Scientology may be a little "weird," but then again, so is the rest of the world

 

This country is full of “deviant” people and organizations, regardless of their position in society. Take for instance, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who seems to represent a district full of deviants who vote for the most deviant candidate of a deviant political party.  This guy and his MAGA Freedom Caucus colleagues make former Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt look like Mr. Rogers; the other day he expectorated in a newsletter about his version of the January 6 riot:

After the riot was in full swing, the Chief’s request for National Guard was finally approved. But even after approval was given, General Milley, the homosexual-promoting-BLM-activist Chairman of the military joint chiefs, delayed. Of course, we now know that the deviant Milley was coordinating with Nancy Pelosi to hurt President Trump, and treasonously working behind Trump’s back. In a better society, quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung.

But at least this deviant hasn’t (yet) beaten someone with a cane on the House floor…

 

…like this “frail” 76-year-old Maryland woman did to death on her house floor to her 72-year-old husband:

 

And then there is so-called "journalist" Ava Santina, whose "function" appears to be to make Piers Morgan seem "rational." On one of his recent discussions, she asserted that men deserve to be "terrified" by someone like the  "hammer woman," Eleanor Williams, a racist who accused two Indian men of kidnapping her and holding her hostage in a house where she was gang raped and beaten about the head with a hammer. 

Williams eventually admitted her claims were all lies, admitting that she hit herself with a hammer video cameras showed her purchasing the day of the alleged incident. Santina also made light of the imprisoned Indian men's consideration of suicide over the false accusations.  Yet Dan Wootton was now only being "fired" after  he didn't "disagree" with a guest on his show who joked about anyone marrying a misandrist like Santina? My question is why is it "OK" for women to make sick statements advocating domestic violence against men and not receive some kind of repercussion?

So where to find peace and tranquility on a hostile planet? Not many land options left unless you want to burn or freeze to death.

Now, one organization regarded as "deviating" from the norm is the “church” of Scientology, which has gotten a lot more bad press than usual, particularly as it relates to the Danny Masterson rape trial. Before it was regarded in the media and its detractors as a “cult,” which many people bring up whenever negative stories are attached to its better known members in Hollywood.

Scientology is believed to involve pseudo-scientific mysticism with followers spouting the “wisdom” of some guru-like “master” as words to live by; to be honest, that is mostly true. It probably isn’t surprising that a lot of actors names are attached to Scientology, since the first “church” was founded in Los Angeles 70 years ago, and thus is well established there and has had plenty of time to spread its tentacles out to those looking for “meaning” in their lives otherwise largely defined by their images on-screen.

The founder of the Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, was not an unfamiliar name when I was growing up, mostly in relation to his book Dianetics, with that erupting volcano on the cover in a mid-70s edition:

 

Society in the  Seventies were a lot more “experimental” than most people give it credit for, especially with sexual expression on film, which would likely get filmmakers (at least in this country) arrested in today’s arrested development times. People were actually curious about things outside their experience…

 

…although it would only be to people today “nonsense” or boring diversions from their text-messaging and self-serving complaints.

Now, according to Wiki’s biographical page, Hubbard had an “interesting” life to say the least; his served in the navy and briefly captained two naval vessels before being hospitalized for what where apparently mental-health related issues.  He was also was a prolific writer of fiction in a variety of genres; he obviously had a certain amount of imagination and "intellect" that some people regarded as off in left field somewhere. One suspects that he saw life as a free-for-all, and he needed to “justify” it psychologically, and Dianetics was apparently written for that purpose.

I have to admit that just a mere “perusal” of the Scientology website is an exhaustive exercise, with a lot of pseudo-science and self-improvement mumbo-jumbo. You'll find a lot of simplistic pronouncements that don't seem offensive on their face, but then again we live in a society where we just walk past people with problems on city streets as mere annoyances who we don't have the time or inclination to help. To be honest, to be a "true" Scientologist requires the kind of mental "discipline" that most people don't have.

