Why Is A 73 yr old. "President" Taking Precious Time To Mock 16 y/o Greta Thunberg?

Greta Thunberg has a Mensa level IQ which propels her grasp of climate science and energizes her climate protests. Trump is a moron tyrant and  bully who'd rather take time from his supposedly busy schedule to attack assorted perceived enemies via tweets. This time he picked on the wrong person.

 It was pretty well a no -brainer that once Dotard got nixed for TIME's person of the year he would go off on  Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate  activist who's featured prominently in the news the past 2 months.   Traitor Trump, the most monstrous narcissist buffoon ever to occupy the Oval Office, couldn't take it so he had to mock the girl (diagnosed on the autism spectrum) with his infernal sideways putdowns.  Thus, Trump tweeted last Thursday:

 “Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend.  Chill Greta, Chill!”

Of course, here we see Trump projecting his own psychological failings on Thunberg.  She isn't the one with the "anger management" issues, it's him. She doesn't pitch incessant tirades in an oval office, hurling half eaten sandwiches across the room at fretful aides, nor go on tweet attacks - starting at 3 a.m.  

 But it appears Greta, for some reason, seems to be really making Trump upset but without meaning to.   I mean she isn't posting images of his orange orangutan face on her instagram, nor is she calling him an ignorant pestilence who knows next to nothing about climate change. So it has to be: a) that she has an I.Q. at least six standard deviations in excess of his on the Bell curve, and b) she got named the person of the year and he didn't.    What's a mentally afflicted, malignant narcissist bully to do? Well,  strike out at the one who's one upped him in intelligence, and in prominence - at least for this TIME cover.

So it's no mystery that when Ms. Thunberg was named TIME’s person of the year, an honor Trump reportedly wanted,  he careened off the mental rails once more. Hence, did what he always seems to do when he perceives someone has stolen his thunder, edged him out of public attention: taken to  Twitter while on the crapper, and hurled verbal taunts at the object of his ire.  Thus,  he lashed out by accusing the person upsetting him (Greta) of the very things he’s  guilty of: uncontrolled anger episodes - so frequent that his aides have lost count. (One reported they exceed his lies, totalling 13, 400 -odd, since entering the WH.)

But a $64 question emerges here for both Trump's defenders, and his bilious, brainless base who believe the orange maggot walks on water.  (Like the woman at one of his Pennsylvania rallies who burbled in one CNN interview:  "He is just so fantastic, how can those Democrats do this to such a fine man?")  The question:  How does the putative leader of the nation and free world - with at least a dozen issues of critical import pending (including a new China trade and tariff deal) -  find the time to fire off putdowns at a 16 year old girl? Priorities anyone? Anyone?

Perhaps Dotard Donnie was roused to fury because Thunberg doesn't fit the mold (in Trump's misshapen excuse for a mind)  of how girls are supposed to act. She isn’t trying to be a contestant in one of his beauty pageants.  Nor would she ever have allowed Trump  and  (now deceased) pal Jeffrey Epstein to enlist her in their salacious schemes. She’s too busy trying to get world leaders like him to do something about the climate crisis. She’s too occupied by giving speeches at places like the UN – where Trump was laughed at, when he gave a speech in 2018, and Thunberg was met with respect, despite slamming the entire body for “misleading” the public with inadequate emission-reduction pledges

Meanwhile, Trump, detested as the most odious "leader" on the planet, was roundly mocked by his peers at the NATO summit in London.  The mutt was so humiliated that he turned tail and bolted the next morning - instead of attending the final conference.  But this is Trump,  a coward at heart. He can't take any level of pushback at all, but always believes he's entitled to "punch back", especially when confronted by powerful women - say like Nancy Pelosi.  Thus, his recent puerile remarks to a reporter about her teeth, i.e. that "because Nancy's teeth were falling out of her mouth, and she didn't have time to think!"

