#anotherbabebook

[babe]

So I rep people like Jonah who can steer us into more reasonable lines of discussion.

I heard Wilkow refer to his Russian family background but did not check the facts, and still haven't.

So I listen to most of the radio folks. I have also had good friends who were proud to be real communists, and some of the newer varieties of the general notions that in some respects obviously follow that world view. I see bad ideas everywhere, and I'm beating the JFC bushes for better ideas.

I see a massive public rejection of the mainstream politics that has dominated to get us to where we are. People are willing to throw the centrist bums out and turn to the Bernies and Trumps.

This is actually a voter rejection of the CFR school of politicians.

The Question is what would the CFR folks need to do to fix their problems?

 

[babe]

Andrew Wilkow. . . .

Actually, when you are willing to just swallow truth, instead of normalize it to our current fantasies and comfort zones, Andrew is right, and Jonah is wrong. As well as a lot of other people.

here's a link: https://wilkowmajority.com/about/

I like simple rehetoric. "We're right. They're wrong." and having a program based on rational thought is wonderful.

Wilkow is a Milton Friedman sort of economic analyst with little patience for the the Keynesian school. His characterization of Hillary is accurate in calling her a "communist" because she spouts the actual political rhetoric of Marx. It means nothing, but she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a fairly broad elite "Invitees only" association of selected community leaders. The CFR functions as a schooling tool for community leaders, promoting progressive "betterment" of the world. I know several members of this group personally, and have followed it for decades, since the sixties, actually. It is pretty much the outreach of the Rockefeller brand of American corporatists, and it is dedicated to concepts like globalism, UN governance, and professional leadership of every aspect of human activity.

For example, gun control was a theme of Karl Marx's strategy for directing the inexorable progress of historical dialectics. That's a mouthful I can't type out without a pretty good guffaw, because it is such nonsense. There is no reality to the theory of Marxism. It is a made-up fantasy, and nobody who actually uses that rhetoric really believes it, except for a few little people who read the book and know nothing about the people behind the operation of world politics. My friend of many years ago was such a case. He was very pointedly a pure "Marxist" who decried "State Socialist" fake communist governments like Cuba and Russia. Oligarchy really doesn't care what rhetoric it takes to pacify the masses, and most of the "communist" revolutions devolved into tightly-held dictatorships, or oligarchies like what China is today.

Karl Marx himself was a tool, if not a fool. He was paid to write his book, and "kept" by British oligarchs in the first place. What they wanted was an answer to the American Revolution. They were justly concedrned with Jacobism, and wanted to create their own tool for management.

Today, the CFR and the Rockefeller sort of corporatists will cultivate a variety of tools for effecting their wishes in the political environment around the world. Fabian Socialism is a brand they own, as well as "communism". You can be ideologically committed to such political philosophies while being members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

When the stated goal of the Council on Foreign Relations involves bring the era of American dominance and American Exceptionalism into a balance with a few other larger world governments including China and India and Brazil, as well as the European Union, it becomes understandable why they would turn to an Obama or a Hillary. But the plan is screwed up right now. This was supposed to be a runoff between CFR members Jeb Bush and Hillary. In either case, the agenda would still be "on track".

That is why Hillary is seen by many, like Jonah, as fairly moderate and only questionably "Marxist". I could go on, but the fact is Hillary has utilized actual old "communist" agenda items enough it is fair to say she is a "communist". Those agenda items are still being implemented into world management by the natural interests who paid Marx to write his "theory" out as a science of sort, as something a lot of people might "believe".

But they don't believe it, and Hillary doesn't believe it either. Their purpose is to manipulate national politics through a set of controlled "puppet" movements.

It is the money that talks. It is the people who are controlled.

 

[Jonah]

Babe, we may as well be speaking different languages. Two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. Your post is full tilt John Birch Society rhetoric. I understand as I have a family member that’s similarly inclined. We finally reached an uneasy peace when we agreed to limit our political conversations to good-natured declarations rather than heated attempts to persuade.

