Posts Tagged “Communism”

“By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.” Political correctness –Philip Atkinson

This is a MUST SEE video!

The History of Political Correctness Parts 1-3
Embedded video

Link @YouTube

An in depth article on the subject:

Cultural Marxism – Linda Kimball American thinker

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America.  They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

communist-party-poster.jpg

Freedom is Slavery – Gates of Vienna

The Ten Antitheses of Political Correctness

1. Materialism is not about matter, but about suppressing ideas.
2. Communism is not about common wealth, but about depriving people of any personal possessions.
3. Socialism is not about society, but about depriving people of the means of production.
4. Human rights are not personal rights, but collective obligations.
5. Tolerance is not about mutual respect, but about the prohibition of opinions.
6. Multiculturalism is not about cultures, but about the repudiation of nationhood.
7. Energy policy is not about the distribution of energy, but about cutting off energy supplies.
8. Health care is not about health, but about control of our consumption.
9. Family planning is not about families, but about abortions.
10. Self-loathing is not about repentance, but about depriving others of their moral foundation.

Whenever they start by improving something, they finish by depriving people of it.

If you do not think much of the above (if not all) does not fit in with Barack Obama’s agenda, you are kidding your self. Open your eyes and see things how they really are and not as they want you to.

censorship2The more the Marxist ‘cult of victimology’  push, the more America gives in. And the more control “some” gain while the rest of us lose our freedoms. It is getting to where, you can’t say anything. Unless you are one of the select ‘victims’, or a leftie liberal bullshit artist, particularly those in the media. No need to apply. For it is an exclusive club, not just ‘anyone’ can become a member.

Now how is that for discriminatory?

————————————————————————————–

Related:

Hey Obama! “Extremists”? I’ll Give You Extremists! –Your Left-Wing Extremist Cohorts

White House: “FOX News wing of the Republican Party”

[Update Location Exposed] Video & Transcript: Obama Communication Director- Fox Basher Anita Dunn: Mao A Fav Political Philosopher

Barack Obama Channeling Chairman Mao

Anita Dunn On Controlling the Media “”Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control”

The Sly Fox vs. The Rabid Obama Hounds – A Sequel

Video: Robert Gibbs Fishy Response to White House Request for Fishy Emails

White House In a Snit About Health Care Opposition – Asking For Government Snitches

The Left’s “Weapons Of Mass Distortion

Collectivism vs. Individualism

Flashback 1963: 45 Communist Goals

Parents Powerless Against Forced LGBT Indoctrination

National Education Association “Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer”

Video: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America

Are You A Right-Wing Extremist?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

We have not been infiltrated, as I am oft to say. It is clear now we have been invaded. A stealth invasion, but an invasion just the same. An invasion that has risen to the surface, an extreme radical left revolution that is raising it’s ugly head now that Obama in in office. The radical left has become more emboldened. Americans need to choose which side they are on. It is now or never.

First a little background on Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky – Discover the Networks

Excerpt:

Alinsky’s 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.” He 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. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:

“Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp.”[4]

Alinsky’s revolution promised that by changing the structure of society’s institutions, it would rid the world of such vices as socio-pathology and criminality. Arguing that these vices were caused not by personal character flaws but rather by external societal influences, Alinsky’s worldview was thoroughly steeped in the socialist left’s collectivist, class-based doctrine of economic determinism. “The radical’s affection for people is not lessened,” said Alinsky, “… when masses of them demonstrate a capacity for brutality, selfishness, hate, greed, avarice, and disloyalty. It is not the people who must be judged but the circumstances that made them that way.”[5] Chief among these circumstances, he said, were “the larcenous pressures of a materialistic society.”[6]

To counter that materialism, Alinsky favored a socialist alternative. He characterized his noble radical (read: “revolutionary”) as a social reformer who “places human rights far above property rights”; who favors “universal, free public education”; who “insists on full employment for economic security” but stipulates also that people’s tasks should “be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men”; who “will fight conservatives” everywhere; and who “will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired,” and “whether it be political or financial or organized creed.”[7] Alinsky maintained that radicals, finding themselves “adrift in the stormy sea of capitalism,”[8] sought “to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization.”[9] “They hope for a future,” he said, “where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.”[10] In short, they wanted socialism.

alinsky-obama

Saul Alinsky and his predecessor Barack Obama

Now some links to follow on Obama and Alinsky. What you don’t know can hurt you. I am not speaking of some fringe groups. I am speaking of the National Education Association (NEA) and the sitting president of the United States. Obama’s influences are of high importance, they are a window into his political mind. Regardless of what he, his admin or the MSM would like you to believe.  Or are willing to admit for that matter. Cowards all. Socialism is as socialism does. Period.

INCDavid Horowitz On Saul Alinsky – Be John Galt

During law school, Obama “spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by [left-wing theorist Saul] Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.” * (More on Alinsky and Obama’s community organizer days here, and on the Alinsky’s explicit advocacy of dissembling and moral relativism here).

The meat of the post:

Saul Alinsky the man who shaped Obama’s political world view, which resulted in the most radical leftist President this country has ever laid eyes on. And his writings are now the National Education Association’s recommended reading?

alinsky NEA recommended reading
Full text:

Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer

Reveille for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)

Rules for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)

An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!

Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism – two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals” in 1971. The “Reveille” title page quotes Thomas Paine… “Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.”

Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910’s until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. He sets down what the goal is: a society where people are free to live, and also aren’t starving in the streets. A society where there is legal and economic justice. Then he sets out to say how to get there.

Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that “The end does not justify the means.” What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical. I am not sure I agree, but Alinsky certainly speaks with the voice of experience.

