Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wanted: Men and Women of Courage
What we were doing was a lot easier in 2002 than it will be in 2009. Back then we were supporting the US government in the War on Terror. Shortly we will be dealing with a US government that is itself pro-terrorist and a public that wants to hear more about massive government giveaways than about the terrorist threat.
Meanwhile Obama's omnipresent cult of personality is already a pervasive reality, but will become more so when he actually occupies the White House. And it takes courage not to fall in line with a pervasive message aggressively broadcast through every channel. Many have already fallen in line or abandoned the fight. Others still have let themselves be herded into a "moderate" cage, moderation naturally being defined by the opposition as toothless opposition toward them and ruthless opposition toward us.
We are about to find out what it was like to be a German in 1930's Germany who knew Nazism was rotten to the core led by a sociopathic clown, or a Russian in Stalin's USSR, a Cuban in Castro's Socialist Paradise or more accurately Venezuelans living under Hugo Chavez, who saw and see arrogant and incompetent dictators rising to power by foul means and spreading their cult of personality far and wide-- who see a society gone mad.
That is not to say that opposing Obama at this point will mean a knock on the door and a trip to a basement at the local office of the internal security services. We are not at that stage. But rejecting the cult of personality around Obama means rejecting the dominant cultural paradigm, and it takes a strong mind to do that.
Numerous psychological experiments have shown how easily people can be pressured and swayed into doing everything from performing shock torture to giving answers they know to be wrong when they see that everyone else gives the wrong answer.
By such means it is perfectly possible to induce sane and intelligent people to state that 2 + 2 = 5 if they see everyone surrounding them state that 2 + 2 = 5. Our mission in these times is to proclaim that 2 + 2 = 4 , no matter how many times the media and the mob insists that it's 5.
That is courage. Courage is not simply rushing into a fire, it is also defying convention and conformity. One man with courage makes a majority, because courage rests in holding to ideals rather than bowing to the majority. And that is what we need. Men and women with the courage to go on defying conformity and speak out for what is right.
The weak minded are already falling away, penning congratulations and defenses of Obama. Others will give in to overt intimidation and peer pressure. But those who go on standing through the refining process will define the political resistance to the Obama Junta reading itself to seize control of America.
Obama is certainly incompetent to be president.ReplyDelete
I have seriously wondered at the mind of those who voted for him.
It is beyond comprehension as to what kind of thinking takes place.
(no I am not a republican. My parents were Democrats it was how I was raised. I still would never have voted for someone as obviously socialist-communist as Obama.)
Count me in-2+2,will always equal, 4.ReplyDelete
I am a conservative republican who believes in right and wrong.
Unfortunately the people who voted for Obama didn't put much thinking in their decision to vote for him. The entire campaign was all a mega reality show.ReplyDelete
I might defer to just about everyone on all matters; the kind of person others would call a doormat or gullible. But on Obama???
2+2=4 and it will never equal 5. I've stood my ground with co-workers, which is atypical for me but...2+2=4 and no amount of PC pressuring or desire to conform will change that.
I just want to applaud you for keeping blogging and shouting the truth. Right on!ReplyDelete
~ Anna, Israel ~
"We are about to find out what it was like to be a German in 1930's Germany who knew Nazism..."ReplyDelete
Yip. I've thought about it a lot. I keep looking at the names of my family who died there and those who managed to survive. I keep their names by my desk.
Then I think of the 600+ camps FEMA created. They created them originally to be used for blacks, hispanics and orientals who might eventually cause trouble and other's who might oppose the government.
I think we're about to see a new era of nazism muzlim style. Lead by an illegal alien, who IS muzlim and got into office thanks to commies and socialists.
I'm sure marx and hitler would be proud. They managed to invade America and win without even a fight.
thank you annaReplyDelete
"I'm sure marx and hitler would be proud. They managed to invade America and win without even a fight."ReplyDelete
that was what marx always had in mind, a revolution in a western industrialized nation
russia was never the plan, it was an accident
Joseph Goebbels is quoted as saying that "propaganda built the Third Reich."ReplyDelete
Obama-voters were led straight to the ballot box by a propaganda media because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character.
This (s)election was surreal. Everything wrong about a candidate was this guy Obama, but the media never touched him.
There must be TEN Pulitzer Prizes laid out for the pickings, but no journalist will touch them.
The scariest thing of all about Obama is the "Civilian Defense Corps." NOT ONE PEEP from the media. These are the brownshirts.
