The war against Rush
[ADDENDUM: Mark Steyn weights in on the matter.
But of course CNN is the objective cable news station. Anita, you there?]
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
[ADDENDUM: Mark Steyn weights in on the matter.
But of course CNN is the objective cable news station. Anita, you there?]
As one person commented on a blog; ” (sic) . . .if Rush is a racist, then so are the twenty million who listen to him. As one of them, this insults me.”
I have read comments on a couple of college football forums (I am an addict) that skewer Rush for his racist, homophobic, fascist attitudes. I am pretty confident that the commentators, probably college students, never listen to Rush. Their diatribes sound good to themselves because they fit the template of their contemporaries.
Rush will continue to laugh all the way to the bank; and people who listen to him will appreciate him for his good work–and roll our eyes when he goes over the top. Which of course he does. But, usually it clearly is in the nature of satire and parody. Unfortunately, too many people can neither recognize nor appreciate these techniques in this up tight climate.
Here’s a guy, Rush Limbaugh, who is solo on the air, unscripted, attacking the most controversial subjects, for 3 hours a day for years and years and YEARS, and Soros pays to have Limbaugh’s every word transcripted in order to destroy him, and Soros comes up with nuthin, nada, zilch. Why? Because Limbaugh is not any of the various “ists or ics” which would destroy him!!!
Rush Limbaugh is conservative. That’s it. That’s all it is. And he is attacked for it. And, because he is conservative, the left and George Soros are CERTAIN he is one of the various “ists or ics”.
Limbaugh says (my paraphrase): We conservatives don’t need scripts! We know what we believe, and all we have to do is say what we believe. It’s the left which need scripts, b/c the left has to hide what they truly believe.
Flyer and gcotharn – excellent observations.
I’m a little concerned that Rush arguing against these charges is kind of like Obama ranting against a news network.
Not denigrating FOX (I’m quite in their corner btw), but it’s kind of like he’s arguing with an organization that is beneath his level.
Much as a president shouldn’t be in a pi$$ing contest with a network, for somewhat different reasons Rush shouldn’t be in a pi$$ing contest with CNN or MSNBC as they are simply using him to try to raise their own ratings.
CNN and MSNBC are basing it on what are now known to be lies, and it doesn’t matter how often or thoroughly Rush denounces these lies he’s still going to be smeared by these guys.
Anyone on the right is not going to believe the accusations, anyone on the left is going to latch onto the accusations as simply reinforcing their view of the man, and anyone in the middle who actually hears Rush’s response is only going to hear “I didn’t do it” – which is not much of a defense unless you are familiar with the honesty of the person offering that defense.
My best suggestion would be for Rush, since he’s figured out who started the rumor to begin with, to initiate a libel lawsuit against the guy who originally posted the lies to the internet.
After that, he should go farther and name Wikipedia, CNN, MSNBC, the various *reporters* (loose terminology there, these days), as well as the various political figures such as Jesse Jackson and certain congress critters, as additional parties being sued as well for slander.
If he can prove libel against the originator of the false quotes, and if he can prove slander by showing there was even a reasonable doubt regarding the quotes before these public figures began repeating them as fact – or that they knew or should have know the quotes were false before speaking out using them – then I would think Rush would stand to make a lot of money off of these jerks before it was over with.
At least at that point, in the future anytime someone tries to charge Rush as being a racist, there would be a court case exonerating him of at least this particular charge and penalizing those how propagated the lie for personal gain – which would also be great comeback material to sway the minds of anyone who is undecided on the matter.
In the minds of anyone who hasn’t formed an opinion already, a settled court case definitely would outclass any accusations the left would make.
It would also have the pleasant effect of muzzling the leftists a bit, in that they would have be far more cautious in what accusations they make in the future.
