Colbert treats feminist Anita Sarkeesian like delicate flower on GamerGate; liberalism exposed 32

Colbert Anita SarkeesianFor those who have followed GamerGate, Wednesday was a great day. Stephen Colbert interviewed feminist Anita Sarkeesian and, ironically, treated her like a delicate little flower. For the entire interview he offered up softballs down the middle of the plate, which Ms. Sarkeesian only managed to hit for singles instead of home runs.

Regardless, the most telling moment came when Mr. Colbert attempted to discredit what GamerGate is all about — an industry of liberal activist journalists who are so buddy-buddy with one another that they ultimately hurt the gaming community they’re supposed to support.

Colbert: “What about the accusations of collusion between designers, feminists and journalists? Do you understand how important it is? Why are talking about ethics in gaming journalism. Do you understand how huge that is? What if there was no ethics in Hollywood journalism? If we can’t trust Entertainment Tonight or TMZ, where would we be? Is that what you want for gamer journalism?”

Anita Sarkeesian: I think that is a compelling way to reframe the way that this is actually attacks on women. Ethics in journalism is not what’s happening in any way. It’s actually men going after women in really hostile aggressive ways. That’s what GamerGate is about. It’s about terrorizing women for being in this industry, for involved in this hobby.

The reason why Colbert tries to tear down accusations of media collusion is because he too is an activist who has made a nice life for himself saying the right things, making the right friends, ignoring inconvenient truths and sending out marching orders as prescribed by his powerful liberal friends in media and politics.

Like clockwork, Ars Technica, Gawker, Salon, The Huffington Post and all of the usual suspects were there to write fawning stories over the segment. Indeed, if one were to believe Ms. Sarkeesian, then the GamerGate community is all about men who want to “terrorize” women.

In the real world, most fair-minded individuals know that if you take to social media and say really dumb things to instigate people (e.g., calling Rainbow 6 misogynistic because it has a female hostage), then out of the millions upon millions of gamers, some of them will respond in a rude — or possibly threatening — manner.

Taking heat from random internet jerks, many of them teenagers, is completely different than, say, having the director of big-budget Marvel Studios films liken you to a member of the KKK because you disagree with him. Yes, that’s right, Joss Whedon lumped the GamerGate community together with one of the most infamous racist organizations of all time. Stay classy, Mr. Whedon.

Joss Whedon GamerGateIn the real world, having to suffer the slings and arrows of immature jerks online is expected. What isn’t expected is that a writer for Gawker would call for those who disagree with him to be bullied. Yes, that’s right, that was Sam Biddle who wanted to “bring back bullying” like Justin Timberlake wanted to bring sexy back.

Sam Biddle GamerGateIf Colbert wasn’t a liberal activist, then he would talk about women like Helena Horton — a writer who has worked for Ampp3d, Vice, The Guardian, The Mirror, and Gay Times —who thinks society needs to “kill all men.” But he doesn’t. He gives feminists like Ms. Sarkeesian the floor to talk about all the mean, nasty, and sexist men out there who live to “terrorize” her.

Helena Horton GamerGateHow many gamers grew up idolizing Stephen Colbert, only to find out yesterday that he has utter contempt for them? How many Joss Whedon fans thought that they were liberal until they found out that liberal “tolerance” is only extended to those who parrot the precise talking points of the day without question. Disagree with the likes of Joss Whedon, and you’re a racist. Disagree with Ms. Horton, and you apparently need to die. Disagree with Ms. Sarkeesian, and you’re a terrorist.

If you are a gamer who has suddenly found yourself on the receiving end of personal attacks from the so-called “journalists” that you trusted for years, then take note: Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, The Huffington Post, and most of the websites you’ve relied upon to stay abreast of world events are of the same mold as Joss Whedon. If you are a gamer who now realizes that gaming “journalists” lie to you on a regular basis, then it is time to think long and hard about the worldview you’ve been shown by men like Stephen Colbert.

Editor’s Note: If you want to get an honest appraisal of GamerGate, then check out The Main Event’s YouTube page. His coverage of the issue since the very beginning has been superb.

