Comments

Valerie Jarett meets Orwell — 47 Comments

1. You’d swear he’s the baby Jesus himself. Poor little misunderstood Barak in with all those meannie politicians.

   What a crock of sh*t these democrats are. They think they’re gonna sell us the same vaccuum cleaner we bought in 08 that was a piece of crap… AGAIN? Bwaahahahahahaa!!

2. Well, it’s also what she has to say, as a member of the administration. You have to appreciate that vague ideas like “the country has adapted well in times of crisis and done new things,” and “Obama wants to do new things and people are worried about that” – ideas which are not logically connected – are connected in their feelings because they are both about New Things, so it must all be the same, right? Vacuousness should never be ruled out with these people.

   Vacuousness backed up by thuggery is pretty much the definition of tyranny.

3. [Valerie] preferred to view the White House agenda as benefiting everyone.

   I prefer to view the White House agenda as making rainbows and giving everyone a unicorn pot of gold. 🙂

4. Obama said that if elected he’d transform America. His administration has turned a tone deaf ear the American elecorate and projected on them the very flaws of his own administration.

   The problem, in a nutshell, is that he never did take seriously that our president’s job is to represent the people not to subjugate them. His approach is despotic; an attempt to force on the country his solutions to perceived problems (e.g., healthcare) rather than dealing with the problems at hand (e.g., unemployment). Of course, this is all for our own good, from the smartest man in the room.

   After all, Obama knows best!

5. One thing: Obama is unstinting when it comes to sharing his gifts. The country is getting the same level of attention and fore-ordained success as Chicago’s Olympic bid.

6. A guy who says the framers of the Constitution “had a blind spot about slavery” is a student of history? On what planet?

7. Either she is really stupid or she thinks we are.

8. This is more than pure BS. We have a nutjob as POTUS. We are in greater danger than most of us realize. I just most sincerely hope that someone will refuse his CIC order, when it comes, and lock him up.

9. Ad hominems go both ways. If you can’t say anything nice about a man’s policies or accomplishments say something nice about the man. Perhaps… maybe… like… !!!… he’s got a “brain bigger than his skull and a heart to match both”. I think that’s what Valerie was getting.

10. Mr. Frank,

    “Either she is really stupid or she thinks we are.”

    They’re not mutually exclusive.

11. I imagine Jarrett on a reviewing stand: apparently watching and applauding the passing marchers, but in fact acutely aware of the smallest changes in her proximity to the Great Leader.

12. Obama…the guy who said we have 57 states is a student of history? Class he attended must have been taught by Professor Biden who said FDR appeared on TV.

13. Hmm after reading that Jarett thing, does it seem to anyone else that Michelle and Valerie sound like brainwashed women from a cult?

    They almost sound like wives of a polygamist or something. Laura Bush stood by Bush 100% of the time, but even she had some disagreements with him and served as a balancing influence. Michelle and Valerie are all saying exactly the same thing as Barack and do not see any issues with Barack at all, zip nada zilch. That is unusual even in good relationships (see Bushes).

    The good news is that now Michelle has actually broken an actual law (campaigning inside a polling place) and even though she will never get anything for it, it could be a sign that things are cracking. More please.

14. Some other explanations:

    Their code went into code.

    Now that the spirits are clean around Obama, the real message has come through.

    She didn’t actually watch the movie, “Say Anything” but thought it was a pretty good idea.

    What she wrote right after Obama said, “Call me Daddy.”

    She pinned all their slogans on a wall, got drunk, and found exciting ways to connect them.

    If Obama becomes Uber-Lord, she’s number one priestess.

    She suffers from psychogenic sialorrhea (mental drolling).

    A vortex has been created. If someone can give five out of five stars for “Why not the Best,” anybody can say anything.

    (See http://www.amazon.com/WHY-NOT-BEST-FIRST-YEARS/product-reviews/1557284180/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)

    It’s a big joke between Gibbs and her about who can say the darndest thing.

    She was taking dictation from Barbara Streisand who had just talked to Oprah about what Seth’s spirit channel had said. I get it. I get it.

15. Mr Frank & Mr T are both right. Mr T’s statement, unfortunately, reflects reality a little more completely.

    It galls me every time I see an Obama bumper sticker; and it still happens frequently. They haven’t learned, and they are proud that they haven’t learned.

