Posts Tagged ‘Marx’

What’s Wrong With Hillary Clinton’s Economic Plan? Plenty, But Here’s The Bottom Line

August 11, 2016

So Hillary Clinton’s basic economic pitch is that she is going to “level the playing field” by punishing Wall Street and big businesses and allowing all those horrible profits to be shared by the American people.  And it will be oh, so good for us and oh, so bad for those terrible, greedy, evil Wall Street firms and corporations.

Sounds good.  At least it sounds good to people who either aren’t that honest, or aren’t that bright, or are neither honest nor bright.

For one thing, Hillary Clinton has taken more filthy, greedy money from Wall Street than ANY politician in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD has EVER taken.  To express it in the form of a headline, “Clinton is the Wall Street candidate based on donation figures.”  Hillary Clinton has been bought and paid for by Wall Street.   She was paid millions – a total of at least $153 million with a shocking percentage coming not only from foreign entities but from the worst rogue nations on planet earth – to give speeches and Wall Street was one of the top U.S. entities.  And recordings or transcripts those Wall Street speeches, unlike any national security secret which she treated with cavalier disdain, are top secret classified never to see the light of day.  Even the leftist-oriented Huffington Post puts it this way: “Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy For President.”

Hillary Clinton was paid MILLIONS to tell Wall Street what her presidency would do to benefit them.  She made very sure that all reporters were BARRED from her speeches to Wall Street firms.  Why did she do that???  She allowed NO RECORDING DEVICES other than her own recording for her own use which of course is in a vault somewhere.  Why did she do that???  And lastly, when Hillary Clinton was a Senator from New York, she was “hands off” on Wall Street in spite of the fact that Wall Street happens to be in HER state where SHE should have been in control of regulating what they did in HER district.  But she never bothered.  Why do you seriously believe she will bother now when our enemies can find out every single national security secret Hillary Clinton knew, but NOBODY can find out so much as a single word she said to Wall Street in speeches that she was paid as much as $675,000 to give???  She wouldn’t even allow PLACARDS on tables for fear that a photo might leak and the American people could see an image of who Hillary Clinton was being paid MILLIONS of dollars to talk to.  Why would she do that???

A Wall Street pay-to-play player said, “It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”  And that’s exactly why we will NEVER hear her speeches as she betrays the American people and betrays as a lie every single thing she now says in her campaign rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton has proven herself more than any politician who has ever LIVED that she will be a crony capitalist fascist who will do insider deals with those who offer her something in return.  She will sell out the American people for a nickel if that’s the going rate.  You can absolutely trust Hillary Clinton to sell out your interests for larger, more powerful interests every single time.  That is simply the story of her life.

The notion that this candidate is going to actually reform Wall Street in a way that would benefit anyone but Wall Street is so beyond laughable that it is beyond unreal.  You literally have to be a fool to believe that.  Mind you, there ARE plenty of intellectuals who are just such fools indeed.  Famous prophetic novelist George Orwell said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.”   And the point he was making is that these people live in a giant ivory tower vacuum and none of their ideas actually have to ever be proven or even be provable in the real world to be believed.  They live in a world of theories, not in a world of facts.  They build nothing and have no grasp whatsoever on how TO build anything.  They are nothing more than eloquent ideologues consumed by hidden agendas.  Whereas people who must face reality every single day can never be so disconnected from the truth because unlike the intellectuals they would STARVE in the COLD.  I came across a meme on Karl Marx that ought to be illustrative how such foolishness contaminates minds:

Karl Marx

Why one earth would not merely millions but BILLIONS believe so passionately in the theories of this man, who had never in his lifetime actually produced ANYTHING in the actual, real world and whose theories have failed in every single “laboratory of reality” in which they have EVER been tried???

Karl Marx was precisely one of the fools that the great author of 1984 and Animal Farm was describing.  In  fact, both books were written by a horrified Orwell as he contemplated totalitarian socialism.  The Marxist theory continues because of the sheer, ponderous weight of all the other ivory tower egghead fools who have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of actual reality.

Hillary Clinton is another such fool.  She accomplished exactly NOTHING in spite of her so-called record of accomplishment.   Even her own State Department had to REDACT her list of “achievements.” 

