Hvorfor venstrevridd?

[Ogalaton]

Hvor er det blitt av den moderate, fornuftige venstresiden? Den venstresiden som i de lengste tider ville verne mot monopoler, var skeptisk til de største selskapene, hørte til det liberale demokrati, fremhevet hvor viktig det er med ytringsfrihet, ble kvalm ved tanken på sensur. Hva skjedde?

Har de ikke beveget seg bort fra alt det nå og heller blitt hva man best kan beskrive som "venstrevridd"?

 

Endret 22. mai av Ogalaton

[BadCat]

Den ble woke og utførte et kollektivt karakterdrap på seg selv.

Endret 22. mai av BadCat

[Rune_says]

Nå er jo "venstrevridd" blitt et propaganda-grep for å sette alle som er uenige med Trump i en bås også.

(Selv Barth Eide karakteriseres av visse Republikanere som en "radical leftist".  Selv om han altså befinner seg ganske nær midten av norsk politikk.) 

[Ogalaton]

Rune_says skrev (42 minutter siden):

Nå er jo "venstrevridd" blitt et propaganda-grep for å sette alle som er uenige med Trump i en bås også.

(Selv Barth Eide karakteriseres av visse Republikanere som en "radical leftist".  Selv om han altså befinner seg ganske nær midten av norsk politikk.) 

 

Du mener at midten av Norsk politikk holder seg til disse?:

Ogalaton skrev (1 time siden):

... Den venstresiden som i de lengste tider ville verne mot monopoler, var skeptisk til de største selskapene, hørte til det liberale demokrati, fremhevet hvor viktig det er med ytringsfrihet, ble kvalm ved tanken på sensur. ...

 

Endret 23. mai av Ogalaton

[Ogalaton]

Tenker selv at om venstresiden hadde blitt moderat igjen, etter beskrivelsene ovenfor, så ville de lett kunne høste mange stemmer. Selvfølgelig måtte det vært genuint også da, at de også handlet etter disse... at det ikke bare var snakk. Hva tenker dere, @Rune_says, @BadCat?

 

Endret 23. mai av Ogalaton

[BadCat]

Det er for mange politiske stikk i dag og for lite helhetlig politikk. Frontfigurer er for mye ute etter å ta andre enn å komme ned noe selv. Eller så driver de med politisk selvskading.

Quote

"Politiske stikk" kan referere til flere ting, avhengig av konteksten. I politisk sammenheng kan det referere til skarpe eller kritikkverdige kommentarer, ytringer eller handlinger rettet mot andre politiske aktører, eller til skandaler og kontroverser som kan skade et partis omdømme. 

 

Endret 23. mai av BadCat

[Red Frostraven]

Ogalaton skrev (16 timer siden):

Hvor er det blitt av den moderate, fornuftige venstresiden? Den venstresiden som i de lengste tider ville verne mot monopoler, var skeptisk til de største selskapene, hørte til det liberale demokrati, fremhevet hvor viktig det er med ytringsfrihet, ble kvalm ved tanken på sensur. Hva skjedde?

Har de ikke beveget seg bort fra alt det nå og heller blitt hva man best kan beskrive som "venstrevridd"?

 

...

Minner om at forestillinger om sensur av høyresiden alltid har vært en løgn, produsert av samme misinformasjon som alternative høyre består av.

"Claim of anti-conservative bias by social media firms is baseless, report finds"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds

Så. Hvilken sensur, konkret..?

---

Kritisk til store selskaper? Verne mot monopolet?

Hva ønsker du deg egentlig, konkret? Et politiske venstre som ønsker mer regulering av næringslivet?

[Tussi]

Red Frostraven skrev (6 minutter siden):

...

Minner om at forestillinger om sensur av høyresiden alltid har vært en løgn, produsert av samme misinformasjon som alternative høyre består av.

"Claim of anti-conservative bias by social media firms is baseless, report finds"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds

Så. Hvilken sensur, konkret..?

---

Kritisk til store selskaper? Verne mot monopolet?

Hva ønsker du deg egentlig, konkret? Et politiske venstre som ønsker mer regulering av næringslivet?

Vil bare si at alternative høyre er langt fra konservativt

[Ogalaton]

Red Frostraven skrev (2 timer siden):

...

Minner om at forestillinger om sensur av høyresiden alltid har vært en løgn, produsert av samme misinformasjon som alternative høyre består av.

Hva er alternative høyre? Annet enn en merkelapp?

 

Red Frostraven skrev (2 timer siden):

"Claim of anti-conservative bias by social media firms is baseless, report finds"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds

De venstrevridde mediene sier at høyresiden ikke er blitt/blir sensurert? Jeg er ikke overrasket...

 

Red Frostraven skrev (2 timer siden):

... Hvilken sensur, konkret..?

---

Kritisk til store selskaper? Verne mot monopolet?

Store selskaper, som Google/Youtube og facebook f.eks, har sensurert innhold fra høyresiden i mange år nå. Disse er selv på venstresiden, som egentlig til dels svarer på hvorfor venstresiden omfavner de største, rikeste selskapene for tiden... men det er nok ikke hele svaret.

Venstresiden har alltid før vært kritiske til store selskapers mulighet for å bli private monopoler, dog virker det som at det ikke var så farlig med monopoler likevel... så lenge disse støtter venstresiden.

 

Red Frostraven skrev (2 timer siden):

Hva ønsker du deg egentlig, konkret? Et politiske venstre som ønsker mer regulering av næringslivet?

"Korrekt" og moderat regulering av næringslivet, for å unngå monopoler f.eks har "til alle tider" vært viktig for venstresiden.

 

Endret 23. mai av Ogalaton

[Mannen med ljåen]

Venstresiden har sviktet arbeiderklassen, og gått over til andre sårbare grupper, spesielt islam og LGBTQ+++

Vanlige, hvite, norske, heterofile arbeidere er nå venstresidens fiende siden de har klart å bygge et godt samfunn ("er priviligerte"), og det ikke finnes så mye rom for radikal politikk lengre. Man må fylle landet med mer utsatte grupper så man kan ha noen å kjempe for.

Endret 23. mai av Mannen med ljåen

[Red Frostraven]

Ogalaton skrev (1 time siden):

De venstrevridde mediene sier at høyresiden ikke er blitt/blir sensurert? Jeg er ikke overrasket...

Uavhengige rapporter sier det.

 

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/HHRG-118-IF16-20230328-SD028.pdf

Velg 1:

Journalistene, redaktørene, forskerene, vitenskapen, lærerene, akademia, leger, moderatorer, og politikerene fra Høyre til og med SV har bias og blir lurt.

---

Folk som hører på høyrepopulistisk propaganda og kreasjonister blir lurt.

---

Høyrepopulistisk propaganda Inkluderer men er ikke begrenset til:

Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Brett Cooper, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Charlie Kirk, the Quartering, Critical Drinker, the Act Man, Nerdrotic.. Osv. osv. Etc.

Endret 23. mai av Red Frostraven

[rabler]

20 hours ago, Ogalaton said:

Hvor er det blitt av den moderate, fornuftige venstresiden? Den venstresiden som i de lengste tider ville verne mot monopoler, var skeptisk til de største selskapene, hørte til det liberale demokrati, fremhevet hvor viktig det er med ytringsfrihet, ble kvalm ved tanken på sensur. Hva skjedde?

Har de ikke beveget seg bort fra alt det nå og heller blitt hva man best kan beskrive som "venstrevridd"?

 

Kan du ikke beskrive hva du mener med venstrevridd da? Det går nemlig ikke frem her hvem eller hva du snakker om.

[Elgen-Hansi]

Ogalaton skrev (20 timer siden):

Hvor er det blitt av den moderate, fornuftige venstresiden? Den venstresiden som i de lengste tider ville verne mot monopoler, var skeptisk til de største selskapene, hørte til det liberale demokrati, fremhevet hvor viktig det er med ytringsfrihet, ble kvalm ved tanken på sensur. Hva skjedde?

Har de ikke beveget seg bort fra alt det nå og heller blitt hva man best kan beskrive som "venstrevridd"?

 

Venstresiden er ikke i ditt hode eller klemt inn i din trange bås. Den er ute i verden, blant folk, og er i all hovedsak som før.

[Ogalaton]

Red Frostraven skrev (5 timer siden):

Uavhengige rapporter sier det.

Du tror det finnes uavhengige rapporter? Ideologisk uavhengige?

 

Red Frostraven skrev (5 timer siden):

Velg 1:

Journalistene, redaktørene, forskerene, vitenskapen, lærerene, akademia, leger, moderatorer, og politikerene fra Høyre til og med SV har bias og blir lurt.

Hva mente du her?

 

Red Frostraven skrev (5 timer siden):

Folk som hører på høyrepopulistisk propaganda og kreasjonister blir lurt.

Hva er høyrepopulistisk? Høyreside-politikk som er populært blant folk?

Du svarte heller ikke på hva "alternative høyre" er for noe...

Kreasjonister blir lurt? Ikke de som tror på evolusjon?

 

Red Frostraven skrev (5 timer siden):

Høyrepopulistisk propaganda Inkluderer men er ikke begrenset til:

Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Brett Cooper, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Charlie Kirk, the Quartering, Critical Drinker, the Act Man, Nerdrotic.. Osv. osv. Etc.

"Populære høyreorienterte" folk mener du?

Tim pool og Jordan Peterson?De tilhører jo den moderate venstresiden. Begge har vært åpne om at de ikke identifiserer seg med høyresiden, men at venstresiden har forlatt dem og er blitt tyranniske/totalitæriske, og at de derfor vender seg til den siden som fortsatt er anti-tyrannisk og anti-totalitærisk, altså høyresiden.

Nå kjenner jeg ikke til alle navnene du nevner der... men hverken Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk eller Matt Walsh er ekstremistiske. De er høyreorienterte, og står for den Konstitusjonelle Republikk, USA, med liberale friheter til alle. Ingen av disse tar til orde for å fjerne fundamentale rettigheter fra folk.

Derimot er venstresiden blitt ekstremistisk, som både Tim Pool og Jordan P. har belyst... hvor f.eks venstresiden har begynt å omfavne sensur, som var en av grunnene deres til å bytte side/ta avstand fra, den nåværende venstresiden.

 

rabler skrev (4 timer siden):

Kan du ikke beskrive hva du mener med venstrevridd da? Det går nemlig ikke frem her hvem eller hva du snakker om.

Elgen-Hansi skrev (3 timer siden):

Venstresiden er ikke i ditt hode eller klemt inn i din trange bås. Den er ute i verden, blant folk, og er i all hovedsak som før.

De er imot det liberale demokrati (rettighetsfokus) ved å være for sensur, og for kollektivistisk inngripen over det enkelte individ, så lenge dette bedømmes til å være "til det beste for majoriteten", og slikt er (eller var iallefall) utenkelig for den moderate venstresiden før i tiden... altså er de blitt totalitære eller totalitær-lignende. Kommunister vil jo også ha sensur, og ikke minst "kollektivisme over individets rettigheter"...

Kan jo legge til at den moderate venstresiden pleide å være skeptiske til vaksiner også, nettopp pga at store selskaper ikke nødvendigvis har vårt ve og vel i tankene, (som den farmasøytiske industrien med dens enorme lobbyisme, umettelige profitt-fokus, monopoliske drømmer innen det medisinske, óg som har politikere i lomma), og at det ikke måtte være vaksinepress, fordi enhver fritt måtte få velge medisinsk behandling selv... men alt dette har også blitt 180º snudd på hue'. Sånn: <"Høyresias konspi'følk vi'kke vakksine'r seg! De er en fare for andre og bu'dte fængles!">... My body my choice?... or no?... my body your choice... but not if it's actually a different body like a baby, then it's my choice again... (!)

 

Endret 23. mai av Ogalaton

[Red Frostraven]

Ogalaton skrev (8 timer siden):

Du tror det finnes uavhengige rapporter? Ideologisk uavhengige?

Ja.

Jeg lenket til to.

De setter mål, utfører målinger, og beskriver resultatet.

Tallene er resultatet, upåvirket av meninger -- fordi de som utfører arbeidet er anstendige mennesker.

 

  

Ogalaton skrev (8 timer siden):

Hva mente du her?

For at du skal ha rett, så må det være en sammensvergelse mellom alle disse gruppene:

Journalistene, redaktørene, forskerene, vitenskapen, lærerene, akademia, leger, moderatorer, og politikerene fra Høyre til og med SV.

Mens folk som mottar penger for å spre politisk ladet innhold på vegne av konservative tenketanker og russisk propaganda og politikere som tjener dem har rett.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Tenet_Media_investigation

Ben Shapiro og noen andre betales for å lyge på vegne av Wilks-brødrene.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire

Ogalaton skrev (8 timer siden):

Hva er høyrepopulistisk? Høyreside-politikk som er populært blant folk?

Du svarte heller ikke på hva "alternative høyre" er for noe...

Kreasjonister blir lurt? Ikke de som tror på evolusjon?

Jeg henviser spesifikt til den høyresiden som er kunstig populær, fordi den apellerer til folk sine følelser heller enn fakta, og da som oftest på bekostning av fakta:

En løgn eller grov overdrivelse engasjerer mer enn en kjedelig sannhet og virkeligheten.

Alternative høyre er i praksis endepunktet til høyrepopulismen som flyter rundt, som også er et svar på hva som skjer med folk som lar seg lure av høyrepopulisme tilstrekkelig til at det er nyhetskildene deres:

Ogalaton skrev (8 timer siden):

Tim pool og Jordan Peterson?De tilhører jo den moderate venstresiden.

De beskriver perfekt hvordan ofre for høyrepopulisme ikke forstår at de blir lurt, og mekanikkene bak prosessen som radikaliserer.

