Last updated on 2013.10.13
Robert Reich appears to be reading the same columns as I am. He sees Republicans using the "Weapon of Mass Cynicism" to undermine faith in government and destroy our greatest social policy acheivements:
Times are tough again, but the Weapon of Mass Cynicism has convinced most Americans they can't rely on government to help them out now. The nation is even entertaining the possibility of cutting Medicare and Medicaid, college aid, food stamps, Head Start. Perry calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and many are ready to believe him.
But if we can't trust government at a time like this, whom can we trust? Corporations? Wall Street? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?
Or is each of us now simply on our own? [Robert Reich, "The Republican Weapon of Mass Cynicism," blog, 2011.09.15]
We are most definitely not on our own, not in a civil society. We cannot be. Government is the only entity which can carry out and be held accountable to the will of the people.
Perhaps related: Ezra Klein effectively dismantles one weak argument against the 2009 government stimulus effort. Apparently those who want us to believe the stimulus was a government failure aren't looking at the fact that everyone, including private-sector analysts, underestimated the depth of the recession when the Obama Administration and Congress put the stimulus together.
Also related: A new paper finds Congress dominated by lawyers, business people, and (relatively new entrant!) career politicians. Farm owners also remain surpringly consistent in their proportion of Capitol seats over a century of decline in rural population. It would be harder to be cynical about Congress if it included more of us.
Why shouldn't the American people be cynical about the government?
If something went right with the economy, the other party might be able to take credit. They don't want that to happen. This applies to both parties.
Here's what is going on Cory. Same thing as was going on in 1964, and for years before that. It's back, with a vengeance and is the driving force behind the Tea Party, which in turn has, by default, become the driving force behind the GOP of late. Our "sane" friends on the other side of the aisle need to wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe this will help:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
"undermine faith in government and destroy our greatest social policy acheivements"
There goes Cory promoting the government's establishment of a New Age theocracy. And Fleming providing support with personal attacks. Last week Fleming whined about far less coming from me, as he bailed out.
Sibby, you should run that article out on a printer and distribute it to everyone you've talked to in the last year along with an apology. Then, you should learn to meditate.
"Then, you should learn to meditate." I am not into New Age meditations. Too much Eastern Mysticism in that.
Okay, skip step two then and just do step one. It will make you feel better.
From Bill's link:
"Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content."
So true, that is how so many on the left and the right believe lies...too much charisma. But this 1964 piece is way out of date. Quigley's work came out in 1966, and that provided the smoking gun to validate many of the facts that the conspiracy historians had suspected. Bill, have your read Tragedy and Hope? How about Scarlet and the Beast (2007)? Again, the Hofstadter 1964 piece is way out of date. So much more stuff has been exposed.
Bill,
Thanks for linking to the Hofstadter article; it's truly a classic.
Steve,
You have frequently posted about government being the root of all evil. I'm assuming that you want some form of anarchy. Nozick couldn't convince me that an anarchy could producet he necessary social capital to form a workalble social contract. Likewise, most modern libertarians have been rather unconvincing when they try to explain why government coercian is materially worse than the corporate coercian that dominates our lives now.
I'll give you a shot. Why is government so much more evil than the corparate structure we now have? Under anarchy, what will be done to insure a social safety net for times like we are going through?
If it's out of date, Steve, why are you still making the exact same arguments?
The truth doesn't go out of date, Sibby. You of all people should know that, right?
"Steve, why are you still making the exact same arguments?"
Bill, I am no longer saying the Communists are trying to destroy Capitalism. And that is what the conspiracy theory is suppose to be saying.
LK, I am not advocating anarchy. I am not as much against government as I am against those who are running it. Right now the wealthy capitalists are controlling in. Implementing Communism/Socialism only gives them what they want...more power. Again, I am not making the "exact same arguments" as before. If I was, then Bill would ask me to apologize to more than a year's worth of people who I have spoken too.
Okay, so you've swappped out a few bogie men, Steve. The essence of the argument (paranoia) is still the same. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, guess what? It's a duck.
