The core of betrayal is covetous self-advancement

This one is going up at N.O. and OoL but not elsewhere for two particular reasons … they are netiquette, plus security.

Netiquette used to demand attribution during the blogging era of about 2004 to around 2017, and it was pretty hotly self-policed by the community, backed by copyright law. You were generally allowed to quote sections, provided you attributed by name, plus you linked.

The greatest crime was to read something at someone’s blog, then it just appeared, later, as your own work, unattributed. When quizzed, you said you’d found it on the net elsewhere … thin because while you may technically have done so … wwweeellllll, let’s leave that.

The other reason is to protect your source, as you plan to use it over and over for other topics … so you separately bring him/her into it under various names but the really hot stuff you bury. In this, you’re colluding with your source … every journo protects his sources, every policeman used to, every lawyer.

Where you don’t know the source, then you can only quote and link:

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/must-watch-gaetz-exposes-weeks-long-plot-to-undermine-jordan-johnson-other-house-speaker-candidates-cmc/

Not long after the weeks-long battle over the House Speaker’s gavel finally came to a close with the election of Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) joined Bannons War Room, where he detailed a secret plot led by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to throttle previous nominees. Gaetz alleged that McCarthy worked to undermine Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Tom Emmer (R-MN) and eventually, Johnson, until the plot was exposed in a closed-door meeting.

Gaetz told Bannon that the situation came to a head shortly after Rep. Emmer secured the Republican conference nomination, becoming the third member to do so since McCarthy’s removal. Gaetz then explained to Emmer that he was not going to be able to secure the votes, which would just prolong the process and, “play into what Kevin McCarthy was working the whole time to try to get people to believe that the only person that could govern the Republican conference is Kevin McCarthy.”

“So Emmer agrees that he’s going to have his shot, but that it’s going to be quick so we get that through the gestation system early yesterday,” Gaetz explained. “So as Emmer is withdrawing, Marc Molinaro, a moderate New York freshman Republican stands up at the microphone and says, ‘well, instead of restarting this process and having a candidate forum,’ and sending everybody home for a good cry, let’s just take a non-binding poll on where people would be on the person who came in second to Tom Emmer. And that was Mike Johnson.”

Gaetz went on to report that Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) informed Molinaro that such a vote would violate the rules, prompting him to call for unanimous consent to waive the rules and hold an impromptu poll on Johnson’s support.

“And guess who objects to that unanimous consent request? Kevin McCarthy,” Gaetz said. “Kevin McCarthy stands up and erupts and says, ‘I object to doing a roll call on Mike Johnson.’ And Mike Johnson was exasperated. All the times he voted for McCarthy, carried his water, maybe voted for bills he didn’t like because he was he was working toward republican conference’s stated objectives under McCarthy.”

At this point, the really juicy bit is not quoted, the clincher so to speak, and so it is here … there’s far more at Trending after the above.

Moving onto the implications of Matt Gaetz spilling the beans … if it’s sour grapes, then that’s no dismissal of Gaetz in itself … so why is he so down on McCarthy, why the personal animosity?

I’d suggest Gaetz and Boebert, to a point, are artless babes in the woods, not skilled in intrigue, though they see it all around. I’d also suggest that such people are ill prepared to meet the “wiles of the devil” in the powerhungry enemy, e.g. Clinton H plus Pelosi, plus lacking Hamas (or whatever name) type ruthlessness … see Ambassador Stevens again and the Benghazi four. Plus the Israeli massacred of late. The Marquess of Queensberry rules are not present in these cases.

I’d also suggest that the new Speaker, as an Evangelical, is also going to be played ruses on in that cesspit, yet he has ruthless determination to drain the swamp and with huge swathes of the populace backing that … things might just tip the hand of the self-preservation enemy. Once they see a trend setting in.

But they must themselves collude, the good folk … and pray as Mr. Speaker has done. For non-Christians, the principle is that every bit helps, so put up with the prayer bit Mr. Speaker goes on with. Why not?

Now the Donald … just how artless was he? He wore McCarthy the Snake like a pair of underpants … no wonder it fell apart … from Kelly to Matis to Scaramouche. 

 But what if a rather cunning and ruthless operator came down on the side of good, even if eccentrically? Even if he’s not a particularly pleasant person as such? That’s shirley “love thy neighbour” … that’s Gandalf, Slartibartfast, others in literature … Aragorn/Strider.

Why do they do so, despite their own flawed characters? Because they feel they must, plus they object to unfair fights.

Danger in this? Absolutely … false prophets, false Christs in the end times. But enough for one short(ish) post. Just saw this at Epoch … food for thought:

Do such people have the rat or foxlike cunning to be able to meet the fiery darts … or are people fundamentally gormless? A “nice” person does not ask questions like that.