But why would Scientology appeal to anyone? It claims to be non-judgmental as long as you remain a member. You can believe in any religion or God you want, because in the end the only real “deity” you need to answer to is yourself. Scientology claims it gives you the “tools” to be all you can be, as long as you follow its rules.

However, if you choose to be an apostate and leave the “church,” you are to be ostracized and condemned. Most people who leave do so on bad terms, not trusting that their “problems” will be dealt with satisfactorily internally; of course as we have learned, “problems” that were supposedly “handled” even decades ago can be taken “outside” to be adjudicated. In the Masterson case, his guilt is less the issue but the fact that his accusers didn’t like seeing him living his life as if nothing had happened, which had suited a "cult" that wanted to avoid bad press.

You will find plenty of people on YouTube attacking Scientology as a dangerous “cult,” and now we learn that so-called comedian Leah Remini, whose mother joined Scientology when she was 8 and she remained a member for over three decades, is now suing it and its current leader for, basically, making her what she is today—meaning mostly unemployable. 

Remini apparently has a bad relationship with her family, accusing her father of being, well, anything bad she can think of, ignored her sister who died of cancer and didn’t bother going to her memorial service, apparently oversaw a toxic work environment with personal assistants likening it to a “nightmare” world of “psychologically damaging” fault-finding, temper tantrums and various demeaning four-letter invective.  

Needing someone or something to blame for her behavior, Remini claims in her lawsuit that “For 17 years, Scientology and David Miscavige have subjected me to what I believe to be psychological torture, defamation, surveillance, harassment, and intimidation, significantly impacting my life and career. I believe I am not the first person targeted by Scientology and its operations, but I intend to be the last.”

However, I suspect that what they were “targeting” was a person going off the rails and giving Scientology a “bad name” as if it wasn’t bad enough. The Scientology “newsroom” issued a “statement,”  accusing Remini of being solely to blame if she “can no longer get a job…Obviously everybody in Hollywood now knows what we already knew: That Remini is a horrible person and toxic to so many who have the misfortune to come in contact with her.”

What this means, I suppose, is that not "everyone" in what members call a "church" believes  they are  nutcases like Remini, and the “witnesses” like her against Scientology are not all “reliable” ones and may have bigger problems than just their association with the supposed “cult.” 

I suppose that members of the “cult” find it more intellectually “stimulating” than most “religions.” Remini dropped out of high school at 14 to become a “star”; maybe she thought of herself as a “deity” unto herself soon, and somehow I doubt her intellectual capacity and maturity had reached a point where she was capable of following the creed…

 

…with a certain level of wisdom and discretion; by the way,reading this sounds like libertarianism on steroids if you ignore the “golden rule” vibe. My impression is that Remini is a person who cannot control her impulses (maybe due to those "engrams"), and blaming Scientology is just too easy. 

That of course brings up the question if Scientology really is to blame for the moral failures of people like Masterson; I mean not all members of the “church” have been accused of rape. My impression of accusations concerning Tom Cruise and his relationships that went south were simply because of his insistence that the family follow a way of life they thought was too "controlling" of their behavior and beliefs.

I’m not “defending” Scientology; for all its talk of “personal freedom,” there are certainly limits to it that it tolerates from its members. I suppose its “teachings” can lead to “self-improvement” if you believe in it hard enough,  and those on the “outside” who have opinions about what they hear about it just don't "get it."Not that I "get it," but I have a hard time believing that this would be a "better" world without it.

I only know Dianetics (the "bible" of Scientology) from its cover, but a writer for Salon, Laura Miller, decided in 2007 to find out what was actually in this book. Miller found that Hubbard pontificates in “spectacularly dull” fashion that he has all the “answers” utilizing his revolutionary “modern science of mental health” which she says reads more like Hubbard’s own personal struggle with mental health issues, which a perusal of his biography may suggest. 