    Oddly, I live in a very conservative county, in a traditionally conservative state (the state went Obama, but I think that was a one-off). Mystifying how folks, around here especially, could still be proud of what they have wrought. Interestingly the make of auto, and general appearance of the occupants, are often predictable.

16. I imagine a White House Staff meeting as being like a thread posted on the democratic underground forum. One leftist idiot will posit a totally implausible scenario. All in attendance shake their heads in agreement then each attempts to persuade the others of an even more unbelievable explanation. At some point there will be a consensus about which idiotic idea will forwarded. And at the conclusion of the meeting each will be truly convinced that they’ve really nailed it this tine.

17. Oldflyer:
    I too have been doing recreational profiling of vehicles. The predictability is astonishing.

18. “student of history”…
    And yet, i am waiting till someone ‘gets’ it.
    I guess they have yet to read in that area.

    Like Hegel before him, Marx was a serious student of history; indeed, the dynamic of dialectical logic is observed in history. The difference between Marx and Hegel lies in the fact that Hegel read history as a continuing expression of an Ideal process proceeding inevitably well beyond observation. Marx read history as an immediate empirical drama that could be observed within the material conditions of human beings, throughout the ages. Marx “turned Hegel upside down.” Rather than Idea realizing itself through human history, we have humans realizing various social situations and ideologies as a result of various material conditions of life. Marx’s so-called “dialectical materialism” was first developed in The German Ideology as an extensive critique of the Young Hegelians; but we need to keep in mind the fact that it is “materialist” only in that sense that it rests on the material (or phenomenal) conditions of life, as contrasted with the “idealist” conceptions of Hegel.

    the phrase has special meaning among the anointed. of course if you dont believe that they give certain signals and codes and turns of phrase you will just ignore it.

    but then i would ask… back when a man could be killed for being with another man, how did so many find each other?

    clues, hints, phrases, clothing, etc…

    we ALL do it, and yet when we point it out, we deny it. bikers don’t dress like ballerinas.

    According to Marx, when we try to understand a given period of historical change, we need to consider the material conditions of life that may have led to those changes.

    [excised an inane history of the American revolution through a Marxist philosopher]

    History tends to be a reflection on the past that is guided by those (that class) who have exercised the greatest causal force in the past; thus, history is ideological, based on the ideas that these people hold over themselves as rationalization (justification) for their actions.

    Marx consistently asks us to get underneath and behind ideology so that we can explore the material forces and conditions that prompt people to act.

    Marxists would suggest that America had moved well beyond the material conditions that allowed a stable colonial patronage by the English crown.

    the point is the bolded part, and not to get into a refutation of the dumb ass academic Marxist writing… [because to him its all material, and so God and religion will not even be mentioned in his or their BS]

    in the bolded part is a small tit bit of part of the key to understanding what they think or have accepted as thought…

    in this version, unlike the rest of the masses who are seen as asleep, dumb, etc… whoever is doing good, is cheating or else we would all do equally.

    nowhere in Marx will you read about the natural advantage of first birth or earlier birth, which given everything else being equal would unbalance the whole.

    Obama think like the above. so to him black people are not doing well because white people did it to them, and liberation theology and the other stuff round that central belief.

    this is why they dovetail with the Islamics, because the one on top is cheating, and rationalizing being on top to stay there.

    and what would this say as to what he would think was being equal or making repairs?

    and there is no arguing any point like we were the convergence point of brain drains from more oppressive places… we were more free to act and so could run faster and gather more where others were moribund by the politics.

    the proof of oppression is success of anyone not successful fighting oppression…

    Jews are oppressors. why? because they consistently do better. (intelligence)

    Chinese were not oppressors, now they are. why? because they consistently do better. (intelligence)

    whites are the original oppressors, for themselves and for sharing the score with the Jews. why? because they consistently do better. (intelligence)

    and other races? well, turns out dark skin India are going to end up oppressors. why? because they are no longer being held back by their leaders, and so will consistently do better.

    the big point is the oppressor oppresse dialectic is divided between the oppressors (more intelligent) and the oppressed (less intelligent), with the exceptions being the elite, who despite being in the more intelligent catagory are not considered oppressors, because they are supposedly using their intelligence against the oppressors on behalf of the oppressed.

    now… it dont take a big time academic genius to see that with the cards stacked like that, what they are doing is removing the other intelligent competition, with permission of the larger number of less smart, so when all is said and done, you have a biological aristocracy, not just an effective one by means of power.