The Dangerous Subtlety of the Alt-Right Pipeline

https://harvardpolitics.com/alt-right-pipeline/

---

Tim Pool er alt-right, og bare later som om han ikke er høyreradikal. Han var en av de største sprederene av misinformasjon og største kildene til misinformasjon om valget 2020, i Trump sin favør.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/20/social-media-influencers-election-fraud/

Og tar penger fra Russland. 
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube

Jordan Peterson er ikke frisk, lider sv diversekomplekser, og er høyreradikal -- som alle som støttet Trump er, om de forstår politikken hans. Om de ikke forstår konsekvensene av å støtte Trump, så er de komplette idioter -- eller så langt inne i høyrepopulismen sin boble at virkeligheten rett og slett ikke kommer inn til dem.

---

Sitat

Nå kjenner jeg ikke til alle navnene du nevner der... men hverken Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk eller Matt Walsh er ekstremistiske. De er høyreorienterte, og står for den Konstitusjonelle Republikk, USA, med liberale friheter til alle. Ingen av disse tar til orde for å fjerne fundamentale rettigheter fra folk.

La meg legge til Dave Rubin, Milo Yuannopoulos.

De sprer grov misinformasjon, lyger til lytterene sine mer enn de gir et riktig bilde av hva som foregår, og bidrar til å radikalisere og flytte lytterene som er uheldige nok til å falle for følelsesbasert manipulasjon mot alternative høyre sin boble.

Prosessen er beskrevet tidligere.

Resultatet av misinformasjonen de står for leder til alt annet enn frihet, sannhet og rettferdighet, som gjør dem til regelrett onde mennesker, alle sammen;
De er folka som logrer for Putin i Russland.
De er folka som sier Yes sir! til Kim Jong Un med et smil, og gledelig leder familiene til 'forrædere' som stakk av fra Nord-Korea til arbeidsleirene.

Hvis de ikke er det, så burde de slutte å lyge, slutte å støtte det autoritære høyreradikale partiet Republikanerene, og skjerpe seg moralsk og faktisk argumentere ut fra fakta for å oppnå frihet.

Jeg er for frihet, men lar meg binde til fakta for å oppnå det.

 

  

Ogalaton skrev (8 timer siden):

Derimot er venstresiden blitt ekstremistisk, som både Tim Pool og Jordan P. har belyst... hvor f.eks venstresiden har begynt å omfavne sensur, som var en av grunnene deres til å bytte side/ta avstand fra, den nåværende venstresiden.

Flott eksempel på demonstrerbare radikaliserende løgner disse krekene fremmer.

Og desverre, denne tråden er et flott eksempel på holdningene og forestillingene løgnene deres helt naturlig skaper;

De er onde for hva de har gjort mot deg.

Endret 24. mai av Red Frostraven

[PosteMonopolet]

Ogalaton skrev (På 23.5.2025 den 0.50):

Hva skjedde?

Tipper at fornuften forsvant på grunn av at mødrene og sjefene registrerte seg på Facebook.

[Cyrio]

Ogalaton skrev (På 23.5.2025 den 0.50):

Hvor er det blitt av den moderate, fornuftige venstresiden?

Som tidligere nevnt i tråden har den i meget stor grad forsvunnet/blitt vannet ut med andre ting. Litt synd egentlig, for grunnprinsippene var ganske ålreit. 

Nå blir den i stor grad representert av feberfantasier som for eksempel dette: 

Red Frostraven skrev (6 timer siden):

Flott eksempel på demonstrerbare radikaliserende løgner disse krekene fremmer.

Og desverre, denne tråden er et flott eksempel på holdningene og forestillingene løgnene deres helt naturlig skaper;

De er onde for hva de har gjort mot deg.

Nå er ikke dette for å "angripe" posteren, men det er en gjenganger i argumentasjonen fra "venstresiden" generelt sett. Det er også en ganske effektiv metode for å vende folk vekk fra eget politik ståsted av flere årsaker. 

 

 

1. "Vanlige" eller "seriøse" personer ønsker i stor grad å bli oppfattet som vanlige/seriøse, og det hjelper ikke om du assosieres med de som har konspirasjonsteorier om alle som ligger til høyre for Arbeiderpartiet. Da mister du mange av de du hadde, flesteparten av de som sitter på gjerdet og samtlige som kunne vært enig i ideologien men som ikke liker å bli demonisert og dermed holder seg i trygge rammer på høyresiden. 

 

 

2. Korrupsjon, kameraderi og luring av systemet er et utbredt problem hos politikere. Og når f. Eks lederen i Arbeiderpartiet er multimillionær, de i regjeringen hans gang etter gang blir tatt for skattesnusk, vennetjenester, akademisk juks og alt mulig annet klinger det dårlig i ørene til "mannen på gata" som føler at han får stadig dårligere råd mens han får servert at han må betale sine skatter og avgifter med glede. 

Høyresiden har jo samme utfordring, men de slipper jo mye billigere unna siden de ønsker å lette på avgiftene. 

Det er mye lettere å sympatisere med en frp'er som forsøker å gjemme unna formuen sin i utlandet kontra en ap'er rett og slett fordi folk flest på høyresiden sympatiserer med førstnevnte og ler av sistnevnte da kun en av de bryter med det som er/burde vært prinsippene sine. 

 

 

3. Politikken blir i større og større grad "vi må stå sammen mot høyresiden" politikk. Høyresiden på sin side har mer håndfaste punkter. 

Et eksempel på det er jo ganske ferskt i media. FrP har laget en reklamefilm angående økende kriminalitet, og det eneste venstresiden svarer med er noe vissvass rundt etnisitet på skuespillere og at de gjorde en blemme rundt regelverket ifbm brun av politieffekter.. 

Nå, hvem fremstår egentlig som mest handlekraftige her..? De som allerede sitter med makten nå som ungdomskriminaliteten faktisk er i ferd med å bli et enda større problem og som istedenfor å presentere alternative forslag velger å bli krenket på vegne av andre,  eller de som kommer med konkrete forslag for å løse problemet? 

Og her er det jeg synes er morsomt. Man kan være enig eller uenig i forslaget til Frp, men det er jo null politisk respons fra motsatt side. Det er kun emosjonell tenåringsargumentasjon og inkluderings-spøkelset som kommer frem. 

 

4. Det er lettere å være venstrevennlig hvor pengene sitter løst når det er gode tider, men akkurat nå er det dårligere tider og da frister det ikke like mye å få enda dårligere råd i bytte mot grønn satsning, enda mer byråkrati eller annen dyr moro

 

Mulig jeg sporet litt av på slutten her, men hovedpoenget skinner kanskje igjennom allikevel. 

Endret 24. mai av Cyrio
Typo

[rabler]

19 hours ago, Ogalaton said:

De er imot det liberale demokrati (rettighetsfokus) ved å være for sensur, og for kollektivistisk inngripen over det enkelte individ, så lenge dette bedømmes til å være "til det beste for majoriteten", og slikt er (eller var iallefall) utenkelig for den moderate venstresiden før i tiden... altså er de blitt totalitære eller totalitær-lignende. Kommunister vil jo også ha sensur, og ikke minst "kollektivisme over individets rettigheter"...

Kan jo legge til at den moderate venstresiden pleide å være skeptiske til vaksiner også, nettopp pga at store selskaper ikke nødvendigvis har vårt ve og vel i tankene, (som den farmasøytiske industrien med dens enorme lobbyisme, umettelige profitt-fokus, monopoliske drømmer innen det medisinske, óg som har politikere i lomma), og at det ikke måtte være vaksinepress, fordi enhver fritt måtte få velge medisinsk behandling selv... men alt dette har også blitt 180º snudd på hue'. Sånn: <"Høyresias konspi'følk vi'kke vakksine'r seg! De er en fare for andre og bu'dte fængles!">... My body my choice?... or no?... my body your choice... but not if it's actually a different body like a baby, then it's my choice again... (!)

Dette er en beskrivelse av en helt marginale gruppe ytterst på venstre fløy som vi strengt tatt ikke en gang vet eksisterer lenger.

Med andre ord en helt uinteressant problemstilling.

[Ogalaton]

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

Ja.

Jeg lenket til to.

De setter mål, utfører målinger, og beskriver resultatet.

Tallene er resultatet, upåvirket av meninger -- fordi de som utfører arbeidet er anstendige mennesker.

Hvem som helst kan hevde slikt, óg bli kilde-støttet av andre grunner enn at det er sant. Er man (institusjoner inkludert) lidenskapelig enig med det ideologiske budskapet ved "resultatet", og godtroende naivt ønsker seg frem til en innbilt "sannhet" om at nettopp dette er uavhengig (eller enda værre... at man er villig til å desinformere/lyve om at det er uavhengig pga agenda) så resulterer det i store, tunge påstander, også fra respekterte hold, om at det er sant... men så er det egentlig løgn.

 

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

For at du skal ha rett, så må det være en sammensvergelse mellom alle disse gruppene:

Journalistene, redaktørene, forskerene, vitenskapen, lærerene, akademia, leger, moderatorer, og politikerene fra Høyre til og med SV.

Det må ikke være en sammensvergelse. Det er nok at alle er offentlig utdannet fra barnsben av, hvor de formes av rådende stats-narrativer... et statlig ekkokammer. Om/Når de da havner i posisjon senere, vil de fleste naturlig nok ikke være skeptisk til egen utdanning, som jo nettopp er hva som har "gitt dem alt" (altså at de f.eks nå blir høyt respektert / får god lønn / har betydelig innflytelse / har fått stor makt / en trygg fremtid osv). Folk er nemlig slik at de er takknemlige om noen/noe virkelig har tjent dem, og blir derfor dypt takknemlige og søker å "gjøre godt tilbake", altså bl.a ved å forsvare / støtte / tjene osv... Det er ikke bare hunder som det faller naturlig for å ikke "bite hånden som mater dem".

Dét sagt... en stor sammensvergelse grunnet agenda er mer enn bare mulig. Se dette eldgamle seminaret:

 

Og jeg må virkelig fremheve... absolutt alle bør se hele denne videoen over her, for det han beskrev i dette eldgamle seminaret er sjokkerende likt hva vi ser i samfunnet rundt oss i dag, spesielt i USA.

her er en forsmak, på mindre enn 1 minutt, som dere kan se:

 

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

Mens folk som mottar penger for å spre politisk ladet innhold på vegne av...

Slik som alle dem som mottar midler fra George Soros?

 

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

Tim Pool er alt-right, og bare later som om han ikke er høyreradikal. Han var en av de største sprederene av misinformasjon og største kildene til misinformasjon om valget 2020, i Trump sin favør.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/20/social-media-influencers-election-fraud/

Og tar penger fra Russland. 
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube

Jordan Peterson er ikke frisk, lider sv diversekomplekser, og er høyreradikal -- som alle som støttet Trump er, om de forstår politikken hans. Om de ikke forstår konsekvensene av å støtte Trump, så er de komplette idioter -- eller så langt inne i høyrepopulismen sin boble at virkeligheten rett og slett ikke kommer inn til dem.

Enorme påstander her... jeg viser til hva jeg skrev over, at man kan finne kilde-støtte til ≈ hva som helst nettopp grunnet "enighets-lidenskap blant likesinnede". Jeg vil også dypt foreslå hele seminaret over, når du har tid.

Legger ellers merke til en nokså "ekstrem" forakt mot flertallet av amerikanere. Jeg vil anbefale deg en betydelig luftetur på utsiden av ekkokammeret, slik at du kan få tak i hva som gjør (og ikke minst hvorfor) Trump har fått så stor støtte blant vanlige folk. Bare slik kan du skjønne dem.

 

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

De er folka som sier Yes sir! til Kim Jong Un med et smil, og gledelig leder familiene til 'forrædere' som stakk av fra Nord-Korea til arbeidsleirene.

De er kommunister?

 

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

Hvis de ikke er det, så burde de slutte å lyge, slutte å støtte det autoritære høyreradikale partiet Republikanerene, ...

Autoritære? Høyreradikale? De kjemper jo alt de kan for Den Konstitusjonelle Republikk, som USA ble bestemt at skulle være fra fødselen av for å unngå totalitarisme. (Selvfølgelig nekter jeg ikke for at et betydelig antall "råtne egg" finnes i alle partier altså, også hos dem)

 

Red Frostraven skrev (13 timer siden):

Jeg er for frihet, men lar meg binde til fakta for å oppnå det.

(Min understreking)

Er du så sikker på dét? Se det nesten "profetiske" seminaret... fra 1969 (!) over.

 

rabler skrev (1 time siden):

Dette er en beskrivelse av en helt marginale gruppe ytterst på venstre fløy som vi strengt tatt ikke en gang vet eksisterer lenger.

Med andre ord en helt uinteressant problemstilling.

Kan jo like gjerne svare også deg med denne samme posten. Anbefaler også deg på det sterkeste å se hele seminaret, når du har tid. 

Ps, @Red Frostraven, hvorfor er det slik at venstresiden fritt kan komme med gigantiske konspirasjonsteorier ≈ helt uten å bli merkelappet eller anklaget for ting i det hele tatt... mens når høyresiden gjør det samme, så drukner de i både merkelapper og alvorlige anklager om ondskap?

Det var jo en konspirasjonsteori du kom med her... hvorfor er det bare stuerent når du/dere gjør det?... se seminaret!

 

Endret 24. mai av Ogalaton

[Red Frostraven]

Ogalaton skrev (13 timer siden):

Slik som alle dem som mottar midler fra George Soros?

Hvilke løgner sprer hvilke personer som får penger fra George Soros?

Vær konkret. Hvilke av disse løgnene sprer folk her på forumet?


Her er videoen du vil at jeg skal se.
Jeg så den korte videoen også og kommenterte den under denne blokken.

