The Necessity of Conservative Agitprop

[Spectre]

Look at this headline:

Zero tea party candidates are ahead in next Tuesday's big primaries. Zero. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/15/zero-tea-party-candidates-are-ahead-in-next-tuesdays-big-primaries-zero/?tid=pm_politics_pop)

What does this mean? Does it mean that 'The Establishment' and Karl Rove has evilly undermined the insurgent candidates?

Nope.

It means that the time is not yet. That much hard work needs to be done. That networks need to be established and precincts worked.

I think it's now beginning to dawn on the rational that people are not naturally conservative, and that a strong case has to be made and repeatedly drummed in and reinforced that the only path to national redemption is a conservative one, whereas the path to hell lies along the path of progressivism. Progressives have to become delegitimized in the minds of thr majority of the people. We are not anywhere NEAR yo getting this done yet. There are too many who still want to 'reach out' to the left, to follow the awful advice of those that say 'C'mon, guys! let's get together, put politics aside and solve the problems facing the country' an example of political mental retardation the likes of which has few peers.

The Tea Party is still a small minority in political life, but it is the energy and motive force of the right. They CANNOT ASSUME that the people are with them, they will have to work relentlessly to get them, and swim among them 24/7.

And, for the sake of sanity, the delusion that keep getting repeated that 'America is a centre-right country' must be abandoned. This hasn't been true for many, many years. Getting that back will require a lot of work.

And events will have to cooperate: we should all be praying for the collapse of the progressive house of cards, for financial meltdown, because that is not partisan cynicism as some may think, but an expression of a kind of cosmic justice. Evil policies should not thrive, because it means that if evil can do the job it is tolerable. If the socialist structure melts down, it means that there is a moral order, and one can work with that to re-establish a restoration of the lost order of constitutional, limited government.

[Refugee]

I think that people are naturally both conservative and capitalist by nature. All want a better life for themselves and their families and all would want a good job to provide. It’s politics that has alienated people from their goals and weaned them towards dependency. All people start life wanting to be something and that something didn’t include welfare or a job at McDonalds.

Paying someone to do nothing and finding something or someone else to take the blame became the norm for tens of millions and it’s difficult to wean away from a free life. People I think have to accept that not all are equal, that some are cleverer, some are get up and go and that life is what we make it, not what we let it make us. :smiley:

[midcan5]

You guys have such a simplistic view and knowledge of reality it has to strike anyone who lives in the world as ridiculous. You sincerely know people who are dependent on government? You do? The only people I know who are dependent on government are the politicians, the military, civil service, and wealthy corporations who rely on government projects. Of course these are people but they aren't the people you are thinking of, you instead categorize people by party and by race or ethnicity and these are the dependent people. Poor people have somehow become the government moochers. You can't say that so instead you put forth mental schemes in which if only people were like you conservatives all would be fine with the world. It is a mental creation rather than a real one. In a sense we are all dependent on government for it forms the backdrop and grounding of society, but you miss that in your ideological meandering for a foe who's to blame for whatever.

Here is the real nanny state. Wake up. http://deanbaker.net:8080/books/the-conservative-nanny-state.htm

"Kristol was trying to detach conservatism from its schizophrenic devotion to free markets on the one hand and tradition on the other. He knew that you can't revere tradition if you admire the "creative destruction" that capitalism brings to life. He knew that you can't insulate the nuclear family from the heartless logic of the market if you accept the dictates of free enterprise. He knew that conservatism had to become more liberal if it were to sound like something more than hidebound devotion to a phantom past. A "combination of the reforming spirit with the conservative ideal," he declared, "is most desperately wanted," and cited Herbert Croly, the original big government liberal from the Progressive Era, as his source of inspiration.


Kristol also knew that the competitive, entrepreneurial economy Friedman and Hayek posited as the source of freedom was a mere fantasy. Capitalism had long since become a system in which large corporations, not small producers, dominated the market - those anonymous and unknowable laws of supply and demand which once made all producers equally subject to the discipline of market forces had been supplanted by the visible hand of modern management: "There is little doubt that the idea of a (free market,' in the era of large corporations, is not quite the original capitalist idea." Some producers had more market power than, others: some persons (and this is how corporations are legally designated) were more equal than others. So everyone was not "free to choose," as Friedman would have it, simply because he or she inhabited a market society. Corporate capitalism remained a moral problem. For in "its concentration of assets and power-power to make economic decisions affecting the lives of tens of thousands of citizens - it seems to create a dangerous disharmony between the economic system and the political." P11 'The World Turned Inside Out' James Livingston

[Libhater]

Look at this headline:

Zero tea party candidates are ahead in next Tuesday's big primaries. Zero. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/15/zero-tea-party-candidates-are-ahead-in-next-tuesdays-big-primaries-zero/?tid=pm_politics_pop)

What does this mean? Does it mean that 'The Establishment' and Karl Rove has evilly undermined the insurgent candidates?