What the left is trying to do to Limbaugh is what the left does to everyone they fear, and to every thought they fear: shut up Shut Up SHUT UP! If we have to interpret your verbal intention to suit our purposes: shut up. If we have to make up and propagate quotes out of thin air: shut up. If we have to argue that you ought shut up because you cause US to squawk about YOU: shut up. It’s wrong for YOU to cause US to squawk like that. SomeWHERE in America, you are offending someONE – probably a child, therefore: shut up. Shut up for the children. Shut up shut up SHUT UP! That’s our argument. It’s all we’ve got. Do it. Now.
Oops – should have included wikipedia with the libel, not the slander, group….
Nothing they didn’t do to Palin.
I believe that public figures have a tougher time proving libel and slander, even with regard to claims of racism which are intended to so lower the person defamed as to foreclose further discussion from him or her. Public figures have to demonstrate that that the false and defamatory statements attacking them were made with malice. Malice means, among other things, with an evil intent.
By publicly denying the truthfulness of defamatory statements and asking the persons who are making them to source them, Rush is giving these persons the opportunity to either find when and where Rush made the racist statements or apologize. Failing to apologize would not make a prior defamatory statement malicious but if the person who was asked to apologize then continues to make defamatory statements without knowledge of or a disregard for their truthfulness, they take on a malicious intent. I think Rush is planning to bring a few lawsuits in the near future, as these claims that Rush is a racist are continuing, which may stand a very good chance of success given that all of this is happening on the public airways and the case that much easier to prove.
Steve G,
“Public figures have to demonstrate that that the false and defamatory statements attacking them were made with malice. Malice means, among other things, with an evil intent.”
Agreed. Which is why I mentioned this in my own comment:
“If he can prove libel against the originator of the false quotes, and if he can prove slander by showing there was even a reasonable doubt regarding the quotes before these public figures began repeating them as fact – or that they knew or should have know the quotes were false before speaking out using them – then I would think Rush would stand to make a lot of money off of these jerks before it was over with.”
Regardless of how distasteful the left has conducted itself, to remain consistent I would have to argue that ignorance IS an excuse in this case, as a person should be able to argue validly that they were only repeating what had been told to them as fact, and had no reason to question whether it was fact or not.
This one loophole is a fine line, I admit, but in the case of various reporters (who SHOULD know better than to quote unsubstantiated sources as fact simply by virtue of being reporters) I could see an argument being made by Rush that they are held to an especially strict standard by the public, and should be accountable for their words if they knowingly used false information and reported it as fact.
There is no valid reason I can think of, besides malice or evil intent, to knowingly repeat a lie in order to bring harm to another.
I believe the standard for public figures is if the paper or other outlet acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Malice might be imputed, absence some kind of internal communication showing it, but reckless disregard for the truth is different. “This was a serious statement, and you didn’t check the source. Why not?”
Fabricated smears are as old as the Communist Party, and a hardy perennial in their arsenal. Nothing new here. The idea is to keep non-communists hopping to answer their every allegation instead of pressing their own original point.
As an experiment, I once “liberaled” a Red on another forum, taking his every comment as a reflection of his innate racism, no matter how tortured the reasoning to support that conclusion. I refused to accept any explanation or clarification, imputing the worst conceivable motives to him at every juncture, and beating him over the head with the racism charge over and over again. It worked; he capitulated. And he has a newfound appreciation of what it’s like to be on the other end of that rubbish.
Occam’s Beard:
Which helps explain why Van Jones was fast and furious with the “smear” charge after what he had previously said and written was brought to the attention of the general public.
Under NYTimes v Sullivan, actual malice does have to be established to prove defamation of a public figure, but it can be proven by showing that the speaker knew the information was false. Just failing to fact-check is not enough – the speaker (or writer or publisher) had to know the statement was false or at least entertain significant doubt about its truth. So, if those smears were actually fabricated rather than just taken out of context, a libel suit might stick. That doesn’t mean it would necessarily be a good idea, though.
Hannity just reported that Rush will no longer be considered as a part of the investment group. If true, I wonder how damages would be computed.
