#cowplop — Public Fediverse posts

Australia’s #ABCNews has presumably uploaded something from an international news service, no one giving any care for the way it mis-genders someone.

the long shadow of Project 2025, or what?

#Auspol #USpol #CowPlop

6/x

#USpol #Auspol #USHistory #AustralianHistory
#Trump #MAGA #CowPlop #Hanson

still finding this book illuminating… and can’t recommend it highly enough. it’s free, but i hope this price does not suffer the giffen effect and put people off

Why Intolerance and Extremism Happen
Teri Kanefield

after discussing yellow journalism, the psychology of rage in news etc, Teri says

“Enter Stage Right, the Performance Master of Outrage, Donald Trump
 
[SHE MIGHT JUST AS WELL BE DESCRIBING PAULINE HANSON]

Into this environment came Donald Trump, a product of the current media environment. Before running for President, he was a reality TV show host. He therefore understands how this all works. Among the things he understands is that the way to get more media coverage is to be as outrageous as possible. Remember that Trump is not conservative. He doesn’t want to conserve anything. He wants change, and he wants it fast. He therefore benefits from continually stoking outrage. He pulls people into an outrage cycle that looks like this:
 He does something outrageous that shocks or enrages his critics.
The same act thrills his supporters because it carries symbolic significance. The act, in some form, lands a blow on the liberal establishment.
When his critics exhibit a strong reaction, his supporters feel an even greater thrill because he is proving he can take on the enemy. “Trump is a radical,” they say approvingly. “He is upsetting the applecart. He is fighting for us.”
Meanwhile, Trump keeps himself center stage and controls the conversation”

…

“In Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump, Texas A&M University professor Jennifer Mercieca stood against the crowd of Trump-mockers and argued that Trump’s gaffes are not gaffes. She pointed out, for example, that he effectively uses a device known as ad populum (“appeal to the crowd”) by deliberately positioning his lack of political correctness as genuineness. He positions speaking in a manner acceptable to the mainstream as being “scripted,” which he then equates with going along with corruption. The result is that the more outrageous his comments, the more “truthful” he appears to his supporters and the more they admire him.”

————

[imo, there is a trap australian labour has fallen into, and is exacerbating by refusing to move even one inch back to the left — the more people feel dis-enfranchised by inaction on important issues, indifferent legislation and indifference to the decay of the public service, the greater the risk people will start to admire the seeming frankness of people with even more shit values than labor]

5/x

#USpol #Auspol #USHistory #AustralianHistory
#Trump #MAGA #CowPlop

as SCOTUS rejects another appeal against (worsening) gerrymanders in Texas, it might be worth sharing another, brief quote from Teri’s book (about USA)

“In 2024, white voters made up 71% of the electorate. This is down from 95% during the 1950s. The percentage of white voters has been steadily dropping.”

Excerpt from
Why Intolerance and Extremism Happen
Teri Kanefield

4/x

#USpol #Auspol #USHistory #AustralianHistory
#Trump #MAGA #CowPlop

some more from Why Intolerance and Extremism Happen by
Teri Kanefield — this book is now also available free thru itunes

(a quote from trump seems to follow naturally from this context)
——-
“The history of rape laws helps us understand the rise of such movements as the incels.
Throughout most of Western history, rape was a property crime. An unmarried woman was her father’s property. A married woman was her husband’s property. If a virgin was raped, the property damage was to her father. If she was married, the damage was to her husband. If she wasn’t a virgin and wasn’t married, there was no crime because the property was already damaged. A man couldn’t rape his wife, his own property, and the rape of enslaved women wasn’t a crime. Attempted rape wasn’t a crime because there was no property damage.
Rape laws were generally intended to protect (white) men from false accusations. They were not intended to protect a woman from attack.
The social hierarchy determined how rape was treated. Black men were often convicted or lynched if accused of rape by a white woman. White men were protected from rape prosecutions because, until the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, women were often not considered competent to testify in court. If the only witness to the crime was the victim, and the victim was a white man, it could be difficult to find admissible evidence. Obviously, given the nature of the crime, the woman and the perpetrator were often the only people present.”

