1. Denial: When reality intrudes on your perception of the world, then that reality must surely be flawed.

   After seeing what they did to Palin, I hate to think of the way the left will treat Cain this upcoming election. I hope he is ready for it.

2. Book: I think Cain is ready for it.

3. How do these people like Page get so out of touch with real America? What has happened to our culture?

4. Mike Roark: I don’t think Page is so out of touch. I think he’s propagandizing.

   Just think about it: the left’s Tea Party “narrative” is that Tea Partiers are racists. So if the Tea Partiers like a black candidate, what’s a leftist pundit to do? Make shit up! If it has to be as convoluted an argument as the one Page is making, so be it, because it’s quite a challenge to come up with something that makes any sense at all. And quite a few people in the comments section seem to swallow Page’s argument, so it must be working, at least for some.

5. None of it makes any sense. Thus worms like Page find “implicit” messages. I expect at this point, after decades of journalistic race-hustling, Page’s net worth exceeds mine.
   What does Clarence bring to the table? His black skin. His blackness is IT. Honesty? Fuggedaboutit.

6. So he just lies to support his views? That’s out of touch with the real American culture. I’m with you though, too many people fall for it.

7. Man, oh man, this is going to go get ugly.

   It’s hilarious, still, that not a single one of the “Exhibits” Page lists actually support his argument (such as it is).

   Exhibit A contradicts Exhibit B – He denies blacks are lockstep on the Democratic yellow submarine (because they kind of like Colin Powell or something), and then admits they are.

   His argument is that this is not because of a combination of brainwashing (which Cain perhaps could have phrased more diplomatically as “racial grievance-mongering”), racial gerrymandering, and an addiction to family-and-community destroying government programs, but because of that tried and true leftist warhorse, “the Southern strategy.”

   I pointed out in a comment a while back that the Southern strategy is a myth – one of the most pernicious myths in American politics, keeping as it does the conservative message from reaching blacks (there’s a good debunking of the myth in Bruce Bartlett’s “Wrong on Race” – and, for what it’s worth, Bartlett is far from a fire-breather; indeed, he’s more of an obnoxious whiner with very many hare-brained ideas. Still, he’s a decent scholar – I’ve checked a lot of his research myself).

   Moreover, in the past ten years there have been two rigorous statistical and historical studies of the “Southern” question – i.e., Why did the South turn Republican? – and both of them find that race was not the key factor, not by a long shot. The idea that “racist Southern Democrats became Reagan Republicans” is a myth no less than the Southern strategy (see “The Republican South” by David Luban, and “The End of Southern Exceptionalism” by Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston).

   It’s also funny – and outrageous – how Page is only able to give credit to “moderate Republicans” who were responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act. He’s being willfully stupid here – or rather, he’s lying through his teeth. EIGHTY percent of House Republicans voted for the bill; EIGHTY-TWO percent of Senate Republicans voted for it.

   But, you see, they were all “moderates,” because they were from the North and West! And because they didn’t hate blacks!

   Everett Dirksen is on my “most admired” list of American politicians. I know a little something about Everett Dirksen. Everett Dirksen – one of the authors of the Civil Rights Act – was a huge booster of Joe McCarthy, Robert Taft, and the Vietnam War. He was, one will recall, the man who shouted at the 1952 GOP Convention that Dwight Eisenhower would “take us down the road to defeat again.” “Again” was a reference to Thomas Dewey, like Eisenhower a true moderate Republican.

   Everett Dirksen was a very conservative Cold Warrior. He was very conservative on economic issues. He was also a conservative on social issues (supporting, e.g., prayer in public schools). The only reason leftists like Page can’t see any of this is because of their own prejudices – they only consider one position “conservative” – namely, racism.

   Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Dirksen would be a Tea Partier today. And I’ll say it again for the propagandists like Page: this man co-wrote the Civil Rights Act and was instrumental in breaking the filibuster. He was the Senate minority leader. He was a rock-ribbed conservative, and to pretend otherwise BECAUSE he was “for civil rights” is just to beg the question. Wonder how Page would describe Dirksen’s stance on McCarthy. Not so moderate after all?

   These myths must die.

8. had a post, its now gone..
   the spamminator is doing its job blocking discussion or making it difficult when its not accepted mateiral for discussion.

   you wont find it blocking my little poney conversastions…

9. Just look at the comments with the article – the leftists chiming in with “the Tea Party is racist!” and when offering facts to back it up, “we just know this to be true because they are different from us!”

10. Hey Neo,
    I think it’s interesting that you have not posted an article about Herman Cain’s ability to lead this country. He’s performed well at all the debates and his latest Rasmussen Poll for 2012 Presidential Matchups puts Cain at 43%, Obama 41%. Let’s make the case why he should be the challenger for the GOP.

11. hey… read

    AMOK-RUN OF THE SEXOLOGISTS
    A. K. Chesterton

    to get an idea what happened and what is now the fruit of the tree…

    In a document entitled ‘Children have Rights’ the Committee says ‘The right of young people to have sexual relations as soon as they wish to have them is a most important one, and of course carries with it the right to contraceptive information, advice and equipment’. The Committee says ‘it is unfortunate for children to live in housing conditions which do not allow privacy for such activity’. ‘All the talk about increasing sexual freedom comes to naught without opportunity for some privacy in the home. To compel a child to leave home, perhaps to attend boarding school, is an infringement of civil liberty’.”

    ah… so they been working at this since Chesterton…

    <Even overseas readers are likely to have heard of the egregious Dr. Cole, who caused a furore in the English Midlands by producing what is said to be a very bad film called "Growing Up". It was intended to be shown in schools for the purpose of providing visible sex instruction. Dr. Cole was not prosecuted, but one of his helpers, a young woman teacher, lost her job. Her amiable part in the film was to give a physical demonstration of a girl masturbating. When she met with official displeasure and lost her job she became furious. "After all", she exclaimed, "it was purely (sic) a private matter." Had it been a "public matter" I wonder in what other ways she would have consented to be filmed

    so.. if THATS the same…
    then what else is the same?

    and what else are the majority on the right ignorant of the sameness and game?