Bill, so what am I paranoid about? And why did you not answer my previous questions? Paranoid or what?
Masons, Bilderbergers, New Age whatever... maybe people who do rational thinking?... I don't know, tell us, Sibby, what is it you are most afraid of? And more to the point, what is it you want us to be afraid of? And why is it always about being afraid?
So Bill, do you want to eliminate this thought by calling it paranoid:
The infiltration of society is a little tougher. The quickest way would be to use military force. But, as already discussed, this strategy would have some major negatives. No, the trick here is to disguise the true intent. To pull this off, society has to believe that lenders are benevolent. They also have to believe that their government is not only benevolent, but also competent. (Hey, quit laughing. I never said society was very smart!) For instance, as a reaction to the greatest financial debacle since the Great Depression, a push for financial ‘reform’ in the US was undertaken. The committee assigned to write the new legislation was spearheaded by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. These men have been in charge of overseeing financial regulations for years. The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with the explosion of derivative trading and the real estate bubble rests squarely at their feet. Allowing them to author more financial regulation is like hiring the Skipper and Gilligan for a three hour tour!
http://www.newworldorderwar.com/the-coming-depression-in-america-the-facts/
Yeah, there is stuff at that link that are flat wrong. So go ahead an use those wrongs to counter the things that are right, in the name of paranoia. So much for rejecting absolutism by the left.
"Masons, Bilderbergers, New Age whatever… maybe people who do rational thinking?"
So Bill: Mason, Bilderbergers, New Agers and rational thinkers does not exist? That is why I am paranoid? And again, why have you not answered my questions?
Bill, so would a rational thinker believe that Reich, Heidelberger, and Fleming are paranoid of the Tea Party?
And Bill, you also trashed me last week on my position on food stamps. The link from mu previous comment says this:
Poor education and bouts of incarceration lead to impoverishment. Give them a big TV and sporty car to drive, and the impoverished won’t rebel against the power. Real pay in the US is declining and the price of education is escalating. 40 million Americans rely on the government for food assistance via food stamps. The ‘food stamps’ are actually debit cards issued by JP Morgan bank. Human suffering profits the banks.
"And why did you not answer my previous questions?"
I don't recall not answering any questions, Steve. But it's possible. If I don't have an answer, I usually just say "I don't know." I also don't answer loaded or paradoxical questions that can't be answered. No point.
You said poor people are all on food stamps, Steve. That is false. Why would it be "trashing" you to challenge you on a falsehood?
"You said poor people are all on food stamps, Steve."
I actually said:
" The poor don’t buy food, they use food stamps."
https://madvilletimes.com/2011/09/nbp-dems-gop-indies-oppose-sales-tax-hike/#comment-32012
I did not say "all" Bill. Look at the federal income limits on food stamps. You can still buy cigarettes, cell phones, rock concert tickets...etc.
Here are the questions I asked:
Bill, have your read Tragedy and Hope? How about Scarlet and the Beast (2007)?
Simple yes or no questions. Either you read them or not.
No and no. Have not read either.
"Have not read either."
Then you will not understand how the information at your link, while very interesting, is very out dated.
Bill, I don't mean that as a personal knock. The point is that the research as been taken to a much higher level. Many have the current role of the Illuminati off base.
I also learned that the role of many of our founders were more Masonic than Christian. That knowledge has changed my position on the nature of America's founding from less than a year ago.
Steve, the first book you mentioned was written at the same time I think. Mid 1960's. The second one looks like it might be a little "out-there." In any case, the recency of a publication doesn't necessarily have anything to do with veracity, does it Sibby?
It was written 2 years later. It confirmed many of the conspiracy issues, by filled in some of the secrets. What do you base the "out there" on? What do you base "veracity" on?
Well, first, I can't find anything on the scholarship of the author, John Daniel, Sibby. What can you tell me about him? What are his credentials?
Second, I have read quite a bit on the Masons from other sources, and the information in Daniel's book seems not to square with what I've already learned. Not that Daniel is wrong, but how would I know?
