Wasn’t sure whether to run this here but as Julia is having a breather, let’s do it.
American politics is exciting, IMHO, far more exciting than our iDave/Milipede/Cleggover dirge. And the last few days have been fascinating for political animals.
I was at the mass demonstrations in Melbourne in 1975 during the coup d’etat and even then it was clear that it was the process and general principles which counted, rather than any specific party allegiance. As a member of the Young Liberals but also inside the Labour machine as a Fabian, I remember being at both parties’ functions at two consecutive elections and therefore in a position to compare. Then I came back here. Then went back out there, then came back here – story of my life.
So, in following that absolute honey Michelle Fields around youtube, along the way some red flags and alarm bells rang, bells from long, long ago that night in a Melbourne square.
Youngsters such as Michelle can’t have a clue the forces at work, the real forces, the shills. She obviously uses her looks and her femininity [name me a man who’d object to that] but when she gets stomped on, harrassed, this isn’t part of the script in her eyes. In her eyes, Fox and everyone else has fallen for her charm and her face becomes ubiquitous. For a girl who grew up realizing that her smile opened doors, this is how it all should have been.
Yet she seriously thinks it’s for her political smarts she’s loved and hated and to an extent that’s right, in the sense that we always support a protege with her head screwed on right. And her head is screwed on right. Her positions make sense and she doesn’t let people off the hook.
Yet there’s a lot of the typically female in her, so to speak and to explain this, let me quote from Chuckles who sent this:
… which will be a post later. The last one goes:
37. A lady of sense will feel more complimented if you converse with her upon instructive, high subjects, than if you address to her only the language of compliment. In the latter case she will conclude that you consider her incapable of discussing higher subjects, and you cannot expect her to be pleased at being considered merely a silly, vain person, who must be flattered into good humor.
Wimmin are highly sensitive at being seen as just a pretty face [and body]. They hate it, though they undoubtedly use it to advantage as well. The ladies are permitted to do that double standard thing, just as a man wants both a faithful, one-lover wife, Caesar’s wife but also a whore to have his nasty way with.
But I digress.
So our Michelle, billed as the intrepid investigative reporter [and she does do it well, like Andrea Vogt], goes to a demo where there are Alex Jones/Ron Paul types, where she, as a libertarian/centre-right person [fine in my book] should be accepted with open arms, with everyone calling out, “Hey, Michelle, go girl.”
However, she apparently doesn’t go down well with the chief kahunas of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul crowd. In fact she meets men with megaphones and mics who are attempting to “lead” the demonstrations. These guys are not there for their health – they have agendas and that takes me back to 1975, as a kid in a Melbourne square late evening. With me is a Trotskyite [I tended to have older or younger girlfriends of dubious reputation] and she knows every rabble rouser there.
Someone jumps up on a box and my protector tells me that’s a Stalinist – she names him. The guy is seriously demented and narcissistic, he sees himself as the leader of the demonstration. Someone pushes him off the box and gets up himself – my protector tells me who he is. Women at this stage, 1975, did not “lead” movements, except for the braburners [yeah, yeah – apocryphal].
That image in that square will always remain in my mind. I read and hear fellow bloggers and the readers continually saying there’ll be revolution, the people will rise and so on. They well might but when they do, it will be Common Purpose jumping up on the soapbox and attempting to “lead”. It will be shills like Mark Dice.
Contrast Michelle and her approach and that of this agent provocateur:
He called her a NeoCon but she is a libertarian, equally scathing of both parties. He called her a coward but the text does not support that – she’s a girl in a sticky situation and a crowd which should have been sympathetic towards her was hostile and mocking, on the say-so of this shill. Wish I’d been there to stonewall the bstd and insist she be left alone.
Here was an interview with her after that. She was then fired from the Daily Caller. There also seemed to be an attack on her from something called FishbowlDC, oncentrating on her mammary glands. Her sexuality was what that Jones/Paul bully was on about too.
Katie Pavlich at Town Hall defends her [and I support Katie Pavlich – that’s a feminism men could go for].
So Michelle was obviously crossing powerful people and had come up against agendas and the people she was now encountering were the real deal, the same sorts of people who punched Tommy Robinson’s mate, knowing they’d not be arrested.
There is a lot of infiltration, from Above Top Secret to other supposedly libertarian movements against the elite, in among the genuine people.
The Mark Dice who was attacking Michelle Fields that way is a most unconvincing person for a supposed Christian centre-right libertarian. Seems very much like a “confuse and confound” agent, so that no one knows who’s genuinely supporting whom. To me, a person like Mark Dice who jumps up and attempts to “lead” a political cause, rather than nourishing obscurity and just supporting the cause is a person for deep suspicion, quite possibly a placeman. And the most swaggering “man of the people”, which I am not, can be the greatest shill of all, especially if super-popular and populist.
Agents provocateur try to get everyone accusing everyone else of being a fraud to destabilize the movement. Happened with the tea party. Happened in 1915, has always happened and these people play hardball.
I wonder how much the average people who might attend such a demonstration would be aware how they’re manipulated by the very people supposedly there to join them?
I can’t see Michelle Fields lasting – she’s too nice. Her politics are too pure. When she doesn’t play the media whore, she’ll soon find opportunities drying up but if she does play that game, she’ll be yet another media shill, becoming wizened and hard before her time, with that crow voice all those media women develop.
So many mean things have been said of her – how to know who she really is? With great respect, that’s easy, as with Mark Dice. See what they vote on, see what they consistently say, the positions, under duress, they defend. See if they vacillate or if they don’t.
That’s who they really are.