Miller observes that Hubbard displayed a fixation, sprinkled throughout the book, with domestic violence as “examples” of how “evil engrams” invade even a fetus’ being and taking control of it, but he has discovered the way to overcome that. Hubbard seems obsessed with his own childhood without saying so explicitly; Miller notes that if you splice the stories together that appear randomly throughout the book, the story goes something like this:

It involves an adulterous wife and a brutal husband. The wife becomes pregnant (presumably by her lover) and fears discovery of the affair. She tries repeatedly to abort the pregnancy on her own, using orange sticks and other household objects. Her husband, suspecting the truth, beats her, punching her pregnant belly, calling her a "whore" and "no good." When the child is born, the parents pretend it was wanted, but the child's only true ally is a grandmother, who thwarted the mother's attempt to abort him and cares for the child when he's sick. Eventually, the mother starts beating the child, using many of the same insults her husband has flung at her.

Now, one presumes that is not the “point” of the book, at least according to adherents to Scientology who see no peculiarities in its founder; in Dianetics, to the "unbiased" mind, Hubbard simply provides a means to what it claims to do: since man is motivated solely by “survival,” those forces that prevent survival—largely “psychosomatic” in nature—must be counteracted in order for man to be “clear” of it, or at least that is my reading of it. 

What prevents a “clear” mind is not memories (being abused as a child, for example) but these “engrams,” which are stored at the “cellular level,” and are triggered by “stimuli” similar to that which created it, which I  suppose is like an “instinctual” reactions to various negative stimuli.Well, OK, whatever you say.

We recall Johnny Depp’s testimony that he instinctively “ducked” whenever his mother was near, and later his “instinct” was to just get away from Amber Heard whenever she was in one of her demon-possessed states; one suspects that it is people like Depp who could have been easy targets if they had come into contact with  a true believer. 

Dianetics at its “best” is essentially a “self-help” tome that was “way off the reservation” for its time, which “explained” an initial fascination when the book (and subsequently Scientology) when it first came out around 1950, although it was quickly denounced by the professional community as quack psychology that could be “dangerous.”

Of course, most people with a superficial knowledge of what Scientology is considers its teachings “brainwashing” and the steeped in science fiction nonsense; this seemed borne out by the critical mauling of the film Battlefield Earth, based on the novel by Hubbard and turned into a wish fulfillment project by Scientologist John Travolta. But as Roger Ebert observed, there was no obvious Scientology propaganda in it despite the claims of those who those who accused the project of such before its release; it was just a “bad” movie.

However, Miller notes that there is indeed some “science fiction” in Scientology; you are just not told about it until you are deemed a “true believer”:

Critics say the church hushes up this story -- it involves an evil demiurge who, 75 million years ago, blew up 178 billion souls with hydrogen bombs planted in Earth's volcanoes, trapped them on "electrical strips," brainwashed them and packaged them into clusters that now cling to every human being and mess with our bodies and heads -- for two reasons. One is that the church needs a sufficiently dramatic payoff after stringing members along through years of courses and trainings, all costing upward of a quarter of a million dollars. The other reason is fear that revealing this fantasia of kooky stories might turn off potential converts -- but, hey, that never hurt the Old Testament.

Make of it what you will, but I suppose there is a reason why Scientologists prefer to keep things “all in the family.” Personally, it seems a little too weird for me, but calling it "dangerous" is a little hypocritical in a world defined by hypocrisy.

No surprise King County homeless "plan" never got past "Phase Two"

 

Before I get into today's issue, isn't it "curious" how the Met Police in the UK are investigating the allegations against Russell Brand and not against Dan Wootton? In fact the "mainstream media" has been rather coy in its reporting on the accusations against Wootton made by other men. You know what I'm starting to think? Since Wootton is a member of a "protected" demographic (and a useful Amber Heard dupe), and the claims against him are seen as perpetuating negative stereotypes against that demographic, it must be subverted by creating a new scandal that drowns it out because the accused and accusers fit the "narrative" better.   