That was after Pelosi was seen answering the reporter's question, then moved her mouth slightly and took a sip of water. But her teeth did not appear out of place and her speech was not interrupted.  But see this is the nature of Trump,  who despite being 73 years of age chronologically is barely 13 mentally.  So his behavior and words match,  often resorting to jabs about people's appearance.   One of the most outrageous episodes is when he mocked a disabled reporter, and Rep. Maxine Waters was compelled to bring the image to the House to convince the gathered Reeps who even then believed their golden (errr....orange) boy could do no wrong.


 Thus, strong women, disabled reporters, and legions of the defenseless have all become Trump targets because the arguably most powerful man on Earth is the psychological equivalent of a 13 year old with a perpetual chip on his  shoulder.  That chip flies off at the slightest hint of challenge, or if Trump sizes up an individual as ripe for twitter predation out of some imagined transgression.

By contrast,  Greta Thunberg-  like the majority of girls growing up in the digital age  -   has been cyberbullied before .  By Trump himself, who, after her celebrated speech before the UN General Assembly 2 months ago, sarcastically tweeted, “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

Both times Trump has tweeted about her, Thunberg’s responses have been jocular, and sarcastic in kind. This week, she changed her Twitter bio to: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

In her handling of being cyberbullied by the president of the United States, at age 16, Thunberg has become an inspiration for girls two times over – first as a climate activist, then as a social media ninja.

But that doesn’t mean that Trump’s cyberbullying of Thunberg is any less despicable, or dangerous. What it says to girls all over the world is: no matter what you do, no matter how much you achieve, powerful bullies with XY chromosomes can and will try to cut you down.  But the funniest aspect is how the deranged Trumpie nitwits have tried to redeem the loss of the TIME cover prestige by photo-shopping Trump's visage on Greta's.  Hey maybe Trump aspires to having XX chromosomes

While we may howl with derisive laughter at this pathetic move,  the underlying message is depressing and not without potentially dire consequences. It’s a message that has contributed to a precipitous rise in the suicide rate among girls, in efforts to diminish girls' own identities. This has contributed to rising anxiety and depression among girls and young women, not just in the U.S. but the UK. It’s a message that Trump’s wife, Melania, is supposed to be combatting, with her "Be Best"  campaign against cyberbullying.  But it's too bad her bullying scrutiny is too limited, failing to target the biggest bully of all: Trump. 

Nonetheless, Melania, recall, whined about son Barron being singled out by Prof.  Pamela Karlan  during the House Judiciary hearings.  Joy Reid on her MSNBC show Saturday morning put things in perspective:

"Keep in mind this kind of cyberbullying is exactly the kind  that Melania Trump is supposed to be against. Remember the outrage over the mere mention of her son Barron's name during the impeachment hearing? Well, the White House says this is totally different though because her son is not an activist'."

But this is more disingenuous,  false equivalence. Prof. Karlan did not single out Barron for personal attack only mere nominal mention to point out the limits of Trump's aspirations to monarchy.  Thus,while Trump can name his son "Barron" he can't appoint him as a Baron.  Big deal    It was a perfect pun-type illustration to clarify the limits of the presidency. Trumpie crybabies need to get over it.  There is no negative aspect there, though it's doubtful Trump's dumb base can see it.

But leave it to them to come up with the specious argument that even  a pun-wise bare mention of the first son's name is verboten, given he's not an "activist".  But it's ok to mock and take sarcastic shots at a teen girl who does something besides play video games all day long, act as an "influencer" for goofy junk products, or keep the nose buried in tiny screens. 

Greta is at least  trying to get fellow humans to get off their butts and work to preserve the planet for future generations.

Meanwhile, Trump lavished his praise on fellow turncoat, House Dem Jeff Van Drew - who announced he plans to vote against impeachment and cross over to join the bad guys, i.e. Repukes. This after Trump "personally wooed him" according to a CBS News report this morning.  So yet another POS out to show he lacks any moral compass as he joins the most lawless political party in U.S. history.   

