We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Paul Marks was dead right – Obama is a Marxist

It is becoming increasing difficult for me not to concur with Paul Marks’s ahead-of-the-curve branding of MARXIST upon the much kissed behind of Barack Obama. At the very least, his political compass swings disturbingly left on economic issues – to a degree I was not aware of. Previously, I could dismiss his “spread the wealth around” comment that arose from the infamous encounter with “Joe the Plumber” as a spot of ill-chosen populist rhetoric in a campaign unusually heavy on populist rhetoric – which, by the standards of US Presidential elections, is saying something. However, the rediscovered 2001 radio interview in which Obama explicitly advocated redistribution of wealth suggests to me that Americans ought to take him at his word when he talked of spreading the wealth around in that Ohio driveway.

Of course, this is electoral kryptonite in the USA, and the Obama campaign’s denials came hard and fast. Quoting from a CBS News article:

“This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

“In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.”

That is technically correct, but Burton is lying by omission. It is indeed true that Obama did not say in the interview that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth. However, what Burton neglects to mention is that he said they should not because they wouldn’t be any good at it and that going through the legislature would be much more effective. He also went on to say that the civil rights movement’s greatest tragedy was that it failed to massively redistribute wealth to the victims of racial discrimination in the USA. This 2001 recording of Obama advocating a redistributionist policy has convinced me that Obama’s “spread the wealth around” remark to Joe the Plumber was a genuine insight into his inner beliefs – beliefs that he would not dare expose to the American public who, by and large, fundamentally oppose them. In 2001, Obama stated that the legislature would be a better tool for redistributing the wealth of others to black people. Then, he was in his mid to late 30s, an age when most people’s political views have solidified. In 2008, one wonders if he now believes the executive would be even more efficacious? It is not such a stretch.

As for the Obama camp’s deeply duplicitous claim that the 2001 interview was deliberately misinterpreted by the Right, well, why break the habit of a campaign and start being honest? I am not denying that the McCain campaign has, on several occasions, twisted the truth out of all recognition over a number of issues. But at least they don’t cloak themselves in self-righteous, holier-than-thou fervour while doing so. If I had a vote in this election, the constant and largely unchallenged spectacle of Obama and his camp trumpeting their integrity – whilst they dissemble and weasel their way to November 4th – would be as good as any motivation for me to pull the lever for McCain.

(2001 Obama interview and CBS article both sourced from Drudge)

35 comments to Paul Marks was dead right – Obama is a Marxist

  • William

    You are aware, I hope, that — if we’re still working on the premise that words have meanings — for Obama to be a Marxist he would have to be a follower of Marx. A very distinct subset of Socialists.

    Oh sure he’s quite clearly swallowed an unhealthy degree of nebulous socialistic ideals, but please elaborate on just what any of those opinions have to do with Marx (as opposed to say Rosa Luxemburg or Mikhail Bakunin or whatever other random leftist/socialist tradition you choose to name).

  • Brad

    Does this mean we might get something like $54 Trillion debt, $44 Trillion of which is unfunded entitlements, sign into law something like free medicines, force hospitals to give care, impound the money supply and price control it, closely monitor private lines of communication, haul corporate “criminals” off in chains, have our national media filled with propagandists, and have a roiling mass filled with ignorant populists? I shudder at the prospect!

    Since Republicans gave up the fight twenty years ago to legitimately cap the size of government, and joined in, we are on an inevitable course with destiny. If I had any hope that McCain will begin the build down of our already steeply socialist system, the build down that needs to happen NOW, I’d vote for him. But I don’t. The only difference between the two parties is one is on a faster course. I’d much rather have our economic collapse while in my forties versus wait until I’m in my 50′s or 60′s.

  • I think that to most people out there (most of most of whom are not particularly politically pedantic – unlike most of us who come here!) the word “Marxist” carries enough of the right baggage for us all to know what in practice this “redistributist” will do.