With that thought out of the way, it seems that homeless people are “everywhere,” not just in “liberal” cities, but in “conservative” rural areas, where they just have more places to hide. In Seattle, people questioned the policy of making the problem “disappear” by just clearing out encampments when they would just spring up somewhere else. So arrived the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and its “Partnership for Zero” plan, which envisioned eliminating “visible” homelessness; the “caveat” here is obvious, but no matter: if it is out-of-sight, it is out-of-mind.

There was supposed to be five “phases” of Partnership for Zero; it did at least “accomplish” Phase One, which was to establish a “command center” occupied by over-paid benchwarmers who spent more time arguing amongst each other than solving the homeless problem, and Phase Two “borrowing” the concept of a “by-name list,” supposedly reaching out to homeless people and determining what their specific “needs” were and direct them to the “proper channels.” Of course a place to live might be the first thing on the “list,” or at least you would think that was the “idea.” I mean, if you are an “able-bodied” person, you need an “address” and phone number to get a job.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, a lot of homeless people are either people with mental health issues, people who are work-shy, and some appear rather young and may have been kicked out the house for being good-for-nothings. Others also could be people who just like the “quiet life” and prefer to not to have noisy neighbors.

In any case, I also mentioned that the King County Regional Homelessness Authority has made an absolute mess of things from the beginning as I suggested in the latter part of this post https://todarethegods.blogspot.com/2023/07/there-are-more-ways-to-waste-taxpayer.html although to the Seattle city council’s “credit” it did not commit to funding its wasteful activities, although the KCRHA apparently did receive taxpayer money from the federal government—and donations from some local big names:

 

 

Yet for all of that support did it even get past Phase Two? For your consideration:

 

 

We’ll take “ongoing” to mean still in the “in theory” phase, and that was confirmed last week in the Seattle Times, which reported that the KCRHA

has reversed course on its most ambitious plan since inception, putting nearly 40 people at risk of losing their jobs and upsetting city, county and business leaders.

The agency announced Tuesday morning that Partnership for Zero will end before completing its goal of reducing the number of people living outside in downtown Seattle to fewer than 30. In February 2022, when the pilot project was first announced, about 1,000 people were estimated to be living in the downtown core.  

This swift change comes as the program’s initial funding expires and interim CEO Helen Howell reexamines the authority’s function and goals and moves it away from providing direct services to Seattle’s homeless population. Thirty-eight people are facing layoffs — about one-third of the authority’s total workforce — including 31 systems advocates who do outreach, case management and other social service help for people living outdoors in downtown and the Chinatown International District. Their jobs will be terminated Oct. 6.

Needless-to-say, many "civic-minded" businesses who wanted the homeless off the streets for their own reasons and pitched-in money are not happy seeing their money go to waste; no doubt they were expecting that "direct assistance" to the homeless. Now, I’ve already discussed some “local” issues concerning what got in the way of the county’s efforts to “fix” the problem, https://todarethegods.blogspot.com/2022/10/improving-homeless-shelter-capacity-in.html,where somewhat “ironically” instead of having to “tolerate” what looks like it would be one of the country’s best organized homeless facilities, the protesters from the International District have this unsightly mess to muse on instead:

 

In fact, if the county had not caved to the protesters (whose leaders admitted that they were not even expecting to "win") there wouldn’t have been a need for the KCRHA’s “creative” plan to nowhere. Supposedly before it shuttered, Partnership for Zero found housing for 231 people out of an “estimated” 1,000 on Seattle streets; one suspects, however, that by the time those people were housed a like number replaced them—or some of them wound-up back on the streets for various reasons, like mental health or “aggressive” behavior. According to the Times

Partnership for Zero systems advocates helped 53 people move from the hotels into permanent housing and 122 people into shelter or other temporary locations like a hospital or treatment center. Additionally, 110 people either returned to living on the streets, in their vehicle or with a loved one. 

It is telling concerning the KCRHA’s perceived ineffectiveness that both the mayor and the King County Executive could only lament that “We believe for that approach (the now defunct "Zero" plan) to be successful, KCRHA must be a working part of the solution,” while The Downtown Seattle Association’s Jon Scholes added that “Partnership for Zero was the right approach that was executed in all the wrong ways. The effort lacked sound management, oversight and focus,” as quoted in the Times.

