AOC: a hired actress with socialist handlers

I have put this up before but think of this as one of the creepiest stories I know. It was listed #3 among 12 HUGE Bombshells in One Week – But, “Nothing’s Happening?”

#3 Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A Hired Actress with Socialist Handlers
Mr. Reagan, published a video on social media, breaking down how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of many actresses auditioning for ‘Justice Democrats’ – an organization that recruits actresses to run for political positions, so they can fulfill their agenda. Titled ‘The Real Brains Behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,’ he reveals that Justice Democrats held auditions in 2017 for potential congressional candidates they wanted to run on their platform. They put out a casting call in 2016 and AOC’s brother submitted her for the “nomination”.

Alexandra Rojas, Executive Director for Justice Democrats conveyed that “they had received over 10,000 nominations, and out of those, they found Alexandria.” They don’t even try to hide this. AOC has no political background whatsoever. So, who’s running the show and pulling the strings for her social media platforms, interviews, and documents being drafted up?

AOC is a puppet congresswoman with dangerous handlers including Saikat Chakrabarti, and the mastermind behind it all – Cenk Uygur. This video is packed full of evidence, and anyone who has followed AOC can easily make these connections. Her staff has an extremely socialist agenda.

This video spread like wildfire, reaching over 1.5 million views in under a week, as well as mainstream news. This is a MUST WATCH:

AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti saw this video for himself and responded in a twitter thread, claiming that AOC writes her own speeches, controls her own social media, isn’t coached, and is a very intelligent woman who can talk about policy issues in depth for hours because “she really knows what she’s talking about.”

As Chakrabarti makes these claims, he is facing an FEC complaint filed against him alleging that he funneled nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees that he established to private companies that he also controlled.

The other eleven are also worth paying attention to.

It feels like a Jeffrey Archer novel

New Zealand shooting suspect’s worldwide trips investigated.

The Australian accused of the deadly shooting at two mosques in New Zealand traveled around the globe, including Eastern Europe, Turkey, Pakistan and probably North Korea. Authorities in several countries are probing his trips.

Before his shooting spree left 50 worshipers dead and 40 people injured in Christchurch on Friday, Brenton Harrison Tarrant published a manifesto where the 28-year-old mentioned visiting Pakistan, North Korea, Turkey, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Iceland, Argentina and many other countries. Now, some of these states are investigating what he might have done there and whether he picked up his radical ideas during his travels.

Even to North Korea and never picked up by any security agency! That is truly travelling below the radar, unless, of course, the radar had in this case been turned off.

And how professional and lethal it all was in spite of this:

It’s not clear if Tarrant was looking for a target during his travels and why Christchurch mosque eventually became the venue of the attack. New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern said that the gunman stayed in the country for “sporadic periods of time.” He wasn’t a resident of Christchurch when the massacre took place, being “based in Dunedin,” she added.

And while in Dunedin:

The post, from November 2017, talks about members of the rifle club and how “one in particular had me really worried”. has confirmed the man being referred to is Brenton Tarrant.

It reads: “He was complaining about skateboarding kids at the uni saying if they can carry their boards then he should be allowed to carry a gun.”

A Facebook respondent in the same forum replied, “I’d make a call to the arms officer the guy sounds like a fruit loop”.

The hunter updated the post on Saturday, saying, “I’d warned the police about the rifle club where he trained … un f***ing believable.”

Unbelievable indeed. There were also supposedly four murderers. Who were the other three? Have not heard a word about them. And was he sent on behalf of some other organisation. Absolutely not, as he had the presence of mind to ensure us in his documental screed.

Are you a part of any political groups or movements?
I am not a direct member of any organization or group, though I have
donated to many nationalist groups and have interacted with many more.

Did the groups you support/are aligned with order or promote your

No.No group ordered my attack, I make the decision myself. Though I
did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the
attack, which was given.

What more evidence would you need that he acted absolutely alone than that? He even specifically and emphatically denies that it was a false-flag operation so how can you now doubt that he acted absolutely alone and with no outside help?

Compare and contrast Jeffery Archer’s The Eleventh Commandment always bearing in mind that truth is stranger than fiction.

And the green grass grows all around, all around

Just finished Stephen Hicks’ absolutely brilliant Explaining Postmodernism more of which anon. In the meantime, a true life adventure on the way to work just today.

The mechanisms used by the left to shut down counter arguments are at every turn, which is a large part of what Stephen Hicks discusses and explains. And there I was just having finished the book, sitting on the train exchanging points of view with a trio of school girls on their way to the demo on global warming – they were carrying their protest signs which is why I even got into this conversation since I don’t normally talk to anyone on public transport. My only point to them was that they have never read anything by someone who is critical of their beliefs, that they have only read people on their own side who mis-represent our arguments. (They tried the riff on me that how could I know what they read, but you know what, in this case I absolutely do know.)

