Post-Partisanship Is Hyper-Partisanship

Accessibility links

List of UFO Organizations
If many are still in poverty, it is because of the extremely complicated welfare system we have, with 78 means tested programs just in the Federal government. Although the federation of groups no longer exists, Jenny Randles has recently published on-line an archive of past issues in PDF format at Northern UFO News covering the period from to Where do you start? Entreprise de grande distribution ayant son siège en France Grande distribution par pays Histoire économique Commerce. And sort-of became the company mascot. Members of Congress were besieged with requests for hearings. In a historical context, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any others in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate Persia , Ancient India or China , but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically.

Navigation menu

UFO documents and books, government UFO files

There have always been primary elections, and there have always been intra-Left disagreements, but the level of Bernie vs. Hillary drama at the Democratic Convention this week seems to be something new. Ehrenreich-style leftists focus on critiquing Hillary instead of Trump — either within or outside of the context of supporting the Sanders campaign. And on the other side, Hillary-supporting liberals go after Sanders and his supporters instead of Trump — Freddie deBoer has written frequently some would say incessantly about this.

People are talking more and more about partisan bubbles. People dividing into political tribes, and cutting off contact with people on the other side.

I think that as bubbleification increases, the other party becomes less and less of an outgroup and more and more of a fargroup. And people less privileged than I am face even more threats — a person dependent on food stamps has a lot to fear from Republican victories. In a purely social context they start to seem more like cartoonish and distant figures of evil, rather than neighbors and coworkers.

The average Trump voter no longer seems like an uncanny-valley version of me; they seem like some strange inhabitant of a far-off land with incomprehensible values, just like ISIS. I have yet to meet anybody in person other than my patients who supports Donald Trump.

Hillary conflict is real to me in a way that the Hillary vs. It has the potential to split my friend group. There are social advantages for me of taking either side, and I could reasonably take either side without people looking at me like I went to work stark naked. This is the kind of socially relevant conflict that produces ingroups and outgroups in a way that America vs. My guess is that this sort of thing is only going to become more common. Partisanism is going to give way to hyperpartisanism, where people hate other factions of their own party with the same venom they previously reserved for their opponents across the aisle.

At the same time, old outgroup hatreds will take on a different character. Same thing with Brexit. Yes, the usual xenophobic trailer trash articles.

Yeah, this is a change in predictions since Right Is The New Left , which talked about something similar but reached a kind of different conclusion. No — it is short for cuckold. Also, another example of ingroup fighting that I think is worth mentioning is the the fight between left wing American Jews and Israelis. The soft-and-floppy right establishment is generally portrayed as actually getting real advantages out of the deal, at the cost of their dignity and self-respect.

I see that as a succinct and precise explanation if why morality is good and necessary. So far as I know, Ayn Rand never said that morality is a trick that the weak play upon the strong— she was very in favor of morality, but tried to define one which supports people doing well. She kept words like that but redefined them to refer to her ideas.

This is the first I heard of that claim. I would say that at the least it did not enter the semi-mainstream until after it became a portmanteau. Since you appear to know about this — does it actually derive from a reference to cuckold fetishism, rather than cuckoldry in general?

In this case, traditional values; c. This seems to differ from the typical use, though, where both the Republican voters and establishment are called cucks. Democrats , and the new, just-as-vitriolic-as-ever division is more along the lines of nationalists vs.

It would be interesting to know what would have happened had Sanders won the Democratic nomination and, say, Jeb Bush won the Republican. Would alt-righters now be drifting toward Sanders in the same way Sanders supporters currently are toward Trump? People use the portmanteau when they mean the portmanteau, cuck just means cuckold the vast majority of the time even in political circles.

So it is not surprising that it became a popular meme amongst this crowd. The Nazis are also a great example of a tribe conflating an enemy fargroup with a feverishly hated outgroup. Blue tribers hated the war in Iraq. Blue tribers who are anti-war support Bernie and may not be willing to switch to the neocon Hillary now. So the Commander-in-Chief can launch major military operations overseas without asking Congress for permission or immediate money , but he cannot close one military jail that is under his direct command?

It requires no funding at all for Obama to issue a direct order to all US military personnel to stand down and take no action if, say, the ACLU should show up with a boat and some guys with bolt cutters. So, are the people imprisoned at Gitmo the sort of people who would go blow up airliners if we let them out, or not?