Nope.

It means that the time is not yet. That much hard work needs to be done. That networks need to be established and precincts worked.

I think it's now beginning to dawn on the rational that people are not naturally conservative, and that a strong case has to be made and repeatedly drummed in and reinforced that the only path to national redemption is a conservative one, whereas the path to hell lies along the path of progressivism. Progressives have to become delegitimized in the minds of thr majority of the people. We are not anywhere NEAR yo getting this done yet. There are too many who still want to 'reach out' to the left, to follow the awful advice of those that say 'C'mon, guys! let's get together, put politics aside and solve the problems facing the country' an example of political mental retardation the likes of which has few peers.

The Tea Party is still a small minority in political life, but it is the energy and motive force of the right. They CANNOT ASSUME that the people are with them, they will have to work relentlessly to get them, and swim among them 24/7.

And, for the sake of sanity, the delusion that keep getting repeated that 'America is a centre-right country' must be abandoned. This hasn't been true for many, many years. Getting that back will require a lot of work.

And events will have to cooperate: we should all be praying for the collapse of the progressive house of cards, for financial meltdown, because that is not partisan cynicism as some may think, but an expression of a kind of cosmic justice. Evil policies should not thrive, because it means that if evil can do the job it is tolerable. If the socialist structure melts down, it means that there is a moral order, and one can work with that to re-establish a restoration of the lost order of constitutional, limited government.


I'm not sure how why or how you think the Conservatives and or the Tea Partiers should resort to agitprop in order to stop this progressive movement?
Could you explain this?

[Alyosha]

The Tea Party marginalized themselves through their inability to shut up the loonies and the RNC general allowed everyone to assume that any creep speaking out was a Tea Party member.

The brand is done.

[Mister D]

You guys have such a simplistic view and knowledge of reality it has to strike anyone who lives in the world as ridiculous. You sincerely know people who are dependent on government? You do? The only people I know who are dependent on government are the politicians, the military, civil service, and wealthy corporations who rely on government projects.

That's because, like many white progressives, you make damn sure you don't live anywhere near the people you claim to speak for. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Mister D]

I think that people are naturally both conservative and capitalist by nature. All want a better life for themselves and their families and all would want a good job to provide. It’s politics that has alienated people from their goals and weaned them towards dependency. All people start life wanting to be something and that something didn’t include welfare or a job at McDonalds.

Paying someone to do nothing and finding something or someone else to take the blame became the norm for tens of millions and it’s difficult to wean away from a free life. People I think have to accept that not all are equal, that some are cleverer, some are get up and go and that life is what we make it, not what we let it make us. :smiley:


This is one aspect of American "conservatism" that I find problematic. They champion capitalism and the free market which introduce constant change into society.

[Captain Obvious]

The Tea Party marginalized themselves through their inability to shut up the loonies and the RNC general allowed everyone to assume that any creep speaking out was a Tea Party member.

The brand is done.

Agreed, been saying that for a while now though (for the record).

[Libhater]

The Tea Party marginalized themselves through their inability to shut up the loonies and the RNC general allowed everyone to assume that any creep speaking out was a Tea Party member.

The brand is done.

What are you talking about? The Tea Party movement gave us the greatest HOUSE sweep in American history during the 2010 elections.
The Tea Party is just gearing up to take America back with their common sense Constitutionally Patriotic sound agenda, and they have
the overwhelming backing of the Conservative base in which to succeed.

[midcan5]

That's because, like many white progressives, you make damn sure you don't live anywhere near the people you claim to speak for.
@Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) And how pray tell, do you know that? Before I answer I want your reply. Tell us please. And please describe these people I don't live near, that too is an interesting assumption or is that classification or is that.....


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/26103-The-Necessity-of-Conservative-Agitprop?p=618307&viewfull=1#post618307

[Boris The Animal]

The problem with midcan and all other leftist turds is that they think that by eliminating Conservatism in the US, all would be unicorns and rainbows.

[Peter1469]

The problem is that the Tea Party(ies) are bottom up, not top down. That makes it easy for the establishment to keep it down. But, then if the Tea Party(ies) became an organized top down group, it would become corrupt like the establishment of both parties.

[Codename Section]

You can't fix the system by participating in it. If we could it would be fixed. Democrats keep saying how they're smarter than Republicans but then they are either stupid or they are choosing to be blind to how much corporations have been brought into play with their people in charge.

