17 January 2020 #MAGAanalsis #Overturn
Will He Or Won't He, That Is The Question
We'll begin and end today's contemplations with J.E. Dyer
@OptimisticCon's recent work. If you haven't yet, please head over and read her fantastic analysis,
More from Pasquale "Pat" Scopelliti
19 December 2020 #MAGAanalysis #OVERTURN
The Signals Are Accelerating And Strengthening
I consider the tweet below the most important yet. We'll immediately discuss why below. After that there are two documents and an interview to work on. Clarity is arising, pointing the way.
2) I was about to laugh about the dispute warning, but then realized that this very act on Twitter's part is that grain of sand inside which you can see the entire world of what we face today. How dare they? How dare you Twitter? Who, WHAT do you think you are?
3) We have to consider the logic. Stave Navarro releases a report. It is published at Bannon's War Room. In these matters, tone is everything. It might have been published anywhere but the President, I mean Navarro, chose to publish with
4) That is a signal. Why Steve? Beyond the clear statement of unity - Steve is a full member of the strategic team working to save our nation - there is a far deeper, more important reason. Steve's main portfolio item is China. Choosing him speaks them as much as us. Maybe more.
5) Bullies are cowards. One of the greatest means of PREVENTING war is the bold, direct, aggressive communication of readiness. You want a piece of this? Come get it...expletives deleted. There's always the other hand. War may be coming.
The Signals Are Accelerating And Strengthening
I consider the tweet below the most important yet. We'll immediately discuss why below. After that there are two documents and an interview to work on. Clarity is arising, pointing the way.
Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud 'more than sufficient' to swing victory to Trump https://t.co/D8KrMHnFdK. A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 19, 2020
2) I was about to laugh about the dispute warning, but then realized that this very act on Twitter's part is that grain of sand inside which you can see the entire world of what we face today. How dare they? How dare you Twitter? Who, WHAT do you think you are?
3) We have to consider the logic. Stave Navarro releases a report. It is published at Bannon's War Room. In these matters, tone is everything. It might have been published anywhere but the President, I mean Navarro, chose to publish with
4) That is a signal. Why Steve? Beyond the clear statement of unity - Steve is a full member of the strategic team working to save our nation - there is a far deeper, more important reason. Steve's main portfolio item is China. Choosing him speaks them as much as us. Maybe more.
5) Bullies are cowards. One of the greatest means of PREVENTING war is the bold, direct, aggressive communication of readiness. You want a piece of this? Come get it...expletives deleted. There's always the other hand. War may be coming.
More from Politics
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x