So who should we read? they asked, in their typically insincere snooty and scornful public-school-arrogant way. So I said, Ian Plimer, who was naturally an unknown to them. An Australian, I added. So who have you read? they asked. So I replied, Al Gore. And they said, who is he? You do have to laugh.

And then, on top of everything else, they accused me of being “an old man”. I would have pushed the alarm bell and called the anti-ageist thought police but they had to get off anyway. A good time was had by all, specially me. And let me add that there was an Asian woman I was sitting with – half my age but twice the age of those young maidens – who laughed with me at them when they got off.

It was the absolute closed-mindedness of the three that in the end got me. I suggested to each individually that they might be the type of person who was open to testing other arguments just to see how well their own stand up, but each of them denied absolutely they were that kind of person. Perhaps one of them is, although I will never know. Depressing that they may be right about how absolutely invincible their ignorance is, and how determined they are to remain that way. At least now, however, they are aware that some people might think their opinions are empty and ignorant, even if I am old and past it, and they could not care less.

The picture, by the way, is from The Spectator: How the school student strike reduces kids to puppets.

Socialism is a scam


Work on the premise that Venezuela was just a mistake, that most socialist leaders are merely trying to milk the economic system for whatever they can extract based on some kind of moral blackmail, but don’t actually want to get rid of the capitalist system which they perfectly well understand is the basis for all of their ill-gotten gains. Just work on that as the premise. The argument then becomes, we the people are oppressed and therefore whoever has more than we do owe us. The entire fault in the economic system reduces to, we want more goods and services than we already have. That is as far as any notion of justice is concerned.

Socialism amounts to precisely this: what we cannot get through our own contribution to the economy we should get through the political process. Everyone then makes up some reason why the economic system has short-changed them and why they ought to receive more in income than they have contributed to output.

Here you can see the scam in action in all its absurdity: College Students Demand Free Laundry Detergent and Fabric Softener Because… Racism.

A group of students at Sarah Lawrence College released a set of demands Monday, including free housing and food for students, to amend for alleged “injustices imposed on people of color.”

Members of the “Diaspora Coalition” presented the list of demands to President Cristle Collins Judd during a two-day sit-in at her office and accused the college of being an unsafe place for minority students and failing to properly commit to social justice….

The 9-page list of demands includes the following:

  • Free winter housing with a “communal kitchen” containing
    “dry goods from the food pantry”
  • Free laundry detergent and fabric softener for all students
    Special housing for students of color
  • Allow students to share meal swipes because “It is
    unacceptable that there are students with leftover swipes at
    the end of the semester when other students are going hungry
    because they run out of meal options.”
  • A mandatory first-year orientation session about
    “intellectual elitism”
  •  On-campus jobs prioritize the hiring of international
  • Prevent students of color from being educated about history
    by “racist white professors”
  • Reject funding from the Charles Koch Foundation and review
    the tenure of “racist” professor Sam Abrams
  • All students have unlimited access to therapy sessions
  • Permanent funding for minority student unions that is not
    paid for by the student body….

It’s a scam. There is not an ounce of economic or moral justification in any of it. But they pretend there is, and others, specially others who do not pay any of this out of their own pockets, play along by agreeing to pay out at least some of what is sought.

What will kill an economy stone cold dead

Quite interesting discussion today on what’s wrong with socialism and why don’t we teach what’s wrong with socialism. The consensus at the end – which I might add I am not part of – was that we do teach what is wrong with socialism but not in the way that I think it should be taught. OK, maybe. But on this there was complete agreement – this was my last slide.

Each of these will kill an economy stone cold dead – from I, Mechanical Pencil:

  1. If economic decisions are made from the centre and not by entrepreneurs
  2. If finance and national savings are allocated by the government
  3. If prices are administered by the government
  4. If guiding an economy according to profitability is sharply restricted, if not actually eliminated
  5. If heavy-handed and inappropriate regulations are issued by governments
  6. If property rights are abolished or else strictly curtailed.

If there is consensus on this, then this should be taught to every student who goes through an economics course, and to everyone else as well.

Meanwhile the socialist trope travels farther and wider with not all that much getting in its way. Some recent examples.

There is a phenomenal amount of ignorance in what she says, but at the end, with her statement that it is the workers who create the wealth [to much applause] we are dealing with a quasi-Marxist conception if not actually full-on Marxist since the entrepreneur has no explicit function.

The problem in dealing with “socialism” is that it has a range of meanings, from a very light-on forms of the welfare state all the way to central planning and the complete nationalisation of the means of production. Whatever else it might mean, however, is that it is a desire to have something different from the present. Two items to help think about things. First this, which is from a comment from a post at Powerline.