Alternately just issue a direct order to all US personnel to leave the doors unlocked not interfere in any escape attempts. As the prison guards, maintainers, etc… rotate home you simply leave their billets empty.

In less than 3 years, the detention facility would be abandoned without the president having to ask congress for anything. Jill, your own link says it was congressional Democrats who cut that funding. The GOP did not control congress during that time period.

The GOP had no say in congress from For example, he could pretty immediately determine to classify them as POWs instead. Nevertheless, he has directed his DOJ to go into court multiple times and argue for the proposition that their status should remain exactly the same as it was under the Bush administration.

Not American, but from my point of view of your debate, Guantanamo and drone strikes are the two main reasons or were, until TPP became the target of choice why progressives are angry at Obama administration. I know they also compromise with this because Obama is by far the lesser of two evils. With Trump on the scene, with his recent comments about Russia and NATO, I have been thinking about the precedent that Obama set when it comes to executive actions.

What kind of actions would Trump take as president? The system was put in place to guard against the misuse of power. Now obviously neither of these are super strong criticism. But the idea that all progressives swallow the pill of Guantanamo and drone strikes and similar things because Obama is wrong.

Nothing like the threat of a Trump presidency to make those checks and balances look good again. Frankly, even to many Republicans. Save us from ourselves! I can feel my mind going, Dave…. It is probably a bad idea to tell the reds and blues that they have been pawns in an inter-gray argument for, oh, years. I have no doubt that there are plenty of genuine critics of Bush, the Iraq War, etc.

But for every genuine argument, there are ten people imperfectly parroting it to score points against the outgroup.

Any Republican is hated, though Bush, perhaps, was especially so because of the controversy surrounding voting in Florida. Or maybe you were trying to say that there is a double standard because the reasons for which they hate political opponents are easily forgiven in allies? Same reason that when a politician has a corruption scandal all his allies come to defend him and all his opponents immediately pronounce him guilty.

Every single republican candidate for president, without exception, was accused of being racist. The same was true in If you are a republican, it does not matter what you say, you will be accused of being racist.

Mark Kirk R is running for re-election in a close IL senate race. A Definite Beat Guy: It also makes sense. I suspect Kirk could get along fine with Johnson if he somehow became President. I think grays are more likely to distinguish between gray and red Republicans, while blues are less likely to do so. I also suspect some of it has to do with proximity to them. I never hated McCain though I did lose respect for him after Palin, as well as for his political pandering.

Trump is undoubtedly a red who desperately wants the respect of grays. The fact that he hates Donald Trump as much as he does is suggestive of him not actually being a red, though. I pretty much despise reds, but I only very rarely encounter them.

When I see gray signalling from Republicans, I give them much more of a pass. The more we hate something the more extreme the bad things we will try to associate with it. Newt Gingrich started the most recent wave of demonization of political opponents and government in general, inevitably leading to the rise of a Trump like candidate.

In the UK the Labour Party is riven in this way too, with most of the bile from the left members reserved for the centre-left parliamentarians, with the opposing Conservative Party treated like a far bogeyman.

I follow a diehard Stay voter on twitter. This seems to describe large parts of this Parliament; the EU issue and resulting fallout has really brought out intra-party divisions and made the whole thing very strange.

Are you trying to say something? It seems kind of obvious to me that the UK only ever joined the EU to disrupt it. Actual European unity was never the plan, opposite really, the plan was to keep it as divided and powerless as possible. I almost think Cameron took up the lead of the remain campaign to sabotage it because he made it entirely about economics and left every emotional or prideful argument to leave.

There seem to be a large number of sentiments to do with the EU. Back when we joined, it was just the EEC, of course. Well, the official guide to the original referendum specifically denied that the EEC was planned to turn into a United States of Europe.

That was, of course, back in the days when people still tended to trust their governments. OTOH, she made some remarks in the run-up to the vote which were interpreted as being pro-leave, so who knows what her real views are.

Nobody in the UK ever held any sentiment remotely like that. No, he just comes from a cosmopolitan, managerialist bubble where everybody thinks solely in terms of economic growth, so naturally he assumed the rest of the country would as well.

There are a lot of articles on the internet. We just finished primary season. Of course, there were going to be plenty of people who thought the primaries took precedence. But now that it is all said and done, the two parties are going to focus on hating each other again.