 

Spoiler

0:34

[Music]

0:47

[Music]

0:55

ladies and gentlemen for the benefit of those who will be watching this presentation on film

1:00

allow me to repeat for everyone a most sincere welcome into our

1:05

home your interest in the John BT society as evidenced by your presence here is deeply appreciated and because

1:13

of this presumption of interest on your part I've put together an in-depth

1:19

presentation which I suppose is merely a subtle way of preparing you for the fact that I'm going to be talking for quite a

1:24

while but the subject matter is large and assuming you didn't come here merely

1:30

to be entertained there's no other way to provide the information you want to narrow the field as much as

1:37

possible let me Begin by explaining what ground I do not intend to

1:42

cover first of all I will not talk about the spread of Communism foreign policy

1:47

riots campus disorders assaults against police drug abuse pornography crime or

1:54

taxes my topic is not the many problems that confront this nation it is is

2:00

hopefully the solution to those problems secondly it's not my goal to

2:05

make conservatives anti-communists or activists out of anyone who doesn't already consider himself to be

2:12

such I have no Illusions about my ability to deliver a single lecture

2:17

which can reverse the attitudes of a lifetime my realistic goal is not to

2:22

sell the principles and program of the society but merely to identify them and to expound them

2:29

next it's not my purpose to pressure or embarrass anyone into joining the John Bert Society that's not how it's done

2:37

most of us became members only after considerable thought and study and we expect that others will follow that same

2:43

pattern now naturally we would be more than delighted if the non-members present did decide to join with us that

2:51

almost goes without saying as a matter of fact I would like all of you to consider this presentation as an open

2:57

invitation to the John B Society but your private response to that invitation must be entirely voluntary

3:05

and there will be no embarrassing pressure of any kind and finally I'm not going to try to

3:12

answer the many charges that have been leveled against the John B Society

Helt innholdsløst så langt etter 3 minutter.
Tar 10 sekunder å lese 3 minutter med tale.

 

Spoiler

I realize that at one time or another

3:18

you've all heard that the society is fascist secret unamerican extremist

3:24

anti-semitic racist even communist but I learned a long time ago

3:29

that it's a useless waste of time trying to answer these charges first of all the list is endless they make up new ones
3:36

faster than you can answer the old ones and secondly if I were to take that approach you might learn a few of the

3:42

things the john ber Society is not but you still wouldn't know what it is

 

Jeg har aldri hørt slike påstander, men ser hvor det bærer med første avsnitt, med populistisk apell.

 

Spoiler

so

3:48

instead of approaching this subject from the negative point of view I prefer the positive if I can succeed in explaining

3:55

what the John ber Society is then you'll understand quite well indeed what it is

4:02

not so let's turn now to the basic question what is the John BT

4:07

Society to answer that question I've devised a definition which although entirely accurate will hardly satisfy

4:15

you when you hear it nevertheless here it is the John Bert Society is a

4:20

voluntary group of men and women who have joined together to promote more effectively the principles in which they

4:27

believe in accordance with the the plan of action designed to overcome the opposition against them now what's that

4:35

all about it doesn't tell us very much because there are three questions yet to be answered what are the principles in

Hellige pretensiøse batman.

"To answer the question I've devised a definition which, although entirely accurate, will hardly satisfy when you hear it."

 

Spoiler

4:42

which they believe what is the plan of action and what is the opposition

4:49

brought to bear against them the answers to these three questions will tell us

4:54

almost all there is to know about the John Burke Society so let's take them in turn now one by

5:01

one to explain the principles in which we believe it'll be necessary to divide

5:06

them into four categories political economic social and

5:12

religious now as far as our political principles are concerned usually we're described as

5:18

conservatives but

Ingenting nyttig, etter 5 minutter...
Merk at det tok 2 minutter å lage dette transkriptet og lese så langt;
Transkripter er bedre å poste enn videoer.
 

Spoiler

the debate or the dialogue as it's now called is not between conservatives and liberals it

5:25

goes back in history long before those words were ever invented the opposing points of view properly are identified

5:32

as individualism versus collectivism and their Champions are called

5:38

individualists and collectivists now the members of the John B Society consider themselves to be

5:45

individualists and here are the differences between the two as we see them first of all the individualist

5:51

believes that the rights of the individual must not be obliterated by the desires of the collective or the

5:58

group the collectivist on the other hand believes that the group is more important than the single person within

6:05

it and that the individual must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of the greater 

6:11

number the individualist believes that with rights come

6:16

responsibilities and since we insist on individual rights therefore we accept

6:21

the principle of individual responsibility rather than group responsibility we believe that every man

6:28

has a personal and direct responsibility to provide first for himself next for

6:33

his family and then for those outside his family who may be in need

 

Første faktiske påstand, og jeg ser ikke hva jeg skal få ut av dette;
Påstander om hva de selv står for må måles opp mot deres gjerninger.

Dagens konservative er abortmotstandere som ønsker å forby pornografi og prevensjon, ønsker å overstyre legevitenskapen sine funn, og ønsker nyheter som lyger på deres vegne heller enn å være objektive, og føler seg forfulgt og undertrykket av å bli behandlet og holdt til samme standarder som alle andre.

Selv lovene skal ikke gjelde dem lengre, i USA.

Som jeg kommer tilbake til senere, i beskrivelsen av hvorfor Republikanerene regnes som autoritære.

---------------------------------------------

 

6:39

the collectivist on the other hand declares that the individual is not personally responsible for charity for raising his

6:45

own children providing for his aging parents or even providing for himself for that matter this is a group function

6:52

of the state of government itself as a matter of fact this is

6:57

always one sure way to spot who is an individualist and who is a collectivist

7:02

the individualist wants to be free to do it himself the collectivist wants the government to do it for him he's

7:09

enamored by government he idolizes government he has a fixation on government as the ultimate group
 

---------------------------------------------

Her setter han opp en stråmann for meningsmotstandere, som jo åpenbart ikke kan snakke for seg fordi det er hans tale, som skal vare over en time til, og avslører at han ikke har noe gode intensjoner.

Du skal faktisk få lov til å bare hente ut teksten fra resten av transkriptet under du mener er bra med videoen, for definisjonene hans og beskrivelsene hans så langt er feilaktig for både konservative, og politiske venstre.
Beskrivelsen hans av politikk er 1 akse, og ser bort fra liberale venstre -- rett ved anarkismen.

Resten av videoen er i transkriptet under, klipp gjerne ut det du mener er retorisk godt nok til at det er verdt å høre.
 

Spoiler

 

6:11

number the individualist believes that with rights come

6:16

responsibilities and since we insist on individual rights therefore we accept

6:21

the principle of individual responsibility rather than group responsibility we believe that every man

6:28

has a personal and direct responsibility to provide first for himself next for

6:33

his family and then for those outside his family who may be in need the

6:39

collectivist on the other hand declares that the individual is not personally responsible for charity for raising his

6:45

own children providing for his aging parents or even providing for himself for that matter this is a group function

6:52

of the state of government itself as a matter of fact this is

6:57

always one sure way to spot who is an individualist and who is a collectivist

7:02

the individualist wants to be free to do it himself the collectivist wants the government to do it for him he's

7:09

enamored by government he idolizes government he has a fixation on government as the ultimate group

7:15

mechanism to solve all problems now the reason is because government is the one

7:21

group that can legally Force everyone to participate it has the power of taxation

7:27

backed by jails and force of of arms if necessary to compel everyone to fall in

7:34

line and this leads to the third difference between the two groups simply stated the individualist believes in

7:42

Freedom the collectivist believes in compulsion now let me give a few

7:48

illustrations as stated a moment ago we believe that every man has a personal responsibility to provide for himself if

7:55

he can and for his dependents this means that routinely we should all set aside a portion of our

8:02

current earnings for the inevitability of unemployment through sickness accident or

8:07

retirement but as individualists we also believe that we should be free not to do

8:13

this if for whatever reason we prefer to act in some other manner if we wish to live to the full extent of our income

8:20

and plan to depend on our children or other relatives in our old age or if we choose to take our chances on a greater

8:26

income in later years or even if we choose consciously to fall back on charity as a way of life for whatever

8:34

reason we believe that a person should be free to choose his own course we have

8:39

no right to force him to comply with our ideas of what he should do now by contrast the collectivist says

8:46

that since some people don't have the brains or The Willpower or the desire to

8:52

save on their own let us pass a law and use the power of government to force

8:58

them there must not be freedom of choice in this matter otherwise there will be many who do not do what we know they

9:05

should do this same contrast can be seen in the area of Charity we believe that every

9:12

man has a personal responsibility to be generous to those in need but as individualists we also believe that a

9:18

man should be free not to be charitable if he doesn't want to if he prefers to give to a different charity than the one

9:25

we urge on him if he prefers to give a smaller amount than what we think he should give or if he prefers not to give

9:31

at all we don't believe we have any right to gang up on him and force him either directly by mob violence or

9:38

indirectly by The Ballot Box in either case the principle is the same it's

9:44

called stealing true charity is the voluntary

9:49

giving of your own money government charity is the giving of someone else's

9:54

money which of course is why it's so popular and so the individual believes

10:00

that every man must be free in this matter to act or not to act as he sees

10:05

fit the collectivist believes just the reverse because there are some who will not be charitable as we think they

10:11

should be let us pass a law and use government to force them let's not call

10:17

it stealing though let's call it welfare and so it goes on almost every

10:23

conceivable issue in which the end result generally is conceeded to be desirable as indiv idual ists we believe

10:31

in Freedom of Choice the collectivist inevitably turns to the coercion of government

10:37

Force now we hear a lot of talk today about right- wiers left wiers extremists

10:43

and moderates so let's turn now to the question of where the John B Society stands in the political

10:49

Spectrum the political Spectrum concept if it has any meaning at all is a measurement scale showing all the

10:56

variations in government ranging from zero at one end to 100% at the other now

11:04

the extremists at the zero end would be those who Advocate no government at all

11:09

the anarchists the extremists at the other end would be those who Advocate total

11:14

government and who are they well the Communists of course but also the Nazis

11:20

the fascists and any others no matter what they may call themselves if they Advocate total government control over

11:28

the people they are all by definition totalitarians communism and Nazism are

11:35

not opposites call it right or left it makes no difference they're both at the same totalitarian end of the political

11:43

Spectrum but where does the John B Society fit into this picture aren't we supposed to be the extremists that's

11:49

what we hear constantly well the truth of the matter is we turn out to be the

11:54

real middle of the rotors not that we think that's any particular virtue in itself but we are just as opposed to the

12:01

extreme of Anarchy as we are to the extreme of totalitarianism as members of the John

12:07

bur Society we recognize that government is absolutely necessary for an orderly

12:13

Society but following the dictum that government like fire is both beneficial

12:19

and dangerous we believe in the concept of limited government and we believe

12:25

that the constitutional republic created by our founding father is the best form of limited government that has yet been

12:32

devised by man now to understand why we feel this way it'll be necessary to define the

12:38

word Republic and to point out the differences between a republic and a

12:44

democracy Now democracy is a form of government based upon the principle of

12:49

majority rule period end of discussion now that's not very complicated majority

12:55

rule it's easy to understand easy to sell to the masses and I might add

13:01

deadly for example what would you call a Lynch mop that's majority rule there's

13:08

only one descending vote and he's at the end of the Rope now that's pure democracy in

13:14

action but wait a minute you say the majority should rule yes but not to the extent of destroying the rights of the

13:22

minority and Now ladies and gentlemen we are no longer describing a democracy we

13:28

are speaking of a republic a republic is a limited

13:34

democracy it's a form of government based upon the principle of limited

13:39

majority rule limited so that the minority even a minority of one can be

13:45

protected against the whims and passions of the majority and how do you protect the minority from the majority you write

13:53

down a set of rules on a piece of paper you say this we can do that we cannot at

13:58

the top of the paper you write the word Constitution and then everyone agrees to

14:03

follow the rules no matter what the Temptation and when you're finished you've created a constitutional

14:11

republic notice that the entire function of our Bill of Rights is to spell out in

14:17

detail the many ways in which the majority acting through government must

14:22

not be allowed to infringe on the rights of the minority the First Amendment sets the

14:28

pace with the word words Congress shall pass no law and then the document proceeds to explain that Congress even

14:36

though it expresses the will of the majority shall not deny the minority the right of free exercise of religion

14:43

freedom of speech peaceful assembly the right to bear arms and others Congress

14:48

shall not the majority shall not this is the meaning of a republic

14:56

and it didn't just happen that way accidentally our found fathers knew exactly what they were doing remember

15:02

that interesting exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson and a friend who had criticized him for being

15:07

distrustful of men with political power using the same argument we so often hear

15:12

today the friend asked have you no faith in the men we elect have you no

15:17

confidence in our government and remember that beautiful reply Jefferson said confidence is

15:25

everywhere the parents of despotism in questions of power let no more be heard

15:31

of confidence in man but bind him down from Mischief by the chains of the

15:38

Constitution and there in a single phrase is the best summary you'll ever find of a republic binding men down from

15:47

Mischief by the chains of the Constitution and this is the concept of

15:53

limited government in which the members of the John B Society believe

15:59

well all right so much for our political principles now let's turn to the economic principles in which we believe

16:06

to accurately describe ourselves in this category it would be proper to say that we

16:11

are are you ready we are Les a fair capitalists now I never knew what a lese

16:18

fair capitalist was until I went to college and then I learned that it was a big fat man with an expensive cigar a

16:24

diamond stick pin in his creat spats on his shoes sitting on a huge Bag of Money

16:30

squeezed out of the exploited toil of frail women and Starving Children seriously if anyone had told me then

16:38

that he was a capitalist much less a less a fair capitalist I would have thought that he was the the meanest

16:44

greediest man in the whole world it wasn't until many years later that I found out what those words actually

