The liberal Obama and Humpty Dumpty: belief in the power of words
I’ve written previously about Barack Obama’s masterful use of words as a smokescreen. His lawyerly skills serve him well in this regard.
But Peter Wehner has been on his case lately as opposing counsel. Obama has been spending time distancing himself from Reverend Wright without actually answering the real questions that would put the issue to rest. Wehner has suggested ten questions Obama should answer, for starters. Oh, would that Obama actually decided to tackle them, or that the unchallenging MSM saw fit to ask them of him!
Now Obama wants to distance himself from the appellation “liberal.” Once a proud term, in recent decades it’s become somewhat of a dirty one—not in Cambridge or Berkeley, of course, but in national elections. As Wehner points out in today’s WSJ, although Obama’s record—ratings, voting history, backers (MoveOn.org, for example), and policy positions—is clearly liberal, he doesn’t think the term should be applied to him.
Obama claims that “liberal” isn’t a useful category. Jettisoning the word is part of the “change” he seeks:
Since Mr. Obama’s record reveals him to be a doctrinaire liberal, he dismisses ideological labels as simplistic, misleading and outmoded. When asked if he’s comfortable with the liberal label, he says, “This is what I would call old politics. This is the stuff we’re trying to get rid of . . . Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving problems.”
Here is another interesting indication of Obama’s belief in the power of mere words. It works on two levels. The first is that he is very eager to distance himself from the label “liberal” while continuing to advocate the policies. The second is that he asserts that it’s these labels themselves that get in the way of “solving problems,” not the ideological differences behind the labels.
Are disagreements actually real to Obama? Or does he think that just changing the “dialogue”—and the terminology—would be enough to solve them (including, of course, our disagreements with the likes of Iran)?
Try as I may, I can’t find a good example of any legislative problems or disagreements that Obama has actually solved—or even tried to solve—or ways in which he discarded distinctions between liberal and conservative and reached across the aisle.
Whatever one might think of McCain’s policy positions, there’s no question he’s done just that. But I don’t think McCain can be accused of having the simplistic notion that merely relabeling people as neither conservative nor liberal would facilitate the process of problem-solving.
Not that I think Obama actually believes it, either. But as Shrinkwrapped has written in this excellent essay, it’s unclear whether Obama has convinced himself of the truth of his own rhetoric (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”) or is merely a very convincing huckster (“The Wizard of Oz”).
Wehner quotes Obama’s further ruminations on the L-word:
“Oh, he’s liberal. He’s liberal,” [Obama] said recently in describing a characterization of him by Republicans. “Let me tell you something. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. It’s common sense. . . . There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has health care.”
Well, actually, there is something liberal about the latter, while the former is fairly neutral. And these two stands are hardly the sum total of the policies Obama has advocated. One can be a proponent of a relatively conservative policy or two and still be markedly liberal.
Whether or not Obama is proud of his liberal record, he certainly isn’t proud of the word. He has a combined approach to the problem: the first is to deny that it applies to him, and the second is to say the word is of no importance. Shrinkwrapped wonders whether Obama is the Emperor or the Wizard, but I would add that he’s also Humpty Dumpty of Through the Looking-Glass.
Here’s the famous dialogue from the Lewis Carroll work, in which Humpty arrogantly tells Alice he can manipulate words and make them do whatever he wants:
‘[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents — ‘
`Certainly,’ said Alice.
`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.
`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master—that’s all.’
Maybe it’s just part of the liberals’ current fantasy – that America is so fed up with Bush and the Republicans that we’re all stampeding toward the left. When everyone’s a liberal, we won’t need that inconvenient label anymore.
Obama is such a class act, ha. I really don’t see how someone who ranks as one of the most liberal politicians in Congress can claim label neutrality. After the public has shown in the past what it feels towards liberal candidates(e.g. Dukakis), the re-branding by those on the left to change liberal to the more friendly”progressive” has taken place. Have the policies changed? No (though you could argue the New Democrat stint was a maneuver to get away from the liberal image). The name change doesn’t change the policy decisions currently proposed by Obama. He can’t hide behind his staffers forever.
