I want to thank congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for bringing the Oracle of Twitter — James Woods — back from retirement, and make him tweet again.
In his first tweet, after a long vacation, James wrote:
I’ve tried so hard this past year to live without the wealth of knowledge available on Twitter, but this kind of blazing insight can be found nowhere else, so… I’m back!
He is referring to a very passionate and insightful attempt by AOC of explaining to the U.S. Congress that it is physically impossible for people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or shoelaces. She is 100% right. I’ve tried and it didn’t work.
He also pokes some fun at all the latest successes pulled by Democrats.
I was on vacation awhile, avoiding the news. How’d the Mueller thing work out? The impeachment scam? Who won the Iowa caucuses? Is Michael Avenatti still a contender for the Democratic nomination for President? How’s Jeffrey Epstein doing?
Of course, we all know answers to those questions…
He hasn’t forgotten to thank his supporters for a warm and welcoming reaction to his surprising comeback.
I simply can’t express how honored I am by the kindness and warmth I have received by so many of my Twitter friends tonight. You are genuinely such fine people. Thank you. I am in tears.
James, you are welcome.
The last thought
I’m puzzled why social media (as a whole, not just Twitter) don’t understand how valuable James Woods and others like him are. Woods alone can raise the average I.Q. level of the tweeting public by quite a few points.
In an attempt to mock the Green New Deal (and the rest of climate change mumbo-jumbo) promoted by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, LaRouchePAC planted one of its activists at AOC’s Town Hall meeting.
Even if we were to bomb Russia, we still have too many people. Too much pollution. So we have to get rid of the babies. That’s a big problem. Just stopping having babies is not enough. We need to eat the babies.
Using ridicule as a way of fighting political opposition isn’t new. People have used ridicule and satire as a powerful weapon to cut their enemies down to size since — oh well — since there ware enemies in need to be cut down to size.
Let’s borrow a couple of thoughts from leading progressive thinkers…,
The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? This is the war — this is our World War II.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(Before she realized that no one with the social intelligence above that of a sea sponge was going to take her seriously.)
People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.
Greta Thunberg (Activist)
(Before she realized that she should be back in school on the other side of the ocean instead reading to a bunch of people in UN.)
Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh? I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appear overly conservative…I’d have to say….I’d be open to at least tasting it
Prof. Magnus Soderlund
(Before he realized that that suggestion of having just recently deceased member of immediate family for lunch, is not going to sit well with the most of the civilized population.)
…and using exaggeration, elevate them to the next, satirical, level of insanity.
(NOTE: I don’t think there’s any need for exaggeration in case of this Soderlund guy. Hi’s already way up there.)
Twelve years? That’s way too long. Let’s cut it down to just a few months. We are not even going to survive until Christmas. It won’t matter anyway, because by that time, the North Pole will melt, and beloved Santa and the rest of his crew will die miserable deaths as a result of drowning in crystal clear, icy water — assuring that way proper nutrition for other North Pole residents, who are better swimmers. (Sorry, no Christmas presents for you.)
What about all those people dropping like flies because of our fragile ecosystems are collapsing?
Well, let’s be practical and listen to the advice of Prof. Soderlund. We should take those who are no longer contributing to our society (individuals killed by collapsing ecosystems), and use their remains to replace traditional meat products. By doing so, we’ll be able to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing all those evil methane-producing, farting cows into extinction without creating any food shortages in the process. (Passing gas will become a criminal offense.)
But wait! Why not push it a little further. (this is where LaRouchePAC satirical drama comes in.) There’s no need to wait for someone to die to be eligible to become part of our menu. Let’s go after our babies. Nothing, ladies and gentlemen, is going to prevent us from saving the planet!
Save the planet — eat the children!
(Over time, propagation will grow to be an occupation paid by the food industry.)
This approach will take care of two problems: over-population and assurance of proper, high-quality nutrition. Fewer kids — No replacement for old geezers. Fewer humans to feed. More food for the rest of us. Higher food quality — Veal is better than beef.
Is satirical sketch presented by the LaRouchePAC member at the AOC’s Town Hall meeting , that much off from reality? Progressives are pushing the idea of abortion after birth already.
Was that insane? Of course, it was! But…
Some times just explaining why your way of life is superior to the way the opposition wants everybody to live by, is not enough. On occasion, there’s an unavoidable need for ridiculing the ideas or solutions to problems proposed by those on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to make people listen to your arguments.
