The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Madison VS Marxism - Part Two James Madison.

Madison VS Marxism -Part One Karl Marx


Like Karl Marx, Madison was born into a wealthy farming family, and like Karl Marx, James Madison took up the cause of the laborers as recorded in various comments that Madison makes about slavery in the Federalist Papers and in letters. In Colonial America of the 1700's, the farm laborers were slaves. Slavery later became an issue of great contention during the framing of the United States Constitution but it was realized that trying to resolve the issue of slavery while trying to bring several states into a union, some of which had economies dependent on slavery was not a viable direction.

Like Karl Marx, Madison was sent to college to study. Madison attended the University now known as Princeton. Unlike Marx, Madison was a diligent and hard working student. Where as Marx became co-president of a drinking society, Madison founded a debating society called the American Whig–Cliosophic Society.  Madison's studies included Latin, Greek, science, geography, mathematics, rhetoric, and philosophy. Madison also  studied law from an interest in public policy, not practice.

After graduation, Madison remained at Princeton to study Hebrew and political philosophy.
While I cannot claim to knowledge of what Madison's study of the Hebrew language entailed, I make note of the fact that both the Greek and Latin languages, which Madison studied as an undergraduate, along with the Hebrew language have codified esoteric meanings derived from ancient symbolic associations between the characters of the alphabet and numbers. The study of these relationships is called gematria and is part of esoteric spiritual wisdom. The Great Seal of the United States is said to be a Masonic symbol de-codified through gematria. However according to the Masonic Society of Pennysylvania the status of Madison and Jefferson as Freemasons remains speculative, none the less there is no doubt that Madison believed in God and that freedom of religion was one of his most vehemently pursued causes.

 The belief in God is a philosophical premise. Either one believes there is a higher power or one doesn't -or takes an agnostic point of view. To either believe in God or to believe in no-God is a fundamental premise that effects all that follows from it. Because our nation was founded by men who believed in a God- and who were primarily Christian, the foundations of our political philosophy are primarily spiritual. Because Marxism is founded by a man who describes himself as an atheist, the foundation of Marxism is materialistic. Atheists say there is nothing after death. In esoteric wisdom "no thing" is a name of God. Even the language signifier conveys a different significance.

Madison's studies in political philosophy must have been historically grounded for he brought a great deal of knowledge of past political systems- particularly pure democracies to the discussions by Publius in The Federalist Papers, precursor to the framing of the United States Constitution

Madison foresaw and feared that political ideology credited to Karl Marx and promoted by Marx's ideological descendent Barack Obama. According to Jack Rakove, director of the American Studies Program at Stanford University.
At the Federal Convention, Madison told his fellow delegates that he foresaw a day when power will slide into the hands" of "those who labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." And even if the Constitution succeeded in checking the danger from a dispossessed proletariat, Madison thought that almost any act of legislation or taxation would affect rights of property. "What are many of the most important acts of legislation," he asked in Federalist 10, "but so many judicial determinations . concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?"
Madison also says this in Federalist Paper #10:

 The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
So in stressing that the faculties of men are unequal, Madison is talking about individuality and expressing the importance of protecting human individuality as "the first object of government"- the direct opposite of Marx's collectivist approach " in the interest of the immense majority". Federalist Paper #10 by James Madison is concerned with preventing a tyranny by the majority.

Compared this to what  "senior lecturer," at the University of Chicago Law School" Barack Obama said in this 2001 radio interview:
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
In a 2007 fundraiser Obama claimed "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."

