<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/S0tFgPG26vA?start=3766″ frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>very soon thereafter she converted58:57into a real enemy she emerged two months58:59later and wrote this59:01article aggressively condemning the idea59:04that trans women should be able to59:06compete in female athletic and female59:10athletics because it the the the kind of59:13intolerance for her even asking59:17converted her it alienated her converted59:19her into an enemy and59:20it seems like people who don’t care59:22about outcomes are about winning59:24really don’t get bothered by that but59:27let me just ask you about one59:28the kind of the last um59:32kind of prong of the case of the liberal59:34case against joe rogan i find this one59:36really interesting59:37too which is you know people say59:41okay fine he he liked bernie like tulsi59:45um and yet i believe in 2016 if i’m not59:48mistaken59:50he said that he was voting for trump59:51over hillary59:53and i’m certain that after saying that59:56he59:56thought bernie was the best candidate59:58and really like tulsi59:59he’s now saying i can’t vote for biden i60:02probably would vote for trump over biden60:05which would is leading ripples to say to60:07people like you60:09why would we possibly why should we60:12possibly regard somebody60:14as an ally who is60:18saying twice now that they’re going to60:19vote for donald trump and i guess like60:21an60:21ancillary part of that question is you60:24know there is this phenomenon of people60:26who twice voted60:27for barack obama and then voted for60:29donald trump in 201660:31not a small number a large number and60:33here in brazil60:34same thing you know a lot of people who60:35voted for bolsonaro in 201860:38were people who voted for the workers60:40party four consecutive60:42elections so if you’re kind of a60:44political junkie who relies on the60:46polarization of choose between rachel60:48maddow and sean hanovey60:50it doesn’t make any sense that somebody60:52could do that to say i like bernie60:54but i’m gonna vote for trump because you60:56have to pick an ideological box60:58and joe rogan clearly is a person61:01who doesn’t think that way and i think61:03there’s like this liberal sense that61:05that makes him bizarre when in fact61:07i think it makes him pretty common it’s61:09one of the reasons why people like him61:11because he’s not in one of those boxes61:13but what do you say to liberals who61:15would make that argument that how can we61:17consider somebody supporting61:19this authoritarian racist for president61:22to be an ally61:25well i mean there are two things that61:26you you have to kind of61:29kind of set the record straight on first61:31is that i i’m pretty sure in 2016 he61:33voted for gary johnson so he voted for a61:35libertarian i don’t think he voted for61:37trump in 2016.61:39um and in 2020 again he first you know61:42supported tulsi61:43then he supported bernie um and then61:46most recently if you really61:48look at his comments it’s not that he’s61:49saying he’s endorsing trump but he’s61:51saying that61:52he would he would vote for trump um61:55as a result of the party choosing biden61:57because he just doesn’t think biden can61:59do the job62:00just from a kind of mental age62:04decline standpoint so it’s not like the62:06most heartfelt support of trump but yeah62:08i mean62:08let’s set that aside and just say okay62:10like he’s willing to vote for trump62:12right62:12um i mean the idea that you wouldn’t62:15want to engage62:16someone who is willing to go from the62:19most62:20liberal the most left candidate in the62:23democratic primary and willing to then62:26switch over to trump62:27i mean you know it’s the argument that62:29the left’s been making62:30for you know for years now right that62:33like62:33these this is the is the guy to be62:36studying right he’s the one that we can62:38kind of crack the code on62:40um as for you know why that’s the case62:43i think it’s real again it’s really62:45threatening i don’t think62:46you know i think the democratic62:48establishment what i tend to tell people62:49is that the democratic establishment62:52their main priority is not really to62:54actually even win elections62:56it’s to keep control of the democratic62:58party right like that’s where most of63:00their power comes from it’s certainly63:01where63:02their most reliable source of power63:04comes from it’s keeping control of the63:05party because as long as you can63:07keep control of the party and you keep63:08control of the cultural63:10um levers of power in the country63:13you’re always going to be able to63:15command 5063:16of the political system you’re always63:18going to be able to command63:20um you know the entire media apparatus63:23that’s devoted to politics right you’re63:25good63:25or at least half of it right you’re63:27going to in control the liberal half63:29and so i think it’s i i mean i it’s63:32i’m sorry to say but i think it’s a63:34really cynical calculation63:36that cultural elites and democratic63:39party elites are making when they make63:41these decisions because when when you63:43engage joe rogan63:45and you engage his viewers you’re being63:47bringing in63:48a ton of people who you can’t63:50necessarily rely on to keep these clean63:52lines of political and cultural63:54engagement you’re63:55you’re completely blowing up the63:57political system you’re you’re blowing63:59up the racket64:00right and why would you want to do that64:02because at the end of the day64:04hell trump could get reelected and64:05they’d still control the party they can64:07still control the other half they’d be64:10raising hundreds of