    I’m not looking forward to his Presidency. Not so much for how he’s going to rip the trousers of what’s left of the US economy, but for what he’d mean to, say the British, in foreign policy terms. I think the world will regret it if he manages to rig the election and get in.

  • Let it happen, we’ll be there to pick up the peices when it all goes to hell.

  • Gabriel

    Well we can’t get Obama to state the specific Socialist school he adheres to because he’s a pathological liar, so the best you can do is follow his associations. That gives you quite a hodgepodge, but Marxists are predominant (as one would expect from their general predominance).

    The important point is that Obama is not a liberal (not even the newest of new liberal), he’s Cong; and that’s all you need to know.

  • Ray

    Never mind Marxist, the guy is genuinely creepy. Follow the links on his website to get this chilling statement about how kids can help recruit those pesky, thinking adults to the Obama crusade.

    “The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world – so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.
    That is your weapon! “Precious” needs to get on the phone and say, “Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It’s about my future. It’s about the world I will be living in. It’s about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!”
    Put some urgency in your voice. Sound very disappointed in them if they give you excuses. Come back again, even harder. “This is about my future – my ability to get a good job, to live a healthy life, to have the same (or even more) opportunities than you had to succeed. I have never felt more strongly about anything. I am begging you to vote for Barack Obama. I need you to do this for me!”This is just a sample script. You know what it takes to get to them.”

    Absolutely chilling.

    (Link)

  • JohnnyL

    I thought the most important part of the radio interview had to do with what Obama sees as a fundamental in the Constitution….its a document of negative rights. Meaning that it deals mostly with what the federal government can’t do and not what it can or must do to benefit the citizens. There already is a movement to re-interpret the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to include some form of economic rights. If you can get enough people on the Supreme Court to go along with that interpretation then you are a very short way from court initiated redistributive laws from a willing democratic party controlled congress.

  • Johanthan Pearce

    The thing that creeps me out about The One is how hes thrown several long-standing associates, such as Wright, aside. It showed he had no class. But then this is quite common among the political class as a whole.

    Obama is a redistributionist; through things like the absurd “Fairness Doctrine”, he will try to shut down channels of non-approved thinking; he will try, like our own UK government, to build a client class of voters reliant on public welfare; we can expect him not to hold the line on free trade.

    On foreign policy, by the way, there is no guarantee that he will be less hawkish than say, McCain. Democrats presidents have gotten the US into dozens of wars (WW1, WW2, Korea, Bosnia, Vietnam, etc). The Democrats, even the crazies, are not anti-war, just against those wars which are not fought for supposedly humanitarian reasons.

    I personally think that the US will eventually recover from this it appears a tragedy to have to relearn the lessons of supply side economics all over again.

  • Ian B

    The term “marxist” is ill defined and a bit useless. To say marxism is redistribution doesn’t help very much; Marx wanted a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist class and subsequent proleterian state, and thought these things inevitable. I’m not sure Obama believes in that. I doubt Marx would have been much interested in a high tax corporate state, which is what most of The Enemy believe in these days.

    The left; The Enemy; is a vast, sprawling coalition which contains a vasty number of different believes and objectives and a few things in common. Some lefties hate capitalism, and some pretend to while preferring a state capitalism crafted to channel money towards themselves. Obama seems to prefer the latter, as do most progressives.

    And so we come to progressivism. The primary desire of progressives is state control. They see humanity as an ignorant mass, which must be reformed and controlled. What reform and control they desire changes with time; prior to WWII progressives were fascinated by eugenic control- which still continues in mutated form as the modern choking health fascism. Some progressives are marxists. Many would never go near Das Kapital. Trying to finger them as Marxists is rather pointless.

    They’re far more dangerous than that. Here’s G. K. Chesterton’s razor sharp mind and wit defining and intellectually demolishing them nearly a century ago- the essays were written in 1913 and published in 1922 as he realised, with horror, that WWI had failed to stop the ruling class’s fascination with “Prussianism”- progressivist social control and the total state.

