IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME to realize that communism and socialism are just the rebirth of economic late feudalism. I kind of got it well enough before this one conversation, but it was something the son of a Cuban immigrant, whose father started his own small restaurant, that clarified it for me. It was simple: He said of the Europeans and their socialism, "Yeah. They want to have the money and not let anyone else get it." Doesn't sound profound, but it hit the nail on the head for me:
These rich advocates of socialism and communism, like a Bill Ayers, know they will always be part of a privileged class. They are not going to give away all their money. And they will not allow the government to take all their money. They will make sure their offspring are "cared for"and not cared for by the state...
So, instead of selling off all their assets, donating almost all of it to the poor, and living off, say, $50,000 a yearthey are willing to give up an ultimately inconsequential amount of their wealth in the form of taxes if the government will do the same to everyone in a draconian tax system that funds a government "wealth redistribution" system. That will make them feel better about being elite. The problem isthe draconian tax system ends up dramatically freezing social mobility. There has never been a system with as much social mobility as capitalism. Communism produced only revolutions in which old aristocrats were slaughtered by those who became the new ones.
Socialism is less bloody. It just freezes things as they are. Which is a pretty good deal for the rich. Competition is stifled and upstarts don't crash their dinner parties...
B-I-N-G-O! Been telling my wife that for years. Obama did it for me. His disgruntled women Hillarycrats continue to be in denial about how false communism really works. Grab all the money, then...well, one can suggest that socialism is less bloody unless one actually counts the corpses of the state's enemies in the case of rigid communism, or a considerable slide in the quality of life for those trapped in the cage of confused and confusing socialism. While each of those centralized governing systems believes that practice makes perfect, we here at the Project still maintain that capitalism, and capitalism governed by a moral and just democratic infrastructure remains the purest form of communism every practiced.
But we do appreciate your insights. Oh yeah, the Hillarycrat women still think Obama is Bush III, as they did even before the election of 2008 in which they had their Hillary votes stolen at every turn right up to the Democratic Convention. So we learned a thing or two from these women, these lifelong Dems. But we immediately saw his special deep pockets connection to Wall Street a natural place for a pseudo-Marxist (the only kind the world has ever seen) in motion, to suck all the money upward, and truly cripple the economy. Part Two is far worse should he get re-elected. God forbid.
I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING this semantic battle for years now. Our problem is NOT only with "radical Muslims"...it is with all of Islam! The heart of the "religion" is that the entire world must be politically conquered for "Allah" (a.k.a. Satan, or Lucifer) and all people must either bow down to "Allah" or be killed. No other choices are allowed, folks... sorry! I should also point out that the "peaceful Muslims" are the ones who fund the radicals, harbor the radicals, and celebrate the victories of the radicals over the "infidels" (infidels = you and me). The "peaceful Muslims" may not pull the triggers or slit the throats themselves, but they ARE complicit, and will side with their more active brothers and sisters once the crowd dynamic is favorable, by and large.
By the way, note the natural alliance between the Progressive Marxists and the Muslims: one of the Progressive "gods" is, Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book to Lucifer...
Is it any wonder that BOTH the Muslims and the Progressives want to destroy traditional American society and "fundamentally change" it?
I also agree with the important point raised by Athletik in his comments: we REALLY need to define what constitutes a religion that may be practiced in the United States. Does that sound unreasonable? Well, would we allow the practice of a religion of Cannibalism here? How about a religion of Random Rapists? How about the worship of Moloch, where babies are murdered as sacrifices to a god? Until we come to recognize as a society, that allowing Islam to exist here is just like allowing a rabid dog to roam in your own home, we are signing our own death warrant. It cannot end well. Ask Europe...
Take a look at this one, folks. It seems that Obama worship is slowing in its tracks less than a full month after the man from Illinois has taken office. Where's that mandate now, Mr. President? Is this sudden fallout with the Washington (by way of Chicago) crowd the mere tip of the iceberg, and given how the November election played out, one might be forgiven for wondering what in the world did these states have up their sleeves, and when did they put it there?