16:50

meant and lo and behold I was shocked to discover that I was a Les aair

16:56

capitalist now Les aair capitalism merely means the private ownership of

17:01

property in other words owned by the people instead of the politicians with a

17:07

minimum of government interference in the marketplace Les aair means simply

17:12

let the people do it now let's get one thing straight right here there are very few rich

17:19

people in the John bur Society I wish we had more but we don't most of us come

17:24

from the lower and middle economic levels of the nation in other words we're part of that broad middle class

17:31

that still works for a living and pays the taxes frankly we would like to become rich if we could and I think most of you

17:39

would too even our socialist friends would like to be rich socialists they don't object to wealth it's just the

17:46

other guy's wealth that bothers them the desire to become rich of course

17:51

is by no means our only motivation for promoting free enterprise nor even our

17:56

primary motivation we're quite aware that in spite of our best efforts most of us will never accumulate vast wealth

18:05

but it's our firm conviction that Les aair capitalism not only makes it

18:10

possible for some to enjoy the true luxury of riches but more important than

18:15

that it enables all the rest of us to raise our standard of living far in excess of what is possible under any

18:22

other concept and this is the key no one wants

18:27

to see people go hung or live in poverty and the one thing that collectivists and individualists hold in common is their

18:34

desire to produce a system that will raise the level of the poor their differences lie as always in how to

18:41

achieve this goal the collectivist is not very complicated in his approach he looks around him sees some very rich

18:47

people living high in the hog he sees poor people with barely enough to get by he remembers his old Robin Hood movies

18:54

and Eureka he's got the solution take it from the rich and give it to the poor what could be simpler than that it's a

19:00

perfect solution except for one Minor Detail it doesn't work now one reason

19:08

why it doesn't work and never has worked and never can work is that the rich just

19:14

don't have enough to go all the way around now for instance on the international scene we know that the

19:20

United States by comparison to the rest of the world is a very rich Uncle yet if we had some magic device for converting

19:27

everything of value in this country into cash and then dividing it equally among all the people of the world if we could

19:34

tear down every building Brick by Brick cash them in including the value of the labor if we could cash in all the

19:40

machines roads automobiles TV sets everything except the clothes on our

19:46

backs do you have any idea to what extent we would raise the standard of living of the people of the

19:52

world they would be allowed to eat and dress and live like we do in this country for about one week and then it

20:02

would all be gone if all the millionaires in America were taxed 100% of their incomes each

20:10

year not a single penny left for themselves it would run the federal government for less than 39

20:19

hours in fact if all the income were taken from those making only $225,000 a

20:25

year or more if they were allowed to keep nothing for them s it would still run the government for less than 72

20:36

hours now when you consider these facts several things become rather obvious

20:42

first it's the little guy who's paying most of the taxes and secondly it always

20:47

will be the little guy who pays most of the taxes because even if we take it all away from the rich man there just isn't

20:54

enough to do the job now the point is simply this you can't help the poor by

21:01

pulling down the rich now it may make you feel better to do so you may Envy the wealth of others you may resent the

21:07

attitude and behavior of those with wealth you may feel that they don't deserve it you may be a politician who

21:13

knows you can always get votes by promising to soap the rich but if your

21:19

concern really is only for the poor then you're wasting your time you can't help

21:24

the poor by pulling down the rich well how then do you help the

21:31

poor well first of all the individualist recognizes that there is no Utopia there

21:38

always will be those who for a variety of reasons will be unable to produce

21:43

infants the sick the lame the mentally and we also recognize that the

21:49

only way for these unproductive individuals to live at all is off the surplus of those who do produce now

21:57

that's basic the problem before us then is how to expand the

22:02

Surplus unless we can do that the poor shall stay poor no matter how much we

22:08

wish to help them now following this in sequence then how do we expand the

22:13

Surplus how do we achieve a situation in which each productive human being becomes increasingly more

22:20

productive the answer of course is that the productive individual must be given

22:25

some incentive for making an increased effort for working harder or longer or

22:31

for investing in tools few people choose to work unless they're motivated by some incentive outside of the work

22:38

itself now there are four kinds of human incentive fear the motivation of the

22:45

slave hate the motivation of the victim

22:50

altruism the motivation of the philosopher and fourthly desire for reward the

22:58

motivation of everyone of the four the desire for material reward is by far the most

23:05

powerful and sustaining incentive for most people it follows therefore and please

23:12

note this carefully that the degree to which government taxes away the material rewards from those who produce in order

23:20

to give to those who do not produce that is the degree to which government

23:25

destroys the incentive to continue producing and hence is the degree to which it

23:32

reduces the Surplus and hurts those who must live off that Surplus the very people supposedly it's

23:39

trying to help now we all know of cases where the progressive income tax for instance has discouraged some wealthy

23:46

businessmen from expanding their businesses the man says to himself why should I take on a new business venture

23:53

it would only mean more work and more headaches and why should I risk my Capital I could lose everything

23:59

on the other hand if I did everything right made no mistakes at all why the government would only take most of my

24:05

profits anyway so why do it and he doesn't do it which means there's one

24:10

more business never begun one more Factory never built thousands of jobs never created

24:18

millions of dollars never added to the Surplus and who is hurt by this process

24:23

the rich man of course not true he may not become quite as well healthy as he

24:28

would otherwise but he continues to live very well indeed in the final analysis

24:35

government manipulation of the marketplace always hurts the poor far

24:40

more than the rich and this is a fact of life the collectivist never seems to

24:46

understand the collectivist approach always is to divide up the existing economic Pi into equal shares to make

24:53

sure that no one gets any larger or smaller piece than anyone else of course

24:58

you may have noticed that those in charge of dividing up the pie usually wind up with a larger piece for their

25:05

equal share this by the way is one of the great contradictions between Marxist

25:11

theory and practice in theory communism is a classless society everyone

25:17

supposedly belongs to the same class with no economic differences or privileges yet in practice in every

25:25

country where communism has come to power the commissars and Cadre of the Communist Party live like kings while

25:33

the workers and peasants continue to struggle for the bare necessities of life now the individualist recognizes

25:39

the fact that under any system someone is going to have more pie than others

25:45

the only question is who is it going to be should it be the politicians and

25:50

bureaucrats who divide the pie or should it be the people who have worked to make

25:55

the pie now if the dividers of pie get the larger piece then the producers slow

26:02

down and there's less pie for everyone but if the producers are allowed to keep what they produce and

26:09

dispense the Surplus as they see fit then they'll work harder and longer

26:14

they'll invent they'll invest and they'll produce more pie than you've ever dreamed was possible and there'll

26:21

be more for everyone and then those who have even the smallest pieces out of the larger

26:27

pie will end up with more pie than those who are stuck with equal pieces

26:33

so-called out of the smaller pie now that's a lot of pie for an analogy but

26:39

it's an accurate summary of the humanitarian function of the free enterprise system and the reason why in

26:48

less than 150 years this nation sprang up from a hostile Wilderness and became

26:54

the Envy of the collectivist old world

26:59

over 120 years ago a French Economist by the name of Frederick baset wrote an

27:05

essay entitled the law it contains one of the clearest and most compelling

27:11

statements of political philosophy that you'll ever find in straightforward language and logic basted proves beyond

27:18

all doubt that the proper function of government is to protect the lives Liberty and property of its citizens but

27:25

not to provide for them to protect and not to provide for in order to provide

27:32

for some first it must take from others and once it has been granted the power

27:38

to take from some and give to others then it becomes the potential mechanism for what basted called legalized

27:46

plunder the control of that mechanism becomes a highly coveted tool by

27:51

individuals and groups who wish to line their own Pockets out of the taxes taken from someone else every body wants in on

27:59

the take businessmen clamor for tariffs and price fixing laws so they can charge higher prices and when the consumers

28:06

discover what's going on instead of calling for the elimination of all such government favoritism they merely start

28:12

demanding that they get theirs too labor unions clamor for minimum wage laws

28:18

Farmers nuzzle up to the trough and demand price supports the unemployed want benefits families want Apartments

28:25

students want grants colleges want subsidies the the entire process spirals around and around until finally

28:31

everybody is plundering everybody and in the end when taxes Skyrocket to the point where there's

28:37

nothing left to plunder then the whole system collapses and the game is over

28:43

all that's left is the plundering mechanism itself total government and freedom is

28:52

lost this process described by baset over 120 years ago is exactly what's

28:58

happening in America today and his warning about the end result of that

29:03

process constitutes still a third reason why we Champion the free enterprise

29:09

concept even if collectivism were not morally wrong even if it did produce a

29:16

higher standard of living we would still oppose it because freedom is more

29:21

important than prosperity to resist a tyranny you must

29:26

be independent of that tyranny for your subsistence if the government provides your food your clothing your shelter

29:33

your education your job your medical care your retirement then the government controls

29:39

you most effectively indeed if that government should ever become

29:45

tyrannical and they have a way of doing that in history then you've had it my

29:51

friends we believe that one of the greatest lessons of history that so desperately needs to be relearned by the

29:57

American people people our forefathers knew it well is this anytime a government is powerful

30:04

enough to give the people everything they want it is also powerful enough to take

30:10

from the people everything they've got you cannot have one without the

30:17

other well let's turn now to the social principles in which we

30:22

believe because we are individualists and accept the concept of personal responsib ility for ourselves and our

30:29

dependents therefore we view the family as the basic unit of society secondary

30:35

only to the individual himself all totalitarian regimes whether

30:40

of ancient Sparta or modern ping all of them strive to destroy the close-knit

30:46

family in order to remove any loyalties that might be higher than to the state itself they don't like

30:52

competition totalitarians would prefer no family units at all if they could force that on the people the communes of

30:59

red China or hate ashbery are ideal for their purposes but almost the same results can

31:05

be achieved even within the institution of matrimony if only the people involved can be induced to abandon their parental

31:12

responsibilities because the real objective is to remove the family as a possible Alternate Source of guidance

31:19

and support and so the John Bert Society is committed to the preservation and

31:25

strengthening of the family for practical as well as moral

31:30

reasons now we believe that all men are equal in the eyes of their creator and

31:36

that all men should be treated equally by the law but we also believe in Freedom of

31:42

Association that man should be free to select those with whom he chooses to work to play or to live We believe that

31:49

this is essential to any truly free society and besides it's entirely natural in general people prefer to

31:56

associate with those who share something in common with them they prefer to be with those who are approximately the

32:02

same age the same educational level the same interests and hobbies the same economic strata the same religion the

32:09

same race the same tastes and entertainment the same political views and everyone does this to one degree or

32:16

another you do it I do it now there's a name for this process it's called

32:25

discrimination in order to select those with whom you to associate you must by

32:30

definition be discriminate you must be free to reject those with whom you do not wish to

32:37

associate otherwise you can't choose well now the problem of course

32:42

arises in the fact that today because of increasing racial tensions the word

32:48

discrimination has become confused with the word hatred but they're not at all the same

32:55

just because you prefer to be with those of your own own age group doesn't mean that you have to hate those who are

33:01

older or younger than you and this is equally true in the case of race or religion or any other

33:08

category furthermore we believe that government has absolutely no business attempting to dictate the social

33:14

relationships between individuals and groups we find no constitutional basis for this no moral basis and certainly no

33:21

logical basis for every time government steps in and uses the force of law to

33:27

rearrange social relationships in accordance with some omnipotent formula it always makes matters worse it's like

33:33

trying to stop a dog from barking by throwing stones at it now please understand this means we are just as

33:41

opposed to a state government forcing segregation as we are opposed to the

33:47

federal government forcing integration both are wrong government should stay

33:52

out of this matter entirely and leave it up to the individuals involved and then any rate inside the

33:59

John B Society we practice what we preach membership is open to all Races

34:04

all religions all classes they're all there and they're all welcome in some

34:09

places we have entirely negro chapters in others both negro and white together

34:15

but I can assure you in every case the arrangement is because the individuals directly involved want it that way we

34:23

make no effort to force a prescribed formula on anyone and frankly we think that the

34:29

world would be a lot better place to live if others would follow these same

34:35

social principles well let's turn now to the religious principles which members of

34:42

the johnb society hold in common we believe that Integrity in

34:49

government honesty in the marketplace and social harmony all of these must be

34:55

based on morality they can't be legislated into existence no matter how many laws you write down on the books if

35:02

these conditions don't exist in the hearts of our citizens then they'll never exist in our public

35:08

life furthermore we believe that true morality is impossible without a firm

35:16

religious base and when I say true morality I mean doing what is right just

35:22

because it's right and for no other reason doing what is right even though

35:28

it may be to our disadvantage even though it may cost us our very lives to do

35:34

so but unless our concept of what is Right stems from religious convictions

35:39

unless it comes from a Divine Source outside of and bigger than ourselves who

35:44

would be willing to make such a sacrifice we hear a lot of talk today about the new

35:50

morality sometimes called humanism or situation ethics the concept is that

35:57

there's no such thing as right or wrong outside of the individual himself what's right for one may be wrong for another

36:04

what's right today may be wrong for the same person tomorrow it all depends on his attitude at the time what makes us

36:11

happy or gives us pleasure supposedly is right if it gives us pain it's wrong and

36:16

we must decide on that basis only in other words do whatever we want to do

36:23

and call it morality of course that's nonsense

36:28

the so-called new morality is merely the old Hedonism with a respectable name

36:35

while we certainly grant that anyone has a right to be a hedonist if he chooses still we strongly reject Hedonism as the

36:41

controlling philosophy of public life now George Washington summarized

36:47

this concept rather well I think when he said of all the dispositions and habits

36:54

which lead to political Prosperity religion and and morality are

36:59

indispensable supports and let us with caution indulge the supposition that

37:04

morality can be maintained without religion reason and experience both

37:10

forbid us to expect that National morality can Prevail in exclusion of

37:15

religious principles this of course is the reason

37:20

why our nation was founded on the religious principle of deism a firm belief in God as a creator the very

