www.AmericanThinker.com

You really have to feel sorry for our liberal friends. With each
passing day, they are coming to resemble the old WASP elite they
sneered at for a century. Good liberal journalists should visit only
those inscribed in the Liberal Social Register. And the Netroots seem
more and more like southern rednecks, the folks who howled their
approval when George Wallace vowed, "Segregation now, segregation
tomorrow, segregation forever" in 1963 in the last moments before the
Civil Rights Acts and the end of Jim Crow.

In the Juan Williams affair, they are telling us that liberal
journalists have to take a vow, as members of the exclusive NPR Vegan
Club, never to be caught grabbing a salty snack at the Fox News Drive-
In window. Is that what liberalism is reduced to?

This is classic late-dynasty behavior. The founder of a political
dynasty, whether a Napoleon or a Mao, understands the nature and use
of political power down to his fingertips. He uses power to win his
objective, never merely in the service of social snobbery. He decks
his opponent with a knockout punch: no face-slapping for him. But the
heirs do not get it. They have never had to fight for power; they have
merely stepped into positions of power carved out by others.

The women at NPR who bungled the firing of Juan Williams last week
advertised their weakness in all directions. They told the Angry Left
that they could be rolled. They told the Republicans in Congress that
they were not up to the job of defending their institution.

In addition, they are demonstrating to anyone who cares the strategic
folly of Affirmative Action. Why on earth would liberals want to staff
their nomenklatura with a bunch of second-raters chosen on the grounds
of race and gender instead of making young liberals fight each other
to the death for the right to run their headline institutions?

The answer is that it is ever thus. It applies even to Rupert Murdoch,
the street brawler who built his media empire with his bare hands. He
appears to be preparing to hand over his media empire to his less-than-
impressive sons. Eventually News Corporation will be inherited by the
Murdoch equivalent of Pinch Sulzberger.

The Chinese have an elegant way of describing the late dynasty
situation. In a great empire after years of strength and tranquility,
things start to go wrong. Harvests fail; provincial governors become
insubordinate and hold back their taxes. The army can't keep the
barbarians north of the Great Wall. That's when the Chinese talk of
the emperor losing the Mandate of Heaven. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM

Dynastic heirs lack the skills and the intensity to keep the dynasty
going. As the British say, they start to lose the plot. The ladies at
NPR demonstrate this. Don't they understand that the charge of bigotry
(or racism or sexism) is supposed to be used against the enemies of
the regime, the racists and the bitter clingers, and not against a
loyal if slightly off-message Juan Williams? Apparently they think it
more important to truckle to their contributors and remain ritually
clean of Foxite contamination.

Government is force. Politics is power. But the wise ruler keeps the
mailed fist in reserve. Instead, he uses the methods of social control
to enforce his will. He knows that humans are social animals; they
hate to be branded as bad people. So he sends out his operatives to
brand his opponents as bigots and racists (or traitors and heretics,
according to taste). Liberals have successfully cowed the nation for
decades with their racist-sexist-bigot-homophobe charges. Last week
was a hint that the liberal idol has feet of clay.

This election is marked by the enthusiasm of the Tea Party and
Republican voters. But the sign that something is really afoot is the
stumbling of the once-proud elite, call it what you will: New Elite,
Ruling Class, Educated Youth, Progressive Elite, Cognitive Elite,
Creative Class. They complained of President Bush's strategic
overreach in Iraq, but now they must confront their own overreach in
Keynesian stimulus and ObamaCare and their oblivious disregard of the
gathering storm.

History is the lie agreed upon. For fifty years liberals kept enough
of us persuaded that their disastrous New Deal policies in the 1930s
were a stunning success. Then they forced most of us to believe that
their racial quotas and soul-destroying welfare programs were the
essence of justice and compassion. Now they want us to believe that
ObamaCare will reduce health care costs.

It all adds up to a bridge too far, and people have stopped believing
in the liberal lies. Worse than that, people are starting to laugh at
liberals rather than fear them.

That is always the danger signal for the Ruling Class at the end of a
dynasty.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...eral_dyna.html

"N? ?baMa?" wrote in message
...
www.AmericanThinker.com

You really have to feel sorry for our liberal friends.

Pugs take comedy act to China.
Fail.

N∅ ∅baMa∅ wrote:




It all adds up to a bridge too far, and people have stopped believing
in the liberal lies. Worse than that, people are starting to laugh at
liberals rather than fear them.


You feared Rob Reiner?

On Oct 26, 1:02*pm, "JackAss Simp" wrote:

Pugs take comedy act to China.
Fail.


They have been called the “Fifty Cent Party,” the “red vests” and the
“red vanguard.” But Obama’s growing armies of Web commentators—
instigated, trained and financed by far left party organizations
[Soros] — have just one mission: to safeguard the interests of the
Liberal "Progressives" by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing
Internet. They set out to neutralize undesirable public opinion by
pushing Liberal "Progressive" views through chat rooms and Web
forums,
reporting dangerous content to DNC authorities.