Some have suggested that the Obama team has ratcheted up its Saul Alinsky method with such torque in such a short time that backlash and outright rebellion leading to secession of some regions of America could occur within four to five years. That seems unlikely, but so did this so soon after the Anointed One took the oath of office (twice, by the way).
Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.
The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.
"We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government," said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called "Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment." Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards.
NOW DARE YOU BLASPHEME against Emperor Obama, known here in my world as the Precious One, Obama Nutshell, The One We Have Been Waiting For. People in flyover states shouldn't even get a vote. You don't know what is best for you like those of us on the coasts do. We are more enlightened and have better schools. We live in high rises and live close to our jobs and talk to our friends and know what is best for the country. We know how to take care of the environment because we see it every few years on vacation. You people who live in the country don't love this land as much as we do. You are just stupid and hicks and cling to your guns and religion. Soon we will get rid of the fairness doctine and close down right wing talk radio and you won't even know what to think anymore. We will restrict your guns and free speech and within a generation American will be all that it should be. You conservatives are just holding us back. Marriage is an outdated principle. God is a figment of your imaginations. Government is the answer to all questions.
Let Live, Let love, let those who think like us be free to live the lives we are entitled to. We need free medical care, we need to open up the borders so all can share in the wealth we will take. We need to manufacture only non-polluting 100 percent eco friendly products. We need to stop robbing the world of its resources and stop mining, drilling, and taking from America. We need to stop importing natural resources from abroad and stop exploiting them from America. We need to outlaw all uses of energy and grow our economy. No one needs a car or transportation. It is killing our mother earth. We need to take the assets of those who have accumulated them and distribute them to all so that all is fair and good. We need to sit down and talk to our enemies. That is the only way to reach true peace and harmony. They don't want to kill us, they just want our acceptance and love.
What is wrong with you stupid neo-cons who don't see the light. It would all be so easy if we just love one another. Obama is the way, the truth, and the light. He is the only one who can save us from those who would do us harm. He has the answers and we should follow him blindly. He shields us from the storm. He is the one.
A comment I found on another blog:
Can you imagine what Keith Olberman and the other wolverines of the Leftist media would scream if kids sang like this for Palin or even George Bush?
Sorry folks, I am not of a religious persuasion myself and no man needs this type of adoration from innocent kids who don’t know or fully understand the concept of the Presidency, much less the meatgrinding subtleties of presidential politics. Whoever becomes the next President will not escape their own scandals and morale lapses. This Obama Nation stuff is a cult.
This reminds me of when I was back in Cuba as a little girl in kindergarten. We were made to sing praises to Fidel and this is exactly what it looked and sounded like.
Also the teacher would ask for us to sit down at our desks, bow our heads, and pray to God for some ice cream. Of course, after she told us to open our eyes there was no ice cream. Then she would ask us to do the same, this time asking Fidel for the ice cream. When we were told to open our eyes they’d placed an ice cream cup in front of each one of us and we were then asked to give praise to Fidel for providing us with all our needs.
Indoctrination of the youth, the simplest way to spread the communist propaganda. After all, children are pretty much a clean slate and you can easily program their minds with whatever heinous doctrines you want to instill without too much effort. Can you say madrassa?
Okay, let's shoot the sheriff...
I want to make one important distinction between the "followers" of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. Yes, there are Palinites who want to see her as someone "annointed" by a higher power. But it is equally true that many, far too many Obamabots see HIM as the higher power. It's a distinction worth mentioning.
The scary thing is he does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to discourage it. His campaign, in fact, is encouraging this kind of adulation and support. The candidate should have said, please no billboards on buildings, no songs, no prayers, no tshirts, no concessionsbut did he?