OT fun remembrance:
Occam,
I did the same thing(!), i.e., as an fun experiment, I comment section accused a left blogger of being racist. He had said one of Barack’s actions had been ignorant, and I said labeling a black person as ignorant was clearly racism. I was already giggling as I composed the comment.
All h*** broke loose in the comment section, with other bloggers/commenters rising to his defense. However, as long as I refused to be knocked off my stand: “Black skin + ‘ignorant’ adverb = racist comment”, no logical argument could win the day against my stand. It drove the blogger and the commenters crazy. In the end, the blogger actually backed down and issued a mealy semi apology. Hilarity.
An aside:
Not only did the blogger and his defenders not realize I could not be knocked off my stand, they also did not realize the most effective defenses of the blogger, which were, more or less:
– it’s simple truth that a black person can take ignorant action
– I could not read the blogger’s mind or his heart, and therefore my accusation was completely insignificant, trite, useless, and distracting from the points of the blogger’s post.
No one ever broached these points, which would be the first things I would point to in defense. Instead, the blogger was vociferously and continually defended upon this basis: he is on the left, therefore he is virtuous, therefore he did not make a racist statement. It made perfect sense to them. I drove them crazy that I refused to capitulate to it; that they could not develop it into a logical path to victory on the issue.
Gcotharn, interesting. My experience was exactly the same.
I gave my interlocutor a Full Monty liberaling, microscopically examining his every post for anything that could remotely be construed or miscontrued as racist. When necessary, I’d impute racist sentiments to him and then attack him for them. (“Yeah, I bet some of your best friends are, but you wouldn’t want your sister to marry one. Typical racist!”) In short, exactly the sort of rubbish we have to put up with.
Amazing observations abounded.
First, my adversary also never resorted to a reasoned defense, but as in your case, had recourse to the lame “I’m a good person” defense(as if a liberal would accept that from an American).
Second, he apparently never realized that my whole line of comments were specious, being essentially a social psychology experiment to see what a liberal would do when confronted with his own tactics. (As part of my own Giles/O’Keefe moment, I made the allegations progressively (no pun intended) more specious, tenuous, and ridiculous, but he never twigged, as the Brits say.)
Third, he kept hopping to address each allegation, apparently not realizing that I could make them up faster than he could address them.
And fourth, he never got to the point of dismissing red herrings as such, until he finally capitulated.
In all, a most instructive experiment.
I don’t except the premise that the quote itself about the “streets being safer” is racist, no matter who its originator was.
Pointing out cultural realities about subsets of the American culture isn’t the same thing as pointing out inherent inferiorities in a particular race. Which used to be what racism was. Now its simply whether a single person feigns offence.
This all goes back to Donovan McNabb.
Limbaugh said the sports media were ruining the guy, setting him up by praising everything he did regardless of its wonderosity because he was the Great Black Quarterback and he wouldn’t be getting that kind of Joe Montana-like coverage if he weren’t black.
He’s been a certified, accredited racist ever since. So tell me, Ms Ferraro – when did you stop being a racist?
Pointing out cultural realities about subsets of the American culture isn’t the same thing as pointing out inherent inferiorities in a particular race.
Of course not. My favorite liberal argument on these lines is that the disproportionately higher incarceration rate of blacks “proves” racism on the basis of the police and the courts, reflexively dismissing the alternative explanation, that incarceration rates scale with crime rates. Yet ask those same liberals if they would stroll alone through an inner city late on a hot summer’s night and they’ll look as you as though you’re crazy.
We note, in passing, the Charles Johnson repeated the quotes and the link and when challenged gave this classic response:
“There will be no retraction. The quote is disputed, but it has not been proven false. And there are plenty of other racist quotes that you seem to be just gliding right past that are NOT disputed.”
A kind of “it might be fake but it’s accurate” position.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/293599.php
“”Yet ask those same liberals if they would stroll alone through an inner city late on a hot summer’s night and they’ll look as you as though you’re crazy””
I recall a study about cab drivers discriminating by not picking up blacks in certain parts of town. The kicker was it was black cab drivers doing most of the discriminating.
