Saturday, March 9, 2019

Investigative Reporter Looks for the Brains Behind AOC

Longtime reader, and one of only a couple of bloggers I've met in meatspace, RegT emailed me a video that, while a bit long, digs into the phenomenon of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  It's a bit long, at 23 minutes, but I found it quite plausible primarily because there are several sections where we see the principles talking openly about what they did and how they did it.

The most important revelation is that, yes, there are "brains behind AOC", but she herself is essentially an actress playing a part. She was recommended for an audition being held for someone to run against the establishment candidate in the primary, but did little other than read parts.  A group called The Justice Democrats is the controlling party.  As "Mr. Reagan" (video host) describes, it wasn't necessary to do deep digging.  They brag about it.  Start at the 1:00 minute mark.  At 1:19, Alexandria herself describes how it happened.

Essentially, it's arguable that she is actually the person elected.  That would be the Justice Democrats who wrote her speeches and planned everything for her.  She doesn't even write her tweets that everyone reacts to.  That's all someone on staff.

During the video he talks about many things I've seen and heard elsewhere, which lends credibility to his presentation.   Mr. Reagan describes AOC's Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, currently under investigation for campaign finance violations due to his many organizations involved here.  By coincidence, on the BlazeTV this week, there was discussion of Chakrabarti's ever present Tee shirt (which Mr. Reagan says he thought was a self-portrait). 
Based on a recent clothing choice, Chakrabarti might justifiably be considered a Nazi sympathizer. But really? Well, yes. In his latest love-fest video for AOC, Chakrabarti is sporting a tee-shirt that features a portrait of Subhas Chandra Bose. Not familiar with this former Indian head of state? Here a few facts:
  • Bose was an ally of Adolf Hitler and met with him personally in 1942.
  • Bose founded the Free India Legion (FIL) made up of troops captured by Nazi Field Marshal Rommel’s Afrika Korps.
  • The FIL swore an oath to Hitler and was under SS command.
  • Bose teamed up with the Japanese in 1943.
  • Bose was an admirer of the USSR and sought to implement its authoritarian practices in India.
Bose fought Britain in India at the same time Gandhi was leading the non-violence movement.  Bose's approach was more like, "kill them all".  As Mr. Reagan describes it, Bose was trying to unify Nazism and Soviet Communism.  He has the same anti-colonialist/anti-American positions as Obama; this leads to the conclusion America is the problem in the world and needs to be taken down.  You can imagine what his plans are for deplorables. 

I have to reiterate that since what the video says seems to coincide with other things I'm seeing and hearing elsewhere, I think he's mostly right in this video. 


  1. In a very real sense, that was how Barack rose through the ranks to become who he became. It's a proven route to push your agenda through a puppet (in this case, AOC). Sort of a Manchurian Candidate without the drama.

  2. Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed revisited!

  3. Some politicians are rather smart: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Donald Rumsfeld, Bobby Kennedy. But most politicians are a team effort, where the candidate is the salesman, not the idea man. I haven't watched the video yet but it doesn't sound any different than what Heinlein wrote in _How To Be a Politician_, retitled _Take Back Your Government_. Commit to promote some interests. The interests back you. The candidate is out kissing babies and making speeches at dinners 16 hours a day and doesn't have time to think deep thoughts. Positions on issues are prepared by staffers.

  4. First, it's "principals" not "principles" (removes grammar Nazi hat....)

    I don't think there's much doubt, at least not among the intelligent and discriminating, that quite a bit of "candidate manufacturing" goes on. For the most part, though, I suspect it's in the categories of "don't say this, do say that, and act like this;" basically, gaffe prevention and tailoring the perception.

    LL (above) touches on something, however, that bears further examination, or at least should - just how much of what we're seeing on the Left's candidates is nothing but manufactured candidates, created from whole cloth to facilitate pursuing a Leftist agenda? AOC, for example, when given free rein comes across as someone barely capable of dressing and feeding herself.

    If one watches theatrical presentations, specifically movies and TV because of their broad reach, one quickly perceives just how malleable actors are; there's type-casting to be sure, but an actor, at least one who's good, can excel in a dramatic portrayal in a taut drama on Monday, do a bang-up job as a comedic actor on Tuesday, earn accolades in a supporting role on Wednesday, and be a completely different fourth person "in real life" on a talk show. Assuming convincing personas is their job, of course, but there's no confusion about the fact that they're acting. And, it's also not uncommon that the actor's "real life" persona turns out to be someone with whom we'd really prefer to avoid a personal association; what we see on screen is as much a result of the director's and screenwriter's artistry as the actor's flexibility.