But as bad as that indictment of Hillary Clinton is, that actually isn’t the “bottom line” fallacy that I am describing regarding Hillary Clinton’s economic plan.  I merely cite that to try to undercut her own claims and the claims of other fools on her behalf.  Just realize that the pile of intellectual manure that is laid out comes from the minds and the belief-systems of the very worst form of fools whom no ordinary man could ever be capable of becoming because they are forced to deal with actual real-world realities that prevent them from ever being such fools.

So what is it that I am describing about what is so truly wrong with Hillary’s plan???

It boils simply down to this: Hillary Clinton is saying she will tax and regulate and force Wall Street to be more “fair” or more “just.”  And ignorant people believe that any regulation or tax or coercion on the part of government must surely be a good thing.

That’s where the bait-and-switch takes place.

What you need to understand is that Wall Street and mega-big corporate business actually WANTS higher taxes and punitive regulations and difficult compliance benchmarks.  That sentence very likely shocks you and your mind may say, “No way!”  But let me explain and hopefully you will agree with me when I lay it out.

I googled the phrase “percentage of jobs created by small businesses” and got this result:

According to the SBA’s Office of Advocacy: “Small firms accounted for 63 percent of the net new jobs created between 1993 and mid-2013 (or 14.3 million of the 22.9 million net new jobs). Since the end of the recession (from mid-2009 to mid-2013), small firms accounted for 60 percent of the net new jobs.

So you need to simply first understand that Wall Street and mega-big business are in direct competition with small businesses.

The second thing you need to understand is the crony-capitalist mindset that invariably prefers a larger share of a smaller piece of the pie than a much smaller share of a much larger piece of the pie.  Every truly awful leader understands and exemplifies this mindset, with Kim Jong-un being possibly the very best example.

Let me show you a couple of satellite images of North Korea at night compared to South Korea at night to drive home my point:

North Korea at night 1

North Korea at night 2

South Korea is far more like what Republicans envision where laissez-faire free market enterprise is allowed to flourish; North Korea is far more like what the Democrats envision of a State-controlled economy.  Guess which one ends up being DARK AT NIGHT because THERE’S NOTHING.

And you say, why on earth would they want that?  Why wouldn’t they want a more open and free economy where they have less power, but far more is actually produced and it is better for all the people?  And the simple answer is, “Because they wouldn’t have as much control and as much power.”

The word “fascism” comes from the Roman/Latin word, “to bundle together.”  The image was of a bundle of sticks with an axe head protruding, the concept being that when the people are all bundled together, there is power.  And of course, who controlled that bundle?  The State, the emperor.   That is what the Democratic Party wants: they want to bundle us together like sticks, so that THEY and THEY alone can control the bundle.

There’s a line from Milton’s Paradise Lost that I always remember: when Satan says, “Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.”  That’s the mindset of the left: better to have totalitarian rule over a small, impoverished economy than to be a smaller, weaker part of a large, powerful economy.

That is the quintessential essence of progressive liberalism: they want the power to dictate; they want to have the power to determine who wins and who loses, who pays and who receives, who is taxed and who is tax-exempt.

And what about Wall Street and what about the giant corporate entities.  Don’t they just want more profit for their shareholders?

You need to understand: what if we allowed small business to truly flourish?  What would happen to the market share of those great big giant corporate entities and the Wall Street that I’ve already established and documented owns Hillary Clinton and flourishes off of trading those giant corporate entities???

Now let me ask you a follow-up question: which would have an easier time paying higher taxes, great big corporations or small business owners???  Think about this and ANSWER it before you go on: who has an easier time coming up with an extra ten, twenty thousand dollars???  Who is going to be hurt more: the big corporation or the little business?  Let me go on: which would have an easier time complying with a dizzying array of regulations and compliance burdens and costs???  Would the great big corporation or the small business owner have an easier time hiring a full-time compliance officer???

When you actually THINK about it, these are no-brainers.  Just as it is a historic no-brainer that tax cuts increase revenues and have ALWAYS increased revenues as businesses are allowed to keep more of their own money and expand and grow and it is ultimately good for everyone in the form of more wealth and more opportunity for all.

