Trump account airs Reich video (split from Political Humor)

[TheVat]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-election-2024-rhetoric-germany-antisemitism-31002afb91b642c0314223d19e51f427

Trumps social media account shares a campaign video with a headline about a unified Reich   

This was not a campaign video, it was created by a random account online and reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the President was in court, Karoline Leavitt, the campaign press secretary, said in a statement.   

In related news, an urgent call goes out for optometrists to aid Trump staffers with sudden severe vision impairments.

[iNow]

And yet he’s polling head to head and out fund raising Biden 

The reich alignment seems to be more feature than bug

[TheVat]

Yeah, maybe I was leaning too hard on the humor aspect (why I originally posted in the political humor thread), owing to the risible notion that a staffer did not see a headline . Missing a bit of fine print I could believe, but a headline?  Really?  As your comment suggests, @iNow, the Trumpists maintain powerful filters that seem to screen out the implications of these kinds of slips.  

I've been reading a book (Cultish, by Amanda Montell) about how cults use language to recruit and keep members and it touches on how cult leaders use linguisic techniques like loaded language, Us v Them category terms, and thought-terminating cliches (aka semantic stop signs).  She explores a vast range, from Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate, to SoulCycle (hahah), to Trumpism and Q Anon.  Anyway, one aspect  mentioned are "quiet rules" which shut off normal lines of communication between members so that doubts about the great leader aren't disseminated among them, and doubts that arrive from outside contacts are also snuffed out.  And Trumpists, many of them, seem to be operating under such quiet rules, so when Team Trump lets some of their true nature peep out, any real discussion of such a slip is suppressed.  My wife, for example, could mention some of Trump's expressions of would-be fascism to some of the Trumpists in her church, but it would not penetrate, and if she did elicit doubt in one person, the Quiet Rule would kick in.  The cult structure would not allow that person to share that doubt, so they would just shrug and say to my wife, "well, God sometimes uses a damaged vessel to carry His light..." or some such nonsense.  And then never speak of it again.

 

Edited May 21 by TheVat
add

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, TheVat said:

"well, God sometimes uses a damaged vessel to carry His light..." or some such nonsense

Almost paradoxically, exposure to abrahamic religious thinking often primes and predisposes the mind to accept such blatantly problematic, anbsurd, non viable assertions as valid. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

out fund raising Biden 

Net or gross?

Source?

[geordief]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Almost paradoxically, exposure to abrahamic religious thinking often primes and predisposes the mind to accept such blatantly problematic, anbsurd, non viable assertions as valid. 

The sunk cost fallacy?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The sunk cost fallacy?

I think what iNow is referring to is how the abrahamic religions often support multiple things that are contradictory, allowing the leaders an answer, no matter how absurd, to any question a follower might have. If they get you to believe one bizarre thing, you're much more likely to believe the next thing they tell you.

Sunk cost is definitely part of the larger question of how we lessen the grip of religion in our society, as well as the grip of politics, imo. They aren't what will save us, they're part of this obsession with populism that's killing us. 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Almost paradoxically, exposure to abrahamic religious thinking often primes and predisposes the mind to accept such blatantly problematic, anbsurd, non viable assertions as valid. 

I think this type of lazy thinking is far more prevalent than you give it credit for, and not necessarily linked to religion (even if it might condition one to do so). In many cases, it seems like a protective mechanism to: avoid complicated feelings or the work needed to work through them and to protect and validate deeply held beliefs. I will remind you of (ex)members on this forum who were able to work to complicated questions even vaguely in their area of expertise but went off the handle once it came to issues they deeply disagreed with. Consistency seems to be more the exception (and requires more work) than the norm.

I think that prior to the age of oversharing we secretly held the assumption that the folks we surround ourselves with are at least vaguely in line with what we are thinking (hence the old wisdom of no politics or religion at the dinner table).

[iNow]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Net or gross?

Source?

Biden still has higher holdings in the war-chest overall, but (as per the latest released numbers) in April Trump pulled in more (gross) for the first time (mostly due to a Palm Beach event). 
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-campaign-raises-51-million-april-down-march-2024-05-21/

Quote

President Joe Biden's 2024 campaign's fundraising in April lagged rival Donald Trump's for the first time, after the former president ramped up his joint operation with the Republican National Committee and headlined high-dollar fundraisers.

The Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee raised more than $51 million in April, the campaign said, lower than the $90 million they raised in March and less than $76 million Donald Trump and the Republican Party reported taking in for the month.

 

[TheVat]

Doesn't some of the funding comparison hinge on how Trump's team can craft legal fees as campaign expenses?  Sounds like they are reporting legal expenses to the FEC, so if I'm following this, they've got this loophole and are okay so long as big donors don't sue them or pull out and take others with them.  