    Are similar people being cultivated, and stage-directed, by well financed resources on the political (and social) Left to be political candidates and public representations for their agendas? Much was made of Obama's sudden rise to political stardom, and the extreme complicity of the media was certainly a factor, but as they say in Texas, post turtles are a real thing.

    It's easy to imagine a conspiracy beneath every bed, but this seems to happen with such regularity among Democrats and their fellow travelers it seems more than simple coincidence. I'm hesitant to suggest it, but the possibility of a well financed political "farm team" to cultivate developable candidates does come to mind.

    1. First, it's "principals" not "principles" (removes grammar Nazi hat....) Sigh... Yeah, I try to be careful about that sort of error but that one got by.

      I was sort of split on posting this last night because in one sense, it doesn't seem to be a new phenomenon, just a particularly egregious example of a well-known, old one. Certainly campaign consultants of all sorts doing exactly what you say about gaffe prevention and tailoring the perception aren't a new thing.

      What seems novel about this one is the fact that they had open auditions for the role and chose her. Rather than someone wanting to run for an office hiring consultants, we have a group of consultants hiring a candidate. That seems new.

      The fact that the group of consultants spreads over organizations wanting to overthrow the Democrat establishment and go hard left, Democratic Socialist, adds to the intrigue. That said, while I'm not a lawyer, I don't think it's illegal.

      Under the axiom that "sunlight is the best disinfectant", perhaps this will wake up rank and file Democrats and those opposed to the manipulation will stand up to it. Or not; maybe the primary voters this is all about really do want to go full Marxist. "Moderate democrats" are just about extinct - as happened to the "blue dog democrats" not many years ago.

  5. Another good piece to understand why we have all the dysfunctionals gathering under one banner in the dem party.

  6. What seems novel about this one is the fact that they had open auditions for the role and chose her. Rather than someone wanting to run for an office hiring consultants, we have a group of consultants hiring a candidate. That seems new.

    I think the difference is just the clarity of the word choices "auditions" and "role", rather than the more obscuring "back a man we like the sound of". Imagine a group of Main street business owners who want the status quo preserved saying 'Hey, Fred, have you considered running for office?'.

    The education and prior careers of Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, Al Frankin, etc. were not focused on government or public policy.

    1. I believe this is a relatively new phenomenon. People like Obama tend to be "talking heads", and we know how he struggles (and fails - in all "57 states") when he isn't in front of a teleprompter and tries to make it up as he goes along. He isn't much good without a Valerie Jarret or other handler telling him what his role entails, and how to play the game. He had a firm grounding in islam in Indonesia, and several mentors in learning about communism, "America's 'colonialism' ", and Alinsky's "rules for radicals". His maternal grandfather was a communist, Frank Marshall Davis taught him about communism (and perhaps more), and he was taught to hate America by those and others, I'm sure.

      So Obama had some significant groundwork done to groom him for his incredibly quick progress "through the ranks". So, even though he proved somewhat inarticulate away from his teleprompter, podium notes, and words whispered in his ears, he at least had an understanding of the direction in which he was being pointed. Fundamental transformation, indeed.

      Occasional-Cortex does not have that. She may have vague memories of whatever they taught her in her "economics" program, and "international relations" (is that perhaps simply a description of the time her parents spent together?), but she remains a bloody bartender. If her degrees had actually indicated an understanding and retention of what she had been taught (or merely "exposed to"), she probably wouldn't have been chosen by the "Justice Democrats" for the role.

      I think they were looking for a "tabula rasa", but one with some spunk. They wanted, and got, an empty headed actress with a little bit of fire in her. Maybe she even danced for them, completely sober this time.

      What they got with Reagan is exactly opposite to what they want here. Lots of folks - including myself - thought when Reagan ran for the Oval Office was that they wanted an empty-headed actor, malleable to their will and direction. BUT LOOK AT WHAT THEY GOT.
      Arguably the best president we've had, at least up til now. Most Presidents came from political positions, but that was the way they worked up to better, more powerful, positions.

      None of them came from "nothing", from tending bar, for pete's sake. None of them were asked to prove they could _act_. They were probably all taught some of the principles of acting along the way from city council to governor to House or Senate, and then the Oval Office. But even Reagan had some experience before he made it to the big times. And it wasn't tending bar or sweeping the stable at Warner Brothers. He had intelligence, wit, and a quiet strength many of us hadn't noticed until his passing.