It is BEYOND OBVIOUS that that great big business has a considerably easier time dealing with the increased costs imposed by Democrats than the small business owner.

Small businesses are CRIPPLED by these costs.

Which is why entrepreneurship is at an all-time low because of the Obama administration.

Which is why new small business start-ups are at an all-time low because of the Obama administration.

Our labor participation rate – the measure of the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB – is basically at the lowest rate in history, given that in 1977 which is the last time it was as low as Obama has made it now, we had far more stay-at-home moms as dad went off to work.  A hundred million working-age Americans AREN’T.

Home ownership has declined to its lowest level in 51 years under Obama.  Which like the labor participation rate is basically in the entire history of the statistic being kept.

You find that under Obama, the rich got way, WAY richer and everyone else got poorer as the income gap soared to heights we’ve never seen.  Even Bernie Sanders got that.  And Politifact was forced to agree that under Obama things are worse than they’ve ever been going back to the damn 1920s.

HuffPo has an article titled, “Middle Class Jobs, income, Quickly Disappearing.”  The New York Times says, “Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up.”  MSNBC has an article titled, “The Vanishing of the Middle Class.”

These aren’t right-wing sources.  And if they WERE actually FAIR they would depict their articles the way they would if a REPUBLICAN were in the White House, a la “Obama’s War on the Middle Class: The real story behind “hope” and “change.”

This Forbes article probably best nails the dilemma that Obama and the Federal Reserve that is struggling to monetize Obama’s failed policies have placed the United States in.

These are things called facts and I am explaining to you precisely WHY they are facts.

It is like this by design.  You’ve been sold out.  Obama was bought and sold and Hillary Clinton is more bought and more sold than any human being who ever lived.

Over the last eight years, Barack Obama – and now Hillary Clinton is actually promising to do even worse for another eight years- and those under them who control the “bundle of sticks” that we all now ARE thanks to these policies have sold our collectivist souls to the devil.

Let me get back to that all-telling statistic involving entrepreneurship and new business start-ups being DESTROYED by this president like we have never seen.

Would the market share of the giant firms go up or down if the smaller businesses were allowed to actually be unleashed as they were allowed to keep more of their profits and put those profits back into their businesses and be forced to comply with fewer stupid regulations that incur thousands of hours of compliance paperwork???  And the answer is that the pie would grow larger, but the Wall Street- and the corporate-share of that pie would grow much smaller as small businesses grew and grew and grew and were ultimately large enough to become big players themselves.

So let me just quickly lay it out for you: when a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton – who are owned lock, stock and barrel by Wall Street and by the mega-corporations – gets into power, they create laws and taxes and regulations and compliance factors that they invite the great big giant entities to write on a pay-to-play basis.

And the biggest players write the laws to shut out their smaller competition, understanding that if they can strangle those smaller businesses and stop them from being able to build and grow and compete with them, that they will get to remain at the top of the heap for decades, even for generations.

The economic purpose of the Democrat Party is to ensure that the very biggest players remain the very biggest players and the smaller competitors are never truly allowed to compete.  The giant Wall Street and corporate dinosaurs don’t want that smarter, more agile mammal to come along and eat their eggs and finish off their road to extinction.  No.  they will continue to maintain the Democratic Party as the engine to maintain the status quo so that that new mammal can never evolve to threaten them.

If you elect Hillary Clinton, you WILL get more of the same; you WILL get a smaller pie with the largest players – who each paid the system for the privilege of remaining the largest players – having the giant share.  And you WILL get fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and lower wages as a result.

THAT is what is wrong with Hillary Clinton’s economic plan, just as it was wrong with Obama’s economic plan.  Because it’s the same damn tired plan that is nothing more than a watered-down version of Marxism.

 

How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

January 21, 2013

I was watching a Military History program called “No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes” about the birth of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 yesterday.

If you have knowledge of the dilemma of the German generals – with a fanatic Führer screaming orders and a fanatic youth who would have lined the generals up and shot them for treason or cowardice if they’d failed to continue to wage the war – you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the exact same dilemma slapped the Japanese admirals in the face.  We find that neither top military leadership could stop the war or even de-escalate the atrocities.