See also:

Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan

Education Policy | Energy Policy

The Kids Know Another World Is Possible

And:

• 73-year-old Trump bullies 16-year-old Thunberg on Twitter. She once again makes a fool of him 

And:

Donald Trump

MSNBC Guest Explains Why Trump’s Disgraceful Attack on Nancy Pelosi Backfired

If You Lean Toward Conspiracy In Jeffrey Epstein's Death At Least Embrace A Plausible Theory

"Conspiracy theories are usually false because the people who come up with them are outsiders to power, trying to impose narrative order on a world they don’t fully understand — which leads them to imagine implausible scenarios and impossible plots," - Russ Douthat, NY Times

"Consider the Bureau of Prison’s suicide prevention protocol. Epstein was found last month unconscious in his MCC cell with marks on his neck. If he was not on suicide watch, it would be astonishing. Yet if he were on suicide watch, his death would be virtually inconceivable.....We are not talking about inexperienced yokels. BOP personnel, especially at MCC, are the best professionals in the corrections industry, and they receive special training in administrating suicide prevention. Who better to guard against such a horrific development?"-   Harry Litman, The Washington Post, Monday, 'Jeffrey Epstein's Apparent Suicide Is Unfathomable'


After billionaire financier bad boy Jeffrey Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, it was inevitable that the conspiracy theories would be flying..(cf. 'Conspiracy Theories Fly Online Over Epstein Death', WSJ, Aug. 13, p. A2).  Of course, most of the "theories" - namely the ones spewed by Trump and the Right- which I call conspiracy hogwash-   don't amount to a micro-hill of ant feces. They are made up garbage with no plausible basis, and above all, fail to provide any logical answer to the question one always raises after such events: "Cui bono?"  Who benefits?

As I noted in my post of October 28, 2016 ('Separating Paranoid Balderdash From Rational Conspiracy Thinking')  one must take care to separate rational and coherent conspiracy proposals from those spawned by outright kooks and whackadoodle screwballs.  In the latter category we can put Alex Jones, e.g.









Jones is a confirmed, demented moron,  notorious for  the nutso conspiracy ideation that the Sandy Hook/Newtown massacre was a federal "false flag" operation. Those twenty  kids weren't really slain, they were merely actors- as well as the teachers- in an elaborate script to befuddle the public and make them demand gun confiscation across the land.  

Another conspiracy kook is Donald Trump with his "counting illegal immigrant votes"  bunkum from 2017 (to explain why Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3 million). Oh, and claiming Ted Cruz' father was in on the JFK assassination, e.g.


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/did-rafael-cruz-help-lee-oswald-kill.html

So given Trump's history of  'kookamonga'  conspiracy rubbish there is no reason at all now to put any stock into his tweets implicating Bill Clinton.  This is even more perverse, in my opinion, than his paranoid codswallop from February, 2017 that Obama was bugging him. Recall this followed all the birtherism conspiracy nonsense he started in 2011.

In the end, I always go back to Barbadian psychologist Pat Bannister's categorization of those who invoke conspiracies and how she differentiated them. As part of her construction of a theory of mind, specifically showing the role of lying in young children, she also noted adeptness at detecting lies was linked to accurate detection of real conspiracies. 

Bannister  published several erudite papers, mainly appearing in university symposiums, showing that conspiracy investigation arose as an evolutionary adaptation to the (earlier evolved) ability to lie. In her conception, if conspiracy is among the most sophisticated forms of lying (entailing misdirecting actions as well as words)  then an evolutionary  "equalizer" was needed in order to expose it so this advanced lying would not be to the total future detriment of a tribe, community or nation.

Think of it: effective conspiracy (a surreptitious plan to alter outside events to a group's advantage)  is not merely a simple matter of bending the truth, but bending it - usually in an extended manner over time - to achieve a specific end or manifestation in the real world. It requires not only the awareness of what's in the minds of those one conspires against and those who might try to detect the plan, but also predicting in advance how they might act or respond to prevent the conspiracy from being executed in the first place. And also predicting how future inquirers might be impeded from exposing it decades later.