I can sympathize with your predicament. Your point of view has been marginalized for decades. Way back in 1962, more than fifty years ago, William F. Buckley excoriated Birchers and effectively purged them from the Republican Party. That’s a long time to live on the fringe. This election, due to the harsh reality of demographic trends, may well be the last chance for some of your more moderate views to enter the mainstream. Unfortunately, all your hopes are balanced on the delicate, fragile and unstable shoulders of a guy like Trump.

 

[babe]

Babe, we may as well be speaking different languages. Two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. Your post is full tilt John Birch Society rhetoric. I understand as I have a family member that’s similarly inclined. We finally reached an uneasy peace when we agreed to limit our political conversations to good-natured declarations rather than heated attempts to persuade.

I can sympathize with your predicament. Your point of view has been marginalized for decades. Way back in 1962, more than fifty years ago, William F. Buckley excoriated Birchers and effectively purged them from the Republican Party. That’s a long time to live on the fringe. This election, due to the harsh reality of demographic trends, may well be the last chance for some of your more moderate views to enter the mainstream. Unfortunately, all your hopes are balanced on the delicate, fragile and unstable shoulders of a guy like Trump.

The issues are not just "fundamentally different ways of looking at the world", but being willing to use words with regular meanings. I know all about the John Birch Society. I have a crazy sister in it. My communist buddy had a crazy sister in it. It is a top-down organization with little tolerance for a different view, but communists are still communists if the word has any useful meanings. I wouldn't agree with the JBS that their view is useful or meaningful because the rhetoric has no fundamental reality. Nobody really believes "communism" except for some of the little people who really do believe what they are told by university professors or speakers on tour mobilizing the little folks for some project or another..... the Barry Obama class of lying community organizers who are nothing if not manipulative stooges for some people like George Soros, for the money and status that goes with it.

You are simply too "smart" to learn anything from me, or perhaps most other people you talk to. I do listen to others, and look for something that is valid so far as I can do so. I'm just not going to join some little change-agent political crusade where I'm paid to lie.

You have bought into some progressive notions like historical "direction" and believe in a world that isn't. People do change, but there are universal human elements that remain in whatever changes we superficially impose upon things. self-interest, human conceit, pride, a lot of stuff like that, good and bad. The worst thing about materialism cast in a political view like communism is that it chills human relations and imposes artificial judgments on others, as you have done above. When people buy into this crap, and stop caring for one another enough to talk civilly, we're all losing something important.

The human condition can really stink if we stop caring about one another.

I see HIllary as one who has really stopped actually caring about others, and Trump as one who does still care, enough to listen, enough to try to speak the truth he sees, as he understands it.

Trump arguably could be viewed as just stupid, like a the last turnip to fall of the produce wagon, compared to professional politicians who have played the system for decades and who have innumerable "connections" to perform the services demanded by significant "interests" in a true fascist world order. His downside is that those interests will play him expertly. But he does care about Americans and America, and he does listen to other people and try to address their concerns.

 

[Jonah]

I can understand not wanting to be associated with the John Birch Society. You think of yourself as a free thinker and rebel against labels and organizations. That’s why I find it inconsistent for you to repeatedly put the label of communist and Marxist on Clinton and Obama when their positions and policies are, at most, mainstream liberalism. Conflating liberalism with communism is red-baiting, a tactic that went stale back the 1950s.

I enjoy your posts, babe, and am certainly open to learning something new when something new is presented, however, while your style of writing is unique and entertaining, the political views expressed are not always exactly original. For example, most all of what you write concerning David Rockefeller, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, can be found in "The Rockefeller File" and "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," both by Gary Allen, a former member and spokesperson for the John Birch Society. That's the reason I made the connection to you in the first place.

Anyway, maybe we can move forward without labels and focus on Clinton and Trump based on who they really are and what they actually say.

 

[babe]

I can understand not wanting to be associated with the John Birch Society. You think of yourself as a free thinker and rebel against labels and organizations. That’s why I find it inconsistent for you to repeatedly put the label of communist and Marxist on Clinton and Obama when their positions and policies are, at most, mainstream liberalism. Conflating liberalism with communism is red-baiting, a tactic that went stale back the 1950s.