First let’s talk briefly about Nazi Germany.  Germany was the official seat of the Protestant Revolution with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.  But well before the end of the 19th century, Germany had strayed far from God, indeed.  It had in fact become the most atheistic nation in all of Europe and in all of Christendom and in all of Western Civilization.

The perversion and degradation of German culture began in the minds of the German intellectuals.  Even in the very last days of Nazi Germany, with thousands of bombers devastating helpless German cities every single day, Germany led the world in science and philosophy.  What we found – or at least what we should have found – is that science and academia and vicious, murderous barbarism could easily come together to the worst horror imaginable.  We also should have found that ideas have consequences.

It turns out that Japanese admirals were in a very similar bind coming from the younger Japanese officers.  When the admirals first watched the first kamikaze pilots ignore their orders and fly their planes into American navy ships, they were utterly horrified.  Imperial Japan was not at least not initially a nation in which the old ordered the young to their deaths from behind the safety of the front lines; it was a war in which a fanatic youth with the best modern Darwinian educations breathed in the toxic ideas they had been fed throughout their entire lives and took those ideas to their natural conclusion.

It was the young pilots who had been the best students in science and technology who alone had the sheer fanaticism to transform themselves into human bombs.  Darwinism didn’t stop them from barbarism; it informed their barbarism and made them barbarous.  More than 4,000 of the most “scientific” and technically literate minds in Japan died committing suicide in order to try to kill their enemies.  These young fanatic officers ignored their older superiors and forced the admiralty to embrace total war to the death.

Because ideas have consequences.  And these young minds that had been so thoroughly poisoned by evolution and Darwinism rose up and lived out the implications of what they had been indoctrinated in.

Let’s put it this way, if you’re a secular humanist or a Darwinist, please explain to me how Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism.  I mean, if Darwinian evolution is in fact true, if there is no God, no heaven or hell, no judgment, if we are random byproducts of a purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe that will ultimate swallow us up again the same random way it spat us out, then just why should we love and sacrifice for one another when it is far easier and far more profitable to crush and kill them instead?  All Social Darwinism really is is consistently living out the consequences of scientific Darwinism.  There is no Creator to whom we will be held to account on Judgment Day; there is no Imago Dei; we are nothing more than animals; and the animal world is a world in which the strong dominate and the weak die out.

Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If the law of the bloody claw is not entailed evolution, just how is it not entailed? How does the 4 billion year history of earth as envisioned by Darwinians not demonstrate that might makes right and it is far better to kill your enemy than it is to turn the other cheek to it? If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinians want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

As was once stated in Time Australia Magazine:

Japan, war, and evolution
Source: TIME Australia, August 14, 1995 (p. 83). First published in CREATION Magazine Volume 18 number 2. Pages 7 to 9. December 1995 – February 1996.

This century has seen countless millions killed –more than in all known wars of human history put together – in the name of ideologies that owe their inspiration and justification directly to evolution.

The Nazis used this ‘science falsely so-called’ to justify treating other races as sub-human. Engaging in war, even genocide, could hardly be wrong, so they thought, since it made their version of the ‘fittest’ more likely to survive.

Communism’s dialectic materialism required belief in evolution for intellectual respectability. Stalin’s butchery is directly linked to his renunciation of God (and thus all notions of sin and judgment) after reading Darwin’s book. Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Few have realized, however, the degree to which Japanese thinking leading up to and during World War II was also heavily influenced by Darwin.

Japanese thought blended the theistic with the evolutionary. They were a chosen people because the Emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess; they were a master race because they were more highly evolved. Japanese biologists ‘produced studies decrying the apish physical features of other races (hairiness, long arms) and noting the highly evolved characteristics of the Japanese’ (which included milder body odour).

The horrors of Changi, the Burma railroad, and the various death marches of World War II showed a people renowned for cultural gentility treating their wartime captives as totally subhuman. Once you have made any group of people less than human in your thinking, backed up by the authority of ‘science’, it becomes a powerful justification for plain old sin.