    IF we werent so ignorant we would recognize it and call them out on it using the history of the past!!! but we are ignorant,and most of our conversations amount to… i cant beleive that they said that! and i cant believe that saying that works!

    can you believe in 100 years of anthropology and social studies of people and what makes them tick might tell someone what works regardless of validity?

    (can you also believe that prior to progressive education, most of us knew that bs and could call someone out on it… until the public was made idiot and violently confident they were not, such would not work any more than a innoculated person gets the desease)

12. The more I think and read about it, the more I am convinced that the Occupy Wall Street protests are 100% designed by or for the benefit of Obama’s reelection. Think of Obama and his advisers trying to figure out a way to win, a way to get a larger majority of the vote… If only they a) could eliminate the Tea Party; or b) have our own.

    They also need a catchy theme to replace Hope and Change. They come up with the OWS concept, create the 99% theme and then, if and when the protests take off, they claim them as their own. Then, parlay those forces into soldiers for the campaign. We already see Obama talking about “we’re the 99%.”

    He’s hoping he’ll convince 99% of voters that their choice is already made; underlying substance will mean nothing (again). Cheap, easy and somewhat risk-free. They probably have some well-paid, well-informed plants at each location to fuel the fire.

    As the election heats up the media will be able to mention the OWS/99% group every time they mention the Tea Party. They will keep the protests going as long as possible to make an easy transition to campaign workers. Watch, they will finally agree to disband the protests when they have the infrastructure and funding in place to tell everyone they can have a job on the campaign.

13. oh… and i will point out that if you read chestertons piece, you might find out where the OZ in the wizard of OZ came from..

    Then there was the case of the pornographic magazine Oz, intended to be seen and read by adults, albeit adults who retain the pimply mind of the retarded adolescent. The editors of this choice publication, in a bid to extend the range of its readership, decided to bring out a “School Kids’ Edition”. Accordingly, they began to collect muck written and drawn by the smuttiest-minded juveniles who could be fished out of the cess-pools.

    funny… but we never learned bout the PROGRESSIVES and their sexual addictions and how from the US with moses harmon, to germany with the gay and others, to england too…

    and even today… their liberal protesters are rutting in the park in full view of children. the goal is the same… just 100 years later its ALMOST Achieved!!!

    so… they been working at the SAME GOALS and ends since 20 years before this chesterton piece…

    no wonder we dont read thee guys as their commentary informs you of things you forgot, and leavces you in your parlor making up the gaps with no god to fill it.

    but of course we cant look at feminism and see that pole dancing, pedophiilsm, gang sex, and so on… is all the goal from way before!!! the candy to get the freaky to join the movement as if that goal is the real end goal… no. the end goal is the power that comes when pretending this goal the freaky deaky marginal army of misfits sacrifices themselves towards it

    “The young look at their father’s world and see that much of what they say is bogus” Levin

    by the way… you may find it very hard to find these works… given what they say!!!!

    sad i can and have read lots of stuff like this that is almost impossible to find…

    (you go try to find richard wrights too smart to be a communist!! )

    They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.

    They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;

    They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

    And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,

    Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

    G. K. CHESTERTON, “The Secret People”.

    its interesting to read the new unhappy lords..
    tinyurl.com/3w8ap3u

    A L T H O U G H this book is written from a British point of view, my hope is that it will prove useful to the patriots of other lands, not least those of the United States and South Africa. In recent years several excellent American books, devoted to an exposure of traitors on that side of the Atlantic, and of their powerful protectors, have been published, and if their authors care to study the facts here made available, and the deductions drawn from them, they may conclude, as I have done, that the conspiracy in their midst, so far from having a purely American significance, is global and aims at securing as far as possible control over the whole world.

    They will certainly perceive that the techniques employed to bring about the subjugation of mankind are very much the same as and sometimes identical with, the techniques used for the furtherance of traitorous policies in the United States.

    i can never get passed the first step..
    its like you want to teach someone to dance, you get them to step up, and your about to show them, when they go off on some wacky gyrations and so on.. then say thanks for the lesson..

    the idea that chesterton and many authors before the 1960s invention of conspiracy theory… knew were going on, and so on..

    and how does he know that there IS a conspiracy?

    When a conspiracy has been active for many years, however, there are bound to be occasions when it reveals its existence, and these self-exposures have to be used as pointers to its overall plan. What provides the main proof is that, the policy objective having become known, there has been continuity of the policy pursued to achieve it in one country after another, with no turning aside during the course of several decades. Whether or not one takes a deterministic view of human life, multitudinous events have the appearance of being accidental. Even so, where policies all over the world are shaped to the attainment of one end, the explanation that they can be traced to a large number of accidents or coincidences places a greater strain on credulity than does the belief that they have been deliberately contrived, especially when the mass of circumstantial evidence is examined. Any belief that the present drive for political monopoly derives from a universal fear of further wars can scarcely survive the evidence produced in this book of the actual use for which the various internationalist agencies have been employed. The fear undoubtedly exists, but my thesis is intended to make clear beyond doubt that it has been and is being shamelessly exploited for the setting up of a world tyranny.