About these ads

John Kerry hit by Obama officials: He’s ‘somersaulting through space’ like Sandra Bullock in ‘Gravity’ 1

John KerryThings must be really bad for the Obama administration behind the scenes. That is the only way to explain how officials can turn to The New York Times and dig a dagger into Secretary of State John Kerry’s back.

The New York Times reported Wednesday, Oct. 29:

Mr. Kerry is vocal and forceful in internal debates, officials said, and gets credit for putting together the coalition of Arab states that conducted military strikes in Syria. But he often seems out of sync with the White House in his public statements. White House officials joke that he is like the astronaut played by Sandra Bullock in the movie “Gravity,” somersaulting through space, untethered from the White House.

This week the Obama administration apparently decided it really wanted to offend people it needs to succeed on the world stage. First it called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickenshit,” and now it’s going after its own Secretary of State. The Times is left to conclude that the White House is “lurching from crisis to crisis.”

The chaos in Libya. The rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The annexation of Crimea. The blundering of Ebola. In each case the White House fell far short of the “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” expectations set in 2008, and now it is eating its own. Even Obama-friendly Business Insider and The Brookings Institution see the writing on the wall.

Here is what Mike Doran, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution Center for Middle East Policy, had to say: “Something is very wrong when White House officials openly ridicule the Secretary of State.”

Mike DoranThis is not good. As much as Republicans may want to engage in a heavy dose of schadenfreude, they should quell those feelings. Calling the Prime Minister of a major American ally a “chickenshit” and admitting that the U.S. Secretary of State is lost in space portends of worse things to come before the 2016 presidential election.

The S.S. Obama is falling apart in the middle of the ocean, and it’s still two years from port. There will certainly be squalls ahead. If the ship completely sinks, then millions of Americans will drown in the process.

Marvel nails it again: Benedict Cumberbatch is Doctor Strange 12

Benedict Cumberbatch AP

Did Marvel Studios make a deal with Mephisto? On top of all its previous box office success, the excitement for The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and securing Robert Downey Jr. for a few more films, it now has Benedict Cumberbatch playing Doctor Strange.

The Hollywood Reporter confirmed Oct. 27:

After months of speculation, Doctor Strange has been found.

Benedict Cumberbatch is in negotiations to take on the titular role in Marvel’s film, slated for release on July 8, 2016. …

Cumberbatch comes with an incredibly large fan base thanks to his Sherlock show and impeccable dramatic cred. And with The Imitation Game shaping up to be a major awards contender this season, a best actor nomination (or more) could also be on his curriculum vitae.

Scott Derrickson is directing the Marvel feature, which centers on a former neurosurgeon who serves as the Sorcerer Supreme — the primary protector of Earth against magical and mystical threats.

If there is a downside to casting Mr. Cumberbatch, then I can’t see it. He’s a great actor. He has a ton of range, his fans will turn out for him in droves — and women love him.

Doctor Strange has two big question marks, but even those aren’t as worrisome as they would be with other big budget films because Marvel has such a wealth of material to draw from:

    • Can Scott Derrickson, director of Sinister (2012), deliver the goods?
    • Will writer Thomas Dean Donnelly up his game, or will he give the world another Sahara (2005)?

In both instances, previous creative minds working for Marvel have done much of the heavy lifting for Messrs. Derrickson and Donnelly. A world doesn’t need to be created from scratch, they can glean the best elements of time-tested stories, and the Marvel “brand” ensures plenty of people will see it based on the studio’s reputation alone.

On top of that, ask yourself this question: Will Doctor Strange make his first appearance after the credits in Captain America 3, or will he have a cameo in Iron Man 4? The creative options open to Marvel at this point are endless.

I was considered a bit of an odd kid for knowing who Doctor Strange was in 1987, so it is extremely satisfying to know that the world will be properly introduced to the character in 2016. All good things come to those who wait.

‘F-Bombs For Feminism’ succeeds in blowing up last bit of credibility for modern U.S. feminists 9

FCKH8 2By now most people have heard of the new “F-Bombs for Feminism” video making the rounds. It’s a 2.5-minute commercial for FCKH8, the “for-profit T-shirt company with an activist heart,” which features little children spouting debunked liberal claptrap in between strings of swearing fits.

