Wingnutties out of control!

[Whack9]

In de Toqueville's book, Democracy in America, written when the United States was a fledgling Republic, the author mentions one of the values that benefits both religious institutions and government is the separation of church and state. It's explained this is one of the strengths of the United States. He explains that keeping both separate, religion maintains it's sanctity and dignity by not tying itself to political ebbs and flows. Coupling religion with a political movement causes people to identify if with said movement. If and when that political movement falls from the graces of the general populace, the religion falls with it. The converse is true as well.

Oddly enough, forcing religious beliefs onto the populace tends to have the opposite effect.

How so?

I think that forcefully making others abide by a certain. religious doctrine rather than relying on willing converts causes revulsion. At least in the modern world, and in nations where we have things such as freedom of expression and speech.

De Toqueville used the French revolution as an example in his book. Both the monarchy and aristocracy were heavily associated with the religious institutions of the time. When the masses revolted against the ruling classes, religion also took a large hit as it was seen as being allied with the old regime rather than a separate entity.

I think a similar blowback occurred when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. The Orthodox church had always been tightly entwined with the tsarist state.

[Vrede too]

I think that forcefully making others abide by a certain. religious doctrine rather than relying on willing converts causes revulsion. At least in the modern world, and in nations where we have things such as freedom of expression and speech.

De Toqueville used the French revolution as an example in his book. Both the monarchy and aristocracy were heavily associated with the religious institutions of the time. When the masses revolted against the ruling classes, religion also took a large hit as it was seen as being allied with the old regime rather than a separate entity.

I think a similar blowback occurred when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. The Orthodox church had always been tightly entwined with the tsarist state.

Ah. In Latin America it gets convoluted. The Catholic Church has long been associated with the ruling class. However, beginning in the 1970s elements within it pushed for social justice, even going so far as to develop a 'Liberation Theology'. At times, these two sectors confronted each other. It all made navigating the complexities difficult for this norte americano. Mostly, recent revolutions have not meant overthrowing the Church, but it has changed.

Eventually, social justice won, culminating in the current Pope and last one, but with the more radical Marxist components mostly stripped away.

Meanwhile, evangelical Protestantism has made major inroads, filling the vacuums created by conflicts within Catholicism. I have a Latinx Pentecostal church across from my back deck.

So, will revolution here mean dispensing with our oppressive fundies? When can we start?

[Whack9]

I think that forcefully making others abide by a certain. religious doctrine rather than relying on willing converts causes revulsion. At least in the modern world, and in nations where we have things such as freedom of expression and speech.

De Toqueville used the French revolution as an example in his book. Both the monarchy and aristocracy were heavily associated with the religious institutions of the time. When the masses revolted against the ruling classes, religion also took a large hit as it was seen as being allied with the old regime rather than a separate entity.

I think a similar blowback occurred when the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia. The Orthodox church had always been tightly entwined with the tsarist state.

Ah. In Latin America it gets convoluted. The Catholic Church has long been associated with the ruling class. However, beginning in the 1970s elements within it pushed for social justice, even going so far as to develop a 'Liberation Theology'. At times, these two sectors confronted each other. It all made navigating the complexities difficult for this norte americano. Mostly, recent revolutions have not meant overthrowing the Church, but it has changed.

Eventually, social justice won, culminating in the current Pope and last one, but with the more radical Marxist components mostly stripped away.

Meanwhile, evangelical Protestantism has made major inroads, filling the vacuums created by conflicts within Catholicism. I have a Latinx Pentecostal church across from my back deck.

So, will revolution here mean dispensing with out oppressive fundies? When can we start?

Yeah despite my athiesm, I think religion can sometimes offer a good counterbalance to oppressive political regimes. I remember reading a good take by Herbert Marcuse in One Dimensional Man. It's been a while, but he explains it can basically act as a different frame of reference outside of existing systems of thought and power. Something along those lines. That sorta sounds similar to what you explained about the church's role in Latin America. In an authoritarian regime where the only truth is what the state dispenses, religious institutions (well, the ones that aren't completely coopted into the state apparatus) provide an alternative power structure/community.