Let's roll America.
Bravo! Thanks for standing up and speaking out for what is right. Here is a good 3-point roadmap for the long fight ahead - www.nevilleawards.com/leftist_con.shtmlReplyDelete
Let's roll. That's exaclty what we need to do.ReplyDelete
HARD TIMES SELECT WINNERSReplyDelete
Discover the problem and it's solution so you will have the clarity to sustain yourself.
Then don't fear anything but G-d.
May Hashem avenge the blood of all the victims of the Muslim ghouls, and may the living finally say "NO MORE!"
If you are Jewish, do more Mitzvot and find and start learning the Rebbe's Torah teachings, and spread them. That will do more to hasten the end of this than anything else.
As Keli Ata says, "Let's Roll." Because the main thing is action, and the few righteous can and will prevail over the many wicked.
Good luck in your fight, Sultan. Have fun.ReplyDelete
As an aside to the communist/socialist comments, my great-grandparents, who were ACTUAL Communists (Bubbe supported the USSR all through the Cold War- her kids thought she would get them all arrested), would be rolling in their graves to see their great Marx and Stalin compared with the likes of Obama. Sorry, I just don't see the resemblance.
Short and sweet and says it all, Sultan.ReplyDelete
Friar, I do see a resemblance. Just look into Benoit Mandelbrot's work in fractals and self-similarity. Obama is one branch on the communist tree and quite similar to the others.
(Been learning about fractals and self-similarity lately. Why oh why didn't anyone tell me geometry could have applications in just about everything--including politics?)
Obumbo is a communist. He is marxist in thought and outlook.ReplyDelete
He is a shill however.
Sultan- how pithy. And here I was expecting some actual arguments from you. You must be saving your verbal strength for the great Obama war.ReplyDelete
(OTOH, I bet Obama's about as enamored-- or not-- of Communism as I am, so maybe you're on the right track after all.)
acorn, tree sums up both the path from marx to obama and from you to your grandmotherReplyDelete
political labels become outmoded but the ideas merge, reemerge and return in a more sanitized and acceptable form
it happened to both communism and nazism
acorn, tree sums up both the path from marx to obama and from you to your grandmotherReplyDelete
What a vapid statement. I know there's a path from me to my g.grandmother because I just TOLD you about it- but despite the fact that we are blood-related, our political opinions have little in common, though we are both "left" of center. My g.grandmother lived her life waiting for the overthrow of the world and the worker's revolution. I have no such illusion that such a thing will happen, nor am I convinced it would be such a good thing. She hypocritically supported the USSR over the United States while never having the conviction (luckily for us) to uproot her family from Brooklyn and make the reverse trip back to the Ukraine to experience the paradise of the Soviets firsthand. I have my criticisms of the United States but have no desire to live elsewhere. (Ditto for capitalism- I think it has the potential to be abused but I think a better answer lies in regulation, not eradication of it as an economic system as such.) And, AFAIK, she was blind to the faults of Communism's leaders, especially Stalin, up through her final days. I fully know our leaders (left and right) are fallible.
My g.grandmother was a Utopian. I'd like to think I'm an optimistic realist.
So remind me again, what have I to do with her? And what has Obama to do with Marx? It's very convenient to say "labels change, ideas change, but some of them fuse and become new ideas." Wow, really? How about some examples of the great Karl Obama in action? If he's such a screaming pinko it should be easy.
you're talking about a change of tactics rather than a change of ideologyReplyDelete
Marx started out pushing domestic Western revolutions, Soviet Communism tried to shift the center of the revolution to itself, with the collapse of Communism, we're back to Western revolutions no longer Communist in name but in endgame
you're talking about a change of tactics rather than a change of ideologyReplyDelete
So says you. You still throw around the labels as if you have something to back them up. In my personal case, this clearly isn't true, since, as I've demonstrated, I do not agree with Communism as a political or economic system. Strike one.
I'd like to see if your proclamations about Obama's supposed Communist ideology are more substantial. This would be far easier if you'd stop weaseling and provide some actual information to support your ever-so-fiery rhetoric.
we're back to Western revolutions no longer Communist in name but in endgame
How so? Even if we accept the premise that Obama is advocating a revolution (which judging from his cabinet picks doesn't seem to be where he's headed), you have offered nothing to support the claim that his endgame is specifically Communist or Socialist. There have been plenty of revolutions in the world that didn't involve Socialism. Why are you so convinced Obama is determined to model his on Marx?
