0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2011 02:05 pm
Today I ran a search for “The Communist Origin of The Modern Conservative Movement” without the quote marks on Bing, it returned as the number one search result out of 8,450,000. It eclipsed the Heritage Foundations “The Origins of the American Conservative Movement” an article by the Heritage Foundation which manages to omit each and every one of the communist founders of the Modern Conservative Movement. Why does the Heritage Foundation feel it necessary to conceal all of the communist intellectuals in the Modern Conservative Movement’s closet? It would be impossible for Lee Edwards, PhD, the author of the Heritage Foundation’s article, not to know about the communist intellectual’s contribution of founding of the Modern Conservative Movement. His detailed information of the Modern Conservative Movement is undeniable, but just as obvious is his omitting all of the communist intellectual’s vast contribution to the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement. Why lie? And it is obvious he is deliberately lying by omission. If it became general public knowledge that the communist intellectuals were the founders of the Modern Conservative Movement, the Conservative Movement would lose face.

When I first ran across the fact that the communist intellectuals were at the very foundation of the Modern Conservative Movement I could not believe it. Here were the conservatives on red neck right radio calling everyone who disagreed with them communists while they were in fact the modern day apostles of the very communists they pretended to hate. After coming across names of the communists, I carefully beginning researching them, the books they wrote, their relationship to the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement. Whitaker Chambers life read like a spy novel from John Le Carre’ except it wasn’t fictional and he was spying for both the Nazi’s and the Russian Communists. Chambers became Reagan personal hero and later Reagan made him a National Hero by awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the civilian equivalent of the military Medal of Honor.

Yet in the Heritage Foundation’s article the man that provided Reagan his political epiphany and changed Reagan from a New Deal Democrat to a Commie Conservative is carefully not even mentioned. The lies of omission in Lee Edwards, PhD article are so glaringly obvious it is obvious to anyone with even a moderate knowledge of the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement that the Heritage Foundation’s article was little more than carefully manufactured propaganda intent on keeping the communist intellectuals skeletons securely in the closet away from the public eyes.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2011 05:01 pm
Dr Lee Edwards article for the Heritage Foundation “The Origins of the American Conservative Movement,” closely mirrors the title of a series of posts I have written for the last 3 years, “The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement.” Both Edward’s article and my post basically deal with the same subject the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement. But the similarities end there, the key people in my post and other conservative historians’ books fail to even get the slightest mention in Edwards article.

Edward’s article starts out in Mainland China, when the Modern Conservative Movement was founded China was very much a third world country and of no real threat to America. Communist Russia was our main competitor for world dominance and a threat to our very existence. Edwards’ article begins with a missionary doctor to China by the name of Walter H. Judd who later became a House of Representative member and failed in an attempt to get elected to the Senate in 1962. The first eight paragraphs of Edwards’ article are devoted to Judd. Internet references to Judd are scares with a written oral history of congressmen being one of the only reference I could find.

A book about the father of Modern Conservative Movement, Frank Meyers, the book was by Kevin J. Smant a History professor Indiana University. Basically Smant book covers the founding of the Modern conservative Movement and there is not one mention of Judd. The communist intellectual Frank Meyer is considered the acknowledge founder and father of the Modern Conservative Movement by most. Smant has no problem acknowledging the communist intellectuals who founded the Modern Conservative Movement but Edwards avoids the communist intellectuals like the plague. If Edwards’s article is a sample of what passes for “truth” in the Heritage Foundations articles then Red Rupert joint venture with “The People’s Daily” in Red China is far more truthful.

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 08:03 pm
Dr Edwards says that it is a striking historical coincidence that both the Modern Conservative Movement and the People Republic of China were born at the same time. He credits Russell Kirk book “The Conservative Mind,” as the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement even though the communist intellectuals like Frank Meyer publicly discredited his ideas. Other historians trace the beginning of the Modern Conservative back to the KKK of the 1920s and show the shared ideology between the two political movements. In this case Edwards is closer to the founding time period but no doubt the Modern Conservative Movement would be the political choice of Klan members both then and now.