If that single photo of the African-Arab father did not exist, I think they would be saying Obama was immaculately conceived. This video frightfully reminds me of 25 year ago when I was in Red China. I ran away from the communists then and now it seems the communists are stomping around on these shores in great mainstream numbers. From China I recall that we were singing the leader's name for 10 years and now we are singing to Obama's name. This is very scary to me.
I don't understand why people still believe that Obama was never a Muslim when in one of his own books he wrote in his own words, "If the political winds shift in an ugly direction I will stand with the Muslims". At least he was being honest about taqiyya.
How are we supposed to believe that Obama never heard a single chapter or verse of all those anti-America and anti-white sermons of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years? That is nothing but applied runabout. Michelle Obama's remark that "America is a mean country" and "for the first time in my life I am proud to be an American" is a bit unsettling and remarkably hypocritical, given the job she does for that Chicago hospital.
What about those comments from Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton who, during the primaries, said Obama is naive, inexperienced and not fit to be president? How could Obama be suddenly fit to be president just because they are now supporting him and the party which subverted the democratic process in the caucus states primaries and even at their own convention?
And so much more...but who cares, right? Obama is simply THE ONE. And where the truth fails to grip the road, it's just as easy to say you are merely being sarcastic for humor's sake. Yeah, right.
From the Talmud: "We see things not as they are, but as we are."
So what are we? Most of us have become pawns in a media-controlled environment where pop-psychology and -culture have replaced intelligent discourse, where individualism and critical thinking have become obsolete, and where conventional wisdom is simply group-think. I am frankly amazed by the level of idiocy to which I am exposed in the most informal of settings. So now we are on the verge of electing a man to the highest office in the land who is unknown; that's okay though, because he's for change. Vapid. Thank you, public school system. We are right where the liberal media want us.
Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for revolution, a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure.
The stated goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicteda revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapseto be followed by the election of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal "changes" are needed.
IN THE SAUL ALINSKY MODEL, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicteda revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation.
Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapseto be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.
But Alinsky’s Chicago brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform.
One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:
“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”
Read it all in the UK Spectator. And then there is the old gray elephant in the roomthe concern over Obama's religious base.
But let's be honest about all this high octane gutter sleuthing. As the always insightful Max Publius puts it, "That his paternal family is Muslim or that his maternal family were communists is not the problem. After all, some of the harshest critics of Islam are ex-Muslims (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq), and some of the harshest critics of communism were "red diaper babies" like David Horowitz.
"What is very disturbing is that Obama decided on his own to join a genuinely racist, anti-semitic, psycho-led "Christian Identity" church for African Americans, and now he is the chosen Democrat for president."
Disturbing indeed. To paraphrase what Duh Swami writes elsewhere in another online comment, "I don't think Obama is a Muslim in crass legalistic terms, but I think he is a sympathizer of the Islamic agenda. Anyone who believes, that Allah is God, and Mohammad is his messenger, is a Muslim by sympathy if not actuality. And we cannot take this admission lightly, and more than we could accept Nazi sympathy last century when at war with Nazis.
This is why the key questions we must press this presidential candidate on this topic, just as Jack Kennedy was inspected with regard to his allegiance to the Pope. Is Allah God? Is Mohammad his messenger? We deserve to know EXACTLY what Obama thinks on this topic.
If one believes that Allah is God (we all worship the same God), and acknowledge Mohammad's messengership, he has given Islam credibility as an authentic religion, he believes the Quran, even if he has not read it, even if there is no prayers, no jakat, no jihad, he is a sympathetic Muslim just the same, and Allah is his god.
For a President Barack, God help us all, how deep this sympathy goes will directly effect his behavior toward everything Islamic while he is in office.
There is a branch of magick called sympathetic magick. The magician enters into a state sympathy with the target and exerts some kind of control. In Gene Roddenberry's fictional treatment the Vulcan mind meld technique would be an example, where Spock enters into a state of sympathy with the subject and can read his mind.
