@sunlit7 replied to my recent post Lovers of Truth and Lovers of Lies - My Response to a Gateway Pundit article. I appreciate the comment and I wrote a lengthy reply. It is a stream of consciousness of my own as I replied. It is lengthy and anytime I write something that lengthy I tend to turn it into a post. Why? As I think, and write I often will expand upon thoughts. I may speak of more things than were necessary. It is just a journey in my own mind. I share it as seeds for conversation, thought, and just because I want a historical record I or others can refer back to later. How did I think about things on January 1st, 2023?

Happy New Year by the way...

Anyway... here is the comment I replied to:

The Gateway Pundit, I was banned from there merely asking why people weren't allowed to speak if Ivana Trump ever had a vaccine. Well, okay, I was threatened once before to be banned after someone told me to f off after making a comment that wasn't in favor of Trump. He told me to f off and I came no where near telling him that in response but he reported me and my comment got removed with a warning that I wasn't complying with their community standards. Actually he said you f bitch but he spelled out the f word....and my response without any expletives got removed and I was warned I wasn't, not him, me, following their community standards. On the Ms. Trump article they put a warning up that her vaccination status was off limits, no one was going to be allowed to ask. It didn't say you couldn't asked why she was being treated differently than anybody else but just asking that was enough to get banned. But they'd been waiting to ban me because as anyone can see they lead the charge for Trump and they didn't want anyone like me challenging the narrative. I've experienced the same on blogs I've been on for over ten years, once I became an ex Trump supporter I got called every expletive in the book by the very same people who I had just spent ten years blogging with with very little problem. I haven't read Lovers of Truth and Lovers of Lies because frankly it wouldn't matter because they are all covering up something when you can't speak a truth, when you can't challenge the narrative. You've got both sides deeply entrenched in it. All of them trying to cover up something or another, whether it's the political qua or vaccines, you don't fall in line with the prescribed narrative your out of there after being told, and they all do it, that you aren't falling in line with the community guidelines. The community guidelines has nothing at all to do with good behavior, like not being offensive, leaving links, etc., it's all about everyone sounding like you got lost in a echo chamber of whatever narrative is being peddled. In the meanwhile, like you said, there's something very wrong going on and it's only getting worse. I just don't see how we, or the world is ever going to dig themselves out of this one, if people aren't deeply divided than they are to naïve to see the smoke for the fire.

Here is my reply:

What you say does happen. Yet I assure you it is not nearly happening as common for people like you that are against Trump as it has been in the opposite direction. You are not being banned from major sites, you are not being debanked, fired, etc.

It may happen but it is rare for people that are Anti-Trump.

With that said you'll find people like me on such sites defending your right to speak. If you say something I disagree with I'll counter that but I will attempt to do so without calling you names or an idiot.

You must realize that most people don't know how to do that. The go to reaction is to call people names. That doesn't make it right.

As to the Gateway Pundit. If what you said was truly as harmless as you claim and there wasn't name calling and such I am kind of surprised they did so.

However, keep in mind the comment section of the Gateway Pundit is actually Disqus. Disqus itself was anti-a lot of the narrative that Trump supporters would speak. It is why some sites had to find alternative comment sections to add to their website.

If you were banned from the comment section there though keep in mind that is Disqus.

If someone moderating that worked for Gateway Pundit pulled the trigger then that sucks. Yet they are human. I'd say that is rare. I see people posting in the comment section there frequently that are anti-Trump. They are of course countered and some of our fellow humans may say something like "go away Troll". In many of the cases if you look at the comment history of the person they say that to they indeed are trolling.

It is also possible you got caught in some backlash to that and generalized.

It happens everywhere humans are talking to each other. It is part of our education problem. We don't truly teach critical thinking anymore and without skills in that it makes it difficult for people who disagree to actually have a conversation.

The key is you have to want to have a conversation.

If all you are there for is to virtue signal and say "I am right, and you are wrong" then that isn't a foundation for a good conversation. If you on the other hand are "this is what I currently think, convince me that I should think differently" it is not starting a conversation from a position of absolutes.

What you experienced has happened overwhelmingly on platforms that are actually often important these days to Trump supporters, or people who just challenge any of the official narratives.

You are going to see some heavy reaction on sites that are one of the few places they can speak freely after they have essentially been persecuted.

Also while I think Trump is far from perfect and he made some mistakes. He also had some great successes. He also had those successes despite being under constant unprecedented media and propaganda attacks.

I voted for him in 2020 based upon his successes in the face of such an onslaught. That doesn't mean I agreed with him on everything. I did not. I do not. I saw him make some big mistakes. Yet overall I saw him do some great things. I saw how one of his big mistakes as far as I am concerned was one of the few times those attacking him applauded him.

When he ordered the missile attacks into Syria after the alleged Syrian gas attacks on its own people. He was urged to do so by Ivanka. I knew from research that the attacks were very much a false flag, it was also not Sarin based upon the cleanup, and it most likely was committed by the people known as the white helmets.