SteveH, who could blame them? Cab drivers want to survive, just like everyone else, and they (rightly or wrongly) perceived the risk not to be worth the reward.
I often wish I’d had the opportunity to teach a course in logic and/or critical thinking, using as examples newspaper articles, which are typically shot through with this and similar logical fallacies.
One of the most common: confusing correlation with causation. Falling barometers correlate with rain, but neither one causes the other – they’re both consequences of a common cause. People laugh at that one, but nod sagely when they read that breast-fed babies are likely to be more intelligent, never thinking that breast-fed babies are also more likely to have trust funds and be driven around in a Volvo.
I miss the good ol’ 1950s, when “discriminating” was a very favorable adjective, used in carriage trade ads, inter alia, to describe high standards. good taste, the ability to distinguish the shabby and the vulgar from the well-made, the stylish, the classic.
I still try to be discriminating. There, I said it, and I’m not sorry! Feels good! Try it–it works!
Tom, you’ve touched on an issue I have with the leftists, namely their penchant for being “non-judgmental.” Rendering judgments of what is good, bad, or indifferent is what grownups do all the time, every day. Of course, for liberals, it’s probably as well that they don’t try to exercise what little judgment they may have.
Try your logic on this Occam
Rush says less than a dozen sentences in:
a genuine full-fledged smear campaign being orchestrated by liberal sportswriters and picked up by other liberals in the State-Controlled Media
How does Rush know there is a “full-fledged” and “orchestrated” campaign.” How? You can’t just claim stuff without backing it up. He doesn’t even specify “some” liberal sport writers, just includes without particulars the claim “liberal sports writers”.
If I claim there is a full-fledged and orchestrated campaign against me Logern, because several people in different threads have disagreed or insulted me, how would I know that. I don’t. Unless that claim is supported by a statement or something signed on to by several members (as one example, but there may be others).
Remember when Clinton tried to define “is”. Rush would likely be torn apart in grand jury testimony, as well he should be.
What he does easily fits within what goes on in the political realm, but that’s not saying much about the accuracy of it.
Nice try, logern. No sale. Won’t waste my time refuting your rubbish.
Occam’s Beard,
Great observation, “Fabricated smears are as old as the Communist Party, and a hardy perennial in their arsenal. Nothing new here. The idea is to keep non-communists hopping to answer their every allegation instead of pressing their own original point.”
In my opinion, the only defense Rush needs to mount is to remind everyone that if these lies are true, produce the evidence. If they can’t, then it’s evident who the liars are, simple enough.
Contrast that with the incredibly stupid comment above, “How does Rush know there is a “full-fledged” and “orchestrated” campaign. How?”
Gee, perhaps the fact that all of a sudden these quotes from some other place and time, to remain unspecified, crop up in several venues at the same time? Why what a coincidence! Perhaps Soros’s scribes should be asked that question.
Y’know, I don’t listen to Rush. Over the years I may have heard him enough times to count on one hand and have fingers left over. And I have to say I agreed with most of what he said too. That being said, what he left in this country is trying to do to him is despicable. Unfortunately it’s no different than what they did to W, or what they tried to do to Palin, as was mentioned above. It’s what they did to Bork. What they tried to do to Clarence Thomas, the list goes on and on…
Anyone who would dispute that one of the left’s main weapons is personal destruction is either willfully blind, utterly dishonest or unbelievably naive.
Oops I meant, “what the left in this country…”
Tim p, are you saying the comments were repeated at the exact same time? When I hear a comment I can comment one second after. This does not prove collusion.
Much as I would like to say there is a collusion against logern, there is no evidence. Even if there is a collusion, I still have no evidence (as yet). No different with Rush.
You want me to deconstruct rubbish on the left? I can do that too.
Now I will go brag how I squashed Occam the conservative.