    it would be as if the Georges convinced the Lennie to allow them to make Lennie life better by removing all the other smart people that he tells Lennie is using Lennie, stealing from him, etc… [George and Lennie from mice and men]

    so as a student of history, he sees the proper order as the much longer older times of emperors, pharohs, pachas, etc… as being historically correct…

    with the elite smarter permanently in the drivers seat, the brains, the ones to run things.. and their children following after them in dynasty…

    while the underclass permanently not able to compete, or threaten that position…

    no middle class to bridge the gap…

    the underclass permanently stunted..
    turned into pets of the upper class.
    like cattle, they have a minimum room to live in, a purpose in work (Arbeit mach frei), free medical, and live so long as they are productive (as a famous progressive said), with the fruits of their labor belonging to their owners, not the pets.

    ever see a horse lay claim to a share of the corn?

    thats why everything is a inversion..

    regressive

    moving us backwards where things were uplifting, purposeful, meritocritous, etc..

    now they are downers, no purpose, capricious…

    its like your sitting too close to the painting “sunday in the park” by george seurat…

    you see all the little dots, and cant see the whole…
    so wrapped up in the local, the truth of the synoptic hides.

    step back and you see that the dots seem to melt and a huge image comes into view…

19. Ace of Spades has noted that Drudge is running photos of Obama “that depict him as an angry lunatic”:

    http://minx.cc/?post=307034

    and
    http://www.drudgereport.com/

20. …our international reputation about defending freedom and liberty here and around the world in times of “challenge?” About economic opportunity through capitalism? About individual rights? About our republican form of government?

    100% correct, yes it is! Thanks Neo 🙂

21. Valerie IS a load of this!

22. And if you want to understand their view of economics and WHY they make the choices they do…

    then consider that they wish to fulfill the prophecies of their leader marx… so if marx said some condition happens, then they will force that condition, even if it isnt happening…

    the other part on their view, is from missives like this

    Marx’s historical analysis of the development of Capitalism demonstrates a progressive movement toward increasing alienation.

    That is, the stages through which productive forces are organized (and idealized) all carry the human participants further from their true nature as human beings.

    In the end, the full-blown system of Capitalism, all people have become de-humanized;

    and so, they have endeavored to prove it by making it so through changing history by playing games by selecting what they will pretend is great. and so the masses will follow. by what they declare pc and skew laws to benifit the ones that get the carrot if not the game.

    they have endeavored to break up family, and to bring that inhuman end place of capitalism that marx said, so that we all would be willing to take the next step. that marx said.

    it is no longer a world in which human beings have a home. Looking at this in detail, we can observe the difference between work and labor. It is natural for humans to work, that is, to produce the means of their survival by exerting themselves in the natural world. Humans self-identify with their work; in ideological terms, work is a spiritual activity.

    Labor, however, is a system of exerting oneself through diverse means-of-production that are owned by someone else in order to produce goods which also belong to someone else.

    The laborer receives a wage for her/his labor force, and the wage is determined by external forces largely irrelevant to what is produced or by whom.

    While the laborer may self-identify with the product produced, it is an alien thing, being owned by the Capitalist and being valued by the external market (the exchange value).

    Such a self-identification does not affirm a complete human being but, rather, an entity that is primarily under the control of external forces. Spiritual significance has been lost in labor.

    of course marx never saw profit sharing, and stock plans… he never saw employees out of touch, ending up being millionaires who went off and became business owners, and all that.

    all he saw was those who had more AT FIRST in the begining of the system, and from that extrapolated the inhuman end… which, is not what capitalism made, but communism….

    Why?

    because marx never actually described the actual administration of this new time. he only described the disasterous living conditions that would then force the people to then make that time happen spontaneously!!!

    and like the god question, they just pushed it up higher, claiming that it was always non beleivers or something conspiring that prevents that spontaneous happening.

    like the Iran twelvers, they believe, in the cargo cult way that the CONDITIONS spontaneously create the outcomes.

    so if i build a cool train… they will come
    [the whole premise of the movie being conditions spontaneously generate the outcomes]

    its important to understand that the conditions do not create the outcome…

    the twelvers believe that when a whole bunch of things happen, then the leader they are waiting for will appear…

    so, they think that if they duplicate those conditions, the outcome will be the appearance of the great one

    and marxists believe that if they create the conditions, then the new way will appear spontaneously. (and at each level its failed because total wasnt really total)

    so if they can artificially create the end conditions of capitalist society, make it inhumane, destroy the family, etc…

    the new way to live will spontaneously happen

    For Marx, it is the process of de-humanization that is on-going in the revolutionary rise of Capitalism that guarantees the ultimate destruction of the Capitalist system.