And finally, there's this PDF, and I'm sorry Sibby, but it just looks "out there" to me. Most of the things I've tried to read that are laid out and typeset like that have been pretty crack pot stuff. Not good scholarship.
http://www.scarletandthebeast.com/Scarlet%20and%20the%20Beast%20Sample.pdf
"And finally, there’s this PDF, and I’m sorry Sibby, but it just looks “out there†to me."
Bill,
I was hoping for some substantive "out there". And there is. The question...is the stuff the truth or not...if not the truth, then what is the proof on the false stuff. I can tell you that there is opinion, but there is a ton of research that I am currently vetting to support the opinions. The New Age stuff seems to hold water.
Yes, there is stuff that counters other stuff that I have read, but this guy has much more backup for his points. And he does admit when he is guessing based on "rational thinking".
I don't think John Daniel is his real name. He seems to be as secret as the secret societies he has researched.
Well, obviously, I've not read it Steve. So I don't have much substance to offer. Sorry.
I am curious as to why you recommended the book, Sib. Sounds like you don't think much of it either.
"so would a rational thinker believe that Reich, Heidelberger, and Fleming are paranoid of the Tea Party?"
I cannot presume to answer for Messrs. Reich, Heidelberger, or Fleming, but my own answer, in the younguns' vernacular, is "Damn Skippy" I'm paranoid about the Tea Party. (look it up at urbandictionary.com)
First, nearly every member I've met and and everything I've read seems to confuse rage for passion. Rage is a passion but it's neither constructive nor healthy. On another thread, several people mused about the possibility of an upcoming revolution. Given the Tea Party, rage, a Tea Party led revolution would make the French Revolution's Reign of Terror look like, (at the risk of doing a really bad pun/analogy) a child's tea party.
Second, I haven't seen a national Tea Party leader who has articulated a workable solution to the problems they have diagnosed. I certainly have not seen a Tea Party leader with the intellectual heft to confront the institutional problems confronting both the public and private sectors. The idea that the solutions to the wealth gap or corporate dominance of our political institutions are simple is tempting but deluded. Even if the solutions are simple, they will not be easy. Most Tea Party leader I have heard don't understand nuance enough to note the difference.
Third, I believe that a sizable element of the Tea Party leadership is an astroturf front for the Koch brothers and others of their ilk.
In short, I'm all for Lockean government in principle, but a Tea Party world will return us to a Hobbesian state of nature that will ensure that my children's lives and the lives of any grandchildren I might have will indeed be "nasty, brutish, and short."
Thanks, LK.
Right, LK, just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean the Tea Party's not out to get us. ;^)
Thank you for the sharp responses, Leo and Bill. Steve, to accuse me of advocating New Age theocracy is to paste together provocative yet meaningless and irrelevant words. I really do believe that government, which is us, can be benevolent and competent. In stating that belief, I neither consciously plot nor willfully enable the establishment of any specific authoritarian regime. If any of the fellow citizens who claim to work with me in support of democracy and justice turned out to be New Age theocrats, I would denounce and ridicule them.
(deep breath)
Now, that said, please consider how absurd it would sound if I were running for the county commission or the state legislature and I made the above statement from the stump. 99.9% of my fellow citizens would see little meaning in either Steve's accusation or my taking time to rebut it. They'd want to know how much their taxes would be, how much we're going to pay our teachers, and when the roads would get fixed.
"If any of the fellow citizens who claim to work with me in support of democracy and justice turned out to be New Age theocrats, I would denounce and ridicule them."
Cory, just trying to warn you, but sadly you refuse to listen. You are promoting the agenda of those who are creating, or perhaps has created, a New Age theocracy. The environmental movement religious base is pantheism and/or panentheism. They are pushing their agenda on us, all in the name of global warming as Thou shall worship Mother Nature and the sun.
And LK, it is very interesting to read the reaction of those who have Bill Fleming's logic reflected back at them. One of the problems created by the Theocracy is the hatred between factions. Seems to be what we call politics today. That is why your mention of the French Revolution is very important and deserves further discussion. How do you go from freedom with "Republics" to communism. Research the tie to the Russian Revolution. Hint...Enlightenment.
