Shamed Partisan FBI Director Testifies on Russia Probe 2
By John Corry
Photo from plamerreport.com
June 8th, 2017, 08:13 pm Eastern
Ultimate liar, conspiracy theorist and all around terrible person, former FBI director James Comey testified on the Trump-Russia question early on Thursday. Before we all get our nice, partisan panties all up in a bunch, start screaming and shouting at each other like having a period is God’s way of saying all women deserve to be ceremoniously Burnt in Hell, about two seconds before you or I even saw or wrote the title of this article, let’s just take a second to breathe /> and take a moment to talk about postmodernism =D.
Stemming most closely from the ashes of the French Lazy-Asses of the 1970s, postmodernism is fairly categorized as the philosophy behind much of the partisan rhetoric of the extreme left (see: any of the recent controversies regarding colleges and the events increasingly abundant at college campuses). One of its fundamentals is that everything in life and the universe is Relative: there is no such thing as truth because that truth could change in the future, be it as the result of new information, repetitiveness of rhetoric, or the fact that the victor writes the history.
I bring this up as a backdrop to what is the most interesting and important thing to take away from this whole Comey/Trump/#RussiansTurnEveryoneIntoAlcoholics thing as of right now: that conspiracy (or: the relatively modern idea of a political/governmental conspiracy (‘we have a family audience.’ –Alex Jones)), the plight of authoritarianism and the application of partisan politics both in public and in private all go hand in hand.
Irrefutable fact (or: my opinion (so: irrefutable fact ;)): You can claim conspiracy in regards to the situation regarding Comey, Flynn, Trump, or whoever the Hell else you choose (o.O … #PussyGrabbers(Hillary) ), and you may very well be right (so by all means, talk about it, think about it (different from: passionately argue)), but it is ontologically impossible to argue against someone else for using what she understands as a ‘fact’, in much the same way that you understand a conspiracy as a ‘possibility’, (in the case of the Comey testimony: the allegation that, according to Comey, the FBI, and the rest of the intelligence community, “Russia was directly invested in meddling in the American 2016 election (paraphrased)") without being the same postmodernist scum who thinks that the government has the right to control what you think because it may disagree with you or your way of life, or see you as a threat. This is because you're grouping this person and her/his understanding by her/his Understanding, and the arguably biggest side effect of postmodernism is that it groups all people into classes, races, identities, etc., all coming under the same ringleader: Understanding #UnderstandTheUnderstanding #Where'sWaldo #TheReal-LifeThoughtPolice .
#AbsolutelyIrrefutableFact (like, actually irrefutable this time): The only difference between you (the blind and/or creative conspiracy theorist) and the postmodernist is that the postmodernists are using one’s relatively unproven (or: impossible to categorize/use as concrete, easily proven evidence) feelings on certain topics as reasons for relatively extreme understanding, rhetoric or reflection, and you, again as the conspiracy theorist, are using relatively unproven facts this time (in the sense that you don't know if your conspiracy theory is really true or not), on a certain situation or regarding a certain point, as reasons for relatively extreme understanding, rhetoric, action or reflection. Both ideas are based on anti-knowledge/a large swing toward feeling over knowledge (so: mainstream media? #AnythingWhichValuesPartisanshipOrCensorshipOverKnowledgeOrUnderstanding
As far the understanding that all humans are in this together, unless I'm a politician, or a lawyer, or someone who knows more about the Comey situation than most #NotManyOfUs , it’s not my job to figure what’s right or wrong about it, what may be a conspiracy or truth (though that certainly does go into the thinking process); my job is to understand the facts as best I can, and look for the places where my sources are potentially being partisan (because where I’m getting my information from is a big way that my Understanding becomes skewed) (this is also very anti-postmodernist; the postmodernist would say: Don’t question the situation at all, it’s only a result of political and economic circumstances, partisanship is inevitable and to question your sources is only to align yourself more ignorantly within the ruling class) (also: this is one of them :p).