    That is, the specter of humans participating in their own destruction cannot continue indefinitely; there must be a point at which the negative reality of complete de-humanization itself becomes instrumental in the organization of productive forces.

    Marx believed that the revolt of the Proletariat was historically inevitable.

    Ironically, the Capitalist system itself would achieve this end by bonding individuals-to-individuals in the community of shared oppression, poverty, and rage — the Proletariat.

    and so they created feminism, racial politics of the modern kind, gender, etc… to make the proletariat… force the proletariat to exist.

    nothing in marx says that the magic will only happen if the conditions are valid, so lying to make them is ok too… whose to say thats not how the prophet saw it?

    the crisis they are having is that once again, the proletariat is being prevented by the proletariat who dont want to be that…

    This community itself would become the new classless society which would overthrow the ruling Bourgeois [middle] class and take over production through the existing, abandoned means of production.

    maybe when everything was as simple as clever carving and mechanics… but marx never ever saw in his minds eye anything like a modern silicon computer chip fab… the masses could rise up and the second they took up the ‘abandoned’ means of production it would fall apart and cease to function.

    which is what has happened each time…
    [made clear in those books i kept listing]

    in between this is also a bunch of people that could not care less about the so called marxist end..

    they see the perfect chance that if they team up and work it, they can own everyone property with the IDEALists and their IDEOLogy….

    its just a way to turn the less smart who exist in greater numbers against themselves and what they want for the purpose and interests of a few who lead the army of fools.

    what else would you call people who are traitors to their own homes in favor of an unworkable dream told to them by a group of liars with no real beliefs but that manipulation can bring them power?

    One may ask, of course, why this revolt has not yet happened. In answering this question, if we can, Lenin’s book, Imperialism, is an important contribution.

    Lenin argued that the big Capitalist industrial states of the 19th Century successfully avoided the revolt of the Proletariat class by embracing the system of Imperialism around the world.

    On this system, the proletariat class was effectively “exported” to what we have come to call the Third World and allowed, at their expense, the elevation of the laboring class at home to an affluent “middle class” which enjoyed the illusion of re-humanization through consumption of goods and services.

    (Note that the middle class does not re-possess the spiritual significance of work, in this scenario, but must be convinced that consumption itself has spiritual/human significance.)

    As Lenin noted, the system of Imperialism has the effect of exporting dissatisfaction so that conflict becomes international rather than potentially intra-national. The dialectic of international crises becomes inevitable as a new direction of human history — well manifest in the 20th Century with two world wars and a variety of other imperialist conflicts.

    Given that most of the worst and bloodiest wars of the 20th century were started by communists who thought they could use war to make Marxism world wide, what is asserted by Tad Beckman, Harvey Mudd College (class notes: Philosophy 103: History of Western Philosophy The Nineteenth Century), is not very truthful.

    And do note how I highlighted the point of tricking people rather than letting evolution take its natural course to that end…

    What they fail to realize is that if capitalism has another 1000 years to go…
    Then us ending it early will do so before 1000 years of capitalist invention and innovation!
    In under 200 years we went to the moon, and regularly fly for fun around the world.
    In another 1000 years what will we do?

    Any conditions created early will not be the conditions that would mean that change that marx thought he saw.

    One only needs to imagine what Honda and japans robotics will be able to do in 100 years… and then one can say, yes… I can see robots doing the labor, and that man would then be free to do what he likes and the machines would handle support tasks…

    So Russia didn’t succeed because the wrong conditions in time, are not conditions with create the outcomes.

    Outcomes create conditions which we use to reach new outcomes.

    Meanwhile, it is fairly easy to argue that the Communist Revolution in Russia was ideological rather than dialectical, that is, not a genuine development out of the material conditions in Russia.

    Ah. so you see, they cant learn from Russia and that, because those things were not the real conditions. And China doing capitalism? That’s just accepting it as necessary to create the conditions of world capitalism before the spontaneous outcome.

    On this weak basis, the struggle to become an international Communist movement was also thoroughly ideological and inauthentic.