I’ll let Obama have a pass on “liberal” if he’ll accept “socialist.”
He can claim non-liberalness by proclaiming it. It is, as Humpty says, a question of who is to be master.
Or, as a recently freed slave is reputed to have said right after the Civil War, “Bottom rail on top now.”
The whole campaign is predicated on having this apres-bellum way of thinking go forward without it being called what it is.
The problem is that garden implements will out.
OMG — I was making the Humpty Dumpty analogy in my head just lat night!
Oh, I think that when we’re talking about the English language we most certainly should decide that we’re the boss of it!
However, that said… you can’t communicate unless you’re using words in a way other people understand *or* in a way that makes sense from context and association.
Always got to hide who they are.
My liberal friends also object to my using the word liberal as labeling. I point out that I have no objections to myself or my views being referred to as a conservative.
Whats up with that?
I used to be on the Left thirty years ago. I can tell you some stories about how the activist types and those who run their organizations would encourage the use of euphemism, misdirection, or outright masking the true agenda of the organized actions. I was more of a bookish Leftist who occasionally lent his support for their protest events. I WAS TOLD BY THE ORGANIZERS OF THESE EVENTS TO NEVER, EVER GET INTO INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHERS ABOUT MARXISM AND IDEOLOGY. We were to pass ourselves off as simply pacifist protesters of U.S. policy in Latin America.
These people know exactly who they are. Furthermore, they know that if the spotlight was to be turned on them, they would have zero chance of having any place at the table or win any elections.
Barack Obama knows who he is. I know who he is. Don’t deceive yourselves into thinking that these word games have any more meaning beyond a strategy of stealth.
I secretly resented having to play those games and to have to take those kinds of instructions. By nature I am not very good at pretending to be something I am not. At those events I would attend, I slyly would digress from the role of being a chanting drone and strike up philosophical repartee with whomever was game for it. I never forgot those unsavory qualities of the movers and shakers of the campus Left. It was one important folder I put in my mental inbox called “cognizant dissonance” that was stacking up on me by the mid-Eighties.
It is deceptive for the Left to have even appropriated the word “liberal” back in the late forties. “Liberal” has a classic and honorable meaning that today most people have forgotten. It used to mean those who preferred maximal freedom and minimal government interference in our lives. The perversion of the meaning of “liberal” annoys me to no end. These people who have done that are “Progressives” and “Marxists.” Or Socialists. They should be more properly known by those names.
Barack Obama exhibits two very ugly qualities that we must never allow to be close to the office of POTUS: cowardice and dishonesty. I would at least have some respect for him if he had the courage to proclaim exactly what he stands for and identify with the policy planks of Euro-Socialism. He has no respect for us. Even if I were a Leftist, I would lose respect for him because of his deceitfulness. Even in my Leftist days, because I would not shed my oh-so-unsophisticated Roman Catholicism, while I was an still am “pro-choice” I do not at all consider late-term abortions and even killing an infant as it is entering this world to be a good thing. It’s repulsive and monstrous. And I am very much opposed to having porn shops in areas where there are schools. And a host of other issues that pit me against those who supposedly champion “social justice.”
“Liberal” is not a good label for those on the Left like Barack Obama. I demand a more honest and precise nomenclature for what he stands for.
he is playing the personal definitions game.
it does allow more people to get under his umbrella because each persons definition will exclude the part of the classic defintion that they dont like, and that allows them to join.
the dissimulation of the game is “materialism”, and the material
america is a land of arguments and ideas, and everyone thinks that their opinoin matters.
so the game with the young americans is to play games so that they have every possible PERSONAL version definition in their heads.
so to the liberals he is still a liberal… to some conservatives now, the definition that is him may change…
the desire to be included overwhelms the desire to be correct. (you can see this on tons of psych test where individuals will outright lie agianst what they see if they think the others dont see what they see)
so in this case, he has removed the obstical to inclusion by removing the label that has to be correct.