    Well, we’re all Prussianists now. This is the enemy we fight. Whether we should call that Marxism is debatable. Frankly, economic redistributionism is one of the least dangerous heads of the hydra.

  • manuel II paleologos

    That can’t be right. The Economist has an article on every single page in this week’s issue extolling his wisdom, virtue and even his libertarian credentials.

  • ConGris

    from the words of the master himself:

    “. . . Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” –Barack Hussein Obama, Wesleyan’s Graduation Speech, May 2008

    collectivist=socialist=marxist ?? in the end they are just words, and I guess the end will justify any means to the collectivist’s mind.

  • tdh

    I’d've taken “Marxist” to mean in accord with Marx’s communist principle, viz “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Obama quite clearly believes in this deadly principle. The Pilgrims were in this sense pre-Marxian communists, until they almost starved to death and reformed themselves.

    Obama’s politics tend more to the fascist form of economic socialism, which can be a method of ruining the market enough to pave the way for open, communist expropriation. It’s hard to do worse than Bush in this regard, but Obama has nothing resembling any principle that could constrain him.

    Obama also ran as a candidate of a socialist party other than the Democratic Party. I don’t recall the details (New Party?) or know if fusion (multiple nominations accepted by a single candidate) was the reason, as seems likely. But even a non-socialist would not necessarily be in the wrong in accepting a fusion nomination, so this is not especially revealing.

    It is dangerous to ignore what politicians say when it reflects their core beliefs. Too many people ignored Mein Kampf, to their deadly peril — not that Obama’s pickpocket racism is anywhere near that extreme.

    But it is worse to ignore what politicians do. Obama’s tactics in silencing his critics are totalitarian in spirit and method. In this he resembles the Communists more than the national socialists.

  • Brian

    I think, judging from his latest pronouncements and the activities of his followers, that Lavrenti Beria is the socialist you are looking for.

  • Getting Very Tired

    The amount of spin and smearing that’s gone on in this campaign is unprecedented in my lifetime, and it’s making it very difficult for me or anyone else to have anything resembling a clear picture of what’s really going on in the electorate. I’m just closing my eyes and trying to hold true to my own beliefs, and encouraging everybody to do the same, because the best we can do is vote and hope for the best. It’s the voting that’s important — see below.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOk9B1hYr4g

  • Millie Woods

    Marxist, Shmarxist who cares. Obama and his cuddly wife who thinks she’s “cute” are dumb. Phenomenonally dumb. The Ivy League colleges with their idiotic affirmative action programs for blacks and their restricted admissions for Asians should take out class action suits against these arrogant know nothings.
    Every time they open their mouths in unscripted interviews they reveal the extent of their limited knowledge of basic information such as how many states there are in the USA, world geography and the superior culture of just about everywhere compared to the English speaking world. And then there’s their sloppy articulation.
    How dumb are they? If one made a great effort it would be difficult to describe in detail.

  • Gabriel

    Getting Very Tired, I was wondering when someone would finally make the millenia old ideal of civic engagement seem as profoundly engaging and exciting as Special K.

    Who are those tools anyway?

  • It’s the voting that’s important — see below.

    That is a bit like saying “I know I am going to get raped but at least I get to select my rapist from a list of approved rapists”.

    No, simply “voting” is not important in and of itself, although of course the people in the existing statist power structure (of both parties) want you to treat it as a holy sacrament.

  • The Democrats, even the crazies, are not anti-war, just against those wars which are not fought for supposedly humanitarian reasons.

    The Democrats are against wars started by Republicans.

  • J

    I think the world will regret it if he manages to rig the election and get in.

    Ah, but what if he doesn’t rig it, and still manages to get in, which is far more likely?

    I’m not sure the world really gives that much of a shit one way or another, to be honest. God knows, I don’t. If Obama wins, the pathetic overreaction of the right will be easily worth the price of entry for amusement value alone. If McCain wins, that’s pretty boring, but then there’s a real chance of Palin becoming POTUS, which would utterly fantasitc. Possibly not for Americans, but a real treat for the rest of us. Well, the rest of us with modern air defence systems, anyway.