Shocking the people who are too busy, too tired, or just simply too ignorant to care about what is happening around them and forcing them back into paying attention, ensures that all of us, and not only those in power, are influencing the way our country is governed.
The headline like:
THEY WANT TO EAT BABIES!!!,
works much better than:
The controversy around the new abortion bill explained.
Who the hell are you to say which Muslim has the right to speak?
Imam Mohammad Tawhidi
In response to this Rep. Ayanna Pressley speech:
I don’t want to bring a chair to an old table. This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you’re going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office. If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley
What exactly is a Muslim voice? I need some specifics.
What exactly is a black or brown or queer voice?
What standards should I adhere to if I want to speak for any of those groups?
Who sets those standards?
Imam Mohammad Tawhidi doesn’t care for any of those questions. He took a different kind of approach; He told miss Pressley to get lost. I like the simplicity of this approach.
It seems to me that Rep. Ayanna Pressley and few others who think exactly like her are trying to assume control over that imaginary table (which I believe represents Democrat Party) and then will decide who will be allowed even to get close to it. I wonder if members of the old guard, like Pelosi or Schumer, will get an invitation.
The so-called “squad” thinks that America was wicked in its origins & is even more wicked today. They’re entitled to their opinion, but I’m entitled to my opinion too, & I think they’re left-wing cranks. They’re the reason there are directions on shampoo bottles.
The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border, and that is exactly what they are. If that doesn’t bother you … I want to talk to the people that are concerned enough with humanity to say that ‘never again’ means something.
It appears that congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s knowledge about Nazi Concentration Camps needs a significant improvement.
For some unexplainable reason, A.O.C. when criticizing President Trump and his emigration policies, decided to draw a comparison between the Wolrd War II-era Nazi Concentration Camps, and Migrant Detention Centers operated by the U.S. Government on our southern border.
As a result, lots of people took offense to it. I think the reaction of JCRC represents it best.
The Jewish Community Relations Council. Open letter to the congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez.
We are deeply disturbed by the language used in your recent Instagram live video which seeks to equate the detention centers on America’s southern border with Nazi-era Concentration Camps.
And they continue:
The terms ‘Concentration Camp’ and ‘Never Again’ are synonymous with and evocative of the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, in which 6 million European Jews were systematically denied civil and human rights due to their race and ultimately murdered in a state-sponsored genocide. As concerned as we are about the conditions experienced by migrants seeking asylum in the United States, including family separation, unusable facilities, and lack of food, water, and medical resources, the regrettable use of Holocaust terminology to describe these contemporary concerns diminishes the evil intent of the Nazis to eradicate the Jewish people.
It’s not the first time when congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez said something she shouldn’t have said, and once more her supporters trying to defend her have to distort or ignore facts. The most common line of defense was stating that A.O.C. was talking about concentration camps as an area used to temporarily concentrate people, and not specifically about Nazi Death Camps where millions of people had lost their lives. Their point is that
It wasn’t only the Nazis who set up concentration camps, Nazis just gave those camps a bad name.
That’s an interesting approach. Take a highly toxic remark and then use multiple observations and explanations to cut the toxicity level of the original comment down.
Unfortunately for all those supporters, there’s one small problem. The only way one could reach that conclusion is by omitting a small but essential part of her speech. She said, “‘never again’ means something.” She is 100% right, “Never Again” does mean something. Especially when used in the context of a speech about concentration camps (as explained above in J.C.R.C. open letter to Miss Ocasio-Cortez).
The Jewish Community Relations Council extended an offer to help the congresswoman, and educate her on the Holocaust, saying:
As our city is home to the largest Holocaust survivor community in the United States, we would be pleased to work with you to arrange a visit to a concentration camp, a local Holocaust museum, hear the stories of local survivors, or participate in other educational opportunities in the hopes of better understanding the horrors of the Holocaust.
The attempt to make congresswoman from New York, more aware of horrors of the Holocaust, deserves enormous respect. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, you can’t teach anything to someone who already knows everything. So don’t waste your time…
Last thought: At first, I wanted to post a few pictures showing people in Concentration Camps and people in detention centers, for comparison. But I’ve realized that by doing that on some half-baked blog of mine, would be extremely disrespectful to people who had lost their lives by the hand of Nazi henchmen who’ve run those Death Camps, and would put me on that same level that Miss Ocasio-Cortez has unintentionally landed by making her comments. So, no pictures, just text.