I enjoy your posts, babe, and am certainly open to learning something new when something new is presented, however, while your style of writing is unique and entertaining, the political views expressed are not always exactly original. For example, most all of what you write concerning David Rockefeller, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, can be found in "The Rockefeller File" and "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," both by Gary Allen, a former member and spokesperson for the John Birch Society. That's the reason I made the connection to you in the first place.

Anyway, maybe we can move forward without labels and focus on Clinton and Trump based on who they really are and what they actually say.

It's not an issue of not wanting to be associated with the John Birch Society. I considered joining, and have read a lot of their product. It's actually just the fact that I'm not a member, and do not intend to join. I also follow, for example, Lyndon LaRouche, and subscribe to the product his folks produce, and Phyllis Schlafly. . . . . and, well, the CFR itself...... and Mark Levin. . . . . and at least two factions of real "communists". . . . and whatever other people I run across who will write stuff on politics, especially if they have some kind of unique... er.... non-mainstream perspective........

I see you have a problem with facts, which probably goes back to your arguments with your brother. It's unreasonable to hold such biases when there is abundant evidence they don't really apply.

Wasn't Gary Allen the writer of "it's Very Simple", a referenced work on Martin Luther King's associates and hangers-on, to the effect that MLK was a communist? Well, actually, MLK's speeches sound pretty mainstream American to me. Stuff about how people deserve real respect doesn't strike me as communist rhetoric. Communist literature advocates machiavelian manipulations through "cells" organized to exploit public issues, usually including cells supposedly supporting both sides of an issue. Another thing, real Marxists have problems with religion sometimes, and MLK spoke in universal ideals much the way Jesus did.... inclusive stuff about all people having the same basic hopes and values, very unlike Jeremiah Wright, for example, who promotes a black brand of racism and division.

I don't "join" groups mostly because I just don't really fit..... too much drive to be different somehow.

When I read a W. Cleon Skousen, I will find something like Foreign Affairs to read as well.

conflating mainstream liberalism with communism is something Barry Obama does, and Hillary. Both have studied Marx, Ayers, and Alinski, and both flop on their pure ideology when necessary to appease big financial supporters.

 

[Jonah]

Wasn't Gary Allen the writer of "it's Very Simple", a referenced work on Martin Luther King's associates and hangers-on, to the effect that MLK was a communist?. . .

You have Gary Allen confused with Alan Stang, an even nuttier Bircher nutcase. In addition to MLK, Stang accused Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Obama, Truman, Eisenhower, and even Abraham Lincoln, all as communists. Absurd as it sounds, Lincoln was a communist, according to Stang, and the Civil War a communist plot to destroy the country.

As Stang proved, we can call our presidents anything we want; communist, Marxist, rapist, murderer, no matter how crazy and unfounded the label.

Incidentally, on a side note, when Stang called a private citizen a communist he and the John Birch Society were successfully sued for defamation in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in a landmark case that set different libel standards for public figures and private citizens.

 

[babe]

Still, in the ordinary mind, "Communist" equates with prison camps where the accused die without trial or any rights at all, and the word is not accurately used as reflecting the utopian ideals of progress towards a State whose management is supposed to fade into the masses of mankind where there are no inequities in society.

imo, Marx was a paid hack whose assignment was to create a popular dream movement that could be manipulated and used to create diversions to prevent the spread of American values as inspired by John Locke and other philosophers of human rights.

That Hillary and Obama are deeply fascinated by the utility of the ideas, and equally fascinated by access to the rich folks everywhere willing to take a little cash for services rendered is pretty well known.

 

[Jonah]

Still, in the ordinary mind, "Communist" equates with prison camps where the accused die without trial or any rights at all, and the word is not accurately used as reflecting the utopian ideals of progress towards a State whose management is supposed to fade into the masses of mankind where there are no inequities in society.

imo, Marx was a paid hack whose assignment was to create a popular dream movement that could be manipulated and used to create diversions to prevent the spread of American values as inspired by John Locke and other philosophers of human rights.

That Hillary and Obama are deeply fascinated by the utility of the ideas, and equally fascinated by access to the rich folks everywhere willing to take a little cash for services rendered is pretty well known.