And before I get to it, I will just note that he leaves out, and indeed seems not to know, anything about the Socialist Calculation Debate, which states categorically that an economy without a price mechanism determined within the market by entrepreneurs who respond to the world as they find it and prices as they are generated in the market, is doomed to fail. That of itself will ensure the economy cannot function.

Most commonly, “socialism” is being applied to a vision rather than an ideology or methodology, a vision where the great wealth created by an economy is distributed more widely so that the people with the least money get more benefit from the economy. In the wealthier countries of Europe and Asia, that vision is carried out with a welfare state and high level of command in an economy that is still based on private ownership and on free exchange. People in the UK or in Japan may still choose their occupations and their businesses are privately owned. There’s a large range of salaries among those who work for wages or salaries. Those who have somewhat larger incomes pay much higher taxes to subsidize welfare-state subsidies of those who make less money. You also have the panoply of labor laws that stifle economic development but do not kill it outright and you have a lot of petty laws, almost tyrannical laws, passed by the duly elected representatives of the very people who carp about high unemployment, high taxes, stagnant economic development, and the wickedness of the wealthy. But this system is not socialism as an economic system; it does less harm and it does it more slowly.

A near-command economy with the ownership and much of the profits of economic activity still in private hands is the fascist model. Since the owners connect closely with the political powers and since the owners still want profits, this brand of command economy will make efforts to keep up profits but those efforts will be misguided because command economies are inherently limited in their responsiveness. Beyond the inherent limits of attempting to run an economy by committee, every command economy has also wound up listening to the loudest and most influential voices but those voices rarely know or care about the broadest benefit for their societies….

Most of our soi-disant “socialists” are actually welfare-state nanny-bullies. Their policies and theories are not geared to collective ownership but to collective pillaging. In terms of discussion and dealing with the special brand of s-word that is socialism, it matters that that is not what is on the floor. We need to address the s-word of welfare-state nanny-bullyism because that is what is actually on the floor.

And then this: Young Americans are embracing socialism.

61% of Americans aged between 18 and 24 have a positive reaction to the word “socialism” — beating out “capitalism” at 58%. Overall, 39% of Americans are well-disposed toward socialism, but the gulf remains wide for men and those aged over 55.

It’s only a word. At the moment across the whole of society there are still 61% who react positively to the word “capitalism”. But that is if you are older and male.

Socialists do not care about you only themselves

Very few appreciate the cynicism of the leaders on the left who have zero interest in your welfare but have an enormous interest in their own. Comments from here.

On the left, the leaders seek power, the proles want security, and the intelligentsia wants to cement their superior social status. None of them care about your prosperity and freedom.

Those who have studied the life and writings of the leading socialist intellectuals — the people who really knew what they were about and were not beguiled by false promises — have always been quite aware that their goal was destruction. Destruction is not an unintended consequence: it is the objective of their philosophy. Does anybody think the guy who wrote the following verse really intended for a brotherhood of man to live as equals in universal prosperity?

“Till heart’s bewitched, till senses reel:
With Satan I have struck my deal.
He chalks the signs, beats time for me,
I play the death march fast and free.”

Or, could it be expressed more explicitly than this:

Worlds I would destroy for ever,
Since I can create no world

In case you’re wondering, those lines are from the poetry of none other than Karl Marx. More modern socialists of expressed similar sentiments. For example, Obama and Clinton’s hero, Saul Alinsky, literally dedicated his work to Lucifer. Sure, it’s a literary allusion … but it’s a literary allusion with significance: it is a dedication to a “the thief who comes not but for to steal and to kill and to destroy.”

Can it be any more obvious, at this point, that the purpose of implementing socialism is to blow up the whole capitalism-based free market republic? They long for the excuse to declare martial law and take it all over.

They are completely content to see everyone poorer and more miserable so long as we are all equally poor and miserable. And, worse, that includes bringing the USA standard of living down to something closer to the world average. The ruling elite will of course be excluded from the program — ya gotta keep up the strength of the ones doing all the thinking and planning for the rest of us.

Yes, socialists create and throw monkey wrenches into the gears of capitalist economies, to slow them down and to stop them. It’s what they do and they’re pretty good at it. The biggest one of all is what they call global warming.

Socialism is a philosophy based on envy. “If I can’t be one of the 1%, then no one will!” The sociopaths who invariably take over socialist countries use envy to steal everything from everyone, destroying the societies in the process.

Sick and demented

In contrast, sharp contrast: Trump Calls Out House Dems for ‘Inconceivable’ Failure to Condemn Anti-Semitism.

More on all this here and here.


Via Instapundit with the full details from here.

AND NOW THIS: From Rahm Emanuel of all people: I’ve Faced the Charge of Dual Loyalty – It was Anti-Semitic then, and it’s anti-Semitic Now.

No one is questioning the right of members of Congress and others to criticize Israeli policies. But Omar is crossing a line that should not be crossed in political discourse. Her remarks are not anti-Israel; they are anti-Semitic.