37:28

first sentence in the Declaration of Independence refers to God as the Authority for that action but the key to

37:35

why this is important is found further along in the words all men are endowed

37:41

by their creator with certain unalienable rights you see if our rights are not

37:49

endowed by our creator what then is their origin there's only one other source the

37:56

government now if we deny the existence of God in our political institutions then we must accept the

38:03

premise that government is the source of our rights but if we accept that premise

38:10

then we must accept the corollary that if Government Can Grant rights it also

38:15

has the power to take them away and I don't think many Americans would want to accept that if they

38:22

thought it through and so the John BT Society does not sidestep the issue of

38:30

religion we're not founding a new religion we're not competing with any

38:35

particular denomination all we're doing is proclaiming the importance of religion

38:42

as the indispensable foundation not only for National morality but also for

38:48

Liberty and then for ourselves we have drawn a circle of faith that is Broad enough for each

38:55

member to step inside that Circle without violating his own personal religious

39:03

convictions if I were asked to summarize the principles in which the members of the John Bert Society believe I would

39:10

explain it as a dual concept of individualism and

39:16

morality individualism and morality but we also have a slogan which

39:23

although slightly longer says it all very well perhaps you've heard it it is

39:29

less government more responsibility and with God's help a

39:36

better world the next time you hear that slogan I sincerely hope that my efforts here

39:43

will have enabled you to hold a better appreciation of the deep meaning behind

39:49

those

39:54

words in the year 500 BC a Chinese philosopher and general by the

40:00

name of sunu declared if a man knows himself and

40:05

knows his opponent he need not fear a hundred battles if a man knows himself

40:10

and knows not his opponent for every Victory he will suffer a defeat if a man knows neither himself

40:18

nor his opponent he is a fool and will suffer defeat in every

40:23

battle and knowing ourselves and the principles in which we believe as

40:28

important as that is it is not enough we must also know our opponent if we are

40:34

not to be fools and suffer defeat in every battle so it's time now for us to

40:40

climb down from our Ivory Tower of nebulous Theory and turn to the next part of the definition of the John B

40:46

society that needs to be explained what is the opposition against

40:51

us now you'll notice I haven't even mentioned the word communism so far except to relate it to the political

40:57

spectrum and it comes as a great surprise to those who are learning about the John BT Society for the first time

41:04

to discover that what we are for is more important to us than what we're against

41:11

and that we're not primarily an anti-communist organization to us communism is merely

41:17

the current manifestation of certain forces that have been around for a long time under different

41:24

labels long after communism has been destroyed and relegated to the dusty pages of

41:29

History these same forces will continue to plague future Generations as well but

41:35

under a new name what are these forces there are two there are always two and

41:42

there are only two the first we've already identified collectivism total

41:48

government and the second immorality merely a 25c word for the

41:55

complete absence of true moral moral standards of any kind these are the twin

42:00

forces of despotism everywhere past present or future peel off the label

42:06

communism or fascism or Nazism or any other similar ISM from history and what

42:11

do you find although the exterior form may be different the essence is always

42:17

the same total government over the people and the abandonment of morality in public life collectivism and

42:25

immorality now we think it's important to understand this because otherwise in our

42:31

Zeal to overcome communism the American people could be maneuvered unwittingly

42:37

into replacing communism with merely another form of the same

42:42

thing in the 20s the unsuspecting people of Germany became alarmed over the inroads being made in their country by

42:48

domestic communism and then Adolf the paperhanger came along and said follow me I'll get rid of Communism for you so

42:56

they followed him and he did get rid of Communism but he put in its place exactly the same thing

43:03

only under a different flag the good people of Germany never stopped to ask what Hitler offered

43:08

behind his anti-communist slogans and Promises of welfare most of them had

43:14

never read minec and of those who did very few really knew what they were reading they

43:20

were unable to recognize those opposing Jaws that always constitute tyranny

43:26

collectivism and immorality and so in their Zeal to avoid

43:33

tyranny and through their ignorance of the nature of tyranny they were manipulated into tyranny and it was all

43:40

done through the Democratic process remember Hitler was voted into

43:45

Power could this happen in America you bet it could the process has already

43:52

begun in the name of opposing communism we are now plunging head long into

43:57

collectivism at a rate unparalleled in history what meaning would a victory

44:03

over communism have if in the process we Embrace total government and abandon our

44:11

morality yet the form of tyranny called communism is still very real it can't be

44:17

ignored all questions of theory aside the plain fact is that if we don't

44:23

defeat communism we just aren't going to be free and many of us won't even be alive to continue the ideological

44:31

debate and so even though the defeat of Communism is not our primary objective of life and death necessity it

44:39

becomes our first order of business if we are to know our opponent

44:45

therefore we must now answer the question what is communism now actually that's not nearly

44:52

as hard a question to answer as you might think the Communists themselves give us the definition they call it

44:57

Marxism leninism which means simply that communism is a combination of the

45:04

ideological teachings of KL Marx and the organizational strategy and tactics laid

45:10

down by Vladimir ilich ulanov Lenin now all we have to do really is understand

45:16

the ideology of Marx and the tactics of Lenin and in spite of the thickness of

45:22

their books neither one is very hard to grasp if you've read the IST Manifesto

45:28

or dapal then you know that KL Marx taught only two things socialism and

45:34

Atheism everything else was in support of these two concepts socialism and

45:40

Atheism by the way notice that these are merely different words for collectivism

45:46

and immorality and we're back to that again the essential ingredients for any tyranny but the words he preferred to

45:53

use were socialism and Atheism so let's use those

45:58

while Marx laid down the ideological base of Communism Lenin created the

46:03

Communist party and added the physical organizational form if you agree with KL Marx that

46:11

socialism and Atheism are ideologically sound then by definition you are a

46:17

Marxist but that doesn't make you a communist by a long shot if in addition to being a Marxist

46:25

you also are willing to join the the Communist Party founded by lenon are willing to subject yourself to the

46:31

discipline of the party and unhesitatingly follow the organizational

46:36

tactics and strategy laid down by the party then you are a Marxist leninist

46:42

and then you are a true communist therefore if we are to know our opponent we must know that communism

46:49

is not just an ideology for that would be only Marxism it is both and

46:57

ideology and an organization let me repeat that because

47:02

it's the foundation for everything that follows communism is both an ideology

47:10

and an organization let's turn now to the

47:16

record this book by Nikita kusf entitled socialism and communism was printed in

47:22

English and published in Moscow back here on page 158 KF said the

47:30

Communist Party founded and tempered by the great lenon is a powerful force

47:36

comrades without the party we would have been an unorganized mass of people now

47:42

note that line without the party we would have been an unorganized mass of people it's a very important concept and

47:48

we'll come back to it later all of us Communists are united by the great Marxist leninist ideas the

47:56

source of our party's strength and invincibility lies in its ideological

48:02

and organizational cohesion and so I repeat communism is

48:07

both an ideology and an organization Joseph cornfed was one of

48:15

the original charter members of the Communist Party in America he joined in

48:20

199 he received special training in Moscow and returned to this country dedicated to the cause of World

48:26

communism and then like so many others gradually he began to see through the intellectual deception of the Communist

48:33

promise he broke away from the party and became an equally dedicated

48:38

anti-communist now in 1955 Joseph cornet gave a speech in San Francisco and I'd

48:44

like to read to you one paragraph taken directly from the transcript of that speech cornfed

48:52

said the true characteristics of the Communist Party are to be found not so

48:57

much in its theories as in its methods of organization keep in mind that they are

49:03

applying A New Concept of warfare the concept of conquering a country from

49:09

within how do you conquer a country from within you conquer it by capturing the

49:14

organizations that operate inside the country a labor union a farm organization or newspaper Guild a

49:21

Teachers Association a political Club a government agency Etc are considered as

49:26

power centers the sum total of these organizations is the sum total of

49:33

power the Communist Party organizes inside of these organizations Group by

49:39

group to fight them effectively one has to do the same thing in Reverse mere

49:45

resolution passing can't cope with that sort of an enemy and

49:51

quote of course that's certainly true mere resolution passing merely declaring

49:57

loudly that we're against communism cannot cope with that sort of an

50:03

enemy now lenon the founder of the Communist Party explained it this way

50:08

and I quote the party is the conscious Advanced section of a class its Advanced

50:15

guard the power of this Advanced guard is 10 100 times greater than its numbers

50:22

is that possible can the power of a 100 exceed the power of thousands it can

50:28

exceed it when the hundreds are organized organization increases Power

50:34

by tfold end quote and this of course is the reason why the Communists have been

50:39

winning around the world not because they're smarter or because they outnumber their opposition but simply

50:45

because they're organized a handful has had the power and effect of

50:52

thousands you know occasionally someone will say to me aren't you rather silly worried about communism in this country

50:58

when there are so few of them what harm can such a small group do to a big strong country like

51:05

ours of course such people have not done their homework they have no idea of how

51:10

communism actually works well they've heard a little bit about the Marxist ideology of Communism but they know

51:17

nothing about the leninist organization of Communism they're unaware for instance that in the Soviet Union even

51:24

after all of these years the actual number of people who are communists members of the party are less than 3% of

51:31

the total population in red China less than 2% but more important than that at the

51:37

time of takeover Communists have come to power in one country after another with

51:42

no more than 1 half of 1% of the population and in some cases much less

51:48

than that massive numbers are not important in this phase of the battle if you

51:55

remember nothing else I say in this entire presentation please remember that ideology is important numbers are not

52:04

dedication is important numbers are not organization is extremely important

52:11

numbers are not now in addition to the advantage of

52:16

organization our communist opposition also has the flexibility of being able

52:21

to resort to completely immoral tactics Lenin taught that whatever helps to bring communism to power is moral the

52:28

only test is does it work the leaders of world communism are forever saying that they want peaceful

52:35

coexistence let our two systems let our two ideologies compete fair and

52:40

square they say let the best ideology win they always talk about their

52:45

ideology but you notice they never say anything about their organization we're not supposed to even notice that they

52:51

also have an organization with working units established in every country in

52:56

the world and while they're talking about open and Fair competition between ideologies their organization is getting

53:03

ready to pull the rug right out from underneath us if it can again let's turn to the

53:09

record Benjamin gito the author of this book was for many years one of the most

53:15

important Communists in the entire world he was General Secretary of the Communist Party USA a member of the

53:22

executive committee of the Communist International in Moscow and a full member of the presidium the very highest

53:29

ruling group within the world communist movement but like so many others gito

53:34

broke away from the Communist party and became an anti-communist after doing so he wrote

53:40

this book the whole of their lives telling of his own personal

53:45

experiences this is a vital document written by a man who speaks not from hearsay or from research but from

53:52

firsthand experience now gllo describes a series of of Street meetings that were staged

53:58

by the Communist party on the Lower East Side of New York after the crowd had gathered to applaud the party speakers a

54:05

fight broke out between the party members and their opposition now the fight was expected there had been others

54:11

in the past and this one had been planned for with great care after the party goon squads had thoroughly beaten

54:17

their opposition then here is how gito describes what happened he says and I

54:23

quote but what the mob below did not know was that on the roof of the tall

54:29

tenement a number of Communists were hidden in the Dark Shadows of the building's Corners below another

54:35

communist standing aside from the crowd waited to give a fateful signal the signal was given when the Communist

54:42

controlled the corner with their own people heavy cobblestones of granite came hurtling down in the darkness one

54:49

communist Nick cruik a simple ordinary worker was taken to the hospital where he died of a fractured skull another

54:56

Michael Seaman a hardworking slav died in the hospital the next

55:02

morning now gito then describes how the murders were used to create Martyrs for

55:07

the Communist cause and to whip up hatred against those of their opposition who presumably were the only ones with

55:13

motive for such a crime and then gllo says such premeditated murders of

55:19

Communists by Communists had taken place before and were considered justified by

55:25

the political objectives of communist necessity they will be repeated the time

55:32

the place and the circumstances will be different the incentives the

55:38

same now in October of 1965 a high ranking official of the

55:43

Hungarian Communist Party defected to the West he held the rank of major in

55:48

the AVH secret police his name was llo Zabo a few months later he testified in

55:55

hearings before for the CIA subcommittee of the Congressional committee on armed

56:00

services now during his testimony llo Zabo explained the operation of a special Department within the secret

56:07

police in charge of what they called disinformation really it was the

56:13

everyday job of this department of disinformation to manufacture and promote lies that could be useful

56:21

worldwide against America now in the center portion of these hearings there a

56:26

photograph of two editions of Newsweek magazine and they were released in

56:32

November and December of 1963 now as you can see uh the first

56:37

carries a cover with a picture of Senator Barry Goldwater and the second a picture of President Kennedy now the

56:44

interesting thing about these issues is that they never appeared in the United States they're complete phonies they

56:51

were printed on the secret presses of the Department of disinformation in Hungary and and then widely disseminated

56:57

in Europe Africa Asia Latin America as powerful weapons of anti-American

57:04

propaganda Superior ideology hardly a perfect example of

57:10

communist organization at work after describing this incident in detail llo

57:16

Zabo then said major yanos fures chief of special activities the unit

57:22

responsible for disinformation work in the Hungarian service he told me they preferred that an item for

57:28

disinformation should have some real basis in fact but if I can produce a

57:33

good idea that does not have any fact send it in anyway truth is not important

57:39

if the idea is good just send it in they'll make it look truthful then get

57:44

it published in some little newspaper somewhere and after that we will hand it out get it republished everywhere who

57:51

can prove it is not true end quote now this we must know about our opponent if

57:58

we are not to be fools and suffer defeat in every battle some time ago the Communist Party

58:06

published this little booklet entitled a manual on organization it contains their detailed

58:14

plans for disciplining members collecting dues operating secret printing presses organizing cells in

58:20

factories colleges and farming communities it even describes the function of a fraction a unit smaller