Actually, I have better things to do. Watch paint dry, for instance.
Well, Iogern, he does actually play tapes of the persons he’s referring to. These tapes being recorded within only the span of a day or day and a half (as the story has come out). Pretty much the same time, no? If not ‘orchestrated’ than they all readily follow the planted stimulus as eagerly as Pavlov’s dogs. Call it ‘prearranged’ if you like.
If we’re going to call it anything, I’d suggest the following for now. (And this is hardly a compliment to those ‘liberal’ sportswriters either)
eh, meant to have more than the link
The bandwagon effect is well-documented in behavioral psychology and has many applications. The general rule is that conduct or beliefs spread among people, as fads and trends clearly do, with “the probability of any individual adopting it increasing with the proportion who have already done so”.[1] As more people come to believe in something, others also “hop on the bandwagon” regardless of the underlying evidence. The tendency to follow the actions or beliefs of others can occur because individuals directly prefer to conform, or because individuals derive information from others. Both explanations have been used for evidence of conformity in psychological experiments. For example, social pressure has been used to explain Asch’s conformity experiments[2], and information has been used to explain Sherif’s autokinetic experiment.[3]
Am I the only one who noticed that logern referenced wikipedia – which is apparently also the source for the fake quotes attributed to Rush to begin with?
I really am just sitting here laughing at such a misguided effort…..
😛
When I still read the NYT in the late 1980s, I knew, just knew that Rush was a pinhead. (Just like logern the microcephalic) After all, everyone said so.
My home was under renovation at the time, so I’d check on the work mid-days. The carpenters always had the radio on, listening to this guy who made a lot of sense, had great wit to boot. Yep, carpenters, you know, those bluecollar stupids. That’s how I came to actually hear what this oft-cited, much maligned man actually said. Like most of the anti-Rush crowd, I had not checked him out previously.
I’m still listening….and I stopped with the POS NYT long ago.
Conspiracy, bandwagon effect, what does it matter? One thing is certain: Obama and his minions inside and outside the current administration have spent much more effort trying to discredit opposition media than Dubya ever did, in spite of media overall being much more hostile to Dubya than to Obama.
Very interesting that Fox DOCUMENTED what Van Jones said, but the mainstream media ignored the controversy until it was over or almost over. The NYT made no note of the Van Jones controversy until after he resigned. The WaPo published an article two days before Van Jones resigned. (Having grown up in a small town with refugees from Nazism and Communism, I do not lightly dismiss Van Jones stating he was a communist. I find it especially abhorrent he did so at a time when so much information about Communism was available, to put it mildly.)
logern’s focusing on conspiracy versus bandwagon this has the effect of displacing attention from the meat of the issue: in recent days many sources have claimed that Rush Limbaugh said something without proper documentation that he actually said it. In some circle, that is called lying and libel.
logern is unable to prove that Rush actually said what he said re slavery et al, so logern instead focuses on some trivia about what Rush actually said in order to discredit Rush Limbaugh. Sound familiar?
If logern is the scholar and thinker that he claims he is, he will provide for us documentation that Rush Limbaugh actually said those things that others claim he did. After all, he is the knowledgeable nuanced liberal, and we are the ignorant knuckledraggers. And I don’t mean Wikipedia.
Like others, I do not listen to Rush’s program. But much of what I read of what he has said makes sense to me. I would love to hear Rush, who has practiced thiniking on his feet for fifteen hours a week for over two decades, debate Obama. Rush would wipe the floor with Obama, who is lost without the teleprompter.
need to proofread the bolds on another site. Neo, are you going to get proofreading in?
Gringo: I’ll edit out the bold in your comment.
Unfortunately, other comments software I’ve tried, with an editing function, have all ended up screwing with the links in the comments. I’ve had to remove some previous versions. Some day I’ll search for another, along with a bunch of other technical stuff I need to do.