[Vrede too]

This is what the MAGAts are now?

Fire his ass.

He wasn't called out on it by his co-hosts.

The MAGAts double standards are mind blowing.

‘Fox & Friends’ Host Brian Kilmeade Apologizes for Saying Homeless Should Be Euthanized: ‘Extremely Callous’ | Video
Brian Kilmeade originally said "involuntary lethal injection" is a solution to crimes perpetrated by the unhoused: "Just kill 'em"

Brian Kilmeade's disgusting remarks don't keep him off 'Fox & Friends' | Opinion

On "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday, Sept. 10, Brian Kilmeade, one of the hosts, said that one way to deal with mentally ill homeless people who wouldn't accept services was "involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill ‘em.”

This isn't one of those instances where, should you want to try to defend his comments, you can claim Kilmeade was taken out of context. He said it. Period. It's right there, easily accessed.

As GoCubsGo showed us.

And his co-hosts, Lawrence Jones and Ainsley Earhardt, simply moved along with the show, as if casually suggesting that murder was a viable option for struggling people was an acceptable solution.

As I posted.

On Sunday, Sept. 14, Kilmeade apologized.

Why did it take so long for Brian Kilmeade to apologize?

Good question.

... At least he acknowledged that he said it, and that he was wrong to say it. But the apology raises a lot of questions. Why wasn't this more of a big deal over the last few days, for instance? That's easy: The murder of Charlie Kirk and the continuing fallout from it is consuming media, still. This gave Kilmeade the cover he needed to avoid serious heat for making such horrible statements.

Another question: Why does Kilmeade still have a job?

Good question. Advocating murder, which is 100% what Kilmeade did, would seem to be something you couldn't come back from. Maybe it won't be. Maybe Fox News will fire him. Maybe not.

Good luck with that.

... Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah said on Monday, Sept. 15, that she had been fired by the paper for "unacceptable" social media posts after Kirk's death. The White House and MAGA acolytes are reportedly on the lookout to punish anyone who posts anything negative about Kirk online or celebrates his murder, an ironic turn for the supposed free-speech crowd.

MAGA = Hypocrisy, always.

... The bigger question is, how did we get to an environment in which Kilmeade would even think what he said was OK? It's horrible that the thought would even occur to him. It's unacceptable that he said it on a popular TV show....

Trump adds to the hateful and divisive rhetoric

Yet every time Donald Trump gets in front of a microphone, including on Kilmeade's show, he goes out of his way to blame the "radical left" for everything. There is never any acknowledgement of violence committed against Democrats.

Nor that it's far more common, as we've all pointed out.

Let's be clear: Trump is guilty of using all the hateful rhetoric he accuses the "radical left" of, and then some. The hypocrisy is stunning, and so relentless that it becomes expected. It's incredibly irresponsible and it's dangerous.

And it's not just Trump. Kari Lake, at a memorial for Kirk, said that we are in a battle between good and evil. You think I'm kidding? Here's just one thing she said (to quote more would be to amplify hate speech and ignorance): "I'm not going to say our side is perfect, but damn it, this is coming from the other side!"

Disgraceful.

Of course Kilmeade was comfortable saying what he said. He and his network go out of their way to put the best face on whatever Trump is up to. Honestly, would you be surprised if Trump offered Kilmeade a job in his administration?

You either want to tamp down hateful rhetoric or you don't. You either think human beings have value or you don't. You either believe in free speech or you don't. And you either believe your words, which you have every right to use, have consequences or they don't.

Or at least they should.

[Vrede too]

Yeah despite my atheism, I think religion can sometimes offer a good counterbalance to oppressive political regimes. I remember reading a good take by Herbert Marcuse in One Dimensional Man. It's been a while, but he explains it can basically act as a different frame of reference outside of existing systems of thought and power. Something along those lines. That sorta sounds similar to what you explained about the church's role in Latin America. In an authoritarian regime where the only truth is what the state dispenses, religious institutions (well, the ones that aren't completely co-opted into the state apparatus) provide an alternative power structure/community.