I was angry he ordered the missiles. I knew he'd been conned. If he wasn't conned then he was actually a bad guy.

A year later they tried the gas attack ploy again. This time he didn't fall for it. He learned from his mistakes in this case. That is all I can ask from anyone. None of us are perfect and we must not forget those leading are human too.

One big thing I keep in mind. I knew before 2016 that our media was so heavily controlled that pretty much they would decide who gets elected. At least that had been my observation over decades. I didn't vote for Trump. I sure as hell didn't vote for Hillary. She is very evil and corrupt and my deep dive all on my own into her gave me that conclusion. I told people it wasn't about her being a woman. I'd vote for a random woman off the street before I voted for Hillary.

(EDIT: Something I was thinking when I wrote the above but forgot to add to the comment. Trump was a case where the media lost control. They did not choose. They also clearly did not like that.)

I voted third party every where I had a chance in 2016. When I didn't have a chance I voted about 50/50 for Dem/Rep.

As of 2020 I have not and do not plan on casting a Dem vote. I've also voted pretty heavily Rep though I do know it is corrupt as well.

I know there are some good people in the Republican party and it has been evolving. The Democratic party on the other hand seems like a party of lunacy to me at the moment. In the Republican party there are still people who have been in power for a long time that vote in lock step with Democrats often.

Back in 2008 I voted for Obama. He proceeded to do the opposite on every issue he was going to do that convinced me to vote for him. EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.

In fact in many respects despite skin color, and party affiliation he really was continuing and extending George Bush agendas.

Then Obama Care (aka Affordable Healthcare Act - kind of like there is no inflation) came into play and it was basically taking a plan that was in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was Governor and was known as Romney Care and extended it.

Who was the main person that ran against in 2008 and in 2012? Mitt Romney... so called Republican.

Kind of showing the Uni-party thing well.

It didn't matter whom you voted for in 2008 as it seems like if we picked Obama we'd get the same thing as if we voted for Romney.

I was a delegate in 2008 and 2012 for Ron Paul. I voted for Obama in 2008 when Ron Paul was no longer in the race. I did it based upon what he said he was going to do. Not his skin color.

Skin color and gender do not determine leadership, character, etc.

We've been in a war in this country for a long time. It turns out the war is not just in this country.

The war is largely for control of minds.

If you are marching lock step with the legacy media believing what they tell you to believe, attacking those they tell you to attack, and doing everything they tell you to do you will be on one side of the war.

If you dare to think for yourself, do your research, ask questions, and outright challenge things you are told you cannot challenge you are on the other side.

Now keep in mind there is a uniparty. They'd love for people to blindly follow the GOP like they have been the Dems. The same people would still be pulling the strings.

They don't like Trump because while sometimes they managed to control him. Sometimes they do not.

I think Trump's biggest problems are Hubris (almost all politicians have it), and taking advice from the wrong people.

He had a great person at the beginning and the opposition took that person out of play quickly. Trump could have resisted but he went along with it and General Michael Flynn was no longer in the position where he could have done some great good.

Flynn had been on the inside for some time. He had seen a lot of the problems.

The legacy media has been very heavily propaganda mode since Trump was elected. In reality they have been a lot longer than that and they went pretty heavily as of 2012 due to some restrictions on using propaganda against the U.S. citizens being lifted as part of that years NDAA. The last restrictions would be removed by Obama in December 2016 by Executive Order during his last month in office.

Since that time. Sources can remain anonymous. In reality they don't even need to exist. They can make things up and claim they exist.

They can make huge allegations which during investigation turn out to be false and there is hardly a whimper to change the minds of all the people they have convinced that the lies were true.

We have a lot of people still operating on some very big lies as though they were true.

Then we also have some very big lies controlling people all over the planet not just in the U.S.

If you can't challenge something without being banned, debanked, fired, etc. then you need to at least ask why?

Sure some things you should get fired for asking about in your Job...

Yet people are getting fired from jobs, and debanked for things they say outside of work that don't actually have anything to do with their work.

That shouldn't happen. To anyone.

Though it has happened a lot to anyone challenging the narrative pushed by the global establishment.

They tell us to "Trust the Science" which is NOT a scientific thing to say.

They tell us about "the consensus" which is NOT a scientific thing to say.

They call us "Deniers" which is NOT a scientific thing to say.

These things are all very much like religion though. They are dogma. This is why some people have begun to call it Scientism.

It is a secular religion acting as though it is science. It is not. If it is not following the scientific method then it is not science.

Asking questions and challenging things is a nonstop, never ending part of the scientific method. Asking questions is not viewed as bad.

If the questions are answered then the models improve.

The Scientific Method is a tool. It is not a RESULT.

It is a lot like a hammer to help us learn things and keep our bias in check.

So..

"Trust the Hammer"

"The Consensus in Hammers"

"You deny the hammer?"

:P

I am going to turn this response into a post after this. I tend to do that anytime I write this much.

Thanks for replying.