An excerpt of the video includes:

“What the fuck? I’m not some pretty fucking helpless princess in distress. I’m pretty fucking powerful! [...] Here’s some words more fucked up than the word ‘fuck': ‘Pay inequality.’ Women are paid 23 percent less than men for the exact same fucking work. [...] Pay up mother fucker!”

Luckily, viewers who wonder “What kind of adults at FCKH8 are so ironically blinded by hate that they would exploit children for political gain and profit?” get to see two of them. One even wears a “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt.

FCKH8 feminism“This is what a feminist looks like.” Indeed. It also happens to be what unadulterated, uncensored modern American liberalism looks like — and it is ugly.

Liberals make fun of the tea party and devoutly-religious Americans (I have already stated that I am not particularly fond of Mike Huckabee), but at least both of those groups have the moral decency to refrain from using children in such a repugnant manner. Would you rather sit down and debate the tea party — a group that came to D.C. for large-scale protests and left the National Mall cleaner than they found it — or members of FCKH8, who see nothing wrong with dressing a little boy up in a princess costume and telling him to deliver expletives on demand?

FCKH8 boyWhile women are being turned into sex slaves in the Middle East for Islamic State head-choppers, American liberal feminists are using their limited time, money and resources to argue that their gender is too stupid to successfully engage in salary negotiations. While Iranian women are executed for killing their alleged rapists, American feminists are busy stopping Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a victim of female genital mutilation — from speaking to college students.

It takes a depraved and disgusting soul to request a script like “F-Bombs For Feminism” and hire children to star in the finished product. Unfortunately, those are the souls trying to shape our culture.

If you lived inside a giant toilet your whole life, then you probably would not truly understand the disgusting nature of your existence. Similarly, FCKH8 and its ideological allies hope to slowly cover the American cultural landscape in intellectual feces in the hopes that, one day, no one will remember a time when they didn’t wallow in filth.

If FCKH8 and its employees want to be the face of modern liberalism, then give it to them. Make sure to tell all your friends about the organization, and then make a reasoned, dignified, and principled case for conservatism. Future generations will thank you.

You can see the video here.

‘John Wick': Keanu Reeves delivers solid action, shows us that the price of sin is pain and death 2

Keanu Reeves John WickCool cars. Cool guns. Cool fight scenes and fighting styles, and Keanu Reeves kicking butt. If you thought that sounded like a recipe for fun times at the movies when the trailer for John Wick came out, then you were right. For 1 hour and 36 minutes, former hit man John Wick piles up an astronomical body count because the son of a mob boss killed the last gift given to him by his wife — his dog.

Before I entered the movie theater, an older man exiting the previous showing walked by me and said “Stupidest movie ever. There was no characterization.” The man missed the entire point of the movie, which came when Russian mobster Viggo Tarasov (Michael Nyqvist) finally captures Mr. Wick.

He says:

Viggo Tarasov: “And when you left and the way you got out — lying to yourself that the past held no sway over the future — but in the end the lot of us are rewarded for our misdeeds, which is why God took your wife and unleashed you upon me. This life follows you. It links to you, effecting everyone who comes close to you. We are cursed, you and I.

John Wick: On that, we agree.

The point of the movie was not to see John Wick become a better man because the audience already knows that he tried that. He got out of the “business,” got married, and lived a normal life until his wife died of cancer. But prior to that he led a morally bankrupt life. The price of sin is pain and ultimately death, and Mr. Wick knows it.

Audiences are not particularly supposed to like John Wick. They are, however, supposed to like that evil was blown up, shot, punched, kicked, stabbed, run over and destroyed every time it showed up on screen.

John WickThe weakest part of John Wick was its ending, because Hollywood went with an upbeat resolution instead of the ending that the story demanded. One could make a plausible argument that the main character atoned for many of his sins by killing the monster he helped create — and therefore deserved another shot at life — but the script begged its writers to finish him off after his final confrontation with Viggo.

John Wick MustangOverall, if you’re looking for a solid anti-hero film that didn’t get much publicity, then John Wick is a movie worth seeing. Keanu Reeves looks great, he delivers action sequences as if he were 30 instead of 50, and the whole movie exudes “cool.” As an added bonus, the movie suggests that this generation should shy away from its narcissistic, self-centered impulses and embrace the kind of moral codes that the “old guard” lived by; there must be a certain chivalry — even among liars — to keep systems from collapsing.

