death, in the corporate media. Not in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran or anywhere else that the US fights for "freedom." Robert Fisk, Robert Fisk (1946–2020) was a highly regarded British journalist and author:
I always remember when Madeleine Albright announced that Israel was under siege. For a brief moment, I asked myself, if there were Palestinian tanks in Haifa. How do we reach a stage where we so distort reality that we actually have a lethal effect on the conflict itself? The worst example of this, I'm sorry to say, is television, the way in which, unless an Iraqi is obliging enough in a war to die romantically beside the road in silhouette with all his arms still attached, you do not see the dead for viewers of television, not in the Arab world, I might add that in the West we do not see the dead, and thus our leaders, all of whom at the moment have ZERO experience of real war--the journalists do, but not our leaders in the West--they are able to present, to the public, war as a bloodless sand pit. War as something primarily to do with victory and defeat rather than death, which is exactly what is about on a large scale. War represents the total failure of the human spirit.
And I had a perfect example of this in 2003 I was in Baghdad. I was trying to get down to Basra. I got halfway, and then I was so frightened I could hardly write. And were so many bombs dropping from my own Air Force, among others, that I turned back to Baghdad. But Al Jazeera were in Basra, and they got back the same day to Baghdad with their video film, and I sat with them in their little tent. You probably realized that in a war, many of the big agencies pool their material, especially the television companies. So it was being sent through the satellite to Reuters in London, whose job was to edit the film. So of course, this was film of a civilian hospital. There were some soldiers brought in wounded and dead, but most of the pictures were of dead and wounded, women and children. They had been killed and wounded by British artillery fire in Basra. The British were besieging Basra while the Americans took the highway to claim Baghdad. And what was particularly revealing was, as they showed the film, I listened to the remarks coming back from London. You know, there were terrible scenes. It was one of a child holding its intestines and a woman with part of her hand missing. And there were screams and cries and lots of blood on the film. And the voice from London said, "You know, we can't really show this. You can't show this to people at tea time." And by this moment, I had my notebook out for The Independent, my newspaper. THIS was going to be tonight's story. So [Al Jazeera] said, "Please, please. Please, we risked our life for this. Just let us put out a little bit more of the film. Maybe you can use it." And of course, there were more pictures of blood and wounded children and dead children. And then the voice came back and said, "This is obscene. We can't put obscene pictures like this on Western television." They pleaded again by now, of course. My pen was skidding over the pages. These were great quotes, because this is what was wrong. And then the voice came back for the third and final time. "We can't show these pictures because we must respect the dead." Now you get the point. We didn't respect them when they were alive. We didn't respect them when we blew them to bits. But when they're dead, by God, we have to respect them.
We've already experienced many years of Wokists commonly trying to shut down meaningful conversations by using slurs. Here's a newscaster (the BBC's BBC's Laura Kuenssberg) trying to pull this cheap stunt on Tucker Carlson, who appropriately calls her out. He's absolutely correct. The mere fact that one opposes Netanyahu or opposes the current foreign policy of Israel (as I do) does not make one Anti-Semite or anti-Jewish.
BBC's Laura Kuenssberg: I mean, I am going to point out I probably don't need to, because our audience can see and hear for themselves pretty much everything that you've said in our conversation. Tucker Carlson, you you have put at the door of the Israeli government now to some people, that will be evidence that you are anti semitic. You are anti-Jewish.
Tucker Carlson: Oh, I know. I'm very anti semitic [Laughing]. And well, first of all, the State of Israel does not speak for all Jews at all, despite its claims. It does not. There are many, many Jews, many of whom I know, who don't think the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu speaks for them.
Laura Kuenssberg: I wasn't suggesting that. [talking over each other]
Tucker Carlson: Of course you were suggesting it. I've been in this business longer than you, and I understand what a slur looks like, and you're attempting to call me an anti Semite in a passive-aggressive way. Some people would say that. Well, I'm responding to your slur and saying that it's untrue. It does not apply to me. Doubtless there are anti Semites who don't like Israel. I'm not an anti Semite. I don't hate Israel. The Israeli government--this is documented, and I saw it personally-- steered the United States into a war that hurts the United States and the world. I'm offended by that. I didn't want it and I'm mad about it. Now I have every right to feel that way. That does not make me an anti-Semite despite your insinuation. And I think it's important that I say that. And by the way, I hope that you run this. I can't control whether or not you air this exchange. I hope that you will. Because I think it's important to push back against slurs like that, because they limit our ability to understand what's actually happening. This is not an attack by Jews on the United States. This is Benjamin Netanyahu moving the United States to do something he thinks will benefit him, but that does not benefit us. It's that simple.