We are told that Barack Obama was educated at Harvard and Columbia- America's premier ivy league schools. Are we to believe that a law education at  such schools does not include a study of the political philosophy of the framers of the United States Constitution as recorded in the Federalist Papers- or should we take this apparent ignorance on the part of one of  Chicago University's "senior legal lecturers" as a key as to why Obama's educational records are a ferociously guarded secret? The disconnect between Obama's alleged educational background and his misunderstandings of and/or ignorance of and/or disregard for our founding political philosophy which Obama perpetuates using his claimed educational background as a basis for his authority, leads to speculations that Obama's educational background was "arranged" for him by hidden forces manipulating a  fundamental transformation of the United States of America- as is the story told in this video by a physicist about a dinner conversation he claims to  have been part of in Russia in the 1990's . There is nothing to back up the story beyond the word of  the teller but the plausibility of speculation is measured by the consistency of the parts and if it is consistent within a larger context- which, I submit, is the case when considering the secrecy surrounding Obama's educational records- his disdain for the constitution as been demonstrated on numerous occasions since he made his arguably ignorant remarks about our constitution in the 2001 radio interview, and a plethora of information concerning the soviets intention to fundamentally transform the USA from within.- All theory- but consistent theory, backed up by many stories told from many different sources.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Madison VS Marxism - Part One- Karl Marx




In contradistinction to the class warfare and collectivist ideology marketed by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto and Barack Obama in his never ending political campaign, the United States of America was founded in an ideology rooted in the balance of power aimed at protecting individual freedom as expressed in the words of James Madison

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority........James Madison Federalist Paper #51
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
And for comparison's sake: From The Communist manifesto:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.  Marx and Engels - The Communist Manifesto

The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.  Karl Marx From Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844

“He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street.  He is going to put y'all back in chains."  Joe Biden spreading the Marxian class warfare for the Obama re-election campaign- USA 2012
A brief background of Karl Marx, cribbed from Wikipedia

Karl Marx was born into a wealthy middle class family of Jewish ancestry who owned a  vineyard. Both Marx's paternal and maternal grandfathers were rabbis' but Marxs' father Heinrich Marx was the first to receive a secular education. Marx's father was a lawyer. As Jews they had inferior legal and social status and so Marx's father's converted to the Lutheran religion, after a Prussian edict denied Jews to the bar.

Marx's mother Henrietta Pressburg, was a dutch Jew, whose family later founded Philips Electronics. Her brother, Benjamin Philips , was a wealthy banker and industrialist, who later lent money to Marx when he was exiled to London and his family was living in abject poverty while Marx founded the Communist league and was involved in various socialist political activities. Marx identified himself as an atheist.

Marx was interested in philosophy and literature but his father insisted that he get an education in law at the University of Bonn, where Marx became the co-president of the Trier Tavern Club drinking society. Marx was more interested in drinking and socializing than in studying. His poor grades led his father to insist that he transfer to the more serious University of Berlin, where Marx remained more interested in philosophy and history than legal studies.

Marx became an unpublished author of fiction and poems but soon gave that up. His college thesis The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, according to Wikipedia, has been described as "a daring and original piece of work in which he set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy"

Marx then pursued a career in journalism and political activism.

I'll stop my short history of Karl Marx here- you can continue reading on Wikipedia. The point is to show the background of the main personality responsible for the class warfare ideology that has spread like wildfire throughout this state and country in recent years with the help of Marx's ideological descendant, Barack Obama. Like Marx, Obama has a legal education. While Marx never entered the legal profession, Obama's main claim to fame is as a community organizer- a kinder and gentler term for political activist- and specifically in Obama's case- a political activist for radical racist anti-American causes. While Marx's grades were poor. Obama's grades are under lock and key. Marx engaged in drinking, Obama tried cocaine and both men share an interest in socializing, marketing, and the media - Marx as a journalist and Obama as a manipulator and an author of books whose true author is speculated by some to be Bill Ayers.

Marx's famous description of religion as the "the opiate of the people", underscores Marx's view that the people can be collectively manipulated through mind control. Those that study the esoteric basis of religion will understand that religion is dependent on the individual's ability to receive transcendent knowledge. Such knowledge cannot be conveyed by man over man as Marx's description suggests.  Marx's description is more apropos to marketing than it is to religion. The phraseology popularized by Marx deflects its' hidden questions- Who is the administrator of the opiate ? and What is the religion? Since esoteric religion is a relationship between a higher power and man, the description of religion as portrayed by Karl Marx is just a political description, that of the power that man can wield over man. An atheist is one who recognizes no power higher than man and can there by never have a real understanding of the genuine esoteric basis of religion. By self definition, atheist are precluded from such an understanding. Since Marx's description is a political description - one of power of man over man- the religion to which he refers must be atheism- or secular religion- a term that can be applied to almost anything, excepting esoteric religion, including the power of marketing- which is what Marx and his ideological descendent, Barack Obama are really about- and why both are proponents of a collectivist society- or a society in which "the immense majority" can be easily manipulated through mass mind control- a pursuit that the Communists have been at since Marx and Engels first produced the Communist Manifesto. That secular religion can wear any garb including the clothing of an esoterically founded religion. It is very common for the radical left to conceal their true identities in the garb of the "other". The concept of using religion as a power of man over man is an atheist concept. To the atheist, politics-  the power of man over man- is the highest power that exist.There is no other power in their delusions.