[Peter1469]

The establishment of both parties are two sides of the same coin. The people who fail to see that are fools.

[Mister D]

@Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) And how pray tell, do you know that? Before I answer I want your reply. Tell us please. And please describe these people I don't live near, that too is an interesting assumption or is that classification or is that.....


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/26103-The-Necessity-of-Conservative-Agitprop?p=618307&viewfull=1#post618307

It was sort of a joke but I see it struck a nerve. Thanks for that. Oh, and you don't need to link to your post. I know where it is. It's on the same page. :grin:

[Chris]

You guys have such a simplistic view and knowledge of reality it has to strike anyone who lives in the world as ridiculous. You sincerely know people who are dependent on government? You do? The only people I know who are dependent on government are the politicians, the military, civil service, and wealthy corporations who rely on government projects. Of course these are people but they aren't the people you are thinking of, you instead categorize people by party and by race or ethnicity and these are the dependent people. Poor people have somehow become the government moochers. You can't say that so instead you put forth mental schemes in which if only people were like you conservatives all would be fine with the world. It is a mental creation rather than a real one. In a sense we are all dependent on government for it forms the backdrop and grounding of society, but you miss that in your ideological meandering for a foe who's to blame for whatever.

Here is the real nanny state. Wake up. http://deanbaker.net:8080/books/the-conservative-nanny-state.htm

"Kristol was trying to detach conservatism from its schizophrenic devotion to free markets on the one hand and tradition on the other. He knew that you can't revere tradition if you admire the "creative destruction" that capitalism brings to life. He knew that you can't insulate the nuclear family from the heartless logic of the market if you accept the dictates of free enterprise. He knew that conservatism had to become more liberal if it were to sound like something more than hidebound devotion to a phantom past. A "combination of the reforming spirit with the conservative ideal," he declared, "is most desperately wanted," and cited Herbert Croly, the original big government liberal from the Progressive Era, as his source of inspiration.


Kristol also knew that the competitive, entrepreneurial economy Friedman and Hayek posited as the source of freedom was a mere fantasy. Capitalism had long since become a system in which large corporations, not small producers, dominated the market - those anonymous and unknowable laws of supply and demand which once made all producers equally subject to the discipline of market forces had been supplanted by the visible hand of modern management: "There is little doubt that the idea of a (free market,' in the era of large corporations, is not quite the original capitalist idea." Some producers had more market power than, others: some persons (and this is how corporations are legally designated) were more equal than others. So everyone was not "free to choose," as Friedman would have it, simply because he or she inhabited a market society. Corporate capitalism remained a moral problem. For in "its concentration of assets and power-power to make economic decisions affecting the lives of tens of thousands of citizens - it seems to create a dangerous disharmony between the economic system and the political." P11 'The World Turned Inside Out' James Livingston



It's alway remarkable, midcan, how you start out in one direction--"You sincerely know people who are dependent on government? You do?"--and then contradict yourself--"The only people I know who are dependent on government are the politicians, the military, civil service, and wealthy corporations who rely on government projects."

Yes, all those people are dependent on government. And then there's the 12,800,000 (http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/) on welfare.

Whose wealth is spent on the goods and services of the rich.

Best government money can buy.


And then to criticize conservatives you quote someone on Kristol--Irvin, the grandfather of neoconservatism, neoconservatives who largely consist of ex-communists, ex-Trotskyites, ex-liberals mugged by reality but who still persue liberal policy domestically.

Quote someone who thinks Friedman and Hayek argued any where near the same thing.

Quote someone who is markedly a Marxist.

[Chris]

The Tea Party marginalized themselves through their inability to shut up the loonies and the RNC general allowed everyone to assume that any creep speaking out was a Tea Party member.

The brand is done.


Yes, because the tea parties are decentralized, bottom up, anarchy and as such cannot control loonies and the RNC nor the DNC.

I don't think we're done.

[Libhater]

The establishment of both parties are two sides of the same coin. The people who fail to see that are fools.

Let this fool ask you a question: You keep saying that both parties are corrupt and that they're one in the same. Besides the obvious differences
between the two in policy implementation and ideology, could you give an example or two where they're sleeping in the same bed of corruption?
I understand that the Republican party of late does have its fair share of feckless RINOs screwing up the works, but to paint the entire party with
that wide brush you use seems to be a tad disingenuous.

[Chris]

Let this fool ask you a question: You keep saying that both parties are corrupt and that they're one in the same. Besides the obvious differences
between the two in policy implementation and ideology, could you give an example or two where they're sleeping in the same bed of corruption?
I understand that the Republican party of late does have its fair share of feckless RINOs screwing up the works, but to paint the entire party with
that wide brush you use seems to be a tad disingenuous.