Alinsky’s goal seems to be to encourage positive social change by equipping activists with a realistic view of the world, a kind of preemptive disillusionment. If a person already knows what evil the world is capable of, then perhaps the surprise factor can be eliminated, making the person a more effective activist. Alinsky further seems to be encouraging the budding activist not to worry to much about getting his or her hands dirty. It’s all a part of the job, he seems to say.

Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn’t mince words…

“Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement ‘which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.’ They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.

“The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.

“Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.

“Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action – by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires …

* “The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
* “He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
* “He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
* “He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
* “The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”
* “The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.
* “That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism.”

Alinsky practiced what he preached. He said, “Tactics means doing what you can with what you have … tactics is the art of how to take and how to give.”

He uses eyes, ears and nose for examples…

Eyes
“If you have a vast organization, parade it before the enemy, openly show your power.”

Ears
“If your organization is small, do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more that it does.”

Nose
“If your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.”

Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.

1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. “Keep the pressure on.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. “Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

“The real action is in the enemy’s reaction. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action.”

Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success…

“Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize”

Candace de Russy of Phi Beta Cons at National Review Online links…thanks!

Doug Ross links…thanks!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

LIKE HELL YOU WILL

Obama has said “Don’t judge me, based on what others say about me, or my words alone, but rather judge me by who I surround myself with”

Fine O have it your way!

Another OCommieCzar? Mark Lloyd (The Obama Admin’s new Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ) glorifies Hugo Chavez’ marxist revolution in Venezuela and defends a communist. I hate to see what else Lloyd has in his bag of tricks. By the way Van Jones the former Obama Green Jobs Czar has just resigned as reported late last night around midnight. Mark Lloyd should be the next to go. And rightfully so.

Free speech and marxisim-communisim go together like oil and water. Diversity, although divisive and a leftist ideal, has little to do with what Mark Lloyd will try to accomplish while holding down his non-Congressional approval appointment, mark my word. It is but the cloak he will wear to cover his anti-freedom of speech actions. A more appropriate title would be Censorship Czar. If you speak in defense of communists you may as well be one.

AIM

Raising new concerns about another controversial Obama Administration official, testimony has surfaced from Mark Lloyd, the new Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in which he praises Paul Robeson, the communist actor and singer who was an apologist for Soviet dictator and mass murderer Joseph Stalin.

Lloyd, who worked as a broadcast journalist at NBC and CNN, has come under fire from Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck and Seton Motley of the Media Research Center for being openly critical of private media companies in the U.S. and Venezuela, where Lloyd believes that Marxist ruler Hugo Chavez is trying to implement a popular democracy.

At the FCC, Lloyd is in a position to try to influence and control media content by making statements and issuing directives on media “diversity” and fairness.

But 2005 testimony that Lloyd provided to a congressional forum headed by far-left Democratic Rep. John Conyers raises even more questions about his totalitarian mind-set and background.

Mark Lloyd on the Future of Media from 2005

Link @YouTube

At a 2008 “media reform” conference sponsored by the George Soros-funded Free Press organization, Lloyd declared that the Marxist revolution in Venezuela under Chavez was “incredible” and “dramatic” but that the “property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled” against the would-be dictator and supported a coup against him. However, Lloyd said that Chavez wised up and “then started to take the media seriously…”

The implication of these remarks is that Chavez dealt with his opponents in the media by trying to control or silence them, and that Lloyd supports that strategy when dealing with opponents of revolutionary Marxism here in the U.S.

…..

It is apparent that Chavez is using the government to force private companies out of the media business and restrict and investigate the remaining independent journalists. This is a process that apparently meets with the approval of “progressives” such as Mark Lloyd in the U.S.

Could this be their plan in the U.S. as well?

Go read it all!

Notable quote at the 2:47 mark:

I will also propose that the solution to the problem of bad speech is not censorship but better speech.

Hey Obama why don’t you just admit that you are a far left radical minded individual.

We knew before you were elected, and you have given us plenty of proof after the fact backing up our claims.

I will not only judge you by the company that you keep but on the content of your character. As in shady character.

Take note at this date in time, anyone who still supports Obama I will presume is cut from the same cloth.

Video transcript: the Ruminator

Update:

Lloyd dismisses outright what he calls the “two primary explanations typically put forth to explain the disparities between [the respective amounts of] conservative and progressive talk radio programming.” Says Lloyd:

“In the first argument, the explosion of conservative talk radio is attributed to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the [FCC] in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation … that required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. From this perspective, the repeal of the doctrine in the late 1980’s allowed station owners to broadcast more opinionated, ideological, and one-sided radio hosts without having to balance them with competing views.”

This development, the theory goes, gave rise to the growth of the talk radio format spearheaded by such conservative personalities as Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and Sean Hannity. Leftist/liberal radio has not produced anyone of similar stature.

But Lloyd says “the Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues.” He explains:

“The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.”

To address each of these issues, Lloyd recommends that the FCC take the following steps “to ensure local needs are being met”:

  • “Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation … of how they are meeting these obligations.”
  • “Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.” In other words, every three years radio stations would be evaluated for their compliance with the mandate that they serve “the public interest.” (Section 307 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act extended the length of broadcast-license terms to eight years.)
  • “Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the pro­cess to determine whether the license should be extended.” (Such a modus operandi would provide ample opportunity for activist groups like ACORN to stage high-profile, public demonstrations against radio stations whose political content they find objectionable.)

Related:

Van Jones – The Truther Plot Thickens

Why has VanJones.net been scrubbed?

Obama’s ‘Green Czar’ Van Jones: ‘Green Jobs’ Goal is ‘Complete Revolution’ Away From ‘Gray Capitalism’ [update 6: 9/11 Truther and The Nancy Pelosi Connection]

Van Jones’ (founder of STORM) communist manifesto:  “Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 3 Comments »