millions of dollars64:12for their think tanks and therefore you64:14know the media institutions and so64:16it’s a great racket why would you risk64:18that just for64:19winning you know the presidency for64:21maybe four years eight years64:22don’t get me wrong obviously they’d like64:24to win that too64:26but i don’t think that’s the real game i64:27don’t think that’s ever been the real64:28game64:30we saw that in the uk right where the64:33centrists and playwrights and moderates64:36who controlled the labor party64:38levers of power forever whether they64:40were in power out of power64:42when they lost control of their own64:44party to jeremy corbyn64:46they it was very obvious if you’re just64:48paying minimal attention but we now know64:50from documents that have been leaked and64:51reports that have been issued64:53they were actively working against the64:56labor party they preferred64:58to destroy corbyn and retake control65:01of the party even if it meant empowering65:04the tories and making boris johnson65:06prime minister because as you say65:09their top priority is ensuring that they65:11maintain65:12control of their party and secondary65:15or even more distantly is actually65:18winning elections65:19um and you know i think that you know65:22it’s like when people ask me why i go on65:23tucker carlson i65:24can barely even understand the question65:26because it’s such an obvious answer65:28which is65:29because there are four million people65:30watching and whatever percentage it is65:33that i can reach in any way not65:34necessarily change their minds instantly65:37but just kind of make them a little more65:38open65:39to hearing from different people maybe65:41get them kind of unsettled about65:44who they should be paying attention to65:46or introducing some ideas that maybe65:48maybe it’s ten percent maybe it’s five65:50percent maybe it’s fifteen percent65:52why would i ignore that if i actually65:54care about outcomes65:55to watch you know i i it kind of shocked65:58me edward snowden65:59uh appeared on rogan’s show for the66:02second time this week and so i went back66:03to look at what the audience was the66:05first time he appeared which is66:06about 10 months ago and even though66:09edward snowden being edward snowden kind66:11of spoke in like a monologue form for66:13about66:14three hours you know and he was66:16obviously remote because he couldn’t66:18go to the studio since he’s trapped in66:19russia the audience for that66:22appearance from edward snowden just on66:25youtube never mind all the other66:26platforms66:27was 15 million people 15 million66:31um which is you know four or five times66:34the size66:35of a primetime cable host even on their66:37best night66:38and obviously by virtue the fact that66:40you watch it that people66:42listen to it and can hear him say i66:44support tulsi or i support66:46bernie obviously there’s huge numbers of66:48those66:49that audience that are very reachable66:51from a liberal perspective66:53anybody who says i don’t want to have66:56anything to do66:57with a show that reaches 15 million66:59people67:00is somebody to me who’s saying67:04i look at politics as about everything67:06other than67:07winning wielding power and changing the67:10world67:11right right and they shrouded in moral67:13language right they shrouded67:15in how could you associate with someone67:17like that how could you you’ll be67:18tainted by someone like that67:20um they shrouded in those things but at67:22the end of the day it’s a much more67:24cynical calculation it’s67:25it’s put forth as some kind of moral67:28decr67:29declaration but it’s really a cynical67:31calculation67:32calculation in terms of controlling the67:33party in terms of controlling cultural67:36power centers67:37why would we want to upset that this is67:40a great setup67:41um and yeah that’s why you see 1567:43million people tuning in to edward67:45snowden because it completely cult67:47cuts across all of these cultural lines67:50i mean there aren’t67:51you know being interested in edward67:53snowden just his story and what he did67:55and the cultural and political impact he67:57had67:58that’s not a liberal or conservative68:00idea that’s68:01that’s reaching millions of people um68:03but that’s just not interesting to68:05um what informs the you know the the68:08careers and the lifestyles of the people68:10that68:11sort of hold these both the political68:13and cultural68:14levers of power in the country yeah so68:16yeah so thanks very much for68:18for taking the time i i think is a68:20really important topic not just68:22because it’s important to understand the68:24phenomenon of joe rogan although that68:25is important there are very few people68:28having the kind of cultural68:30and political impact that he’s having68:34um in a reaching a group of people who68:38often tune out politics or who aren’t68:40engaged in the traditional ways which68:42makes him68:44even more important than just the68:45numbers alone but i do think too68:47the reaction to him tells us a lot about68:50how media figures view their position68:52how liberals view what their political68:54project uh is and so68:56um i i think your your analysis on69:00twitter and the discussion that we just69:02had69:02um has really clarified those issues in69:05in a really helpful way so thank you so69:07much for69:08taking the time to talk to me um and i69:10hope people will tune into your69:13back channel youtube program where69:14you’re doing a lot of these kind of69:15header docs69:17uh discussions with people across a wide69:20range of69:21ideological and cultural uh belief69:24systems so
The president’s niece diagnoses her family’s dysfunction.