Part of the problem—well, a “big” part of the problem—was that there was a difference between the amount “pledged” from private donors, and what was actually “donated” to the KCRHA, and what funding it did receive, according to the Times, was one of those “issues” we often hear about “charitable” organizations: more money goes to the “human resources department” than to the people it is supposed to help. The Times notes that

When the program started, several nonprofits took notice of the wages that systems advocates earned — higher than many front-line nonprofit staff who do the same work. For example, one current advocate, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing employment, cited a starting salary of $82,500. As a result, many established homeless organizations lost staff to the new initiative. 

Now, all those people will be soon out of their comfy positions looking for work; many of the people working in those relatively well-paying positions were those with “experience” with homelessness, and they may have to get “experienced” with it again. As noted in my taxpayer post, the so-called “Continuum of Care Board” was better known for acting like unruly children than getting anything useful done.

“Ironic,” isn’t it? Even in a “liberal” city like Seattle with a “plan” to end homelessness simply cannot get it done. “Best intentions” and the “grassroots” approach is no substitute for putting someone in charge who can push his or her weight around and get things done, discarding the useless and ignoring the complaints of NIMBYs who have no legitimate complaint. But here, people talk big and occasionally approve of funding of socially progressive projects like more “crisis” mental health clinics, but actually getting things done for "strangers" isn’t on top of the “to-do list” for most superstars-in-their-own-minds.

Packers' 30 minutes of play is one point better than the Saints' 30 in comeback win

 

In their first home game with Jordan Love as the new “franchise” quarterback, many assumed this was a win in the Packer column, despite the Saints’ starting Derek Carr who has only thrown 35,000 yards and 200 TD passes more than Love in his career. The Saints were 2-0 but in unimpressively close wins against not very good opposition. Unfortunately “nerves” seemed to get in the way of the Packers playing in front of the home fans—either that, or the Bears are really that bad. In the first half, the Packers, continuously shot themselves in foot with penalties, a special teams fold, Love’s inability to throw an accurate deep ball, a fumble on a fourth-and-two, and then on one promising drive, Love taking a 14-yard sack to put the team out of field goal range. A 17-0 halftime deficit was the result.

I suppose it is worth noting that the Packers’ top playmaker is not Love, but Aaron Jones, and he again was out of the lineup. So why were the Packers expected to be “better” than what they appear to be at that point—a team that looks lost under pressure to perform with Love at the quarterback?

Well, let’s just hold on a moment and see what happens in the second half.

In the first possession of the Packers’ miracle comeback, like Matt Flynn did in beating the Cowboys on the road 37-36 after trailing 26-3 at halftime. Let’s see: A,J. Dillon lost six yards, another penalty, and then what we always feared—a another misfired deep ball that was actually “catchable,” or at least by a defender. “Fortunately” for the Packers,  Carr was injured on the Saints first possession, and in would come Jameis Winston, whose last season with the Buccaneers was exemplified by “big” numbers—especially those 30 interceptions and 12 fumbles.

So at least the Packers still had a chance; the Saints’ ensuing five possessions of the second half were: punt, punt, punt, punt—and punt. After failing to convert on fourth down at the Saints 13 earlier, the Packers finally put 3 points in early in the fourth quarter, and shortly thereafter Love caught a couple big breaks, with two more deep balls not caught, but the Saints were called for pass interference penalties that netted 65 yards. But after advancing only one yard on first-and-goal at the Saints 2 with 7 minutes to play, why not, go for it and Love managed to sneak it in on a misdirection (I think) play. A two-point conversion attempt that was a questionable was luckily successful and suddenly it was a one-score game, 17-11.