I also expect this is most of it. The first election where I paid reasonably good attention to the primaries was , obviously, so my sample size is small, but in that race, despite the Whitehouse being open, it seemed like the Republican side fell in behind McCain relatively quickly and without much trouble, while there was a great deal of rancor between the Obama and Clinton camps up until the convention after which point it miraculously went away.

Same in with anyone-but-Romney on the R side until his victory was clear and an unopposed sitting president on the D side. The Democratic primary was a fairly tame coronation of Gore. But that was before the internet let us yell at each other all the time. In some sense both parties are repeating the fights of , when Buchanan ran on a similarly nationalist platform to Trumps, and got a surprisingly early lead, while the Democratic party wars were between the DLC Clinton vs the liberal wings of the party.

Those folks were extremely loud true believers. But Sanders was doing it as a cynical ploy and endorsed Hillary once there was no possibility whatsoever of him winning. When I think back to the more recent examples of those kinds of debates I can remember, they all seemed to have a general sense of weariness to them.

People started to catch on to the fact that no matter how brilliant a paragraph they wrote, no matter what incredibly insightful analogy they came up with, there was never going be a slam dunk, lightning bolt moment where all of a sudden all of the people on the other side woke up and realized the error of their ways. So the debates just kind of petered out.

Maybe humans beings operating in an environment like the internet are only capable of sustaining a debate with no new inputs for so long before all of the interesting permutations and rephrasings of the same old arguments are exhausted. Any counterexamples of longstanding debates that are still just as acrimonious as they always were? Gun control is exceptional, I think, because it almost always comes up only in the context of a lurid mass murder or some other similar thing.

You can even watch the form of the debate mutate slightly in response to these new inputs — emphasis on magazines after Giffords, emphasis on mental health after Sandy Hook, emphasis on SYG after Martin…. Have institutional support for firing up supporters, e. I feel like abortion entered into the post-debate phase a long time ago, and now the only people interested in talking about it are activists, and young people encountering the debate for the first time.

Huge difference between internet debates and real life debates. The abortion debate is still quite potent in America. However, I do think the intensity will decline in the future. My prediction is that in 20 years the dialogue will be marked by an increasing consensus among the left and right that abortion is acceptable in the first few months but not in the last few.

There seem to be a good many people who would like to see that too. The interesting thing about the abortion debate, I think, is that contra Wrong Species above , it has coalesced into two different consensuses.

The discussion was kind of like a dance. You say an argument, and then you partner says a counterargument you expect, and gets a counter-counterargument he expects, etc. Yes, this aspect is often underappreciated, I think. In the wider world though, it is possible to talk or write for many purposes— expressing oneself and getting various reactions other than agreement or disagreement, trying to make oneself understood and hoping to understand others who will then comment, bouncing ideas off of other people who will then comment and lead each other to new ideas— none of which are pure agreements or disagreements.

Someone posted a TED talk recently on explorers of ideas vs. There seem to be too many soldiers and not enough explorers in the U. People desperately want to save face, and recanting loses face, but changing your mind keeps you from losing face next time.

Take heart, arguers on the internet! There is a great difference between arguing in front of an audience and in private. This might be one of the reasons why online debates are so dysfunctional. Two people on opposite sides, trying to convince the audience to join their side. This mode of debate makes sense to us intuitively , likely because this sort of situation is what argumentation and reasoning capacity evolved for.

But there is also private debate, and this is very different. Here you talk to another person, and you actually talk to them. There is no audience to speak of, and the other person is the only one whose opinions you can affect. Because this kind of encounter is modeled after casual conversation, the goal is to establish rapport with the other person, get to know them and their views.

The goals are completely different: In a private debate you walk away a better person. There is a sliding scale, running from two people talking alone to a full-on stage-in-an-auditorium battle, with conversations in small groups in the middle.

These modes evokes different behavior patterns in us, and this is largely based on environmental cues. In meatspace debates there are all kinds of factors that tell us what mode we are to use size of audience being one.

This means that different people will act in different modes, based on how they interpret the situation. This causes inconsistency in mode-balance from over time, confusing other people and creating chaos due to uncertain goals. Nice comment John Nerst, thanks. The possibility that a site could influence debating styles by indicating whether or not or how many people are watching is very interesting.