And Biden is a Boy Scout, by comparison, so all his war chest can go to actual campaign costs.  

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Biden still has higher holdings in the war-chest overall, but (as per the latest released numbers) in April Trump pulled in more (gross) for the first time (mostly due to a Palm Beach event). 
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-campaign-raises-51-million-april-down-march-2024-05-21/

 

Some/most of which will go to pay his lawyers

[MSC]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

And yet he’s polling head to head and out fund raising Biden 

The reich alignment seems to be more feature than bug

How many people are actually going to hear about this? Didn't come up in my newsfeed and I'm pretty anti-trump. Kind of freaks me tf out. 

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

think this type of lazy thinking is far more prevalent than you give it credit for, and not necessarily linked to religion (even if it might condition one to do so).

Agreed, I relate it more to dogmatism and sociogenic factors (ain't peer pressure the worst?) more than anything else. 

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yeah, maybe I was leaning too hard on the humor aspect (why I originally posted in the political humor thread), owing to the risible notion that a staffer did not see a headline . Missing a bit of fine print I could believe, but a headline?  Really?  As your comment suggests, @iNow, the Trumpists maintain powerful filters that seem to screen out the implications of these kinds of slips.  

I've been reading a book (Cultish, by Amanda Montell) about how cults use language to recruit and keep members and it touches on how cult leaders use linguisic techniques like loaded language, Us v Them category terms, and thought-terminating cliches (aka semantic stop signs).  She explores a vast range, from Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate, to SoulCycle (hahah), to Trumpism and Q Anon.  Anyway, one aspect  mentioned are "quiet rules" which shut off normal lines of communication between members so that doubts about the great leader aren't disseminated among them, and doubts that arrive from outside contacts are also snuffed out.  And Trumpists, many of them, seem to be operating under such quiet rules, so when Team Trump lets some of their true nature peep out, any real discussion of such a slip is suppressed.  My wife, for example, could mention some of Trump's expressions of would-be fascism to some of the Trumpists in her church, but it would not penetrate, and if she did elicit doubt in one person, the Quiet Rule would kick in.  The cult structure would not allow that person to share that doubt, so they would just shrug and say to my wife, "well, God sometimes uses a damaged vessel to carry His light..." or some such nonsense.  And then never speak of it again.

 

Will have to give this book a read myself. It sounds like it scratches the surface of the creative uses of language that tend to go hand in hand with cults. Language creation is probably the biggest part. Creating thick concepts through demonisation especially. At this point, me and you can say "liberal" in the personal context to each other, with an agreed upon definition in language that a liberal is someone who supports liberal public policy and philosophies. In Trump speak it is no different in definition to "evil asshole" and is as thick of a concept as the word "slut". 

In terms of cult studies, the cult of personality around Donald Trump is far more public than standard cults who tend to try to hide their worst behaviours from the public eye. Normally by the time people realise there is a serious cult in their midst or nearby, the members of that cult are highly indoctrinated and are essentially speaking their own language. I wouldn't call it their own dialect because we are talking layers upon layers of redefining terms and definitions laced into a constantly evolving narrative of victimhood and imminent danger. Trump supporters may sound like they are speaking English, but it isn't, it's Trump speak. The way we define and conceptualize corruption isn't the same as the way Trump defines and conceptualizes it. 

The fall into a cult is quiet and subtle. Sure the charismatic leader is always loud and bombastic but there is a gradual escalation in the rhetoric that takes advantage of a fear and anger cycle so that in the followers mind there is a slow snowball effect of thinking about the fears in the leaders terms, what to do about them and the anger the leader brings out in them because the enemy/outside/fear agitator is always personally attacking every individual follower of the leader.

The thing is, from a certain perspective the process isn't very different from how social movements in general work. The differences being whether or not a single person is at the center or an idea/cause is leading a group, the second difference is that beneficial social movements are reactions to true reality but cult movements are reactions to a false/warped reality brought on by how they newly adapt their use and conceptualization of language over time within the rhetorical indoctrination process. That isn't an exhaustive list of differences but the most relevant two in my mind. 

I suspect the quiet rule when it comes to Trumps cultlike following has a method of action similar to how people react when people who speak a language you don't know are speaking around you or to you. 

Sorry went on a bit of a tangent. I do feel it is important though for people to internalise that Trump supporters should be thought of as speaking another language just for practical reasons if you happen to need to talk to any of them (friends, family etc)

And definitely show them the Reich thing! That needs to be made known everywhere. They said the quiet part out loud this time. Brazen mfs. 