If you’ve seen John Wick, then let me know what you think in the comments section below. I thought it was well worth the price of admission and hope Mr. Reeves gets more work because of it.

‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ trailer begs the question: How can Joss Whedon not direct ‘Avengers 3’? 8

Ultron no strings on meBy now the entire world has seen the teaser trailer for Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron. There really is only one word to describe it: awesome. The first movie made over $1.5 billion worldwide. It seems fair to say that $2 billion this time around is a distinct possibility. However, if director Joss Whedon delivers the goods — and all signs point to ‘yes’ — then it begs the question: How can he walk away from a climatic Avengers 3?

Over the past few weeks it’s been rumored that Marvel wants Joe and Anthony Russo to sign on for the 3rd and 4th Avengers movies, but it feels as though everything is building to Avengers 3. Only Marvel knows if that is the case, but I can’t help but feel as though walking away before completing an Avengers trilogy would be a bizarre move on Mr. Whedon’s part.

Directing a movie on as big of a scale as The Avengers must be physically and mentally exhausting. The time away from family and the pressure it puts on the director must be unbearable. However, if Mr. Whedon has set the stage for the superhero movie of all superhero movies to be Avengers 3, then passing on the job would be like the quarterback who leads his team down the field at the end of the big game, only to walk off the field on the opponent’s 20-yard line.

Regardless, for those who were too dazzled by the visuals of the teaser trailer to pay attention to the narration, it appears as though Whedon is going Empire Strikes Back-dark with this installment.

Ultron: “I’m going to show you something beautiful — everyone … screaming for mercy. You want to protect the world, but you don’t want it to change. You’re all puppets tangled in strings. String. But now I’m free. There are no strings on me.”

Then there is this exchange between Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff:

Tony Stark: “It’s the end. The end of the path I started us on.”

Natasha Romanoff: “Nothing last forever.”

Meanwhile, an eerie rendition of “I’ve Got No Strings” from Disney’s Pinocchio plays in the background. (The merger between Marvel and Disney continues to pay off in interesting ways.)

Avengers Age of Ultron teaserIt’s hard to see how Marvel can continue to keep this momentum going. The Black Widow is right: “Nothing lasts forever.” Eventually, Marvel will create a movie that implodes under its own weight. Eventually, all waves crash against the shore. Regardless, when that happens it will be hard not acknowledge that it was one wild ride.

Watch more TV to create an abbreviated version of yourself; read more to realize your full potential 3

I was recently having dinner with a friend, and the conversation drifted into the amount of time I allotted to television, movies, and YouTube videos each week. It is my firm belief that if a man wants to become an abbreviated version of his true self, then he will watch a lot of television. If he wants to realize his full potential, then he will slide the scale in favor of reading.

A 2011 report conducted by Nielsen found:

The average American watched 34 hours 39 minutes of TV per week in Q4 2010, a year-over-year increase of two minutes. The heaviest users of traditional TV are adults 65+ (47 hours 33 minutes per week), followed by adults 50-64 (43 hours per week). Trailing all other age groups, teens age 12-17 watch the least amount of TV (23 hours 41 minutes per week). …

143.9 million Americans viewed video online in January 2011, spending an average of 4 hours 39 minutes viewing video on PCs/laptops.

When it comes to statistics on books, organizations like Pew typically set the bar pretty low these days, asking people if they read at least one book — just one — per year. And even then, listening to audio books is lumped in with statistics on reading books. They are in fact not the same thing. Each decision affects the mind in different ways.

Pew reported in 2014:

As of January 2014, some 76% of American adults ages 18 and older said that they read at least one book in the past year. Almost seven in ten adults (69%) read a book in print in the past 12 months, while 28% read an e-book, and 14% listened to an audiobook.

Think of the best television programming out there. Say you watched Discovery or History most of the time. Even if you filled your mind with the highest quality products television has to offer, then you would still be getting a truncated version of the actual subject that the station is covering.