Marx was  never a financially successful man in his own right. Both Marx and Engels were the beneficiaries of the class that they sought to over throw through their political activism- i.e., the private property owners, which Marx and Engels refer to as the bourgeoisie.

Marx and Engels were not members of the laboring class but took it upon themselves to  be the voice of that class,("self-appointed authority" - to borrow from James Madison in the quote above) - as if to say that laborers needed the academic class to create, articulate and express their views for them, which in its self betrays as much a hidden disregard for the laboring class as Marx and Engels express disdain for a private property owning class from whence Marx and Engels derived their capital means to speak as the voice of the laboring class. Marx and Engels were of the academic class and that perhaps explains why the long planned communist "fundamental transformation" of the USA began in our educational system - what better vehicle for mass mind control?

To be continued.

AfterNote: I have been continuing researching with the aim of discovering if Karl Marx ever had any personal connections with anyone of the labor class but so far I have  not found any mention of Marx having a close relationship with anyone outside of his own class of academics and intellectuals. This article from the Trustworthy Encyclopedia is more informative than the wikipedia article but still does  not mention that Karl Marx had a personal connection with the laboring classes.


Related and Of Interest

Marx's Path to Communism

Friday, December 14, 2012

When The American Dream Meets The Communist Manifesto

This post is of a more personal nature. In my local existence I am surrounded in all directions by those who voted for Obama, not  just once but twice. Some of them are aware that I listen to the news every evening and that I have a strong interest in politics and so if I should ever introduce a political subject they quickly leave the room or respond with a non sequitur. They never introduce any political subjects themselves and so it is impossible to tell their level of awareness about what is going on in the world. It is hard  for me to understand how anyone can watch the nightly news and not feel compelled to express ones thoughts, the more so during the election season- but I watch Fox News and if they watch the news at all it is probably the main stream media, which in 2012 might as well be called the Pravda media , appropriate to the way the news is  reported in service of our dear leader president Obama.

This is a difficult post to write as I am not sure what to do  with it. I usually do not write about my own affairs on my political blog but I cannot express my political thoughts on my business blog.


Since my business is in the art world, I am politically a fish out of water. I am surrounded by  those who adamantly do not talk politics. Today I read Obama's deranged statement accusing Boehner of not offering a "balanced approach" to fiscal cliff negotiations, all the while excluding any mention of deficit reductions. I found it so disturbing that I broke the unwritten law and I asked those around me if they are aware of the fiscal cliff. True to form I was cut off mid-sentence by one who said with an accusing edge in their voice "I'll tell you what I am aware of- that Bath Iron works might close down. I started to say that if we go over the fiscal cliff, defense spending will be cut with an sledge hammer and so that is quite likely but I was cut off again as it was explained to me that the cause of the possible shut down is that "they won't vote". It was clear that no further discussion was welcomed. And also clear that Obama's belief that the public will blame the Republicans for not agreeing to tax the successful without any further consideration of reducing spending. Obama doesn't intend to reduce spending. he intends to increase it. it seems clear to me that only the republicans are motivated by the will to bring the United States economy back to health, while Obama is motivated by the will to extract capital, wealth and property from the private sector and into the hands of government as fast as he can, while he still has the power to do so. This would result in the "fundamental transformation of the United States, delivering us to the communists as the communists have so patiently planned for decades.