    so how did the sex cults end up winning?
    same goals… i can show you stating them in the 1850s… unchanged… and now we have sex ed in the schools 100 years later… the fruit of the constant..

    and that has broken the family and ALL human life is about to be domesticated once the US falls..

    is that true? is it not?

    all i know is that the people who argue not, have not read much… and even the people who argue true, havent… so they believe, but dont know…

    now… i will tie chesterton to cain…

14. Just to add a few things to kolnai’s comment (which I agree with 100%) and Page’s column.

    First, the reason Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of ’64 had nothing to do with race. He was a libertarian at heart, and undoubtedly he would be a Tea Party supporter today. Goldwater opposed the CRA of ’64 because he didn’t want the government imposing restrictions on how private property owners use their property. Al Gore, Sr., on the other hand, then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Tennessee, opposed it because he was openly a southern segregationist. That part of the story rarely gets told. Instead, the Democrats have used Goldwater’s vote against the law as a way to unfairly smear him and fellow Republicans as racist for 45 years.

    Second, like kolnai, I also greatly admire Everett Dirksen. I’ll share one more piece of history about his senate leadership during the civil rights era that some may not know.

    Dirksen was the Senate Republican Leader when the Voting Rights Act of ’65 came to a vote. In that capacity, he was able to get 94% of Senate Republicans to vote for the landmark civil rights legislation. That statistic also shows how absurd Page’s claim is that only “moderate” Republicans voted for legislation that tried to create racial equality during that era. BTW, over one quarter of Senate Democrats, 27%, voted against the Voting Rights Act of ’65.

15. Neoneocon wrote: “If it has to be as convoluted an argument as the one Page is making, so be it . . . . And quite a few people in the comments section seem to swallow Page’s argument . . . .”

    Consider, IMO, that there is actually a silver lining to this. The left not only reveals itself for what it is (a fraudulent philosophy) but it also loses credibility with each more extreme step that it takes. Even if the commentors seem to adopt these arguments, let’s ask exactly who comments on these pages? Most likely those who rabidly adopt (or oppose) the author’s intent, and it’s always up to the editors (or gatekeepers on a blog) to determine who gets published or not.

    It’s like pointing out that 1,000 people lined up for the Clinton book signing in Manhattan some years ago. 1,000? Out of a population of 8,000,000? Big deal! Does such a minority really determine the national dialogue or only the appearance of the national dialogue?

    That Obama is just barely keeping his head above water (in some polls, not even that) even with a nauseous sycophantic media is a good sign that these extreme arguments are being summarily dismissed by most who hear them.

    As to Herman Cain being able to take the heat, I believe that he has the ability to best Obama because he refuses to be philosophically drawn onto the Progressive playing field. His retort to Harry Belafonte is a prime example of this. When branded an “oreo”or not truly black or a traitor to “the cause,” he doesn’t respond with a defense, or an explanation of why his opponents are wrong, he succinctly announces that he left the Democrat plantation a long time ago. He understands that the way to win the Progressive game is not to play it and to leave their leftist philosophy flailing helplessly in the wind.

16. chesterton to cain…

    so… we have events happening nationally, we can show people payin for them. we can show that some are the kids who did things before, and all who are movers and shakers are connected to the same groups..

    so in terms of cain..
    and their calling him racist.
    and a whole mass something turns and claims the same thing… as if its a horse on a bridal.

    One can but vary the message contained in Holy Writ and say: “By their policy objectives
    shall ye know them”. GKC

    Several of the agents and
    agencies are not thus hidden, and these I have duly named. Readers accustomed to take happenings in the world at
    their face value may find it hard, if not impossible, to accept this conspiratorial interpretation of contemporary history, which at first sight may appear to them far-fetched.

    Yet many minds, working upon widely differing data, have reached the same broad conclusions, and I can but request patience from readers new to the theme–and a fair hearing.

    They are asked to study such facts as have been ascertained, and to judge whether, on a weighing of probabilities, the deductions based upon the facts are logical and make good sense.

    and if you read, you will read stuff and say.. hey! thats happening now… and so on..

    but if you dont read, you get the sense it never happened… (your hatched yesterday but dont get it)

    first chapter..
    THE ASSAULT ON PATRIOTISM

    now… do we have an assault on that?
    (cant wait to show the chapter “Lunatics at Play”)

    It was necessary to look elsewhere for the real motive-power. As we now know, other forces were released to play a most sinister part
    in the shaping of the post-war world. One was the Bolshevist Revolution, with its allegedly anti-nationalist bias expressed in the slogan “Workers of the World Unite!”

    have we heard this recently?
    but chesterton is talking WWI…
    not WWII, not vietnam, noit the labor strikes today…

    how can you tell history is repeating if you dont know what happened before?

    Another, perhaps much more important event, was the shift of financial power from London to New York, a cosmopolitan city strangely remote from the European
    tradition.

    that move was copied to repeat what happened to england by the US to happen to the US by china… duh…

    Nor were the two events unrelated. The partners of the New York international lending house of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., despite vigorous denials for many years afterwards, were the instigators and financiers of the Bolshevik regime.

    They and their European affiliates were Trotsky’s paymasters and in addition met the expense of transporting to Russia for the role of the “men of Marseilles” (who had been the mob-leaders in the French Revolution) a gang of “American” thugs who had been trained in New York for the job of creating riots in the streets of Moscow and otherwise producing a climate of revolutionary fervour.

    now… where did YOU hear Kuhn, Loeb?

    well, if you know your history LIKE I DO…

    Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn,_Loeb_%26_Co.

    Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was a bulge bracket, investment bank founded in 1867 by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Under the leadership of Jacob H. Schiff, it grew to be one of the most influential investment banks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, financing America’s expanding railways and growth companies, including Western Union and Westinghouse, and thereby becoming the principal rival of J.P. Morgan & Co. In the years following Schiff’s death in 1920, the firm was led by Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg, men who had already solidified their roles as Schiff’s able successors. However, the firm’s fortunes began to fade following World War II, when it failed to keep pace with a rapidly changing investment banking industry, where Kuhn, Loeb’s old-world, genteel ways, did not seem to fit; the days of the gentleman-banker had passed. The firm lost its independence in 1977 when it merged with Lehman Brothers, to create Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. The combined firm was itself acquired in 1984 by American Express, forming Shearson Lehman/American Express and with that, the Kuhn, Loeb name was lost forever. Kuhn Loeb is considered to be one of the last Gentlemen Investment houses.

    ah… so they merged and became lehman brothers… and look at the names…

    schiff… have you heard that name before?

    anyway.. chestertons book lays out the history and stuff that would make your toes curl..

    but chestertons can be confirmed!!!
    you can look things up to check them and to see where wiki is scrubbed etc.

    the banker theme on the left with the communists is basically repeating the stuff from chesterton, but absent of the actual history and the right people to point fingers!!!

    the US bankers manipulated the UK to make soviet russia!!! but they were used… (users being used and no honor among theives… even chesterton points out that they have power games)

    same expediency that led to the drawing-up of the Balfour Declaration promising a national home for the Jews in Palestine–a document written by Herbert Samuel, then Home Secretary, as he himself was to admit thirty years later.

    basically england was bankrupt, like the US and the powers were able to ask favors. tiny things that seemed ok… like letting trotsky return home..

    hows this CHESTnut…

    As the result of the establishment in 1913 of the Federal Reserve Board system, the United States itself had come under the control of the great financial houses, with some startling consequences. One was that President Wilson, who had been used as a puppet to sponsor the Federal Reserve scheme, found his auspices extended willy-nilly to embrace the Russian Revolution, with all its murderous horrors and atrocities.

    we dont get to read these people because if we did read their great works, we might read their works on whats going on, instead of reading web dubois!

    No less indicative of the new power which aspired to take charge of the governance of mankind was the curious circumstance that Paul Warburg, partner in the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., part financier of the Russian Revolution and agent-in-chief for the founding of the U.S. Federal Reserve system, accompanied President Wilson to the Versailles Peace Conference, where he acted as financial adviser to the American delegation, while the German delegation employed as financial adviser a partner in the Hamburg lending house run by Paul Warburg’s brother, Max.

    so where are the warburgs now?
    where are the geithners (look up the family)

    shouold check out the families of the names in play… creepy….

    Powerful though it was, the internationalist cause embracing both Wall St. and the Kremlin still had a long way to go in its bid for a world monopoly of power. When President Wilson fell from popular favour in 1919 the would-be power monopolists suffered their first major defeat. The Congress of the United States then made known its will by a resolute refusal to countenance recognition of Soviet Russia and by its decree forbidding the supply of loans to Moscow. This state of affairs continued for twelve years, when the election to the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt restored the status quo ante, ensuring recognition of the Soviet Union and Moscow’s free access to the New York money market.

    so the first attempt was wilson
    the second attempt was FDR

    and obama is which attempt?

    It is not to be supposed, however, that in the interregnum the Money Power lacked all means of sustaining life in its Bolshevist child. Although direct loans from New York were forbidden, there was nothing to prevent finance being fed to Russia through banking houses in London, Paris, and Hamburg. The huge bucket-shop known as the Weimar Republic was particularly useful for this and other services of inestimable value to the Kremlin.

    really? Weimar?

    now… if you know this history and more, can you look at the repeating things with the exact same goals and methods we are ignorant of… the same way?

    The British Government was soon to become aware of the disadvantage of being entangled in a web of unpayable debt. Lord Reading in 1917 contracted on behalf of the
    United Kingdom a huge dollar loan which was to be repayable on call and in gold in quantity such as the nation had never possessed. It is small wonder, therefore, that although the British Government was fully aware of the source and inspiration of Communism–Winston Churchill laid bare the facts in a newspaper article in 1920–no serious attempt was ever made to support the U.S. Congressional action to outlaw the Soviet Union and by the middle twenties Russian oil and other products indirectly financed by Wall St. were being boosted on the British market.

    so the idea of running up the tab in the state and then getting what you want from the broke and helpless…

    is not new.
    now what nation, cant stop the communists?
    cant defend itself… and is falling apart again the same way with the same rhetoric?

    i will leave you with what churchill said on page 16…

    ” . . . this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing . . .

    . . . There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.

    It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”

    we would call him anti semite and then disregard him.. but notice he said ATHEIST jews… ie, jews in name only… like rino…

    arrested development
    envious malevolence
    impossible equality

    could you use that to describe the freaky left?

    one last set of quotes to hopefully link up yesterday to the same peoples children and such today…

17. Kolnai and Scott,

    Count me among the Dirksen groupies. You may be interested to know that I have my original vinyl of his “Gallant Men” album still at home on the shelf. Ironic, isn’t it that both Dirksen and Obama represented the same state?