Russell Kirk certainly is a better choice then Dr Judd when it comes to influencing the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement. Russell Kirk is a significant figure in the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement and stands out because he was not a communist spy or communist intellectual. Kirk ideology was often opposed by Frank Meyer and the other communist intellectuals and Meyer’s ideology prevailed most often. Frank Meyer was one of the four communist editors of the William Buckley “National Review” often referred to as the “Conservative Bible.”
_____________________________________________________
“The Conservative Mind was an impressive feat of scholarship a synthesis of the ideas of the leading Conservative AngloAmerican thinkers and political leaders of the late 18th century through the early 20th century. The work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the Conservative movement its name.”

From Dr Lee Edwards article published in the Heritage Foundation
_____________________________________________________
Let’s be extremely clear that there was an established tradition of conservatism in America, Dr Edwards just doesn’t go back far enough. To be sure Conservatism in America began during the Revolutionary War, the Conservatives took the side of England and supplied and back the enemy. When the Revolutionary war was over the Conservatives homes and businesses, who supplied the English, were burnt to the ground and the Conservatives were shipped back to England to live under the King they so adored. This proud tradition of traitorism may have been what attracted the communist traitors and spies to conservatives. The communist intellectuals knew conservatism had a long tradition of being traitors to America.

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 06:15 pm
Dr Edwards claims in his article that over the next 50 years that, “a succession of Conservative philosophers, popularizers, philanthropists, and politicians marched across the American political stage.” Still there is no mention of the strong influence of the communists intellectuals. To be sure there is a philosopher come lately from the communist revolution in Russia. After all Zinov’yevna (Ayn Rand) gave America “The Virtues of Selfishness” and that was also very much the theme of “Atlas Shrugged.” It seems if selfishness became the guiding light of America all our troubles would soon vanish.

Dr Edwards also fails to mention the importance of the communist style propaganda network set up after Reagan eliminated the “Fairness Doctrine.” Even Hitler could appreciate the advantage of a 24-7 propaganda network pumped into homes, cars and offices across America. Hitler believed only the orator could overcome the emotional mind, where reason failed emotional argument carried the day.

The primary philosophers of the Modern Conservative Movement were a communist spy master, a communist revolutionary, and Russian who had the communist revolution to thank for her education. With a line up like that how could they possibly go wrong? The communist intellectual’s philosophy has bought the mightiest industrial nation in the world to its knees in just 30 years. America might have withstood an invasion by Russian armies but stood no chance in a sneak attack on American values by communist intellectuals. If Russian communists bombed our industrial sites we would have rebuilt them but in a race for greed our industry was voluntarily shipped out of the country, America economy was dependent on our heavy industry which supplied 52% of the economy, now America has less manufacturing than any point since the industrial revolution.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 01:00 pm
The Heritage Foundations article on “The Origins of the “Modern American Conservative Movement” was accompanied by an ad from the Leadership for America Campaign. The add states: “The impact of modern conservatism has been profound: for example, renewed public skepticism about Big Government; lower rates of violent crime and child poverty thanks to conservative initiatives like welfare reform; and, in the wake of 9/11, a prudential internationalism.” If you want to overthrown a government, which was the lifetime goal of the communist intellectuals that founded the Modern Conservative Movement, step one is to make Americans dissatisfied with and to distrust their government. If the Modern American Conservative Movement has achieved one goal it is that it has made Americans distrust and hate their government. This is something that can be clearly demonstrated; opinion surveys taken before the Modern Conservative Movement became a nationally prominent political movement and after 30 years of conservatism. In the 50s the majority of Americans believed they had the best government on the face of the earth after 30 years of conservatism Americans detested and mistrusted every move their government made.

I don’t know whether Leadership for America Campaign is the conservative equivalent Moveon.org but they might consider adopting the name Moving America Backward.org. Most of the time on commie/conservative talk radio is devoted to getting Americans to hate their government. It is 24-7 no stop hate America programming. Getting Americans to hate and mistrust their government is a no win situation unless you are a communist who hopes to make America a communist country.

As the country has moved backwards in the last 30 years of conservatism and it has moved backwards significantly for the middle class as defined benefit pensions that covered 60% of the private sector workforce have all but disappeared replaced with defined contribution pensions that provide on the average just $300 a month as opposed to $2,000 a month for defined benefit pensions. The average couple now works 32 more hours a week and has less to show for it in real dollars then their father working alone did. But it is refreshing to see the commie/conservatives step up to the plate and proudly take credit for America decline.
__________________________________________________________________
“Through the power of its ideas and the unceasing
dissemination and application of those ideas, the conservative
movement has become a major, and often the dominant, player in the
political and economic realms of America.