Okay, so Clinton and Obama aren’t Stalinists who want to set up Gulags for their political opponents, instead they’re deeply fascinated by Marxist ideas which they see as beneficial to their goal of undermining American values. And to help them in this nefarious endeavor they have access to the cash of rich folks everywhere.

This is all still a fever dream. Nothing in any speech or any proposed policy, nothing either has ever said or done in their political careers points to a Marxist agenda.

So where do the Marxist charges come from? As far as I can gather, for Clinton it’s Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Rules for Radicals” and was influential in the 1960s. At twenty-one Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky. This is used as evidence of Marxism. The reality is her paper was a critique of Alinsky's methods and concluded they were largely ineffective. That’s it, no support for Marxism. Clinton has been a pragmatic liberal her entire career. For Obama it’s his work at twenty-four as a community organizer, as if the job itself is evidence of a Marxist agenda. A community organizer helps local citizens solve local problems. Obama’s two major accomplishments as a community organizer were a summer jobs program for Chicago teenagers and getting the city to remove asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects. Again, nothing remotely Marxist.

The far-right, ever since FDR’s New Deal so going on eighty years now, has used Marxism as a cheap label to discredit their opponents politics. Rather than, for example, doing the hard work of arguing the merits of Keynesian economics versus Milton Friedman's monetarism, it’s so much easier to label Keynes a socialist/Marxist and break for lunch.

 

[babe]

Okay, so Clinton and Obama aren’t Stalinists who want to set up Gulags for their political opponents, instead they’re deeply fascinated by Marxist ideas which they see as beneficial to their goal of undermining American values. And to help them in this nefarious endeavor they have access to the cash of rich folks everywhere.

This is all still a fever dream. Nothing in any speech or any proposed policy, nothing either has ever said or done in their political careers points to a Marxist agenda.

So where do the Marxist charges come from? As far as I can gather, for Clinton it’s Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Rules for Radicals” and was influential in the 1960s. At twenty-one Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky. This is used as evidence of Marxism. The reality is her paper was a critique of Alinsky's methods and concluded they were largely ineffective. That’s it, no support for Marxism. Clinton has been a pragmatic liberal her entire career. For Obama it’s his work at twenty-four as a community organizer, as if the job itself is evidence of a Marxist agenda. A community organizer helps local citizens solve local problems. Obama’s two major accomplishments as a community organizer were a summer jobs program for Chicago teenagers and getting the city to remove asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects. Again, nothing remotely Marxist.

The far-right, ever since FDR’s New Deal so going on eighty years now, has used Marxism as a cheap label to discredit their opponents politics. Rather than, for example, doing the hard work of arguing the merits of Keynesian economics versus Milton Friedman's monetarism, it’s so much easier to label Keynes a socialist/Marxist and break for lunch.

This is a well-written, reasoned response. It could even become part of my own network of valid points, but rest assured I will be comparing this view with other sources of information, which I must also objectively verify the best I can.

I am sending you one of those otherwise meaningless reps to symbolize my appreciation for your effort to talk to me and inform me somehow.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jonah again.

well, after finding sufficient other reps to give others.

 

[Scat]

This is a well-written, reasoned response. It could even become part of my own network of valid points, but rest assured I will be comparing this view with other sources of information, which I must also objectively verify the best I can.

I am sending you one of those otherwise meaningless reps to symbolize my appreciation for your effort to talk to me and inform me somehow.



well, after finding sufficient other reps to give others.

Feel free to use me to do some spreading... wait, that doesn't sound right. Just rep me so you can rep Jonah.

 

[babe]

So, anyway.

Here's the outcome of 2016.

Hillary wins, by some stuffed ballots. Trump sues. The issue will take eight years to resolve in the eight-member Supreme Court.

The Sumpreme court will order all Executive branch agencies to report to them, set up an Executive Oversight Office. The Legislative Branch will be gagged with restraining orders and the lights will be turned off.

SCOTUS, just as the progressives have always wanted it, will run the country indefinitely. . . .

One by one, the Court Justices will die off, and eventually we will have one-man rule, and the Court will begin to appoint successor Sumpreme Judges.

Great story line. Gonna be a movie.