Very strange yes.

Unfortunately many of those who get roped in by these people end up being their victims of course, Tavistock being an example of this.

I'm not too familiar with Jordan Peterson or those seeking to herd the masses in all honesty however my concentration is often on the man in the street.

There almost seems to be a culture at the moment whereby having some sort of grievance against society (victimhood), or sections of it, is considered the norm if not necessary for identity (a word commonly employed and promulgated). A united culture will always be far more beneficial for the masses than one that is forever fracturing and animosity thrives.

Continued/mass immigration, attempts to make people feel without power and rally them for the benefit of the few, constant highlighting of inevitable human defects to sew division etc. Keeps the few in power and the many fighting amongst themselves.

I could be wrong however, perhaps we are in the worst period in history for Racism, Fascism, Misogyny, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, ableism etc. and I'm not enlightened enough to spend the majority of my resource fighting all these things and despairing at them? Doubt it.

From what I've seen, many politicians are more than happy to at least present as backing such things, will get them the votes.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Looking forward to some journalist with ‘balls’ writing a headline: Three Three Palace Fine, after Palace secure Premier League safety with a 3 - 3 draw…

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

It was a cop out to avoid the SC having to rule on whether Trump is an insurrectionist and thereby expose them to the accusation of becoming involved in politics. The liberal Justices are so furious that there is a serious risk of the Court splitting, primarily because the decision says that such things can only be determined at Federal level and not by individual States. This to them, and to me, goes against the whole underlying principle of their system. It must surely be for the individual States to decide who can be a candidate for President in their State and not to have that imposed on them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Sorry, disagree. The President is a national position not a local state position. Under your proposal a group of (let’s say the southern) states could decide not to put a candidate on their ballot paper thereby resulting in a split country situation. You’d soon be back to the original American Civil War situation with states wanting to split away from the current USA.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Civil War would still likely happen. Americans have the right to take up arms to overthrow what they see as a government against its people. You deny people the right to vote for a certain candidate and there’s the excuse…

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Incredibly it looks like Biden will be the Democrat nominee, running mate will be important as can't see him lasting 4 years

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.