    Every failure is not pure enough to learn from, so its an exception, and so will not prevent trying again… no matter how many times you fail, you will keep trying if you think that your only missing the right mix of conditions (which you cant really work out), so failure isn’t really failure… is it?

    The Capitalist system has thus far never been challenged authentically in spite of America’s eagerness to declare that they have “won” over Communism.

    Marx himself made it clear that the revolt of the Proletariat must be truly international and materially dialectical, that is, generated by the extremes of Capitalism itself.

    It is interesting to note today, however, that, with the demise of the Imperialist system and the premature Communist threat, Capitalists, seem to see total internationalization (globalization) of Capitalist enterprise as the wave of the future.

    If they succeed in creating a truly Capitalist global economy, of course, they will finally have established precisely the material conditions that Marx saw as the necessary stage from which Capitalism would finally become self-destructive.

    And helping to knock it over by manipulating it would be the same thing as what would happen later when it did it itself. Right?

23. Artfldgr

    Stalin dug the grave of Marxism. Marxism is righteous in part, in some of it’s simple truths concerning labor and class in the context of a late 19th century western world, and some bits of wisdom for all foreseeable time, but as a political movement, it’s dead for the ages, and so it goes and so it’s gone. Capitalism tries to follow the natural law of mankind, which matured becomes Liberal Capitalism, and is today the only positive revolutionary force for change in the world. Obama’s attempt to revive Marxism minus the genocides and pain-of-death witch hunts/ heresy trials (glad we have a solid Constitution) … has been disastrous for him, and the country, and the world, an opportunity to demonstrate real genius would have been to oppose his personal viewpoint about economics by promoting confidence in small, medium, big business job creation. Obama won on a superficial zeitgeist, not the promise of Marxism — though in a watered down way this has been his model of governing. What a waste.

24. What is needed is an investigative reporter who is a student of Valerie Jarret’s history.

    As “Obama’s Brain” she certainly gets very little scrutiny from the MSM. Her Iranian heritage and slumlord ventures and unique entrance into Obama’s mind as his mentor makes her all the more in need of a deeper background scrape.

    And the next time Obama ditches the WH Press Corps, could someone please check to see where Valerie is, too?

25. @ Joan of Arggh! 8:29 pm. What is needed is an investigative reporter who is a student of Valerie Jarret’s history.

    Well, they will surely go after the king’s ministers before they go after the king… yet, only if they decide to go after the king.

26. Neo,

    I’m going to dissent in part, but not on the main point of your post. Maybe I’m wearing blinders, but I always felt that Bush was very intelligent. He seemed to grasp issues in an intuitive level, and develop solutions to very complex problems by following a very coherent set of principles through both domestic and foreign challenges. It seems that requires the development of a sophisticated and thorough worldview, no mean intellectual feat.

    Also, while Bush may not have been the most articulate of leaders, he always displayed an earnestness that left no doubt of what he believed or was trying to convey. In his own words, you may not have always agreed with him, but you always knew where he stood. That may not be “articulate” in the traditional sense, but Obama shows many of us how much that straightforward approach to governing and life can be missed.

    Sorry for going off-topic.

27. What Colin said…

28. Colin: you are not disagreeing with me. I’ve said before on this blog that I think Bush is a smart man. I tried to choose my words very carefully when I wrote: “None of Bush’s supporters said he was especially articulate or exceedingly intellectual.” Note the qualifiers. And note the word “intellectual,” which is a far cry from “intelligent,” although sometimes the two do occur in the same person.

29. 45% of the electorate buy into this garbage, really quite sad.

30. Apparently Jarret is not a student of history either. If she were she would remember that Obama has said that in difficult times such as these, America turns ugly, reverts to tribal patterns of discrimnation. Maybe she should read some of her leaders speeches. It might be an education.

31. I have always thought that George Bush was and is extremely intelligent. He certainly has the credentials. Yale BA in history. Harvard MBA. They don’t just give you that. The TANG let him fly F102s. No one puts a moron behind the stick of a $1.2 million plane. He’s an accomplished man who has earned the trust of a lot of people.

    The key to understanding George Bush’s speech, and I am absolutely serious about this, is that his native tongue is Texan, and his second language is standard English. His speech patterns are deliberate and careful because he is suppressing his Texas accent.

    Liberals would have you believe that his odd speech patterns are some sort of indicator of lack of intelligence.

    Nope.