    Clearly the people who voted for Dubya, *twice*, +++in a row+++, are very sensibly taking the line that president is kind of irrelevant. At worst, they can hang around for eight long years being a general tool, passing more or less annoying laws, and bombing some folks you don’t care too much about. If you feel strongly on certain precise issues like gun control or stem cell research, then it could suck, but on general world-view issues like redistribution of wealth, or personal liberty it doesn’t matter who the president is, what matters is what the rest of your fellow countrymen actually want and feel.

    Personally, I think Obama will be like Tony Blair, only not as bad. Just as keen on economic socialism-lite, but probably not so into the authoritarian control, ID card, DNA database weirdness. Who knows, Obama might even get rid of the more pernicious bits of PATRIOT and DMCA. Awww, now I’m just dreaming…

  • rsrobinson

    There’s no question that Obama comes out of the radical left and the American mainstream media has been doing its best to cover that up. But the MSM no longer has the power to plug up all leaks in the dam and as more and more about Obama’s true beliefs and background seeps into the public consciousness the tighter the polls become.

    There’s a potentially explosive video tape of Obama attending a 2003 dinner where Palestinian Rhashid Khalidi was honored, amongst frequent calls for the immediate destruction of the state of Israel. Also rumored to be in attendance were Obama’s Weatherman pals William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

    The LA Times has confirmed they have the tape but are sitting on it. I’ve heard rumors that the McCain campaign also has a copy of it and we may be seeing it very soon. If that’s true this could be devestating for Obama.

    Even if they don’t have a copy of it I think there may be one or two other shoes that will drop about Obama between now and the election.

  • Laird

    “They [progressives] see humanity as an ignorant mass, which must be reformed and controlled.” — Ian B

    I’m not sure they aren’t right. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the masses aren’t fit for self-government. Or, as H. L. Mencken put it, “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” Never before have so many been so vociferously ignorant.

    The popular vote ensures that we get the government we deserve. Obama will see to it that we get it good and hard.

  • Ian B

    And who is wise enough to govern, Laird? Should we be governed by experts, perhaps? We have already seen what experts produce. It is called progressivism. It is called socialism. That’s what Obama is going to be giving you good and hard.

    So bend over, grease up, and remember: it’s for your own good. The wise men say so.

  • It’s the voting that’s important — see below.

    I support democracy as the only appropriate means by which a free people can govern themselves. Once government starts subverting freedom the democratic act is also subverted, loses legitimacy, and becomes unsupportable. The act of voting in that context is a waste of time and endows an invalid choice with a spurious legitimacy it no longer posses.

    It’s becoming increasingly clear that the masses aren’t fit for self-government.

    So who makes the choice on their behalf? You?
    But you are one of the masses, and, by your own argument, are unfit to to govern yourself, let alone anyone else.

  • guy herbert

    What William said.

    Even belief in direct redistribution for its own sake does not make one a Marxist. Nor does failure to do so mean one is not. There are plenty of Marxists who oppose such notionally ameliorative socialist measures as capitalist charades that postpone the revolution.

  • Laird

    Actually, I am wise enough to govern, not that I would ever be elected to anything!

    But be that as it may, I’m coming to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter who governs as long as the selection process doesn’t involve pandering to the masses and stealing from one group to buy the votes of another. Hereditary monarchy; self-perpetuating religious class; lottery (i.e., William F. Buckley’s famous “first 2000 names from the Boston telephone directory”); all would seem to have a far better chance of producing decent results than “popular democracy”. If you’re not concerned about continually running for re-election, after you’ve finished lining your and your friends’ pockets (relatively small potatoes there), you might actually get around to ruling the country with a minimum of damage.

    You don’t seriously think that any of the reprobates now in office care a whit about the “best interests of the people”, do you? All they care about is personal power. Find a way to give it to them without the bother of elections and socialism would be a dead letter.