It appears that most of the chattering Muslims of the world seem to agree that candidate Barack is already in a state of sympathy with them. However, despite all of his talents as a community organizer, he will not be able to control this magical act because he is not the magician. Entrenched Islam and its "true" sons are the magicians, and they will play Obama's magical sympathy like a symphony...
The following excerpt of an essay by John Perazzo published at Front Page Mag is a splendid starting point for educating oneself concerning the unsavory tactics of revolutionaries, radicals, and enforcers rising up from both the Left and the Right. Read it all. The link to the full essay, which is rather long and comprehensive, is at the end of this excerpt.
AMERICANS ARE WELL-ACQUAINTED with presidential candidate Barack Obama’s legendary pledges to bring “change” to America’s political and social landscape. (For example, see here and here and here.) Indeed, “Change We Can Believe In” is the slogan that adorns the homepage of his campaign website and so many of the placards displayed by the supporters who attend his speaking engagements.
His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is also well practiced at issuing calls for change. Her “Change and Experience” ad campaign was but an outgrowth of her 1993 declaration, as First Lady, that “remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.” Most Americans are unaware, however, that when Obama and Clinton speak of “change,” they mean change in the sense that a profoundly significant, though not widely known, individualSaul Alinsky outlined in his writings two generations ago.
Alinsky helped to establish the confrontational political tactics, which he termed “organizing,” that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. Both Obama and Clinton are committed disciples of Alinsky’s very specific strategies for “social change.”
Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care, when first unveiling their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of crude language, defiant demeanor, or menacing appearance that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. For this very reason, he disliked the hippies and counterculture activists of the 1960s. As Richard Poe puts it: “Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”
While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.” “Tactics must begin with the experience of the middle class,” he said, “accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity, and conflict. Start them easy, don’t scare them off.”
To appeal to the middle class, Alinsky continued, “goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’; ‘Of the Common Welfare’; ‘Pursuit of happiness’; or ‘Bread and Peace.’” He suggested, for instance, that an effective organizer “discovers what their [the middle class’] definition of the police is, and their language [and] he discards the rhetoric that always says ‘pig’ [in reference to police]. Instead of hostile rejection he is seeking bridges of communication and unity over the gaps. He will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hang-ups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this and more must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class.”
A related principle taught by Alinsky was that radical organizers must not only speak the language of the middle class, but that they also must dress their crusades in the vestments of morality. “Moral rationalization,” he said, “is indispensable to all kinds of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.” “All great leaders,” he added, “invoked ‘moral principles’ to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of ‘freedom,’ ‘equality of mankind,’ ‘a law higher than man-made law,’ and so on.” In short: “All effective actions require the passport of morality.”
This tactic of framing one’s objectives in the rhetoric of morality precisely paralleled a communist device for deception known as “Aesopian language,” which J. Edgar Hoover described as follows:
“Nearly everyone is familiar with the fables of Aesop…. Often the point of the story is not directly stated but must be inferred by the reader. This is a ‘roundabout’ presentation. Lenin and his associates before 1917, while living in exile, made frequent use of ‘Aesopianism.’ Much of their propaganda was written in a ‘roundabout’ and elusive style to pass severe Czarist censorship. They desired revolution but could not say so. They had to resort to hints, theoretical discussions, even substituting words, which, through fooling the censor, were understood by the ‘initiated,’ that is, individuals trained in [Communist] Party terminology….
“The word ‘democracy’ is one of the communists’ favorite Aesopian terms. They say they favor democracy, that communism will bring the fullest democracy in the history of mankind. But, to the communists, democracy does not mean free speech, free elections, or the right of minorities to exist. Democracy means the domination of the communist state, the complete supremacy of the Party. The greater the communist control, the more ‘democracy.’ ‘Full democracy,’ to the communist, will come only when all noncommunist opposition is liquidated.