32. Speaking of Obama advisors, I just read this in the Washington Times:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/18/obama-may-opt-for-new-military-advisers/

    You know, Obama may be onto something when he talks about our fear. The power “we” have given this man is terrifying. Will there be one grownup left on his team when Gates goes? Or will the inciteful Valerie set the tone on PA Ave?

33. Like most of us, Ms. Jarrett sees what she wants to see. One would hope for a little bit of a critical approach from such an important official, but this sort of thing is hardly limited to the left side of the political aisle.

    The “57 states” thing is just the sort of slip of the tongue we all make from time to time, although it would be an almost constant item if Bush had said it. That said, the president’s historical references do seem to be untethered to actual facts, i.e. his assertion that “the world” saved Berlin during the airlift.
    (Of course, part of that is his reluctance to say anything unalloyed that is really good about the US.)

    It’s like Obama’s presumed rhetorical heights. OK, where? What aphorism has he coined? What has he said that acutely and cannily summarized some point at issue. Where is the language that speakers will in the future use that will allude to him.

    For most people, you say something like “their finest hour” and everyone knows you are using something Churchill said. What is the Obama equivalent?

    As to his being above it all, it took him about a month to show more ill temper towards his critics than George Bush did in two terms.

    Yet more reasons to get this guy and his posse out of the White House as soon as possible.

34. I just did a bit of Wiki research on Jarret. Her mother, Barbara Bowman, is a specialist in early childhood education. She has gazillions of seats on boards and worked with Arne Duncan. She is an advisor to the Mailman Family Foundation, which describes one of her special interests as diversity.

    I would guess that the mixed race parentage and childhood in a Muslim country give both Jarrett and Obama a sense of shared superiority.

35. There’s something fishy about the Jarret-Obama connection. Part of me thinks Obama is the world’s most spectacularly successful “con artist.” In all this time, there’s been no real evidence of his intellect, only the bleating of the sycophant sheep. I think he floated thru Harvard Law, not really learning anything (we’ve seen his work habits), and nabbed the Editor spot on the Law Review because of his “coolness,” not his intellect. Did I mention that he’s black? I think he knew then that he was playing above his pay grade, and he knows it now.

    Obama’s entre to the world of politics and power, was his mentor right after law school, Jarett. My guess is that she figured out, early on, that he wasn’t any intellectual heavyweight, that there wasn’t any “there” there, but that he would easily fool most of the folks, most of the time. She also saw that his ability to mesmerize the multitudes would be her stairway to heaven. So she used her liberal credentials to introduce him to the Hyde Park “elite,” and he started ascending. As his stature rose, so did hers. She has to keep telling us that the emperor’s clothes are beautiful, or she loses her ride on the royal coach.

36. Nyomythus,
    s a political movement, it’s dead for the ages, and so it goes and so it’s gone.

    Really?

    Then name one country that has no socialism

    You would think that if capitalism is dominant, that there would be one country in which Marxism has no sway or hold, out of all the countries.

    It was once said that the devils greatest achievement was convincing us that he doesn’t exist, and so Marxism’s greatest achievement is that its dead and gone..

    Which is why SEIU leader said “workers of the world unite isnt just a slogan any more”

    If Andy stern is saying that, then how is it dead?

    I will also point out that everyone has been fumbling on trying to figure things out and I have been dead on target since day one 3 years ago, and have not changed my tune one note…

    I do not think I don’t see something because someone else told me it was extinct.
    I think I see it when I see it, and if I do, then its not extinct… and they are wrong…
    But then again, I NEVER let others define reality for me

    Obama’s attempt to revive Marxism minus the genocides and pain-of-death witch hunts/ heresy trials (glad we have a solid Constitution) … has been disastrous for him, and the country, and the world, an opportunity to demonstrate real genius would have been to oppose his personal viewpoint about economics by promoting confidence in small, medium, big business job creation.

    As with everyone, you refuse to let go of the importance of your thinking.
    What you think would be better is irrelevant… and only serves to keep you sitting around tossing ideas about till one resonates and you like it. Rather than compute a condition, accept it, then move on….

    All that you said in your paragraph is parroting…

    Did you determine that Marxism is not dominant?
    Or did you listen to the MSM meme that its dead?

    Here you sit and you think an incompetent post turtle was given the opportunity and tried to revive something.

    How so?

    Does this mean that next time we may get a end of the world cultist who believes in purple people will come and bless us and show us the way?