Thanks, Neo. It’s now the way I intended it. Which reminds me of a wise saying a friend of my mother’s said over a quarter century ago: “The computer doesn’t do what I want it to do. It does what I tell it to do.”
Actually, Logern has a point: Rush can’t prove collusion anymore than the MSM can prove he’s racist.
By extension, the MSM now has to prove that they didn’t conspire against. In essence, they have to prove the negative.
logern needs to answer the arguments here rather than simply repeating his one. We get the point. You think Rush’s statement is unsupported, and must be discarded. Take on the counterarguments. Here’s one: “full-fledged” is so ill-defined that Rush could take any few scraps of evidence and support it, and you would be unable to prove him wrong. So your first accusation is out immediately.
Occam and gcotharn – interesting similar experiences on liberal sites. I would have predicted that they would have produced the proper arguments when it was themselves being attacked, but they did not. Have you run across others who have run similar experiments?
I am thinking it is related to the response my brother gave when I suggested that much of the left hates Israel regardless of what it does. He scoffed, laughed it off, protesting that liberals are not the haters, they’re nice people who don’t think like that. When I provided evidence, he did not counter with evidence, but with more protestations of niceness. Odd, because he is an intelligent character. He knows what evidence and counterevidence are in an argument. But there seems to be some blockage here that is short-circuiting logic whenever a liberal’s goodwill comes under question.
“hop on the bandwagon” regardless of the underlying evidence
Funny thing is, my quote out of Wikipedia is intended to support Rush — that people may be jumping on the bandwagon regardless of evidence.
But I attacked Rush, because in the very piece he is going on about people lying, he can barely get into the piece before he goes on making unsupported claims himself.
(but gcthorn has a point. What do I mean by point? Maybe it turns out I don’t mean what you thought I meant. But you tell me gcthorn. I could be referring to an earlier point by gcthorn, not the one he thinks. In fact, that’s what I plan to claim. Or maybe I won’t. That’s possibly why I brought up Clinton’s “is” wrangling. I ain’t going there any longer either way, but feel free to discuss it)
Sorry gcthorn, switch that to Assisted Village Idiot.
as Emily Latella use to say,
Nevermind.
Anyone wanting to see how Reds operate need only read “Witness,” by Whittaker Chambers. When Chambers leveled his allegations, the Red-infested media of his day (and ours), the NYT and WaPo, parroted all of the CPUSA talking points aka smears about him: he was an alcoholic, he was homosexual, he was
a loyal Americanan agent provocateur, the lot. Sound familiar?As for comrade Logern, produce the proof or STFU.
Rush says less than a dozen sentences in:
a genuine full-fledged smear campaign being orchestrated by liberal sportswriters and picked up by other liberals in the State-Controlled Media
No he didn’t. You can’t prove he said that.
There is no such thing as evidence, people. Haven’t people realized this yet? To the Left, there is no objective reality. Nothing we can agree on as being true, or virtuous, or good, or real. THat leaves only one thing: power. The power to enforce their reality on others, making their reality ‘real’, much as the Party makes the reality real that 2 plus 2=5.
Without an objective reality, there can be no compromise. There can be no peace deal between our faction and theirs. There can not even be a truce or cease fire. They are for perpetual war because their very metaphysical reality demands it as the only solution to conflict.
Logerns task is to put us to sleep making us think that whats going on that is unnatural, has a natural and logical reasonable explanation. so there is no reason to think anyting else. its a form of active propaganda of a very subtle kind (that often works).
there are so many things that you people havent read, that if you did, you wouldnt hold certain opinions.
Strategy and tactics of world communism.
by United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
Published in 1955, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. (Washington)
openlibrary.org/b/OL7030520M/Strategy_and_tactics_of_world_communism.
and things like this (more of a bridgework for liberals).