      Cenk Uyger and those he works for/with are not looking for that. They want a talking head that is empty but willing to stand up in public and speak her part. If they are doing this with many others across the country, then I believe we do indeed have a new phenomenon occurring here. And the notion that one man or small group has come up with a way to control Congress - and maybe the White House - with amenable robots being operated by that one man or small group is abit worrisome, I would say.

  7. "Imagine a group of Main street business owners who want the status quo preserved saying 'Hey, Fred, have you considered running for office?"

    Wasn't this the way it used to be for beginning politicians. For most of our political history home town government was where everyone got their start; but, like in all other areas of life, millennials feel entitled to start in the middle, or higher.

    Considering the speculation about FEC violations, possible nepotism, plus just blatant amateurishness of not even pretending to hide their tracks I get a Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland, "Hey kids, let's put on a show," type vibe. Except it is certain that the money person behind it truly hates America. Kind of a "Comrade Andy Hardy Goes Bolshevik", produced by George Soros, directed by Saul Alinski, written by V. Lenin and featuring the Frankford School Intersectional Dancers.

    1. I'm more with Anon 1758 than 1627, FWIW. I have no problem with a group of business owners asking someone whom they know and think highly of if they would run.

      The alternative, what we have with the Justice Democrats and AOC is not finding someone they know who agrees with them and might be a good representative, it's finding someone they think will poll well and has no policy ideas of their own. Maybe this is too fine a distinction.

      I ask myself what I'd think if the Stupid party didn't have a good candidate to replace my Congressman (who's getting rather on in years), and they picked a candidate this way. Instead of the Justice Democrats, there was handful of libertarian and constitutional conservatives running the auditions. I'd be most concerned that this person doesn't have any core beliefs and whether I could trust the candidate to do what the bosses want. As AOC has made plain, at some point they're going to get into a situation where they go off script. When she goes off script she sounds like a total moron. I'd want someone who actually believed what they were selling and would stand up for it when the script ran short.

      However, where anon 1758 pens the wonderful line, Except it is certain that the money person behind it truly hates America. Kind of a "Comrade Andy Hardy Goes Bolshevik", produced by George Soros, directed by Saul Alinski, written by V. Lenin and featuring the Frankford School Intersectional Dancers., the video makes it clear that everyone in the background truly hates America and wants to destroy it. That's what it's all about.

    2. Should be Frankfurt (not Frankford) School. Haste makes waste.

  8. Wasn't ['Hey, Fred, have you considered running for office?'] the way it used to be for beginning politicians.

    Sure; and Fred was a Kennedy, or a judge's son, or a banker's son; but not the VFW rabble-rouser who was not indebted to the existing power groups.

    For most of our political history home town government was where everyone got their start

    "Start" can mean both a) first elected position held, and b) a grassroots origin of power rather than being selected by an existing power base of elites, but only a) is true.

    Maybe the candidate does have policy ideas of their own, like "world peace", "puppies", and "green new deal". They may be completely sincere about believing in some glittering generalities. AOC does appear to believe what she's selling, and she does stand up for it -- she doesn't back down, does she?

  9. Your criticisms are all sound. Certainly political opportunity should not be restricted to people who have succeeded one way or another nor should the process vet out the incompetent and ner-do-well. And the loud mouth who's chugging PBR's at the VFW at 2 in afternoon regaling the barkeep about how they'd run things (Most seaman apprentices know much more about how to run the ship than the captain, they'll tell you so: can't lay on and lay off without leaving a holiday but know more about global warfare than a Fleet Admiral) should definitely have a shot and he'll start building a campaign just as soon as his wife gets there and collects his car keys from the barman. And I'm all for adamant 5th graders running things, what could go wrong. Better to just say it's all rigged and stay home. Someone will be around to pick up the blank ballot from your mailbox, fill it out and deliver it for you. What's the diff'.
    Tocqueville said quite clearly that what made America work was that all politics were local. That the national government was structured in such a way that virtually nothing it did could impinge directly on the normal lives of average people. The 16th and 17th amendments stood that concept on its head by nationalizing all wealth and all politics (the passage of which I blame on the mass European immigration of the latter 19 century, almost all of whom were the Children of '48). Not to say there wasn't corruption, but if government was corrupt it as within reach. After the sovereignty of the state was subsumed by the national parties nothing was within reach of the citizenry. If we can not get back to that concept of local government first then Venezuela becomes inevitable.