Leadership for America Campaign
____________________________________________________
You must give credit where credit is due and the commie/conservatives have made a mess of America and they are very proud of the fact and their communist intellectual mentors would be extremely proud of them. The communist intellectuals tried with all their might to bring America down during the Great Depression and failed but their latter day disciples just might accomplish the communist intellectuals goals with ideas fired like atomic missiles through time.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 06:59 am
A successful political movement, “must experience these successive waves of ideas, interpretation, and action along with sufficient financial resources to be successful,” according to Dr Edwards’s Heritage Foundation article. The communist intellectuals certainly generated successive waves of ideas for the Modern Conservative Movement and they interpreted them. There was action alright; the communist intellectuals purged the American radical right from the political movement of the radical right. The John Birchers never knew what hit them when the communists purged them from their own political movement. Like a hijackers taking control of a plane, the communist intellectuals took over control of the Modern Conservative Movement. But the most important to the spread of the Modern Conservative Movement was, “sufficient financial resources” the philosophy of “Greedism” appealed to deep pockets, the ungodly greedy.

The wind beneath the wings of Modern Conservative Movement was money almost from the very beginning. If you are going to spread and popularize an idea money is important, the ungodly greedy realized from the very beginning that Modern Conservatism was the antithesis to 30 years of American progress under the New Deal. Modern Conservatism would turn the clock back to before The Great Depression when greed was ideal not a moral shortcoming. America would go from a country where we are all in this together to a country where it was every man for himself, law of the jungle, under conservatism you are only limited by the depth of your greed.

The ungodly greedy soon figured out their money could be use to mold America into a Frankenstein like greed monster. Predator economics is always good for the predator the more rules that can be eliminated the easier it is for the predators and the worse for the prey. Reagan campaigned on the elimination of regulations, laws that were put in place to protect the public, like the “Fairness Doctrine” that prevented the communists from establishing a communist style propaganda network in America, as soon as the regulation was gone the ungodly greedy quickly established a communist style propaganda network in America, that pushed to radically cut the income tax on the ungodly greedy. Now the ungodly greedy pay income tax, a tax placed on excess wealth, at half of the rate of their employees. The ungodly greedy have a propaganda network that can be used to push greed as virtue. The propaganda network not only propagates the ideas of the commie/conservatives but it is also used to distort and diminishes the ideas of opposing philosophies.

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 05:02 am
Did you every run into a conservative who didn’t think he was “entitled” to a free ride? Zinov’yevna was certainly no different, her main character, John Galt, wanted to do away with the income tax. No doubt this Russian hated to pay income tax to provide money to run a government she so loathed. Conservatives are big on limited government but even they don’t want to pay taxes to fund government. They are for funding a strong army, navy and air force, where a large portion of our tax dollars go, but at the same time despise government employees. Maybe the members of the military should just volunteer their services so the Russian wouldn’t have to pay income tax on her books of bad philosophy.

Toward the end of Zinov’yevna book her main character, John Galt, hijacks the nations radio stations to give a 60 page speech laying out Zinov’yevna’ philosophy. This had to be a record for length of the speech. This Russian is sure she has discovered just what was wrong with America at a time when everything was right with America. Future Historians when they write the history of America will no doubt cite the 1950s as the time period America began to deviated from its ideals and adopt the philosophy of selfishness from the communist intellectuals and the Russian philosopher.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 05:04 am
The definition of insanity is said to be to repeat the same action and expect different results. Each and every year the conservatives were in control of government most Americans lost ground. After 30 years of Trickle Down Economics Americans found out that the money not only didn’t “Trickle Down” it rose toward the top of the pyramid. When 99.99% of Americans effectively lose over a 30 year period and the statistics don’t lie, there is no doubt we are looking at a failed economic theory. Any economic theory that produces 9,999 losers for ever winner is simply lottery winner economics. That being said, lotteries are extremely attractive to gamblers who would gamble everything on a slim chance of being the lottery winner.

