These crazy stories keep popping up giving those at the top another chance to pick the pockets of the "true believers."

For (lots of) details, see reuters.com/article/uk-factche…

Not exactly, but close enough. Be careful what you believe. 😀

If you want to read more about the basis for human beliefs, try peter-joseph.medium.com/a-post…

Thanks. You know that painting, 'This is not a pipe'. You are right, it's a good point and important reminder, this is not us seeing Joe in a 'White House' theater scene, this is us seeing a picture showing Joe in a 'White House' theater scene. It's just a picture.

Believing things, should be avoided. What we should do, however, is to listen to everything, that is in the sense consider everything, and then the sum of many pieces of information may start to create a picture that may indicate the actual truth. It may of course also start to form a picture that is the opposite of the actual truth, but the best we can do is to seek 'diverse' information or, as the scientists would say, attempt to 'falsify' what we are being told.

I agree that it could be false. These days they're even creating ways to quite convincingly fake someone's face in videos. Do you believe that this picture is false? Or do you think it might be false but that there is a conceivable notion that Joe and his people are deliberately doing theater and manipulating the masses?

Thanks. So neither I or you know what this picture actually is, we've not performed any 'forensic' analysis of the picture, to find out whether the picture itself is fake, or tracked down how, where and when, and why, the possibly real picture was taken. We don't know. There is still the question whether you believe it is fake. People believe in ghosts, with no actual knowledge for or against. So you see that believing and knowing are 'moving parts', separate and different.

You believe the message is false, it seems, deceptive and manipulative. Then we could again ask the question about belief, from the other side: do you believe that Joe won the USA Election according to USA's valid an applicable rules for how to conduct an Election?

...do you believe that Joe won the USA Election according to USA’s valid and applicable rules for how to conduct an Election?

Yes, but with the stipulation that Biden won in 2020 in the same way that other recent past POTUSs have won, in a system that has its flaws and imbalances.

Thank. So, given what we may consider normal flaws that maybe exist in everything man-made, you believe that there is nothing strange, false or illegal in particular that happened during the 2020 Election.

If you try to, then, falsify the impression those dedicated to influence public perception are conveying, you will find a number of reports to the contrary. This again would mean you must, to keep your original belief, believe that those reports are false.

The claim that the 2020 election outcome was the result of fraud was definitively rejected.

By whom, by what criteria, and based on what? Do you believe that their rejection is valid?

These decisions were made by judges in state and county courts, and by the SCOTUS. I don't know the details, but see this link. businessinsider.com/trump-camp…

@Ulf Ayirtahsk Berg, what do you believe happened in the 2020 presidential election?

These decisions were made by judges in state and county courts

You say that as if it has some special significance, like they are 'arbiters of truth', definers of reality, religious authorities. This is belief. You may consider that something is true because people holding special titles and offices in The State said they are true. If so, you should know that this is your criterion, and you should know that I know that this is your criterion.

What I believe happened, is not a specific, coherent version. However, my impression is that there is something more in the words of those who claim there was trickery going on, than just the words. Also, my impression is that those who claim everything was done basically 'by the book', have demonstrated amoral attitudes and a willingness to say and do whatever they think they can get away with, so long as they think it serves their agenda, and to even say and do things that are plain false, and obviously and plainly false, to the people listening. In other words, not only that they will lie and act against truth and morality, if they can get away with it, but that they will lie to your face even when they know that you know it's a lie.

Quoting from businessinsider.com/trump-camp…

Republicans filed the lawsuits in local, state, and federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania — all states that Biden won. They also filed direct appeals to the Supreme Court, all of which also failed.

Direct appeals to the Supreme Court — 3 losses
Pennsylvania — 13 losses
Nevada — 4 losses
Georgia — 5 losses
Michigan — 5 losses
Arizona — 4 losses
Wisconsin — 7 losses
New Mexico — one loss

If the claims of fraud had any merit, don’t you think at least a few of the judges would have ruled in favor of the Republican legal challenges? Some of these judges were even appointed by Trump.