Sometimes, the church not only provides a spiritual/ideological space for social change, but also a physical one. Religious communities may be the only place where gathering and even some organizing are tolerated by a repressive regime. I, too, am an atheist, but if the only place I could do activism without being imprisoned or killed was the church you bet that I would get religion.

Speaking of repression, MAGA PC idolatry:

Florida Republican unveils bill threatening state funding if colleges don’t rename roads after Charlie Kirk

... Bills across the country have been introduced to rename things or create memorials in honor of Kirk, whose alleged killer is now in custody and facing seven charges.

In Oklahoma, a lawmaker filed a bill for a Kirk memorial to be created on all state campuses.

Fascism is here.

[Vrede too]

GOP Rep. Slams SNAP Recipients For 'Smoking Crack' In Unhinged Post About Cuts
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) appeared to have little sympathy Thursday for the millions of Americans whose federal food benefits are set to expire Saturday.

Stupid MAGAt (redundant, I know), crack suppresses appetite. If they stop smoking the hunger problem gets worse.

[Vrede too]

Jun 12, 2025. Just a little reminder of how dumb, not to mention racist, Charlie was:

People Are Roasting Conservatives After Sharing This Video Of Their "Ideal" Town, Not Knowing It's A Blue Town
"because this town voted for harris by a 52–45 margin."

[supesalemgr2]

"not to mention racist,"

I read the article. Vrede suggests it may be racist. The only racial notation I saw was the fact of the town having a small percentage of White citizens than nationwide.

[neoplacebo]

I guess you missed the part that noted that no Black people were in any of the pics, and that perhaps is why Charlie Cult likes it.

[Vrede too]

I guess you missed the part that noted that no Black people were in any of the pics, and that perhaps is why Charlie Cult likes it.

SoupySales often makes a fool of himself opining on articles he hasn't read. Plus, we've posted numerous examples of Charlie and his Cult's racism. Soupy is in denial.

There are even compilations:
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politi ... ons-dafe84
https://racism.org/articles/defining-ra ... upremacist
https://theblackwallsttimes.com/2025/09 ... is-racism/
https://delawareblack.com/charlie-kirk- ... roversies/
https://www.abhmuseum.org/racism-rhetor ... nt-ignore/
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-ki ... alist-ties
More

[supesalemgr2]

I guess you missed the part that noted that no Black people were in any of the pics, and that perhaps is why Charlie Cult likes it.

What is racist about not having any Blacks in the pics? Not unusual if less than 15% of our population is Black.

[Vrede too]

I guess you missed the part that noted that no Black people were in any of the pics, and that perhaps is why Charlie Cult likes it.

Yep.

Rockford, Michigan

... The (2010 census) racial makeup of the city was 95.0% White, 0.7% African American, 0.5% Native American, 1.2% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 0.7% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.7% of the population.

Despite its Kent County voting against DonOLD the last 2 elections, this racial makeup is more "Ideal" to Charlie than Henderson County's solid red pattern.

[O Really]

Based on published and apparently not contested statements, it's not unreasonable to say Kirk was racist, and he might very well prefer pics with all white people. But just because these particular pics don't have any Black people doesn't mean much if anything itself. I could spend a day taking similar pics of charming places and local events in all the local towns from Oceanside to Del Mar and might not get any Black people in them.

[Vrede too]

Based on published and apparently not contested statements, it's not unreasonable to say Kirk was racist, and he might very well prefer pics with all white people. But just because these particular pics don't have any Black people doesn't mean much if anything itself. I could spend a day taking similar pics of charming places and local events in all the local towns from Oceanside to Del Mar and might not get any Black people in them.

You would ALMOST have to try in Oceanside.
Oceanside is 51.5% White.

Del Mar is 84.8% White.
Rockford, Michigan was at least 91.3% White before Hispanic or Latino began being counted separately.