Because narcissists are so dominant and controlling, they have a knack for steering relationships into conflict. Do you have a game plan for handling yourself as potential arguments arise? Psychotherapist Dr. Les Carter discusses developing a mindset that will serve you wisely in the midst of that conflict.
The effectiveness of action depends on the source from which it springs. If it is coming out of the false self with its shadow side, it is severely limited. If it is coming out of a person who is immersed in God, it is extremely effective. The contemplative state, like the vocation of Our Lady, brings Christ into the world. —Thomas Keating 
.. I founded the Center for Action and Contemplation in 1987 because I saw a deep need for the integration of both action and contemplation. Over the years, I met many social activists who were doing excellent social analysis and advocating for crucial justice issues, but they were not working from an energy of love. They were still living out of their false self with the need to win, the need to look good—attached to a superior, politically correct self-image.
They might have the answer, but they are not themselves the answer. In fact, they are often part of the problem. That’s one reason that most revolutions fail and too many reformers self-destruct from within. For that very reason, I believe, Jesus and great spiritual teachers first emphasize transformation of consciousness and soul. Without inner transformation, there is no grounded or lasting reform or revolution. When subjugated people rise to power, they often become as dominating as their oppressors because the same demon of power hasn’t been exorcised in them.
We are easily allured by the next new thing, a new agenda that looks like enlightenment. And then we discover it’s run by unenlightened people who, in fact, love themselves first of all but do not love God or others. They do not really love the Big Truth, but they often love control. Too often, they do not love freedom for everybody but just freedom for their own ideas.
Untransformed liberals often lack the ability to sacrifice the self or create foundations that last. They can’t let go of their own need for change and cannot stand still in a patient, compassionate, and humble way. It is no surprise that Jesus prayed not just for fruit, but “fruit that will last” (John 15:16). Untransformed conservatives, on the other hand, tend to idolize anything that lasts, but then avoid the question, “Is it actually bearing any fruit?” This is the perennial battle between idealism and pragmatism, or romanticism and rationalism.
If we are going to have truly prophetic people who go beyond the categories of liberal and conservative, we have to teach them some way to integrate their needed activism with a truly contemplative mind and heart. I’m convinced that once you learn how to look out at life from the contemplative eyes of the True Self, your politics and economics are going to change on their own. I don’t need to teach you what your politics should or shouldn’t be. Once you see things contemplatively, you’ll begin to seek the bias from the bottom instead of the top, you’ll be free to embrace your shadow, and you can live at peace with those who are different. From a contemplative stance, you’ll know what action is yours to do—and what is not yours to do—almost naturally.
Everyone has a code of conduct, whether explicit or unacknowledged. Nearly halfway into President Trump’s first term—which some people hope and others fear will be his only one—the contours of his code have become pretty clear.
Mr. Trump has a consistent way of judging people. Strong is good, weak is bad. Big is impressive, small is defective: “Little Marco.” Winners are admirable, while losers are contemptible. A corollary is that there is neither dishonorable victory nor honorable defeat, which is why Mr. Trump poured scorn during his candidacy on John McCain for having been captured—never mind McCain’s heroic conduct as a prisoner of war.Individuals are either attractive or unattractive. If they don’t look good, it doesn’t much matter what they say or do. Appearance is reality: Plato’s Cave inverted. This is why Mr. Trump’s TV stardom mattered more than his checkered business career.
Finally, people are either loyal or disloyal. Loyalty in this case means their willingness to defend Mr. Trump, whatever the cost to their own interests or reputation. In this vein, Mr. Trump favorably compared former Attorney General Eric Holder’s unswerving support for President Obama with Jeff Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia probe.
This brings us to the next feature of Mr. Trump’s personal code—his distinctive understanding of how the world works. Here’s how it goes.
With the possible exception of family, all relationships are at bottom transactional. Every man has a price, and so does every woman.
There’s money, and then everything else. Money and morals are unrelated. Even if a Saudi leader ordered the assassination and dismemberment of a prominent dissident, this is no reason to halt arms sales to the monarchy. If American firms don’t get the contracts, someone else will. Why should we be chumps? If promoting democracy or simple decency costs money, what’s the point?
The core of human existence is competition, not cooperation. The world is zero-sum: If I win, someone else must lose. I can either bend another to my will or yield to his.
