April 7, 2012
Question About Art, Thomas Kinkade & Akiane
Tom: R.I.P Thomas Kinkade a wonderful painter. Kinkade died on Fri. For some reason he is one of the most successful artist ever becoming a mufti-millionaire selling his paintings, yet at the same time is he one of the most criticized artist ever. I read nothing but negative comments about his artwork with the exception of a few nice comments.
JJ, explain why most people seem to dislike the beautiful paintings that Thomas did? Others may disagree.
As an artist, myself, I also get a lot of negative feedback from people, but does that make me an awful artist?
If an artist can be an intinitives like Akiane…in what ways do artist help society?
JJ I’m not a big follower of the art world but do appreciate talent when I see it. I’ve read neither the praise nor the criticism of his art but after looking at some samples I believe I can answer your question.
The quality of his art is very good and distinctive but it reflects conservative values like Norman Rockwell and the Left has a knee jerk reaction to conservative values these days. In their minds it has no value. They see nothing good in the traditional 1950s type of values and will attack anyone who has anything good to say or project of them.
On top of this many become critics of the various arts because of a feeling of superiority and will attack things of value just to illustrate their supposed higher powers of discrimination.
Art helps people to tune into the possibilities of the inner world and renew their spirits.
April 11, 2012
Ron Paul and Defense
I’ve written quite a bit about Ron Paul but see the discussion is intensifying around him again so I’ll make a few more comments.
The first thing I want to clarify is that it is fine if members here disagree with me. I have no desire to be seen as infallible. I’ll always respect your opinion as long as the discussion remains civil.
Dean says: First comparing Ron Paul back to the days of when Churchill was around and saying he would not have assisted Churchill, to me is really ridiculous. There was different circumstances back then to consider and a different world. He would assist anything that helps with the security of the people. Ron Paul is not totally passive when it comes to defense, and has a rather strong defense plan.
JJ The evidence tells us otherwise. The only time Ron Paul wants to use military force is if an enemy attacks us on U.S. soil and even then he hesitates. After we were attacked on our soil he was opposed to even going after the terrorists in Afghanistan (after 911) until a revolt by his staff changed his vote at the last minute:
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with Paul, in which he clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a moral imperative.
“I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t”
“I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that,” Shapiro wrote.
(Like someone on their own was going to make war with Hitler)
Here’s another quote, this time from a former member of Ron Paul’s staff, Eric Dondero:
“Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just blowback, for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
“I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
“There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views.”
I can’t support a guy who declares that he would not have lifted a finger to prevent the extermination of an entire race of people. That is taking a black and white position on defense to an extreme – a great extreme.
Presently, the Jews face a similar problem. Iran is attempting to create a nuclear weapons system that will wipe Israel of the face of the map and all Paul has to say about it is that they have a right to nuclear weapons without us interfering.
Yes, we must look to our own self-interests but there are times the Second Key of Judgment must be used and one has to do what he can to save others.
If you come across a bully who is twice your size beating up someone then you may be justified in not interfering because not only will the victim get a beating but you will too.
On the other hand, if you come across a bully smaller and weaker then yourself you have no excuse for not interfering and attempting to stop him.
Iran is smaller and much weaker than ourselves and wants to destroy Israel. We should do what we can to prevent a second holocaust.
Dean quotes me: “He is very secretive and unlike others we have analyzed he is consistently secretive and has thoughts he has never shared with anyone, even close associates. He will deceive when it is necessary to protect objectives he does not want made public. When he seems to be giving starkly open answer he is usually holding back.”
Dean: “Wow lol. Where does this claim of being secretive come from, and how can you make a judgment about him being a deciever when it’s really not based on anything. To me this is slander when you say something about someone that is like an attack when it has no basis. It’s not fair to say when someone seems to be really honest, that it means they’re holding back.”
JJ That was from an analysis of his handwriting and there is quite a bit of evidence that what I said was correct. He has a large number of views that he keeps to himself while running for president. If they were better known his support would be diminished.
He sees Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and thinks he fought the Civil War to increase the power of government and the civil war was unnecessary. He would not have fought to free the slaves. He thinks the were close to being freed naturally. This is very naive thinking as the South was seeking to expand slavery in all directions in and out of the United States and were not about to let the slaves go free or support any legislation that would allow this.”
I stated in an earlier post that if it ever looked like he was gaining traction that the media would dig into his old newsletters which would reveal some quite controversial views that he has kept secret. This is exactly what happened a few months ago when his popularity was on the rise.
When some apparently racists quotes from the newsletters appeared in the media Paul not only said that he didn’t write them but also said he didn’t even know what was in them because “I never read that stuff,” he said
So are we to believe that he never wrote for or even read the “RON PAUL” Newsletter that spanned the decades of the eighties and nineties?
If this doesn’t verify secretiveness on his part I do not know what does.
On the other hand I agree with many of Paul’s views on personal liberty and creating a responsible budget. However, I think that it would spell disaster to go on the gold standard as he advocates. I do think it is a good idea to buy gold as a hedge, however. I have already thoroughly covered my views on this in an entire treatise that will be included in my soon to be published book. You can read it here:
April 11, 2012
Secret Society
Rob: What? Is Obama too black to be a secret society member?
JJ Yeah, it’s kind of funny that Obama doesn’t seem to be a member of any secretive organization demonized by conspiracy buffs but he is doing more to destroy the foundations of freedom than any person in a long time.