If instead of Darwinism, the scientific world had been disseminating the truth that we are all closely related, being the descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, what a difference we could have seen in the history of the last hundred years!

So yeah, evolution and Darwinism.  And Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Like peas in a pod.

I would submit that it’s not merely that through Adam and Eve “we are all closely related,” but that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable for how we treat one another that ultimately matters.  Because if someone is about to rob and murder you, do you really think they would stop if you just told them that we all randomly mutated from some common ape ancestor?

I saw something in the Los Angeles Times editorials.  Jon Wiener wrote on January 18:

Your editorial calling on Egyptian President Mohamaed Morsi to apologize for describing Zionists as ‘descendents of apes and pigs’ is only half right.  We are all descendents of apes, more or less.

Morsi is congratulated for embracing the theory of evolution at a time when so many of our own Christian leaders reject it.  No apology is necessary there. It’s the pigs that are the problem.

The following day, in the paper’s “Mailbag” section, writers explained away the insulting comparison to the pigs, too.  No harm calling Jews descendents of apes and pigs, no foul.

Here’s the thing: Wiener and those who piled on after him completely missed the point of Morsi’s claim and proceeded to make the same error themselves.  Morsi was most decidedly NOT saying that Arabs are likewise the descendents of apes and pigs; he was clearly saying that Jews ARE such descendents but that he and those who think like him are not.  And Jon Wiener, good liberal secular humanist that he is, likewise thinks that while all human beings are the random by-products of the union of mindless and soulless apes, he and his fellow liberal secular humanists are not.

It’s the same mistake, of course, that the Nazis and the Japanese committed: they believed in Darwinism for everybody else, but somehow exempted themselves from the animal state that they so so clearly in their millions of victims.

Gleason Archer exposed the moral and logical idiocy of secular humanism with the following:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

You see, these communists, these fascists, these secular humanists, these progressive liberals, they claim that we’re all just meat puppet herd animals.  But somehow they exempt themselves and believe that they – who are just as much mindless random-chance by-products of evolution as everyone around them, can and somehow should still make all of the decisions for the rest of us.

I just wish that the evolutionists and Darwinians who argue that we are the random-chance product of mindless apes would confine their hateful ideology to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.  But they actually do far worse; they make it ALL about the rest of us and leave themselves out of it.  That way we have the master race bureaucrats to make all our rules for us.

The doctrine of evolution intrinsically dehumanizes.  There is no God who lovingly created man in His own image, there is no God-given moral nature.  There is no meaning, no purpose and no value.  There is only nature and bloody violence and then more and more and more violence.  And ultimately there is only extinction in the cold depths of space as the mindless process that randomly spawned human beings just as mindlessly swallows it all back up again.

It’s interesting that in Revelation 15, when angels preach to the human race during the Tribulation, they say, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 15:7).  Just as World War Two was the product of mindless evolutionary dogma, so also will Armageddon be the result of the same dogma.

And that’s why the beast is coming.

Obama Shows Off Anti-Capitalist Pro-Marxist Side – AGAIN

May 1, 2010

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Barack Hussein Obama.

Oops.  That was actually Karl Marx.  My bad.

Not that it really matters.  Both men think pretty much share the same politics.  Obama with his “spread the wealth around” mindset is basically saying the exact same thing as Marx in a slightly different way:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

People like Andy Roth of the Club for Growth tried to warn us:

“It’s clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth.  He’s perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it.”

But Obama’s KoolAid tasted a lot better than wisdom, common sense, and basic decency.  Why work when you can confiscate someone else’s wealth by means of the tyranny of the masses and the ideology of Marxist class warfare?

Obama is a socialist.  Socialists don’t mind wealth at all: they love it.  They just want it in THEIR hands and under THEIR control, rather than anyone else’s.

Let me just give you a quick example.  Goldman Sachs is being attacked (and perhaps justly) for literally betting that the mortgage market would go bust, while misrepresenting mortgage securities to suckers who took them off their hands.

So Goldman Sachs is evil.

But which cynical, demagogic politician took more Goldman Sachs money than ANYBODY???