Tom Delay and K Street.

[Spectre]

The Tea Party marginalized themselves through their inability to shut up the loonies and the RNC general allowed everyone to assume that any creep speaking out was a Tea Party member.

The brand is done.

Actually, what I love about the Tea Party is its demonstrated ability to adapt and learn from mistakes.

The Todd Akin and Christine O'Donnell episodes were unfortunate instances, but they have not been repeated. And whenever a bunch of LaRouchies try to crash a rally they always kick them out.

[Peter1469]

Let this fool ask you a question: You keep saying that both parties are corrupt and that they're one in the same. Besides the obvious differences
between the two in policy implementation and ideology, could you give an example or two where they're sleeping in the same bed of corruption?
I understand that the Republican party of late does have its fair share of feckless RINOs screwing up the works, but to paint the entire party with
that wide brush you use seems to be a tad disingenuous.

Chris beat me to it. Big business has corrupted both of the establishment parties. And take note: the platforms of each party are different. The votes often are not. Obamacare is an anomaly.

[Libhater]

Chris beat me to it. Big business has corrupted both of the establishment parties. And take note: the platforms of each party are different. The votes often are not. Obamacare is an anomaly.

Concerning the Tom Delay K Street issue, trade associates there were ordered to do three things:

1) Refuse to hire Democrats
2) hire only deserving Republicans
3) Contribute heavily to Republican coffers

I don't see where any of that is a bad thing in our world of politics, do you?
Now its quite a different story when the liberal team has IRS officials
targeting Republican outfits to deny them their due right for tax exemption.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/01/13/3188/k-street-project/

[Peter1469]

Concerning the Tom Delay K Street issue, trade associates there were ordered to do three things:

1) Refuse to hire Democrats
2) hire only deserving Republicans
3) Contribute heavily to Republican coffers

I don't see where any of that is a bad thing in our world of politics, do you?
Now its quite a different story when the liberal team has IRS officials
targeting Republican outfits to deny them their due right for tax exemption.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/01/13/3188/k-street-project/

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the establishments of both parties are two sides of the same core.

Corrupt to the core. Evil. I don't stand with them.

[Libhater]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the establishments of both parties are two sides of the same core.

Corrupt to the core. Evil. I don't stand with them.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

You know, Richard Nixon isn't around any longer.

Most if not all the political corruption these daze are from the hands of democraps. If you get the time you might
want to read Michelle Malkin's book "Culture of Corruption" to see where and to whom we shall assign this corruption.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2014/03/28/a-whole-lotta-democratic-corruption-going-on-n1815797/page/full

[Spectre]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the establishments of both parties are two sides of the same core.

Corrupt to the core. Evil. I don't stand with them.

Sadly, if you do that, you stand alone, and you have taken yourself out of the picture. Now things will be done to you rather than you, through your party, having a centre of resistance and action.

There is no meaningful political action without a political party to ACT THROUGH. Without one you are helpless.

You don't like your party? Get together with like-minded people and CHANGE it.

[Peter1469]

I know that I stand alone and have no real voice in politics. But I have standards.


Sadly, if you do that, you stand alone, and you have taken yourself out of the picture. Now things will be done to you rather than you, through your party, having a centre of resistance and action.

There is no meaningful political action without a political party to ACT THROUGH. Without one you are helpless.

You don't like your party? Get together with like-minded people and CHANGE it.

[Spectre]

I know that I stand alone and have no real voice in politics. But I have standards.

In politics you have to give up purity and do what you can, when you can. I'm not looking for perfection, I know in htis world it doesn't exist. But I'll take 25% now, 25% 8 years from now, and another 25% in 8 years after that. I know we can't get it all all at once, but we can move the ball forward, one down at a time. Eventually we'll score the touchdown.

[Peter1469]

I use to think that way.


In politics you have to give up purity and do what you can, when you can. I'm not looking for perfection, I know in htis world it doesn't exist. But I'll take 25% now, 25% 8 years from now, and another 25% in 8 years after that. I know we can't get it all all at once, but we can move the ball forward, one down at a time. Eventually we'll score the touchdown.

[Mainecoons]

He has a point. That is how the progressives took over America and now how they are destroying it one step at a time.

Like Hitler--first the media and the schools, then the government mechanism, finally the government itself.

[Don]

The establishment of both parties are two sides of the same coin. The people who fail to see that are fools.