After the Saints punted again, their defense just threw up their hands as Love ran for a 24-yarder, actually completed a deep ball to Jayden Reed, and on third down Love found Romeo Doubs who on the second try got a ball he could get his hands on for the go-ahead score. Of course the game wasn’t over yet; I mean, how many times have we seen the offense finally get its act together and then defense letting everyone down by suddenly deciding to take the opportunity to play dead? That certainly appeared to be the case again, with Winston rising from the dead to made a couple of plays to get the Saints into relatively safe field goal range, only to see the attempt sail wide right and allowing the Packers off the hook in a—what is that word, “miracle”—comeback win, 18-17.

I suppose this could be seen as an "impressive" win in its unexpectedness, that to be frank Carr’s injury made possible. For the third consecutive game the Packers failed to crack 100 yards on the ground, and Love’s passing numbers—22-44, 259 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT—for a 66.4 passer rating were only just “good” enough to do what the Saints had done in the first half, which was to take advantage of the opportunities handed to them by an opponent that didn’t come to play, at least not for 60 minutes. If the Saints had not missed that potential game-winning field goal at the end, just how “impressed” are we supposed to be that the Packers at least made a game of it? Inconsistent play won’t always be overcome when playing against teams that are even just “average.”

One thing that really disturbs me is that Love’s play or “numbers” have not improved over time. His best game was against the Bears, and although he threw 3 TD passes against the Falcons he only threw for 151 yards and was dismal in the fourth quarter. Although it could be argued that this game Love “shined” in the fourth quarter, two pass interference calls accounting for 65 yards on deep balls on the first TD drive only means the opposing defense did not shine.

But a win is a win. Next week the Packers are slight underdogs at home against the Lions, who fairly handily beat the same Falcons team the Packers lost to last week.

 

Politics and society in chaos, which some call a "good place"

 

Now what? The MAGA meltdown in the U.S. House of Representatives or the Russell Brand story in the UK? Neither can wait and both are emblematic of a society in chaos. 

First the disaster in the  House, where even a recent Fox News poll showed has a 19 percent approval rating. We saw the spineless speaker Kevin McCarthy—knowing he didn’t have the votes to approve an impeachment investigation—caved in to threats from the likes of Matt Gaetz, which caused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to comment on X that "So let me get this straight: Republicans are threatening to remove their own Speaker, impeach the President, and shut down the government on September 30th - disrupting everyday people’s paychecks and general public operations. For what? I don’t think even they know. Chaos vibes.”  

Despite the Fox News poll suggesting the opposite, the diehards think the country is in a “good place.” Or so that is what Republican Rep, Elise Stefanik told Fox’s Shannon Bream, who suggested that Republicans were in “paralyzed chaos” after failing for the second time this week to even vote to begin debate on a DOD spending bill, usually the “easiest” one to pass. 

The human jellyfish McCarthy has lost all control because of his lack of principle and character, and no one—not even his allies—trust him. Biden certainly can’t help him from squirming after making a deal with him to freeze expenditures for the rest of the year, only to see five “conservatives” suddenly discover “principle” and demanding even deeper cuts before they vote on anything with a government shutdown looming.

The helpless McCarthy lamented after the second failed vote “It’s frustrating in the sense that I don’t understand why anybody votes against bringing the idea and having the debate, and then you got all the amendments and if you don’t like the bill. This is a whole new concept of individuals that just want to burn the whole place down. It doesn’t work.”

One of those arsonists is Jim Jordan (when he isn't being a "legislative terrorist"), who is still busy with his "weaponization" of government hearings that turned (again) chaotic today when, taking Trump’s cue of waving his magic wand over classified documents and declaring them unclassified, he suddenly claimed a witness already determined to be unreliably partisan was a “whistleblower” after being challenged why he didn’t provide Democrats with the witness’s testimony for examination. Elsewhere, it is being reported that “evidence” for Biden’s impeachment is already falling apart as if it ever existed in the first place.