But the economic system of a country is how we provide for our families and while some may be like the dog with a bone that crosses the bridge and sees the reflection of the bone it has in the water and jumps in to go after the reflection losing the bone it has in the process. Americans were taken in like that as the conservatives showed them the reflection many Americans dropped their standard of living and went for the reflection only to find out like the dog it was never real. Working couples now find themselves working 32 more hours a week than their father did and making less in real dollars like putting dollars in a slot machine, even though you win a few dollars here and there you can’t escape the reality that you have fewer and fewer dollars. Life in America is producing declining returns just like the slot machine; to be sure there is occasional winner, the bells and the whistles go off to distract from reality of all those losers around you. That is how the illusion is maintained.

What if Americans suddenly decided to focus on reality not on what someone else might have won but on what everybody has lost under “Trickle Down Economics?” The dog is a dumb animal but even he is likely to learn that when he jumps in the water the illusion vanishes. Americans have seen the illusion vanish every year for 30 years, isn’t it time that we realize that “Trickle Down Economics” is just an illusion and no matter how many times we jump into water it will just vanish again.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 05:04 am
Many people think that “Trickle Down Economics” went out when Reagan left office. You seldom even hear the commie/conservatives refer to Trickle Down Economics but the reason they no longer use the term is not that senile old B rated cowboy policies are not in place today as the term has itself has become offensive. The fundamental changes Regan made to American economy are still in effect today 30 years after Regan was elected. America never recovered from the 50% income tax for the ungodly greedy and the offsetting raise to social security that provides the money to give the massive tax cuts to the ungodly greedy. Only during Clinton’s term when taxes on ungodly greedy were raised a small percentage of what Reagan cut them did the real standard of living improve for the middle class. The commie/conservatives went wild, fueled by massive campaign contributions from the ungodly greedy, they called it the biggest tax increase in history. But Clinton 4% increase was nothing compared to 50% cut Reagan gave the ungodly greedy.

Trickle Down Economics was very much in vogue during the Baby Bush years as the meager Clinton increase on the ungodly greedy were quickly rolled back to “give the people back their money.” The trouble was the only people that got more than a pittance back were the ungodly greedy whose income was already soaring. The taxes on capital gains were cut to 15% have of the tax rate on the middle class and the ungodly greedy got 90% of that cut.

We have been waiting 30 years for the money to start “trickling down” but the middle class has only seen its income “trickle up” as the 1/100 of 1% of Americans continue to accumulate $13,400 for every dollar increase for the bottom 99% of Americans, if this is represented on a bar graph, the bottom 99% of Americans income increase would be represented by a bar 1/8 of an inch in height and the ungodly greedy bar would be 66 ft in height, comparable to a six story building.

Reagan action was deliberate he used the government to increase the ungodly greedy wealth, his idea was that a massive increase in the wealth of the ungodly greedy, who were already extremely wealthy, would “trickle down” to the middle and lower class, 30 years later “Trickle Down Economics” is a dismal failure. The increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the ungodly greedy simply made it easier to ship America overseas. The ungodly greedy always act in their own self interest, when they are not using the money to buy more politicians, they look for the highest rate of return, if they can make more money investing in Japan they invest in Japan, if they can make more money investing in China they invest in China, it is their nature. Trickle Down Economics is not only a failure but hastens the end of the America we know. Trickle Down Economics is as much in effect today as it was when Reagan unleashed his nightmare on America.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:07 am
We have had two democratic presidents elected sine President Reagan imposed his failed economic theory known as “Trickle Down Economic” but only Clinton was successful in putting a dent in Reagan’s “Trickle Down Economics.” After the Clinton tax hike on the ungodly greedy the budget was balanced and the standard of living improved for the only year of that 30 year period. Baby Bush not only eradicated the Clinton tax hike but cut the taxes on the ungodly much further. Before baby Bush when all state, federal, and local taxes were taken into account the ungodly greedy paid the smallest percentage of their income in taxes, even the poor paid higher percentage of their income in taxes than the ungodly greedy. When the republican talk about taxes they only talking about the income tax a tax that was originally conceived as a sin tax placed on vice of greed. The first $80,000 in today’s dollar was exempt. Even the poor pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, other state and local taxes, taxes placed on their utilities and insurance policies but these taxes are ignored by the conservative. The commie/conservatives are extremely offended the poor don’t pay a tax placed on excess wealth, even when they have no excess wealth but they would be outraged if they had to pay property tax on a car they didn’t own even though it is the same principal, taxing something you don’t have.