Exactly right. The problem with the so called "Tea Party" as I see it is confusion. Confusion on the part of people who claim they are "tea partiers" and confusion by the general public of who they are. There are too many who claim to be when its so obvious they are not. The "Tea Party" came out at about the same time as the well publicized "Town Hall meetings." Much of the general public got the impression that those old people standing up and shaking their fists and demanding that the government "keep its hands off our social security and medicare" were "Tea Partiers" who stood for less government. Guys like Sean Hannity who flies under the umbrella of the "Tea Party" but was right there with the rest of the establishment smearing Ron Paul who epitomizes what the Tea Party is truly about. When real Tea Party people confronted him about it he ran away like a coward. Then we have phoney "Tea Partiers" like Ben Sasse from Nebraska who talk the talk but won't walk the walk. People have got to stop listening to the rhetoric and start researching their past. If a person has been a big government type in the past most likely he will be in the future. How can people be so stupid?

[Spectre]

He has a point. That is how the progressives took over America and now how they are destroying it one step at a time.

Like Hitler--first the media and the schools, then the government mechanism, finally the government itself.

My thinking here is based DIRECTLY on how progressivism has slowly infiltrated and absorbed the general culture. THAT'S what we have to replicate, the lesson we have to absorb and apply.

[Peter1469]

My thinking here is based DIRECTLY on how progressivism has slowly infiltrated and absorbed the general culture. THAT'S what we have to replicate, the lesson we have to absorb and apply.

It is more easy to infiltrate the culture with promises of free handouts from the General Treasury, than it is to infiltrate culture with a message of self-reliance and individualism. Once the progressives crash the economy, our message will become attractive. Those that cling to waiting for the handouts will die.

[Don]

Chris beat me to it. Big business has corrupted both of the establishment parties. And take note: the platforms of each party are different. The votes often are not. Obamacare is an anomaly.

I think it was George Wallace in 1968 who said "The Republicans get all the Rhetoric, the Democrats get all the action."He also said "You can take all the Democratic candidates for President and all the Republican candidates for President. Put them in a sack and shake them up. Take the first one that falls out, grab him by the nape of the neck, and put him right back in the sack. Because there is not a dime's worth of difference in any of them."

[Libhater]

Exactly right. The problem with the so called "Tea Party" as I see it is confusion. Confusion on the part of people who claim they are "tea partiers" and confusion by the general public of who they are. There are too many who claim to be when its so obvious they are not. The "Tea Party" came out at about the same time as the well publicized "Town Hall meetings." Much of the general public got the impression that those old people standing up and shaking their fists and demanding that the government "keep its hands off our social security and medicare" were "Tea Partiers" who stood for less government. Guys like Sean Hannity who flies under the umbrella of the "Tea Party" but was right there with the rest of the establishment smearing Ron Paul who epitomizes what the Tea Party is truly about. When real Tea Party people confronted him about it he ran away like a coward. Then we have phoney "Tea Partiers" like Ben Sasse from Nebraska who talk the talk but won't walk the walk. People have got to stop listening to the rhetoric and start researching their past. If a person has been a big government type in the past most likely he will be in the future. How can people be so stupid?

I can't see or understand where you're coming from. I said earlier that there are a few remaining leftover big govt RINOs in the Republican Party like a
John McCain and a Mitch McConnell, but for the most part this new class of Republicans are solidly behind the Tea Party and their agenda. People like
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and even a Marco Rubio minus his shaky stance on illegal amnesty. So I don't see how you can call these people big govt
types when they support the Tea Party message of smaller govt intrusion into our lives. Btw, all of the aforementioned are pro Constitution as well.

[Don]

I can't see or understand where you're coming from. I said earlier that there are a few remaining leftover big govt RINOs in the Republican Party like a
John McCain and a Mitch McConnell, but for the most part this new class of Republicans are solidly behind the Tea Party and their agenda. People like
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and even a Marco Rubio minus his shaky stance on illegal amnesty. So I don't see how you can call these people big govt
types when they support the Tea Party message of smaller govt intrusion into our lives. Btw, all of the aforementioned are pro Constitution as well.

I agree with you about Cruz, Lee and Paul.

[Peter1469]

I was at a bar function with some high level democratic operatives. They were joking about this and said the reason they picked the dems over the GOP was because they had better parties. More drugs and prettier women.


I think it was George Wallace in 1968 who said "The Republicans get all the Rhetoric, the Democrats get all the action."He also said "You can take all the Democratic candidates for President and all the Republican candidates for President. Put them in a sack and shake them up. Take the first one that falls out, grab him by the nape of the neck, and put him right back in the sack. Because there is not a dime's worth of difference in any of them."