Our Marxist Wizard of Oz

Marxist Matrix of Occupy Protesters, Obama & George Soros: The Devil’s Symphony?

Are the Occupy Protests really the inscrutable uprising the mainstream media claims? Or, are they instead the work of mad tycoon George Soros and his rent-a-puppet Barack? We can hardly be blamed to see a connect when we detect a connecting, central motif—Marxism. The Occupy Protests are presented as the organic polar opposite of the Tea Party protests, arising of their own impetus as logically as weeds erupting in an empty field. But the central Marxist anti-capitalist message of Occupy argue against this.

Further, when listening to the very weird and cult-like call-and-answer which these groups use, one can only sense the underlying group-think structure driving these idealistic yet confused souls into action. The strange fixation on Marxism of George Soros and Obama, attaching them to Occupy’s anti-capitalist anarchism are the topics of this essay.

I. Outline of Marxism
A. Overview
A brief description of Marxism is offered here to help understand the ideas and actions of Soros, Obama and the Occupy movement. From another article by this author, a thumbnail of the belief:

Marxists insist life merely concerns proper distribution of wealth. Only two classes matter: rich and poor. The poor are pure, but the rich devilish, since they effectively steal wealth through Capitalism. The government must redistribute money to the poor, since God doesn’t exist to protect mankind. Workers will eventually rise up to overthrow oppressive bosses.

After capitalism collapses, comes then socialism, but only temporarily. Finally communism is established, and all private property abolished. Peace on earth will reign as envy and war disappear when all people have the same status in society. Marx’s Communist Manifesto states, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

B. Presuming Economic Imbalance is a Criminal Act
As an atheistic system, Marxism focuses upon material gods as the chief end of life. Given the notion that all amassing of fortunes presume an act of theft against the poor, Marx taught that all justice resided in addressing this theft. Marx mentions this in Das Kapital:

The accumulation of wealth at one pole of society involves a simultaneous accumulation of poverty, labor, torment, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, and moral degradation, at the opposite pole—where dwells the class that produces its own product in the form of capital.

C. Dedication to Revolution
The entire premise of Marxism is revolution is needed so necessary changes can be midwifed into society. In fact, a mystical premise of Marxism is revolution is fated to sweep away capitalism, and therefore cannot be resisted, according to P. H. Vigor, in A Guide To Marxism. Revolution is taught by Marxists as the initial, needed cure to a vast array of societal ills. It’s described by Marx as the “abolition of antagonisms” between rich and poor. Since there is no locus of traditional morality in Marxism, any precursor to revolution is acceptable, no matter how apparently objectionable.

The prerequisite to communist revolution is advanced capitalism, a state which has never actually given birth to such a result. One of the truly fascinating aspects from the period of 20th century when Marxist revolutions were occurring across the globe was how these rebellions were often not uprisings of natives. Writes Robert Tucker in The Marxian Revolutionary Idea,

The communist regimes of Mongolia, North Korea, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia did not come to power in basically indigenous revolutions. These communist revolutions were imposed from outside.

Lot more to finish: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41361

Obama Just Another Marxist

A You Tube exclusive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhWNG...watch_response

The wackos and crazies are out in full force. lol


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1378213.html

Paul Volcker sounded off on critics of President Obama in an interview with CBS's Anthony Mason.

Asked whether he agrees with accusations that the president is waging class warfare by pushing for Wall Street reforms and higher taxes for the rich, Volcker said, "I don't understand the depth of that feeling. I really don't. This business that he's a great socialist and out to undermine the free enterprise system and so forth, I JUST THINK HAS NO CONNECTION TO REALITY"

He balked at the notion that Obama could have taken office without going after the banks.

"How could you have a President of the United States taking office in the midst of a financial crisis and a deep recession and not be critical of the financial system? He would have been deaf, dumb and blind," he said.

Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Obama adviser, is the namesake for "the Volcker Rule," a major provision in the Wall Street reforms that could take effect as early as this July.

Though Obama has been critical of Wall Street, a survey from the end of last year found that he had approved fewer regulations than President Bush had at the same point in his presidency.

As HuffPost's Jen Bendery reports, Wall Street executives actually thrive under President Obama. Still, most major Wall Street donations are heading to Mitt Romney, who is perceived as much friendlier to banks.



If someone says President Obama is a Marxist, and Paul Volcker defends the President and says that he "thinks that (belief) has no connection to reality", then it therefore follows that that person either thinks Paul Volcker is a Marxist or a Marxist sympathizer or defender. Its called logic. Obviously Paul Volcker is a man of great integrity and knowledge (knows the difference between Marxism and Capitalism) and is obviously not a partisan hack (unlike some others here).


P.S. I understand that a man who praises Mr. Peter Schiff and his economic knowledge and predictions is not exactly a man who values logic. Unbelieveable.

As much as I dont agree with everything Jon Meachem says here, at least his article creates opportunities for an intelligent discussion, as opposed to the blind ignorance of calling President Obama a Marxist. He probably doesnt even know who Jon Meachem is (thats right hurry to wikipedia. lol) much like he knew next to nothing about Paul Volcker. But he sure does know a lot about his economic guru Peter Schiff. Got to give him credit for that. lmfao.