However under Republican administrations the middle class now pays the highest percentage of its income in taxes, significantly more than the ungodly greedy. The middle class actually pays 18% more in taxes than the ungodly greedy do when all taxes are taken into account not just the tax placed on excess wealth. You can not look at a tiny percentage of the total taxes and get an accurate picture of what is happening with taxes in America. Many taxes like taxes on public utilities and insurance are buried in the bills and people don’t realize it, locally a 4% taxes is added to utilities with no deduction for the three martini lunch.

It is obvious the commie/conservatives are using the government to redistribute the wealth not from the ungodly greedy to the poor but from the middle class to the ungodly greedy. The popular that the ungodly greedy are being abused quickly vanishes into thin air when all taxes are considered instead of just considering the tax levied on excess wealth. If a tax was placed on cars should we be surprised that people who didn’t own a car didn’t pay that particular tax? No we would not be surprised, so why are we surprise when people with no “excess wealth” don’t pay on what they don’t have and why do we continue to cut the taxes on the very people who have “excess wealth.”
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 05:02 am
A comprehensive look at the last 30 years of commie/conservatism leaves no doubt that commie/conservatism has been bad for America. Not even the strongest commie/conservative supporter can make an argument that America is now better off after the commie/conservative polices were instituted. Statistics are hard numbers and no matter how they might try to wish them away they can’t be changed or put back in the box. The Hippocratic Oath says at least do no harm; the commie/conservative philosophy has done nothing but harm to America just as the founding communists knew it would. The communists, who were responsible for the Modern Conservative Movement, lifetime ambition was to destroy America and make it a communist utopia. Does anybody really believe that lifetime communists like Frank Meyer and Whitaker Chambers one day suddenly decided to switch sides?

Frank Meyer knew that a philosophy founded on greed would destroy what was left of values American was founded on. In a country where it is everyman for himself sooner or later everyone loses. A country that values greed over people is condemned to fail. The 1935 orders from Moscow to communists like Frank Meyer were simple “capture the culture” no longer were the American communists to try and push the communist heroes like Lenin and Marx but to claim for communism George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and other founders of America, as the original communist heroes. Do you ever wonder why people like Rush Slimbaugh and Glen Beck spend so much time claiming the American founding Fathers as their heroes when they share none of their values? It is part of “capturing the culture” from their communist/style propaganda networks. These Slimbaughs don’t believe in America they believe in an everyman free-for-all with no government inference. Predators would have free reign with no government to stop their crooked schemes. There would be one law under commie/conservatism the “law of the jungle” is all the law that commie/conservatives want. Under conservatism government is bad especially the American government conservatives target the American for destruction, “drown it in the bathtub” etc.

The law of the jungle may seem like a utopia to some but in the end it is a nightmare for all.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 05:04 am
It has been 30 years since commie/conservatives rose to power in the American political arena, can the commie/conservatives point to one single contribution that has made America better in anyway? Thirty years and the quality of life and the standard of living of the vast majority of Americans has fallen year after year surely that meets the definition of failure. When Americans mothers are now required to work 32 two more hours a week and a working couple still has less in real dollars to show for it than their fathers did working alone, the political philosophy that caused it is unquestionably a failure. They say energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes form. Labor is simply a form of energy, what happens to all that extra energy? Thirty-two hours a week comes down 208 days a year, multiply that by millions of American working couples that is a massive amount of energy, we know the working couple didn’t benefit by the extra 208 days of labor a year, we know the that energy from those 208 days can neither be created or destroyed, the question is where did it go? Since the American economy is a closed system it has to be still be in the system. It has to be there and using the statistics US Census all the energy from those billions of hours of labor can be easily located. The data from US Census clearly shows that the energy from 99% of Americans was simply harvested and redirected into the pockets of the ungodly greedy; the ungodly income increased $13,000 for every dollar increase for the bottom 99% of Americans.