…

“Susan Brownmiller, in her book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, sent shock waves when she argued that rape was not a natural result of human nature. She said that rape is the means by which all men keep all women in fear. She made the startling”
claim that rape is a means of exerting patriarchal power. She said that all men, even those who would never rape a woman, benefit from the fact that there are rapists because the fear of rapists means that women need male protection.
As late as the 1970s, a defendant in a rape trial could present evidence that the woman had engaged in sexual behavior in the past. This was called the “sexual history” defense, and was based on these assumptions:
She previously failed to guard the goods.
The goods were already “damaged.”
She was unchaste or immoral, which meant her word could not be trusted.”

…

“Changes will always feel to some people like something vital has been lost. …”

[with respect to women’s rights — and other rights discussed in this book — it would seem MAGA is about a loss of the right to have power over others deemed “less than…”]

Kanefield continues:

“In a sense, men have lost something. It was the prerogative, for example, of a wealthy man to have access to beautiful women. That was what Trump was alluding to in the famous Access Hollywood tape”

3/x
#USpol #Auspol #USHistory #AustralianHistory
#Trump #MAGA #CowPlop

In 1786 Parson Thomas summed up the enlightenment attitude to the ancient problem of poor relief in England (and other places) — it’s a law of nature!

“It seems to be a law of nature, that the poor should be to a certain degree improvident, that there may always be some to fulfil the most servile, the most sordid, and the most ignoble offices in the community. The stock of human happiness is thereby much increased, whilst the more delicate are not only relieved from drudgery, and freed from those occasional employments which would make them miserable, but are left at liberty, without interruption, to pursue those callings which are suited to their various dispositions, and most useful to the state. As for the lowest of the poor, by custom they are reconciled to the meanest occupations, to the most laborious works, and to the most hazardous pursuits; whilst the hope of their reward makes them chearful in the midst of all their dangers and their toils. The fleets and armies of a state would soon be in want of soldiers and of sailors, if sobriety and diligence universally prevailed: for what is it but distress and poverty which can prevail upon the lower classes of the people to encounter all the horrors which await them on the tempestuous ocean, or in the field of battle? Men who are easy in their circumstances are not among the foremost to engage in a seafaring or -military life. There must be a degree of pressure, and that which is attended with the least violence will be the best. When hunger is either felt or feared, the desire of obtaining bread will .quietly dispose the mind to undergo the greatest hardships, and will sweeten the severest labours. The peasant with a sickle in his hand is happier than the prince upon his throne.”
———
At the top, the intellectuals who helped shape our world were content that god or nature had provided shit-people to do the shit-jobs, so the not-shit-people didn’t have to feel miserable but could, instead, get on with the business of making the world a better place for themselves at the top.
When the good Parson Thomas called the poor “improvident”, i assume this means “too reckless or silly to save for a rainy day”

Very hungry, shit-people were a part of god’s natural order.
when you hear of their problems, what can you do but shrug, and summon a servant?

cont
2/x
#USpol #Auspol #USHistory #AustralianHistory
#Trump #MAGA #CowPlop

USA was built on premise “some are more equal than others”

the US obsession with state rights vs creeping federalism is a result of the already advanced/ entrenched terms and conditions of the social contract in the pre-USA colonies. Teri Kanefield gives examples of how we know the US constitution is about defending states rights rather than favouring federalism (or human rights in general)

when australian wannabes trumpit about making australia great “again” they are deluded.

even tho australians sometimes elect RW nut-jobs, we are in denial (deep ignorance) about our past/ present, and so would not knowingly embrace anything we thought was “white supremacist”

thru several accidents of history, we took a different turn, tho in the beginning, australia’s first colonies were also built on the “some are more equal than others” values of the old country.
a quote from english history can support this point, for reasons of space it has to go in a sub toot…

continued in 3/x

quote below is from Teri Kanefield, widely published USian author, in Why Intolerance and Extremism Happen.

i don’t want to tag Teri —she is on Mastodon and easy to find if you want a FREE copy of her book
i’m finding it really easy to read, and interesting because i am concerned about the import to australia of Trumpian, MAGA #CowPlop.

what are the odds it will be embraced here, and in any case, WTF is it really all about (apart from hate and $)?