You can call it Communism or by any name you like. Communism as a brand has been radically devalued, so few people use it anymore. But it really doesn't matter so long as the basic parameters of the system are the same.ReplyDelete
Obama's Marxist ties and beliefs have been extensively documented. If that's what you're really interested in, a quick search can quickly help you find them. Since this isn't a post about Obama's Marxism, it's not my job to waste time documenting Obama's radical left wing beliefs for a radical left winger.
I'm interested in you taking responsibility as a supposed "journalist" and backing up the crap you spew.ReplyDelete
it's not my job
How convenient for you! So you get to label Obama (or anyone else you feel like) as "radical" without bothering to substantiate the claim (or even define the term). I particularly love how you continue to apply the same label to me, again, without anything to back it up. If I'm the standard for a Communist or radical, then I feel pretty secure with Obama.
You're right, I wouldn't want to take up too much of your valuable time, it could reduce the quality of your song parodies or Photoshop pictures.
doesn't matter so long as the basic parameters of the system are the same.ReplyDelete
Wonderful! Something approaching a definition. Now tell me- what parameters are the same?
Somehow you confused the term Journalist with "Guy who is willing to spend weeks debating me in the comments section on an issue tangential to the actual article"ReplyDelete
An actual journalist would not have bothered responding to you in the first place.
Liberalism has long adopted the basic tenets of Marxism, and class warfare shifted along an oppressed group axis and wealth redistribution combined with the creation of vast bureaucratic and undemocratic entities to enforce their version of social justice are at the core of their agenda.
Friar--I would suggest you read "Rules for Radicals" by Communist Saul Alinsky. Hillary Clinton wrote her dissertation on Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's work and writings have also inspired the Gamaliel Foundation--one of the organizations Barack Obama worked for as a "community organizer."ReplyDelete
So far two Alinsky fans heading for Washington.
Obama's ties to the Gamaliel Foundation have been largely ignored by the mainstream media but these ties are significant. Here I can speak with some authority because for years I attended and covered one of the Gamaliel Foundation's affiliate organizations.
So I believe I have just cause to be suspicious of Obama and the cabinet he is forming. What so many in the media are calling a dream team I would call a nightmare.
Had more attention been given to Obama's work with the Gamaliel Foundation than the Jeremiah Wright issue it is doubtful that the American public would have elected him president. That is how strongly I feel about this matter.
The way I see it, Obama's mantra of "Yes We Can" is the same as the "united in brotherhood and work" in the Russian national anthem.
Obama has the same anthem, minus the rousing Russian power song.
Strange. I posted something, the type in box cleared but I didn't get the notice about comment moderation.ReplyDelete
But what I wanted to say to Friar was this--if you want to see how much Barack Obama resembles Marx, Stalin etc. I would suggest that you read Communist Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
Hillary Clinton wrote her dissertation on Rules for Radicals (obtaining copies of her dissertation has been difficult btw).
One of the community organizations that Barack Obama worked for was the Gamaliel Foundation, which is heavily influenced by the teachings of Alinsky.
I can speak with some authority on the Gamaliel Foundation since I've covered a local affiliate and attended meetings and saw first hand how these feign grassroots organizations really work.
So we have two people heading to Washington who have been influenced by Saul Alinsky--Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Obama's mantra of "Yes We Can" has the same ring as the "United in brotherhood and work" in the national anthem of the former Soviet Union.
The only difference between the two is that Obama doesn't have the Russian power music as the Russian national anthem.
I only wish the media would have focused more on Obama's work with Gamaliel and less on Jeremiah Wright. His work with Gamaliel needed some really indepth, enterprising reporting.
Instead we got fluff interviews about Obama and a new puppy and the hideous dress Michelle Obama wore on election night.
The head of the American Communist Party certainly feels Obama is leading America their wayReplyDelete
Keli Ata- thanks for your response. I think I will check out Alinsky's book. He certainly seems like a pretty loony guy. On the other hand, I think there's still a difference between working with a group built around Alinsky's vision and being an out-and-out Marxist. As someone who was actually there, though, I'd love to hear about Gamaliel's ideology and tactics.ReplyDelete
What my question ultimately boils down to is this-- are the people accusing Obama of being a Communist basing their accusations on actual substance and connections, or is "Communist" really just a lazy code for "liberal," "Democrat" or "anyone to the left of me?" So far, the conservative blogosphere has consistently underwhelmed me on this point.