I also appreciate your Lockean vs Hobbesian point.
"I am curious as to why you recommended the book, Sib. Sounds like you don’t think much of it either."
Bill, it is not that I don't think much of it, I do think much about its content. I do not think it wise to ignore his research. I just not sure how much of it is true. If things are what he has concluded, then our discussions are way off of the points that should be in the main of discussion and debate. It could very well be that the wealthy ruling class are keeping us from having those kind of discussions on a mainstream level.
Sibby, xenophobia is not a recent human development. It is as ancient as our species itself. If you're interested in a scientific read, see Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee." If you want more biblical examples, see the story of Cain and Able. Then note how the Israelites moved into the land of Canaan. There's nothing "New Age" about it. You should probably abandon that line of argument. It makes it difficult to take you seriously,
"There’s nothing “New Age†about it."
Bill, I agree with your point (I disagree with linking this to xenophia, unless that is what your calling those afraid of the Tea Party) , but I have to use the world's labels in order to discuss it. Yes, there is nothing new about Postmodernism.
And to further answer you question about why I recommended reading Scarlet and the Beast, I believe LK's comments provide that justification.
And you into scientific reading, check out Dawin's position on the dark-skinned relative to his theory of evolution. I hope that is not what the Third Chimpanzee is about. If so, then I would suggest Ken Ham's One Blood.
"It could very well be that the wealthy ruling class are keeping us from having those kind of discussions on a mainstream level."
What kind of discussions are you talking about, Sibby?
Let's have one right here, right now, and see if the ruling class comes and busts our chops... maybe blows up our computers or something.
Maybe Cory will open up a thread for us, so we can talk about all the stuff you think we're not being allowed to talk about and get it off your chest.
We could call it "The Sibbulation" or something.
[CAH: I'll leave it to Sibby to start that thread.]
Here's a summary of "The Third Chimpanzee." I highly recommend it, along with all of Diamond's other books. It will balance out your studies, Sibby. And let's just say I think Diamond is a lot more on target than "John Daniel" is (whoever he is):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee
Sorry Bill, but I have found wikipedia to be unreliable. And that is after using it. No offense to Cory, but I do not believe blogs are examples of "mainstream"discussions. I am surprised that you got defensive in regard to the ruling class.
A perfect example of the government establishing its New Age Pagan Theocracy is the exclusive promotion of evolution in our public schools. Sadly the indoctrinated don't learn about Darwin's racism, and they worship him as a god as they accuse others of being racists.
Okay, there are other good reviews of the book, Sibby. Just google it.
I'm not defensive about the "ruling class" I just look at the situation differently than you do. I don't think they are censoring anything.
And I don't worship Darwin or think of him as a god. In fact, I don't know a single person who does, and I know a lot of scientists and philosophers, many of whom are (or at one time, were) teachers.
Sibby, it's important to remember that science is all about doubt, even in the face of evidence, whereas religion is all about faith in the absence of evidence.
They are two completely different disciplines and should be taught in separate classes, because one involves rational thinking and the other does not.
Just as you wouldn't teach literary fiction or poetry in a math class, so to would you not teach religion in a science class. It's more appropriate in a history class or maybe social studies, or philosophy perhaps.
Maybe even art. But in any case, religion isn't science.
Bill, since you find John Daniel to be too deep, then take by other recommendation. This should interest you:
Toynbee was one of those individuals pursuing Cecil Rhodes' "scheme to take the government of the whole world!" His paper (quoted from above) was reprinted in the November 1931 edition of International Affairs, the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, an outgrowth of the semi-secret Round Table Groups, formed between 1908 and 1913 to further Rhodes' plan for an elite to dominate the world. According to Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, Professor Carroll Quigley, in Tragedy and Hope (1966), the elite who formed the Round Table Groups "in 1919 founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs…. Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations.)"