18. selected quotes to make one think about today, based on yesterday…

    These were the attributes which next came under attack. Not all the attack was conspiratorial. It is not to be supposed that the Western Brothers, who derided the public school values with their drawling “Play the game, you cads”, were prompted by any motive other than to arouse laughter and to pocket the cash that went therewith. But can anybody doubt that derision of the phrase went a long way towards deriding the concept? Indeed, the spirit of subversion became entrenched in the public schools and universities–that is, in institutions of what should have been the nation’s elite, charged especially with the task of preserving the national tradition and heritage. This explains something of the notorious Oxford Union resolution of the early ‘thirties: “Under no circumstances will this House fight for King and Country”. The same motion, introduced this year (1965), was defeated because Reginald Maudling stressed Britain’s obligation to meet her Nato commitments!

    freeze the target and ridicule
    and all this has happened before the SAME WAY…

    The Zeitgeist, however, does not furnish the full explanation of the attack on the British spirit.

    Every year it spent in opposition the Labour Party voted with monotonous regularity against the Service Estimates.

    The Independent Labour Party, the Communist Party and the Fabian Society could always be relied upon to support the pacifist cause everywhere on earth–except, of course, in Soviet Russia.

    Pacifism among the young was carried to almost unbelievable limits.

    Many educational authorities, for instance, holding that the word “drill” had undesirable military connotations, decreed that the school period hitherto known as “physical drill” should be renamed “physical exercise”.

    Not long afterwards schools were told to abandon marching, presumably on the ground that if children went from one place to another as a disciplined body rather than as an unruly rabble, they would grow up with the ambition to march to war. The final absurdity was reached when the educational authorities insisted that physical exercises should consist only of games of the children’s own choice, without words of command issued by the teacher in charge. This would eliminate all suggestion of a parade-ground atmosphere.

    In other words, as a long-term policy the British peoples were being softened-up. Disarmed physically and, through In other words, as a long-term policy the British peoples were being softened-up. Disarmed physically and, through

    politically correct…

    and it was feminism that NORMALIZED it and destroyed the passing of family information and history forward for common slaves.

    hows this on the fed reserve, and what we know and whats happening now?

    Mention has been made of the formation in 1913 of the United States Federal Reserve system.

    Its purpose, as set down in the original Bill, was to secure stability in the price level, but by the time the Bill emerged as an Act the sentence embodying this raison d’étre had mysteriously been lost.

    The general belief was still that, should there be depression in any part of the United States, the Federal Reserve Board would rush credits to the stricken area in the same way that a man overboard is thrown a life-belt.

    Precisely the opposite procedure was in fact followed. During the “recession” of 1922, when certain farming districts were badly hit, the Federal Reserve, so far from furnishing credits, pursued a policy of financial stringency, perhaps as a rehearsal for the great debacle of 1929.

    so during the crisis before 29… the dems with progressives and the fed reserve did what?

    get ready to start wwii…
    after wwi worked out so well..

    now we are heading towards what?

    PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THIS BELOW IS FAMILAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What Professor Cassel and the New Age commentator left out of account was the fact that, other things being equal, the last thing in the world desired by the money-lender is the straightforward repayment of his debt.

    He prefers to negotiate a new bond carrying a higher rate of interest or often the complete inability of the debtor to repay, thus enabling him to foreclose and become possessed of the debtor’s assets.

    In 1928 the Federal Reserve Banks and the New York wolf-packs associated with them had encouraged an orgy of short-term borrowing: a few months later they peremptorily called in the loans and many thousands of business-men, caught on the hop, went bankrupt and were placed at the mercy, if that be the word, of their creditors.

    The nation-wide depression soon spread to Europe, with the result that millions upon millions of men spent a wasted and embittered youth on the street-corners, eating their hearts out for the opportunity of working upon the raw materials, which existed in abundance, to turn out the goods which would meet human needs throughout the world. Yet the raw materials were left unexploited while men and women rotted through enforced idleness and human needs remained unsatisfied.

    in THIs case… they backed the CRA…
    the CRA allowed them to loan money they borrowed for free…

    this runs up the debt… and the forclosures give themall that property.. which if owned by people able to pay, would belong to those people…

    they USED The blacks and poor…
    to do the SAME THING they did in 1929..

    but since we dont know our history, we cant even figure out who to point a finger..

    Does any sensible person believe that this misery and devastation was caused by some alleged Puritanical streak in the Jewish money-lenders which made them regard prosperity as sinful? The idea is ludicrous. No less ludicrous was the explanation given to a gullible world that the “catastrophe” was the result of the failure of the Credit Anstalt in Vienna to meet its obligations.

    now you know why they bring up the rothschilds in the protests…

    AND you now know something they leave out teaching or discussing today..

    the CREDIT ANSTALT
    The Creditanstalt was based in Vienna, founded in 1855 as K. k. priv. é–sterreichische Credit-Anstalt fé¼r Handel und Gewerbe (approximately translated as: Imperial royal privileged Austrian Credit-Institute for Commerce and Industry) by the Rothschild family. Being very successful, it became the largest bank of Austria-Hungary. It declared bankruptcy on May 11, 1931. It has been said that this event resulted in a global financial crisis and ultimately the bank failures of the Great Depression.[2]:2—3 [3] The bank was ultimately rescued by the Oesterreichische Nationalbank and the Rothschilds and merged with the Wiener Bankverein, thus changing its name to Creditanstalt-Bankverein.

    Does anyone other than me know any of this?

    Creditanstalt-Bankverein was later taken over by Deutsche Bank.

    NOW the ICING on the CAKE

    The simple truth is that what has become known as the “Great Depression” was a wickedness deliberately plotted by the lending-houses of the United States and Europe with the idea of furthering their drive for a monopoly of economic (and therefore of political) power.

    The proof of this statement was surely that, as soon as the “recovery” began, these mighty institutions which had remained intact throughout the slump by virtue of the privilege given them by venal governments to issue national credit as a debt against the general community) were seen to emerge with illimitably increased assets, the former property of businesses which had gone
    bankrupt or which had sold out at ruinous prices to the all conquering bankers and their affiliated industrial and commercial interests. The financial houses had bought up or otherwise acquired a huge variety of enterprises, ranging from Woolworths to speculative land values.

    so how did they make out this time?
    same end?