    Or would it be more reasonable to accept that people have internalized everthing about Marxism, but without being told its Marxism?

    I have been hearing people tell me Marxism is dead for my whole life
    As I watched history turn into social studies
    As I watched personel turn into human resources
    As I watched the state use taxes as a control mechanism (how constitutional, right)
    As I watched them put thought crimes in place
    As I watched them slowly teach us its ok to be searched en masse as we go through checkpoints
    As I watched them nationalize auto
    As I watched them nationalize health care
    As I watched them nationalize student loans
    Education was nationalized before I was born
    Taxes were made communist before I was born
    A large central bank was created before I was born
    Trade with self declared enemies was normalized
    Aide was given to self declared enemies and was normalized
    Red china was not only recognized but we moved critical industry to self declared enemies
    Laws making communism illegal have almost all been removed
    I live in a country that has more Czars than the Soviets had before murdering them
    Newspapers no longer report news but report party news as truth
    Art has moved from harmonic uplifting forms to ugly, discordant, offensive, etc
    Depravity has been normalized so we are dysfunctional
    The number entitled to live without any input is almost past 50%
    Progressive education has denuded America of its abilities
    Abortion as eugenics, as in Soviet Union has been normalized
    Destruction of Jews, Judaism, and Christianity as others are Hegelian favored
    Delegation of powers in violation of the constitution (and due process)
    Destruction of the Family as a STATED goal (which is not believed)

    The fact that the text I copied from is an AMERICAN college philosophy course is lost on you… as they are not teaching it, saying… look what a funny inane ideology..

    They are teaching it saying… look this is the future, and capitalism is to die, and so Marxism is the way..

    Then of course there is no Marxism, which is why you have kids wandering around with Chinese communist stars, hammers and sickles, communists fists, Che shirts, Castro hats, Chinese communist hats, stores with communist themes, communist poster art, Riefenstahl type crowd games, etc.

    And Marxist social justice and liberation theology is not really infiltrating the church.

    Oh… and just to round it out… we are not devaluing the currency like they did in Germany, which is why gold is over 300% higher than when I started and the vast majority was saying it wasn’t similar.

    Marxism is dead, which is why when you go to these events the tables are filled with Marxist classics, like “the Jewish question”.

    The rally that they had “one nation” was not organized and facilitated by Marxists…

    Roz Pelles (organizer) was a former Maoist Militant…
    [or do we forget when the communists and the KKK squared off leaving 5 dead and 10 wounded?]

    The weather underground was a Marxist organization that planted bombs…

    Feminism is a key group, and the leaders claim they are making a Marxist dictatorship

    Communist party USA was a organizer at the rally as well… are they not Marxist?

    United for Peace and Justice was there, organized by Leslie Cagan, a Marxist

    Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
    League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
    ANSWER Coalition
    Democratic Socialists of America
    Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
    Committees of Correspondence for Democracy
    Workers World Party (WWP)
    ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)
    International Action Center
    People’s Media Center

    Are all Marxist organizations

    [and if you list them out through time you will see the words that are repeated over and over to tell you what they REALLY represent… look above and you will see “democratic socialism (menshivik)”, committee (soviet), league, international, united, among many others]

    How about people?

    Frank Marshall Davis?
    Howard Zinn?
    Van Jones?
    Jarvis Tyner?
    Carl Davidson?
    Cynthia McKinney?
    Michael McPhearson?
    Maxine Waters?

    And one would have to study the laws to know whats the same or not.
    And one would also have to study germany and see how they used arguments of disparate impact to define jews as oppressors in the absence of real organized jewish oppression of the masses… (just the same way the same groups use the same argument to attack successful today)

    Currently the Marxist fad is more into FASCISM than communism

    That china is seeing if they can use the emerald city concept for motivation.
    Not that they are going to open up the country.
    [in fact, if you read their policy papers, read their generals, and see how they are damaging us, and what their STATED stuff is, we are at war and it’s a cold one]

    Nope… no more Marxism..
    After the tortured and horrible deaths of over 100 million
    We no longer have Marxist organizations, we no longer have Marxist art
    We no longer have Marxist goals, we no longer have Marxist taxes,
    We no longer have Marxist central bank, thought crimes, law as carrot and stick to control

    Nope…
    Marxism is dead… and we have NONE of that…

37. Very astute choice of words (Expat @ 7:07 am):

    inciteful (rather than insightful)!!