“Such expressions as ‘democracy,’ ‘equality,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘justice’ are merely the Party’s Aesopian devices to impress noncommunists. Communists clothe themselves with everything good, noble, and inspiring to exploit those ideals to their own advantage.”
But Alinsky understood that there was a flip side to his strategy of speaking the palatable language of the middle class and the reassuring parlance of morality. Specifically, he said that organizers must be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing -for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they claim to actto watch society descend into utter chaos and anarchy. He stated that they must be prepared, if necessary, to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”
One way in which organizers and their disciples can broadcast their preparedness for this possibility is by staging loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing deep rage and discontent over one particular injustice or another. Such demonstrations can give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present (already formidable) size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. “A mass impression,” said Alinsky, “can be lasting and intimidating. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“The threat,” he added, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” “If your organization is small in numbers,” said Alinsky, “conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”
“Wherever possible,” Alinsky counseled, “go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.” Marching mobs of chanting demonstrators accomplishes this objective. The average observer’s reaction to such a display is of a dual nature: First he is afraid. But he also recalls the organizer’s initial articulation of middle-class ideals and morals. Thus he convinces himself that the People’s Organization is surely composed of reasonable people who actually hold values similar to his own, and who seek resolutions that will be beneficial to both sides. This thought process causes him to profferin hopes of appeasing the angry mobsconcessions and admissions of guilt, which the organizer in turn exploits to gain still greater moral leverage and to extort further concessions.
In Alinsky’s view, action was more often the catalyst for revolutionary fervor than vice versa. He deemed it essential for the organizer to get people to act first (e.g., participate in a demonstration) and rationalize their actions later. “Get them to move in the right direction first,” said Alinsky. “They’ll explain to themselves later why they moved in that direction.”
Among the most vital tenets of Alinsky’s method were the following:
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”
“No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their ‘book’ of rules and regulations.”
“Practically all people live in a world of contradictions. They espouse a morality which they do not practice.… This dilemma can and should be fully utilized by the organizer in getting individuals and groups involved in a People’s Organization. It is a very definite Achilles’ heel even in the most materialistic person. Caught in the trap of his own contradictions, that person will find it difficult to show satisfactory cause to both the organizer and himself as to why he should not join and participate in the organization. He will be driven either to participation or else to a public and private admission of his own lack of faith in democracy and man.”
We have seen this phenomenon played out many times in recent years. For instance, a case of police brutality against black New Yorker Abner Louima in 1997 was cited repeatedly by critics of the police as emblematic of a widespread pattern of abuse aimed at nonwhite minorities. Similarly, the misconduct of a handful of American soldiers at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 was portrayed as part of a much larger pattern that had been approved by the highest levels of the U.S. government.
And on the battlefields of the Middle East, any American military initiative that has inadvertently killed innocent civilians has been cited by opponents of the war as evidence that U.S. troops are maniacal, bloodthirsty killers. In each of the foregoing examples, the allegedly hypocritical American authorities were accused of having violated their own “book of rules” (rules that are supposed to govern the conduct of the police or the military).
Alinsky taught that in order to most effectively cast themselves as defenders of moral principals and human decency, organizers must react with “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever their targeted enemy in any way misspeaks or fails to live up to his “book of rules.”
Moreover, said Alinsky, whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength,” said Alinsky. He advised organizers to “laugh at the enemy” in an effort to provoke “an irrational anger.” “Ridicule,” said Alinsky, “is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
According to Alinsky, it was vital that organizers focus on multiple crusades and multiple approaches. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” he wrote. “Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time. New issues and crises are always developing.” “Keep the pressure on,” he continued, “with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
Toward this end, Alinksy advised organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank.” In other words, organizers should keep a stockpile of comparatively small crusades which they are already prepared to conduct, and to which they can instantly turn their attention after having won a major victory of some type. These “fights in the bank” serve the dual purpose of keeping the organization’s momentum going, while not allowing its major crusade to get “stale” from excessive public exposure.