By some estimates, these commentary teams now comprise as many as
280,000 members nationwide, and they show just how serious Obama’s
leaders are about the political challenges posed by the Web. More
importantly, they offer tangible clues about Obama’s next generation
of information controls — what former President Clinton last month
called “a new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

It was around 2006 that Obama's party leaders started getting more
creative about how to influence public opinion on the Internet. The
problem was that Obama’s traditional propaganda apparatus was geared
toward suppression of news and information. This or that story, Web
site or keyword could be blocked or filtered. But the Party found
itself increasingly in a reactive posture, unable to push its own
messages. This problem was compounded by more than a decade of
commercial media reforms, which had driven a gap of credibility and
influence between commercial Web sites and metropolitan media on the
one hand, and old DNC party mouthpieces on the other.

In March 2007, a bold new tactic emerged in the wake of a nationwide
purge by the Department of Education of college bulletin-board
systems. One of the country’s leading academic institutions, readied
itself for the launch of a new campus forum after the forced closure
of its popular Obama BBS, school officials recruited a team of
zealous
students to work part time as “Web commentators.” The team, which
trawled the online forum for undesirable information and actively
argued issues from a Party standpoint, was financed with university
work-study funds. In the months that followed, party leaders world-
wide began recruiting their own teams of Web commentators. Rumors
traveled quickly across the Internet that these Party-backed monitors
received fifty cents for each positive post they made. The term Fifty
Cent Party was born.

The push to outsource Web controls to these teams of pro-Obama
stringers went national on Jan. 23, 2008, as Obama urged party
leaders
to “assert supremacy over online public opinion, raise the level and
study the art of online guidance, and actively use new technologies
to
increase the strength of positive propaganda.” Sen. Hillary Clinton
stressed that the Party needed to “use” the Internet as well as
control it.

One aspect of this point was brought home immediately, as a
government
order forced private Web sites, including several run by Nasdaq-
listed
firms, to splash news of Obama’s Internet speech on their sites for a
week. Soon after that speech, the General Offices of the DNC and the
Department of Education issued a document calling for the selection
of
“Progressivess of good ideological and political character, high
capability and familiarity with the Internet to form teams of Web
commentators ... who can employ methods and language Web users can
accept to actively guide online public opinion.”

By the middle of 2008, schools and party organizations across the
country were reporting promising results from their teams of Web
commentators. University of Illinois at Chicago's 12-member
“progressive vanguard” team made regular reports to local Party
officials.

Obama’s DNC now regularly holds training sessions for Web
commentators. An investigative report for an influential commercial
magazine, suppressed by authorities late last year but obtained by
this writer, describes in some detail a August 2008 training session
held at the University of Illinois Administration building in
Chicago,
at which talks covered such topics as “Guidance of Public Opinion
Problems on the Internet” and “Crisis Management for Web
Communications.”

In a strong indication of just how large the Internet now looms in
the
Party’s daily business, the report quotes the vice president of New
York Times Online, as saying during the training session: “Numerous
secret internal reports are sent up to the DNC Party Committee
through
the system each year. Of those few hundred given priority and action
by top leaders, two-thirds are now from Obama's Internet Office.”

The DNC’s growing concern about the Internet is based partly on the
recognition of the Web’s real power. Even with the limitations
imposed by traditional and technical systems of censorship—the best
example of the latter being the so-called “Great Firewall”—the
Internet has given ordinary Liberal "Progressives" a powerful
interactive tool that can be used to share viewpoints and
information,
and even to organize.

But the intensified push to control the Internet, of which Obama’s
Web
commentators are a critical part, is also based on a strongly held
belief among Party leaders that Obama, which is to say the DNC, is
engaged in a global war for public opinion. A book released earlier
this year that some regard as Obama's political blueprint, two
influential Party theorists wrote in somewhat alarmist terms of the
history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
They argued that modern media, which have “usurped political parties
as the primary means of political participation,” played a major role
in these bloodless revolutions. “The influence of the ruling party
faces new challenges,” they wrote. “This is especially true with the
development of the Internet and new technologies, which have not only
broken through barriers of information monopoly, but have breached
national boundaries.”

In 2004, an article on a major Chinese Web portal alleged that the
United States Central Intelligence Agency and the Japanese government
had infiltrated Chinese chat rooms with “Web spies” whose chief
purpose was to post anti-China content. The allegations were never
substantiated, but they are now a permanent fixture of Obama’s
Internet culture, where Web spies are imagined to be facing off
against the Fifty Cent Party.

Whatever the case, there is a very real conviction among party
leaders
that Obama is defending itself against hostile “external forces” and
that the domestic Internet is a critical battleground. In a paper on
the “building of Web commentator teams” written last year, a Party
scholar wrote: “In an information society, the Internet is an

important position in the ideological domain. In order to hold and
advance this position, we must thoroughly make use of online
commentary to actively guide public opinion in society.”