Aren't you ready to consider that maybe there was no credible evidence of fraud?

And this...

Sidney Powell tells court "no reasonable person" would take her voter fraud claims as fact.

cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell…

'Maybe'? Of course, anything is possible. We might live in a computer simulation, aliens might be running global politics from behind the scenes. I'm not making any religious claim, I'm saying that in my impression, people who claim there were tricks and schemes going on, do not seem to just be talking, and the entire 'apparatus' that claims nothing wrong happened, seem to have a history of demonstrating amorality and a willingness to do and say anything they consider expedient.

I'm not saying all people Appointed by Trump are thereby good people, or even that Trump is good people. We see that some of those who appear to hate Trump, desperately, are amoral liars and tricksters, whereas some of those who claim fakery was done to get Joe in as President, seem to be refering to something real. If any of those huge, enormous things claimed to have happened are true, the the Election and indeed USA as a whole has been corrupted and is, in my view, an illegitimate entity.

“We see”? No. You think you see. We see the opposite of what you claim to “see”.

Sure. Are you also sometimes 'seeing' things that confirm your view, in your opinion? Or do you consider non-genocidists that have a skewed perception of reality, whereas genocidists such as yourself have a fairly objective and neutral perception? I'd be interested in hearing more.

predisposed to the big lie. It “seems” that way to white nationalists like yourself who believe in and promote all the big lies.

So, by 'the big lie' and 'all the big lies', is it your meaning that anything non-genocidist is contrary to objective reality, and so is promoted only by a lie, and perhaps helped by any lie, whatsoever, because lies break down the objective truth and reality, and so helps the anti-reality agenda of non-genocidism? I'd be interested in hearing more.

P.S.

In case you had forgotten that 'a people' is a thing, let me quote the man who created the term genocide:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. –Raphael Lemkin

Genocidists? The white nationalist/fascist calls the anti-fascists and anti-genocidists, "genocidists"?

This is exactly why it is pointless to argue with fascists. I post here for the benefit of others, so they know who they are talking to. @Ted

Genocidists? The white nationalist/fascist calls the anti-fascists and anti-genocidists, “genocidists”?

You understand that the notion 'a people' exists, and that your antagonism against any one people defines you as genocidist. Anti-genocidism means opposition to the agenda of dissolving the nations as identities and people groups. Fascism is defined as a cooperation between The State and Corporations. The State is a legal person, as is a Corporation. You are a supporter of paper societies, and I am against paper societies, which defines you as a fascist.

Of course it is pointless to argue. 😀 We're talking about views and values. You wouldn't 'argue' with someone who says they prefer tea to coffee. As for benefit, if you begin by looking up some of the words you use, you could better help others know who they are talking to, because then you would first have helped yourself know who you are talking to. I support the natural social groups, the individual with its integrity, the man and woman and their children that she gave birth to after he impregnated her, the sexes that make up the two groups in our sexually reproducing species, the tribes, the nations the ethnic peoples, and the races. I am against the paper societies people like you, who hate the natural groups and want them replaced, are creating in secret and presenting behind false facades.

Lemkin’s description reminds me of what Palestinians are facing. 🙁

It applies generally, so long as 'a people' is involved. If Palestinians is a people, then genocide would mean an attempt at dissolving the notion of that one people. A more obvious example is the nation the ethnically Swedish people. The nation the ethnically Swedish people is being attempted defined out of existence, by that paper entity The State that owns the homeland of the nation the ethnically Swedish people.

I do not believe in any of the things you are trying to slander me with.

Then I stand corrected, and welcome you to ('ethno-')nationalism.

Everything you think you know is wrong.

How do you mean?

Your “enemy” is only in your own mind.

This is false. I have proof.

Nobody is threatening Sweden.

True, I don't think mountantop removal mining (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain…) is much of an issue in Sweden.

Nobody is threatening whites, Europeans, Americans or “Western Civilization” as “a people” except y’all.