Last September I was driving on the beautiful River Road,  feeling inspired about the KickStarter project I have been working on when suddenly a dark thought intruded upon my reverie as I remembered the state of our economy. In a moment I blew it off, realizing that what I had been experiencing, prior to the intrusion, is the American dream which has made this country great, a reminder that even in the worst of times, it is the spirit that makes us want to build something that finds a a way to triumph.

That was then, before the election, when it was possible to believe that the Obama presidency was about to recede. Times would still be tough but with a new president we could start to find our way back to the American dream. Since the election, the dark cloud is darker, no longer just the  bad economy and ominous foreign affairs,  Now the darkness is about the all too real eventuality that our generation is living through the fundamental transformation of the land of the free, - a transformation that has been patiently and deviously planned by the enemies of our philosophical principals for decades, led by the communists,  who have developed a long and patient strategy for conquering the United States from within.

My American dream is rooted in the past and hoping to grow into the future, beyond my own generation. I was given a unique American business by my parents. An important aspect of my dream is to be able to hand down an engaging work process and creative opportunity to a new generation.  But this small family business and the product that it creates has always been emblematic of American individuality such that I have long been conscious that our business cannot creatively exist in a collective society in which the government controls all and in which the government owns all property. I am seeing before our eyes a process of wealth transference from the private sector to the government sector implemented by Obama's taxation policies and driven by his class warfare philosophy. Such a transference is an important step in the fundamental transformation of the United States into communism - a society in which there is no private ownership, excepting, as has developed in Communist China, the members of "the party" are allowed to own property and there usually exists a bureaucratic class that lives a much more abundant lifestyle than the people - Not so different than parts of the United States today, where in government employees enjoy a higher standard of living than the taxpayers who foot the bill.

Some of our pundits try to convince themselves that Obama will be motivated to bring our American economy back to health by the desire to have a positive legacy for his presidency.  I believe that Obama is a Manchurian president, the result of long and patient planning by the communist conspiracy and as such the legacy that Obama wants is not one framed by the American dream but by the Communist Manifesto, which demonizes private capital and posits that the entire capital of the globe should be in the hands of one world government. Global government has long been the  goal of the communist and Islamic jihad alike Let them battle it out, once they defeat their mutual enemy - The United States of America- One a philosophical system based in atheism and the other a theocracy - both oppressive of human freedom and neither is philosophically tolerant of the other.


The news  analysts talk of the uncertainty that is hampering economic growth. They say there is capital that is being withheld from the economy because entrepreneurs do not know what level of taxation and what new regulations will affect business and the economic environment. Our business is fortunate to be small enough to escape being in  the Obama regimes' current "targeted sector" but the focus of my dream, my  vision and my goals is to ensure that this business has a long and enduring living legacy. Until this past election, I never imagined that that future world might be the USSA. It's hard to imagine fitting into that picture- and it is difficult to  "normalize" and to regain one's focus in one's local reality- but this we must.

And therein lies the purpose of this post- this is my self therapy post in which I try to establish my own local normalization process. Like most businesses and people we must take one day at a time. The world is the most uncertain that I have ever experienced and all we can do is just keep on keeping on.


I pray that the 43 trillion dollar law suit pursued by the  Spire Law Group soon proceeds and is adjudicated by an honest judge.

I hope that The House Judiciary Committee impeaches Obama and his administration on a growing list of charges that includes Fast and Furious and Bengahz1.

If one or both of these are successful, then and only then can I envision passing our living legacy on to future generations of the USA.




Monday, December 10, 2012

The War of the Memes

 A meme (play /ˈmm/; meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.  as quoted from wikipedia


Below is a well informed and clearly articulated  video by a New Zealand researcher and author Trevor Loudon, author of Barack Obama And The Enemy Within. Loudon has investigated Obama's background and the deeply rooted communist beliefs of those that shaped the philosophical development of the youthful Obama. In this video, created before the elections , Loudon pleads with Americans, for the sake of the entire western world, not to re-elect Obama

An Urgent Message To America

I found this video so compelling that I have listened to it many times over and I posted it on AS Maine Goes, a primarily conservative forum,  where, as far as I can tell no one listened to the video except Eagleisland who claimed to have listened to it partially and then stopped because he found it  boring.