A common failure mode is when something written in private share-your-thoughts mode is interpreted as being in public jockey-for-political-favor mode, inviting an unreasonably harsh response to something with a lot of unguarded soft targets to attack. This leads to people getting hurt.

But are young people avoiding these debates, or are we aging and not encountering them? Though I still find my own views on God and religion evolving, as I see more things and learn more things.

The debates gave me insights into a few different worldviews, and I still find the ideas interesting. One way to tell might be to see which of the old political outgroups are still hated, and by whom. This is my belief as well. I stated a while ago that the new political conflict was Populists versus Technocrats, which does not map cleanly onto the current two-party system, an so requires a realignment.

Sanders is Technocrats v. From now on Populists will be Republicans. Bernie supporters are not just giving up at all. And he almost won, which suggests to me there is a significant progressive movement that was looking for a candidate in a weak field, not that Bernie was a candidate who inspired a movement not to take anything away from him personally.

The weakest compared to who? A popular sitting VP declined to run against her. It feels more like a slap than an attempt at communication. Am surprised you actually read part of one of the articles I cited, although perhaps you did so only to find that one particular point in it that you could disagree with.

Fox News is an excellent analogy. Nevermind that you did not address my criticism of what I thought was a particularly weird argument Vox makes. Were you expecting people to stop in the middle of this enormous thread, read the entire Vox article even if they had an aversion to Vox, find the best arguments in the article, and debate them?

Why not just state that best argument in favor of Clinton yourself? If I told you Fox News had a piece on why Trump was a great candidate, would you bother to read it? Clinton could have beaten him by a far larger margin than she did but chose not to do so because he was no threat to her and she got to save her money and effort for the general election.

Sanders, meanwhile, thought that he was close and then started doing stupid things to rile people up, acting like a demagogue. Once he did so, he was publicly embarrassed on his poor grasp of policy as punishment. But he never had a chance to win; he was always behind and had he ever actually been threatening he would have just been squashed.

Hillary could have crushed Sanders. She was always ahead the entire time, she was never behind, and Sanders never even came close to winning. Moreover, blues have cargo-culted a lot of gray signalling, which makes it hard for the blues and grays in the Democrats to differentiate their tribes as easily as they once did. It will be a major problem if the Democrats nominate someone as daft as Sanders while the Republicans are still in meltdown mode.

And he succeeded in articulating what it would take for a Democrat to get my vote in November and I was a Bernie voter who will be going Trump, not Johnson, if the Democrat candidate fails to offer this. It maps decently well onto level 3 vs level 4 according to David Chapman.

Trump has explicitly and directly reached out to Bernie supporters, and some of his policies trade restrictions, non-interventionism are right up their alley. Sanders supporters, who are more educated and so more ideological, know that being a progressive means giving not an inch to anti-immigrant sentiment.

Dain, Bernie Sanders is not that pro-immigrant. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs. He opposes greater guest worker visas, but also seems to have a strong aversion to border control measures. So his favored policy mix apparently increases national inequality but reduces global inequality. It is hard for me to see left-wing and right-wing populism reconciling, partly because the Red tribe sees the Blue tribe as Lucifer.

Red tribe populists are also very very Republican, in the sense that Right Wing media addicts are. They are riding on fear and anger and they see their self interests as almost identical to those of the. So, for example, they will easily vote for Trump or anyone else promising huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Trump has thrown them a few bones, such as better trade policies and the usual unlikely-to-be-kept promises about immigration. Republicans have been railing about immigration in order to win elections, and then doing nothing about it, for ages.

The Blue tribe populists, by contrast, are more policy oriented, not quite as frightened or angry, and do not see their self interests as almost identical to those of the. Out grouping is not exclusive to one side. As for your last paragraph, citation very much needed. Or with the same party elite and big business in general being much softer on immigration and much less in favor of protectionism? Anyway there actually is some overlap between the populisms, because the traditional populism of the Democrats was blue collar often unionized labor.

And they traditionally favor of protectionism including immigration restriction , can be relatively nationalist, etc. Notice how her lifetime list of achievements is… not impressive, to say the least.

Technocrats major virtue purports to be competence. It should be patently clear who is the technocrat and who is the populist in this election. But the classification should stand. Hillary is a political technocrat — her area of technocratic expertise is politics. I expect attention from the beast to be net negative for safety.

Would love to see someone like Hanson think this through in detail. My first thought is something like: It overlaps but it is more dependent on social class.

