Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How people fit together.
#1
How people fit together.

I want to end at the present, looking to the future, but where to start sets the stage. The present transcends the generic ideas of philosophers describing how things work. It’s like looking at characters from casting who are so stereotypical that they would be laughed at for being picked for the roles they so look like. It is ironic the media poo-poohs certain ideas that go against their incorrect preconceived notions, then look the other way when those ideas they didn’t like are proved right after all.

So let’s open it all up and look at real things before zeroing in on the miniscule. Reading Jean M. Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear series  quickly shows the many things that illustrate ancient mankind and how groups of people had to behave in order to survive. In general, there had to be leaders to make things work. A leader is chosen for leadership ability, which is charisma. He/she needn’t be the best in all areas, just able to get the input from others and make best use of it. I don’t think a caveman leader had to chew willow bark while enduring a headache to discover it helped alleviate his pain. But there had to be someone interested in experimenting to learn anything. Medicine, agriculture, hunting, and security all needed specialists to move forward. That charismatic leader made all their efforts easier.

Nothing has changed over the eons of mankind’s growth. Those leaders always make use of others’ skills. Prior to the Vietnam War, battles were won and lost because of who had the better skill at fighting. Not to be caught short, those experts in fighting experimented and game-planned to discover the best ways to win. In the USA, those experts were the Lt. Cols. In the Pentagon. We put together endless scenarios for any possible action - with all the branching variations that might occur. Nothing could surprise us, until one day it did. That one day was when Walter Cronkite said we lost the Tet Offensives in 1967.

Everyone was completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated there were riots and protesting on the streets of America. According to General Giap (Commander of NVA forces who had been prepared to negotiate a surrender after losing his men and equipment for no gain.), these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968. Today, there are 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial.

A new group of experts were christened that day. We always had guerrilla warfare proponents who fought clandestinely without matching up militarily. This new concept of aiming at the media took precedence over all else. Hopefully the Lt. Cols. In the Pentagon have accepted this new reality. This new concept was not just for armies - but for gangs and scammers.

Forging a new paradigm of avoiding confrontation but finding the news cameras made it easy to fight without getting a bloody nose. Go crazy on the street corner, then run home to hide behind Momma’s apron strings.

What has made this worse, is that the Democrat Party and fellow crazies like George Soros discovered that their voters fit more into this camp than others. As long as the victims of these apron-string hiders were members of any party that they didn’t like, it made supporting them a positive.

With this background in mind, the 2014 revelation of China looking for a pandemic to hurt its competitors, makes the 2020 outbreak very suspicious. Adding to that suspicion is Dr. Fauci’s EcoHealth research business that was researching engineering non-transmissible viruses with gain-of-function research to produce the pandemic that China wanted. In 2014, the USA outlawed his gain-of-function work, so they just packed up and went to Wuhan China, to a research center owned by George Soros and Bill Gates, two billionaires who wanted to invent fool-proof voter fraud to enable the Dems. Fauci was a Hillary devotee, so it all makes painful sense, when you consider Pelosi’s first bill when gaining the House was HR-1, which allowed rule changes for mail-in-voting that could be easily scammed.

Similar to Bush-43’s second term, when his economy was roaring and everyone was supporting him after 9-11, the Dems brought Obama into office by sabotaging the economy, and running fake news against him. He had run his administration with true-bipartisanship, and put Democrats in all his working committees designing legislation. He had given the Dems most all of the successes they could never accomplish on their own, until Reid realized they were becoming unelectable - and unilaterally withdrew all their members from the bipartisan work groups.

Bush-43 modeled himself upon Reagan, not his father, but mischaracterized Reagan’s ability to side-step the complicit media, and tried to ignore them without fighting back the way Reagan did. In the end, Obama was swept into office with large-scale fake news.

When Trump defeated Hillary easily, even with her attempts to scam the votes, they decided they needed even more scamming to get back into power. The pandemic gave the Dems the excuse to harvest ballots and steal the election. All the pieces fit together with forethought and prior planning.