While ignoring the video, The responders weighed in on the other headline in the topic title - the call to impeach Obama , declaring in unison that Obama cannot be impeached, citing as reasons the color of Obama's skin and the media love affair with our dear leader .


The author of the video, Trevor Loudon,  is also the author of Barack Obama an the Enemies Within. Loudon describes how his country, New Zealand, was manipulated by foreign powers into severing their military alliance with the United States. Loudon's source is a former soviet spy who studied at the Lenin Institute for Higher Learning with 35000 students from all over the world excluding the United States, who is the main enemy. The spy sat in a room with members of the KGB and tutors from the institute. The soviets were planting ideas and funding the peace marches aiming at breaking up NATO

A couple of days after I watched the Trevor Loudon Video, when its impact was still  weighing on my mind, I watched the movie Inception. Inception is a science fiction film about a team that goes into people's minds as they sleep and extracts ideas from the dreamer- but the team is now challenged to go even further to implant an idea into the dreamers mind.

As I watched the movie, it spoke as a metaphor for the soviet based political manipulations that Trevor Loudon described. The soviets evolved a social science that can be used to access and manipulate the minds of the masses.

 I haven't read Trevor Loudon's book and so I am speculating as to how the seeding and manipulation of the memes has long been practiced, primarily by the enemies of the American political philosophy which targets humanity through the emotions to a greater degree than the American conservative who rely more strongly on reason. but that is not entirely so and so the same memes with identical emotional content can be tailor made for either the left or the right, but I believe that the left understands the process and power of such manipulations far more acutely than does the right.

The first step is to go into the mental landscape of the targeted group and extract ideas. This is important because in order to have a powerful effect, the targeted individual or group has to believe that the ideas being perpetuated are their own. What better way to do this than to start with self seeded ideas and feed them a shot of growth stimulus? The character of the meme, which I am intending here, are thoughts that are passed on, borrowed, adopted and repeated with very little examination. An example in contemporary news is the current media blitz that tells us that four "conservative" representatives of the House lost committee assignments because they are conservatives. If one googles the a search term about the committee assignments the entire page will be filled with stories of a similar headline but upon reading the stories there is no evidence that the news media has a genuine inside track to what is taking place in the Republican Committee assignments. The four who lost their appointments are identified as "conservatives" because they "held their ground" on deficit reductions and balancing the budget, refusing to vote for that passage of a resolution that did not meet their measure.

I submit that the definition of a conservative should not be contingent on a form of action. Conservative principles are goals. Forms of actions are means of achieving the goal. One can stand one's ground on all of the demands that one wants, and call that being "principled" without a single second of reflection as to the functional result that one's form of action (standing one's ground) can be expected to achieve. This was the modus operendi of the far left during the elections season. To my grass roots observation- those that called them selves "principled" campaigned heavily against Romney and the Republicans and accepted no responsibility for the electoral function of their actions. Once Obama had (allegedly) won the presidency and the Democrats had retained the Senate- that same self-proclaimed "more principled than thou" contingency turned their bashing actions on vaguely identified targets such as "The Republican leadership",and "The Republican establishment" and of course John Boehner, who is held accountable for all the actions of the House Republicans including committee actions in which Boehner is not even a member. The reason is clear:  it is easier to have a catch all target of blame than to actually educate oneself on the balance of powers that the US Constitution provides and identify which House members chair which committees to reveal the real chain of command That takes some work.

Getting back to the mind control process central to the plot of the movie, Inception The route to such control is through the emotions and in convincing the dreamer that the thoughts being planted are his own. The dream master who traveled deep into the dreamscape  needs a reference point lest he lose track of what is real. in the movie, the dream master's reference point is the spinning function of a top. which in the real world eventually slows to a stop but within a dream just keeps on spinning. In order to execute a  reality check, the dream master must observe "how the spinning top functions, That, I submit, is almost the same question that we need to ask to identify which side of the political divide an idea, or an individual, or a group serves.  A true conservative must serve conservative ends in the real and practical world.