  • Nick Nightingale

    Congris: the collectivist’s mind

    Ah yes, that strange form sometimes seen among normal people who, no matter how hard they try, just can’t see themselves as atomised, deracinated and fatally inconsequential “individuals”.

    As for Obama, he is not a Marxist. A little marxoid, inevitably. But then he’s black, and genuine black conservatives are as rare as hens’ teeth in the Sargasso Sea.

    Assuming the polls are right and he wins, he will be a creature of one or other wing of the elites, like everybody else. Take your pick. Rockefeller or little Nat’s boss. They are the only two games in town.

  • Paul Marks

    Sometimes very wealthy people think they control a situation, but end up being pushed around (or worse) by the very people they thought they controlled.

    Anyway if there is a rich elite controlling the United States, one can only assume they favour ever higher government spending, taxes and regualtions (which some Rothbardians say they do) – otherwise the last century of American history is hard to explain. As I reject the whole notion that there is a elite of rich people with the same basic political opinions I am not much interested in the discussion.

    As for Senator Barack Obama:

    At the start of the campaign I knew nothing about him – and I delayed finding out, a foolish judgement that I now bitterly regret.

    However, once I did start to look into the background of Barack Obama it was not a difficult task.

    My first look was at his own written works: Odd mentions Marxist links at college but treats it light heartedly, also sneers at charge (of Alan Keyes and others) that he is still a Marxist.

    Both these responses – treating undeniable Marxist links lightheartedly (just as stage) and sneering at charges are both old Marxist responses. Things that a Marxist (who is going into political or other sensitive work) is trained to do – very old tricks.

    Clearly this is not enough on its own – further research needed.

    Results of further research.

    Barcak Obama was first taught leftist politics by his mother (at least three hours a day, from a very early age), he was taught Marxism by family friend Frank Marshall Davis (once very active in the Chicago area before moving to Hawaii were far left work continued) – but it was Marxism of a heretical type (mixing in “ethical”, collectivist “economic justice”, ideas with “scientific” Marxism).

    Education proceded at Occidental in California, and then at Columbia in New York – heavy involvement in socialist and Marxist activities whilst in New York (some effort at cover up – but a poor effort).

    Then move to Chicago – work on various Foundations (some set up by wealthy Republicans and taken over by far left after their deaths), active working relationships with William Ayers and wife (both ex terrorists and Ayers deeply involved in the “education”, i.e. indoctrination, of children with Marxist ideas).

    Then goes to Harvard Law School – with the aid of Muslim anti Israel activist (and academic) K.

    Weird alliance between radical Muslim and Marxist groups in the United States – weird but very real. Their Foundations give each other money and they give each nice jobs and academic positions.

    In Obama’s case ease of working with both aided by father being both Muslim and a leading socialist in Kenya? Adoptive father active in Indonesia.

    Return to Chicago – job at University of Chicago. Uses charm (“quiet voice, gentle moverment” as he says in his own writings) to make friends with even non leftists on staff – such as Richard Epstein.

    Epstein (certainly a non leftist – indeed free market) even fooled by Ayers “a nice man, interested in community organizing and the education of children”.

    Epstein unaware that this organizing and “education” is designed (as is easy to find out) to make people hate (and indeed kill) individuals like Epstein himself.

    Barack Obama himself continues “Community Organizing” using methods of Saul Alinsky and others (but adds his own ideas to the work).

    Heavy involvment with ACORN and other front organizations.

    Political entry organized by Ayers and others – denied later (standard move).

    Twenty years at Holy Trinity Church – a known centre of Marxist Liberation Theology (with the word black put in front – but no real effort to hide Marxism source).

    Over all – in case people are getting bored.

    An open and shut case.

    If Barack Obama is NOT a Marxist (although perhaps not a pure “scientific” Marxist) then I am the Duke of Wellington.

    So the question arrises.

    WHY DO THE MEDIA NOT REPORT THE BASIC POINT?

    Even Fox News contains many people who simply ignore it.

    For example, the one hour special “Obama: Character and Conduct” was useless, missing almost everything.

    I repeat, nothing above was hard to find out.