 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Doesn't some of the funding comparison hinge on how Trump's team can craft legal fees as campaign expenses?  Sounds like they are reporting legal expenses to the FEC, so if I'm following this, they've got this loophole and are okay so long as big donors don't sue them or pull out and take others with them.  

And they won't sue him most likely. People know what they are donating to Trump for at this point but they see it as trying to save Jesus from crucifixion. A big ugly orange and blond Jesus. That poor Crucifex.. 

I have a prediction, If Trump is convicted, he'll give some "cut the tall trees" style public remarks and we'll see a rapid escalation in co-ordinated violent crime across the USA. 😕 hope I'm wrong.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Almost paradoxically, exposure to abrahamic religious thinking often primes and predisposes the mind to accept such blatantly problematic, anbsurd, non viable assertions as valid. 

Do you have a source for this or is it just something you feel you believe for some reason?

[iNow]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

like a protective mechanism to: avoid complicated feelings or the work needed to work through them and to protect and validate deeply held beliefs.

Entirely fair point

6 hours ago, MSC said:

How many people are actually going to hear about this?

Probably doesn’t matter since facts can be alternative.

6 hours ago, MSC said:

If Trump is convicted, he'll give some "cut the tall trees" style public remarks and we'll see a rapid escalation in co-ordinated violent crime across the USA.

The speaker of the house himself was outside the NYC courtroom (cosplaying as DJT, no less) suggesting that the US Justice system is rigged and cannot be trusted. Trump got a gag order from the judge telling him to stop attacking witnesses, so elected GOP officials are doing it for him. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you have a source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30706498/

https://www.psypost.org/faith-and-conspiracy-study-shows-religiosity-is-related-to-belief-in-covid-19-conspiracies/

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-drives-belief-in-conspiracy-theories-a-lack-of-religion-or-too-much

There are scores of others and far better ones available, though TBH I considered my point to be largely self-evident when making it. Hopefully this satisfies you and we can move back into the meat of the topic in this thread.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30706498/

https://www.psypost.org/faith-and-conspiracy-study-shows-religiosity-is-related-to-belief-in-covid-19-conspiracies/

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-drives-belief-in-conspiracy-theories-a-lack-of-religion-or-too-much

There are scores of others and far better ones available, though TBH I considered my point to be largely self-evident when making it. Hopefully this satisfies you and we can move back into the meat of the topic in this thread.

 

 

I can understand a level of frustration with American white evangelical twisted group think, but maybe if I was clever enough to connect it to exposure to Abrahamic Religions generally, I might think it must be self evident as well.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can understand a level of frustration with American white evangelical twisted group think, but maybe if I was clever enough to connect it to exposure to Abrahamic Religions generally, I might think it must be self evident as well.

At least part of the problem is the inherent disconnect between the three religions that supposedly share the same progenitor. The religions of Abraham are distinctly at odds with each other, and they even demand their own holy books, which automatically creates discord and ill-feelings. They're distinct enough that when they each preach about monotheism, it's like they mean three different gods, which means only one can be true in the minds of believers.

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34340/chapter-abstract/334356122?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

Exposure to the Abrahamic religions has stifled many other areas besides science. None of them are stellar examples of morality and ethical treatment, and the teachings they pretend to follow just point out the hypocrisy of the three church's stances. Women in particular are treated as cattle in the Bible and Koran, and continued exposure has created the horrible patriarchal systems that still makes life miserable for so many. 

Quite frankly, many of us are sick of the violence the churches pretend they don't have a hand in. Many people claim to have closely held spiritual beliefs, but they organize under banners so soaked in the blood of innocents that it seems like flat out hypocrisy. Modern churches give lip service to the tenets they supposedly hold dear, all the while funding terrorism, human trafficking, slavery and worse. Most of the problems we have today can be traced back to a rigid adherence to some part of either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. You might claim it's only the extremists, but these are the people the religious have chosen to lead them. Netanyahu, Raisi, Orban, all are extremists who hold (or held) the fates of their followers in their righteous, blood-soaked hands. 

I think the current US Republican party has continued to weaponize religion, and I think people who object to their closely held beliefs being labeled generational abuse need to seriously ask themselves if they get enough spiritually from their Abrahamic religion to offset all the torture, rape, murder, broken lives, and broken minds those religions also foster. You may not be the problem, but you're supporting the problem, so you're the problem.

[MigL]

On 5/22/2024 at 7:27 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can understand a level of frustration with American white evangelical twisted group think, but maybe if I was clever enough to connect it to exposure to Abrahamic Religions generally, I might think it must be self evident as well.

Yeah.
The term 'Abrahamic' doesn't really cover Scientology and Tom Cruise.