People will have different ideas of who the elite experts ought to be and what their policies ought to be. Elite experts could be very liberal or very conservative.

Whereas exalting them is one of the core elements of technocracy. People will just keep trying narratives until they find something that sticks. The key is to find a framing that resonates emotionally and draws pageviews to your blog.

This article did not go viral, which is weak evidence that this framing does not resonate strongly. Articles about the 3rd world rarely do. Widespread self-driving cars should be a good time to start calling for regulation of chip fabs to make AI more costly to run. Regulating software is an obvious nonstarter, but chip fabs are expensive factory installations, thus easier to regulate. Ideally the AI safety community plays both sides, e. AIs are not any more dangerous than any other tool.

Some tools are more dangerous than others — a chainsaw is definitely more dangerous than a screwdriver. Dynamite a tool for mining and land-clearing is more dangerous still. Most jobs based on driving are lousy and semi-skilled. I know a guy who decided to quit his lousy retail job and become a limo driver. He lost his limo job because his company cut back, and he was tired of driving limos, so he got another lousy job in catering.

But that probably describes a lot of men who work bad jobs — they have someone to mooch off while they figure out what to do next. I disagree — trucking is one of the few well-paid, stable jobs available to blue-collar workers now that there are fewer factory jobs. The reason for that is because doing so would be a really stupid move. No electricity, no AI, problem solved…. The idea that AI is dangerous is pure, sheer nonsense. It is just as insane as the whole GMO scare thing.

Possibly more so, seeing as we use AIs constantly. AIs are tools just like every other tool in human history, nothing more and nothing less. These are too useful and embedded in society to remove. Virtually every article I read in TechCrunch or even more mainstream places is actually pretty hostile to AI. The reality is that AI has the power to change a lot of things and it does so in ways fairly orthogonal to current conflicts.

But you raise an interesting point. Some populists want socialist technocrats to rule. Others want Libertarian technocrats to rule. Some technocrats are enthusiastic about tech, some are skeptical, most are indifferent. That might be changing, though. Yeah, that particular confusion seems to be a problem in several comments. Technocracy the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.

And technical more in the sense of specialization or esotericism, e. For example actuaries or cost estimators would be technical experts in the sense contemplated, whether or not they use a computer.

Think governance by actuaries and cost estimators sounds good? As long as one party controls the nonwhite vote and a significant share of the white vote, then it will be structurally favored to win elections.

The white vote loses 2 percentage points every election, so even if the Democrats lose the White House in a tight race one year, they can turn around and win the next election simply by keeping their proportions the same. We will know we have a new party system when we see the nonwhite vote meaningfully divided between the two parties.

Alternatively, for the Republicans to remain competitive, they could grab an accelerating share of the white vote every election. Romney already took a remarkable share of the white vote — perhaps the largest share against an incumbent president in American history, though not nearly enough.

The new party system, then, would begin to look more and more like white vs. Like the rump Federalist party, the Republicans persist as a regional opposition party, occasionally able to block a piece of legislation by allying with one Democratic faction or another.

Most policy matters are resolved internally within the Democratic party. I have an in law whose mother immigrated from Mexico. As was a certain governor of Arkansas https: Notice that any mention of border security or any kind of immigration restriction was completely absent from the Democratic convention, except to point out that the Democrats are against it.

Instead, they trotted out illegal after illegal, arguing Congress must be allowed to elect a new people, preferably Mexican, Muslim, and Asian in composition. They vote for it because it represents the closest available continuity with their preferences and values.

Of course, there will be exceptions. I recall seeing that academic achievement of third-or-higher-generation Hispanic students e. Asian students, by contrast, seem to be roughly even with whites at first-generation depending on the test and verbal vs. That said, all this falls under my point of the minority vote splitting. If that were to happen, we would be in a new party system. Until that happens, it will be the same essential coalitions as exist today, with maybe a few whites swapping parties here or there.

But distinguishing myself from a far group is not very useful. A near group, though, could be confused for my own. Daddy Warbucks can barely tell a Sanders and a Clinton supporter apart; this is a moment of crisis for the Sanders supporter to take one example: The Sanders supporter can save the day by attacking Clinton supporters.

In this way we can refine our demographic, shaving off nearer and nearer groups to our own sorry, I mixed that metaphor. We can afford to exoticize Tibetans or Kim Jong Un precisely because they serve no purpose to us. Even Trump supporters may be too other to even imagine our ever being.