I’ve always said that Republicans are for the most part motivated by power and destruction with no real sense of governance, and now we are seeing it once again with their latest threat to shut down the government because they can’t get their act together in the face of no chance that their largely white nationalist agenda will get past the Senate. Republicans have always been hypocrites about their “principles”; somehow, they always find a way in their minds to justify why they can see their way clear to avoid spending cuts when a Republican is in the White House to avoid voter backlash, but fight amongst each other about how best to “prove” that they actually have any budget “principles” when a Democrat is in office.

Thus we see the five “fiscal” conservative Republicans vote along with Democrats to sink the proposed defense bill twice, which frankly Democrats are correct in saying is loaded with culture war provisions that have no chance of passing the Senate, along with slashing aid to Ukraine. Those five Republicans voting against the defense bill claim they are merely trying to make a “point” about their new-found desire to slash the budget and try to hang it on Biden. 

But it is hard to make that argument when their budget cuts are principally targeted at programs that help the poor (thus charges of “racism”). Republican inability to form a coherent program of governance that is not based simply on scapegoating vulnerable targets (Hispanic immigrants) is emblematic of the ideological chaos and corruption within the party since far-right elements went from the barely tolerated fringe to a force in a party that failed to heed the fact that the last mid-term elections should have been recognized as distrust in their brand of governance.

Of course even if those five Republicans got what they wanted, it wouldn’t have passed muster in the Senate, and so it is a completely pointless gesture. Of course it was easier to please the MAGA maniacs in the Freedom Caucus with their demands because racism and moral and ethical corruption “unites” the party. Instead of passing a comprehensive immigration bill that at least gives Hispanic immigrants an idea that there is a way to do things “legally,” the MAGAmaniacal racists in the Republican party merely want to continue the “we don’t want you” policy of the past 60 years, by approving the Secure the Border Act that essentially closes off all legal entry into the country from Latin American countries.

The authoritarian, anti-democratic impulses of the MAGAmaniacs is also inherent in its apparently pro-Russia opposition to aid to Ukraine. Further, the moral and ethical corruption of the far-right seems a “logical” reason why the far-right also seeks to defund the Justice Department and the FBI for allegedly “weaponizing” law enforcement. 

We might remember the Iran-Contra scandal, when the Reagan Justice Department asserted its independence and immediately announced an investigation of the participants. But that was a different time. Republicans were the first to “weaponize’ government by its "investigations" of Bill Clinton that turned out to be nothing but wastes of taxpayer money, and with the Durham investigation which was a multi-million dollar con job that also found mostly “nothing.”

This is what we have come to expect from Republicans; they are not interested in “fixing” what needs to be fixed; they are only interested in breaking things, and that includes the “border crisis” that people seem completely insensible to why it happened in the first place, meaning decades of failure to understand the dynamics of cross-boarder activities, driving a permanent “illegal” presence before the 1965 immigration law from near zero to where it is today. Like radical gender activists who don't really want men "fixed," because then they would have nothing to "complain' about that justifies their warped sense of existence, Republicans need illegal immigration to continue so that their supporters will have a vulnerable group to hate on.

                                     *********************

Now, the Brand story I would have preferred to leave to YouTubers, but when you have someone like far-right mouthpiece Megyn Kelly in freak-out mode coming down on the side of the accusers, it is useful to remember  that despite what she calls a "years long investigation," all that they could come up with in that Brand documentary was text messages altered to remove "context," and four out of a thousand or so women who apparently felt "disrespected" enough to provide the ammunition that the makers needed for what their hit-piece wanted to accomplish---which was to silence Brand just as we saw a similar attack on Dan Wootton, who although I am no fan of, it is “curious” that both have become known for taking on the present establishment in their commentary.

Kelly and others like her just don't "get it." They do have a right to their "opinion" about information provided by an actor reciting from a script in a documentary, but opinions are not "facts." In the same vein people can have an opinion about allegations provided by "anonymous sources," because (at least in this country) the accused have the right to face their accuser in a court of law. If the accuser doesn't want to do that (for fear of being exposed as a liar, for example), then their allegations should not be treated as "fact," just allegations. Furthermore, too often we find accusers who didn't believe something was "wrong" at the time it occurred, but then change their minds years later because the political climate changed; why should we assume the "new" story is more "credible"?