Those who pulled it off were straight out of the Cronkite fake news school. The three elements that allowed it were the Dems long-range armory: Complicit media, complicit Hollywood, and complicit educational system. Decades before, it was James Carville and Paul Begala who used focus groups and think tanks to craft the message. Now, the designers are all under the radar, but because of it, breaking rules and working without honor to win at all costs. OAC was selected via cattle call to run for office, and her handlers like Saikat Chakrabarti, are largely unknown, but central. Whoever designed this whole pandemic-voting scam needs to be identified and have the spot light put on them.
Reply
#2
When Trump beat the Hillary voter-scam paradigm pushed by Carville and Begala, The old scamming was considered not strong enough, anymore. The Cronkite idea of targeting the media had to be revved up to a higher level. EcoHealth Alliance may have gone to China in 2014 to create the bioWeapon for the Chinese, but 2020's election was when it was unleashed. That was six-plus years of sub-rosa potting and planning to use it. Pelosi's HR-1 was specifically designed with a pandemic in mind. The media had its part in the plan - to deflect any investigation that might undo it. For the Dems, the bioWeapon was ideal. It functioned on multiple levels. It allowed vote harvesting without Constitutional checks - and allowed them to blame China, if their intrigue was uncovered.
Reply
#3
(06-09-2021, 03:33 PM)WmLambert Wrote: When Trump beat the Hillary voter-scam paradigm pushed by Carville and Begala, The old scamming was considered not strong enough, anymore. The Cronkite idea of targeting the media had to be revved up to a higher level. EcoHealth Alliance may have gone to China in 2014 to create the bioWeapon for the Chinese, but 2020's election was when it was unleashed. That was six-plus years of sub-rosa potting and planning to use it. Pelosi's HR-1 was specifically designed with a pandemic in mind. The media had its part in the plan - to deflect any investigation that might undo it. For the Dems, the bioWeapon was ideal. It functioned on multiple levels. It allowed vote harvesting without Constitutional checks - and allowed them to blame China, if their intrigue was uncovered.

Gotta Link to this Bill?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#4
If there were any media links, I wouldn't need to post an essay that describes what it is. All I can do is list all the proven elements on the established timeline and let everyone put it together. As far as I know neither John Solomon nor anyone else has posted all the info in one place. But each individual item is searchable - like Soros and Gates owning the Wuhan Virology lab. or HR-1 allowing vote harvesting before there was an established need for it. The Cronkite stuff is out there everywhere - but not put together nicely. The best link on that is to General Giap's autobiography wherein he explained how Cronkite's telecast change his mind about surrendering.
Reply
#5
(06-09-2021, 09:51 PM)WmLambert Wrote: If there were any media links, I wouldn't need to post an essay that describes what it is. All I can do is list all the proven elements on the established timeline and let everyone put it together. As far as I know neither John Solomon nor anyone else has posted all the info in one place. But each individual item is searchable - like Soros and Gates owning the Wuhan Virology lab. or HR-1 allowing vote harvesting before there was an established need for it. The Cronkite stuff is out there everywhere - but not put together nicely. The best link on that is to General Giap's autobiography wherein he explained how Cronkite's telecast change his mind about surrendering.

A case in point is me trying to recreate the links to Soros' ownership into the Wuhan lab. I originally found it in his own biographical back-patting websites, but it has since disappeared. The link also allowed me to cross-reference to Bill Gates partnership into it. They have investments everywhere, and looking at exactly what they choose to propagate illustrates goals and plans - not just growing money.
Reply
#6
This is an addition from another thread, but helps to render the goals and strategies of the Left, and belongs here:

While posting with Joan we wrote about how hard it is to maintain archives and get basic info, when the owners of the servers want to hide it.

A great example is this archive from my files:

    The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing Lee Harris Wrote:
    url=http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3458371.html

    Marx and Engels were supreme pragmatists who did not believe Communism would succeed because of its inherent strengths and unstoppable inevitability. They argued it would only come about if Immiserization occurred:

    • The capitalists would begin to suffer from a falling rate of profit.
    • The workers would therefore be “immiserized”; they would become poorer as the capitalists struggled to keep their own heads above water.
    • The poverty of the workers would drive them to overthrow the capitalist system — their poverty, not their ideals.

    The opposite happened and Immiserization was repudiated.

    Then Paul Baran and Immanuel Wallerstein followed with a revision that can be called The Global Immiserization Thesis.

    ...instead of applying to the workers of the advanced capitalist countries, it now came to apply to the entire population of those countries that have not achieved advanced capitalism: It was the rest of the world that was being impoverished by capitalism, not the workers of the advanced countries.