nothing counts except for moving matter. all the ideas in the world mean nothing if they are not acted upon.
the way we see it is that we are contributors to the system, but once communism/socialism is on the table, thoughts are not important anymore.
when your riding in a cab, you tell the cabby where you want him to go. he thinks he is going to get money when he arrives, but thats an assumption.
you see, what he actually thinks doesnt matter. he can think your pregnant, he can be delusional and not see you and end up there, he can assume you will pay him, he can think its on the way home and your not going to shoot him.
not one bit of that matters to the ‘leader’ of a system where the input of the proletariat means nothing.
you can walk into a candy store, and find all these wonderful choices in candy. but all of them are nothing but clever sugar delivery systems.
all the views are correct… its our desire to pick the definitions that fit our desire to see it in a nice way.
abortion is a soft eugenics program that removes competition and reduces the population in a way in which wars, and other things are not necessary… slowly, the best and brightest women, are not putting their genes in the pool.
we have been taight we are all the same, so each of us doesnt have any meaningful contribution right? we wont have another einstein, because einstein was made not created.
well isnt that convenient to get the best and brightest from meeting good men and having a child that could grow up and compete with the leaders.
sanger called it the negro project… later it became planned parenthood.
early on obama is a liberal… but thats a problem… so lets call it something different, and then what happens? voila, the bad eugenics program is now a good program giving ‘choice’ to women.
did anything really change? care to check out the distribution of planned parenhood offices? care to read the letters of inquiry that the nazis sent to her magazine for information in their programs?
the game of words after society no longer thinks they are important or their right meanings are important becomes a game of marketing.
then you can sell them sugar in so many pretty packages… but no matter what they choose, they get communism/socialism.
in the REAL WORLD, does it really matter what something is called? things exist in absolute terms outside the symbols we use to conceptualize them. they would exist even if we didnt do that.
stars existed as they are from when they were just lights, to a nightshade, to gods, to cosmic bodies, to galaxies, etc.
all those names and symbols change, but what happened to the material.
it stays the same…
a rose by any other name…
Fredhgr, it sounds like you have some interesting stories to tell. Maybe you’d like to write some of them up and post them.
# pst314 Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Fredhgr, it sounds like you have some interesting stories to tell. Maybe you’d like to write some of them up and post them.
To what purpose, at this point? I would use any story from my experience to support the point of an argument. I don’t just relate an experience for its own sake.
Here’s one that’s very boilerplate – and anyone from that time period who participated in those protests who is honest could verify what I say. From 1979-82, when I was an undergraduate, the International Solidarity Movement (a Communist front organization then, as it is now) had a front group in front of it called CISPES (Committee In Solidarity With The People of El Salvador). I participated in some CISPES protests against U.S. backing of the junta in El Salvador and against the Contras in Nicaragua. Most of us were more than just protesting U.S. military support of the dictatorship in El Salvador and the groups trying to overthrow the Sandinistas in Managua. We were in favor of socialism. Many of us, but not all, were Marxists. We were REALLY in favor of the Marxists, but we were told at meetings and at rallies to not talk about what our real agenda is. And at many meetings I was told that I was overstepping my bounds in openly identifying with Marxist analysis. I was told that this would alienate others who may want to join the rallies and agitate against the U.S. Because they wanted to draw in the pacifists and those who, while having no overt ideological agenda, were just against the U.S. military. There was that kind of deception going on. That is an example, from my personal experience, of how Leftists, to advance their agenda, will hide aspects of who they are.
Hope that helps to illustrate my point.
Fredjr: have you read my interview with Steve Beren? You might be very interested; he has a history somewhat similar to yours. Part I is here, and this is Part II.
“There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has health care.”
More word games… Liberals don’t want everyone to have healthcare so much as for the government to run it and to force everyone to have equal healthcare (even if it is below standard, equality trumps quality). So I guess he is right…
FredHjr Says:
“Barack Obama knows who he is. I know who he is. Don’t deceive yourselves into thinking that these word games have any more meaning beyond a strategy of stealth.”