The division between friends and enemies is fundamental. We should do as much good as we can to our friends, and as much harm to our enemies.
This brings us to President Trump’s handbook of tactics we should employ to achieve our goals:
Rule 1: The end always justifies the means. Asked whether he had spoken disrespectfully about Christine Blasey Ford, he said, “I’m not going to get into it, because we won. It doesn’t matter; we won.” Case closed.
Rule 2: No matter the truth of accusations against you, deny everything. Bob Woodward’s recent book quotes Mr. Trump counseling a friend who had privately confessed to sexual-misconduct charges against him. “You’ve got to deny, deny, deny, and push back hard on these women,” says Mr. Trump. “If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you’re dead.” The corollary to Rule 2 is that the best defense is a good offense. As the president told his friend, “You’ve got to be strong. You’ve got to be aggressive. Never admit.”
Rule 3: Responding to criticism on its merits is pointless. Instead, challenge the motives and character of your critics. Their criticism isn’t sincere anyway: It’s all politics, the unending quest for dominance. If ridicule works, use it, even if it means caricaturing your adversaries by reducing them to their weakest trait. If Jeb Bush is “low energy,” who cares what he thinks about immigration?
Rule 4: To win, you must arouse your supporters, and deepening divisions is the surest way to do it. Even if compromise could solve important problems, reject it whenever it threatens to reduce the fervor of your base. No gain in the public good is important enough to justify the loss of power.
Rule 5: It is wonderful to be loved, but if you must choose, it is better to be feared than loved. The desire for love puts you at the mercy of those who can withhold it; creating fear puts you on offense. You cannot control love, but you can control fear. And this is the ultimate question of politics, indeed, of all human life: Who’s in control?
Defenders of President Trump’s code of conduct will point to what they see as its unsentimental realism. His maxims are the terms of effectiveness in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. They may not be pretty, but they work. Politics is not like figure skating. You get no points for style. You either get your way or you don’t. Nothing else matters.
Critics of Mr. Trump’s code—I’m one of them—view the distinction between permissible and forbidden means as essential to constitutional democracy, and to all decent politics. What Mr. Trump’s supporters see as the restoration of national greatness, his critics see as the acceleration of national decline.
This, to no small extent, is what next month’s elections are really about.
A moral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this piercing work distills three thousand years of the history of power into forty-eight well-explicated laws. As attention-grabbing in its design as it is in its content, this bold volume outlines the laws of power in their unvarnished essence, synthesizing the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun-tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers. Some laws require prudence (“Law 1: Never Outshine the Master”), some stealth (“Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions”), and some the total absence of mercy (“Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally”) but like it or not, all have applications in real-life situations. Illustrated through the tactics of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry Kissinger, P. T. Barnum, and other famous figures who have wielded — or been victimized by — power, these laws will fascinate any reader interested in gaining, observing, or defending against ultimate control.
God, it seems, cannot really be known, but only related to. Or, as the mystics would assert, we know God by loving God, by trusting God, by placing our hope in God. It is a nonpossessive, nonobjectified way of knowing. It is always I-Thou and never I-It, to use Martin Buber’s wonderfully insightful phrases. God allows us to know God only by loving God. God, in that sense, cannot be “thought.” 
Our scientifically oriented knowledge seeks to master reality, explain it, and bring it under the control of reason, but a delight in unknowing has also been part of the human experience. Even today, poets, philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists find that the contemplation of the insoluble is a source of joy, astonishment, and contentment.
.. One of the peculiar characteristics of the human mind is its ability to have ideas and experiences that exceed our conceptual grasp. We constantly push our thoughts to an extreme, so that our minds seem to elide naturally into an apprehension of transcendence. .
.. People practice their faith in myriad contrasting and contradictory ways. But a deliberate and principled reticence about God [talk] and/or the sacred was a constant theme [at the more mature levels] not only in Christianity but in the other major faith traditions until the rise of modernity in the West. People believed that God exceeded our thoughts and concepts and could be known only by dedicated practice. We have lost sight of this important insight, and this, I believe, is one of the reasons why so many Western people find the concept of God so troublesome today. . . .
.. We are seeing a great deal of strident dogmatism today, religious and secular, but there is also a growing appreciation of the value of unknowing [and unsaying].
.. There is a long religious tradition that stressed the importance of recognizing the limits of our knowledge, of silence, reticence, and awe. . . . One of the conditions of enlightenment has always been a willingness to let go of what we thought we knew in order to appreciate truths we had never dreamed of. We may have to unlearn a great deal about religion before we can move on to new insight.