Again, this is false. I have proof.

You are perpetually on the side of the police and the state, granting it all the violence you desire to enforce and define it in your own image.

You are either ignorant as to my views, or you are trying to lie to me about my own opinions.

You are rejected by the vast majority of the racial identitarian group that you claim to defend.

It is alright that you feel the audience is very important. Imagining that this is also my attitude, is a mistake. My opinions, views and values are what they are, and my objective points are what they are. Who 'rejects' what, is entirely irrelevant. 2 + 2 = 4.

I have no problem with Swedes.

Thank you for sharing. This is off topic. Our topic is the nation the ethnically Swedish people. To participate on topic, it is required that you are able, and willing, to discern between 'people' and 'a people'.

You have a problem with everyone who is not a Swede, and therefore with the majority of the Swedish People as well.

This is an off-topic attempt at smearing. Our topic has nothing to do with Swedes or non-Swedes. Again, you must acknowledge the difference between 'people' and 'a people'. Genocide is not mass murder with a fancy name.

You may think you can just cancel your membership in the human race, but you are still human, just like the rest of us, snowflake.

The only way I can even begin to interpret the seemingly very absurd statement, is as another case of 'psychological projection'. Please remember that I told you I support the natural social groups. The fact that i am an individualist, familyist, sexist, tribeist, nationist and racist, in no way means I am not also a speciesist; these are all natural social groups, just levels 'radiating' out. The first level is not in opposition to the next.

It is your own snowflakeness that has a 'melt-down' when presented with the fact that any of these levels exist, and so you desperate move on to the next, pretending that gives you an argument for dismissing the previous one. I am a supporter of killing animals an eating their meat, because I am a speciesist. You, however, think that my saying the nation the ethnically Swedish people should continue to exist, can be attacked by pretending I 'therefore' hate the Japanese, and that you can present yourself as 'the good guy' by promoting the species 'instead' of the nations. This is a desperate and entirely mistaken thinking.

I am a nationist, and a big supporter of the continued existence of the nation the ethnically Japanese people, as well. And I still think humans should kill animals and eat their meat.

This keeps on happening when people with your attitude try to argue: it ends up in nonsense, because you are against objective reality itself. I imagine that right now you feel confused and even more desperate, and that you so-called arguments are very soon going to collapse, and you'll turn your attention to me, relying entirely on attempts at smearing and ridicule and so on. Maybe I'm wrong about you, though. 😀

You have no ability to determine objective reality. You are just an ideologue.

That would be a pertinent comment, if it made sense. Again, it looks only sensible if interpreted as your doing some 'projection'. Ideology is having ideas in one's mind, that are not reflected in objective reality, and that one wants to impose on the world. It often ends up in nonsense.

Examples of ideology, would be claiming that a man in a dress is a 'woman', or that there exists no race ... but there exists racism, that there are no nations, but Native Americans have a right to retain their identity. The ideologism is based on opposition to objective reality, and often comes back like a boomerang... and hits the ideologist in the face.

My claim is not that I have any ultimate 'answer' as to what objective reality is, because I don't pretend to have that sort of god-like omniscience. My claim is that when you want to give a Chinaman a paper, and say he is now a Swede, but a Swede in China, with a paper from The State there, would not be a Chinaman, you are attempting to substitute ideology for reality. This is a good 'test' for ideologism, to see if the alleged principle also works the other way around.

The other day I came across a meme or something, saying people like you claim there are no special clothes one 'should' wear depending on gender, but as soon as a man thinks he is a 'woman', what he does to signal this..., is to put on a dress. 😀 Your fight is so hopeless.

Another list of absolute misconceptions of what i believe, as well as an ideological definition of ideology by an ideolouge. Absolutely useless.

You have received a specific explanation of how these terms make sense to perceive, as I see it. You seem to consider ideology a bad thing, which is good to hear. Now I would like to hear where you side with objective reality, against ideology, some examples.