No problem.. first they were progressives, then socialists, then liberals… and now they’re… ‘not liberals’ while others are progressives again (now that no one alive remembers the old progressives). Obviously they’re hiding something. 😉
neo-neocon,
I just read both parts of the interview. I actually drifted away from Socialism earlier than he did (I left it around 1986-87) – and I’m younger than he is! Unlike him, being raised a Roman Catholic and entering the Jesuit order (The Society of Jesus) after college, I remained a Christian during my Marxist years. But, like him, I was a critical thinker and I studied philosophy and theology at some depth. Even though I considered myself a Marxist, I was always thinking of ways to recast it, to purify it, if you will, of aspects which either were not pragmatic or were unethical. I was not totally loyal to socialism; it was primarily a pragmatic option – an ideology that I wanted to use in order to put a practical program on to the Church’s social teaching. I was a Christian first, and then a Marxist thinker (and not an important one at that!). This is why the so-called “liberation theologian” (and I do not consider him as such) who appealed to me, because of the systematic way that he thought, was the Uruguayan Jesuit Fr. Juan Luis Segundo. His best work is called “Faith and Ideologies.” I highly recommend it. It’s written in a tight, efficient style that is logical and systematic, not effusive and wandering like many liberation theologians.
Anyway, I’ve digressed. Unlike Mr. Beren I was not primarily an activist. Very early on I had some misgivings about the activist leaders, suspicions which I think subsequent experience confirmed. Mr. Beren sounds like he was a lot more heady than most of the activist socialists were.
I value the combination of humanistic Christian values with intellectual rigor and critical thinking. I do not see any evidence of this whatsoever in Barack Obama’s life. Certainly, as a well-educated lawyer who went to institutions far more elite than the ones I attended, he is a very clever man. But, is he a deep one? I see in him a man who was molded at his mother’s knee, influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, connected to Leftist professors (and one of them a Palestinian terror apologist and member of the PLO) in college, married to a gal who may be deeper into Marxism than he is, nurtured by a pastor with a first-rate, second-rate mind, and hooked into a number of sordid people from Tony Rezko to the late, infamous Edward Said. His college professor mentor was Dr. Khalidi, a member of the PLO’s propaganda and fund-raising arm.
My question is: I was 31 when I finally dealt with that inbox of piled high “cognizant dissonance” re socialism. I continued to evolve, and to follow the truth wherever it led. I actually did not register as a Republican until 2003. Prior to that I saw myself as a Democrat who was at odds with the direction the party was going in. I finally understood what islamic jihad is and I took the enemy seriously enough to dig into the Qur’an and what I could of ahadith Bukhari and Muslim. I read about the life and deeds of the Prophet. I’ve spend a LOT of time reading over at Robert Spencer’s jihadwatch.org site.
Now, here’s this fellow Barack Obama and he’s into his mid forties now, and he shows no sign of having a clue of evidence of cognitive dissonance over on the Left. What gives with that? Here is someone who no doubt has some intelligence, and yet he has not shown himself as a thinker. I mean, this guy has a B.A. from Columbia and the J.D. from Harvard, and he cannot critically examine the intellectual font and historical record of Marxism?
Even though John McCain graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, he has a better understanding of this nation and the requirements of leadership. He has it all over Barack Obama. I just hope he knows how to campaign against this slick liar and coward.
“Liberal” is not a good label for those on the Left like Barack Obama. I demand a more honest and precise nomenclature for what he stands for.
I call such people fake liberals.
The difference between the genuine article and a fake one is subtle, but very stark.