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7562
This excerpt correctly describes how capitalists are using socialists, or in other words, Big Government makes for Big Business:
Concerning the preparation of an elite to dominate the world, Paul Mantoux wrote in the Foreword of International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931) by John Eugene Harley: "How can a well-prepared elite be raised throughout the world to spread its influence over the masses, who can then support them in their turn? …We must be prepared to integrate Scientific Capitalism with the principle of Scientific Socialism….
"But in any case, religion isn’t science."
There is plenty of scientific basis to Creationism that puts to doubt Darwin's Theory of evolution. But as I said, Darwin is a god among the intellectual scientific elite, that is in who they have placed their faith.
The problem with your reasoning, steve is that you are setting up a "false dichotomy." It's a common fallacy in reasoning and intellectual discourse.
You argue that the scientist believes in his conclusions the way religious people believe in dogma but that is not the case. If anything, scientists believe only in their process. They are eternal skeptics, and all their conclusions are subject to revision should something arise that disproves their theories. That is precisely why Einstein's ideas displaced Newton's, why the Quantum Theorists' ideas are displacing Einstein's, and why science is still looking for new questions, and [tentative] answers.
There are no absolutes in science, whereas religion is all about absolutes. That's the false dichotomy. The presumption that the two disciplines are in conflict when in fact, they are not.
If you ask a scientist how life began for example, he would say, "I don't know, let's see if we can find out."
A religious person would say, "Oh, that's easy, God did it."
"...since you find John Daniel to be too deep." Hardly. I find James Joyce to be too deep sometimes, Sibby, but not John Daniel. I have no problem reading anything Daniel says, at least insofar as I've examined him in a very cursory overview.
Now, what is it you want us to know, Sibby? That men have conspired to consolidate power and influence? Do you think that's new news?
"The problem with your reasoning, steve is that you are setting up a “false dichotomy.â€"
"But in any case, religion isn’t science."
"The presumption that the two disciplines are in conflict when in fact, they are not."
You made all both statements Bill. The conflict is this:
1) Is God above man. always.
2) Man can become a god too via spiritual evolution.
Bill, you can make a distinction between materialism and spiritualism, but I would not expect that from a monist. The common element is "evolutionary" philosophy. Darwin only narrowed it to biology.
"That men have conspired to consolidate power and influence? Do you think that’s new news?"
Bill, you have come a long ways from the position that only the paranoid would believe such conspiracies.
Yes, just because literature and math are two different disciplines, doesn't mean they are in conflict. Have you ever taken a logic course, Sibby, or one in "Critical Thinking?" I think it might help you with your process.
For ecample, the fact that men have conspired to consolidate power and influence is not a conspiracy theory, Sibby, it's history.
"...but I would not expect that from a monist." That is perhaps because you don't understand what monism is. Atheism either. Most atheists I know do not deny transcendent or ecstatic experience, or the sensing of the numinous. They just don't think there is anything supernatural about it.
"Yes, just because literature and math are two different disciplines, doesn’t mean they are in conflict."
But are we to assume the relationship between math and literature would be the same fro religion and science?
Glad you now understand that we on the right are describing history and not black helicopter conspiracies developed by the paranoid.
"...are we to assume the relationship between math and literature would be the same fro religion and science?" Roughly analogous, yes. Math is to literature as science is to religion. That's probably a better way to look at it than to presume that the two are in conflict.
The extreme left has black helicopter theories too, Sibby. And we are not without our goofy religious ideas as well. That's why you should be careful with your New Age accusations. Many on the left (myself and Cory, for example) don't fit the mold you're trying to cram us into. Fact is, I know very few people who do. So who do you want to believe — me and Cory whom you have met, or some goofball who puts a bubble over pictures of himself in his book and is probably using a fictitious name?
By the way, Sibby those Daniel books are pretty pricy. Did you buy all of them?
Bill, I have vetted the New Age research of Daniel's and I have come accross other evidence while researching the International education agenda being implemented by the UN via national "standards". And it is because I know you and Cory that I am troubled. New Age is the fastest growing worldview. I am simply putting out a warning. You can listen or ignore. That decision is yours and Cory's.