The ungodly greedy, just13,400 taxpayers out of over 300 million Americans are the same ungodly greedy the republicans fought so hard to keep their massive tax cuts on the tax placed on excess wealth in place even now with four separate foreign wars that must be paid for the commie/conservatives want to cut the taxes on the ungodly even further.
The American people must wake up and realize the republican’s economic policy for America was conceived in a night of drinking and written down on a cocktail napkin, true story. Is it any wonder a group of drunks could mess up America so badly? Give a drunk enough alcohol and he becomes an economic superman who can solve all the worlds problems in a few minutes, at least he thinks he can. In this case several drunks were involved so the results were indeed spectacular for the ungodly greedy.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2011 05:06 am
I listen to Rush Slimbaugh and Glen Beck most days because I like to get the lies first hand before they are repeated on the internet. I spend most of my day in the car and there needs to be some noise, like most people you can only listen to the same songs so many times. I often stop on work sites where the radio is tuned to red neck right radio and the listeners believe every word, most have very limited education and believe if you hear it on the radio from a drug addict like Rush Slimbaugh it has to be true. After all why would a pickpocket lie? Slimbaugh gets a $10 million dollar cut of the money funneled to ungodly greedy, why would he lie? He has $10 million good reasons. But there are others like my brother-in-law who received his degree from the local university who are easily taken in by philosophy of total selfishness.

One of the hardest concepts for most people to grasp is the concept of personal reality. Reality in itself is very much an illusion, the idea that there is a shared consensus reality is a concept most people accept on face value. But if one looks closer at reality what one finds is personal reality. Reality at all times is made up of perceptions of individuals, what one perceives to be truth may not be what someone else perceives to be true. The classic example is that a couple moves to the country and the man intensely hates the country home and misses the city life. His wife loves the peace and quite and the animals. Which is reality? They both are, each has their own separate personal reality. Personal Reality is structured by the individual; much like furnishing a house we select bits and pieces of perception to create our personal reality. Business have now learned to use customers past selections to make target offers because past selections indicate future choices. Likewise personal reality shapes what future perceptions we are likely to select; if the individual has selected selfish concepts in the past he is more likely to select a philosophy based on selfishness, an individual who personal reality choices are not as vulnerable to philosophy based on selfishness. In fact personal reality is serves as filter blocking ideas that are not consistent with ones personal reality and making one more likely to see ideas that are consistent with ones personal reality as the “truth” while ones that are inconsistent as “lies.’

The trouble is there are all kinds of people who want to furnish your personal reality with their ideas. If they can furnish your personal reality with their philosophy you are more likely to accept similar ideas and reject opposing ideas. This is the concept behind propaganda and communist style propaganda networks. Propaganda is far more dangerous then most people realize because it not only shapes the individuals perception today but for years to come.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 05:01 am
The majority of people have a proclivity for incestuous amplification. Incestuous amplification is a military term that refers to a military commander surrounding himself with staff of yes men. There are no opposing opinions on this type of military commander staff, whatever the commander decides the rest of his staff simply reinforces. Incestuous amplification has led to some of the biggest military defeats in history. The commander staff that is free to express their own opinion is likely to point out errors in the commanders thinking that can be corrected before the battle.

First we construct our mind to filter out opposing information then we reinforce it with incestuous amplification. Studies have shown that people have a natural tendency to surround themselves with other people who hold similar opinions and avoid socializing with those who are likely to hold opposing view points. People are more likely to voice their opinions when most members of the group hold the same or similar opinions and more likely to remain silent when most members hold opposing opinions.

We are all constantly in the process of creating our own personal reality and most people are blissfully unaware of their contribution to what they refer to as reality. The last frontier is really the human mind; man goes through life acting and reacting and never really understanding why. Most people stamp their actions with rationalizations, it is easy to pick out a few reasons for our actions whether they are valid or not.

The increased understanding of how our mind works has implications for political philosophy and our future but an increased understanding of our minds open up the opportunity for more sophisticated manipulation of the public mind. Mankind’s knowledge has expanded so dramatically over the last century that any one man can only hope to master a small portion of that knowledge in a lifetime. As knowledge becomes more compartmentalized in different segments of the populations manipulation for political and economic gain will become the rule and not the exception. In our lifetime we have already seen a tiny fraction of the population, 1/100 of 1%, gain political control of our government by simply purchasing politicians with massive campaign contributions and the economic benefits conferred on them by the government in tax cuts was absolutely astounding.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 05:55 am
How do we decide what the “truth” is? One way is what is known as “social proof” in other words we look around us to see if others believe to be true, that is called “social proof.” Externally motivated people are especially vulnerable to social proof as they are basically motivated by cues from fellow men.