    From the point of view of New York and of other centres engaged in international lending the Third Reich held two main dangers. One was that it had been built up on an anti-Communist basis.

    the German people were conditioned to regard the Communists as their only potential foe. This was understandable in view of the presence in Germany during the Weimar regime of upwards of a million Communists whose salutation was “Heil Moskow”.

    AND…

    The other danger inherent in the policy of the Third Reich concerned its firmly held belief that if goods were available for exchange between nations there was no need for either party to resort to international lending houses to finance the deal. Instead, the exchange should take place on a “swap” basis. No great insight is needed to perceive that the success of this system of barter, if employed on a world scale, would mean for most practical purposes the end of international finance and of the immense power which it confers on its operators. As though this were not offence enough in the eyes of the international lending houses, the Third Reich set to work sedulously to repay its external debt and thereby regain control over its own economic destiny. One thing alone could quench rebellion of such magnitude–war.

    so, rather than be the indentured servants.. the bankers helped a fruit bat to lead..

    how we doing with a fruit bat of our own?
    and who is he with? bankers? whose making out like crazy bankers?

    Had Hitler continued to develop Germany on an autarchical basis, bartering surplus production for needed imports, he might conceivably have conferred on mankind the greatest gift since Prometheus stole the fire from Heaven. It would have been no easy task to marshal the nations against his powerful Third Reich.

    and this is where you get all those companies and such with such gray histories.

    the rest is fascinating…
    including “the betrayal of allies”…

    the chapter on israel..
    and a chapter on IRAQ, and Cyprus
    arent they in play today?

    It was a very different kind of rebellion from the mild measures taken in Jordan. Baghdadi mobs literally tore to pieces the pro-British Prime Minister, parts of whose body were carried in triumph all over the city.

    i could show tons more work by many other authors..

    but these are the dead white guys that feminism says we should NOT read!

    English majors and teachers should all be familiar with the phrase “dead white guys.”

    In a lot of schools, particularly liberal arts schools like the one I went to, teachers are making a concerted effort to include works written by women and dealing with women’s issues in order to sort of even out the imbalance caused by an overabundance of work by dead white guys.

    see.. the spravka says that its cause there are just too many.. and we have to be EQUAl..

    so you dont get to read chesterton, and wrights anti comunist stuff. and langston huges later stuff… and so on..

    i mean who would stand up and oppose the women who tell us not to read them?

    the men cant, the women wont, and companies and banks bank roll them (see their tax returns, no one donates to feminists!!! they are as astroturffed as the 600 a week protestors)

    the truth is that if you read dead white guys, and dont listen to the feminists, your going to read chesterton and not friedan…. your going to read many other of these people who can tell you history and whats happening… NOT the bs that feminists constructed then declared that we have to hear it!!! to the EXCLUSION of the warnings of the dead white guys…

    way too much..
    butthen again… i am trying to summarize thousands of books no one even knows exist, and whole library sections to people who have barely heard them.. and others declared racist…

    you might also know that they hate them for this kind of thing:

    “It [feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.”
    ― G.K. Chesterton

    yup!!!

    but dont say it, they will beat you up for it

    how so?

    oh… say false emotionally harmful lies, like calling cain a racist…

19. 1. Dirksen may have been the first to say A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

    2. neo-neocon Says:

    Mike Roark: I don’t think Page is so out of touch. I think he’s propagandizing.

    Maybe crab bucket syndrome. Less favorable assessments occur to me. Given how little I know about Page, I won’t express them.

20. T –

    Like a fanboy I’m just going to say re: your possession of the original for “Gallant Men” – that is so cool. Dirksen was amazingly versatile, as you and Scott undoubtedly know. He even played in movies.

    It’s probably clear that it’s a pet peeve of mine when I hear this crap Page is spouting, not just because it’s a pack of malicious lies, but because it implicitly claims the legacy of Dirksen – who is one of OUR (conservatism’s) great men – for liberalism. Of course, the left also does this with Lincoln, and every other conservative who conspicuously threaten their narrative. See, Strom Thurmond when he was a Democrat is the “Real Conservative;” but Lincoln and Dirksen – well, they were right, so they had to be closer to the left. The distortion is damn near Soviet in its mendacity.

    I’ll amplify, just because I have nothing better to do today, the larger perversity of what I would call Page’s mindset with a little synecdoche. Back in the early ’90’s when I was still a young’n and living in rather run down, minority-majority section of San Jose, CA, gangster rap was everywhere. The popular group Geto Boys released a song called “The Unseen,” which has to be heard to be believed. It is an extremely profane and angry attack on abortion, but also extremely revealing.

    First of all, in the first verse (pardon the profanity) you will hear this line, which I quote from memory:

    “You dumb a** whores with no hope for / killin’ babies ain’t sh*t you wanna vote for / they just tryin’ to wipe our a** out…”

    So here you get the “genocide” theme, which I can assure Mr. Page is a virtually universal one in the so-called “black community” (a term that renders blacks collectivist in their very concept). I heard it every day growing up. Wrong or right, if the view is crazy it’s not because of Cain or conservatives. The Geto Boys were rapping about it loud and clear twenty yeas ago.

    Now, the second verse is where things take a turn into the Twilight Zone. There you will hear the following:

    “F*ck George Bush for supportin’ that lame sh*t [i.e. abortion] / and while we’re at it f*ck Quayle too…”

    Wait, what? We just heard that abortion is a deliberate attempt to “wipe our a** out,” but then, somehow, it is Republicans who get the finger for “supportin'” it? This is utterly bizarre. But there’s more:

    “Instead of sendin’ these babies to the meat-cutter / you need to send some of the gay motherf***s.”