US history is unique (and intriguing) for many reasons —

non-white USians seem to embrace a mission and values statement (all men are created equal) that stands for the total opposite of the country’s true founding policies (some are intended by god to be more equal than others — the essence of MAGA is that it really was like “that” all along)

what relevance can this have to australia?

——-

“The regressive view of American history is that something vital is
being lost or destroyed. Regressives see history as a gradual downward slope, something that started o# good and pure and has been sliding downhill.
“The progressive view, in contrast, is that American history
has been a gradual upward slope. The progressive view is that the
Founders had some pretty good ideas: The idea of a government
based on rule of law instead of the whim of a king, the idea of an independent judiciary, and a government that represents “we the
people.” The problem, for progressives, is that the Founders left out
a lot of people. Most progressive forward pushes in American history have been attempts to include more people.
“Here’s the catch: Each push forward triggered a backlash. The
more dramatic the changes, the stronger the backlash. Progressives
who expect the upward slope to continue, or conservatives who
expect things to remain the same, can experience extreme shock
when that does not happen.””

Teri’s book looks “…at how, in the United States, the reactionary desire to return to the founding conditions comes into constant conflict with a progressive yearning for a better tomorrow. The place to start is with the history of race and the law…”

#USpol #Auspol #USHistory #AustralianHistory

#Fashion #Politics #CowPlop #TheChuckAndDonnieShow

reading about the King of UK’s state banquet for the would-be King of USA…

struggling to imagine just what can be achieved by having 160 people to dinner — i know not to put my elbows on the dinner table, but i’m not sure i could make polite conversation with the likes of rupert murdoch or any of the rest of whoever

i know democracy is a flawed experiment and i like to believe there is still some point in engaging with “the system”, but by jingoes the hardest thing to make sense of is women’s shoes.

i’m all for freedom of choice for consenting adults.

i will even admit i *like* to look at people’s feet and hands and even sometimes even decide if i like or trust them based on these completely selective indicators… but i am baffled, truly baffled, by society’s rigid, unyielding insistence women be forced to wear unhealthy, incapacitating “court shoes” that offer no support, no warmth, no protection from snow or three-corner-jacks, and no chance of escape from any random predator in flat, comfortable shoes.

okay, a stiletto is, etymologically speaking, a knife, but outside of a murder mystery set in an english village full of vacuous vicars or merry ole morris dancers, what’s the point? i’m still waiting to see the headline “he died with a stiletto in his trousers”

i’m not talking about the ability of the accessories worn by powerful men (i.e. their women) to choose a wardrobe that doesn’t fail in some trumped up newspaper owner’s mind (trying to look like the queen, not trying to look like the queen, trying to look like the other princess, not wearing anything too cheap, not wearing anything too expensive etc) — i’m talking about a woman’s right to choose to wear what they like on their feet. i don’t believe all women everywhere like to wear these tiny tall shoes all the time. it’s called fashion but should be spelled f-a-s-c-i-n.
i see women dressed like the women in this photo and i just don’t think they are taken seriously. they might be happy with that, but i have a feeling there is no place in the world for women who *don’t* want to dress like that.

and look at all the pebbles in the driveway… i suspect men want to wear closed flat shoes cos they are frightened if they get a pebble in their shoe it can make them limp… but why are they more free than women to choose to wear comfortable shoes?

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/uk-news/2025/09/18/donald-trump-uk-state-visit