  • Paul Marks

    Sometimes very wealthy people think they control a situation, but end up being pushed around (or worse) by the very people they thought they controlled.

    Anyway if there is a rich elite controlling the United States, one can only assume they favour ever higher government spending, taxes and regualtions (which some Rothbardians say they do) – otherwise the last century of American history is hard to explain. As I reject the whole notion that there is a elite of rich people with the same basic political opinions I am not much interested in the discussion.

    As for Senator Barack Obama:

    At the start of the campaign I knew nothing about him – and I delayed finding out, a foolish judgement that I now bitterly regret.

    However, once I did start to look into the background of Barack Obama it was not a difficult task.

    My first look was at his own written works: Odd mentions Marxist links at college but treats it light heartedly, also sneers at charge (of Alan Keyes and others) that he is still a Marxist.

    Both these responses – treating undeniable Marxist links lightheartedly (just as stage) and sneering at charges are both old Marxist responses. Things that a Marxist (who is going into political or other sensitive work) is trained to do – very old tricks.

    Clearly this is not enough on its own – further research needed.

    Results of further research.

    Barcak Obama was first taught leftist politics by his mother (at least three hours a day, from a very early age), he was taught Marxism by family friend Frank Marshall Davis (once very active in the Chicago area before moving to Hawaii were far left work continued) – but it was Marxism of a heretical type (mixing in “ethical”, collectivist “economic justice”, ideas with “scientific” Marxism).

    Education proceded at Occidental in California, and then at Columbia in New York – heavy involvement in socialist and Marxist activities whilst in New York (some effort at cover up – but a poor effort).

    Then move to Chicago – work on various Foundations (some set up by wealthy Republicans and taken over by far left after their deaths), active working relationships with William Ayers and wife (both ex terrorists and Ayers deeply involved in the “education”, i.e. indoctrination, of children with Marxist ideas).

    Then goes to Harvard Law School – with the aid of Muslim anti Israel activist (and academic) K.

    Weird alliance between radical Muslim and Marxist groups in the United States – weird but very real. Their Foundations give each other money and they give each nice jobs and academic positions.

    In Obama’s case ease of working with both aided by father being both Muslim and a leading socialist in Kenya? Adoptive father active in Indonesia.

    Return to Chicago – job at University of Chicago. Uses charm (“quiet voice, gentle moverment” as he says in his own writings) to make friends with even non leftists on staff – such as Richard Epstein.

    Epstein (certainly a non leftist – indeed free market) even fooled by Ayers “a nice man, interested in community organizing and the education of children”.

    Epstein unaware that this organizing and “education” is designed (as is easy to find out) to make people hate (and indeed kill) individuals like Epstein himself.

    Barack Obama himself continues “Community Organizing” using methods of Saul Alinsky and others (but adds his own ideas to the work).

    Heavy involvment with ACORN and other front organizations.

    Political entry organized by Ayers and others – denied later (standard move).

    Twenty years at Holy Trinity Church – a known centre of Marxist Liberation Theology (with the word black put in front – but no real effort to hide Marxism source).

    Over all – in case people are getting bored.

    An open and shut case.

    If Barack Obama is NOT a Marxist (although perhaps not a pure “scientific” Marxist) then I am the Duke of Wellington.

    So the question arrises.

    WHY DO THE MEDIA NOT REPORT THE BASIC POINT?

    Even Fox News contains many people who simply ignore it.

    For example, the one hour special “Obama: Character and Conduct” was useless, missing almost everything.

    I repeat, nothing above was hard to find out.

  • Paul Marks

    Sometimes very wealthy people think they control a situation, but end up being pushed around (or worse) by the very people they thought they controlled.

    Anyway if there is a rich elite controlling the United States, one can only assume they favour ever higher government spending, taxes and regualtions (which some Rothbardians say they do) – otherwise the last century of American history is hard to explain. As I reject the whole notion that there is a elite of rich people with the same basic political opinions I am not much interested in the discussion.