Okay, define "NewAge" for us then, Sibby. Perhaps you and I have differences on what the term means. In fact, I suspect that is the case. Specifically, I suspect that your definition is over-broad, and includes any world view that is not Evangelical Apocalyptic Protestant Christian. Please prove me wrong.
I found a link that gives much of the research that John Daniel used. Before you read it, be aware that this is a pro-New Age analysis as it ends with this:
"New Age has not traveled to the end of the road yet. It is reaching a stage of maturity in which wheat is being separated from the corn. Yet, it still comprises a broad spectrum of activities from the commercial rip-off to unselfish dedication to serve mankind spiritually. Many do not wish to be associated with the name because it reminds them of the turbulence associated with the uprising of the younger generation in the late sixties and the lamentable drug excrescences.
One may pray that the movement will sustain its original purity and raise high the spirit of new generations, giving it an immense vista of life and a purpose to live for."
This provides a current definition:
"New Age was primarily a movement amongst the younger generation in the late sixties that demanded to play a greater part in all aspects of society. Through the use of mind-expanding drugs a greater reality was being unfolded to them that called for other explanations than traditional religion could give. Its concepts of God and Love were too narrow to accommodate the overwhelming experiences they had on their trips. Transcendence, self-realisation, yoga, meditation, all part of existing traditions, were being rediscovered and practised.
Originally it had been given the name: the Age of Aquarius to signify the new era of spiritual enfoldment as foretold in astrology.
In the early seventies, when the movement was well on its way, the name New Age was adopted."
This should provide a warning to the Tea Party movement and its worship of the founding fathers:
"What became known as the New Age movement injected new life into almost forgotten traditions at a time that Christian faith had lost its meaning for the younger generation.
New Age's greatest growth has been in the United States. This is not surprising, as it was based on already existent, but dormant, religious/philosophical movements which had come to a head in the nineteenth century.
As we have seen Oriental religion and the European occult traditions had made a great impact on the intellectual elite of America in the nineteenth century . The second president John Adams(1767-1848) is known for his fascination with Oriental thought. He was a voracious reader of the translations of Eastern religious works.
The leaders who stood at the craddle of the birth of the nation were influenced by Masonic, Spiritualistic and Rosicrucian thought. "A New Order of the Age begins" proclaims the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. ight signatories of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, amongst whom Benjamin Franklin (see image) and George Washington, as were sixteen subsequent presidents."
Hope this helps Bill, but as you dig into it you will learn that "New Age" as influence on both sides of the political spectrum...both the right and the left, both parties, and both socialists and capitalists.
Sorry I forgot to provide a link to the last comment:
http://wichm.home.xs4all.nl/newageb.html
Okay, so Steve, are you saying that the Founding Fathers were basically a bunch of cosmic-consciousness seeking hippies who were before their time? Just kidding. I get what you are saying.
Now, if you would please, tell us whether or not you think the following people would be considered "NewAgers" and why:
1. Heraclitus
2. Baruch Spinoza
3. Albert Einstein
4. Mohandas Gandhi
5. Richard Dawkins
And finally, based on what you have been learning here, what should Barack Obama do on behalf of the American people when it comes to his U.N. Security Council vote on whether or not to recognize Palestine as having sovereign nation status? Should he vote yes? Or veto?
Perhaps Gandi could be put into the New Age spectrum, but the rest look more atheist. There is a difference, but usually the atheist end up supporting the New Agers.
If Obama wants to prevent America from being part of the Beast (perhaps what the New Agers are riding), then he should have America leave the UN and kick it off of our territory. That most likely will not happen, so we are stuck with the New Age Theocracy.
"Okay, so Steve, are you saying that the Founding Fathers were basically a bunch of cosmic-consciousness seeking hippies who were before their time? Just kidding."
Of course that is not exactly accurate, but it is closer to the truth than you would think at first glance. And certainly not all of the founders, and certainly not most of the colonists at the time.
Okay, I think I get what your definition is now, Steve. Thanks.
Bill,
Happy you were interested. Even though I often disagree with your positions, I always find you to be on top of available research.
New post from Robert Reich excoriates the race toward red state collapse.