It’s not hard to understand Obama, the classic left-wing opportunist and politician with very strong islamist sentiments; he’s whatever you want him to be, from a friend of Israel to Odinga’s cousin, a socialist and a conservative, half white, half black, everything to everybody, grinning like a carnival “huckster”. The big question from my point of view is not what’s up with B.O., but what’s up with the democratic party and literally half the country, how could this have happened to the party of Henry Jackson and John Kennedy, and the hip freedom culture, in only several decades? Are we about to be swallowed up, in a morass, in 10 more decades, until a green flag flies over the white house? Birthrate, birthrate, birthrate… from the Han chinese spreading into Tibet, to the muslims in europe and the “West Bank”… We’re living at the beginning of a modern science fiction fantasy, may the force be with you, friends.
Actually, what I’m seeing is the great many of Obama’s supporters have eschewed “liberal,” instead adopting the label “progressive.”
These are frankly radicals, who are those seeking revolutionary transformation, and thus are technically left of “liberal” on the ideological continuum. See MoveOn’s endorsement for a start:
Wehner needs to take the analysis a bit further.
http://moveon.org/press/pr/obamaendorsementrelease.html
Obama: “Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving problems.”
Translation: “Those old categories work against us, and they’re preventing us from solving problems our way.”
Neo: is Obama a sociopath? I think so. And please reconsider your earlier thought that maybe he should be a therapist.
““Liberal” is not a good label for those on the Left like Barack Obama. I demand a more honest and precise nomenclature for what he stands for.”
“Leftist”. Dirty, dirty leftist.
Orwell would have a field day with this guy.
Oh, come on! Is that the best label we can come up with? Who’s dealing in euphemisms now, I wonder?
I’m for calling him “That Slick Two-Faced Jihad-Lovin’ Commie Bastard.”
There were more sinister forces in play than some socialist demagogues. All “progressive”, “liberal”, “pacifist” and other organizations in the West were details of Soviet propaganda machine, being directly created for this purpose or infiltrated by agents of influence recieving their instructions and funding from KGB. These sock-pupets were adviced to create their own sock-pupets, and so on. Their rank-and-file members were in complete ignorance of where from their bosses get their commands.
All “progressive”, “liberal”, “pacifist” and other organizations in the West were details of Soviet propaganda machine, being directly created for this purpose
We only found that out recently, and already we have forgotten.
Russian sock puppets. Does that make them sock-kukli?
To confirm what Sergey is saying all one has to do is read George Kennans long letter. It was written in 1946, but its like reading about todays left as a political party. its an incredible document that almost nobody reads.
http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/2496/future/kennan.html
select his long letter, and part 4
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm
Whereas formerly foreign Communist Parties represented a curious (and from Moscow’s standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file–no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement–are thrust forward as bona fide internal partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective countries, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states. Only in certain countries where communists are numerically strong do they now regularly appear and act as a body. As a rule they are used to penetrate, and to influence or dominate, as case may be, other organizations less likely to be suspected of being tools of Soviet Government, with a view to accomplishing their purposes through [apparent omission] organizations, rather than by direct action as a separate political party.
A wide variety of national associations or bodies which can be dominated or influenced by such penetration. These include: labor unions, youth leagues, women’s organizations, racial societies, religious societies, social organizations, cultural groups, liberal magazines, publishing houses, etc.
i am hoping i am helping Sergey make his point.
Gray, only if you consider 1946…
you can also consider farther back to…
the amnesia set in during the mcarthy and the summer of love… (mcarthyism as a term being invented by the accused later confirmed to be an agent)
if you read the documents from then… and some of the congressional records… read the naked communist, thats from the 63.
here are a few of them… there are 45, but i am hoping some will go out and find good sources and learn. (you know feed a man, teach him to fish kind of thing)
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
isnt it interesting how we are doing that now? or rather we are sliding to it.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
care to let us know how many are now true?
that was 1963.. we just didnt find out, we just didnt care to find out.
on words
Reactionary nations are of such a composition that they attack a word without understanding of it. As the conquest of a nation by Communism depends upon imbuing its population with communistic tenets, it is not necessary that the term “Communism” be applied at first to the educative measures employed.