You could have something here. Anyone claiming to be an actual Trump supporter is assumed to be trolling. In my circles conservatives always looked like crazy alien beings. When I was younger I was too naive to understand they were legitimately operating under a different value system and culture. I just saw them as freaks. Bush was seen as a dangerous idiot, Trump is seen as a dangerous idiot, its only when you move a bit towards the middle that the obvious distinctions become obvious.

Actually the I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup is the piece that truly shattered my old perception of conservatives and Republicans. I know a bunch of people who feel more or less the same. I remember as a child being under the impression that the Nazis and the Ayatollah were both liberals, since they shared the common goal of wanting to destroy America.

Of course, those of above-average IQ growing up in conservative circles will inevitably be exposed to liberal ideas articulated coherently by the time they go to college, if not much earlier. I mean standard U. I am reading that one now. Scott has made a ton of interesting posts.

I should go back and look at all of them, when I have time. I archive-binged before starting to post — my history is that I tried to participate in Less Wrong in the late 00s, left for non-political reasons absorbed all the philosophy I could comprehend , read a few things here over the years, then did my archive-binge this year.

Outgroup was the SSC article I read that made me a regular…hmmm…maybe people just never forget their first? Gingrich started this most recent wave of that. Your tribe is for the most part also sealed off from the possibility of being free to leave— like a country with a sealed border. A brilliant strategy for maintaining tribal membership and enforcing non-cooperation with the other tribe. But it just so happens that it destroys the society as a whole— a Moloch sort of thing.

Jill — The same thing Moldbug says every time, Pinky: It might even work if you figured out a way to make the exit rights stable and keep the costs of moving between politics from being prohibitive.

And who gets to decide who gets to be in this aristocracy and who has to be peasants? Probably this Moldbug himself? I read him as averse to chaos and ambiguity. I think the Landian apolitical, cryptographic, largely AI controlled government is much better than trying to resurrect a system of government that did not work anyway.

We kill the Batm- I mean, uh, we burn the existing parties down and start from scratch. Look, we red-tribers will even go first! Let us know when you feel like taking things more… seriously. Moldbug is representative of a philosophy that Scott has written a novel-length anti- FAQ about and not libertarianism — that should be determinative enough for you to find out about it in the archives.

In a very broad approximation, actual monarchism. As I recall, he proposed various approaches without necessarily advocating any in particular. Offer the job to the Prince of Liechtenstein as the last remaining ruling monarch in Europe. The one that I found most charming was to pick, almost at random, some small subset of people that as individuals are probably reasonably responsible, and let them elect the first monarch from outside their own ranks: That seems like a pretty big deal to me, even if I am located a long way away from Russia.

My point is not about my current personal take on them, they are obviously different. Its about my past perception of W, and more importantly, what I feel was the perception of all my peers, and how that compares to the perception of Trump now.

W was a punchline night after night over here, and then after Iraq he might as well have been Lucifer. Either a complete joke, or the most dangerous man alive. Sounds like Trump, no? Maybe I need to move where scott lives and start hanging out in the parts of the Internet he does, because the world he sees looks starkly different from the one I live in.

In my circles, the atheist movement remains, debates rage on, and Trump supporters are everywhere and nothing but vilified by liberals. This is the first Ive heard of Trump supporter sympathy from the left. Raymond, for example though I think ESR himself is some kind of neopagan. Perhaps fasdfasdfa hangs out with those guys, or with people like them. Must be an interesting place. Life is a vitality, a spontaneous exchange of encountering new things and reacting; life should always strive toward the elimination of repetition.

The passion of the SSC conservative to enumerate the atrocities that constitute the complete history of the SJW Reign of Terror cannot be tempered by the lack of evidence of said reign. Villam almost realizes that the Eich-atrocity has hit bottom in its power to evoke grief and sorrow after two years and four months of its overuse.

But now I see that Brendan Eich has been slotted for doom by those who have waved his lightly starched bloody shirt for so long. Like a libertarian robotically pretending to care about urban hair-weaving rights. Is that obviously unintended? And so long as they stay in the closet.

And are only the L or the G. Obviously marking us for death at the hands of the TrumpenReich. What other purpose could the icons be serving? If Republican Hate Kills, then anything they do clearly has to be some sort of hateful conspiracy to oppress the in-group. Trump himself, as a far as I know, has nothing against gay people, though he opposes gay marriage.