38. “Democrats make pre-election pitch to help seniors”

    $250, ha ha ha ha….

39. Cap’n Rusty, that’s a darn good theory. I’ve been saying forever that BHO is not smart.

    My first hint was his lack of any sense of humor. Can you think of one thing he ever said that sounded clever off telepromptor?

    His lack of intellectual curiosity beyond his ultra left wing comfort zone was another clue.

    He road the affirmative action gravy train right into the WH so he does have guile.

40. Cap’n: Beautifully said. Except the I-man will never himself know the job is bigger than he is–It’s always someone else’s fault for him.

    Artfldgr: Do give up on Neomythus. You are right, and he is a pinhead. Maybe not that, maybe just an inveterate recreational debater. Either way, let’s ignore him. He adds nothing.

41. I find that what works best for me, when it comes to the utterances of Obama and his minions like Valerie Jarrett, is to simply assume that what they mean is the opposite of what they say.

    For example, Obama went on The View and said “now we’re not campaigning all the time,” when the sole reason for his appearance was to campaign to women voters. Likewise, when Jarrett says that Obama is “completely sincere and true”…well, you get the drift.

    Works for me.

42. CV: Good point. Sad, but too often true.

43. Tom:

    Artfldgr: Do give up on Neomythus. You are right, and he is a pinhead. Maybe not that, maybe just an inveterate recreational debater. Either way, let’s ignore him. He adds nothing.

    While for the most part I agree with your depiction ofneomythus, other readers can benefit from Artfldgr’s discourses. For example, I didn’t realize that SEIU honcho Andy Stern had said “workers of the world unite isnt just a slogan any more.” Moreover, as neomythus is by no means the only person who thinks that the demise of the USSR put tendencies towards Communism and Marxism to bed permanently, it is good to have acces to Artfldgr’s discoures. Take them or leave them, they are there.[However , I would prefer more concise statements from Artfldgr.]

44. That the Citizen’s Committee was communist influenced is beyond doubt.
    newzeal.blogspot.com.Sept 2009

    Cap’n Rusty

    There’s something fishy about the Jarret-Obama connection. …Obama’s entre to the world of politics and power, was his mentor right after law school, Jarett …

    Did you realize that this fishiness goes back even further than several decades ago? Several times on this blog the connection between Frank Marshall Davis and Vernon Jarrett was pointed out. Frank Marshall Davis was, of course, a sometime CPUSA member and “mentor”/acquaintance of Barack Obama when he was a teenager living in Hawaii. Vernon Jarrett was the former father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett. newzeal.blogspot.com. documented the connection in Sepember 2009.

    In the late 1940s Valerie Jarrett’s future father in law, Vernon Jarrett was a rising activist and journalist on the South Side of Chicago.
    Vernon Jarrett worked in the South Side Community Art Center and on the black run Chicago Defender newspaper.
    The Communist Party had several cadre in both organizations, including a covert member, the black poet and journalist Frank Marshall Davis.
    Jarrett and Davis also had a third organisation in common-Communist Party dominated Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers-which in 1948 was “organized to support the united packing-House workers of America C.I.O. now on strike”….
    That the Citizen’s Committee was communist influenced is beyond doubt.

    The link also has scanned documents to support its case.

    While one cannot prove anything, it is definitely fishy- or as I would say, a weird coincidence. Just as weird as the coincidence that Michelle Robinson, the future wife of the POTUS, and Bernadine Dohrn, the mate of Bill Ayers, once worked together at the same Chicago law firm.

45. donb,

    Sometimes something clevers pops out from my subconscious. I wasn’t thinking when I typed inciteful.

    Gringo,

    I missed the story on Vernon Jarrett. Chicago is really a cesspool, and there is no way Obama inherited it. It was pure choice.

46. From the Belmont Club’s latest thread, a commenter writes:

    “After Obama’s first 100 days in office, political sage Michael Barone told the story of an influential national Democrat who confided to him that Washington, D.C., Democrats had expected Obama to be either a corrupt Chicago Machine politico who would build a nation-wide Chicago-style Democratic machine to dominate America indefinitely (the way the Machine dominates Chicago), or a hard-Left ideologue.

    “Barone said that his highly-placed Democrat mole related that he and the D.C. Democrats were amazed to find that Obama was both!”

    They knew how bad he was all along. That’s extremely important for all Americans to realize..

47. Valerie Jarett — what a soul-less drone.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>