As an example, in the United States we have been able to alter the works of William James, and others, into a more acceptable pattern, and to place the tenets of Karl Marx, Pavlov, Lamarck, and the data of Dialectic Materialism into the textbooks of psychology, to such a degree that anyone thoroughly studying psychology becomes at once a candidate to accept the reasonableness of Communism.
As every chair of psychology in the United States is occupied by persons in our connection, the consistent employment of such texts is guaranteed. They are given the authoritative ring, and they are carefully taught.
Constant pressure in the legislatures of the United States can bring about legislation to the effect that every student attending a high school or university must have classes in psychology.
Educating broadly the educated strata of the populace into the tenets of Communism is thus rendered relatively easy, and when the choice is given them whether to continue in a Capitalistic or a Communistic condition, they will see, suddenly, in Communism, much more reasonability than in Capitalism, which will now be of our own definition
there is lots of this stuff that can be read from the past… manuals, guides of operation, books on coupes, and such… they still have them around…
A country’s law must carefully be made to avoid any rights of person to the insane. Any suggested laws or Constitutional Amendments which make the harming of the insane unlawful, should be fought to the extreme, on the grounds that only violent measures can succeed. If the law were to protect the insane, as it normally does not, the entire psychopolitical program would very possibly collapse.
A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.
To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every “home-grown” variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented “healing” remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of “psychology.”. You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.
You must labor until we have dominion over the minds and bodies of every important person in your nation. You must achieve such disrepute for the state of insanity and such authority over its pronouncement that not one statement so labeled could again be given credence by his people. you must work until suicide arising from mental imbalance is common and calls forth no general investigation or remark.
With the institutions for the insane you have in your country prisons which can hold a million persons and can hold them without civil rights or any hope of freedom. And upon these people can be practiced shock and surgery so that never again will they draw a sane breath. You must make these treatments common and accepted. And you must sweep aside any treatment or any group of persons seeking to treat by effective means.
LAVRENT PAVLOVICH BERIA
not a nice person…
my last post that ends with beria is WRONG!!!!
i went back and checked… that post should be deleted… its propaganda.
i am sorry… but i am not perfect… i thought to check it to make sure, and while elements are there, its a sham. turns out its from the church of scientology… a whole other group that plays with minds.
i would rather be known as making a mistake than be quiet and just hope it slides by.
On that note – I have to admit I almost have trouble believing some of the stuff I’m reading here about Soviet strategies for undermining Capitalism and America. It’s like a laundry list of conservative complaints against the left – almost too perfect.
Not casting doubt on anyone – just thinking I need to hop off and do some research on my own.
so that bugs, but stay away from tin hatters, and white supremicists… there are whites that care for everyone and are concerned by the games, but thats VERY different than supremecy.
their problem is that they dont vette things, they are mostly against the US without reason other than accepting whatever meets their confirmational bias, and they run with ridiculous or too far out conclusions that usually are just one of many possible conclusions.
i try to do as best i can, but as you can see, once in a while i get slammed too… but at least i dont stop looking to make sure, and i am more than willing to go back and post i was wrong. and above i was wrong in that last post… period.
here is one for you… how come there are no movies that cover the gulags and all the horrible things of socialism? there are tons on the germans… there are even a movie now that falsely paint a picture of white viking europeans killing indian babies for sport, and stealing women.. its one big propaganda flick even more so than reifenstall.
prior to the time after WWII, all spy orgs and things were only temporary agencies. in fact the oss was disolved after the war, but when russia didnt dissolve their apparatus well, we created the cia. it was the revolutionary concept of perpetual war that forced us to keep such agencies, and since socialism is revolutionary, it will permanently be that way.
heck, even elizabeth had tavistock…
Bugs,
it took me a bit, but i wanted to find a real thing that you know about, that the information is very clear on.
Did you watch the movie “The Da Vinci Code” (or read the book)? I figure you have, but even if you haven’t, you probably know the term “Priory of Sion”
well its a real document, but its a hoax..
it really is the modern invention of Pierre Plantard, a peculiar Frenchman with royalist and anti-Semitic views. It dates to the year 1956, not 1099. Plantard’s hoax merely took the name of a medieval monastic order that had ceased to exist by the 14th century and which had nothing to do with legends about Jesus’ fathering children.