    This antipathy to homosexuals is also prevalent among blacks – something you don’t hear liberals being too eager to highlight. Recall, in that connection, the surreal attempt in the Prop. 8 debacle to blame everyone except blacks (and Hispanics) for its passage.

    One complaint I used to hear all the time was that black men were spreading the governmentally- concocted AIDS virus to black women by being covertly bi-sexual (they used to call it “being on the DL,” or “Down-Low”) – so the whole issue of homosexuality got tied into the larger narrative about planned genocide manufactured by the white boys (conservatives) in Washington. Again, truly bizarre.

    The point is that one could not do worse in one’s selection of a political party than the Democrats if one feels this strongly about abortion and “the gay agenda.” That’s just a fact. Most opposition to abortion and gay marriage among blacks is, of course, not as vicious as that expressed in the song I quoted from – but it is very strong. The Democrats are not only not against these things, they are actively in favor of them.

    On the economic front, blacks have been decimated by public schools and unions, a fact most of them are aware of. And here too, the very last party one would want to support to reform these atrocities is the Democrats.

    The truly strange phenomenon here is the way in which so many in the black community are quite clear that these are problems – abortion, family-corroding social agendas, public schools, and so forth – but only feel free to acknowledge them when blaming precisely the wrong people for their atrociousness. The documentary “What Black Men Think” is a terrific examination of this problem.

    Cain was, unfortunately, more right than wrong in speaking of “brainwashing.” How many blacks have ever heard of Everett Dirksen, a man at least as responsible for the Civil Rights legislation in the sixties as LBJ? How many who believe education and abortion are civil rights issues understand that the party of the status quo on these matters is the one they support monolithically? Really, it’s almost like libertarians voting communist en bloc. The mismatch is that bad.

    How can this be explained? A huge factor – not the only factor, but a huge one – is precisely the narrative they’ve been told for decades which, for instance, airbrushes people like Dirksen out of history. And at this point, I fear, not even a Herman Cain can cause the foundations of that narrative to crumble.

    That is the Page mindset. A horrible thing it is.

21. once again, the artful dodger’s gibberish has made a post unreadable

22. Kolnai,

    “I fear, not even a Herman Cain can cause the foundations of that narrative to crumble.”

    Not alone and not all at once. Remember this ephemeral socialist mirage was built over three quarters of a century. It will not be erased overnight, but one step at a time. Remember, “the journey of a thousand miles . . . .”

23. Cain’s popularity with Tea Partiers doesn’t show they’re not racists…
    …because Cain hates black people, too.

    And Obama’s popularity with and support for OWSers proves unequivocally that he hates America and Americans, as they do, because they’re all disloyal.

    Two can play that game. The difference is that my formulation is closer to the truth.

24. OB –

    Yes, and given that both the American Nazi and Communist Parties have endorsed OWS, he also is a Nazi Communist.

25. The following quote is from an Ann Althouse post just today:

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.com

    “As your leader in the Senate of the United States, it is my bounden duty to tell you that this thing is about as popular as a crab in a whorehouse.”

    “You will split your own party if you insist on pursuing it. And, Mr. President, I do not think I myself will be able to support you on this ill-conceived scheme.”

    Said Everett Dirksen to Richard Nixon, according to “RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon.”

    Amazing. You don’t hear about him for 30 years, or so, and then, in one day Dirksen’s ubiquitous.

26. OB,

    “Two can play that game.” I agree, but as I poinjt out above, IMO the road to victory is to not be drawn onto the progressive playing field. When one refuses to play by the rules they have set, they become apoplectic. Herman Cain’s presence alone, and the conniption he triggers in the left-o-sphere is proof positive of this.

27. T,

    Yes, in the pre-Internet era I read that we have Nixon to thank for affirmative action (–and the EPA–and inflationary wage-price controls–and going off the gold standard), but I hadn’t seen online documentation. Thanks.

    Supposedly he did it to sow discord between salon liberals and trade unions.

    Does Nixon belong in the leftist pantheon? I can’t reject the thought out of hand.

28. T, by playing the game I meant stripping away any pretense of politeness and calling a spade a spade. The Democrat Party, as presently constituted, is to the Communist Party as Sinn Fein was to the Provisional IRA – merely the above ground execresence, with the more noxious elements pixelated out for mainstream consumption.

    Let’s stop pussyfooting around and speak the plain truth.

29. OB,

    I couldn’t agree more!

30. T and gs –

    Absolutely Nixon (and George Schultz) was the man behind affirmative action. Also, gs, you read right about Nixon’s motives. I wrote a bulky essay on the history of affirmative action a few years ago, and I was appalled at Nixon’s role in the whole thing, which I was unaware of prior to that point.

    Imagine my shock when, the following year, I began to write an essay on the EPA…

    I once asked a professor of mine – who happens to have been a lower-level personage in the Nixon White House – just what the heck was up with Nixon. He told me he really didn’t know, but his feeling was that Nixon didn’t really care about domestic policy, opting to delegate that stuff to Moynihan.

    Kissinger and the Cold War were Nixon’s concerns, and everything else took a backseat to that. Domestic policy was seen through that lens – it was about placating a morally soft and intellectually corrupt populace in order to fend off decline and, thereby, leave America with enough stability to balance the Commies.