This is not about defending people like Brand or Marilyn Manson, this is about defending due process and the presumption of innocence which gender activists have been actively trying to undermine with the MeToo movement and cancel culture. At least former Fox News conspiracy theorist Kelly—who was essentially “canceled” from network television for poor ratings and commentary that questioned her judgment—got her $69 million golden parachute from NBC; Brand, on the other hand, is being “canceled” by everyone who owes him a dime before even an actual “investigation” into the claims made by his present accusers—claims which should remind us how Amber Heard “grossed-up” her stories during the trial in the belief that sensible people would actually believe them.

Unfortunately for Brand, no other woman to date has accused Johnny Depp of abuse, and there is evidence that Heard abused at least one other partner besides Depp,  Tasya van Ree and Elon Musk (a Mexican soap opera star, Valentino Lanus, who  had a 10-month relationship with Heard in 2006 which he described as “abusive” to both himself and his mother). But then again, Depp wasn’t a sexoholic like everyone knew Brand was and who apparently flaunted it out in the open, with most people seeing it as part of his “show.”

In the U.S. it apparently takes longer for people to “mature,” but in Britain the age of consent is 16; a female that age and her own mother apparently thought that a relationship with a celebrity like Brand was their ticket to the “big time,” but it seems it didn’t work out that way and that “girl” is now one of the accusers, and people like Kelly profess to be “sickened” by the thought of it.  

But is that the only thing to be "sickened" with? Wasn't “everyone” complicit, but it is only Brand who is to serve as a “proxy’ figure for all men to be punished after the fact, even when it wasn't deemed "wrong" then? It could also be argued that Danny Masterson’s unusually lengthy sentence for sexual assault (despite the possibility of the verdict being thrown out because the charging him violated the statute of limitations) could be seen as he being a “proxy” to punish the “cult” of Scientology as well, as an unindicted “co-conspirator.”

Brand has recently become more “conservative,” settling down to a monogamous relationship, toned-down his “act” and promoted self-help programs. But not so fast: Brand has to pay for past sins because he just looks like a “hypocrite” now. Women control the narrative in the English-speaking world; if they say you are “guilty,” you are guilty. On other hand, the "narrative" sufficed to provide cover for Cardi B after she bragged about drugging men and stealing their money when she worked as a stripper.

If you want to defend yourself if you are a man, you better have the money to pay for the best lawyers and get a fair judge to hear your case—and even if you are exonerated and your accuser a proven liar and abuser, don’t expect an “apology” from those who made money off of you but joined the lynch mob anyways because they were cowards in the face of the lynch leaders out for blood—anyone’s “blood” as long as it is the next man on the hit list.

We saw in Germany how due process is supposed to work, regardless of the nature of the accusation; the accused are assumed innocent until proven guilty. That of course doesn’t apply to the mainstream media even in Germany, which promoted the stories of accusers who didn’t even claim that the front man for the band Rammstein, Till Lindemann, ever touched them sexually; they claimed he just put them in “uncomfortable situations.” 

Despite the efforts of supporters of the accusers—who took their cues from their American and British “cousins” like cyberstalker Rebekah Jones and the proudly “feminazi” Charlotte Proudman, and only looked ridiculous doing so—Lindemann and his band were not “cancelled.” As it turned out, that would have been a gross injustice, since prosecutors dropped their investigation of Lindemann because trial-by-media was insufficient as “evidence” of a “crime.”

Chaos and destruction in politics and society is now a way of life; not everyone is aware exactly of the extent of it, since it is like a leaky roof that isn’t fixed: it begins as “unnoticeable” drips; but left unchecked, it eventually rots the entire structure. A "good place" to be in? Well, Republicans don't want to do anything about climate change or the wealth gap except make them worse, while on the other side we have even feminist Camille Paglia admitting, "If civilization was left in women's hands, we'd still be living in grass huts."