Partisan politics and the use of conspiracy for dictatorial ends (this is not to be a troll here, but see how Hitler used Jewish conspiracies to gain power in the early 1930s) are close in epistemological meaning because they both end at a place where the Individual cannot make relatively focused sense of her environment; either for reasons of fear, doubt or Will the Power #ShoutOutToMyNAZIBuddy,FriedrichNietzsche#ThinkALittleDeeper,Philosophers ; they are natural and inevitable results of a civilization run on Western values, and need to be questioned without overly passionate rhetoric (either for feelings or for facts) or else end up as Individual thoughts allowed to evolve into Jung’s Collective Unconscious without that fundamentally needed Individual base to provide its original/numerical understanding (one is less than ten, but you still need one to get ten).
In fact (irrefutable? (these are literally what was said in Comey’s testimony; so: Yes, irrefutable)), among the many things said in Comey’s testimony which can be analyzed and pined over in such as a way as to better understand the way the Individual coincides with Society (Jung), the matter of Comey’s actions in October (ironically the original reason the Trump administration gave for firing Comey before Trump had an apparent brainfart and said that it was actually because of the Russia thing #Dumbass ), just days before what was probably the most partisan and politically charged election in recent American history, then serving FBI director James Comey publicly told the American people that ‘the investigation into Hilary Clinton’s emails have developed some hiccups (I’m paraphrasing (FACTUALLY)), and while I can’t tell you exactly what these hiccups are, I think you should know they exist.’
Comey got a lot of shit for that when he did it, for good reason (lack of information), and by a great multitude of people on both sides of the political aisle (myself included), but the explanation that he gave in his testimony yesterday seems to coincide with some decent reasoning: that he simply had to make sure he wasn’t ‘playing partisan politics’. This seemed to me to be the most obvious thing to take away from the testimony as a whole, though my judge of character has been known to occasionally shift in accuracy #OnlyOccasionally : that if any foreign government (or: ridiculous/quasi-fascist ideology hell-bent on world domination (thought domination)) were going to have any chance at bringing down democracy, they would need to turn on each other, and to do it on the basis that thought is more important than feeling, or vice versa (they’re equal, idiots, that’s why finding the balance between the two is so difficult #PryingOpenMyThirdEye ).
Shouting postmodern conspiracy rhetoric is embodied ignorance masked by ego-driven overstimulation. If you don’t know the facts, speaking as though you do is dishonest, and if the people you’re talking with don’t know the facts, or their ‘facts’ are ‘different’ than yours (it is not my intention to justify this, by the way) (also: feelings), it is not your job to convince them (that’s futile), but to attempt to understand why they may be coming from the place from which they are coming from, and to then hopefully plant a seed. This is how the constitution was written, it’s called dialectic (Merriam-Webster definition of dialectic: discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation), and without it, democracy cannot work (see: Plato).
“I was worried that the president would lie about the content of the conversation (paraphrased).” “(Regarding taking notes on his meetings and conversations with President Trump) Something big is about to happen and I need to remember every word that was spoken.” “‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go’ (Comey’s sworn quote of Trump’s regarding Flynn)”.
Maybe Comey is acting and playing a part (again, he very well might be) and is just trying to get the divine Donald Trump, moral fighter for all our freedoms and irrefutable master of all that is good and decent in the universe, to get kicked out of office so that the inter-dimensional child molesters can swoop in and enslave all of us to lives of billboards and pissed-on hookers, but we can’t let that get us to willingly ignore what it may mean that the former director of the FBI, who was fired in what is uniformly understood as, at the very least, a shady way, is potentially having some fears that America is getting into some deep shit regarding governmental power in relation to his interactions and understandings of, and with, the current president of the United States. If you think about it, this ignorance is the first step to authoritarianism, in that is necessarily forcing you to recognize the truth is relative, and therefore only handled by the state. This, if you can look at it that way, and with a clear mind. (“The mark of an educated man is to demand no more exactitude than the topic at hand admits” –Peter Reidy paraphrasing Book 1, chapter 3 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1094b19ff-1094b24).
Besides, if anything, it’s fucking hilarious. The Apprentice has officially reached ‘mind-blowing’ levels =O.