Rotating Header Image


Moments ago, I watched the speeches by both Barack Obama (or whatever his name actually is) and John McCain, LIVE from Ohio.

And soon after (going on now), mostly all of which are Obama-spokespersons making unreasonable denouncements of critiques by McCain of many of Obama’s statements, as to what Obama has revealed his plans are.

An example:

McCain has (accurately) denounced Obama’s Socialist/Marxist plans and intents, while a few O-spokespersons moments ago denounced McCain for doing so, laughing:

“…Republicans should save that for, say, 2012, when there’s actually something there to criticise,” ratioanalizing their O-criticques as also saying, “Obama has not said anything (in regards Socialism or Karl Marx political philosophy)…so criticicising him (as to those Socialism and Marx philospophy) is (then they laugh).”

This O-campaign ridicule of “the others” (“Republican” has become their buzzword for “undesirables” or “the other” in society) is intellectually unreasonable, though I recognize it’s their intended (crafty, not happenstance or “stupid”) strategy in attempting to perpetuate the “stupid Republicans” argument while also then avoiding discussing what Obama has planned (Socialism, Marxism-Communism).

In simple terms, this is the O-spokespersons saying: because something is described but it’s name has not been uttered, then those making conclusions based upon descriptions of that thing is laughable.

Descriptions don’t lie and it’s efficient to act on descriptions and not wait around for potential enemies or oppositional interests to declare their names.

McCain declaring and opposing Obama’s Marxist/Socialist politics is an accurate targeting, as also an accurate description of Obama’s political goals and intents.

Because — to state the obvious — Intelligent, observant people don’t need a certain hooded snake in the grass, when it’s described to them, to speak it’s name (“Hi, I’m a cobra“) to know it’s a harmful and rejectable thing.

Even IF it’s wearing a nice-looking hood.

From Obama’s own mouth, these words, affirming his Marxist intentions, his Socialist plans — as also his Socialist condemnations of our U.S. Constitution: he describes Socialism, he describes racial discrimination as a sanctioned “government” force, he describes a Marxist replacement of our U.S. government by his preferences.

Obama’s entire “class warfare” or classes-conflict thinking — his whole indoctrinated frame of reference as he views our Western society — is Karl Marx-walking. The very concept of “classes” pitted against others is a sucker-hold that defines Marx’s philosophy, as it also defines Obama’s socio-political perspectives and goals.

From, “Karl Marx Conflict Theory” (pervasive throughout Obama’s ploy for “change“):

Marx divided history into several stages, conforming to broad patterns in the economic structure of society. The most important stages for Marx’s argument were feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. The bulk of Marx’s writing is concerned with applying the materialist model of society to capitalism, the stage of economic and social development that Marx saw as dominant in 19th century Europe. For Marx, the central institution of capitalist society is private property, the system by which capital (that is, money, machines, tools, factories, and other material objects used in production) is controlled by a small minority of the population. This arrangement leads to two opposed classes, the owners of capital (called the bourgeoisie) and the workers (called the proletariat), whose only property is their own labor time, which they have to sell to the capitalists.

Owners are seen as making profits by paying workers less than their work is worth and, thus, exploiting them. (In Marxist terminology, material forces of production or means of production include capital, land, and labor, whereas social relations of production refers to the division of labor and implied class relationships.)

Economic exploitation leads directly to political oppression, as owners make use of their economic power to gain control of the state and turn it into a servant of bourgeois economic interests. Police power, for instance, is used to enforce property rights and guarantee unfair contracts between capitalist and worker. Oppression also takes more subtle forms: religion serves capitalist interests by pacifying the population; intellectuals, paid directly or indirectly by capitalists, spend their careers justifying and rationalizing the existing social and economic arrangements. In sum, the economic structure of society molds the superstructure, including ideas (e.g., morality, ideologies, art, and literature) and the social institutions that support the class structure of society (e.g., the state, the educational system, the family, and religious institutions). Because the dominant or ruling class (the bourgeoisie) controls the social relations of production, the dominant ideology in capitalist society is that of the ruling class. Ideology and social institutions, in turn, serve to reproduce and perpetuate the economic class structure. Thus, Marx viewed the exploitative economic arrangements of capitalism as the real foundation upon which the superstructure of social, political, and intellectual consciousness is built…

Marx’s view of history might seem completely cynical or pessimistic, were it not for the possibilities of change revealed by his method of dialectical analysis. (The Marxist dialectical method

To summarize, Marx’s disdain and low regard for capitalism — free men acting freely in commerce as they individually chose to do, self reliance, the whole concept of the individual empowered to act individually in commerce — Marx’s disdain for capitalism runs throughout his opinion. And Barack Obama maintains nearly indistinguishable perspectives from Marx, to name but one Communist (Marxist/Leninist variety) from whence Obama’s “values” and goals were inspired.

And if not placing capitalism in a lowly place, then, Marx throws his support toward elevating what he describes as a totalitarian government — to what he refers to as “workers” — and he does that by way of class and opposition among the “classes” or, rather, his “theory of conflict” (“change“).

Marx’s entire outlook can easily be meshed with that of Barack Obama’s political goals (and with the rest of the “Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party“) and it does not take loitering around by the rest of us in hoping for change to conclude — based upon their assertions as they’ve described them (aligned with Marx’s ideology) — that they have in mind to replace our capitalist democracy with a socialist, Marxist state.

Remember the cobra’s pretty hood.


HOT AIR has a highly informative article up now, which includes transcripts of a few Obama-Marxist-quotes.


C O M M E N T S : now closed