This is because he is a member of the true conspiracy that operates from an invisible spiritual center and moves its focus around with each rising generation.
April 11, 2012
Re: Ron Paul and Defense
Keith: Millions of Jews and others died in concentration camps. I do not remember the allies going to war to save the Jewish race. Millions of Russian citizens died in Gulags. I do not remember the allies going to war to prevent Stalin’s genocide. Millions of Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks. I do not remember Britain, France or America coming to their aid. Saving races from genocide has never been an imperative for the west. To hold Ron Paul to such a high standard is ridiculous.
JJ No one said we went to war to save the Jewish race. The atrocities against the Jews were not clear at the time and what was reported was met with skepticism. Few really believed that Hitler could have been so evil as to systematically go about to destroy an entire race of people, especially the people who wrote most of the Bible.
The question was asked through using the benefit of hindsight. We basically fought against Hitler because he posed a great threat to the freedom of Western civilization but once the knowledge became available that Hitler exterminated six million Jews and had a goal to eliminate the whole race throughout the entire world once he conquered it then most people felt that alone would have been reason to act in some way. After all, we have Jews in the United states that Hitler would have had to eventually take out to insure the Arian race remains pure. Then most likely the blacks were next on his list as the Nazi philosophy calls then the “mud people” that are not to pollute the Arians through breeding.
It is well known tat Ron Paul only wants to respond militarily if we are directly attacked on our soil and, as quoted, the Ron Paul staffer said he would not have gone to war against Hitler. Thus the journalist presented to him what we know in hindsight – knowing what we know now – not in 1941. Would you have sent troops “to save the Jews.”
To this question we discover that he would have not gone to war with Hitler because of the threat he posed on the free world and on top of that he wouldn’t have gone to war to save the Jews from annihilation.
From his tone when speaking of things like this I would bet he wouldn’t even have supported economic sanctions, blockades or any moves to hamper Hitler because he believes strongly in non interference.
If Ron Paul was president during world War II he wouldn’t have assisted England in 1939 and Hitler would have won the Battle of Britain and gone on to develop the atomic bomb while Paul would have seen no need for it.
It would not have been long before Hitler would have attacked us with atomic bombs and conquered us and the entire world including Japan. There’s a lot I think FDR did wrong but I’m glad that he was in office instead of Paul during World War II.
Keith Shapiro is just one reporter with an opinion. Is his reporting accurate? Does he have an axe to grind with Ron Paul? Who knows? I am not impressed with hearsay from one reporter and one ex-staffer.
JJ I am inclined to believe that he is telling the truth for several reasons.
(1) His dialog with Paul sounds very similar to other dialog from him that I have read. (2) Paul has issued no statement refuting Shapiro. Most people in Paul’s shoes would defend themselves if incorrectly quoted on such an important subject. If in doubt one could just email Paul and ask him if Shapiro is lying? (3) Paul has never said he would have gone to war to defeat Hitler. (4) Paul was drafted during WWII and did not go voluntarily.
Keith: The newsletters have always sounded like a deliberate hatchet job to me. If the man says he never wrote the ones with racist comments – why don’t we take him at his word?
JJ I do take him at his word on this. No one is saying that he wrote the quoted material. I am saying that it is extreme negligence to say that you have no idea what was in a newsletter named RON PAUL when your name is RON PAUL and you are the publisher of the newsletter. It is also very strange that he says he never even read the statement.
Let us suppose Paul became present and managed the country as he managed his newsletter – we might see something like this:
Reporter: Sir, your Secretary of State threatened the life of the Russian president because he wouldn’t let him carry a gun in the Kremlin. What do you have to say?
Paul: That’s the first I have heard about it. What the secretary does is his business and has nothing to do with me. Next question.
Keith: I do believe he does not disown all of the newsletters.
JJ I am sure you are right but it is very negligent to not know or even agree with what is published under your name with your apparent approval. These articles were not attributed to some staff member but published under Paul’s name giving the impression he wrote them. I’ll tell you this that if I published a J J Dewey Newsletter and allowed someone to write articles as if it were me speaking I would damn well read them and make sure it was in harmony with my thinking. To not do this would be insane.
I would go farther than that. Anything written in the J J Newsletter would actually be my words unless otherwise noted.
Keith: If, Iran gets the bomb they will do what every country does who gets the bomb. Absolutely nothing.
JJ Do you feel comfortable enough in this belief to move to Israel? There is a big difference between Iran and the leaders of the Old Soviet Union, China and others. The Soviet leaders wanted to continue living. Many of the leaders in Iran would be happy to give their lives to destroy Israel and secure a place in heaven. Even North Korea couldn’t find 19 hijackers to give their lives for the cause but it was an easy thing for Islamic fundamentalists to do.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assisted in the taking of U.S. hostages at the risk of an attack from us that could have taken them out and probably would have if we had any other president but Carter. The leaders there are loose cannons and we have to do what we can to neutralize them.
It’s too bad Obama didn’t lend his support to the rebels in Iran a while back as he did toward the so-called Arab Spring. It is quite possible that the leadership would have been overthrown and we would have much less to worry about. But I think Ron Paul would have taken the same non-action on this as Obama did.
Easy Access to all the Writings
(You do not have to log in to add comments)