    As for Senator Barack Obama:

    At the start of the campaign I knew nothing about him – and I delayed finding out, a foolish judgement that I now bitterly regret.

    However, once I did start to look into the background of Barack Obama it was not a difficult task.

    My first look was at his own written works: Odd mentions Marxist links at college but treats it light heartedly, also sneers at charge (of Alan Keyes and others) that he is still a Marxist.

    Both these responses – treating undeniable Marxist links lightheartedly (just as stage) and sneering at charges are both old Marxist responses. Things that a Marxist (who is going into political or other sensitive work) is trained to do – very old tricks.

    Clearly this is not enough on its own – further research needed.

    Results of further research.

    Barcak Obama was first taught leftist politics by his mother (at least three hours a day, from a very early age), he was taught Marxism by family friend Frank Marshall Davis (once very active in the Chicago area before moving to Hawaii were far left work continued) – but it was Marxism of a heretical type (mixing in “ethical”, collectivist “economic justice”, ideas with “scientific” Marxism).

    Education proceded at Occidental in California, and then at Columbia in New York – heavy involvement in socialist and Marxist activities whilst in New York (some effort at cover up – but a poor effort).

    Then move to Chicago – work on various Foundations (some set up by wealthy Republicans and taken over by far left after their deaths), active working relationships with William Ayers and wife (both ex terrorists and Ayers deeply involved in the “education”, i.e. indoctrination, of children with Marxist ideas).

    Then goes to Harvard Law School – with the aid of Muslim anti Israel activist (and academic) K.

    Weird alliance between radical Muslim and Marxist groups in the United States – weird but very real. Their Foundations give each other money and they give each nice jobs and academic positions.

    In Obama’s case ease of working with both aided by father being both Muslim and a leading socialist in Kenya? Adoptive father active in Indonesia.

    Return to Chicago – job at University of Chicago. Uses charm (“quiet voice, gentle moverment” as he says in his own writings) to make friends with even non leftists on staff – such as Richard Epstein.

    Epstein (certainly a non leftist – indeed free market) even fooled by Ayers “a nice man, interested in community organizing and the education of children”.

    Epstein unaware that this organizing and “education” is designed (as is easy to find out) to make people hate (and indeed kill) individuals like Epstein himself.

    Barack Obama himself continues “Community Organizing” using methods of Saul Alinsky and others (but adds his own ideas to the work).

    Heavy involvment with ACORN and other front organizations.

    Political entry organized by Ayers and others – denied later (standard move).

    Twenty years at Holy Trinity Church – a known centre of Marxist Liberation Theology (with the word black put in front – but no real effort to hide Marxism source).

    Over all – in case people are getting bored.

    An open and shut case.

    If Barack Obama is NOT a Marxist (although perhaps not a pure “scientific” Marxist) then I am the Duke of Wellington.

    So the question arrises.

    WHY DO THE MEDIA NOT REPORT THE BASIC POINT?

    Even Fox News contains many people who simply ignore it.

    For example, the one hour special “Obama: Character and Conduct” was useless, missing almost everything.

    I repeat, nothing above was hard to find out.

  • Ian B

    Anyway if there is a rich elite controlling the United States, one can only assume they favour ever higher government spending, taxes and regualtions

    It’s called a corporate state, Paul.

  • Paul Marks

    Some rich people support bigger government and some rich people support smaller government – nor does it always depend on their own material interests.

    Sadly, due to government regulations (“protecting” corporations, or rather corporate mangers, from tack overs) and taxes (such as capital gains tax) many (most?) big corporations are not under the control of shareholders (share owners) – with the hired managers who control institutional investors (such as pension funds) often having too cosy a relationship with the hired managers who control big corporations.

    However, this is not about the material interest of the corporation – it is more about lost of cash AND lots of P.C. praise for “socially responsible” corporate managers.