Cults use social proof to manipulate cult members by isolating cult members from friends and family members, cults carefully cultivate “social proof.” If cult members have access only to other to other cult members for social proof it is easy to convince them to commit suicide to reach an alien space craft following the comet Hale-Bopp. If everyone you encounter in a day believes this to be true social proof takes over, after all if all these people believe it, how could all of these people be wrong?

Sociologists have designed experiments to study social proof at work; a group of people are shown a series of cards with a few lines of different lengths on it and asked to decide which line is longer. Most of the people are working for those running the experiment and are told to say an obviously shorter line is the longest. The subject of the experiment is unaware the experiment is “fixed.” When the experimenter confederates say the shorter line is the longest the subjects concurs about 90% of the time. They accept social proof as being superior to their own judgment.

Commie/conservative radio employees these techniques everyday it sets up a cult following of believers who will identify the shortest line as being the longest each and every time and they know the shortest line is the longest because there is very carefully constructed “social proof.” Talk radio was originally, primarily different callers with a myriad of different opinions calling in to debate political issues but after Reagan eliminated the “Fairness Doctrine” “Talk Radio” became a political monologue that Hitler would be proud of with a few very carefully screened calls designed to provide “social proof” to reinforce the political monologue. Most Americans, like cult members headed for UFO’s in outer space, never realize the sophisticated manipulation techniques being used on them.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2011 05:01 am
I finally finished up Zinov’yevna’ book “Atlas Shrugged” yesterday, all 1168 pages. It ended up pretty much like any 1950s melodrama. That’s no surprise as Zinov’yevna was a Hollywood screen writer. I could only read a few pages at a time as there is a limit to the amount of lies one can take at any one sitting. At the end of the book there was a section about the author. Zinov’yevna told her readers she was born in Europe. She never mentioned she was in fact born in Russia and got her education due to the communist revolutionaries who allowed women to attend universities. She somehow avoids mention the quintessential event of her life the communist revolution. How many people list the continent as their place of birth instead of the country they were born. Our friends on the right no doubt never questioned it believing Europe was a country not a continent. Why would the book not say she was a Russian come lately from the communist revolution? Because in 1957 the Russians were the bad guys and any Russian who had the audacity to re-write the constitution of the United States would not be popular.

This Russian actually believed the constitution of the United States should be rewritten to make greed the principal at the foundation of America. That is the way the book ends with one man rewriting the constitution of the United States. In a post apocalyptic America the ungodly greedy prepare to take over to establish their utopia based on greed. It is not the end of America it is the beginning of a greed based paradise.

One wonders how this woman ever started a cult with such lame ideas but then all cults are based on lame ideas like Heaven’s Gate members be taken up to space ships in a comets tail. But the fact is one of Zinov’yevna’ most distinguished cult members was Alan Greenspan who became one of the most powerful men in America and affected everyone in America life. Imagine if one of Heaven’ Gate followers held one of the most powerful positions in America and ordered all Americans to commit suicide so they could go to the space ship in the comet’s tail. This is in effect what happened in Greenspan case as his greed based finical decisions will affect each and every American for generations. Greenspan gave Zinov’yevna reach beyond her grave to continue to damage America.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2011 05:03 am
The ability of the human to rationalize anything and everything never ceases to amaze me. From the battered wife who rationalizes her beatings at the hands of a violent drunk to the conservative who rationalize an obviously failed political philosophy but conservatives have now reached a new height. In the book about James Burnham, one of the founding fathers of the Modern Conservative Movement, in the forward Richard Brookshier, rationalizes that Burnham simply “caught” communism like you would a common cold. It seems Burnham was a college philosophy professor in his early 30s when he “caught the communist virus.” Burnham field was philosophy how could he catch “the communist virus?”

Burnham was in personal contact with Trotsky himself. Who knows maybe that is how he “caught communist virus” by exposed to someone who had contracted this “disease.” Burnham was another of William Buckley communist editors of the “Conservative Bible” known as “The National Review.” If communism is something that can be caught like the common cold America needs to ban travel to communist countries before the whole country comes down with the “communist virus.” I wonder if the “communist virus” can be spread by commie/conservative radio. That might explain why America’s standard of living has fallen so dramatically since conservatism came to political power. America has simply come down with the “communist virus.” After all once James Burnham came down with the “communist virus” he was in a place to spread the “communist virus” as a college professor and editor of Buckley’s “National Review.”