Now think about the television that you do watch. Think about what reality television, cable news, and typical daytime television beams into your brain. All of that affects you on a subconscious level, and the vast majority of it is more akin to sugary snacks and fatty foods than fruit and vegetables.

At least once a month someone says to me in person, in email, or via one of my social media pages that the movie ‘Idiocracy’ seems to have been prophetic. Why is that? The reason is because we’ve been trained to look into glowing screens geared towards providing us with intellectual opiates instead of boot camp calisthenics.

Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with watching movies, playing video games and and enjoying a good TV show, but like all other things it should be done in moderation. As a guy who reviews movies on a regular basis, it would be strange to tell people to cast off television completely. However, it seems as though fair-minded individuals can see how watching an average of 34 hours of television per week — in addition to however many hours are spent playing video games and watching silly videos on cellphones or laptops — is a recipe for brain atrophy.

Think of it this way: Would the average American be better served by reading Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, or by watching “In The Heart of the Sea,” directed by Ron Howard? My guess is that Mr. Howard has made a terrific movie, but will it engage the mind like Melville?

“They were one man, not thirty. For as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all contrasting things — oak, and maple, and pine wood; iron, and pitch, and hemp — yet all these ran into each other in the one concrete hull, which shot its way, both balanced and directed by the long central keel; even so, all the individualities of the crew, this man’s valor, that man’s fear; guilt and guiltlessness, all varieties were wedded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab their one lord and keel did point to.”

I challenge you for one year to cut the amount of television viewing you currently engage in by half, and then to fill that time by reading books like Moby Dick. Then, after one year, look back at who you were and who you’ve become and let me know how your perceptions on media consumption have changed. My guess is that you will be a completely different person, with no intention of going back to your old habits.

And yes, I will be reviewing In The Heart of The Sea shortly after it comes out March 13, 2015. Between now and then I also plan on writing a review for Moby Dick.

Neil Gaiman is right: ‘People talk about books that write themselves, and it’s a lie’ 13

My wife is reading Neil Gaiman’s “Smoke and Mirrors: Short Fictions and Illusions.” As she was doing so this past weekend she read the following out loud, knowing that it would make me smile:

“People talk about books that write themselves, and it’s a lie. Books don’t write themselves. It takes thought and research and backache and notes and more time and more work than you’d believe.”

In some sense, this is a good thing. Writing that is worth reading often seems effortless, but it can be a double-edged sword. When a consumer reads something that looks “easy” to create, they then expect the writer to churn out content as if it were rumbling down an automotive assembly line. It doesn’t work that way.

Readers of this blog know that I’ve been chipping away at my own book for perhaps eight months whenever time permits. If one were to liken writing a book to building a house, then I would say that I successfully laid the foundation and then realized that I wasn’t a very good plumber. Do I build a house with crappy plumbing and hope to sell it to people who aren’t too concerned about water pressure, or do I take the time to learn how to lay pipes?

For my own book, there is a character who is a former Army Special Forces team member. I found myself saying during the writing process, “Okay, I have infantry friends who have been deployed overseas, but wouldn’t it be better to actually talk to some guys who are Special Forces operators?” I’m now in the process of taking care of that task. That sort of thing takes time, which is something that friends and family and coworkers are usually in the dark about.

Likewise, all of my characters are men of faith (to different degrees). Months ago I found myself saying, “Wow, this is really hard because I’m not nearly as well-versed in my own faith as I thought I was!” What followed was three months of devouring the best and brightest work put forth by religious men that I could get my hands on. Again, that takes time (especially with a full-time job and a blog to keep fresh), but how do you explain that to friends who ask, “How is the book coming along?”

The answer: you don’t.

Unless you’re talking with fellow writers about the creative process, then I would suggest not discussing your book with friends and family and instead concentrating on writing in isolation. If you are a blogger, then I would also suggest refraining from talking about your book unless you plan to have open and honest discussions about the writing process.

Personally, I feel as though I would be done with my own project by now if I could tear myself away from this blog for more than a few days at a time, but my readers are like the mob — every time I think I’m out, you guys pull me back in!

If you’re a writing a book of any kind, then feel free to let me know what you do to stay focused. Or, if you have a question you think I might be able to help you with, then ask away. I’d be happy to give it my best shot in the comments section below.