Maybe INow should have said "exposure to American Religious thinking"
If D Trump gets back in, America won't become 'great again', it will be a 'sh*t-hole country' whose cult leader is blindly/religiously  followed by a 'basket of deplorables'.

[iNow]

That works. I was mostly trying to be cognizant that not all religions are the same. I was trying to account for Buddhism etc. and focus more on those which suggest women were made from a man’s rib and silly stuff like that. 

[TheVat]

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

think the current US Republican party has continued to weaponize religion, and I think people who object to their closely held beliefs being labeled generational abuse need to seriously ask themselves if they get enough spiritually from their Abrahamic religion to offset all the torture, rape, murder, broken lives, and broken minds those religions also foster. You may not be the problem, but you're supporting the problem, so you're the problem.

I know people from rather disparate spots on the belief spectrum who use religion to propel them towards positive social work and activism - Catholics, Unitarians, Jews.  While I agree leaders have weaponized religion, or used it to manipulate, there are a fair number who use it as a fulcrum for helping others, pushing for a more compassionate and nurturing society, ending nukes, etc.  These people deserve credit for moving their brand of faith past the torture/rape/murder history.  Or, in a sense, moving it back to what sages like Jesus actually taught, i.e. the former spiritual core.  The human craving for a spiritual life isn't going to go away, so maybe reforming religions makes more practical sense than just abandoning them.  

 

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I know people from rather disparate spots on the belief spectrum who use religion to propel them towards positive social work and activism - Catholics, Unitarians, Jews.  While I agree leaders have weaponized religion, or used it to manipulate, there are a fair number who use it as a fulcrum for helping others, pushing for a more compassionate and nurturing society, ending nukes, etc.  These people deserve credit for moving their brand of faith past the torture/rape/murder history.  Or, in a sense, moving it back to what sages like Jesus actually taught, i.e. the former spiritual core.  The human craving for a spiritual life isn't going to go away, so maybe reforming religions makes more practical sense than just abandoning them.  

Yes, and we all know men who wouldn't assault a vulnerable woman, and we all know politicians we believe tell the truth, and we all know conservatives who aren't racists, but how do we protect ourselves from the others? By assuming they're all the same until they show us otherwise. 

I've heard enough stories about god-fearing, righteous people who did unspeakable things to their children in the name of their god to know that nobody who claims to be religious can be trusted. I've heard many religious people claim to be looking forward to when the bombs fall and the righteous are called to heaven, and quite frankly I wish they'd leave now, and let those of us who care about this life live it in peace, away from all those toxic judgements from those who truly believe God thinks humans are pieces of shit that deserve eternal torture.

I don't deny spirituality. Wish it didn't have to reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks, though.

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Yes, and we all know men who wouldn't assault a vulnerable woman, and we all know politicians we believe tell the truth, and we all know conservatives who aren't racists, but how do we protect ourselves from the others? By assuming they're all the same until they show us otherwise. 

I've heard enough stories about god-fearing, righteous people who did unspeakable things to their children in the name of their god to know that nobody who claims to be religious can be trusted. I've heard many religious people claim to be looking forward to when the bombs fall and the righteous are called to heaven, and quite frankly I wish they'd leave now, and let those of us who care about this life live it in peace, away from all those toxic judgements from those who truly believe God thinks humans are pieces of shit that deserve eternal torture.

That's kinda machiavellian.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I don't deny spirituality. Wish it didn't have to reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks, though.

But that is the point, why would it?

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's kinda machiavellian.

My stance, the stance of those I'm talking about, or something else?

Never mind, I don't care what it's kinda like. It's what I said, what I meant, and you should feel free to be clearer in your responses.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But that is the point, why would it?

You think that's the point? That your concept of religion/spirituality should only lead to outcomes you approve of? 

You're asking why would the Abrahamic religions reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks? But you don't ask WHY ARE THEY doing it, like you're wearing blinders and can't see it happening all over the world?

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I don't deny spirituality. Wish it didn't have to reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks, though.

Is it the spirituality, or the people who corrupt it to their own ends that reduce other humans to garbage ?

( or is that the 'guns vs. people who use them' argument )

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Is it the spirituality, or the people who corrupt it to their own ends that reduce other humans to garbage ?

The books that teach the spirituality say basically the same things, that you're flawed and deserve eternal torture and misery unless you believe the way they tell you. It doesn't need much corruption from there, does it?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The books that teach the spirituality say basically the same things, that you're flawed and deserve eternal torture and misery unless you believe the way they tell you. It doesn't need much corruption from there, does it?

Well...you're not getting into Heaven with that attitude! 

(just kidding...that's well outside of any belief of mine)