    This thesis is the the basis of America-bashing. America has gotten rich by making other countries poor: a combination of my enumerated points 2 and 3. This subjective argument was embraced by the Left because it denigrated the success of Free-enterprise by using the failure of other systems as victims, and not as losers in an international game of choice and free will.

    This same argument has grown into the class-warfare political agenda of the Left. The rich can only become rich and maintain their wealth at the expense of the poor. However, history has indisputably shown that people become wealthy by providing services, which benefits all the people. People can always misuse the wealth they inherited - and often lose it all - but the accumulation of it originally is not heinous.

    The attack of 9/11 on the WTC did not signal a revolution on the inequality of wealth. Instead - it strengthened the unity of the U.S. However, as always, the Left continues to whittle at any success of Free Enterprise. Global Warming and the highly successful War against Terror is denigrated daily to make success appear to be losing.


The article, itself, is stored in my local archives - but the original is long gone. This exemplifies another problem in that good solid archiving across the internet is hard to outlast the constant streamlining and pruning necessary to not become unwieldy. The nefarious erasures to protect ideology is much more pointed.

What influenced the contemporaneous Democrats is this immiserization and Cloward-Pivens.

    Harris Wrote:
    Cloward and Piven's article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare "would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments" that would: "...deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas."[2]

    (1) Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". (Originally published in The Nation). Archived from the original on November 24, 2011. Retrieved April 11, 2010.
    (2) Cloward and Piven, p. 510
    (3) Reisch, Michael; Janice Andrews (2001). The Road Not Taken. Brunner Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 1-58391-025-5.

    They further wrote:

        The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[2]

    Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[3]


Yes, this is the basis of today's Democrat strategy. Overload the system and make the needy frantic. Blame the other party to make their own party look like the good guys, although it is their objective to make things worse. This is easily understood with the adage: "The ends justifies the means."
Reply
#7
While adding to the basic thesis of "How People Fit Together" maybe the naming of the thread needs to be explained. My minor at U of M was Philosophy and Logic. To me, things need to make  sense. So politics is a basic part of that evolution of leadership begun with Cavemen. From earlier: "Reading Jean M. Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear series quickly shows the many things that illustrate ancient mankind and how groups of people had to behave in order to survive."

To be a leader, one must exude Charisma. The second and third replacement of leadership may lack that charisma and innate leadership skills, hence the rigamarole of politics, which is the bureaucratic means to maintain power amongst others who do need leadership. The weaker the leader, the more the need for artificial structures that maintains the status quo. I see the current bipartisan politics as a head-on collision with those totally bought in to maintaining power over leadership skills, and those who want the leadership - not just the titles that go with it.

In Great Britain and other Monarchy-led Parliamentary cultures, the State sits at the top, and mob rule is held in check with a Royal Family that works at keeping charisma alive. Lose the true leadership skills and a culture becomes a third-world enterprise. The USA is the nation designed with the individual at the top, held together by a self-limiting Constitution, that allows true leaders to ascend to rule.

The Democrats believe that the ends justifies the means, and leading effectively is not as important as living at or near the top rung in a status-quo ladder. The GOP, Libertarians, and other parties who understand Constitutional responsibilities strive to earn their places.

People fit together automatically to follow the leader. There are always those who covet more power than they can handle. The "Peter Principal' comes to mind. In Caveman days, a leader needed competent lieutenants to fill in the gaps in his/her own knowledge and experience. The Power vs. Responsibility mindset as demonstrated by the Parties, is a constancy in life.

Jude Wannisky was a philosophical/economist mentor for me. His admonition that doing the right thing is instantly rewarded contradicts those holding on to undeserved leadership powers, who claim "it takes years to fix things that go wrong!" They want no accountability on their watch. Forgive me if I judge those Democrat leaders like Hillary, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Warren, O'Rourke, Sanders, Booker, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and AOC - but I see them firmly attached to the Immiseration bandwagon. In fact, they want failure to engender a vacuum they can leech off of. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Note: there are those like AOC, and Joe Biden who are not necessarily bought into Immiseration, but that's because they are too unintelligent to think for themselves and rely on handlers like Saikat Chakrabarti or Ron Klain.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)