If Charlie chose Rockford or even Del Mar as his "Ideal" town, we can make educated guesses as to why. Besides, neoplacebo and I didn't invent this. It is BuzzFeed that noticed the uniform Whiteness juxtaposed with the ironic non-DonOLD votes.

[O Really]

Yeah but check the rest of O'side demographics. Lotsa Hispanic and blends but hardly any Black people. I'm just saying, with some experience, that if you just shot pics of places and events around here without trying to have or not have Black people in them, there's a good chance you wouldn't get many if any Black people.

Anyway, I didn't say you guys thought it up. Buzzfeed could stretch or create a point with the best of them.

[Vrede too]

Yeah but check the rest of O'side demographics. Lotsa Hispanic and blends but hardly any Black people. I'm just saying, with some experience, that if you just shot pics of places and events around here without trying to have or not have Black people in them, there's a good chance you wouldn't get many if any Black people.

Anyway, I didn't say you guys thought it up. Buzzfeed could stretch or create a point with the best of them.

neoplacebo mentioned the absence of Blacks, but I haven't. Buzzfeed says, "almost no Black or brown people." Idk about SoupySales. The Rockford video also has zero likely "Hispanic and blends". Might be difficult to "accidentally" do in Del Mar and impossible in Oceanside, and we know that Charlie was perhaps even more bigoted against Latinos than against Blacks.

Why are we arguing hypotheticals? Charlie was a documented White supremacist and his selection of the Rockford video was almost certainly an expression of it rather than an 'Oops'. You or I would make sure that our "Ideal" town is not all White.

[supesalemgr2]

Based on published and apparently not contested statements, it's not unreasonable to say Kirk was racist, and he might very well prefer pics with all white people. But just because these particular pics don't have any Black people doesn't mean much if anything itself. I could spend a day taking similar pics of charming places and local events in all the local towns from Oceanside to Del Mar and might not get any Black people in them.

Exactly my point. Well stated.

[neoplacebo]

I guess you missed the part that noted that no Black people were in any of the pics, and that perhaps is why Charlie Cult likes it.

What is racist about not having any Blacks in the pics? Not unusual if less than 15% of our population is Black.

Nothing about the photos is inherently racist. As has been pointed out by others, the absence of Blacks in that city is mainly due to the fact that not many Blacks reside there. But Charlie Cult was a definite racist as others have pointed out. He didn't pick that town to highlight as "ideal" because of how it voted, but what it "looked" like. Charlie Cult would never pronounce a Harlem neighborhood "ideal" even if everyone in that neighborhood voted for trump and were fans of Charlie. Apparently you are not aware that racism (or any other kind of extremism) can be blatant, subtle, or merely incidental.

[supesalemgr2]

I guess you missed the part that noted that no Black people were in any of the pics, and that perhaps is why Charlie Cult likes it.

What is racist about not having any Blacks in the pics? Not unusual if less than 15% of our population is Black.

Nothing about the photos is inherently racist. As has been pointed out by others, the absence of Blacks in that city is mainly due to the fact that not many Blacks reside there. But Charlie Cult was a definite racist as others have pointed out. He didn't pick that town to highlight as "ideal" because of how it voted, but what it "looked" like. Charlie Cult would never pronounce a Harlem neighborhood "ideal" even if everyone in that neighborhood voted for trump and were fans of Charlie. Apparently you are not aware that racism (or any other kind of extremism) can be blatant, subtle, or merely incidental.

Having lived my entire life in the South I certainly understand racism and its different forms.

[O Really]

Why are we arguing hypotheticals? Charlie was a documented White supremacist and his selection of the Rockford video was almost certainly an expression of it rather than an 'Oops'. You or I would make sure that our "Ideal" town is not all White.

Yeah, my position was not to argue over whether Charlie was a White supremacist or no, I just didn't think the absence of Blacks in those particular pics proved it. Along with a general reduction in literacy, analytical thought, and accuracy, US people as a whole have gotten pretty lax in what they'll accept as "evidence" or "proof."

Interesting question about "ideal" town. I guess it would depend on whether it's for the younger me or older me. I'll play with it.