One of the fundamental principals of conservativism is self reliance and personal responsibility. During the election season- there developed a third party contingency which perceived itself to be more principled than the rest of the conservative movement. In their eyes they are the entire conservative movement, which they made clear by actively and aggressively campaigning against Romney and the Republicans. I am familiar with the third party faction from various online forums, where one was vilified if one dared to contest misinformation that was being spread about Romney and the Republicans. If one brought up the subject of Obama, the third party contingency would claim to be anti-Obama but at the same time they insisted that staying true to their principals called for remaining outside of the electoral process and accepting no personal responsibility for the electoral function of their negative campaigning directed squarely at Romney and the Republicans. In response to this line of reasoning, I once said that I would hold the third party faction responsible should Obama win the election. Even as the race was tightening right up to election day, the third party contingency was advancing a campaign to encourage others to take the "principled" action of voting for a third party instead of for Romney whom they demonized with predictable, often repeated and ill considered ideas. One of the most prevalent ideas was the slogan that Romney is just another Obama. The two men are as different as night and day. (said at the risk of being called racist for using such a metaphor).

After the elections the right wing pundits are asking what did we do wrong. My answer is that what we did wrong is still being done and that is the identification of a principal with a form of action.  I am seeing the same individuals who bashed Romney and the Republicans and swore not to vote for Romney as a badge of their principals, now bashing  Boehner and what they often refer to as "the Republican establishment, which if one scratches the surface means the same on the far right as it means on the far left- ie. "old white men" to quote Debbie Wasserman Schultz in one of her most racist, sexist moments. Whenever I asked why the third party constituents so hated Romney, it was inevitable that they would answer by describing Romney as a generic establishment type, citing his wealth as a reason why they hated him, sounding no different than the class war-farers on the left.

With the media launching into a chorus of "The Conservatives were dropped because they are conservatives", implying that the "Republican leadership" is not conservative, the right wing media is re-enforcing the living meme festered as the third party constituency during the election, which told themselves that they and they alone are conservatives, The media's conclusions are arrived at with virtually no investigations- just interviews with the alleged conservative victims- all that is needed to justify the claims the media makes as it rushes to judgement that "wrong" actions were taken - with no consideration that there might be more to this story than their foregone conclusions. The effect of this media frenzy is to reinforce the delusions of the very faction that refused to accept personal responsibility for the function that their voting choices serve- that functional result being the election of an administration and a Senate majority that is least inclined to advance the principals of conservativism.  I am not making my own judgement about the four representatives who lost their appointments, about whom I know nothing. I am talking about what I am observing at the grass roots level, which is in other terms, the electorate.

Obama (allegedly) won the election by a slim margin. I hold the third party contingency,  responsible for the construction of our government for the next four years. I think the right wing media is making a huge mistake in playing to the misguided conceits of this faction. 'Holding ones ground" does not make one more principled or more conservative than any one else. Having a clear understanding and commitment to conservative principals combined with accepting personal responsibility for how ones political choices advance or hinder those principles is the measure of a true conservative. "Holding ones ground" and/or negotiating are forms of strategic action. There is room for differences of opinion about what strategic actions will best serve the ultimate achievement of the goal.

I just want to say to that third party contingency - whose activity I have observed locally and on the internet to no small degree: "You are responsible for the formation of our government for the next four years. The very government formation that you helped to put into power though your actions and non-actions necessitates negotiation with those that do not share our conservative values. If not for your negative campaigning and expressed voting choices, we might be looking at a Romney Presidency and even a  Republican Senate majority in congress. In an election as close as it was, your actions are accountable. In your per-election rhetoric you refused to accept personal responsibility for the out come of the elections and so divorced principle from function. It is the outcome of the election that makes satisfying your demands so difficult and its time for you to own up to the role that you played that sets us back in achieving the goals the we mutually seek. It is time for you to make some attitude adjustments appropriate to the real world.


And I want to tell the media to stop legitimizing the arrogance of the far right by continuing to label them as the "true conservative", which feeds their continued lack of responsibility to the greater good. They are not more conservative than others. They have failed the reality check- which in a word is functionality!