I wonder if a shot to protect vulnerable college political philosophy professors from the “communist virus” has been developed yet? Maybe this should be a national priority. God knows the flu is bad enough without worrying about catching the “communist virus.”
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2011 05:03 am
When you peel back all the layers of the Modern Conservative onion what you find at the center are the communist intellectuals. It seems you didn’t have to be a communist to be intellectual to be a conservative founding father but it helped to understand the political philosophy of the other conservative founding father. In time American historians will cite the founding of the American Communist Party as the beginning of the Modern Conservative Movement in America the two political philosophies share many of the same luminaries.

James Burnham, the political philosopher who “caught communism” like others catch the flu was the top scholar in his class at Princeton furthered his education at Oxford. Top students have much in common with parrots their biggest asset is the ability to regurgitate what ever the teachers is pedaling that day. Like the parrot, they can repeat the words without having to understand them. They are total sucks and never question knowledge whether it is right or wrong. This must be why Burnham simply “caught communism.” Notice according to the right the action verb is “caught” sort of a passive verb that shows no action on Burnham part. It was communism that “caught” Burnham.

So much for the illusion and sideshow, Burnham was a leader in the American communist movement just as he became a founder father of Modern Conservatism. . I wonder why Brookshiser didn’t say Burnham “caught” Modern Conservatism? In 1932 Burnham publishes a “star struck” review of Leon Trotsky “History of the Russian Revolution. At this point it seems Burnham became a Trotsky groupie and would go on to correspond with Trotsky. There is no doubt that this review started a long and distinguished career, for Burnham, as an American communist with a long and distinguished list of accomplishment for the communist cause in America.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2011 05:02 am
If you ask most conservatives who James Burnham was they would tell you they never heard of him. But if you ask them if they had ever heard of the “National Review” most could tell you that the National Review” was known as the “conservative bible.” If you told them that senior editor, who stood in for William Buckley when he was gone, was a communist they simply would refuse to believe it. Tell them that four editors of the “conservative bible” were communist intellectuals and they would simply block it out. What are you going to do with facts that the communist intellectuals made modern conservatism what it is today? Facts don’t go away but you can always block them out and pretend they don’t exist. There is a reason they say ignorance is bliss.

Most conservatives are blissful ignorant of the fact that communist intellectuals are responsible for the founding of the Modern Conservative Movement and are determined to stay ignorant of those facts but many conservative historians acknowledge the huge debt Modern Conservative Movement owes to communism for its very birth. Competent historian can’t block out the facts or refuse to acknowledge them, they have to try and account for them. Most people do not have a passing understanding of American history let alone the history of their political philosophy. The old saying is you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, history is that way.

There were several communist inspired political organizations in America during Burnham’s lifetime, he actually refused to join Communist Party (CP) over the “Negro question” The Communist Party position was to set up an autonomous black republic in the deep south. Burnham joined the American Workers Party (AWP) instead. The American Workers Party was the direct antecedent of Communist Party USA.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2011 08:15 am
When I ran across the fact that Ronald Reagan awarded Whitaker Chambers the Presidential Medal Of Freedom for Espionage, I found it hard to believe even a senile old B movie actor would award the highest civilian honor of the land to communist spy. The presidential Medal of Freedom is the equivalent to the military Medal of Honor. The trouble was the only espionage Chambers did was for the Russian Communists and the Nazis.

Now I found out that Reagan also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to James Burnham, another communist. I beginning to wonder how many other communists Reagan made national heroes and roll models out of. At least Burnham didn’t receive his Presidential of Freedom for Espionage; evidently it was for all the communist “star struck” review of Trotsky’s “History of the Russian Revolution.” There seems to be a pattern of Reagan making heroes out of communist intellectuals.

Regan portrayed himself as an enemy of communism at the same time he was enshrining communist intellectuals as role models for future American generations. Why did Reagan chose communist intellectuals to become American role models? Because American conservatism and communism share the same Political Philosophers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/12/2018 at 09:28:09