Barack Hussein Obama.  The little rat bastard weasel didn’t seem to mind when Goldman Sachs was making “more than enough money” to give him a million dollars to buy his victory, did he?

Meanwhile, Obama is helping his Goldman Sachs buddies make billions by means in the cap-and-trade boondoggle (and see also here).

And the primary figure behind the current Goldman Sachs scandal is a LIBERAL bagman who supported liberal Democrat Charles Schumer.

Not that truth matters, of course.

Anyway, we’ve got Barry Hussein channeling Marx yet again:

Obama goes off teleprompter and allows his socialist side to show

Barack Obama:

“I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money”

If we take President Obama at his word, there comes a point when companies and people have made enough money. Logically, it would then be moral in his eyes for the government to confiscate the rest of their earnings. President Obama went off teleprompter and allowed his socialist side to show.

Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’ (video)

So with all due respect about Barry Hussein: just who is this son of a bitch to lecture anybody about anything?

Obama ‘believes that words are a substitute for reality’

April 8, 2010

Newt Gingrich gave the following sober assessment of Barack Obama:

“It’s a nice fantasy. It sounds good. It would be wonderful. It just doesn’t fit this particular planet. And, over here you have North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Al-Qaeda and a whole host of potential enemies…

I think if you were to say, “He’s potentially the most dangerous because he completely misunderstands reality.” …You get an embrace if you are Hugo Chavez. You get acceptance if you’re Ahmadinejad in Iran. But, if you’re an American ally, somehow you’re not acceptable. He can bully you.

And, I think this is a typical pattern on the left. Jimmy Carter did it to some extent. The other thing that Obama does on a scale that Carter never dreamed of, is he believes, maybe because he believes in his own rhetoric… He believes that words are a substitute for reality.

Youtube:

I wrote a 3-part series on postmodernism and the danger it poses to Western civilization:

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)
How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)
How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3)

That final assessment by Gingrich – “He believes that words are a substitute for reality” – couldn’t be more spot-on.  And it literally is the quintessence of postmodernism.

Postmodernists base their relativism and the view that all meaning is socially constructed on a particular view of language taken from a literary technique known as “deconstruction.”  As such, they begin with the assumption that language cannot render truths about the world in any kind of objective way.  On their view, language, by its very nature, shapes what we think.  And since language is a cultural creation, meaning must be nothing more than a social construction.  Thus, for postmodern linguists, the very meaning of words constitutes a self-contained system.  Words merely refer to other words.  And as human beings, we are unable to step outside of the boundaries, limits, or demands of language.  And since language is bound up within culture, it is therefore largely beyond our control, and we can’t even think for ourselves.

Postmodernists believe there is no objective meaning, no realm of absolute truth, that exist beyond the bounds of human language.  As a postmodern slogan puts it, “We are incarcerated in a prison house of language.”  And our language thinks for us.

Thus you understand how a Barack Obama believes that words are a substitute for reality.  On his view, what else is there but words?

Postmodernists along with deconstructionists view meaning as a social construct, which is to say that societies construct meaning through language.  But they also view societies as inherently oppressive.  They draw upon Frederich Nietzsche, who contended that human life and culture are only expressions of an innate will to power.  They draw upon Karl Marx, who reduced culture to economic class conflict and exploitation.  And they draw upon Sigmund Freud, who interpreted culture in terms of sexual and gender repression.  Postmodernists assume that the true significance of culture lies beneath the surface, and that institutions are really simply “masks” for a sinister conspiracy.

Modern liberalism is every bit an offshoot of postmodernism.  Take one of the most powerful tools of liberalism, “political correctness.”  Being politically correct is not simply an attempt to make people feel better.  It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists and fascists designed their postmodern takeover long ago and continue to execute that plan to this day: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas have been taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public for decades.

This is where the fundamental elitism of postmodernism rears its ugly head.  They believe that all of the above is true for everyone else.  But they alone have the intellect, the courage, the foresight, and the academic tools to decipher the codes and understand language and culture.  They are the priests who can get beyond the limits they ascribe to all other human beings.

And so they alone have the right to rule the world.

