Yesterday Michael “midstream, milquetoast, mealy-mouthed middle-mongering” Medved attacked the CFR. No, I’m not kidding.
His “assault” was from the same angle Snohomish County’s doddering former conservative Bob “McCain will save us” Clark used in 2008. In warning us about the people who would warn us about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Clark said the CFR is a weak assemblage of nobodies; irrelevant, washed-up old men with no influence. (Not as dangerous, in Clark’s estimation, as Ron Paul’s grassroots Washington State Presidential Campaign.)
Medved was similarly dismissive of the vaunted Council. He suggested that imputing global intentions to the CFR was as silly as implying that the management of Best Western Hotels would take over the world. He offered, as evidence, that you can go to New York and visit the CFR’s modest headquarters building (where they employ 160 people full-time putting on 250/odd events a year). It’s only four stories high! Best Western has more impressive edifices in third world countries.
Medved is smarter than Clark. He would never attempt to deceive the ignorant with claims that can later be shown to factually ridiculous. He needs and gives himself more wiggle room. He is well aware that the CFR’s membership rolls are perhaps the most extensive roster in history of the highest ranking men in American Government, both current and former. But who can argue with the size of their building? (Tammany Hall was a strikingly similar, 4-story building in the same city.) (The members don’t work there.)
Medved continues to profit as an entertainer helping wayward conservatives miss the point. I am continually amazed that people still call in on “Conspiracy Day” to be the goat-du-jour of his humiliating object lessons. Some of them even appear to give him some credibility, as if they could put together a string of facts that would change his mind.
Not a chance.
If you are a caller who has more facts on a disputed topic than Amazing Moderate Man, as I have been more than once, he will twist one of your statements (as if he misunderstood it), beat up this straw man he’s created with a lengthy dissertation/diatribe and, while he is speaking, disconnect your line, leaving listeners with the impression that you did not object to his miss-characterization of your position and/or had no response. David Bozé sits at his feet and has learned these techniques from the master.
So “Conspiracy Day” begins and ends as demagoguery. “Conspiracies don’t exist and cannot happen” is the popular prejudice. Burning “Conspiracy Theorists” is now as popular as it once was witches. It has, moreover, become one of the straw man techniques in wide-spread use by dirty debaters. They allege, without evidence or argument, that their opponent is dealing in “conspiracy theory” and then, rather than deal with him rationally, simply mock him derisively. He is a nut, a wacko.
Conspiracy Day” is Medved trolling for bad amateur spokesmen to humiliate, people who haven’t noticed that he cheats with the microphone. Because he wouldn’t do too well with someone his own size on an even playing field.
And, as it turns out, the CFR is full of Michael’s good friends, politically. Pay no attention to this.
But, it so happens, there is much common belief among active conspiracy buffs with which I personally disagree. While I agree with the Bible that we will eventually see another one-world government, I do not believe it will be a conspiratorial “take-over” by the long-term strategic subversion of an organized human organization. I believe materialists find the idea compelling, as they do statism in general, entirely without being coerced or organized. Their heart inclineth them to the left.
Overt Conspiracies are too often the easy explanation for people who don’t want to do adequate investigation. Many people (who have little actual experience inside the Republican Party) are fond of saying we have really only ONE political party, that Dems and Repubs only pretend to “disagree” to fool us. They seem to actually believe the major Party conspirators meet to plan it all out and every winning candidate has been “chosen.” You’re “naive” if you disagree with this.
But with ample direct experience under my belt, I profoundly disagree. The Democrat Party is blessed, perhaps we may say “dominated” by sincere socialists, philosophically. They want a fair re-distribution of the wealth and want government to do it, forcibly. The GOP, by contrast, has been dominated, at the top, by “pragmatists” who don’t actually believe in anything in the same sense as the Dems, but adapt shifting “positions” based on their needs to manipulate both their party and the electorate for their personal advancement.
They know they are supposed to be serving a base that wants limited, Constitutional government and they provide that service, but exclusively with their lips. The votes don’t follow.
And their careful, clever facilitator in this prostitution is frequently the amazing middle man, who is adept at looking better than his forlorn and diminutive hand-picked radio opponents.