We are told in meme like fashion that it is "wrong" for the "Republican leadership" to remove "conservatives" from committees because of the way that they vote. Dare I ask why?  If there is shown to be an unrelenting voting pattern that bucks the "Republican leadership", then are not the so labeled "conservatives" functioning as dead weight if their collective vote is not enough to make a difference- or as obstinately as Obama if their vote is enough to obstruct the negotiating process by making demands that the Senate will find unacceptable?  Is not the process of negotiation built into the United States constitution by the very fact that it is constructed as a division of powers?

Could it be that these four committee members could better serve our country in a different function? The media meme does not bother to ask this question- nor does it wait to adjudicate until after we know the identity of the new appointees to the Budget and Financial Committees. The "Republican leadership" and "John Boehner" have been convicted by the media meme without a trial or a voice. Are we really to believe that this is the way "true conservativism" works?

In the age of the internet, the politicization of memes is more powerful a tool than ever. Memes can be intentionally seeded and nourished by a manipulator who conceals his true identity.  Organized groups are easily profiled and so become fertile ground for meme development. The Lenin Institute, and other organizations have long been profiling identifiable segments of the population. Ideas useful to the profiler are identified and the operators work to build momentum for the idea. The repetition of the idea legitimizes it to the most vulnerable minds. The meme takes on a reasoned appearance as it targets emotional responses and reactions.

One such example is the mantra that spread through the internet that said Romney is just another Obama. There is no reasonable support for such an idea but it was quite successful and given added impact through Obama's proliferation of the class warfare meme. But does anyone really believe, that even in a lame duck Congress session, that we would be facing the infantilism and arrogance that Obama is delivering if Romney were our next president? On second thought maybe so- when it's Obama about whom we speak- but does anyone really believe that we would be looking at the exact same next four years if we were about to enter the Romney presidency?

After Thoughts
Manchurian President picked by Russia
In this a video in which a physicist tells a prediction he heard in Russia in 1991 theat we would soon have a black communist president. The woman spoke with great certainty, identifying his name as Barack, that he had not yet entered politics, that he was from Hawaii and would have an ivy league education and that he was being groomed to be our president. She also said that the Communist movement knew that they had to take the United States.




Sunday, December 9, 2012

Banned by Conservative Hammers

Yesterday, I was banned from the Face book forum, Conservative Hammers for questioning the media’s representation of the change in committee member’s of the House Budget and Financial Committees. - Also for defending John Boehner and Mitt Romney.

This does not matter since participation in a forum is only as valuable as the degree to which one has the freedom of speech to express one’s views. When Keith Brock, after reprimanding me for addressing him by his full name rather than as “Sir” or Mr. Brock”- telling me that I had not been granted permission to address him by the name that he goes by on Face book, published an announcement that he did not like to take such an action but as he announced “she is not a conservative’ and so he is justified in silencing my voice on the forum that he governs.

It is ironic because the “true conservatives” that allegedly populate Keith Brock's face book forum, Conservative Hammers, are part of the media chorus which unilaterally reports that the four congressmen were removed from the committees because they are conservatives- and so now Mr. Brock, after announcing to his loyal followers that I am not a conservative, at least in accordance with Keith Brooks personal definition of conservatives, uses said definition as a reason to remove me from his forum. Can this be the very definition of duplicity?

Touché to Keith Brock- By my definition, Keith Brock is no conservative because my definition of conservatism includes that which is being conserved  - the American political philosophy which is the basis of our great constitution and which includes the freedom of  speech, which Keith Brock has demonstrated himself to be intolerant there of, wanting to surround himself only with those who are in strict agreement with his own views. Keith's intolerant close minded attitude has sadly become the attitude that defines the (organized) far right., the same far right that is labeled by the media and themselves as the "true conservative" - more to say on that in my next blog post.

 Also ironic is that Keith Brock reprehended me for calling him by his name- Keith Brock- and then he turns around and calls me one who is not a conservative- which I consider to be slander- but calling me by my name- no one needs my permission to do so- announcing to the world that I am not a conservative- I take offense to that.