It should be obvious why this point of view has been so dangerous every single time it has been imposed in history.

My response to all this is agreement with George Orwell, who once said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.

Obama believes that he can “fundamentally transform” reality with his words.  And yes, in agreement with Newt Gingrich, that makes him a profoundly naive and ultimately incredibly dangerous fool.

Obama Suffers From Kennedy-Confusion Syndrome

July 25, 2008

If you start thinking you’re John Kennedy, take two of these and then check yourself into a rubber room.”

There’s little question that Obama seeks to be viewed as the next Kennedy:

Even before Obama clinched the nomination, Germans viewed him as “the new Kennedy.” Over the next few days, that notion is likely to get conveyed to American voters, which is precisely what Obama wants.

His speech in Berlin is being compared to President John F. Kennedy‘s appearance in the divided city, at the height of the Cold War, which drew ecstatic crowds and became the stuff of legend. (Another part of Obama’s effort to model himself after Kennedy: giving his convention acceptance speech before a large crowd at a nearby stadium, as JFK did in 1960.)

Obama spoke to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin – his greatest turn-out ever. But It’s frankly rather hilarious how the event has unfolded.

Obama originally wanted to insert himself into the Brandenburg Gate scenery of Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech. But that was just a bit too much of a brazen display of ostentatious arrogance for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. So Obama had to find another location for his Obamessianic rally so he could show just how much Europeans love him.

So he picked the Victory Tower, another historic landmark.

This one was made famous by Adolf Hitler, who used it as the phallic-symbol backdrop for his own political rallies. Maybe great messiahs think alike. From Uber-messiah to Oba-messiah. And the same people that cheered the first one are now equally enthusiastic about the second one.

One can only go so far in any Hitler-Obama comparison, obviously; for one thing, nobody really knows just WHAT Obama stands for, do they? But like Obama, Hitler spoke also spoke in broad generalities to paint beautiful images, and used his personal cult of charisma and his power as a speaker to rally the people to himself.

But Obama doesn’t want to identify himself with Hitler, but with Kennedy. So let’s look at that relationship instead.

When President Kennedy came to Brandenburg Gate and spoke on June 26, 1963, he said:

There are some who say that Communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin…

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free…

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner”.

Kennedy presented a vision of freedom from tyranny, and Reagan’s speech anticipated his fulfillment of that vision a short time after he delivered it on June 12, 1987:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

And just how is Barack Obama in any way part of that vision? How is the man who said that liberating 25 million Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein – from rape rooms, from being taken away by secret police and never seen again, from mass graves – was a bad idea? How does that deserve to share the stage with Kennedy’s vision of freedom and his willingness to stand up and fight tyrants to secure that freedom?

Barack Obama is a guy who didn’t even bother to waste his time going to see some of the injured American heroes recovering from wounds sustained fighting for the freedom of human beings in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But there’s another thing.

Given that Kennedy and Reagan both stood up against communism (and in Reagan’s case, stood against it over and against the continual opposition of Democrats in Congress), it is pertinent to ask: what really is the difference between the Communist Party that Kennedy and Reagan fought to defeat and The Democratic Party of Barack Obama today, anyway?

Let’s see, Karl Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie; the Democrat’s “two Americas.” Check.

The belief that the evil wealthy proletariat enslave the poor by seizing and hoarding the means of production. Check.

The demand to seize the assets of the evil proletariat in the name of the people. Check.

The liberal-Democrat ideology of a “separation of church and state,” which does not exist in our founding documents but is very much a part of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. Check.

The theology of Barack Obama’s long-time spiritual mentor – black liberation theology – comes right out of Marxism and does little more than view Christianity through Marxist eyes toward a Marxist end. Check.

President Kennedy had the vision to realize the need to cut taxes to stimulate economic growth.  But Barack Obama clearly doesn’t share the same principles.

Pardon me for having a really, REEAAAALLLLYYY hard time seeing John Kennedy in Barack Obama.

As Dennis Prager has put it many times, “A 1960s Kennedy liberal is a conservative today.”  It is most definitely NOT Barack Obama.

Where’s that guy who said, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy“? I think we can use him now.