I know what I have to say will be difficult for Obama sycophants who are unable to sit down without hurting their necks because of where they have stored their heads. Specific to that point, the depth of their intellectual dishonesty and their willingness to dismiss fact in the face of fiction is emblematic of the dissonance that disaffects them.
Obama is either an all-in Communist or he is a Neo-Leninist; albeit in my lexicon, I employ the two interchangeably. My usage notwithstanding, a vehicle doesn’t have to be red, have ladders or hoses to be a fire truck, but if it is always seen in fire stations and/or at fires you can bet your children’s lunch money that it’s a fire truck.
My analogy being, that when at an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, Obama spoke against “propaganda” that said government doesn’t work, and there is a need to “pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.” You can bet he not only meant what he said, but he was saying it from the perspective of a Communist.
In his deeply revealing article titled “Meeting Young Obama,” John Drew wrote:
Obama, however, had a starkly different view. He believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….” In my mind, I remember thinking that Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory that had characterized my own views while I was an undergraduate at Occidental College. “There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.
I know this may be implausible to some readers, but I distinctly remember Obama surprising me by bringing up Frantz Fanon and colonialism. He impressed me with his knowledge of these two topics, topics which were not among my strong points — or of overwhelming concern to me. Boss and Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism. While I felt I was doing them a favor by providing them with the latest research, I saw I was in danger of being cast as a reactionary who did not grasp the nuances of international Marxist theory.
Chandoo let Boss and Obama take the crux of the argument to me. Chandoo, in fact, seemed chagrined by the level of disagreement in the group. I cannot remember him making any significant comments during this discussion.
Drawing on the history of Western Europe, I responded it was unrealistic to think the working class would ever overthrow the capitalist system. As I recall, Obama reacted negatively to my critique, saying: “That’s crazy!”
Since Boss and Obama had injected theory into our debate, I reacted by going historical. As best I can recreate the argument, I responded by critiquing their perspective with the fresh insight I had gained from my recent reading of Barrington Moore’s book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). Moore had argued that a Russian or Chinese style revolution — leading to communism — was only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.
Since I was a Marxist myself at the time, and had studied variations in Marxist theory, I can state that everything I heard Obama argue that evening was consistent with Marxist philosophy, including the ideas that class struggle was leading to an inevitable revolution and that an elite group of revolutionaries was needed to lead the effort. If he had not been a true Marxist-Leninist, I would have noticed and remembered. (SEE: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/meeting_young_obama.html)
Drew’s account of his discussion with Obama, that evening, pulls the curtain back on much of what Obama does and says today. And only those who are either in complete agreement with him or are not intellectually sophisticated enough to realize they are nothing more than useful idiots would attempt to dispute that fact.
We talk of Cloward-Piven and the “useful idiots” scoff with a feigned air of intellectual superiority, but Cloward-Piven is not a conspiracy theory. Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven, authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy…wrote about collapsing the economy and how they planned to do it in the article they co-authored in the 60’s called, “Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done.” Six months later, it was published in The Nation, under the title “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” (SEE: Cloward, Piven and the Fundamental Transformation of America; Glenn Beck; 1/5/10)
Simply put: Cloward and Piven were radical Columbia professors in the 1960’s who believed in “change” and “social justice.” Inspired by the riots in Los Angeles in 1965, they wrote and published their article which outlined the best way to bring the kind of Saul Alinsky-type social change to America. In their estimation, it was to overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.
This is the same philosophy that Obama argued with Drew in 1980. Let me repeat it for you. “A Russian or Chinese style revolution–leading to communism–[is] only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.”
If what Obama is doing to the economy and if his style of so-called leadership appear more destructive than corrective, that’s because they are. Denying that this is his plan doesn’t make it not his plan. As my late grandmother used say: “Just because you don’t see the devil, doesn’t mean he’s not there.”
All of the greatest momentary “triumphs” of horrific injustice were said and/or thought to be impossible to take place–and that includes Hitler’s murdering Jews as well as the market crash of 1929. When the warnings of danger first went forth in both of historical nightmares, there existed many who argued those sounding the alarm were clueless alarmists who didn’t know what they were talking about.