Thus, as Bannister pointed out in a 1972 UWI  symposium, the Kennedy assassination conspirators would have to know not only how the normal law enforcement structure would respond to an executive action (assassination), but also the official  paraphernalia needed to misdirect it in the case of an accidental encounter while the plot was unfolding.  (Thus, years later, with the publication of Abraham Bolden's 'The Echo From Dealey Plaza', we learned about the critical role of the stolen Secret Service Commission books which allowed conspirators to pass for security personnel.)

The conspirators would also have to be able to predict where the biggest potential threats might lurk, e. g.odd citizens with movie cameras (like Abraham Zapruder and Orville Nix) or with still cameras (like Mary Moorman). Thus, they had to have special teams ready to confiscate them.  The greatest level of forward planning and cognition was reserved for the autopsy - which had to be carried out in a secure venue under full government control (not Dallas' Parkland Hospital) so that the actual entry and egress points for the bullets could be manipulated as well as x-rays, regular photographs.

In other words, taken in concert the Kennedy assassination conspiracy amounted to one of the most sophisticated lies in history, fooling a generation almost totally (other than a few original skeptics like Mark Lane) until at least the JFK Records Act required long stored documents, files be released to the public.  Bannister didn't accept any given conspiracy case dismissed by the media was hopeless. Hence,  whatever the conspiracy,  there would always be 'x' number of critical intellects capable of detecting its mechanisms ex post facto from clues that the conspirators left behind.  

In Bannister's mode of thought then, the conspiracy alert sounder had to possess a theory of mind at least equal to the conspiracy planners', certainly in finally exposing it.  Yes, there could be missteps - especially given the conspiracy planning side would inevitably add further layers of lies ex post facto to throw off conspiracy investigators. These would be in the form of misinformation and disinformation (e.g. inventing whacky conspiracy theories to circulate and get many to bite then ridicule them as 'buff-based') or simply ridiculing any person that even conceives of conspiracy - no matter how well -versed or grounded the formulation is.

It was basically a race between successful gaming of the public via actual conspiratorial  actions (in cover ups)  and exposing it at a deeper cognitive level by those with conspiracy awareness.   

This brings us to the Epstein case, which one can begin to examine by asking "Cui bono?"  In the first instance this would, of course, be Epstein's pal Trump - and make no mistake Trump would have much to worry about from any Epstein testimony - should he have lived.  Does this mean Trump ordered him killed? Nope. An active aggressive (as opposed to passive)  modus operandi was unnecessary given last month  Epstein was found last month unconscious in his MCC cell with marks on his neck.  Thus, we  already knew Epstein was at risk (to himself) having already had one event in which he attempted self-termination.

Hence, all that was needed was to remove the  protections and safeguards present to prevent his commission of the act.  In other words, some person or persons had to have merely wielded enough leverage (money?) to  upend the Federal Bureau of Prisons suicide prevention protocol.   Even Miami Herald reporter (Julie Brown) who was the lead journalist in exposing Epstein's crimes, agreed that this would not have been that hard to do knowing what she did about "prison culture".   So payoffs would be made, likely to some higher up, then lower echelon guards would be brought into the mix say to doctor their  check-in logs.   Voila!  Epstein is left unattended for at least one long enough period (2 hours according to reports on CBS yesterday a.m.) to do himself in. 

Now that we further know (revealed yesterday)  the guards may have well  falsified their suicide check -ins, we have further ballast for a working conspiracy.  This in the sense that missing the Epstein checks wasn't just a case of "forgetting" or blatant incompetence.  No, there was clear skullduggery at work.

This gives the basis for a rational conspiracy proposal, as opposed to the crap and brain barf we behold Donnie Dumpsterfire spewing and retweeting from the Right wing loons.

Add to this the other power players, i.e. all those "players" in sex games who could have been scalded with reputations ruined  by any Epstein exposures.  As we read in this NY Times piece from Aug. 12 ('The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt On Powerful People')

"Almost exactly a year ago, on Aug. 16, 2018, I visited Jeffrey Epstein at his cavernous Manhattan mansion.

The overriding impression I took away from our roughly 90-minute conversation was that Mr. Epstein knew an astonishing number of rich, famous and powerful people, and had photos to prove it. He also claimed to know a great deal about these people, some of it potentially damaging or embarrassing, including details about their supposed sexual proclivities and recreational drug use.