58:27

than the cell itself a fraction can be composed of two or more Communists

58:32

within the same noncommunist organization their task is to work together secretly for the purpose of

58:39

gaining control of that organization the very process described earlier by Joseph

58:44

cornfed now if you haven't read this and of course most non-communists have not

58:50

then it's almost impossible to appreciate the degree to which Communism depends on organization rather than

58:57

ideology but getting back to the subject of tactics there's a particularly revealing passage back here on

59:04

page22 they're discussing how to handle former comrades who break away from the

59:09

party and particularly those who have the audacity to testify before Congressional investigating committees

59:16

and here's what they say there is only one proper method of exposing the stool pigeons and that is

59:23

mass exposure creating an or organizing Mass hatred against these rats one

59:30

photograph the spy and print his picture in leaflets and stickers spread this material in the place where the Spy was

59:36

operating two organize systematic agitation among the workers where the Spy was discovered three mobilize the

59:44

children and women in the Block in the part of town where the stool pigeon lives to make his life miserable let

59:50

them pick at the store where his wife purchases groceries and other necessities let the children in the

59:56

street shout after him or after any member of his family that they are spies rats stool pigeons four chalk his home

1:00:04

with the slogan so and so who lives here is a spy

1:00:10

Etc in 1943 the following directive was issued from party headquarters to all

1:00:16

Communists in the United States it read when certain obstructionists become

1:00:22

too irritating label them after suitable buildups as fascist or Nazi or

1:00:29

anti-semitic and use the prestige of anti-fascist intolerance organizations to discredit them in the public mind

1:00:37

constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell the association will after

1:00:44

enough repetition become fact in the public

1:00:49

mind now in 1967 I had the privilege of attending

1:00:54

the new Eng rally for God family and Country in Boston over the 4th of July

1:01:01

now this is an annual Affair and generally speaking it's just an oldfashioned Fourth of July rally

1:01:07

extended over 4 days it's pretty well known that most of the thousands who attend each year are members of the John

1:01:13

Bert Society there are plenty of exceptions of course but it's widely thought of in Boston as an unofficial

1:01:19

Bert Society convention on the second day of the rally which was held at The Statler

1:01:24

Hilton Hotel we came down from breakfast and discovered that someone had placed copies of this flyer on the windshield

1:01:32

of every automobile within several blocks of the hotel and how many additional thousands may have been

1:01:37

distributed elsewhere in town we have no way of knowing now it looks exactly like the Flyers as the rally had put out the

1:01:43

previous day it was on the same color of paper used the same kind of type and whoever printed this even went so far as

1:01:49

to photographically reproduce the official emblem for the rally now it

1:01:55

reads fifth annual New England rally for God family and Country reveals mystery

1:02:00

speaker Sunday July 2nd Grand Ballroom evening 7:00 and then in bold type it

1:02:06

says George Lincoln Rockwell exposes

1:02:12

yellow and red Jews but now you can imagine the impact

1:02:18

on the innocent people who picked this off of their windshields or off the door knobs of their homes and you can imagine

1:02:25

what they thought about the New England rally for God family and Country and the people who

1:02:32

attended by the way I'm sure there's no doubt in anyone's mind here but just for the record I suppose I'd better say it

1:02:39

this flyer was not printed by the New England rally for God family and Country

1:02:45

who put it out of course we don't know but whoever it was obviously consider

1:02:51

themselves to be our opponents and we must clearly understand what kind kind of tactics such opponents are willing to

1:03:00

use now in 1961 shortly after I'd become a staff coordinator for the society in

1:03:05

California I received a letter of inquiry from a Mr and Mrs Forest Rogers in San Diego so the first chance I had I

1:03:12

loaded up the car with films and books and drove down to San Diego to see if I could form a chapter there when I

1:03:18

arrived I called the Rogers on the phone I introduced myself as the coordinator for the society told them I'd received

1:03:24

their letter and asked if they'd like to have me make a presentation in their home they said sure come on over so I

1:03:30

did when I got there I noticed a certain coldness and suspicion in their

1:03:36

attitude of course I was used to that sort of thing and it didn't particularly bother me because I was well aware of

1:03:42

what people had been reading about the society in their newspapers naturally they'd be on their guard at any rate in

1:03:49

spite of the obvious reserve on the part of the Rogers that evening I pretended not to notice and went on my Merry way

1:03:55

explaining the society and answering questions as best I could and finally I suppose I convinced them that I was okay

1:04:02

that I wasn't going to whip out my swastika or whatever else they thought I was going to do and then they finally

1:04:08

told me what was on their minds Mr Rogers had written several patriotic letters to the editor of the

1:04:14

local newspaper of the San Diego Union immediately he began to receive in the mail a series of postcards and he showed

1:04:21

them to me they went something like this Dear Mr Rogers congratulations on your excellent letter

1:04:28

to the editor you certainly are a well-informed and courageous American however you forgot to mention that the

1:04:34

Kennedy administration is riddled not only with those Catholics but also with

1:04:40

and Jews too signed no name but

1:04:45

merely member local chapter of the John Bert Society P.S won't you please attend

1:04:53

our meetings ladies and gentlemen not only had there

1:04:59

been no meetings of the society in the San Diego area we didn't yet have even

1:05:04

one local chapter now I have no idea how many

1:05:09

similar postcards have been sent to other people and in other cities but I do know there have been

1:05:15

many I have no way of knowing how many people have been awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night and

1:05:21

Heard a Voice at the other end this is the John bur Society calling get out of town you dirty

1:05:27

Cy but I can tell you that there have been thousands of them and I can also

1:05:32

tell you that the impact on those who have received such postcards letters and telephone calls has been what you might

1:05:39

call rather profound now in 1966 Governor Scranton of

1:05:46

Pennsylvania received a letter on official John Burt Society stationary carrying the signature of our local

1:05:52

coordinator threatening to kill the governor if the United States didn't resume the bombing of

1:05:59

Hanoi now as you can imagine this rather upset the governor and he turned the matter over to the

1:06:06

FBI after extensive investigation enough evidence was gathered to cause a Philadelphia grand jury to hand down 27

1:06:14

counts of indictment against one Leonard froth it turns out that feror had

1:06:21

somehow stolen Society stationary and had rather expertly forged the signature of our

1:06:27

coordinator he had not only threatened to kill Governor Scranton but also had threatened the governor's wife had

1:06:33

written a letter threatening to kill President Johnson and an obscene letter to Lucy Johnson it also turns out that

1:06:41

Leonard feror is a fine highly respected citizen in the community as a longtime

1:06:46

active member of the American civil liberties Union naturally he'd been outspoken in favor of civil rights Free

1:06:53

Speech peace security freedom and all those other good things it's especially interesting to

1:06:59

note that on May 29th of that year this same Leonard fairorth had also written a

1:07:06

letter to the editor this time using his real name and his real signature and the theme of his letter you guessed it to

1:07:14

condemn the John Bert Society for its bigotry and its underhanded

1:07:22

tactics but now ladies and gentlemen this is the kind kind of opposition brought to bear against us not only us

1:07:30

but anyone else who opposes both the ideology and the organization of

1:07:36

Communism if you ever intend to be a part of the contest you too had better be prepared for exactly this kind of an

1:07:44

onslaught now before concluding this section there's one more point that needs clarification you'll notice that so far

1:07:52

I have refrained from using the expected phrase communist conspiracy but according to the

1:07:59

dictionary a conspiracy simply is a group of two or more people secretly

1:08:05

working together using unlawful methods to achieve an evil

1:08:11

purpose now are there two or more people in the Communist Party

1:08:16

obviously do they work secretly together willing to use unlawful

1:08:21

means yes and is their goal of communing America an evil

1:08:28

objective most Americans would consider it so if the organization of Communism

1:08:36

isn't a conspiracy then definitions and dictionaries are a complete waste of

1:08:43

time so let's not be squeamish about words let's call a spade a spade or to

1:08:49

be more exact call communism precisely what it is a worldwide criminal

1:08:58

conspiracy what is it going to take to overcome such a conspiracy well ladies and Gentlemen

1:09:05

let's take a short break now and when you return I'll attempt to answer that

1:09:17

question ladies and gentlemen to pick up the thread of this presentation where we left off I repeat the question what what

1:09:25

is it going to take to stand against and then overcome a force which by

1:09:31

definition is a conspiracy worldwide in scope consisting of over 40 million members not counting

1:09:38

the billions of people under their control but 40 million disciplined members of the party people who identify

1:09:45

themselves as Marxist leninists what is it going to take to overcome an organization with active

1:09:52

branches literally in every country of the world what is it going to take to overcome

1:09:57

opposition which is schooled in the use of completely immoral and ruthless tactics willing to use any means at all

1:10:04

to conquer our nation from within in other words what is it going to take to

1:10:11

overcome the ideology and the organization called communism the answer is it's going to

1:10:20

take a superior ideology and a superior organization

1:10:26

now we believe that the John B Society already has the first and it's rapidly building the

1:10:32

second the ideology of individualism and morality is far superior to that of

1:10:38

collectivism and immorality but Superior ideology is not enough people have got

1:10:44

to come together and work together to promote that ideology to give it physical form the body and muscle it

1:10:51

needs to survive to compete and then to win as you recall Kev said without the party

1:10:59

comrades we marxists would have been an unorganized mass of people well that's just as true for us as it is for them

1:11:07

without organization we americanists have been truly an unorganized mass of

1:11:12

people all well-intentioned some hardworking but totally ineffective as a constructive opposition to

1:11:19

Communism without organization we can only react we can't take the initiative

1:11:25

when our enemies refer to us as reactionaries in the past they've been correct we've always allowed them to

1:11:32

make the first move and then we've reacted in an effort to merely stop them

1:11:37

they've always been able to pick the issue the time and the place the Battleground that suits them best while

1:11:42

we've been content merely to defend what they attack but as everyone knows the purely defensive is doomed to Ultimate

1:11:50

defeat isn't it about time we began to take the initiative for a change

1:11:55

but taking the initiative requires leadership it requires the formulation

1:12:01

of a plan of action it requires a full-time staff to take that plan break

1:12:06

it down into its component parts and to distribute those parts over a wide geographical area and finally it

1:12:13

requires membership large numbers of people acting in unison to pull their

1:12:19

resources and put that plan into operation from one end of the country to the other and eventually over all the

1:12:26

world well I think everyone recognizes the value of organization in

1:12:31

accomplishing almost any task so let's not belabor the point but the next question is what kind of organization

1:12:38

will any kind do the answer of course is a resounding no not any kind will do

1:12:46

there are two basic kinds of organizations the first is characterized by the fact that it responds to the will

1:12:52

of the majority Robert's Rules of Order are f follow leaders are elected and

1:12:57

most issues are decided by the ballot such groups are called parliamentary

1:13:02

organizations examples are Myriad the PTA rotary kowas and in theory at least

1:13:08

our own government the other type of organization is characterized by the fact that the will of the majority is

1:13:14

not decisive in determining its course of action decisions are made at the various levels of leadership these are

1:13:21

called monolithic organizations and examples are an army a football team a

1:13:27

business or a religious body can you imagine a football team huddled out there in the middle of the field with a

1:13:33

quarterback taking a vote for the next play or a business conducting a poll among its employees to determine what

1:13:40

hours to work and what wages to pay what to produce and what price to sell or can you imagine any religious body

1:13:46

determining its articles of Faith through the process of majority rule of

1:13:52

course not because all of these groups are and should be monolithic they couldn't perform their function if they

1:13:59

weren't now one of the most often heard criticisms of the John BT Society is that it is monolithic and the word is

1:14:06

usually spoken in heavy tones as if to say color it Sinister and yet we have no objection to

1:14:14

anyone using that word to describe us provided of course they really understand what it means now according

1:14:21

to the dictionary a monolith is a solid body like a Rock without Splinter or

1:14:27

Division and that's us before going any further it's important to notice the difference

1:14:33

between the monolithic form in government and outside of government now

1:14:40

in government because of its coercive nature the monolith is exactly what we oppose When government speaks it has the

1:14:47

force to compel everyone to obey whether they want to or not now this is the essence of

1:14:54

collectivism but outside of government in strictly voluntary organizations

1:14:59

anyone can resign at any time if we don't like the coach or the quarterback

1:15:05

on our team we get off the team and find something else to do with our time if we

1:15:10

disagree with the religious Doctrine taught by our church we simply change churches if we disagree with the

1:15:17

principles of the John Bert Society we don't join it in the first place and if

1:15:22

after we have joined it we feel that a particular project is wrong or in poor taste then we're simply not expected to

1:15:30

participate in that project we concentrate on the ones with which we do agree and obviously if there should

1:15:36

develop very many points of disagreement we would drop out outside of the

1:15:42

self-discipline of our own conscience there's no means in the world to keep us in or to make us

1:15:48

work just because we take advantage of group action does not mean we've adopted

1:15:53

collectivism being an individualist doesn't mean I have to move my piano alone the

1:15:59

difference between collectivism and cooperation simply is that under collectivism group action is mandatory

1:16:07

under cooperation it's voluntary and that's precisely the difference between the monolithic form of organization in

1:16:15

government and in the John Bert Society all competitive groups must be

1:16:20

monolithic if they're to compete and please note all groups which have as

1:16:26

their purpose the promotion of an ideology should be monolithic because if

1:16:32

they're not then they will lose their Ideology Now to illustrate this point

1:16:39

all we have to do is take a look at the political parties political parties are

1:16:44

usually formed in the very beginning when a group of people who share the same political ideologies decide to get

1:16:51

organized in order to be more effective in promoting their common goals but instead of adopting the monolithic

1:16:57

form traditionally they accept the Parliamentary form and the result they

1:17:03

lose their ideology I doubt if one person out of a hundred today even remembers what the