In Newsweek Magazine
by Jon Meachem
We Are All Socialists Now
Feb 6, 2009 7:00 PM EST
In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more

The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.




P.S. He will next try to claim this thread is all but an exercise and that he doesnt really believe Preident Obama is a Marxist. lol

Never heard of Jon Meachem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

I will state it as long as you state that you're a socialist and desire socialism as our economic system in place of capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

---

In case Lloyd has forgotten. I have never explicitly stated that Obama IS a Marxist.

Obama Discovers a Problem With Marxism

Posted by Ben Shapiro Bio ↓ on Mar 16th, 2012

In an interview with WFTV, President Obama suddenly discovered what it is that has troubled Americans about Marxism for well over a century. The crucial exchange occurred when Obama was asked about gas prices. “Well, as long as gas prices are going up, people are going to feel like I’m not doing enough, and I understand that,” Obama observed. “Ultimately, though, there’s no silver bullet.”

Then came the critical question. “Your opponents say they can get gas to the $2.50 range,” said the interviewer. “What do you think Americans should be OK with?” Obama, avoiding the question, shrugged, “First of all, nobody believes that. They know that’s just politics. Anybody who says we can get gas down to two bucks a gallon just isn’t telling the truth.”

But President Obama didn’t answer the question.

The real question is why he couldn’t. After all, this is a president who has stated over and over that prices and wages should be set on the basis of fairness. He tried to claw back Wall Street bonuses because investment bankers were making more than they “deserved” to make; he says the rich should pay their “fair share.”

The problem, of course, is that nobody knows what is fair—for wages, bonuses, or gas prices. Is it really fair for some people to pay a far lower percentage of their income to the federal government than others? Is it fair that some people buy ground chuck and others New York strip?

That he struggled to say how much Americans should have to pay for gas should not have surprised the president. Economists have struggled for centuries to determine what people deserve to pay for precious commodities. . Invariably, they insist on more control of the economy, stating that the blind hand of the market simply cannot produce a fair and just system. That’s why Thomas Edison wrote, “What is wanted is some person familiar with the selling and buying, the technical as well as the financial end of all industries, to devise some generic scheme that business can work on.”

Top-down technocrats fail to understand how an undirected system can work so well. That’s because they don’t understand freedom. How can hundreds of millions of people, all pursuing their self-interest, create more wealth than hundreds of millions of people all directed toward a single end? How can fairness by achieved by seeming randomness rather than by hierarchical control of the right-minded?

Page 2 starts here: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/16/o...ith-marxism/2/

Well will SeriouslyWrong tell us if he thinks President Obama is or isnt a Marxist?
The thread is called Our Marxist Wizard of Oz and all the articles
are about President Obama being a Marxist.

So mysterious......

Posner is a true Conservative.

Posner blames Bush for pushing policies, such as the "ownership society",[27] a $10 trillion national debt and "the huge budget deficits run by the Bush administration,"[28], "prop[ping] up stock prices by keeping interest rates low,"[7] which were underlying causes of the crisis, as well as "Dithering" in late 2008.[29] By the ownership society, Posner referred to the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003 and other laws that made ownership easier.
Posner points out that Bush's proposed privatization of Social Security would have made the depression even more harmful.[30] Posner states that one of the "lessons learned" is that the "blurred" line between "the government and the private sector ... in the Bush Administration" contributed to a lack of insight into the underlying problems.[31] Even more so, "the emphatically pro-business philosophy of the Bush administration made the SEC too trusting of the securities industry."[32] The bottom line is that "there might not have been a depression had it not been for the Bush administration's mismanagement of the economy."[33]
[edit]Criticism of capitalism and mainstream economists

Posner, famous for his advocacy of free markets, turns on free-market capitalism in this book: "the financial crisis is indeed a crisis of capitalism rather than a failure of government."[34] Posner explicitly states that he has changed his mind, that in the words of economist Robert Lucas, "that macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded."[35] Posner states that:
What Bernanke and Greenspan and the academy can be blamed for is overconfidence in their understanding of how to prevent a depression and, as a result, a failure to attend to warning signs and a lack of preparedness.
—Posner[36]
Posner points out that one of the causes of the depression was "blindness to warning signs" of a crisis.[15] A few people had warned of problems, including Nouriel Roubini,[37] and Brooksley Born,[38], but they were ignored. He asserts that the "depression is a failure of capitalism".[39]
This is the second and most powerful shock.[6] The New York Times points out that:
It comes as something of a surprise that Posner, a doyen of the market-oriented law-and-economics movement, should deliver a roundhouse punch to the proposition that markets are self-correcting. It might also seem odd that a federal appellate judge (and University of Chicago law lecturer) would be among the first out of the gate with a comprehensive book on the financial crisis — if, that is, the judge were any other judge. But Posner is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s successor as the country’s most omnivorous and independent-minded public intellectual.
—Jonathan Rauch, New York Times[3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Well will SeriouslyWrong tell us if he thinks President Obama is or isnt a Marxist?
The thread is called Our Marxist Wizard of Oz and all the articles
are about President Obama being a Marxist.

So mysterious......

---

When you admit that you want socialism! Think of it as coming out.