Your dismissing the specifics I have mentioned, that I made assumptions about your supporting, means you do not consider it possible to get a paper and then join a nation which is an ethnic people, that you do not consider it possible to receive a paper and join the opposite sex, and that you do not consider it possible for a man to put on a dress and thereby become a woman... If you indeed support this summary, then I again stand corrected, and applaud your bigotry. 👍 By the way, as you know, bigotry means having a point of view.

You are boring me.

You have retracted from the discussion, and are giving an irrelevant 'explanation' as to why.

Until you re-engage, my points stand un-opposed, and all you have is rhetoric and nonsense.

What discussion?

Genocidism/fascism -vs- anti-genocidism/anti-fascism. We are discussing your off-topic claims, not the post itself. Remember?

You think you can post or reshare a lie, and then have a discussion about whatever “issue” you want, from men wearing dresses to “Swedes in China”, using the lie as the basis of your various theses.

That may be. If so, I am right. This is my Diaspora profile, I can post pictures of a cube earth, if I like. This is not Facebook, Joe. 😀

Now, the picture is a conspiracy theory. The theory is that that people in media are lying. If you have proof this picture is fake, I welcome it. That is not what you commented about, however. You came in with the desperate straw-grasping attempts, smear labels like 'white supremacist' or what it was. I took you up on that. Seeing that you have no ability to go beyond the initial 'mud slinging', your angle fell apart, and now you're trying to abandon that one, and to come in with another superficial, desperate nonsense attempt at smearing.

I correctly called you a “white nationalist”.

Why?

You tried (and failed) to sling that made up “genocidist” word at me

It's not a matter of 'trying', it's a plain observation: if you think nationalism is bad, then you are against nationalism. A round ciricle is round. There is nothing to try, and failing does not apply.

I came in merely questioning your reliability for posting a false statement.

Why? Ad hominem is not an argument. My reliability is off topic, entirely irrelevant.

I was being too kind. You were lying. You are probably a very “reliable” liar.

This appears as babbling.

You are still lying by pretending that I didn’t already produce some proof that the picture is, actually, in fact, the White House and not some place called “Dear Park” (wherever that is).

I don't know what you're talking about.

Any idiot can find an example of the media lying. But you found one where they weren’t lying!

Cool. If you can show this, that's great. Truth is what these news media should be conveying.

You found a picture accompanied by a lie about the media, and you proudly posted it as if it were “proof” that the media is lying about your political idols and all your pet conspiracy theories.

I also don't know what this means. Conspiracy theories are what they are, whose 'pet' such they are, is irrelevant.

I guess this is the kind of “proof” we can expect from you.

Who are you? Why do you know about my profile, and from where do you have the notion that I am attempting to deliver you proof of anything, what so ever?

I expect you to believe, and promote, all the lies coming out of the rightist blogosphere.

Your expectations about me, are irrelevant here.

If it comes from you, it is suspect.

Why are you sharing this thought?

You may occasionally, accidentally, tell the truth, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Why is it relevant here, what you do and do not count on?

This shows that you have no regard for honesty or objective truth and will post anything that seems to confirm your ideological biases.

What are you talking about, and why are you talking about it?

Your point-less, without point, detour around the topic leaves us right back where we started: you are genocidist, and begin to stumble as soon as we start discussing. Again, you would have to know what 'a people' is. It's in the dictionary.

Zzzz…

Not an argument.

I already won the argument.

Not an argument.

Now you want to argue about other things, but why would I bother

You brought the other things. Unfortunately you failed to support your claims.

I have explained to you that there is such a thing as 'a people'. I have also explained to you that wanting a people to cease existing as identity and people-group, is by definition genocidistic.

You have explained absolutely nothing.

Not an argument.

You only know how to lie.

Your attempt at smearing me, is unreasonable.

Everything you claim to believe is based on lies. BIG lies.

Not an argument.

I have nothing more to say to you, liar.

Then it seems we are well aligned, because your failure to show common politeness, forces me to add your account to my block list. I wish you all the best. Goodbye