1:17:10

ideologies were that led to the creation of our major parties at any rate

1:17:15

whatever they were they're certainly not the same today and whatever they are today chances are they won't be the same

1:17:23

tomorrow their subject to democratic change and consequently They do change

1:17:28

every four years party platforms are no longer statements of genuine political

1:17:34

ideology but a compromised and amended mishmash of glittering phrases without

1:17:39

meaning and what little meaning may appear to be there is certainly no obstacle to the politicians who

1:17:44

supposedly endorse the platform once they're elected they do exactly what they please anyway political platforms

1:17:52

are a farce now the John Society wants no part of this nonsense the people who

1:17:58

join our organization a 100 years from now will be endorsing exactly the same

1:18:04

principles for which we strive today we think those principles are important and

1:18:10

we're determined to preserve them now this is not to condemn political parties it's merely to understand them which we

1:18:18

must do if we're to be effective working within them and although I'll come back to this subject shortly I've me

1:18:24

mentioned it here merely to illustrate the point that unless an ideological

1:18:29

group adopts the monolithic form of organization it will lose its

1:18:35

ideology perhaps the most practical reason for the John BT Society being monolithic is the fact that if it had

1:18:41

not been it easily could have been infiltrated by communist agents posing as sincere hardworking anti-communists

1:18:49

they could have either taken over completely or at least bogged us down in Endless debates arguments committee

1:18:55

actions Splinter movements and parliamentary quicksand our enemies are experts at tying anti-communist

1:19:01

organizations into knots but the Ana provocateur has pretty slim pickings in

1:19:07

the John BT Society if a communist agent unknown to us came into our ranks for the purpose of discovering our secrets

1:19:14

he'd be truly disappointed we don't have any if he wanted to bottle things up in committee he'd be the only member of the

1:19:21

committee everyone else would continue working as planned if he tried to promote a racism or anti-semitic

1:19:27

attitude or violence or anything else contrary to our principles we would

1:19:32

merely refund the unused portion of his dues and bid him farewell so what does

1:19:38

our infiltrator do while he's a member he's expected to work we're not operating a luncheon function if he

1:19:44

stays in and wants to work for our cause we'll fine we need all the help we can

1:19:50

get but of course he would not stay in under those conditions and that is the

1:19:55

most effective Safeguard the only Safeguard against infiltration by the

1:20:01

enemy the voluntary monolithic form of organization adopted by the John bir

1:20:07

Society is not only commonplace in our daily lives not only compatible with the

1:20:12

concept of freedom but it is absolutely essential in our fight against

1:20:19

communism now returning to the question of politics for a moment the structure of the John ber Society is one of the

1:20:26

reasons why it is not and never can be a political group at least not as the word

1:20:33

political generally is understood it is not partisan it does not identify with

1:20:38

any party but it is concerned over political action and political results

1:20:45

the most effective political action being carried out today action which brings about tangible results in our

1:20:51

legislatures and courts does not come from the political parties it comes from

1:20:57

the nonpartisan groups which generally are thought of as being nonpolitical

1:21:02

Americans for Democratic action the National Association for the advancement of colored people the American civil

1:21:09

liberties Union the southern Christian leadership conference the committee on political education to name just a few

1:21:17

as a matter of fact the committee on political education cope is perhaps the most effective political organization in

1:21:24

the entire country today I don't know if you're familiar with how cope operates but it's no secret that they throw

1:21:31

millions of dollars into Political activity carefully designed to favor collectivist candidates regardless of

1:21:38

party they register voters they endorse candidates hand out campaign literature

1:21:44

put up Billboards run newspaper ads put political messages on radio on TV make

1:21:49

films provide speakers and maintain a powerful Lobby in Washington

1:21:55

now here is a brochure they put out just prior to the 1966 elections it's

1:22:00

entitled They're Playing for Keeps and it's all about us the dangerous birchers

1:22:07

I'd like to read just a part of this to you because I think it'll give you a better idea of the nonpartisan nature of

1:22:14

politics today remember this was written by experts at the game on page two it

1:22:22

reads out of their crushing 19 1964 defeat the extremists John burchers and

1:22:28

others learned a valuable lesson they learned that Sound and Fury from a

1:22:33

national platform are no substitute for planning and organization at the ward

1:22:38

and Precinct level they've been planning and organizing ever since well they're

1:22:44

not quite right on that actually we've been planning and organizing long before they ever figured it out but basically

1:22:50

they're correct and then it says the John B Society expects to recruit 1,000

1:22:57

members in each of 325 congressional districts the threat can't be laughed

1:23:03

off the bir Society has a record of making good on its goals and its membership has increased dramatically to

1:23:10

a present strength of 880,000 to 100,000 it grows every month the John BT Society

1:23:17

now has a staff of 250 paid employees it has five Regional public relations

1:23:22

offices it has headquarters on the east east and west coast it has a network of 360 bookstores selling to the public it

1:23:29

pours out a river of printed material never before matched in quantity by a splinter political movement it has a

1:23:37

National Speakers Bureau which arranges more than 50 Public lectures a month in major communities throughout the nation

1:23:44

it is set up staffed and financed for full scale political

1:23:51

action well understanding that they view political action as nonpartisan in

1:23:56

nature then they're entirely correct we are set up staffed and financed for

1:24:03

fullscale political action it's our task not only to help influence public

1:24:09

opinion through educational activity but also to mobilize the expression of that

1:24:15

public opinion in such a way as to force politicians to Institute the desired

1:24:21

changes in government policies now political parties by their very nature cannot perform this function

1:24:29

they really operate for only a few months every 2 years at election time

1:24:34

the machine is turned on and for a few weeks a tremendous amount of money and

1:24:39

effort is expended to elect candidates then the machine is turned off and

1:24:44

everybody takes a 2-year vacation by the way that's one of the reasons why partisan politics is so

1:24:51

attractive to many people it doesn't really demand that much anybody can handle a few weeks every two years but

1:24:58

the real political action the measures that preset the dials on that machine

1:25:04

that determine the direction it'll run when it is turned on this work is done

1:25:09

between elections every year every month and every single

1:25:16

day and this is why we say in the John ber society that education is the means

1:25:23

partisan politics is merely the mechanism now please don't misunderstand

1:25:29

what I'm trying to say I'm not suggesting that anyone abandon Politics

1:25:35

As a matter of fact we urge all of our members to become active in the political party of their choice I'm

1:25:41

merely saying that we should clearly understand the weaknesses of Politics as

1:25:47

well as its advantages that we need both kinds of political action and that we

1:25:52

must Place principle above party on several occasions so far I've

1:25:59

alluded to the fact that we can learn much from studying the tactics of our enemies and this leads many to wonder if

1:26:05

it's true what they've heard about the John Bert Society using communist tactics well believe it or not it is

1:26:13

true now before you go jumping to conclusions let me explain not everything the Communists do is wrong

1:26:19

obviously just because they've utilize certain tactics doesn't mean that we shouldn't do so for example the

1:26:27

Communists organize into small working units to facilitate getting things done and so do we the Communist circulate

1:26:34

petitions to Congress so do we the Communists set up front groups to mobilize mass action they have the

1:26:41

committee for the protection of the foreign born the San nuclear policy committee the emergency civil liberties

1:26:47

committee and hundreds more we have our support your local police committee the truth about civil turmoil committee the

1:26:54

committee to restore American independence now the movement to restore decency and hopefully hundreds more in

1:27:01

the future what's wrong with such groups we call them ad hoc committees rather

1:27:06

than fronts but regardless of what you call them our committees perform a tremendous service to the people in them

1:27:13

members and non-members alike they provide an effective vehicle for promoting a relatively narrow and

1:27:20

specific objective they make it possible for people who disagree with each other on many other things to come together

1:27:26

and work together for those principles which they do hold in common and it makes no sense to abandon this tactical

1:27:33

concept for the enemy's exclusive use you'll notice however that the

1:27:40

Communists try to conceal their authorship of these groups we go out of

1:27:45

our way to make it known and here is precisely where we park company because

1:27:51

with the Communists they are willing to use deceit whereas truth is our only weapon now

1:27:58

this doesn't give them the advantage either they must use deceit they have no choice you can imagine how far they'd

1:28:05

get if they all came right out in the open admitted that they were Communists and then called for a dictatorship of

1:28:11

the proletariat explaining furthermore that we play that game with them being the

1:28:16

dictators and us the proletariat of course they wouldn't get to first base and they know it so they have to cover

1:28:23

up instead with talk about love peace and freedom but because they are lying

1:28:29

it's possible to expose them and this is their Achilles heel Now by comparison we

1:28:36

have nothing to hide therefore we have no reason to lie and we wouldn't want to even if we could truth is a far superior

1:28:44

weapon than deceit it's a weapon which is denied to them and in the end it will

1:28:50

be the decisive weapon that destroys them completely completely now the question of

1:28:57

organization and of tactics leads to the question of leadership and in particular

1:29:04

the leadership of the founder of the John B Society Robert Welch someday an appropriate and

1:29:11

objective biography of this man will be written when it is I think you'll be extremely impressed not only by his

1:29:18

accomplishments but also by the way in which the opinion molders of our day have distorted his Public Image Beyond

1:29:25

any recognition of the real man unfortunately this is neither the time nor the place for such a study but let

1:29:32

the record be clear on one thing as far as the members of the John Bert Society

1:29:37

are concerned our respect and esteem for Robert Welch is so high it comes close

1:29:45

to reverence itself it's been my experience that

1:29:51

those who are most critical of what Mr Welch has said about President Eisenhower and this is the main

1:29:57

objection that usually comes up they're the ones frankly who have no knowledge of what he did say about Eisenhower and

1:30:04

I'm not being factious either oh I know they think that they know uh they've read all about it from our critics they

1:30:11

seen the quotation marks placed around all kinds of statements some of them accurate most of them inaccurate and all

1:30:18

of them taken out of context but most of these people have never read the book called the politician in which these

1:30:25

statements were made and explained I have met very few who were upset with

1:30:31

what Robert welt said in the politician after they had read it so what more can I say if you have

1:30:39

not read the politician then get a copy and read it I think you owe it to

1:30:45

yourself your very presence here indicates an interest in learning about the society and frankly it's impossible

1:30:53

to have any understanding of the society without becoming familiar with the writings and teachings of its founder so

1:31:01

read the life of John Burch read may God forgive us and the new americanism but

1:31:06

above all read the blue book and the politician and then make up your own

1:31:13

mind I think you'll be impressed by what you find you'll be impressed not only by

1:31:18

the magnitude of the man's intellect and the extent of his knowledge but also by

1:31:24

his record of calling the shots time and time again he has alerted the American

1:31:30

people to an unpleasant fact that was important for us to know time and time again he was ridiculed and condemned for

1:31:37

doing so by the respectable experts who assured us that he was wrong and time and time again tragic

1:31:46

events have unfolded to prove that Robert Welch was right after

1:31:52

all before dropping the topic however let me add one more

1:31:57

suggestion you form your own anti-communist organization sometime you mobilize a 100,000 people Nationwide you

1:32:05

begin to push against the ideology and the organization called communism and then just see what your

1:32:12

Public Image will look like and I think you can well imagine what it would

1:32:19

be in September of 1966 I had the privilege of attending the meeting of

1:32:24

the Council of the John BT society and during that meeting Mr Welsh delivered a

1:32:29

short address to the council members and guests present I was deeply moved by his

1:32:35

remarks particularly one part of the speech and afterward I requested permission to quote that part If Ever I

1:32:40

had occasion to do so Mr Welch consented but I've never had a reason before Now to repeat what was said that day and

1:32:48

it's quite likely that this is the first time that these words have been made public Mr Welch began by describing the

1:32:55

predicament of the lady driver who was waiting at a stoplight one day at a busy intersection when the light turned green

1:33:01

she tromped on the gas jerked forward about 20 ft and stalled the engine right smack in the middle of everything she

1:33:08

tried to start the car again but all she was doing was flooding the carburetor and running down the battery traffic

1:33:13

began to back up in all directions people were honking their horns and there she sat and finally a policeman

1:33:20

came over to the car he scowled at her through the window and he said lady will you please get that car out of here well

1:33:26

at this point the woman jumped out of the car completely frustrated she said officer my driver's license is expired

1:33:32

this isn't my car it's borrowed I can't get it started I think it's out of gas and I wash my hands of the whole matter

1:33:39

and with that she slammed the door behind her and walked away now after having described this

1:33:45

little scene here is what Robert Welch then said sometimes the misunderstandings and

1:33:53

frustration almost tempt me to wish I could act that way about the John Bert Society I have

1:33:59

books I should like to write places I would like to go and games I should like to play in whatever years there might

1:34:06

remain for me but gentlemen as far as I personally am concerned it can't be done

1:34:12

I could see far enough ahead about the enemy we faced and the nature of the struggle to realize full well the

1:34:19

extreme unlikelihood of my ever having any real peace or leisure

1:34:24

free time of my own again and as rert Brook said about his rendevu with death

1:34:31

this is my rendevu with life to which I shall be

1:34:37

true the reason why I could not make myself and some other people happy by

1:34:42

just turning over this whole job to somebody else is that I have promises to

1:34:47

keep and those promises have been made at least by binding implication to tens

1:34:53

of thousands of people who in Reliance on them have suffered and labored and

1:34:59

sacrificed and prayed in many cases with the spirit and fortitude of

1:35:05

Martyrs I cannot let these tens of thousands of people down and I have no

1:35:11

intention of doing so ladies and gentlemen no matter what

1:35:18

the future leadership of the John bur Society may be those of us who are members of it today we'll always be

1:35:26

grateful to Robert Welch for remaining true to his rendevu with life as he

1:35:31

calls it and for keeping his promises to

1:35:36

us if leadership is the backbone of an organization then membership is its

1:35:42

muscle what about our membership just how effective has it been you know quite

1:35:47

often we hear people say I can be more effective on the outside I can do more good if I don't become

