Friends, don't miss my latest Newsmaker interview with Brian O'Neil. We cover Michael Cohen's incredible shrinking credibility, the Brexit chaos plaguing the U.K., AOC's absurd suggestion that having children in this day and age is morally irresponsible, the Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933, and the legacy of the liberation of Kuwait by American and coalition forces in February 1991. Check it out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsG0Rz8oUo&feature=youtu.be
Dr. Waddy: What strikes me is the chutzpah demonstrated by House Dems in disingenuously ascribing any credibility to Cohen. I agree with you and Rush that they do no other than simply to seek usable accusations which can be cynically expanded by the MSM in their relentless crusade to destroy our President and to intimidate any who dare to reprise his insolence. But to think that the real America cannot see their purposes is a very revealing sign of their contempt for us and the effect that disdain would have should they triumph.
ReplyDeleteAOC. She is naive and stupid, really. She is Bernie without fifty years of seasoning. She is an unexpected gift to us which may be as decisive as the rise of Donald Trump. Continuing, nay burgeoning, attention to her every pronunciamento is a public relations windfall for the real America which is the target of her juvenile ire.
But in her otherwise laughable comments on parenthood, of which she is, to my knowledge, bereft of experience, she is a true acolyte of Marx, either purposefully or, more likely, by reflexive and dreamy serendipity.
I think what raises her hackles is the unforgiveable burdens which children present. We all know that fundamental to Marxist "thought" is the certainty of conflict between oppressing and oppressed classes. They think it an essential dynamic in history. We know that Marxists blithely declare some classes exalted and some proscribed and that the proscribed are beyond human consideration. In accordance with this tradition AOC sees children as presenting an intolerable inconvenience to women (an exalted class) and proving themselves, thereby, to be consummate oppressors and by definition an excoriated class, though she might concede they do not mean to be so.
Since factors such as the provable continuing betterment of life on earth despite the catastrophic possible rise of one degree in the temperature of the good old earth are utterly subordinate to Marxist doctrine challenged only by ignorant bigots: surely, those perceptions obvious to the Infanta are to be challenged only by the lost.
I agree, Jack. The line on Cohen appears to be, "Oh yes, he's going to jail for lying, but when he trash-talks Trump, let's not be too hasty, huh?"
ReplyDeleteYour comment about AOC, kiddos, and Marx intrigues me. Are you aware of Marx's views on procreation? I assume he would have wanted the groaning proletariat to be fruitful... I wonder if he had any appreciation for demography.
Anyway, I think you may be mistaken that AOC would see children as a burden to women. It seems she sees them more as a burden to the ultimate mother: Mother Earth. She seems also to feel that life for the next generation will be sheer torture -- a completely valid assumption, if you believe that raising the ambient temperature by a couple of degrees constitutes "torture". But look at me: I'm trying to make sense of her ramblings. Why bother?
Dr. Waddy: I'll look up Marx's views on population.Since he advocated the rejection of traditional morality he might well have countenanced abortion. Surely AOC looks on the practice with great favor; perhaps it is to create "jobs" for abortionists and their publicists and apologists that she urges the end of procreation. And you are certainly right in that taking seriously any of her nonsensical "reasoning" at face value is degrading. It should be legally defined an actionable tort.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jack. I'm genuinely curious if Marx ever addressed the subject of procreation. Every communist regime has been lavishly supportive of abortion, true, but that might or might not reflect Marx's beliefs. The Left also often champions "reproductive freedom", i.e. the right to have as many babies as you want and have the government pick up the tab. Mixed messages?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Here is what I gleaned from a cursory scan of Service's Comrades! A History of World Communism and some subject searched on line sources. I would welcome criticism from those many who know more about Marx:
ReplyDeleteHe urged the abolishment of the family and traditional morality. He emphasized economic production at the expense of reproduction. He argued the need for entirely new social relations. He expressed a great deal of sympathy for working class women and lamented the case of a woman who could not get an abortion and who consequently committed suicide. He said reproduction was important but in a different form (presumably social,I suppose). He often supported women's demands for equality.
I was being half humorous when I presumed to interpret AOC's views but only half. She majored in Economics and International Relations at Boston U. (hardly Liberty U.) and probably got a good, toxic shot of Marxism there.
Let's just say it: Marx was full a' crap, history has completely discredited him! AOC is full of it too as her recent public fantasies would tend to show.
Yes, AOC's descent into madness continues apace. One wonders whether she is cut out for the role of leftist darling. It's not an easy gig, given the acidity of her own allies.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about Marx rings true. He wasn't an advocate of traditional family relations. We have to remember, though, that he lived in an era when sky-high fertility rates were assumed. Women had babies coming out of their ears. I doubt he ever contemplated the possibility that women would cease to procreate, or that procreation itself would be stigmatized.
Dr. Waddy: Re: Marx - that's very plausible. But its worth noting that the ancient Egyptians knew about birth control (devices have been found in their tombs) and Marx did know about abortion. In reading about Stalin I found no references to infanticide (aside, of course, from the "collaterol damage"of his Marx inspired Ukraine famine). I don't know if Marx was sociopathic; I do think that he pursued a detached intellectual thought process in the rarified setting of the British Library reading room which amounted to 2+2=5. No matter how rigorously reasoned his views, we now know them to be the source of incalculable evil in practice. That's been proven 100 million times over. We know that many modern Marxists maintain that his wisdom was crudely applied and that it deserves another chance. That's powerful NONSENSE!
ReplyDelete