pull down to refresh
46 sats \ 24 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Nov \ parent \ on: Why doesn't Nixon get more hate (or does he?) econ
He won in an unprecedented landside and needed to be removed by the CIA / deep state via psyop.
What MSM article told you he was universally disliked? In many ways he saved the country so the globalists staged a coup.
Price fixing, war escalation, clearly despising many Americans, and just generally being a Dick. Since I actually talk to normal people, I don't need to be told whether someone is generally liked or disliked.
Shouldn't you take him being disliked as a badge of honor or confirmation for your fringe view? This reaction confuses me.
reply
Since I actually talk to normal people
That's your first mistake, those are narratives crafted by intel agencies for said normies consumption via mainstream media... the same intel agencies that removed him via operation
What exactly is my fringe view?
reply
I don't know what your fringe view is, exactly, but the bit you offered is clearly fringe. Note that I'm not saying that means it's right or wrong.
That's your first mistake,
Maybe, but it was relevant to what the post was asking about.
reply
Let's posit for a moment that the normie view of geopolitical history is purposefully corrupted, since the largest information apparatus in the world is literally designed to do exactly that:
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
That means the OP is essentially asking, why don't more people believe the lies perpetuated by the mockingbird media? Asked another way, why do people still believe the truth if the truth is not the (perceived) social consensus?
It's the same as asking, why aren't there more shitcoiners and less Bitcoiners?
There's a massive media apparatus to scam people with shitcoins and FUD Bitcoin, and most "crypto" holders own non-Bitcoin tokens... does that make Bitcoin maxis "fringe"?
I reject use of the word fringe btw, it's intentionally marginalizing/derogatory language employed by these disinfo operatives.
Why does the normie media still feel the need to publish these limited hangouts if Nixon is so universally disliked? Why, half a century later, are they trying to win over the "Fringe", or are they?
You're right, though, it's still not enough.
Clearly you think my "fringe" view is wrong, so I'd like to see you introspect on your arrival at these cold and substance-less takes:
"clearly despising many Americans, and just generally being a Dick"
reply
Again, I don't know what your view is exactly or what the evidence for it is, so no I don't think it's false.
I think Nixon sucked for the first two reasons I stated. The latter two are additional reasons why people don't like him.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the contents of the Nixon tapes. I know there's a bunch of suggestive stuff in there, but I'm not that well acquainted with it.
reply
You do know he got us OUT of Vietnam and the Bretton Woods system, right?
reply
I do, but I also know that my family members were enslaved to fight in the stupid war that he escalated first, and I know that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed and maimed in that escalation.
Getting out of Bretton Woods is a pretty dubious distinction, since the substitute is the runaway unbacked fiat system we have now.
Just because the mainstream opinion is that Nixon sucked, doesn't mean he didn't.
reply
Did he escalate it by sending your family into the meat grinder? or by bombing the shit out of the meat grinder in an exit effort?
The financial system he inherited didn't leave many options, can you say for a fact he made a bad trade-off? How much worse would it have been had we continued to let the globalists seize our property?
You seem pretty confident that he made the worst possible decisions despite your also couching your views as "not particularly knowledgeable"
Have you considered that maybe you're the normie?
Couldn't you say that all presidents should be reviled because of their actions vis-a-vis being leader of a corporate state? That would mean that they are the chief of thieves, murderers and liars. Perhaps singling Nixon out for special notice is a mistake. After all,
Johnson did his worst to us and lined his pockets well. Ford was a [DS] plant and Jimmy Carter was well-intentioned but windless at sea when try to do anything.
reply
I think it's very fair to argue that they should generally be more reviled than they are. Nixon was not unique and probably not even as bad as his predecessor.
I don't think it's impossible for a president to do good, despite being at the head of a criminal organization. They would just have to be dedicated to minimizing the harms done by their executive branch.
reply
reply
I think you would come up with problems of interpretation on what the five bad things were. Everybody has a different outlook on which are the worst.
reply
Mine would likely be very similar for each president: unjust wars, unjust prosecutions, unjust taxation, authoritarian economic meddling, debasing the money supply.
reply
Don't they all fail on these very criteria?
reply
That's my point.
I haven't read these articles, but this series might be a good place to start such a summary.
When can they do good? Even Biden had his chance to do good and look where that has gotten us.
I think the point is that the state has slipped the chains of the constitution! The state has done it through all three branches of government. SCOTUS has been the worst of the bunch, IMO.
reply
I meant it hypothetically.
Let's say Ron Paul had won one of his races and he set about doing what we expected him to do. The state would still be harming people everyday of the Paul administration, but since his efforts would all be directed at minimizing those harms, we could say he did good as president.
reply
Yeah, but he never got the chance due to McCain skulduggery. I saw, with my own eyes, what they did at conventions!
reply