    So one gets such things as big corporations pumping vast sums of money into organizations that work to undermine the business of the very corporations that give them the money (and, no, it is not always extortion – by organizations like ACORN or other such saying “give us money or else”). General Electric is a classic case of a “right on” (or rather “left on”) corporation – but it is not about getting government contracts or other such (as in a corporate state) even though General Electric does indeed do a lot of business with the government.

    It is far more about corporate managers following the doctrines they were taught as children in school (including in many elite private schools) and at university – doctrines that never use the word “Marxism” but are full of Marxist assumptions. And it is about looking good in the “mainstream” (i.e. leftist) media and being invited to nice social events.

    However, there are mangers and companies that reject all of the above – companies which do not rant on about “social justice” (which is not even proper Marxism – it is just a silly mess) and where there are not “multi cultural societies”and other such (which dear L. Brothers held so dear) and so on.

    Over time, P.C. companies do eventually go bankrupt – in spite of all the help of the government and of private mega wealthy people (your time will come General Electric – you will join “Studs” T. in Hell).

    That is one good thing – there is such a thing as economic law, eventually these silly organizations leave this world.

    There is also another good thing – a political one.

    Sure the forces of evil (for make no mistake, the forces of evil is what they are) will win on Tuesday – but they have already failed. They have failed because most Americans, in spite of all the brain washing of the education system and the media, want SMALLER government not BIGGER government (check the polls on the tax and spend questions – hence Comrade Obama stressing his lies about cutting government spending and his lies about tax cuts).

    These beliefs of ordinary people will not get more statist under the rule of Comrade Barack Obama and his friends in Congress – if anything most people will become more anti statist.

    So we may still win in the end.

  • Laird

    “So we may still win in the end.”

    Sorry, Paul, but “the end” can be a long way off. I remind you of Keynes’ famous dictum “in the long run we’re all dead.” Even if you are correct I doubt that I will live that long, and if I do there will have been a lot of pain and unpleasantness along the way.

    Pardon me if I don’t take much comfort from your optimism (if that’s what it is).

  • tdh

    A few weeks ago my sister wrote an interesting article, AFAIK never published, looking at what organizations Obama had praised, at the language employed by Obama and by those organizations, at the concerted efforts that Obama had made to cloak his ideology by claiming its identification as being personal attacks rather than a matter of truth or falsehood, and to Obama’s support for the highly-destructive organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    He had praised the Gameliel Foundation with its ultra-moronic, chiliastic-socialist “shared abundance for all” and with its belief that work is “service” not to customers specificly but rather to others in general (right out of Goebbels’s book). He had mirrored the Socialist Party’s “good stewardship of the environment” and its “health care is a right.”

    IMHO, given Barack Goddamner’s stealth candidacy, his focus and linguistic style are important corroborators of his rarely-expressed intent. So I’m grateful that my sister bothered to do some of the research that newsbimbos ought to have been doing all along, if they hadn’t become mere prostitutes.

    But my strongest impression of Obama is of a complete sleaze, a trait shared in general and intentionally by active communists, from his thoroughly dishonest attempts to treat his mentor’s racist, bigoted, anti-American views as being not particularly controversial. And today, the day before the election, this is bookended by his denial that he knew the immigration status of his illegal-alien aunt living at taxpayer expense in public housing in Boston, in hiding at the moment to minimize the damage.

  • Paul Marks

    There are two standard evasion methods used by Marxists who do not wish to be known as Marxists.

    Make a joke of the matter – get people laughing and their brains stop working.

    And point to well known non Marxists that one is friends with.

    Both of these methods have been taught and used since the 1920′s – and Senator Obama uses both of them. It is irritating, to say the least, that they still work with some people.

    And a person who really is not a Marxist?

    They say they are not Marxists – and explain their real beliefs. And one judges what they say on the basis of evidence and argument (and, I admit, gut feeling).

    They do not make a joke of the thing – as if being accused of being part of a movement responsible for over a hundred million murders was a laughing matter.

    And they do not say “I am a friend of X” as if that means they can not be a Marxist.

    When we lose tomorrow I hope, and I believe, that some good people will fight on.

    I wish them good fortune.