So one of my first thoughts on hearing of Mr. Epstein’s suicide was that many prominent men and at least a few women must be breathing sighs of relief that whatever Mr. Epstein knew, he has taken it with him."

Or....they breathed sighs of relief that their plan had succeeded.   The bribes were taken, MCC payoffs made, check-in reports falsified.  The worst punishments for the offenders would be either forced unpaid leave, or reassignments,  i.e. being moved to other facilities. Ho hum. This again makes the above passive conspiracy proposal the most logical and rational.  IF indeed the reputations of powerful people were in play they would stop at nothing to compromise Epstein's suicide prevention protocols to prevent him talking.    This leaves the three key questions:

1) Who benefited?

2) Who had the power to orchestrate the disruption of Epstein's suicide prevention protocol?

3) Who would have the power to cover it all up with a specious report?

Now you can agree with this depiction or not, after all it's only a theory - heck, maybe only a suspicion, an educated, rational conjecture. But one thing for sure Epstein's death at just this time spares a hell of a lot of power players tons of embarrassing news print.   Much like Lee Oswald's killing 56 years ago, e.g.



spared a clique of conspirators from devastating exposure. Thereby ensuring an investigative charade  and whitewash in the infamous "Warren Report".  Hopefully, an FBI investigation will be rigorous enough to eliminate  a similarly bogus "Epstein report".

In the WSJ piece I cited at the top we were informed:

"Conspiracy theories are likely to complicate probes under way by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. and the Justice Department."

However, I dispute that provided the FBI focus on the rational (and most probable) conspiracy theory I summarized in this post, and ignore the utter bilge spouted by Trump and the Right. The latter is all deflecting noise and the FBI needs to be after the signal not the noise.  As for the Justice Dept. let's bear in mind that while AG Barr delivered a good patter on pursuing this case and insisting "no conspirators should rest easy" his own DOJ isn't clear.   After all as pointed out yesterday (WSJ, p. A4, 'Prison Staff Put On Leave In Epstein Case'):   Barr's DOJ "controlled staffing levels and other safeguards" through the 120 facilities and 180,000 inmates under the Bureau of Prisons.  Hence, unless Barr investigates his own DOJ, BOP there is nothing gained by asserting conspiracy theories "complicate probes".  Given all this it is evident that Barr needs to recuse himself from any future investigation, or judgments. 

See also:

Opinion | Count Me Among the Jeffrey Epstein Conspiracy Theorists

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-death.html?

Excerpt:

"To take the sudden death of such a man in stride — a man whose alleged misdeeds cast him as a veritable pimp to the elite, not to mention a monster in his own right — would be a bit irrational, I think, even if it had happened in Times Square at noon on a clear day. Yet Mr. Epstein died in a locked room guarded by agents of the same establishment, the same power structure that he so broadly and horribly corrupted." 


And:

Jeffrey Epstein

Legal Experts ‘Dumbfounded’ by Epstein’s ‘Unfathomable’ Suicide on DOJ’s Watch

And:

Donald Trump | Jeffrey Epstein

FBI Agents Are ‘Furious’ That Trump Spread ‘Bullshit’ about Jeffrey Epstein: Report

And:

Jeffrey Epstein | Prisons

How a Suicide Watch Really Works

by John Kiriakou | August 14, 2019 - 6:03am | permalink

And:

Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein’s Eyes

by Richard Eskow | August 14, 2019 - 6:22am | permalink

Excerpt:

The talking heads have also babbled on about the inner workings of federal prisons. Nearly every word I’ve heard is either factually incorrect, out of context, or fantastical. I spent 23 months in a federal penitentiary and served on suicide watch over a fellow inmate. So I can set the record straight about how suicide watches work in federal prisons, and about the conditions that led Epstein, apparently, to take his own life. If Epstein’s death turns out to have been an actual suicide, it would be the result of a complete breakdown in the system that was supposed to protect him.