Communism, Marxist or Liberalism are simply labels, that refer to various parties and ideologies at various times and places.ReplyDelete
Liberal in particular has a wide range of meaning, and has been used to refer to both right wing and left wing parties, and across a broad ideological spectrum. Marxism by contrast has a more specific and Marxist ideas have come to be integrated into what is today known in America as liberalism and into the Democratic party.
Friar--Thank you. I hope this helps to clarify a few things.ReplyDelete
Journalist Stanley Kurtz, whom I corresponded with, has done some first-rate enterprising reporting on Obama's Gamaliel Foundation work.
Here is a link to one of his articles.
Barack Obama would never label himself a member of the Communist Party or Socialist Party nor become registered member. He doesn't really have to since so much about him has a Communist-like quality.
Key to the Alinsky philosophy of community organizing is to work within the Democracy. I mean, what American would elect an openly Communist candidate? So they ditch that label and anything else that causes a knee jerk reaction from the average American.
The reason I describe the Gamaliel Foundation and its local affiliates across the country as a feign grassroots movement is because they're just not grassroots; not born ouf the daily struggles of the people.
In my city the Gamaliel Foundation affiliate I had experience with was called VOICE. It's described as a faith-based organization. Voice has a handful of paid workers who interact with various churches.
A couple of times a year they hold public meetings. Each meeting begins with a parade of churches into an auditorium; each church carrying its own banner--sort of like the parade of nations at the Olympics.
Various politicians are brought up to the auditorium and forced to make committments to take action on a particular issue (ie. citywide totes to rid the city of rats; increased police patrol). Anything that's relatively easy to succeed at, though it's mainly the success of the influential powerful few, not the people of the member churches.
Months later the politicians are called to another meeting, but not permitted to speak. If they've failed to deliver on their committments, they are berated publicly. Public humiliation.
There are also smaller "core team" meetings in which members of a particular parish (about 9-10 people) gather. The core team I covered and attended always began with a Catholic hymn called Here I Am Lord. Lyrics include the phrase , "Here I am lord. Is it I lord? I, the lord of sea and sky have heard my people cry..."
Next, the meeting follows a strict agenda and time line. No variation or allowance for anyone with an urgent concern. Nothing off topic. It's all quite anal retentive.
After the meeting each member of the core team is asked to sum up their feelings about it in one or two words--which is most likely why Obama's official slogans were so brief: "Yes We Can" and "Change" and "Hope". That is straight out of Gamaliel, which is why the "united in brotherhood and work" of the Russian national anthem reminds me so much of Obama's slogans.
Somewhere along the way a religious mission of a member church gets merged with the political agenda of VOICE, be it increased police presence, rodent abatement, or regionalism (regionalism is a huge thing with the local Gamaliel Foundation affiliate). Yes. Very much like Obama's speech in Germany: "People of Berlin, people of the world, this is OUR moment."
I know some people discredit the idea that Obama is a Communist because he's not an atheist. Under the Alinsky movement members do not have to be atheist, at least at first, because as I wrote, religious mission and political mission are blurred. They are the same.
Obama would never call his followers/supporters
"commrades" but he does frequently call them "folks."
I have no doubt the people who join a Gamaliel organization have altruistic goals of a society in which everyone takes care of the other. It's an appeal that well, would appeal to Christians in particular--the whole "I am my brother's keeper."
But as with Communism, the power does not rest with the people at all but rather with a select few who are extremely influential and controlling. A couple of personal examples--
Voice asked me to cover one of their events. I said I would if I had the time. Well, I didn't have the time and since it wasn't a paid assignment I skipped it.
Monday morning a Voice member left a rambling message on my answering machine about how I "dropped the ball" and didn't have a modicum of decency.
Praise when the media is favorable to them, intimidation and harrassment when they're not. Can you imagine the Communist party in Russia exerting similar pressure over the media or any dissenter?
Another time, I was invited to attend a meeting with several paid VOICE members and the DA to discuss several unsolved cold case homicides. The DA, who knew me well, had no problem with me sitting in on the meeting.
At the last minute, Voice objected and I was out. They only wanted to put their spin on what was said at the meeting, nothing fair and objective.
So to wrap things up...is Obama an official member of the Communist/Socialist party? No. Is he part of a Communist-like party? Absolutely, with an Alinsky spin--work withing one of the major American political parties--Democratic--to institute Communist-like change.