Poem: ‘To my wife’ 14

HopperTo my wife

I see the unseen, unchanging
Invisible you
Shining eternal.
Such celestial gifts impart a heavy price —
I’m perpetually reminded that one day
I will steal my last kiss while you sleep,
I will fold your nightgown one last time,
And I will whisper one final ‘I love you’
Before the veil is lifted.

I will carry you to bed
And I will wash your feet
When the seasons have humbled your bones,
But no amount of time
Can prepare me for your passing.

I’m not a selfish spirit — God knows
I’m aware of what is rightfully His.
Regardless, I cannot help but pray
That when you shed your earthly self
He’ll call me soon thereafter.

Obama now linked to ‘Operation Inherent Resolve’ — or was that ‘Inherently Flawed’? 28

Obama APThe Obama administration has, at long last, a name for U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State group: Operation Inherent Resolve. It needed to come kicking and screaming to the table, but the name now stands.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday:

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s less punchy than previous nicknames for U.S. conflicts in the Middle East — remember Operation Desert Storm and its thunderous attacks against Saddam Hussein? — but the Pentagon has finally named its fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria: Operation Inherent Resolve.

The naming, which took weeks of deliberation behind closed doors at U.S. Central Command and at the Pentagon, is part of an effort to organize a long-term military campaign.

Personally, I was hoping the White House would go with Operation Kobe Bryant, but that didn’t happen.

Just days ago I said: “The logic seems to be that if President Obama can just eek out two years without naming operations in Iraq and Syria, then perhaps the never-ending mudslide of time will have an easier job of washing it all away…” Little did I know that the Wall Street Journal talked to military officials on Oct. 3, who conveyed that very same message.

Here is what the Journal’s Julian E. Barnes found out while writing ‘Operation Name-That-Mission: The Hunt for Military Monikers':

“The delay over naming the Iraq and Syria mission has led some to suggest politics is at play. The latest war, some officials said, is one the Obama administration didn’t seek or eagerly embrace. ‘If you name it, you own it,’ said a defense official. “And they don’t want to own it.”

The Obama administration now owns “it” — whatever that “it” is. For months now the non-strategy of a strategy has seemed to be “No boots on the ground!”, which may be why U.S. officials are trying to spin Islamic State’s push towards Baghdad into “strategic momentum” for its coalition.

Politico reported Tuesday:

The terrorists of the Islamic State have “tactical momentum on several fronts,” but the U.S. and its allies believe they have “strategic momentum,” the nations’ defense chiefs agreed Tuesday.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and 21 of his senior counterparts from the coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant also agreed that ISIL has been dangerously effective in its propaganda war, a military official said, and the allies must do more to counter it.

When one reads the news they must always be on the lookout for strange euphemisms, diplo-babble, and legerdemain lexical wizardry from officials. The use of “strategic momentum” certainly qualifies when they speak on operations against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. When one wants to hear what is really going on, that individual should pay more attention to guys like Gen. Ray Odierno, who are regarded as straight shooters.

The Hill reported Monday:

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said Monday he is “somewhat” confident that the Iraqi army can defend Baghdad from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“I believe the capability is there to defend Baghdad. … But we’ll have to see what plays out over the coming days,” he told reporters at the Association of the United States Army on Monday.

Defense officials are urging patience with the U.S. strategy against ISIS, even as the group makes gains in western Iraq and on the Syrian border town of Kobani.

ISIS appears to be advancing closer and closer to Baghdad, however, where at least several hundred American troops and civilians are stationed.

If the U.S. is only “somewhat” confident in the 60,000 Iraqi troops tasked with protecting Baghdad, then it is hard to see how officials can say the coalition has any kind of momentum. Regardless, it is clear that the Obama administration is going to need an extraordinary level of “resolve” to make Operation Inherent Resolve a success. Right now, however, it appears to think that dropping bombs for a couple years will buy it enough time to pass the baton to the next president.

Remember: The more a U.S. official sounds like he’s been getting his talking points from the Ministry of Truth, the more closely you have to pay attention to what he is saying. Then, and only then, will you have a chance at discerning what he honestly believes.