You may wonder if Brown’s readers find his tale convincing, not as fiction but as truth. Seemingly they do. A Barna Group poll found that 53 percent of the book’s readers said The Da Vinci Code aided their “personal spiritual growth and understanding.”
ah but the thick plottens…
“Priory of Sion”
“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
dont they sound close? well its a neat bit of stuff going on. the first, is based on the second, but using it in a movie, lets the first prime you for the second to be familiar. couple that with the fact that 53 percent thought the movie affected them, you have a nice large group that would possibly read the second document.
if you know about how advertising works. like how marlboro man sells cigarettes, then what the first does, is prime you for the second.
Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the “biggest cover up in human history” bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony conspiracy, the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu Golovinski in 1898, the Protocols tells of a secret society of Jewish elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world through “Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism.”
just go to wiki and read about it.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: “Протоколы ÑионÑких мудрецов”, or “СионÑкие протоколы”, see also other titles) is a literary fraud alleging a Jewish and Masonic plot to achieve world domination. The writing has been revealed to be originally an antisemitic, and subsequently an anti-Zionist, plagiarism and hoax first published in 1903 in Russian, in Znamya.
————————————————-
It was widely circulated in the West in 1920 and thereafter. The Great Depression and the rise of Nazism were important developments in the history of the Protocols, and the hoax continued to be published and circulated despite its debunking.
————————————————-
The Russian Federation
Despite stipulations against fomenting hatred based on ethnic or religious grounds (Article 282 of Russia Penal Code), the Protocols have enjoyed numerous reprints in the nationalist press after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 2003, one century after the first publication of the Protocols, an article[75] in the most popular Russian weekly Argumenty i fakty referred to it as a “peculiar bible of Zionism” and showed a photo of the First Zionist Congress of 1897. The co-president of the National-Patriot Union of Russia Alexander Prokhanov wrote: “It does not matter whether the Protocols are a forgery or a factual conspiracy document.” The article also contained refutation of the allegations by the president of the Russian Jewish congress Yevgeny Satanovsky.
So your talking about a document that has been fomented for 100 years that comes from them, and they still print it and cirulate it.
In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Dan Brown’s version, the “Priory of Sion” (“Sion” simply means “Zion” in French) is the good guys. They’ve been waiting for the right moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to introduce the world to the worship of the “Goddess,” a.k.a. Mary Magdalene.
oh.. and thats from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=
the kicker is that while that stuff is fake, some of the ideas incorporated into it are not fake. the slow walk through the institutions of gramsci, as applied by the frankfurt school, with other things, has worked wonders on our culture. but its not a jewish masonic conspiracy (despite a lot of jewish people involved in a lot of things. they are smart, and so they are where smarts work, good or bad). its just a state subversion.
you can believe your own country did it in various places (it did), and you know that it was done in countries by them (it was). so why not here? what special magical property does the US have? even more, what are we doing to make sure its not that way?
isnt there still a war going on? everything seems to be working the same… (weapons build up, flights to probe space up and to be increased to 30 a month, new nuclear weapon, new nuclear hardened tank, new nuclear sams, all kinds of things, including a big military parade on may 1)
maybe a silent war, replaced a cold war. its one of those things that you never can be sure of, and from where people stand can never really know till later looking back. this is why the germans didnt see hitler coming, nor do all the idealists.
only a lucky few get a second chance, but thats only because the US still exists.
there are so many similarities to actual history that its something you can notice. does it mean its going that way? maybe, maybe not.
thats the difference between a tin hatter and an honest person. how the heck could i know?
i know the history, i know the parallels, i know things, but i dont know the future.
So the Bukharin/Stalin theory of “Socialism in One Country” was, uh, what? Blackness in One Country? Or the re-unification of Africa into one landmass-wide nation?
It makes ya wonder…
Thank you for a nice article.