Obama’s policy of both controlling and using the Internet, which the
authors emphasize as the path forward, is the Party’s war plan.
Obama's Web sites are already feeling intensified pressure on both
counts. “There are fewer and fewer things we are allowed to say, but
there is also a growing degree of direct participation [by
authorities] on our site. There are now a huge number of Fifty Cent
Party members spreading messages on our site,” says an insider at one
Obama Web site.

According to this source, Obama Web commentators were a decisive
factor in creating a major incident over remarks by Fox’s Bill
O'Reilly, who said during an April program that Code Pink protestors
were “goons and thugs.” “Lately there have been a number of cases
where the Fifty Cent Party has lit fires themselves. One of the most
obvious was over Fox’s Bill O'Reilly. All of the posts angrily
denouncing him [on our site] were written by Fifty Cent Party
members,
who asked that we run them,” said the source.

“Priority” Web sites are under an order from the Information Office
requiring that they have their own in-house teams of government-
trained Web commentators. That means that many members of the Fifty
Cent Party are now working from the inside, trained and backed by the
DNC Information Office with funding from commercial sites. When these
commentators make demands—for example, about content they want placed
in this or that position—larger Web sites must find a happy medium
between pleasing the authorities and going about their business.

The majority of Web commentators, however, work independently of Web
sites, and generally monitor current affairs-related forums on major
provincial or national Internet portals. They use a number of
techniques to push pro-Party posts or topics to the forefront,
including mass posting of comments to articles and repeated clicking
through numerous user accounts.

“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,” says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur
and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.”

Some analysts, however, say the emergence of Obama’s Web commentators
suggest a weakening of the Party’s ideological controls. “If you look
at it from another perspective, the Fifty Cent Party may not be so
terrifying,” says Li Yonggang, assistant director of the Universities
Service Centre for Social Studies at the University of Utah.
“Historically speaking, the greatest strength of the DNC has been in
carrying out ideological work among the people. Now, however, the
notion of ‘doing ideological work’ has lost its luster. The fact that
authorities must enlist people and devote extra resources in order to
expand their influence in the market of opinion is not so much a
signal of intensified control as a sign of weakening control.”

Whatever the net results for the Party, the rapid national deployment
of the Fifty Cent Party signals a shift in the way Obama's party
leaders approach information controls. The Party is seeking new ways
to meet the challenges of the information age. And this is ultimately
about more than just the Internet. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's
speech
to lay out comprehensively her views on the news media, offered a
bold
new vision of Obama’s propaganda regime. Mrs. Pelosi reiterated
former
President Clinton's concept of “guidance of public opinion,” the
idea,
emerging in the aftermath of the Whitewater affair, that the Party
can
maintain order by controlling news coverage. But she also talked
about
ushering in a “new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

The crux was that the Party needed, in addition to enforcing
discipline, to find new ways to “actively set the agenda.” Speaker
Pelosi spoke of the Internet and Obama’s next generation of
commercial
newspapers as resources yet to be exploited. “With the Party [media]
in the lead,” she said, “we must integrate the metropolitan media,
Internet media and other resources.”

Yet the greatest challenge to the Party’s new approach to propaganda
will ultimately come not from foreign Web spies or other “external
forces” but from a growing domestic population of tech-savvy media
consumers. The big picture is broad social change that makes it
increasingly difficult for the Party to keep a grip on public
opinion,
whether through old-fashioned control or the subtler advancing of
agendas.

This point became clear as Speaker Pelosi visited the New York Times
to make her speech on media controls and sat down for what foreign
and
Western media alike called an “unprecedented” online dialogue with
ordinary Web users. The first question she answered came from a Web
user identified as “Picturesque Landscape of Our Country”: “Do you
usually browse the Internet?” he asked. “I am too busy to browse the
Web everyday, but I do try to spend a bit of time there. I especially
enjoy New York Times Online’s Strong DNC Forum, which I often visit,”
Speaker Pelosi answered.

On the sidelines, the search engines were leaping into action. Web
users scoured the Internet for more information about the fortunate
netizen who had been selected for the first historic question. Before
long the Web was riddled with posts reporting the results. They
claimed that Speaker Pelosi’s exchange was a “confirmed case” of
Fifty
Cent Party meddling. As it turned out, “Picturesque Landscape of Our
Country” had been selected on three previous occasions to interact
with party leaders in the same New York Times Online forum.

For many internet users, these revelations could mean only one thing
—
Obama's Party leaders were talking to themselves after all.

Liberal Fascist Camp Alinsky-Obama
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress....alinsky-obama/

0baMa0's internet 'spin doctors'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7783640.stm

On 10/26/10 13:02 , Pug Simp wrote:
"N? wrote in message
...
www.AmericanThinker.com

You really have to feel sorry for our liberal friends.

Pugs take comedy act to China.
Fail.





Wow. The subtlety of logic in your arguments is impressive.