Communist-like because unlike a true Communist he doesn't advocate atheism and works within an existing American political party.
After all, if Obama ran on the Social/Communist party line he wouldn't have had a chance being elected. Slim to zero chance with the Working Families, Green Party or Libertarian party.
Again, I would suggest reading Stanley Kurtz's articles, which goes into much more depth about the Gamaliel Foundation. If you're especially interested, you might want to attend the group's two-week leadership training.
I t hink you guys is making this stuff up form a firy tale that is what i thikReplyDelete
What you got for proofs of this you saying
If I got to go to a basement it wont be cos I am a liberal terrist.
What does it mean cult of persolatiy? You make up another word for this? I never heard of such a group .
Marxist ideas have come to be integrated into what is today known in America as liberalism and into the Democratic party.ReplyDelete
It depends what ideas you're talking about. A large component of Marxist ideas are observational, not strictly ideological, such paying attention to the working class and believing that they serve as barometers of the state of a state's economic success. I don't know that many conservative economists would disagree with the above "idea." That does not make it accurate to call them "Marxists" as the term is popularly understood. Ditto for the Marxist belief that the conditions of the working class are changeable- the idea that people can improve their situation is a basic tenet of America's mythos- "the land of opportunity." This connection does not make the Founding Fathers "Marxists."
In my observations, Marxism or permutations of it are often overused and painted in the broadest of terms, and are generally used as rhetorical weapons to discredit or smear a left-leaning personality by a right-leaning one, not unlike someone accusing someone of being a Nazi. I think it is intellectually lazy as well as dishonest to use this rhetoric as cavalierly as I see many people doing, particularly if the only "Marxist" thing about a particular person can be called "Marxist" in the most broad and general sense.
Keli Ata- I appreciate your information about Gamaliel, but, to be honest, a lot of the things you mentioned strike me more as being emblematic of a political organization than one focused around Communism specifically.ReplyDelete
Summing grand ideas up as buzz words isn't a Communist concept, it's basic marketing and management. Obama calls supporters "folks," but so does Bill O'Reilly. There are political organizations from all over the spectrum where the power has unfortunately been consolidated into the hands of a small elite. I don't see how they can all be "Marxist."
Intimidation and embarrassment at bad media coverage? Take a look at how any number of conservative personalities have responded to bad press (Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, to name a few). When it comes to discussing tactics, I'm not seeing anything here that stands out, with the possible exception of publicly berating politicians for failing to deliver on their promises (on the other hand, I feel like we could stand to have a forum like that on all sorts of level in the US, not unlike the Prime Minister's Questions but for all of Congress); if nothing else it has the potential to enforce accountability.
Kurtz's article is useful for at least attempting to uncover ideological links to radicalism in Obama's past, but a lot of it comes back to guilt by association- he quotes at length from a book written by a Gamaliel trainer. This is useful to learn about Gamaliel (and there's plenty of rhetoric in there I find alarming), but we still don't know anything more about Obama's positions than we did before we started. We don't know which of Jacobsen's principles he has swallowed whole or which he has rejected or wrestled with. This is like reading one of the many textbooks I was forced to read in college to extrapolate my present-day political views. I think there's a huge fallacy in assuming automatic agreement with everything Jacobsen believes simply by Obama having been a member of Gamaliel. Ditto for the alleged "foundational principle" of Gamaliel and ACORN, wealth distribution. Kurtz is very low on the details of what these groups' practical goals are, making it even harder to hypothesize to what degree Obama shares them.
It's also very difficult to get around the fact that Kurtz is not providing a whole lot of information to support his claim of Gamaliel's "real agenda." He claims to know what the agenda really is, (referencing, while not quoting, a study I suspect very few people have read), then points to Gamaliel's public presentation of their agenda as evidence of "stealth tactics." Not only does every political organization constantly engage in dressing up their message, Kurtz is failing to back up his claims about Gamaliel's supposed radicalism.
I agree that sounds like they favor a lot of government intervention and assistance, though this is tempered by Kurtz's note that publicly they "usually emphasize individual responsibility". They might want more government than I think is best, but I don't see the radicalism here-- much less the assumed automatic leap by Kurtz that their "radicalism" and agenda are identical to Obama's.
Could there be something substantive there? Yes. But I'm also seeing a lot of leaps along the way.
(Apologies to SK for the long response; KA, I'd be happy to take this over to your blog if you or Sultan prefer.)