1:35:54

controversial well ladies and gentlemen the only way to avoid controversy in these matters is to stay out of the

1:36:00

contest it reminds me of the football player that liked the game but was afraid of getting his uniform

1:36:06

dirty the more effective we are against our enemies the more they attempt to discredit us and the more controversial

1:36:13

we become the fact that the John bur Society is controversial is not a result

1:36:19

of our mistakes but of our successes you want to be effective against communism then you better be

1:36:25

prepared to become controversial if you're not controversial then you're not hurting the

1:36:32

enemy of course most of those who think they can be more effective on the outside are just kidding themselves

1:36:39

there are exceptions naturally but because they're denied the many advantages of organization and team

1:36:45

effort instead of being more effective or even as effective most of them end up

1:36:50

doing practically nothing at all but still it's a legitimate question could

1:36:56

we have been more effective on the outside those of us who are now members what if everyone had taken that

1:37:02

course what then well obviously there would be no John Bert Society without members

1:37:08

there'd be no organization there would have been tens of thousands of meetings never held

1:37:14

hundreds of speakers never heard millions of books Never printed and hence never read there would have been

1:37:21

scores of films never produced but bookstores never opened radio programs

1:37:26

never broadcast study groups never formed Billboards never erected petitions never circulated hand bills

1:37:32

never printed committees never started and literally millions of people never

1:37:39

informed in fact without the John bir Society I wonder how few people in the

1:37:45

entire country today would really understand what's going on I don't know

1:37:51

about you but you're looking at one person who would not I came out of the University

1:37:56

spouting all of the proper collectivist cliches and I'd been conditioned like everyone else to smirk with an air of

1:38:03

amused superiority whenever anyone expressed a concern over domestic

1:38:09

communism it wasn't until I ran smack into the John Bert society that I was exposed to the other side and began to

1:38:18

re-evaluate my premises it's my conviction that there

1:38:23

simply would be no substantial anti-communist movement in America today

1:38:28

if our members had been more effective on the

1:38:33

outside but just how effective have we been on the inside how can you measure that well let's let our enemies answer

1:38:41

that question this booklet entitled The American altras was published by the

1:38:48

American Socialist Party now as you can tell by the cover It's All About Us

1:38:54

and here's what it says back here on page 65 what makes the Altra such a challenge

1:39:01

is that they are not simply the product of conditions and forces but rather they are building a

1:39:09

movement which is precisely the point we are unlike anything they've ever faced

1:39:14

before always in the past they've been able to take the initiative with nothing but sporadic reaction from our side now

1:39:22

for the first time in history they're facing a movement with goals of its own

1:39:27

they're having to defend for a change and they don't like it one bit the Communist Party USA publishes a

1:39:36

small newspaper in San Francisco entitled The People's World in this

1:39:41

issue dated March 18th 1967 they ran a feature article entitled a close look at

1:39:48

the birchard and here is their appraisal

1:39:53

the John bur Society is the largest and most sophisticated anti-communist organization in the United States the

1:40:01

right is a seething mass of over 4,000 organizations bewildering in their

1:40:06

titles aims and diversity of all these groups only some 30 distinct

1:40:11

organizations appear to be of national importance and the prime one is the John ber Society end

1:40:21

quote well of course of course we think it's a major accomplishment just to be

1:40:26

in existence after the attacks that have been mounted against us these many years and I think if you'd been standing at

1:40:32

this end of the cannon you'd feel rather proud of that too back in 1961 when they

1:40:38

lowered the big guns on the John B Society for the first time they fully expected there'd be nothing left but a

1:40:44

hole in the ground where we'd been standing nobody had ever withstood that kind of an attack before but when the

1:40:51

smoke cleared Lo and behold we were still there rather ragged looking around

1:40:57

the edges to be sure but we were still there so they fired another Salvo and

1:41:03

again we stood our ground but this time we visibly had grown they fired again

1:41:10

and we grew again they fired and still we grew so finally they said wait a minute we're giving these people too

1:41:15

much publicity they thrive on our attacks and then they ignored us for a long time and we continued to grow so

1:41:24

they attacked us again and we grew no matter what they do we grow

1:41:31

because frankly ours is an idea whose hour has come and there's nothing they

1:41:39

can do to stop us in the face of everything our enemies have been able to throw against us the John bur Society

1:41:46

has grown and prospered to the point where today it's the largest publisher of conservative and anti-communist books

1:41:52

in the world World it operates the largest and most active speakers Bureau in the world it constitutes the largest

1:41:59

chain of exhibitors of americanist films and film strips in the world in short

1:42:05

it's the largest and unquestionably the most effective anti-communist organization in existence in the entire

1:42:13

world and in view of the opposition thrown against us ladies and gentlemen I hope you'll forgive our pride in this

1:42:21

accomplishment of course it's not what we have done in the past that's so important after all

1:42:29

we're a long way from winning this battle while it's true we have grown and prospered so has the organization of

1:42:36

Communism and they're moving rapidly toward their ultimate goal so we can't afford to sit back and bask in the

1:42:43

glories of our past accomplishments it's our potential for the future that really counts it's our potential for the future

1:42:50

that not only gives us the most encouragement but also frightens our enemies the most for we now know and so

1:42:57

do they that all we have to do is exactly what we have been doing only with increased effort and we shall

1:43:07

succeed why then do people join the John B Society they do so for only one reason

1:43:13

because they can be more effective on the inside more effective promoting the

1:43:19

principles in which they believe in accordance with a plan of action designed to overcome the opposition

1:43:27

against them ladies and gentlemen we are not discouraged that our numbers are small

1:43:35

the John bur Society was never intended to be a mass movement history has always been

1:43:41

determined not by the many but by the dedicated few Who provided leadership by

1:43:47

the few who knew what they wanted knew how to obtain it and who were willing to

1:43:52

make the necessary risks and sacrifices this is just as true in

1:43:57

American history as it is in world history when Paul Rivier went racing down those cobblestone streets shouting

1:44:04

the British are coming you know most of those who heard his voice went right back to

1:44:10

sleep only a few answered the call only a few stood at the bridge only a few at

1:44:18

Lexington and conord only a few signed the Declaration

1:44:23

only a few crossed the Delaware only a few contributed the political and religious theories that

1:44:30

were hammered into our Constitution and ladies and gentlemen only a very few are going to

1:44:38

save this constitutional republic if it is to be saved at

1:44:43

all as I mentioned earlier numbers are not nearly as important as

1:44:50

dedication if just a handful of Americans would give to the preservation of their own Liberties the same

1:44:57

dedication as their enemies devote to the destruction of those Liberties there'd be no contest we'd win hands

1:45:04

down do you have any idea what the average communist gives to his cause as

1:45:10

a very minimum every communist must devote at least 10% not only of his income but more

1:45:18

important 10% of his time to the Communist party now that doesn't sound

1:45:23

like very much until you start to figure it out 10% of an average person's waking

1:45:28

time is 11 hours per week and don't forget that's a minimum figure many of

1:45:34

them devote more than that but they all give at least 11 hours every week to the

1:45:41

cause of Communism now the question is this how many hours did you give last

1:45:51

week for the princip Les in which you

1:45:57

believe how many hours did you spend last month of course the truth of the matter

1:46:04

is most Americans don't devote 11 hours to their country all year

1:46:12

long the Communists are counting on taking this nation as they have all others with less than 1 half of 1% of

1:46:20

the population but the point is it can work both ways 1 half of 1% of the

1:46:26

population organized and dedicated is also more than enough to restore this nation to health and Sanity once again

1:46:34

the question is not can it be done but is even a minority of Americans willing

1:46:41

to do it in closing ladies and gentlemen I'd

1:46:48

like to make an appeal if I could to your emotions now so far this has not been what you'd

1:46:55

call a motivational talk I've dealt with political philosophy theories of

1:47:00

Economics organizational forms and tactics it's pretty hard to get excited over any of this unless we see it as

1:47:07

part of a solution to a problem a problem in which we are personally and

1:47:13

emotionally involved there's nothing wrong with this reaction though if it's based on

1:47:19

facts and so I appeal not only to your emot but also to your

1:47:25

reason when I ask you these questions how many more American

1:47:33

men have to lose their lives in no win Wars before you join with

1:47:40

us does it have to be your own son or your own

1:47:45

husband how many more riots and burning of cities must there be before you join

1:47:50

with us must it It Be Your Own Town your own business or your own home

1:47:57

destroyed how many more campuses must be turned into communist indoctrination centers how many more churches converted

1:48:04

into leftist Political clubs how many more government controls and regulations will it take how much more welfare to

1:48:12

discourage production and encourage idleness how much more drugs and pornography how much more crime how many

1:48:19

more taxes how much more inflation look around you my

1:48:25

friends your world is crumbling what more is it going to

1:48:34

take now if you have a better plan then follow it if you really are one of those rare

1:48:41

individuals who can be more effective on your own without the advantages of organization then prove it let's see

1:48:48

your results if you think you can form a better organization than ours that you

1:48:54

have the talent to build a nationwide leadership force and the time to train that force and if you think you have the

1:49:00

ability to attract over 100,000 members dedicated to your cause and if you know

1:49:05

for sure that you'll be able to withstand the attacks that'll be leveled against you then do it don't just talk

1:49:12

about it do it I hope you forgive my exasperation with people who criticize us for making

1:49:18

this mistake here and that mistake there while they themselves do nothing

1:49:24

nothing the John BT Society may not be perfect indeed we make mistakes and we

1:49:30

are painfully aware of them all but until the perfect man creates the perfect organization with none but

1:49:37

perfect members in it the John bur Society is our only choice it's not

1:49:44

merely an idea on the drawing boards it's not something we're going to do someday in the future if we ever find

1:49:50

the time or have the money it's here now it's proven its ability over many

1:49:57

years and all it needs to fulfill its Destiny is

1:50:04

you with your prayers and with your help

1:50:10

together we shall bring about less government more

1:50:18

responsibility and with God's help a better world

 

 

---

 

Ogalaton skrev (13 timer siden):

mindre enn 1 minutt, som dere kan se:

 

 

Problemet her er at passende beskrivelser er passende.

Å kalle en and som går som en and, kvakker som en and og svømmer som en and, har andefjær og legger egg for en and...
Vel. Om det ikke er en and, så er det åpenbart at de forsøker ekstremt hardt å fremstå som det.

Å beskrive gresset på plenen som grønt er passende, uansett hva andre mener -- da definisjoner har betydning, og faktapåstander enten er sanne eller usanne, eller uklare/dårlig definert.
Gresset på plenen er grønt.

Autoritære høyre er på fremmarsj, drevet av høyrepopulistisk propaganda som bokstavelig talt bruker strategiene fra nazi-tyskland, og russisk propaganda:

Forestillingen om 'Løgnpressen' er en gjenganger i dag:
Forestillingen om at nyhetsmediene er partiske og for slemme med høyreradikale og høyreekstreme.

"With ‘Gestapo’ comment, Trump adds to numerous past Nazi Germany references"

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/with-gestapo-comment-trump-adds-to-numerous-past-nazi-germany-references

 

Ogalaton skrev (13 timer siden):

Autoritære? Høyreradikale?

Ja.

Ord betyr noe.

 

The Republican Party has lurched towards populism and illiberalism

Its rhetoric now resembles that of Europe’s most extreme parties

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/31/the-republican-party-has-lurched-towards-populism-and-illiberalism

Radikal betyr at de ønsker å føre politikk som gjør radikale endringer på samfunnet, som å forby abort, slippe terrorister som har deltatt i kuppforsøk fri fra fengsel, og velger en leder som er skyldig i kuppforsøk -- i hensikt å la ham fullføre kuppet, må vi anta, da bare komplette idioter kan tro at han har lært eller blitt et anstendig menneske.

De er radikale, og mens de som lures til å støtte dem ikke nødvendigvis er radikale, så støtter de et radikalt autoritært parti.

Partiet er definitivt medskyldig nå, om de ikke var det allerede.
Desverre ligger beskrivelsene av partiet alltid år bak deres gjerninger, så posisjonene deres er ikke riktig langt nok i autoritær eller populistisk retning.
 

Sitat

De kjemper jo alt de kan for Den Konstitusjonelle Republikk, som USA ble bestemt at skulle være fra fødselen av for å unngå totalitarisme. (Selvfølgelig nekter jeg ikke for at et betydelig antall "råtne egg" finnes i alle partier altså, også hos dem)

Partiet kjemper bokstavelig talt for å la Trump pisse på grunnloven.

The president’s abusive invocations of emergency powers threaten American liberty and the constitutional system.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-s-'emergencies'-are-pretexts-for-undermining-the-constitution

 

 

Ogalaton skrev (13 timer siden):

Ps, @Red Frostraven, hvorfor er det slik at venstresiden fritt kan komme med gigantiske konspirasjonsteorier ≈ helt uten å bli merkelappet eller anklaget for ting i det hele tatt... mens når høyresiden gjør det samme, så drukner de i både merkelapper og alvorlige anklager om ondskap?

Hvilke konspirasjonsteorier tenker du på da, som er utbredt og tolerert på venstresiden, og regelrett gjør skade på samfunnet..?

Hvordan påvirker disse politiske valg, hvilke partier fremmer disse konspirasjonsteoriene -- slik republikanerene pusher kreasjonisme, antivaksine, anti-klima, Trump-seier i 2020 og hel rekke andre ville og teite konspirasjonsteorier?

Den øverste på listen før var at demokrater trodde at Russland hjalp Trump å vinne valget i 2016 -- men når den fulle Mueller-rapporten kom ut så var det jo sant at Putin gjorde sitt beste for å hjelpe Trump å vinne.

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/mueller-trump-russia-prosecutors-book-interference

Endret 25. mai av Red Frostraven