If government was uninvolved in officiating marriage and it was just an informal ceremonial thing, sanctioned by private organizations, with no legal rights conferred, I doubt this would be a political issue. Potentially very large tax benefits. I guess the right loves gays when they are hated by Islam, and throws them under the bus when they are hated by Christianity; while the left loves gays when they are hated by Christianity, and throws them under the bus when they are hated by Islam.

Scott mentioned here his previous post on how The Ideology Is Not the Movement, which mentioned this article about how religion is not about beliefs. Of particular interest is "Blue Book Special Report 14" , in which Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and Disposal, on film sent to Don Berliner from Wisconsin and a host of others, which are demonstrably fraudulent, and often lumped together, to claim all are hoaxed.

Robert Hastings' series: The first four Directors of Central Intelligence, the first Secretary of Defense, and several outstanding scientists and military leaders were allegedly part of the team. Here is what MJ12 proponents said recently: The fundamental story told by the MJ documents is this: All means were authorized to hide and discredit these phenomena.

If you do not believe such events are possible, then you will reject the MJ documents, and you will interpret other information through this same lens of denial.

Conversely, if you suspect such events may have happened, you would expect to see some leaked documents like MJ- 12 from whistleblowers. Stanton Friedman counters MJ12 critics: How did a hoaxer know? Twining's log had been in a classified box at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division for decades.

Go to Chapter 5. Roswell was a Mogul balloon. Limited releases were also made by the Brazilian government revealing a flotilla of unknown space objects that passed over their airspace and industrial facilities in southern Brazil in In addition, Belgium, Russia and the United Kingdom have also made recent limited releases of declassified official documents. A Mormon, seems to view certain aspects through his religion] Wonders in the Sky: In his UFO encyclopedia, J. Clark assembled the most comprehensive set of references on UFOs ever created, including an entry on abductions by T.

Bullard, and an examination of the radar-visual evidence in the RB47 case by Brad Sparks a case which may be the first instrumentally-documented demonstration of UFOs engaging in intelligent behavior. Expensive, but useful reference. I - Chronology of a Coverup, by Richard M. He had the opportunity to meet with scientists, pilots and people from all walks of life in Britain, who had been involved in UFO close-encounters and gain access to information.

Cramp accepted the Adamski contactee story, which is rejected by most UFO researchers. He nevertheless provides an interesting account of his conception of the use of gravity and anti-gravity effects in relation to the appearance, behavior and effects of UFOs. A Rational Approach to Gravity Control".

PDF , amazon Project Identification: A Scientific Theory of Ufos [bunk? Hendry personally investigated over UFO reports and wrote this book.

A new review of the physical evidence" by Peter A. Suggests the idea of "orthoteny" i. Search your favorite online bookstore Amazon etc for books by: Or better, visit Anomalia.

Might be interesting, but haven't read them yet: If you enjoyed this page, you are welcome to link to it from your Website or Blog, or add it to "social bookmarking" services so others can find it too.

During a family vacation, Mrs McRoberts saw "a cloud over a mountaintop, suggestive of a smoking volcano" and snapped a photo of it. She didn't notice the UFO at the time the photo was taken, it was captured by chance. More case details at ufobc , ufoevidence. Higher-resolution versions of the photo: PDF is published in the scientific report of the Sturrock Panel PDF , funded by billionaire Laurance Rockefeller.

Haines considered the possibility that it was just a small frisbee near the camera, and argued that a frisbee wouldn't fly well if it had a dome on its top -as the Vancouver object apparently has- nor would it show up sharp in the photo due to its quick movement.

Roestenberg, age 29 at the time, and her two sons over her home near Ranton, Staffordshire, England in Oct - sketch ref: Extract from BBC's "Out of this world" duration 6min:. Case file and photos: The latest rumours and stories from around the world of football.

Analysis and opinion from our chief football writer. How to get into football - the most popular sport in the world, with clubs and facilities throughout the UK.

The errors fans have found in Friends, The Simpsons and more. Gareth Southgate 'didn't particularly like' England performance against Panama. Hamilton increases title lead with Singapore win 16 Sep From the section Formula 1. Get Inspired Find ways to get active.

Thank you for booking tickets to Coronation Street The Tour