Communism And Its Tactics – Sylvia Pankhurst
libcom.org/library/communism-tactics-sylvia-pankhurst
she also wrote
1920s: Communism vs. Reforms: Mistakes of the Communist Party in Ireland
The British Workers and Soviet Russia
and from another location
You first need to understand the basic history and ideology behind communism. In short, it is the union philosophy, collective bargaining practices applied to everyday life, instead of just at the workplace. The idea that all men have the same economic worth, regardless of individual ambition, work habits, contribution, or choices, a Right to the same results, regardless of the differences in their efforts.
These ideas incorporate all inclusive social engineering, whereby all ideas, lifestyles, moral or immoral behaviors have equal merit, equal status, and all doctrines of individualism are set aside in favor of a supposed collective interest.
Like in the workplace, this concept requires a central power for collection and distribution of resources. A power to determine what is fair for all, collect the resources necessary to provide that equality, and distribute it accordingly. In the case of Communism, that central power is the government.
Anyone who has ever worked in a union job can tell you, the result of this form of equality is the unlimited reduction in productivity and resources. People with low ambition and poor work habits are elevated to equal status with those who carry the lion’s share of the load. More productive and ambitious individuals are lowered to equal status of those less productive. Inevitably, the desire for good work habits and personal ambition are eliminated, since unequal efforts will only achieve equal results.
This is the real cause for the fall of communism around the globe. No communist country has ever been able to feed itself long term, ultimately collapsing under the weight of its own lack of productivity which always results in a lack of resources.
This is the reason America was designed to be a society which protects the Rights of the individual over the collective group or groups. (Voting blocks)
In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it.
George Keenan…from the long telegram.
another recomended read besides his very famous long telegram is
George Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” (1947)
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html
it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Soviet leaders, as well as in the character of their ideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justification whatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces of dying capitalism. As long as remnants of capitalism were officially recognized as existing in Russia, it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of a dictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justification fell away, and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Soviet regime: since capitalism no longer existed in Russia and since it could not be admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Kremlin springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the menace of capitalism abroad.
and our change from 1945 to today… 2009…
was working that theme around the world till there was no more world capitalism.
seen ni the light of creating one world despotic rule by collusion and circumnavigating sovereignity, obamas moves are just great! (as the US is the only thing that could stop it)
This began at an early date. In 1924 Stalin specifically defended the retention of the “organs of suppression,” meaning, among others, the army and the secret police, on the ground that “as long as there is a capitalistic encirclement there will be danger of intervention with all the consequences that flow from that danger.” In accordance with that theory, and from that time on, all internal opposition forces in Russia have consistently been portrayed as the agents of foreign forces of reaction antagonistic to Soviet power.
and ever since that time, we have had to maintain organs of state intrigue.
and the lies, manuipulations, crowd control, social engineering games, active measures and so forth are all their domain.
they ahve mass educated based on the teachings of the frankfurt school which sought to combine freuds, mass techniques, skinner, and marx, with gramsci, as to how to facilitate the converstion of the US and its people and the ret of the west.
The first of these concepts is that of the innate antagonism between capitalism and Socialism. We have seen how deeply that concept has become imbedded in foundations of Soviet power. It has profound implications for Russia’s conduct as a member of international society. It means that there can never be on Moscow’s side an sincere assumption of a community of aims between the Soviet Union and powers which are regarded as capitalist. It must inevitably be assumed in Moscow that the aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Soviet regime, and therefore to the interests of the peoples it controls.
read the rest. ‘
it makes sense of putin and zugaynaove and medvedev saying that their new doctrine is first strike nuclear. care to read the article?
and it might make sense in that we switch to one world government under a green revoltuion this december. (read lord monckton)
Benito Mussolini was MI5’s man in Italy
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6873834.ece#
we have seen that the Kremlin is under no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes in a hurry. Like the Church, it is dealing in ideological concepts which are of long-term validity, and it can afford to be patient. It has no right to risk the existing achievements of the revolution for the sake of vain baubles of the future. The very teachings of Lenin himself require great caution and flexibility in the pursuit of Communist purposes. Again, these precepts are fortified by the lessons of Russian history: of centuries of obscure battles between nomadic forces over the stretches of a vast unfortified plain. Here caution, circumspection, flexibility and deception are the valuable qualities; and their value finds a natural appreciation in the Russian or the oriental mind. Thus the Kremlin has no compunction about retreating in the face of superior forces. And being under the compulsion of no timetable, it does not get panicky under the necessity for such retreat. Its political action is a fluid stream which moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a given goal. Its main concern is to make sure that it has filled every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power.