    Was Nixon a leftist? Not by conviction. He never believed price controls and the EPA and affirmative action would work economically or in terms of efficiency. He just didn’t care. They’d work politically, and people would chew on the doggie bones tossed out for their delectation. Thus, he arguably was, in practice, the most leftist President we had between FDR and Obama (he was certainly transformative in a way that Carter was not).

    He was also responsible, lest we forget, for Justices Blackmun and Powell – the former among the worst we’ve ever had, and the latter, alas, the definer of the “diversity” standard for Constitutional approval of affirmative action.

    Justices Burger and Rehnquist were Nixon appointees as well – not too bad. But Blackmun and Powell were bad enough.

    So, Nixon gave us affirmative action, price controls, the EPA, and Roe v. Wade. In foreign policy he gave us detente. Imagine the name “Nixon” replaced with “LBJ” or “Hubert Humphrey” – would that sentence sound odd at all?

    I don’t think so.

31. Cain needs to have a long talk with Clarence Thomas about what the Left does to conservatives it cannot (seriously) accuse of racism.

32. neo-neocon Says:
    October 17th, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    To me, it’s not propaganda per se…it’s a total and complete lack of shame.

33. drahthaar Says:
    October 17th, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    once again, the artful dodger’s gibberish has made a post unreadable

    Au contraire. His comments on this thread have been most interesting.

34. kolnai October 17th, 2011 at 7:52 pm,

    OT: One of Reagan’s key insights was that the domestic economy and the Cold War were linked.

35. Folks, read Kevin Williamson’s post at the National Review’s “The Corner.” Excerpt [emphases mine]:

    “I’ve been spending as much time as I can down at Occupy Wall Street, listening to the speeches, reading the literature, talking to the organizers. Here’s something to keep in mind: You’ll hear in a lot of the conservative media that this is some kind of socialist/Communist enterprise piggybacking on a populist protest. In reality, it is much worse than even most of the conservative media is reporting.

    “Almost every organization present at OWS is explicitly Communist or socialist. Almost every piece of literature being handed out is explicitly Communist or socialist. I don’t mean half, and I don’t mean the overwhelming majority – I mean almost all of it.

    “Yes, there are the usual union goons trying to figure out how to get OWS to do the bidding of the AFL-CIO and the Democratic party, and the usual smattering of New Age goo (the “Free Empathy” table) and po-mo Left wackiness (animal-rights nuts), the inevitable Let’s-Eradicate-Israel crowd (“Free Palestine, from the river to the sea!”).

    “But, that being said, almost every organized enterprise and piece of printed material I have encountered has been socialist or Communist. It’s been a long time since I saw anybody peddling books by Lenin. It’s been a long time since anybody told me “the Ukrainians had it coming.'”

    Stay frosty, folks.

36. That the Dems are using the OWSers as their entering wedge is telling. And damned serious. Many big-name journalists (soi-disant) are sending the communist/socialist leaders of these protests advice on “crafting their message,” as Breitbart’s “Big Government” website is revealing.

37. A half-black, NON-African American – who is not descended from African slaves, because his Father who he never knew was from Kenya; and who was raised by his Lily white mother and her Lily white parents — Grandma was a bank executive……who went to an exclusive (and no doubt very expensive, and most probably almost all white) private school in Hawaii, followed up by Occidental, Columbia, Harvard…..

    A man whose upbringing far more resembles Louis Winthrop III, than Billy Ray Valentine (“One dollar, Mortimer”) — he is “authentic” and “real” African American — because you see — he believes and supports all the good and right things. Like Affirmative Action, etc.

    It doesn’t MATTER what a conservative black man’s background might be. Totally irrelevant. The tea bagger racists are still racists, because THAT guy is NOT authentic. He is just an Uncle Tom, bowing and shuffling to his racist overlords. He is a traitor to the cause; a traitor to the Tribe. A traitor to his race.

38. Southern James writes: “A man whose upbringing far more resembles Louis Winthrop III, than Billy Ray Valentine . . . .”

    You have hit the Dem/Progressive philsophical nail on the head. It doesn’t matter what it IS, it only matters how it APPEARS. As they say, a mile wide but only an inch deep.

    As I, and others, have written, don’t get lured onto the Progressive playing field to meet them head on, make them come to you. You will see their empty little heads explode in a tirade of ad hominem attacks and contradictory logic a sthey reveal their “inch deep” values.

39. Beverly Says:
    October 18th, 2011 at 2:35 am

    Doug Schoen sent a pollster from his firm down to interview 200 of the OWSers. He published the results in the WSJ (Hot Air has a link to it this morning. I didn’t pay attention if his column was published in today’s WSJ or yesterday’s).

    Anyway, he’s got some hard statistical data which largely confirms Williamson’s anecdotal observations. They are mostly very had left ideologues.

    Schoen thinks Obama and the Democrats are making a mistake aligning with them.

40. “Schoen thinks Obama and the Democrats are making a mistake aligning with them.”

    We can only hope.

41. What I find pathetic and amusing is that the lefties have played the racism card so much it’s all they seem to have any more. Well, that and how the conservatives hate poor people.

    Really, it’s gotten to the point that this is the sum total of the liberal/Democrat position with respect to their opponents. In fact, you can sum up all of the Democrat platform these days in a few simple sentences:

    1. No one is to blame for anything unless they are rich.
    2. No one should be required to be responsible for anything unless they are rich.
    3. Everyone deserves to be given everything (unless they already have it).
    4. If you disagree with us, you are evil.

42. Pingback:Maggie's Farm

43. But unfortunately, Clarence Page doesn’t work for the Onion.

    Sure he does. He just doesn’t submit his stories to them.

44. The motto ought to be, Concept Junkie: “They’ll ever see this coming.”

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>