But if it finds unassailable barriers in its path, it accepts these philosophically and accommodates itself to them. The main thing is that there should always be pressure, unceasing constant pressure, toward the desired goal. There is no trace of any feeling in Soviet psychology that that goal must be reached at any given time.
These considerations make Soviet diplomacy at once easier and more difficult to deal with than the diplomacy of individual aggressive leaders like Napoleon and Hitler. On the one hand it is more sensitive to contrary force, more ready to yield on individual sectors of the diplomatic front when that force is felt to be too strong, and thus more rational in the logic and rhetoric of power. On the other hand it cannot be easily defeated or discouraged by a single victory on the part of its opponents. And the patient persistence by which it is animated means that it can be effectively countered not by sporadic acts which represent the momentary whims of democratic opinion but only be intelligent long-range policies on the part of Russia’s adversaries —
policies no less steady in their purpose, and no less variegated and resourceful in their application, than those of the Soviet Union itself.
In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward “toughness.” While the Kremlin is basically flexible in its reaction to political realities, it is by no means unamenable to considerations of prestige. Like almost any other government, it can be placed by tactless and threatening gestures in a position where it cannot afford to yield even though this might be dictated by its sense of realism. The Russian leaders are keen judges of human psychology, and as such they are highly conscious that loss of temper and of self-control is never a source of strength in political affairs.
They are quick to exploit such evidences of weakness. For these reasons it is a sine qua non of successful dealing with Russia that the foreign government in question should remain at all times cool and collected and that its demands on Russian policy should be put forward in such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Russian prestige.
George Keenan
A soviet is a union
proletariat is the lowest class
bourgesie are the middle class
socialism is process to communism
communism is the end result
war, famine, death and such are considered unaviodable. so hold on to your hats all. another holocaust is coming, as engels said, and everyone else reading this stuff knows too.
the fact that they use terms taht are alien to you and you dont bother to look them up or understand them.
seiu, acorn, subsidiaries, etc.
thos are called soviets. and a state controlled by that type of overloard in consensus form is soviet.
when you read this, do think of general motors, and now how a union (soviet) controls the productive capacity.
and how that union, is going to destroy ford. why? because ford has union employees, and they owe aliegacne to the union that owns GM before they owe allegiance to ford!!! so now that a soviet owns the auto companies, they will now move to destroy all competition and power.
this is from 1921… sounds like obamas ‘plan’
We have seen that the Soviets are destined both to provide the organisational machinery of Communist society and to act as the instrument of the proletarian dictatorship during the transitional period in which, whilst capitalism has been overthrown, the dispossessed owners have not yet settled down to accept the new order. The Soviets may also conduct the fight for the actual overthrow of Capitalism, though in Russia the power was actually seized by the Bolshevik Party; then handed to the Soviets.
Let us consider the essential structure of the Soviet, its particular characteristic, wherein lies its special fitness to function as the administrative machinery of the Communist community.
The Soviet is constructed along the lines of production and distribution; it replaces not merely Parliament and the present local governing bodies, but also the capitalists, managerial staffs and employees of today with all their ramifications. The functional units of the Soviets are the groups of workers of all grades, including those engaged in management in the factory, the dockyard, the mine, the farm, the warehouse, the office, the distributive store, the school, the hospital, the printing shop, the laundry, the restaurant, and the domestic workers in the communal household, the street or block of dwellings.
so seiu and acorn and other stuff will start over seeing not just auto industry, but also our health, neighborhoods, and how we live.